queen’s wharf brisbane priority development area plan of ... · plan of development (pod)...

Queen’s Wharf Brisbane

Priority Development Area

Plan of Development (PoD) Development Application (DEV2017/846)

Minister for Economic Development Queensland Public Notice of PDA Development Application – Submissions Report under the Economic Development Act 2012

December 2017

- ii -

Contents Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 3

1.2 PDA declaration and development scheme ................................................. 3

1.3 PDA-associated development ...................................................................... 4

1.4 Development application .............................................................................. 4

1.5 Compliance assessment process ................................................................ 5

2 Overview of public notification process ...................................................... 6 2.1 Requirements of public notification .............................................................. 6

2.2 Submission registration and review process ................................................ 6

3 Overview of submissions ........................................................................... 8 3.1 Submitter type .............................................................................................. 8

3.2 Submission themes ...................................................................................... 8

3.3 Overarching areas of support ....................................................................... 9

3.4 Overarching areas of concern ...................................................................... 9

4 Summary of submissions ......................................................................... 11 4.1 Bicentennial Bikeway ................................................................................. 11

4.2 Land uses ................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Government decision making ..................................................................... 20

4.4 Design ........................................................................................................ 23

4.5 Active transport .......................................................................................... 29

4.6 Heritage/Archaeology ................................................................................. 33

4.7 Planning matters ........................................................................................ 40

4.8 Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 49

4.9 Hydrology and environment ....................................................................... 54

4.10 Street and movement network ................................................................... 61

4.11 General matters ......................................................................................... 68

4.12 Built form .................................................................................................... 70

4.13 Construction phase .................................................................................... 73

MEDQ Public Notice of PDA Development Application – Submissions Report -1-

Abbreviations 1. 24/7 stands for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 2. AEP stands for Annual Exceedance Probability. 3. AMP stands for Archaeological Management Plan. 4. AS stands for Australian Standard. 5. BRCFS stands for the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study. 6. CBD stands for the Central Business District. 7. Council means the Brisbane City Council. 8. CPTED stands for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. 9. DBC stands for Destination Brisbane Consortium, consisting of the following three

entities: i) Destination Brisbane Consortium Integrated Resort Operations Pty Ltd ACN 608 538 638

as trustee for the Destination Brisbane Consortium Integrated Resort Operating Trust; ii) QWB Residential Precinct Operations Pty Ltd ACN 608 792 329 as trustee for the QWB

Residential Precinct Operations Trust; and iii) The Star Entertainment Qld Limited ACN 010 741 045.

10. DDA stands for Disability Discrimination Act 1992. 11. DEHP stands for the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 12. DILGP stands for the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning. 13. DSD stands for the Department of State Development. 14. DTMR stands for the Department of Transport and Main Roads, or any other

department administering the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. 15. ED Act means the Economic Development Act 2012. 16. EDQ means Economic Development Queensland, Development Assessment. 17. ED Regulation means the Economic Development Regulation 2013. 18. ESD stands for Ecologically Sustainable Development. 19. GFA stands for Gross Floor Area. 20. ICOP stands for Infrastructure Charging Offset Plan. 21. IMP stands for Infrastructure Master Plan. 22. IRD stands for the Integrated Resort Development. 23. LCR stands for Landscape Concept Report. 24. MEDQ means the Minister for Economic Development Queensland established under

the Economic Development Act 2012. 25. PDA stands for Priority Development Area. 26. PoD stands for Plan of Development which means the document titled Queen’s Wharf

Brisbane Plan of Development, Volume 2: Plan of Development, prepared by Urbis, dated 01.12.2017. References to the approved PoD means this PoD.

27. QHC stands for the Queensland Heritage Council. 28. QUDaPP stands for the Queensland Urban Design and Places Panel. 29. QUT stands for the Queensland University of Technology. 30. QUU stands for Queensland Urban Utilities. 31. QWB stands for Queen’s Wharf Brisbane. 32. Development Scheme stands for the Queen’s Wharf Brisbane Priority Development

Area Development Scheme. 33. SBC stands for South Bank Corporation.


34. TMP stands for Traffic Management Plan. 35. TTWG stands for the Transport and Traffic Working Group, which is a working group

assembled to facilitate decision making for transport and traffic related matters for the QWBIRD, and consists of representatives from council, DTMR (including TransLink) and DSD.

Note: All departmental names reflect the naming conventions at the time when the development application went out on public notification.


1 Introduction 1.1 Background The head of power under which the Minister for Economic Development Queensland (MEDQ) has the authority to perform its functions and powers is the Economic Development Act 2012 (ED Act) and Economic Development Regulation 2013 (ED Regulation). Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) is an administrative unit within the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) specialising in land use planning and property development. EDQ engages with state and local government, the development industry and the public to identify, plan, facilitate and deliver property development and infrastructure projects to create prosperous, liveable and connected communities. Under the Instrument of Delegation executed on 28 July 2016, the Honourable Jacklyn Trad, former Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment, as the corporation sole known as the MEDQ, delegated decision making power to the Chief Executive of the department, being the Director-General of the former DILGP, now known as DSDMIP. Under the Instrument of Sub-Delegation executed on 20 October 2017, Mr Francis Patrick Carroll, as Chief Executive of the former DILGP, sub-delegated decision making powers to EDQ officers. The power for the MEDQ’s delegate to accept a development application as properly made, issue an information request and determine if public notification is required, is executed through the Instrument of Sub-Delegation. Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are parcels of land within Queensland, identified for specific accelerated development, with a focus on economic growth. Where a Priority Development Area is declared by the Queensland Government, development applications over land within a PDA are made to and assessed by MEDQ under the ED Act. Development assessment for the QWB PDA is undertaken by EDQ.

1.2 PDA declaration and development scheme In 2013, the Queensland Government conducted public consultation to seek feedback from the community and key stakeholders on the redevelopment of Queen's Wharf Brisbane (QWB). The feedback received, as well as discussions with peak industry bodies and council, helped to shape the project's vision and objectives for the competitive bid process and key planning principles of the QWB PDA Development Scheme (the development scheme). On 28 November 2014, the QWB PDA was declared by the Queensland Government. The PDA was declared to facilitate the planning and delivery of the QWB Integrated Resort Development (IRD) project and establish the necessary policy environment to support the intended development outcome for the site. In accordance with the ED Act, and in consultation with council and state agencies, EDQ prepared a proposed development scheme for the QWB PDA. Public notification of the proposed development scheme occurred from 7 August to 21 September 2015. During this period, all interested parties, including the community, residents, stakeholders, and local business operators were able to view the proposed development scheme and make a written submission for consideration by the MEDQ. On 28 January 2016, the QWB PDA Development Scheme was approved by the Queensland Government. The development scheme establishes a land use plan which regulates development within the PDA and includes a vision and structural elements plan.


The vision for the PDA is centred around the strategic riverside location. The scale and significant redevelopment capacity of the PDA will transform Brisbane's CBD, offering unprecedented opportunities to revitalise the south-western edge of the CBD as a tourism, recreation, cultural and entertainment destination for Brisbane. The infrastructure plan details the infrastructure necessary to support the land use plan for the PDA and identifies applicable infrastructure charges. The implementation strategy describes objectives and actions that will complement the land use plan and infrastructure plan to achieve the outcomes for the PDA. The development scheme establishes a range of defined uses, identified in schedule 2. Excluding schedule 1 – PDA Exempt Development, all development, including development not defined in schedule 2, is considered PDA-assessable development. All PDA-assessable development requires a development permit to be obtained prior to carrying out the development.

1.3 PDA-associated development On 19 April 2016, the Queensland Parliament passed the Queen's Wharf Brisbane Act 2016. This Act amended the ED Act to introduce the concept of PDA-associated development. These amendments came into effect on 27 May 2016. The amendments provide a mechanism for efficiently managing development that is associated with a PDA but proposed to be located outside the PDA. This allows the proposed development to be dealt with under the ED Act in a similar way to development within the PDA. On 1 June 2016, EDQ received a request from Destination Brisbane Consortium (DBC) to consider declaring three developments outside of the QWB PDA to be PDA-associated developments. Prior to a decision being made, consultation with affected entities was carried out in accordance with section 40B of the ED Act. On 12 March 2017, the MEDQ decided to declare three PDA-associated developments, being Area A: Queens Street interface public realm and water connection services work, Area B: Pedestrian bridge work (part of the total bridge span) and Area C: New trunk sewer work. The level of assessment of the three described developments was determined to be PDA-assessable development, thereby requiring a development permit to be obtained to carry out the declared developments.

1.4 Development application On 15 May 2017, the applicant submitted a development application to EDQ seeking approval for a development permit for material change of use, operational work and building work, in accordance with a Plan of Development (PoD) (the development application). On 30 May 2017, the development application was determined to be properly made in accordance with section 82 of the ED Act. The PoD was prepared in accordance with the development scheme and relates to land and parts of the Brisbane River within the QWB PDA and PDA-associated land declared under the ED Act. The whole of site master plan application comprised of the PoD and technical reports and sought to establish a future assessment framework within the approved PoD, against which future development will be assessed. The application sought approval for a range of land uses in accordance with the approved development scheme.


After a preliminary assessment, an information request was issued to the applicant on 27 June 2017 under section 83 of the ED Act. The applicant submitted a response to the information request on 24 August 2017. On 30 August 2017, the applicant submitted a request to change the PoD development application in accordance with section 92 of the ED Act. The purpose of this change application was to formalise amendments proposed as a result of EDQ’s preliminary review of the submitted PoD application, ahead of public notification. On 1 September 2017, the response to the information request was determined to have satisfactorily complied with the request. Section 84(1)(b) of the ED Act requires development applications to undergo public notification where the development incorporates PDA-associated development declared for the PDA by the MEDQ. The ED Act and ED Regulation require public notification of relevant development applications to be carried out for a minimum of 20 business days. Public notification of the QWB development application was carried out for a period of 30 business days allowing for additional time for submitters to peruse the submitted documentation. The public notification of the development application was carried out from 6 September to 19 October 2017. Following the end of the public notification, submissions received were considered by the MEDQ. This report has been prepared to summarise the submissions received by the MEDQ and provide information on the merits of the submissions. The documents made available for review during public notification were the current documents at the time notification was undertaken. At the conclusion of public notification, all submissions were considered. EDQ had a 40 business day assessment period after public notification concluded in which to liaise with the applicant and identify final matters for resolution, including items and suggestions raised in the submissions. As a result, refined documentation was submitted to EDQ during the assessment period. The revised documentation was not considered substantially different from the information which was publicly notified.

1.5 Compliance assessment process Where a PDA development condition requires compliance assessment to be undertaken by a person or entity, the compliance assessment process outlined in the Decision Notice preamble is to be referred to. Conditions of approval have been imposed which require detailed information to be either certified by suitably qualified professionals and submitted to the MEDQ; or submitted to the MEDQ for compliance assessment and approval. The timing of the documentation to be submitted is determined by the condition of approval. The requirements of compliance assessment conditions vary depending on the subject matter and may include certification requirements. Where Technical Notes are required by compliance assessment conditions, these are intended to support the approved documents and are one mechanism to obtain further technical details.


2 Overview of public notification process 2.1 Requirements of public notification The public notification of the development application was carried out from 6 September to 19 October 2017. Public notification was undertaken in accordance with section 84 of the ED Act and section 6 of the ED Regulation. A total of 43 information signs were erected across all street frontages of the subject site in accordance with the requirements of the ED Regulation. A notice was published in The Courier Mail on Tuesday 5 September 2017. Notice letters were sent to all adjoining land owners on 5 September 2017.

2.2 Submission registration and review process All submissions were received by email via the centralised [email protected] email address. Once a submission was received, submissions were registered and reviewed. This process was established to:

consider all submissions in an objective, equitable and fair manner assist in the preparation of this Public notice of PDA development application –

submissions report (submissions report) provide guidance and advice to the MEDQ’s delegate in respect of making a decision on

the development application enable the MEDQ to comply with the requirements of ED Act.

All submissions were treated as confidential. Some individual submitters chose to make the contents of their submissions public. Where duplicate submissions were received which were exactly the same from the same submitter, the submission was counted only once. If a submitter lodged more than one submission or lodged as part of a joint submission which covered different issues, the submissions were counted as separate submissions. An EDQ submission database was established to assist in the registration, classification and summary of submissions. Table 1 below provides an overview of the submission registration and review process.


Table 1: Submission registration and review process

Steps Action/detail

1. Registration and acknowledgement of submissions

Submissions were registered and given a submission number. Each submitter was sent an acknowledgement email.

2. Classification of submissions

Submissions were classified by the submitter’s affiliation, themes and refined topics. For further information see section 3 below.

3. Summarising submission issues

Each submission was read and the different matters raised were entered into the submissions database under relevant themes and further refined into topics. The database was then used to summarise and collate the matters raised into this submissions report.

Submissions often covered a number of topics or issues, therefore allowance was made for the same or similar issues being raised in a number of submissions. This included receiving multiple submissions with similar views on a particular issue or submissions having different views on the same issue. For this reason, common issues across submissions were identified and these issues were summarised under common issue topics in this submissions report.

4. Evaluation and responses to issues

After all issues had been summarised under issue topics, the issues were assessed and responses to the broader topic were prepared. The assessment and response to issues was undertaken by EDQ.

In evaluating submissions, allowance was made for the same or similar issues being raised in different submissions. For this reason, assessment of issues were made in relation to issue topics rather than a submission by submission basis.

5. Submissions report This submissions report was prepared which collates steps 3 and 4 above, therefore providing a summary of the submissions considered and information about the merits of the submissions.

To facilitate presentation and review of issues, matters were summarised.

6. ED Board meeting On 1 November 2017, the Economic Development Board noted the key issues that were raised in the submissions.

7. MEDQ approval This submissions report, approved plans and documents and decision notice including conditions was submitted to the MEDQ’s delegate for review and approval.


3 Overview of submissions 3.1 Submitter type A total of 196 submissions were received during the submission period, including submissions from individuals, community groups, educational institutions, business and industry organisations, political parties and local government. Six submissions were received after the submission period had closed. Refer to table 2 for a breakdown of submissions received during (and after) the submission period, from different submitter types. Table 2: Breakdown of submissions by submitter type

Type of submitter Number of submissions received

Business 4 Educational/academic 2 Industry 1 Local government 1 Political 4 Community group 12 Individuals 178 Total submissions 202

3.2 Submission themes Where submissions raised several different matters, each matter was entered into the submissions database under relevant theme and further refined into topics. Figure 1 provides a breakdown of submissions by theme. Section 4 has been presented in numerical order from the highest number of submissions by theme to the lowest recorded number of submissions.

Figure 1: Breakdown of submissions by theme

2

17

22

27

33

65

73

80

80

81

93

143

146

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Construction phase

Built form

General

Street and Movement network

Hydrology and Environment

Infrastructure

Planning matters

Heritage / Archaeology

Active Transport

Design

Government decision making

Land Uses

Bicentennial Bikeway

QWB Submission themes


3.3 Overarching areas of support Feedback received within submissions raised a complex variety of different opinions on different matters. Some submissions supported some aspects of the development application but had concern for others. Below is a summary of the overarching areas of support identified in submissions:

Support for the redevelopment of the site delivering a range of uses and facilities to assist Brisbane’s economic growth and vision to become a New World City.

Support for the increased public open space opportunities and revitalisation of the riverbank which promotes active and healthy lifestyle options, takes advantage of the subtropical climate and revitalises previously underutilised areas.

Support for the enhancement of connectivity and integration between the CBD and the river.

Support for the investment of community infrastructure into Brisbane, including the bridge, safe movement through shared zones, pedestrian and cyclist enhancements, public spaces and foreshore areas.

Support for the heritage protection provisions and principles which allow for conservation, adaptive re-use and improved access to the heritage places.

Support for the achievement of a Green Star rating. Support for the level of detail submitted and the establishment of controls and planning

provisions.

3.4 Overarching areas of concern Below is a summary of the overarching areas of concern identified in submissions:

Significant concern was recorded regarding the proposal for a shared plaza through the

Bicentennial Bikeway. Specifically, enhancements to the cycle and pedestrian network within the PDA were not considered to be delivered in accordance with the development scheme.

Some concern regarding the appropriateness of an expanded casino was raised, particularly the potential social impacts and the economic reliance on the casino.

The protection and expansion of public spaces, including Queens Gardens was important to submitters.

There were strong views held that the privatisation of public land, including open spaces, is unsupported. Concern about the ownership and ability for the public to access the public realm 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Several requests were made for the cost/benefit analysis to be made publicly available to allow transparency of decision making.

The protection of and sensitive response to existing heritage places was of concern to submitters, particularly regarding architectural design, built form massing and setbacks.

More rigorous conservation management procedures for the heritage places was required.

An integrated public transport network was identified as a priority for submitters. Concerns regarding the future provision of public transport for the area were raised.

Suggestions were made for a more thorough consultation process to be carried out for the development.

The public benefits were not considered proportionate to the scale of the development. It was noted that there was an insufficient level of detail to approve the PoD. Various concerns were raised regarding the pedestrian bridge, including the provision for

cyclists, impacts on river vessels and lack of detailed information being provided.


Provision of adequate infrastructure and appropriate infrastructure charging was of concern to submitters.

Concern regarding the hydrologic impacts of the development. Traffic and movement network impacts, including service access, congestion and public

transport were matters of concern to submitters. Some concern about parking implications including on-street parking, the location of car

parks, access and drop-off/pick-up areas. It was considered that the built form, massing and height of new development should

ensure key views are achieved.


4 Summary of submissions 4.1 Bicentennial Bikeway

Mat

ter

#

Summary of issue/comment Response

Separation of Bicentennial Bikeway

1. Many submitters identified that the proposal fails to deliver enhancements and upgrades to the Bicentennial Bikeway in accordance with the development scheme. Specifically, the proposal fails to:

manage potential interactions between cyclists and other users through design

appropriately consider future network capacity.

Submitters requested a separated bikeway through the shared zone to reduce conflict and accommodate future capacity.

The conceptual design and safety of the Bicentennial Bikeway and public realm foreshore has been assessed by EDQ, QUDaPP, DTMR and EDQ's specialist consultants. The design of the bikeway has been assessed against relevant DTMR, Australian and international bikeway and shared path standards. It is noted that the existing guidelines and manuals for bikeway design do not reflect the particular requirements or context of the QWB public realm foreshore. The DTMR guidelines and standards refer to bikeways or shared paths whose function is primary linear movement along a longitudinal path for commuter travel but does not address bikeway path design in high traffic public realm areas where significant activation and cross movement of pedestrians across the bikeway is also a priority, which is the case in QWB along specific sections of the foreshore. EDQ's assessment of the bikeway design has considered all aspects of the foreshore and public realm to ensure the safety and function of all users, the development scheme requirements were considered and the bikeway and foreshore was considered as a holistic and integrated design. EDQ's assessment was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the development scheme which requires development to:

enhance connectivity and integration between the city and the river front, provide new and reinvigorated areas of public open


Mat

ter

#


space which support recreation opportunities, access and enjoyment of the Brisbane River

provide for upgrades to the bikeway and also deliver improved connectivity to the river.

It was determined a delineated bikeway is acceptable in those locations along the foreshore where linear longitudinal movement can be safely facilitated and designed and where not heavily conflicted by highly active cross block pedestrian movement adjacent activated public realm and through highly active public plazas. These areas include North Quay to the ferry terminal and Waterline Park to QUT. In areas where significant activation is a function of the foreshore and pedestrian cross block movement is designed to provide access to the river and rivers edge activity, a shared pedestrian and cyclist zone is required. This shared zone is to be designed to ensure all users have equal priority. A slow speed environment is achieved and the function and safety of the public realm and bikeway as a holistic design is considered. Specific conditions require detailed design to be submitted for compliance assessment. The detailed design of the bikeway is to include specific design and safety requirements for clear sight lines, best practice wayfinding, a slow speed environment of 15 km/hr, clearly defined transition zones, minimum unobstructed path widths of 6 m and a design response to ensure increases in patronage and upgrades will not be constrained. Furthermore, an operational management plan for the bikeway has been conditioned to ensure the ongoing patronage, speed and conflict areas are reviewed systematically every 5 years.


Mat

ter

#


2. Path widths should be a minimum 4.5 m for the Bicentennial Bikeway

A pedestrian and movement analysis has been conditioned to be undertaken to determine the required width of the bikeway.

3. An elevated bikeway alongside freeway was suggested. The option of an elevated bikeway has been explored by EDQ. There is insufficient funding and support at this time to progress any further development of this option. An elevated bikeway is not a requirement of the development scheme.

4. The bikeway must remain open during the construction phase.

A condition of approval has been imposed to require a 3 m wide bikeway to remain open for 24 hours, 7 days a week (24/7) access.

Support of Bicentennial Bikeway

5. Support for the following aspects of the bikeway were recorded:

Upgrades to sections of the Bicentennial Bikeway

The shared zone which balances the needs of all users.

Support for the Bicentennial Bikeway upgrades and shared zone is noted.


4.2 Land uses M

atte

r #


Casino

6. A number of submitters noted that the casino is not needed in Brisbane and more poker machines are unsupported.

The development scheme was made in January 2016, and identifies a range of uses which are considered PDA-assessable, including a casino. The introductory section of this submissions report outlines the process that the MEDQ undertook to make the development scheme, including consultation. The development scheme is the document that sets the appropriate land uses for this PDA. A casino is PDA-assessable development under the development scheme, indicating that it is an appropriate land use, subject to consideration of the land use impacts, including matters related to road network, building design and public realm. There is an existing casino located within the PDA, and the proposed casino is the existing operation relocating to a new premises within the PDA, as such is an existing lawful use within the PDA. It is understood that there is a cap on gaming machines for both clubs and pubs in Queensland. The licence associated with the casino is under the jurisdiction of Business Queensland who is responsible for compliance with the relevant legislation. This is separate.

7. The layout, position and scale of the casino in proximity to the heritage buildings and in the centre of the development is not supported.

The location of the IRD, which includes a range of uses and the casino is generally in accordance with the structural elements plan (map 2), within the development scheme.


Mat

ter

#


The scale of the development is also generally in accordance with the outcomes envisaged in the development scheme. The approved PoD and Conservation Management Plan regulate the scale and setbacks of new development in relation to the heritage buildings. The provisions in the approved documents related to the heritage buildings underwent a robust assessment by the qualified heritage architects commissioned by the MEDQ to provide expert advice to support the assessment, as well as further robust consideration by relevant officers within DEHP and the Queensland Heritage Council.

8. The social impacts of the casino are of concern. As discussed in the introductory section of this submissions report, there was a substantial process undertaken preceding the lodgement of this development application. This included the involvement of DSD in establishing and facilitating this major project, as well as the making of the development scheme by the MEDQ. Due regard was given to these matters in these earlier processes, and it was not appropriate that this be reinterrogated through a development application. It is understood that in assessing the potential social and economic impacts of the QWB project, DSD undertook a rigorous process as part of the casino licence bid. This process required the proponents to submit information demonstrating, amongst other things, their commitment to responsible gambling and minimising harm from gambling. It is understood that the Community Impact Statement, undertaken as part of the casino licence process, has not been made publicly available as the casino licence contains confidential information that is commercially sensitive to the casino licensee.


Mat

ter

#


9. The casino is an unsustainable economic and cultural model.

Due regard was given to these matters in the earlier state government processes, and it was not appropriate that this be reinterrogated through a development application. However, it is understood that the broader development of QWB will include the delivery of a $3B Integrated Resort Development, staged payments to the state government of $272 million and guaranteed casino taxes for the first 10 years of the casino operations of approximately $880 million. The Queensland Government will use the revenue received to pay down state debt and the normal allocations of government.

Residential

10. More affordable housing is needed in the proposal. The PoD allows for the development of one residential tower in Precinct 1, and two residential towers in Precinct 3, enabling a maximum of 2000 residential units in the development. The development scheme does not require a percentage of affordable housing to be delivered. It is therefore not reasonable for the MEDQ to require through a development application process. The housing delivered through this development will therefore be market led product.

11. Private and communal open space is important for delivering residential amenity.

The General and Specific use criteria (PoD section 5.6) requires future multiple dwelling unit developments to be delivered with a minimum of 5% of the site area or 40 m² for communal open space, whichever is greater. For private open space, a minimum 12 m² with a minimum dimension of 3 m is required. These space provisions are in line with the ordinary Brisbane City Council requirements.


Mat

ter

#


Open space / Foreshore

12. Requests for a notable increase and expansion of public green space and preservation of existing heritage parks, resulting in an increase in scale of public use land.

The approved development includes extensive areas of publicly accessible green space.

These areas include: the landing along the riverfront which provides a minimum of

2000 m² turfed area Waterline Park on the riverfront is a new recreation space of a

minimum size of 1000 m², inclusive of a minimum turfed area of 100 m²

Bellevue Plaza is a new plaza space located on the corner of George and Alice Streets, of a minimum size of 800 m², with a minimum turfed area of 300 m²

the maintenance of Miller Park, and the maintenance of Queens Gardens with a total of 2400 m²

softscape, inclusive of 1500 m² turfed.

There are also a number of other publicly accessible plaza type spaces provided, with extensive landscaping treatments, and are nominated in the approved Landscape Concept Report (LCR).

13. Suggestion to follow the South Bank model which is a destination because of the public open space.

The strategic vision of the development is focused on enhancing connectivity and integration between the city and the riverfront, providing new and reinvigorated publicly accessible spaces.

The development will deliver a world-class tourism destination with substantial public realm offerings and the revitalisation of underutilised foreshore land.

14. Remove the allowance for reclamation to occur along the entire length of the PDA.

The maximum extent of reclamation is identified in figure 16: Master Plan Principles in the approved PoD.

The area identified where reclamation may occur spans from the Victoria Bridge to Miller Park for a maximum extent of 5 m,


Mat

ter

#


broadening to a maximum of 60 m from Miller Park to the Alice Street alignment. Provision for jetties and landing opportunities also exist in the River area from the Victoria Bridge to Waterline Park.

The areas of reclamation are proposed to improve the amenity and extent of publicly accessible areas along the riverfront, particularly in relation to extending land out beyond the line of the Riverside Expressway to increase the experience with the Brisbane River.

Furthermore, the reclamation areas increase riverfront access akin to the land area currently extending beyond the Riverside expressway south of the Alice Street alignment.

15. Concern was raised over the privatisation of public spaces. The development approval requires that spaces nominated to be publicly accessible spaces in the approved LCR, are to be predominantly for unrestricted access and enjoyment by the general public at all times. There are particular circumstances nominated for which these spaces can be managed, for example an event.

General land use

16. Competition created by the development for existing businesses was a concern for a few submitters.

Noted. The development application provides a land use approval in line with the uses established intended uses under the development scheme.

17. There were concerns regarding the development’s failure to deliver a range of uses and respond to the local context.

The development application proposes a number of uses across the site including community and health facilities, high density residential and commercial, entertainment, recreation, resort tourism and leisure uses.

The high density and mixed-use nature of the CBD context allows the proposed uses to be accommodated appropriately with sufficient setbacks and co-location considerations. The adaptive reuse of the existing heritage buildings has been incorporated into the approved Conservation Management Plans and were robustly assessed.


Mat

ter

#


18. The articulation of the GFA spread across the sub-precincts makes the built form / land use outcome unclear.

The approved PoD document is a whole of site master plan to be delivered over a period of 30 years. Changes were made to the PoD to enable approval to now specify allocations of gross floor area (GFA) within sub-precincts.

19. The temporary and interim uses allowable along the Bicentennial Bikeway corridor are excessive and unsuitable.

Figure 27: Public Realm Development Outcome – Temporary and Interim Uses in the PoD identifies the areas of public realm which have the potential to incorporate non-permanent uses. An amendment in red has been included in table 13 which corresponds with figure 27 to ensure a minimum unobstructed area of 3 m is provided to maintain and safe and traversable area for the bikeway.

20. Containment of noise generating uses is required. Acoustic criteria within section 6 of the PoD provides restrictions on noise generation which accord with relevant standards to achieve acceptable levels of amenity for residents and visitors to QWB.

Noise generated by temporary and interim uses onsite has been restricted through table 12: Development Controls for Centre Activities (where not involving Building Work) requirements.

Community facilities

21. A request for the development to provide schools and arts spaces was received.

Although education establishments are approved uses as part of the PoD, it is anticipated that this use may cater for training institutions or the like. A school for primary or secondary aged students is not envisaged for the site.

With regard to art and creative community spaces, these may be accommodated in sub-precincts 1a, 1c–e, 1g–h, Precincts 2 and 3 where community use is an approved land uses.

Support

22. One submitter provided support for the hotel. Noted.


4.3 Government decision making M

atte

r #


Sale of government assets

23. There were strong views held that the privatisation of public land by sale or 99-year lease is unsupported.

The concerns are noted. Contractual aspects, including the long-term lease of the QWB site were resolved between the applicant and DSD in November 2015. The development application provides a land use approval only.

Transparency of process and decision making

24. Requests were made for the documentation of the impacts and cost / benefit analysis to be made publicly available.

The development application is for a land use approval and it is not a reasonable requirement to submit a cost-benefit analysis to the MEDQ for assessment. It is understood that the Community Impact Statement, undertaken as part of the casino licence process, has not been made publicly available as the casino licence contains confidential information that is commercially sensitive to the casino licensee.

25. It was considered that there is insufficient detail in the submitted documentation to approve the development.

The MEDQ is legislatively able to grant a development permit for a whole of site master plan of this nature for a PoD, where a future compliance framework is established and suitable conditions are imposed. The MEDQ has determined that the development application was able to be decided.

26. There is an unacceptable level of uncertainty about the outcomes should an approval be granted.

The conditions of approval, approved PoD and associated approved documents establish the essential criteria and standards to be met during the detailed design of the development. Conditions of approval have been imposed which require further detailed information to be either certified by suitably qualified professionals and submitted to the MEDQ; or submitted to the


Mat

ter

#


MEDQ for compliance assessment and approval. However, all further information and detailed design must be generally in accordance with the development approval granted.

27. The lack of transparency was considered to be alarming. The assessment of the development application was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the ED Act. This included the publication of all submitted application materials, the MEDQ’s information request and the applicant’s response on the EDQ website. Public notice of the development application was carried out for a period of 30 business days, being longer than the ordinary 20 business day requirement, which was determined to be more appropriate for this application given the extent of application materials for consideration. In making the decision, all legislative requirements were complied with. As noted in the introduction to this report, the MEDQ has also on this occasion chosen to make this submissions report publicly available.

28. The developer donations from the proponent are noted. Noted. However, if there were donations made, this is not a relevant consideration to the MEDQ in deciding the development application under the ED Act.

Business case

29. Submitters considered transparency to be a requirement in terms of the business case, the financial transaction, cost-benefit analysis and terms of payment.

The development application is for a land use approval and it is not a reasonable requirement of an applicant to submit a cost-benefit analysis or business case to the MEDQ for assessment. It is understood that the casino licence and terms of contractual agreement between the applicant and DSD has not been made


Mat

ter

#


publicly available as the licence and agreement contain confidential information that is commercially sensitive.

30. There is concern that the public are exposed if the venture fails. It is problematic that the development relies on the casino to be viable.

Due regard was given to these matters in the earlier state government processes, and it was not appropriate that this be reinterrogated through a development application. However, the broader development of QWB will include the delivery of a $3B Integrated Resort Development, staged payments to the state government of $272M and guaranteed casino taxes for the first 10 years of the casino operations of approximately $880M. The Queensland Government will use the revenue received to pay down state debt and the normal allocations of government.


4.4 Design M

atte

r #


Architectural design

31. The architecture and massing should reflect and embrace the heritage precinct.

The submitted Cultural Heritage Analysis Report provided an analysis of the heritage places and integration principles adopted across the PDA as part of the design proposal. Detailed analysis and assessment has been undertaken of the built form, massing and specific heritage integration principles have been included in the PoD to address this issue. Specialist heritage advice has been sought from the Queensland Heritage Council (QHC), DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect.

32. Submitters do not support the lack of detail about the delivery of the design and the level of scrutiny of the architecture.

The EDQ approval process incorporates a compliance assessment process which reviews all the detailed design and compliance aspects of the design. The PoD sets up the principles and parameters against which future compliance assessment for detailed aspects of the design will be assessed.

33. Hostile architecture which deters rough sleepers and marginalised demographics is unsupported.

Indicative streetscape furniture submitted for the application does not incorporate hostile architecture.

Open space and public realm

34. The Queens Gardens design proposes a reduction in green space, includes an opening to the subterranean retail and a porte-cochere. It is considered that the proposal will reduce the amenity and heritage value of the park.

The PoD parameters and controls for Queens Gardens requires a minimum 2400 m2 of softscape and 1500 m2 of turfed area. This has also been required as a condition of approval.

35. The importance of creating a seamless transition from the development into the CBD was stressed.

This principle of a seamless transition from the development to the CBD is a key principle outlined in the LCR. Specific controls and


Mat

ter

#


conditions have been included in the approval to ensure future wayfinding and public realm design deliver on this principle.

36. Safety for all users is to be integrated into the riverfront activation.

CPTED requirements to ensure safety are a condition of approval and are a requirement of the technical criteria of section 6 of the approved PoD.

37. There was concern over the privatisation of public spaces. A condition of approval requires unobstructed areas and minimum dimensions and standards to be complied with. The condition is supported by figure 4.7 of the approved LCR which illustrates the areas identified for full 24/7 public access.

38. Play equipment, drinking fountains and bike racks are required.

The approved LCR includes a table of Desired Standards of Service that details requirements for the location and provision of public realm infrastructure within the PDA. The approved IMP details the specific standards required for the provision of public realm infrastructure.

Streetscape

39. Queens Wharf Road should have advanced trees and a reduced gradient.

Updated details regarding the selected planting and species palette have been included in the approved LCR. The detailed design of Queen's Wharf Road, including the streetscape, is subject to compliance assessment. A condition of approval requires all trees to be advanced species. The design and gradient of Queens Wharf Road is subject to compliance assessment.

40. Wider verges accommodating pedestrians and street and shade trees are needed.

The conditions of approval require the verge widths for all public streets to be assessed as part of a pedestrian modelling analysis to deliver specified accepted levels of service. The widths of verges to public streets are in accordance with council standards of 3.75 m except where they are located in front of heritage buildings where the width is to remain as the existing width. Any reduced widths will be assessed against the pedestrian model.


Mat

ter

#


The approved LCR details requirement for street trees and minimum shading to be provided for all public realm areas including street verges.

41. Shade trees are required for streets and public spaces, not palm trees.

Palm trees are only located in street verges in front of heritage places to preserve heritage views of the façade. This is in accordance with council’s current practices.

42. Revised plans and cross-sections identifying the stages and locations of planting should be resubmitted.

An updated LCR has been provided. Detailed locations of planting will be provided at the compliance assessment stage.

43. The proposed George Street streetscaping should be continued into the segment fronting Parliament House.

Appropriate integration of the development with the surrounding streetscape has been considered. Parliament House does not form part of this approval and is not part of the land identified in the QWB PDA.

44. Demonstrate how William Street will perform as an engaging, attractive and function city street.

The PoD and approved documents require active edges to new built form along William Street and passive edges for heritage buildings that front the street.

45. There is concern that the streetscapes will be impacted by vehicle cross-overs.

The PoD and approved documents require all vehicle cross-overs to be raised to align with the level of pedestrian footpaths to promote safe pedestrian movement.

46. It is noted that maintenance and ownership arrangements of streetscapes are currently not in line with council requirements.

A condition of approval requires where Public Assets are to be delivered to a standard other than the relevant council standard, an appropriate arrangement is to be entered into with council for the repair, maintenance and replacement of that public asset.

Ecologically Sustainable Design

47. References to the Buildings that Breath document should be increased.

Additional requirements relating to assessment against council's New World City Design Guide: Buildings that Breathe have been incorporated into the PoD approved documents. Compliance assessment is required for new built form in Precincts 1a and 3


Mat

ter

#


against the key elements and sub elements of council's New World City Design Guide: Buildings that Breathe.

48. Environmental performance, including recycled materials and innovative aspects, are important aspects for the development.

ESD requirements are incorporated into section 6 Technical Criteria of the approved PoD. These criteria specify industry best practice standards for design and as built for heritage buildings and design and as-built green star rating of 6 star for residential towers and the IRD resort.

Disability access

49. A best practice approach above the minimum standards is encouraged. Specifically, residential and short-term accommodation units should be above the minimum standard. Liveable Housing Australia designation of 'Gold' should be implemented.

In accordance with the requirements of the development scheme, the approved PoD requires development to be designed in accordance with relevant legislation, codes and standards for equitable access.

50. It is considered that there are limited details in the Equitable Access Assessment report about design features, for example the fit-out and operational phase.

The conditions of approval require all buildings and public realm areas to be designed in accordance with the relevant legislation, codes and standards for equitable access. Conditions of approval require details of building layouts to be assessed as part of compliance assessment.

51. Easy access to public performance space for people with disabilities should be included.

Requirements for equitable access are incorporated into section 6 Technical Criteria in the approved PoD. A condition of approval also requires the development to be designed generally in accordance with the approved Equitable Access Assessment Report.

Design for public benefit

52. Inclusive and accessible public spaces are needed for community gatherings and recreation.

The PoD requirements and conditions of approval require the development meets all equitable access standards including for the public realm.


Mat

ter

#


53. The significant development of the site should be complemented by planning and investment for residents through public spaces.

A condition of approval requires unobstructed areas and minimum dimensions and standards to be complied with. The condition is supported by figure 4.7 of the approved LCR which illustrates the areas identified for full 24/7 public access. Substantial attention has been focused on the design of the public space to benefit the community and visitors alike.

CPTED

54. It is unclear how specific CPTED principles will be implemented.

A condition of approval sets out the requirements for CPTED and the PoD also provides the relevant guidelines for design under section 6 Technical Criteria in the approved PoD.

55. It is considered that the measures to discourage loitering and ensure legitimate use of spaces, conflicts with the goal of the development to make it a destination.

In accordance with the requirements of the development scheme, the approved PoD requires development to be designed in accordance with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED): Guidelines for Queensland document.

Wayfinding

56. Further resolution of the wayfinding ribbon is needed, particularly with prioritising pedestrians movements on Elizabeth Street.

Detailed design of the public realm including the ribbon and wayfinding, forms part of the compliance assessment condition and therefore will be subject to further detail and assessment.

57. Wayfinding signage for the heritage buildings should be incorporated.

Wayfinding is addressed within the approved LCR. Further details are required to be provided for compliance assessment which ensure the design elements in the LCR will be closely assessed and implemented.

Standards

58. There is not sufficient detail in the PoD regarding standards. Broad statements instead of demonstrated compliance with

The PoD has been assessed against the requirements of the development scheme and deemed to be approved. Where any non-


Mat

ter

#


the development scheme and PDA Guidelines are not accepted. Assurance is sought that the requirements, regulations and standards of the development scheme will not be superseded by the provision of the PoD.

compliance with the development scheme was proposed, appropriate justification and assessment of these aspects forms part of the conditions of approval.


4.5 Active transport M

atte

r #


Cycle network

59. Many submitters raised that the proposal fails to deliver the following aspects required by the development scheme:

enhancements and upgrades of the cycle infrastructure and network to improve safety

management of the potential interactions and conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists, and

accommodation of the future network capacity needs.

The approved LCR provides details of the bikeway concept within the PDA. The LCR identifies upgrades to the cycle infrastructure and network including upgrades to the surface treatment, network connections and improvements in wayfinding, pedestrian and cycle path widths and the inclusion of new transition zone areas to provide safe crossings and delineation of shared zones along the foreshore. A condition of approval requires the detailed design of the cycle network to meet specific requirements for safety, ensure clear sightlines for users, manage conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists, address future capacity needs for 20 years and requires a slow speed environment in shared zones. Furthermore, an operational management plan for the bikeway has been conditioned to ensure the ongoing patronage, speed and conflict areas are reviewed systematically every 5 years.

60. An upgrade to other existing cycleways and provision of new connections within the PDA was requested to enable integration with the Bicentennial Bikeway, specifically outbound on Alice Street, inbound on Margaret Street and along George Street.

A 3.75m footpath connection is provided outbound on the northern side of Alice Street with 2.4 m unobstructed access for cyclists and pedestrians. Inbound on the northern side of Margaret Street from the Bicentennial Bikeway to William Street, a 3.75 m footpath connection is provided with 3 m unobstructed access for cyclists and pedestrians.

61. An opportunity exists for more CityCycle stations in the precinct.

The Queens Wharf Road shared zone has been identified as a potential City Cycle station in the precinct.


Mat

ter

#


62. There was a suggestion that the north-south cross block links through the site should be shared paths for cyclist and pedestrian use.

The cross-block links approved in the PoD and LCR are in accordance with the requirements of the development scheme. Cyclists and pedestrians are both able to utilises these paths.

Pedestrian network

63. Several submitters identified that the proposal fails to deliver a street and movement network which is fine-grained, high quality, legible, safe, permeable and connects to transport hubs, in line with the development scheme.

The approved LCR identifies a network of cross-block links and movement networks throughout the PDA in accordance with the development scheme. The approved PoD requires safe, legible and permeable movement networks in accordance with the approved LCR. A compliance assessment condition requires the detailed design of all streetscape and public realm areas to ensure safety, and legibility.

64. To cater for increased pedestrian patronage through the development, footpath widening, scramble crossings at targeted intersections and improved wayfinding to encourage greater use of CBD streets and bridges is required.

A compliance assessment condition has been imposed requiring further pedestrian modelling and assessment to be completed for all public streets.

Wayfinding is addressed within the approved LCR. Further details are required to be provided for compliance assessment which ensure the design elements in the LCR will be implemented.

65. The tenure and availability of cross-block links should be identified.

The tenure arrangements for cross-block links will be for 24/7 public access in accordance with figure 4.7 of the approved LCR. These areas may be managed for commercial activities, short events and safety and security.

66. There were concerns raised that the information submitted was insufficient to address pedestrian congestion. Further modelling is required to determine the pedestrian movements and capacity of corridors and intersections. The documents should nominate path widths on all streets with minimum unobstructed areas.

A condition of approval has been imposed requiring further pedestrian modelling and assessment to be completed for all public streets and submitted for compliance assessment. This information will inform the detailed design for pedestrian paths and movement corridors.

The approved PoD and LCR nominate all streets to be a minimum of 3.75 m with an unobstructed path of 2.4 m.


Mat

ter

#


Provision of active transport infrastructure

67. Integrated and safe active transport is required to support resident, commuter and visitor activity, to improve public health and reduce traffic congestion.

To improve active transport opportunities, provision of integrated infrastructure will be delivered through pedestrian and cycle access along the Bicentennial Bikeway, additional boardwalks along the foreshore, pedestrian movement connections along all streets and cross-block links and access made available through public realm areas and across the pedestrian bridge to South Bank.

68. All aspects of the development should prioritize pedestrian and cyclist access.

The approved development provides pedestrian movement and cross-block links in accordance with the development scheme. Provision has been made for an upgraded cycle network along the foreshore which addresses the development scheme. The approved LCR contains conceptual plans illustrating the upgraded pedestrian and cyclist movement network and is considered to provide appropriate and improved connectivity across the precinct.

Disability access

69. The shared plaza with pedestrians and cyclists is inadequate for people with disabilities. The area should be smooth and the path separated for cyclists.

The plaza area is a high activity zone for both pedestrians and cyclists. The approved PoD and LCR require best practice design to ensure the spaces function safely for all users. Low speed shared zones are a more appropriate design outcome for all users across this stretch of the public realm. A separated cycle path through Queen’s Wharf Plaza would prioritise cyclists and provides opportunities for and encourage a higher speed environment above 30 km/h. This outcome would increase the risk of conflict in a high activity plaza area, especially for more vulnerable users. A separated cycle path through this high activity are also diminishes the function of this space as a significant public realm recreation and events area.


Mat

ter

#


70. The pedestrian network fails to meet accessibility standards for people with disabilities.

The approved PoD requires the development to be designed in accordance with relevant equitable access requirements. The approved LCR shows the DDA compliant equitable access provisions for the development.

Wayfinding

71. During construction and operational phases, connectivity and wayfinding need to be maintained for all modes of active transport.

A condition of approval is imposed for the construction and operational phases which requires connectivity and wayfinding to be maintained for all modes of transport.

Support

72. The shared zone along Queens Wharf Road is supported to improve cyclist and pedestrian accessibility to the Mall from the River.

Noted.


4.6 Heritage/Archaeology M

atte

r #


Heritage buildings

73. Several submitters raised concerns regarding the scale of the new development and the setbacks to and interface with the heritage buildings. A sensitive scale is required, especially with regards to an appropriate podium height.

Specialist heritage advice has been sought from QHC, DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect.

Additional heritage controls and requirements have been inserted into the PoD to address the interface of new built form with heritage buildings. Specific conditions are included in the decision package ensuing all works to and adjacent heritage places are planned and designed in a manner that retains and conserves the significance of the heritage places and must be certified by a suitably qualified heritage architect.

Compliance assessment also requires the preparation of Heritage Impact Statements for works to heritage places.

74. Proper regard for heritage buildings including preservation and increased access into the buildings.

Conservation Management Plans have been prepared for heritage buildings. A condition of approval requires the preparation of Heritage Impact Statements for works to heritage places as part of compliance assessment.

75. The new development arrangement disturbs the existing heritage precinct layout, in particular the arrangement of buildings and sight lines along George and William Streets was identified as concerning.


Additional heritage controls and requirements have been inserted into the PoD to address the interface of new built form with heritage buildings and heritage views and streetscape. Conditions of approval require detailed analysis of views and streetscapes as part of the compliance assessment for built form.


Mat

ter

#


76. Local heritage management should be considered. The PoD addresses both local and stated listed heritage places.

Interpretation, reuse and adaptation

77. There is a need for the guiding principles to focus on delivering integrated and holistic interpretation.

The preparation of an interpretation plan is recommended.

Conditions of approval have been imposed which require an integrated and holistic Heritage Interpretation Strategy to be submitted for compliance assessment.

78. A detailed analysis of each building’s fabric is required to ensure any reuse or repurposing is informed and harm is not done due to insufficient information.

Detailed assessment is required for each heritage place prior to the commencement of any building works. Updated Conservation Management Plans are required to provide floor plans and elevations which detail the level of significance of the heritage building fabric. Conservation and maintenance works schedules are required prior to the commencement of any building work on a heritage place as a compliance assessment condition.

79. A suggestion was made to establish an expert advisory committee to review proposals for alteration and adaptation of heritage places.


Conditions have been imposed to ensure all works to and adjacent to heritage places are planned and designed in a manner that retains and conserves the significance of the heritage places and must be certified by a suitably qualified heritage architect.

80. It was suggested that The Bellevue Hotel should be reconstructed.

This was not a requirement of the development scheme.

Miller Park and Queens Gardens

81. The greenspace size, public gathering space function and arrangement of Queens Gardens and Miller Park should remain intact.

Specialist heritage advice has been sought from QHC, DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect on Queens Gardens.


Mat

ter

#


The PoD has been updated and specific conditions form part of the approval. These conditions include controls on the minimum green space required and the function of the parks. Conservation Management Plans have also been updated which include policies to guide the future design of these heritage places. Continued consultation is required as a condition of approval with QUDaPP and the QHC as part of detailed design development.

82. The proposal to include an opening to the retail land uses below Queens Gardens contravenes the heritage requirements and citation. This should be removed from the proposal or the retail relocated to William Street.

Specialist heritage advice has been sought from QHC, DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect on Queens Gardens. The PoD approved documents have been assessed against the heritage citation and Conservation Management Plan policies for Queens Gardens. The PoD has been updated and specific requirements and conditions form part of the approval. These requirements ensure the heritage significance of Queens Gardens is retained and conserved, the formal geometry and character of the garden is respected and any opening does not detract from the function of the park as a civic space. The location, size and requirements for an opening to access the area below Queens Gardens have been restricted to 500 m2 in the approved PoD and conditions of approval. Continued consultation is required as a condition of approval with QUDAPP and QHC as part of detailed design development.

83. The proposed shared porte-cochere in front of the former Land Administration Building would impact on the layout of the Gardens and would reduce the relationship between the

The shared zone in front of the former Land Administration Building has been amended in the approved PoD documents to a one-way traffic movement, limited to a maximum vehicle width of 4 m and


Mat

ter

#


park and the former Land Administration Building. The shared zone should be one-way, single lane access limited to emergency vehicle access and hotel drop-off and pick-up only.

restricted to the limited use of hotel owned or leased VIP vehicles. The hotel porte-cochere is now located on William Street or in the basement.

84. All monuments and plaques are to be retained in-situ. All monuments and plaques are retained within Queens Gardens unless otherwise agreed in writing with EDQ.

Conservation management

85. It is considered that the Conservation Management Plans are insufficiently robust and will be ineffective management and assessment documents. The CMP’s need to guide the design decisions, include methodology to resolve conflicts and assessment guidance for reuse options and detail the maintenance, restoration and conservation schedules.

A rigorous assessment of the Conservation Management Plans has been undertaken by DEHP and EDQ’s external heritage advisors. Updated Conservation Management Plans were required to be submitted to EDQ to address the schedules of significance and conservation policies. The updated Conservation Management Plans are approved documents as part of the decision package. Detailed assessment is required for each heritage place prior to the commencement of any building works. Updated Conservation Management Plans are required to provide floor plans and elevations which detail the level of significance of the heritage building fabric. Conservation and maintenance works schedules are required prior to the commencement of any building work on a heritage place as a compliance assessment condition.

86. The proposed design is inconsistent with the best practice principles of the Burra Charter.

In accordance with best practice heritage management, all heritage places within the PDA will be entirety retained and will be re-used to create a sustainable future for the heritage place. Conservation Management Plans have been prepared in accordance with the Burra Charter guidelines for each State-listed heritage place and these plans will guide the future management of


Mat

ter

#


the heritage properties and any changes proposed to them. In addition, the PoD contains principles to guide development around heritage places and these principles have been informed by an understanding of the articles of the Burra Charter.

87. Submitters raised concerns about the ability to analyse the heritage matters and the scrutiny of assessment. A Heritage Handbook was suggested to consolidate all relevant information for future assessment.

The conditions of approval set out specific heritage controls and requirements for future compliance assessment for any works on or adjacent to a heritage place. In addition, updated Conservation Management Plans, which contain policies for the assessment of any works to a heritage place, have been approved subject to conditions of approval.

Archaeology

88. Archaeological material which is excavated, should be stored in the Royal Historical Society Queensland museum.

A condition of approval has been set that establishes a relevant process to determine appropriate treatment of archeologically finds.

89. The Archaeological Management Plan requires further detail in order to adequately guide future archaeological work. Specifically, detailed research design should be prepared for each type of archaeological work.

Conditions of approval have been imposed which require an amended Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) to be submitted for compliance assessment. The amended AMP is required to include a refined research design, implementation strategies based on the archaeological assessment potential, an archaeological Test Excavation Strategy, an archaeological synthesis report and controls addressing underwater cultural heritage.

Cultural heritage

90. It is important to protect the cultural heritage of the area. There is an opportunity for ongoing tourism returns. An opportunity exists for the Indigenous and cultural heritage of the site to be meaningfully investigated,

Conditions of approval have been imposed which require a Heritage Interpretation Strategy to be submitted for compliance assessment.


Mat

ter

#


referenced and celebrated in the proposed landscape design outcome.

91. Engagement with the local traditional owners as part of the planning and development stages is encouraged.

Once signed, a Cultural Heritage Management Plan has been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ, which is evidence of compliance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, reflecting appropriate consideration of the relevant native title parties. This plan will detail the agreement between the land user and the Traditional Owners and address how the approved activities will be managed.

Setbacks

92. A greater setback behind The Mansions and Harris Terrace is needed to maintain heritage significance and setting.

Specialist heritage advice has been sought from QHC, DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect regarding setbacks of new built form to heritage places. Additional heritage controls and requirements have been inserted into the approved PoD to address the interface of new built form with heritage places. Compliance assessment conditions have been imposed requiring detailed analysis of the adjoining interfaces of new built form with a heritage place.

93. Concerns were raised regarding the position of the new buildings on William Street and George Street adjacent to heritage buildings and the potential for significant negative impact on the setting of the heritage buildings.

Specialist heritage advice has been sought from QHC, DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect. Additional Heritage controls and requirements have been inserted into the approved PoD which:

increase the front setbacks from George Street of the podium of the proposed new built form, and

align development at ground level adjacent Harris Terrace with the same setback as the main building face of Harris Terrace.


Mat

ter

#


Conditions of approval have been imposed requiring detailed analysis of the adjoining interfaces of new built form with heritage places as part of the compliance assessment.

Access to buildings

94. Vehicular access to the Commissariat Store's Courtyard is required for ongoing uses.

A condition of approval has been imposed requiring compliance assessment for service access and hours of operation to buildings on Queens Wharf Road, including the Commissariat Store.

Wayfinding

95. An opportunity exists for the heritage trail to be extended to incorporate the heritage buildings on the QUT campus.

The QUT Campus is outside of the QWB Priority Development Area and is not a requirement of the development scheme.

Support

96. Support for the adaptive reuse proposal and the improved access into the heritage buildings

Noted.


4.7 Planning matters M

atte

r #


Consultation

97. Many submissions requested more thorough and genuine consultation is needed to achieve a better outcome. It is also considered that options for consultation have been minimised and opposing views have been ignored.

The development scheme was made in January 2016, and identifies a range of uses which are considered PDA-assessable, including a casino. The introductory section of this submissions report outlines the process that the MEDQ undertook to make the development scheme, including consultation. The development scheme is the document that sets the appropriate land uses for this PDA.

In 2013, the Queensland Government conducted community consultation to seek feedback from the community and key stakeholders on the redevelopment of QWB. The feedback received, as well as discussions with peak industry bodies and council, has helped to shape the project's vision and objectives for the competitive bid process and key planning principles of the development scheme.

Most recently, as further described in the introductory section of this submissions report, public notification of the Queen's Wharf Brisbane PDA Proposed Development Scheme occurred from 7 August to 21 September 2015. During this period, all interested parties, including the community, residents, stakeholders, and local business operators, were invited to view the proposed development scheme and make a written submission for consideration by the MEDQ.

The ED Act and ED Regulation require public notice of relevant development applications to be carried out for a minimum of 20 business days. Public notice of the QWB development


Mat

ter

#


application was carried out for a period of 30 business days (6 September to 19 October 2017 inclusive) allowing for additional time for submitters to peruse the submitted documentation.

The requirements of the ED Act and ED Regulation requires signage to be erected on each road frontage of the relevant land. Given the scale and nature of the development site, the applicant erected a total of 43 signs on the relevant land, as well a published a notice in The Courier Mail on 5 September 2017 advising of the public notification period of the development application, in accordance with the ED Act and ED Regulation.

98. Concerns were raised that the project is considered to be well underway and key decisions have been made, resulting in the concern that submissions would not be considered so late in the process. A more appropriate process would be the declaration of a PDA, followed by early consultation with strong community-led process to identify the best use of the site. It is considered that as a PDA, this development falls outside of standard planning regulation, including reduced scope for consultation.

Under the ED Act public notification was required for the development application, and any submissions received during public notification phase must be considered by the MEDQ in making a decision on the development application. This submissions report is the document which outlines the consideration of matters raised in all submissions.

In regard to the involvement of the MEDQ prior to assessing and deciding the development application, the MEDQ declared the PDA on 28 November 2014 and subsequently undertook the legislative process to make the development scheme in January 2016. As discussed further in the introductory section of this submissions report, that process included consultation and public notification of the making of the development scheme.

The development scheme is the document that sets the appropriate land uses for this PDA, and as such the community did have the opportunity to comment on the appropriate land uses. This submissions report prepared for the development scheme making process is still available on EDQ’s website.


Mat

ter

#


99. Submitters comments that the level of detailed documentation provided for consultation on a Master Plan was inadequate. Therefore, the compliance assessment phase should be publicly notified.

The conditions of approval, approved PoD and associated approved documents establish the essential criteria and standards to be met during the detailed design of the development. Conditions of approval have been imposed which require detailed information to be either certified by suitably qualified professionals and submitted to the MEDQ; or submitted to the MEDQ for compliance assessment and approval. However, all further information and detailed design must be generally in accordance with the development approval granted. The ordinary MEDQ process for compliance assessment does not involve publishing application materials on EDQ’s website, nor public notification of the application, as the future decisions made for compliance assessment are simply a confirmation that the detailed design of the approved development and works complies with the relevant conditions, criteria and approved reports that form part of this PDA development approval.

100. Based on the scale of the development, the community should be a joint stakeholder. The developer and Government shouldn’t be the sole contributor and decision maker.

Noted. The MEDQ is responsible for the assessment and decision of the development application under the provisions ED Act. The opportunities for the community to provide comment have been undertaken in accordance with the ED Act.

101. The bikeway and public space detailed design should be publicly notified. If enhancements are not verified, redesign to meet the commitments is required.

The conditions of approval, approved PoD and associated approved documents establish the essential criteria and standards to be met during the detailed design of the development. Conditions of approval have been imposed which require detailed information to be either certified by suitably qualified professionals and submitted to the MEDQ; or submitted to the MEDQ for compliance assessment and approval. However, all further


Mat

ter

#


information and detailed design must be generally in accordance with the development approval granted. The ordinary MEDQ process for compliance assessment does not involve publishing application materials on EDQ’s website, nor public notification of the application, as the future decisions made for compliance assessment are simply a confirmation that the detailed design of the approved development and works complies with the relevant conditions, criteria and approved reports that form part of this PDA development approval.

102. There were technical difficulties in accessing the publicly notified information online.

Noted, however the application materials were available for the full period of the public notification phase on the EDQ website, as per the ordinary EDQ development application process.

103. The lack of public information sessions, feedback options or design / planning workshops was not accepted by submitters.

The opportunities for the community to provide comment have been undertaken in accordance with the ED Act.

Planning decisions for Public benefit

104. There were concerns that a narrow definition of public benefit was applied by the government in the decision-making process. It is considered that the design does not reflect the community’s requirements or desires.

The project is considered a turning point for Brisbane away from the natural and heritage assets towards hotels, luxury apartments and a casino which was not preferred.

The public benefits of the project are relatively small compared to the value of the land and future real estate

The introductory section of this submissions report outlines the process that the MEDQ undertook to make the development scheme, including consultation. The development scheme is the document that sets the appropriate land uses for this PDA. It is understood that these comments relate largely to the prior decisions made regarding this project. Due regard was given to these matters in the earlier state government processes, and it was not appropriate that this be reinterrogated through a development application. The approved development includes extensive areas of publicly accessible green space.


Mat

ter

#


the developer is granted and revenue from the larger casino.

The development should be a project to make Brisbane great for its residents. Submitters requested the development to be a progression for residents, to make Brisbane a great and iconic city, focussed on cultural and natural assets.

These areas include: the landing along the riverfront which provides a minimum of

2000 m² turfed area Waterline Park on the riverfront is a new recreation space of a

minimum size of 1000 m², inclusive of a minimum turfed area of 100 m²

Bellevue Plaza is a new plaza space located on the corner of George and Alice Streets, of a minimum size of 800 m², with a minimum turfed area of 300 m²

the maintenance of Miller Park, and the maintenance of Queens Gardens with a total of 2400 m²

softscape, inclusive of 1500 m² turfed. The approved development involves the conservation of 12 state listed heritage buildings and places, and ensures their safeguarding into the future. The approved development will result in 2000 construction jobs and 8000 ongoing employment opportunities, improvements to the Bicentennial Bikeway and an additional pedestrian bridge connecting to the South Bank Parklands. Furthermore, the broader development of QWB will include the delivery of a $3B Integrated Resort Development, staged payments to the state government of $272M and guaranteed casino taxes for the first 10 years of the casino operations of approximately $880M . The public will benefit from the State Government receiving this revenue to be distributed generally and to pay down state debt.


Mat

ter

#


105. Insufficient background information has been provided to support the claims of public benefit outcomes.

The approved PoD and supporting documentation has provided a suitable level of detail to substantiate the achievement of the public benefits. This is evidenced through the MEDQ’s decision to approve the development, and the setting of relevant conditions to ensure that public benefit is delivered through compliance with the conditions of approval.

Detailed design process

106. It is considered that the proposed Specific Design Criteria are below the minimum standards and do not detail the necessary planning, environmental and social issues. State standards are not referenced.

The Specific Design Criteria contained within the approved PoD have been robustly assessed by EDQ and their specifically commissioned expert consultants to be in accordance with the requirements of the development scheme, the relevant state interests and all relevant standards. The application materials contained a full assessment against the relevant state standards.

107. There were concerns raised that the PoD doesn’t provide details regarding the proposed architectural, landscape, engineering design or the approval process. An assumption that the developer will protect the public interest is not accepted by submitters.

The whole of site master plan establishes a future assessment framework within the approved PoD. Conditions of approval have been imposed which require detailed information to be either certified by suitably qualified professionals and submitted to the MEDQ; or submitted to the MEDQ for compliance assessment and approval. All further information and detailed design must be generally in accordance with the development approval granted.

Development assessment process

108. It is understood by submitters that a PoD is required to contain sufficient information and detail to demonstrate consistency with the development scheme and PDA guidelines. The documents are considered inadequate for approval.

The conditions of approval, approved PoD and associated approved documents establish the essential criteria and standards to be met during the detailed design of the development. Conditions of approval have been imposed which require detailed information to be either certified by suitably qualified professionals and submitted to the MEDQ; or submitted to the MEDQ for


Mat

ter

#


compliance assessment and approval. However, all further information and detailed design must be generally in accordance with the development approval granted.

The ordinary MEDQ process for compliance assessment does not involve publishing application materials on EDQ’s website, nor public notification of the application, as the future decisions made for compliance assessment are simply a confirmation that the detailed design of the approved development and works complies with the relevant conditions, criteria and approved reports that form part of this PDA development approval.

109. Only 14 out of 36 documents are listed as approved with the remainder understood to be supporting only. A query was raised of the role of the supporting documents in the self-assessment process.

The conditions of approval, approved PoD and associated approved documents collectively establish the essential criteria and standards to be met during the detailed design of the development.

Other documents, which were not approved, are referred to in conditions of approval. The purpose of referring to the documents is to convey that, the further details required by the condition may be based on the information provided within the supporting document.

Conditions of approval have been imposed which require detailed information to be either certified by suitably qualified professionals and submitted to the MEDQ; or submitted to the MEDQ for compliance assessment and approval. However, all further information and detailed design must be generally in accordance with the development approval granted. That is future compliance assessments must comply with the development approval.


Mat

ter

#


Public safety

110. The current proposal needs major rework for public safety to be improved. Consideration should be given to the increased risk of terrorism introduced by the new development.

A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) report is required to be submitted for compliance assessment, addressing matters of public safety, including management of public places. All relevant standards and other authority endorsements will be achieved for this approved development.

Ongoing impacts

111. The ongoing economic, social and environmental cost to the city should be assessed and released prior to a decision being made.

The potential impacts of the approval have been identified and risk assessed in the submitted documentation. This documentation was robustly assessed by EDQ and their specifically commissioned external consultants during the assessment phase. It is considered that the combination of conditions, the established future assessment framework, and the approved criteria and standards to be achieved, will ensure the development addresses any potential social, economic or environmental impacts.

Tenure

112. Insufficient detail is provided on the proposed leases. Concerns were raised over the state leasehold, long-term lease arrangements and undefined enforcement agency.

For the purposes of articulating the current and future tenure, titling and access arrangements, the Tenure Report was submitted to EDQ for assessment. The Tenure Report was relied on to condition ongoing access and the dedication of roads and public spaces. EDQ will be the responsible entity for ongoing enforcement of the conditions.


Mat

ter

#


It is understood that the long-term lease arrangements over the site between the applicant and DSD are not publicly available documents as they are commercial in confidence. EDQ has not considered that material as part of the assessment of this development application, only the materials supplied in support of the development application.

113. Confirmation of the Native Title status should be provided. Native Title has been determined to be extinguished across the site. Once signed, a Cultural Heritage Management Plan has been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ, which is evidence of compliance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, reflecting appropriate consideration of the relevant native title parties. This plan will detail the agreement between the land user and the Traditional Owners and address how the approved activities will be managed.

Precedent

114. It is considered that the proposal on public land will lead to a poor precedent resulting in traffic congestion, loss of amenity and a breach in building height.

It is acknowledged that the scale and city-shaping nature of the development is significant to Brisbane residents. The development proposal has undergone a rigorous assessment process, involving industry experts, key stakeholders and government agency input. All technical matters related to potential impacts have been robustly assessed by EDQ and their specifically commissioned expert consultants to be in accordance with the requirements of the development scheme, the relevant state interests and all relevant standards.


4.8 Infrastructure M

atte

r #


Pedestrian bridge design

115. Many submitters raised that provision for cyclists should be made across the proposed pedestrian bridge.

The proposed pedestrian bridge has been designed to accommodate pedestrians only as the access points on both sides of the River require sufficient clearance to allow safe passage of vehicle movement on the Riverside Expressway, vessel movement on the River and service vehicle movement on the Clem Jones Promenade at the South Bank Parklands. Given the minimum clearances required, analysis concluded that the access points for the bridge were not conducive to, nor appropriate for, safe cyclist movement.

116. Concerns were raised regarding the proposed pedestrian bridge; namely:

safe movement of river vessels

reduced visibility from the central pier

reduced northern navigational channel

impacts on the flood level

limited height clearance at the South Bank landing increased crossing time is expected to impact 118

CityCat crossings per day which equates to 40,000 per year.

Additional analysis is required and a redesign of the bridge to accommodate safe navigation. Options include:

raised bridge height on South Bank side to allow the use of the navigational channel on both sides

remove the central pier to provide a wider central navigation channel.

A Hydraulic Model Reset Report, Navigation Study and Vessel Traffic Management Plan are to be prepared in consultation with council and the Regional Harbour Master. These documents have been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ. The recommendations of these reports will be incorporated into the pedestrian bridge design to ensure safe vessel movement is achieved.


Mat

ter

#


117. Several submissions requested additional information and details to be submitted regarding:

detailed crowd modelling during large events as it is a significant risk

tenure and management arrangements of the bridge landing at South Bank

impacts during the construction phase including thoroughfare access for commuter and recreational users at South Bank

timeframe and physical impacts on access to and availability of the Cultural Forecourt for major events

the South Bank landing and CBD streetscape integration, resulting in community consultation on the detail of the landing.

As the relevant land owner where the south bank landing will be constructed, consultation with South Bank Corporation (SBC) has been undertaken during the pre-application and assessment phases of the project. SBC have detailed the minimum requirements of the bridge clearances, standards to be adopted and management requirements. Further pedestrian analysis for the bridge, including crowd modelling has been conditioned to determine the Level of Service and 24/7 access requirements for the bridge and landings. A Bridge Landing Design Guideline, prepared by SBC, has been conditioned to be complied with in the detailed design of the bridge. Detailed construction phase design documentation has been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ for compliance assessment. The details of the ongoing management of the bridge have been required to be submitted to EDQ to ensure crowd management, events and emergency arrangements can be thoroughly assessed. Regarding tenure, the bridge will be owned by the Department of Housing and Public Works with maintenance obligations undertaken by the Applicant as agreed and detailed in the approved Infrastructure Management Plan.

118. Concerns were raised regarding the hydraulic assessment of the bridge, utilising one method of representation only.

A compliance assessment condition has been imposed requiring a Hydraulic Model Reset Report to be submitted. This condition requires revision of the flood model to be validated and the approved development, including the pedestrian bridge, to be remodelled within the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study. The condition establishes a specific process and criteria to be adhered to.


Mat

ter

#


119. The gradient of the bridge should cater for disability access. The detailed design and construction plans have been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ for compliance assessment. DDA compliance for access to and from the bridge has been conditioned. A code compliant gradient has been approved.

120. The direct access from the pedestrian bridge into the casino level is not accepted.

The landing of the bridge on the QWB side of the River has been negotiated to enter at the publicly accessible River View Terrace on Level 4 and will not directly connect to the casino.

121. The location of the bridge and the need for an additional pedestrian bridge in the city should be reconsidered.

The bridge is an integrated part of the development which was contemplated in the development scheme. The bridge will provide an alternative access from South Bank to the CBD.

122. The following opportunities were identified in submissions:

LED lighting of the bridge similar to other bridges across the Brisbane River

the provision of public amenities for visitors, and incorporation of stormwater harvesting from the

surface of the bridge to assist in sustainable water management outcomes.

Detailed construction phase design documentation has been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ for compliance assessment. The details of the bridge, including LED lighting, stormwater harvesting and sustainable water management outcomes have been required to be submitted to EDQ to ensure these matters can be thoroughly assessed.

Infrastructure provision

123. The yield analysis in the Infrastructure Master Plan should include indicative timing to align with infrastructure delivery.

Section 9 of the approved Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP) identifies the timing of delivery of all infrastructure items required as a result of the yield analysis and demand projections.

124. Concerns were raised regarding the impact of increases in density on the city’s infrastructure and utilities.

The approved development is supported by a comprehensive approved IMP which examined the yield, existing infrastructure and projected infrastructure demands. Projected requirements for infrastructure regarding transport, public realm, stormwater, water and waste water have been adequately documented within the approved IMP. The approved development


Mat

ter

#


has been conditioned to deliver the infrastructure in accordance with the Desired Standards of Service, timing and implementation process approved within the IMP.

125. Questions were raised regarding the legitimacy of fixing infrastructure charges in accordance with the Economic Development Act, when the scope of transport, public realm, open space, stormwater, water, wastewater and flood mitigation is not known.

The development scheme mandated charges for the PDA be based on council’s adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution, and QUU’s infrastructure charges framework in force at the date of a PDA Development Approval. Furthermore, the development scheme establishes: “Where the applicant delivers works, those works may be eligible for an offset against the infrastructure charge. An Infrastructure Charging Offset Plan may be prepared to identify the off-settable infrastructure items. The maximum amount that can be offset for the delivery of the infrastructure in Tables 3 and 4 will not exceed Brisbane City council’s and QUU's proportion of the charge as identified in Brisbane City Council's adopted infrastructure charges resolution, of the total infrastructure charges payable. In addition, no refunds for infrastructure offsets that exceed the infrastructure charges are available”. An Infrastructure Charging Offset Plan (ICOP) for the QWB PDA has been developed to facilitate the delivery of trunk infrastructure within the PDA. The ICOP will formalise the infrastructure charging regime, rationale, identification and costing of trunk infrastructure as well as the policies and methodology to offset this infrastructure against the infrastructure charges payable.


Mat

ter

#


The ICOP is supported by an Infrastructure Planning Background Report (IPBR) which articulates the planning assumptions applied to resolve the trunk infrastructure requirements to service demand generated from the PDA. The IPBR is informed by the proponent’s approved IMP and technical documentation.

Support

126. Support for the provision of the Neville Bonner Bridge as a new active transport connection between the CBD and South Bank.

Noted.


4.9 Hydrology and environment M

atte

r #


Hydrology

127. Concerns were raised regarding the impact of reclamation and the increased velocity of the river having a consequential impact on river vessels navigating the river.

Substantial modelling and assessment has already been undertaken and additionally the following is required. The condition titled Hydraulic Model Reset Report has set an acceptable criterion for the development is to ensure that the increase in peak velocity is limited to less or equal 0.5 m/s.

A Hydraulic Model Reset Report, Navigation Study and Vessel Traffic Management Plan are to be prepared in consultation with council and the Regional Harbour Master. These documents have been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ. The recommendations of these reports will address the impacts of increased vessel traffic and ensure safe vessel movement is achieved.

128. Significant concerns were raised with the Hydraulic Report, proposed modelling and associated flood risks of the project. The magnitude of reported flood impacts appears to be low for the 1% AEP flood (1 in 100 year AEP flood) estimated at 15 to 30 mm. A suggested flood level impact of 0 mm (10+mm) would be acceptable. A broader range of events should be modelled (including greater than 200 year AEP) to understand the potential impact of QWB, specifically the impact of the bridge.

A compliance assessment condition has been imposed requiring a Hydraulic Model Reset Report to be submitted. This condition requires revision of the flood model to be validated and the approved development, including the bridge, to be remodelled within the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study. The condition establishes a specific process and criteria to be adhered to.

The modelling shall consider a range of events included 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.2%, 0.05% AEP events and the 2011 designed modelled event. The acceptable impact criteria require maintaining the increase in flood height outside the PDA boundary to less than or equal to 17mm and less than or equal to 30 mm inside the PDA boundary.


Mat

ter

#


129. There is inadequate justification for the 17 mm maximum impact modelled result.

A Hydraulic Assessment Report was prepared by Arup and submitted for assessment. The report provided an adequate level of detail on the approved development’s impact on flooding through modelling, consideration of the extent of reclamation, details of maritime structures and the bridge pier location. Modelling within the report was based on the state agreed Jempson model to create the Arup model. 10 mm is an industry accepted level of afflux as it represents such a minor impact that it is not considered to be significant. A statutory Information Request items required the preparation of a technical note to address the potential mitigation options which limit the flood increase to a theoretical maximum of 10 mm outside the PDA for all 1% AEP and 2011 events. It was concluded that the design cannot be further refined to achieve a 10 mm flood impact criteria whilst maintaining the structural requirements of the bridge. The quantum of difference between 10 mm and 20 mm afflux was analysed prior to the bid phase undertaken by DSD. It was considered a minor contribution and therefore an acceptable level of afflux as a result of the development. The approved development will not result in a flood impact of more than 17 mm outside the PDA boundary and no more than 30 mm inside the PDA boundary.

130. As the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study (BRCFS) does not include Queen’s Wharf, there is concern that the increased flood risk to the community is not presently captured in the outputs of the BRCFS with the potential to change the results of the BRCFS.

A compliance assessment condition has been imposed requiring a Hydraulic Model Reset Report to be submitted. This condition requires revision of the flood model to be validated and the approved development, including the bridge, to be remodelled within the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study. The condition establishes a specific process and criteria to be adhered to.


Mat

ter

#


It is recommended that the BRCFS be utilised to establish the shallow water equations, to check the flood impacts and verify the veracity of the design profiles of the ARUP model.

The refined modelling shall consider a range of events included 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.2%, 0.05% AEP events and the 2011 designed modelled event.

131. Clarification of the velocity impacts is required to check the depth-averaged values. The Manning's value used in the model for the river channel appears to be high.

The final velocity impacts of the development will be determined through the required additional modelling and consideration of the BRCFS. The Manning’s velocity value adopted for the development will be consistent with the BRCFS which is accepted by the Queensland Government, relevant local government and key stakeholders.

132. Volumetric analysis of the development footprint should be undertaken to determine the conveyance volume consumed by the development.

It is understood this comment relates to a requirement to understand the three-dimensional profile of the reclamation works as it relates to the volume of the River. Pre and post-development plots of water levels, depths, velocities and hazards are to be documented within the Hydraulic Model Reset Report. The concept design required to be submitted in the Maritime Structures and Reclamation Works Report and Design Plans are to be prepared to achieve consistency with the Hydraulic Model Reset Report.

133. Detailed and sensitivity analysis is needed for blockage assumptions. It is noted that the raked piles are yet to be modelled.

The condition titled Hydraulic Model Reset Report requires further consideration and documentation of blocked maritime structures and debris loading.

134. Flood immunity is not met for the basement entrance, essential services areas, storage rooms and basement services.

A Basement Impacted by Design Flood Level (DFL) report submitted for compliance assessment is required to incorporate details of flood barriers, preferred automatic mechanical flood barrier systems and confirmation of the following: Ventilation openings above DFL Essential electrical services above DFL Wall penetrations below DFL are watertight.


Mat

ter

#


135. General concern regarding the hydrological design considerations and the environmental and ecosystem impacts were raised.

The Environmental Assessment Report submitted for with the application was assessed and it was nominated that there are areas of marine plants in the vicinity of the Goodwill Bridge extension and the Landing areas. A compliance assessment condition has beein imposed which requires a Marine Plants Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan to document the rehabilitation and restoration works required to ensure mitigation of any environmental or ecosystem impacts.

The detailed design of the approved development has been conditioned to comply with the following Management Plans to address ecological impacts:

Stormwater Quality Maritime Works and Reclamation Works Maritime Structures and Reclamation Works Report and Design

Plans Marine Plants Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan.

136. The lack of flood and stormwater quantity and quality mitigation measures is unacceptable on a flood-prone site. The consequences need to be understood.

Stormwater quantity and quality mitigation measures are addressed through conditions relating to providing stormwater connections, Stormwater Quality Management information and a Groundwater Management Strategy.

137. Flooding of South Bank was identified as a concern. A compliance assessment condition has been imposed requiring a Hydraulic Model Reset Report to be submitted. This condition requires revision of the flood model to be validated and the approved development, including South Bank, to be remodelled within the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study. The condition establishes a specific process and criteria to be adhered to.

The refined modelling shall consider a range of events included 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.2%, 0.05% AEP events and the 2011 designed modelled event.


Mat

ter

#


138. It was identified that there was no allowance for climate change and sea level rise.

The Hydraulic model utilised for the reporting includes all known and predicted parameters to determine the flood impact results.

Vegetation

139. There are concerns about the impact on vegetation as a result of the proposed sewer upgrade works.

QUU has identified an alignment for the sewer upgrade to be delivered. Construction will be via directional boring and will not impact on the existing vegetation.

140. It is considered that insufficient protection of vegetation and ecologically significant areas is proposed. Concerns regarding the clearing of mangroves and established trees and the impacts on the natural ecosystems were repeatedly raised.

Noted. The submission of a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for compliance assessment is required to include further detailed baseline information, an evaluation of all areas, works methods, protection measures and management documentation for all vegetation on site.

Environmental amenity

141. A smoke free environment during the construction and operational phase was requested.

As a Workplace Health and Safety matter, this will be managed by the applicant and the subcontractors onsite.

142. The air quality of the public realm was raised as a concern for a few submitters.

The approved Air Quality Assessment report documents recommendations for the ongoing operation of the development to ensure public spaces achieve nominated standards.

143. Proposed bright lighting should be directed to limit annoyance for residents.

Lighting in the public realm areas of the development has been conditioned to be designed and installed in accordance with AS 4282:1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

144. More trees were requested in order to reduce the urban heat island effect.

The approved LCR details the landscaping outcomes required to be delivered throughout the development site. Further public realm design plans are required by a compliance assessment condition to document the planting schedules, species, sizes and locations of trees. Signature landscape and shade trees will contribute to achieving world-class development which incorporates subtropical design.


Mat

ter

#


Reclamation

145. The following concerns were raised regarding the reclamation:

downstream /upstream impacts on the river and carrying capacity

constriction of the river channel

impacts on the river vessel movements

sediment transport

riparian discharge.

Further design improvement and detailed hydraulic modelling should be undertaken to ensure impacts are minimised and accepted. Further marker buoy trials are then required.

Navigational testing, through marker buoy trails was required by the Regional Harbour Master to investigate the bridge pier location. A Hydraulic Model Reset Report, Navigation Study and Vessel Traffic Management Plan are to be prepared in consultation with council and the Regional Harbour Master. These documents have been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ. The recommendations of the Navigation Study must be incorporated into the pedestrian bridge design. The recommendations of these reports will address the impacts on vessel traffic and ensure safe vessel movement is achieved. The model refinement shall consider a range of events included 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.2%, 0.05% AEP events and the 2011 designed modelled event. Pre and post-development plots of water levels, depths, velocities and hazards are to be documented which will address the downstream and upstream impacts on the river. The acceptable impact criteria require maintaining the increase in flood height outside the PDA boundary to less than or equal to 17 mm and less than or equal to 30 mm inside the PDA boundary.

146. The Landing’s support structures should be able to withstand severe flooding, including the adverse impacts on climate change. The half-life of the structures will be difficult to predict and concern was raised that these were likely to be over-estimated.

The Foreshore Environmental Management Plan and Basis of Design document submitted was assessed and forms the basis for the compliance assessment condition imposed. The condition requires a Maritime Structures and Reclamation Works Report and Design Plans to be submitted which will document the design and performance criteria for all maritime structures and reclaimed areas. This will also address whole of life costs and maintenance, structure


Mat

ter

#


The resultant maintenance costs and disaster recovery costs to the community must be considered and the design should be modified by removing the reclaimed public spaces.

and durability descriptions and an asset management plan. Certification is required for the structures and reclamation proposed to ensure consistency with the refined hydraulic modelling. A Scour Assessment Report is required to be submitted for compliance assessment to ensure adequate protection for maritime structures and the river bed is provided.

Wildlife

147. Concern was raised for the impact of the development on marine wildlife.

In order to establish if animal breeding places are located within the subject site, a species management program has been conditioned to be prepared in accordance with the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. The Maritime Construction Management Plan, conditioned to be compliance assessed, requires a management plan to address the maritime construction methodology including proposed mitigation measures for marine wildlife.

Wind study

148. The wind criteria for pedestrians does not specify the height the study should be conducted at or measured for rectification of impacts. A wind study should be required in a physical wind chamber with 3D and detailed modelling. The result of the study should be publicly available and recommendations to achieve an appropriate wind speed should be made.

The wind assessment required will be a physical wind chamber study and a three-dimensional model. The purpose of the study is to achieve adequate amenity levels in outdoor areas. Where new built form exceed 8 storeys, Lawson (1990) criteria are required to be complied with accordance with section 6 of the approved PoD.


4.10 Street and movement network M

atte

r #


Car parking

149. Many submissions raised the additional carparking proposed will have a significant impact on traffic congestion in the surrounding area. The council requirements for car parking should be adopted. Further consultation on the car parking and access arrangements was requested.

A Traffic Engineering Report was submitted for assessment which detailed the car parking and access arrangements. Further details on the car park and access layout designs, supply, management scheme, on-site queuing have been conditioned to be provided through a Parking and Public Transport Technical Note. To coordinate all key stakeholders, a Traffic and Transport Working Group (TTWG) was a technical collective including council, state agencies and transport providers. Established and chaired by the Department of State Development at the beginning of the project, the TTWG’s ongoing role will be to resolve transport and access arrangements. The Technical Note is required to be endorsed by the TTWG.

150. The lack of visitor car parking and reliance on public parking options was not supported.

Parking supply will be in accordance with the following maximum rates:

i) Residential 0.5 spaces per bedroom (maximum); ii) Short Term Accommodation 0.25 spaces per room

(maximum); iii) Non Residential Hotel use (new) 2300 spaces (maximum); iv) Non Residential Hotel uses (existing) 620 spaces

(maximum);

Visitor parking for residential uses in Precinct 3 is to be provided at 1 space per 20 units which is in accordance with council’s Transport Access Parking and Servicing policy.


Mat

ter

#


151. The proposed parking management system limits car parking and access and conflicts with the methodology utilised to determine the parking requirements.

The Parking, Access and Public Transport Technical Note requires a car parking management scheme to consider the overall management of carparking including parking numbers per building, parking supply and demand, publicly accessible parking, turn around facilities, signage and wayfinding and on-site queuing arrangements.

152. A suggestion for a car share scheme was proposed. Noted. This suggestion is a management consideration by the proposed operators of the development.

Public transport

153. Many submitters identified that high-quality integration with future projects and existing public transport is required. New public transport infrastructure is required to be high quality to meet future demand, specifically on William Street eastbound and westbound on George Street. A sustainable and detailed public transport plan is required for QWB. Active and public transport throughout the development should be prioritised to achieve a ‘new world city’.

The Brisbane Metro project business case was released during the assessment phase of the application. The information presented in the business case allowed discussions to begin with council regarding interface, access and integration matters. A condition has been set to ensure an integrated operational solution is delivered between the approved development and the proposed Metro Brisbane project. Access to the northern end of Queens Wharf Road will be limited to service vehicles between 12.30 am and 6.30 am daily. Pedestrian connectivity and arrangements to existing and future public transport has been conditioned to be considered in the required Pedestrian Movements Technical Note. The TTWG’s ongoing involvement will ensure the public transport demand requirements will be met. Roadworks Functional Layout Plans have been conditioned to accommodate public transport stops within the road reserve where required.


Mat

ter

#


Traffic congestion

154. Concerns were raised regarding the significant traffic congestion and exacerbated circulation limitations as a result of the project. Congestion throughout QWB is not adequately addressed. There is a lack of rigorous transport planning assessment for the project, including coach drop-off areas, traffic generated, integration of public transport projects, pedestrian path and lift capacities and cycling access.

Extensive traffic network modelling have been undertaken by the applicant and assessed by the TTWG. The development was considered within the wider CBD network and all impacts were thoroughly assessed by EDQ, external traffic consultants and the TTWG. Based on this analysis, a Traffic Engineering Report was submitted for assessment which analysed the modelling and detailed car parking and access arrangements across the site. Further details have been conditioned to be provided through a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Technical Notes. These documents will be required to address network management, detailed design solutions, agreed work zones, active transport management, service vehicle access, coach drop-offs and long-term Traffic Guidance Schemes. The TMP and Technical Notes are required to be endorsed by the TTWG.

155. The submitted traffic modelling does not address the vehicular and pedestrian operational impacts around QUT.

The traffic network modelling undertaken considered the wider CBD network, including the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) precinct. As QUT adjoins the approved development, intersection analysis along Alice Street incorporated QUT’s vehicular and pedestrian movements.

Access

156. Several submissions raised the following aspects which require further investigation to minimise road network impacts:

Vehicle access points, car park ingress and egress, taxi / ride-share loading and traffic queuing analysis were addressed in the submitted Traffic Engineering Report.


Mat

ter

#


access to the IRD car park and loading dock

queuing impacts on the Margaret Street off ramp

kerbside departure lane speed

Alice Street residential car park and service vehicle entry and exit

taxi access and drop-off areas in William Street

taxi/ride-share demands of the project and the on-site capacity for pick-up/ drop-off areas

IRD exit points in William Street

IRD and hotel porte-cochere access in William Street

new accesses proposed including hotel porte-cochere, pedestrian crossing across William Street adjacent Queens Gardens

the retention of the existing casino carpark entry and exit.

To further detail these matters, a Servicing Technical Note and Parking, Access and Public Transport Technical Note has been required to be endorsed by the TTWG and submitted to EDQ. These Technical Notes will allow the detailed design of the approved development to be incorporated and further expressed for ongoing management and compliance.

157. Consideration should also be given to provision for autonomous vehicles and future mobility options.

Noted. Taxis, ride-share vehicles and private vehicles will share the porte-cochere loading areas within William Street.

Queens Wharf Road

158. Concerns were raised about the potential for conflict with a shared zone allowing crowds, pedestrian, cyclist and service vehicle movements. There is concern that the shared zone will downgrade the cyclists’ amenity and safety. Limited service vehicle access was suggested.

A condition has been set to ensure service vehicle access is limited through the Queens Wharf Plaza shared zone between 12.30 am and 6.30 am daily. Outside of these hours, a management strategy will be required to be implemented and monitored by council.


Mat

ter

#


The management of the Bicentennial Bikeway through the Queens Wharf Plaza will be determined through further detailed design with design requirements set through the condition titled Compliance Assessment – Bicentennial Bikeway Detailed Design.

159. To facilitate public transport through the North Quay intersection, pedestrian and cyclists movements along Queens Wharf Road, service vehicles should have restricted access between 12 midnight to 6 am.

A condition has been set to ensure an integrated operational solution is delivered between the approved development and the proposed Metro Brisbane project. Access to the northern end of Queens Wharf Road will be limited to service vehicles between 12.30 am and 6.30 am daily. A Technical Note has been conditioned to require potential pedestrian volumes resulting from the Brisbane Metro project are adequately addressed. Council’s ongoing representation on the TTWG will ensure an integrated transport planning outcome will be achieved and managed.

Brisbane Metro integration

160. There was strong encouragement recorded for integrated transport planning to occur to ensure the QWB and Metro projects are coordinated and an efficient transport network is achieved.

The Brisbane Metro project business case was released during the assessment phase of the application. The information presented in the business case allowed discussions to begin with council regarding interface, access and integration matters. A condition has been set to ensure an integrated operational solution is delivered between the approved development and the proposed Metro Brisbane project. Access to the northern end of Queens Wharf Road will be limited to service vehicles between 12.30 am and 6.30 am daily. A Technical Note has been conditioned to require potential pedestrian volumes resulting from the Brisbane Metro project are


Mat

ter

#


adequately addressed. Council’s ongoing representation on the TTWG will ensure an integrated transport planning outcome will be achieved and managed.

161. Detailed analysis and design of the IRD access regarding the proposed Metro network changes will be needed.

A Servicing Technical Note has been conditioned to require further access modelling and analysis is undertaken to refine the IRD access points as a result of the Metro network changes.

162. Several concerns were raised about the proposed Metro infrastructure and design, unrelated to the QBW project.

Noted.

River-based transport

163. Concern about the impacts of the development on the river-vessel traffic were raised.

A Hydraulic Model Reset Report, Navigation Study and River Vessels Study are to be prepared in consultation with council and the Regional Harbour Master. These documents have been conditioned to be submitted to EDQ. The recommendations of these reports will be incorporated into the pedestrian bridge design to ensure safe vessel movement is achieved.

Detailed design

164. A request from council regarding ongoing involvement during the compliance assessment of detailed design phase. All infrastructure assets proposed to be handed to council need to be clearly articulated and agreed by council during the design and construction phase.

Council will have an ongoing endorsement role through the TTWG for pedestrian, access, servicing and public transport matters. Where public assets are to be transferred to council or the relevant entity, the Certification Procedures Manual process for on and off-maintenance has been conditioned. Where Public Assets are to be delivered to a standard other than the relevant council, a condition has been included to require an appropriate arrangement is to be entered into with council for the repair, maintenance and replacement of the public asset.


Mat

ter

#


Intersection upgrades

165. Council should approve and be consulted on all designs of proposed upgraded intersections and approaches within the local road network. A minimum of a local area micro-simulation model, which demonstrates a design which adequately addressed network deficiencies, is to be prepared.

Council will have an ongoing endorsement role in the TTWG which will consider the Traffic Management Plan, Haulage Management Plan, Pedestrian Movements Technical Note, Servicing Technical Note and Parking, Access and Public Transport Technical Note.

Service vehicles

166. The Bicentennial Bikeway should not be used for service vehicles given the reduced width of the proposed development along the river’s edge.

Service vehicle access within the shared Queens Wharf Plaza will be limited to between 12.30 am and 6.30 am daily. Service vehicle access will not be available along the North Quay or Goodwill Extension sections of the Bicentennial Bikeway.

Support

167. Interconnected car parking areas is supported to reduce external traffic movements.

Wayfinding and signage to assist drivers to access the development will reduce traffic circulation within the CBD. Parking availability could be incorporated in the signage to further assist with access and circulation.

The following primary IRD access points are supported: o IRD car park entrance off Margaret street and

Queens Wharf Road (Margaret Street off ramp) o IRD loading dock and coaches entrance off Queens

Wharf Road (Margaret Street off ramp)

The development is generally consistent with the River’s Edge Strategy 2013 and the River Access Network 2017 documents.

The support for transport initiatives is noted. The wayfinding and signage suggestions for drivers regarding car parking capacity have been incorporated into the car park management scheme condition.


4.11 General matters M

atte

r #


Overall support for the project

168. The following benefits of the development are supported:

employment creation

additional and improved green spaces

activation of underutilised land

investment and economic growth

protection and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings

a transformational urban regeneration development community infrastructure provision through the

bikeway, shared zones and pedestrian bridge

achievement of a Green Star rating comprehensive and detailed application and

technical investigations lodged for assessment. A request was made for the state government to apply a pragmatic approach to the assessment of the application, ensuring that the needs of residents, visitors and the development itself, are considered in balance.

Noted.

General / broad unsupportive comments

169. Comments were received which were broadly unsupportive of the development, including ongoing economic, social and environmental impacts.

The potential impacts of the approved development have been identified and risk assessed in the submitted documentation. These matters have been robustly assessed by EDQ and their specifically commissioned expert consultants, during the assessment phase, and determined to be in accordance with the requirements of the


Mat

ter

#


development scheme, the relevant state interests and all relevant standards. It is considered that the combination of conditions, the established future assessment framework and the approved criteria and standards to be achieved, will ensure the development addresses any potential social, economic or environmental impacts.

Irrelevant comments unrelated to QWB

170. The Neville Bonner Building should be reinstated. Noted. A development permit was granted in December 2016 for the demolition of the Neville Bonner Building and all non-heritage buildings in the QWB precinct. The removal of these buildings was required to facilitate the redevelopment. This demolition work is now substantially completed and will not be required to be reinstated.


4.12 Built form M

atte

r #


Am

end

men

t Y

/N

Built form, massing and height of buildings

171. The following suggestions were made for the design of Towers 2 and 3 and the Sky Deck:

an adequate human-scaled ground plane is required to respond to the scale of nearby heritage buildings and spaces

façade variations and scale devices to reduce the visual mass

facades which respond to the view and solar orientation

interesting roof expression

response to all of the New World City Design Guide – Buildings that Breathe document

greater separation between towers to allow for views, sunlight and breezes to penetration.

Section 5.6 of the approved PoD includes amendments to the Architectural Design Criteria, supported by conditions of approval addressing the following matters:

controls to ensure an adequate human-scaled ground plane is required

requirements to respond to the scale of nearby heritage buildings and spaces

requirements for façade variations to reduce the visual mass

requirements at compliance assessment for new built form to provide massing and views and solar impacts

interesting roof expression

an assessment against the key elements and sub elements of the New World City Design Guide: Buildings that Breathe document

Tower separation is in accordance with council’s City Plan requirements for tower separation.

172. Include the following new elements within section 3.4.2 Theme 2: Built Form of the PoD:

include performance based criteria for the building bulk

The approved PoD includes specific built form controls and requirements for the building bulk scale, mass and the detailed design of facades to ensure a high quality built form outcome is achieved. The PoD controls make specific reference to the requirement for slender tower designs. Built form controls also identify the building


Mat

ter

#


Am

end

men

t Y

/N

promote narrow and slender tower forms as suitable alternatives.

envelope through setbacks, a maximum floor plate area per storey and specific design controls.

173. The building over William Street was raised as a concern. Specifically, the existing heritage layout, visual relationship and street view line will be separated. The principles of the Burra Charter are not considered.

Specialist heritage advice has been sought from QHC, DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect. Additional design and heritage integration requirements have been included in the PoD to ensure a high quality architectural response and public realm contribution for the build over William Street is achieved. The PoD contains principles to guide development around heritage places and these principles have been informed by an understanding of the articles of the Burra Charter. Compliance assessment conditions require massing and view analysis to support architectural concepts.

174. The general scale of the development was not supported, especially in proportion to the existing heritage buildings, public spaces and the River. Requests for the development to be reduced in scale were identified.

The scale of the development is also generally in accordance with the outcomes envisaged in the approved development scheme.

175. Concerns were raised regarding the development not being proportional to the heritage buildings, streetscape and river’s edge. Towers should be slender and in proportion.

Specialist heritage advice has been sought from QHC, DEHP, EDQ’s external heritage advisors, QUDaPP and the Government Architect. Additional heritage controls and requirements have been inserted into the PoD to address the interface of new built form with heritage places. Specific conditions have been included in the decision package to ensure all works to and adjacent to heritage places are planned and designed in a manner that retains and conserves the


Mat

ter

#


Am

end

men

t Y

/N

significance of the heritage places. These works must be certified by a suitably qualified heritage architect. Compliance assessment conditions also require the preparation of Heritage Impact Statements for works to heritage places. The PoD controls make specific reference to the requirement for slender tower designs. Built form controls also identify the building envelope through setbacks, a maximum floor plate area per storey and specific design controls.

176. There is concern that the 74-storey building will have a permanent and extensive shadow effect on surrounding buildings.

The approved PoD and supporting Urban design assessment includes shadow assessments. Compliance assessment conditions of the approved PoD have been imposed requiring an assessment of solar impacts and shadowing of new built form. The approved heights do not exceed the maximum allowable heights within the operational airspace.

Significant views

177. Key view lines have not been adequately identified and further analysis is required to inform the development. Specifically views along significant streets, towards heritage buildings and from Victoria Bridge to the Treasury Building.

Compliance assessment conditions have been imposed which require the submission of new built form views demonstrating the built form relationship with all adjoining interfaces (including heritage places). The retention of key views and those identified in the development scheme have been complied with.

Access to Sky deck

178. Although promoted as a public space, the sky deck viewing platform will be restricted. This deck should be free and publicly accessible.

The Sky Deck is considered a Special Public Access Area which will be publicly accessible 24/7 that will be managed for commercial activities, short events and safety and security.


4.13 Construction phase M

atte

r #


Construction work impacts

179. As a key economic issue, the impacts on traffic management during construction should be minimised.

A construction program and Traffic Management Plan has been conditioned by EDQ to be managed by the Applicant.

Detailed design process

180. Council have requested an endorsement role for the Construction Management Plans, Traffic Management Plans and Haulage Management Plans for each stage of construction.

Council will have an ongoing endorsement role in the TTWG which will consider the Traffic Management Plan, Haulage Management Plan, Pedestrian Movements Technical Note, Servicing Technical Note and Parking, Access and Public Transport Technical Note.

Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning GPO Box 2202, Brisbane Queensland 4001 tel 13 QGOV (13 74 68) www.dsdmip.qld.gov.au

queen’s wharf brisbane priority development area plan of ... · plan of development (pod)...

Documents