726 city infrastructure committee meeting - city of gold … · 11/3/2016 · regulated parking...

726 Adopted Report

of the

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

held

Thursday 3 November 2016 at

9am

City of Gold Coast Council Chambers 135 Bundall Road Surfers Paradise

726th Council Meeting 15 November 2016 2 City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 3 November 2016 Adopted Report

Index 726 Report

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting Thursday 3 November 2016

9am

Item Direct. File Page Subject

1 CI LG115/1326/01/2016(P1) 4 City Infrastructure Action List And Forward Planning Schedule

2 CI FN334/375/02(P41) 7 2016-17 Local Area Works Program - Additions

3## CI PN76904/16(P4) 11 Gold Market Drive Reserve Asset Management Plan

4### CI TT138/362/06(P4) 26 Tugun To Bilinga Oceanway Petition

Closed Session

5# CI TT1017/113/21(P1) 61 Regulated Parking Arrangements On Public Holidays

Open Session

General Business

6 CI RD600005/16(P1) 74 Local Traffic System Review To Include Global Plaza Oxenford

# Officer’s Recommendation changed by Committee ## Officer’s Recommendation changed by Council ### Committee Recommendation changed by Council KEY: OCEO - Office of the Chief Executive Officer CI - City Infrastructure GCW - Gold Coast Water CS - Community Services OS - Organisational Services EDMP - Economic Development & Major Projects PE - Planning & Environment

726th Council Meeting 15 November 2016 3 City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 3 November 2016 Adopted Report ADOPTION BY COUNCIL 15 NOVEMBER 2016 RESOLUTION G16.1115.011 moved Cr Crichlow seconded Cr Tozer That the Report of the City Infrastructure Committee Meeting of Thursday, 3 November 2016, covered by Recommendations numbered CI16.1103.001 to CI16.1103.006, be adopted with the exception of:- Recommendation Numbers CI16.1103.003

CI16.1103.004 and CI16.1103.005 which were specifically resolved.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

ATTENDANCE Cr D Crichlow OAM (Chairperson) Cr G Baildon AM Cr W Owen-Jones Cr PC Young Cr PJ Young Cr D McDonald Cr P Taylor (visitor) Cr G O’Neill (visitor) Mr A Twine Director City Infrastructure Mr M Hulse Manager Infrastructure Delivery Mr K Deutscher Manager Transport & Traffic Mr M Ash Manager City Assets Mr M Shrimpton Executive Coordinator Infrastructure Unity, Transport & Traffic Mr M Tilly Executive Coordinator Strategic Operations, Transport & Traffic Mr J Brook Coordinator Transport Futures, Transport & Traffic Mr C Kinnell Coordinator City Parking, City Parking APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE PROCEDURAL MOTION moved Cr Baildon seconded Cr Owen-Jones That the apology of Cr Vorster be noted. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS Regulated Parking Arrangements On Public Holidays – Ken Deutscher, Manager Transport & Traffic


ITEM 1 CITY INFRASTRUCTURE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTION LIST AND FORWARD PLANNING SCHEDULE LG115/1326/01/2016(P1)

CITY INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Item Action Officer Action/Previous Resolution

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (all meetings)

Action List and Forward Planning Schedule A Twine – Director City Infrastructure

Standing Item.

2016-17 Capital Works Program - Approvals M Hulse – Infrastructure Delivery Report as required. 2016-17 Local Area Works Program – Additions M Hulse – Infrastructure Delivery Report as required. 2016-17 Capital Works Program – Works Completed or Under Construction

M Hulse – Infrastructure Delivery Report quarterly.

(727) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 17 November 2016

City of Gold Coast Wayfinding Strategy C Rollo– Transport & Traffic Update on the Wayfinding Strategy and upcoming pilot for Broadbeach.

(728) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 1 December 2016

City Parking Plan Twelve Month Review (PICS) (Ex. G14.008.023)

A Stewart – Transport & Traffic 4. That a comprehensive review of the City Parking Plan, including the results of the Broadbeach and Burleigh PICS, be considered by Council at 12 months and 24 months after commencement of the pilot.

Traffic Calming Policy Report S Yee Yet – Transport & Traffic The City’s Traffic Calming Policy has been reviewed and Council’s endorsement of the review and updated policy is sought.

Surfers Paradise Sand Backpassing Pipeline Project Z Elliott / A Barwick – City Assets Provide Council an update on the Surfers Paradise Sand Backpassing Pipeline Project.


ITEM ITEM# (Continued) CITY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTION LIST AND FORWARD PLANNING SCHEDULE LG115/1294/01/2016(P1)

(729) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 23 January 2017

Private Ocean Beach Access Stairs within Road Reserve M Harry – City Assets To establish the City’s position regarding the construction of future private ocean beach access stairs located in unconstructed road.

Program of Works for Road Verge Drainage Treatment (Ex. CI16.0908.004)

D McNeilage – City Assets That a further report be brought back to the City Infrastructure Committee noting other water sensitive urban design locations, issues and a proposal for rectification where required.

(732) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 23 February 2017

Report On Future Pedestrian Facility Between Universal Way & Greenway Boulevard, Maudsland (Ex. CI16.0824.006)

S Yee Yet – Transport & Traffic That a report be prepared for a future pedestrian facility (inclusive of footpath linkages between Universal Way & Greenway Boulevard, Maudsland) on the Gaven arterial in the vicinity of the Saltwater Creek bridge.

Evaluation Of The Trial Traffic Response Units (Ex. CIW15.1105.003)

G Smith – Transport & Traffic That an evaluation of the trial be undertaken at an estimated cost of $10,000 and recommendations are provided for the potential ongoing deployment of Traffic Response Units on the City’s road network.

(733) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 9 March 2017

Stormwater Drainage Management Plan S Fong – City Assets Provide Council an updated development of stormwater drainage for the City.


ITEM ITEM# (Continued) CITY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTION LIST AND FORWARD PLANNING SCHEDULE LG115/1294/01/2016(P1)

(TBA) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – February 2017

Sundale Bridge Fifth Lane (Ex. G16.0915.003)

M Shrimpton – Transport & Traffic That a status report be provided to the City Infrastructure Committee in February 2017.

State Of The Transport Network Report A Stewart – Transport & Traffic Report to be presented on the metrics and performance of the City’s transport system.

Traffic Area And Parking Permit Schemes A Stewart – Transport & Traffic Report to Council on the findings of a review into parking regulations covering traffic areas and resident permit systems in event zones and residential areas across the city.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: That the City Infrastructure Directorate Action List and Forward Planning Schedule for the City Infrastructure Committee be noted.

Authorised by: Alton Twine Director City Infrastructure iSPOT#52917032

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.1103.001 moved Cr McDonald seconded Cr PC Young That the City Infrastructure Directorate Action List and Forward Planning Schedule for the City Infrastructure Committee be noted.

CARRIED


ITEM 2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY BRANCH 2016-17 LOCAL AREA WORKS PROGRAM – ADDITIONS FN334/375/02(P41) Refer 1 page attachment 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Not Applicable. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is for Council to approve additions to the 2016-17 Local Area Works Program as detailed in Attachment 2.1. 4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Not Applicable. 5 DISCUSSION Councillors in conjunction with City officers have suggested that the projects in Attachment 2.1 be added to the 2016-17 Local Area Works Program. 6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND

OPERATIONAL PLAN These projects satisfy the following: 1.0 The best place to live and visit

1.4 We have fast, frequent and reliable public transport. We can get around the city easily and cheaply.

2.0 Prosperity built on a strong diverse economy

2.3 We have infrastructure that supports productivity and growth. We have connected and vibrant economic precincts.

3.0 People contribute to a strong community spirit

3.6 We are an active community. We enjoy the city and its enviable climate.

7 GOLD COAST 2018 COMMONWEALTH GAMES™ IMPACT Not Applicable.


ITEM 2 (Continued) 2016-17 LOCAL AREA WORKS PROGRAM – ADDITIONS FN334/375/02(P41) 8 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Funds are available within the various Local Area Works allocations to carry out the works as indicated in Attachment 2.1 within the 2016-17 financial year. Details of the additional annual operational/maintenance costs, estimated new/upgrade and renewal costs and estimated useful life of the new assets created are shown in Attachment 2.1. The new/upgrade cost is the cost to create or upgrade the asset. The renewal cost is the cost to renew the asset in today’s dollars and includes disposal costs and design costs as required at the end of the asset’s estimated useful life. The works proposed in this report can be maintained and operated adequately based on the current 10 year financial plan's growth factors and maintenance budgets. 9 RISK MANAGEMENT City Infrastructure’s project teams will mitigate risk through project development and delivery phases in accordance with the risk management procedure 6-3 which is aligned with the Risk Management Standards AS/NZS 31000:2009.

10 STATUTORY MATTERS Not Applicable. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES Local Area Works and Services Program Policy (iSPOT #48181699). 12 DELEGATIONS Not Applicable. 13 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION Name and Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate or Organisation

Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

A Boersma, Senior Project Manager

City Infrastructure Yes


ITEM 2 (Continued) 2016-17 LOCAL AREA WORKS PROGRAM – ADDITIONS FN334/375/02(P41) 14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS The community, ratepayers and visitors to the Gold Coast will benefit from the new and improved facilities funded from the Local Area Works Program as listed in Attachment 2.1. 15 TIMING Projects listed with “TBA” will be added to the Local Area Works Program once formally approved by Council and included in Design/Construction Programs for implementation in conjunction with other priority works. 16 CONCLUSION The proposed additions to the Local Area Works and Services Program as suggested by divisional councillors in conjunction with City officers are listed in Attachment 2.1. It is recommended that Council approve the additions in order that they can be implemented as soon as practicable. 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: That the additions listed in Attachment 2.1 be approved for the 2016-17 Local Area Works Program. Author: Authorised by: Garry Ellis Alton Twine Program Coordinator Project Management Unit Director City Infrastructure 12 October 2016 iSPOT: #58391268 Atts: #58391150 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.1103.002 moved Cr McDonald seconded Cr PC Young That the additions listed in Attachment 2.1 be approved for the 2016-17 Local Area Works Program.

CARRIED


Attachment 2.1

CITY INFRASTRUCTURE – ADDITIONS

Project

Manager

Div

Project

No

Location

Description

Proposed Local Area Works Allocation

New / Upgrade. Preliminary

Estimated Capital costs

$

Additional

Annual Operations & Maintenance

Costs $

Estimate

Useful Life Years

A. Boersma (CR265630)

11 26523 Christine Avenue, Varsity Lakes

Increase the initial allocation for project #26523 Carpark improvements adjacent to the Varsity College School Oval by $15,200 from $18,600 to $33,800 following the completion of the design and estimate.

15,200 Minimal 33,800

iSPOT:# 58391150


ITEM 3 CITY ASSETS BRANCH GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) Refer 4 page attachment 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Not Applicable. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a report on the progress of water quality remediation works in Gold Market Drive Reserve’s waterbody. 4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Ex Council Minute No: G15.0505.022, Ex Council Minute No: CIW15.0618.002, and Ex Council Minute No: G15.1102.002 (refer Attachment 3.1). Of particular relevance to this report, Ex Council Minute No: G15.1102.002 included the following resolutions: “2. That Council endorses the funding required to implement the tabled remediation

works. 4. That further water testing be conducted in twelve months and reported back to the

City Infrastructure and Water Committee. 6. That further investigation be undertaken on nearby properties regarding flow of

effluent into the catchment.” 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Background The Gold Market Drive Reserve contains a 2.7ha constructed waterbody and is located within the Bundall Equestrian Services Precinct (refer Attachment 3.2). Since its excavation as a borrow pit approximately 36 years ago, the waterbody has continually experienced poor water quality. These issues are considered to be a consequence of poor design, and surrounding land uses. In accordance with CIW15.0618.002, a management plan was developed by Ecosure Pty Ltd to facilitate and guide the water body’s remediation and long-term health. The primary objective of the plan was to improve water quality with ancillary benefits to ecology and landscape. Council at its meeting on 2nd November 2015 (G15.1102.002) resolved to implement some of Ecosure’s recommended water quality remedial works and requested that staff provide a water quality report to Council in November 2016. Table 1 below, summarises the recommended actions and measures carried out to date (refer Attachment 3.3 for site photos).


ITEM 3 (Continued) GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) Table 1: Management Plan recommendations, and findings and actions to date Remediation Option

Timeframe Year 1 costs Estimated year 2 costs

Estimated recurrent annual mtc costs (year 3 onwards)

Discussion

Aeration system (Capital investment)

Long-term $33,000(C) estimated. Quotes received in the region of $100,000. Did not proceed.

N/A N/A The original estimated cost was insufficient to provide effective aeration to the entire lake

on a daily basis. Given that native plants can be established in the lake that will provide

more oxygen than an aerator, it has been determined that use of plants to remediate the

lake will be far more cost-effective. Revised cost is for provision of power & installation of

small system. Aeration of entire lake would require additional investment and would not

provide the same benefits as native plants.

Establishment of riparian vegetation

6-12 months $25,000 (O) $15,000 (O) $1,500 (O) The planting program has removed weeds & established dense native riparian vegetation.

This has stabilised the bank & will provide long-term reductions in volumes of nutrients.

Establishment of aquatic vegetation

6-12 months $5,000 (O) $5,000 (O) N/A Water birds continue to destroy introduced aquatic plants, which has reduced the

effectiveness of the plan to use them to remove nutrients and provide water oxygenation.

Plant netting is being considered but can result in bird mortality and may not completely

prohibit the destruction of plants by birds.

Harvesting of submerged vegetation (nutrient farming)

1-2 times annually upon establishment of aquatic vegetation

N/A N/A $6,000 - $12,000(O) Not currently required due to the absence of significant volumes of aquatic plants.

Proprietary treatment products (Eco-Tabs)

Initial large dose followed by smaller regular treatments

$23,000(O) $5,000-$20,000 (O) $5,000 (O) Quotes for full treatment of the waterbody were in excess of $100,000. Only $23,000 was

allocated so a reduced dosage was applied to a small area to assess suitability. Results

were inconclusive as a result of rain events in June 2016 although water clarity remains

excellent since their use.

Total ($) $53,000 (O) $25,000-$40,000 (O) $12,500 - $18,500 (O)

- (C)- Capital Cost - (O)- Operational Cost


ITEM 3 (Continued) GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) 5.2 Catchment Management Unit - Water Quality Update Over the past 12 months, water quality within the waterbody was monitored on a regular basis. The results show that there was no significant change in water quality until the two significant rain events in June 2016. Prior to these rainfall events, the water remained highly turbid and exceeded State guidelines for water quality parameters such as nitrogen, phosphorous, pH, and faecal coliforms. Throughout the past 12 months, algae levels also remained high (fuelled by the nutrient rich warm, shallow water) and included species of the potentially toxic blue-green algae. It is likely that the high algae levels were driving the high DO levels, pH and turbidity. Reductions in algal counts and in concentrations of Chlorophyll-a (an indicator of algal levels), turbidity, suspended solids, DO, and pH were found at all sites after the June 2016 rainfall events. The change in water quality appears to coincide with the heavy rainfall that month. Conversely, nitrogen and phosphorus increased in June, suggesting a recent delivery of a biological waste product to the lake. This was possibly from the stables or re-suspension of nutrients from the existing sediment. At the time of writing this report, there is no direct evidence showing whether or not the application of the treatment product Ecotabs had any significant effect on water quality. The major changes to water chemistry as a result of the June rain events overshadowed any effects the tablets may have had. Despite this, it is considered likely that the Ecotabs would have provided some benefit as they have been shown to work at other sites. Future use of this and similar products has not been ruled out. As of 10 October, the water has remained unusually clear. This suggests that the frequent algal blooms that have plagued the waterbody in the past have not reoccurred. This is despite a plentiful supply of nutrients, and increase in temperature. The improved clarity may be a result of the remediation steps undertaken to date. However, there are too many variables to state this with certainty. The improved water clarity has also allowed direct observation of the waterbody’s wildlife. Brisbane short-necked turtles, longfin eels, gudgeon, and mosquito fish (an introduced species) are all present in significant numbers. Additionally, a submerged native plant called waterwort (Elatine gratioloides) has established throughout the shallows; particularly where replanting works were conducted. Regardless of the improved clarity, nutrient levels still exceed State guidelines. To gauge the ongoing effectiveness of the remediation project and impacts of adjacent land use (i.e. horse stables), water quality monitoring will continue.


ITEM 3 (Continued) GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) 5.3 Compliance Update Environmental Health & City Law Services (EHCLS) have relevant powers to regulate the practices of the horse stables located adjacent to the waterbody under both State and Local Laws. Whilst EHCLS report that there has been overall improvement in the management practices of the industry over the many years of the stables’ existence, further improvements are necessary to minimise the impact on the quality of the surrounding waterways. Whilst stable management remains important and can be regulated, the issue of manure and associated stable materials being deposited on public lands remains a long standing contamination source of surrounding waterways. This is due to the difficulties in identifying responsible parties. EHCLS will continue to work with the Bundall equine industry to improve environmental management practices in the precinct. Recent assessments have resulted in a number of improvement notices being issued to stable operators to align their operations to community expectations. 5.4 Ongoing Remediation Works In comparison to other city water bodies of similar size, the Gold Market Reserve waterbody will be more expensive to improve and maintain. This is primarily due to its location and the flow of contaminants from the adjacent horse stables. Not including the cost of the initial remediation works, it is anticipated that the continually high nutrient levels will result in long-term maintenance costs that are approximately double that of other similar sized lakes in the city. In accordance with the approved asset management plan for the reserve it is proposed to:

· Commence Stage 2 (SE bank) weed clearance, and native species replanting; $15,000.

· Establish additional submerged plants (with anti-bird netting as required) for water quality purposes; $5,000.

· Continue with regular monitoring of water quality at a monthly cost of $350.

· Commence aquatic vegetation harvesting operations (nutrient farming) as necessary; $6,000 - $12,000 a year; and

· Apply further doses of Ecotabs or similar proprietary products to assisting in sludge digestion and water quality improvements; $5,000 to $20,000 depending on scale of application.

The total operational expenditure for the 15/16 financial year was approximately $53,000. The combined actual and predicted operational expenditure for the 16/17 financial year is $25,000 to $40,000. Once all vegetation is established and only routine maintenance is required, the anticipated annual costs for subsequent years are between $12,500 and $18,500.


ITEM 3 (Continued) GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) 5.5 Future Considerations To date it is difficult to categorically say that the water quality remediation works completed have been successful. This is due to a large number of external variables (such as rainfall) affecting the test results. Although several key water quality parameters (i.e. pH and E.coli) are above National Guidelines, aquatic life in the lake appears to be in reasonable health. The prevention of contaminants from entering the waterbody from both the adjacent horse stables and surrounding public lands, is paramount in maintaining the long term health of the waterbody. This is a unique situation not found in other areas of the city due to the proximity of the stables and associated run-off. The costs to enhance and maintain (Table 1) the water quality function of the waterbody are considered appropriate. As per the advice from EHCLS, it is difficult to determine the source of deposited horse manure and associated waste entering the drainage system; in particular, waste that ends up on City controlled lands before entering the Benowa Flood Channel. As this situation is expected to continue, the existing water quality treatment function of the waterbody should be retained. If redevelopment of the reserve was to occur in the future and the waterbody was removed, the following options should be investigated.

· Sufficient land area in the existing reserve is designated for water quality improvement and stormwater conveyance purposes, including the construction of a bioretention system or similar. The bioretention system would collect and remove nutrients, sediments, and E.coli (Note: that only a proportion of the precincts stormwater catchment drains to the lake before entering the surrounding waterways); and/or

· Investigate the potential of a coordinated daily clean-up of manure and associated waste from Council controlled areas within the precinct including the possibility of recouping the associated costs; and

· Increased monitoring and surveillance of private horse stable facilities to minimise contamination emanating from these sites.

6 ALIGNMENT TO CORPORATE PLAN The Gold Coast 2020 City Vision is “Gold Coast. Inspired by lifestyle. Driven by opportunity.” Protecting lake environments through integrated maintenance and environmental management of water quality, ecology and amenity will assist in ensuring that the City of Gold Coast remains the best place to live and visit. Key Focus Area 2 from the City of Gold Coast Corporate Plan 2009-2014 is that our City is loved for its green, gold and blue. Effective maintenance and restoration of healthy lake systems will ensure that lakes across the city are protected and enhanced in accordance with outcome 2.5 of the Corporate Plan.


ITEM 3 (Continued) GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) 7 GOLD COAST 2018 COMMONWEALTH GAMES™ IMPACT Potential for discharge of nutrient rich water into the canal system does exist. Were this to occur during the Games, in addition to the environmental damage, it could result in negative publicity. Addressing water quality issues within individual waterbodies throughout the city’s catchments will help minimise the occurrence of significant cumulative effects. 8 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Adequate funding to undertake additional planting and treatment works detailed in this report is included Cost Centre 1003254 within Budget Centre CI2550O007 – Non Tidal Waterways. Funds to reduce the size of the existing lake and construct a bioretention are not included in future capital works programs. 9 RISK MANAGEMENT Control Number: CN000400 Management of City Infrastructure owned lakes.

The effectiveness of the controls in place for Corporate Risk Co000447 as at 2nd of August 2013 is considered to be ‘good’.

10 STATUTORY MATTERS · Local Government Act 2009 (Chapter 4 Part 3) - accountability, effectiveness, efficiency

and sustainability. · Queensland Civil Liability Act 2003. · Environmental Protection Act 1994 for environmental compliance enforcement. · Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 - This provides for environmental values

and water quality objectives. · Public Health Act 2005 - This contains City of Gold Coast’s obligations for public health

including matters such as recreational water closures. · Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management ) Act -2002 · Agricultural Chemical Distribution Control Act 1966 11 COUNCIL POLICIES Policy 11, Section 13 of the Council’s Land Development Guidelines - Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). 12 DELEGATIONS Not Applicable.


ITEM 3 (Continued) GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) 13 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted


Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report & Recommendations?

Andrew Attewell – Team Leader Catchment Planning (Catchment Management Unit)

Gold Coast Water and Waste

Yes

Stuart Patrick - Coordinator Program Development & Policy (Environmental Health & City Law Services)

Community Services

Yes

Brendan Madden – Manager Property Services

Organisational Services

Yes

Mark Ash – Manager City Assets

City Infrastructure

Yes

14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS Catchment Management Unit (CMU) The City’s Catchment Management Unit will continue to monitor water quality within the reserve and adjoining waterway (Benowa Flood Channel). Environmental Health & City Law Services EHCLS will continue to work with the Bundall equine industry to improve environmental management practices in the precinct. Recent assessments have resulted in a number of improvement notices being issued to stable operators to align their operations to community expectations. Community Implementation of the waterbody’s management plan and environmental compliance works has the potential to improve water quality in the reserve and adjacent Benowa Flood Channel. Many local residents and environmental groups such as Friends of Black Swan Lake are supportive of the City’s efforts to date. They are strongly opposed to any proposals that would result in the loss of the waterbody. It is noted that regular monitoring of the site (including water quality sampling) is undertaken by third parties independent of the City. 15 TIMING Not Applicable.


ITEM 3 GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) 16 CONCLUSION Currently, nutrient rich water is discharged from the adjacent horse stables into the Benowa Flood Channel via the Gold Market Drive Reserve waterbody. This has created a legacy of poor water quality in the waterbody and the channel and has potentially contributed to large-scale bird and fish kills. It is difficult to determine the precise source of deposited horse manure and associated waste entering the drainage system, in particular, waste that ends up on Council controlled lands before entering the waterway. The waterbody within the reserve effectively acts as a sediment and primary treatment basin. Contaminants such as nitrogen and phosphorous are utilised by plants and algae within the waterbody. Carefully managed, this form of treatment can significantly improve downstream water quality. In accordance with CIW15.0618.002, a management plan was developed by Ecosure Pty Ltd to facilitate and guide the water body’s remediation and long-term health. The primary objective of the plan was to improve water quality with ancillary benefits to ecology and landscape. Council at its meeting on 2nd November 2015 (G15.1102.002) resolved to implement some of Ecosure’s recommended water quality remedial works and requested that staff provide a water quality report to Council November 2016. To date, it is difficult to categorically say that the water quality remediation works alone have been successful in achieving the current water quality. This is due to a large number of external variables (such as rainfall) affecting the test results. Although several key water quality parameters (i.e. pH and E.coli) are above State guidelines, aquatic life in the lake appears to be in reasonable health. The prevention of contaminants entering the waterbody from the adjacent horse stable is paramount in maintaining the long term health of the waterbody. In accordance with the waterbody’s management plan, further remediation works are scheduled. These works can be funded from Budget Centre CI2550O007 – Non Tidal Waterways. The associated costs are considered appropriate to maintain and enhance the water quality improvement function of the waterbody. EHCLS will continue to work with the Bundall equine industry to improve environmental management practices in the precinct.


ITEM 3 GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: That Council notes the contents of this report. Author: Authorised by: Colin Bridges Alton Twine Senior Environmental Engineer Director City Infrastructure 14 October 2016

iSpot: #56241313 + Attach (s) # 57404772, 49152481, 58413752 Cr Baildon declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009), due to his involvement with the Gold Coast Show Society, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr Baildon remained in the room. Cr Crichlow declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009), due to her involvement as a member and patron of the Gold Coast Show Society, but that she had considered her position and was firmly of the opinion she could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr Crichlow remained in the room. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.1103.003 moved Cr Baildon seconded Cr Owen-Jones That Council notes the contents of this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Committee Recommendation Changed at Council 15 November 2016 Cr Crichlow declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to her involvement with the Gold Coast Show Society as member and patron, but that she had considered her position and was firmly of the opinion she could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr Gates declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to her membership and honorary membership of the Gold Coast Turf Club, but that she had considered her position and was firmly of the opinion she could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest.


ITEM 3 GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) Cr Baildon declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to him being a patron and life member of the Gold Coast Show Society, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr Caldwell declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to his honorary membership of the Gold Coast Turf Club, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr Taylor declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to his honorary membership of the Gold Coast Turf Club, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr McDonald declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to her honorary membership of the Gold Coast Turf Club, but that she had considered her position and was firmly of the opinion she could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr Owen-Jones declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to his honorary membership of the Gold Coast Turf Club, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr La Castra declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to honorary membership of the Gold Coast Turf Club, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. Cr Tozer declared that a real (or perceived) conflict of interest in this matter could exist (as per section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009) due to his honorary membership of the Gold Coast Turf Club, but that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he could participate in debate and vote on this matter in the public interest. All Councillors remained in the room


ITEM 3 GOLD MARKET DRIVE RESERVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PN76904/16(P4) CHANGED AT COUNCIL 15 NOVEMBER 2016 RESOLUTION G16.1115.008 moved Cr Baildon seconded Cr Vorster

That Committee Recommendation CI16.1103.003 be not adopted, but in lieu thereof reads as follows: That officers liaise with Gold Coast Turf Club on the securing funding in cash and in-kind for the filling in of the borrow pit (Gold Market Drive), at no cost to Council, to maximise its utilisation for future public open green space, horse exercising and overflow car parking for precinct events. A division was called. For 12 Cr Tozer, Cr Owen-Jones, Cr Caldwell, Cr Vorster, Cr Crichlow,

Cr Baildon, Cr O’Neill, Cr Boulton, Cr Gates, Cr PC Young, Cr Taylor, Cr Tate

Against 3 Cr PJ Young, Cr La Castra, Cr McDonald Abstained 0 Absent 0

CARRIED BY SUPER MAJORITY


Attachment 3.1 Ex Council Minute No: G15.0505.022: “1. That Option 1 be adopted, which is to maintain the current situation (retention of the existing lake). 2. That an asset management plan relating to the site, that takes into account all relevant technical advice, be submitted to the Council prior to the adoption of the 2015-16 budget.” Ex Council Minute No: CIW15.0618.002: 1 “That Council provides a non-recurrent funding allocation in 2015-16 of $15,000 in

Budget Centre ES2550O007, Cost Centre 1003254 to undertake a comprehensive management plan for Gold Market Drive Reserve (lot 1 RP221016; Lot 2 RP221016; and Road Reserve that dissects Lots 1 & 2).”

Ex Council Minute No: G15.1102.002: “1. That Council notes the contents of this report. 2. That Council endorses the funding required to implement the tabled remediation works. 3. That Council considers the funding requirement to implement the tabled remediation works. 4. That further water testing be conducted in twelve months and reported back to the City Infrastructure and Water Committee. 5. That further investigation be undertaken with the Catchment Management Unit in using voluntary labour. 6. That further investigation be undertaken on nearby properties regarding flow of effluent into the catchment.”


Attachment 3.2 Aerial Images of Gold Market Drive Lake Aerial view of the site showing location of lake and approved stormwater infrastructure. Heavily vegetated in 2002 Devoid of vegetation in 2005 Minimal vegetation & major Algal bloom occurring in 2013 filamentous algae bloom in 2012


Attachment 3.3 Gold Market Drive Reserve – Remediation Project

Late 2015 prior to clearance works Weeding complete & planting underway

Plants well established Sep 2016


Green algal bloom early 2016 prior to use of Ecotabs and occurrence of June rain events

2015 algal bloom typical of conditions in the waterbody

Clear water & native waterwort (submerged plant Sep 2016)

Clear water & fish (unknown species) Sep 2016 Eastern water dragon Sep 2016

Turf, gate, & bollards added to reserve entrance July 2016

Established landscaping & swale drain July 2016


ITEM 4 TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC BRANCH TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) Refer 13 page attachment 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 22 December 2015 the City received a petition requesting that Council reconsider its position regarding construction of the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway. The Oceanway is a 36 kilometre network of shared use cycle and pedestrian pathways along coastline areas from the New South Wales border to the Gold Coast Seaway. The Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway site is bordered by O’Connor Park, Tugun to the north and the Bilinga Surf Life Saving Club to the south. The site joins to existing Oceanway path at both ends and includes a 1.7km stretch of the unmade Pacific Parade road reserve, bounded to the west by private properties and to the east by the Pacific Ocean Mean High Water Spring level. Completion of this missing link would create approximately eight kilometres of continuous beachfront Oceanway from Flat Rock Creek, Currumbin to Snapper Rocks in Coolangatta. The site has been dedicated and opened for public use as a road since original surveys were undertaken in 1914. In response to severe erosion events, Council and private residents sought to establish a continuous boulder seawall in front of beachfront properties along the site in 1989/90. Initially, reclaimed land between the wall and private property boundaries was fenced to restrict access. However, in 1996 Council established that public access to the area could not be restricted in this way. Council affirmed this position in 2012 and 2016 by resolving to remove private encroachments into the site, including pergolas, fences and seating. In 2011, the City developed the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Forward Planning Report which recommended construction of a 3.5 metre wide concrete Oceanway on road reserve between the boulder seawall and private properties. Public consultation response to this report indicated that most respondents preferred improvements along Golden Four Drive. In 2012, Council resolved to note public consultation results and undertake further investigations into active transport upgrade options for Golden Four Drive. Construction of a new 2 to 2.5m shared pathway and bicycle lanes along Golden Four Drive is proposed for the next four years in association with pavement rehabilitation works. Stage 1 of these works from Toolona Street to Dune Street was completed in September 2016. The current forecast budget for construction of the remaining stages from Dune Street to Gibson Street is $2,000,000. The current 2015 petition is specifically seeking that Council reconsider the 2011 planning report recommendations. However, having regard to the present very wide beach and foredune formation, other responses are possible. Accordingly, five options for an Oceanway from Tugun to Bilinga have been developed:


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4)

Option 1. Do nothing. Generally maintain the existing informal turfed and sand track access.

Option 2. Construct a concrete pathway between private properties and the A-line/seawall (almost identical to the option recommended in the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011).

Option 3. Construct a concrete pathway in the swale area between the A-line/seawall and fore dune.

Option 4. Construct an above ground boardwalk in the swale between area between the A-line/seawall and fore dune.

Option 5. Construct a combination of pathway (possibly both concrete path and boardwalk) either landward or seaward of the A-line depending on available corridor widths and observed long term beach volume trends.

Each of the above options have been evaluated against evaluation criteria, including cost, amenity, access, impact on environmental values, vulnerability to erosion, proximity to private properties, statutory approvals and impacts on seawalls. The report recommends that further planning and investigation be undertaken to refine and confirm feasibility of the Option 2, which is almost identical to the option recommended in the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to:

1. Advise Council of a petition received on 22 December 2015 with 8888 signatures, which requested that Council:

a. Reconsider Council’s decision to reject construction of a beachside Tugun to Bilinga section of the Oceanway.

b. Accept the completed Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011 (by Engineering Services).

c. Re-commit funds for construction to be completed by 2018. 2. Present to Council a number of beachside Oceanway options in addition to the option

recommended by the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011. 3. Advise Council of risks and issues associated with constructing a beachside

Oceanway from Tugun to Bilinga. 4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Council has previously made a number of resolutions relating to public use of the beachfront Pacific Parade road reserve between Tugun and Bilinga – see Attachment 4.1. The key points from previous resolutions are:


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) Bilinga to Tugun Boulder Wall · 1989/90: Council worked with residents to establish a boulder wall in front of beachfront

properties between Tugun and Bilinga. At the time of establishing the boulder wall, Council advised residents that reclaimed land between their private properties and the wall would not be available for public access. Residents were encouraged to fence and maintain the area between their properties and the boulder wall.

· 1996: Council sought to establish the status of the land between private properties and

the Bilinga to Tugun boulder wall. It was resolved that the area is Crown land over which public access cannot be legally limited and over which adjacent property owners do not have exclusive use. Council further resolved:

o not to construct public walkway/bikeways in the area between the top of the

boulder wall and the property boundary. o To investigate building a walkway at the toe of the existing boulder wall.

Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway · 2011: Council reviewed priorities for upgrading key sections of the Gold Coast

Oceanway network and resolved to undertake a forward planning report for a new Oceanway along the beachfront from Tugun to Bilinga. This report recommended construction of a 3.5m wide path on reclaimed land between the seawall and private property boundaries from Tugun to Bilinga.

· 2012: Council resolved to place the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Forward Planning Report (the planning report) on the City’s website for public comment and to undertake community engagement on the proposed Oceanway and on suggested improvements along Golden Four Drive as a possible alternative. Almost two thirds of respondents to the consultation opposed the Oceanway. There was strong support from the respondents (almost 85%) for bikeway upgrades on Golden Four Drive. On 12 July 2012, Council resolved to note ‘ the results of the Tugun to Bilinga Consultation Report for improved bicycle connectivity options along Golden Four Drive’ and to undertake further discussions ‘regarding a state funding contribution to the cost of Golden Four Drive bikeway options.’

Removal of Encroachments Tugun to BIlinga · 2012 and 2016: Council resolved to remove private encroachments along public road

reserve between Tugun and Bilinga. 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Gold Coast Oceanway Concept The Gold Coast Oceanway is a 36 kilometre network of on-road and off-road shared use pathways along coastline areas from the New South Wales border to the Gold Coast Seaway. For practical reasons, the Oceanway is located along the beachfront in some sections, while in others it is located on roadside verge in streets set back from the beach. In some cases the facility is located inland of a boulder seawall, in other locations it is unprotected by a seawall, where none currently exists.


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) The City’s Oceanway network provides a healthy and environmentally-friendly way for people to explore Gold Coast beaches. Since the early 2000’s the City has invested in the improvement of the quality and capacity of the Oceanway to encourage healthier and more sustainable travel behaviour from Gold Coast residents and visitors. Oceanway upgrades focus on beachfront paths and include construction of 3.5 to 5 metre wide coloured concrete pavement. Landscaping, lighting, water bubblers and seating can be incorporated where needed. The high quality sections of the Oceanway are very popular with residents and visitors alike due to the opportunity they provide for people to access key destinations and improve their fitness, all while taking in the City’s iconic coastline and ocean views. 5.2 Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Site The site for the possible seafront Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway is bordered by O’Connor Park, Tugun to the north and the Bilinga Surf Life Saving Club to the south. The corridor of interest between these two points is the Pacific Parade Road reserve bounded to the west by private properties and to the east by the Pacific Ocean Mean High Water Spring level. The corridor is 1.7 kilometres in length and joins to existing Oceanway at both ends (see Figure 1). Completion of this missing link in the Oceanway would create approximately eight kilometres of continuous beachfront Oceanway stretching from Flat Rock Creek, Currumbin to Snapper Rocks in Coolangatta.

Figure 1: Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway site and corridor of interest


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) 5.3 Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Site Historical Context Survey plans dating back to 1914 show allotments with road frontage on the east to Pacific Parade between Tugun and Bilinga. No road width for Pacific Parade is shown; instead the eastern boundary of Pacific Parade is described as the Pacific Ocean. This area of land has been dedicated and opened for public use as a road since these original surveys. All subject allotments also have access to Golden Four Drive which is a fully constructed road. Early town planning maps from 1960 reflect the original 1914 surveys showing Pacific Parade to the east of residential allotments along Golden Four Drive (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Excerpt from 1960 town planning map of Tugun In response to severe erosion events, Council and private landholders sought to establish a continuous boulder wall along the A-line1 in the road reserve in front of beachfront properties between Tugun and Bilinga in 1989-90. Aerial photography taken in 1989 clearly shows exposure of seawalls at Bilinga (see Figure 3). Landholders were made responsible for maintaining the seawalls located in front of their private properties.

1 The A-line is a notional planning line determined by State Government that defines the location of the seaward crest of the boulder seawall.



Figure 3: Aerial Photo (1989/Jackson) showing exposure of seawalls at Bilinga Initially, reclaimed land between the wall and private property boundaries was fenced to restrict public access. In 1996 it was established that public access could not be restricted in the area due to it being Crown land. However, private encroachments such as pergolas, fences and seating remained. The City has been progressively removing these encroachments since 2012. Due to the combination of severe erosion events, and the interruption of natural sand supply from extension of the Tweed River training walls between 1962 and 1964, the City partnered with the Queensland Government to undertake sand replenishment for the southern beaches. Partnerships were also formed with the New South Wales Government which resulted in construction of a sand bypassing operation at the Tweed River, known as the Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project. This sand bypassing system became fully operational in May 2001 and sand is now regularly pumped from the collection point south of the Tweed River entrance to outlets at Duranbah, Snapper Rocks and Kirra. As evidenced by recent aerial photography, these actions have assisted in restoring a healthy beach and dune system along the southern coastline that provides both improved beach amenity and a first line of defence against storm erosion (see Figure 4).



Figure 4: Aerial Photo (2014/City of Gold Coast) of beaches at Tugun and Bilinga Private property owners are responsible for ensuring that their seawall is constructed and maintained to the required standard to provide a second line of defence against storm erosion.

TUGUN

BILINGA


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) 5.4 Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Options Development On 22 December 2015 the City received a petition requesting that Council reconsider its position regarding construction of the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway and recommit funds to build a 3.5m wide Oceanway between the boulder seawall and adjacent properties A review of current beach conditions and events since 2011 suggests a number of options may be available. In response, five options for an Oceanway from Tugun to Bilinga have been developed: Option 1. Do nothing. Generally maintain the existing informal turfed and sand track

access.





The following sections provide graphic depictions of each option. A detailed description of each option is also provided in Attachment 4.2. 5.4.1 Option 1: Generally Maintain Existing informal Turfed and Sand Track Access

Figure 5: OPTION 1 generally maintains existing turfed access landward of A-line.



Figure 6: OPTION 1 diverts to a short sandy beach track near John Street due to insufficient space for turfed access landward of A-line/seawall at this location.

5.4.2 Option 2: Concrete Pathway Landward of A-line/Seawall

Figure 7: OPTION 2 provides a concrete path between private properties and the A-line/seawall (image taken from 2011 planning report).



Figure 8: OPTION 2 provides concrete pathway of similar width and quality to existing Oceanway path at Pacific Parade, Bilinga. 5.4.3 Option 3: Concrete Oceanway Path Seaward of A-line

Figure 9: Option 3 proposes a concrete path alignment seaward of A-line in the swale area behind the fore dune as depicted in this rendered image.



Figure 10: OPTION 3 proposes concrete path seaward of A-Line/seawall as depicted in this typical cross section. 5.4.4 Option 4: Above Ground Boardwalk Seaward of A-line

Figure 11: OPTION 4 could be constructed from recycled plastic boardwalk on aluminium substructure and driven concrete pile foundations similar to that shown above, with the exception hand rails would be required.



Figure 12: OPTION 4 proposes an above ground boardwalk seaward of A-line/seawall as depicted in this typical cross-section. 5.4.5 Option 5: Combined Concrete Path/Boardwalk Seaward/Landward of A-line

Figure 13: OPTION 5 proposes combined path alignments both landward and seaward of A-line depending on beach stability and width between A-line and private properties 5.5 Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Options Evaluation and Performance Overview Each option has been evaluated against eight criteria as follows:

Criterion 1. Costs (whole of life i.e. construction, maintenance, replacement and repair) Criterion 2. Provision for user amenity and experience Criterion 3. Provision for equitable access Criterion 4. Impact on environmental values and dune stability Criterion 5. Vulnerability to severe erosion event\ Criterion 6. Proximity to adjacent residences Criterion 7. Statutory approvals prior to implementation Criterion 8. Impact on seawall performance, ownership and maintenance

A detailed description of the evaluation criterion and option analysis is provided in Attachment 4.2. An overview of the evaluation results is provided in Table 2.

Sand Street

Tugun

Bilinga

Approximate location of A – line Path Landward of A-line Path Seaward of A-line

John Street


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) Table 2: Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Options Evaluation and Performance Overview Option Description C1:

Cost C2: User Amenity & Experience

C3: Equitable Access

C4: Environmental Values

C5: Vulnerability to Erosion

C6: Proximity to Adjacent Residences

C7: Statutory Approvals

C8: Seawall Performance & Seawall Maintenance

1 – Maintain Existing Turf Access generally located between A-line and Private Property N

/A

No facilities or formed path. Also diverts to beach track in some sections.

Does not provide disabled access.

Turfed access already established – no further vegetation clearing or earthworks required.

Generally located landward of seawall. Track through dunes at John St vulnerable in severe event.

Turf access already exists – no additional impact to adjacent residences.

No works therefore no approvals required.

No physical structure and therefore no impact.

2 – New Concrete Path between A-line and Private Property

$3.3

M to

$4.

2M

- S

tand

ard

who

le o

f lif

e co

sts

Formed path protected from windblown sand.

DDA compliant path with minimal impact from windblown sand due to alignment landward of seawall.

Path located in already cleared access corridor landward of A-line. Temporary clearing only in construction. Only select permanent clearing to improve viewing opportunities.

Concrete path behind A-line is protected by seawall in all but the most sever events. Even in such an event damage and loss would be minimal.

Path located between private property boundary and A-line. Mitigated by generous corridor to the north, however some sections south of Sand Street narrow to between 6.5m and 4.5m.

Approvals of low concern due to path alignment landward of A-line.

Structure will move with seawall in severe erosion event and will allow localise removal of path panels if required for seawall upgrade, repair and maintenance.

3 – New On Ground Concrete Path in Swale between A-line and Foredune

$3M

to $

5M

- H

ighe

r w

hole

of

life

cos

ts

Formed path, but location on ground through dunes will be impacted by windblown sand

DDA compliant, but location on ground through dunes will be impacted by windblown sand

Permanent vegetation clearing due to location of path in dune area. Can be mitigated by selective restoration and replanting where possible.

Vulnerable to damage and loss in a severe erosion event due to alignment seaward of A-line. Concrete path will not become a drifting hazard.

Path located well clear of private property boundary on seaward side of A-line and below crest of seawall.

Approvals require careful management, due to alignment seaward of A-line.

Structure in front of A-line may cause isolated impacts to seawall performance in severe event. Will dismantle for seawall upgrade, repair and maintenance.

4 – New Above Ground 3.5m Boardwalk in Swale between A-line and Foredune

$5M

to $

7M

- H

ighe

r w

hole

of

life

cos

ts

Formed path protected from windblown sand

DDA compliant path with minimal impact from windblown sand due to raised structure above dunes.

Permanent vegetation clearing for due to location of path in dune area. Can be mitigated by selective restoration and replanting where possible.

Vulnerable to damage and loss in a severe erosion event due to alignment seaward of A-line. Boardwalk may also become a drifting hazard.

Path located well clear of private property boundary on seaward side of A-line and below crest of seawall.



5 – Path landward of A-line from Toolona to Sand St and then seaward of A-line from Sand St to Bilinga SLSC

$4M

to $

6M

- H

ighe

r w

hole

of

life

cos

ts

Formed path, but on ground option through dunes will be impacted by windblown sand

DDA compliant, but on ground path option through dunes vulnerable to windblown sand

Temporary vegetation clearing in construction where located behind A-line. Permanent clearing where located in dune area – can be mitigated by restoration and replanting.

Protected where located landward of A-line. Not protected where located seaward of A-line.

Path either located in wider sections landward of seawall or on seaward side of A-line clear of private properties.




ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) 5.6 Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Options Evaluation Key Findings Option 1 does not meet basic minimum standards for accessibility and user amenity and is not considered a viable option. Option 1 does not meet minimum standards required for a designated walkway, including Oceanway. Therefore this option precludes use of signage identifying the route as a pathway including its use as the Oceanway, or an alternative to the Oceanway. Option 2 generally meets or exceeds all criteria and provides the maximum benefit to the community at low to moderate risk and cost. It provides a high quality formed Oceanway path option that is safe, convenient, comfortable and accessible to all members of the community. The alignment of the path landward of the A-line will ensure it is protected from severe erosion events and that it will also have minimal impact on environmental values and operation of seawalls. As a result, statutory approvals are of low concern and standard Oceanway delivery and whole of life asset costs will apply. However, care will need to be taken in the planning and design phase to minimise impacts to adjacent residences where the corridor between the A-line and private property boundaries is constrained. Options 3 and 4 generally meet most criteria, however an important exception is the vulnerability of these options to loss and damage in a severe erosion event due to alignments located seaward of the A-line. As a result, the risks associated with escalating whole of life assets costs and potential damage to the City’s reputation if a major loss were to occur are considered too high to proceed with these options. Similar to Options 3 and 4, Option 5 also generally meets most criteria with the exception of vulnerability to erosion. However, this option seeks to mitigate this vulnerability by only proposing alignments seaward of the A-line where increased beach width and dune volume provide a next line of defence in addition to seawalls. Option 5 also attempts to address concerns of adjacent residents by proposing a path alignment landward of the A-line only where generous buffer can still be provided to private properties. Notwithstanding increased beach width and volumes, any decision to progress with proposed sections of path seaward of the A-line may be feasible where beach width and dune volume provide a first line of defence against coastal erosion (in addition to seawalls). However, the construction of a path east of the A-line will hinder natural beach processes. Managing windblown sand and sand dune migration to keep the path open and safe for all users will incur increased maintenance costs. The construction of a path east of the A line will also require the removal of large areas of dune vegetation (> 1 ha) and the destruction of the respective ecosystems. Paths constructed seaward of the A line require Statutory (tidal works) approvals and such approvals normally include a condition that requires the infrastructure to be designed to collapse during erosion events (ie sacrificial infrastructure). Any decision to progress sections of path seaward of the A-line will require careful consideration of the risks associated with future erosion events including costs incurred through the loss of infrastructure and potential damage to the City’s reputation.


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) 6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND

OPERATIONAL PLAN The Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway project aligns with the following themes, outcomes and signature actions of the City Vision and Gold Coast 2020.

1.0 The best place to live and visit

1.1 Our city provides a choice of liveable places

2.0 Prosperity built on a strong diverse economy 2.3 We have infrastructure that supports productivity and growth

3.0 People contribute to a strong community spirit

3.1 Our city is safe 3.2 We are proud of our city

Supporting the Delivery of Gold Coast 2020 § We manage the city responsibly

§ Key programs of work: Manage the maintenance, renewal and delivery of infrastructure for the city through the Total Asset Management Plan and the forward Capital Works program.

The project is aligned with the following Corporate Strategies. § Gold Coast Transport Strategy (adopted December 2012) – The Transport Strategy

will guide the city’s transport system to 2031, creating a smart, connected and liveable city that makes sustainable travel choices.

§ Ocean Beaches Strategy (adopted August 2013) – The Ocean Beaches Strategy will guide the protection of the City’s beaches and ensure they are clean, healthy, safe and accessible now and into the future.

7 GOLD COAST 2018 COMMONWEALTH GAMES™ IMPACT Not Applicable. 8 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Funding to advance further options investigations and planning would be sourced from the operational budget under C13470O003 Active Transport Planning. Funding for future construction would be considered in the budget process under the Active Transport Infrastructure sub program. Due to current commitments, funding is unlikely to be available prior to the 2018-2019 Financial Year. However, recent correspondence from the office of the Minister for Main Roads, Road Safety and Ports and Minister for Energy, Biofuels and Water Supply has advised that the Queensland Government is generally supportive of the Oceanway and would welcome an application for funding towards the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway project through the Department of Transport and Main Roads Cycle Network Local Government Grants Program.


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) 9 RISK MANAGEMENT Key risks and issues are summarised and relevant mitigation strategies are summarised in the table below. Table 3: Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Risks and Issues Summary Risk/Issue Mitigation

Only clean fill can be used for earthworks in dunal area in accordance with State Government approval requirement.

Sufficient clean fill would be sourced from local beaches, subject to State Government approval.

The new path would need to comply with relevant disability access standards.

Hard stand path will comply with disability access standards. Informal turf options would not need to comply but poses potential liability issues if signed or otherwise implied as a formal pathway.

Vegetation clearing may impact on environmental value of dune area.

Minimal impact where path is located behind A-line in already cleared corridor. For path alignments through dune area, retain existing trees where possible, rationalise beach access points and undertake compensatory planting.

Resident concerns about privacy and amenity where path and associated lighting located in close proximity to private properties.

Maintain buffer allowed by corridor width or divert to dunes. Install fencing/landscaping as screening and sensitive lighting that sheds away from private properties.

Private encroachments past the cadastral property boundary lines present obstructions within the corridor at some locations.

Removal of private encroachments is complete following February 2016 Council resolution.

Resident concerns that clearing of vegetation for construction of the path may impact seawall performance, and dune stability.

Seawall performance is not dependent on planting of vegetation around the seawall. All options are considered to have manageable impacts on dune stability.

Resident concerns that construction of hard structures on top, or in front, of the seawall may be detrimental to seawall performance.

Structures will be designed to break up or be removed in severe erosion events to ensure seawall performance is not impacted.

The exposed coastline is highly variable and can change due to seasonal trends and erosion events. Any section of the Oceanway seaward of the A-line would be vulnerable to damage and loss in a severe erosion event.

Align path landward of the A-line where there is sufficient corridor width between property boundaries and the A-line. Provision for maintenance and repairs associated with beach erosion events would be factored into whole of life asset costs and offset against the overall community benefit provided by the facility.


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) If design and construction of any one of Options 2 to 5 were to proceed, risks would be further assessed and refined as the project progresses in accordance with the City’s Corporate Risk Management Framework. 10 STATUTORY MATTERS All options for constructing an Oceanway from Tugun to Bilinga are located in what is considered the unmade Pacific Parade road reserve which extends from the property boundary seaward to the mean high water spring tide mark. Notably, when this area was originally surveyed in 1914 there was no provision in The Land Act 1910 to dedicate Crown land as road. However, Section 49 of that Act required that land to be declared open for selection shall be surveyed into portions with proper roads. As the survey plans show Pacific Parade, and the deeds of grant that issued from those plans describe the lots as having a boundary to Pacific Parade, there is no doubt that the land has been dedicated and opened for public use as road since these original surveys in 1914. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES Council has no formal policy position regarding whether Oceanway paths in general should be located either seaward or landward of the A-line. Accordingly, the location of the existing Oceanway varies in reference to the A-line. However, in practice the City endeavours to locate the Oceanway landward of the A-line where possible due to the extra protection this alignment provides against severe erosion events. At constrained sites, path has previously been located seaward of the A-line where there is sufficient public demand for the infrastructure and where beach width and available dune volume provides an acceptable next line of defence against erosion of the path. 12 DELEGATIONS Not Applicable. 13 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION The table below outlines the internal stakeholders who were involved / participated in the development of this report and the outcome of that participation. Table 4: Summary of Coordination and Consultation Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted


Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Transport & Traffic Branch Ken Deutscher Manager Transport and Traffic


City Assets Mark Ash Manager City Assets


Legal Services Donna Pistol Senior Lawyer

Office of the CEO Yes (legal)


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) 14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS Public consultation and debate regarding the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway proposal has demonstrated the existence of at least two key stakeholder groups, each with very distinct interests in a project to provide a seafront Oceanway in this locality. One of these groups includes residents, property owners and possibly regular holiday makers at Golden Four Drive. This group’s key issues and concerns centre on the amenity and continued enjoyment of private land which is located adjacent to the proposed Oceanway. This group is understood to represent the majority of respondents to community consultation on the proposed Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway undertaken by the City in 2012. Another key group is the broader community who are most interested in equitable access to, and enjoyment of, public beachfront land. Their interest in the current site centres on the opportunity it provides to complete an 8 km long continuous and high quality off road pedestrian and cycle path from Coolangatta to Currumbin. The people who signed the petition are likely to be part of this group. As part of an informed consideration of Oceanway options between Tugun and Bilinga it is important to note how each of the options respond to and balance the interests of these two distinct stakeholder groups. Maintaining the status quo as proposed in Option 1 may be most favoured by local residents who can continue to enjoy their private property with minimal disturbance. However, this option is unlikely to satisfy the broader community who also seek to enjoy this beachfront area, particularly those who are mobility or vision impaired and cannot use the existing informal track. Option 2 will satisfy the broader community who are seeking a high quality and accessible beachfront path; however it may not be supported by local residents and property owners. Options 3 to 5 seek to balance the concerns and needs of both groups. These options recognise that, while a high quality and accessible path will satisfy the broader community, a buffer between this path and private properties would reduce impact on local residents. However, these options are vulnerable to beach erosion and have a moderate impact on environment values, coastal processes and seawall operation. 15 TIMING The proposed timing for this prospective project will be subject to further planning and investigation to be brought back to Council for consideration and recommendation of a preferred design. The current planning priorities, including the commitments to Commonwealth Games, would see consideration of construction post Commonwealth Games.


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) 16 CONCLUSION A community petition has been lodged requesting the construction of the 1.7 km long missing link of 3.5 metre shared pathway along public land on the seafront between Tugun and Bilinga. The request relates specifically to a 2011 planning report which proposed construction of the facility landward of the seawall and east of the property boundary. The options for future consideration are:

Option 1. Do nothing. Generally maintain the existing informal turfed and sand track access.





Option 1 provides access along the site for able bodied persons only and does not provide access for members of the community who are disabled or mobility/vision impaired. Option 2 presents a fully accessible path at moderate cost with minimal risk of damage in an erosion event; however, it will be located in close proximity to adjacent residences in some sections south of Sand Street. Options 3 and 4 both provide an enhanced user experience well clear of private residences. However, these options represent higher risks in terms of vulnerability to beach erosion, and infrastructure may be sacrificed in a severe erosion event. Option 3 would also, to some extent, require an upgraded maintenance regime to remove windblown sand, although this is generally a feature of all beachside paths. The lightweight boardwalk proposed in Option 4 may become a drift hazard during an event where damage is so severe that the structure becomes completely detached from its foundations. Both options present ‘sacrificial’ infrastructure in a severe erosion event, at significant cost to Council. Option 5 seeks to strike a balance between cost, risk and the interests of local residents verses the community at large, as voiced by the petitioners. However, the proposed one kilometre section of Oceanway located east of the A-line may still represent a high risk in terms of vulnerability to beach erosion. Path options seaward of the A-line may be feasible where beach width and dune volume provide a first line of defence against coastal erosion (in addition to seawalls). However, the construction of a path east of the A-line will hinder natural beach processes. Managing windblown sand and sand dune migration to keep the path open and safe for all users will incur increased maintenance costs. The construction of a path east of the A line will also require the removal of large areas of dune vegetation (> 1 ha) and the destruction of the respective ecosystems.


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) Paths constructed seaward of the A line require Statutory (tidal works) approvals and such approvals normally include a condition that requires the infrastructure to be designed to collapse during erosion events (ie sacrificial infrastructure). Any decision to progress sections of path seaward of the A-line will require careful consideration of the risks associated with future erosion events including costs incurred through the loss of infrastructure and potential damage to the City’s reputation. Option 2 is therefore recommended as it is the lowest risk option that provides a high quality, accessible Oceanway between Tugun and Bilinga at a moderate cost to the City. More detailed planning and investigation is needed to confirm costs of this option, such as site survey and geotechnical analysis. The path concept design also requires further development and refining particularly around options to mitigate potential access, safety and security concerns along constrained sections of the corridor. 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: 1 That Council supports planning and investigations be undertaken to refine and

confirm the feasibility of Option 2, which is almost identical to the option recommended in the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011.

2 That Council notes the Capital Works Program up until Financial Year 2017-18 is fully committed due to the need to support the GC 2018™ Commonwealth Games and construction of a seafront path from Tugun to Bilinga would not occur until after that time.

3 That petitioners be advised of the above. Author: Authorised by: Matt Shrimpton Alton Twine Executive Coordinator Director City Infrastructure 24 October 2016 TRACKS REF: #54003967 +Att(s) #54004843, #58462376 Changed Recommendation COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.1103.004 moved Cr Crichlow seconded Cr PJ Young 1 That Council supports planning and investigations be undertaken to refine and

confirm the feasibility of Option 2, which is almost identical to the option recommended in the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011.

2 That Council notes the Capital Works Program up until Financial Year 2017-18 is fully committed due to the need to support the GC 2018™ Commonwealth Games and construction of a seafront path from Tugun to Bilinga would not occur until after that time.

3 That Council officer’s continue to negotiate funding from the State as a contribution to this project, and that these funds be applied to both design and construction.

4 That petitioners be advised of the above.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


ITEM 4 (Continued) TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY PETITION TT138/362/06(P4) Committee Recommendation Changed at Council 15 November 2016 CHANGED AT COUNCIL 15 NOVEMBER 2016 AMENDMENT moved Cr Gates seconded Cr Owen-Jones

1 That Council supports Option 2, which is almost identical to the option recommended in the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011, subject to 50 percent funding from the State Government.

2 That Council notes the Capital Works Program up until financial year 2017-18 is fully committed due to the need to support the GC2018 Commonwealth Games and construction of a seafront path from Tugun to Bilinga would not occur until after that time.

3 That Council officers continue to negotiate funding from the State as a contribution to this project, and that these funds be applied to both design and construction.

4 That the petitioners be advised of the above. The AMENDMENT was CARRIED and became the MOTION RESOLUTION G16.1115.009 1 That Council supports Option 2, which is almost identical to the option

recommended in the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Planning Report of 2011, subject to 50 percent funding from the State Government.

2 That Council notes the Capital Works Program up until Financial year 2017-18 is fully committed due to the need to support the GC2018 Commonwealth Games and construction of a seafront path from Tugun to Bilinga would not occur until after that time.

3 That Council officers continue to negotiate funding from the State as a contribution to this project, and that these funds be applied to both design and construction.

4 That the petitioners be advised of the above. A division was called. For 14 Cr Tozer, Cr Owen-Jones, Cr PJ Young, Cr Caldwell,

Cr Crichlow, Cr Baildon, Cr O’Neill, Cr La Castra, Cr Boulton, Cr Gates, Cr PC Young, Cr Taylor, Cr McDonald, Cr Tate

Against 1 Cr Vorster Abstained 0 Absent 0

CARRIED


Attachment 4.1 TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY SITE PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Ex Council Minute G16.0129.014 Moved Cr Robbins Seconded Cr Crichlow That Committee Recommendation CIW16.0127.013 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:- That by 1 March 2016 Council remove any private property encroachments remaining in the Tugun to Bilinga beachfront public road reserve between property boundaries and the A line that have or involve any of the following characteristics –

a electrical connections b water connections c a safety concern d a physical obstruction to passage through the area e that risk assessments identified as requiring removal

Ex Council Minute G12.1023.011 Moved Cr McDonald Seconded Cr Gates That the Report of the Engineering Services Committee’s Recommendations of Thursday 11 October 2012, numbered ES12.1011.001 to ES12.1011.010, be adopted. Ex Committee Minute ES12.1011.009 Moved Cr Robbins Seconded Cr Gates 1 That notices be sent for the removal of Type A encroachments along the public road

reserve between Tugun and Bilinga in February 2013. 2 That should Type A encroachments remain at the end of the notice period, Council

undertakes the removal of any remaining Type A encroachments by August 2013 funded from project 02607 in SAP Capital Budget Centre ES2510C002 Gold Coast Foreshoreways.

3 That additional funding of $275,000 be considered for the removal of Type B

encroachments as part of the 2013-14 budget process. Ex Council Minute G12.0724.026 Moved Cr McDonald Seconded Cr Robbins That the Report of the Engineering Services Committee’s Recommendations of Thursday 12 July 2012, number ES12.0712.001 to ES12.0712.011, be adopted with the exception of:- Recommendation Numbers ES12.0712.003 and ES12.0712.007, which were specifically resolved. Ex Committee Minute ES12.0712.008 Moved Cr Robins 1 That Council notes the results of the Tugun to Bilinga Consultation Report for improved

bicycle connectivity options along Golden Four Drive. 2 That council notes that the Department of Transport and Main Roads advised that the

current signed South East Queensland Cycle Network Program – Deed of Agreement is not transferrable for improving bicycle lanes along Golden Four Drive.


3 That Council notes the advice from the Mayor’s office that further discussion will be undertaken with the State Government regarding a state funding contribution to the cost of Golden Four Drive bikeway options.

4 That a further report be presented in October 2012, outlining the extent and estimate

for works to remove encroachments to allow public access to 1.7km road reserve. Ex Council Minute 15th May 2012 PROCEDURAL MOTION Moved Cr Betts Seconded Cr Grew That debate on the Oceanway construction be adjourned until a report can be presented to Council on the Oceanway Strategy, including progress to date and future work that is contemplated. Ex Council Minute G12.0220.026 “That the consultation period for the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway be extended by four (4) weeks, given that residents will not be consulted until 25 February 2012 and comments currently close on 28 February 2012.” Ex Council Minute G11.1205.013 That Committee Recommendation ES11.1130.005 be adopted, with a change to parts (1) and (3), such that it reads in its entirety as follows: 1 That the T2B Oceanway Planning Report be placed on the GCCC website and

comments be invited from the public following inclusion of the further investigations detailed in (3) below. That comments be invited from the public for a minimum period of 2 months or by the end of April 2012, whichever is the sooner, following posting on the website.

2 That community engagement for the T2B Oceanway be undertaken as determined by

the Corporate Communications Branch as outlined in this report. 3 That a further investigation be undertaken as soon as possible, with the findings of this

report included in the T2B Oceanway Planning Report presented for public consultation. That such report include, at a minimum, the following options:

a the construction of a dedicated bicycle lane on the western side of Golden Four

Drive between the Bilinga SLSC and Sand Street: b the construction a dedicated bicycle lane on the eastern side of Golden Four

Drive between the Bilinga SLSC and Sand Street: c the provision of public access to public land between the property boundaries

and the A line in the T2B corridor by the removal of any encroachments on public land.

4 That a report summarising public comments on the T2B Oceanway Planning Report

and the investigation of improvements for cyclists along Golden Four Drive be presented to Council following the conclusion of the public comment period.

5 That the report to Council following the public comment period include funding to complete the required works within the appropriate Cost centre Function.

6 That Council notes that the SEQCNP grant funding offered for the T2B Oceanway is the subject of another report to Council.


Ex Council Minute G11.1205.016 Moved Cr Crichlow Seconded Cr Young That the Report of the Engineering Services Committee Meeting of Wednesday, 30 November 2011, covered by Recommendations numbered ES11.1130.001 to ES11.1130.014, be adopted with the exception of:- Recommendation Numbers ES11.1130.002

ES11.1130.004 ES11.1130.005 ES11.1130.006 and ES11.1130.011 which were specifically resolved.

Ex Committee Minute ES11.1130.007 Moved Cr Gates Seconded Cr Pforr 1 That the CEO is authorised to enter into a deed agreement with Transport and Main

Roads (TMR) for up to $4.3 Million of SEQCNP funding for the Surfers South Oceanway and T2B Oceanway.

2 That the 2011-12 allocation within Function 251.9921 Gold Coast Foreshoreway for

project WB42 Stage 1 of the Surfers South Oceanway be increased by $650,000 from $650,000 to $1.3 Million due to the SEQCNP grant.

3 That Council notes that further reports on the Surfers South Stage 2 and T2B

Oceanways will be presented to Council seeking approval to proceed with the respective projects.

4 That Council notes that the 2012-13 funds for the Surfers South Oceanway will be

considered during the budget deliberation process and should Council resolve to proceed with construction of Stage 2 of the Surfers South Oceanway, $2.7 Million is required in Function 251.9921 Gold Coast Foreshoreway for 2012-13, which includes $1.35 Million for 50% SEQCNP subsidy.

5 That Council notes that the 2012-13 funds for the T2B Oceanway will be considered

during the budget deliberation process and should Council resolve to proceed with construction of the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway, $4.6 Million is required in Function 251.9921 Gold Coast Foreshoreway for 2012-13, which includes $2.3 Million for 50% SEQCNP subsidy.

Ex Council Minute No.GB11.0624.005: 1 That the contents of this report be noted, observing the status of all Oceanway &

Foreshore Way projects and the potential to provide increased funding to bring forward completion of priority Oceanway & Foreshore Way projects, subject to review of capital works at future Special Budget Committee Meetings.

2 That Council notes the key prioritisation factors used to guide investment decisions

for the Oceanway & Foreshore Way network. 3 That Council endorses the continuous alignment of the Gold Coast Oceanway &

Foreshore Way along the beachfront subject to appropriate design and community engagement and funding.

4 That a report be presented to Council on the status of the Oceanway & Foreshore

Way between Tugun and Bilinga prior to any public consultation proceeding.


5 Subject to the outcome of 4 above, and following community engagement, a report be provided in response to Ex Minute W96.1031.001, that makes recommendations relating to the alignment and standard of the Oceanway between Tugun and Bilinga.”

Ex Committee Minute W96.1031.001: 1 That Council resolve not to construct public walkways/bikeways on the road reserve

between existing property boundaries and the top of the boulder walls, extending from the Bilinga Surf Club to Sand Street

2 That all affected property owners between Bilinga Surf Club and Sand Street be

advised:

a) of Recommendation No.1. b) that the area between the top of the boulder wall and the property boundary is

crown land/road reserve over which public access cannot be legally limited and over which the adjacent property owners do not have exclusive use.

c) That Council aims to link public land with suitable public walkways and will be investigating the possibility of providing a walkway at the toe of the existing boulder wall in the Bilinga area after appropriate consultation with the Beach Protection Authority.

d) That in accordance with Council Policy, all building and other structures are to be set back at least 8.1m from the foreshore seawall “A” line to enable emergency access by Council to undertake repairs to the rockwall in emergency situations.

e) That Council will not be liable for the restoration of private property built on crown land.”


Attachment 4.2 TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY OPTIONS ANALYSIS 1 TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY OPTIONS DESCRIPTION 1.1 Option 1: Maintain Existing Turfed Access

For most of the 1.7km length between the Bilinga Surf Club and Toolona Street, Tugun an informal turfed access way exists on reclaimed land between private properties and the existing boulder wall. Since 2012 the City has progressively removed private encroachments to clear the area for public access and reduce risks for pedestrians and cyclists. The exception is at John Street where there is insufficient width between the boulder wall and private property to allow access. Instead, at this location cyclists and walkers are diverted on to a cleared sandy beach track through the dunes for a short length. 1.2 Option 2: Concrete Pathway Landward of A-line/Seawall This option is almost identical to the 2011 forward planning report for the Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway recommended construction of a 3.5m wide concrete pathway generally between the A-line/seawall and private property boundaries. This option also includes improved beach access, new tree plantings and dune fencing to reduce impacts of windblown sand. 1.3 Option 3: Concrete Oceanway Path Seaward of A-line Option 3 is a 3.5 metre wide concrete path located up to 25 metres east of the A-line in the swale area between the boulder wall and the fore dune. The elevation of the path would be approximately 1 to 1.5 metres below the top of the seawall. It would have dune fencing to reduce impacts of windblown sand. This option would be similar to existing Oceanway sections in other erosion prone areas such as existing pathway in front of Sheraton Mirage at The Spit, Southport. 1.4 Option 4: Above Ground Boardwalk Oceanway Seaward of A-line Option 4 is a 3.5 metre wide raised (low level) boardwalk located on the same general alignment as Option 3. The elevation of the path would be about 0.5 to 1 metre below the top of the seawall. The boardwalk could be constructed from a range of materials including timber, concrete or recycled plastic on aluminium piles. 1.5 Option 5: Combined Concrete Path/Boardwalk Seaward/Landward of A-line Option 5 is a combination of path alignments both seaward and landward of the A-line/seawall with the landward section being generally limited to the more erosion prone section between Sand Street and O’Connor Park, Tugun. This configuration is based on the following key factors:

1. Extent of beach erosion has historically varied along the study area, with the northern sections between Sand Street and O’Connor Park more likely to experience reduced dune widths following extreme storm events.

2. The corridor between the A-line and private property boundaries is generally wider north of Sand Street at an average of 10m and minimum of 6.5m wide. In comparison the corridor width south of Sand Street is on average 7m with a minimum width of 4.6m. In 1996 Council resolved ‘not to construct public walkways/bikeways on the road reserve between existing property boundaries and the top of the boulder walls, extending south from the Bilinga Surf Club to Sand Street’. This again reflects the narrower corridor behind the A-line at the southern end, as noted in point 2 above.


The table below compares the influence of these factors with reference to the site and proposed landward vs seaward path alignment. Table 1: Comparison of factors influencing path alignment seaward/landward of A-line Corridor Section

Section length

Beach Stability Width between A-line and property boundary

Proposed path alignment to A-line

Northern Section (O’Connor Park to Sand Street)

700m Generally less stable.

Average 10m Minimum 6.5m Maximum 14.5m

Landward

Southern Section (Sand Street to Bilinga Surf Life Saving Club)

1km Generally more stable

Average 7m Minimum 4.6m Maximum 14.5m

Seaward

2 TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY OPTIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA Each option has been evaluated against eight criteria as follows: 2.1 Criterion 1 Cost Considers initial delivery costs and whole of life maintenance costs:

· Difficulty of construction in terms of clearing and earthworks. · Nonstandard maintenance issues such as increased vulnerability to windblown sand

where path is located in the dune. · Likelihood of need for replacement and repair due to impacts from severe erosion

events. 2.2 Criterion 2 User Amenity and Experience Considers safety, convenience and comfort, with reference to:

· Path width and a smooth trafficable surface. · Viewing opportunities to the beach and surrounding natural environment. · Path aligned to provide opportunities for casual surveillance.

2.3 Criterion 3 Equitable Access Considers compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), with reference to:

· equitable access for all, including people with restricted mobility and wheelchairs. · provision of compliant cross falls, longitudinal grades and non-slip path surfaces.

2.4 Criterion 4 Environmental Values and Dune Stability Considers impact on flora and fauna with reference to:

· Vegetation clearing and disturbance to the dune environment both during construction and operation.

· Existing site conditions that consist of turfed areas and dune vegetation of varying values located in a dynamic area with a history of disturbance from beach erosion events, sand mining and seawall construction.

2.5 Criterion 5 Vulnerability to Beach Erosion Considers likely impacts from major beach erosion events with reference to:

· Beach volumes and shoreline positions are dynamic and can change over time. Along the southern coastline, beach volumes and shoreline are strongly influenced by the


Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypass Project (TRESBP) and frequency of storms or periods of high energy ocean swell.

· Assumption that TRESBP will continue, however the quantity of sand bypassed will vary from year to year.

· Trends observed over the past 10 years that show shoreline accretion or growth at Bilinga due to long term sand transport processes moving sand northwards along Gold Coast beaches.

· Site specific long term trends indicating that beach volumes at the southern end of the Oceanway corridor at Bilinga are generally more stable compared to the northern end of the site at Tugun.

2.6 Criterion 6 Interaction with Adjacent Residences Considers likely impact to residents with private property boundaries adjacent to Pacific Parade with reference to:

· Historically owners have been generally unsupportive of any proposed formal path along the Pacific Parade road reserve in front of their properties between Tugun and Bilinga.

· Owners’ concerns centre mainly around security and privacy risks along with impacts to the environment and seawall performance.

2.7 Criterion 7 Statutory Approvals Considers the number and complexity of statutory approvals required. 2.8 Criterion 8 Seawall performance, Ownership and Maintenance Considers impact on both private and publicly owned seawalls with reference to: · Construction, maintenance and repair of seawalls and responsibility (private or public)

for reinstatement/reconstruction of Oceanway. · Typical seawall design that enables the walls to be flexible and to shift and move in

response to scour and wave action during an extreme storm event. · Any hard structure constructed on top, or directly in front, of a seawall must also be

somewhat flexible with the ability to break up in response to seawall movement and/or severe scour and strong wave action.

· Any Oceanway construction should not negatively impact on seawall performance, particularly where works are on privately owned seawalls.

3 TUGUN TO BILINGA OCEANWAY EVALUATION OF OPTIONS PERFORMANCE 3.1 Performance of OPTION 1: Maintain Existing Turf Access

1. Cost:

o Provides an informal and established turf access that involves no delivery. costs and very low ongoing maintenance costs.

o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 1.

2. User amenity and experience: o Turfed access only without any formed pathway. o Pathway diverts to sandy beach track for a short section at John Street where

there is no opportunity for casual surveillance O DOES NOT MEET CRITERION 2.

3. Equitable access:

o Informal turfed access does not meet standards for surface type, cross fall or longitudinal grade required by disabled access legislation and associated guidelines.

o Note: it is not mandatory for a turfed beach access along an undeveloped road reserve to comply with the DDA.

o DOES NOT MEET CRITERION 3.


4. Environmental values and dune stability:

o The existing turfed access is generally located along already cleared land landward of the A-line. The exception is a short section near John Street where, due to insufficient corridor width between the seawall and private property, the access diverts through the dunes via a cleared sandy beach track.

o Considering there is no proposed path construction or tree removal due to the access being located in already cleared areas, this option has very low impact on environmental values and dune stability

o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 4

5. Vulnerability to erosion: o The turfed access generally has very low vulnerability to erosion because it

includes no hard infrastructure and for most of the corridor is located landward of the A-line.

o The short section of sandy beach track at John Street would be washed away in a severe erosion event, preventing access at this point. However, this access could be re-established at low cost.

o GENERALLY MEETS CRITERION 5.

6. Proximity to adjacent residences: o The turfed access already exists and due to the lack of hard infrastructure

does not attract a high number of users. o This option maintains the status quo and will result in no additional impact to

adjacent residences. o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 6

7. Statutory approvals:

o No works involved and therefore no approvals required o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 7

8. Seawall performance, ownership and maintenance:

o No hard infrastructure and therefore no impact on seawall, ownership and maintenance.

o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 8 3.2 Performance of OPTION 2: Concrete Pathway Landward of A-line/Seawall

1. Cost: o Construction costs in the range of $3.3 to $4.2 million are considered standard

for an Oceanway path. o Due to its alignment landward of the A-line, the path will be protected during

severe erosion events and from the day to day effects of windblown sand. As such maintenance, replacement and repair costs will also be standard for an Oceanway path.


2. User amenity and experience: o Wide, smooth, quality concrete pathway will provide high levels of safety,

comfort and convenience for all path users. O Path located in the corridor between the A-line/seawall and private properties

provides ample opportunities for casual surveillance and high level of personal safety and security for path users.

O MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 2.


3. Equitable access: o Quality formed concrete pathway will meet standards for surface type,

crossfall and longitudinal grades required by disabled access legislation and associated guidelines.


4. Environmental values and dune stability: o New concrete pathway will be located in the already cleared area between the

A-line and private properties. o Select vegetation clearing and earthworks in the dune area will be required

during construction and to improve viewing opportunities. This can be mitigated by including an allowance in the project for dune restoration and revegetation.

o Long term impacts to environmental values and dune stability will be very low. o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 4

5. Vulnerability to erosion:

o Path located landward of the A-line is very unlikely to be vulnerable to erosion. o Some damage to path could occur in a severe event where the seawall is

exposed and wave overtopping occurs however, the probability of such an event occurring is low and the extent of damage would also be low.


6. Proximity to adjacent residences: o The location of the path will be similar to the current turfed access, however

the installation of a high quality formal concrete path will result in an increased number of users.

o The formal pathway and increased users could be perceived by adjacent residences as having a negative impact to private enjoyment of their property.

o Objectively, impacts to adjacent residences would be moderate and could be mitigated through the design process i.e. providing adequate buffer and screening between the path and adjacent residences.

o GENERALLY MEETS CRITERION 6

7. Statutory approvals: o Note approvals associated with this option are considered low concern due to

alignment of the path behind the A-line. o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 7


o Path landward of the A-line will have a low impact on seawall performance as it will be designed to move with the seawall in a severe event. Notably, this issue would only arise in an event so severe that the seawall is exposed and wave overtopping occurs, and the probability of such an event occurring is low.

o Path design will allow localised removal of pathway concrete if required for seawall upgrade, repair and maintenance.

o Where the path is located near private seawalls, any additional cost imposition on private property owners relating to Oceanway infrastructure is likely to be met with resistance. However, the risk of this occurring is low due to two factors:

(1) the majority of seawalls along the site are certified and are not likely to require maintenance and repair unless damaged by a severe event; and

(2) The likelihood of damage occurring to the seawall and path behind the A-line is low.


o Note: remaining uncertified seawalls are to be progressively upgraded as private properties are developed, which will be a long term and gradual process. However if Council decides to proceed with path at these uncertified sections, responsibility for costs associated with removal and reinstatement of Oceanway to allow seawall upgrade must be considered.

o MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 8 3.3 Performance of OPTION 3: Concrete Path Seaward of A-line/Seawall

1. Cost: o Construction costs in the range of $3 to $5 million are considered standard for

an Oceanway path. o However, ongoing maintenance, replacement and repair costs may be

somewhat above standard due to the path alignment being seaward of the A-line. Specifically, increased maintenance may be required to clear windblown sand from the path and the path may require replacement or repair if damaged due to an extreme erosion event.


2. User amenity and experience: o Wide, smooth, quality concrete pathway will provide high levels of safety,

comfort and convenience for all path users. O However, the on-ground path seaward of the A-line may be impacted by

windblown sand due to its proximity to the dunes. O GENERALLY MEETS CRITERION 2.

3. Equitable access:

o Quality formed concrete pathway will meet standards for surface type, crossfall and longitudinal grades specified in disabled access legislation and associated guidelines.

O However, the on-ground path seaward of the A-line may be impacted by windblown sand due to its proximity to the dunes. This could create a slip/trip hazard and/or interfere with the operation of wheelchair and other mobility devices.


4. Environmental values and dune stability: o Due to its alignment seaward of the A-line, construction of this option will

require earthworks and vegetation clearing in the dune area. This can be mitigated by selective vegetation clearing, replanting and rationalising existing beach accesses.

o However, there could be moderate long term impact to the environmental values and dune stability due to the ongoing operation of a concrete pathway in this zone.


5. Vulnerability to erosion: o Due to its alignment seaward of the A-line, the concrete path will be

vulnerable to severe erosion events. o This means that a series of severe erosion events (such as cyclones) could

significantly impact beach width resulting in damage or loss of all or parts of the path.


6. Proximity to adjacent residences: o The path will be located seaward of the A-line which provides a buffer of up to

25 metres between the path and property boundaries.


o Although the new path would attract increased user numbers, it is unlikely private residences would perceive this option as having a significant impact on private enjoyment of their property given the large buffer area provided.


7. Statutory approvals: o Note approvals associated with this option would require careful management

due to path alignment landward of the seawall. o GENERALLY MEETS CRITERION 7


o The path will be designed to collapse and dismantle in response to a severe event so that it will move with the seawall and minimise impacts to seawall performance. However, due to its location in front of the seawall, this option may cause isolated impacts to seawall performance due to wave concentration around the dismantled/collapsed infrastructure.

o Path design will allow localised removal of concrete panels if required for seawall upgrade, repair and maintenance.

o Where the path is located near private seawalls, any additional cost imposition on private property owners relating to Oceanway infrastructure is likely to be met with resistance. However, the risk of this occurring is moderate because the majority of seawalls along the site are certified and are not likely to require maintenance and repair unless damaged by a severe event.

o Note: remaining uncertified seawalls are to be progressively upgraded as private properties are developed, which will be a long term and gradual process. However if Council decides to proceed with path at these uncertified sections, responsibility for costs associated with removal and reinstatement of Oceanway to allow seawall upgrade must be considered.

o GENERALLY MEETS CRITERION 8 3.4 Evaluation of OPTION 4: Boardwalk Seaward of the A-line

1. Cost: o Construction costs in the range of $5 to $7 million are considered moderately

higher than the standard cost for an Oceanway path. o Ongoing maintenance, replacement and repair costs may be moderately

above standard due to the use of boardwalk and its location seaward of the A-line.

o Specifically, increased maintenance may be required to a boardwalk structure, which could be more vulnerable to corrosion, wear and tear in a coastal environment. However, this would depend on the type of material used to build the structure. Also, the structure may require replacement or repair if damaged due to an extreme erosion event.


2. User amenity and experience: o Wide, quality boardwalk located close to the beach within the dunes but above

ground for viewing and casual surveillance opportunities will provide high levels of safety, comfort and convenience for all path users.

O MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 2.

3. Equitable access: o A quality boardwalk will meet standards for surface type, crossfall and

longitudinal grades specified in disabled access legislation and associated guidelines.

O The above ground structure will mitigate any potential impacts from windblown sand due to the boardwalk being located in dunes seaward of the A-line.



4. Environmental values and dune stability: o Due to its alignment seaward of the A-line, construction of this option will

require earthworks and vegetation clearing in the dune area. This can be mitigated by selective vegetation clearing, replanting and rationalising existing beach accesses.

o However, there could be moderate long term impact to the environmental values and dune stability due to the ongoing operation of a boardwalk in this zone. This would be somewhat mitigated by the structure being above ground, and permeable to light and water.


5. Vulnerability to erosion: o Due to its alignment seaward of the A-line, the boardwalk will be vulnerable to

severe erosion events. o This means that a series of severe erosion events (such as cyclones) could

significantly impact beach width resulting in damage or loss of all or parts of the path.

o Additionally, a light weight boardwalk could potentially become a drifting hazard during an event where damage is so severe that the structure becomes completely detached from its foundations. This risk could be somewhat mitigated by designing the structure so that it can be dismantled and removed at critical locations prior to such an event, if there is sufficient warning.


6. Proximity to adjacent residences: o The boardwalk will be located seaward of the A-line which provides a buffer of

up to 25 metres between the path and property boundaries. o Although the new boardwalk would attract increased user numbers, it is

unlikely private residences would perceive this option as having a significant impact on private enjoyment of their property given the large buffer area provided, as noted above.


7. Statutory approvals: o Note approvals associated with this option would require careful management

due to boardwalk alignment landward of the seawall. o GENERALLY MEETS CRITERION 7


o The boardwalk will be designed to collapse and dismantle in response to a severe event so that it will move with the seawall and minimise impacts to seawall performance. However, due to its location in front of the seawall, this option may cause isolated impacts to seawall performance due to wave concentration around the dismantled/collapsed infrastructure.

o Boardwalk design will allow localised removal of panels if required for seawall upgrade, repair and maintenance.

o Where the boardwalk is located near private seawalls, any additional cost imposition on private property owners relating to Oceanway infrastructure is likely to be met with resistance. However, the risk of this occurring is moderate because the majority of seawalls along the site are certified and are not likely to require maintenance and repair unless damaged by a severe event.

o Note: remaining uncertified seawalls are to be progressively upgraded as private properties are developed, which will be a long term and gradual process. However if Council decides to proceed with boardwalk at these


uncertified sections, responsibility for costs associated with removal and reinstatement of Oceanway to allow seawall upgrade must be considered.


3.5 Evaluation of OPTION 5: Combination of Path Seaward/Landward of A-line

· The northern section of Option 5 performs similar to Option 2 against most criteria. This is because the northern section of Option 5 also proposes construction of a concrete pathway between private properties and the A-line.

· However, the northern section of Option 5 MEETS OR EXCEEDS CRITERION 6 because the increased width between property boundaries and the A-line in this area will result in lower impacts to adjacent residences.

· The southern section of Option 5 performs similar to Options 3 and 4 against most

criteria. This is because the southern section of Option 5 also considers construction of concrete path and/or above ground boardwalk seaward of the A-line.

4 Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway Options Evaluation Key Findings Option 1 does not meet basic minimum standards for accessibility and user amenity and is not considered a viable option. Option 2 generally meets or exceeds all criteria and provides the maximum benefit to the community at low to moderate risk and cost. It provides a high quality formed Oceanway path option that is safe, convenient, comfortable and accessible to all members of the community. The alignment of the path landward of the A-line will ensure it is protected from severe erosion events and that it will also have minimal impact on environmental values and operation of seawalls. As a result, statutory approvals are of low concern and standard Oceanway delivery and whole of life asset costs will apply. However, care will need to be taken in the planning and design phase to minimise impacts to adjacent residences where the corridor between the A-line and private property boundaries is constrained. Options 3 and 4 generally meet most criteria, however an important exception is the vulnerability of these options to loss and damage in a severe erosion event due to alignments located seaward of the A-line. As a result, the risks associated with escalating whole of life assets costs and potential damage to the City’s reputation if a major loss were to occur are considered too high to proceed with these options. Similar to Options 3 and 4, Option 5 also generally meets most criteria with the exception of vulnerability to erosion. However, this option seeks to mitigate this vulnerability by only proposing alignments seaward of the A-line where increased beach width and dune volume provide a next line of defence in addition to seawalls. Option 5 also attempts to address concerns of adjacent residents by proposing a path alignment landward of the A-line only where generous buffer can still be provided to private properties. However, notwithstanding increased beach width and volumes, any decision to progress with proposed sections of path seaward of the A-line would require careful consideration of the risks and costs associated with future erosion events and potential damage to the City’s reputation regarding any resultant loss of infrastructure.


CLOSED SESSION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2009 AND SUPPORTING REGULATIONS PROCEDURAL MOTION moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr PC Young That the Committee move into Closed Session pursuant to section 275(1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, for the consideration of the following item/s for the reason/s shown:-

Item Subject Reason

5 Regulated Parking Arrangements On Public Holidays Local Government’s Budget; and Prejudicial Matter

CARRIED

PROCEDURAL MOTION moved Cr PC Young seconded Cr McDonald That the Committee move into Open Session.

CARRIED Following resumption into Open Session, Recommendation No. CI16.1103.005 was moved and carried as shown on the following pages.


ITEM 5 (Continued) REGULATED PARKING ARRANGEMENTS ON PUBLIC HOLIDAYS TT1017/113/21(P1) CONFIDENTIAL 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: 1 That the report be deemed a confidential document and be treated as such in

accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009 and that the document remain confidential unless Council decides otherwise by resolution.

2 That Option 3 for enforcing regulations and meter fees on all public holidays in the key tourist precincts of Surfers Paradise, Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads be endorsed as the preferred option.

3 That the previous resolution (G06.0428.031) on paid parking on public holidays be rescinded.

Author: Authorised by: Andy Stewart Alton Twine Executive Coordinator Transport Planning & Policy

Director City Infrastructure

19 October 2016 TRACKS REF: 50995439 Cr Baildon left the room at 9.44am and returned at 9.51am. Changed Recommendation COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.1103.005 moved Cr PJ Young seconded Cr Baildon 1 That the report be deemed a confidential document and be treated as such in



3 This arrangement facilitates parking turnover and improves accessibility to centres in times of high parking demand. The City would not be applying the parking charges on public holidays in the rest of the City.


CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


ITEM 5 (Continued) REGULATED PARKING ARRANGEMENTS ON PUBLIC HOLIDAYS TT1017/113/21(P1) CONFIDENTIAL RESOLUTION G16.1115.010 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr Crichlow

That Committee Recommendation CI16.1103.005 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:- 1 That the report be deemed a confidential document and be treated as such in



3 This arrangement facilitates parking turnover and improves accessibility to centres in times of high parking demand. The City would not be applying the parking charges on public holidays in the rest of the City.


CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


ITEM 6 GENERAL BUSINESS LOCAL TRAFFIC SYSTEM REVIEW TO INCLUDE GLOBAL PLAZA OXENFORD RD600005/16(P1) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.1103.006 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr PC Young Global Plaza Oxenford be included in the report currently being undertaken in regards to resealing and line marking of the Old Pacific Highway and Leo Graham Way, Oxenford.

CARRIED There being no further business the meeting closed at 10.04am.


These Pages

Numbered 1 to 75

Constitute The Report Of The Meeting

Of The City Infrastructure Committee

Held Thursday 3 November 2016

726 city infrastructure committee meeting - city of gold … · 11/3/2016 · regulated parking...

Documents