Original source · versioned page text
2015-06-29 General Committee Meeting Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
General Committee
Meeting
Monday, 29 June 2015
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Bob Abbot, Sandy Bolton,
Joe Jurisevic, Frank Pardon, Noel Playford, Tony Wellington
“Engagement with our community to protect and enhance our lifestyle”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 27 sections
Section 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE -
ITEMS REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE 2
1 REQUEST TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF AN EXISTING MATERIAL CHANGE
OF USE APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 90 GOODCHAP
STREET, NOOSAVILLE (07/0012)
(Previously distributed in the Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, Page 14)
Reason for referral: Cr Wilkie does not agree with the recommendation and
requested a further report to General Committee outlining existing uses on the site
and further information on parking.
(Further report provided at Item 1, Page 3)
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 3
1 FURTHER REPORT - REQUEST TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF AN EXISTING
MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
AT 90 GOODCHAP STREET, NOOSAVILLE (07/0012) 3
2 STATE PLANNING REFORM 7
3 ANNUAL PEST SURVEY PROGRAM 2015-2016 20
4 NOOSA DESIGN PRINCIPLES ADOPTION 23
5 CONTRACT 1415T036 MUNNA POINT BRIDGE REHABILITATION (DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION) 25
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 2 of 28
Section 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
1 FURTHER REPORT - REQUEST TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF AN EXISTING
MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 90
GOODCHAP STREET, NOOSAVILLE (07/0012)
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Jack Lewis
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Application / 132007.12.6
Attachments Nil
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting
dated 29 June 2015 regarding Application No. 132006.12.6 for a Change to an Existing Approval,
situated at 90 Goodchap Street, Noosaville and:
A. Change Condition 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 36, 38, 64, 65 & 66 to read:
1. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply
with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are numbered Site
Plan Overall Parking Layout 0427 DA01E, Site Plan Overall Podium Level 0427
DA02E, Site Plan Overall Upper Plan 9427 DA03E, Stage 2 Carpark Plan 0427
DA04E, Stage 2 Podium Plan 0427 DA05E, Stage 2 Upper Floor Plan 0427 DA06E,
Roof Plan 0427 DA07D, Existing Approved Elevation & Sections 0427 DA08D,
Proposed Elevations & Sections 0427 DA09D, Proposed Carpark Lower Level Plan
0427 DA10E, Proposed Carpark Mid Level Plan 0427 DA11E, Proposed Carpark
Upper Level Plan DA12E and Proposed Carpark Elevations & Sections 0427 DA13E
prepared by Middap Ditchfield Pty Ltd and dated May 2007 and Working Drawings
Carpark Layout 0715 WD01.1 prepared by Middap Ditchfield Pty Ltd and dated April
2008 and Plan of Lots 4, 5 & Emt D (Restricted) in Lot 4 SP 196846 prepared by
Jones Flint & Pike and as may be amended by these conditions.
7. Secure bicycle racks shall be provided on site to accommodate a minimum of 35
bicycles. The proposed bicycle racks shall be identified on the plans submitted for
Operational Works approval and shall be located to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Council.
8. End of trip facilities shall be provided within the approved buildings at a minimum rate
of 18 lockers and 3 showers.
10. The proposed development shall not exceed a maximum height of:-
10.1 for buildings, 2 storeys and 10 metres above natural ground level, with the
exception of building B, which may be 3 storeys in height in accordance with
the approved plans.
10.2 for the car park structure, 8 metres above natural ground level, with the
exception of the rendered block work up stand (ie. lift overrun) adjacent to
the driveway ramp which shall not exceed 10.5 metres above natural ground
level.
12. The development is permitted a total maximum use area of 6,054m2 with each
individual use permitted the following maximum use areas at any one time:-
12.1 Commercial Business – Type 1 Office – 2420m2
12.2 Commercial Business – Type 2 Medical – 3000m2
Page 3 of 28
Section 4
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
12.3 Education – Type 3 Adult – 2,723m2
12.4 Retail Business – Type 1 Local – 100m2
12.5 Retail Business Type 2 Shop or Entertainment and Dining Business Type 1
Food and Beverages – 236m2 (includes 16m2 of outdoor dining).
36. The development shall provide car parking spaces on the site at a minimum rate of
395 car parking spaces.
38. Vehicular access to the site shall be primarily from Goodchap Street and car parking
shall be generally in accordance with the approved plans.
64. The required contributions shall be paid to Council and the associated car parking
constructed.
65. Vehicular access arrangements can be varied to allow for an alternative access
arrangement for northern vehicle access to the site from Goodchap Street. The
alternative access arrangement shall be generally in accordance with Drawing No.
P10C, Job No. 06679 prepared by TOD Noosa dated 29 May 2009. The works shall
include but not be limited to:-
i. The linemarking necessary to provide the right turn lane and associated
medians,
ii. The direction linemarking within the existing access,
iii. The widening of the current vehicle crossover, and
iv. Any works associated with the existing Telstra pit to the satisfaction of Telstra.
Suitable certification from Telstra shall be submitted to Council prior to the
commencement of any works and at the completion of the works.
Further, a schedule of works, specifications and plans detailing this work shall be
prepared and submitted to Council for approval as part of an application for
Operational Works.
66. Where vehicular access arrangements are varied in accordance with the alternative
access arrangements identified by Condition 65, the applicant shall design and
construct an indented bus bay in Goodchap Street to replace the existing kerb side
bus stop located in the frontages of No 135-137 Goodchap Street. The works for the
bus bay shall include but not be limited to the following:-
i. Be located generally in accordance with Drawing No. P10C, Job No. 06679
prepared by TOD Noosa dated 29 May 2009,
ii. Be designed and constructed generally in accordance with Translink’s “Regular
Stop” as shown on Translink Drawing No. TL-R02 with the following
modifications:
a. The kerb type in the tapers must provide unimpeded access to the two
affected residential properties,
b. The minimum taper on the approach should be approximately20m,
c. The new taper should be 1 in 7, and
d. The minimum length of the bus stop itself is 20m.
iii. The pad, seat, bin, signage and tactile indicators as shown on Translink’s
“Regular Stop” as shown on Translink Drawing No. TL-R02.
Page 4 of 28
Section 5
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
iv. Any modifications to and realignment of the existing residential access
driveways,
v. A 2m wide concrete footpath connecting the bus stop to the existing footpath in
Goodchap Street.
In this regard a schedule of works, specifications and plans detailing this work shall
be prepared and submitted to Council as part of an application for Operational Works.
B. Agree to delete condition 15;
C. Give notice to the property owner to comply with the conditions of the approval and that the
unapproved works within the Lake Doonella Reserve must be removed and reinstated back
to its original condition to the reasonable satisfaction of Council within 6 months.
REPORT
A report on a request to change the conditions of an existing mixed use development approval at
the ‘Noosaville Medical & Professional Centre’ situated at 90 Goodchap Street, Noosaville was
considered by the Planning & Organisation Committee Meeting. During the course of discussions
at the meeting, Councillors requested further information about the parking assessment
associated with the current mix of uses on the site and whether there would be sufficient spaces
for the current uses if the multi storey carpark was constructed.
The applicant indicates that the Adult Education Use is currently tenanting 2,723m2 of floor
space, and the total use area on site is 6,054m2 (excludes corridors and foyer areas). As
described in the previous report, Beard Traffic Engineering advises the current split of uses could
be reasonably assessed as requiring 402 spaces (see Table.1).
Table.1 – On-site parking demand for the current use areas at the ‘Noosaville Medical &
Professional Centre’ situated at 90 Goodchap Street, Noosaville.
Parking Rates Previously Applied Parking Spaces Required
2
Office – 1,141m 1:20 57 spaces
2
Medical – 1,869m 1:20 94 spaces
2
Education – 800m 1:20 40 spaces (prior approval)
2
Education – 1,923m 1:10 192 spaces
2
Retail – 321m 1:16.7 19 spaces
2
TOTAL 6,054m 402 spaces
If the applicant were to construct the 142 bay multi-storey carpark, there would be 395 carparks
available on the site (not including the 40 bays in the child care centre and/or the reserve area).
Beard Traffic Engineering advises that, if the applicant were to build the multi storey carpark with
the current amount of Adult Education Use on the site, there would only be a shortfall of 7 onsite
spaces described in Table.1. This would mean the design peak parking demand would be
exceeded approximately 20hrs per year. While this does raise some concerns given the limited
on street car parking in Goodchap Street, this parking would be within the acceptable range.
Notably, the report to the Planning & Organisation Committee indicated that 355 spaces would
mean the design peak parking demand would be exceeded about 20 hours per year, this figure
has been corrected by Beard Traffic Engineering to 30hrs per year.
An alternative recommendation is included which allows for the current adult education use to
remain on the site subject to the multi storey carpark being constructed.
Page 5 of 28
Section 6
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Consultation
The application was forwarded to Council’s consulting Traffic Engineer for comment.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services X Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health X DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 6 of 28
Section 7
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
2 STATE PLANNING REFORM
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Principal Strategic Planner, Rowena Skinner
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Planning Instruments/State Planning
Attachments 1. Timeline
2. Summary of Better Planning Directions Paper
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not Applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee Meeting
dated 29 June 2015 and authorise the Chief Executive Officer to:
A. Make a submission to the Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Parliamentary
Committee on:
1. the Planning and Development (Planning for Prosperity) Bill 2015;
2. the Planning and Development (Planning for Prosperity - Consequential
Amendments) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015; and
3. the Planning and Development (Planning Court) Bill 2015;
with that submission to be based on Council’s previous submission in January 2015 on the
earlier versions of those Bills; and
B. Make a submission to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning in
response to the Better Planning for Queensland Directions Paper in accordance with the
issues outlined in Attachment 2 of this report.
REPORT
This report provides Council with an update on proposals for planning legislative reform by both
the Queensland Government and the shadow cabinet. It recommends that Council make
submissions to both proposals. A timeline is provided as Attachment 1 which is designed to
give a brief summary of events.
1. Planning and Development (Planning for Prosperity) Bill 2015
Council will recall that in November 2014, the former Deputy Premier introduced the following
three Bills to Parliament:
• the Planning and Development Bill 2014;
• the Planning and Development (Consequential) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
2014; and
• the Planning and Environment Court Bill 2014.
These Bills were still to be considered when the Parliament was disbanded after the calling of a
State election.
Page 7 of 28
Section 8
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
On 4 June 2015, the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Planning, Small Business, Employment
and Trade introduced three Private Member’s Bills to the Queensland Parliament. Essentially the
same as the Bills previously proposed last November, these are
• the Planning and Development (Planning for Prosperity) Bill 2015
• the Planning and Development (Planning for Prosperity – Consequential Amendments) and
Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015; and
• the Planning and Development (Planning Court) Bill 2015
The Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee is required to consider these bills
and report to the Legislative Assembly by 13 October 2015.
The private member Bills differ slightly from the previous planning reform package proposed by
the former LNP government by removing provisions that allowed for development applications to
be accepted by an assessment manager without the land owner’s consent, and the removal of a
clause which described when a fine was payable to a local government. The Bills could be further
amended following consultation.
2. Better Planning For Queensland
On 25 May 2015 the Deputy Premier released a Better Planning for Queensland Directions
Paper outlining the Governments directions for its planning reform process. It advised that a new
planning Bill would be introduced to the Queensland Parliament by October 2015, based on the
following principles:
• Enabling responsible development
• Stimulating economic growth and innovation
• Ensuring genuine public participation in the planning process
• Delivering clear and concise legislation that supports effective and efficient planning and
development assessment
The Government’s position is that the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) is flawed and that
the planning legislation needs fundamental review. The Government’s Key Directions to
delivering better planning for Queensland are to:
• Enable better strategic planning and high quality development outcomes
• Ensure effective public participation and engagement in the planning framework
• Create an open, transparent and accountable planning system that delivers investment and
community confidence
• Create legislation that has a practical structure and clearly expresses how land use
planning and development assessment will be done in Queensland
• Support local governments to adapt to and adopt the changes
The Directions Paper lists various priorities and these have been summarised in Attachment 2.
Similar to the Bills introduced by the shadow cabinet, the proposed legislation will consist of a
Planning Act, a separate Court Act and a third Act to make consequential amendments required
for the proposed enactment of the new legislation.
Page 8 of 28
Section 9
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
3. Key Differences
It is anticipated that the Bills introduced by the government will be more similar than dissimilar to
those introduced by the shadow cabinet. The DILGP have expressed a desire to have
consideration of the private members bills postponed until Parliament could consider both sets of
proposed legislation at the same time, however there is no guarantee this will occur.
The key differences in philosophy and drafting instructions from the current government appear
to be:
• Balancing the need to facilitate economic development along with other considerations
• Restoring previous Planning & Environment Court cost arrangements for submitters (so
that costs cannot be awarded against them)
• Increasing penalties in line with other Acts
• Retaining existing community engagement and notification requirements
• Providing financial and in-kind support to Local Governments to adapt to and adopt the
changes (although this will be prioritised to smaller regional councils who have less
resources of their own).
• Extending the timeframe for making a Local Government Infrastructure Plan by a further
two years, subject to an approved programme
• Engaging Local Government and industry about appropriate compensation arrangements
for natural hazard risk management (flooding, bushfire, landslide or coastal erosion).
4. Input into the Process
In January 2015, Council made a submission to the State Government Department with
responsibility for facilitating the planning reform on the Bills that had been proposed at that time.
It is suggested that, with very minor modification, this could be resubmitted to the Infrastructure,
Planning and Natural Resources Parliamentary Committee.
It is suggested a submission also be made to the government’s planning reform process in
response to the Better Planning Directions Paper, broadly in line with comments included in
Attachment 2.
Officers have contributed to the LGAQ Planning Reform Position Paper, considered by the LGAQ
Policy Executive on 25 June 2015, which forms the basis of the LGAQ’s submission to the
planning reform process. Council may wish to forward copies of their own submission to LGAQ in
addition.
Previous Council Consideration
Council first considered the proposed Planning & Development Bill and Planning & Environment
Court Bill 2014 in September 2014 (prior to them being introduced to parliament) and requested
the Chief Executive Officer make a submission to the draft Bills.
Then, at its meeting of 15 January 2015 Council considered a report on Queensland planning
reform including the Planning and Development Bill.
Page 9 of 28
Section 10
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Ordinary Meeting 15 January, 2015, Item 1, Page 3
That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner and the Manager, Planning &
Environment to the General Committee dated 12 January 2015 and request the Chief Executive
Officer to make a submission to the Dept of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
regarding the following points:
A. The Planning & Development Bill and Planning & Development Regulations are not clear in
the decision rules, particularly for those applications which conflict with the planning
scheme. It is considered that where an application conflicts with the planning scheme, the
onus of proof should be on the applicant to prove the merits of the proposal and justify any
inconsistencies;
B. The Planning & Development Bill includes a clause that allows a regulation to prescribe the
assessment manager for a development application as any person from a class of persons
who have stated qualifications or characteristics. It is unclear whether this will result in an
additional class of private entities (chosen by the Minister) being identified as assessment
managers in place of councils for particular applications. This is of significant concern as
experience has demonstrated that private building certification has not always been
successful in implementing planning scheme requirements. This is particularly important for
any operational works applications that include works which are to become a public asset
and be maintained at ratepayers expense;
C. The Planning & Environment Court Bill maintains the specific criteria for making a costs
order introduced with the Sustainable Planning and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012.
These rules do not serve the public interest of enabling the community, submitters, local
governments and developers to dispute planning decisions due to the risk and uncertainty
of the Court awarding costs against them. The previous Court powers to award costs in
circumstances where cases were frivolous or vexatious or instituted primarily to delay or
obstruct are considered sufficient protections from abuse of the system;
D. The definition of material change of use should not be limited to only increases in scale and
density of the premises, as there are circumstances where reducing the scale of the
development does materially change the site’s use. This is particularly relevant for
developments which include an important community use or the like. For example
removing the nursing home component from a retirement village may have a significant
social impact on an area;
E. The Planning & Development Bill maintains and extends the time frame for applicants to be
able revive a development application where it lapses. This ability is not consistent with the
principles for the DA Rules of being an applicant driven process, and is likely to create
administrative problems for Councils and lead to significant confusion for the community,
particularly submitters.
F. As Noosa Council values community engagement in its planning and development
decisions, we have concerns regarding changes that may serve to inhibit, obstruct or
minimise resident input. Reductions in public notification periods and removal of existing
requirements for notices to be placed in local newspapers are thus not supported and there
should be a minimum notification period for applications of 20 business days. We also have
concerns about the proposal that an applicant may choose to publicly notify a development
application as early as 5 days after the development application is properly made. We
believe submitters are better served under the current arrangement where public
notification is able to occur following the information request period;
G. Noosa Council has long enjoyed a locally popular planning scheme that is in part premised
on studies and deliberations concerning the ideal carrying capacity for our shire. We have
concerns that the Queensland Planning Reform Process may herald arbitrary
enlargements of the Urban Footprints within the Noosa Shire area;
Page 10 of 28
Section 11
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
H. Noosa Council does not support proposed changes relating to Community Infrastructure
designation that will remove local government powers to designate infrastructure. Nor do
we support the proposal for the State Planning Minister to be the sole designating Minister
for Infrastructure Designation in Queensland and to thus choose what developments can
proceed, be they public or private infrastructure, and have them exempt from planning
scheme requirements and from infrastructure charges; and
I. The maximum infrastructure charges prescribed by legislation remain unchanged since
being introduced in 2011. Infrastructure charges have dropped in real terms due to
indexation not being applied. This prohibits councils from making charges that reflect the
actual current costs of building infrastructure. Thus the proportional costs of public
infrastructure related to new development are being met by the community. Meanwhile the
State Government adds 3.5% annual indexation to its own fees and charges. Noosa
Council thus requests that annual automatic indexation of the current maximum capped
charges be introduced to reflect increasing costs of providing infrastructure.
Finance & Risk
Nil
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
The Manager Environment & Planning and the Principal Strategic Planners have attended a
Departmental workshop on the Better Planning Process and have liaised with LGAQ on their
approach to this matter.
Internal Consultation
Nil
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services X Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health X DA Planning
Community Facilities X Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 11 of 28
Section 12
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
QUEENSLAND PLANNING REFORM
TIMELINE
25 November 2014 4 June 2015 13 July 2015 13 October 2015
25 June 2015
LNP Planning LNP Shadow Last day for Committee due to
Public Briefing on 3
Minister introduced Planning Minister submissions to be report back to
Bills in
3 Bills to the State introduces 3 Private made to Parliament on LNP
Parliamentary
Parliament Members Bills to Parliamentary Bills
Committee
Parliament Committee
Change of
Government
25 May 2015 June 2015 23 July 2015
Mid July 2015 Aug/Sept 2015 October 2015 Mid-late 2016
Labor’s Planning DILGP hosting Proposed Planning
Last chance to make Planned release of 3 Planning Minister Suggested
Minister releases information Summit to help
submission to DILGP Draft Bills for intends to introduce commencement of
Direction Paper for sessions on refine drafting of
drafting team consultation 3 Bills to Parliament new Acts
Planning Direction Paper Bills
Page 12 of 28
Section 13
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 2
QUEENSLAND PLANNING REFORM
DETAILS OF BETTER PLANNING DIRECTION PAPER AND STAFF RESPONSE
Government Priority Comment
Replacing SPA with a new sensibly structured and easy-to-follow Planning Act It is generally agreed that SPA is a cumbersome piece of legislation.
that retains a familiar framework whilst removing unhelpful, obsolete or repetitive
detail Unlike many local governments Noosa Council does not have a new SPA-based
planning scheme so it is probably in a better position for most should the
legislation be replaced.
Strengthening the relationship between planning instruments to deliver an Could be interpreted as increased pressure for local planning schemes to meet
integrated planning system, including ensuring that planning instruments State planning objectives even if that is at odds with local priorities.
advance the purpose of the Act
Retaining the State Assessment Referral Agency, the State Planning Policy and Both are useful and we would support their retention.
State Development Assessment Provisions
Page 13 of 28
Section 14
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Government Priority Comment
Supporting planning schemes that are streamlined, understandable and practical Performance based planning has resulted in large cumbersome planning
to give greater certainty to the community and industry about development schemes where you are trying to predict all manner of conceivable impact in
outcomes order to write a provision to counter that possibility.
Technical or prescriptive assessment criteria are preferred for development
where applicants do the assessment or for straightforward code assessment.
Prescriptive assessment criteria also provide greater certainty to the community
on outcomes and are desirable in planning scheme drafting for key issues.
Performance based criteria is more useful for development which may not have
been anticipated on that site or for which there may be various impacts.
Writing in a positive language, generally avoiding negative language is supported
however for brevity sometimes a few words about what will not occur can
condense matters.
Planning Schemes should be documents that can be read and understood by the
community and not just by planners or lawyers. A plain English approach is
necessary rather than jargon.
Solutions must be quantifiable and qualitative outcomes must be clear and
definite enough to leave no scope for misinterpretation
Given schemes will most often be read on-line into the future there are means of
immediately cross-referencing any technical or defined phrase as well bringing
up illustrations to further explain a point or provide an example.
Continuing to require regular reviews of local government planning schemes and The review of a scheme every 10 or even 8 years is supported however at 5 year
state planning instruments to ensure the planning framework remains intervals the process is too resource intensive and even the community loses
contemporary and up-to-date interest. In order to ensure planning schemes are contemporary, the process for
amending planning schemes must be more expedient such as introducing the
ability to amend schemes without two state sign offs necessary.
Exploring opportunities to support innovative and technological solutions that Various opportunities may be available to access relevant parts of the planning
improve efficiency and effectiveness in plan making and development scheme online and to electronically prepare and lodge an application or do your
assessment own electronic self-assessment. Having development applications accessible
online also reduces enquiry load. Currently individual Councils are choosing their
own systems to support this process.
Page 14 of 28
Section 15
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Government Priority Comment
Refreshing the categories of development, to ensure they are a true standards- The notion is that exempt and self-assessment would merge to be acceptable
based assessment, and simplifying them to accepted, assessable and prohibited development. This seems reasonable and we would support as much as
categories. appropriate being in that category.
Assessable development would either require “standard” or “merit” assessment
and “merit” may be further divided as some would require public notification but
some possibly would not.
The re-introduction of a prohibited category would be highly desirable.
For the assessable development category, specific consultation will occur about Notionally, development that is currently code assessable, which is consistent
retaining the current levels of assessment (compliance, code, impact) or whether with the intent of the zone and neighbourhood and should reasonably be
further change is needed, although notifiable development will continue to expected to occur therefore should be subject to “standard” assessment in the
provide for submitter appeal rights new regime however Councils may decide some warrant “merit” assessment.
Uses that are currently subject to impact assessment would require merit
assessment in the new regime. Where the appropriateness of a proposed use is
questionable or its potential impacts on others cannot be adequately assessed
through nominated codes, notification should also be required.
Replacing SPA’s complex and complicated rules for making assessment The rules for assessment in SPA are not considered complex and complicated
decisions, with simplified rules that encourage a more holistic approach to for making a decision and it is highly desirable that for developments in conflict
considering development proposals. with the planning scheme, the same test for sufficient grounds to override the
conflict continue to apply.
Under these rules, assessable development would either be approved (or
conditioned) using established benchmarks or decided against policy and other The current legislation for performance based planning schemes has led to
relevant public interest matters cumbersome planning schemes and a lengthy list of requirements that a
development must meet. This has led to many planners taking a tick box
approach and not taking a more holistic approach. The absence of strategic
plans in planning schemes has also contributed to this narrow approach to
assessment.
Page 15 of 28
Section 16
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Government Priority Comment
Replacing the Queensland Planning Provisions with more focussed standard The DILGP suggestion is that the QPP will be split so that necessary or
requirements for planning schemes that improves consistency whilst removing mandatory content will live in a regulation to the Act. They may still provide
requirements that add unnecessary complexity and length to local planning model codes or model template but this is less likely to be mandatory.
schemes
There is benefit in a State-wide consistent approach to planning schemes such
as having a template for consistent structure, consistency of
technical/administrative definitions, use definitions and even the name and
colour of zones. However agree to removal of any aspects not absolutely
necessary – particularly for smaller regional Councils where this would seem
particularly onerous.
Simplifying the hierarchy for State level planning documents with anything from Sounds reasonable
the current instruments that still needs to be regulated (including retention of the
Urban Footprint and koala protections) being moved to the regulation (or other
instruments)
Introducing better processes for plan making, with the step by step detail not set The removal of process from the Act would be appropriate.
in the legislation, allowing local government more flexibility to innovate in process
and engagement. This flexibility will include a default “minimum” path at the local The current Statutory Guideline for Making and Amending Local Planning
government’s discretion. Instruments is very prescriptive, onerous and gives little flexibility for smaller
amendments or amendments with a limited area of influence.
Preparing a new statutory guideline that introduces new community engagement
standards for local government in the plan-making process, in consultation with Noosa Council typically does considerably more than the minimum prescribed
councils and communities consultation, however the engagement proposal should be fit for purpose.
Retaining statutory minimum consultation periods of 60 business days on The community should be afforded the opportunity to comment on the
regional plans preparation and amendment of local and state planning instruments. There is
discontent when they can only comment on local planning instruments if
Retaining statutory timeframes for public notification of proposed local planning Regional or State plans over rule these anyway.
schemes
If the requirements for all new or amended plans (including local regional or
Retaining statutory requirements for consideration of public submissions state) were contained in the regulations and they allowed for flexibility so the
currently in SPA, including requirements for keeping proposed schemes on consultation suited the scope and nature of the plan/amendment it would be an
public display, rights to make submissions, consideration of submissions and improvement
reporting to the Minister
Page 16 of 28
Section 17
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Government Priority Comment
Simplifying Community Infrastructure Designation, including introducing Proponents should pay for the infrastructure required for their development; this
arrangements enabling the Planning Minister to assess against a single set of includes private schools, churches, private hospitals etc which should not be
state assessment criteria, with development for a designated purpose exempt excluded from having to pay for their infrastructure demand through a
from state and local planning instruments Community Infrastructure designation.
Enshrining existing public notification requirements in legislation to ensure they As long as there is distinction between potential plans or amendments with
are not at the discretion of the Minister significant impact as opposed to ones with minor impact.
Working with local government to enhance public reporting on development Transparent assessment time frames are useful, providing the approach does
assessment timeframes not lead to comparison of Council time frames as delegations, resources,
planning schemes, site constraints etc are not comparable for each council.
Ensuring that all publicly notified applications continue to attract third party This is strongly supported as the current cost rules have meant the threat of
appeal rights, as well as restoring the rights of resident and community group appeal costs has excluded residents and community groups from appealing.
submitters to appeal decisions to the Planning and Environment Court without Community groups and individuals should be confident they can express their
fear of having costs awarded against them concerns honestly and openly without fear of financial imposition.
Improving Temporary Local Planning Instruments by extending their life from 12 Twelve months certainly too short a period given how long it takes to amend a
months to up to 2 years to account for scheme amendment timeframes, and scheme – alternatively just make it possible to do scheme amendments more
introducing the ability for them to be amended quickly.
Ensuring open access to planning and development information, including There is some inconsistency between Councils in what information is made
minimum access rules in the regulations available on line for the community in respect to development applications and it
would be clearer if this was made consistent through the legislation.
Simplifying and making consistent Ministerial powers Sounds reasonable
Increasing penalties to bring them in line with similar offences and ensuring Agreed
director’s liabilities align with the national benchmarks
Ensuring that enforcement notices attach to the land and are notified on title to Agreed
ensure prospective purchases are not caught unawares
Page 17 of 28
Section 18
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Government Priority Comment
Improving the operations of the Building and Development Dispute Resolution Agreed it is preferable to have an ADR system and mediation to resolve matters
Committee before they reach the court. However, this Committee is currently operated on a
very informal basis which raises concerns for good decision making. For some
matters where the site or the development may be highly controversial, each
party should have the option of referring it the Planning & Environment Court for
determination.
Fixing the problems that are blocking better performance and better development Flexibility and innovation at a design level is supported however sometimes the
outcomes problem is with performance based planning giving hope to a development
proposal which really should be prohibited. Prohibition provides clarity and
certainty and should reduce wasted efforts on a development proposal that does
not belong on that site.
Moving detail that is largely process or “planning 101” out of the Act, such as the Sounds reasonable as long as there is consistency on imposition for State
prescriptive process for regional plans, operational specifics for Regional planning as for local planning.
Planning Committees, and detailed planning scheme content including core
matters and key elements
Simplifying currency period arrangements Agreed, existing currency period provisions are highly confusing and it is
preferred that the currency period be for a maximum number of years with the
ability to condition a lapsing date in the development approval. A lapsing date in
the approval would provide greater clarity for all parties.
Simplifying the “properly made” requirements to reduce the risk of technical non- The mandatory requirements for lodgement have not significantly improved the
compliance at the point of lodgement quality of applications and have unnecessarily delayed assessment of
applications in some instances.
Retaining owner’s consent to be provided before any development approval is Owners consent should be provided up front. Having a system that would allow
granted, although further consultation on requirements for state-owned land, an application to be assessed prior to owner consent potentially wastes planning
servient tenement or acquisition land will specifically occur resources, raises community expectations and can place enormous pressure on
land owners.
Removing processes like the development assessment process to a statutory Assuming they still have the same legal weight processes could possibly be
instrument and improving them for more practical processing and better better expressed in a statutory instrument with more explanatory language and
navigability illustrations. This relies on these draft instruments being available in full for
stakeholders to comment on before adoption or amendment.
Page 18 of 28
Section 19
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Government Priority Comment
Moving the establishment and jurisdiction of the court to specific courts Seems reasonable.
legislation, along with procedural rules and fee regulation
Introducing exemption certificates that, in certain limited circumstances, exempt Seems reasonable, provided there are clear rules for exemption certificates, and
inappropriately categorised development the decision able to be appealed by the applicant and residents
Engaging local government and industry about the best method to ensure an Planning schemes need to be able to show best possible hazard mapping
appropriate degree of safeguard for councils from claims for compensation without an obligation to compensate land owners for any resultant change of
regarding natural hazards risk management, where a scheme amendment is value or additional costs (e.g. insurance premiums).
made to reduce the risk to persons or property from natural processes, including
flooding, bushfires, landslides or coastal erosion
Retaining the local government designation process using a planning scheme Agreed although we have not used it.
amendment under specific procedural arrangements included under the
guideline for making or amending planning schemes
Extending the current statutory timeframe for the making of a local government Agreed, many Councils will not be in a position to have a LGIP in place by June
infrastructure plan (LGIP) by a further two years, subject to an approved LGIP 2016. The process for having a LGIP in place by June 2016 is highly onerous
preparation program particularly in light of the fact we will be starting work on a new planning scheme
in 2016 and potentially doing consultation on that in mid-late 2016.
Working with local government to identify the assistance required to implement Assistance would be appreciated in transitioning a planning scheme, adopting
the new planning reform legislation, including support such as tools, training and new forms and processes, training staff, Councillors and local development
guidance sector, and engaging resources to modify electronic development assessment
systems.
Many Councils utilise a development assessment system which is fully computer
based and are totally reliant on it in assessing development applications.
Modifying this system to make it consistent with the new planning reform
legislation will require significant resources and time to prepare and implement.
The suggestion from the DILGP is that State support would be prioritised to
smaller Councils with fewer resources to set up their own systems or run their
own training.
Page 19 of 28
Section 20
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
3 ANNUAL PEST SURVEY PROGRAM 2015-2016
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Waste and Environmental Health, Wayne Schafer
Community Services
Index ECM / Subject / Environmental Management / Pest Management / Noxious
Weeds
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year the Council considers and approves a Pest Survey Program by Resolution of Council.
This ensures that Council complies with the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route
Management) Act 2002, by authorising the inspection program and providing staff with the
relevant authority to enter properties to conduct inspections. This work is core business for Pest
and Vector staff.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Waste and Environmental Health to the General
Committee Meeting dated 29 June 2015 and approve the following Pest Survey Programs for the
Noosa Council region in accordance with section 241 of the Land Protection (Pest and Stock
Route Management) Act 2002:
A. Survey Program 1 - 03/07/15 to 30/09/15 for the localities of Cooroy, Cooroy Mountain,
Timbeerwah, Cooroibah and that part of Doonan that is within the Noosa Council boundary;
B. Survey Program 2 - 01/10/15 to 31/12/15 for the localities of Black Mountain, Federal, and
those parts of Ridgewood and Eerwah Vale that are within the Noosa Council boundary;
C. Survey Program 3 - 01/01/16 to 31/03/16 for the localities of Kin Kin, Pinbarren, Cooran
and that part of Como that is within the Noosa Council boundary; and
D. Survey Program 4 - 01/04/16 to 30/06/16 for the localities of Pomona, Lake MacDonald,
Ringtail Creek, Cootharaba and Boreen Point.
REPORT
Background Information
Council’s legal obligations under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act
2002 (the Act) includes ensuring that declared pests are controlled on private land in the Council
area by monitoring and enforcing compliance where it is necessary. Due to the economic,
environmental and social impacts of declared pests, the Act provides considerable powers to
authorised persons to ensure compliance by entering property to undertake inspections. These
inspections are usually undertaken through a Pest Survey Program of a defined part of the
region. Surveys must be approved by Council and advertised.
Approved Pest Survey Program
A Council Resolution is required to approve the Pest Survey Programs for the period 1 July 2015
to 30 June 2016 to ensure that relevant officers act in accordance with legislation. This will
facilitate a coordinated approach to the management of declared pest plants across the region,
with a regional survey schedule commencing on 3 July 2015.
Page 20 of 28
Section 21
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
An approved Pest Survey Program enables Council’s authorised officers to enter private property
to facilitate the control of declared pests and monitor compliance under the Act. Section 241 (1)
of the Act provides for the development of an approved Pest Survey Program as follows:
The chief executive of a pest operational board, or a local government by resolution, may
approve a program (a ‘pest survey program’) under which authorised persons appointed by the
chief executive, pest operational board or the chief executive officer of the local government may
enter places to monitor compliance with the Act.
Section 241(4)(f) of the Act states a Pest Survey Program must be no longer than three (3)
months’ duration. The three monthly programs are proposed to occur on the following dates:
1. Survey Program 1 - 03/07/15 to 30/09/15 for the localities of Cooroy, Cooroy Mountain,
Timbeerwah, Cooroibah and that part of Doonan that is within the Noosa Council boundary;
2. Survey Program 2 - 01/10/15 to 31/12/15 for the localities of Black Mountain, Federal, and
those parts of Ridgewood and Eerwah Vale that are within the Noosa Council boundary;
3. Survey Program 3 - 01/01/16 to 31/03/16 for the localities of Kin Kin, Pinbarren, Cooran
and that part of Como that is within the Noosa Council boundary; and
4. Survey Program 4 - 01/04/16 to 30/06/16 for the localities of Pomona, Lake MacDonald,
Ringtail Creek, Cootharaba and Boreen Point.
Program Methodology and Delivery
A copy of the Pest Survey Program will be available at Council’s Customer Service Centre and
each program will be advertised in the Noosa News prior to its commencement.
Each survey will be implemented by Council’s Pest and Vector Officers in conjunction with
declared pest control activities on Council land. This ensures an efficient delivery for maximum
benefit to both community and Council’s assets.
Council’s Pest and Vector Officers will seek voluntary compliance and collaborate with
landholders wherever possible to facilitate the control of declared pests.
Where pests are located on a property and a pest control notice is required to be served, a fact
sheet will be sent to the owner outlining the requirements of the legislation and advising of the
option to develop a pest management plan for the property. A property owner/ occupier electing
to develop such a plan will be provided with assistance to develop a suitable plan.
If the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Act provides for the property
to be entered by a Council contractor to undertake the required work. Costs can be recovered via
Council rates if necessary under the authority of Section 142 of the Local Government Act 2009.
Previous Council Consideration
The Council previously passed a Resolution to approve the Pest Survey Programs conducted in
the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.
Finance & Risk
With an increasing number of residents moving to the region (particularly the hinterland areas)
with sometimes limited understanding of rural lifestyles, declared pests can present a problem on
large and small acreage as well as urban fringe areas.
Page 21 of 28
Section 22
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Failure to deliver the nominated pest survey programs will:
• put at risk the control of declared pest plants throughout the region, causing environmental
damage, loss of biodiversity, agricultural productivity and community amenity.
• result in Council failing to meet its obligations under the Act for the control of pests.
Property inspections will require approximately 1 day per week of each Pest and Vector Officer’s
time, (i.e. 3 days total per week). This would also include time for administration function i.e.
writing letters and notices.
Funds to conduct the Pest Survey Program are available in the 2015/16 budget. This work is
core business for the relevant staff.
Estimated Cost for conducting the Pest Survey Program is: $57,584 based on the salary of three
staff members time to perform the inspections.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Upon approval of the Pest Survey Program by Council the program will be advertised in the
Noosa News with copies available through Council’s Customer Service Centre.
Internal Consultation
Consultation with the Environment Branch
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Community Services Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
X Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
X
Executive Office Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 22 of 28
Section 23
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
4 NOOSA DESIGN PRINCIPLES ADOPTION
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Design and Traffic, Ross Sanderson
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM\ Subject\ Guidelines and Procedures\Manuals
ECM\ Planning Instruments\ Supporting Information
Attachments 1. Noosa – Design Principles
(provided separately to this Agenda,
2 hard copies available for viewing in the Councillors’ Room)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator, Design and Special Projects to the General
Committee Meeting dated 29 June 2015 and
A. Adopt the Noosa – Design Principles document as per Attachment 1 to the report; and
B. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments to the document as
required.
REPORT
The purpose of this report is to present the “Noosa – Design Principles” document for adoption
by Council.
Over the last 30 years, Council and the Noosa design community have upheld values and ideals
that have made Noosa unique. The emergence of a distinctive style, commonly termed the
Noosa ‘look and feel’, has not come about by accident. It has evolved as a result of adhering to
principles generally based on the protection of the environment and the objective to maintain a
village feel.
The principles contained in the document have been drawn from old policies and guidelines and,
additionally from the many people who have been interviewed and consulted throughout the
process of developing the content. The principles are presented in a simple and evocative way to
inspire and encourage everyone to share responsibility for protecting Noosa’s uniqueness.
Bringing these principles together in one place will allow decision makers to test proposals, large
or small, against them to ensure that the unique character of Noosa is not eroded.
The principles contained in this document are factual data from the past and it will be important
for the future protection of Noosa’s point of difference that these principles be incorporated into
future planning schemes.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 7 May 2015, Item 3, Page 3
That Council note the report by the Co-ordinator Design and Traffic to the Infrastructure &
Services Committee Meeting dated 28 April 2015 detailing the progress on the development of
the “Noosa – Design Principles” document.
Page 23 of 28
Section 24
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Finance & Risk
Budget allocation - $115,000
Expenditure to date - $19,000 (including graphics, printing, photography - excluding staff time)
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Your Say – Noosa Design Principles (Website with survey, forum, photos, document
library);
Participant’s encouraged to provide comment on Noosa principles in particular
landscaping, outdoor dining, signage and any other topics they would like to see covered in
the Noosa Design Principles publication;
2 x press releases – Encouraging participation and contribution of ideas;
Facebook posts encouraging participation in Your Say – Noosa Design Principles;
Interviews with architects, designers, Tourism Noosa, and former Council staff;
Feedback from Building Designers Association Qld, Qld Master Builders Association and
the Australian Institute of Architects Association on the publication format.
Internal Consultation
Key areas of Council have been consulted to seek feedback on the topics and content for the
document.
Email was sent to all staff encouraging them to contribute to Your Say – Noosa Design
Principles;
2 x internal staff newsletter articles – encouraged participation and contribution of ideas;
Email (13/01/15) from Joanna Ferris encouraging Councillors to contribute to Your Say
website;
Email (16/04/15) from Ross Sanderson encouraging Councillors to visit Your Say site or
meet to discuss project;
Invitations to comment and meetings with Councillors - Councillor feedback has been
incorporated into the document.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services X Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order X Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health X DA Planning
Community Facilities X Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities X Asset Design & Investigations
X Asset Planning
X Civil Operations
X Environment
Executive Office Corporate Services
X Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 24 of 28
Section 25
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
5 CONTRACT 1415T036 MUNNA POINT BRIDGE REHABILITATION (DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION)
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Project Manager, Adam Britton
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/Projects (T1)/Noosa Parade Munna Point Bridge
ECM/Subject/Contracting/Tenders
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not Applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Project Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated
29 June 2015 and
A. Award Contract 1415T036 Munna Point Bridge Rehabilitation (Design and Construction) to
Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd for the lump sum amount of $2,490,380 subject to
Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd satisfactorily responding to Council’s request for
information regarding their tender;
B. Allocate funding of $1,627,005 from the renewal infrastructure emergent works allocation in
the first quarter budget review of 2015/16; and
C. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to agree on any remaining items requiring
clarification.
REPORT
Following a report to the Infrastructure and Services Committee dated 31 March 2015, Council
staff prepared tender documentation for the Munna Point Bridge Rehabilitation (Design and
Construction).
The public tender was issued on 18 April 2015 through LG Tender Box as a design and
construction tender. The tender scope was based on a reference design prepared by local
consulting engineers Tod Consulting with specific performance outcomes including the
requirement for the rehabilitation to extend the bridge life by 50 years.
The tender documentation was downloaded over 100 times comprising a mixture of contractors,
consultants and individuals. As the works are highly specialised it was expected that the number
of submissions would be significantly lower.
Upon close of tenders on 12 June 2015, thirteen submissions were received including four firms
offering a submission based on the Principal supplied reference design and their own alternative
design.
Page 25 of 28
Section 26
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
The below table identifies the tenders received.
Contractor Tendered Price
Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd – Alternative Solution $2,490,380
SMC Marine Pty Ltd $2,723,323
Epoxy Solutions – Alternative Solution $2,897,973
Freyssinet Australia Pty Ltd – Alternative Solution $3,157,847
Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd $3,162,980
Fitzgerald Constructions (NON CONFORMING) $3,231,593
Epoxy Solutions $3,495,360
Freyssinet Australia Pty Ltd $3,717,081
SRG Services (Australia) Pty Ltd $3,884,000
Ark Construction Group Pty Ltd – Alternative Solution $4,926,259
Ark Construction Group Pty Ltd $5,583,012
Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd $6,713,988
Shannon Construction (NON CONFORMING) $0 (No details)
Tender submissions were evaluated based on the following criteria;
Track Record and Experience;
Methodology and Capability to Deliver;
Work Place Health and Safety;
Environment; and
Contribution to local economy.
Following a review of the tender submissions, the tender evaluation panel identified that the
submission from Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd was best able to address the
requirements set out in the tender submission. The submission received the highest non-price
score and also submitted the lowest price based on their alternative design. Marine and Civil
Maintenance are considered to be industry leaders for the rehabilitation of concrete structures in
a marine environment within Australia, having undertaken rehabilitation on a large number of
bridges for Councils, State Governments and Marine Structures for Port Authorities. Based on
the above, Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd are considered to provide Council best value for
money.
At the time of writing this report, Council is working with Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd in
clarifying a number of matters relating to their tender. The details predominantly relate to their
alternative design and contract administration processes. The areas being clarified do not impact
on the panel recommending Marine and Civil Maintenance Pty Ltd as preferred contractor for the
project. It is anticipated that by the date of the Council meeting the particulars will be provided to
the satisfaction of the evaluation panel.
The duration of the project is estimated at 8 months which includes approximately 2 months of
design and 6 months construction, pending unforeseen delays.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 9 April 2015, Page 4
That Council note the report by the Project Manager to the Infrastructure & Services Committee
Meeting dated 31 March 2015, advising that the grant application with the Australian Government
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development under the Bridges Renewal Programme
for 50/50 funding of the Munna Point bridge rehabilitation has been unsuccessful, and
A. Authorise the calling of tenders for the full scope of rehabilitation works (Full Scope
Option C) as detailed in the consultant’s level 3 bridge report and design; and
B. Refer for consideration as part of the 2015/16 budget process, the required budget
adjustments from the depreciation reserves to fund the full scope of works.
Page 26 of 28
Section 27
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Finance & Risk
The current 2014/15 budget for the project is $1,401,000. Unspent funds will be carried over into
the 2015/16 capital works budget.
A breakdown of the estimated contract and other costs compared with the current budget is
shown below:
Marine and Civil Maintenance (Alternative design submission)
Item Cost
Contract Price $2,490,380
Staff allocation estimate. $20,000
Design engineer attendance $36,940
Superintendent $66,048
Cost to date May 2015 $22,632
Contingency (15%) $392,005
Total $3,028,005
Current Budget $1,401,000
Additional Amount required from 2015/16 Infrastructure Emergent Works $1,627,005
Budget
The additional funds required for the project can be sourced from the renewal infrastructure
emergent works allocation, with the 2015/16 draft budget including $5,561,000 for infrastructure
emergent works.
A reasonable level of contingency must be available for the project given the nature of managing
concrete cancer. Whilst the contract is lump sum and all reasonable efforts have been made by
all parties to determine the most cost effective solution, there remains inherent risks that the
conditions may vary from that at the time of tender.
It should be noted that the project is for rehabilitation for those elements of the bridge that pose a
risk to the structure. The works include rehabilitation to the piles, pilecaps, installation of cathodic
protection and other preventative measures such as waterproof coatings to extend the bridge life
by 50 years. The works however do not preclude the requirement for future maintenance,
inspections, future evaluation and works over the next 50 years.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Prior to the project commencing onsite, a communication plan will be prepared which will include
a mixture of information placed on the webpage, letter box drops, contact with adjoining property
owners and possible media releases.
Consideration has been given to holiday periods and major events such as the Noosa Triathlon.
Pending the tasks occurring and assessment of any impacts, staff have sought quotes for
provisional costs for standing the contractor down.
In particular, for the Triathlon, it is noted that the majority of works are focused below the deck
level and Council will endeavour to proceed with works if the impacts are insignificant.
Marine vessels will be informed of changes to use of the waterway as works proceed. To date
Marine Safety Queensland have been advised of the project and will be provided with specific
details from the successful contractor. Periodic restrictions will include altering the through lane
for small vessels and possible closure to larger vessels such as the ferry.
Page 27 of 28
Section 28
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 29 JUNE 2015
Internal Consultation
Council’s Procurement and Contracts Officer, Workplace Health & Safety Officer and
Environmental Officer have been involved during the tender and evaluation process.
Council’s Asset Planning Coordinator has been consulted regarding the costs and timing of the
works for budget allocation purposes.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services x Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities x Asset Design & Investigations
x Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
x
x Executive Office x Corporate Services
Community Engagement x Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support x Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 28 of 28