Minutes of Ordinary Council

Ordinary Council MEETING MINUTES

25 JUNE 2014

3.0 Declaration of any Material personal interests/conflicts of interest by councillors and senior council officers

3.1 Declaration of Material Personal Interest on any Item of Business

Pursuant to Section 172 of the Local Government Act 2009, a councillor who has a material personal interest in an issue to be considered at a meeting of the local government, or any of its committees must –

(a) inform the meeting of the councillor’s material personal interest in the matter; and

(b) leave the meeting room (including any area set aside for the public), and stay out of the meeting room while the matter is being discussed and voted on.

3.2 Declaration of Conflict of Interest on any Item of Business

Pursuant to Section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009, a councillor who has a real or perceived conflict of interest in a matter to be considered at a meeting of the local government, or any of its committees must inform the meeting about the councillor’s personal interest the matter and if the councillor participates in the meeting in relation to the matter, how the councillor intends to deal with the real or perceived conflict of interest.

Cr Milligan declared of a possible perceived conflict of interest in Item 16.3 “Community Engagement Transition” (as defined in section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to Cr Milligan advising that she has personal dealings with a member of the Community Engagement Team and dealt with the perceived conflict of interest by stating that it was her determination that her personal interest is not of sufficient significance that it would lead to her making a decision on this matter that is contrary to the public interest. Cr Milligan proposed to participate in the discussion as the matter was only for Council’s information and no decision was to be taken on the matter.

Cr Jones advised of a possible perceived conflict of interest in Item 16.4 “Lockyer Valley Regional Council – Local Procurement”. Cr Jones advised the Council that members of his family have association with the company involved in delivering the works.

Cr Pingel advised of a possible perceived conflict of interest in Item 16.4 “Lockyer Valley Regional Council – Local Procurement”. Cr Pingel advised the Council that his family have association with the company involved in delivering the works.

Cr Jones advised of a possible perceived conflict of interest in Item 13.7 “Request to Change Development Approval for Preliminary Approval for Material Change of Use (Impact Assessment) to Override the Provisions of the Planning Scheme Under Section 3.1.6 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and Development Permit for Reconfigure of a Lot for Subdivision (103 Lots Plus Park) on Lot 206 CH312041 at 83 Princes Road, Gatton”. Cr Jones advised the Council that he has personal dealings with the applicant and that he would deal with the perceived conflict of interest by leaving the meeting room, taking no part in the debate or decision on the matter.

Cr Holstein advised of a possible perceived conflict of interest in Item 13.7 “Request to Change Development Approval for Preliminary Approval for Material Change of Use (Impact Assessment) to Override the Provisions of the Planning Scheme Under Section 3.1.6 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and Development Permit for Reconfigure of a Lot for Subdivision (103 Lots Plus Park) on Lot 206 CH312041 at 83 Princes Road, Gatton”. Cr Holstein advised the Council that she has personal dealings with the applicant and that she would deal with the perceived conflict of interest by leaving the meeting room, taking no part in the debate or decision on the matter.

4.0 Confirmation of Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 28 May 2014

Date: 18 June 2014

Author: Ian Flint, Chief Executive Officer

Responsible Officer: Ian Flint, Chief Executive Officer

File No: Formal Papers

RESOLUTION:

THAT the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on the 28 May 2014 be hereby confirmed.

Moved By: Cr Holstein Seconded By: Cr Friend

Resolution Number: 3470

CARRIED

6/0

4.2 Receival of the Minutes of the Audit & Risk Management Committee held on 22 May 2014

Date: 18 June 2014

Author: Jason Bradshaw, Executive Manager Governance & Performance

Responsible Officer: Jason Bradshaw, Executive Manager Governance & Performance

File No: Formal Papers

RESOLUTION:

THAT the recommendations of the Audit & Risk Management Committee held on 22 May 2014 be adopted.

Moved By: Cr Pingel Seconded By: Cr Friend

Resolution Number: 3471

CARRIED

6/0

Cr Jim McDonald arrived at the meeting, the time being 10:12 am

5.0 Mayoral Minute

5.1 Mayoral Minute

Date: 18 June 2014

Author: Jason Cubit, Executive Liaison Officer Mayor/CEO & Coordinator Mayor's Office

Responsible Officer: Ian Flint, Chief Executive Officer

File No: Formal Papers

National General Assembly

Last week Council was represented at the National General Assembly of Local Government in Canberra. While at the conference I had the opportunity to meet with a number of representatives from the Federal Government to advocate for opportunities for the Lockyer Valley. I met with a Senior Advisor to Trade Minister Andrew Robb, Mr Lyall Howard; Senator for Queensland Joe Ludwig and the Attorney-General George Brandis. I look forward to some positive outcomes for the region as a result of these meetings.

Wandering Warriors

Council is assisting with some support to the Wandering Warriors group who are embarking on a walk from Brisbane to Canberra later this year. The not-for-profit Wandering Warriors group will leave on their 1300 kilometre journey in September and arrive in Canberra on October 16. Wandering Warriors' mission is to secure ongoing funding and support for veterans and their families and the Lockyer Valley region will be right behind them on their epic journey. Council has been assisting the group in a variety of ways including approaching local food producers to support the group. Matt Sippel from Coast to Country Chiropractic will be the group's physio on the journey and he approached Council initially to get on board. We will support the group by approaching local food producers to provide all of the food for the journey as well as for a number of welcoming dinners that will happen on the way to Canberra culminating in a large arrival function. A number of growers are already on board and this is another great opportunity to promote the fresh, sustainable produce of the Lockyer Valley. Mick Donaldson from the group also travelled to Canberra last week and attended the National General Assembly gala dinner where Council had the opportunity to introduce him to a number of Mayors from other regions who will be welcoming the group on the journey.

Withcott Foothills Festival

The Withcott Foothills Festival was held over the weekend and was a great showcase of community offerings from the Withcott, Helidon, Murphys Creek, Blanchview and Flagstone Creek areas. Council supporting the event and there was lots of community involvement and a good turnout of people across the two days.

Queen’s Birthday Honours list

Mr Barry Rodgers was recognised in the recent Queen’s Birthday honours list with an Order of Australia Medal (OAM). Barry was recognised for his work in establishing the Emu Gully Adventure Education Centre and the Emu Gully Air and Land Spectacular event. The adventure centre has seen more than 14,000 young people attend camps there since 1995 and the Air and Land Spectacular is an event that recognises ANZAC traditions with live enactments of famous battles. Well done to Barry on this worthy recognition.

RESOLUTION:

THAT Council forward correspondence to Mr Barry Rodgers congratulating him on his Order of Australia Medal (OAM) in the Queen’s Birthday honours list.

Moved By: Cr Jones Seconded By: Cr Holstein

Resolution Number: 3472

CARRIED

7/0

RESOLUTION:

THAT the Mayoral Minute be received and noted.

Moved By: Cr Milligan Seconded By: Cr Pingel

Resolution Number: 3473

CARRIED

7/0

Council moved a motion to change the Order of Business from the meeting to receive a presentation from the Chief Executive Officer of Healthy Waterways, prior to considering a funding request in the confidential session of Council at Item 16.5.

6.0 Deputations

6.1 Healthy Waterways

Date: 20 June 2014

Author: Richard Collins, Coordinator Environmental Planning

Responsible Officer: Mark Piorkowski, Executive Manager Planning & Development Services

File No: Formal Papers

Council received a presentation from the Chief Executive Officer – Healthy Waterways, on the vision and purpose of the organization and on recent changes to the governance arrangement. The presentation further addressed the funding model and a new monitoring and evaluation framework for reporting outcomes. The current priorities were outlined as well as the value proposition for Lockyer Valley Regional Council and the broader catchment, including the future directions endorsed by the board.

RESOLUTION:

THAT representation and address to Council by Julie McLellan, Chief Executive Officer of Healthy Waterways be received and noted.

7.0 Committee Reports

No Receival of Committee Reports as Minutes reports

8.0 Business Arising from Minutes

REsolution:

THAT the numbering of Council resolutions had been mis-aligned from the special meetings held in March and the numbering of Council resolutions for this term needs to be corrected and updated. This resolution seeks to amend the numbering of Council resolutions as follows:

Council Ordinary Meeting 26^th March 2014 - Resolution 3339 to 3378

Council Ordinary Meeting 30^ThApril 2014 – Resolution 3379 to 3426

Council Ordinary Meeting 29^th May 2014 – Resolution 3427 to 3468

Moved By: Cr Friend Seconded By: Cr Pingel

Resolution Number: 3474

CARRIED

7/0

9.0 Executive Office Reports

9.1 Chief Executive Officer's Report

Date: 16 June 2014

Author: Ian Flint, Chief Executive Officer

Responsible Officer: Ian Flint, Chief Executive Officer

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

This report is to update Council on the key issues currently being actioned and on the significant items of information presently to hand.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT the Chief Executive Officer’s Report be received and adopted.

RESOLUTION:

THAT the Chief Executive Officer’s Report be received and adopted.

Moved By: Cr Friend Seconded By: Cr McDonald

Resolution Number: 3475

CARRIED

7/0

RESOLUTION:

That Council forward correspondence to Professor Anthony Hogan, Chair Regional Governance and Policy, ANZOG Institute for Governance, University of Canberra, thanking him for his address at the Regional Cooperation and Development Forum, and expressing Council’s interest in being considered as a potential candidate for any future case studies, given the recent experiences of this community in building community resilience acknowledging the significance of agriculture in our rural and regional community.

Moved By: Cr Milligan Seconded By: Cr McLean

Resolution Number: 3476

CARRIED

7/0

Report

1. Introduction

This report provides a further update on key matters arising and being addressed and on significant items of information since the last report.

2. Background

The previous reports provide the background information in the case of matters ongoing and only progress is being reported during the current reporting period on those matters.

3. Report

2^nd Regional Relations Dinner

The 2^nd Regional Relations Dinner was successfully held on 12 June 2014 and attended by Lockyer Valley, Somerset and Scenic Rim Regional Councils. The dinner was hosted by Somerset Regional Council at Somerset Civic Centre. Good attendance was had and good relations furthered. I look forward to Scenic Rim Regional Council hosting the 3^rd dinner next year.

Department of Local Government Funding Request

After continual submissions being made to the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) for the repayment of recovery costs from the 2011 flood event and with a number of requests deemed ineligible under the NDRRA guidelines, a submission has been lodged directly with the Department of Local Government and representations have been made to the Minister for the reimbursement of what Council considers are eligible day labour and recovery costs. An additional request has also been lodged for consideration with respect to reviewing the loan borrowings undertaken in 2011/12 to fund associated recovery works and activities.

Motions for LGAQ Annual Conference 2014

The LGAQ Annual Conference 2014 is being held at the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre 27-29 October, and the deadline for the receipt of motions has been set at August 2014. It is proposed that Council would discuss the motions to be submitted at the July workshops and confirm these at an Ordinary Meeting in July 2014. The motions proposed last year warrant further review to consider whether any require resubmission or a different approach. Additional matters have been identified and will be discussed at an upcoming workshop.

Council Budget 2014/15

After significant effort from the executive team in consultation with the Mayor and series of workshops with Council, it is intended that the budget will be presented to Council by the latest Thursday 26^th June 2014, for adoption at a special meeting to be held on Monday 14^th July 2014.

Productivity Commission Inquiry – Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements

Council provided a written submission to the inquiry and was afforded the opportunity to meet with the representatives and discuss local issues. As a result of the written submission, the Mayor has been offered the opportunity to attend the formal hearing and make further verbal representation on key issues for due consideration by the Commission in Brisbane next month. The LGAQ, ALGA, IPWEA have all lodged submissions for consideration and these have been circulated and are available for review. Council’s submission focused on the key processes and the practicalities of these, the duplication of review and audit efforts of the state and federal governments, risk management applications and a change to a bulked up value for money approach similar to that offered to entities such as Main Roads.

State Government Budget

The State Government Budget is by and large a business as usual budget. The NDRRA funding features heavily within the total local government funding for 2014/15, and includes the general maintenance of funding for vital roads infrastructure and natural disaster mitigation.

Key funding programs such as Transport Infrastructure Development (TIDS) $31.8M, Local Government Grants and Subsidies Scheme $41.8M and the funding of public library collections and services $22.8M – have remained at similar levels as in previous years. Natural disaster and resilience funding has been retained with a funding allocation of $19.1M. $80M over five (5) years has been allocated to the Queensland Regional NRM investment program. Of interest to local government is the reduced funding of approximately $450M (remains at $3.913B) to DTMR works scheduled throughout the State. This reduction is concerning given the impact this may have on local government’s role in constructing and maintaining roads in rural and remote parts of Queensland. More information on the State Budget is available at www.budget.qld.gov.au .

Williams Case

The High Court's decision in the so-called Williams Mark II case has profound implications for the future of direct federal funding for programs delivered to local communities.

Local Government Association of Queensland President Margaret de Wit said the direct funding relationship between local government in Queensland and the Federal Government stretched back more 40 years. "It works for local communities and we would like to see it continue,'' she said. “It is in the community's interest for local government to have an ongoing direct funding relationship with the Federal Government.''

Cr de Wit said the LGAQ would work closely with the Federal and State Governments and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) to find a solution in the best interests of Queensland local communities.

The Australian Local Government Association has advised that the Federal Government had given a commitment to work as quickly as possible to provide funding to local government in a way that is constitutionally valid.

Draft LGAQ Advocacy Action Plan 2014/15

The LGAQ Policy Executive has recently considered a draft LGAQ Advocacy Action Plan for 2014/15. This year's draft Advocacy Action Plan has been prepared in the context of changes following the 2013 Federal election and in the context of an upcoming State election.

It reflects current high priority advocacy needs for Queensland local government. The intent is to provide the State Government and other relevant stakeholders with a clear and concise document that details the high priority outcomes the LGAQ seeks for its members in the short, medium and long term.

In drafting, the LGAQ has taken into consideration:

§ The motion outcomes from the recent Annual Conference

§ The unresolved issues identified in the 29 Briefing Notes produced for the incoming Newman Government

§ The 11 Briefing Notes produced for the Incoming Federal Coalition Government

§ The current 6 month action plan produced by the Newman Government

§ Various legislative changes either currently introduced or soon-to-be introduced by the State and Federal governments and

§ The regular meetings, consultations and discussions conducted by LGAQ staff with members over the past year.

The draft Advocacy Action Plan 2014-15 will be presented to the Policy Executive at their upcoming meeting on 3 July 2014. Councils are invited to provide comments or suggestions on the draft Plan by Friday, 27 June for the Policy Executive's consideration.

Council Meetings – July 2014

The new schedule for Council decision making and the changes will come into effect next month in July 2014, and there will also be Special Meetings scheduled for the Budget and the AGEO city visit. The dates for July 2014 are as follows:

9^th July First Ordinary Meeting (new structure)

14^th July Special Meeting – Budget

23^rd July Special Meeting - AGEO City delegation

30^th July Ordinary Meeting

CEO Forum – Industrial Relations Modern Award Update

On 6 June I and Executive Manager Organisational Development & Engagement attended the SEQ Chief Executive Officers Forum which focussed on the Modern Award and how Councils across South East Queensland could approach the new Modern Award and work as a unit to leverage from and enable a more flexible Certified Agreement that is suitable for each individual workplace. An update on the Award was provided by LGAQ who reported that an appeal had been lodged by one of the unions and that this appeal including the complexity of making a Local Government Single Award would now not be finalised until end September 2014. Discussion was held on the key elements of the Award that have been released thus far including hours of work, probation, classification transition, broad banding and overtime.

Other matters discussed for new Certified Agreements included wage increases, performance and productivity measures, and flexi time and rostered days off. The aim for new Certified Agreements is to have some level of consistency across all South East Queensland Councils and to keep each other informed of any progress whilst in negotiations for a Certified Agreement. At present the larger Councils (Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay and Gold Coast), Certified Agreements expire end June 2014. However, until the Modern Award is finalised they cannot begin to bargain for a new Agreement. Lockyer Valley Regional Council Certified Agreement expires in January 2015 hence, we are due to commence bargaining for our new Agreement in October 2014. This may conflict with the new Modern Agreement as in our opinion it may not be finalised until December 2014.

Further meetings for CEOs are to be scheduled to ensure we all have the same information are all acting as one.

4. Policy and Legal Implications

Policy and legal implications will be addressed in future on matters that arise before Council.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

Budget implications will continue to be addressed through existing allocation and re-prioritisation as required.

6. Delegations/Authorisations

Where further decisions are required with respect to the submission of this plan, the Chief Executive Officer will be delegated the authority to make those decisions.

7. Communication

The matters arising from this report that require further communication will be addressed through existing communication channels.

8. Conclusion

That the Chief Executive Officer’s Report be received and adopted.

temp

10.0 Governance and Performance Reports

10.1 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2014

Date: 20 June 2014

Author: Jason Bradshaw, Executive Manager Governance & Performance

Responsible Officer: Jason Bradshaw, Executive Manager Governance & Performance

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update of the proposed amendments to the legislation and identify and confirm those matters to be proposed in a submission to the Government and LGAQ for representation to the Parliamentary Committee.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council notes the matters raised and endorse the submission of key points of concern on (1) Mayoral system of voting and (2) Numbering of candidates in FPTP elections, to the State Government on the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.

RESOLUTION:

THAT Council notes the matters raised and endorses the submission of key points of concern on (1) Mayoral system of voting and (2) Numbering of candidates in FPTP elections to the State Government on the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.

Moved By: Cr Pingel Seconded By: Cr Milligan

Resolution Number: 3477

CARRIED

5/2

Voting

For the Motion: Councillors Friend, Holstein, Jones, Milligan and Pingel.

Against the Motion: Councillors McDonald and McLean.

Report

1. Introduction

On the 3^rd June 2014, the Queensland Government introduced the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. The Bill formed part of the State Government’s six month action plan for January to June 2014. The Transport, Local Government and Housing Committee is considering the Bill, and is required to report back to the Parliament by 18^th August 2014.

2. Background

Council has received a circular from the LGAQ seeking any feedback by Friday 20^th June 2014, for inclusion into a broader submission to the Government. Council may also wish to make a separate submission directly to the Government on the key matters of changing the method of voting for Mayors and the arrangements for Councillors in first past the post (FPTP) elections.

Council and the LGAQ provided comments initially before this amendment was issued, and it would appear that any feedback provided has been ignored by the State Government in drafting the amendment bill.

3. Report

It is intended a detailed submission be compiled noting the perceived impact of the changes proposed and assessing these against the historic practices of elections for council, both pre and post reforms of 2008. This broader view will allow for consideration in detail on the key amendments that are not supported and the philosophy behind each of those.

As part of the review the following key amendments were introduced to:

§ empower the chief executive officer (CEO) of a local government to be the returning officer (RO)

§ empower the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ) to direct a CEO RO and approve the CEO RO's election plan

§ change voting for mayors in undivided local governments from first-past-the-post (FPTP) to optional-preferential (OPV) and simplify voting for candidates in FPTP elections

§ introduce a cut-off date for a local government to apply for a full postal ballot

§ provide for the ECQ to declare the result of the election of the mayor separately to the declaration of the other councillors

§ more closely align the Local Government Electoral Act 2011 (LGEA) with the Electoral Act 1992 (EA), where relevant and appropriate, including:

§ aligning provisions relating to roll closures, ballot papers, special postal voters, re-count of votes, failure to vote, candidate gift disclosure periods, candidate deposits, offences, and the ECQ's investigation powers; and

§ adopting a number of reforms in the Electoral Reform Amendment Act 2014 (ERA Act) in relation to increased access to postal voting, regulation of how-to-vote cards, electronic voting and proof of identity requirements

§ clarify in the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (COBA) and the Local Government Act 2009 (LGA) that a councillor who is subject to a suspended sentence is disqualified from being a councillor immediately on the sentence being handed down.

The majority of the realignment to the state government Electoral Act 1992 is common sense and will provide a consistent platform to elections and contribute to a better understanding by the voting public.

The key concerns for Council are around the following change:

o change voting for mayors in undivided local governments from first-past-the-post (FPTP) to optional-preferential (OPV) and simplify voting for candidates in FPTP elections

The change to OPV from FPTP for the Mayor will only create a level of confusion by having a different method for each of the ballot papers at the election, and of the 54 undivided local governments this will be a significant change.

The following extracts are from the LGAQ submission in January 2014 and present the views consistent with Council’s majority position:

System of Voting – Mayors

LGAQ’s 2010 submission contains a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons of various options for voting systems for local government elections. The submission concludes that the current voting systems (optional preferential for divided and first-past-the-post for undivided councils) are the most appropriate because the other systems identified (compulsory preferential and proportional representation):

a) do not demonstrate more democratic outcomes will be delivered;

b) are more complex voting systems, particularly proportional representation, that are less likely to be understood by electors;

c) are more appropriate to and encourage party political elections, particularly proportional representation; and

d) are less complementary to the local government principles contained in Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2009.

The submission concluded that the voting systems in use provided successful election outcomes for their communities.

90.32 per cent of mayors surveyed in February 2013 agreed that there should be no change to the status quo.

The discussion paper itself acknowledges in proposal number 13 that the “First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system is used in all undivided councils because it is a more efficient method when multiple councillors are elected at one time”.

Furthermore, the proposal to change the system of voting for mayors in undivided councils from FPTP to optional preferential will lead to confusion in these communities and potentially higher levels of informal voting, as the election of councillors would continue to be in accordance with FPTP.

For all of these reasons and in the absence of a compelling case for a change, LGAQ

opposes the proposal to change the system of voting for mayors in undivided councils from FPTP to optional preferential.

Numbering candidates in FPTP elections

LGAQ and most council respondents are opposed to the proposal to allow voters in FPTP elections to cast as few as one vote, as it may undermine the democratic process. In undivided councils, where the FPTP system applies, it is essential that voters cast as many votes as there are councillor positions available. In practice the proposal would mimic optional preferential voting and could be expected to lead to skewed outcomes.

It is considered that a full submission be prepared supporting these key points and confirming Council’s position in line with previous discussions on the other main points, especially supporting the change to allow the Council CEO to be the Returning Officer (RO).

4. Policy and Legal Implications

The amendments to legislation will have a direct impact upon Council and there will be also be policy decisions to make in respect of the system of voting for Council, given the proposed changes to the postal ballot arrangements and the experience and feedback from the last local government election in 2012.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

The budget for the conduct of the last local government election was a significant increase from the previous election, and was run by the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ) and paid for local governments. The cost of the election was more than twice the last council run election and given it was a full postal ballot, it should have been cheaper than an ordinary attendance ballot. On this basis and before any decision is made on the next election, Council should seek a quotation from the ECQ as a benchmark for comparison with a Council run election.

6. Delegations/Authorisations

Any changes proposed and carried in the legislation may impact upon Council’s delegations and those of the CEO, and these will be brought forward for Council consideration and sign off at the time. It is proposed that the CEO be authorized to finalise a submission to the State Government consistent with Council discussion and the direction outlined above.

7. Communication and Engagement

The LGAQ has sought feedback from Council by the 20^th June 2014, with a further time extended into July for a response to the State Government. There is limited time for consultation with the proposed amendments, and the key matters were discussed openly with Council at the workshop sessions held 11^th June 2014

8. Conclusion

That the matters identified for further review or not agreed to, be put forward in a submission to the State Government and the LGAQ for consideration in finalising the legislative amendments. Council may not have any success in changing the Government’s position but it is necessary to raise the matters before any changes are adopted which are not beneficial to Council or the Community or Local Government in general.

9. Action/s

1. Complete submission with adopted views of Council.

2. Forward submission to LGAQ and the State Government by due date.

Ordinary Council MEETING MINUTES

25 JUNE 2014

10.3 Lease Arrangements - Glenore Grove Hall Car Park

Date: 19 June 2014

Author: Caitlan Natalier, Solicitor

Responsible Officer: Jason Bradshaw, Executive Manager Governance & Performance

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

In 2006 the Laidley Shire Council agreed to construct a sealed car park on land owned by the Trustees of the Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. and to lease the land from the Trustees to enable State Government funding and access for ongoing maintenance. To date a lease has not been finalised and the Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. wish to finalise the lease to confirm that Council is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the car park.

The purpose of this Report is to consider whether the lease arrangements should be finalised.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council resolves to write to the Trustees of The Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. confirming that Council has not maintained the car park situated on Lot 1 on RP63829 since it was constructed and does not intend to do so as Council does not maintain private assets situated on private land.

RESOLUTION:

THAT given the commitments made by the Laidley Shire Council prior to amalgamation, Council resolves to honour these commitments and write to the Trustees of The Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. confirming that Council will finalise the lease in respect of the car park situated on Lot 1 on RP63829 on the following terms:-

The lease term will be 20 years commencing on 1 July 2014 as this is within the maximum lease term permitted pursuant to Section 32(1)(e)(ii) of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) where the property is owned by Trustees;
Council will pay a peppercorn rental if demanded;
Council shall be responsible for all maintenance in respect of the sealed car park;
The Trustees of the Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. will be responsible for insuring the car park improvements as the car park is their asset;
Council will be responsible for all survey costs and registration fees incurred in respect of the lease.

Moved By: Cr Jones Seconded By: Cr Friend

Resolution Number: 3479

CARRIED

7/0

Report

1. Introduction

Council has recently been approached by members of The Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. requesting Council confirm that Council is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the sealed car park on Lot 1 on RP63829. A lease has been produced which has not been signed by Council, and the members wish to finalise the lease as previously agreed with the former Laidley Shire Council.

2. Background

Investigations prompted by this request have revealed the following history of dealings between The Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. (Hall Committee) and the Laidley Shire Council (Council) in relation to the car park:

· On 6 June 2004 the Hall Committee, the Glenore Grove State School P & C Association and the Glenore Grove State School made a request seeking the Council’s assistance to upgrade the Glenore Grove Hall car parking facility to a bitumen seal.

· On 28 July 2004 the Council resolved that a preliminary design and estimate would be prepared by Council before an on-site meeting with members of all three organisations would be held.

· A preliminary design and estimate were subsequently prepared and an on-site meeting between all parties was held.

· On 10 October 2006 the Council engaged CW Hooper & Hooper to prepare a lease for the construction and maintenance of the bitumen seal car park. Formal tenure was sought to enable access and State Government funding for the project.

· On 7 December 2006 a draft lease was provided by Council’s Solicitors who indicated that two of the three Trustees of the Hall Committee named on the title to the land had deceased. This meant that the Hall Committee would need to appoint new trustees, or have the remaining Trustee vest the land to the newly incorporated entity, The Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc., before the lease could be executed.

· On 14 December 2006 Council wrote to the Hall Committee advising that a draft lease had been prepared and confirming that the car park would be completed in the 2006/2007 financial year with the lease finalised and registered in February 2007.

· In March 2007 the Solicitors for the Hall Committee re-drafted the lease.

· By letter dated 4 April 2007 the Solicitors for the Hall Committee confirmed that they would accept a contribution of $300 plus GST by the Council towards their client’s costs for preparation of the lease. There is some dispute over whether Council agreed to pay all of the Hall Committee’s costs in relation to preparation of the lease and this correspondence is the only record located indicating a lesser contribution had been offered and was accepted.

· In 2008 the Hall Committee formally appointed new trustees.

· On 11 September 2008 the land was transferred to the new trustees notwithstanding some dispute over statutory requirements for the land to be held in the name of the incorporated entity.

· In 2011 the parties’ respective solicitors again attempted to finalise the lease but lease terms were never finalised.

As the dispute over how the Hall Committee would execute the lease was not resolved, two leases on the same terms were ultimately prepared and signed by the Lessor – one by the individual trustees and one by the incorporated entity. An incorporated association generally requires two signatories to sign under seal and as only one signatory has signed the lease, arguably proper execution has not occurred. Council has not signed either lease.

More recently, in response to enquiries by the Hall Committee regarding maintenance responsibility for the car park, internal advice was sought from the Infrastructure Works and Services Unit. The advice received was that Council does not maintain the car park but could do so in response to a request for private works.

The Hall Committee have since advised that repairs to cracks in the sealed surface were undertaken following the 2013 flood event, and they understood that this work was performed by Council. Council’s Infrastructure Works and Services Unit have confirmed that they have no knowledge or record of works done to the car park following the floods.

3. Report

The car park is situated on land owned by the Trustees of the Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. The car park covers approximately half of the lot and is situated between the Glenore Grove State School and Lot 1 on RP118316 which is owned by the Queensland Country Women’s Association. The Glenore Grove Hall appears to be constructed across the common boundary of Lot 1 on RP63829 and Lot 1 on RP118316. These properties are all freehold land.

An Aerial Plan showing the car park and the Glenore Grove Hall is attached for reference purposes. As the boundaries shown on Council’s mapping database appear to be off-alignment, the boundaries have been marked to match the fencing of the lot.

As indicated above, Council does not currently maintain the car park. However, a search of file records has located correspondence issued by the Laidley Shire Council which confirms that Council intended to be responsible for ongoing maintenance.

If Council considers it appropriate to honour the commitment of the former Laidley Shire Council, then a lease should be finalised.

Whilst the lease terms have been altered during the course of negotiations, the leases were eventually signed by the Trustees and The Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc. but not by Council. Two leases on the same terms were signed, one each by the individual Trustees of the Glenore Grove Hall and one by The Glenore Grove Public Hall Association Inc., as there was a dispute between the parties’ respective solicitors over the appropriate Lessor entity based on the requirements of the Associations Incorporations Act. The fact that this issue was not resolved appears to be a contributing factor to the lease not having been finalised.

In any event, there appears to be some dispute as to what lease conditions were attached to the leases finally signed by the Lessor. After reviewing all versions of the lease terms available, it is noted that the following terms have remained consistent:-

· The term was for 99 years commencing on 1 January 2007.

· Council would pay an annual rental of $10.00 per annum.

· Council could obtain access to the land to perform the bitumen seal works.

· Council is to maintain the car park to a standard similar to other car parks maintained by Council in the Laidley Shire.

· The car park would remain the property of the Hall Committee if the lease ended.

· The car park could be used by the land owners and permitted tenants of the adjacent public hall.

· Council would have non-exclusive use of the car park except during periods of capital works or repairs and maintenance when exclusive use could occur.

The issues that don’t appear to have been resolved relate to responsibility for insurance of the car park improvements and payment of legal costs. These issues will need to be resolved in the event a lease is to be finalised.

Regardless of whether or not a lease is finalised, it would be appropriate for the Hall Committee to insure the car park as it is situated on their land, and it appears that it was always intended to be their asset.

Council’s Infrastructure Works and Services Unit does not consider it to be a good outcome for Council to maintain the carpark. Council does not currently maintain any infrastructure that is situated on private property, unless it is subject to an easement. Generally, Council requires a land resumption if it is to construct and maintain assets of this nature, such as occurred with the installation of a new car park facility built at the Lake Clarendon State School a couple of years ago.

Finally, in relation to the issue of legal costs, correspondence exists indicating that at the time of lease negotiations directly between Council and the Hall Committee, Council agreed that there would be no fees (including legal fees) to be paid by the Hall Committee. Further correspondence then indicates that to resolve the dispute over payment of legal costs, the Hall Committee had agreed to accept a contribution of $300 plus GST from Council towards their legal costs, which Council agreed to make due to the significant benefit ratepayers would receive for using the car park.

The Hall Committee has advised that they paid approximately $1,600 in legal costs however the tax invoice has not been provided, or requested, to confirm this. Council’s own legal costs to date have amount to $632.50. If Council is willing to honour this contribution, then any lease negotiated should contain terms requiring each party to be responsible for their own legal costs, save and except for this contribution.

If Council wishes to finalise the arrangements initiated by the former Laidley Shire Council, and these proposed terms are agreed by the Hall Committee, then the parties should be in a position to redraft and sign the lease once a survey sketch plan has been prepared.

However, if Council accepts the advice of the Infrastructure Works and Services Unit on which the recommendation in this Report is based, then the Hall Committee should be advised that a lease will not be finalised and that they will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the car park.

Other legal implications which have been identified are detailed further under the Policy and Legal Implications section of this Report.

4. Policy and Legal Implications

Council’s Legal Services Co-ordinator has identified the following legal implications arising from the drafted lease:-

1. Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 22 and 24 of the Associations Incorporations Act 1981 which requires land to be held by an incorporated entity, the lease will need to be entered into with the Trustees of the land as they are the registered owners of the land.

2. The Trusts Act 1973 does not allow the term of the lease to exceed 21 years where the land is being leased from trustees.

3. The lease term can still commence on 1 January 2007, however Council will be responsible for $80 (GST exclusive) in back rent if payment is demanded.

The Solicitors for the Trustees have previously advised that they have been specifically instructed that the land is to remain in the name of the Trustees notwithstanding the requirements of the Associations Incorporations Act for the land to be transferred to the incorporated entity. As a lease can only be entered into with the registered owners of the land, the lessor shown on the lease will need to be the individual trustees. Therefore, if Council decides to finalise a lease, the Hall Committee should be advised that they will be responsible for any requisition fees charged by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, if any, because of the way the land is held.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

As indicated above, Council has already paid legal costs of $632.50 to CW Hooper & Hooper in respect of the lease preparation. To date no record of Council contributing to the Hall Committee’s legal fees has been found.

If Council resolves to finalise the lease, Council could either redraft it internally or request CW Hooper & Hooper reopen their file and finalise the lease on Council’s behalf. The Hall Committee has indicated a preference to deal directly with Council to avoid incurring further legal costs, and as the lease has been substantially agreed, and final terms should be agreed, it would be a relatively straightforward exercise to finalise the lease internally and save Council incurring any further legal costs.

As the lease is required to be registered with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Council would incur costs to obtain a survey sketch plan of the car park and registration fees. It is anticipated that these costs would be in the vicinity of $2,200 - $5,500 and Council would be responsible for these costs as the Lessee.

Council would also need to include the car park on its maintenance schedule and ensure it has sufficient budget allocation to cover any maintenance costs.

Alternatively, if Council does not wish to finalise the lease or be responsible for maintenance, no financial or resource implications have been identified.

6. Delegations/Authorisations

It is proposed that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to advise the Hall Committee of Council’s resolution, and if the recommendation is not accepted to do all things necessary to finalise the lease.

7. Communication and Engagement

The Chief Executive Officer, through Council’s Legal Services Unit, will be responsible for engaging with all parties necessary to give effect to Council’s resolution.

If a lease is to be finalised, this will include the Hall Committee and its Trustees, a surveyor and the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Titles Registry.

8. Conclusion

The recommendation made in this Report will save Council’s resources and budget and achieve a consistent approach when dealing with infrastructure on private property. However, if Council considers it appropriate to honour the previous commitment of the former Laidley Shire Council, an alternative resolution should be considered.

9. Action/s

1. Advise the Hall Committee and its Trustees of Council’s resolution.

2. If the recommendation is not accepted and a lease is to be finalised, the following steps would also need to be completed:

a. Negotiate the insurance and payment of legal costs responsibilities with the Hall Committee and re-draft the lease.

b. Engage a surveyor to prepare a survey sketch plan to attach to the lease.

c. Arrange for all parties to execute the lease.

d. Attend to registration with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

e. Add the car park to Council’s maintenance schedule.

Ordinary Council MEETING MINUTES

25 JUNE 2014

10.4 Corporate Risk Register

Date: 18 June 2014

Author: Anthony Trace, Manager Business Improvement & Program Performance

Responsible Officer: Jason Bradshaw, Executive Manager Governance & Performance

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

To meet Council’s legislative requirements, a Corporate Risk Register (June 2014) has been developed and outlines the progress to date of key strategies.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council resolves to receive the Corporate Risk Register (June 2014) for the Lockyer Valley Regional Council.

RESOLUTION:

THAT Council resolves to receive the Corporate Risk Register (June 2014) for the Lockyer Valley Regional Council.

Moved By: Cr McDonald Seconded By: Cr McLean

Resolution Number: 3480

CARRIED

7/0

Report

1. Introduction

As a requirement of the Local Government Act 2009 and guided by Council’s Risk Management Framework and Guidelines, Council maintains the following Risk Registers:

· A centralised Corporate Risk Register and

· Project or Program specific Risk Registers.

2. Background

With the introduction of the Local Government Act 2009 there is a legislative requirement to proactively manage risk. The focus is no longer predominantly on operational risks, such as operational hazards and workplace health and safety. Provisions of the legislation require Council to implement systems to meet financial sustainability criteria and by extension, this relates to the region’s growth outlook, the management of assets and the assessment and treatment of risks that Council’s operations are exposed to.

The focus of the legislation is to ensure that Council considers the operational environment in which it operates and identify the corporate and operational risks that Council’s operations are exposed to.

Section 164 of the Local Government (Financial Planning and Accountability) Regulation 2012 states that Council must keep a “Register” stating the financial risks and the control measures it employs to manage these. Section 175 also requires Council to include in its Operational Plan, statements on how it will manage operational risks.

Council approved its Risk Management Policy on the 12 September 2012 (Resolution No 2669). This policy articulates Council’s commitment to ensuring that sound risk management practices and procedures are fully integrated into the Council’s strategic and operational planning processes in a clear and transparent manner which increases Council’s ability to achieve its objectives and maximise its potential opportunities by managing threats to acceptable levels, in accordance with the Australian Standard AS/NZS ISO 312000:2009.

3. Report

The Lockyer Valley Regional Council Risk Management Guidelines establishes the risk management framework for Council to manage the followed categorised business risks;

*Risk Categories (Exposure Types)*
*Business Continuity and Business Systems* Covers those risks that could lead to the failure of Council to deliver essential services, and the inability of Council to deliver strategic objectives and planned outcomes.
*Environmental and Community* Risks relating to the environment and our community, including sustainable development (economic, social and ecological matters), social and community wellbeing, community relationships, public health, recreation (including culture, arts and sport) and regional profile and identity.
*Financial and Economic* Risks related to the financial performance, sustainability and economic management of the organisation, particularly aligned with 'local government principles'. Insurance, finance and economics, business continuity and systems are examples of these risks.
*Workplace Health and Safety* Covers Workplace Health and Safety issues.
*Staff* Risks pertaining to the staff that currently work at LVRC and the staff needed to effectively service the community. Risks associated with future staff and past employees are included.
*Reputation* These risks include events / media / public relations / complaints etc. where the reputation of LVRC is negatively impacted.
*Infrastructure and Assets* Covers infrastructure asset capacity and management (including IT network and hardware), project delivery, inventory and sourcing. Council facilities, buildings, roads and other physical structures are included in this category.
*Political* Covers the external political environment in which Council operates, including inter-governmental relations, state and national agencies and policies, relations with other Councils and political legitimacy.
*Legal Compliance and Liability* Regulatory or contract compliance, litigation, liability, and prosecution.

Risk Categories (Exposure Types)

Business Continuity and Business Systems

Covers those risks that could lead to the failure of Council to deliver essential services, and the inability of Council to deliver strategic objectives and planned outcomes.

Environmental and Community

Risks relating to the environment and our community, including sustainable development (economic, social and ecological matters), social and community wellbeing, community relationships, public health, recreation (including culture, arts and sport) and regional profile and identity.

Financial and Economic

Risks related to the financial performance, sustainability and economic management of the organisation, particularly aligned with 'local government principles'. Insurance, finance and economics, business continuity and systems are examples of these risks.

Workplace Health and Safety

Covers Workplace Health and Safety issues.

Staff

Risks pertaining to the staff that currently work at LVRC and the staff needed to effectively service the community. Risks associated with future staff and past employees are included.

Reputation

These risks include events / media / public relations / complaints etc. where the reputation of LVRC is negatively impacted.

Infrastructure and Assets

Covers infrastructure asset capacity and management (including IT network and hardware), project delivery, inventory and sourcing. Council facilities, buildings, roads and other physical structures are included in this category.

Political

Covers the external political environment in which Council operates, including inter-governmental relations, state and national agencies and policies, relations with other Councils and political legitimacy.

Legal Compliance and Liability

Regulatory or contract compliance, litigation, liability, and prosecution.

And articulates the identification and responsibilities for the management of specific risks, as follows:

Risk Tier criteria

‘Risk Owner’ &

Register Name

TIER 1 RISKS: [Risks rated 72 and above]

· Affect multiple Directorates and/or

· May significantly affect the ongoing sustainability or operations of the organisation

Executive Leadership Team

Corporate Risk Register

TIER 2 RISKS [Risks rated 56 to 68]

· Affect a single Group or are Department-specific, and

· Of a magnitude that is unlikely to impact the ongoing sustainability of the organisation

Management Team

Corporate Risk Register

TIER 3 RISKS [Risk rated 52 and below]

· Low level risks, and are

· Project-specific or operational in nature.

Operational / Project Teams

Program and Project Registers.

The current draft Corporate Risk Register (June 2014) is attached.

As part of Council’s Operational Plan 2013-14, a Corporate Plan goal was identified to further develop practices and policies to support responsible management of the delivery of defined service standards. To achieve this goal, Council recognised the need to further develop Council’s risk management practices to manage the uncertainty within service delivery activities and reduce the impact of risks to Council and its community.

To this end Council has undertaken several initiatives to continue the development of risk management practices, being:

a) Project Management

Council introduced the Project Management Framework (April 2014) to establish better project management practices, primarily the Project Management Body of Knowledge’ (PMBOK), within Council to assist business areas in the delivery of Corporate Plan and Operational Plan projects.

Risk Management is identified as one of the key elements covered by PMBOK, being a key activity of “Controlling” a project and is required to be undertaken throughout the life cycle of a project and across all knowledge areas, being:

	Project Management Phase
Knowledge Areas	Initiating	Planning	Executing	Closure	Controlling
Integration		X	X		X
Scope	X	X			X
Time		X			X
Cost		X			X
Quality		X	X		X
Human Resources		X	X
Communications		X	X	X	X
Risk Management		X			X
Procurement		X	X	X

This better business practice of undertaking project risk management has been implemented for key major projects of the Lockyer Regional Sport & Aquatic Centre, Laidley flood mitigation works and Forest Hill flood mitigation works.

b) Asset Management

One of the key risk management initiatives has been the establishment of Asset Management Plans for key Council and Community assets, which not only identified the assets under management and the associated management practices but also identified the key risks required to be managed by Council.

The consolidated Asset Management Risk Register, being a program specific register, has been established.

Further to the establishment of Asset Management Plans, business areas have continued to further develop asset management practices within Council, specifically;

· the implementation of One Council and its associated work order functionality has provided Council with the technological foundation to further advance Council’s asset management practices, particularly in terms of financial management and control of asset management activities.

· further developing the asset management capability by undertaking the condition assessment of Council’s assets and development of planned and focused work programs. This activity has commenced focusing on Council’s Road networks assets with a future roll out to the other asset categories of footpaths, recreation areas, and buildings. The information which is being collected as part of this activity will enable Council to take a whole of network view of risk.

· The planned works programs which are able to be developed based on the above initiative, coupled with the works order functionality within One Council, will enable Council to demonstrate a proactive approach to the risk management of one of Council’s key services – “Asset Stewardship”.

This asset management activity will assist Council in improving its compliance with the LGM Queensland Public Liability Audit.

c) Public Liability and Professional Indemnity Audit

Council participated in the annual LGM Queensland Public Liability Audit 2014, which was conducted utilising the RiskEMAP II Audit tool. The self-assessment or audit is intended to assess Council's position in three major areas of risk that impact public liability and professional indemnity claims.

The audit is conducted to gauge Members' adoption of principles contained in the LGM Queensland Footpath Guide 2012, the Roads Maintenance Guide 2013, and the Recreation Areas Manual 2010. These Guides and Manual relate to the major areas forming the subject of legal liability claims against local governments in Queensland. These areas historically represent approximately 75% of claims by number and dollar value. Compliance with these principles will not only have a positive effect on liability exposures, but will also place Council in a more defensible position when claims do arise.

The 2014 audit confirmed that overall Council complies with 60% of audit requirements (60% 2013), which is made up of 59.5% Roads (40.5% 2013), 61.4% Footpaths (66% 2013) and 56.5% Recreation Areas (78.2% 2013). The indicated movements in compliance reflect the current focus of asset management.

d) NDRRA Program Management

To enable Council to better manage the delivery of the program of restoration works to address the damage caused by the 2011 and 2013 Natural Events, AECOM was engaged to establish and resource the Program Management Office (PMO) for this program.

One of the key activities (better practice) has been a focus on the timely identification and mitigation of program risks. This program specific risk register forms part of the NDRAA Program Monthly Report which is tabled and discussed at the monthly Infrastructure Restoration and Recovery Taskforce. The NDRRA Program Monthly Report is presented to Council at regular intervals.

e) Business Continuity Plan

As an outcome of the Queensland Audit Office review of the 2012-2013 performance of Council, it was identified that the Council did not have an adequate plan in place to address the impact of adverse event(s) on its business operations and as such the service delivery to the Lockyer Valley community.

While Council has a whole of community responsibility under the Disaster Management Act 2003 (Amended 2010), Council as the business must ensure that disruptions to its own business operations and service delivery are minimised from business interruption events that cause Council an:

· Inability to access a Council facility or depot to undertake business activities

· Loss of staff or inability to access staff.

· Inability to access information, communication and technology.

· Loss of/or inability to access information.

· Loss of utilities that support business operations.

· Loss of/or access to Council Fleet and/or Plant.

· Loss of key service provider.

A Corporate Plan goal was identified and included in Council’s 2013/14 Operational Plan to develop corporate, business and information systems and processes that support the organisation. To achieve this goal Council has developed a Business Continuity Management Plan to enable the priority business functions to continue operating despite adverse events, which is to be adopted by Council [subject of a separate Council report].

The objective of the Business Continuity Management Plan (BCMP) is to establish the Business Continuity Management Team and facilitate the implementation of effective and efficient business continuity strategies and arrangements including:

Ø the development, review and assessment of effective business continuity for the business operations of Council, including arrangements for mitigating, preventing, preparing for, responding to and recovering from a business interruption or

Ø the development, implementation and monitoring of priorities for business continuity initiatives within Council.

f) Local Disaster Management Plan

Version 4.1 of the Lockyer Valley Local Disaster Management Plan is currently under review by the Local Disaster Management Group.

g) Integrated Performance Reporting

One of the key initiatives has been the introduction of Fortnightly operational and project reporting to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) by Council’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and Management Team (MT), which provides the basis for identification of risks/opportunities and agreement on required mitigation actions to address potential and actual risks to Council.

Moving forward, Council will work towards continuously improving its risk management practices to ensure;

a) Successful implementation of a risk management process for Lockyer Valley Regional Council, in accordance with the Australian Standards AS/NZS ISO 312000:2009.

b) To ensure proper corporate governance surrounding the risk management process.

c) To ensure that Council’s risk management complements and strengthens strategic organisational planning, particularly the Community, Corporate and Operational Plans.

d) To ensure that Council’s risk management processes link with Workplace Health and Safety’s Management System and its accompanying audit tool, (SafePlan)

e) To ensure that Disaster Management Planning and Community Resilience Building links to all business activities in line with the State Disaster Management Plan, the State Disaster Management Strategic Policy Framework, the Queensland Development Code, the Building Code of Australia and the State Planning Policy 1/103.

f) Training and awareness of the risk management process for all Councillors and staff of Lockyer Valley Regional Council, to the level of involvement required for each position.

g) Effective ongoing utilisation of the risk management process through all areas of Council – that risk management is not seen as a stand-alone process, but underpins and integrates all activities, performance reporting and decision making of Council.

h) Ongoing promotion and awareness of the risk management throughout Council.

i) Actively manage Council’s risk profile to minimise the over-all risk exposure given our service responsibilities and appetite for risk.

j) To provide a basis for management reviews and audit of the effectiveness and efficiency of treatment plans against pre-determined key performance indicators covering the RM Framework.

k) To ensure that the risk management process and the risk registers are monitored, reviewed and maintained on a regular basis.

l) Development and implementation of an effective risk management recording system.

m) To ensure that the ongoing benefits and milestones achieved as a result of the risk management process are communicated throughout Council.

4. Policy and Legal Implications

Section 164 of the Local Government (Financial Planning and Accountability) Regulation 2012 states that Council must keep a “Register” stating the financial risks and the control measures it employs to manage these.

Section 175 of the Local Government (Financial Planning and Accountability) Regulation 2012 also requires Council to include in its operational plan statements how it will manage operational risks.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

Budget implications will continue to be addressed through existing allocations or through Council’s budget amendment process.

Further alignment between Council’s Operational Plan and Budget with Council’s risk management practices are required to fully achieve a systematic risk management to identify and address areas of potential impact to Council’s performance.

6. Delegations/Authorisations

No delegations are required for this report and existing authorities are appropriate for the delivery of the Operational Plan outcomes.

7. Communication

Progress on the implementation of Council’s systematic risk management methodology to identify and address areas of potential risk within Council’s operations is reported regularly to the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Fortnightly operational and project reporting to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) by Council’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and Management Team (MT) provides the basis for identification of risk/opportunities and agreement on required mitigation actions to address potential and actual risks to Council.

As part of continuously improving Council’s business practices, steps will be taken to more closely align risks raised within the fortnightly CEO reporting, with the Corporate Risk Register, by the establishment of a process to allow for the amendment and updating of the Corporate Risk Register to reflect newly identified risk/opportunities and monitoring of agree actions taken to address Tier 1 and Tier 2 risks.

As a further continuous improvement, quarterly performance reporting to Council will be extended to include a quarterly update on the Corporate Risk Register.

8. Conclusion

The quarterly reporting on the Operational Plan is a statutory process and informs Council and the community of the performance of Council on yearly programs and activities. A key aspect of Council’s performance is the mitigation of potential risks to Council’s underlying capacity to deliver as well as risks within its service provision to the Lockyer Valley community.

Ordinary Council MEETING MINUTES

25 JUNE 2014

10.5 Business Continuity Management Plan

Date: 19 June 2014

Author: Anthony Trace, Manager Business Improvement & Program Performance

Responsible Officer: Jason Bradshaw, Executive Manager Governance & Performance

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

In accordance with the Disaster Management Act 2003 (as amended 2010), Council has a whole of community responsibility. However, Lockyer Valley Regional Council as the business, must ensure that disruptions to its own business operations and service delivery are minimised from potential and real business interruption events.

The Business Continuity Management Plan (BCP) details the arrangements within Council to plan and coordinate internal capability to ensure and maintain safety of its staff, security of key business resources and delivery of service to its community, prior to, during and after a business interruption event.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council adopt the Business Continuity Management Strategic-Governance Policy SG20 and the Draft Business Continuity Management Plan version 1.1 (June 2014).

Further;

THAT Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to establish the Business Continuity Management Team (BCMT) and manage Council’s Business Continuity Management Arrangements as outlined in the Plan to meet the changing needs of the business and the community.

RESOLUTION:

THAT Council adopt the Business Continuity Management Strategic-Governance Policy SG20 and the Draft Business Continuity Management Plan version 1.1 (June 2014).

Further;

Moved By: Cr Pingel Seconded By: Cr McDonald

Resolution Number: 3481

CARRIED

7/0

Report

1. Introduction

This plan details the arrangements within Council to plan and coordinate internal capability to ensure and maintain safety of its staff, security of key business resources and delivery of services to its community, prior to, during and after a business interruption event.

The Business Continuity Management Team (BCMT) will be established to constantly review and update the Council’s business continuity management arrangements that are outlined in this plan and will investigate new initiatives to meet the changing needs of the business and the community, particularly to address the impact to the business of a:

· Inability to access a Council facility or depot to undertake business activities.

· Loss of staff or inability to access staff.

· Inability to access ICT

· Loss of/or inability to access information

· Loss of utilities

· Loss of/or access to fleet and plant

· Loss of key service provider

2. Background

As an outcome of the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) review of the 2012-2013 performance of Council, it was identified that Council did not have an adequate plan in place to address the impact of adverse event(s) in its business operations and as such the service delivery to the Lockyer Valley community.

A Corporate Plan Goal was identified and included as part of the 2013/14 Operational Plan to develop corporate, business and information systems and processes that support the organisation. To achieve this goal Council was to develop a Business Continuity Plan to enable the priority business functions to continue operating despite the adverse events.

3. Report

The objective of the Business Continuity Management Plan (BCMP) is to facilitate the implementation of effective and efficient business continuity strategies and arrangements including:

· the development, review and assessment of effective business continuity for the business operations of Council, including arrangements for mitigating, preventing, preparing for, responding to and recovering from a business interruption.

· the development, implementation and monitoring of priorities for business continuity within Council.

This Plan incorporates the Business Continuity Planning Process of Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery (PPRR) recommended by the Queensland Government and is consistent with the Lockyer Valley Local Disaster Management Plan.

· Prevention - Risk Management planning to;

Ø Increase adherence to and introduction of systems and regulations that reduce business continuity risks

Ø Investigate and implement (where appropriate) strategies/initiatives to eliminate or reduce the impact of the effects of hazards on the business through the use of the Council’s Risk Management Framework and guidelines.

· Preparedness - Business Impact Analysis to;

Ø Increase staff safety through awareness, information and education

Ø Encourage an all business areas, all hazards ethos through the workings of the Business Continuity Management Team.

Ø Identify resources to maximise response

Ø Develop and prioritise contingency plans to address response and recovery issues.

Ø Establish and maintain working relationships with disaster management agencies to increase business continuity capability of Council.

· Response – Incident Response planning to;

Ø Efficiently and effectively coordinate the response to a business interruption in conjunction with all business areas of Council and other emergency response agencies where required (commitment to an all-of Council and agencies approach).

Ø Minimise the impact on the Council from business interruption.

Ø Minimise the impact on the community.

· Recovery - Recovery planning to;

Ø Ensure that the recovery priorities of Council are met as part of an all of Council approach, in order to minimise disruption and recovery times to Council business and service delivery to the community.

To assist Council in further developing its business continuity ability, the Business Continuity Management Team (BCMT) is a cross functional work group established to constantly review and update the Council’s business continuity management arrangements that are outlined in this plan and investigate new initiatives to meet the changing needs of the business and the community.

The functions which the BCMT perform are:

1. Develop effective business continuity management, and regularly review and assess the business continuity activities within Council.

2. Help the functional areas of the business to prepare a specific business continuity plan(s) for their areas of operation.

3. Identify and provide advice to the Local Disaster Management Group (LDMG) about support services required by the Council to facilitate it’s business continuity management and business continuity operations within Council

4. Ensure that staff are aware of ways of mitigating the adverse effects of an event, and preparing for, responding to and recovering from a business interruption.

5. Manage business continuity operations within the business under policies and procedures decided by the Council

6. Provide reports and make recommendations to the Local Disaster Management Group about matters relating to business interruptions and/or disaster operations.

7. Identify and coordinate the use of resources that may be used for business continuity within Council.

8. Establish and review communications systems in the team and the business, and with the Local Disaster Management Group for use when a disaster or business interruption happens

9. Ensure information about a business interruption to council operations is promptly given to the Mayor, Councillors, staff, Local Disaster Management Group and the wider community.

This plan is to be reviewed at least once annually and the review is to examine the effectiveness of the plan based on activation, exercise or recommendations from interested parties. Reviews are to be conducted by the Business Continuity Management Team, Audit and Risk Management Committee, Internal Auditor and the Queensland Audit Office.

When a review identifies a need to amend the plan such amendments are to be developed by the Business Continuity Management Team and submitted to Council for adoption as soon as possible after the need for amendment has been identified.

There will be occurrences, where Council will need to address and balance its priorities as the lead agent of the local disaster management function and that of ensuring the continuity of its own business operations by allocating resources to satisfying both of these functions. As such, the Business Continuity Plan for Council must allow for allocation of resources into the disaster management coordination function, while still enabling the Council to recover and resume its own business functions.

Key issues where the dual role impacts are:

• Local Disaster Coordinator and Business Continuity Coordinator are filled by the CEO, so transfer of BCC responsibility will needs to clearly articulated.

• Disaster Coordination Centre and Continuity Coordination Centre will need to be in separate locations once Local Disaster Coordination Centre (LDCC) is activated.

4. Policy and Legal Implications

The report and recommendations will require the adoption of a new policy, SG-20 Business Continuity Management Policy to enable the Chief Executive Officer to undertake the necessary actions identified within the Business Continuity Management Plan (BCMP).

Council as part of its 2012/13 Outstanding Audit Issue committed to complete the plan before June 2014 and have adopted by Council to ensure ongoing compliance with our legislative obligations.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

Budget implications will continue to be addressed through existing budget allocations.

6. Delegations/Authorisations

Where further decisions are required with respect to review and amendments of this plan, the Chief Executive Officer will be delegated the authority to make those decisions.

7. Communication

Any further matters arising from this report that require further communications will be addressed through existing communication channels.

8. Conclusion

The adoption of the Business Continuity Management Plan, will allow Council to develop a capacity to prepare for, prevent, respond and recover from potential and real business interruption events, by minimising the disruptions to its own business operations.

Ordinary Council MEETING MINUTES

25 JUNE 2014

12.2 Grantham Butter Factory Update

Date: 16 June 2014

Author: David Lewis, Group Manager Corporate & Community Services

Responsible Officer: David Lewis, Group Manager Corporate & Community Services

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

Following a successful partnership between the Toowoomba South Rotary Club and Council, in early 2014 the Grantham Butter Factory was formally handed over to Council. The facility incorporates both formal and community meeting rooms and a commercial kitchen for use by the citizens of the Lockyer Valley.

Subsequent to the transmission of the Grantham Butter Factory from the Toowoomba Rotary Club to Council, a number of issues have arisen in relation to the ongoing operations of the centre that now require Council direction.

These issues were discussed and agreed with Council at a workshop in May 2014.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council resolves in relation to the Grantham Butter Factory to:

a) Name the formal meeting room the Jamieson Room after Charles Jamieson who at the age of 20 years was the first chairman of the board established to run the factory;

b) Name the community room the Larsen Room after Peter Larsen as it was he who called together a few dairymen with the idea of starting a farmers’ co-operative butter factory; and

c) Amend Council 2014/2015 fees and charges to reflect the independent hire of the Grantham Butter Factory’s commercial kitchen as outlined in this report.

RESOLUTION:

THAT Council resolves in relation to the Grantham Butter Factory to:

a) Name the formal meeting room the Jamieson Room after Charles Jamieson who at the age of 20 years was the first chairman of the board established to run the factory;

b) Name the community room the Larsen Room after Peter Larsen as it was he who called together a few dairymen with the idea of starting a farmers’ co-operative butter factory; and

c) Amend Council 2014/2015 fees and charges to reflect the independent hire of the Grantham Butter Factory’s commercial kitchen as outlined in this report.

Moved By: Cr Holstein Seconded By: Cr Friend

Resolution Number: 3487

CARRIED

7/0

Report

1. Introduction

2. Background

Following the January 2011 natural disaster, many community based organisations, companies and individuals had a desire to facilitate the rebuilding of the Grantham and wider Lockyer Valley Communities through the completion of various projects, with one of the major projects being the redevelopment of the Grantham Butter Factory as a community asset.

3. Report

These issues which were discussed and agreed with Council at a workshop in May 2014 follow.

Naming Rights

The following are the suggested names for the two formal rooms of the Grantham Butter Factory.

The formal or front room to be named the Jamieson Room after Charles Jamieson who at the age of 20 years was the first chairman of the board established to run the factory. He was the chairman and director of Queensland Co-operative Dairy Association for 30 years. He was the president of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and the Queensland Dairy Farmers Organisation. He was also a member of the Commonwealth Productions Cost Tribunal and the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Export Board.

The community room to be named the Larsen Room after Peter Larsen as it was he who called together a few dairymen with the idea of starting a farmers’ co-operative butter factory. The Queensland Farmers’ Co-operative Association (later Queensland’s Dairy Farmers’ Co-operative Association) subsequently opened a butter factory in Grantham in June 1907.

Acceptable Bookings

Council is to retain control of the Grantham Community centre and issue keys on an “as needs” basis to both formal hirers and community users of the facility.

Bookings similar to those taken at Council’s other premium venues are to be accepted at the Grantham Butter Factory. However, the formal room is not for adhoc community use and where bookings are for 18^th or 21^st birthday parties or the like, the event organiser must register their party with Party Safe through the Queensland Police Service with additional security to also be provided based upon the envisaged number of attendees. This requirement is also to apply to all of Council’s premium venues.

Commercial Kitchen Hire

To facilitate the ongoing development of the region’s commercial caters, Council will allow the hire of the Grantham Butter Factory’s commercial kitchen with a minimum charge of $100 plus cleaning costs per half day (up to 4 hours) with $150 plus cleaning costs per full day (over 4 hours).

Hirers of the Grantham Butter Factory commercial kitchen are to maintain appropriate insurances and indemnify Council against any loss. Any booking of the facility is also to have preference over kitchen only bookings.

Capital Works

Over the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 further capital works will be budgeted for to rectify some existing minor workplace, health and safety issues at the Grantham Butter Factory.

4. Policy and Legal Implications

Policy and legal implications will be addressed in future on matters that arise before Council.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

Budget implications will continue to be addressed through existing allocations.

6. Delegations/Authorisations

No further delegations are required to manage the issues raised in this report. The Executive Manager Corporate and Community Services will manage requirements in line with existing delegations.

7. Communication and Engagement

A communication strategy will be developed to coordinate the formal naming of the two rooms at the Grantham Butter Factory.

8. Conclusion

The formal adoption of Council agreements in relation to the Grantham Butter Factory particularly the naming of the venues formal rooms, clarification of usage agreements and Council’s 2014/2015 fees and charges will facilitate the ongoing operation of the Grantham Butter Factory as one of Council’s premium venues.

9. Action/s

Undertake a formal naming ceremony of the two function rooms at the Grantham Butter Factory.

Council’s fees and charges for 2014/2015 be updated to reflect new charges for the Grantham Butter Factory commercial kitchen.

The Customer Services and Community Facilities Branches are briefed on new security requirements in relation to Council’s premium venues.

Cr Peter Friend left the meeting, the time being 11:53am

Cr Peter Friend returned to the meeting, the time being 11:59am

12.3 Changes to Fire Ant Restricted Area - June 2014

Date: 16 June 2014

Author: Mike Lisle, Manager Cultural, Health & Regulatory Services

Responsible Officer: David Lewis, Group Manager Corporate & Community Services

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

This report provides Council details of changes to the Fire Ant Restricted Area and an update of actions taken by Biosecurity Queensland to control fire ants within the Lockyer Valley Regional Council area.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council receives and note this report and the important partnership between Biosecurity Queensland and Council and the actions taken in controlling Fire Ants within the Lockyer Valley Regional Council area.

RESOLUTION:

Further;

THAT Council forward correspondence to Mr Ian Rickuss MP, Member for Lockyer and Mr Hon Dr John McVeigh MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry requesting a meeting with Council to discuss the current measures in place to protect the prime agricultural land in the Lockyer Valley from the infestation of fire ants;

And further;

THAT Council forward correspondence to Biosecurity Queensland inviting a representative from Biosecurity to attend a Council Workshop to discuss the current fire ant situation in the Lockyer Valley.

Moved By: Cr Pingel Seconded By: Cr Milligan

Resolution Number: 3488

CARRIED

7/0

Report

1. Introduction

This report provides an update of actions taken by Biosecurity Queensland to control the spread of fire ants within the Lockyer Valley for Council’s information.

2. Background

In accordance with the Pest Management Plan (PMP), adopted by Council in April 2013, and pursuant to the Plant Protection Act 1989, (the Act), landholders must report suspected sightings of fire ants on their property to Biosecurity Queensland.

Biosecurity Queensland is responsible to raise public awareness of the impacts of fire ants and their possible damage to our environment, our outdoor lifestyle and the agriculture and tourism industries. Lockyer Valley Regional Council supports Biosecurity Queensland in this role by ensuring field staff is trained in the observation of Fire Ant activities.

3. Report

Fire Ants are declared a notifiable pest under the Plant Protection Act 1989 and landholders must report suspect sightings of fire ants on their property to Biosecurity Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program has made significant progress in controlling fire ants. Surveillance is ongoing, and treatment and containment measures are continuing in areas of South East Queensland where the ants have been detected.

Council adopted its Pest Management Plan 2013 - 2017 (PMP) in April 2013, which requires landholders to report suspected sightings on their property to Biosecurity Queensland. The PMP also requires that Council provide a supporting role to Biosecurity Queensland in the control of fire ants.

In the implementation of this strategy Biosecurity Queensland recently held two training sessions targeted at the hay industry in Forest Hill and Glenore Grove with approximately 100 people in total attendance.

Changes to Fire Ant Restricted Area

In the financial year (2013-2014), 21 colony points have been detected in the suburbs of Plainland, Laidley Heights, Glen Cairn, Summerholm and Forest Hill (attached map). The actual total area of infestation is 13.4ha for the 2013 -14 financial year and this area includes a 50 metre buffer zone around each active fire ant colony point.

Recent changes to the Red Imported Fire Ant Restricted Area occurred on 31 May 2014 and include the areas of Glen Cairn and Laidley that moved from a low risk restricted area to a high risk restricted area and Laidley South as a new addition to the low risk restricted area.

This will mean that landholders and persons handling high-risk materials in the ‘high risk’ areas will be required to ensure that they follow approved management practices. Restricted items include pot plants, soil, baled hay, straw and animal manure. Materials may be treated or an inspector’s approval obtained prior to removal.

Requirements for commercial operators in the high risk restricted area - movement of restricted items require an Approved Risk Management Plan or an Inspector’s Approval to move these items off a property.

Requirement for residents in the high risk restricted area include several options when moving restricted items off their property. These options include:

1. Moving the items to a local waste facility

2. Treatment of the items

3. Seeking approval from an inspector.

Biosecurity Queensland report that all detections of fire ants in the Lockyer Valley Regional Council area were monogyne (single queen) which means that they most likely arrived by flight (although in a few cases, hay movement was suspected). Genetic analysis shows that all of the fire ants detected in the Lockyer have derived from the western population of fire ants, specifically from Amberley – probably in a number of flight ‘jumps’ over the years.

Relatedness testing has been carried out on all samples from the area and in some cases the parent nest has been identified, e.g. the Mulgowie sample originated from a colony in Grandchester and one of the Forest Hill colonies was related to a Plainlands nest.

Biodiversity Queensland has also advised that treatment of infestations in the Lockyer Valley Regional Council area are often be more difficult than for urban areas because of cultivation practices.

Fire ant impacts in the USA

The United States Department of Agriculture reports that fire ants cost the USA $7 billion each year in control, damage repair and medical care. Impacts on Agricultural production recorded in the USA include: Corn - 65% reduction in Yield in Mississippi, Sunflower - 40-50% loss of crop in Texas and Grain Sorghum - 20% reduction in yield in Arkansas.

Lockyer Valley Regional Council Actions

The following actions have been undertaken by Council in the implementation of its Pest Management Plan.

· Liaison with Biosecurity Queensland and the provision of regular updates and media statements.

· Information received from Biosecurity Queensland (e.g. latest positive detection in LVRC) is distributed to all Infrastructure, Works and Services officers and discussed at Toolbox Talks and Foreman’s meetings.

· GIS are alerted of changes to restricted areas for updating MapInfo.

· Updated restricted areas maps are distributed to all crews and discussions are held on movement controls within the high and low risk restricted areas.

· 85% of Infrastructure, Works and Services officers have been trained.

· Infrastructure, Works and Services crews are completing relevant paperwork for the purchase, movement, surveillance and clean down for all high risk materials and these documents are being captured within ECM.

Engaging the Lockyer Valley Community

Biosecurity Queensland report that they have made over 390,000 contacts with residents and businesses within the Lockyer Valley Regional Council area for the year 2013-14. These engagement activities include industry training, fire ant displays, electronic road signage including vehicle numbers, media and advertising reader circulation figures, direct mail notifying residents of aerial surveillance and restricted area changes, the ‘Aka fire ant tracker’ school education program, and through local businesses distributing materials to their communities.

A community engagement officer and an inspector have also been engaging farmers ‘face to face’ in the Lockyer Valley to explain fire ant impacts and ensure risk mitigation measures are implemented.

An engagement plan is being developed by Biosecurity Queensland, with the assistance of Council, to organise a number of “on-farm” training events for locals including the Mayor and Councillors to view a live nest and a direct nest injection program.

4. Policy and Legal Implications

The actions taken in the control of Fire ants satisfies the following Plans:

The Corporate Plan 2012 – 2017; Working together to enhance and protect our environment. Under the heading “Lockyer Nature” the plan requires that Council will develop and implement pest management policies, strategies and guidelines.

The Operational Plan 2013 - 2014; ‘Lockyer farming’ Requires Council to develop policies and strategies and guidelines to regulate environmental functions to control pests. Implementation of the Pest Management Plan satisfies this strategy.

The Pest Management Plan 2013 - 2017: Requires Council to raise awareness of the impacts of fire ants and strategies for their management.

5. Financial and Resource Implications

Budget implications will continue to be addressed through existing allocations.

6. Delegations/Authorisations

No further delegations are required to manage the issues raised in this report. The Executive Manager Corporate and Community Services will manage any requirements in line with existing delegations.

7. Communication and Engagement

The matters arising from this report that require further communication will be addressed through existing communication channels.

8. Conclusion

Council officers continue to liaise closely with officers from of Biosecurity Queensland and investigate and report all fire ant sightings to Biosecurity Queensland for further action as required. This strategy also assists in the enhancement of community awareness in relation to the declared pest.

The importance of this issue cannot be understated and it is critical that Council and Biosecurity Queensland continue working in partnership to engage the Lockyer Valley Community.

9. Action/s

There are no officer actions associated with this report.

Ordinary Council MEETING MINUTES

25 JUNE 2014

13.4 Development Application for Material Change of Use for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Poultry Farm) on Lot 1 M33869, located at 9-11 Moon Road, Blenheim

Date: 18 June 2014

Author: Tanya Herberich, Assistant Planning Officer

Responsible Officer: Mark Piorkowski, Executive Manager Planning & Development Services

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

The application for Material Change of Use for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Poultry Farm) on land described as Lot 1 M33869 located at 9 – 11 Moon Road, Blenheim is to be approved subject to conditions.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council resolves to approve a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Intensive Animal Industry (Poultry Farm) on land described as Lot 1 M33869, located at 9 – 11 Moon Road, Blenheim, in accordance with the following conditions;

1. The site must be developed generally in accordance with the Site plan submitted as additional information to DSDIP prepared by Clive and Erica Clarke received 23 April 2014.

2. This approval for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Poultry Farm) to accommodate up to 200,000 birds in a total of seven sheds.

3. The developer is to pay Infrastructure Charges for the proposed development in accordance with the LVRC Adopted infrastructure charges resolution prior to the commencement of use of the additional sheds. Council will issue an Infrastructure Charges Notice. These charges are required to be paid prior to commencement of use.

4. All internal access roads, parking and manoeuvring areas must be maintained to a minimum gravel road base standard.

5. Proposed sheds are to be a maximum height of 10m as required by the Building Dimensions Code of the Laidley Shire Planning Scheme.

RESOLUTION:

1. The site must be developed generally in accordance with the Site plan submitted as additional information to DSDIP prepared by Clive and Erica Clarke received 23 April 2014.

2. This approval for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Poultry Farm) to accommodate up to 200,000 birds in a total of seven sheds.

4. All internal access roads, parking and manoeuvring areas must be maintained to a minimum gravel road base standard.

5. Proposed sheds are to be a maximum height of 10m as required by the Building Dimensions Code of the Laidley Shire Planning Scheme.

Moved By: Cr Pingel Seconded By: Cr Friend

Resolution Number: 3492

CARRIED

7/0

Report

1. Introduction

This report recommends that Council approve with conditions the application by Clive and Erica Clarke for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Poultry Farm) at 9 -11 Moon Road, Blenheim.

2. Background

The site currently operates under an existing Town Planning Consent approval for a Poultry Farm issued by Laidley Shire Council (LSC) on 2 June 1975, an approval for Environmentally Relevant Activity No. 4 for Poultry Farms (>200,000 birds) issued by the Lockyer Valley Regional Council on 15 December 2010 and an Environmentally Relevant Activity permit issued by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) dated 14 November 2013. These approvals together permit the premises to operate up to a capacity of 200,000 birds but restrict operations to five sheds.

3. Report

3.1 Subject Land

The subject land is located on the corner of Moon and Bein Roads in Blenheim, approximately 8km from Laidley. It has an area of 52.7744ha and slopes towards north east. The subject site currently contains two dwellings, poultry farm, cattle grazing area and three dams. It is zoned Rural Landscape and Rural Agricultural Land under the Laidley Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003. A poultry farm has operated on the land for almost 40 years. The subject land is located within a rural area and the closest residences not associated with the poultry farm are located 510m, 730m and 1000m from the proposed location of the two additional sheds.

The above shows the location of the existing poultry farm in rural area of Blenheim.

3.2 Proposal

The applicant seeks development approval for Intensive Animal Husbandry for a Poultry Farm to develop two additional sheds bringing the total number of sheds to seven. This application will bring the planning approval into alignment within the ERA approvals issued by Lockyer Valley Regional Council in December 2010 and DAFF in November 2013 for 200,000 birds which has already assessed the impacts on roads, noise and odour associated with 200,000 birds. Approval of this application will not increase the scale of the operation above that which can already be undertaken under the 2010 and 2013 ERA approvals.

The above shows the location where two additional sheds are proposed.

3.3 Assessment

Legislative Requirements

The application was lodged on 31 March 2014 and is required to be assessed and determined under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). In accordance with the SPA and the Laidley Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003, an Intensive Animal Husbandry use is assessable development. The application requires Impact Assessment.

Public Notification

The application was publicly notified for fifteen business days from 14 May 2014 to 5 June 2014, as required under SPA. Notification was carried out the following ways;

· A notice was maintained on site from 15 May 2014 to 5 June 2014;

· A notice was published in the Gatton Star on the 14 May 2014; and

· A letter was sent to all adjoining landowners on the 12 May 2014.

During the notification stage one properly made submission was received by Council. In addition, a late submission received outside of the public notification period. The matters that have been raised in these submissions and comments on these matters are provided below:

Issue – The impact of increased traffic and the use of heavier vehicles on the road network resulting from the increase in the scale of the operations at the poultry farm.

Comment – The ERA approvals issued by Council in 2010 and DAFF in 2013 already allow the operation of the poultry farm at a capacity of 200,000 birds. The 1975 town planning consent approval does not limit capacity but restricts the operations to five sheds. The current application does not seek approval to expand capacity but instead seeks approval to accommodate up to 200,000 birds in seven sheds instead of the five sheds allowed under the 1975 town planning consent approval.

Issue – Increased noise resulting from additional traffic movements at night.

Comment – Whilst it is correct that vehicle movements occur between 8:00pm and 4:00am, the 1975 town planning consent approval and the two ERA approvals do not place limits on vehicle movements. The number of vehicle movements is determined by the capacity of the farm which is presently 200,000 birds. Approval of the current application will not increase capacity beyond this number.

Issue – Concern regarding the disposal of an increased number of dead birds.

Comment – The current application does not seek approval to accommodate more birds at the facility. The two ERA approvals limit the number of birds to 200,000.

Referral Agencies

The application was referred to the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) as the development triggered Schedule 7 Table 3 Item 2 - Development impacting on a State transport infrastructure under the Sustainable Planning Act Regulation 2009. SARA advised Council on 7 May 2014 no requirements relating to the application.

South East Regional Plan

The site is located within the Regional Landscape Rural Production Area designation under the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031 (SEQRP). The use of the land for a poultry farm is consistent with the SEQRP.

Rural Agriculture and Rural Landscape Zone Codes

The subject site is zoned Rural Landscape and Rural Agriculture under the Laidley Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003. Section 6.2.4 of the Planning Scheme identifies that rural industry uses, or those land uses considered to be complementary to the rural setting, are undertaken in the Rural Landscape Area. The proposal complies with the requirements of the Rural Landscape and Rural Agriculture Zone Code as it is an existing poultry farm and is only accommodating the existing approval of 200,000 birds in seven sheds instead of five sheds.

Areas of Natural and Environmental Significance Overlay

The subject site triggers the Areas of Natural and Environmental Significance Overlay Code in the Laidley Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003. The location of the Very High Ecological Significant Vegetation and Medium Bushfire is located outside of the area identified for the two additional sheds. The subject site triggers land with slope greater than 15% however based on the site plan submitted with the application, the two additional sheds will be located outside of this area.

Rural Areas Code

The use complies with the Rural Areas Code. Section 6.2.2 (2) of the Planning Scheme identifies that the range of primary industries reflect the economic potential of the Laidley Shire and rural uses are undertaken in a manner that avoids adverse effects on the environment. The application will not result in any increased impacts on the environment as it does not provide for an increase in the number of birds above that already approved by the ERA.

Rural Uses Code

The use complies with the Rural Uses Code. The subject site is 52.7744ha and the sheds are setback approximately 200m from the existing dwellings on site, 400m from the rear boundary and approximately 200m from Moon Road frontage. The application is requesting approval for two additional sheds to house 200,000 birds which can already been accommodated under the existing ERA approvals.

Advertising Devices Code

The applicant is not proposing any signage as part of this application.

Building Dimensions Code

The two additional poultry sheds are proposed to have dimensions of approximately 16m x 55m. These sheds will be conditioned to have a maximum height of 10m under the Building Dimensions Code. The structures will be assessed under a future Building Works application and will need to comply with the Queensland Development Code.

On Site Effluent Disposal Code

The impacts in relation to on site effluent disposal have been assessed as part of the existing ERA approval issued by DAFF in November 2013.

Vehicle Access and Parking Code

The current access, parking and manoeuvring area are all adequate for the operation of the poultry farm at a capacity of 200,000 birds. A condition has been proposed to require all access, parking and manoeuvring areas to be constructed to a road base standard which is appropriate for the use in its rural location.

Adopted Infrastructure Charges

The Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution defines a Poultry Farm as a High Impact Rural use. There will be no Queensland Urban Utilities charges applicable as there is no reticulated water and sewerage available at the site.

Given that two additional sheds of 16m x 55m are proposed. The charge of $10 per square metre will apply over 1 760m² resulting in a total contribution of $17,600.00. Council will issue an Infrastructure Charges Notice for the amount payable. This charge is required to be paid prior to commencement of use of the additional sheds.

4 Policy and Legal Implications

There are no policy or legal implications for Council that result from the approval of the application.

5 Financial and Resource Implications

There is no financial and resource implication for Council as a result of the approval of the application.

6 Delegations/Authorisations

There will be no implications for delegations or authorisations arising from the approval of the application.

7 Communication and Engagement

There are no communication implications. Advice of the decision will be provided to the applicant and the submitter in accordance with the requirements of SPA.

8 Conclusion

Based on the town planning assessment provided above, it is recommended that the application for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Poultry Farm) should be approved subject to conditions.

9. Action/s

That Council resolves to approve a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Intensive Animal Industry (Poultry Farm) on land described as Lot 1 M33869, located at 9 – 11 Moon Road, Blenheim, in accordance with the following conditions;

1. The site must be developed generally in accordance with the Site plan submitted as additional information to DSDIP prepared by Clive and Erica Clarke received 23 April 2014.

2. This approval for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Poultry Farm) to accommodate up to 200,000 birds in a total of seven sheds.

4. The developer is to pay Infrastructure Charges for the proposed development in accordance with the LVRC Adopted infrastructure charges resolution prior to the commencement of use of the additional sheds. Council will issue an Infrastructure Charges Notice. These charges are required to be paid prior to commencement of use.

5. All internal access roads, parking and manoeuvring areas must be maintained to a minimum gravel road base standard.

6. Proposed sheds are to be a maximum height of 10m as required by the Building Dimensions Code of the Laidley Shire Planning Scheme.

Cr Tanya Milligan left the meeting, the time being 12:27pm

Cr Janice Holstein left the meeting, the time being 12:28pm

13.5 Development Application for Material Change of Use for Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility on Lot 4 RP208154 at 3-5 Faith Avenue, Plainland

Date: 19 June 2014

Author: Tanya Herberich, Assistant Planning Officer

Responsible Officer: Mark Piorkowski, Executive Manager Planning & Development Services

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

The application for Material Change of Use for an Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility on land described as Lot 4 RP208154 at 3-5 Faith Avenue, Plainland is to be approved subject to conditions.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council resolves to approve a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility on land described as Lot 4 RP208154, located at 3-5 Faith Avenue, Plainland, in accordance with the following conditions;

RESOLUTION:

1. The proposed development is to be generally in accordance with Indicative Masterplan, Drawing No. 3305PL08 – SD01 & SD02, issue C by Fulton Trotter Architects and dated August 2013 and the supporting documentation.

2. This approval for Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility is to increase the development area to 20,000m².

3. The developer is to pay Infrastructure Charges for the proposed development in accordance with the LVRC Adopted infrastructure charges resolution prior to the commencement of construction of buildings within the new development area. Council will issue an Infrastructure Charges Notice. These charges are required to be paid prior to the issuing of Building Works permits within the new development area.

4. Compliance with conditions from Department of Transport and Main Roads as a Concurrence Agency as provided in their correspondence of 3 October 2013 (Reference TMR13-005294).

5. Compliance with conditions from Department of Environment and Heritage Protraction as a Concurrence Agency as provided in their correspondence of 8 April 2013 (Reference 515032/SPDE05259113).

6. A suitably qualified engineer with Registered Professional Engineer Queensland (RPEQ) accreditation shall prepare and certify all plans and specifications for all works, or any works required on Council infrastructure. The RPEQ must provide certification upon completion of the works, that the works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and in compliance with Council’s construction standards. It is expected that the RPEQ will undertake the necessary inspections to make this certification.

7. The developer must provide a total of 189 car parking spaces generally in accordance with Plan No.3305PL08 – SD1 Issue C dated August 2013.

8. The developer must imperviously seal all new internal access roads, driveways, car parking spaces, manoeuvring areas and loading zones and be designed and constructed in general accordance of Austroads requirements;

9. The developer shall ensure that all driveways, car parking spaces, loading zones and manoeuvring areas are linemarked in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890;

10. The developer shall ensure that alignments for new kerb and channel have regard to existing structures (eg, kerb and channel, vegetation or services) and shall be established prior to any detailed design being undertaken. Any existing kerb inverts which become unnecessary must be removed and new kerbing reinstated to match existing.

11. The developer shall ensure proposed footpaths are constructed in accordance with IPWEAQ Standard Drawing SEQ R-065. Kerb ramps shall be provided at intersections in accordance with IPWEAQ Standard Drawing SEQ R-090 and SEQ R-094.

12. The developer must submit engineering drawings for establishing, maintaining and inspecting erosion and sediment management devices as part of an integrated strategy that:

a) Manages erosion and sediment control during all phases of the development;

b) Integrates with all stormwater volume and quality management controls; and

c) Is consistent with criteria of the International Erosion Controls Association

13. All unlined drains shall be turfed to a level at least 300mm above the AEP 1% flow level as soon as practicable after construction and regular watering shall occur to ensure required establishment. Additional measures to line open drains may be required for flow velocities exceed values shown in QUDM, 2013, Table 9.5.2.

14. The maximum slope of batters, including table drain batters, shall be 1V:4H, unless otherwise approved. Such approval will only be considered due to site constraints.

15. The peak rate of stormwater discharge from the site shall not exceed the peak rate of stormwater discharge for the site prior to development for all rainfall events (i.e 63%, 39%, 18%, 10%, 5%, 2% and 1% AEP events). This shall be achieved by appropriate detention facilities and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) features.

16. The developer must provide all necessary internal and external stormwater drainage to service the development. Such drainage works must be designed and constructed in accordance with Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM) and the Laidley Shire Planning Scheme such that the overall drainage system caters for a storm event with a 1% AEP.

17. All stormwater drainage structures (surface and underground) and accessories shall be designed and constructed to effectively drain all stormwater falling on and coming to the proposed development to a point of satisfactory legal discharge. The developer must identify the legal point of discharge for each drainage path which crosses the development site boundary.

18. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining approval and bearing all costs associated with registering in favour of Council all necessary stormwater drainage easements in order for drainage path to reach a satisfactory point of legal discharge. This is required within and external to the subject land.

19. Overland flow paths must be suitably designed to cater for the water from a storm event of 1% AEP. In the case where the piped system is carrying part of the flow, the overland flow paths must be designed to cater for that volume which is represented by the difference between the predicted volume from the storm event with a 1% AEP and the capacity of the pipe system, noting the requirements of QUDM.

20. Outflows of all stormwater discharge must ensure stability of drainage channel in respect to soil types and stormwater discharge velocities. Outlets must be designed and constructed in accordance with QUDM.

21. No ponding or redirection of stormwater shall occur onto adjoining land unless specifically conditioned and approval has been granted by the adjoining property owner(s) /manager(s).

22. The developer must submit stormwater drainage plans and calculations for council approval, prior to the commencement of any works on the subject site.

23. Proposed detention and water sensitive urban design facilities shall be designed and constructed for the development in accordance with the State Planning Policy 04/10 Healthy Waterways and associated supportive guidelines.

24. The developer must employ a staged implementation approach for the bio retention areas ensuring that filter media is protected until 90% of the construction and building works have been completed for the catchment contributing to the bio retention basin.

25. The staging, timing and commissioning of the bio retention basin must be outlined as part of the operational works application and supporting notes. The proposed staging must be included on the submitted construction drawings. The developer must provide the following details for all bio retention basins:

a) predicted operational and maintenance requirements for facilities over a 25 year period;

b) proposed flow bypass routes of any filter areas to cater for initial flow diversion required when estate is newly developed and for times in life of facilities when filter media is blocked. Details shall be provided on what volume of water is retained in the event of a filter media blockage and whether the system will function hydraulically for all AEP events;

c) details and capacity of proposed flow bypass routes when capacity of WSUD facilities are exceeded; and

d) details of 23.(2) & 23.(3) are to be clearly marked on submitted plans.

26. Building approval is not to be granted until a development application for

Operational Works has been approved by Council.

27. The developer shall ensure that no on-site works commence until approval

for operational works has been obtained from Council.

28. Evidence of Portable Long Service Leave having been paid is required for

projects over $80,000 in contract value (submit yellow copy to council).

29. The developer shall pay an Inspection Fee based on Council’s estimated cost of the works should any works associated with the development be carried out by agencies other than Council. This fee is valid for six months from the date of this approval. Refer to Lockyer Valley Regional Council current Fees and Charges for calculation.

30. The developer must pay a maintenance bond equal to 10% of the construction cost (minimum of $1,000.00) to be retained by Council for a minimum period of twelve months, or until such time as the works are accepted "Off Maintenance" by Council. Municipal works must be accepted "On Maintenance" prior to commencement of use.

31. Provision at the building site, for use by employees, toilet facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000, Part 2, Chemical, Composting and Incinerating Toilets.

32. Provision of suitable waste removal services and suitable number and type of waste containers, in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 and to the satisfaction of Council, for the storage of:

a) papers, plastics, cardboard, food scraps, used food containers and like wastes generated by workers on the site; and

b) building construction and/or demolition wastes.

33. All waste collected on site during constructions shall be taken to an approved Waste Disposal Facility for disposal in accordance with current acceptance criteria and relevant fees and charges. Note: In Lockyer Valley Regional Council local government area, Gatton Landfill and Laidley Transfer Station are approved to accept building construction and demolition waste.

34. The developer must ensure:

a) All plant and equipment does not result in a level greater than LA90 39 dB(A) when measured at 4 m from the most exposed façade of the nearest residential uses; and

b) The contribution from all varying noise sources associated with the development during night-time hours (10pm-7am) does not exceed a level of LAMAX 50 dB(A), adjusted for tonality and impulsiveness, when measured at 4 m from the most exposed façade of the nearest residential uses; and

c) All mechanical plant and equipment, including but not limited to, air conditioning/refrigeration plant and ventilation exhausts/extracts shall be screened/shielded where a noise complaint is determined.

35. Hours of construction must not exceed Monday to Saturday 6:30am to 6:30pm.

36. Construction work must not be conducted from or on the premises outside the above hours or on Sundays or public holidays.

37. The land owner must comply with Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 during construction of added facilities and during operation of normal activities including:

a) Contaminated water must not be released to stormwater.

b) Sediment controls must be installed where necessary to prevent the release of sediment, such as sand, silt and mud, to storm water.

38. The provision of security and flood lighting shall be designed, constructed, located and maintained in accordance with Australian Standard 4282 – 1997 (Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting) and so as not to cause nuisance to the occupants of nearby properties or passing traffic.

Advice

1. A new premises or the alteration to an existing premises used for the sale or preparation, packing, storing, handling, serving or, supplying of food or drink to the public is required to obtain a food design approval for structural fit out of the kitchen under the provisions of the Food Act 2006. Please contact the Environmental Health Unit of Lockyer Valley Regional Council for advice regarding this matter by ringing 1300 005 872.

2. In accordance with the Plant Protection Act 1989 and the Plant Protection Regulation 2002, a quarantine notice has been issued for the State of Queensland to prevent the spread of the Red Imported Fire Ant (ant species Solenopsis invicta) and to eradicate it from the State.

It is the legal obligation of the land owner or any consultant or contractor employed by the land owner to report the presence or suspicion of Fire Ants to Biosecurity Queensland on 13 25 23 or completing Biosecurity Queensland/ Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) online form at www.daff.qld.gov.au within 24 hours of becoming aware of the presence or suspicion.

It should be noted that the movement of Fire Ants is prohibited, unless under the conditions of an Inspectors Approval. More information can be obtained from the Queensland Biosecurity Queensland/ Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry online form at www.daff.qld.gov.au website www.daff.qld.gov.au.

3. The College currently has an onsite wastewater treatment facility and effluent disposal system. While QUU and land developers have plans to provide a reticulated sewerage network within the Plainland area, there is no sewerage infrastructure currently constructed within Plainland at the time of providing this decision notice. Accordingly, the conditions of this approval are based onsite treatment and disposal given the uncertainty of the future reticulated sewerage network.

Faith Lutheran College may wish to make an service connection application in the future for a connection into this sewer network upon it being constructed. An assessment of the sewer systems capacity to service the college, any required infrastructure works and the costs and fees associated with providing this connection to the network will need to be assessed at the time of application being made.

4. The development site is currently provided with a trickle feed supply arrangement. Under this arrangement the college is required to provide onsite infrastructure that provides sufficient flows and pressures for the development (storage and booster pumps). The college may make a request to QUU if there is a desire for a greater level of service to be provided from QUU water supply network.

5. Any additional development or intensification of use, beyond that which this approves, may be subject to a further development application and planning approval.

Moved By: Cr Holstein Seconded By: Cr Friend

Resolution Number: 3493

CARRIED

5/0

Report

1. Introduction

This report recommends that Council approve with conditions the application by Environmental Resource Management Australia Pty Ltd for an Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility on Lot 4 RP208154 located at 3-5 Faith Avenue, Plainland

2. Background

The site currently operates under a material change of use approval for an Educational Facility, Place of Worship (Chapel), Indoor Entertainment (Hall), Outdoor Entertainment (Swimming Pool, Tennis Courts and Playfields).

3. Report

3.1 Subject Land

The subject site is located at the western end of Faith Avenue and also has a road frontage to the Warrego Highway and Cemetery Road. It has an area of 24.17ha and slopes towards the northeast and currently contains Faith Lutheran College and three dams within the north of the property. The subject site is zoned Community Purpose under the Laidley Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003 and triggers the Moderate Biodiversity and Medium Bushfire under the Areas of Natural and Environmental Significance Overlay Code.

3.2 Proposal

The applicant is seeking approval for the expansion of Faith Lutheran College already established on the site and the development of a proposed Child Care Facility, within the next ten years to accommodate the expansion of the use to reflect the expected population growth of the area. The current predictions regarding the future growth of the school to 2025 include:

· Child care facilities to be functioning by 2015;

· Students beginning to enrol in primary school by 2016 with approximately 552 students (maximum suitable number of primary/secondary school students) enrolled by 2025;

· An additional 338 secondary school students by 2025; and

· An additional 62 equivalent full time staff on site.

The applicant requests that the development be approved in stages and in accordance with the following development parameters:

· The location of future buildings for ongoing development of the school, chapel, sports fields, changing rooms and bus set-down/pick-up;

· The proposed building location for the development of the Child Care Centre;

· An increase the maximum gross floor area from 13 000m² to 20 000m²; and

· Vehicular and pedestrian access to the school and landscaping buffer areas.

The application proposes to increase the maximum building area for the Educational Establishment to 20,000m² including a Child Centre Facility of 500m². The maximum height of the buildings for the Educational Establishment is three storeys and the height for the Child Care Facility is one storey. The buildings are to be setback 5m from the eastern boundary, 5m from the southern boundary, 30m from the western boundary and 40m from the northern boundary. A 5m wide landscaping strip is proposed along the majority of the eastern and southern boundaries. The primary access is to be via Faith Avenue with a secondary access via Cemetery Road (for bus use only). The development of the site will occur in stages, the timing of which is dependent on student enrolments and available funding.

The proposal plans are provided as an attachment to this report.

3.3 Assessment

Legislative Requirements

The application was lodged on 20 December 2012 and is required to be assessed and determined under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).

In accordance with the SPA and the Laidley Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003, an Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility uses are assessable development. The application requires Impact Assessment.

Council issued an Information Request on 31 January 2013 and the applicant responded to the Information Request on 27 August 2013. Council’s Information Request requested additional material on the location of the proposed access to the Child Care Facility, water supply and sewerage supply.

Public Notification

The application was publicly notified for thirty business days from 31 August 2013 to 15 October 2013, as required under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Notification was carried out the following ways;

· A notice was maintained on site from 31 August 2013 to 15 October 2013;

· A notice was published in the Toowoomba Chronicle on the 30 August 2013; and

· A letter was sent to all adjoining landowners on the 30 August 2013.

During the notification stage one properly made submission was received by Council. The submitter’s concerns and the assessment manager’s response are listed below:

Issue 1 - Childcare. This approval will adversely impact on the existing centres in the region for future intakes/income/viability. Child care centres already approved and/or pending will also be impacted. Loss of employment is also a factor.

Comment - Faith Lutheran College is located within a growth area and the college has determined that a child care facility is a viable service.

Issue 2 - Traffic. A survey and upgrade of Faith Avenue to its present width was a requirement for the development of the residential estate to accommodate the minimal traffic flow to the estate. This was funded solely by the developer, therefore, as traffic will increase markedly to the college, the upgrade should be funded by the college when required and not be ratepayer funded.

Comment - A Traffic Engineering Report prepared by TTM Consulting (QLD) Pty Ltd and submitted with the application indicates that whilst traffic along Faith Avenue will increase, there is sufficient capacity within the road network to service the traffic at an acceptable level without additional works required.

Issue 3 - Cemetery Road. Safety concerns would re-emerge due to slow turning buses onto the narrow road and speed from ongoing traffic toward Gatton. Will public traffic be permitted to utilise this road if opened to access the rural hardware store.

Comment – The applicant seeks to use Cemetery Road for school bus access only from the Warrego Highway to enter the site and exit via Faith Avenue. There is an existing access from the Warrego Highway into Cemetery Road. The issue of safety of buses entering Cemetery Road from the westbound lanes of the highway falls within the responsibility of the Department of Transport and Main Roads which has determined the current arrangements are adequate.

Issue 4 - Equestrian Area. A top facility is available in Gatton to accommodate this activity with stables/indoor area etc. This is a safer option for nearby residents. Escaping animals will be a safety hazard due to their unpredictability and it will generate excess vehicles on Faith Avenue.

Comment - Faith Lutheran College has determined that an equestrian facility is required to be provided so these activities can be a part of the school curriculum. The college will be responsible for the safety of the students and well-being of the animals.

Referral Agencies

The application was referred to the following agencies:

· The Department of Transport and Main Roads (Concurrence Agency);

· The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (Concurrence); and

· The Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Concurrence).

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) was referred the application for a Concurrence Agency response. DTMR issued an Information Request to the applicant on 27 February 2013. DTMR provided conditions to Council of 8 October 2013. The applicant suspended the decision making period with Council on 6 November 2013 to enter into negotiations with DTMR regarding the referral agencies conditions. The applicant finalised negotiations with DTMR and advised Council on 14 May 2014 to continue with the assessment of the application.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) was referred the application for a Concurrence Agency response. DEHP provided conditions to Council on 8 April 2013 regarding Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) No. 63 for sewerage treatment threshold 2(a)(i) Sewerage treatment – operating sewage treatment works, other than no release works, with a total daily peak design capacity 21 to 100EP, if treated effluent is discharged from the works to an infiltration trench or through an irrigation scheme.

The Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Concurrence) was referred the application for a Concurrence Agency response. DNRM indicated on 5 February 2013 that the application was incorrectly referred for comment.

South East Queensland Regional Plan

The site is located within the Rural Living designation under the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (SEQRP). The SEQRP recognises that Plainland is identified by the Regional Plan as a Local Development Area. According to the Regional Plan, Plainland is a local development area that will develop as a service centre to accommodate surrounding rural living areas and supplement activities in Gatton and Laidley.

Assessment – Community Purpose Zone Code

The site is located within the Community Purpose Zone. Section 6.6.3 of the Laidley Planning Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003 indicates that community facilities are established in conjunction with population growth and/or community need. The proposed use complies with the intent of the zone as it is an increase to an existing primary and secondary school and child care centre.

Areas of Natural and Environmental Significance Overlay

The site triggers the Areas of Natural and Environmental Significance Overlay for Moderate Ecological Significant Native Vegetation Areas and Medium Bushfire.

Development Constraints Overlay

The site triggers the Development Constraints Overlay Code from the Laidley Shire Council Planning Scheme 2003. The Warrego Highway is maintained as a key link between the subject site (via a local collector roads) and other major destinations. The site does not have direct access onto the Warrego Highway and no development is proposed adjacent to the Warrego Highway. No building work is proposed to occur within 40m of the Warrego Highway and the site diagram imposes 10m or greater setbacks to all other property boundaries.

The proposal involves a secondary access to facilitate bus movements into the site along Cemetery Road and exiting via Faith Avenue (the existing access) to mitigate the noise impacts from increased bus movements as school population increases. Noise impacts along Cemetery Road will be minimal as the proposed access is for bus movement which will be within the school’s standard operating hours. Educational and Community buildings including class rooms and meeting rooms will be required to comply with noise levels identified under the Environmental Protection Act. Outdoor education and recreation areas are already developed and the application does not seek not to change these.

Community Use Code

The proposed provides a minimum 10m setback from all site boundaries, which is greater than the required three metres identified within the Planning Scheme. Adequate landscaping has been provided to buffer any noise associated with the development of the school and its impact on neighbouring properties. It should be noted that the surrounding residences are located on rural residential subdivision with residences setback further from property boundaries than in urban areas. Any outdoor lighting will be directed inwards and hooded to reduce any impact emissions on surrounding properties.

The proposal involves an extension to the existing educational establishment on the subject site, including a new child care centre. The proposed use of community facilities is consistent with the designation of the site within the Community Purpose Area under the Planning Scheme. Outdoor storage facilities will be screened from public view by appropriate landscaping and design elements. Landscaping and design associated with the extension of the school and proposed child care centre will be in keeping with the current landscaping and design of the existing facility.

The proposed child care facility is appropriately located in conjunction with the school. Appropriate landscaping will be incorporated into the design of the child care centre to reduce any possible impacts cause by noise on the surrounding community. Adequate childproof fencing that is at least 2m high will be provided along the eastern boundary and any internal roads. The Child Care is not located in the vicinity of any development constraints as identified on the overlay maps. The proposed location of the child care facility will not have any adverse impacts on adjoining land holders and is consistent with the zoning of the subject site.

Advertising Devices Code

The applicant has indicated that all proposed signage on the site will be in accordance with Council requirements and will be compatible with the streetscape and character of the locality. The signage will contain the school’s name and shall not be greater than 4m². Any freestanding signage will be adequately setback from entries and exits and will not be positioned as to cause danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Signs will not cause a distraction to motor vehicles, cycles or pedestrian traffic on roadways or intersections.

Building Dimensions Code

The current approved maximum height of the existing Educational Establishment is three storeys. This application does not propose to exceed the height that was originally approved for the site under DA4050A and therefore the proposal complies with the Building Dimensions Code as the height is less than eight metres.

On Site Effluent Disposal Code

The proposed disposal system will comply with the requirements of Section 33 of the EPP (Water) 1997 and applicable Australian Standards. The system will be located on a site larger than 2 000m² and does not trigger the Temporary Local Planning Instrument 01/2014 - Flood Regulation. The conditioning of the on-site effluent disposal has been conditioned by DEHP under ERA 63 for sewerage treatment threshold 2(a)(i) Sewerage treatment – operating sewage treatment works, other than no release works, with a total daily peak design capacity 21 to 100EP, if treated effluent is discharged from the works to an infiltration trench or through an irrigation scheme

Vehicle Access and Parking Code

The only car park in the school which exceeds 1,000m² is the existing main car park and shade trees are currently scattered across the car park. A five metre landscaping buffer is provided along road frontages adjacent the main building area. The on-site circulation, manoeuvring, access and parking areas will be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1 and AS2890.2 series. The Planning Scheme identifies one space for every employee and one space for every 10 students for an Educational Establishment use and one space for every employee and one space for every 10 childcare places for a Child Care Facility use. The site currently contains 67 car parking spaces with 1 disabled car parking space under DA4050A. The applicant has proposed to construct an additional 160 car parking spaces including 3 disabled car parking spaces and 25 car parking spaces associated with the Child Care Facility. On this basis the site will contain a total of 185 car parking spaces which complies with the requirements of the vehicle access and parking code.

Adopted Infrastructure Charges

The Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution defines an Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility as an Education use. The charge applicable from Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) is for reticulated water only as sewerage is not available at the site.

The proposed increase in gross floor area for the development is 7 000m². The proposed charge is $79/m² for the Council component and $24/m² for QUU for water. A charge of $553 000 will be payable to the Council and $168 000 will be payable for QUU. Council will issue an Infrastructure Charges Notice for the amounts payable. This charge is required to be paid prior to the commencement of the use of additional buildings which are developed under this approval.

4 Policy and Legal Implications

There are no policy or legal implications for Council that result from the approval of the proposed Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility.

5 Financial and Resource Implications

There is no financial and resource implication for Council apart from those outlined above, as a result of the approval of the proposed Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility.

6 Delegations/Authorisations

There will be no implications for delegations or authorisations arising from the approval.

7 Communication and Engagement

There are no communication implications. Advice of the decision will be provided to the applicant, the referral agency and the submitter in accordance with statutory requirements of SPA.

8 Conclusion

Based on the town planning assessment provided, the Material Change of Use application for an Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility should be approved subject to conditions.

9. Action/s

That Council resolves to approve a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility on land described as Lot 4 RP208154, located at 3 – 5 Faith Avenue, Plainland, in accordance with the following conditions;

1. The proposed development is to be generally in accordance with the plan of Indicative Masterplan, Drawing No. 3305PL08 – SD01 & SD02, issue C by Fulton Trotter Architects and dated August 2013 and the supporting documentation.

2. This approval for Educational Establishment and Child Care Facility is to increase the development area to 20,000m2.

4. Compliance with conditions from Department of Transport and Main Roads as a Concurrence Agency as provided in their correspondence of 3 October 2013 (Reference TMR13-005294).

5. Compliance with conditions from Department of Environment and Heritage Protraction as a Concurrence Agency as provided in their correspondence of 8 April 2013 (Reference 515032/SPDE05259113).

7. The developer must provide a total of 189 car parking spaces generally in accordance with Plan No.3305PL08 – SD1 Issue C dated August 2013.

9. The developer shall ensure that all driveways, car parking spaces, loading zones and manoeuvring areas are line marked in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890;

10. The developer shall ensure that alignments for new kerb and channel have regard to existing structures (e.g. kerb and channel, vegetation or services) and shall be established prior to any detailed design being undertaken. Any existing kerb inverts which become unnecessary must be removed and new kerbing reinstated to match existing.

12. The developer must submit engineering drawings for establishing, maintaining and inspecting erosion and sediment management devices as part of an integrated strategy that:

a) Manages erosion and sediment control during all phases of the development;

b) Integrates with all stormwater volume and quality management controls; and

c) Is consistent with criteria of the International Erosion Controls Association

14. The maximum slope of batters, including table drain batters, shall be 1V:4H, unless otherwise approved. Such approval will only be considered due to site constraints.

15. The peak rate of stormwater discharge from the site shall not exceed the peak rate of stormwater discharge for the site prior to development for all rainfall events (i.e. 63%, 39%, 18%, 10%, 5%, 2% and 1% AEP events). This shall be achieved by appropriate detention facilities and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) features.

21. No ponding or redirection of stormwater shall occur onto adjoining land unless specifically conditioned and approval has been granted by the adjoining property owner(s) /manager(s).

22. The developer must submit stormwater drainage plans and calculations for council approval, prior to the commencement of any works on the subject site.

a) predicted operational and maintenance requirements for facilities over a 25 year period;

c) details and capacity of proposed flow bypass routes when capacity of WSUD facilities are exceeded; and

d) details of 23.(2) & 23.(3) are to be clearly marked on submitted plans.

26. Building approval is not to be granted until a development application for Operational Works has been approved by Council.

27. The developer shall ensure that no on-site works commence until approval for operational works has been obtained from Council.

28. Evidence of Portable Long Service Leave having been paid is required for projects over $80,000 in contract value (submit yellow copy to council).

a) papers, plastics, cardboard, food scraps, used food containers and like wastes generated by workers on the site; and

b) building construction and/or demolition wastes.

34. The developer must ensure:

a) All plant and equipment does not result in a level greater than LA90 39 dB(A) when measured at 4 m from the most exposed façade of the nearest residential uses; and

35. Hours of construction must not exceed Monday to Saturday 6:30am to 6:30pm.

36. Construction work must not be conducted from or on the premises outside the above hours or on Sundays or public holidays.

37. The land owner must comply with Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 during construction of added facilities and during operation of normal activities including:

a) Contaminated water must not be released to stormwater.

b) Sediment controls must be installed where necessary to prevent the release of sediment, such as sand, silt and mud, to storm water.

Advice

5. Any additional development or intensification of use, beyond that which this approves, may be subject to a further development application and planning approval.

Ordinary Council MEETING MINUTES

25 JUNE 2014

The Chair, Cr Steve Jones left the meeting to attend to urgent business the time being 12.31pm.

RESOLUTION:

In the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, Cr McDonald moved and Cr McLean seconded a motion that Cr Pingel assume the Chair of the meeting acknowledging that a quorum was still present.

Moved By: Cr McDonald Seconded By: Cr McLean

Resolution Number: 3494

CARRIED

4/0

Cr Derek Pingel assumed the Chair.

Cr Janice Holstein returned to the meeting, the time being 12:33pm in time for the vote.

13.6 Request to Change an Existing Approval - Preliminary Approval (Impact Assessment) That May Affect a Local Planning Instrument Under Section 242 of SPA 2009 and Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Service Station and Refreshment Service) Development Permit for Environmentally Relevant Activity No. 8 (Chemical Storage) Development Permit for Reconfigure a Lot for Subdivision (2 into 5 Lots) and a Development Permit for Operational Works for Advertising Signage) on Land Described as Lots 1 and 211 on SP177875 at the Corner of Laidley-Plainland Road and Warrego Highway, Plainland

Date: 19 June 2014

Author: Hayley O'Brien, Senior Planner Development Assessment

Responsible Officer: Mark Piorkowski, Executive Manager Planning & Development Services

File No: Formal Papers

Summary:

This report is for a request to change an existing approval. This request has arisen from a change in ownership of the subject property. The previous approvals over the site were established on a conceptual basis to facilitate the future development of the site. This application is seeking to supersede the conceptual design with a more detailed design that the addresses how the site will operate.

Officer’s Recommendation:

THAT Council resolves to approve the Request to Change Preliminary Approval (Impact Assessment) That May Affect a Local Planning Instrument Under Section 242 of SPA 2009 and Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Service Station and Refreshment Service), Development Permit for Environmentally Relevant Activity No. 8 (Chemical Storage), Development Permit for Reconfigure a Lot for Subdivision (2 into 5 Lots) and a Development Permit for Operational Works for Advertising Signage) on land described as Lots 1 and 211 on SP177875 and Easement A on SP177875 at the corner of Laidley-Plainland Road and Warrego Highway, Plainland, in accordance with the amended and/or deleted conditions below –

Preliminary Approval Document

Approved Plan List – Amended by the inclusion of the following plans:

Plan submitted 17 April 2014 being:

· Drawing No. A00 Issue A – Architectural Design Statement – 03/05/2014

· Drawing No. 01 Issue N – Site Plan – 20/03/2014

· Drawing No. 02 Issue O – Ground Level Plan – 20/03/2014

· Drawing No. 03 Issue G – Roof Plan – 28/02/2014

· Drawing No. 05 Issue C – Ground Level Areas – 04/02/2014

· Drawing No. 06 Issue E – Lower Ground Level Plan – 28/02/2014

· Drawing No. 07 Issue A – Lower Ground Level Areas – 04/02/2014

· Drawing No. 10 Issue E – North and South Elevations – 28/02/2014

· Drawing No. 11 Issue E – East and West Elevations – 28/02/2014

· Drawing No. 30 Issue D – Preliminary 3D View 1 – 28/02/2014

· Drawing No. 31 Issue D – Preliminary 3D Views 1 & 2 – 26/02/2014

· Drawing No. 32 Issue D – Preliminary 3D Views 4&5 – 27/02/2014

· Drawing No 14/067 PPO1 Revision B – 25/03/2014

Preliminary Approval Documentation and Further Approvals

Condition P3 – Amended to read:

The development must at all times comply with the Department of Transport and Main Roads – Concurrence Agency response dated 21 January 2011 and 30 June 2011; and

The development must at all times comply with the Department of Infrastructure and Planning – Concurrence Agency response dated 4 April 2011.

This Decision Notice also acknowledges the SARA - Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning ‘Notice about request for permissible change – relevant entity’ response dated 13 May 2014.

Engineering Conditions

Access and Parking

Condition BB7 – Deleted

Condition BB10 – Amended to read:

A footpath, 2.5 metres wide, is to be constructed along one side ~~of the entire length~~ of the internal Road as indicated on the approved site layout plan. The footpath is to be constructed in accordance with IPWEAQ Standard Drawing SEQ R-065. Kerb ramps shall be provided at intersections in accordance with IPWEAQ Standard Drawing SEQ R-090 and SEQ R-094

Material Change of Use – Development Permit for the Service Centre

Condition A1 – Amended to reference the following plans