2013-04-17 Ordinary Meeting Minutes - Gympie Council · 2013-05-22 · Ordinary Meeting 17 April 2013 Gympie Regional Council 6 . SECTION 5: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT . 5/1 Development

MINUTES

of the

ORDINARY MEETING

CHAIRMAN: Cr R Dyne (Mayor)

Held in the Boardroom Town Hall

2 Caledonian Hill Gympie Qld 4570

On Wednesday 17 April 2013 At 9.00 am

Ordinary Meeting 17 April 2013

Gympie Regional Council

2

Gympie Regional Council ORDINARY

Mayor RJ Dyne (Chairman), Crs AJ Perrett, MW Curran, RA Gâté, LJ Friske, IT Petersen, MA McDonald, WW Sachs and JA Walker

CONTENTS:

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

SECTION 2: APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE............................................................................ 4

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

SECTION 4: PETITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 5 4/1 CONDITION OF HAY ROAD, KINEN LANE AND OLD COACH LANE, CANINA ................................... 5

SECTION 5: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 6 5/1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (FOUR (4) TOWNHOUSES) AT 10 MITCHELL STREET, TIN CAN BAY FOR CRAMPTON DEVELOPMENT TRUST 6 5/2 REPRESENTATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – ACCOMMODATION PREMISES (MOTEL AND ONE (1) MANAGER’S DWELLING) AND COMMERCIAL PREMISES (OFFICES) AT CHANNON STREET, GYMPIE FOR ALEX ENBORISOFF ARCHITECTS ..... 22 5/3 APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION OF TRADING HOURS FOR A LICENSED PREMISES – WIDGEE DISTRICT HALL AND RECREATION ASSOCIATION INC CLUBHOUSE, 22 UPPER WIDGEE ROAD, WIDGEE ............................................................................................................................... 67 5/4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT OVER LOT 5 MPH24229 – 118 OLD MARYBOROUGH ROAD, GYMPIE FOR JOHN LAVELLE .............................................................................................................................. 71 5/5 2012-1180 – REPRESENTATIONS FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE ONE (1) ADDITIONAL LOT OVER LOT 3 MPH31384 – 36 GOLDHILL ROAD, CEDAR POCKET ............. 82 5/6 REQUEST TO WAIVE FEE FOR RESEALING A SURVEY PLAN FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT – BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT OVER LOTS 3, 4 & 8 RP87979 AT KANDANGA-AMAMOOR ROAD, AMAMOOR............................................................................................................................ 88

SECTION 6: SOCIAL WELLBEING................................................................................................... 92 6/1 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES........................................................................... 92

SECTION 7: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 96

SECTION 8: GOVERNANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 97 8/1 GYMPIE REGIONAL COUNCIL’S COMMON SEAL ...................................................................... 97 8/2 DELEGATIONS REGISTER UPDATE ....................................................................................... 100 8/3 REQUEST FOR TENDER 2012/13 T-132 – REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 104 8/4 GYMPIE COOLOOLA TOURISM ............................................................................................. 106

SECTION 9: INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................................................................... 109 9/1 2012/13 - T011 - AMAMOOR CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ................................................ 109 9/2 PROPOSED B-DOUBLE ROUTE – CORELLA ROAD, GYMPIE ................................................... 111

SECTION 10: MAJOR PROJECTS & BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ................................................... 113



3

SECTION 11: WASTE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................ 113

SECTION 12: TOURISM & MARY VALLEY ................................................................................. 113

SECTION 13: GENERAL BUSINESS ........................................................................................... 114 TIN CAN BAY COAST GUARD ............................................................................................................ 114 HER EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR MS PENELOPE WENSLEY AC ...................................................... 114

SECTION 14: IN COMMITTEE ...................................................................................................... 116 14/1 APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE .................... 116

SECTION 15: ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................... 117



4

The meeting commenced at 9:00 am.

PRESENT: Mayor Cr R.J. Dyne (Chairman), Cr A.J. Perrett, Cr M.W. Curran, Cr I.T. Petersen, Cr L.J. Friske, Cr R.A. Gâté, Cr M.A. McDonald, Cr W.W. Sachs and Cr J.A. Walker.

Also in attendance were Chief Executive Officer (Mr B.J. Smith),

Deputy CEO/Director Corporate Governance (Mr C. Manson), Director Planning & Development (Mr M. Hartley), Director Corporate & Community Services (Mr C. Young), Director Infrastructure Services (Mr D. Scordalides), Manager Information Systems & Change Management (Mr B. Hayes), Manager Development & Compliance (Mrs T. Stenholm), Coordinator Procurement & Stores (Mr P. Parkman) and Minutes Clerk (Miss A. Dunkley).

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY COUNCILLORS

M18/04/13 - Cr W.W. Sachs – Conflict of Interest

SECTION 1: OPEN WITH PRAYER Rev Andrew Cooper from Gympie Anglican 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 / LEAVE OF ABSENCE

SECTION 3: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS

ORDINARY MEETING M01/04/13 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr W.W. Sachs

That the Minutes of the Gympie Regional Council Ordinary Meeting held on 27 March 2013 be taken as read and confirmed.

Carried



5

SECTION 4: PETITIONS 4/1 Condition of Hay Road, Kinen Lane and Old Coach Lane, Canina

PORTFOLIO: Infrastructure DIRECTORATE: Engineering Services

DOC ID: 1631519

1. REPORT A petition was received regarding the condition of Hay Road, Kinen Lane and Old Coach Lane form 22 users of the road, as follows: ‘We are writing this petition on behalf of the residents of Hay Road, Kinen Lane and Old Coach Lane Canina. We would like to get these roads upgraded. Hay Road is a school bus route. The creek crossing at the beginning of the dirt road in Hay Road is in need of urgent work. The creek crossing is damaged every time it rains and more in floods. The road base is completely washed away in many parts, making it slippery and dangerous. The cross roads is especially dangerous where these roads meet at the top of a hill. We look forward to a speedy response to this petition.’

M02/04/13 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr M.A. McDonald

That the petition be received and referred to Infrastructure Services for consideration.

Carried



6

SECTION 5: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 5/1 Development Application for Material Change of Use – Multi-

Residential (Four (4) Townhouses) at 10 Mitchell Street, Tin Can Bay for Crampton Development Trust PORTFOLIO: Planning and Development

DIRECTORATE: Planning and Development

AUTHOR: Manager Development and Compliance –

T.M. Stenholm DOC ID: 2012-1104

LINK TO CORPORATE / OPERATIONAL PLAN:

Operational Plan – Program 2 – Economic Development, 2.3.2 Development Assessment and Applications

1.0 BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Nil.

2.0 REPORT FILE NO: 2012-1104 APPLICANT: Crampton Development Trust RPD: Lot 7 RP840809 SITE ADDRESS: 10 Mitchell St, Tin Can Bay CURRENT USE OF LAND: Vacant PROPOSAL: Multi-residential (Four (4)

Townhouses) EXISTING ZONE: Housing APPLICATION ADVERTISED: N/A SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED: Nil



7



8

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 The Proposal This application seeks approval for four (4) x four (4) bedroom, two (2)

storey attached townhouses. The building incorporates the following design elements:

• external wall surfaces comprising rendered and painted blockwork;

• colorbond roofing and apron flashing; • slatted external aluminium framed screens; and • painted weatherboard feature areas along front façade and

ends.

The following building setbacks are achieved: South-eastern boundary – 3.6 metres South-western boundary – 9.8 metres North-western side boundary - 2 metres North-eastern side boundary - 2.045 metres. Each unit includes a double garage, private plunge pool and ensuite to the main bedroom. Two (2) uncovered visitor spaces are included on the proposal plans.



9



10



11

2.1.2 Site Description

The site is 1 333m2 in area and is hatchet shaped, with a 36 metre long and 6 metre wide access handle. It is currently vacant. The property has a north-westerly aspect and abuts unallocated state land.

2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses are predominantly residential in nature, but

also include open space and a motel across the road. Four (4) units exist on the allotment immediately adjoining the

development site to the south east. A motel also exists in Mitchell Street, opposite the development site. Unallocated State Land adjoins the site to the north.



12

2.1.4 Site History Material change of use approval for five (5) units over this site was

approved by Council in 2003, under the 1997 Cooloola Planning Scheme.

The approval was amended in November 2005 to four (4) units.

A development application was subsequently lodged in May 2006 for operational work, building work and plumbing and drainage work but awaits further information from the applicant before it can be finalised. The material change of use approval received two (2) x two (2) year extensions of the currency period but lapsed in October 2011.

2.2.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2.2.1 Intent of the Zone The site is currently zoned Housing (Cooloola Coast Planning Area) in the 2005 Cooloola Planning Scheme, which is intended to accommodate: - detached housing on large lots in a range of housing forms,

suitable for the varying and special need of residents and with a high level of amenity;

- well—designed, attractive medium density housing in locations accessible to services in accordance with preferred use areas; and

- appropriate home businesses, located and managed to protect the amenity of residential areas.

The site is not included in the ‘Mixed Housing Preferred Use Area’, so has not been foreshadowed by Council as being suitable for unit development.

2.2.2 Compliance with the Planning Scheme (a) Scheme Definition

The development is defined as ‘Multi-residential’, which means: ‘the residential use of premises other than use for a dwelling house, home business or accommodation premises. The term includes: (a) row houses, terrace houses, town houses, apartment buildings

and the like; (b) dual occupancy of one lot including a second dwelling for a

relative or carer of permanent residents of the other dwelling on the same lot;



13

(c) aged care facilities, retirement villages and residential community titles schemes;

(d) relocatable home parks.’

(b) Development Provisions The applicable codes to the development are as follows: Cooloola Coast Planning Area Code The proposed multi-residential development is an ‘Inconsistent Use’ within the Housing Zone, so should only be supported where overriding grounds can be provided to support the development in conflict with the Scheme: In this regard, the applicant submits the following, including assessment of the proposal against the Overall Outcomes of the Cooloola Coast Planning Area Code: (i) the development was previously approved over the site; (ii) there are other existing unit developments in the vicinity of the

site, including 6-8 Mitchell Street adjoining; (iii) the site is suitable for units due to it adjoining a park and having

limited neighbours; (iv) the units propose an attractive design with outdoor terraces and

pools; (v) no impact on environmental values is posed by the development; (vi) the proposal complies with maximum height requirements and

are consistent with the scale of the adjoining units; (vii) the units are consistent with the character of the area which

contains a number of unit developments; (viii) the use of the site for unit development is an effective use of

existing resources because the site is connected to sewer and water;

(ix) the site is located approximately 2.5 kilometres from the Snapper Creek area which is an easy flat walk from the sites;

(x) the units will not be visible from the street and will not impact on the character of the streetscape;

(xi) the site is of a regular shape and level; (xii) the development represents appropriate infill. The adjoining unit development was constructed prior to 2000 and under a previous planning scheme. The motel was established in the early 1990s. Their existence are not considered sufficient justification to warrant further unit developments in the area, contrary to Council’s current planning intentions and considering single detached dwellings still predominate in the area.



14

Additionally, being able to demonstrate no obvious conflict with the Overall Outcomes of the Cooloola Code Planning Area Code is not considered on its own to be sufficient justification, particularly in the absence of overriding grounds to support the proposal. Despite adjoining unallocated state land the site shares a common boundary with five (5) other properties so is not considered to have ‘limited neighbours’. Other grounds submitted are not considered unique to this site. Overall, overriding grounds to support the development are not considered to have been demonstrated. Multi-Residential Code The proposal complies with maximum plot ratio and site coverage requirements of the Code. Dwelling intensity of not greater than one dwelling for every 250m2 of site area is also met. Other requirements including, refuse storage, open space and building articulation are considered satisfied, although the location of communal open space adjacent to visitor car parking and the internal driveway would seem to make it somewhat impractical for its intended purpose. Infrastructure Works Code No conflicts are proposed with the Code. The site is adequately serviced and can manage stormwater run-off, subject to connecting into Council’s stormwater system on the adjoining USL. Landscaping Code The Code requires a minimum two (2) metre wide, averaging three (3) metres, landscaped strip along boundaries and based on the size of the block at least four (4) advanced feature trees. The area available for landscaping along adjoining residential boundaries is insufficient to accommodate this requirement. Nor does there appear room to provide the advanced feature trees. Landscaping for the development hasn’t been addressed in the application. Vehicle Parking and Access Code The Code requires a minimum of one (1) space per unit and 0.5 space per unit additional.



15

The proposal includes a double garage per unit and two (2) uncovered visitor spaces which complies with the Code. Acid Sulfate Soils Code The Code aims to avoid works that cause disturbance and exposure to air of acid sulfate soils or appropriate treatment and management of such soils to ensure no adverse effects to the natural or built environment by the release of acid and associated metal contaminants. As such, a management plan should be submitted for consideration prior to the commencement of any site works.

2.2.3 Local and/or State Planning Polices There are no State Planning Policies not adequately reflected in the

planning scheme that are applicable to the development. Local Planning Policies in relation to water supply and sewerage

headworks and urban road contributions apply to any approval of the development.

2.2.4 Draft Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme

The site is included in the Residential Living and Limited Development (Constrained Land) zones of the Draft Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme.



16

Unit development within these zones will be impact assessable and is not foreshadowed for the Residential Living zone. Additionally, the proposal exceeds the bedroom density proposed by the draft scheme for unit developments within the Residential Choice zone, being one (1) per 100m2 of site area. The Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone requires residential buildings within this zone to be resilient to flood events (through design and built form), sited to respond to flooding potential and maintain personal safety at all times. The development as proposed does not adequately demonstrate compliance with these future provisions.

2.3 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 2.3.1 Appropriateness of the Proposal The site is surrounded by allotments that are of a size suitable for accommodating a duplex at best. The adjoining unit development fronting Mitchell Street, which was constructed prior to 2000, is not considered sufficient justification to support additional units in the area contrary to Council’s planning intentions. The site is not considered to present any unique characteristics or location qualities that warrant its development for units.



17

Excluding the area dedicated to the access handle, the site has an area of just over 1 100m2. Even considering the increased residential density intentions of the draft planning scheme, being minimum lot sizes of 500m2 and minimum lot size of 750m2 for duplex development, the site would not be capable of accommodating three (3) dwelling units. 2.3.2 Impact on Amenity The development is adjoined by three (3) detached dwellings, one (1) of which is adjoined by the proposed driveway. Some adverse impacts on these properties could be anticipated by the increased density proposed. The proposal plans do indicate, however, no eastern facing windows on the upper level and only one small window from a dining area facing west. The site is partially fenced, but this should be extended to include the full boundary of the site, including the access handle, should an approval ensue. 2.3.3 Flooding The minimum floor level required for habitable rooms of multi-residential development in the current planning scheme is 2.5m AHD. The applicant was advised, however, that Council has recently adopted 2.8m AHD as an appropriate storm surge level for this location. The minimum floor level proposed for the lower floor of the units is 2.8m. It is indicated this will be achieved through building works (ie higher foundations). Any filling of the site will be difficult to achieve as an overland flow path for stormwater needs to be maintained through the site accommodating adjoining properties. The floor level of the units may have to be further increased to comply with the requirements of the Queensland Development Code, which requires the floor level to be 250mm-300mm above Council’s adopted Q100 storm surge level. As previously indicated Council’s Draft Planning Scheme includes part of the site in the Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone and the review of the proposal in relation to the proposed provisions for this zone indicate it is unlikely to achieve compliance as currently designed.



18

2.3.5 Environmental Impact No adverse environmental impacts are envisaged, subject to acid

sulphate soils and stormwater being adequately managed.

2.3.6 Utilities and Services

The site is fully serviced with all expected urban infrastructure items. 2.3.7 Stormwater Engineering advice suggests that stormwater will need to be managed

either via an on-site detention system or by obtaining approval from the State to connect into Council infrastructure on the adjoining site.

Any above ground detention system would not be supported from a

planning perspective given it will likely result in a reduction of the communal open space.

3.0 BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

4.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposal is not consistent with Council’s planning scheme and

issuing an approval would grossly conflict with this.

5.0 CONSULTATION

5.1 Internal (a) Engineering Directorate

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

This engineering report is based on the information submitted by Andrew McKellar Design and additional information submitted by Martoo Consulting to develop 4 units at 10 Mitchell Street, Tin Can Bay. ROAD FRONTAGE The proposed development is sited on a “hatchet shaped” lot with the access handle fronting Mitchell Street. Mitchell Street is fully constructed except for concrete footpaths. INTERNAL ACCESS/CAR PARKING As access to the development is via an access handle of some 36 metres, the driveway should be widened at the ingress/egress point to



19

Mitchell Street to allow for two way traffic for this section of the driveway.

Existing Driveway Further investigating at the Operational Works stage will also be required to ensure the manoeuvrability of vehicles from Unit 4 meets the required standards STORMWATER DRAINAGE The development is below street level, therefore, the stormwater runoff from the development will be required to be either contained on-site by way of a detention system with slow release mechanism or the applicant seek permission to pipe across to Council infrastructure on State Land. The stormwater drainage design will also be required to allow for overland flow paths through the development to cater for runoff from adjoining properties. WATER AND SEWERAGE RETICULATION Both services are available with adequate capacity in each to cater for the proposed development. The plunge pool for Unit 1 will be required to be sited to meet the requirements of Council Policy PRWS002 Building Over Sewers. FLOODING The current Cooloola Shire Planning Scheme requires the habitable floor level for developments at Tin Can Bay to be 2.5 metres AHD.



20

This level has been reviewed for the pending Town Planning Scheme, with the 1 in 100 year storm surge level of 2.8 metres AHD for Tin Can Bay being adopted by Council.

2.8m AHD Storm Surge Level A majority of the lot excluding the hatchet handle is below this level however, the plans submitted with the application indicate the development has been designed with habitable floors to this requirement. Further adjustment to floor level may be required to meet building regulations. OTHER SERVICES

Power and communication services are available to the site.

5.2 External CONCURRENCE AGENCIES

Nil.

6.0 CONCLUSION Application is made for four (4) townhouses on a housing zoned site at Tin Can Bay.

The development was subject to previous Council approval in 2003,

however this approval lapsed in October 2011. The site is not included in the preferred unit area under the current

planning scheme and is not foreshadowed for units in Council’s draft planning scheme. Additionally the density proposed exceeds that envisaged by the draft planning scheme.



21

Grounds submitted by the applicant to support the proposal include the site adjoins existing units and the proposal does not compromise any of the Overall Outcomes of the Cooloola Coast Planning Area Code. The grounds submitted are not considered sufficient to warrant approval of the development in conflict with the scheme.

The development also proposes inadequate landscaping and there is

insufficient room available to condition compliance with Council’s landscaping provisions.

The floor level of the units will need to be raised 250-300mm to comply

with current building requirements, however part of the site is subject to a Q100 storm surge and the assessment of the proposal against Council’s draft provisions in this regard indicate it is unlikely to comply. This is considered to pose an unacceptable flood risk to the applicant and Council.

For the reasons outlined the application is recommended for refusal.

7.0 ATTACHMENTS: Nil.

M03/04/13 Moved: Cr M.W. Curran Seconded: Cr I.T. Petersen That Council, as Assessment Manager, REFUSE development

application for Material Change of Use –Multi-residential (Four(4) Townhouses) on Lot 7 RP840809 located at 10 Mitchell Street, Tin Can Bay based on the following grounds:

(i) the development is in conflict with the planning scheme and

overriding grounds have not been provided to warrant approval;

(ii) the development conflicts with Council’s future planning

intentions for the area; (iii) the development does not comply with Council’s

Landscaping Code; and (iv) the development does not comply with Council’s future

provisions in relation to flood hazard and poses an unacceptable flood risk.

Carried



22

5/2 Representations for Development Application for Material Change of

Use – Accommodation Premises (Motel and One (1) Manager’s Dwelling) and Commercial Premises (Offices) at Channon Street, Gympie for Alex Enborisoff Architects PORTFOLIO: Planning and Development


AUTHOR: Planning Officer – S. Court DOC ID: 2012-1086



1.0 BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Preliminary approval for Material Change of Use – Accommodation

Premises (Motel and One (1) Manager’s Dwelling) and Commercial Premises (Offices) was approved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 6 March 2013.

The applicant suspended their appeal period on 25 March 2013 and submitted representations on 25 March 2013. Previous report to Council is reproduced below.

2.0 REPORT

FILE NO: 2012-1086 APPLICANT: Alex Enborisoff Architects RPD: Lot 21 G14726 SITE ADDRESS: Channon Street, Gympie CURRENT USE OF LAND: Church, Office and Hall

PROPOSAL: Accommodation Premises (Motel and One (1) Manager Dwelling) and Commercial Premises (Office)

EXISTING ZONE: Community



23

2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 The Proposal

This application seeks Council’s approval for a material change of use for an accommodation premises (motel and one (1) Manager dwelling) and commercial premises (offices) over one (1) Community zoned title on Channon Street, Gympie.

The development proposes the construction of a motel development containing 38 rooms, one (1) Manager dwelling and associated facilities



24

(restaurant) in addition to an office proposed to be located within the existing Wesley hall (on the corner of Reef Street and Channon Street). The maximum building height, above finished ground level, of the motel building is to range from 6.5 metres to 13 metres. Operating hours for the motel reception are proposed to be from 7.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Sunday. The proposed offices are to operate between 8.00am to 5.30pm five (5) days week. The applicant has advised that the motel restaurant is available for motel occupants only and not intended for public use. It has indicated that the restaurant will initially likely operate during the breakfast period only (6.30am to 8.30am Monday to Friday and 7.00am to 9.00am on weekends). The motel is setback 4.5 metres on Barter Street and 13.5 metres on Channon Street. The timber hall will be relocated and be 8.65 metres from Channon Street. The proposed “Gympie Motel” (as demonstrated in the below proposal plans) is a contemporary design and is to be three (3) storeys high. It has a prominent corner feature with a rendered finish. The mass of the building is proposed to sit lower than the gable of the church. The building steps down in height and mass to two (2) storeys at the elevation towards the church.



25



26



27



28



29



30



31



32


The site is generally sparse of vegetation except for a number of trees and shrubs along the Channon Street frontage. In the section adjacent to the



33

Wesley Hall, one (1) mature tree is proposed to be retained for heritage purposes. The development site is relatively flat with an approximate 2% fall to the front of the boundary. The site is irregular in shape with three (3) road frontages (Barter Street, Channon Street and Reef Street). The site is 5 059m2 and is approximately 782 metres from the major centre of Gympie and 122 metres from the Bruce Highway. Existing improvements to the site include the Uniting Care Community building (which is proposed to be demolished), a church (to be retained), a church hall (to be relocated on the site) and the Wesley Hall. The site boundary for part of Barter Street and all of Channon Street and Reef Street is finished with a squared uncoursed rubble retaining wall. A concrete stair landing is cut into the wall to provide access to the church.

2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses

The land uses which surround the site include predominately residential and commercial development. The site is adjacent to the Freemasons Hotel (north-east) and the Gympie Nursing Home (south-west). There are a number of commercial uses including Kingston House (restaurant), PRD Nationwide (real estate), Gympie Video – T.V. Hire and professional services (such as accountants) opposite the subject site and a number of dwellings to the north of the site. The proposed development site is approximately 73 metres from Mary Street and the Central Business District and 79 metres from the Highway Services Precinct.

2.1.4 Site History

There are no previous approvals over the site; however the allotment has a significant historical background.

The Surface Hill Uniting Church, constructed in 1890, is the third church

building to be built on the prominent site on Channon Street at the crest of Surface Hill in Gympie.

A new, two storey hall was erected at the eastern end of the site in 1962. The timber parsonage was demolished in 1975 and replaced with a low-set brick building. Restoration work was undertaken on the church from 1977-84 and included work on the stained glass windows, organ and exterior render and ramps were added to the church and hall. A dwelling which was mainly used as a Doctors residence was also approved and constructed on the site in 1974.



34

2.2.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2.2.1 Intent of the Zone The development site is zoned Community where it is intended that: “(i) a broad range of community uses that provide essential services to

maintain the wellbeing of the community including formal and informal, passive and active recreation, cultural and religious activities, communication, transport, education and emergency services are centred in Gympie and scattered through rural settings; and

(ii) environmental protection areas and sustainable forestry uses predominate within the rural landscape;”

The proposal does not directly satisfy this intent as the proposed uses are commercial uses. However, due to the site’s proximity to the Central Business District and the Bruce Highway, the development is considered appropriate for the area. Additionally, the site is proposed to be zoned ‘District Centre’ in the draft planning scheme (to be discussed later in the report).

2.2.2 Compliance with the Planning Scheme (a) Scheme Definition

Accommodation Premises is defined as: “the residential use of premises in units of accommodation. The term includes aged care facility, backpackers’ hostel, boarding house, caravan park, farmstay cabins, guest house, motel and nursing home.



35

The term does not include dwelling house, home business or multi-residential.” Commercial Premises is defined as: “means the use of premises, not elsewhere defined, for: (a) administration, clerical or technical activities, or for conducting a

business or a professional practice; or (b) medical, health, personal or related services of a commercial nature,

excluding the provision of overnight accommodation; or (c) the administrative functions of a public sector entity; or (d) other activities, not being an industrial activity, conducted for

commercial gain.”

(b) Development Provisions Under the Cooloola Shire Council 2005 Planning Scheme, a material change of use for Accommodation Premises (motel) and Commercial Premises (Office) in the Community Zone are ‘Code Assessable’ development against the codes outlined below: Gympie Planning Area Code The proposed development is consistent with some of the overall outcomes sought for the Gympie Planning Area with the exception of those relating to effects of use and provision and effects of works. Specific Outcome 3 and 4 of the Gympie Planning Area Code requires that noise sensitive developments including accommodation premises are located and designed to provide an appropriate acoustic environment for its users. A noise assessment compiled by a suitably qualified professional to assess all potential noise sources from the development including impacts on all residential properties and any suggested attenuation measures was requested from the applicant. An acoustic report was compiled by acoustic works dated 10 December 2012 and considered the following: - Bruce Highway for road traffic noise; - Onsite activities to sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the site; and - Offsite activity noise associated with nearby commercial/retail

buildings.

Recommendations for attenuation measures as suggested in section 9 of the report include: - A 2.4m high acoustic fence above the finished driveway level is to be

constructed along the northern boundary of the subject site. The fence shall be constructed using lapped timber (minimum 40% overlap), masonary, fibre cement sheet, Hebel, Perspex, plywood or other material with a minimum surface density of 10kg/m2. The fence should be free of gaps and holes;



36

- All building treatments for residential units shall be determined at the Building Approval stage in accordance with the assessment requirements of the Queensland Building Code Part 4.4;

- The minimum glazing treatments are required to comply with the following: o The minimum glass thickness specified shall not be reduced

regardless of the Rw performance of the glazing system; o If compliance cannot be achieved with the minimum Rw ratings,

the glass thickness shall be increased until compliance is achieved;

o Glazing specified with acoustic seals requires a Q-Ion seal or an equivalent product, mohair seals are not acceptable; and

o The glazier shall provide NATA test reports on request to verify compliance with the minimum Rw ratings. Generic reports are not acceptable.

- The minimum wall and roof treatments are to be to a standard QDC construction requirement;

- Any new mechanical plants should be designed in accordance with section 440U of the Environment Protection Act (1994); and

- Waste collection, deliveries and buses are to be restricted to the daytime periods, 7am to 6pm.

It is suggested by acousticworks that implementation of these measures will also provide compliance with conditions imposed by the Department of Transport and Main Roads and QDC assessment criteria. It is recommended that if these attenuation measures are conditioned as part of the approval, the proposal may be able to be sensitive to surrounding land uses and be able to comply with Specific Outcome 3 and 4 of the Gympie Planning Area Code. Specific Outcome 5 requires that uses are located and designed to avoid significant adverse changes to the traffic conditions experienced by occupants of adjoining and surrounding premises. A Transport Impact Assessment was submitted to Council as part of the request for further information process and compiled by GTAconsultants dated 18 December 2012. The impact of the development on and any recommendations regarding upgrading of the intersection at Barter Street/Channon Street was required to be assessed. GTAconsultants concluded that “there is adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development” and therefore, “the Bruce Highway/Channon Street intersection is expected to operate within capacity until 2023”. In addition to these comments provided by the applicants consultant, The Department of Transport and Main Roads have not included any future intersection upgrading as part of the conditions required to be satisfied for the development.



37

Therefore, it is considered that the development complies with Specific Outcome 5 of the Gympie Planning Area Code as the road network can accommodate the proposed development on the site. Specific Outcome 8 requires that: “Buildings and structures: a. are of a scale consistent with existing buildings and other works on

adjoining and surrounding premises; and, b. protect the access of adjoining and surrounding premises to views.” The proposed development is three (3) storeys high and the height ranges from 6.5 metres to 13 metres. The maximum height above natural ground level on the corner of Channon Street and Barter Street is proposed as 13 metres (3 storeys). The proposal exceeds the maximum height (above natural ground level) and storeys prescribed as a probable solution for the Community Zone in Schedule 5 Maximum Height and Number of Storeys of Buildings and Other Structures of 8.5 metres (2 storeys). It further exceeds the maximum height and storeys prescribed for the nearby Commercial zone of 10.0 metres (2 storeys). The Central Business District zone has a maximum height of 13 metres and three (3) storeys. However, to date there are no three (3) storey buildings and the development is considered somewhat removed from the main street of Gympie as can be seen below:

The applicant has provided the following justification for the height and number of storeys proposed in the development:



38

“The motel proposal consist (sic) of a combination of two and three levels with a height of 6.5m and 8.5m from natural ground level to the uppermost ceiling with architectural projections protruding above this. “The scale and bulk of the motel fits well on the corner and is well below the height of the existing church which is 15m in height. The streetscape clearly shows an appropriate transition of heights with the church maintaining dominance. Refer to elevations and sections.” “The portion closest to the church has been reduced to two levels and 6.5m in height thus providing a transition if height between the church and the three level portion of the Motel. The volume between the two give prominence to the existing heritage church which Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) welcomed at our pre-lodgement meeting. At this meeting DERM had no issues with a three (3) level motel beside a church much higher (15m in height).” “Although the site is zoned community the areas surrounding are commercial (13m (sic) height and 3 levels), Central business (13m + 3 levels). Small area located to the north west zoned community but used for accommodation also refer to zones plan no. 3377DA.07 E.” “Our development has been set back approximately 10m from the site to the south west (Barter St) property and only a combination of 2 & 3 levels have been provided to accentuate the transition of height from one to the other. Also refer to our sections and elevations.”

“The relatively new development at 30 Barter Street to the south west has been built as a 3 level structure.” “With respect to the existing timber church hall (MPR) 2 levels relocated in its new position, the height established at 10.7m provides a logical and aesthetic transition of roof lines between the 15m high church and the 9m high existing brick hall (converted to offices).” The applicant refers to the development being well below the height of the existing church (15 metres). It is considered, however that the height of the existing church, notably the tallest building in the area and an historic building, should not be used to determine the maximum height for all buildings within its proximity. It is intended to be a dominant building which is considerably higher than those in the vicinity. Further, the applicant has incorrectly referenced the maximum height for the Commercial zone as 13 metres. As discussed previously the maximum height for this zone is 10 metres (2 storeys). The applicant has referenced the “relatively new development at 30 Barter Street to the south west” as being built as a 3 level structure. This building (Gympie Nursing Home) is two (2) storeys and has an underground car parking area which is less than one (1) metre above natural ground level. Therefore, it is not considered to be an additional storey. The building also in



39

no way presents as a three (3) storey building and is not considered imposing in the overall streetscape. The maximum number of storeys reflected in the surrounding buildings is two (2) storeys e.g. Freemasons Hotel and Gympie Nursing Centre. The majority of the other surrounding buildings are low set and one (1) storey including dwellings and commercial premises such as Kingston House. Therefore, it is considered that this development is not consistent with the scale of the surrounding uses as required by Specific Outcome 8. Overall outcome (j) of the Gympie Planning Area Code requires that: “uses and works are located, designed and managed to be compatible with other uses and works, maintain the safety of people and works, and avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment including water pollution from erosion, chemical contamination, gross pollutants and urban stormwater runoff”. For reasons previously outlined, it is considered that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal is compatible with the existing uses and buildings in the vicinity. In the Draft Planning Scheme the lot is zoned “District Centre” and the maximum storeys proposed remain as two (2). The performance outcomes discussed in the District Centre Zone Code require that the development “integrates with and reflects the character and built form of the adjoining area”. It is considered that this development does not achieve this outcome as three (3) storeys would dominate the landscape, not compliment the existing streetscape. The scale of the development is not consistent with existing buildings and other works on adjoining and surrounding premises. Therefore, should the application be approved it is recommended that the applicant amend the proposal plans to be more consistent with the surrounding area. Removal of the prominent architectural feature at the corner of Barter Street and Channon Street may assist the applicant in achieving this goal as well as reducing the height to two (2) storeys and ten (10) metres. Specific Outcome 9 requires that: “Buildings and structures are appropriately sited with respect to boundary setbacks to protect the privacy and access to natural light and breeze of adjoining and surrounding premises.” The road frontage setback of 4.5 metres on Barter Street does not comply with Schedule 3 Minimum Boundary Setbacks for Residential Buildings and Structures. Comments sought from the applicant through a request for additional information include:



40

“Setbacks to motel (sic) from Channon Street boundary is 6m except for an architectural projection approximately 2m triangular at the corner of the site. It is important for the integrity of the corner design to provide a focal part for the corner of Barter and Channon Streets. The set back to Barter Street boundary is generally 6m to main (sic) structure of the building with portions of balconies protruding from zero to 1.5m into the 6m space by designing the balconies on such an angle, the western sun is controlled at the same time thus produces no adverse impact such as overlooking, overshadowing does not diminish access to natural breezes improve views visual and acoustic privacy.

As the development is on a corner and Barter Street is a secondary street Council has relaxed setbacks to secondary streets. We request Councils relaxation in this matter. Also please refer to drawing no. 3377DA16 to 19 E.” The proposed development along the corner of Barter Street and Channon Street overlooks the entrance to the Gympie Nursing Centre and a number of commercial premises. It is considering that as the entrance of the Gympie Nursing Centre and the surrounding commercial uses will not be directly affected by residential privacy concerns, non-compliance of the road setback with Schedule 3 Minimum Boundary Setbacks for Residential Buildings and Structures from 6 metres to 4.5 metres in this instance is supported. Additionally, the architectural projection allows for points of interest through varying wall planes. Specific Outcome 12 requires that: “Buildings, structures and other works are compatible with surrounding amenity and integrate with the built or natural environment within which they are located.” It is considered that although the proposed use is considered appropriate for the area, there are a number of concerns relating to the scale of the development compared to the existing surrounding buildings. As discussed previously, the height is not consistent with the adjoining land uses. The bulk and scale of the surrounding developments being low set and one (1) storey is not considered to be complemented by the proposal. Therefore, the building and the main architectural feature is not considered to be compatible with the surrounding amenity. As such, it is recommended that the applicant amend the proposal plans to be more sympathetic with the surrounding area. All other outcomes can be managed through appropriate conditions. Accommodation Premises Code



41

The proposed development is consistent with the overall outcomes for the Accommodation Premises Code with the exception of the outcomes regarding size and scale, and communal space. Specific Outcome 1 requires that: “Buildings, structures and other works are of a scale consistent with existing buildings, structures and other works on adjoining and surrounding premises.” As discussed above in the Gympie Planning Area Code, the building and architectural features of the proposed motel are not considered to be of a scale consistent with existing buildings, structures and other works on adjoining and surrounding premises. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant amend the proposal plans to be more sympathetic with the area. Specific Outcome 10 of the Accommodation Premises Code requires that ‘Communal open space is provided in sufficient area and with suitable dimensions to suit the needs of the occupants and users of the premises.’ Probable Solution 10 recommends a minimum of 20% of the site area, exclusive of landscaped setback areas, is provided for communal open space with a minimum dimension of 4 metres. Additionally outdoor sitting areas are to be a minimum of 10 metres from the boundary and windows, doors and balconies are to be located so as to not to face windows’ balconies or the private open space of adjoining residential premises that are less than 12 metres away. The proposed motel occupies approximately 50% of the site area (2 529m2). Therefore, a minimum of 505m2 is required for communal open space exclusive of landscaped setback areas. The communal open space nominated on the proposal plan (drawing 3377 DA 10 E and 3377 DA 11 E) has a site area of approximately 60m2. Therefore, the proposal does not comply with the probable solution for Specific Outcome 10 of the Accommodation Premises Code. The remainder of the site is being utilised by the existing uses and therefore this area could not be proposed for communal open space. Communal open space is considered an essential element of a motel catering for short-term stays of travellers. The site is zoned community with community uses on it. However, the proposal does not encourage the space to be used for this purpose as it is dominated by the motel and office. Additionally, the occupants of the motel would appreciate open space during their stay as most of them would be from out of the region and may have travelled far to arrive at the venue. Therefore, they would need communal open space to relax at the end of a long drive or before moving on. Families with children enjoy large communal areas to run around it and unwind from a long day.



42

Therefore, the proposal does not comply with Specific Outcome 10 of the Accommodation Premises Code and when considered in conjunction with the unacceptable height and bulk of the building indicates an overdevelopment of the site. All other outcomes could be managed through appropriate conditions. Erosion & Sediment Control Code Appropriate conditions can be included to address the code should the application be approved. Infrastructure Works Code The site is connected to reticulated water and sewerage and has access to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure. Vehicle Parking & Access Code Specific Outcome 1 of the Vehicle Parking and Access Code requires that “Adequate parking is provided to meet the needs of occupants, employees, visitors and other users.” Probable Solution 1(a) requires that ‘vehicle parking spaces are provided on-site in accordance with Schedule 10 Minimum Vehicle Parking Requirements’. A motel requires 1.5 spaces per unit of accommodation and one (1) bus parking space per 20 units of accommodation. An office requires 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of GFA. The development proposes 39 units of accommodation (including 38 motel rooms and one (1) Manager dwelling). The proposed GFA of the offices is 490.29m2. This equates to 75 car parking spaces and 2 bus parking spaces. The development is proposed to provide 66 car parking spaces plus 2 bus parking spaces in total. The applicant has nominated 24 of the car parking spaces to be in the vicinity of and for the office, church and hall. A total of 39 spaces have been allocated for and in the vicinity of the motel.

The applicant has provided the following comments from the GTAconsultants Transport Impact Assessment report discussed previously to justify the car parking shortfall: “Based on the analysis and discussions presented within the report, the following conclusions were made: - The proposed development generates a statutory parking requirement

of 104 car parking spaces and 2 bus spaces; - However, based on GTA’s empirical assessment and consideration of

temporal demands, the proposed supply of 66 car parking spaces and



43

2 bus parking spaces is considered appropriate to cater for the peak parking demand likely to be generated within the site;”

The empirical assessment conducted by GTAconsultants of car parking rates for motel and office uses were sourced from the ‘Guide to Traffic Engineering Developments’ prepared by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) New South Wales (NSW): “Recommended rates for car parking supply provided within the Guide are based on surveys and research which has been undertaken by the RTA. Recommended parking rates represent empirical evidence of observed peak parking accumulation for a range of sites in NSW.” The Guide proposes 2.5 spaces/100m2 of GFA for offices. The draft Gympie Regional Council planning scheme is expected to nominate for short-term accommodation (motel): - one (1) space per unit of accommodation (38); and - one (1) visitor space per 5 units of accommodation (7); and - one (1) space for the manager’s residence and office (1); and - one (1) bus parking space per 20 units of accommodation (2).

A total of 46 car parking spaces would be required under the new planning scheme for the motel. Therefore, it is considered that 46 car parking spaces are acceptable for the motel and 17 spaces are acceptable for the office, church and hall. Therefore, a total of 63 car parking spaces would be required for the proposed uses only. The applicant has provided 66 in total.

The location and distribution of the car parking spaces in relation to the uses they serve is however questionable. Some of the car parking spaces allocated for the motel are not close to the proposed building. Therefore, it is considered that the car parking spaces have not been designed to serve the needs of their occupants who will have luggage to transfer into their rooms from their vehicles. All other outcomes of the Vehicle Parking and Access Code can be managed through appropriate conditions.

Heritage and Character Code The overall outcomes sought for the Heritage and Character Code include: “(a) the retention and conservation of places of heritage and character

significance; and (b) the enhancement of areas of heritage and character significance.”

The existing Uniting Care Community building is the only building proposed to be demolished as it does not have heritage or character significance. All other existing infrastructure is to remain on the site with the church hall to be relocated in between the church and Wesley Hall.

Specific Outcome 3 of the Heritage and Character Code requires that the “townscape and streetscape significance of identified areas is retained and enhanced.”



44

The applicant was requested to demonstrate how the development complied with this outcome, specifically probable solution 3 (b) of the Code. In response, the applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Report by J M Pearce Architects Pty Ltd. The statement of impact provided in summary of the proposal considerations included: “The proposed removal of non-significant buildings from the grounds will not have a negative impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place. The proposed construction of the Gympie Motel is on balance sympathetic, located with a buffer to the significant Church and will not have a negative impact on cultural heritage significance of the place.” The design proposal demonstrates accentuating features including verandahs, balconies, awnings and differing wall plane setbacks that show where floor levels change as required in Probable Solution 3 (b) (iv).

Probable Solution 3 (b) (v) requests that the development reflects the scale of buildings found in the street block. The Heritage Impact Report has provided the following comment in relation to this solution: “The proposal does reflect the larger massing of the adjacent and opposite developments. The scale of the church and hall buildings is also larger and commercially scaled. There is little or no fine grained housing patterns in the vicinity … The design of the Motel has considered the significant views, provided a buffer area and has an articulated vertical proportioning that is sympathetic to the Church design.” As discussed previously in the report the scale of the buildings found in the surrounding area are significantly smaller in height and scale.

Additionally, in relation to the proposed development, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) provided the following advice in a letter dated 11 July 2012: “- The presentation of the 1890 church along Channon Street is

important and must be maintained. - The 1890 church is a landmark and must remain as the dominant

element in the landscape.”

The church spire needs to remain the dominant feature in the streetscape. The scale and height of the proposed motel removes this significant element. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal does not comply with this specific outcome as it does not retain or enhance the townscape or streetscape. It seeks to dominate the landscape not complement it.

Resource Areas Code



45

Good quality agricultural land is mapped over the subject lot. However, the site is located close to the centre of Gympie and has been used for urban purposes since 1890. It is considered the allocation of this site within the GQAL Overlay must be a mapping error, as all other properties within the built up area were excluded from this Overlay.

It is not considered necessary to address the Resource Areas Code as applicable to this site.

2.2.3 Local and/or State Planning Polices

SPP 1/92 - “Development and the Conservation of Agricultural Land” provides a framework within which land identified as Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL) can be protected from development which leads to its alienation or diminished productivity.

State Planning Policy 1/92 Development and the Conservation of Agricultural Land has been adequately reflected in the planning scheme. SPP 4/10 – “Healthy Waters” aims to mitigate risks to water quality and waterway health from urban stormwater, waste water and non-tidal artificial waterways when making decision about new development.

The SPP is applicable to development applications in the following circumstances: For stormwater management and management of new or expanded non-tidal artificial waterways, the policy applies to development that is: “a. material change of use for urban purposes that involves

i. greater than 2,500m2 of land; or ii. 6 or more additional dwellings;”

State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waters applies to this site as the development involves more than 2 500m2 of land.

The applicant was requested to submit a preliminary stormwater drainage

design demonstrating a non-worsening effect for run-off for a Q100 rainfall event for the full development. The applicant advised this would be submitted prior to Building Approval stage by a registered engineer.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads have conditioned that the above is achieved and RPEQ certification is provided to confirm this. Comments from the Design Services Division (discussed later in this report) regarding stormwater management advise that the applicant has not taken in to consideration the increased run-off from the sealed driveways and parking areas for the full development. Therefore, although stormwater management can be complied with through appropriate conditions, the applicant should be asked to address this concern should they be required to amend their proposal plans as it may have an influence on the positioning of buildings or stormwater management devices.

No other State Planning Policies are considered relevant to the application.



46

Council’s headworks charges and contributions are applicable to this proposal, although credits are applicable with regards to the current uses on the site. Specifically, credits for the existing dwelling which is to be demolished for the motel and community meeting halls to be replaced by the commercial premises (offices).

The use of the hall to be relocated in between the church and the Wesley

Hall is indicated to remain as ancillary to the church (i.e. church group activities, morning teas after church) and has therefore not been included in contribution calculations.

With this in mind, though, its use should be conditioned as such and it clearly

indicated that the approval does not include its use for commercial purposes or large-scale functions.

Water supply and sewerage headworks rates for an Accommodation Premises (Motel (ii) Any ancillary restaurant) are levied by Council’s Policy as: 4.5ep per 100m2 GFA for water; and 5.5ep per 100m2 GFA for sewerage. Based on the proposed GFA of 1 826.2m2, this would equate to: Water: 82.62ep Sewerage: 100.99ep. Water supply and sewerage headworks rates for Commercial Premises (Professional Offices < 400m2) are levied by Council’s Policy as: 1.2ep per 100m2 GFA for water; and 1.4ep per 100m2 GFA for sewerage. Based on the proposed GFA of 490.29m2, this would equate to: Water: 5.88ep Sewerage: 6.86ep.

The urban road contribution for accommodation premises (motel room) under Council’s Planning Scheme Policy is based on 4vte per room. A dwelling (managers residence) is based on 10 vte per house.

Based on the proposed 38 rooms and one (1) Managers dwelling, this would equate to:

Urban Roads: 162vte

The road contribution for commercial premises under Council’s Planning

Scheme Policy is based on 10vte per 100m2 of GFA.

Based on the proposed GFA of 490.29m2, this would equate to:



47

Urban Roads: 49.02vte An audit of the existing infrastructure on site has identified that credits are applicable for water, sewerage and urban road contributions. Calculations are as follows: Accommodation Premises (Motel) Units

Payable Credits Current Unit

Charge Total

Water 82.62ep 2.8ep $1 244.98 79.82 x $1 244.98 = $99 385

Sewerage 100.99ep 2.8ep $1 945.54 98.19 x $1 945.54 = $191 034

Urban road 162vte 10vte $377.90 152vte x $377.90 = $57 440

Total $347 859 Commercial Premises (Offices) Units

Payable Credits Current Unit

Charge Total

Water 5.88ep 3.43ep $1244.98 2.45ep x $1 244.98 = $3 51

Sewerage 6.86ep 5.39ep $1945.54 1.47ep x $1 945.54 = $2 861

Urban road 49.02vte 19.61vte $377.90 29.41 vte x $377.90 = $11 117

Total $17 029 The final infrastructure charge will need amending should Council agree that amended plans for this motel are required.

Landscaping Code The Code specifies all parts of the site not occupied by buildings, structures or service areas are to be landscaped for motel developments. A minimum landscaping strip of two (2) metres wide at any point and averaging three (3) metres wide along all frontages is required for Commercial Premises. The site plan submitted with the application provides indicative landscaping areas along all boundaries. There is sufficient area on site to achieve adequate landscaping as required by the Landscaping Code to provide an attractive streetscape. Note, this does not include areas relating to communal open space.



48

Further detailed landscaping plans nominating species, density etc. will be required to be submitted in conjunction with a compliance assessment. 2.3 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 2.3.1 Draft Gympie Planning Scheme Council’s draft planning scheme to be introduced early this year includes the site in the ‘District Centre’ Zone.

The intention of this zone is to provide a mix of uses and activities including “retail, commercial, residential, offices, administration and health services, community, small-scale entertainment and recreational facilities capable of servicing a district”. Specifically, “dwelling units and short-term accommodation may be supported where they are integrated with and do not detract from the viability of non-residential activities.” Accommodation Premises (motel) would be defined as “short-term accommodation” and would be impact assessable. Commercial Premises (offices) would be defined as “office” and be exempt development. It is considered that as the application is close to residential dwellings it may have had a number of submitters raising concerns discussed in this report. Therefore, it is considered that although the use is generally consistent with Council’s future intentions for the area, issues relating to height, bulk and scale may have also been raised. 2.3.2 Impact on Amenity



49

Most of the buildings in the general area are only single or two (2) storey’s and as such this development could have an impact on the existing amenity of the area. Privacy for the motel development and existing dwelling houses is best maintained through the provision of a fence and landscaping along the side and rear boundaries. It is recommended that a solid type fence as recommended in the Acoustic Report discussed above be provided along the northern boundary to reduce potential privacy concerns, noise and lighting associated with the proposal. 2.3.3 Site Access and Traffic One (1) access point is proposed for the development site as an entry/exit point off Barter Street. The site is located on the corner of Barter, Channon and Reef Street. Channon Street is classified as a major arterial road and in the vicinity of the site is aligned in a northeast-southwest direction. It is a two-way road configured with a two-lane, 12 metre wide carriageway, set within a 20 metre wide road reserve. The application was referred to the Department of Transport and Main Roads as a concurrence agency. Conditions required to be satisfied are discussed below. The proposed use will generate additional traffic and a contribution for this is justified. 2.3.4 Flooding There are no flooding issues related to the development site. 2.4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was not required to be advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.


Nil.

4.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposal is not consistent with Council’s planning scheme, however

sufficient planning grounds are considered to exist to justify support for a preliminary approval only at this stage.



50

5.0 CONSULTATION

5.1 Internal (b) Engineering Directorate

Report: (Design Department Technical Officer – A.C. Walsh) This engineering report is based on the following reports and additional

information provided by the following consultants:- Alex Emborisff - Assessment Report GTA Consultants – Transport Impact Assessment Acoustic Works – Acoustic Report

Property Technologies – Site Based Stormwater Quality Management Plan FRONTAGE ROAD The proposed development has frontage to Channon Street (State-

Controlled Road), Barter and Reef Streets (Council Controlled Roads). The application was assessed by the Department of Transport and Main Roads and Conditions of Development have been issued. A brief summary of conditions is as follows:- a) Vehicular access is not permitted to Channon Street (Gympie

Connection Road) b) Stormwater management for the development must ensure no

worsening or actionable nuisance to the state-controlled road network. All streets are fully constructed with bitumen seal and kerb and channel provided. A full width asphaltic concrete footpath is provided to Channon Street with Barter Street having a narrow concrete footpath and Reef Street having a grassed footpath.

Considering the commercial nature of the development Council should require full width concrete footpaths to be constructed to the Barter and Reef Street frontages.

ACCESS AND PARKING

The proposed entry/exit point to the development is located in Barter Street some 60 metres from the Channon Street/Barter Street intersection. At present, a dual access point is constructed to service the existing uses on the site and Lot 36 G14726 to the north. As the proposed development does not intend to use this access point the overbridge should be removed and a new invert constructed to service Lot 37 G14726. All overbridges to be removed from the Channon and Barter Street frontages. The proposed parking layout provides for two coach bays and a delivery unloading bay within the site and for the coaches, delivery and refuse vehicle to enter/exit in a forward direction.

CONTRIBUTIONS Considering the previous use of the site, the applicant is entitled to a number

of credits in assessing the traffic generation for the development.



51

Existing Use Traffic Generation (vte) Total vte Dwelling (Approved Use) 10 per dwelling 10 Church Hall (Wesley Hall) 4 per 100m2 _ GFA 490 m2 19.6

Proposed Use Traffic Generation (vte) Total vte Motel 4 per unit – 38 units 152 Managers Residence 10 per dwelling 10 Offices (Existing Wesley Hall)

10 per 100m2 – GFA 490 m2 49

Therefore the Urban Road Contribution payable is:- Total Proposed Use – Total Existing Use x $377.90 = $68,511.00 ie (211 vte - 29.6 vte) x $377.90 NOTE: The church and church hall (multipurpose rooms) were not taken into

consideration for this calculation as it is indicated these uses will not change through this application.

WATER SUPPLY The site is serviced by the following water mains:-

Channon Street 100mm diameter Barter Street 300mm diameter Reef Street 100mm diameter

There is sufficient capacity in the existing mains to cater for the proposed

development. The site has existing water services connected to the existing dwelling and

church hall (Wesley Hall). For the proposed development, one service with a master meter should be installed for the total development with individual meters installed to each use.

SEWERAGE CONNECTION The site is serviced by two connections, one into a sewer manhole on the

common boundary of the development site and 37 Barter Street and the other by a 100mm diameter sewer (combined drain) from 36 Reef Street. The applicant should be required to extend the sewer main (150 mm diameter) along Reef Street to the development site to eliminate the section of 100mm main.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE There is no stormwater drainage system servicing the proposed development

site. The Cooloola Shire Planning Scheme Policy 8: Infrastructure Works requires commercial and central business developments to have the stormwater drainage designed for a minimum of QUDM Level IV for roof and allotment drainage. Peak 100 Year ARI discharges from the proposed development site to be no greater than those of the existing level of development.



52

The stormwater management plan submitted with the application only addresses stormwater from the proposed motel and did not take into consideration the increased run-off from the sealed driveways and parking areas for the full development.

(c) Environment Health

Conditions have been provided by Council’s Environmental Health Unit to be included in any approval.

5.3 External CONCURRENCE AGENCIES (a) Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) The proposal required referral to DTMR as the development was considered to be impacting on a state-controlled road. This Agency has provided conditions to be attached to any approval including: - Vehicular access between Gympie Connection Road and Lot 21 on

G14726 is not permitted; - The development must be in accordance with the Stormwater

Management Plan entitled Site Based Stormwater Quality Management Plan at Proposed Multi-Unit Development Cnr Barter Street & Channon Street Gympie for Reyloh Pty Ltd by Property Technologies Pty Ltd Revision A dated 22/08/2012;

- Stormwater management for the development must ensure no worsening or actionable nuisance to the state-controlled road network caused by peak discharges, flood levels, frequency/duration of flooding, flow velocities, water quality, sedimentation and scour effects;

- Any excavation, filling, paving, landscaping, construction or any other works to the land are not to worsen stormwater discharge;

- The development must incorporate noise attenuation measures Acoustic Report by Acoustic Works Reference 2012196 R02 Channon Street, Gympie RTN ENV Revision R02 dated 12/12/12 and including the additional requirements as discussed below;

- The development must incorporate noise attenuation treatments. In particular, this includes: - A solid gap free, screening fence at least 1.8 metres in height; - This fence shall be constructed within the development to screen

the pool/communal open space from noise generated by Gympie Connection Road;

- Balustrades on all balconies fronting Gympie Connection Road specifically Units 14-22 inclusive must be solid, gap-free and continuous for their complete length other than gaps required for drainage purposes which are to comply with the Building Code of Australia. The total area of the soffit above these balconies must be treated with sound absorption material.



53

- RPEQ certification to the DTMR that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the above conditions must be provided;

- Any flood lights or illumination on the subject site must be shielded, directed downwards and away from the state-controlled road;

- Any permanent or temporary advertising devices associated with the proposal must: - - Be wholly located within the subject land; - Be static; - Not be of a shape that could result in it being mistaken for an

official traffic sign; - Not consist of colour combinations that could result in it being

mistaken for an official traffic sign; Be in accordance with the Department of Transport and Main Roads Roadside Advertising Guide.

It is considered that appropriate conditions can be included to complement those required by DTMR. (b) Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP)

The proposal required referral to DEHP as it is development on a Queensland Heritage place. This Agency has provided conditions to be attached to any approval including: - Inform Regional Cultural Heritage Coordinator (Manager), Southern

Region, EHP in writing when development authorised under this notice has commenced; state location and name of registered place and permit number and condition number under which this report is being made;

- Inform Regional Cultural Heritage Coordinator (Manager), Southern Region, EHP in writing, within 10 working days of completion, that development authorised under this notice is complete. State location and name of registered place and permit number and condition number this report is being made under;

- During development ensure that any significant fabric, elements or artefacts are protected from incidental damage; and

- During development, should damage occur to other significant buildings, elements or artefacts report such incidents immediately to the Regional Cultural Heritage Coordinator (Manager), Southern Region, EHP and confirm details of the incident in writing within 2 business days.

DEHP has focused the assessment and conditions on the retention of the

existing heritage listed buildings on the site. It is recommended that the applicant satisfies these conditions should the application be approved prior to building the proposed motel and associated infrastructure.

6.0 CONCLUSION



54

The proposal for accommodation premises (motel) and commercial premises (office) involves a material change of use application.

The site is currently included in the Community Zone however given the surrounding land uses and zoning, proximity from the Bruce Highway and Gympie Central Business District the use is considered to be appropriate for this site. This is further supported by Council’s draft planning scheme which includes the site in the ‘District Centre’ Zone where a mix of uses and activities including “retail, commercial, residential, offices, administration and health services, community, small-scale entertainment and recreational facilities capable of servicing a district” are to be located. However, there are a number of design issues relating to height, scale, communal open space, car parking and architectural appearance of the development that demonstrates that it does not comply with the Cooloola Shire Council Planning Scheme 2005. The collective effect of the existing land uses and the proposed development are considered to result in the site being over developed. Therefore, it is suggested that only preliminary approval be granted recommending the applicant amend the proposal plans to: 1. reduce the overall height of the building to two (2) storeys to:

a. comply with the sites Community zoning; b. be consistent with the nearby Commercial zone; and c. be respectful of surrounding land uses.

2. reduce the scale and bulk of the proposal to reflect buildings in the near vicinity;

3. provide additional communal open space as specified in the Accommodation Premises zone code to serve the needs of the motel occupants;

4. comply with car parking requirements for all land uses on the subject site by providing the following:

- (i) one (1) space per unit of accommodation; and - (ii) one (1) visitor space per 5 units of accommodation; and - (iii) one (1) space for the manager’s residence and office; and - (iv) one (1) bus parking space per 20 units of accommodation; and - (v) 3.5 spaces/100m2 gfa for the Commercial Premises; - (vi) ensure all required car parking for the Motel component are located in

close proximity to the motel. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

M03/03/13 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr W.W. Sachs That Council, as Assessment Manager, issue a PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

for development application 2012-1086 for Material Change of Use -



55

Accommodation Premises (Motel and One (1) Manager Dwelling) and Commercial Premises (Offices) on Lot 21 G14726 located at Channon Street, Gympie, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to Commencement of the Use

1. Obtain a Development Permit for Material Change of Use. 2. The application for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use is

to include proposal plans that achieve the following minimum standards:

(i) a maximum height above natural ground level of two (2) storeys

and ten (10) metres; (ii) reduce the scale and bulk of the motel building to reflect the

scale and bulk of buildings in the vicinity of the development site;

(iii) provide a minimum of 20% of the area dedicated to the motel as

communal open space (nb this cannot include landscaped setback areas); and

(iv) car parking as follows:

(i) one (1) space per unit of accommodation; and (ii) one (1) visitor space per 5 units of accommodation; and (iii) one (1) space for the manager’s residence and office; and (iv) one (1) bus parking space per 20 units of accommodation;

and (v) 3.5 spaces/100m2 gfa for the Commercial Premises; (vi) all required car parking for the Motel component are to be

located in close proximity to the motel.

Carried



56

2.0 REPORT Following a meeting between the Applicant and staff on 11 March 2013, the Applicant has lodged amended proposals plans. Only the plans which have been amended have been included below:



57



58



59



60

2.1 Conditions 2.1.1 Condition 2 (i): (a) Condition 2 (i) reads: “A maximum height above natural ground level of two (2) storeys

and ten (10) metres”

Overall outcome (j) of the Gympie Planning Area Code requires that: “uses and works are located, designed and managed to be compatible with other uses and works, maintain the safety of people and works, and avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment including water pollution from erosion, chemical contamination, gross pollutants and urban stormwater runoff”.

(b) Applicants Representations

“After meeting with Council on the 11 March 2013 we have amended the drawings to reduce the total height of the motel to 2 & 3 storeys below 10m in height measured from the Natural Ground level to the uppermost projection. With reference to 2 & 3 storey motel in the community zone, we provide the following justification for the development with respect to the above: a) The motel proposal consist of a combination of two and three

levels with a height of 6.5m and 8.5m to the top ceiling and 9.9m from natural ground level to the uppermost projection.

b) The scale, and bulk of the motel fits well on the corner and is well below the height of the existing church, which is 15m in height. The streetscape clearly shows an appropriate transition of heights with the church maintaining dominance. Refer to elevations and sections and note reduction in the Motel.

c) The portion closest to the church has been reduced to two

levels and 6.5m in height thus providing a transition if (sic) height between the church and the three level portion of the Motel. The volume between the two give prominence to the existing heritage church which Department of Environmental



61

Resources Management (DERM) welcomed at our pre-lodgement meeting. At this meeting DERM had no issues with a three (3) level motel beside a church much higher (15m in height).

d) Although the site is zoned community most of the areas

surrounding are commercial (13m height and 3 levels), Central business (13m + 3 levels). Small area located to the north west zoned community but used for accommodation also refer to zones plan no. 3377DA.07 F

e) Our development has been set back approximately 10m from

the site to the south west (Barter St) property and only a combination of 2 & 3 levels have been provided to accentuate the transition of height from one to the other. Also refer to our sections and elevations showing the height reduction below 10m as requested.

f) The relatively new development at 30 Barter Street to the

south west has been built as a 3 level structure. g) With respect to the existing timber church hall (MPR) 2 levels

relocated in its new position, the height established at 10.7m provides a logical and aesthetic transition of roof lines between the15m high church and the 9m high existing brick hall (converted to offices). Setback of the hall is 8.6m from Channon Street well within the requirements.

In summary we believe that the heights and setbacks proposed provide a good solution in this particular location and request your approval.

One of the major justification for Council allowing the

development here is that the site is Heritage Listed and thus limits the development from fully developing the site and thus commercially sensitive as to the profitability of the project.

However the bi product of this situation is that by developer continuing to use the resent church building as a church. Relocating the existing timber hall on the same property and retaining the stone walls around the property thus benefiting the community by preserving Gympie’s so much loved history.”



62

(c) Assessment The Applicant has reduced the overall height of the development by 1.9 metres to 9.9 metres from ground level (11.1 metres including the retaining wall) however it is still three (3) storeys high. It is considered that although the development does not comply with Schedule 5 Maximum Height and Number of Storeys of Buildings and Other Structures the amended proposal plans show greater regard to the existing buildings on adjoining and surrounding properties. This has been demonstrated in particular with the architectural feature on the corner of Barter and Channon Street becoming a less dominant attribute to the building in comparison to what was previously proposed. The Applicant’s assertion that the Commercial zone permits three (3) storeys is still incorrect. 2.1.2 Condition 2 (ii): (a) Condition 2 (ii) reads:

“Reduce the scale and bulk of the motel building to reflect the scale and bulk of buildings in the vicinity of the development site”


“The scale and bulk of the building has been reduced by reducing the height of the Motel below 10m in height etc. and as covered in 2i (sic) above. The total site cover provided is 20% well below the permissible 40%, also refer to attached drawings.”

(c) Assessment The Applicant has reduced the scale and bulk of the building by reducing the height of the building namely the architectural feature and increasing the communal open space available to the Motel users. Therefore, it is considered that the amended development is more sympathetic with the surrounding area and it is recommended that the scale and bulk of the development be supported.



63

2.1.3 Condition 2 (iii): (a) Condition 2 (iii) reads:

“Provide a minimum of 20% of the area dedicated to the motel as communal open space (nb this cannot include landscaped setback areas)”


“Communal Open Space Has been increased in particular around the Motel by relocating car parking and reducing driveway lengths and by deleting the existing large ramp structure on the Western side of the existing brick hall (converted to offices) and replacing the area with landscaping. We have amended the plans to reflect a total of 37.5% well above the 20% minimum requirement thus allowing 17.5% (885sqm) as landscaped setback areas. In addition 366sqm has been provided at ground and on balconies at upper levels of the Motel. The “Heritage” buildings retained restrict any further landscaping areas.”

(c) Assessment The Applicant has increased communal open space from 60m2 (2.93% of the Motel site area) to 235.5m2 (9.31%). This consists of approximately 149.5m2 of grassed open space and 86m2 for the pool area. This is 10.69% less than Probable Solution 10 of the Accommodation Premises Code requires, however this is considered to be a significant improvement on the previous proposal. Despite non-compliance with probable solution 10 of the Accommodation Premises Code it is considered that enough communal open space has now been provided for the proposed development and the users it will accommodate. 2.1.4 Condition 2 (iv): (a) Condition 2 (iv) reads: “Car parking as follows:

(i) one (1) space per unit of accommodation; and (ii) one (1) visitor space per 5 units of accommodation; and (iii) one (1) space for the manager’s residence and office; and



64

(iv) one (1) bus parking space per 20 units of accommodation; and

(v) 3.5 spaces/100m2 gfa for the Commercial Premises; (vi) all required car parking for the Motel component are to be

located in close proximity to the motel.” (b) Applicants Representations

“A total of 67 cars has been provided with tow (sic) buses for the following reasons:

a) refer to submitted self explanatory traffic report which calls

for 66 cars plus 2 buses. b) With respect to the bus and carparking conditions lengthy

discussions were debated and the following practical and usable outcome was agreed on in principle at the same meeting.

- Providing a space for 2 buses, one or both bus spaces can

be double up for carparking when buses are not using the space. This is easily managed by the on site manager as the motel is advised usually in advance (bookings etc) by the bus operators.

- If one bus arrives at the motel at a prebooked time, the occupants of that bus would occupy the majority of the 39 room motel hence there is more than an adequate amount of parking left for the remainder of the motel users or others.

- If two buses arrived at the same time these (sic) would

normally be not enough rooms for the occupants hence all motel carpark spaces would be empty while bus patrons occupy the motel. These empty motel spaces can be used also by the other uses on site, thus providing good usable parking flexibility. However we have retained to two buses bay areas to give flexibility to car parking.

In summary it was muted (sic) that one bus bay would be adequate in this case and that bus bays can double up as additional parking.”

(c) Assessment The Applicant has increased the number of car parking spaces by one (1) when both bus parking spaces are not in use.



65

46 car parking spaces were required to be provided for the Motel as part of the preliminary approval. The Applicant has provided 41 car parking spaces surrounding the Motel. The original proposal only allocated 39 car parking spaces for the Motel and were distributed over a larger portion of the site. Nine (9) car parking spaces are required to be provided for the Commercial Premises as part of the preliminary approval. 24 public parking spaces have been provided for the Commercial Premises and other uses around the existing Church and existing hall. The Applicants comment’s relating to the number of car parking spaces available for the Motel and other uses if two (2) full buses arrive on site are acknowledged. There would be sufficient car parking spaces available to all users. It is considered that as the Applicant has also relocated 4 car parking spaces to be in closer proximity to the Motel to be used when one (1) of the bus parking spaces are not in use non-compliance with Specific Outcome 1 of the Vehicle Parking and Access Code can be justified. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the car parking design and allocation of spaces is recommended to be supported. 3.0 BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

4.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposal is not consistent with Council’s planning scheme,

however sufficient planning grounds are considered to exist to justify support for a development permit.

5.0 CONSULTATION 5.1 Internal (a) Heritage Advisory Committee The amended proposal plans were referred to the Heritage Advisory Committee at their meeting held on 9 April 2013 as a result of the development occurring on a Queensland Heritage place. The Heritage Advisory Committee complimented the proposed changes to the amended plans and verbally supported the development.



66

6. CONCLUSION It is considered that the Applicant has addressed the design issues in the amended proposal plans initially discussed in the material change of use application relating to height, scale, communal open space, car parking and architectural appearance of the development. Therefore, it is considered reasonable for Council to issue a Development Permit with the amended proposal plans despite the non-compliance with the planning scheme as discussed above. Given the time constraints to undertake the assessment, suggested conditions of approval are still being finalised at the time of preparing the report. Draft conditions will be provided to the applicant and allow the Applicant to negotiate the conditions within their appeal period. 7. ATTACHMENTS Nil.

M04/04/13 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr W.W. Sachs

That in relation to development application 2012-1086 for Material Change of Use – Accommodation Premises (Motel and One (1) Manager’s Dwelling) and Commercial Premises (Offices) at Channon Street, Gympie, Council issue a Negotiated Decision Notice that APPROVES a Development Permit subject to conditions to be determined by the Director Planning and Development.

Carried



67

5/3 Application for a Variation of Trading Hours for a Licensed Premises –

Widgee District Hall and Recreation Association Inc Clubhouse, 22 Upper Widgee Road, Widgee PORTFOLIO: Planning and Development


AUTHOR: Planning Officer – K. Fuller DOC ID: 1631055 File No: 6-4-1-3


Operational Plan – Program 2 – Economic Development,

2.3.2 Development Assessment and Applications

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Nil

2. REPORT

Correspondence has been received from the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation on 5 April 2013 regarding a variation of trading hours for the Widgee District Hall and Recreation Association. Council’s comments or objections are sought to the granting of an application on the grounds that the amenity, quiet or good order of the locality would be lessened.



68

The Department’s correspondence is reproduced below:



69

The proposed trading hours are: 3:00pm to 12:00am – Friday 2:00pm to 12:00am – Saturday 12:00pm to 6:00 pm – Sunday The existing trading hours are: 3:00pm to 12:00am – Friday 12:00pm to 12:00am – Saturday Essentially the proposed changes are to operate on Sunday between the hours of 12:00pm to 6:00pm and reduce the trading hours for Saturdays by two (2) hours.

The site has frontage to Upper Widgee Road and Gympie-Woolooga Road. To the north-east along Gympie-Woolooga Road are existing



70

commercial and industrial uses for the township of Widgee and it not considered that the proposal would adversely impact on these properties. To the south along Upper Widgee Road are rural residential lots ranging in size from approximately 5000m2 to four (4) hectares. The town planning requirements relating to the lawful use of the site have not been considered at this stage as the liquor license process affords an opportunity to consider this component at a later date. If any relevant approvals or existing use rights allow for the events etc to be held on a Sunday then it unlikely that the inclusion of trading hours to serve liquor would create any additional impacts not already envisioned and the proposed hours for Sunday trading of 12:00pm to 6:00pm would be considered acceptable. 3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil.

5. CONCLUSION It is recommended that Council advise the Office of Liquor and

Gaming Regulation that it does not have any objections to the request on the basis that further town planning advice is investigated and sought in relation to the lawful use of the premises.

6. ATTACHMENTS: Nil

M05/04/13 Moved: Cr A.J. Perrett Seconded: Cr L.J. Friske That Council advise the Department of Justice and Attorney-

General that it does not object to the variation of trading hours for a licensed premises at 22 Upper Widgee Road Widgee for the Widgee District Hall and Recreation Association Inc Clubhouse on the basis that further town planning advice is investigated and sought in relation to the lawful use of the premises.

Carried



71

5/4 Development Application for Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to Create One Additional Lot over Lot 5 MPH24229 – 118 Old Maryborough Road, Gympie for John Lavelle PORTFOLIO: Planning and Development


AUTHOR: Planning Officer – C. McMillan DOC ID: 2013-209



1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Nil

2. REPORT

FILE NO: 2013-209 APPLICANT: John Lavelle RPD: Lot 5 MPH24229

SITE ADDRESS: 118 Old Maryborough Road, Gympie

CURRENT USE OF LAND: Dwelling House and Associated Shed

PROPOSAL: Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to Create One (1) Additional Lot

EXISTING ZONE: Housing SUBMISSIONS: One (1)



72

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 The Proposal

This application seeks Council’s approval for reconfiguring a lot to allow the creation of one (1) additional residential lot over Lot 5 MPH24229 – 118 Old Maryborough Road, Gympie.

The proposal comprises reconfiguring the land to create a total of two (2) residential lots including one (1) standard shaped lot of approximately 800sqm and one (1) rear lot of approximately 1223sqm.



73

The application would ordinarily be delegated to the Department of Planning and Development to make a decision, however a submission has been received in regards to the proposal.


Currently the site comprises of one existing title with a total area of 2023m2. The site is improved by one dwelling and an associated shed. Access to existing Lot 5 MPH24229 is from Old Maryborough Road. The site is provided with sealed road frontage from Old Maryborough Road.

The area available for a building envelope for proposed Lot 6 has an estimated gradient of between 15 – 16% and includes a slope from towards the south eastern corner of the frontage for proposed Lot 5 to the north western corner of the rear property boundary for proposed Lot 6. The existing dwelling on the subject site will be wholly contained within Lot 5 and sufficient room exists to allow the dwelling to meet the minimum side boundary setback requirement. The existing shed currently onsite will be required to be removed as part of the application.



74

2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses The site is adjoined to the north and south by properties which are

within the Housing Zone. Land to the east of the site situated on the opposite side of Old Maryborough Road is included within the Rural Zone. Land adjoining the subject site to the west is included within the Community Zone.

2.1.4 Site History

There are no previous approvals over this development site.

2.2 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2.2.1 Intent of the Zone

The intent of the Housing Zone is for well designed, attractive medium density housing to be available in proximity to services and public transport and for non-residential uses, servicing the needs of local communities to be located and managed to protect the existing amenity of residential uses.

2.2.2 Compliance with the Planning Scheme Reconfiguring a lot is ‘Code Assessable’ under the arrangements of

the Cooloola Shire Planning Scheme 2005 and is subject to assessment against the Gympie Planning Area Code, Reconfiguring a Lot Code, Infrastructure Works Code, Landscaping Code and the Conservation Significant Areas Code. Gympie Planning Area Code The application is considered to comply with the Gympie Planning Area Code and is consistent development. Reconfiguring a Lot Code The proposal is consistent with Schedule 9 (Column 1(c)(i)(ii)) of the Cooloola Shire Planning Scheme 2005 in relation to minimum lot size, dimensions and frontage for the purposes of creating standard and rear lots. The new lots are either provided with or able to be serviced by all essential infrastructures in accordance with Table 8:1 Standards for the Provision of Works in Planning Scheme Policy 8: Infrastructure Works.



75

Infrastructure Works Code No conflicts with the outcomes sought by the Infrastructure Works Code. Headworks charges will apply to the development. Landscaping Code Street trees are not required by Council for residential subdivisions and no other components of the code are relevant. Conservation Significant Areas Code

Council’s mapping indicates the site is considered a Local Ecosystem Value Area and has Local Connectivity Value. It is acknowledged that the proposed subdivision will result in some clearing of vegetation for the purposes of siting a future dwelling and the associated infrastructure required for Lot 6. It is considered however that the existing connectivity is already fragmented by Old Maryborough Road and recent development in the area. It is expected that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the connectivity value areas.



76

2.2.3 Local and/or State Planning Polices

No State Planning Policies are considered relevant to the application. 2.3 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 2.3.1 Appropriateness of the Proposal The proposal is considered appropriate for this site given its location and proximity to Gympie’s CBD and services.

2.3.2 Site Access and Traffic The site fronts Old Maryborough Road. Proposed lots will gain access off Old Maryborough Road from the two (2) existing access points currently utilised to gain access to the existing dwelling and associated shed.

2.3.3 Flooding The site is not subject to flooding. 2.3.4 Utilities and Services

The site is currently within the water service area and sewer service area. Appropriate conditions should be imposed on any approval requiring the new lot being created to be connected to reticulated water and sewerage services. Standard conditions requiring the developer to enter into an agreement with the relevant electricity and telecommunication’s providers should also be imposed.

2.4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was not required to be advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. One (1) submission has been received objecting to the proposal -



77



78



79



80

Summary of Response to Submission

Issue

Comment

Safety entering/exiting Lot 5 on MPH24229, 118 Old Maryborough Road, Gympie

Concerns are noted and a condition is to be included to ensure minimum visibility is achieved. This will involve the installation of a pedestrian barrier adjacent to the footpath/bikeway.

Reduced amenity, privacy and value to our property

The proposal is to create one (1) additional lot within an existing residential area. Under the Cooloola Planning Scheme 2005, the proposal is considered to be consistent development and reasonably foreseen given its compliance with the relevant requirements regarding lot size, frontage and building area. The submitter’s recommendations for any future building on the rear lot are noted however any future development on this lot will be subject to further approvals.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Nil

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with Council’s planning scheme.

5. CONSULTATION

5.1 Internal (d) Engineering Directorate

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

A site inspection revealed the required sight visibility of 55 metres in a 60km/h zone for proposed lot 6 is compromised by a one metre high hedge adjacent to the concrete footpath/bikeway along Old Maryborough Road fronting the adjoining northern property. To meet the required sight visibility distance, a 20 metre (approx.) section of



81

the hedge would be required to be removed. The hedge acts as a barrier to protect pedestrians/bike users to the steep “drop off” from the footpath/bikeway to the front boundary of 120 Old Maryborough Road. The applicant should be required to install a steel pedestrian barrier adjacent to the footpath/bikeway for the section of the hedge that would be required to be removed and the embankment landscaped with low ground cover to prevent erosion. A condition could be placed on the approval notice requiring these works to be carried out as part of the operational works for the construction of the driveway to Lot 6.

5.4 External CONCURRENCE AGENCIES No referral agencies were triggered with this application. 6. CONCLUSION One (1) submission has been received against this proposal to create one (1) additional residential lot outlining concerns relating to traffic safety and privacy/amenity. Appropriate conditions addressing visibility concerns should be included in any approval. The proposed development complies with the relevant Planning Scheme Codes and is consistent development for the zone therefore the development is recommended for approval with conditions.

7. ATTACHMENTS Nil.

M06/04/13 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

That Council, as Assessment Manager, APPROVE Development Application 2013-209 for Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to Create One (1) Additional Lot over Lot 5 MPH24229 located at 118 Old Maryborough Road, Gympie, subject to reasonable and relevant conditions as determined by the Director of Planning and Development.

Carried



82

5/5 2012-1180 – Representations for Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to

Create One (1) Additional Lot over Lot 3 MPH31384 – 36 Goldhill Road, Cedar Pocket PORTFOLIO: Planning and Development


AUTHOR: Planning Officer – P. Meredith DOC ID: 2012-1180



1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Development approval for Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to Create

One (1) Additional Lot was granted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 23 January 2013.



83

Approved Plan

The applicant’s appeal period was suspended on 13 February 2013 and representations lodged in regards to a condition of the approval.



84

2. REPORT

FILE NO: 2012-1180 APPLICANT: Alan Deen RPD: Lot 3 MPH31384 SITE ADDRESS: 36 Goldhill Road, Cedar Pocket

PROPOSAL: Representations for Reconfiguring a Lot - Subdivision to Create One (1) Additional Lot



85

REPRESENTATIONS

Representations were submitted in relation to the contribution to Council in lieu of upgrading the frontage of the development site to a 2.5 metre wide bitumen sealed standard. 2.1 Condition 7 (a) Condition 7 reads: “A contribution of $22 565 is required to be paid to Council in lieu of upgrading the frontage of the development site to a 2.5 metre wide bitumen sealed standard. This money will be expended by Council in conjunction with other works to be programmed for Goldhill Road.” (b) Applicant’s representations: “On behalf of our clients we seek to have condition 7 removed. Condition 7states: a contribution of $22 565 is required to be paid to Council in lieu of upgrading the frontage of the development site to a 2.5 metre wide bitumen sealed standard. Council’s DA2010-0160 dated 12 March, 2010 for the subdivision of Lot 4 on MPH40206, directly across Goldhill Road from this site, required no such contribution. It is unreasonable, unfair, unjust and inconsistent for Council to impose a large contribution for Mr and Mrs Deen while the applicant for a similar project on the opposite side of the same section of Gold Hill Road incurs no cost. On behalf of our clients we request that Condition 7 be removed.” (c) Assessment

Specific Outcome 1 of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code states that: All new lots for rural residential purposes: a. are in the Rural Residential Zone; and, b. if in the Gympie Planning Area, are within 14 kilometres by road

of the Gympie Post Office; and, c. have a bitumen road fronting the lots and direct bitumen

road access into a service centre; and, d. are within 500 metres of an existing school bus route

2; and,



86

e. are not on a current or known potential heavy vehicle route3; and,

f. do not have direct access to a Major Arterial Road or Arterial Road listed in Schedule 11 Road Hierarchy”

Specific Outcome 1 (c) requires that all new lots; “c. have a bitumen road fronting the lots and direct bitumen road access into a service centre;” The situation in regards to the previous subdivision approval mentioned (2010-0160) was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 23 January 2013. The report outlined that the reasons why this subdivision required no road upgrading was due to an oversight when conditions were drafted for approval. It is standard for Council to condition that roads fronting the development site be upgraded to a bitumen sealed standard as part of the development approval for this type of development. Further, in this case the applicants conditions were drafted based on the work that should have been applied to the previous development having been undertaken. As a result, this applicant was only conditioned to contribute an amount equivalent to 2.5 metre road widening and associated cul-de-sac. Council resolved to allocate $65 000 in its 2013/14 Capital Works Program budget towards completing the remainder of the roadworks. The applicant has been given a copy of the report and the situation was explained via a phone conversation.


Council has allocated $65 000 in Council’s 2013/14 Capital Works Program as a result of this approval.

4.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council deleting the requirement for road upgrading would be inconsistent with Council’s planning scheme.

5.0 CONSULTATION Nil.

6.0 CONCLUSION The proposed development complies with the relevant planning scheme codes and is consistent development for the zone. Given the oversight in not conditioning road upgrading on a previous subdivision approval in Goldhill Road, a separate recommendation was made that Council allocate $65 000 in its 2013/14 Capital Works Program to cover bitumen sealing of Goldhill Road from the western boundary of lot 1 SP237328, to and including the cul-de-sac head and Council has



87

resolved to do this. The applicants representations provide no planning grounds to warrant Council to not require road upgrading for this development and to do so would be inconsistent with Council’s planning scheme.

7.0 ATTACHMENTS Nil.

M07/04/13 Moved: Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded: Cr L.J. Friske

That in relation to Development Application 2012-1180 for Reconfiguring a Lot – One (1) Additional Lot over Lot 3 MPH31384 – 36 Goldhill Road, Cedar Pocket, Council not issue a Negotiated Decision Notice.

Carried



88

5/6 Request to Waive Fee for Resealing a Survey Plan for Reconfiguring a

Lot – Boundary Realignment over Lots 3, 4 & 8 RP87979 at Kandanga-Amamoor Road, Amamoor PORTFOLIO: Planning and Development


AUTHOR: Planning Officer - K. Fuller DOC ID: 2012-0225


Operational Plan – Program 2 - Economic Development,

2.3.2 Development Assessment and Applications

1.0 BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Nil

2.0 REPORT

2.1 Request Request is made to waive the application fee associated with the resealing of a survey plan not submitted to the Title’s Office within 6 months from Council’s signing of the plan.



89

2.2 Assessment A development approval for reconfiguring a lot to realign the boundaries between three (3) lots was approved on 6 June 2012. The survey plan was submitted in August 2012 and approved via compliance certificate by Council on 20 September 2012. Under section 50 of the Land Title Act 1994 a plan of subdivision must be lodged with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines for registration within 6 months of the compliance certificate being given. Correspondence from the applicant is reproduced as follows: ‘At 4pm this afternoon we were informed by our solicitor, Cuddihy and Joyce that our application form was one day late and as a consequence we are required to pay an extra application fee of $197. I have spoken to Councillor Julie Walker this afternoon and she has put forward my concerns to Marcus Matthews and asked me to write to you and explain. In January 2013 we were informed that we had to have a valuation to transfer the required land into our names even though it is a small area and owned by our parents. We then proceeded to have a valuation carried out. As it was raining and the roads were cut causing little access to the blocks this took 3 weeks to complete. I rang the valuer and our solicitor wrote him a letter expressing the urgency of the matter. However due to the floods this was out of our control. We proceeded to finalise this matter but again had to make 2 appointments to get into the solicitor, again due to flooding this was delayed. As this piece of land is required to install a septic system we have had contact with the planning and development department and an inspection has been done, at which time we informed the inspector we were endeavouring to get everything finalised as soon as possible. We are asking for your understanding of this matter and hope you can understand that we have endeavoured to complete all of your requirements by the due date, however the rain and flooding have caused us many delays. We are requesting you to waive this extra fee, please. If you require more information please call me on the above number or email….’ In this case an attempt to lodge the plan with DNRM was made by the applicant’s solicitor on 21 March 2013, one (1) day over the six month period.



90

DNRM will not accept the plan for registration unless Council’s endorsement has been made within six (6) months or less. Council’s fee schedule nominates a fee of $197 to reseal a survey plan in the event where a plan is not lodged for registration within the six month period stated under the Land Title Act 1994. This fee is approximately 50% of the survey plan approval fee as it is acknowledged that the assessment time is less than the original plan sealing process. It is not uncommon for Council to receive a request to re-sign a survey plan which has not been lodged within the initial six (6) month period. A fee for this service is included in Council’s fee schedule and is considered to be appropriate to undertake the associated administrative and technical work still required to reseal a survey plan. It is recommended that the applicant be advised that Council acknowledges that circumstances may occur delaying the plan registration process and for this reason already offers a reduced fee to re-sign a survey plan outside of the six (6) month period. In this instance the fee is considered to be appropriate and in line with previous requests for resealing of survey plans. 3.0 BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

4.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil.

5.0 CONSULTATION Nil.

6.0 CONCLUSION

A request for Council to waive the $197 fee for resealing a survey plan has been received.

Council initially signed the survey plan on 20 September 2012. The Land Title Act 1994 requires that the plan be lodged for registration with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) within six (6) months of Council signing the plan. Council occasionally receives a request to re-sign a survey plan which has not been lodged within the initial six (6) month period.



91

A fee for this service is included in Council’s fee schedule and is considered to be appropriate to undertake the associated administrative and technical work still required to reseal a survey plan. It is recommended that the fee not be waived in this instance. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS: Nil.

M08/04/13 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

That in relation to the request for waiving of fees for a resealing

of survey plan, Council not agree to waive the $197 fee in this instance.

Carried



92

SECTION 6: SOCIAL WELLBEING 6/1 Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes

PORTFOLIO: Social Wellbeing


AUTHOR: Planning Officer – M. K. Matthews DOC ID: 6-6-10-0011-07 LINK TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN: 5.4 “A valued heritage and creative community”.

1. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the report is to brief Council on the minutes of the

Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held on 12 March 2013, and 9 April 2013.

2. REPORT: The minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meetings for both 12 March 2013 and 9 April 2013 for the information of Council are included as attachments. Council’s attention is drawn to the following items from the minutes that require comment or action.

Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting - 12 March 2013 • Cooloola Coast Static Display

Moved: Dr. Rae Norris Seconded: Geoff Smith “Investigate if the Cooloola Coast Static Display could be funded from the Your Community Heritage Grants.”

Carried H03/03/13

This item was previously discussed at the Council Workshop 20 March 2013. A grant submission has since been submitted and Council is currently awaiting a determination from the Federal Government in relation to this bid.



93

• Heritage Staff Member

Moved: Cr. Wayne Sachs Seconded: Geoff Smith “Issue of a dedicated staff member for heritage be referred to Council for consideration as part of Council budget deliberations.”

Carried H17/03/13

Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting - 9 April 2013

• Trove Project

Moved: Cr. Mick Curran Seconded: Geoff Smith “The committee recommends that Council consider allocating an amount of $5, 000 in the 2013-14 budget to fund a pilot National Digitalisation Project to digitise the Gympie Times.”

Carried H08/04/13

• Conservation Management Plan of Memorial Park

Moved: Geoff Smith Seconded: Julia Lawrence “That this Committee advise Council that whilst not mandatory, there is value in undertaking Conservation Management Plans for important Heritage sites. This Committee considers that the Conservation Management Plan for Memorial Park should proceed.”

Carried H10/04/13

• 2012-1086 Proposed Motel on Lot 21 G14726 (Uniting

Church Site)

Moved: Julia Lawrence Seconded: Geoff Smith “That the Committee offers no objection to the modified proposal.”



94

Carried H13/04/13

• New Planning Scheme

Moved: Diane Kay Seconded: Cr. Julie Walker “The Committee raised the issue that there needs to be a public information night that addresses targeted groups in relation to Heritage measures in the new Planning Scheme following adoption.”

Carried H15/04/13

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The following are relevant in relation to budget implications: - In relation to the Cooloola Coast Interactive Heritage Display

(previously referred to as the Cooloola Coast Static Display), Council has committed to a $3,000 cash contribution and a $3,000 in kind contribution if the bid is successful.

- A proposed dedicated Heritage Staff Member may need consideration in future budget deliberations.

- The Trove Project may require budget consideration subject to Council resolution.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 5. CONSULTATION

6. CONCLUSION

7. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 - Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes 12 March 2013 and 9 April 2013



95

M09/04/13 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr L.J. Friske

That Council:

1. Note the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meetings held 12 March 2013 and 9 April 2013;

2. Note that an amount of $5,000 will be included in the Draft

Budget for a Pilot Digitisation Project for the Gympie Times; and

3. Note that Council has committed an amount of $3,000 in

cash contributions and a $3,000 in kind contribution if the bid for the Cooloola Coast Interactive Heritage Display is successful.

Carried



96

SECTION 7: HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT



97

SECTION 8: GOVERNANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8/1 Gympie Regional Council’s Common Seal

PORTFOLIO: Governance and Economic Development DIRECTORATE: Corporate Governance AUTHOR: Acting Director Corporate Governance LINK TO CORPORATE / OPERATIONAL PLAN: 3.4 Responsible corporate financial management

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION

2. REPORT The Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012 has amended the Local Government Act 2009 (the Act) to require each local government to have a common seal (s11). There are no other requirements for a common seal in the Act or the Local Government Regulation 2012. The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) has circulated a legal opinion on how common seals are to be used following the recorporatisation provisions of the amended legislation being introduced. A summary from the LGAQ circulated legal opinion follows:- 1. Each local government must adopt a common seal.

2. The local government is required to decide the graphic form of its

seal, adopt that form, and procure a stamp made in line with that form.

3. The seal must contain at least the words common seal and the council's name.

4. A local government cannot use duplicate seals.

5. There is no occasion stipulated in the legislation when the seal must be used by a Council.



98

6. Signing documents on behalf of the local government is covered under s236 of the Act. This process does not require the use of the common seal.

A graphic design for the common seal, suitable for manufacture as a rubber stamp, has been prepared for Council’s consideration. (Refer below)

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS N/A

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Council’s adoption of the design and form of its common seal ensures compliance with s11 of the Local Government Act 2009.

5. CONSULTATION Local Government Association of Queensland Office of the Mayor CEO Deputy CEO/Director Corporate Governance

6. CONCLUSION Amendments to the Act require that local governments adopt a common seal. There are no legislated requirements under the Act mandating the use by Council of its common seal. 7. ATTACHMENTS: Nil



99

M10/04/13 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr M.A. McDonald

That Council procures a rubber stamp bearing the graphic design and text as presented in this report. Further that Council adopts the use of this stamp as its Common Seal in accordance with s11 of the Local Government Act 2009.

Carried



100

8/2 Delegations Register Update

PORTFOLIO: Governance & Economic Development DIRECTORATE: Corporate Governance Directorate AUTHOR: Acting Director Corporate Governance DOC ID: LINK TO COPRORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN: Corporate Plan: 3.4 Responsible corporate financial management Operational Plan: 3.4.4 Procurement

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Refer Minute G37/11/11 Council is currently reviewing its Delegations Register to bring it in line with a range of legislative changes and internal officer reporting arrangements resulting from the recent organisational restructure. With the introduction of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Regulation), the definitions of medium and large sized contracts including their respective values have been amended. Given these amendments, a review of the maximum value limit of the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO) delegated authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the local government is appropriate. In addition, a situation exists whereby retailers of electricity and street-lighting contracts under an LGA arrangement (ie. Local Buy) are offering such contracts with only a five business day validity period for acceptance. Given the regular three weekly Council meeting cycle, this validity period does not allow sufficient time for these contracts to be formally considered at a Council meeting for approval. To address the above time limitation issue, Council is asked to provide delegated authority to the CEO to enter into electricity and street lighting contracts provided under an LGA arrangement on behalf of the local government. 2. REPORT The introduction of the new Regulation has seen a revision of the definitions of medium and large sized contracts.



101

Section 224(2) of the Regulation states that a medium sized contractual arrangement is a contractual arrangement with a supplier that is expected to be worth, exclusive of GST, $15000 or more but less than $200000 in a financial year. Section 224(3) of the Regulation states that a large sized contractual arrangement is a contractual arrangement with a supplier that is expected to be worth, exclusive of GST, $200000 or more in a financial year. The above amendments push the trigger point between medium and large sized contracts upwards from $150,000 inclusive of GST under the former legislation to $200,000 exclusive of GST under the current Regulation. Under current arrangements, in accordance with s262(3)(a) and s257(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2009 (Act), the CEO has delegated authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the local government with a maximum value of any contract to be $150,000 inclusive of GST, subject to the provision of Council’s procurement procedures being adhered to. In recognition of increased values for both medium and large sized contracts noted in the new Regulation, it is appropriate for Council to increase the level of the CEO’s delegated authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the local government to a maximum value of $200,000 exclusive of GST, subject to the provision of Council’s procurement procedures being adhered to. Contracts exceeding this value have to be reported to Council. In addition to the above, Local Buy is currently out to tender for street lighting services of which Gympie Regional Council is a participant. Tenders close on Thursday 2 May 2013. Electricity services are also soon going out to tender via Local Buy. Section 234 (1) of the Regulation states that a local government may enter into a contract for goods and services without first having written quotes or tenders if the contract is entered into under an LGA arrangement. Local Buy is an LGA arrangement under the Act. Contracts for electricity and street lighting via Local Buy are being offered with a five business day contract validity period. This short offer period does not allow adequate time for the contracts to be presented to Council for consideration at an Ordinary Meeting.



102

Section 262(3)(a) of the Act gives a local government the power to enter into contracts. Section 257(1)(b) of the Act, states that a local government may, by resolution, delegate a power under the Act or another Act to the Chief Executive Officer. To allow Council to take full advantage of competitive pricing available for electricity and street lighting contracts offered under Local Buy, it is proposed that Council delegate the power to enter into electricity and street lighting contracts offered under an LGA arrangement to the CEO, in line with s262(3)(a) of the Act and s234(1) of the Regulation. As these specific contracts are likely to be large sized contracts above $200,000 excluding GST in value, the delegation sought for the CEO should be without any maximum value limitation, but restricted to electricity and street lighting contracts made under an LGA arrangement only. 3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS An opportunity exists to receive competitive pricing for electricity and street lighting contracts offered under an LGA arrangement via Local Buy. 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed delegations are in line with current legislative options available to Council under the Act and Regulation. 5. CONSULTATION Chief Executive Officer Deputy CEO/Director Corporate Governance Internal Auditor Procurement Co-ordinator 6. CONCLUSION Recent legislative changes to the dollar values associated with medium and large sized contracts has prompted a review of the maximum value limit associated with the CEO’s delegated authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the local government. In addition, due to short contract validity periods associated with electricity and street lighting contracts being offered under an LGA arrangement (Local Buy), consideration of a delegation to the CEO, without a maximum value limitation, to enter into such contracts on behalf of the local government is requested. 7. ATTACHMENTS:



103

M11/04/13 Moved: Cr A.J. Perrett Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker

That in accordance with s262(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 2009, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the power to enter into contracts on behalf of the local government to a maximum value of $200,000 excluding GST. Further, in accordance with s262(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 2009 and s234(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, that the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the power to enter into electricity and street lighting contracts offered under an LGA arrangement on behalf of the local government, with no maximum value limitation.

Carried



104

8/3 Request for Tender 2012/13 T-132 – Register of Pre-qualified

Suppliers Traffic Control Services

PORTFOLIO: Governance and Economic Development DIRECTORATE: Corporate and Community Services AUTHOR: Procurement Co-ordinator DOC ID: N/A LINK TO CORPORATE / OPERATIONAL PLAN: Corporate Plan 3.4.4 Conduct purchases in accordance with Council’s purchasing policy and procedures.

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Gympie Regional Council (GRC) has limited resources to undertake traffic control services. This tender is for the provision of traffic control services on an operational needs basis for a period of 12 months, with an option to extend the contract for two 12 month periods at Council’s sole discretion. 2. REPORT Tenders were advertised on Saturday 1st December 2012 in the Gympie Times and the Sunshine Coast Daily for the provision of traffic control services for Council’s operational requirements. A total of 9 responses were received. All tenderers were evaluated in conjunction with the Works section for compliance with insurance, licensing, registration and WH&S requirements. A meeting was undertaken with Procurement and Works staff and Aaction Traffic to clarify a number of items in relation to their tender response. The successful tenderer’s are to be ranked on the arrangement as follows; 1. Aaction Traffic 2. Acquired Awareness Traffic Management 3. Evolution Traffic Control 3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Within Budget Allocations 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil



105

5. CONSULTATION Works Division 6. CONCLUSION 7. ATTACHMENTS Nil

M12/04/13 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté That Council approves the Register of Pre-qualified Suppliers 2012/13 T-132 Traffic Control Services consisting of Aaction Traffic ranked number 1 and Acquired Awareness Traffic Management ranked number 2 and Evolution Traffic Control ranked number 3 for a period up to 12 months with two options to extend at Council’s sole discretion.

Carried



106

8/4 Gympie Cooloola Tourism

PORTFOLIO: Governance and Economic Development DIRECTORATE: Office of the Chief Executive Officer AUTHOR: Bernard Smith, Chief Executive Officer DOC ID: N/A LINK TO CORPORATE / OPERATIONAL PLAN: 1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council has recently resolved to take responsibility for marketing the Gympie region in terms of visitation, be it for leisure, business, or events. The transition of responsibility from Gympie Cooloola Tourism (GCT) to Council occurred on 4th February 2013 and applications are currently being called for membership of the Gympie Region Tourism Advisory Committee whose role is to advise and guide Council in the marketing of the region. A draft strategic plan for Destination Gympie Region is currently being prepared and will soon be presented to Council for discussion. It will also be presented to the Gympie Region Tourism Advisory Committee, once it has been established, for its input. 2. REPORT The constitution of Gympie Cooloola Tourism states: 15. 4) Of the nine persons comprising the Management Committee:

(a) 2 persons must be councillors or nominated representatives of Gympie Regional Council;

(b) 7 persons must be paid up ordinary Members of the

Association; and

(i) are endorsed by Gympie Regional Council; and (ii) if they are not already paid up ordinary Members, are

willing to become paid up ordinary Members within 30 days of receiving and accepting Gympie Regional Council’s endorsement.



107

At its post-election meeting held on 16th May 2012, Council nominated Councillors Gâté and Walker as it representatives on the Management Committee (Board) of Gympie Cooloola Tourism. Given the change in responsibilities and the likely change in direction of GCT, and noting that it is no longer funded by Council, it is now not considered necessary for Council to be represented on the Board. Council at its meeting on the 23rd January 2013 resolved in part:

That:

4. Council write to GCT and ask that, on the basis of the assets it holds originating from the community, and noting the major source of income for it has been ratepayer funds, how does it intend to disburse these assets, in accordance with its constitution;

The origin of this request was that GCT was in effect funded by ratepayer funds and that the considerable assets it still holds are essentially public assets by origin. A response has been received from GCT indicating that it has sought legal advice and that GCT will continue to deal with its assets in the same way as it has done since inception and "that our current actions in relation to accountability in dealing with income and property align with our requirements under legislation and our constitution as summarised in Clause 34 (7)" which states in full: 34 (7) The income and property of the Association

whencesoever derived shall be used and applied solely in promotion of its objects and in the exercise of its powers as set out herein and no portion thereof shall be distributed, paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profit to or amongst the Members of the Association provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the payment in good faith of interest to any such Member in respect of moneys advanced by him to the Association or otherwise owing by the Association to him or of remuneration to any officers or in return for any servants of the Association or to any Member of the Association or other person in return for any services actually rendered to the Association provided further that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to prevent the payment or repayment to any Member of out of pocket expenses, money lent, reasonable and proper charges for goods hired by the



108

Association or reasonable and proper rent for the premises demised or let to the Association.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 5. CONSULTATION Cr R.A. Gâté Cr J.A. Walker Cr R.J. Dyne, Mayor 6. CONCLUSION Marketing the region as a whole by Council is an important economic development initiative and Council’s role in promoting visitation is an important element of this. 7. ATTACHMENTS:

M13/04/13 Moved: Cr M.A. McDonald Seconded: Cr M.W. Curran That Council:

1. Withdraw the nomination of Councillors Gâté and Walker as its representatives on the Management Committee of Gympie Cooloola Tourism, given the change in responsibilities of both Council and Gympie Cooloola Tourism;

2. Note Gympie Cooloola Tourism’s response regarding its assets.

Carried



109

SECTION 9: INFRASTRUCTURE 9/1 2012/13 - T011 - Amamoor Creek Bridge Replacement

PORTFOLIO: Infrastructure DIRECTORATE: Engineering AUTHOR: Design Manager DOC ID: N/A LINK TO CORPORATE / OPERATIONAL PLAN: Corporate Plan: Operational Plan:

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 2. REPORT Public Tenders for: 2012/13 T011 Amamoor Creek Bridge Replacement closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday 12th March 2013. Tenders were received as follows: (all inclusive of GST)

Allencon $2,373,717.50 Ark Construction Group $2,345,765.40 Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd (CMC) $2,510,136.20 Davbridge Constructions Civil $2,251,720.90 FK Gardner and Sons Group (FKG) $2,485,518.28 FK Gardner and Sons Group (FKG) (alternative) $2,324,897.97 Gympie Civil $2,738,467.22 Hiberian Group $3,327,271.20 Kay Associates Pty Ltd $2,076,800.00 Moggill Construction Pty Ltd $2,581,153.30 QCivil $2,785,320.62 Queensland Concrete & General Construction Co. Pty Ltd (QCGC) $1,990,148.99



110

Shadforths Civil Contractors $2,696,327.70 Shamrock Civil $2,137,917.10 Trafflec $2,752,410.10

The 4 lowest tenders were evaluated on non-price and price criteria as per the conditions of tender. Queensland Concrete and General Construction Co. Pty. Ltd. (QCGC) tender was the lowest, but upon assessment did have an altered priced schedule whereby the tender quantities had been altered from those in the original tender documentation. Upon seeking clarification from QCGC the revised tender increased $26,649.88 (Inc GST) 3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The project has been approved by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority. The total budget for the project is $2.7m. There are costs in addition to this contract including survey, design and supervision fees however, the total project cost is anticipated to less than the budget available. 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 5. CONSULTATION General Manager, Design Services

6. CONCLUSION

7. ATTACHMENTS Nil

M14/04/13 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr A.J. Perrett

That Tender 2012/13 – T011 – Amamoor Creek Bridge Replacement be awarded to Queensland Concrete and General Construction Co. Pty. Ltd. for their tendered price of $2,016,798.87 inclusive of GST. Further that the unsuccessful tenderers be notified accordingly.

Carried



111

9/2 Proposed B-Double Route – Corella Road, Gympie

PORTFOLIO: Infrastructure DIRECTORATE: Engineering Services AUTHOR: General Manager Design Services DOC ID: - LINK TO CORPORATE / OPERATIONAL PLAN: Outcome 2.1 / Sub-program 2.1

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council has been asked to respond to a request for B-Double access to 48 Corella Road Gympie. Council considered this matter at the last Ordinary Meeting and resolved: That the matter lay on the table pending further discussion. 2. REPORT A discussion has been held with a representative of the applicant, which in this case is the owner of the building. The application was lodged to allow the potential use of the building by a B-Double operator or by some other type of business that would benefit from B-Double access. There is no current tenancy on the building. Corella Road between Fraser Road and 48 Corella Road (past Bonnick Rd) is not constructed to a suitable standard for B-Doubles. It has narrow lanes, poor alignment and busy intersections to residential estates. It is a school bus route and some school children cross the road. The intersection of Fraser Road and Corella Road is not suitable for B-Doubles making this movement. 3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Nil. 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil. 5. CONSULTATION Engineering Services 6. CONCLUSION The proposed route is not suitable for B-Doubles.



112

7. ATTACHMENTS Nil.

M15/04/13 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr W.W. Sachs That Council opposes the B-Double application (TMR reference BD1449) for B-Double access on Corella Road.

Carried



113

SECTION 10: MAJOR PROJECTS & BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SECTION 11: WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTION 12: TOURISM & MARY VALLEY



114

SECTION 13: GENERAL BUSINESS Tin Can Bay Coast Guard

Cr M.A. McDonald advised that he and Director Infrastructure Services, Dimitri Scordalides, visited the Tin Can Bay Coast Guard recently and they raised the issue of the delay from the insurance company regarding flood damage to the pier. Cr M.A. McDonald requested Cr R.J. Dyne assistance in having this prioritised accordingly and Cr R.J. Dyne agreed.

Her Excellency the Governor Ms Penelope Wensley AC Visit to Gympie on Friday 12 April 2013

Cr R.A. Gâté advised that the Governor of Queensland officially opened the Cooloola Arts Society’s 40th Birthday Retrospective exhibition at the Gympie Regional Gallery on Friday 12th April. Cr R.J. Dyne added that the Governor had also toured Tansey, Goomeri, Kilkivan and Woolooga that day to visit various flood affected residences and businesses. The Governor’s recent visits are much appreciated by Council and members of the public.



115

COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE

The Mayor advised the meeting that Council was going “Into

Committee” to discuss: 1. Appointment of Additional External Members of the Audit Committee

M16/04/13 Moved: Cr J.A. Walker Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté That pursuant to the provisions of Section 275 of the Local

Government Regulation 2012, Council resolves to close the meeting to the public and move “into committee” to consider the following matter/s:- 1. Appointment of Additional External Members of the Audit

Committee Further, that in relation to the provisions of Section 171 of the

Local Government Act 2009, Council resolves that following the closing of the meeting to the public and the moving ‘into committee’ that all matters and all documents (whether in hard copy, electronic, optical, visual or magnetic form) discussed, raised, tabled and/or considered whilst the meeting is closed and ‘in committee’, are confidential to the Council and the Council wishes to keep them confidential.

Carried COUNCIL OUT OF COMMITTEE M17/04/13 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr J.A. Walker That proceedings be resumed in Open Council.

Carried



116

SECTION 14: IN COMMITTEE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST In accordance with Section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009; Cr W.W. Sachs declared a Conflict of Interest in Recommendation M18/04/13 due to a close association with an individual involved. Cr W.W. Sachs left the meeting at 9.48am while the matter was discussed and voted on.

14/1 Appointment of Additional External Members of the Audit Committee

PORTFOLIO: Governance and Economic Development DIRECTORATE: Office of the Chief Executive Officer AUTHOR: Internal Auditor DOC ID: N/A LINK TO CORPORATE / OPERATIONAL PLAN: Key Outcome 3.3 – An organisational culture of continuous improvement. In particular the Service Activity Area of Internal Systems incorporating Management Audits, Risk Management and Management Systems. This item is in-committee in accordance with Clause 72 (h) other business for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage.

M18/04/13 Moved: Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded: Cr I.T. Petersen That Donna Roslyn Neilson and Angie Condon-Smith be appointed to the Audit and Risk Management Committee as additional external members for a term of 3 years ending 27 March 2016.

Carried



117

SECTION 15: ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Item 6/1 Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes 12

March 2013 and 9 April 2013 There being no further business the meeting closed at 9.53am

Confirmed this EIGHTH day of MAY 2013

________________________ Cr R.J. Dyne CHAIRMAN

ATTACHMENT 1

Refer Item 6/1

Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes 12 March 2013 and 9 April 2013

of the

ORDINARY MEETING

On Wednesday 17 April 2013 At 9.00 am

MINUTES Heritage Advisory Committee

1

Location: Town Hall, Corner of Caledonian Hill and Mellor Street

Date: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 12:30 p.m.

Chairperson: Cr. Julie Walker

Attendees

Apologies

Moved: Geoff Smith Seconded: Dr. Rae Norris “That the apologies be accepted by the committee.” Carried

Confirmation of previous minutes

HAC 13 November 2012.doc

Moved: Cr. Wayne Sachs Seconded: Geoff Smith “It is recommended that the contents of the previous minutes be accepted.”

Carried H01/03/13

Dr. Rae Norris Cr. Wayne Sachs Cr. Julie Walker Cr. Mick Curran Kimberley Toomey

Geoff Smith Roger Todd Joolie Gibbs Julia Lawrence Marcus Matthews

Laura Bishop

Stephanie Lawless Lillian Burke Bob Fredman


2

1. Business arising from minutes

1.1 Trove Project Referred to Library and established it is an expensive project and we would require funding. Dr. Rae Norris discussed the importance of the project going ahead and will continue to research the project in conjunction with Rachel Letham (project lead).

Moved: Geoff Smith Seconded: Cr. Wayne Sachs

“Dr. Rae Norris liaise with Rachel from the library to further investigate if the Trove Project could be funded from the Your Community Heritage Grants and the current status of the Trove Project.”

Carried H02/03/13

1.2 Cooloola Coast Static Display Cr. Julie Walker asked The Committee how they feel about seeking funding through the Your Community Heritage Grants for a static display Tin Can Bay and then possibly a duplication at Rainbow Beach. Geoff Smith offered to assist in updating the database.

Moved: Dr. Rae Norris Seconded: Geoff Smith

“Investigate if the Cooloola Coast Static Display could be funded from the Your Community Heritage Grants.”

Carried H03/03/13

1.3 Cultural Report on the Mary River Cr. Julie walker asked the committee if Dr. Tansey Smith and Luke Barrowcliffe could be invited to do a presentation at the next meeting.

Moved: Cr. Julie Walker Seconded: Geoff Smith

“Dr. Tansey Smith and Luke Barrowcliffe be invited to do a presentation at the next meeting as guest speakers.”

Carried H04/02/13

1.4 Conservation Management Plan of Memorial Park The Committee requested that staff forward a copy of the draft Conservation Management for Committee members to comment in due course.


3

H05/02/13

2. Referrals from Planning and Development

2.1 2012-1086 Proposed Motel on Lot 21 G14726 (Uniting Church Site) Kimberley Toomey and Marcus Matthews informed the committee that a preliminary approval had been issued and when the application is resubmitted for a development approval, subject to revised design criteria, the Heritage Advisory Committee will be asked for comment. Contents were noted by members.

H06/02/13

3. Correspondence and business arising

3.1 Indigenous Sites of Heritage Significance

Moved: Julia Lawrence Seconded: Cr. Mick Curran

“That representatives be invited from the State Government to brief the committee on Indigenous Heritage and that this item be moved to a future meeting of this committee.”

Carried H07/03/13

3.2 Heritage Art Competition Joolie Gibbs made a presentation to the committee about the Heritage Art Competition. The website and Facebook page for the heritage trails are to be updated to link to the competition. Julia, in conjunction with Barbara Hart, is going to assist in compiling heritage records for the Show Society. Dr. Rae Norris offered to speak about MVHR Project prior to the awards for the competition. Rae and Joolie to discuss the program.

H08/03/13

3.3 Gallery Talks As above

H09/03/13

3.4 Site Tours Cr. Julie Walker asked the committee for a suggestion about a future site tour location. The Committee suggested a Mary Valley location might be appropriate. Geoff Smith reiterated the importance of visiting heritage sites in conjunction with the tour. Cr. Julie Walker asked The Committee to bring suggestions for appropriate locations at the next meeting.


4

H10/03/13

3.5 State Listed Heritage Places Marcus Matthews presented item to The Committee and Goeff Smith suggested that each member of The Committee visit the site to understand and appreciate it. Cr. Julie Walker suggested a bus trip would be appropriate. Geoff Smith to email Marcus Matthew photos of Elgin Vale Sawmill for distribution to the committee. Roger Todd discussed Memorial Park plantings and Band Stand Rotunda and the need for further discussion regarding the memorials relating to earlier wars, including Indigenous people. Draft Conservation Management Plan for Memorial Park to be distributed to committee members for discussion prior to submission to Council and then Department of Environment and Heritage Potection.

H11/03/13

3.6 Community Heritage Grants Program Covered earlier

H12/03/13

3.7 Cultural Study of the Mary River Covered earlier

H13/03/13

3.8 New Planning Scheme Kimberley Toomey advised the Director of Planning & Development, will be attending the next meeting to brief The Committee on the new Planning Scheme.

H14/03/13

4. Project updates

4.1 Gympie Region Heritage Trails Stage 2 Kimberley Toomey advised that Stage 2 of the project will commence shortly, including negotiations with property owners in relation to erecting heritage signs on private properties. Item referred to the next committee meeting.

H15/03/13


5

5. General business

5.1(a) Regularity of Heritage Advisory Committee Meetings Cr. Julie Walker discussed the idea of holding bi-monthly meetings. Geoff Smith and other members were concerned that the effectiveness of the committee would be reduced.

Moved: Cr. Mick Curran Seconded: Dr. Rae Norris

“That Heritage Advisory Committee Meetings be held monthly.”

Note: Cr. Wayne Sachs opposed to meeting being held monthly.

Carried H16/03/13

5.1(b)

Concerns were raised by Geoff Smith that the area of Heritage was not satisfactorily resourced within Council.

Moved: Cr. Wayne Sachs Seconded: Geoff Smith

“Issue of a dedicated staff member for heritage be referred to Council for consideration as part of Council budget deliberations.”

Carried H17/03/13

5.1(c)

Julia Lawrence suggested that the formulation of a list of project priorities might provide better clarity for The Committee.

Moved: Julia Lawrence Seconded: Cr. Wayne Sachs

“That a list of project priorities be formulated for consideration by the Heritage Advisory Committee.”

Carried H18/03/13

5.2 Review of Charter Charter to be sent to all committee members for consideration prior to the next meeting of this Committee for the purpose of an annual review.

H19/03/13


6

Next Meeting

Meeting closed at 2:12pm

Next meeting is scheduled for 9th of April 2013 at 12.30pm The Town Hall.

H20/03/13


1

Location: Planning & Development Meeting Room 4, 29 Channon Street

Date: Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 12:30 p.m.

Chairperson: Cr. Julie Walker

Moved: Cr. Julie Walker Seconded: Geoff Smith

“That the standing orders are suspended so the Tanzi Smith can proceed with the presentation about the Cultural Report on the Mary River.”

Carried H01/04/13

2. Business Arising from Minutes

2.3 Cultural Report on the Mary River • Tanzi Smith made a presentation to the Committee about the project. She also spoke with

Rachel Lethem about making the project available for viewing at the Gympie Regional Council Library following completion. Rachel agreed to speak with her in the future regarding the matter.

• The Committee noted the contents of the presentation. H02/04/13

Attendees

H03/04/13

Roger Todd Cr. Wayne Sachs Cr. Julie Walker Cr. Mick Curran Diane Kay

Geoff Smith Rachel Lethem Kimberley Toomey Julia Lawrence Marcus Matthews

Laura Bishop Shayne Capell


2

Apologies

Moved: Julia Lawrence Seconded: Geoff Smith “That the apologies be accepted by the Committee.”

Carried H04/04/13

Appointments

H05/04/13

Confirmation of previous minutes

HAC 12 March 2013.doc

Moved: Julia Lawrence Seconded: Geoff Smith “That the contents of the amended previous minutes be accepted by the Committee.”

Carried H06/04/13

1. Introduction

1.1 Staff Introduction – Kimberley Toomey (Manager Planning Strategy & Major Projects) & Mike Hartley (Director – Planning & Development) • Kimberley Toomey introduced the members of Planning Strategy & Major Projects to the

Committee and advised that Marcus Matthews will be their first point of call if they have any queries.

• Other members of the committee also gave brief introductions to themselves. H07/04/13

Bob Fredman Joolie Gibbs Stephanie Lawless Dr. Rae Norris

Mike Hartley Tanzi Smith (Left meeting at 12:57pm)


3

2. Business Arising from Minutes

2.1 Trove Project • Cr. Julie Walker consulted Rachel Lethem about the project. Rachel elaborated on the

expenses and difficulties securing funding. • Issues were raised by Geoff Smith and Rachel Lethem regarding copyright laws preventing

digitization of records after 1954. • Cr. Mick Curran raised interest in collaborating with Gympie Times to complete project.

Rachel agreed that it’s worth looking into. • Rachel agreed to put together a proposal for Director of the Corporate Community

Directorate for consideration. Moved: Cr. Mick Curran Seconded: Geoff Smith “The committee recommends that Council consider allocating an amount of $5, 000 in the 2013-14 budget to fund a pilot National Digitalisation Project to digitise the Gympie Times.”

Carried H08/04/13

2.2 Cooloola Coast Interactive Heritage Display • The Committee noted this item.

H09/04/13

2.4 Conservation Management Plan of Memorial Park • Mike Hartley advised the Committee that Council has decided not to continue with the

completion of the Conservation Management Plan of the Memorial Park. • Geoff Smith raised concerns with Council choosing to not provide funding. • Roger Todd abstained from voting on the motion due to material personal interest. Moved: Geoff Smith Seconded: Julia Lawrence “That this Committee advise Council that whilst not mandatory, there is value in undertaking Conservation Management Plans for important Heritage sites. This Committee considers that the Conservation Management Plan for Memorial Park should proceed.”

Carried H10/04/13


4

2.5 Heritage Advisory Committee Charter • Mike Hartley started the discussion and raised concern for the original intention of staff

representation in the Charter. Mike expressed that perhaps there should be a permanent seat in the Committee for a member/members from Council’s Planning Strategy & Major Projects team.

Moved: Cr. Mick Curran Seconded: Cr. Wayne Sachs “That the Committee refers the Charter to Planning Strategy and Major Projects staff to review and submit a draft to the next Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting.”

Carried H11/04/13

Moved: Geoff Smith Seconded: Julia Lawrence “That the Committee write to Lillian Burke in accordance with membership requirements of the Charter.”

Carried H12/04/13

3. Referrals from Planning and Development

3.1 2012-1086 Proposed Motel on Lot 21 G14726 (Uniting Church Site) • Mike Hartley presented a summary of the development application to the Committee and

pointed out the modifications to the original proposal and how they are considered an improvement to the original proposal.

Moved: Julia Lawrence Seconded: Geoff Smith “That the Committee offers no objection to the modified proposal.”

Carried H13/04/13


5

4. Correspondence and Business Arising

4.1 Site Tours • Marcus Matthews asked the Committee to put their thoughts forward in relation to a

meeting location. Moved: Julia Lawrence Seconded: Geoff Smith “That the Chairman seek a suitable venue in the Mary Valley and a guest speaker for the end of year meeting.”

Carried H14/04/13

4.2 New Planning Scheme • Mike Hartley made a presentation to the Committee about how Heritage matters are

addressed by the Draft Planning Scheme. Moved: Diane Kay Seconded: Cr. Julie Walker “The Committee raised the issue that there needs to be a public information night that addresses targeted groups in relation to Heritage measures in the new Planning Scheme following adoption.”

Carried H15/04/13

4.3 Conservation Management Plans for Heritage Sites of State Listed Significance • The Committee noted this item.

H16/04/13

Note: Next meeting be held 2pm, Tuesday 14th of May 2013, at the Planning & Development offices (Meeting Room 4).

Documents

2013-04-17 Ordinary Meeting Minutes - Gympie Council · 2013-05-22 · Ordinary Meeting 17 April 2013 Gympie Regional Council 6 . SECTION 5: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT . 5/1 Development