Original source · versioned page text
2014-03-25 Infrastructure & Services Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Infrastructure & Services
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
commencing at 9am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Bob Abbot (Chair), Sandy Bolton, Frank Pardon, Noel Playford
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 47 sections
Section 2
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES 3
PRESENTATIONS 3
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS 4
Community Services 4
1. COMMUNITY GRANTS POLICY AND PROPOSED GRANTS FRAMEWORK 4
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT REPORTS 16
2. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT UPDATE 16
Asset Planning & Delivery 19
3. GIBSON ROAD EXTENSION AND EARL STREET LAND REVIEW 19
4. NOOSA PARADE – BIKE LANES AND TRANSIT HUB 26
5. PROPOSED UPGRADE OF SHEPPERSONS LANE, KIN KIN 29
Environmental Services 31
6. WEYBA CREEK ESPLANADE – BANK EROSION 31
Waste Management 44
7. WASTE RECYCLABLES DISPOSAL OPTIONS 44
CLOSED SESSION 48
8. CLOSED SESSION ITEM: PROPOSED RECYCLING
AGREEMENT WITH VISY RECYCLING 48
Page 2 of 60
Section 3
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES
Apology - Cr Bob Abbot
PRESENTATIONS
• Overview of Operations for The J and The Leisure Centre
Charlie Eames, Manager Community Services, Community and Development
• Vegetation Management in Road Reserves
Kerrie-Ann Milsted, Parks Leader, Community Infrastructure
• Noosa Maintenance Manual (improving inspections and maintenance schedules for
our Works and Parks teams)
Fred Spinks, Works Superintendent, Community Infrastructure
• Naming of Places (establishing principles for handling requests from customers to
name parks, roads, buildings)
Beth Potter, Business Support Officer, Community Infrastructure
• Parking Options for Wallace Park
Ross Sanderson, Coordinator Project Design and Delivery, Community Infrastructure
• Munna Point Bridge Design and Future Bridge Inspection Work
Adam Britton, Project Coordinator, Community Infrastructure
Page 3 of 60
Section 4
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTS
(excluding Planning & Development)
Community Services
1. COMMUNITY GRANTS POLICY AND PROPOSED GRANTS FRAMEWORK
Author Alison Hamblin, Sport and Community Development Coordinator,
Community and Development
Charlie Eames, Manager of Community Services, Community and
Development
Index ECM/Project/Grants
Attachments 1. Community Grants Policy
2. Community Grants Framework and Criteria
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the updated Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012,
the Community Grants Policy ensures compliance with current statutory requirements, alignment
with Council’s strategic priorities, and provides for the effective operation of Council’s grants
programs.
The Community Grants Policy provides an overarching framework and primary policy position
which will provide clear and consistent direction for Council’s Community Grants Program as
articulated in the proposed grants framework and criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the Report by the Sport and Community Development Coordinator and the
Manager of Community Services to the Infrastructure and Services Committee Meeting dated 25
March 2014 and:
A. Adopt the Community Grants Policy (Attachment 1);
B. Adopt the proposed grants framework and criteria (Attachment 2); and
C. Delegate to the CEO the development of operational requirements for the application and
distribution of community grants to ensure compliance with the adopted Policy and relevant
legislative requirements.
REPORT
Prior to amalgamation, Noosa Council provided funding to a range of community based
organisations and individuals through grants and partnerships funding programs (including:
sports, recreation, arts, community development, personal development, heritage, and
environment). The programs provided funding for a range of activities and situations including
‘one time only’ projects requiring capital and operational support, and longer term programs
requiring recurrent support.
In 2008, the Sunshine Coast Council adopted this model of operation, and subsequently
developed a comprehensive grants and partnership program.
Page 4 of 60
Section 5
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
As part of the transfer process it was agreed that Noosa Council would honour funding
arrangements entered into by the Sunshine Coast Council for the balance of the 2013/14
financial year with commitments totaling $350,932 already in place (Sports Field Maintenance
and Community Partnership).
Council at its meeting on 2 January adopted its Operational Plan for the next six months and
included as a key initiative a review of Council grants/community funding programs and policy.
The proposed new grants program is a strategic investment tool, assisting the community to
meet and respond to Council’s priorities and vision. It will enable the Council to contribute to the
community by:
• supporting and stimulating diverse and dynamic projects, programs and events;
• encouraging engagement and participation in the community;
• leveraging other external funding sources; and
• facilitating stronger, more resilient communities
Should Council adopt the Community Grants Policy (Attachment 1) and Framework (Attachment
2), relevant information will be made publically available and the operational requirements for the
application and distribution of community grants will be provided by Community Services to
ensure compliance with the adopted Policy and relevant legislative requirements.
Availability of funds will be dependent upon the financial priorities and commitments of Council in
any one year. All applications will be reviewed as part of the preparation of Council’s annual
budget.
It should be noted that priority for Council officers will be to assist community organisations to
identify external funding for projects/programs where available, rather than simply to rely on
Council community grants funding.
Previous Council Consideration
NIL
Finance and Risk
The allocation of funding for the 2014/15 Community Grants Program will be determined as part
of the Budget process. There are a number of related policies, strategies and legislation guiding,
informing and/or relating to the Community Grants Policy:
Queensland Government:
• Local Government Regulation 2012
• Local Government Act 2009
• Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982
The Policy describes a consistent, transparent and equitable application and assessment
process for the Community Grants Program that is in line with current legislation and corporate
priorities.
Without the adoption of the Community Grants Program Policy the direction for administering
community grants is not compliant with legislation.
Page 5 of 60
Section 6
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Council’s power to issue grants is governed by the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local
Government Regulation 2012. The draft Community Grants Policy ensures alignment with this
updated legislation. Legal advice has been sought in areas where clarification was required
around legislative requirements and translated into the policy context.
Section 202 of the Local Government Regulation (2012) states:
“(2) A local government must, within 20 business days after adopting its budget for a financial
year, publish a notice (the availability notice) stating -
a. the amount in the local government’s discretionary funds budgeted for use by each
councillor for the financial year; and
b. that community organisations may apply for allocation of the funds; and
c. how to apply for allocation of the funds.”
This overarching policy will then be supported by individual grant program guidelines e.g. Sports
Field Maintenance guidelines.
CONSULTATION
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
This report has been developed in consultation with the following internal stakeholders across
various departments and branches of Noosa Council:
• Environmental Services
• Economic Development
• Governance, Executive Office
• A/Executive Officer for Mayor and CEO, Executive Office
• Community and Cultural, Community Services
• Property and Land Management
• Financial Services
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Community Infrastructure X Community & Development
Asset Planning & Delivery Community Services
Civil Operations Planning & Development
Environmental Services Health & Regulatory Services
Waste Management Business Facilitation
Community Resilience & Disaster Management
X Executive Office X Organisational Services
Communications & Governance Financial Services
Human Resources ICT
De-amalgamation Coordination Property & Contracts
Page 6 of 60
Section 7
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Policy
COMMUNITY GRANTS
Corporate Plan Reference: <Insert Corporate Plan Theme and Priority>
Endorsed by Council:
Policy Author: Alison Hamblin
Coordinator Sport and Community Development
POLICY BACKGROUND
This policy is to be read in conjunction with any supporting guidelines for specific funding
programs.
This policy applies to the Community Grants Program.
This policy does not apply to sponsorship, donations, advertising, naming rights and service level
agreements.
The outcomes of this policy include:
• Providing community organisations and individuals* with financial support to meet
identified community needs;
• Building community skills and resilience;
• Developing and maintaining sustainable community infrastructure;
• Providing opportunities for community organisations to leverage Council’s financial
assistance to obtain funding from other sources; and
• Contributing to the environmental values of Noosa Shire.
*Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) only.
COUNCIL POLICY
The purpose of this policy is to guide the administration of Council’s Community Grants Program
so that the grants:
• Help achieve Council’s strategic priorities; and
• Align with the intent of the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government
Regulation 2012, which state that (community) grants will be used for a purpose that is in
the public interest.
Page 7 of 60
Section 8
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Who can apply
Not for profit incorporated community organisations can apply if they meet the following criteria:
• The project or program will benefit residents of the Noosa community
• The application meets the specific eligibility criteria of the funding program as set out in
the supporting guidelines
• The organisation:
- services the Noosa community;
- has appropriate insurance and adhere to sound Workplace Health and Safety
practices;
- complies with all requirements of the Office of Fair Trading as at the closing date for
the grant program; and
- has no debt to Council, or have entered into scheduled payment arrangements with
Council which are being adhered to, and/or have met acquittal conditions for previous
Council grants.
If a community organisation is not incorporated, the organisation is still able to apply for a grant
provided that the application is auspiced and administered by an incorporated not for profit
community organisation who are able to accept legal and financial responsibility for the project or
program.
Individuals can apply under Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) only.
Who cannot apply
• Government agencies or departments of local, state or federal government;
• Educational, political, religious organisations or primary health care providers, where the
application is for the organisation’s core business;
• Businesses; and
• Organisations with full liquor licences and/or organisations with supporters clubs with full
liquor licences.
Eligible Projects or Programs
To be eligible to apply for funding, community grant applications must adhere to the terms and
conditions set out in the supporting guidelines for the specific funding program.
Ineligible Projects or Programs
Ineligible projects or programs include, but are not restricted to:
• Events, programs, facilities or services run for commercial profit or funded under the
Tourism Levy
• Activities that have already commenced prior to the grant application being submitted
• Payment of debt
Other eligibility restrictions may apply to specific grants. These are set out in the guidelines of the
specific funding program.
Page 8 of 60
Section 9
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Council will promote the availability of its grants programs widely and in such a way as to
promote public confidence in the process.
Applications must be submitted by the closing date and time. Applications received after the
closing date and time will not be accepted.
Applications must be submitted on the current grant application form made available by Noosa
Council.
In assessing the grants, Council will:
• Ensure public monies are allocated in a fair and equitable way;
• Ensure best possible value for money;
• Check each application against eligibility criteria and particular assessment criteria, as set
out in the guidelines; and
• Seek recommendations from an expert panel which can comprise Council officers or
community representatives.
All community grants funding must be acquitted. Timeframes and acquittal requirements are
outlined in the supporting guidelines for the specific funding program.
The number and types of grants approved will depend on the demand for funding, available
program budget and corporate priorities. In some instances, part funding may be offered.
Funding priorities for individual grant programs will be reviewed to ensure relevance to achieving
Council objectives.
Council determines the total allocation of funds to the community grants program through its
annual budgetary processes. Council officers are available to provide advice to community
organisations to help develop Council grant applications. They will also assist organisations to
identify additional and alternative sources of funding relevant to their project or program.
Council officers are to follow this policy when supporting, facilitating, or delivering grants-related
activities. It is the responsibility of Council officers to ensure that grants and funding provided
from public monies are:
• Administered transparently and accountably;
• Aligned with Council’s objectives, goals and priorities;
• Communicated effectively to the community so that all potential applicants have equal
opportunity to apply for funds; and
• Monitored for compliance against set performance measures.
All officers or Councillors are responsible for recognising and declaring any actual or potential
conflicts of interest. This may include, but is not limited to, personal connections with the
applicant. Anyone having a determined conflict of interest should not debate or be involved in any
discussions on any matter relating to that application. Final decisions in the community grants
program are made by Council, CEO or delegate.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Queensland Government
• Local Government Regulation (2012)
• Local Government Act (2009)
• Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act (1982)
Page 9 of 60
Section 10
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
DEFINITIONS
Accountability
“Public entities should be accountable for their performance and be able to give complete and
accurate accounts of how they have used public funds, including funds passed on to others for
particular purposes. They should also have suitable governance and management arrangements
in place to oversee funding arrangements.”1
Acquittal
The process by which a recipient demonstrates in writing to the funding body that it has
expended the funds in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement on
completion of the activity or project.
The acquittal process, when conducted correctly, demonstrates that these monies were being
used efficiently, effectively or that the community is getting value for money for services.
Auspicing
Auspicing means that an organisation takes responsibility for ensuring the funds are used as
specified in the grant allocation. An auspicing organisation will be responsible for:
• the receipt, banking and administration of all moneys
• project monitoring and completion
• ensuring the applicant acquits the funding on time
• sign off on the acquittal form.
Business
For the purpose of this policy business is defined as an organisation or enterprising entity
engaged in commercial, industrial or professional activities for profit.
Community Benefit
Council recognises that grants funding delivers significant social, economic, environmental
and/or cultural benefits to our region including:
• building stronger communities by improving connectivity and inclusion, increasing
individual and community wellbeing, contributing to a sense of place, and strengthening
shared community values;
• improving community and economic capacity and building social capital;
• celebrating our lifestyle, environment, culture and heritage;
• increasing commitment to sustainable practices and the promotion and protection of our
natural environment; and
• contributing to a positive, vibrant image of the shire.
Community Purpose
A purpose that is in the public interest to residents of the Noosa Local Government Area.
1
Auditor General Report to Parliament No. 7 for 2008, Administration of Grants and Funding to Community Organisations by Local
Government in Queensland, Page 10
Page 10 of 60
Section 11
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest is a conflict between:
• an officer’s or Councillor’s personal interests (including personal interests arising from
their relationships or club memberships, for example); and
• the public interest;
that might lead to a decision that is contrary to the public interest.2
Donations
A voluntary gift of product, service or cash without expectation of return.
Grant
Funds provided to a recipient through a formal program for a specified purpose, directed at
achieving goals and objectives consistent with Council policy, where the recipient is selected on
merit against a set of criteria. Funding is subject to entering a written agreement with Council
that outlines accountability requirements.
Grant Guidelines
The grant guidelines will include:
• Aim of the grant
• Criteria
• Assessment information
• How to apply
• How to acquit
• Terms and Conditions
• Glossary
Individual
An individual is classified as a singular entity, as distinguished from a group, who carries on
activities for a community purpose and benefit.
In-Kind Support
In-kind support includes paid and volunteer labour, administrative support, rent-free
accommodation or donations of materials, equipment or services.
Naming Rights
The right to name property, either tangible property or an event, usually granted in exchange for
financial consideration.
Not for profit incorporated community organisation
A community organisation that operates as a legal entity with a primary purpose of providing
services to the community. An organisation is non-profit if it is not carried on for the direct or
indirect profit or gain of its members, both in its operations and winding up.
Public Interest
For the purpose of this policy, public interest refers to ‘the welfare of the general public in
contrast to the interest of an individual or group’.
2
Local Government Act 2009, s173, p. 154
Page 11 of 60
Section 12
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Service Level Agreements
A formally negotiated agreement between Council and an organisation, individual or community
group that details the nature, quality and scope of a service to be provided. The purpose of a
service level agreement is to formalise the services of a provider and outline the responsibilities
of both Council and the provider in the provision of a defined service.
Sponsorship
Sponsorship is a contractual business arrangement under which a sponsor, for a specified term,
provides a contribution in cash and/ or in kind (“contra”) in return for specified commercial
benefits.
Transparency
Transparency refers to the openness with which the administration of funds and obligations
between entities are discharged.
Version control:
Version Reason/ Trigger Change Endorsed/ Reviewed by Date
(Y/N)
1.0 Eg. Create new DD/MM/YYY
Eg. Review
Page 12 of 60
Section 13
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 13 of 60
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
fe) NOOSA COUNCIL Community Grants Program “Cre”
Policy — Structure — GuidelinesSection 14
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Page 14 of 60
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ee) NOOSA COUNCIL Community Grants Program
Community Facilities Criteria
Page 14 of 60Section 15
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Page 15 of 60
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ee) NOOSA COUNCIL Community Grants Program
Community Partnerships Criteria
Page 15 of 60Section 16
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT REPORTS
2. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
Author Interim Director Community Infrastructure, Martin Drydale
Community Infrastructure
Index ECM/Subject/69.01 Internal Departmental Meetings
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Interim Director, Community Infrastructure to the
Infrastructure & Services Committee dated 25 March 2014 providing an update on the operations
of the Community Infrastructure Department as part of establishing the new Council.
REPORT
Under the adopted Interim Organisational Structure, the Community Infrastructure Department
consists of the following teams:
• Asset Planning and Delivery;
• Civil Operations (including construction, maintenance and parks and landscapes);
• Environmental Services (including Environment Levy management, environment policy,
natural and conservation areas and pest and vector control);
• Waste Management; and
• Business Integration and Support Services.
1. Staffing Issues
Currently there is only one Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) officer
employed within the Department. This presents a risk to Council in that the in-house ability to
sign off engineering design work is limited and may result in additional costs if this work has to be
outsourced. Under the proposed permanent Organisational Structure it is envisaged that a
vacant RPEQ position will be advertised and filled.
There is currently an unfilled civil design position which limits the amount of in-house design work
that can be undertaken. The implications of this are that more design work may need to be
outsourced, together with the possibility that design works needed to ensure that projects
identified for delivery in 2014/15 cannot be prepared in time. Subject to the approval of the
permanent structure, it is intended to address this gap in resources by advertising the vacant civil
design position.
Page 16 of 60
Section 17
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
There are also some positions within both the Civil Operations maintenance and Conservation
Areas which are currently being back-filled with existing staff in order to maintain service levels. It
is envisaged that the adoption of the permanent structure will resolve these issues although there
will be a rebuilding phase in terms of our capacity to deliver capital work via Council’s internal
workforce which will need to be taken into account when determining what projects can be
delivered in the next financial year.
2. Updating Policies, Guidelines and Standard Drawings
As an outcome of de-amalgamation, all the policies, guidelines and standards drawings in use by
the Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC) were deemed under legislation to apply to the new
Noosa Council effective from 1 January 2014. A number of these guiding documents do not
provide the outcomes that are expected by Council and the Community within the Noosa Shire
area, and the Department is currently undertaking a review of these documents. Examples
include over-design of infrastructure resulting in additional costs or inappropriate design for the
Noosa ‘look and feel’.
As these documents are identified, it is intended that they will be brought before Council to seek
feedback and direction on them before adoption, either directly by Council or under the Planning
Scheme Amendment process currently being facilitated by the Community and Development
Department.
Operational project bids for 2014/15 are being prepared for consideration by Council during
budget setting to undertake a review of the Noosa Design Manual and carry out an updated
Traffic Study in order to inform developments in this area.
3. Systems and Data
The department has been able to operate from 1 January 2014 using the business applications
and ICT support put in place. There have been issues associated with the transfer of data from
SCRC and upload of that data into the business systems which have impeded staff from working
as effectively as they could. Workarounds have been put in place where needed, and systems
functionality is being improved on an ongoing basis. Although road condition data has been
relatively easily retained through the SMEC Pavement Management System, asset condition
data has not been readily available for all asset classes, this will require more work to ensure we
have a good understanding of the state of the infrastructure.
Limited access to data has presented some problems in being able to respond as quickly as we
would have liked to some enquiries from the Community and Councillors. I apologise on behalf of
my teams for this, however please be assured that staff are working hard throughout Council in
order to improve. Despite these obstacles, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge
the support our teams are receiving from the Community through the many positive e-mails and
comments we are receiving on the improved levels of service delivery and would like to
recognise and thank all staff for their professional and customer-focussed work.
4. Disaster Management
Capacity building within the department for Disaster Management preparedness is ongoing
through the establishment of an Emergency Operations Team which is chaired by the Interim
Director Community Infrastructure. The department provides substantial field based staffing and
machinery resources in the event of an emergency situation therefore it is essential that
preparations are tried and tested. Additionally, Disaster Management system training has been
recently undertaken, with changes to procedures being made resulting in more effective handling
of incoming requests during emergency situations. A desktop training exercise is being held on
21 March 2014 to further build knowledge and capacity throughout the organisation.
Page 17 of 60
Section 18
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
5. 2014/15 Budget
Staff are currently reviewing operational activity budget requests for 2014/15 with the aim of
building budgets from the ground up to ensure that what is being asked for has evidential support
for its need. The Capital Program is currently under development and will be submitted as part of
the Budget development process for Council consideration. The department staff are also
preparing operational project bids in respect of high priority issues to be considered as part of the
process.
In conjunction with Procurement, staff have commenced work on the development of new
contracts for Traffic Control and Line-marking, it is anticipated that new contract arrangements for
these high-value activities will result in budget savings for Council.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
There are some risks to service delivery and capacity associated with staffing numbers and skills
which should be mitigated through the adoption of a permanent organisational structure and
filling of some key vacant positions
CONSULTATION
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Consultation has been undertaken with all Community Infrastructure managers and
co-ordinators.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Infrastructure Community & Development
Asset Planning & Delivery Community Services
Civil Operations Planning & Development
Environmental Services Health & Regulatory Services
Waste Management Business Facilitation
Community Resilience & Disaster Management
Executive Office Organisational Services
Communications & Governance Financial Services
Human Resources ICT
De-amalgamation Coordination Property & Contracts
Page 18 of 60
Section 19
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Asset Planning & Delivery
3. GIBSON ROAD EXTENSION AND EARL STREET LAND REVIEW
Author Priority Infrastructure Planning & Infrastructure Charges Officer,
Oddbjorn Ludvigsen
Community and Development
Index ECM/ Subject/ Planning Instruments/ Priority Infrastructure Plan
ECM/ Subject/ Traffic Management/ Coastal Traffic & Transport Planning
Attachment 1. Extracts from previous Council planning documents & map of land
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report regarding Tait Duke Cottage presented to Council’s Infrastructure and Services
Committee on 25 February 2014 identified a number of potential sites for relocation of the
Cottage for community purposes. One of the potential sites is Council owned land situated in
Earl Street Tewantin. However one constraint of this land relates to the potential future Gibson
Road Extension as identified in Council’s transport network planning, which is reflected in the
Coastal Major Road Network Infrastructure Charges Plan, Coastal Traffic and Transport to 2016
report and Priority Infrastructure Plan.
At the Ordinary Meeting of 6 March 2014, Council adopted the I&S Committee Recommendation
item B to “ Invite Expression of Interests (EOI) from Community Groups for the relocation and
utilisation of Tait Duke Cottage once Council has made a determination on the suitability of the
Earl Street site for the possible relocation of the Cottage”. This report presents a preliminary
review of the proposed Gibson Road Extension and associated Earl Street land in question.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Priority Infrastructure Planning & Infrastructure Charges
Officer to the Infrastructure & Services Committee dated 25 March 2014 and:
A. Agree to permit use of the Council owned vacant land at 14 to 18 Earl Street Tewantin for
community purposes in the short to medium term. This is to be limited to a maximum 20
year lease, with options to extend the lease, subject to further and ongoing transport
planning reviews;
B. Note a full and comprehensive transport network planning review will be required to inform
the next Planning Scheme; and
C. Acknowledge the proposed future Gibson Road Extension will not occur within the next 20
years in a future amendment to the Priority Infrastructure Plan.
Page 19 of 60
Section 20
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
REPORT
In accordance with the Ordinary Meeting Minutes of 6 March 2014 regarding Tait Duke Cottage,
Council seeks a “determination on the suitability of the Earl Street site for the possible relocation
of the Cottage.” The previously identified land comprising 3 vacant lots at 14, 16 and 18 Earl
Street Tewantin (described as Lots 268 SP132627, 69RP41223 and 70RP412223 respectively)
is constrained due to its requirement for the proposed future Gibson Road Extension identified in
Council’s traffic & transport network planning documents.
The following information is provided in Attachment 1:
• Extract page 29 from the “Coastal Area Traffic & Transport To 2016 dated August 2002”
detailing the background on the proposed Gibson Road Extension;
• A plan of the Gibson Road Extension extracted from “Cost Estimates for Future Road
Infrastructure in the Coastal Area of Noosa Shire - March 2002”. Note the cost estimate of
$2,400,968 is at a year 2000 base date and the cost today could be in the order of $5.5 to
$6.5 million; and
• A map highlighting the Ernest Street land in question.
In summary, the previous planning for the Gibson Road extension was not identified “on the
basis of network capacity or efficiency considerations” but rather as a proposed alternative to
“significant amenity and safety problems associated with Hilton Terrace between Eumundi Road
and Ernest Street”. The report further advises that “construction of the extension should be
deferred until all stages of Eenie Creek Road have been constructed and the network efficiency
issues can be re-assessed with the benefit of observed traffic data on this part of the network”.
Advice was provided on 28 February 2014 from Council’s primary traffic consultant, Colin Beard
of Beard Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd, being the author of the Coastal Area Traffic & Transport To
2016 report. He provided the following response and opinions:
• Traffic capacity in the corridor – at present, there is a reasonably close match between
the traffic capacity of Cooroy Noosa Road, Poinciana Avenue (west), Sidoni Street,
Doonella Street, Memorial Avenue, Doonella Bridge and Hilton Terrace. Consequently,
unless Council is considering upgrading all of this route, from Beckmans Road to Eumundi
Road, there is little point in upgrading the traffic capacity of one part of it. Significantly
increasing the traffic capacity of the whole Route from Cooroy Noosa Road at Beckmans
Road to Eumundi Road would cost tens of millions of dollars and would have major
amenity and social impacts. In my opinion, Council’s long-standing policy to constrain traffic
growth in this corridor remains sound and sustainable. A change to this policy should not
be seriously considered other than as part of a major transport and traffic planning study,
and even then it is unlikely to be seen as a good idea; and
• Traffic safety and amenity considerations in Hilton Terrace – this traffic route is
relatively narrow, has relatively intense frontage activity and a number of intersections with
less-than-ideal geometry. Consequently, safety for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists is a
significant issue, as it has been for many years. However, it is likely that this route could be
upgraded, without significantly increasing traffic capacity, for much less than the
construction cost of the Gibson Road extension (plus the opportunity value of the land). In
my opinion, a bypass of Hilton Terrace should only be considered if all upgrading options
for Hilton Terrace, and there are options, have been exhausted and found wanting.
• The broad traffic planning philosophy of CATT2016 was for Eenie Creek Road/Eumundi
Road/Beckmans Road to accommodate east-west traffic growth, rather than seeing that
traffic growth through Tewantin and along Hilton Terrace. Until that philosophy changes,
there will be little need for the road corridor referenced based on traffic capacity
considerations. In my opinion, nothing has happened in recent years to suggest that it
should change.
Page 20 of 60
Section 21
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
• In my opinion, there are intersection and mid-block improvements which could and should
be considered along Hilton Terrace long before any serious consideration should be given
to a new road in a parallel corridor.
• Consequently, I see no need for the preservation of this corridor in the short term or the
medium term future. Like all traffic engineers, I would find it difficult to say that there would
never be a need for a bypass road (the best decisions are the ones which can be deferred
until later when we should know more).
In summary, based on network capacity issues for the short to medium term of 20 years, unless
other the “trunk” roads in the Tewantin area are also upgraded, there would similarly be no need
to proceed with the Gibson Road Extension.
Council’s Transport Infrastructure Management and Priority Infrastructure Planning staff support
the view that the Ernest Street land proposed for the road extension will not be required in the
short to medium term. However, it cannot be said that the road corridor will never be required in
the long term say in 20 years or later.
Long term infrastructure planning requires ongoing detailed and comprehensive reviews and
studies to be undertaken on all aspects of the complete infrastructure network in order to take
account of variables and other changes that occur as time progresses. Forward planning and
making provisions to cater for future potential requirements is essential and it is envisaged that a
full and comprehensive transport network planning review will be undertaken within the next two
years in order to inform the next Planning Scheme. As road corridors are often difficult and
costly to acquire, it is inappropriate to completely discard any long term future potential for this
particular road corridor and associated Earl Street land at the current time.
Property and Land Management staff confirm there is no difficulty in allowing community use of
Council owned allotments under long term lease arrangements with options to extend being
subject to further reviews and special requirements. However, the use would require relevant
development planning approvals to be gained.
Therefore the interim use of the Council owned vacant allotments for community purposes for a
period of up to 20 years is supported, provided options to extend such uses on the subject land
beyond 20 years are dependent on further and ongoing transport planning reviews.
Should Council wish to consider alternative use of the road corridor, this would also have to
satisfy legislative requirements, preserve the long term future transport needs of the community
and require a separate report to Council.
Subject to Council’s decision, this should also be reflected in a future amendment to the Priority
Infrastructure Plan.
Previous Council Consideration
The former Noosa Council considered the potential future Gibson Road Extension during the
development of its Coastal Major Road Network Infrastructure Charges Plan from 1999 to its
adoption in 2004. The Sunshine Coast Council generally maintained these road transport
planning considerations in its adoption of the Priority Infrastructure Plan for The Noosa Plan in
2013.
Page 21 of 60
Section 22
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Finance & Risk
Should this land eventually be required for the future transport network, there could be additional
financial costs in relocating any buildings and removing other infrastructure such as car-parks
that may have been placed on the land. It is envisaged that such costs would not be less than
that advised in the Tait Duke Cottage report being in the order of $100,000 relocation costs
escalated to the relevant time plus other demolition costs as applicable.
CONSULTATION
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
• Colin Beard, Beard Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd
Internal Consultation
• Transport Infrastructure Management, Community Infrastructure
• Property and Land Management, Organisational Services
• Strategic Planning, Community and Development
• Planning Assessment, Community and Development
• Sport and Community Development, Community and Development
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Community Infrastructure X Community & Development
Asset Planning & Delivery Community Services
Civil Operations Planning & Development
Environmental Services Health & Regulatory Services
Waste Management Business Facilitation
Community Resilience & Disaster Management
Executive Office X Organisational Services
Communications & Governance Financial Services
Human Resources ICT
De-amalgamation Coordination Property & Contracts
Page 22 of 60
Section 23
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 23 of 60
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
CHOOSING FUTURES: Coastal Area Traffic & Transport to 2016 29
The section of Hilton Terrace between Eumundi
Road and Ermest Street should be treated with
[Exerc] actres to ensure relatively low speed tate
measures to ensure relatively low speed traffic
A road corridor has been set aside to connect operation (50 to 60 km/hour) and_ significantly
Gibson Road at its western end near Eumundi Road improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including
with Hilton Terrace at Doonella Bridge, refer to Map pedestrian refuge treatments for crossings of Hilton
11.1 below. Terrace.
demonstrate that this possible future extension of ~ ~ ~
Gibson Road is not necessary on the basis of Decisions on the timing for the construction of the
network capacity or efficiency considerations, there extension should be deferred until all stages of Eenie
are significant amenity and safety problems on Hilton Creek Road have been constructed and the network
Terrace between Eumundi Road and Emest Street. efficiency issues can be re-assessed with the benefit
| . . of observed traffic data on this part of the network.
Construction of the Gibson Road extension would
see the role of Hilton Terrace in the road network
reduced from that of a distributor road to that of a
local road.
Peak volumes on Hilton Terrace are not likely to vary
significantly, as the road capacity is constrained
between Doonella Bridge and Sidoni Street.
Although the road currently functions as a distributor
road, there is a need to calm the traffic as it also
passes through this residential area that includes a
high pedestrian generator at the Noosa Lakes Motel.
MapP 11.1 GIBSON ROAD EXTENSION
A
‘
Me
\ mL
\ iat
\ Gibson Road
Goode \
\ Eumundi Road
N 0 0.25 os
t kilometres \
——— ss |.
\2"
ad
qe os
h:\planning scheme\planning studies\transport\coastal area transport to 2016.doc —_ Draft, limited endorsement by Council 25/07/2002 cre?
Page 23 of 60Section 24
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Page 24 of 60
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Choosing Futures: Cost Estimates for Future Road Infrastructure in the Coastal Area of Noosa Shire
S Me
| | [7 om : J fe of | I] 7 7 4 | L | | a 7 | / | “| rT TT lTTTTtS - ~~
| \ \\ z | des at LY} | | | i | | / "a rH || Li} | || {| / | i : al — }
; oO Som i SS —— | | i ee | ITH | LLL | HLL ry ~L
[| exe amen] scone vm NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL [:« |
No REVISION DETAILS DATE | Fre HED | ADT i ; ORWARD LANNING i
, Fe} a tate wreeoven | NOOSAVILLE SUBARTERIA —— BIS
scale 12500 A3 — = : _ ” sae hase EUMUND! RD TO BOONELLA BRIDGE F1L98
Page 24 of 60Section 25
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Page 25 of 60
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Map of Subject Earl Street Land
1 ae ~* ail Pix =, ij a eye aoe: z eS
ce. See edt ae i i 3
ao Sa cee ie 8 tla rfl webes etree » an
a . a . a 4 [TS ie ae ” E: " ie ays] 5 : FE aa Ey ie et i oe, P IR
om) AS iad ar DS mS ball ae see estos ae) Ae
Ee I Ta, jh... ie Iu ke (ED ne RR aa ere ea plif . mUM yy, a ;
ie / / N at pad So ee wee a 3p Pe ee ~~ Mb ee i oh a yor
i Re Sig nee eae, ge GE Tg ye wg,
Fay eerie 4 1/4 Shia d See, ' é a pis ts Sere nee — ;
ee ‘a a Re! atk GE tetera chad Or ne i, _ st. Se
1 wa 2° Be mo ie aa rOne CF = =e J a} pre ‘ ti ; : me! Pp NY
/ a aie i i . ‘ fl : aS Ae SY, SS
Ss a ET TP Fagsse eure ts Ae ee ee) Base Ae
a rs bal | i a SR es i | Be 74 YY SR
Selah Sea) | REIT Hees a ee
ae ia, wae SS Pane aed s!
a t , 2 A } e x Sai 2 Lp 4 re oe |
ys Mints si ] ra i Face Ss) x “4 P x
bap ee eee. Wy ~ J ee ae)’
i eae) eA ea g ee a
See hel irg leica eB ‘ge Zee
Oe enn hee ES » Ze aa
7s BL andl - %
peed IE Cul he | Bmore
NES eee eee | ee:
\ r Ee 4 ye 7 ee . or ened a 7 we
iN x ey, hy im = s i Ze : Pe ; | f oF : &
¢ ' 5 = £88 2 i i ~ i: | ' yi ED =
ike; ae fr | i ee ry
a } \ f eg |
| 1S \ ‘ ay i | Be TT) Mod aA oe
' Cy \ ; % \ 8B 3 # 35 uid i 7 a vA The J
vse A a ide Se ne
Subject land at 14 to 18 Earl Street, Tewantin 2 1s .C e corridor Page 25 of 60Section 26
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
4. NOOSA PARADE – BIKE LANES AND TRANSIT HUB
Author Project Design & Delivery Coordinator, Ross Sanderson
Index ECM/Subject/7.01 2013-2014 Annual Capital Works Program
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report seeks to recommend a course of action and open discussion regarding the project in
the 2013–2014 Capital Works Program entitled ‘Noosa Parade Transit Hub Stage 1’. The name
of this project does not currently provide sufficient clarity over the actual works proposed and
further, the name implies a general commitment to a greater future project.
This report aims to clarify the works proposed for this year and open discussion on the wider
future project namely, the Noosa Parade Transit Hub.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Project Design & Delivery Co-ordinator to the Infrastructure &
Services Committee Meeting dated 25 March 2014 and put on hold all works in the area of the
Noosa Parade bus facility including pavement overlays, until planning is carried out and
agreement reached on the full precinct that extends between the Noosa Lions Park and the
‘Maze’ car park noting that:
A. The proposed construction plans for the provision of cycle lanes in Noosa Parade between
Noosa drive and the entrance to the Lions Park ($300,000) improve safety for cyclists, but
continue to represent a safety risk for pedestrians;
B. Translink will be briefing Council on the future public transport requirements for Noosa
Shire and this will provide Council with a better understanding of the status of the Noosa
Parade bus facility; and
C. The SEQ Cycle Network Grant totalling $110,000 for the provision of on-road cycle lanes
on Noosa Parade will need to be expended by June 2014, otherwise it will have to be
returned.
REPORT
1. Project Clarification
1.1. Cycle Lanes
The project in the current capital works program is for the provision of cycle lanes in Noosa
Parade between Noosa Drive and the roundabout at the entrance to the Lions Park albeit that the
name of the project suggests a larger staged project.
To achieve the width for the cycle lanes, the kerb alignment along the bus facility is required to
be changed from a sawtooth arrangement to a standard parallel kerb line. This change is
supported by Translink.
Page 26 of 60
Section 27
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
In conjunction with these works the current design includes pedestrian facilities which aim to
formalise the current pedestrian desire lines. This approach brings the current pedestrian risk
from a level 5 down to a level 3, but still represents a substantial risk.
The pedestrian facilities can be removed from the cycle lane project without compromising the
50:50 funding provided from TMR if Council proceeds with this project.
1.2 Noosa Parade Transit Hub
An outcome of the naming of this project in the Capital Works Program has raised awareness
with regard to the future of the existing Noosa Parade bus facility.
At the time of planning of the Noosa Junction Transit Centre, there was a general understanding
that any decisions on the future of the Noosa Parade facility would wait until the new transit
centre was complete and operational for at least 12 months.
However, there is still recognition that the Noosa Parade facility is the second most important
stop within Noosa Shire and a draft report entitled ‘Noosa Transit Hubs Concept Development’
was prepared for comment in 2007 to maintain the momentum on public transport as a modal
shift.
Current statistics now show that Noosa Parade forms an important role in the network hierarchy
and current patronage generally exceeds 140,000 patrons in a 12 month period. Although the
Noosa Junction Transit Centre has shifted some demand, patronage remains high at the Noosa
Parade stop due to the attractions of Hastings Street, Main Beach and the Noosa National Park.
The 2007 draft report investigated various layout configurations and options and is the only
document available today which examines the precinct, albeit with a transport focus.
It is proposed that fresh planning be carried out on the full precinct that extends between the
Noosa Lions Park and the ‘Maze’ car park to consider Council’s best options for the future having
regard to traffic, transport, pedestrians, open space and event needs.
Risks
Some risks are outlined regarding the risk to pedestrians with the current project design. These
may be mitigated with alternative future planning.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance
Council has received $660,000 external funding from the SEQ Cycle Network Grant to deliver
cycle lanes on Noosa Drive and Noosa Parade. The Noosa Drive component of the funding
grant was completed in late 2013. This has left a balance amount of $110,000 for the Noosa
Parade project to be delivered before 30 June 2014. Both projects were tied to Council’s road
reseal program to create cost efficiencies and to leverage grant funding.
The SEQ Cycle Network Grant totalling $110,000 for the provision of on-road cycle lanes on
Noosa Parade will need to be expended by June 2014 otherwise it will have to be returned.
Page 27 of 60
Section 28
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Translink
Internal Consultation
Transport Infrastructure Management
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Community Infrastructure Community & Development
Asset Planning & Delivery Community Services
Civil Operations Planning & Development
Environmental Services Health & Regulatory Services
Waste Management Business Facilitation
Community Resilience & Disaster Management
x Executive Office x Organisational Services
Communications & Governance Financial Services
Human Resources ICT
De-amalgamation Coordination Property & Contracts
Page 28 of 60
Section 29
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
5. PROPOSED UPGRADE OF SHEPPERSONS LANE, KIN KIN
Author Co-ordinator Assets and Investigations – Bryan O’Connor
Community Infrastructure
Index ECM / Subject / 26.07 - Funding - Capital Works
ECM / Property /150 Sheppersons Lane, Kin Kin (property no 152121)
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not Applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report from the Coordinator, Assets and Investigations to the Infrastructure
and Services Committee Meeting dated 25 March 2014 and:
A. Resolve not to proceed with any further planning activities for the upgrade of Sheppersons
Lane, Kin Kin to a bitumen surface; and
B. Continue to monitor the condition and usage of Sheppersons Lane, Kin Kin as part of the
ongoing management of the Noosa Council gravel road network.
REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the proposal for the sealing of Sheppersons
Lane, Kin Kin by Noosa Council.
An existing section of gravel laneway was proposed to be upgraded and sealed with a bitumen
surface to facilitate the operation of the Kin Kin Quarry located at Sheppersons Lane, Kin Kin
based on an offer for cost sharing by the the quarry operator, Neilsens Quality Gravels Pty Ltd
(Neilsens). The proposed upgrade of the road was designed by Sunshine Coast Council and
resulted in approximately 1545 metres of an 8 metre wide sealed bitumen road formation from
the Kin Kin road intersection to the Kin Kin Quarry gate entrance. The works were estimated at
the time to be $1 million.
The offer from the quarry operator to Sunshine Coast Council was to share the costs of the works
equally on the basis that council covers the bitumen sealing costs and that the quarry supplies
the necessary road base materials at its own cost, with all other costs being shared equally. The
decision to accept this offer by Sunshine Coast Council was deferred pending the establishment
of the new Noosa Council in January 2014. As a result of this decision the quarry operator,
Neilsens, withdrew their offer to share costs of the Sheppersons Lane upgrade.
With the Sunshine Coast Council deferring their decision on proceeding with the project until the
new Noosa Council was established, and the withdrawal of cost sharing by Neilsens, the
Sheppersons Lane upgrade project was removed from the Sunshine Coast Council capital works
program based on the project only being viable with the equal cost sharing from Neilsens.
Page 29 of 60
Section 30
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
This project is considered a low priority project and has not been included for consideration for
the future capital works program based on the following:
• There is no offer of cost share from Neilsens to proceed with the upgrade of Sheppersons
Lane;
• The Kin Kin quarry has not commenced any full time operations;
• Neilsens advised in their decision to withdraw cost sharing with Sunshine Coast Council
that they would operate with Sheppersons Lane in its current state;
• The current operating conditions for the quarry operator require “performance of regular
maintenance of roadworks within Sheppersons Lane, including the removal of any
materials which may fall from vehicles transporting quarry materials”;
• Sheppersons lane has very low traffic volumes to be considered a high priority against
other gravel roads maintained by Noosa Council; and
• The overall financial commitment by Noosa Council to upgrade Sheppersons Lane, even
with equal cost sharing, is not considered financially viable.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
There are no financial implications to be considered by not proceeding with this project. Council
officers will regularly monitor the road condition and usage of Sheppersons Lane Kin Kin to
identify any potential risks to road users in the future.
CONSULTATION
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Community Infrastructure x Community & Development
Asset Planning & Delivery
Planning & Development
Executive Office Organisational Services
Communications & Governance Financial Services
Human Resources ICT
De-amalgamation Coordination Property & Contracts
Page 30 of 60
Section 31
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Environmental Services
6. WEYBA CREEK ESPLANADE – BANK EROSION
Author Environment Officer (Rivers and Coast) - Jan Maddin
Environmental Services | Community Infrastructure
Index ECM/Subject/ 21.06 Environment Management Plans
WO 0005287 – Weyba Esp
Attachments 1. Photos – Bank Erosion Along Weyba Creek
2. Background Information
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Weyba Creek Esplanade contains a narrow strip of native bushland adjacent to Weyba
Creek which forms part of the Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve.
This area is substantially a natural environment with the vegetated foreshores dominated by
Melaleuca/Casuarina woodland containing some established Eucalypts and sections of
mangroves. It has limited recreational facilities and no formal boat access to Weyba Creek.
The map below shows an area of the Reserve where current public access is causing concern to
local residents and staff.
Page 31 of 60
Section 32
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Across the road from this section of the Reserve is a residential neighbourhood. Historical use of
the Reserve by local residents and many visitors indicates that the community value the
accessibility to Weyba Creek through this section of the Reserve for recreational activity such as
swimming, boating and fishing.
However, the use of the Reserve is creating undesirable impacts on public safety and the
environmental values of the Reserve and River.
These concerns include:
• numerous access tracks into the Reserve from the urban areas causing fragmentation of
habitat;
• persistent damage to the existing trees & shrubs;
• ladders nailed to trees overhanging the creek bank;
• rope swings tied to the overhanging trees;
• large dead trees within the intertidal zone of the creek with exposed branches
• active erosion and undermining of the creek bank; and
• bare earth riparian zones, denuded vegetation & compacted soil (refer photos in
Attachment 1).
A number of options have been considered to address the current and emerging issues on the
site. This report seeks to inform Council about these issues and obtain feedback on how to
respond.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report from the Environment Officer (Rivers and Coast) to the Infrastructure
and Services Committee dated 25 March 2014 and note option 3 as outlined in the report as its
preferred option and refer consideration of this issue to the 2014/15 Budget processes.
REPORT
The purpose of this report is to highlight issues for natural area management in a section of the
Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve in response to complaints received from the community
regarding recreational activities.
At the present time the banks in this immediate area of Weyba Creek near Leslie Drive are
suffering serious erosion. A number of the trees which lend themselves to use as ‘swing trees’ for
jumping from the bank into the creek are likely to fail in the foreseeable future. This will further
exacerbate erosion and compromise creek bank integrity leading to bank collapse.
There is a high level of risk to the public due to the current state of the bank and erosion at the
base of popular swing trees.
Increasingly, unrestricted utilisation of the area is putting pressure on previous revegetation
efforts. When one or more of the swing trees fail it will cause further hazards in the stream,
potentially rendering this particular area unsafe for recreational use such as swimming, boating
and canoeing.
The likely cost of removing trees which become hazards in-stream would be significantly higher.
In any event, it is considered that urgent action is required to manage the risk associated with the
failure of one or more of the swing trees in the near future.
Page 32 of 60
Section 33
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Experience suggests that the Christmas school holidays break has historically been the time for
highest use of the area. Local residents have reported to Council that groups now regularly visit
the area, and of late it has become increasingly known to visitors to the area.
Reports claim:
• Visitors are common at the site at all times of the day jumping from both the Weyba Creek
footbridge and the rope swings on the eastern bank of Weyba Creek. There are now 5 rope
swings hanging from overhanging trees at this location;
• Itinerant visitors and many unsupervised children use the area regularly;
• People have been observed to camp on site in vans for up to 8 days; and
• Bollard barriers have been removed to allow cars to be parked further into the Reserve,
closer to the creek.
It is therefore recommended that Council consider intervention in this matter as soon as possible
to:
• mitigate the public safety risk; and
• manage the environmental and cultural values of the Reserve and river catchment
sustainably.
Option 1. Do Nothing
Council could restore bollards and allow the activities on site to self-manage. It is however likely
that the creek banks would continue to erode and trees would fall into the creek causing a hazard
to users of the area. The environmental and amenity values of the reserve in this locality would
be further degraded and continue to compromise the water quality of Weyba Creek.
Option 2. Minimal Management Intervention (Environmental Services, Regulatory
Services)
• Provide educational signage and undertake a letter box drop to local residents explaining
that the area needs immediate rehabilitation to prevent major erosion and risk to public
safety;
• Remove tree ladders and rope swings now and on an ongoing basis as need arises;
• Close degraded, high risk areas for regeneration and restoration (e.g. bare earth riparian
zones, eroding riverbanks) including fencing (e.g. post and rail) to protect vegetation and
restrict access;
• Monitor activities and erosion; and
• Increase surveillance of the area by local laws officers to achieve compliance on illegal
camping issues.
This action would effectively close the site for an extended period while management activities
are implemented to facilitate natural stabilisation and revegetation. In order to be successful,
Council would need to put effort into ensuring compliance with the site closure and revegetation
activities which would be difficult to achieve. The site would not be available for public use for
some time, and when rehabilitation is achieved public use would need to be maintained at low
levels to avoid reoccurrence.
Page 33 of 60
Section 34
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Option 3. High Level Management Intervention (Environmental Services, Regulatory
Services, and Asset Planning and Delivery Services).
• All of the above actions outlined in Option 2; and
• Engagement with the local community in the design and install of a bank stabilisation and
access structure for recreational purposes at the site. This would include erosion mitigation
measures along the most impacted sections of the creek bank.
Option 3 would achieve the same outcomes as Option 2, but in the long term the site will be
capable of sustaining higher levels of recreational use. Additionally, the community will have the
opportunity to be involved in designing the formalised access to the creek.
Option 4. Minimal Management Intervention and Tree Removal (Environmental Services,
Regulatory Services)
• All of the above actions outlined in Option 2; and
• Removal of high risk trees.
Option 4 would achieve the same outcomes as Option 2. In addition, the risk of failure of existing
eroded trees, bank collapse and public safety risk would be further reduced. However the
environmental and amenity values of the removed trees would be lost.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
Option 1 - Do nothing Current operating costs only.
Option 2 - Minimal management intervention (Environmental Services and Regulatory
Services), the associated costs for signage, fencing and monitoring is estimated to be in the
order $18,000, with the majority of expenditure occurring in the current financial year.
Option 3 High level management intervention (Environmental Services and Asset Planning
and Delivery Services), the associated costs for design and installation of an appropriate
structure (which will include in-stream erosion mitigation) is estimated to be around $220,000. It
is estimated that $20,000 of expenditure will occur in the current financial year.
Option 4 Minimal management intervention and tree removal (Environmental Services and
Regulatory Services) the associated costs for signage, fencing and monitoring is estimated to be
in the order $18,000 plus approximately $6,000 for tree removal works with the majority of
expenditure occurring in the current financial year.
CONSULTATION
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Council staff have received background information on the matters dealt with in the report from a
number of local residents.
Internal Consultation
A report on Weyba Creek Esplanade – Issues for Natural Area Management was tabled for
discussion at the Community Infrastructure Departmental meeting on 6 March 2014.
Page 34 of 60
Section 35
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The Local Laws Officers have been consulted on the issues of illegal camping and illegal parking
and will include Weyba Creek Esplanade in their regulatory enforcement campaign on illegal
camping. The Local Laws Team also advised that if the Natural Areas Officers are able to
photograph vehicles parked illegally (photo date stamped with registration clearly visible) they are
able to issue the owner of the vehicle a fine.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Community Infrastructure x Community & Development
* Asset Planning & Delivery Community Services
Civil Operations Planning & Development
* Environmental Services * Health & Regulatory Services
Waste Management Business Facilitation
Community Resilience & Disaster Management
Executive Office Organisational Services
Communications & Governance Financial Services
Human Resources ICT
De-amalgamation Coordination Property & Contracts
Page 35 of 60
Section 36
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
Photos of the Erosion at Weyba Creek
Photo 1 Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve
Page 36 of 60
Section 37
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Photo 2 One of many access tracks into the Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve.
Page 37 of 60
Section 38
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Photo 3 Ladder nailed to tree overhanging the creek bank and bare earth riparian zone.
Page 38 of 60
Section 39
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Photo 4 Rope swing tied to the overhanging tree and exposed tree roots.
Page 39 of 60
Section 40
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Photo 5 Eroding creek bank with large dead trees in-stream.
Page 40 of 60
Section 41
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
ATTACHMENT 2
Background information – Management of Weyba Creek Esplanade
The Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve covers an area of 347,804 m2 and is located within the
Noosa Heads area of Noosa Shire.
It encompasses Noosa Council managed lands adjoining Weyba Creek from Noosa Sound
upstream to and including the northern shores of Lake Weyba, and esplanade land on the
northern bank of Eenie Creek (see Map 1 below).
Map 1 Extent of the Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve.
Page 41 of 60
Section 42
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The Reserve offers important habitat for a range of fauna species including:
• Koala corridor
• Flying Fox colonies
• Glossy Black Cockatoo
• False Water Rat
• Marine organisms
Natural Areas Management
This area is classified as a District Reserve with planning and service activity delivered by
council’s Natural Areas Team under the Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve Management Plan
(2006).
The management intent articulated in this Plan states the Reserve is to be managed for the
protection of its natural values in perpetuity by:
• Enhancing and maintaining the biodiversity, habitat integrity and long-term ecological
sustainability of native bushland and ecosystems within the Reserve.
• Where appropriate, providing for and maintaining low impact recreational opportunities
with the Reserve.
• Facilitating and fostering community awareness and participation in the management of
the Reserve.
The Bushland Management Plan also includes a:
• Flora/Fauna Assessment
• Fire Management Plan
• Budget allocation for contract services, and
• Scheduled quarterly inspections.
Noosa River Plan (2004)
Weyba Creek is part of the Noosa River catchment. The lands within the Weyba Creek Bushland
Reserve are essentially riparian lands as they have direct connectivity to Weyba Creek and Lake
Weyba.
Therefore this Reserve is also captured under the management framework of the Noosa River
Plan (2004) which sets out a number of Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs) to deliver the
‘vision’ for the Noosa River system.
Vision
The Noosa River system is –
recognized internationally for the natural, recreational, scenic, cultural and economic values
flowing from the river’s rich biodiversity and habitat.
managed within an effective coordinated framework that strives for sustainability and best
practice in nature-based recreation and ecotourism, and
valued by government, industry and community which take an active role in protecting and
rehabilitating riparian areas and ensuring that development and activities in and on the river
system and on tidal lands are sustainable.
The Noosa River Plan outlines the future character and intent for Weyba Creek and Lake Weyba.
Page 42 of 60
Section 43
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
It includes performance criteria which any development or activity within this management area is
to satisfy; and recommends a number of key actions to ensure riparian areas are protected to
maintain:
• Bed and Bank Habitat and Ecosystem Health.
• Water Quality.
• Visual Amenity and Public Safety.
In terms of public safety, the DEOs set out in the Noosa River Plan state:
• The safety of the river system for all water users is ensured to the extent that
development and activities within and adjacent to the river system are appropriately
managed and controlled in terms of their immediate and cumulative impacts.
• Development or activities maintain the safety and access rights of the public over public
owned foreshore lands.
There are a number of key actions relating to Weyba Creek within the Noosa River Plan which
remain outstanding. These include:
• 4.1.3 Continue to undertake management works for the prevention and rehabilitation of
riverbank erosion.
• 4.1.8 Review appropriateness of dinghies stored and ‘jerry-built’ jetties on eastern bank of
Weyba Creek near Weyba bridge.
Management action to date
The focus of natural areas management in this section of the Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve
has been:
• Fire and access track management.
• Weed management and revegetation.
• Management of impacts from adjacent land uses.
• Fauna monitoring.
Page 43 of 60
Section 44
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Waste Management
7. WASTE RECYCLABLES DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Author Coordinator Waste Management, Wayne Schafer
Community Infrastructure
Index ECM / Subject / 60.11 Recycling
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the Report by the Coordinator, Waste Management to the Infrastructure and
Services Committee dated 25 March 2014 regarding the proposed agreement with VISY
Recycling for the processing of collected recyclable material.
REPORT
1. Purpose of report
This report provides details of a proposed agreement with “VISY Recycling” for the recovery
processing of kerbside collected recyclable material in yellow lidded wheelie bins and bulk
recycling bins within the Noosa Council region.
2. Background
The Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC) operates a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at
Nambour through a contractor, VISY Recycling, which processes and sells recyclable material.
Recyclable material from Noosa’s kerbside yellow lidded wheelie bins and bulk bins has been
transported to the MRF since the commencement of kerbside recycling in Noosa in 1994. At that
time Noosa Council enjoyed free disposal of recyclables delivered to the facility.
As a result of de-amalgamation, Council continues to require access to a facility which processes
collected recyclable material. The Noosa Transfer Committee initiated the development of a
Recycling Agreement in December 2013 however the terms of the Agreement did not represent
an acceptable economic outcome. Officers have continued to seek a better outcome for the
community and have been in negotiation with SCRC and Visy since January 2014 to try and
achieve this.
3. Recycling Proposals Considered
Under the terms of the Agreement, VISY have the right to enter into third party arrangements to
deliver recyclable materials to the facility for processing subject to authorisation by SCRC.
Page 44 of 60
Section 45
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The agreement initially offered by SCRC specified a non-industry standard low compaction rate
for materials in the collection vehicles. It also specified a new gate fee per tonne for the
acceptance of material for processing and there was no offer to share in the revenue returned to
SCRC.
Noosa staff responded to this offer by seeking options on:
• Amendments to the proposed agreement from SCRC;
• A separate proposal from VISY Recycling, and
• Costing from Cleanaway to transport recycled material to a recently constructed facility at
Hervey Bay, owned by Cleanaway.
4. Further Proposals Received
SCRC varied its offer by increasing the allowed compaction rate per cubic metre for material in
collection vehicles but did not reduce the gate fee per tonne for material delivered for processing.
The VISY proposal offered industry standard compaction rates in collection vehicles and a lower
gate fee per tonne. The pricing structure proposed by VISY is on a sliding scale depending on
the percentage of contamination of the recyclable materials.
The definition of contamination includes as examples:
• Garden waste
• Food scraps
• Timbers
• Polystyrene
• Old clothes
• Personal hygiene products
The lowest price is based on contamination levels of less than 9.99%. The price doubles for
contamination rates of between 10.00% and 14.99% and increases five-fold for contamination
levels of more than 15%. The current contamination rates for Noosa recyclables currently sits
around 5 to 6%. It is therefore important to ensure that the community is aware of this price shift
to enable contamination rates to remain low and therefore reduce the cost to the community.
Cleanaway provided a written proposal to transport material to Hervey Bay. Given the high costs
proposed due to the large distance involved, this offer was not progressed.
5. Confidentiality
Offers by VISY Recycling and SCRC specify non-disclosure of the terms of the draft agreements.
Details of the pricing and contractual conditions therefore have to be reported in the confidential
session of the Infrastructure and Services Committee meeting.
6. Most acceptable offer
The VISY proposal presents the best value proposal available to Council.
Previous Council Consideration
Refer to background information above.
Page 45 of 60
Section 46
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Finance & Risk
The predicted annual cost to Noosa Council is $66,000 based on the volume of material
delivered over the past 12 months. This cost will increase by CPI each year.
Procurement requirements
The Local Government Act requires that open tenders be offered for contracts in excess of
$200,000. In this instance the only viable location for delivery of recyclable material is the MRF
at Nambour and contracting with either SCRC or VISY Recycling. In this instance it is not viable
to seek open tenders based on the geography and specialisation of the offering and exemption is
recommended to Council under Section 235 (a) and (b) of the Local Government Regulations of
2012.
Local Government Regulations 2012 - Section 235 - Other exceptions:
A local government may enter into a medium-sized contractual arrangement or large-sized
contractual arrangement without first inviting written quotes or tenders if –
(a) the local government resolves it is satisfied that there is only 1 supplier who is reasonably
available; or
(b) the local government resolves that, because of the specialised or confidential nature of the
services that are sought, it would be impractical or disadvantageous for the local government to
invite quotes or tenders;
Risk of Over Compaction
Recyclable materials must not be over compacted in collection vehicles or the product quality is
affected (e.g. glass breakage, paper impregnated with glass fines) and the selling price of
processed material is reduced. The VISY proposal has significant penalties on an increasing
scale for over compaction to protect VISY against poor performance of the collection contractor.
If over compaction of material occurs or contamination levels breach contracted levels then
progressively higher penalties are imposed. Cleanaway (Council’s collection contractor) are
satisfied with the compaction levels proposed by VISY Recycling.
Risk of Contamination
Contamination is caused when customers place non-recyclable material in the recycling
container. Some hazardous materials impact on plant workers, or contaminate the other
recyclable material, (i.e. burst oil or paint containers contaminating other materials.). The
processing contractor must pay high disposal fees to dump contaminated material and the
manual sorting costs of processing material rise substantially as contamination increases.
The current Noosa contamination of approx. 5% is good and imposes no penalty other than a
gate fee. Under the VISY proposal, the gate fee increases as contamination levels increase.
Page 46 of 60
Section 47
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Risk Mitigation Initiatives:
• An effective and ongoing customer education and information program is essential to
minimise the impact of residents contaminating recycling bins.
• Video surveillance and rejection of contaminated bins by the collection contractor while
servicing bins which is currently undertaken.
• Contract management of the collection contractor to ensure the compaction ratio in the
collection vehicle does not exceed 200kg per cubic metre.
CONSULTATION
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Transpacific Cleanaway
VISY Recycling
Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Internal Consultation
Interim Director Community Infrastructure, Martin Drydale
CEO, Brett de Chastel
Interim Director Organisational Services, Michael Shave
Procurement Coordinator, Phil Parkman
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Community Infrastructure Community & Development
Asset Planning & Delivery Community Services
Civil Operations Planning & Development
Environmental Services Health & Regulatory Services
Waste Management Business Facilitation
Community Resilience & Disaster Management
X Executive Office X Organisational Services
Communications & Governance Financial Services
Human Resources ICT
De-amalgamation Coordination Property & Contracts
Page 47 of 60
Section 48
CLOSED SESSION
8. CLOSED SESSION ITEM: PROPOSED RECYCLING
AGREEMENT WITH VISY RECYCLING
Author Coordinator Waste Management, Wayne Schafer
Community Infrastructure
Index ECM / Subject / 60.11 Recycling
Attachment 1. VISY Recycling Agreement
REASON FOR CLOSED SESSION
This report was considered in closed session in accordance with Section 275 (1) of the Local Government
Regulation 2012, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the
following: -
(e) contracts proposed to be made by it (which contain “commercial in confidence” and non-
disclosure clauses in the draft agreements)