2008-12-10 General Meeting Minutes - Gympie Council€¦ · General Meeting 10 December 2008 Gympie Regional Council 6 Hazards – 1. The dirt road section of Fisher Road (the Road)

MINUTES

of the

GENERAL MEETING

CHAIRPERSON: Cr A.J. Perrett (Deputy Mayor)

Held in the Boardroom Old Bank Building,

46 Nash Street, Gympie Qld 4570

On Wednesday 10th December 2008 At 9.00 am

General Meeting 10 December 2008

Gympie Regional Council

2

Gympie Regional Council GENERAL

Mayor R.J. Dyne (Chairman), Crs. A.J. Perrett, G.L. Engeman, R.A. Gâté, LJ Friske, DR Neilson, IT Petersen, J Watt and J.A. Walker.

APPOINTMENTS etc.

CONTENTS: SECTION 1: OPEN WITH PRAYER....................................................................................................................4

SECTION 2: APOLOGIES .....................................................................................................................................4

SECTION 3: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS GENERAL MEETING .............................4

SECTION 4: PETITIONS.......................................................................................................................................5 4/1 PETITION – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2008-1008 (BOARDING HOUSE – 20 UNITS) AT 24 CALEDONIAN HILL & 9 ALMA STREET GYMPIE. ...............................................................................................................5 4/2 PETITION – HAZARDOUS DUST PROBLEM – FISHER ROAD, BANKS POCKET ...............................................5 4/3 PETITION - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2008-1008 (BOARDING HOUSE – 20 UNITS) 24 CALEDONIAN HILL AND 9 ALMA STREET..........................................................................................................................8

SECTION 5: ADOPTION OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................9

SECTION 6: REPORT BY THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.......................................................................................................................................9

SECTION 7: ADOPTION OF WORKS & SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ...............10

SECTION 8: REPORT BY THE WORKS & SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN...............................10

SECTION 9: ADOPTION OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 10 RECOMMENDATION P04/12/08 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON THE 3 DECEMBER 2008 .............................................................................................................11 RECOMMENDATION P08/12/08 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON THE 3 DECEMBER 2008 .............................................................................................................11 RECOMMENDATION P19/12/08 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON THE 3 DECEMBER 2008 .............................................................................................................11 RECOMMENDATION P20/12/08 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON THE 3 DECEMBER 2008 .............................................................................................................12

SECTION 10: REPORT BY THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ...........12

SECTION 11: OTHER MATTERS......................................................................................................................14 11/1 NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY ARRANGEMENTS (NDRRA) FOR 2008/09.........................14 11/2 REGIONAL MANAGER’S CO-ORDINATION NETWORK (RMCN) ................................................................15 11/3 DESIGN & CONSTRUCT CONTRACT 2008/09-8 – RESERVOIR IN KILKIVAN ...............................................16 11/4 TRAVESTON CROSSING DAM.....................................................................................................................17 11/5 DA17847 – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL LOTS, 410 OLD MARYBOROUGH ROAD, ARALUEN – C. RYAN .......................................20 11/6 DA09370 – TRUEBAY (ECHELON RESIDENTIAL ESTATE) – PARKLAND WORKS.......................................25



3

11/7 UNPLEASANT SMELL – RAILWAY HOTEL, IMBIL.......................................................................................31 11/8 DA17024 – REQUEST TO CHANGE AN EXISTING APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – COMMERCIAL PREMISES (PROFESSIONAL OFFICES) OVER LOT 1 SP128949 – 29 EXHIBITION ROAD, SOUTHSIDE – D. STRACHAN......................................................................................................................33 11/9 DA16504 – REPRESENTATIONS – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – GENERAL INDUSTRY (EXTENSION TO EXISTING SCRAP METAL YARD) & ENVIRONMENTALLY RELEVANT ACTIVITY (ERA #27 METAL RECOVERY) 24 FLOOD ROAD, EAST DEEP CREEK – COOLOOLA SCRAP METAL .......................................40 11/10 DA14485 – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES – EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY (QUARRY) AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RELEVANT ACTIVITY 20 (B) EXTRACTING ROCK OR OTHER MATERIAL (MORE THAN 5 000T, BUT LESS THAN 100 000T, A YEAR) AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RELEVANT ACTIVITY 22 (B) SCREENING, ETC. MATERIALS (MORE THAN 5 000T, BUT LESS THAN 100 000T, A YEAR) AT 132 RIVERSDALE ROAD, KANDANGA – THOMAS AND CHRISTINE HAMILTON .................................................43 11/11 DA15778 – RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE THREE (3) ADDITIONAL LOTS – 138 NORTH DEEP CREEK ROAD, NORTH DEEP CREEK – T. V. NGUYEN ..........................................................57 11/12 PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT PAD FOOT ROLLER UNIT 264....................................................................62 11/13 PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT GRADER UNIT 203...................................................................................65

SECTION 12: GENERAL BUSINESS.................................................................................................................68 COMMUNITY FUTURES TASK FORCE MEETING 8 DECEMBER 2008 .........................................................................68 GYMPIE & DISTRICT HISTORICAL SOCIETY LEASE..................................................................................................69 HISTORIC EVENTS & FAMOUS PERSONS PROGRAM.................................................................................................70 SPEED LIMIT ON THE BRUCE HIGHWAY FROM COOROY TO BELLS BRIDGE.............................................................70 BEST WISHES FOR CHRISTMAS AND THE NEW YEAR...............................................................................................70



4

The meeting commenced at 9:03 am.

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Cr A.J. Perrett (Chairman), Cr G.L. Engeman, Cr I.T. Petersen, Cr L.J. Friske, Cr R.A. Gâté, Cr J. Watt and Cr J.A. Walker.

Also in attendance were Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Mr Craig Manson),

and Minutes Clerk (Miss S Bull). DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY COUNCILLORS Planning & Development Committee Meeting

P19/12/08 – Cr J.A. Walker Material of Interest P20/12/08 – Cr G.L. Engeman Material Personal Interest P21/12/08 - Cr G.L. Engeman Material Personal Interest

SECTION 1: OPEN WITH PRAYER Pastor Noel McDonough from Gympie Community Church offered a Prayer for

the advancement of the Region and the true welfare of its people. One Minute’s silence was observed for family and friends of deceased residents of

the Region.

SECTION 2: APOLOGIES

G34/10/08 - That Cr Ron Dyne, Cr Donna Neilson be granted leave of absence

from all Council meetings on the 8th to 11th December 2008 to attend the Australian Local Government Association Constitutional Summit to be held in Melbourne.

SECTION 3: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS

GENERAL MEETING G01/12/08 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr L.J. Friske

That the Minutes of the Gympie Regional Council General Meeting held on 26 November 2008 be taken as read and confirmed.

Carried



5

SECTION 4: PETITIONS 4/1 Petition – Development Application 2008-1008 (Boarding House – 20 Units) at 24 Caledonian Hill & 9 Alma Street Gympie.

Re: G02/12/08 Petition – Development Application 2008-1008 (Boarding House – 20 Units) at 24 Caledonian Hill and 9 Alma Street Gympie. From: Shelley Strachan 72 Ric-Glen Road Gympie and 74 other signatories. File: 6/1/01/2008-1008 Date: 1 December 2008 Doc ID This Petition is in addition to the petition received at the General Meeting on the 12 November 2008 Minute G04/11/08 and G04/12/08 refers. “The following petition of citizens of Gympie Queensland Australia draws attention to the adverse consequences for the local residents and businesses and parents and children of the Alma Street Community Pre-Prep School that would arise from approval of Development Application 2008-1008 (Boarding House – 20 Units) at 24 Caledonian Hill and 9 Alma Street that is currently before Gympie Regional Council for assessment.”

G02/12/08 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr I.T. Petersen

That the petition be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer for consideration during the assessment process.

Carried

4/2 Petition – Hazardous Dust Problem – Fisher Road, Banks Pocket Re: G03/12/08 Petition – Hazardous Dust Problem – Fisher Road, Banks Pocket From: Gary & Alexis Outram 30 Blue Wing Blvd, Gympie Qld 4570 and 41

other signatories. File: 1/3/5/9 Date: 5 December 2008 Doc ID Cr R.A. Gâté tabled the following petition:- “We are residents and ratepayers of BlueWing Blvd, Kingfisher Rise Estate and Fisher Road, Banks Pocket. We attach a petition (marked “A”) requesting the Gympie Regional Council take action to permanently stop the extremely hazardous dust continually enveloping our environment and homes and we support our request as follows:



6

Hazards –

1. The dirt road section of Fisher Road (the Road) runs length of the new housing estate at Kingfisher Rise as shown on the attached plan (marked “B”).

2. The surface of the Road is the old main line railway track at Banks Pocket. It has become hazardous since the Council approved the building of premises on Lot 1, MPH 6476 owned by GD & JP Thorpe. Previous to that land being occupied, the Hayes family (owners of lot 748 on MCH5343) were the only people to use the Road. They received no garbage or postal service.

3. Since the Building of a house and shed on the Thorpe’s land, the postman, garbage trucks many visitors, tradesmen, cement trucks, etc etc including the residents make use of the Road at an estimated minimum of 30 times a day. Trees separating the Estate blocks from the road were cut down to allow the above-ground electricity supply through to Lot 1 as above at the same time removing any obstacle to the dust.

4. The prevailing winds are South-East, ranging to East and North-East resulting in the dust caused by the vehicles using the Road covering the residents and their property every day, all day.

5. Being an old railway track, the surface of the Road is free from corrugations and pot holes enabling the motorists including trucks, garbage trucks and postman to speed up and down at will often in excess of an estimated 80kph. This increases the dust’s height and volume etc.

6. As ballast for railway lines was often bound with lime or cement, it is very possible that the dust contains particles that may be even more harmful to health than dust from gravel and dirt.

7. We are reliant on tank water. The dust is deposited on our roofs, washed into our tanks (silting up the water) so that we drink it; we breath it; it lodges in our clothes on the washing line; children cannot play outside; it blankets our building and furniture. It causes and aggravates asthma, hay fever and other health problems and spreads airborne bacteria. Standing outside and breathing it is all you need to do to feel the effect on your lungs.

8. The dust is also deposited over all the other houses in the Estate in the path of the prevailing winds as can be verified by simple analysis and observation. The dust from the road is therefore affecting a lot of people.

9. The residents on Blue Wing Blvd cannot open their windows and doors to the road in summer when they need breezes to cool their houses. This then reduces the effect of any energy rating that may need to be gained by building a new modern house, and they are forced to use air-conditioning which increases living costs and carbon output.

10. The residents along Blue Wing Blvd whose properties back on to the Road, have no legal access to the road and receive no benefit from it. They only receive hazardous dust.



7

In 2007 new State Government policy was enforced to ensure that Separation Areas are kept as buffer zones between communities and quarries or retractive industries due to the noise and dust (among other things) to ensure that residents were not affected adversely during both the extracting and the transport of dirt/gravel. Due to the amount of dust generated by the increased use of the Road, if quantified, we believe it would rival that caused by the haulage of quarried material along ‘transport roads’ referred to in this State Government planning policy. We believe it is incongruous that the previous Council approved the development of a new Estate in a configuration that would allow so many blocks to adjoin this hazardous road without taking into consideration the future health effects and then to approve the building permits on Lot 1 sited to have access via the Road, when the property should have access from Maroske Road. This greatly increased and extreme dust problem has no doubt devalued the properties in the estate and is very serious indeed. People investing in Gympie by building or buying expensive and valuable homes should be able to do so with confidence that the property values will not undermined by actions and or lack of forward thinking by Council approved developments and town planning. The Road is unlike many other dirt roads in the Gympie district in that it was constructed by Queensland Rail engineers as part of its main line and is a high quality multi-layered and compacted surface that would more easily be converted to a sealed road with a minimum of preparation and cost. We therefore request that the Council urgently and as soon as possible seal the road to eliminate this danger to our health, the erosion of our lifestyle and devaluation of our properties. The Residents of this new housing estate should have never been put in this position by the decisions of the previous Council and the overwhelming dust problem needs to be rectified without delay. Also attached are several photographs taken last Winter evidencing the dust which is considerably worse in Summer and in drier conditions. We look forward to receiving your response regarding the action you intend to take in this matter.” “We the undersigned residents and rate payers have made our request in the attached letter regarding the health hazard and dust problems caused by vehicles using the dirt road section of Fisher Road.



8

As the initiators of this petition our names are Gary & Alexis Outram and we can be contacted at 30 Blue Wing Blvd, Gympie for further information in relation to this matter.”

G03/12/08 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr I.T. Petersen

That the petition be received and referred to the Director of Engineering Services to report to a future Works & Services Committee Meeting.

Carried Cr G.L. Engeman declared a Conflict of Interest in the above matter due to being a property owner on this street and remained in the meeting. Cr G.L. Engeman abstained from voting.

4/3 Petition - Development Application 2008-1008 (Boarding House – 20 Units) 24

Caledonian Hill and 9 Alma Street. Re: G04/12/08 Petition – Development Application 2008-1008 (Boarding House – 20 Units) 24 Caledonian Hill and 9 Alma Street. From: Jean Watts - 16c Alma Street, Gympie Qld 4570 and 106 other

signatories. File: Date: 12 November 2008 This Petition is in addition to the petition received at the General Meeting on the 12 November 2008 Minute G04/11/08 & G02/12/08 refers. “The following petition of citizens of Gympie Queensland Australia draws attention to the adverse consequences for the local residents and businesses and parents and children of the Alma Street Community Pre-Prep School that would arise from approval of Development Application 2008-1008 (Boarding House – 20 Units) at 24 Caledonian Hill and 9 Alma Street that is currently before Gympie Regional Council for assessment. Your petitioners therefore request the Council to refuse the application on the following grounds: increase in on-street car parking, increased traffic congestion, reduced pedestrian safety, threat to child safety, exposure to theft and vandalism of the Alma Street Pre-Prep School outside of business hours, heightened security risk to surrounding residences, business and residential property, home security risk to the high proportion of elderly people and single women residing in the neighbourhood, night-time noise, potential for public disturbances and antisocial behaviour outside the boarding house and on the streets, the diminished market value of surrounding residential property and the need to preserve the current healthy social/demographic mix within the neighbourhood.



9

Principal Petitioners: Parents and staff of the Alma Street Pre-Prep School; Residents and carers, businesses and clientele within the Alma Street – Caledonian Hill Area”

G04/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr G.L. Engeman

That the petition be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer for consideration during the assessment process.

Carried

SECTION 5: ADOPTION OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE &

FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

G05/12/08 Moved: Cr G.L. Engeman Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker That the Recommendations of the Corporate Governance & Finance

Committee Meeting held on 26 November 2008 as presented, be received.

Carried

G06/12/08 Moved: Cr G.L. Engeman Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté That the Recommendations of the Corporate Governance & Finance

Committee Meeting held on 26 November 2008, be adopted.

Carried

SECTION 6: REPORT BY THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Nil



10

SECTION 7: ADOPTION OF WORKS & SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

G07/12/08 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker That the Recommendations of the Works & Services Committee Meeting

held on 2 December 2008 as presented, be received.

Carried

G08/12/08 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker That the Recommendations of the Works & Services Committee Meeting

held on 2 December 2008, be adopted.

Carried

SECTION 8: REPORT BY THE WORKS & SERVICES

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Nil

SECTION 9: ADOPTION OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

G09/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr J. Watt That the Recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee

Meeting held on 3 December 2008 as presented, be received with the exception of P04/12/08, P08/12/08, P19/12/08, P20/12/08 & P21/12/08 to be withdrawn and dealt with later in this meeting.

Carried

G10/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr J. Watt That the Recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee

Meeting held on 3 December 2008 as amended, be adopted.

Carried



11

Recommendation P04/12/08 of the Recommendations of the Planning &

Development Committee Meeting held on the 3 December 2008 G11/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr J. Watt

That Recommendation P04/12/08 of the Recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2008 be deleted and replaced with the following: “That Council follow up on previous correspondence from Corporate Services to Dept Main Roads seeking compensation for damage caused to the Gympie netball courts during the upgrade of the Bruce Highway. Further that Council notes the Sport Recreation and Parks Coordinating Committee Update report.”

Carried

Recommendation P08/12/08 of the Recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on the 3 December 2008


That Recommendation P08/12/08 of the Recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2008 be withdrawn at the request of the applicant and referred to a future Planning & Development Committee Meeting.

Carried Cr J.A. Walker declared a Material Personal Interest in the next matter due to being the applicant and left the meeting at 9.21am.


G13/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

That Recommendation P19/12/08 of the Recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2008 be received and adopted.

Carried



12

Cr J.A. Walker returned to the meeting at 9.22am. Cr G.L. Engeman declared a Material Personal Interest in the next item due to business contacts and left the meeting at 9.22am.


G14/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker

That Recommendation P20 & P21/12/08 of the Recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2008 be received and adopted.

Carried Cr G.L. Engeman returned to the meeting at 9.23am.

SECTION 10: REPORT BY THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Cr Ian Petersen presented the following report:- “Council previously resolved to undertake consultation with owners of places on the Local Heritage Register. A report from the Heritage Advisory Committee outlined plans to undertake that consultation early in the new year. Those properties on the former Cooloola Heritage Register will become the basis of the Gympie Regional Council Local Heritage Register with the addition of appropriate listings from former Kilkivan and Tiaro Shires. The State Government will also undertake consultation in relation to further potential listings for the Queensland Heritage Register. The new State planning regulations will have implications for listed properties which will now be assessed against the planning scheme and also against the heritage regulations. That is why this consultation is so very important for all concerned there will be positives and negatives and it is most important that property owners are aware of all the factors to enable them to make an informed decision on choosing the status of their property. Some will seek to have their property listed – some may wish to opt out. Council has taken the first small step in what will be a very big project to bring the Cooloola, Kilkivan and Tiaro planning schemes together into a new Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme. A consultancy brief for expressions of



13

interest has been prepared and has received complimentary comment from the planning industry, noting that it is a very thorough document containing much more substance than most. Congratulations to our Strategic Planner, Mrs Rolfe on a job well done. An application to establish three general industry workshops and a display yard on Brisbane Road is recommended for approval with conditions, along with a small scale real estate office at Tin Can Bay, and five residential units at Grice Crescent in Gympie. An application for 18 multi residential units in Myall Street was recommended to be held over for redesign, but has been temporarily withdrawn by request of the applicant. An application for a (staged) subdivision creating 14 additional lots on Brown’s Road is recommended for approval. Representations in relation to conditions of approval of several other development applications were also considered. For the second consecutive fortnight applications processed exceeded applications received. This is due in part to a slight slowdown in new applications being received, but largely to the increased number of applications dealt with under delegated staff authority. Twenty such approvals processed in the past fortnight have contributed to a reduction (albeit small) in the length of the queues. I would like to thank applicants for their patience and staff for their tremendous dedication in dealing with the exceptional workload that has resulted from the strong growth being enjoyed by the region. The Committee received a report from the Sport Recreation and Parks Coordinating Committee outlining ongoing discussion in relation to the relocation of the netball courts, and recommending that Mrs Kerry Rolfe be the designated Council contact person for this project. There was also discussion on the need to follow up requests to Dept Main Roads for compensation in relation to damage caused by their contractors during the highway upgrade. Council has received strong praise for the efforts of all concerned in the All Abilities Playground project. Other Councils are taking a lead from and seeking advice from GRC due to the outstanding quality of the work being done by our project group including Council staff local service clubs and Government agencies. As this is my last report for 2008, I would like to thank our Director Mike Hartley and all Planning staff, My Deputy Chairman, Cr Jan Watt and councillor colleagues for their input throughout the year and wish one and all the compliments of the season.”



14

G15/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr J. Watt

That the Report be received.

Carried

SECTION 11: OTHER MATTERS

11/1 Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) for 2008/09

Re: G16/12/08 Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) for 2008/09 From: Warren Pitt MP, Minister for Main Roads and Local Government, PO

Box 15031 City East Qld 4002 File: 4/1/5/1 Date: 25 November 2008 Doc ID 1002889 “I am writing to you concerning the review of Council’s trigger point contributions towards eligible local government asset restoration costs under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) for 2008/09. A review of the current arrangements has commenced and issues under consideration include: - Equity with the zero contribution that applies to Queensland Government

agencies; - The concessional $50,000 trigger point contribution and the impact of council

amalgamation; and - Trigger point contributions for indigenous councils.

The review is continuing and is expected to be completed by 30 June 2009. In respect of the interim arrangements that will apply pending the outcome of the review, interim trigger points for 2008/09 have been calculated under the NDRRA arrangements that applied prior to council amalgamations. The interim arrangements have been based on the thresholds that applied prior to recent local government amalgamations, adjusted upwards for inflation and other increases. The concessional trigger point contribution of $50,000 will remain in place under the interim arrangements. A ‘stepped’ trigger-point arrangement will be applied based on individual trigger-point contributions for each of the former Council areas. These individual trigger-point contributions will aggregate if a disaster event impacts on more than one former council area. However, a maximum contribution amount will be



15

set for each amalgamated Council that will ensure that no amalgamated Council is in a worse position than prior to amalgamation, other than the normal annual indexation for inflation. The maximum trigger-points exceeds the maximum contribution amount. Under the proposed interim arrangements the trigger point contributions will be applied in the event that NDRRA funding is required. The trigger point applying to your Council for 2008/09 is $214,000. I trust this information is of assistance to you. Should you require any further information in relation to this matter, please contact Ms Jacquie Argent, Policy Advisor – Local Government of my office on telephone number 3227 6168.”

G16/12/08 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

That the information be received.

Carried

11/2 Regional Manager’s Co-Ordination Network (RMCN) Re: G17/12/08 Regional Manager’s Co-Ordination Network (RMCN) From: Kristi Kee, Chairperson, PO Box 1939, Bundaberg Qld 4670. File: 1/3/6/1 Date: 19 November 2008 Doc ID 1001677 “I write to invite your council to nominate representatives to attend the meetings of the Regional Manager’s Co-ordination Network (RMCN) and its working groups. The RMCN is a cross-government network whose members are the most senior officer of each state government department. The network aims to facilitate a whole of government approach to state government activities in the region. The group plays a key role in addressing barriers that may occur when implementing projects. The RMCN has three working groups:-

- The Environmental and Natural Resource Working Group has environmental mapping and data collection as its main focus;

- The Regional Development Working Group is currently focussing on the Industrial Land Strategy across the region;

- The Human Services and Social Justice Working Group has a major project the development of an aged care strategy.



16

The Network meets six times each year, with the following format: 9.30 – 12.30 Working Group Meetings 12.30 – 1.30 Networking Lunch 1.30 – 3.30 RMCN Meeting

I believe that the presence of local government representatives at the meetings would be mutually beneficial and ask that you consider nominating an appropriate representative for each of the working groups as well as the RMCN. I will provide advice of the meeting dates for 2009 as soon as they are set. I look forward o working with local government representatives to progress the range of projects that support our region’s sustainability.”

G17/12/08 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr J. Watt

That the Director of Planning & Development or nominee/s represent Council on the Environmental and Natural Resource Working Group and Regional Development Working Group. Further that the Director of Community Services or nominee represent Council on the Human Services and Social Justice Working Group.

Carried Director of Engineering Services Mr Bob Fredman entered the Meeting at 9.32am.

11/3 Design & Construct Contract 2008/09-8 – Reservoir in Kilkivan Re: G18/12/08 Design & Construct Contract 2008/09-8 – Reservoir in Kilkivan From: General Manager Works – Western Division – G.G. Curry File: Date: 2 December 2008 Report: (General Manager Works – Western Division – G.G. Curry) Tenders were called on the 1 November 2008 for the Design and Construct Contract of a 200-250kL Reservoir in Kilkivan. Tenders closed on 27 November 2008. Tenders were received from

Doval Constructions $700,572 Bargara Concrete Tanks $214,830



17

The tender from Bargara Concrete Tanks contains some differences to the specification, such as a concrete roof rather than the steel roof specified but these are not considered to reduce the integrity of the structure. Bargara concrete Tanks were awarded Contract No: 2008/09-1 for a 600kL Concrete reservoir.

G18/12/08 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker

That the tender for Contract Number 2008/09-8 Design and Construction of a 200-250kL Reservoir from Bargara Concrete Tanks for $214,830 be accepted. Further that the successful and unsuccessful tenderers be advised accordingly.

Carried

11/4 Traveston Crossing Dam

Re: G19/12/08 Traveston Crossing Dam From: Director of Engineering Services – R.A. Fredman File: Date: 3 December 2008 Report: (Director of Engineering Services – R.A. Fredman) The four technical reports commissioned by the Australian Government Environment Minister regarding the Traveston Crossing Dam Environmental Impact Statement were released on 25 November and have been reviewed by staff. These reports are:

• A review of impacts of the dam on matters of national environmental significance – Associate Professor Keith Walker

• A review of impacts of the dam on matters of national environmental

significance – Professor Stuart Bunn

• A review of impacts of the dam on the Mary River Turtle – Dr Gerald Kuchling

• A review of the hydrological model used to predict flow impacts in the EIS –Drew Bewsher

These reports are critical of QWI’s Environmental Impact Statement to the extent that satisfactory mitigation measures would seem unlikely to be able to be



18

achieved. The snapshot summary of the reports provided by the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and The Arts is succinct if cautious:

The findings of the reviews conducted by Associate Professor Walker, Professor Bunn and Dr Kuchling determined that the reach of the Mary River to be inundated by the Traveston Crossing Dam contains important habitat for the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod, Australian Lungfish and the Southern Barred Frog that is critical to their ongoing survival. These experts also advised that it would be highly unlikely that the dam would provide suitable foraging and breeding habitat to support the self-sustaining populations of these species. The experts were also critical of many of the mitigation and offset measures proposed by the proponent. The review by Drew Bewsher of the hydrological model used in the Draft EIS and Supplementary Report for the dam determined that the model (IQQM) was appropriate for modelling the impacts of the proposed dam on the Mary River hydrological regime. Mr Bewsher also reported that the underlying data and assumptions used in the EIS modelling were sound and that the model is capable of producing relatively accurate predictions. However, the reviewer did no extend his endorsement to the hydrological information selected by the proponent for presentation in the Draft EIS or its usefulness for the purposes of environmental impact assessment.”

A Postscript to Associate Professor Walker’s lengthy report is interesting:-

‘The Traveston Crossing Dam proposal spotlights an extremely sensitive site for river conservation in Australia. Any new dam warrants careful analysis, given our national legacy of degraded rivers and declining biodiversity, but the present proposal deserves the closest scrutiny because it could decide the fate of a number of imperilled species. Among them, the Mary River turtle and the Australian lungfish are survivors of lineages that began hundreds of millions of years ago. They are internationally significant and no less symbolic than the giant panda. We know little of the biology of these species and other fauna and flora of the Mary River, and the threats they face are compounded by our ignorance. Research is properly part of a proactive strategy, however, and should not be invoked as a means to repair damage after the environment is changed.



19

We have often taken refuge in the belief that there are many steps on the road to extinction, and no single action could be held responsible. For some of these species, including the turtle and lungfish, we are near the end of that road.’

It is very pleasing indeed to see that many of the environmental impact concerns raised by Council and others, and dismissed by QWI, have been upheld. It can now be safely presumed that Council’s social and economic impact concerns would have also been upheld under similar genuine independent scrutiny. The Premier has announced that the State Government will create satisfactory mitigation measures and will proceed to build the dam. In view of this, it is recommended that Council pursue an important omission in the four technical reports. The Cooloola Shire Council supported by some of the Councils in the Council of Mayors, made a submission through MWA Environmental on the impact on the Mary River estuary. The submission highlighted the impact on the estuary already caused by irrigation and the construction of the Mary River barrage in 1979. It argued that as a consequence, in a dry year, the extraction from the river (at the dam) will have serious implications for the environmental health of the estuary and straits. It is apparent from reading the four technical reports that the authors were not aware of the MWA Environmental Report from Council. Many other issues with the QWI Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement remain. One is the lack of an independent assessment of the desalination alternative. Another is the inadequate compensation for the social impact on this region, much of which has already occurred. However, these matters do not have any direct relevance to the environmental reports just released.


That a letter be sent to the Federal Environment Minister thanking him for his actions in releasing the four technical reports on the Traveston Crossing Dam and request that he provide comment from Professor Bunn and Associate Professor Walker on the MWA Environmental submission on behalf of Council regarding the environmental impact on the Mary River estuary. Further that Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee and the Save the Mary Group be congratulated on their Submissions on the dam - much of the content of which has been upheld by the independent consultants to the Federal Environmental Minister.

Carried Director of Engineering Services Mr Bob Fredman left the meeting at 9.39am.



20

Director of Planning & Development Mr Mike Hartley and Manager of Development & Compliance Ms Tania Stenholm entered the meeting at 9.40am.

11/5 DA17847 – Development Application for Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to Create Four (4) Additional Lots, 410 Old Maryborough Road, Araluen – C. Ryan FILE: DA17847 APPLICANT: C. Ryan LANDOWNER: C. Ryan RPD: Lot 3 on MPH30336 SITE: 410 Old Maryborough Road, Araluen PROPOSAL: Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to

create four (4) additional lots NO. OF LOTS: Five (5)

EXISTING ZONE: Rural Residential

Report: (Manager Development and Compliance – T.M. Stenholm)

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Proposal

This application seeks approval for a rural residential subdivision off Old Maryborough Road, Araluen.



21

Five (5) lots, each with an approximate area of 4 000m2 are proposed. 1.2 Site Description The lot is currently improved by an existing dwelling, proposed to be refurbished and positioned within proposed lot 2.



22

It is largely cleared and has frontage to both Old Maryborough and Rynoela Roads. Rynoela Road is currently unsealed. 1.3 Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses are rural residential in nature. 2.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Planning Scheme The proposal was lodged under the 2005 Cooloola Shire Planning Scheme where the property is included in the rural residential zone. The application is subject to code assessment against the following codes: • Gympie Planning Area Code • Reconfiguring a Lot Code • Infrastructure Works Code • Landscaping Code • Resource Areas Code 2.2 Planning Scheme Provisions and Policies The lots do not comply with Council’s minimum size requirements (ie 6 000m2) or minimum road frontage of 20 metres. In justification of the application, the following is submitted: - the proposal complies with the specific outcome of the planning scheme

requiring lots to be of sufficient size and proportion for the intended use; - the applicant is prepared to provide the following additional bonus features: * kerb and channel along both frontages of the development and top soil

footpath improvement; * under ground power for new reticulation work; * limitation of access from Old Maryborough Road; and * provision of advanced street trees and supplementary tree planting in the

gully area on site within lot 1.; and - Cooloola Council has approved 4 000m2 allotments in the past where

additional elements are proposed above the minimum standards eg kerb and channel, underground power and supplementary landscaping.



23

The superceded 1997 Cooloola Planning Scheme contained some provisions whereby applications proposing additional design features may be eligible for reduced lot sizes but no less than 4 000m2. As these provisions were previously interpreted it was intended where larger planned rural residential estates were proposed and not small infill subdivisions. The 2005 planning scheme contains no such provisions, however Council has used a similar approach under this scheme for developments at Pie Creek (Keeldale) and Old Maryborough Road (Belle Investments). Other applications where Council has agreed to lots less than 6 000m2 have presented site specific characteristics and in most instances still resulted in an overall minimum average of 6 000m2. Whilst Council has discussed a review of the minimum lot size for rural residential development, until such time as this is undertaken it would be considered premature to approve this application. 2.4 State Planning Policies No State Planning Policies are applicable to the development. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Lot Layout The lot layout proposed is regular and considered to provide sufficient area for the construction of a dwelling. It is, however, inconsistent with the existing development in the vicinity which is largely lots of 2 hectares and greater. 3.2 Water Supply and Sewerage The development is not serviced by reticulated water or sewerage. Council’s minimum water storage requirements will apply at the building approval stage for each proposed dwelling. 3.3 Site Access and Traffic The development proposes construction of Rynoela Road. The dedicated road reserve of Rynoela Road is currently only 10-12 metres wide, and therefore not complying with the minimum design standards of the Infrastructure Works Code, being 20 metres.



24

As recommended in the design report below, road reserve widening of Rynoela Road should be required as part of any approval of this application. This would further reduce the lot sizes proposed. 3.4 Park A parks contribution would be applicable to any approval of the application. 4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Internal (a) Department of Engineering

Report: (Design Services Technical Officer – A.C. Walsh)

This engineering report is based on the information submitted by GECON Development Consultant and layout plan (Plan No. 3061PROPOSAL) submitted by Ahern James Naismith Cadastral Surveyors and Development Consultants to subdivide Lot 3 on MPH30336, 410 Old Maryborough Road, Gympie into five lots.

LEAD-IN ROAD/FRONTAGE ROAD Old Maryborough Road as the lead-in and frontage road is constructed to a 7metre wide bitumen standard and is classified by the Cooloola Planning Road Hierarchy as an Arterial Road. Therefore all access to the lots should be from Rynoela Road which is classified as an unmaintained road and will be required to be constructed to meet the requirements of the Infrastructure Works policy. With the potential for future development Lots 1 and 2 on MPH23362 and Lot 1 on MPH31243 on the south and east of Rynoela Road the overall road reserve width should be 20metres. This would require a 5metre road opening to Rynoela Road frontage and reduce the lot area to 3,800m2.

The consultant requested Council consideration for 4000m2 lot in return for the developer constructing kerbed channel to the frontage of the lots. The Planning and Development Department advised this is not an option under the present Cooloola Shire Planning Scheme and should not be considered in isolation as future developments along Rynoela Road are not required to provide kerbed channel.

ROAD CONTRIBUTION Road contribution would apply as per Planning Scheme Policy 12: Sealed Road Contributions for Designated Rural Residential Areas ie. $10,547 per additional lot.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE/FLOODING A small local gully traverses the south western corner of lot 1 but does not impact on a possible building site.



25

Flooding is not a issue at this location.

EFFLUENT DISPOSAL The geotechnical assessment submitted by Unearth Geotechnical revealed advance secondary effluent treatment systems would be required of lots 1, 2 and 5. Council’s property records to be noted accordingly and the geotechnical reports to be made available to potential purchases. Cr I.T. Petersen left the meeting at 9.42am.

G20/12/08 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

That Council advise the applicant for development application (DA17847) for Reconfiguring of a Lot – Subdivision to create four (4) additional lots over Lot 3 on MPH30336 located at 410 Old Maryborough Road, Araluen that it does not support the application in its current form, but will reconsider the proposal following submission of an amended plan showing lots with a minimum area of 6 000m2.

Carried

11/6 DA09370 – Truebay (Echelon Residential Estate) – Parkland Works Re: G21/12/08 Proposed Parkland Works for Truebay (Echelon Residential

Estate) From: Truebay Pth Ltd c/- BJS Design and Development Consultants Date: 30 October 2008 File: DA09370



26

‘Following recent discussions and site inspections with Ed French (GRC Parks Manager) and our recent meeting regarding Park Development Works at Echelon Estate, Jones Hill, the developers Truebay Pty Ltd would like to put a proposal to Council whereby they undertake works to Echelon Park now as part of the final Stages 7 – 10 under construction, in exchange for contribution credits for the remaining lots already approved in the subdivision. The works proposed are those which have been identified as being suitable and preferable for this Park in consultation and site inspection with Ed French. Essentially the proposal is as follows: Permit for Stage 1 – 13 required for Parkland Contribution: 1. Provision of Land. (Already provided in Stage 1) 2. Provision of Works. (Provided in Stages 1 – 5) 3. Contribution at $425/Lot (Todays Value) Permit for Stage 14 required for Parkland Contribution: 1. Provision of Land (To be provided as part of Current Stages being

constructed). 2. Provision of Works. (To be provided as part of current stages being

constructed). The developers have already paid contributions for the Lots associated with the works being constructed now.



27

There are 129 Lots remaining under the current development approvals for Echelon. Therefore Council will be due Parkland Contribution for a further 129 Lots once further Stages of the current approvals are developed. At today’s rate of $425 per lot for this development, this equates to $54 825 in future contributions which will be payable. The Stage 14 Permit requires the following works to be constructed: Drinking Fountain & Dog Water Point Bollards 6 x Advanced Trees Earthworks with “Lawn Established” Drainage by use of pipes if required. Earthworks and Drainage Works have been completed on site at a cost of $47 182 + GST. The drinking fountain, bollards, advanced trees and grassing is yet to be carried out and it is expected these works will come at a cost to the developer of $38 585 + GST. It is acknowledged the costs of these works are not important to Council as the works, as such, were conditioned in the approvals. These costs have been stated to indicate to Council the substantial efforts and costs the developers have already incurred to provide a Recreation Facility which is first class. These costs need to be added to the $271 084 + GST previously expended on the Parkland for Stages 1 – 5. Both the developers, Council staff and ourselves are well aware that the existing Park Area is very well used by the wider Gympie Community – not only by Local “Echelon” Residents. Following site inspection and consultation with Ed French in regard to the Park, some further works have been identified as being necessary to complete the Parkland Development of the new section and improve the drain area of the existing park area. These works include:

1. Installation of Drainage Works and Turf to the Existing Drainage Line . . . Cost Estimate $17000+ (Council Design & Estimate) . . To be funded by Council.

2. Installation of a further two shelters & BBQ facility similar to the ones which exist in the current park including provision of power, lighting and plumbing including Earthworks to Level Pads . . . Cost $31 750 +GST.

3. Provision of Culvert Crossing with Handrails for pedestrian access across the drain and providing a 1.2m wide concrete path (Max. 85m) link between the existing path and new shelter area . . .Cost $8995.00 +GST.

4. Provision of Concrete Path around the shelter and link to new road Judicial Cct (Max. 20m) . . . Cost $14 700 +GST.



28

The developers propose to carry out all the works described in items 2 – 5 above immediately and as part of the current works (Total Value … $57 205) if, in consideration, the Council agree to credit the remaining Parks Contribution for approved lots which as stated above is currently valued at $54825. As stated above, Echelon Park is very well used by the wider Gympie Community. While this Park is located within the Echelon Development site, it has very easy access via a wide open dual carriageway road and should be considered more as a District Park than a Local Park. The facilities already provided by the developers is consistent with those which are expected in a District Level Park including:

• Bollards to Park Perimeter to prevent vehicle access. • Drinking Fountains & Taps at Strategic Locations. • Modern User Friendly / Disabled Toilet Block • Concrete Pathway Network with Links to adjacent school and residential

area. • Large Play Areas including Playground with Children’s Facilities. • Large Open Sporting Fields – Levelled and Turfed. • Sheltered Picnic Tables and BBQ Area. • Extensive Landscaping.

All these facilities are consistent with what Council’s Open Space & Recreation Plan specifies as being the preferred level of development for a District Park. The site, once the area of Parkland currently under construction is completed and added to the existing Park, will have an area of over 1.5 ha. The Park has a lengthy road frontage to Presidential Avenue, Majestic Place and Judicial Circuit (currently under construction). Council’s Open Space & Recreation Plan suggests Off Street Parking should be provided. Off Street Parking could easily be provided to the Majestic Place frontage between the Electricity Transformer Station and the Park Sign at the Roundabout at some time in the future if considered necessary. This Park will ultimately be the centre of an extensive emerging community at Jones Hill. The Echelon development currently approved consists of 350+ residential allotments. The surrounding areas within the bounds of McIntosh Creek Road alone, which will ultimately have access to the sewerage scheme provided by the Echelon Development, has the potential to add many hundred more allotments. With the existing facilities provided, the size of Echelon Park and its potential for further development of Off Street Carparking, it is considered that Echelon Park could be promoted by Council as the District Park for the area. The facilities proposed will further enhance a Park which is already well utilised by the local residents and broader community. The Park has already been host to a Wedding Ceremony and many Community Group Parties and Functions.



29

As always, your valuable time is appreciated and I look forward to your response.’ Report: (Manager Development and Compliance – T.M. Stenholm)

1.0 Introduction



30

A request is made for Council to consider the developer of the Echelon residential estate at Jones Hill undertaking parkland works additional to those required by the development permit, in lieu of park contributions as conditioned. Subdivision approval for Echelon was issued by Council in March 2005 and required dedication of parkland within the estate, the provision of specific facilities within this park (equivalent to $220 000 + CPI) and also a park contribution (25% of the standard per lot rate ie currently $445) to be allocated on higher order facilities. 2.0 Assessment Council’s Open Space and Recreation Plan was finalised in November 2007. The Plan does not nominate an area within the vicinity of Echelon as being the ideal location for either a new local or district park, despite some of the stages being registered when it was produced. A district park servicing this area (ie 10-20km radius) is indicated between Groundwater Road and Eel Creek Road partially over land recently approved for residential development (Sigma Developments). The Plan nominates the following performance criteria for a District Park: • Serves whole coastal Township or several neighbourhoods in Main Urban

Area; • Preferred minimum size of 2 Ha; • Service access radius of 10-15 min drive; • 50% road frontage; • 1 Ha of usable area for main purpose; • On-site car parking and waling & cycle track links; and recommends the following embellishments amongst others: • Bollards to prevent car access; • 2+ drinking fountains and taps for picnic areas and active recreation nodes; • Toilets usually provided; • Paths and links to park and within park; • Bike racks; • Lighting for car park, toilets, youth space and picnic areas; • Large multiple play events; • 2+ tables, 4+ seats, bbqs usually provided and sheltered tables; • Built shade for play and picnic facilities; and • Locational and directional signage. At the time of assessing the subdivision it was not intended that the park in Echelon be classified as a District Park, hence the additional condition requiring park contributions.



31

Whilst this park may contain facilities equivalent to those contained in a District Park, there is some concern with formalising its classification as such given its location at the centre of a residential estate. 3.0 Conclusion Embellishments existing in the Echelon Park already far exceed those normally associated with a local park. Given that this park is not identified by the recently completed Open Space and Recreation Plan as a district park, the offer to provide further improvements to the park in lieu of a monetary contribution for the remaining lots is not supported. Cr I.T. Petersen returned to the meeting at 9.44am.

G21/12/08 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr L.J. Friske

That Truebay Pty Ltd be advised that: 1. Council is not prepared to agree to the provision of additional

improvements within the park (over and above those improvements required in accordance with relevant conditions of approval) in lieu of the payment of a per-lot monetary contribution for the remaining lots; and

2. The current contribution rate for the remaining lots in this

development is $445.00 per lot (i.e. 25% of the standard (current) rate of $1,782 per lot).

Carried

11/7 Unpleasant Smell – Railway Hotel, Imbil Re: G22/12/08 Unpleasant Smell – Railway Hotel, Imbil From: Jeff Stolberg – Senior Plumbing Inspector File: DA2008-1271 Date: 25 November 2008

G40/10/08 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr G.L. Engeman That a report be provided by the Director of Health & Community Services and Director of Engineering to the next General Meeting regarding the connection of the Imbil Hotel to sewerage.

Carried.



32

Report: (Senior Plumbing Inspector – J. P. Stolberg) For the past 14 months, the blackwater component of the Imbil Hotel’s wastewater system has been connected to sewerage. Since then, the owners of the Imbil Hotel, Discliff Pty Ltd have been advised of their obligation to connect all water streams to sewerage and of public complaint on the ponding and odour resulting from the grey water discharge under the hotel premises. The discharge may also be reaching waterways in rain events. Numerous phone calls to the owner have been made over recent months. When able to be contacted, the owner has indicated his willingness to comply. On 10 January, 2008, a “Show Cause” Notice was issued, stating in part:- “Under the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 Section 116 (i) (a) The Plumbing and Drainage is in a condition, or functions in a

way, that constitutes a danger or health risk to occupiers of the remises or the public.

This “Notice” relates to the discharge of greywater under the building to the environment. Immediate temporary connection prior to submission a Development Application is required to relieve this situation. A Development Application for Plumbing and Drainage Works has been now received for Renovations to the Hotel Plumbing and Drainage and is at Information Response stage. On Friday, 7th November 2008 Council’s Senior Plumbing Inspector visited the hotel. The Publican (leesee) advised that the water problem had been temporarily rectified, “about 2 to 3 months ago” without notifying Council. The inspection revealed no ponding or offensive odour, with all waste water connected to the sewerage system.

G22/12/08 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr G.L. Engeman

That the Report be received.

Carried



33

11/8 DA17024 – Request to Change an Existing Approval for Material Change of Use

– Commercial Premises (Professional Offices) over Lot 1 SP128949 – 29 Exhibition Road, Southside – D. Strachan Re: G23/12/08 Request to Change an Existing Approval for Material Change

of Use – Commercial Premises (Professional Offices) over Lot 1 SP128949 – 29 Exhibition Road, Southside

From: D. Strachan File: DA17024 Date: 23 October 2008

Report: (Manager Development and Compliance – T.M. Stenholm) 1.0 Introduction A material change of use application for Commercial Premises (Professional Offices) was approved by Council on 30 July 2008.



34



35

To accommodate the Department of Main Roads’ proposed Exhibition Road upgrading, a request is made for a modification of the approval, incorporating the following: • reduced boundary setbacks to Power and Exhibition Roads; • an amendment of the building design; and • amended car parking layout and access driveway location. 2.0 Assessment Setbacks



36

Road boundary setbacks previously approved were: - Power Road 1.5 metres - Exhibition Road 2.1 metres. The setbacks now proposed, and based on the preferred road resumption option indicated by Main Roads to the applicant, are less than previously approved but cannot be accurately determined until Main Roads have completed their planning study and done the survey work. The applicant has advised that the overhang from the second storey may result in a zero setback from the Power Road frontage. In support of the request the applicant submits the following: ‘Due to the relatively small size of our property (i.e. currently 646m2) and the existing 3 metre wide stormwater easement traversing across this property (i.e. Easement A on MPH24516) restricting our options to move the position of the approved commercial building, we wish to reduce the boundary setbacks for this approved building to both Power Road and Exhibition Road. Given the significant upgrades proposed for this intersection, we consider that these setbacks will result in minimal adverse impacts on the traffic and surrounding land uses. The Queensland Department of Main Roads has also indicated that it has no objections to our development having a zero boundary setbacks (sic) (see attached e-mail from Paul West, DMR).’ Main Roads have no objection to the new siting of the building, which as depicted on the new proposal plan still incorporates some landscaping on both frontages. The landscaping requirements originally imposed may be retained given the land could remain in private ownership for a number of years depending on Main Roads funding for the proposed Exhibition Road upgrade. Building Design Amendments to the building design are now submitted and explained by the applicant as follows: ‘The proposed upgrade of the Power Road/Exhibition Road intersection will assist in completely changing the existing streetscape of this precinct. The reduced area of our property due to the required road resumption and increased roadways and other traffic management devices will help to ensure that the immediate locality continues to take on more of a commercial focus. We therefore wish to construct a building that reflects modern commercial design that will showcase Gympie region and the Southside locality. It is our belief that the development of a corner site at what will become a more prominent intersection in this commercial precinct should assist in identifying this precinct as an exciting business area and in so doing set the scene for future building development. Consequently a more commercial design on our site is considered preferable from a community perspective.’



37



38

The proposed building design now incorporates significant architectural interest and is considered much improved to the originally approved design.



39

Given the developer’s accommodation of possible future requirements by the Department of Main Roads and the amended design of the building the new siting of the building is considered appropriate. Car parking Car parking is now proposed against the southern boundary of the site, which will be screened with a 1.8 metre high fence. Access The access driveway has been repositioned from the eastern boundary onto Power Road, to a more central location. This is subject to compliance with Australian Standards for separation from the Exhibition Road intersection and also the existing access to shops opposite the development site. Engineering assessment of the new location indicates the driveway complies with the relevant Australian Standard 2890.1 in relation to the current kerb and channel turning point. Referral Agency The request was referred to the Department of Main Roads given their referral agency status for the original application. The Department offered no objection to the proposed development having a zero boundary setback, however advised the final area to be resumed has not yet been determined. DMR originally offered no requirements for the development approval. Approved plans Condition referencing approved plan numbers will require changing. Amendments to Conditions Other than the condition referencing the approved plans, no other conditions require amending to reflect this request. 3.0 Conclusion It is recommended that Council support the request to change this approval.

G23/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

That Council issue an Amended Decision Notice for Development Permit (DA17024) for a Material Change of Use – Commercial Premises (Professional Offices) at 29 Exhibition Road, Southside incorporating the following amendment: (i) Condition 1 to read:



40

‘The development shall be generally in accordance with the plan/s submitted with the application (Plan Nos 08517-1, 3, 4 and 5 drawn by Mary Valley Design & Drafting and dated 6/10/08).

Note: Architectural features as indicated in the artist’s impressions submitted shall be incorporated into the building design.

Carried

11/9 DA16504 – Representations – Material Change of Use – General Industry (Extension to Existing Scrap Metal Yard) & Environmentally relevant Activity (ERA #27 Metal Recovery) 24 Flood Road, East Deep Creek – Cooloola Scrap Metal Re: G24/12/08 Representations – Material Change of Use – General Industry

(Extension to Existing Scrap Metal Yard) & Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA #27 Metal Recovery) 24 Flood Road, East Deep Creek – Cooloola Scrap Metal

From: Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd File: DA16504 Site: Lot 673 MCH5303 Date: 18 August 2008

Report: (Manager Development and Compliance – T.M. Stenholm) 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Flood Road



41

This application was reported to Council’s Planning and Development Committee on 3 December 2008 where it was resolved to: ‘Recommend that the matter be referred to the next General Meeting to be held on 10 December 2008 for discussions of hours of operation.’

Concern was expressed at the meeting in relation to the requested operating hours. 2.0 Condition 2.1 Condition 2.1 of the approval currently reads: “Permitted hours of operation are as follows: Monday to Friday 0700 hour to 1800 hours Saturday 0700 hours to 1200 hours” Applicant’s Representations “The applicants wish to highlight and seek clarification on the following in relation to operation times. There is an existing use approved on the site in a 1996 Council rezoning approval and as such certain existing use rights prevail. The 1996 approval does not appear to nominate times of operation for the land uses approved in 1996. The current application relates only to the extension of the approved use and therefore the times nominated in the above condition would appear to only relate to the extended uses etc. The current use involves two main components namely refuse management, being the collection of waste from other sites and it’s haulage to the subject site for distribution to scrap metal merchants and the like and public access, being the visits of a few customers to the site for recycling waste. Both activities were in effect approved on the site as part of the 1996 rezoning approval. The current application simply extends the approved use as explained in the representations to condition 1.5.” The applicant therefore requests the following hours:- Refuse Management Monday to Friday 0600 hours to 1800 hours Saturday 0600 hours to 1600 hours Public Access Monday to Friday 0700 hours to 1800 hours Saturday 0700 hours to 1700 hours Sunday 1200 hours to 1700 hours” Applicant’s Requested Amendment



42

The applicant requests that Council amends this condition as detailed above. 3.0 Assessment Refuse management is nominated in the application as ‘being the collection of waste from other sites and it’s haulage to the subject site for distribution to scrap metal merchants and the like and public access, being the visits of a few customers to the site for recycling waste’. Refuse management, it could be inferred, relates to visits to the site via medium to heavy rigid vehicles and public access being predominantly small vehicles/utilities. Hours of operation were not indicated nor conditioned in the original rezoning approval, however it is not without relevance that the use has never been subject to environmental licensing, which became compulsory in 1994. In this regard, the ERA component of the approval is legitimising the activity and hours of operation can reasonably be conditioned as they would on any other Environmentally Relevant Activity. 4.0 Conclusion The recommendation below is that reproduced from the Planning and Development Committee on 3 December, with an amendment to the hours of operation to delete any permitted activity on Sundays and restrict commencement on any day to no earlier than 7:00am.


That in relation to development application Material Change of Use (DA16504) – General Industry (Extension to Existing Scrap Metal Yard) & Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA #27 Metal Recovery) 24 Flood Road, East Deep Creek – Cooloola Scrap Metal Council issue a Negotiated Decision Notice incorporating the following: (i) Condition 1.3 to be deleted; (ii) Condition 1.5 amended to read: ‘In accordance with Planning Scheme Policy 11: Roadworks

Contributions a contribution is to be paid toward road improvements as a result of the increased traffic generated by this development. The amount is currently assessed at $5990, however will be indexed annually from the date of this approval in accordance with ABS ANZSC Index Class 4121.’

(iii) Condition 1.11 amended to read:



43

“A minimum ten (10) metre wide landscaped buffer is to be provided along the batter on the south west side of the proposed heavy vehicle parking and car body storage areas to ensure the development is adequately screened from nearby affected residences. The buffer is to be densely planted with mature fast growing species with an expected minimum height of 20 metres.”

(iv) Condition 1.15 to remain. (v) Condition 2.1 amended to read: ‘“Permitted hours of operation are as follows: Refuse Management

Monday to Friday 0700 hours to 1800 hours Saturday 0700 hours to 1600 hours Public Access Monday to Friday 0700 hours to 1800 hours Saturday 0700 hours to 1700 hours” Loading (No Public Access) Sundays 1400 hours to 1700 hours (Subject to review by Council upon receipt of any complaints).

(vi) Condition 2.7 to remain. (vii) Condition 3.5 to remain.

Carried

11/10 DA14485 – Material Change of Use of Premises – Extractive Industry (Quarry) and Environmentally Relevant Activity 20 (b) Extracting Rock or Other Material (more than 5 000t, but less than 100 000t, a year) and Environmentally Relevant Activity 22 (b) Screening, etc. Materials (more than 5 000t, but less than 100 000t, a year) at 132 Riversdale Road, Kandanga – Thomas and Christine Hamilton FILE: DA14485 APPLICANT: Thomas & Christine Hamilton LANDOWNER: Thomas Walter Hamilton & Christine

Hamilton RPD: Lot 1 RP100526 SITE: 132 Riversdale Road, Kandanga



44

PROPOSAL: Material Change of Use - Extractive Industry (Quarry) and Environmentally Relevant Activities - ERA 20(b) Extracting Rock or Other Material (5 000t – 100 000t per year) and ERA 22(b) Screening etc, Materials (5 000t – 100 000t per year)

EXISTING ZONE: Rural (1997 Scheme) STRATEGIC PLAN: Good Quality Agricultural Land & Rural

Restoration APPLICATION ADVERTISED: 30 July, 2008 ADVERTISING CLOSED: 29 August, 2008 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED: None

Report: (Planning Officer – K.M. Toomey)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This application seeks Council’s approval for Material Change of Use of Premises to formalise and extend an existing Extractive Industry (Sand Quarry) and Environmentally Relevant Activity 20(b) Extracting Rock or Other Materials (design capacity of more than 5 000t, but less than 100 000t, per year) and Environmentally Relevant Activity 22(b) Screening etc. Materials (design

Riversdale Road

Mary Valley Road



45

capacity of more than 5 000t, but less than 100 000t, per year) at Riversdale Road, Kandanga. 1.1 Site Description The development site is located at the end of Riversdale Road, Kandanga, approximately 1.3 kilometres from its intersection with Mary Valley Road. The site has an area of 116.853 hectares and is bordered on three (3) sides by the Mary River. The land has approximately 33 metres of frontage to Riversdale Road, which is currently constructed to a 4.0 metre to 5.5 metre bitumen seal standard. The site is currently improved by two (2) dwelling houses, a dairy, cattle yards, outbuildings, internal access tracks and a dam. The majority of the site has been cleared previously to facilitate grazing and general rural uses and is classified as Class A Good Quality Agricultural Land. The remaining vegetation on the site is not mapped as being of significance for conservation purposes, however, the riparian vegetation along the Mary River is worthy of retention for both bank stability and biodiversity reasons. The topography is undulating with varying slopes generally between 55 metres AHD and 85 metres AHD. The site also contains an existing area of previous sand extraction towards the eastern boundary. The site is also located entirely within the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam inundation area. 1.2 The Proposal The proposal comprises the following three (3) components: 1. Material Change of Use of the land to increase the scale and intensity of

an existing Extractive Industry (Sand Quarry); 2. Environmentally Relevant Activity – ERA 20(b) Extracting Rock or

Other Material – extracting rock (other than rock mined in block or slab form for building purposes), sand (other than foundry sand), clay (other than clay used for ceramic properties, kaolin or bentonite), gravel, loam or other material (other than gravel, loam or other material under a mining tenement or petroleum authority) from a pit or quarry using plant or equipment having a design capacity of 5 000 t or more, but less than 100 000 t, a year;

3. Environmentally Relevant Activity – ERA 22(b) Screening etc.

Materials – screening, washing, crushing, grinding, milling, sizing or separating material extracted from the earth (other than under a mining tenement or petroleum authority) or by dredging using plant or equipment



46

having a design capacity of more than 5 000 t, but less than 100 000 t, a year.

The following documentation has been lodged in support of the application:

• Detailed Proposal Report • Environmental Management Plan • Groundwater Level and Sand “Settleability” Assessment • Environmental Noise Level Study • Rehabilitation Strategy

The proposal plan is reproduced below.



47

1.3 Surrounding Land Use The surrounding land is characterised by rural allotments, predominately used for grazing purposes and general rural pursuits. 2.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS



48

2.1 Intent of the Zone The intent of the Rural Zone is primarily for rural uses, but it also allocates land for future urban, rural residential or other purposes designated in the Strategic Plan or a Development Control Plan. When assessing applications of an industrial nature in the Rural Zone, according to Council’s 1997 Planning Scheme, Council is to take into account the following criteria: • impacts on the current and likely future amenity of land in the vicinity; • potential traffic generation relative to the road to which the site has access; • detrimental effects that the proposal may have on the visual character of the

locality, with particular regard being had to the importance of the locality in protecting the Shire’s character;

• the significance of the land as an agricultural resource and the potential of the proposal to reduce productivity;

• the provisions of the Strategic Plan, particularly in distinguishing between areas designated as good quality agricultural land and otherwise.

2.2 Strategic Plan The site falls predominantly within the ‘Good Quality Agricultural Land’ Strategic Land Use Designation and partly within the ‘Rural Restoration’ Land Use Designation according to Council’s 1997 Planning Scheme. The proposed development is generally consistent with these strategies. 2.3 Compliance with the Planning Scheme 2.3.1 Scheme Definition Under the arrangements of the transitional planning scheme the proposed use is defined as an ‘Extractive Industry’. An ‘Extractive Industry’ is defined for the purposes of this specific activity as; “Any premises used or intended to be used for extracting from the earth, by whatever means, sand, gravel, rock, soil, turf or similar materials. The term includes Minor Extraction and the use of the premises for treating, processing and storing materials extracted on the site and storing and maintaining vehicles used in the extraction process.” Within the Rural Zone, proposed Extractive Industry operations require ‘Impact Assessment’. 2.3.2 Planning Scheme Provisions The application is to be considered under the superseded Planning Scheme and the following assessment is in line with the 1997 Cooloola Planning Scheme.



49

In accordance with the general development provisions of Council’s Planning Scheme, Council in assessing Extractive Industry applications shall take into consideration whether: • The proposed use is in a locality which is, or is likely to become a

residential locality; • Would be likely to affect to its detriment the amenity of scenic nature of the

locality; • The roads giving access to the proposed site are constructed to a standard

sufficient to carry traffic of a nature that the extractive industry would be likely to generate.

Further, the owner of the subject land shall: “comply with all the requirements of the Council as determined by resolution from time to time by the Council regarding the rehabilitation and restoration of the land affected by the use; the removal of waste material or refuse; the control of nuisance arising from the use; the creation and maintenance of landscaped, planted buffer areas to screen the development from the adjoining properties, the safety of the public on the subject land; and the preservation of the amenity of the area and areas thereto.” The following general development provision for Industrial development is also considered to be applicable: • “Access to the premises is to be provided in accordance with Australian

Standards and only to roads of a suitable standard to cope with the expected volume, nature and frequency of traffic to be generated at respective access points.”

2.4 Local and/or State Planning Policies State Planning Policy 1/92 is applicable as the site contains Class A Good Quality Agricultural Land. The proposed development is not considered to compromise the intent of SPP1/92, given that the remainder of the site is still able to be utilised for viable agricultural purposes. Further, the quarry area is proposed to be progressively rehabilitated in order to re-establish grazing pastures on the site. No other State Planning Policies are considered to be applicable.

3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Appropriateness of the Proposal The Applicant’s consultant has provided the following information in relation to the proposed quarry extension: “The boundaries of the extraction area have been established so as to acknowledge the following:



50

• To use the natural landform and existing vegetation as buffers as much as possible;

• To provide a good minimum separation of approximately 150 metres between the existing watercourse (i.e. the Mary River) and this proposed extraction area;

• To provide a good minimum separation of over 300 metres between the existing dairy, cattle yards and dwelling houses within the subject site and this proposed extraction area;

• To position the extraction area on elevated land to avoid excavation within and below the existing water table depth; and

• To avoid extraction from the more vegetated exposed and steeper land within surrounding parts of the subject site including that along the banks of the Mary River.

The proposed development has been designed with consideration of site characteristics and minimisation of potential adverse environmental impacts. The use of the site for an Extractive Industry (Sand Quarry) of the scale and intensity of that proposed is considered to be an appropriate use within the Rural Zone. 3.2 Impact on Amenity The proposed development is not expected to unduly impact on the existing amenity of surrounding residents and a noise report has been submitted determining that the development does not require the implementation of noise attenuation measures. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency has also provided extensive conditions relating to the prevention and/or mitigation of any adverse impacts as a result of the development. 3.3 Site Access and Traffic Access to the proposed development site is proposed to be via Riversdale Road. Whilst Riversdale Road is currently in good condition, the development is likely to generate a significantly increased number of heavy vehicle trips per day and as a result, upgrading to a 7.0 metre bitumen seal width on a 7.0 metre formation should be required as part of any approval. Discussions with the applicant have indicated that, although the permit sought is for an ERA of design capacity potentially up to 100 000t per year, the extraction is likely to commence well below the maximum nominated capacity. As a result, the upgrading of Riversdale Road may be able to be deferred until such time as the extraction amount increases. This, however, will be at the discretion of the applicant to negotiate during the relevant appeal period, given specific staging of the application has not been included. The existing driveway will also require upgrading to a commercial standard in order to adequately service the proposed development.



51

Refer to Design Services Division report for further details regarding traffic and access. 3.4 Stockpiling Very limited stockpiling of extraction material is proposed as part of the development. The Applicant has indicated the following in relation to stockpiling: ‘Generally product is loaded directly onto a haulage truck and covered with a tarp prior to leaving the site for direct delivery to landscaping and other civil projects. Consequently there is no need to stockpile product during normal operations. However, direct to the client contractual arrangements on occasion determine the need for minimal stockpiling of product, overburden or topsoil prior to removal. Stockpiles waiting removal will be stored within the excavation pit where all run-off is directed to a sump in the floor of the pit. The number of stockpiles and the period stockpiles remain exposed will be minimised by sound contractual planning.’ A condition has been prepared limiting the amount of stockpiling that is able to occur on the site and as a result minimal visual and environmental impacts are likely to occur. 3.5 Flooding The site adjoins the Mary River and is known to be prone to inundation in a Q100 flood event. However, due to the nature of the proposed development and the existence of a clear evacuation path, no adverse issues are likely to arise as a result of flooding of the site. 3.6 Vegetation No significant vegetation is mapped as occurring on the site, however the remaining riparian vegetation along the banks of the Mary River is of value for bank stability and biodiversity reasons. A riparian buffer of a minimum 40 metres is proposed to be provided around the quarry to protect the riverbank against erosion and to preserve the remaining riparian vegetation. 3.7 Site Contamination This site is not listed on the Environmental Management Register. 4.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was publicly advertised in accordance with the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and no submissions were received. 5.0 CONSULTATION



52

5.1 Internal

a) Design Department Report: (Infrastructure Planning Manager – A. Laszlo) This engineering report is based on the information submitted by Martoo Consulting dated September 2006 and additional information. TRAFFIC The applicant submitted an estimated traffic generation rate of 6 commercial trips per day, which converts to 60 vehicle trips per day as per industry guideline. This equates to approximately 33,000 tonnes of sand extraction per year, one third (1/3) of the development full capacity. The development utilises the Mary Valley Road (Gympie Brooloo Road), a state-controlled road. LEAD-IN ROAD / FRONTAGE ROAD The lead-in road, Riversdale Road is currently constructed to a 4.0m to 5.5m seal width on 7.0m formation. Due to the proposed increased traffic generated by the development the lead in road should be upgraded to a 7.0m seal width on a 7.0m formation to accommodate the potential operations at full capacity (ie 100,000 tonnes of sand extraction per year). The Riversdale Road/Mary Valley Road intersection may also need to be modified to comply with the requirements of Austroads Guidelines “Intersection at Grade” Part 5 to cater for the increased traffic generated by the proposal and such upgrading should be approved by the Department of Main Roads. The development site access is via the Riversdale Road cul-de-sac end. Therefore the development frontage is approximately 12 metres. The existing driveway should be upgraded to Council’s commercial standard. STORMWATER The developer provided a stormwater management plan prepared by MWA Environmental dated 20 June 2008 for the site outlining the measures to be taken on how the stormwater is to be managed on-site. FLOODING The developer has indicated that the site is prone to flooding indicating the extent of the Q100 flood event on the site plan. However a clear evacuation path is available if such an event occurs. 5.2 External The proposal incorporates both ERA 20(b) Extracting Rock and Other Material and ERA 22(b) Screening, etc. Material, with design capacities of more than 5 000t, but less than 100 000t per year. As a result the application required referral to the Environmental Protection Agency as a Concurrence Agency.



53

The Environmental Protection Agency has undertaken a comprehensive review of the environmental impacts of the proposal and has provided appropriate conditions to be imposed upon any approval granted. 6.0 CONCLUSION The application proposes an extension of an existing sand quarry within the Rural Zone at Riversdale Road, Kandanga. The proposed extraction site has been determined in order to minimise adverse impacts on surrounding residents and appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed in order to minimise environmental harm as a result of the development. It is therefore recommended that the proposal should be supported, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

G25/12/08 Moved: Cr G.L. Engeman Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker

That Council, as Assessment Manager, APPROVE development application DA14485 for a Material Change of Use – Extractive Industry (Sand Quarry) and Environmentally Relevant Activity 20(b) Extracting Rock or Other Material (5 000t – 100 000t per year) and Environmentally Relevant Activity 22(b) Screening etc. Materials (5 000t – 100 000t per year) over Lot 1 RP100526 located at 132 Riverside Road, Kandanga, subject to the following conditions: SECTION 1.0 – Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to the Commencement of

the Approved Use

1.1 The development herein approved may not start until: (i) the following development permit has been issued and complied

with as required – (a) Development Permit for Operational Works (Roadworks

and Associated Drainage); and (ii) development authorised by the above permit/s has been completed

to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Executive Officer as evidenced by the issue of a “Final Site Use Approval Certificate”.

1.2 Undertake at no cost to Council, the alteration of any public utility

mains (eg. Electricity, water, sewerage, gas etc.) or other facilities necessitated by the development of the land or associated construction works external to the site.

1.3 An appropriate driver’s code of conduct shall be prepared, distributed

and enforced by the applicant to ensure that drivers minimise impacts on the safety and amenity of existing residents along Riversdale Road.



54

1.4 No earthworks or filling works are to be undertaken prior to the issue of a Development Permit for Operational Works.

1.5 A master stormwater drainage plan is to be prepared to address the

impact of the proposed development on the existing stormwater drainage in the area, including upstream and downstream of the site.

1.6 All outstanding rates or charges levied by Council or expenses that are

a charge over the subject land under any Act are to be paid. SECTION 2.0 – Conditions Relevant to the Issue of a Development Permit

for Operational Works

2.1 Access to the development site is to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Infrastructure Works Code Drawing No. R-05.

2.2 Riversdale Road is to be upgraded. Specifically the following works are

to be undertaken in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer: (a) 7.0 metre wide formation with 7.0 metre seal width and

associated drainage. (b) The intersection with Mary Valley Road is to be designed to

meet the requirements of Austroads Guidelines “Intersection at Grade” Part 5 and is to be approved by Department of Main Roads.

2.3 (i) Where any works associated with this development approval are

to be carried out on Council controlled land, such as road, park, drainage reserves, or the like, a Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to Council for review prior to the pre-start meeting for such works.

(ii) The Traffic Management Plan shall be constantly reviewed and revised throughout the construction phase of the project until works are accepted “On-maintenance” by Council.

2.4 Erosion and sediment control measures are to be designed and

provided in accordance with the Institution of Engineers, Australia, Qld Division’s “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control: Engineering Guidelines for Queensland Construction Sites”. The design shall be submitted to Council for approval with subsequent development applications for operational work.

2.5 Any plans for operational works, water supply and sewerage works,

drainage works and street lighting required by this development permit, are to be surveyed, designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Infrastructure Works Code.



55

2.6 Prior to any site works a declared plants clearance is required to be

obtained from Council and/or a satisfactory management plan approved. The enclosed Notification of Compliance Form is to be completed and lodged with Council as evidence that this has been undertaken prior to the issue of a Development Permit for Operational Works.

SECTION 3.0 – General Conditions of Approval 3.1 The development is to be carried out in accordance with the proposal

plans and reports submitted with the application, specifically: (i) Extraction is limited to the area nominated on MWA

Environmental drawing number 08-030-3a titled ‘Proposed Pit Expansion’ and dated 20/6/08.

(ii) No clearing is to be undertaken within the area nominated as

‘40m Buffer’ on MWA Environmental drawing number 08-030-3a titled ‘Proposed Pit Expansion’ and dated 20/6/08.

(iii) Other supporting studies, information and proposals. Any extension of the approved area will require further approval from Council.

3.2 Hours of operation are approved as:

Monday to Saturday 7:00am-6:00pm Note: Any change to these hours will require approval from Council.

3.3 Loading/unloading operations shall be conducted within the site and

vehicles waiting to be loaded/unloaded shall stand entirely within the site.

3.4 Materials extracted from the site are to be loaded directly onto a

haulage truck and covered with a tarp prior to leaving the site for direct delivery.

Note: Limited short-term stockpiling of product, overburden or topsoil is permitted on site and is to be stored within the excavation pit, with all run-off to be directed to the sump in the floor of the pit.

3.5 Progressive rehabilitation of the excavated site area is to be undertaken

in accordance with the recommendations of the amended Environmental Management Plan submitted (prepared by Martoo Consulting, MWA Environmental and David Moore and Associates, dated July 2008).



56

3.6 Any filling or other development works undertaken on the site shall be carried out so as not to cause the ponding of water on any adjoining lands or the blockage or interference with any natural watercourse.

3.7 Stormwater is to be disposed of on site so as to cause no scour or

damage to adjoining properties to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Executive Officer.

3.8 Cut and fill embankments that do not comply with Part 3.1.1 of the

Building Code of Australia are to be retained within thirty (30) days of excavation. (Engineers design required if over 1000mm high). The toe of any unretained embankment is not to be closer than 1m to any boundary or building.

3.9 The storage of any machinery, materials or vehicles is to be

aesthetically screened so as not to be visible from any surrounding dwelling houses or the road to which the subject land has frontage, to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Executive Officer.

3.10 All cleared vegetation is to be suitably processed or removed from the

site at no cost to Council. Prior to the commencement of clearing works on site the preferred means of disposal of cleared vegetation is to be approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer. The following means of disposal are acceptable, but are not limited to: (i) Processing through a woodchipper. (ii) Disposal for firewood. (iii) Disposal for landscaping. (iv) Transport to alternative site for breaking down materials. Burning off is not an acceptable means of disposal and will not be approved. Note: Bulk green waste is no longer accepted at any Council landfill site.

3.11 In carrying out your activity you must take all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure that it does not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage (the “cultural heritage duty of care”). You will comply with the cultural heritage duty of care if you are acting in accordance with the gazetted cultural heritage duty of care guidelines. An assessment of your proposed activity against the duty of care guidelines will help determine whether or to what extent Aboriginal cultural heritage may be harmed by your activity. Further information on cultural heritage, together with a copy of the duty of care guidelines and cultural heritage search forms, may be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines ~phone (07) 3238 3838 or website www.nrm.qld.gov.au.

Carried



57

11/11 DA15778 – Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to Create Three (3) Additional

Lots – 138 North Deep Creek Road, North Deep Creek – T. V. Nguyen FILE: DA15778 APPLICANT: T. V. Nguyen LANDOWNER: Nguyen Accounting and Taxation

Services RPD: Lot 296 MPH40200 SITE: 138 North Deep Creek Road, North

Deep Creek PROPOSAL: Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to

Create Three (3) Additional Lots EXISTING ZONE: Rural Residential

PLANNING AREA: Gympie LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT: Code

Report: (Planning Officer – M.K. Matthews) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Proposal

Gympie Timber Co.



58

This application seeks to create three (3) additional rural residential lots from an existing 2.84 hectare lot. The land is currently zoned Rural Residential within the Gympie Planning Area. The proposed lot sizes are 8,220m2 for proposed Lot 1, 5,230m2 for proposed Lot 2, 7,710m2 for proposed Lot 3 and 7,360m2 for proposed Lot 4.

1.2 Site Description



59

The site is gently undulating, and slopes at approximately 10% to the western frontage of the site. The site also slopes towards a gully on the adjoining northern property (Lot 590 MPH35007). The subject site currently contains one existing dwelling house and domestic outbuilding. 1.3 Surrounding Land Uses The subject site is currently zoned Rural Residential. Allotments on the eastern side of North Deep Creek Road are also zoned Rural Residential. The site also adjoins some rural parcels to the east. The subject site is opposite the Gympie Timber Company saw-mill. A noise assessment report has been submitted to address the impacts of the saw-mill on the proposal. 2.0 PLANNING SCHEME REQUIREMENTS The application was lodged under the 2005 Planning Scheme. The application is Code Assessable development, and subject to assessment under the Gympie Planning Area Code, Reconfiguring a Lot Code, Infrastructure Works Code, and the Landscaping Code. Good Quality Agricultural Land exists over the subject site, but given the zoning this issue is considered to have been previously addressed. Approval of the application would ordinarily be delegated to the Director of Planning and Development, however Council direction is sought in relation to the proposed access arrangements. 2.1 Gympie Planning Area Code The proposal generally complies with all requirements relating to the Gympie Planning Area Code for Reconfiguring a Lot in the Rural Residential zone. 2.2 Reconfiguring a Lot Code SO-1 – This proposal does not comply with Specific Outcome SO-1 f. of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code in that North Deep Creek Road is identified as an arterial road where additional lots should not be located. In addressing this outcome the applicant has proposed only one access point for the proposed subdivision, thus minimising the potential traffic conflict due to less access points.

SO-12 – Proposed Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot size criteria for a rural residential allotment. The proposed lot is only 5,230m2 in area, below the minimum requirement for 6,000m2. The applicant submits however, that the average lot size is above the minimum requirement (the average is approximately 7,092m2). The frontage is also slightly under 50 metres to the North Deep Creek Road frontage, however access is to be gained via the access easement that runs along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The adjoining boundary with proposed lot 1 is at the proposed alignment to go around the current dwelling



60

that is to be contained within lot 1. It is not considered that either of these issues of non-compliance compromise the usability and suitability of proposed Lot 2 to be capable of supporting its intended use. Effluent disposal is still able to be achieved, and a suitable house site exists. It is considered that the application complies with the specific outcome of the code in this regard. The length of the proposed access easement is in excess of the normally accepted standard of 100 metres in the Rural Residential zone. The proposed easement is approximately 170 metres in length and is proposed to have reciprocal rights. The applicant submits in this regard: ‘The unusual shape of the proposed easement. The new driveway is now proposed to have the point of entry to North Deep Creek Road at the north western corner of the proposed sub division and with normal shape design’; ‘Collection of garbage. The turning area at the head has been designed in accordance with Australian standard (which is adopted by Brisbane City Council) with turning area for garbage trucks require a tee with dimension of 22m across the top’; ‘Length of driveway. The driveway has been provided with passing bays at every 60m interval. This standard is accepted by Brisbane City Council. The driveway is widened by 2m for a distance of 6m with tapers 4m long. For example Brisbane City Council requires a width driveway of 5500 when it is used by a garbage truck’; ‘Too many turns on driveway. The new proposed driveway has reduced the number of turns to a minimum’; ‘Council suggested that it may need to be a road instead of a driveway. As population of the Gympie Region will be increased steadily in the future if roads are to be built for every 4 houses it will be neither sustainable nor practical. The significant cost of road building will also stop small development like this sub division from going ahead. Council will have extra maintenance workload which will become major in the long run’. Council has not previously been in favour of the creation of access easements servicing more than two (2) rural residential allotments, given the potential complexity in maintenance issues when multiple parties are subject to the easement. Also as outlined in the Design Services report following, Council’s current garbage contractor will not enter private property and therefore future owners will be required to cart wheelie bins to North Deep Creek Road down the 170 metre easement. It is suggested by Design Services that the northern section of the proposed access strip could be opened as road with a turn around, and the remaining 70 metre strip be kept as an access easement.



61

A subdivision has recently been approved over adjoining land to the north of the development site with access to these lots to be from a new road opening. Should part of the proposed access easement be dedicated as road this would give these approved lots dual road frontage and also create an additional maintenance burden for Council. The access easement proposed is considered acceptable and should Council concur, an approval could be issued under normal delegation. 2.3 Infrastructure Works Code Council’s Design Department comments refer. 2.4 Landscaping Code Street trees are not normally imposed on Rural Residential subdivisions. 3.0 CONSULTATION 3.1 Internal (a) Design Department Comments

Report: (Design Services Technical Officer – A.C. Walsh) This engineering report is based on the information submitted by the applicant and

additional information submitted by John E Henry Pty Ltd consulting engineer to subdivide Lot 296 on MPH40200, 138 North Deep Creek Road into three additional lots.

LEAD-IN ROAD / FRONTAGE ROAD / ACCESS North Deep Creek Road as the lead-in and frontage road is constructed to a 5

metre wide bitumen sealed standard. From Council’s Planning Scheme, North Deep Creek Road at this location is

classified as an Arterial Road and therefore direct access to this road should not be allowed.

This engineering consultant submitted a lot layout plan, Drawing No. 7546-R1,

showing an access strip with reciprocal easements of some 160 metres with a turn around area for a refuse truck to service the four lots.

The Community Services Directorate has previously advised this is not an option

under the present refuse collection contract as the contractor does not enter private property. An acceptable solution would be for the northern section of the access strip fronting lot 2 to be opened as road with a turn around with the remaining 70metres to be an access strip with easement rights to the other lots.



62

ROAD CONTRIBUTION Road contribution as per Planning Scheme Policy 12: Sealed Road Contributions

for Designated Rural Residential Areas ie. $10,547 per additional lot. STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND FLOODING Stormwater drainage and flooding is not a problem at this location. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL The geotechnical assessment submitted by Global Testing revealed lots 2-4 would

require land applications for secondary effluent treatment. 3.2 External (a) Department of Natural Resources and Water The application was referred to the Department of Natural Resources and Water who have issued conditional approval.


That in relation to development application DA15778 for Reconfiguring of Lot – Subdivision to create three (3) additional lots at Lot 296 on MPH40200, located at 138 North Deep Creek Road, North Deep Creek, Council support the creation of the access easement as proposed and authorise the Director of Planning and Development to issue a decision notice with appropriate conditions.

Carried Director of Planning & Development Mr Mike Hartley and Manager of Development & Compliance Ms Tania Stenholm left the meeting at 9.58am. Director of Engineering Mr Bob Fredman entered the meeting at 9.58am.

11/12 Purchase of a replacement pad foot roller Unit 264 Re: G27/12/08 Purchase of a replacement pad foot roller Unit 264 From: Works Department Manager - Mr. G.C. Ingham File: Date: 24/12/08

Report: (Fleet Manager – P. Stevenson) Provision for the replacement of one (1) 12 tonne vibratory pad foot roller for the Eastern division has been allowed for in this financial years’ budget (08/09). Tenders have been called for the supply and delivery of One (1) suitably specified replacement machine.



63

The specifications called for a dedicated 12 tonne vibratory pad foot roller with air conditioned cab. Council received tenders from eleven (11) suppliers offering twelve (12) machines and one (1) private offer to purchase. Four (4) of the twelve (12) machines meet the specifications detailed in the tender document.

Supplier Make Full price inc GST

Existing vehicle trade

offer inc GST

Clark equipment Dynapac $ 183,225.64 $ 27,000.00 Wirtgen Hamm $ 171,600.00 $ 26,400.00 Conplant Ammann $ 158,380.00 $ 26,400.00 M&E Machinery Protec $ 159,500.00 $ 26,000.00 Tractor Supply Private offer $ 29,360.10 Clark equipment Dynapac $ 183,380.00 $ 27,000.00 Hastings Deering Cat $ 189,200.00 $ 27,500.00 JCB JCB $ 154,405.00 $ 28,500.00 CJD Volvo $ 186,450.00 $ 16,500.00 M&E Machinery Protec $ 151,800.00 $ 26,000.00 Earthquip Lebrero $ 176,347.95 $ 30,000.00 GCM Agency Multipac $ 185,900.00 $ 27,500.00 BT Equipment Bomag $ 173,800.00 $ 27,500.00 Bianco Construction Sakai $ 158,400.00 $ 29,150.00

Eight (8) machines were removed from the initial assessment as the machines offered do not meet the basic requirements.

1. Dedicated pad foot drum - several offered ‘shells’ which converts a smooth drum roller to a pad foot roller

2. Operational weight of 12 tonnes – several offer machines are below 12 tonnes and a number in excess of 13 tonnes

Supplier Make Model Shell Operating weight kg

Clark equipment Dynapac CA302PD No 12600 M&E Machinery Protec BOXER B113PD No 12500 Wirtgen Hamm 3412P No 12300 Conplant Ammann ASC110PD No *13295 Clark equipment Dynapac CA252D Yes 12050 Hastings Deering Cat CS56 Yes 13439 JCB JCB VN 115PD No 11600 CJD Volvo SD116DX Yes 11720 M&E Machinery Protec BOXER B111PD No 11600 Earthquip Lebrero X3 Yes 13400 GCM Agency Multipac YZK 18C PD No 18800



64

BT Equipment Bomag BW211PD-4 No 13450 Bianco Construction Sakai SV512T No 10850

* Ammann machine fully ballasted with 800 litres of ballast water in the drive tyres which is not normally used in this machine Dynapac rollers are well represented across Queensland, the larger hire fleets including Coates, Flexi-hire and Handy - hire predominantly have Dynapac machines. Ammann machines are also well represented in hire fleets including Conplant and Sherrin. The other 2 contenders i.e. Hamm and the Protec Boxer whilst both are very well built machines neither have been considered as an option as there are few of these machines in our local area and as such parts and service support may be challenged in the event of a machine failure. Ammann ASC110PD and the Dynapac CA302PD machines were provided as demonstrators concurrently; both were used by a number of operators on several job sites across the region. The decision was difficult as both have very good operational features and are very well specified. The Ammann service access and reduced cabin noise were well received whilst the Dynapac cabin internal size and operator station flexibility are a benefit to the operator comfort and productivity. The Dynapac operator station (including steering wheel and controls) rotates from centre through approximately 100º from centre in both directions with position locks through out the range. This feature reduces driver strain and fatigue and recognises operators operate right and/or left handed. The Amman seat rotates to the right only through 90º with the steering wheel and controls remaining at the front of the cabin. The full range of operator station movement in the Dynapac is favoured as it will reduce operator neck and back strain. Based on the operator station flexibility and supplier support the Dynapac CA302PD represents the best option for the replacement of Unit 264.


That:

1. Council purchases a Dynapac CA302PD Vibratory Pad Foot Roller as specified from Clark equipment for $166,568.76.00 exc GST ($183,225.64 inc GST)

2. Council accepts the private offer from Tractor Supply for Unit 264

Ingersoll Rand $26,691.00 exc GST ($29,360.10 inc GST)

3. Change over price $139,877.76 exc GST ($153,865.54 inc GST)

Carried



65

11/13 Purchase of a replacement Grader Unit 203

Re: G28/12/08 Purchase of a replacement Grader Unit 203 From: Works Department Manager - Mr. G.C. Ingham File: Date: 24/12/08

Report: (Fleet Manager – P. Stevenson) Provision for the replacement of one (1) Motor Grader for the Eastern division has been allowed for in this financial years’ budget (08/09). Tenders have been called for the supply and delivery of One (1) suitably specified replacement machine. The specifications called for a Motor Grader with rear mounted Rippers/Scarifiers, an electronic/laser grader control system and a 4.2 m (14’) mouldboard (blade). Council received tenders from four (4) suppliers offering five (5) machines, 4 of the 5 machines meet the specifications detailed in the tender document. Refer Table 1 Table 1

* Hastings Deering operate a ‘Government Merchandising’ program, this program ensures pricing is consistent across all levels of government in Queensland. The Caterpillar 120M does not have the capacity to carry a 4.2m mouldboard and is therefore not considered. Council also received one (1) offer to purchase the machine outright. Council currently operates nine (9) graders, four (4) Caterpillar (12H), four (4) John Deere (2x 670D, 1x 670CH, 1x 770D) and one (1) Volvo (G930). Each machine is of similar specification and capable of carrying either a 4.2m, 3.9 or 3.6m moldboard. Information such as major repairs carried out, fuel consumption and machine resale have been considered in the tender assessment and final recommendation.

Supplier Make Model Full price exc GST

Existing vehicle

trade offer exc GST

Change over exc

GST

* Hastings Deering Caterpillar 12M $390,000.00 $145,000.00 $245,000.00 Hastings Deering Caterpillar 120M $345,000.00 $145,000.00 $200,000.00 CJD Volvo G930 $318,000.00 $132,500.00 $185,500.00 Hitachi John Deere 670D $329,300.00 $91,500.00 $237,800.00 Komatsu Aust Komatsu GD655-3 $290,715.45 $129,590.91 $161,124.55 Hedges Heavy Equip Private offer $120,000.00



66

Council has recently had significant down time with two (2) of the four (4) John Deere Graders with major power train failures at approximately half life (5000 machine hours). Workshop staff are monitoring the remaining machines in an effort to reduce the risk of similar failures. As the new John Deere machines are based on similar technology failure risk is considered to be very high, therefore the John Deere has not been considered in this assessment. The Komatsu grader has also been removed from the tender assessment process as high fuel consumption figures quoted by the supplier increase the annual and life costs above the other machines. The most recent Council grader purchases have been a Caterpillar 12H (FY2006/2007 Unit 207) and a Volvo G930 (FY2007/2008 Unit 202). Both machines are performing to expectation. The Caterpillar 12M and Volvo G930 have been short listed as suitable contenders Councils Volvo grader has returned higher fuel consumption figures when compared to other graders in the fleet. Refer Table 2 The Caterpillar 12H engine and drive train technology has been further developed and exists in the 12M model. Proven fuel consumption of Councils existing Caterpillar 12H machine and ever improving fuel economy suggests the Caterpillar 12M estimated fuel consumption figures are relative. When comparative fuel consumption figures are considered the Caterpillar all of life fuel cost is lower than the Volvo as detailed in table 2. Table 2 **Annual fuel cost estimates are based on the 1100 hours/annum, hourly fuel consumption figures are taken from Councils existing fleet data. If Council data is unavailable the consumption rates are used from the machine supplier’s advice. **Council’s actual fuel consumption figures for the Volvo G930 are lower than the supplier’s estimates. The following table (Table 3) details estimated machine end of life (resale) values calculated using existing Council machines based on information from machinery auctions and online machinery dealers.

Make

Suppliers quoted fuel

consumption medium duty

l/hr

Actual fuel cons fuel used in GRC fleet

l/hr *Fuel cost/year

Total fuel cost machine life (10 years)

Caterpillar 12 H 10.42 $ 18,339 $ 183,392 Caterpillar 12M 10 - 11 $ 18,480 $ 184,800 Caterpillar 120M 9 - 10 $ 16,720 $ 176,000

Volvo G930 ** 15.2 ** 13.25 $ 23,320 $ 233,200 John Deere 670D 12.5 - 13.82 12.45 $ 21,912 $ 219,120

Komatsu GD655-3 16 $ 28,160 $ 281,600 Fuel $/litre $ 1.60



67

Table 3

Today’s resale estimates based on machines between 7 and 12 years old Unit No 203 202 204 205 207

Machine make and model

Cat 12H 1998

Volvo G720B, G726B

John Deere 670CH

John Deere 670CH

John Deere 670D

Purchase price exc GST

$ 250,900 $ 317,000 $ 269,000 $ 271,990 $ 295,900

Average resale exc GST

$ 127,000 $ 138,850 $ 111,000 $ 111,000 $ 121,000

% retained value 50.62% 43.80% 41.26% 40.81% 40.89% The Caterpillar product retains approximately 50% of the machine value at 10 years, figures are not available for the Volvo G930 as there are few in the second hand market, and resale figures are based on previous models of similar capacity. Volvo products appear to retain approximately 44% at 5 to 7 years. The Caterpillar 12M machine is a proven machine in road construction and maintenance. The Caterpillar 12M carries the highest initial purchase price this difference would be offset over the life of the machine by a higher end of life (resale) value and annual fuel cost savings when compared to the Volvo machine. The Caterpillar 12M represents the best option for the replacement of Unit 203.


That:

1. Council purchase a Caterpillar 12M Motor Grader as specified from Hastings Deering for $390,000.00 exc GST ($429,000.00 inc GST)

2. Council accepts the trade in offer from Hastings Deering for Unit 203

caterpillar Motor Grader 12H for $145,000.00 exc GST ($159,500.00 inc GST)

3. Change over price $245,000.00 exc GST ($269,500.00 inc GST)

Carried



68

SECTION 12: GENERAL BUSINESS

Community Futures Task Force Meeting 8 December 2008

Cr Ian Petersen tabled that following Report:-

“On Monday 8th December, with Cr Watt and Mr Manson, I attended the Community Futures Taskforce Meeting in Brisbane. We outlined the concerns raised by the Premier’s announcement creating uncertainty and pointed out the difficulty being faced by Council in preparing our Corporate Plan and the new Planning Scheme. There was considerable discussion and we again stressed the need for the release of the Land Use and Infrastructure Study which will provide vital input to our planning processes. There was discussion about the proposed vegetation offsets suggested as environmental remediation and mitigation. We pointed out that this process would of necessity occur outside the dam footprint and was thus causing considerable anxiety amongst landowners in the vicinity, and especially owners of those properties identified in the 3D consultancy report. We stressed the need for community communication and consultation to clarify this process and also to resolve conflicting information, for example, that a particular parcel is identified by one Government Department (DIP) under the LUIPS as future urban, yet is also nominated by QWI as a site for offset planting. We were advised that the Coordinator General’s report is due out in the first quarter of 2009, and we can only hope that this will clarify the position to some extent and address the serious and mounting anxieties caused by confusion and uncertainty. The redraft of the Imbil Multi Purpose Recreation Report was tabled and will need considerable debate at Council. Cr Watt’s request that discussions with the partner departments prior to the community consultation stage was agreed to. DTRDI is continuing to work on the Mary Valley Tourism Action Plan with Tourism Queensland and will consult with GRC and TSC prior to public release. DMR advised that they were pushing ahead with the Highway bypass and are currently in negotiations with 28 landowners along the proposed route. DPIF advised that they have undertaken trial plantings of leptospermum for medical honey production. The Dairy Industry Overview and Futures Scenario is completed and on line. It is a thorough document going into great detail, but I must confess to being somewhat bemused by one of the suggested scenarios to maintain desired supply for the Northern Dairy Region (Gympie – Kempsey).



69

Scenario B which is closest to maintaining current milk volumes suggests an increase of about 30% in herd sizes and an increase of 1000 litres per cow per annum (almost 20%). With such unrealistic targets, and considering that the Mary Valley currently produces115 megalitres or 27% of the total 420 megalitres produced in South East Queensland, there is little doubt that the supply /demand equation would be severely disrupted by the proposed dam. Department of Communities discussed the aged care study and provided the somewhat surprising statistic that the percentage of the population in the Mary Valley that is over 65 years of age is 10.6% against a State average of 12.2% and a National average of 13.2%. Cr Watt gave an in depth report on MV Inc and MV Bear which received commendation from the chairman. In closing, we took the opportunity to seek the assistance of the Task Force in assisting to negotiate with DNRW over the vegetation issue which is threatening the proposed Retirement Village on Old Maryborough Road. This received a very sympathetic hearing and we will have further discussions as soon as possible.”

G29/12/08 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr J. Watt That the Report be received.

Carried Gympie & District Historical Society Lease

Cr Petersen initially requested a written report from the Council representatives who met with the Gympie & District Historical Society. Cr Petersen explained that the information given to the Gympie Times was inaccurate and requested to know who Council’s representatives were and what they had said. Cr Petersen further explained that he had nothing against the Society having a lease but just wanted the information to be correct. In response Cr Tony Perrett presented a verbal report outlining the proceedings of the meeting: Cr Perrett said that the meeting held on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 and attended by Cr Tony Perrett and Mr John Nancarrow representing Council, Mrs Debbie Cross from Department of Natural Resources and four representatives of the Gympie & Historical Society – Mr Ralph Richardson, Mr Wayne Sachs, Mr Paul Elborn and Mr Ron Owen. Cr Perrett advised the meeting of Council’s desire to resolve the outstanding issues in relation to lease arrangements by early next year.



70

Cr Perrett re-iterated that at no time during the meeting did he or Gympie Regional Council suggest that the previous lease was valid as reported in the Gympie Times. Cr Perrett commented that he considered the meeting had been successful with considerable progress being made toward a resolution by the deadline and that he was satisfied with the discussions held.

Historic Events & Famous Persons Program

G30/12/08 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker That Gympie Regional Council apply for the Commemoration of Historic Events & Famous Persons Program to commemorate Andrew Fisher, Former Prime Minister, Federal Member for Wide Bay.

Carried Cr I.T. Petersen left the meeting at 10.31am and returned to the meeting at 10.33am.

Speed Limit on the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Bells Bridge

G31/12/08 Moved: Cr G.L. Engeman Seconded: Cr J. Watt That Gympie Regional Council express its disappointment that the decision to lower the speed limit on the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Bells Bridge to 90 kph was not discussed with this Council or the Traffic Advisory Committee before being implemented and further that this speed limit revert to 100 kph pending a thorough safety audit of this area. Further that given the above circumstances it is clearly evident that the Federal Government must bring forward the Cooroy to Curra Bypass.

Carried Cr R.A. Gâté left the meeting at 10.40am and returned at 10.42am.

Best Wishes for Christmas and the New Year Cr Tony Perrett took this opportunity to wish the Councillors, Staff and the Residents of the Region a Merry Christmas and a safe and prosperous New Year.



71

Director of Engineering service Mr Bob Fredman left the meeting at 10.43am.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 10.43am.

Confirmed this FOURTEENTH day of JANUARY 2009

________________________________ CHAIRMAN Cr A.J. Perrett

Documents

2008-12-10 General Meeting Minutes - Gympie Council€¦ · General Meeting 10 December 2008 Gympie Regional Council 6 Hazards – 1. The dirt road section of Fisher Road (the Road)