co20170822 - report recommendations · committee recommendation 1. that cr mike charlton (deputy...

REPORT

Coordination Committee Meeting

Tuesday 22 August 2017 commencing at 10.38am

Strathpine Chambers 220 Gympie Road, Strathpine

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT The recommendations contained within this report of the Coordination Committee meeting held 22 August 2017 are recommended to the Council for adoption. COUNCILLOR ALLAN SUTHERLAND (MAYOR) CHAIRPERSON COORDINATION COMMITTEE Membership = 13 Quorum = 7 Mayor and all Councillors

ENDORSED GM20170822

Adoption Extract from General Meeting – 22 August 2017 (Page 17/1618) 12.1 Coordination Committee Meeting - 22 August 2017

(Pages 17/1620 - 17/1676) RESOLUTION

Moved by Cr Adrian Raedel Seconded by Cr Julie Greer CARRIED 13/0

That the report and recommendations of the Coordination Committee meeting held 22 August 2017 be adopted.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE a 22 August 2017 Report

COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE a 22 August 2017 Report

LIST OF ITEMS 1 GOVERNANCE SESSION (Cr Allan Sutherland, Mayor)

ITEM 1.1 1621 DELEGATIONS – DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2003, DISASTER MANAGEMENT REGULATION 2014 AND FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT 1990 - REGIONAL

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

REPORT DETAIL

ITEM 1.2 1624 LGAQ 121ST ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL MOTIONS - REGIONAL


REPORT DETAIL

2 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SESSION (Cr Mick Gillam)

ITEM 2.1 1627 DA/31944/2016/V2U - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - 115 KOBBLE CREEK ROAD, KOBBLE CREEK - DIVISION 11

RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

REPORT DETAIL

3 CORPORATE SERVICES SESSION (Cr Adrian Raedel)

ITEM 3.1 1664 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTING PACKAGE - JULY 2017 - REGIONAL


REPORT DETAIL

4 ASSET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE SESSION (Cr Peter Flannery)

ITEM 4.1 1667 PETRIE MILL DEVELOPMENT - SEWER MAIN RELOCATION - DIVISION 7


REPORT DETAIL

5 PARKS, RECREATION & SPORT SESSION (Cr Darren Grimwade)

6 LIFESTYLE & AMENITY SESSION (Cr Matt Constance)

7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM SESSION (Cr Julie Greer)

ITEM 7.1 1671 PROPOSED GRANT OF LEASE - 33 KING ST, CABOOLTURE - DIVISION 3


REPORT DETAIL

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE b 22 August 2017 Report

COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE b 22 August 2017 Report

8 GENERAL BUSINESS

ITEM 8.1 1674 REGIONAL EVENTS

ITEM 8.2 1674 DEVELOPMENT SCHEME - THE MILL PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA)


CLOSED SESSION (Confidential items)

ITEM C.1 – CONFIDENTIAL 1676 PROPERTY RATIONALISATION PROJECT - AUGUST 2017 - DIVISION 3


CLOSURE

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1620 22 August 2017 Report

COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1620 22 August 2017 Report

ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES Attendance: Committee Members: Cr Allan Sutherland (Mayor) (Chairperson) Cr Brooke Savige Cr Peter Flannery Cr Adam Hain Cr Julie Greer Cr James Houghton Cr Koliana Winchester Cr Denise Sims Cr Mick Gillam Cr Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor) Cr Matthew Constance Cr Darren Grimwade Cr Adrian Raedel Officers: Chief Executive Officer (Mr Daryl Hitzman) Director Community & Environmental Services (Mr Bill Halpin) Director Planning & Economic Development (Mr Stewart Pentland) Director Engineering, Construction & Maintenance (Mr Tony Martini) Director Executive & Property Services (Ms Anne Moffat) Manager Financial & Project Services (Mr Keith Pattinson) Coordinator Development Planning (Mr Tim Smith) Meeting Support Officer (Kathrine Crocker) Apologies: The Mayor is the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee. Coordination Committee meetings comprise of Sessions chaired by Council’s nominated Spokesperson (or Proxy) for that portfolio, as follows:

Session Spokesperson Proxy 1 Governance Cr Allan Sutherland (Mayor) Cr Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor) 2 Planning & Development Cr Mick Gillam Cr Adam Hain 3 Corporate Services Cr Adrian Raedel Cr Allan Sutherland (Mayor)/

Cr Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor) 4 Asset Construction & Maintenance Cr Peter Flannery Cr Allan Sutherland (Mayor)/

Cr Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor) 5 Parks, Recreation & Sport Cr Darren Grimwade Cr Denise Sims 6 Lifestyle & Amenity Cr Matt Constance Cr Brooke Savige 7 Economic Development & Tourism Cr Julie Greer Cr Allan Sutherland (Mayor)/

Cr Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor) 8 General Business Cr Allan Sutherland (Mayor) Cr Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor)



1 GOVERNANCE SESSION (Cr Allan Sutherland, Mayor) ITEM 1.1 DELEGATIONS – DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2003, DISASTER MANAGEMENT REGULATION 2014 AND FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT 1990 - REGIONAL Meeting / Session: 1 GOVERNANCE Reference: A15735124 : 15 August 2017 - Refer Supporting Information A15690166 &

A15690597 Responsible Officer: AM, Director Executive and Property Services Executive Summary This report recommends that Council delegate certain of its powers under the Disaster Management Act 2003, Disaster Management Regulation 2014 and Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), as listed in the supporting information to this report, in order that the CEO may sub-delegate powers as required to appropriately qualified employees or contractors of the Council. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Adrian Raedel Seconded by Cr Denise Sims CARRIED 13/0

1. That Council, pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, delegates to the Chief Executive Officer its powers under the Disaster Management Act 2003, as specified in supporting information #1 to this report.

2. That Council, pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, delegates to the

Chief Executive Officer its powers under the Disaster Management Regulation 2014, as specified in supporting information #2 to this report.

3. That Council pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, delegates to the Chief

Executive Officer its powers under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990, as specified in supporting information #3 to this report.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1622 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 1.1 DELEGATIONS – DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2003, DISASTER MANAGEMENT REGULATION 2014 AND FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT 1990 - REGIONAL - A15735124 (Cont.)


OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council, pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, delegates to the Chief

Executive Officer its powers under the Disaster Management Act 2003, as specified in supporting information #1 to this report.

2. That Council, pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, delegates to the Chief

Executive Officer its powers under the Disaster Management Regulation 2014, as specified in supporting information #2 to this report.

3. That Council pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, delegates to the Chief

Executive Officer its powers under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990, as specified in supporting information #3 to this report.

REPORT DETAIL 1. Background Council has certain powers under the Disaster Management Act 2003, Disaster Management Regulation 2014 and Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990. It is appropriate to delegate certain of those powers to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in order that the CEO may sub-delegate powers as required to appropriately qualified employees or contractors of the Council. It should be noted that a delegation of the Council’s powers does not prevent the Council from exercising any of those powers itself. 2. Explanation of Item Pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, the Council may resolve to delegate certain statutory powers to the CEO. Section 259 of the Local Government Act 2009 provides that the CEO may delegate his/her powers to appropriately qualified employee/s or contractor/s of the local government. It is recommended that the powers under the Disaster Management Act 2003, Disaster Management Regulation 2014 and Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 set out in the supporting information to this report be delegated to the CEO in order that the CEO may sub-delegate powers as required to appropriately qualified employees or contractors of the Council, as set out in the supporting information to this report. It must be noted that this report does not recommend the delegation of section 10(1) of the Disaster Management Act Regulation 2014 - “Power to appoint a chairperson and deputy chairperson of a local disaster management group.” to the Chief Executive Officer, as this is considered to be a matter for Council resolution only. 3. Strategic Implications 3.1 Legislative/Legal Implications

Delegations made under section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009 must be reviewed by the Council annually. A delegation of the Council’s powers does not prevent the Council from exercising any of those powers itself.

3.2 Corporate Plan / Operational Plan Strengthening Communities: Office of the CEO – overall leadership and co-ordination of Council activities.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1623 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 1.1 DELEGATIONS – DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2003, DISASTER MANAGEMENT REGULATION 2014 AND FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT 1990 - REGIONAL - A15735124 (Cont.)


3.3 Policy Implications

There are no policy implications that are directly related to this report.

3.4 Risk Management Implications There are no risk management implications that are directly related to this report.

3.5 Delegated Authority Implications The CEO will be delegated authority to exercise various powers of Council under the Disaster Management Act 2003, Disaster Management Regulation 2014 and Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990. The CEO may sub-delegate these powers to appropriately qualified employees or contractors of the Council.

3.6 Financial Implications There are no financial implications that are directly related to this report.

3.7 Economic Benefit There are no economic benefits that are directly related to this report.

3.8 Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications that are directly related to this report.

3.9 Social Implications There are no social implications that are directly related to this report.

3.10 Consultation / Communication

Consultation has been carried out with the Chief Executive Officer, Directors and Managers of the Community & Environmental Services and Engineering, Construction & Maintenance directorates, Financial & Project Services and Legal Services.



ITEM 1.2 LGAQ 121ST ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL MOTIONS - REGIONAL Meeting / Session: 1 GOVERNANCE Reference: A15758796 : 17 August 2017 Responsible Officer: TD, Junior Executive Assistant (EPS Executive Services) Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s endorsement of motions for the 2017 Australian Local Government of Queensland (LGAQ) Conference in Gladstone from 16-18 October 2017. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Peter Flannery Seconded by Cr Adrian Raedel CARRIED 13/0

That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to submit the motions contained in this report for inclusion in the 2017 LGAQ Conference agenda.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1625 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 1.2 LGAQ 121ST ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL MOTIONS - REGIONAL - A15758796 (Cont.)


OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to submit the motions contained in this report for inclusion in the 2017 LGAQ Conference agenda. REPORT DETAIL 1. Background At the Coordination Committee meeting held 15 August 2017, Council supported the attendance of Councillors Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor), Peter Flannery, Koliana Winchester, Mick Gillam, Matt Constance, Darren Grimwade and Adrian Raedel to the 121st LGAQ Conference in Gladstone from 16-18 October 2017. The following resolution appears on Minute Page 17/1599 of the General Meeting of Council held 15 August 2017: Ex. Coordination Committee held 15 August 2017 (Page 17/1602) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 1. That Cr Mike Charlton (Deputy Mayor) and Cr Peter Flannery be Council’s delegates to the LGAQ

121st Annual Conference. 2. That Crs Winchester, Gillam, Constance, Grimwade and Raedel attend the LGAQ 121st Annual

Conference as observers. As a part of Council’s attendance to the LGAQ Conference, LGAQ has requested that Council submit motions for inclusion in the 2017 conference agenda. Motions for inclusion are to be submitted electronically by Friday 25 August 2017. 2. Explanation of Item Council is seeking the following motions to be included in the LGAQ conference agenda: • Proportionate representation for councils at the Australian Local Government Association National

General Assembly. • State funding for the operation of council CCTV networks. • Aligning the State Government’s consultation and public notification responsibilities for planning

processes with that of local government; and • Delivering cost-effective infrastructure provision. 3. Strategic Implications 3.1 Legislative/Legal Implications

There are no legislation/legal implications directly arising from this report.

3.2 Corporate Plan / Operational Plan Strengthening Communities: Office of the CEO - overall leadership and coordination of council activities.

3.3 Policy Implications There are no direct policy implications arising from this report.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1626 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 1.2 LGAQ 121ST ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL MOTIONS - REGIONAL - A15758796 (Cont.)


3.4 Risk Management Implications

There are no direct risk management implications arising from this report.

3.5 Delegated Authority Implications Council’s delegates will have voting rights at part of the 2017 Annual Conference.

3.6 Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.

3.7 Economic Benefit

Topics and motions associated with the conference will address a range of economic factors in local government.


Topics and motions associated with the conference will address a range of environmental challenges facing local government.

3.9 Social Implications

Topics and motions associated with the conference will address a range of social challenges facing local government.

3.10 Consultation / Communication

Consultation undertaken with all Councillors and Directors. ATTENDANCE Mr Tim Smith (Coordinator Development Planning) attended the meeting at 10.40am for discussion on Item 2.1.



2 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SESSION (Cr Mick Gillam) Perceived Conflict of Interest - Declaration Pursuant to s173(4) of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Denise Sims declared a perceived conflict of interest could exist in the following matter as the Councillor has a close relative who lives close to the location in question, and retired from the meeting at 10.41am, taking no part in the debate or recommendation regarding same. ITEM 2.1 DA/31944/2016/V2U - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - 115 KOBBLE CREEK ROAD, KOBBLE CREEK - DIVISION 11 APPLICANT: NBN OWNER: Ms Belinda J Davies Meeting / Session: 2 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Reference: A14331919 : 20 October 2016 – Refer Supporting Information A14331958 Responsible Officer: RG, Planner (PED Development Services) Executive Summary

Applicable Planning Scheme Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme (MBRC PS)

Applicant NBN C/- Aurecon Australasia

Owner(s) Ms Belinda J Davies Site Address 115 Kobble Creek Road, Kobble Creek Property Description Lot 2 RP186424 Area 16.1 ha Proposal Material Change of Use - Development Permit for

Telecommunications Facility Proposal Plans Refer to proposal plan in Appendices of this report. Assessment Level Impact Assessable Requested Approvals Development Permit - Material Change of Use

(under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009) Consistent / Inconsistent proposal Consistent Planning Scheme Details Rural Zone Relevant Codes Rural Zone Code

Works Code Application ‘properly made’ 8 June 2016 Information Request Issued: 21 June 2016

Final response received: 15 July 2016 Referral Agencies Concurrence Agencies:

Department of Infrastructure Local Government and Planning Advice Agencies: Nil

Public Notification (Notice of Compliance received)

5 September 2016

Submissions Received Properly Made: Seven (7) Not Properly Made: Two (2)

Decision Stage ends 7 September 2017

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1628 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 2.1 DA/31944/2016/V2U - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - 115 KOBBLE CREEK ROAD, KOBBLE CREEK - DIVISION 11 - A14331919 (Cont.)


Is a Notation to the Planning scheme required?

Not Applicable

Number of Existing Lots One (1) Further Development Permits that may be required

Development Permit for Building Work

This application seeks a Material Change of Use - Development Permit for Telecommunications Facility situated at 115 Kobble Creek Road, Kobble Creek, on land described as Lot 2 RP 186424. It is proposed to establish a new Telecommunications Facility (for the NBN) in order to provide Fixed Wireless internet services to over 150 premises in the Kobble Creek area. The facility has an overall height of 41 metres (including all structures) and comprises a monopole with a parabolic antenna affixed to the monopole and three (3) panel antenna affixed to the headframe. The facility is located along the western property boundary, near Kobble Creek Road. The subject site is located within the Rural Zone and has an area of 16.1ha. Locality plan attached. The site is identified as being located within the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area in the South-East Queensland Regional Plan. The application was publicly notified with seven properly made and two not properly made submissions received. The proposed development is considered to accord with the intent of the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme, and is recommended to be approved, subject to conditions. The proposal was lodged with Council and deemed to be “Properly Made” on 8 June 2016. Accordingly, this application has been assessed in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Matt Constance Seconded by Cr James Houghton

That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted as detailed in the report. AMENDMENT MOVED Cr Darren Grimwade moved the following amendment: That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted as detailed in the report with the following inclusions: a) New table under Setbacks, stipulating that the Site Setout Plan is not approved and is required

to be amended by conditions of the approval:

Table of Plans and Documents to be Amended

Plan / Document Name

Reference Number Prepared By Dated

Site Setout Plan 4DYB-51-02-KOBB-C3 Rev 01 Aurecon 21/03/2016 b) New condition requiring an amendment to the Site Setout Plan to increase the setback

distance of the proposed monopole tower to the boundary adjacent to Kobble Creek Road from 8.9m to a minimum of 10.0m.

Amended Plans Required (a) Submit an amended Site Setout Plan incorporating the

following: Prior to approval of Building Works



Amended Plans Required (i) A minimum 10.0m setback between the monopole

and the Kobble Creek Road fronting property boundary. Note: As part of the amendments to the Site Setout Plan, ensure that the outdoor cabinets maintain a minimum of 10.0m from the Kobble Creek Road frontage boundary.

(b) Obtain approval from Council for the amended plans in accordance with (a) above.

(c) Implement the requirements and recommendations of the approved plans. The approved amended plan(s) will form part of the approval.

c) New condition to require a Vegetation Management Plan to be submitted for Council approval

which stipulates retention of all vegetation other than within the area required to be removed to establish the facility and compensatory planting of 5 trees for every tree removed.

Vegetation Management Plan

(a) Submit a Vegetation Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person and include scaled plans and supporting documentation that provides for the following:

(1) Retention of all native vegetation other than those trees specifically required for removal to establish the use;

(2) Retention of habitat trees and healthy trees throughout the development;

(3) Control measures, maintenance procedures and monitoring programs;

(4) Onsite compensatory replanting of native vegetation cleared, at a rate no less than 5 replacement trees (native species) for each native tree removed. This replanting is in addition to the native screening landscaping required by other conditions of this approval.

(b) Obtain approval from Council for the Vegetation Management Plan in accordance with (a) above.

(c) Carry out works in accordance with the approved Vegetation Management Plan.

(a) Prior to approval of Building Works

(b) Prior to works commencing

onsite (c) At all times

Seconded by Cr Matt Constance The amendment was put to the vote and declared CARRIED 12/0 Cr Denise Sims had declared a conflict of interest and had left the meeting.



THE AMENDMENT BECOMES THE RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Darren Grimwade Seconded by Cr Matt Constance CARRIED 12/0 Cr Denise Sims had declared a conflict of interest and had left the meeting

That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted as detailed in the report with the following inclusions: a) New table under Setbacks, stipulating that the Site Setout Plan is not approved and is required

to be amended by conditions of the approval:

Table of Plans and Documents to be Amended

Plan / Document Name

Reference Number Prepared By Dated

Site Setout Plan 4DYB-51-02-KOBB-C3 Rev 01 Aurecon 21/03/2016 b) New condition requiring an amendment to the Site Setout Plan to increase the setback

distance of the proposed monopole tower to the boundary adjacent to Kobble Creek Road from 8.9m to a minimum of 10.0

Amended Plans Required (a) Submit an amended Site Setout Plan incorporating the

following: (i) A minimum 10.0m setback between the monopole

and the Kobble Creek Road fronting property boundary. Note: As part of the amendments to the Site Setout Plan, ensure that the outdoor cabinets maintain a minimum of 10.0m from the Kobble Creek Road frontage boundary.

(b) Obtain approval from Council for the amended plans in

accordance with (a) above (c) Implement the requirements and recommendations of

the approved plans. The approved amended plan(s) will form part of the approval.

Prior to approval of Building Works

c) New condition to require a Vegetation Management Plan to be submitted for Council approval

which stipulates retention of all vegetation other than within the area required to be removed to establish the facility and compensatory planting of 5 trees for every tree removed.


(a) Submit a Vegetation Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person and include scaled plans and supporting documentation that provides for the following:

(5) Retention of all native vegetation other than those trees specifically required for removal to establish the use;

(a) Prior to approval of Building Works




(6) Retention of habitat trees and healthy trees throughout the development

(7) Control measures, maintenance procedures and monitoring programs

(8) Onsite compensatory replanting of native vegetation cleared , at a rate no less than 5 replacement trees (native species) for each native tree removed. This replanting is in addition to the native screening landscaping required by other conditions of this approval.

(b) Obtain approval from Council for the Vegetation Management Plan in accordance with (a) above.

(c) Carry out works in accordance with the approved

Vegetation Management Plan.

(b) Prior to works commencing

onsite (c) At all times



OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION A. That Council, in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, approves a Material Change of

Use - Development Permit for Telecommunications Facility at 115 Kobble Creek Road, Kobble Creek, described as Lot 2 RP 186424, subject to the following conditions:

Approved Plans and Documents Plan / Document Name Reference Number Prepared By Dated Overall Site Plan 4DYB-51-02-KOBB-C2 Rev 01 Aurecon 21/03/2016 Site Setout Plan 4DYB-51-02-KOBB-C3 Rev 01 Aurecon 21/03/2016 Site Elevation and Details 4DYB-51-02-KOBB-C4 Rev 01 Aurecon 21/03/2016 NBN Antenna Configuration & Setout Plan 4DYB-51-02-KOBB-A1 Rev 01 Aurecon 21/03/2016

MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

CONDITIONS TIMING

1. Approved Plans and/or Documents

Undertake development generally in accordance with the approved plans and/or documents. These plans and/or documents will form part of the approval, unless otherwise amended by conditions of this approval.

Prior to commencement of use and to be maintained at all times.

2. Amenity of the Area

Carry out the use so that there is no detrimental effect on the amenity of any person or property, resulting from the emission of noise, vibration, odour, air pollutants, glare, waste water, waste products, grit, oil or otherwise.

At all times.

3. Colour of Telecommunication Facility

Ensure that the telecommunication facility and associated equipment shelter is painted with a colour that blends with the adjacent bushland vegetation and complies with the colour range detailed as follows unless otherwise approved by Council in writing: (a). Registered Colourbond ‘Pale Eucalypt’ non-reflective paint; OR (b). Acceptable colours from Australian Standard AS2700s - 1996 or

equivalent that are appropriate for highly visible surfaces as they

Prior to commencement of use and to be maintained at all times.



are considered to be harmonious with the natural landscape listed below.

G52 - Euclayptus G53 - Banksia N45 - Koala Gray N32 - Green Gray G54 - Mist Green Y63 - Khaki N - 35 Light Grey G56 - Sage Green G55 - Lichen

4. Warning Sign

A warning information sign is to be provided at the entrance to the lease area to prevent unauthorised entry.

To be maintained at all times after the commencement of use.

5. Security Fencing

Erect a security fence, with a maximum height of 2.4m, along all sides of the lease area.

Prior to commencement of the use and to be maintained at all times.

6. Noise

Air conditioning equipment must be located, designed, installed and maintained to achieve a component noise level of 0dB(A) above background noise level when measured at an affected building for a noise sensitive use. Notes: The component noise level for the equipment is to be measured as an LA90, T. ‘Background Noise Level’ means LA90, T being the A-weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 90 percent of the time period not less than 15 minutes using fast response.

Prior to commencement of the use and to be maintained at all times.

7. No Net Loss of Fauna Habitat

Development does not result in the net loss of fauna habitat. Where development does result in the loss of a Habitat Tree, development will provide replacement fauna nesting boxes at the following rate: (a) One (1) nest box for every hollow removed; or (b) Where hollows have not yet formed in trees greater than 80cm in

diameter at 1.3m height, three (3) nest boxes are required for every habitat tree removed.

Prior to the commencement of use.

8. Landscaping

(a) Provide a minimum three (3) metres wide landscaping buffer along all sides of the complex (where there is no turnaround areas/gates or the like). The area is to be landscaped in accordance with Planning Scheme Policy - Integrated Design - Appendix D Landscape Design and Street Trees.

(a) Prior to the commencement of use.



The landscaping must also include the following:

(i) Plant species are to include a mix of native shrubs and trees

where the selected tree species reach a minimum mature height of 2.0 metres; and

(ii) Plants species that provide a dense vegetation to offer screening;

(iii) Species that are koala friendly food and shelter trees. (b) Provide certification from a suitably qualified person, that

landscaping has been implemented in accordance with (a) above.

(c) Maintain landscaping.

(b) Prior to commencement of use.

(c) At all times.

9. Management of Wildlife

(a) Carry out approved vegetation clearing under the supervision of a Fauna Spotter Catcher holding a valid Rehabilitation Permit from the relevant State Government Agency.

(b) Any hollows observed in cleared vegetation must be inspected, salvaged and installed as nest boxes in trees within the property.

(c) Provide an activity report, to be completed by the supervising

Fauna Spotter Catcher, including: (i) The number and species of any animals observed during

clearing; (ii) The actions taken to deal with observed animals; (iii) The number of any animals that were required to be

relocated; (iv) The release site for any relocated animals; (iv) The number (if any) of animals injured during clearing; (v) The treatment provided; (vi) The outcome of any treatment; and (vii) The location of the treatment.

(a) Prior to and during site works.

(b) Within fourteen

(14) days of completion of clearing.

10. Temporary Exclusion Fencing

Delineate areas where vegetation is proposed to be retained with exclusion fencing to prevent accidental felling. Clearing is to be undertaken in accordance with AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

During site works.

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING

11. DE302 Replace Existing Council Infrastructure

Replace existing Council infrastructure (including but not limited to street trees and footpaths) that is damaged as part of construction works, to a standard which is consistent with Council’s standards.

Prior to commencement of use.

12. DE303 Alterations and Relocation of Existing Services



ADVICE

1. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 commenced in Queensland on April 16, 2004. Under the Act, indigenous parties are key in assessing cultural heritage significance. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 establishes a Duty of Care for indigenous cultural heritage. This applies on all land and water, including freehold land. The Cultural Heritage Duty of Care lies with the person or entity conducting the activity. Penalty provisions apply for failing to fulfil the Cultural Heritage Duty of Care. Those proposing an activity that involves additional surface disturbance beyond that which has already occurred on the proposed site need to be mindful of the Duty of Care requirement. Details of how to fulfil the Duty of Care are outlined in the Duty of Care Guidelines gazetted with the Act. Council strongly advises that you contact the relevant state agency to obtain a copy of the Duty of Care Guidelines and further information on the responsibilities of developer under the terms of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003.

B. That all external Referral Agencies for the application be provided with a copy of Council’s Decision

Notice. REPORT DETAIL 1. Background There is an existing dwelling house on site.

Any alteration or relocation in connection with or arising from the development to any service, installation, plant, equipment or other item belonging to or under the control of the telecommunications authority, electricity authorities, the Council or other person engaged in the provision of public utility services is to be carried with the development and at no cost to Council.

Prior to commencement of use.

CONCURRENCE AGENCY

13. Concurrence Agency Conditions

(a) Comply with the conditions of Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning response dated 21 July 2016 (reference: SDA-0716-031755) or as amended.

(b) Provide certification to Council prepared by a suitably qualified

person or the agency demonstrating the requirements of the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning have been met.

(a) At all times. (b) At all times.



2. Explanation of Item 2.1 Proposal Details This application seeks a Material Change of Use - Development Permit for Telecommunications Facility situated at 115 Kobble Creek Road, Kobble Creek, on land described as Lot 2 RP 186424. It is proposed to establish a new Telecommunications Facility (NBN) in order to provide Fixed Wireless internet services to over 150 premises in the Kobble Creek area. Of three candidate sites identified by the NBN as potentially being suitable to provide this fixed wireless internet service, the subject site was chosen as being the most appropriate site for the proposed Telecommunications Facility for the following reasons: (a) There were found to be no viable opportunities for ‘co-siting’ of the Fixed Wireless facility with any

other forms of existing infrastructure. A search of the Radio Frequency National Site Archive confirms that no viable co-location opportunities exist in the Kobble Creek area, and the closest existing facility to the targeted Kobble Creek area is located more than 3.7 km to the south, and given the large separation distance from Kobble Creek, co-location on this existing facility would not provide good/reliable coverage to the targeted service area;

(b) The proposed facility has been located on a large 16.1ha rural allotment which allows for separation from nearby dwellings, the closest of which is approximately 200m to the north-west;

(c) Dense vegetation within the surrounding Kobble Creek area will assist in minimising the potential visual impact of the facility when viewed from the wider area;

(d) The undulating topography of the area will obscure views towards the facility when viewed from southern directions, with the elevation dropping as much as 40m to the rural residential properties located along Dales Road and Pringles Road;

(e) The location is accessible to a reliable power supply; and (f) The location enables the overall height of the proposed facility to be restricted to 41m (from the

ground) whilst still achieving coverage to all the targeted localities and obtaining line of sight to other planned sites in the NBN wireless network.

The proposed Telecommunications Facility has an overall height of 41 metres (including all structures) and includes a single monopole located along the western property boundary with one (1) parabolic antenna affixed to the monopole and three (3) panel antenna affixed to the headframe. The proposed facility is a part of the NBN network and is a “transmission end site”, that requires line of sight to other NBN facilities in the network. Clearing of 280m2 vegetation is required to facilitate the construction of the facility. The site is to be accessed via the existing access from Kobble Creek Road and a proposed access track. The subject site is located within the Rural Zone and has an area of 16.1ha. Locality plan attached. 2.2 Site and Locality

2.2.1 Topography The site has a varied topography with a maximum elevation of approximately 119 metres AHD and a minimum elevation of approximately 75 metres AHD.

There is an overland flow path that traverses the site generally in a south-westerly direction.

The site is vegetated, with the selected location of the proposed facility being the part of the site located between Kobble Creek Road and the internal access driveway (covered by an access easement).



2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use There is an existing dwelling house on the site, approximately 190 metres from the proposed facility. The nearest house on an adjoining property is approximately 200m metres away to the north-west. There are eleven (11) dwelling houses located within 500 metres of the site including the house on the subject site. The surrounding area is predominantly used for large lot (rural residential) purposes:

Direction Planning Scheme Zone

Current Land Use

North Rural Dwelling House South Rural Dwelling House East Rural Dwelling House and Agriculture West Rural Dwelling House and Animal Husbandry

2.3 State Planning Instrument Assessment

2.3.1 State Planning Regulatory Provisions (SPRPs) An assessment against each of the State Planning Regulatory Provisions is set out as follows:

Name Designation Applicable Requirements State Planning Regulatory Provision (Adopted Charges)

None Not Applicable to Development Assessment however the SPRP has informed the Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution that is discussed in section 2.5.1 of this report.

State Planning Regulatory Provisions (Adult Stores)

None The development proposal is not for an Adult Store and therefore the State Planning Regulatory Provisions do not apply.

South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions

Priority Koala Assessable Development Area

The site is located in a Priority Koala Assessable Development Area, and Division 6 of the Regulatory Provisions applies to development that is a material change of use of premises, reconfiguring a lot or operational work in any koala habitat type. Development must comply with the assessment criteria listed in Table 6, Column 2. An assessment as to how the development satisfies the provisions in the State Planning Regulatory Provisions has been undertaken (refer section 2.3.1.1 below), and the proposal has been found to be consistent with the SPRP.

Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (SEQRP) State

Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area

The development proposal is for a Material Change of Use in the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area.



Name Designation Applicable Requirements Planning Regulatory Provisions - May 2014 Version

As the proposal is not for an ‘Urban Activity’ (telecommunications facilities are excluded from the definition of an Urban Activity), the regulatory provisions for a Material Change of Use in the Regional Landscape & Rural Production Area do not apply. The proposed development is consistent with the land use expectations of the Regional Plan.

2.3.1.1 SEQ Koala SPRP

The site is located in a Priority Koala Assessable Development Area (PKADA), and therefore Division 6 of the South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions is relevant to the proposed development. The South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions prescribe the circumstances in which assessment against the assessment criteria (“Column 2”) must be carried out. The Regulatory Provisions also prescribe (“Column 1”) the circumstances in which the assessment criteria does not apply:

Table 6, Column 1 Assessable development to which Division

6 does not apply

Response

1. Development for a domestic activity. N/A. The proposed development is not for a Domestic Activity.

2. Development on premises that will not result in any of the following: a. clearing of native vegetation that will

result in a total cleared area of more than 500m2;

b. a new building or extension and any reasonably associated infrastructure that will result in a total development footprint of more than 500m2;

c. extracting gravel, rock or sand from an area of more than 5,000m2;

d. the excavation or filling of an area of more than 5,000m2

It is noted that there is existing clearing on site that is historic and occurred prior to the SEQ Koala SPRP coming into effect. While the proposal will involve the clearing of approximately 280m2 of vegetation (some of which being native vegetation that includes non-juvenile koala habitat trees), the extent of clearing proposed (280m2) is less than the 500m2 that would trigger assessment against Division 6. The proposed development does not propose clearing in excess than that provided for an ‘exemption’ under the Regulatory Provisions (Item 2a.).

3. Reconfiguring a lot that will not result in the creation of an additional lot.

N/A. The proposal does not include a reconfiguring a lot component.

The siting of the proposed Telecommunications Facility will require the clearing of approximately 280m2 of existing vegetation. As the development does not result in the clearing of more than 500m2 of native vegetation development (under Item 2a.), the proposal does not trigger assessment against Division 6 of the Queensland Government’s South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions.



Notwithstanding the above, the development application was supported by a Koala Habitat Assessment that included a site survey identifying the location of non-juvenile koala habitat trees within the development area. The Koala Habitat Assessment identified up to eight (8) non-juvenile koala habitat trees within the proposed compound area, likely to be removed as part of the clearing of approximately 280m2 of existing vegetation. The recommendations of this report include conditions relating to the construction management strategies to ensure wildlife protection during construction, as well as the landscaping of the facility with native koala-friendly species. As the development does not result in the clearing of more than 500m2 of native vegetation development (under Item 2a.), the proposal does not trigger assessment against Division 6 of the SEQ Koala SPRP. The proposed development has been found to be compliant with the Regulatory Provisions.

2.3.2 State Planning Policy On 16 November 2015, notification was given to Council that all State Interests had been integrated into the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme with the exception of the State Interest - natural hazards, risk and resilience (coastal hazards - erosion prone areas). Accordingly, the interim development assessment requirements set out within the State Planning Policy (SPP) for coastal hazards - erosion prone areas is to be applied by Council in the assessment of development applications until this State Interest has been appropriately integrated into Council’s planning scheme. Assessment against the SPP for this one State Interest is as follows;

State interest - Natural Hazards Applicable to Development SPP Requirement Comment

Yes

No

None

Not applicable

2.4 Local Planning Instrument Assessment – Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme

2.4.1 Strategic Framework An assessment against the Strategic Framework has been undertaken and the proposal complies. 2.4.2 Assessment of Applicable Codes

2.4.2.1 Code Compliance Summary The assessment below identifies how the development proposal complies (subject to the application of any recommended conditions of approval) with the applicable codes and where the development proposal;

(a) proposes an alternative outcome to an Acceptable Outcome, satisfying or not satisfying

the corresponding Performance Outcome; and (b) proposes an outcome where no Acceptable Outcome is stated in the code and the

proposed Outcome does not satisfy the corresponding Performance Outcome.



Applicable Codes Compliance with Overall Outcomes

Performance Outcomes assessment

is required against Zone/ Locality Code

Rural Zone Code Yes PO3, PO10, PO26, PO76, PO77, PO95, PO121

Development Codes Works Code Yes

The assessment of the development proposal against the Performance Outcomes of the applicable codes is discussed below in section 5.2.2.

2.4.2.2 Performance Outcome Assessment

Performance Outcome Acceptable Outcome

Rural Zone Code PO3 Height of buildings and structures:

a. is consistent with the existing low rise, open area and low density character and amenity of the Rural zone and its precincts;

b. does not unduly impact on access to daylight, sunlight, overshadowing or privacy experienced by adjoining premises;

c. for buildings in the Hamlet precinct, the height of buildings reflect the individual character of the area;

d. does not adversely affect the operation of aviation facility at Mt Glorious by adopting design or on-site management measures that:

i. ensures a physical line-of-sight between transmitting or receiving devices.

ii. ensure electromagnetic fields do not interfere with the functioning of the aviation facility.

AO3 Building height and all structures do not exceed the maximum height identified on Overlay map - Building heights; except in the Hamlet precinct, where outbuildings, free standing car ports or garages do not exceed 3.5m.

Alternative Solution/s Assessment The applicant proposes an alternative solution to Acceptable Outcome AO3 of the Rural Zone Code. The proposed facility is 41 metres to the top of the facility from natural ground exceeding the 8.5 metres building height limit identified on the Overlay Map for building height referred to as an acceptable solution.




Rural Zone Code The proposal includes a monopole construction with panel antenna mounted on the headframe at the top of the pole and parabolic antennas located towards the top of the pole. The structure will not impact on access to daylight, sunlight, or introduce overshadowing to adjoining properties given the slim construction of the tower. The facility does not affect the operation of the aviation facility at Mt Glorious. While the proposed tower will be visible from some surrounding vantage points, given the varied topography of the surrounding area combined with the existing dense vegetation, the visual impact is consistent with the low density character of the Rural Zone. The proposed facility is required to exceed the height of the existing vegetation to ensure line-of-sight to other facilities within the NBN network (to maintain an efficient wireless network) and this increased visibility is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area. Facilities that are below the canopy cannot function to provide the intended services. It is acknowledged that the structure is significantly taller than the existing surrounding built form, however this has been reduced by the siting of the facility in proximity to the existing mature trees to help reduce the visual recognition within the landscape. The proposed alternative solution complies with Performance Outcome PO3 and is accepted in this instance. PO10 On-site car parking associated with an activity provides safe and convenient on-site parking and manoeuvring to meet anticipated parking demand. Note - Refer to Planning scheme policy - Integrated transport assessment for guidance on how to achieve compliance with this outcome.

AO10 On-site car parking is provided in accordance Schedule 7 - Car parking.

Performance Outcome Assessment

The applicant does not propose to include any formalised car parking on site. Schedule 7 of the Planning Scheme requires one (1) space to be provided for visiting staff to the site. The proposed towers will not have regular visitors and are sited on large sites with adequate space for informal car parking arrangements. Access tracks are proposed and these may also accommodate any vehicle that visits the site for maintenance and servicing of the facility. The proposed site layout provides safe and convenient areas available for car parking that meets the anticipated parking demand for the proposed use. The alternative solution complies with Performance Outcome PO10 and is accepted in this instance.




Rural Zone Code

PO26 Safe access is provided for all vehicles required to access the site.

AO26.2 Internal driveways and access ways are designed and constructed in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1 Parking Facilities – Off street car parking and the relevant standards in Planning scheme policy - Integrated design. Note - This includes queue lengths (refer to Schedule 8 Service vehicle requirements), pavement widths and construction. AO26.3 Access driveways, manoeuvring areas and loading facilities provide for service vehicles listed in Schedule 8 Service vehicle requirements for the relevant use. The on-site manoeuvring is to be in accordance with Schedule 8 Service vehicle requirements.


The proposal includes a sealed internal driveway (existing) and proposed access track and turn around area (gravel). Schedule 8 specifies that for a Telecommunications Facility, the service vehicle is a Heavy Rigid Vehicle (HRV). The applicant has advised that the facility is serviced irregularly by a small utility vehicle or a 4WD and not a HRV. The existing driveway has a safe access location onto Kobble Creek Road and the proposed gravel access is suitable to ensure safe access for the vehicles accessing the site. The proposed alternative solution to utilise a gravel access suitable for the likely vehicle being a Small Rigid Vehicle complies with Performance Outcome PO26 and is accepted in this instance. PO76 The Telecommunications facility(81) does not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of a locality and is:

a. high quality design and construction;

b. visually integrated with the surrounding area;

c. not visually dominant or intrusive;

d. located behind the main building line;

e. below the level of the predominant tree canopy or

AO76.2 In all other areas towers do not exceed 35m in height. AO76.4 All structures and buildings are setback behind the main building line and a minimum of 10m from side and rear boundaries, except where in the Industry and Extractive industry zones, the minimum side and rear setback is 3m.

http://consult.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/portal/mbrcplanningschemeadopted?pointId=s1332743658181#target-d160857e492290




Rural Zone Code the level of the surrounding buildings and structures;

f. camouflaged through the use of colours and materials which blend into the landscape;

g. treated to eliminate glare and reflectivity;

h. landscaped; i. otherwise consistent with the

amenity and character of the zone and surrounding area.

Where there is no established building line the facility is located at the rear of the site.


At an overall height of 41 metres the proposed NBN facility is 6 metres taller than the 35 metres identified in Acceptable Outcome AO76.2. The proposal includes a setback of 5 metres from the existing north-western property boundary to the security fence and 8.9 metres to the proposed monopole (the structure) within the compound area - which is less than the 10 metres identified in Acceptable Outcome AO76.4. Setback Kobble Creek Road has an especially large road reserve width in the vicinity of the proposed Telecommunications Facility, where the width of the road reserve is up to 70 metres in parts. The proposed compound area is sited approximately 50m from the closest boundary of any other property in the area - being the eastern property boundary of Lot 4 on RP160503 on the opposite side of Kobble Creek Road - and has been sited in excess of 190 metres from the existing dwelling house on that same property. The Kobble Creek Road road pavement is setback approximately 10m away from (and 4m lower than) the property boundary it shares with the subject site. The proposal offers a setback of 5 metres from the site’s north-western property boundary (against Kobble Creek Road) to the security fence on the edge of the Telecommunication Facility’s proposed compound area - and 8.9 metres to the proposed monopole structure that is located within the compound - which is less than the 10 metres identified in Acceptable Outcome AO76.4 of the Rural Zone Code. While the setback is proposed to be reduced to less than 10m from the property boundary, the proposed telecommunications facility is located in excess of 190 metres from the existing dwelling house on the property. The reduced boundary setback will not result in the proposed telecommunications facility having an adverse impact on the visual amenity. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the facility to be painted compatible colours to help camouflage with the surrounding landscape. The proposed design is a slender monopole that has reduced bulk contributing to a built form that is not visually dominant or intrusive. The facility is not located behind the main building line as this would site the tower closer to existing dwellings. As the facility is not




Rural Zone Code behind the main building line, the alternative solution does not achieve PO76 (d) and an assessment against the Overall Outcomes is included in section 2.4.2.3 of this report (below). Height The proposal includes a monopole construction for the proposed tower that assists in ensuring that the design of the development reduces the visual dominance. The facility is partially obscured by the existing mature vegetation within the surrounding area however will still be visible from certain vantage points. The tower protrudes above the level of the predominant tree canopy to ensure that a network connection to the surrounding transmission sites in the NBN network can be achieved. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the facility to be painted/treated to reduce glare and camouflage with the surrounding visual amenity. There is existing vegetation on the site however considering the proposed clearing of vegetation and proximity to the road frontage, it is considered necessary to require additional landscaping surrounding the security fencing. The facility, by its nature to deliver a signal to surrounding properties, cannot achieve a low set built form as it requires line-of-sight to surrounding NBN facilities in the regional network, and to the dwellings it may service. Given that the nature of a telecommunications facility requires clearance over vegetation in order to provide and maintain a reliable signal, the proposal cannot comply with part (e) of the Performance Outcome. An assessment against the Overall Outcomes is included in section 2.4.2.3 of this report (below). PO77 Lawful access is maintained to the site at all times that does not alter the amenity of the landscape or surrounding uses.

AO77 An Access and Landscape Plan demonstrates how 24 hour vehicular access will be obtained and maintained to the facility in a manner that is appropriate to the site’s context.


The application did not include an access and landscape plan to demonstrate the 24hr vehicle access to the site. The proposal includes constructed access to the facility that will allow for lawful access at all times. The surrounding area will not be altered to accommodate the access. The alternative solution complies with Performance Outcome PO77 of the Rural Zone Code and is accepted in this instance. PO95 Development:

a. minimises the number of buildings and people working and living on a site exposed to bushfire risk;

AO95.2 Buildings and structures have contained within the site:

a. a separation from classified vegetation of 20m or the distance required to achieve a bushfire attack level (BAL) at the building, roofed structure or




Rural Zone Code b. ensures the protection of life

during the passage of a fire front;

c. is located and designed to increase the chance of survival of buildings and structures during a bushfire;

d. minimises bushfire risk from build up of fuels around buildings and structures;

ensure safe and effective access for emergency services during a bushfire.

fire fighting water supply of no more than 29, whichever is the greater;

b. a separation from low threat vegetation of 10m or the distance required to achieve a bushfire attack level (BAL) at the building, roofed structure or fire fighting water supply of no more than 29, whichever is the greater;

c. a separation of no less than 10m between a fire fighting water supply extraction point and any classified vegetation, buildings and other roofed structures;

d. an area suitable for a standard fire fighting appliance to stand within 3m of a fire fighting water supply extraction point; and

e. an access path suitable for use by a standard fire fighting appliance having a formed width of at least 4m, a cross-fall of no greater than 5%, and a longitudinal gradient of no greater than 25%:

i. to, and around, each building and other roofed structure; and

ii. to each fire fighting water supply extraction point.

Note - The meaning of the terms classified vegetation and low threat vegetation as well as the method of calculating the bushfire attack level are as described in Australian Standard AS 3959


The proposed facility is located adjacent to existing vegetation and does not achieve the separation distances outlined above. The structure is designed to be resilient to bushfire damage and does not increase the bushfire risk as there are no sparks, open flame or undue heat. The use, for a Telecommunications Facility, does not increase the number of people living or working within the area and therefore will not increase the risk or impact of the natural hazard. The cables associated with the facility are proposed




Rural Zone Code to be enclosed within a galvanised casing and ensure that the equipment cabinet and meter board (for electricity) are design to resist ember penetration. Requiring a cleared vegetation separation area around the facility would require the removal of existing vegetation, which is otherwise proposed to be maintained to aid in the screening of the proposed facility and minimise the impacts of development on the locality. The development complies with Performance Outcome PO95 and is accepted in this instance. PO121 Development:

a. maintains the safety of people and property on a site and neighbouring sites from landslides;

b. ensures the long-term stability of the site considering the full nature and end use of the development;

c. ensures site stability during all phases of construction and development;

d. minimises disturbance of natural drainage patterns of the site and does not result in the redirection or alteration of the existing flow if surface or groundwater

e. minimises adverse visual impacts on the amenity of adjoining residents and provides a positive interface with the streetscape.

AO121 Development does not:

a. involve earthworks exceeding 50m3;

b. involve cut and fill having a height greater than 600mm;

c. involve any retaining wall having a height greater than 600mm;

d. redirect or alter the existing flow of surface or groundwater.


The proposal involves earthworks that will exceed 50m3 for the laying of the foundations for the monopole. No retaining walls are proposed and the development has been sited to ensure that groundwater will not be redirected The proposed earthworks will maintain the safety of people and property, will not alter the existing flow of surface waters, and will not cause visual impact on the amenity of the area. The proposed extent of earthworks are considered to be acceptable as complying with the Performance Outcome.



2.4.2.3 Overall Outcome Assessment

The development proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO76 of the Rural Zone Code (refer section 5.2.2 above).

Therefore, the proposal is required to be assessed against the applicable Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as follows:

Rural Zone Code - Section 6.2.10

Overall Outcomes - Rural Zone Complies Y/N Comments

a. A wide range of rural uses, as identified in the table below, are established.

Y A telecommunications facility is identified in the table of uses contemplated for the Rural zone.

b. Rural activities and primary production activities are protected from intrusion by incompatible development.

Y The site is currently used for a dwelling house, which will be maintained as part of the development. The proposal does not impact on the rural activities or primary production activities that may be carried out in the surrounding area.

c. Intensive rural activities such as animal keeping, aquaculture, and intensive animal industry:

i. provide appropriate separation distance to sensitive land uses;

ii. avoid odour, dust, noise and visual impacts on sensitive land uses;

iii. avoid adversely affecting water quality in waterways and water catchments; and

iv. are not located adjacent to sensitive land uses or land zoned for residential and rural residential purposes.

N/A Intensive animal keeping, aquaculture and intensive animal husbandry are not proposed.

d. Residential uses are limited to a single dwelling house per allotment. A secondary dwelling is permitted provided it functions and appears subordinate to the principal dwelling house.

Y The existing residential dwelling is lawful and no additional dwellings are proposed. The existing dwelling will be maintained as part of the development.

e. A range of housing options provide short-term accommodation for tourists in proximity to tourist attractions.

N/A Not proposed.

f. Accommodation for rural workers is provided on or in close proximity to rural activities.

N/A Not proposed.



Rural Zone Code - Section 6.2.10 Overall Outcomes - Rural Zone Complies

Y/N Comments

g. Active and passive outdoor recreational

opportunities for residents and visitors to the region are established.

N/A Not proposed and will not impact on the operation of surrounding existing uses.

h. Intensification of existing and new commercial and retail development does not occur.

N/A Not proposed.

i. Development maintains the open area character and scenic amenity, including the low density, low intensity and dispersed built form which defines the rural place type.

Y The proposed facility has a total overall height of 41m (when measured from the ground) inclusive of the panel antennas and the slim monopole. The slimline nature of the monopole construction allows for visual permeability and a reduction of recognition within the landscape. It is acknowledged that the structure is significantly taller than the existing surrounding built form, however this impact has been reduced by the siting of the facility in proximity to the existing mature trees to help reduce the visual recognition. The construction of a single monopole that is partly obscured (at the ground level) by existing vegetation maintains the open area character of the rural locality, and is located so as to maintain the form and amenity that defines the rural place type.

j. Development does not adversely affect the operation of aviation facilities at Mt Glorious (See Overlay map - Infrastructure buffers). This aviation facility comprises a VHF beacon.

N/A Development will not compromise the facility.

k. Development does not result in adverse or nuisance impacts on adjoining properties or the wider rural environment. Any adverse or nuisance impacts are contained and internalised to the lot through location, design, operation and on-site management practices.

Y The proposal contains all impacts on-site including traffic access and parking. The proposed tower has been designed in the form of a slim monopole construction that allows for visual permeability and a reduction of recognition within the landscape. While the proposed tower may be visible from some surrounding vantage points, given the varied topography of the surrounding area combined with the existing dense vegetation, the visual impact is




Y/N Comments

consistent with a low density character of the Rural Zone.

l. Development generating high volumes of traffic or involving heavy vehicle traffic movements is located on roads of a standard and capacity to accommodate traffic demand.

N/A The proposal will not have high traffic volumes and the existing roads are of sufficient standard.

m. Development does not result in the establishment of industrial activities, other than rural industry.

N/A Industry uses are not proposed.

n. General works associated with the development achieves the following:

i. a high standard of electricity, telecommunications, roads, sewerage, water supply and street lighting services is provided to new developments to meet the current and future needs of users of the site;

ii. the development manages stormwater to: A. ensure the discharge of

stormwater does not adversely affect the quality, environmental values or ecosystem functions of downstream receiving waters;

B. prevent stormwater contamination and the release of pollutants;

C. maintain or improve the structure and condition of drainage lines and riparian areas;

D. avoid off-site adverse impacts from stormwater.

iii. the development does not result in unacceptable impacts on the capacity on the capacity and safety of the external road network;

iv. the development ensures the safety, efficiency and useability of access ways and parking areas;

v. site works including earthworks are managed to be safe and have minimal impacts on adjoining or adjacent premises, the streetscape or the environment.

Y The proposed works include the provision of a new underground electricity line that will maintain the amenity on site. Stormwater is not impacted by the development. The development will not generate traffic numbers that will unacceptably impact the safety and capacity of the external road network. The proposed access to and from the site is safe and efficient. A detailed outline of the construction process has been included within the application and complies.




Y/N Comments

o. Activities associated with the use do not cause a nuisance by way of aerosols, fumes, light, noise, odour, particles or smoke.

N/A The proposed telecommunications tower will not emit fumes, light, noise, odour, particles or smoke. The recommendations of this report include a condition to ensure the ongoing compliance with this requirement.

p. Noise generating uses are designed, sited and constructed to minimise the transmission of noise to appropriate levels and do not cause environmental harm or nuisance.

N/A The use is not a noise-generating use.

q. Noise sensitive uses are designed, sited and constructed so as not to be subject to levels of noise expected from rural activities.

N/A The use is not a noise-sensitive use.

r. Development in a Water supply buffer is undertaken in a manner which contributes to the maintenance and enhancement where possible of water quality to protect the drinking water and aquatic ecosystem environmental values in those catchments.

N/A Development is not within a water supply buffer.

s. Development avoids areas subject to constraint, limitation, or environmental value. Where development cannot avoid these identified areas, it responds by: i. adopting a 'least risk, least impact'

approach when designing, siting and locating development in any area subject to a constraint, limitation or environmental value to minimise the potential risk to people, property and the environment;

ii. ensuring no further instability, erosion or degradation of the land, water or soil resource;

iii. when located within a Water buffer area, complying with the Water Quality Vision and Objectives contained in the Seqwater Development Guidelines: Development Guidelines for Water Quality Management in Drinking Water Catchments 2012.

iv. maintaining, restoring and rehabilitating environmental values, including natural, ecological, biological, aquatic, hydrological and amenity values, and enhancing these values

Y The development cannot avoid an area of constraint as the entire site is mapped under the bushfire hazard overlay and parts of the site are mapped under environmental areas overlay. The development has been located to ensure minimal impact on existing native vegetation and the proposal incorporates appropriate measure to reduce the risk of natural hazards. The proposal therefore adopts a least risk least impact approach.




Y/N Comments

through the provision of planting and landscaping, and facilitating safe wildlife movement and connectivity through:

A. the provision of replacement, restoration, rehabilitation planting and landscaping;

B. the location, design and management of development to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on ecological systems and processes;

C. the requiring of environmental offsets in accordance with the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.

v. protecting native species and protecting and enhancing species habitat;

vi. protecting and preserving the natural, aesthetic, architectural historic and cultural values of significant trees, places, objects and buildings of heritage and cultural significance;

vii. establishing effective separation distances, buffers and mitigation measures associated with identified infrastructure to minimise adverse effects on sensitive land uses from odour, noise, dust and other nuisance generating activities;

viii. establishing, maintaining and protecting appropriate buffers to waterways, wetlands, native vegetation and significant fauna habitat;

ix. ensuring it promotes and does not undermine the ongoing viability, integrity, operation, maintenance and safety of identified infrastructure;

x. ensuring effective and efficient disaster management response and recovery capabilities;

xi. where located in an overland flow path:

A. development siting, built form, layout and access




Y/N Comments

responds to the risk presented by the overland flow and minimises risk to personal safety;

B. development is resilient to the impacts of overland flow by ensuring the siting and design accounts for the potential risks to property associated with the overland flow;

C. development does not impact on the conveyance of the overland flow for any event up to and including the 1% AEP for the fully developed upstream catchment;

D. development directly, indirectly and cumulatively avoid an increase in the severity of overland flow and potential for damage on the premises or other premises, public lands, watercourses, roads or infrastructure.

t. Development in the Rural Zone includes one or more of the following: ….Telecommunications Facility

Y Proposal is for a Telecommunications Facility, being a use that is contemplated within the Rural zone.

Based on the assessment above, the proposal is consistent with all of the Overall Outcomes of the code and is therefore taken to be consistent with the purposes of the code.

2.5 Other Relevant Assessment

2.5.1 Trunk Infrastructure In accordance with section 4 of the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme, the subject site is not located in the identified Priority Infrastructure Area. Infrastructure charges applying to the land, where applicable, are to be applied in accordance the Council’s Infrastructure Charges Resolution No. 6 commencing on 3 July 2017 (CR).

2.5.1.1 Levied Charge In accordance with section 7 of the ICR, a Levied Charge is not applicable for Council’s Trunk Infrastructure Networks as the development proposal is Exempt. A telecommunications Facility is classified as a Minor Use in accordance with the ICR 5. In accordance with the ICR 5, a Minor Use has a nil charge. As such, an Infrastructure Charges Notice will be issued with any development approval with a corresponding charge of nil.



2.5.1.2 Levied Charge Credit

As no charge is applicable, no credit will be applied.

2.5.1.3 Levied Charge Offset or Refund The sited is not affected by a Trunk Infrastructure requirement and therefore there is no offset or refund applicable to the development proposal.

2.5.1.4 Additional Trunk Infrastructure Costs

In accordance with section 650 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, an additional payment condition may be imposed if the proposed development;

(a) generates infrastructure demand of more than what is required to service the type

or scale of the development assumed in the ICR, or (b) requires new trunk infrastructure earlier than when identified in the ICR; or (c) is located completely or partly outside the Priority Infrastructure Area

and the development will impose additional trunk infrastructure costs on Council after taking into account the levied charge and any trunk infrastructure provided, or to be provided by the development. In this instance, having assessed the proposed development, it does not warrant the imposition of an additional payment condition.

2.6 Conflicts with Laws and Policies

Not applicable in this instance. 2.7 Recording of particular approvals on the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme

Not Applicable in this instance.

2.8 Referrals

2.8.1 Council Referrals

2.8.1.1 Development Engineering

Site Access and Parking The site has frontage onto Kobble Creek Road but the development will gain access from an existing sealed residential driveway within an access easement. The easement provides lawful access to Lots 1 & 3 to the east and south but as the development is contained within Lot 2 no amendment to the easement documents will be required. The development, upon construction will ultimately provide very little traffic demand and the existing road network will not require upgrading. The applicant has proposed a turning area to the south of the development to allow suitable service vehicle access. The existing driveway has a safe access location onto Kobble Creek Road. No further driveway works are considered necessary. Stormwater Management and Drainage Discharge The site is atop a knoll where sheet stormwater flow will not impact adjoining properties. The development has a low stormwater impact and will not require quality or quantity treatment. On-site Effluent Disposal The development site is well clear of existing dwellings and will not impact upon onsite sewerage facility land application setbacks.



2.8.2 Concurrence Agencies ▫ Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP)

The application was referred to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning for matters relating to clearing vegetation (Schedule 7, Table 3, Item 10 of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009).

Council was advised on 21 July 2016 that the Department has no objection to the proposal subject to an advice clause, which will be attached to Council’s decision notice pertaining to forest product and salvaging.

2.9 Public Consultation

2.9.1 Public Notification Requirements under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009

(a) Public Notification was served on all adjoining landowners on 29 July 2016. (b) The development application was advertised in the Westerner on 4 August 2016. (c) A notice in the prescribed form was posted on the relevant land on 4 August 2016 and

maintained for a period of 15 business days until 31 August 2016. 2.9.2 Submissions Received

Council received the following types of submissions in respect to this development application.

Type Number of Signatures

Number of Submissions

Properly Made Letter, Email, Fax Seven (7) Petition Nil Nil Not Properly Made Letter, Email, Fax Two (2) Petition Nil Nil

Total Nine (9) The matters raised within the submissions are outlined below:

Issue - Conflict with the purpose of the Rural Zone 2…. c. protect and manage significant natural features, resources, and processes, including the capacity

for primary production; d. ensure the rural area remains a pleasant place for people to work, live and recreate; e. restrict further encroachment of urban and rural residential activities into rural areas and reinforce

the Regions’ identified urban footprint; … 3. The purpose of the Rural zone will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:

i. Development maintains the open area character and scenic amenity, including the low density, low intensity and dispersed built form which defined the rural place type.

… k. Development does not result in adverse or nuisance impacts on adjoining properties or the wider

rural environment. Any adverse or nuisance impacts are contained and internalised to the lot through location, design, operation and on-site management practices.

… s. Development avoids areas subject to constraint, limitation, or environmental value. Where

development cannot avoid these identified areas, it responds by: i. adopting a 'least risk, least impact' approach when designing, siting and locating

development in any area subject to a constraint, limitation or environmental value to minimise the potential risk to people, property and the environment…

Discussion



The proposed development does not create a place within the rural area that is not a pleasant place for people to work, live and recreate. The addition of a monopole and associated panel and parabolic antennas does not significantly detract from the existing established amenity nor restrict development of an agricultural, domestic residential or rural purpose from occurring. Rather, the internet services that will be made available by the NBN rollout will enhance the lifestyles of those who work and reside in those parts of the region, where existing telecommunication services may not be as reliable. The area where the facility is proposed does not currently provide opportunity for primary production and the locating of the facility as proposed therefore does not reduce the opportunity for primary production to occur. The proposal includes a Telecommunications Facility that includes a monopole, panel and parabolic antennas (overall height 41m from natural ground), an equipment cabinet and a security fenced compound. It is acknowledged that the height of the facility is greater than the existing predominant vegetation however, given the proposed monopole is slimline and compact in design and sited amongst a varied topographical landscape with existing vegetation, the visual dominance of the facility is reduced. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the facility to be painted/treated to reduce glare and camouflage with the surrounding visual amenity as well as a condition requiring the use be carried out so that there is not detrimental effect on the amenity of any person or property, resulting from the emission of noise, vibration, odour, air pollutants, glare, waste water, grit oil or otherwise. The proposed siting of the facility establishes a suitable separation distance between sensitive uses and the proposed air-conditioning units are to be housed within equipment shelters to reduce noise emissions. It is acknowledged that the proposed siting of the facility will require the removal of existing vegetation within the mapped Environmental Areas Overlay which identifies that where vegetation clearing cannot be avoided (in this instance to allow for a reduced impact on surrounding residents by siting closer to the other properties) a least risk, least impact approach is undertaken. A site visit undertaken by Development Services has found that the vegetation that would be required to be removed is sparse regrowth and not high value vegetation. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the landscaping of the facility (externally around the perimeter of the fence) with native vegetation. Further, Overall Outcome t. of the Rural Zone stipulates that development in the Rural Zone includes…Telecommunication Facility. This demonstrates that the proposed use, for a Telecommunications Facility is a consistent form of development in the zone. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Conflict with the purpose of the Works Code (section 9.4.2) 1…. a. Safe, convenient, functionally efficient and attractive communities and environments are created

that are consistent with the character and amenity of the relevant zone. b. A high standard of electricity, telecommunications, roads, sewerage, water supply and street lighting

services is provided to new development to meet the current and future needs of users of the site;

i. Development avoids areas subject to constraint, limitation, or environmental value. Where

development cannot avoid these identified areas, it responds by: i. adopting a 'least risk, least impact' approach when designing, siting and locating

development in any area subject to a constraint, limitation or environmental value to minimise the potential risk to people, property and the environment;

Discussion The addition of a monopole and associated panel and parabolic antennas do not significantly detract from the existing established amenity of the a rea nor restrict development of an agricultural, domestic



residential or rural purpose from occurring. The proposal is identified as being a use that may be included in the Zone (Overall Outcome t. of the Rural Zone Code). It is acknowledged that the proposed siting of the facility will require the removal of existing vegetation within the mapped Environmental Areas Overlay. A site visit undertaken by Development Services has found that the vegetation proposed to be removed is sparse regrowth and not high value vegetation. Under the Environmental Areas Overlay, where vegetation clearing cannot be avoided (in this instance to allow for a reduced impact on surrounding residents by siting closer to the other properties) a least risk, least impact approach is undertaken. For this proposal, the limited vegetation clearing that has been proposed cannot be avoided. To this end, the recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the landscaping of the facility (externally around the perimeter of the fence) with native vegetation (a least impact approach). This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Non-compliance of the proposal with PO1 of the Rural Zone Code, specifically with a, e and h. “PO1

Development: a. adds value to an existing rural activity, the natural environment, or a tourism

attraction; b. does not prejudice the ongoing operation of an existing or approved rural activity; c. is adequately serviced with necessary infrastructure to meet on-site needs and

requirements; d. ensures adequate on-site stormwater and waste disposal is provided to avoid adverse

impacts on water quality; e. is a size and scale that maintains the low density, low intensity and open area

landscape character anticipated in the Rural zone; f. is designed, located and operated in a manner that avoids nuisance impacts on sensitive

land uses; g. requires minimal filling or excavation. Where this occurs, visual impacts are reduced through

screening; h. avoids being obtrusive or visually dominant by achieving low-set built form; i. uses natural and non-reflective materials and colours consistent with existing and

surrounding rural buildings and rural environment, except where materials such as netting, shade cloth and similar coverings are necessary for agricultural operations;

j. is not subject to a development constraint such as, but not limited to, flood, steep slope, waterway setback and significant vegetation; and

k. does not result in any instability, erosion or degradation of land, water, soil resource or loss of natural, ecological or biological values.”

Discussion The proposed facility consists of a 40m tower (when measured from the pad) with a total overall height of 41m (when measured from the ground) inclusive of the panel antennas that is of slim monopole design that allows for a reduction of recognition within the landscape. It is acknowledged that the structure is significantly taller than the existing surrounding built form, however this has been reduced by the siting of the facility in proximity to the existing mature trees to help reduce the visual recognition for the lower part of facility. The recommendations of this report includes a condition requiring the facility to be painted/treated to reduce glare and camouflage with the surrounding visual amenity. The facility, by its nature to deliver a signal to surrounding properties, cannot achieve a low set built form as it requires line-of-sight to surrounding facilities and to the dwellings it may service. The visual dominance of the facility has been sought to be reduced through the use of a compact monopole construction for the facility that allows visual permeability to the landscape beyond.



This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Conflict with the Building Height Overlay and the overall proposed height of the facility and visual impact • Proposed tower is 40 metres where the Planning Scheme permits a maximum of 35 metres

(AO76.3) and is visually dominant and not visually integrated. • The tower will dominate the rural landscape and be visually intrusive from inside the submitter’s

residence and outdoor deck. • The proposed tower will be a direct blight on the submitter’s enjoyment of unspoiled rural beauty. • Numerous properties will have clear, unobstructed views of the tower and will therefore be severely

impacted by any such facility. • The height of the proposed tower (totalling 41m) is far and above anything else within the region.

All other buildings visible from this location are single dwellings or associated structure that are two-storeys in height (8.5m) or less and are in accordance with the Building Height Overlay for this region (PO3).

• The location of the facility (on a ridgeline) will make this facility clearly visible from numerous locations, thereby destroying the visual amenity of the area. The facility should be moved to another location.

Discussion Acceptable Outcome AO76.2 states that towers are not to exceed a height of 35m for Telecommunications Facilities located outside of Township areas. The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated the proposal - which includes a single 40m tower (when measured from the pad) with a total overall height of 41m (when measured from the ground) can Performance Outcome PO76 of the Rural Zone code as an alternative solution. “PO76 The Telecommunications facility does not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of a locality and is:

a. high quality design and construction; b. visually integrated with the surrounding area; c. not visually dominant or intrusive; d. located behind the main building line; e. below the level of the predominant tree canopy or the level of the surrounding buildings and

structures; f. camouflaged through the use of colours and materials which blend into the landscape; g. treated to eliminate glare and reflectivity; h. landscaped; i. otherwise consistent with the amenity and character of the zone and surrounding area.”

It is acknowledged that the height of the facility is greater than the existing predominant vegetation however, given the proposed monopole is compact in design and sited amongst a varied topographical landscape with existing vegetation and conditioned additional landscaping, the visual dominance of the facility is reduced. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the facility to be painted/treated to reduce glare and camouflage with the surrounding visual amenity. While the facility will not be below the level of the predominant tree canopy or the surrounding buildings, it is commensurate to the scale of the landscape and is sited along a high speed winding road (Kobble Creek Road - 70km per hour) where visibility of the facility is for a short space of time and recognition within the landscape is reduced. It is acknowledged that the facility will be visible from some of the surrounding residential properties however it is noted that if the tower were located elsewhere on the site (ie. at a lower elevation) in order to achieve the required line-of-sight between the facilities, a larger, lattice construction tower would be



required. A lattice construction facility is utilised for taller Telecommunications Facilities and presents a greater visual bulk that would have a greater impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area compared with the proposed monopole construction. In this instance, and as demonstrated above, the proposal complies with the intent of PO76. The proposed height of the facility meets the criteria and achieves the minimum heights required to ensure network coverage for the future internet services. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Development does meet the objectives of the Scenic Amenity overlay. • Proposal will impact on the direct views towards the areas mapped under the Overlay; namely the

foothills of the range to the west of the site. Discussion The proposal is not subject to assessment against the Scenic Amenity Overlay as the site is not located within an area mapped under the Overlay. It is acknowledged that the facility has the potential (from certain viewpoints) to have a degree of visual impact upon the views towards the areas that are mapped within the overlay. As addressed above, the visual impact and proposed amenity present suitable solutions that comply with the relevant codes and criteria. It is noted that Telecommunication Facilities by necessity and nature are tall structures requiring a line of sight from tower to tower to complete a functional network. Telecommunication Facilities are a use envisaged in the Rural zone under the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Setbacks • Development does not comply with PO5 - Setbacks as the facility will be “visually dominant and

overbearing on all neighbouring properties”. Discussion It is acknowledged that the height of the facility is greater than the existing predominant vegetation however, given the proposed monopole is slimline and compact in design and sited amongst a varied topographical landscape with existing vegetation, the visual dominance of the facility is reduced. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the facility to be painted/treated to reduce glare and camouflage with the surrounding visual amenity. While the facility will not be below the level of the predominant tree canopy or the surrounding buildings, it is commensurate to the scale of the landscape and is sited along a high speed road winding road (Kobble Creek Road - 70km per hour) where visibility of the facility is for a short space of time and recognition within the landscape is reduced. It is acknowledged that the facility will be visible from some of the surrounding residential properties however it is noted that if the tower were located elsewhere on the site (i.e. at a lower elevation) in order to achieve the required line-of-sight between the facilities, a larger, lattice construction tower would be required. A lattice construction facility is utilised for taller Telecommunications Facilities and presents a greater visual bulk that would have a greater impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area compared with the proposed monopole construction. In this instance, the development is demonstrated to comply with Performance Outcome PO5 of the Rural Zone Code and is acceptable. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Noise and Amenity • Noise from air conditioners operating 24 hours 7 days. • Concern that this will cause an undue amount of nuisance through noise pollution to the rural area. • Also concern that the facility will be illuminated. • Proposed 2.4m high chain wire fence is not consistent with the existing fencing throughout the

surrounding locality. Discussion



The proposed air-conditioning units are to be housed within “outdoor cabinets” within the NBN lease area. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring all equipment including air-conditioners to be attenuated to comply with Performance Outcome PO 78 being no audible sound at the site boundaries.

“PO78 All activities associated with the development occur within an environment incorporating sufficient controls to ensure the facility generates no audible sound at the site boundaries where in a residential setting.”

Given the rural setting of the surrounding locality, it is likely that the only residence that has the potential to be affected is the house on the subject site. For clarification, where a tower is proposed and is not in proximity (eg. within 200 metres) to any other adjoining existing dwelling, it is likely that no attenuation would be required for the facility to comply with PO78. Lighting is not proposed for the facility. Security fencing is a requirement of the Rural Zone Code, Acceptable Outcome AO76.5, and the proposal includes a 2.4 metre high fence for providing security to the facility to ensure the public access is prohibited. The type of fencing for the boundaries of or internal to a site is not a matter specified for regulation by the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme. The proposed fencing is visually permeable and further, the recommendations of any report can include a condition required the perimeter of the facility to be planted with screening landscaping. This would further reduce the visibility of the proposed fence and the recognition within the existing landscape. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Health Impacts • Negative health connotations resulting from EMF radiation for both surrounding residents,

livestock, native flora and native fauna (specifically koalas). Discussion An Environmental EME Report that provides a summary of the Calculated RF EME levels around the proposed location of the wireless base station was included with the application. The report is dated 20 May 2016 and details that is was developed using the methodology set out by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). ARPANSA is the Commonwealth Government’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety. The maximum calculated EME level for the proposed systems at the site is 0.073% of the public exposure limit. It is noted that the ARPANSA Standard public exposure limit is 100%. The EME report demonstrates the proposed facility will be operating well within the allowable parameters in accordance with current practice guidelines. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Driveway access to the site • Access to the proposed facility is via an existing access easement (previously paid for and

constructed by residents that benefit the easement) and all parties have not consented to the access - for construction and ongoing maintenance visits

Discussion The proposal includes access to the site via the existing crossover and will utilise approximately 30 metres of the existing sealed bitumen driveway (under the access easement). The applicant has indicated that the access will be via a portion of the existing easement, in accordance with the terms of that easement. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring lawful access to be maintained at all times.



This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Visibility of facility at the ground level due to the clearing of existing vegetation Discussion The applicant proposes to site the Telecommunication Facility on a portion of the site that will require some clearing of existing vegetation, in an area of the site that will otherwise remain reasonably vegetated. Acceptable Outcome AO76.6 of the Rural Zone Code requires the facility to be landscaped around the perimeter. The recommendations of this report include a condition requiring the perimeter of the facility to be landscaped utilising native plants that will provide screening to the facility, which will ensure that the visibility of the facility is reduced at ground level. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Environmental Impacts • Clearing of vegetation for the siting of the facility will negatively impact the environmental values

specifically considering it is within the Priority Koala Assessable Development Area and mapped as containing Medium Value Bushland Habitat.

• Partially located within the mapped Environmental Areas Overlay and requiring vegetation clearing. • Potential removal of habitat trees with hollows that will not be replaced for decades (through

regrowth) and non-compliance with PO17. • Compliance with Vegetation Management Act 1999. • Compliance with Nature Conservation Act 1992. • The application does not meet the objectives of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 as it destroy valuable habitat for the listed threatened, endangered and migratory species identified within the area.

Discussion The siting of the proposed Telecommunications Facility will require the clearing of approximately 280m2 of existing vegetation that is mapped within the Medium Value Bushland Habitat Area. As articulated in section 2.3.1.1 of this report (above), the development does not trigger assessment against Division 6 of the SEQ Koala SPRP and therefore complies with the SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions. Notwithstanding, the recommendations of this report include conditions relating to the construction management strategies to ensure wildlife protection during construction and the screening landscaping around the perimeter of the facility (excluding gates and access ways) with native species. The site is mapped as containing several areas of mapped vegetation. The proposed location for the facility on the site is partially within an area of mapped vegetation. The codes relating to the overlay identify that where it is not practical or reasonable to located development elsewhere on site (in this instance the selected site minimises impact on surrounding residents as outlined previously), on-site mitigation measures such as replacement and replanting occur. The recommendations of this report include conditions to ensure the suitable landscaping of the facility utilising native species to address the requirements of the code. A standard condition is also included within the recommendations of this report requiring the provision of nesting boxes where habitat trees are removed to ensure compliance with Performance Outcome PO17. The Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) and the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA) are State legislation that are not administered by Council. The application triggered referral to the State Assessment and Referral Agency for clearing of vegetation and the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning advised that it had no further requirements for the development and was satisfied that the vegetation clearing was in accordance with its requirements (under the VMA). It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that it is carrying out development in accordance with the NCA and obtain any necessary permits to remove native flora or fauna. This is not a process undertaken through Council or the Development Assessment process.



The proposed development does not require referral to, or approval from, the Commonwealth’s Department of the Environment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as the scale of the development is not likely to have ‘a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance’. The proposed development has been assessed and considered against all relevant environmental policies, and has been found to be compliant. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Threat to wildlife due to traffic from heavy vehicles during construction and the ongoing maintenance of the facilities. Discussion The facilities are serviced by 4WD or utes for the ongoing maintenance of the facilities being vehicles similar or commensurate to the types of vehicles used and owned by the residents of the surrounding areas. The applicant has submitted details of the construction for the facility and identified that a construction period of approximately ten (10) weeks is anticipated. The recommendations of the report include a condition relating to the ongoing management of the site to ensure that wildlife are not injured or affected. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Reduction in property values due to the Telecommunications Facility and request for compensation from Council should property values decrease Discussion Property values are not a matter dealt within under the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme. It is noted that the submitter has not provided any land valuation analysis to demonstrate this claim however compensation is not available for any decrease in property value that may occur in any event. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - If the use is approved that future infrastructure will be added to the site over time including additional devices, thus further increasing the visual impact of the facility Discussion The Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme identifies that the erection of a new Telecommunications Facility should make provisions for the future co-location of additional infrastructure at a future opportunity that may be the subject of its own Material Change of Use development application at that time. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application. Issue - Proposed Internet Service • Submitter currently has acceptable internet speeds. • Questioning why wireless towers are to be used when a broadband service could be provided. • There are other alternatives for the provision of NBN to the area. Discussion The proposal to utilise new infrastructure, being wireless telecommunications facilities in lieu of an existing service is not an aspect for assessment of the application before Council. The assessment of the application is generally focussed on the Local Planning Instrument the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme and does not include requirements for justification of the proposed delivery of service. This is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application.

2.9.3 Notice of Compliance The Notice of Compliance was received by Council on 5 September 2016. The Notice of Compliance identifies that the public notification requirements for the development application were correctly undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 6, Part 4, Division 2 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.



2.10 Other Matters

Further Approvals A building approval will be required for the erection of the monopole and associated footings. EME Report An Environmental Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Report was provided with the development application. This report demonstrates the maximum EME level calculated for the proposed systems at the site is 0.073% of the public exposure limit. This estimate is based on a worst-case scenario and in practice, exposures are usually lower due to factors such as location of buildings, trees and or features of the environment. The maximum EME levels are estimated in 360゜circular bands out to 500 metres from the base station. The nearest residence to the proposed facility is approximately 188 metres away. At a distance of 100 metres to 200 metres from the proposed facility, the estimated EME level is 0.036% of the public exposure limit. The EME report also details the estimated EME levels at the surrounding residences. These range from 0.0086% to 0.027% of the Public Exposure Limit.

3. Strategic Implications 3.1 Legislative/Legal Implications

The applicant and properly made submitters have appeal rights in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

3.2 Corporate Plan / Operational Plan

Strengthening Communities: Development assessment - assessment of development applications and provision of development advice.

3.3 Policy Implications The proposal is generally consistent with the existing Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme planning provisions and relevant policies.

3.4 Risk Management Implications

There are no risk management implications arising as a direct result of this report. 3.5 Delegated Authority Implications

There are no delegated authority implications arising as a direct result of this report. 3.6 Financial Implications

a) In the event that an appeal is made to the Planning & Environment court against Council’s decision, the Council will incur additional costs in defending its position.

b) Permit conditions require infrastructure contributions to Council.

3.7 Economic Benefit The provision of improved standards of cost effective access to fixed wireless network may have positive economic implication for community members who currently do not have such access.


The proposal has been designed and located within the specifications for creating a function network to minimise impacts and if developed in accordance with the recommended conditions is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the region’s environment.




The provision of improved standards of cost effective access to fixed wireless network may have positive social implication for community members who currently do not have such access.

3.10 Consultation / Communication Refer to clause 2.9.

ATTENDANCE Cr Denis Sims returned to the meeting and Mr Tim Smith (Coordinator Development Planning) left the meeting at 11.03am. Mr Keith Pattinson (Manager Financial & Project Services) attended the meeting at this time for discussion on Item 3.1.



3 CORPORATE SERVICES SESSION (Cr Adrian Raedel) ITEM 3.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTING PACKAGE - JULY 2017 - REGIONAL Meeting / Session: 3 CORPORATE SERVICES Reference: A15732884 : 9 August 2017 - Refer Supporting Information A15732883 Responsible Officer: DW, Accounting Services Coordinator (CEO Accounting Services) Executive Summary That the Financial Reporting Package for the year to date period ending 31 July 2017 be received. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Mick Gillam Seconded by Cr Denise Sims CARRIED 13/0

That the Financial Reporting Package for the year to date period ending 31 July 2017 be received.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1665 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 3.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTING PACKAGE - JULY 2017 - REGIONAL - A15732884 (Cont.)


OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That the Financial Reporting Package for the year to date period ending 31 July 2017 be received. REPORT DETAIL 1. Background The Financial Reporting Package for the month ending 31 July 2017 is contained within the supporting information to this report. This package contains a number of financial statements with relevant commentary to provide a breakdown of key financial data and includes. Financial Statements

o Statement of Comprehensive Income shows all income and expenditure as at the end of the July period.

o The Statement of Financial Position highlights Council’s position at the end of July and itemises assets, liabilities and community equity.

o Statement of Cash Flows which represents the cash inflows and outflows during the month. Treasury Report

o The Treasury Report highlights key areas of performance and compliance relating to Council’s investments, borrowings and reserves.

2. Explanation of Item The financial results for the month of July are complete. A commentary is provided on significant matters that occurred during the month. 3. Strategic Implications 3.1 Legislative/Legal Implications

Part 9, section 204 of the Local Government Regulation 2012, (regulation) states the following: (1) The local government must prepare a financial report. (2) The chief executive officer must present the financial report—

(a) if the local government meets less frequently than monthly—at each meeting of the local

government; or (b) otherwise—at a meeting of the local government once a month.

(3) The financial report must state the progress that has been made in relation to the local government’s budget for the period of the financial year up to a day as near as practicable to the end of the month before the meeting is held.

3.2 Corporate Plan / Operational Plan

Strengthening Communities: Strong local governance - strong leadership and governance.

3.3 Policy Implications Compliance to the Council’s Investment Policy is confirmed for the month of July.

3.4 Risk Management Implications The Council is subject to numerous risks associated with revenue and expenses that can impact upon Councils financial performance and position. The quarterly operational plan and budget reporting process assists in minimising the financial risks.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1666 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 3.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTING PACKAGE - JULY 2017 - REGIONAL - A15732884 (Cont.)


3.5 Delegated Authority Implications

There are no delegated authority implications arising as a direct result of this report.

3.6 Financial Implications As at the end of July 2017 Council’s operating surplus is $58.9 million and the capital expenditure incurred to date is $2.5 million.

3.7 Economic Benefit

There are no economic benefit implications arising as a direct result of this report. 3.8 Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications arising as a direct result of this report. 3.9 Social Implications

There are no social implications arising as a direct result of this report. 3.10 Consultation / Communication

Chief Executive Officer, Manager Financial and Project Services, Accounting Services Manager. ATTENDANCE Mr Keith Pattinson (Manager Financial & Project Services) left the meeting at 11.04 after discussion on Item 3.1.



4 ASSET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE SESSION (Cr Peter Flannery) ITEM 4.1 PETRIE MILL DEVELOPMENT - SEWER MAIN RELOCATION - DIVISION 7 Meeting / Session: 4 ASSET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE Reference: A15652340 : 15 August 2017 Responsible Officer: PH, Senior Project Manager (ECM Major Projects - University Project) Executive Summary This report seeks Council approval to call selective tenders for a design and construct contract from Unitywater’s Construction Contractor Accreditation Agreement panel for sewer main relocation as part of the Petrie Mill Development and following tender assessment, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to enter into a contract with a suitable contractor. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Denise Sims Seconded by Cr Adrian Raedel CARRIED 13/0

1. That in accordance with section 235(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, Council is satisfied that because of the specialised nature of the sewer main relocation as part of the Petrie Mill Development, it would be impractical or disadvantageous for the Council to invite quotes or tenders for the services, and that Council relies on this exception to undertake a selective tender process.

2. That a selective tender be called from approved contractors on the Unitywater Construction

Contractor Accreditation Agreement panel for the design and construction of sewer main relocation at Gympie Road and Paper Avenue Petrie as part of the Petrie Mill Development.

3. That following tender assessment, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to enter into a

contract with a suitable contractor.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1668 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 4.1 PETRIE MILL DEVELOPMENT - SEWER MAIN RELOCATION - DIVISION 7 - A15652340 (Cont.)


OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION 1. That in accordance with section 235(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, Council is satisfied

that because of the specialised nature of the sewer main relocation as part of the Petrie Mill Development, it would be impractical or disadvantageous for the Council to invite quotes or tenders for the services, and that Council relies on this exception to undertake a selective tender process.

2. That a selective tender be called from approved contractors on the Unitywater Construction

Contractor Accreditation Agreement panel for the design and construction of sewer main relocation at Gympie Road and Paper Avenue Petrie as part of the Petrie Mill Development.

3. That following tender assessment, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to enter into a contract

with a suitable contractor. REPORT DETAIL 1. Background Two rising sewer mains diagonally bisect and severely constrain development on the Petrie Mill Development site. Those mains run north from the North Pine River bridges, across Paper Avenue then between Gympie Road and Phillips Lane before discharging into a gravity sewer within the Petrie Station car park. It is proposed to remove the constraint by relocating approximately 840 metres of pipe to a new alignment clear of proposed allotments and to align with a new road. The sewer main is a strategic asset and a critical link in Unitywater’s sewer main network. Removal of the link to conduct the proposed work relies on limited storage capacity within sewerage pump stations. Accordingly the window in which to undertake the work is limited and the skills required to break new pipes into the network specialised. The overall scope of the relocation and preliminary costs have already been determined. 2. Explanation of Item Although laying pipe is not a specialised skill, consultation with Unitywater and one of their approved contractors has established connecting and disconnecting new pipe to otherwise live sewer mains and the planning, design and construction within a limited timeframe is. Unitywater have a panel of specialists for this work. They require suitably experienced contractors to carry out work on their assets and have recommended using a specialist from their panel. Given the nature of the project it is apparent this is the most effective procurement method. Relocation of the sewer mains is critical in achieving the development timeframes as development construction is unable to commence until the mains are relocated and the existing mains removed. The preliminary estimated cost to complete the design and construction of the relocation and subsequent removal of redundant mains is $2.2M ex GST. It is recommended that Design and Construct Tenders be called from the approved contractors on the Unitywater panel to achieve this critical objective. Additionally, following tender assessment, it is recommended that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to enter into a contract with the recommended contractor to ensure the overall Petrie Mill Development project program is not delayed.



3. Strategic Implications 3.1 Legislative/Legal Implications

Section 235(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 provides that Council may enter into a medium-sized contractual arrangement or large-sized contractual arrangement without first inviting written quotes or tenders if Council resolves that, because of the specialised or confidential nature of the services that are sought, it would be impractical or disadvantageous for Council to invite quotes or tenders. Council will rely on this exception to undertake a selective tender process rather than an open tender process. As the asset owner and operator, Unitywater requires suitably experienced persons to carry out work on their assets and inviting tenders from pre-approved contractors will ensure compliance.

3.2 Corporate Plan / Operational Plan Creating Opportunities: Well-planned growth - a sustainable and well-planned community.

3.3 Policy Implications Council’s Procurement Policy 10-2150-006 allows the consideration of exceptions permitted under the Local Government Regulation 2012. Inviting tenders for the work utilising a panel established by Unitywater will comply with the five sound contracting principles.

3.4 Risk Management Implications The project risk has been assessed and the following issues identified. Mitigation of the impact of identified risks is detailed below. Timely delivery of Petrie Mill Development It is not possible to construct and deliver the development without relocation of the sewer mains. Early engagement with Unitywater has been undertaken due to long lead times to procure the required pipe, fittings and approvals. Public safety The appointed contractor will be responsible for managing public safety during construction of the new pipeline and the connections to the existing mains. Unitywater’s Construction Contractor Accreditation Agreement panel have appropriate work procedures and practices in place. Traffic and pedestrian management A traffic and pedestrian safety management plan will be required to be prepared and implemented during the construction phase. Organisational and Reputational The organisational and reputational risks to both Council and UnityWater are associated with the time-critical nature of the live sewer connections and potential impact on network reliability for a large area of the region. The selection and use of appropriately experienced specialist contractors for the work is essential for management of the risk.

3.5 Delegated Authority Implications It is recommended that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to enter in a contract for the design and construction of the sewer main relocation with a preliminary estimated cost in the order of $2.2M (excluding GST).



3.6 Financial Implications

Council has allocated funds in the 2017/18 Capital Project budget for Stage 1 of the Petrie Mill Development. The works associated with the relocation of the sewer mains will be debited to project number 105223. Estimated cost $2,000,000 Contingency (10%) $ 200,000

--------------- Total estimated project cost $2,200,000

=========

The preliminary estimated cost will be subject to final detailed design and approval; however is considered appropriate based on consultation with Unitywater and approved contractors. There are no ongoing operational/maintenance costs to Council associated with these works. The asset is operated and maintained by Unitywater.

3.7 Economic Benefit Relocation of the sewer mains is an essential part of preliminary works to allow delivery of Stage 1 of the Petrie Mill Development. This development has significant regional economic benefits and Stage 1 is a catalyst for overall outcomes for the site as part of the broader The Mill at Moreton Bay PDA.


There are no known wider environmental implications with the sewer main relocations. The contractor will be required to manage environmental aspects during the construction phase in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan.


The Petrie Mill Development will provide significant positive social benefit and will facilitate construction of a university campus along with other facilities.

3.10 Consultation / Communication The works will be managed by Council and Unitywater in line with agreed communication policies and protocols associated with works on their asset.

5 PARKS, RECREATION & SPORT SESSION (Cr Darren Grimwade) No items for consideration.

6 LIFESTYLE & AMENITY SESSION (Cr Matt Constance) No items for consideration.



7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM SESSION (Cr Julie Greer) ITEM 7.1 PROPOSED GRANT OF LEASE - 33 KING ST, CABOOLTURE - DIVISION 3 Meeting / Session: 7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM Reference: A15718864 : 10 August 2017 Responsible Officer: AS, Enterprise and Investments Officer (EPS Property & Commercial Services) Executive Summary At the Coordination Committee Meeting held 4 April, 2017, a report was presented to Council regarding the offer of a new lease to Flourish Australia (formerly RichmondPRA) on the ground floor of Council’s property located at 33 King Street, Caboolture. Recently the lessee advised Council that it can no longer take up the tenancy of three years with a three-year option, as resolved by Council at that meeting. As advised in the previous report, Flourish Australia is a ‘community organisation’, as that term is defined in the Local Government Regulation 2012 (the Regulation). This report seeks Council’s approval to enter into an amended new lease offer of a one-year lease (with two further one-year options) with Flourish Australia. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Adam Hain Seconded by Cr Adrian Raedel CARRIED 13/0

1. That the proposal to grant a lease, described as Lease M at 33 King Street, Caboolture, to Flourish Australia be approved on the terms outlined in this report.

2. That the exception contained in the Local Government Regulation 2012, section 236(1)(b)(ii),

apply to the Council on the disposal of the property referred to in recommendation 1. 3. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to take all action necessary to complete the

lease of the property referred to in recommendation 1.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1672 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 7.1 PROPOSED GRANT OF LEASE - 33 KING ST, CABOOLTURE - DIVISION 3 - A15718864 (Cont.)


OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION 1. That the proposal to grant a lease, described as Lease M at 33 King Street, Caboolture, to Flourish

Australia be approved on the terms outlined in this report. 2. That the exception contained in the Local Government Regulation 2012, section 236(1)(b)(ii), apply

to the Council on the disposal of the property referred to in recommendation 1. 3. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to take all action necessary to complete the lease of

the property referred to in recommendation 1. REPORT DETAIL 1. Background The following resolution appears on Minute Page 17/458 of the General Meeting of Council held 4 April 2017: Ex. Coordination Committee meeting on 4 April 2017 (MP. 17/537): COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve the proposal to grant a lease, described as Lease M in the Supporting

Information to this report, to Flourish Australia on the terms outlined in this report. 2. That the exception contained in the Local Government Regulation 2012, section 236(1)(b)(ii), apply

to the Council on the disposal of the property referred to in recommendation 1. 3. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to take all action necessary to complete the lease of

the property referred to in recommendation 1. The recommendations referred to above reflected an offer from a new lease with a three-year term, with a further three-year option. 2. Explanation of Item Due to funding changes for Flourish Australia, the organisation has sought to change the lease arrangement as considered in the report of 4 April 2017, to reflect a new lease with a one-year term with two further one-year options. As Flourish Australia is a community organisation, the Local Government Regulation 2012 section 236(1)(b)(ii), provides for Council entering into a lease with them without firstly inviting tenders or conducting an auction. 3. Strategic Implications 3.1 Legislative/Legal Implications

The Council must comply with the Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012 when it disposes of valuable non-current assets, including leases of land. While the Council must generally invite tenders or conduct an auction before granting a lease, there is an exception to this general requirement when the lease is granted to a community organisation (Regulation s.236(1)(b)(ii)). Council may only rely on that exception if, before granting a lease, it resolves that the exception may apply to the granting of a lease other than by tender or auction.

3.2 Corporate Plan / Operational Plan Strengthening Communities: Strong local governance - a council connected with its community.

Moreton Bay Regional Council COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 17/1673 22 August 2017 Report ITEM 7.1 PROPOSED GRANT OF LEASE - 33 KING ST, CABOOLTURE - DIVISION 3 - A15718864 (Cont.)


3.3 Policy Implications

There is no Council Policy which specifically deals with the leasing of tenancies. However, the provisions of the Local Government Regulation 2012 as referred to in paragraph 3.1 apply.

3.4 Risk Management Implications There are no risk management implications directly relating to this report.

3.5 Delegated Authority Implications As per the recommendation, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to take all action necessary to complete the lease.

3.6 Financial Implications

Council will continue to receive the appropriate rental for these premises. 3.7 Economic Benefit

The encouragement of businesses to remain in the Caboolture CBD. 3.8 Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications directly relating to this report. 3.9 Social Implications

Flourish Australia provide a support network for the Caboolture area. 3.10 Consultation / Communication

Council has previously resolved to grant now Flourish Australia a new lease term.



8 GENERAL BUSINESS ITEM 8.1 REGIONAL EVENTS (DS, AH) Cr Denise Sims thanked Council’s Local Laws officers and the RSPCA for their efforts in the Microchipping and Cupcake Day held recently. The windy weather was not favourable, however the program had many participants and is a great community event. Cr Adam Hain reported on the annual Caboolture Family Fun Day held on Monday 14 August 2017. The event went off without a hitch and attendance numbers were staggering - with a majority of the crowd present at 9.00am although the official commencement time was not until 10.00am. Line-ups for the various rides were lengthy, despite additional rides being included this year. It was apparent that this event is getting bigger each year and is becoming a major regional event - with people from all over the region and outside of the region enjoying the activities. Cr Adam Hain made mention of the Caboolture Snakes Senior Rugby League Club women’s team semi-finals held over the preceding weekend, at which the Senior side was victorious over Ipswich. ITEM 8.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEME - THE MILL PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) (AS) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Allan Sutherland (Mayor) Seconded by Cr Koliana Winchester CARRIED 13/0

That a letter be sent to the Deputy Premier - Hon Jackie Trad to thank her for the assistance of her department in working closely with Council officers to finalise the Development Scheme for The Mill at Moreton Bay Priority Development Area (PDA).



CLOSED SESSION (Confidential items) (Resolution the meeting be closed under s275 of the Local Government Regulation 2012) CLOSED SESSION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Mick Gillam Seconded by Cr Adrian Raedel CARRIED 13/0

That Committee move into closed session pursuant to the provisions of s275 (1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 to discuss Item C.1. Members of the press and public gallery left the Chambers. The closed session commenced at 11.16am. OPEN SESSION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Adrian Raedel Seconded by Cr Brooke Savige CARRIED 13/0

That Committee resume in open session and that the following recommendations be made. The open session resumed at 11.21am.



ITEM C.1 – CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY RATIONALISATION PROJECT - AUGUST 2017 - DIVISION 3 Meeting / Session: 7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM Reference: A15720408 : 10 August 2017 - Refer Confidential Supporting Information

A15720473 & A15720423 Responsible Officer: AS, Enterprise and Investments Officer (EPS Property & Commercial Services) Basis of Confidentiality Pursuant to s275 (1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, clause (h), as the matter involves other business for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the Council or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek a Council resolution for disposal of property that has been identified as surplus to Council’s requirements. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Mick Gillam Seconded by Cr Adam Hain CARRIED 12/1 Cr Adrian Raedel voted against Committee’s recommendation

1. That Council approve the sale of the Council property as detailed in this report. 2. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to do all things necessary to complete the sale

of the Council-owned property in accordance with recommendation 1, including negotiating and agreeing on the sale prices, subject to those prices being supported by valuations obtained for the purpose, and executing contracts of sale on behalf of Council.

CLOSURE There being no further business the Chairperson closed the meeting at 11.24am.