final minutes - city of mackay · final minutes wednesday 24 march 2010 min/24.03.2010 folio 10295...

FINAL MINUTES

24 March 2010

FINAL MINUTES WEDNESDAY 24 MARCH 2010

MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10294

Table of Contents

Folio Date Particulars 10295 24.03.10 Ordinary Meeting Minutes 10351 28.02.10 Community Services Highlights and Significant Issues Report 10365 28.02.10 MECC Performance Management Report 10370 28.02.10 Corporate Services Highlights and Significant Issues Report 10375 28.02.10 Executive Financial Performance Report 10437 18.02.10 Rural Affairs Advisory Committee Minutes 10443 25.02.10 Local Area Multicultural Partnership Advisory Committee

Minutes 10445 04.03.10 City Focus Advisory Committee Minutes

Declaration of Potential Conflict of Interest

Nil.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10295

ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES

1. ATTENDANCE:

His Worship the Mayor, Cr C Meng (Chairperson), Crs D T Comerford, P F Steindl, D J Perkins, D R Hatfield, D E Camilleri, W A Cameron, G R Thomsen and K L May were in attendance at the commencement of the meeting. Also present was Mr P Franks (Chief Executive Officer) and Ms D Jeffery (Minute Secretary). The meeting commenced at 10:03am.

2. ABSENT ON COUNCIL BUSINESS:

Cr K Casey.

3. APOLOGIES:

THAT the leave of absence on behalf of Cr Christensen be accepted.

Moved Cr Camilleri Seconded Cr Hatfield

CARRIED

4. CONDOLENCES:

Nil.

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:

5.1 ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES - 17 MARCH 2010

THAT the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 17 March 2010 be confirmed.

Moved Cr Steindl Seconded Cr Cameron

CARRIED

6. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:

Nil.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10296

7. MAYORAL MINUTES:

Nil.

8. CORRESPONDENCE AND OFFICERS’ REPORTS:

8.1 COMMUNITY SERVICES HIGHLIGHTS AND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES REPORT - FEBRUARY 2010

Author Director Community Services

Purpose

Attached is a copy of the Community Services Highlights and Significant Issues report for February 2010 for information purposes.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the report be received. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Perkins Seconded Cr Steindl

CARRIED

8.2 MACKAY ENTERTAINMENT AND CONVENTION CENTRE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REPORT

Author Manager Convention Precinct and Events

Purpose

Attached is a copy of the Community Services Highlights and Significant Issues report for February 2010 for information purposes.


THAT the report be received.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10297

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr May Seconded Cr Perkins

CARRIED

8.3 PROPOSED NAME CHANGE - MIRANI MUSEUM

Author Manager Community Development and Libraries

Purpose

To seek Council approval to change the name of The Mirani Shire Bicentennial Museum to The Pioneer Valley Museum in Mirani.

Background/Discussion

The Mirani Shire Bicentennial Museum was opened on 13 September 1988 by the then Premier of Queensland, Mike Ahearn. Built with the assistance of a Bicentennial Grant, the Museum was principally designed to house the Jack Williams Collection which was purchased by the Mirani Shire in 1986. Whilst the Council owned the Collection and maintained the building, a volunteer group, The Friends of the Mirani Museum, was formed to carry out the day to day management of the Museum and its Collection. Donations of items poured in from both past and present residents to such an extent that the Shire Council extended the Museum building in1992, doubling its display capacity. In the mid 1990’s, the Mirani Shire Council provided office space and storage facilities by relocating a demountable building to its current site. With the amalgamation of Councils in 2008, the Mackay Regional Council assumed ownership of the Collection and the buildings. The Friends of the Museum continues in its role as voluntary managers of the Collection. It is the aim of the Pioneer Valley Community Action Network (PV CAN) to encourage the various communities within the Valley to work in a co-operative and cohesive manner and to foster a strong community spirit. The Friends of the Museum support the PV CAN in its aims. It has been thought that the name of the Museum may indicate that it is a Museum for Mirani only. Because of this, the Friends of the Museum request that the name of the Museum be changed to The Pioneer Valley Museum at Mirani. It is felt that this name better reflects the purpose of the Museum, i.e. to collect, maintain and record the history of the Pioneer Valley and its people. The Friends also feel that the proposed name change would also give all of the


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10298

residents of the Valley ‘ownership’ of the Museum and may encourage a sense of pride in this most valuable asset. A secondary reason for the proposed name change is the Mirani Shire no longer exists and the formal name is now inappropriate.

Consultation and Communication

Consultation has been undertaken between the Friends of the Museum and the Pioneer Valley Community Action Network. Discussion has also been held with other museums in the region, who are all supportive of the name change.

Resource Implications

There are no resource implications associated with this request.

Conclusion

The Friends of Mirani Museum have a great commitment to their Collection and Museum. It would be most appropriate to try to instil a sense of pride and ownership to residents in the Valley which it is hoped would occur by reflecting the Pioneer Valley in the name of the Museum.


THAT the name of the Mirani Shire Bicentennial Museum be changed to The Pioneer Valley Museum at Mirani

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr May Seconded Cr Cameron

CARRIED

8.4 CORPORATE SERVICES HIGHLIGHTS AND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES REPORT - MONTH ENDING 28 FEBRUARY 2010

Author DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

Purpose

To review the attached Corporate Services Department Highlights and Significant Issues report for the month ending 28 February 2010.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10299


THAT the attached report be received. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Camilleri Seconded Cr Hatfield

CARRIED

8.5 EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS TO 28 FEBRUARY 2010

Author DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

Purpose

To present the Executive Performance Report for the seven months to 28 February 2010.


The Progress at a Glance summary for the month ending 28 February 2010 shows that after the December 2009 Budget Review, Programs are now back in line with the 2009/2010 Budget. As at 28 February 2010, Council’s Operating Income totalled $179,432,102 and Operating Expenditure totalled $ 132,543,508. Total Capital Expenditure to date equals $71,659,276. In relation to operating expenditure, Employee Costs equates to 62.68% spent and Goods and Services 49.75% spent.


Chief Executive Officer, Directors, Executive Managers and Program Managers.


Nil.

Conclusion

Overall most Programs are in line with budget for the eight months to 28 February 2010 as can be expected after the December budget review.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10300


THAT the Executive Financial Performance Report for the eight months to 28 February 2010 be received.

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Camilleri Seconded Cr Steindl

CARRIED

8.6 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - 81 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 1 CARETAKERS RESIDENCE & 7 CATERING SHOP/SHOP TENANCIES - DAVKA PTY LTD - 7-17 HEATHS ROAD, MT PLEASANT (132400-014-DA-2009-279)

Application Number: DA-2009-279

Date Received: 14 July 2009

Action Officer: Leah Sorohan

Applicant’s Details: Davka Pty ltd C/-Humphreys Reynolds Perkins PO Box 244 MACKAY QLD 4740

Proposal: 81 Residential Units (inc 2 dual key units), Caretakers Residence, Catering Shop and/or Shops

Site Address: 7-17 Heaths Road, Mt Pleasant (access off Kay Court)

Property Description: Lot 14 on SP132400

Owner’s Details: David J Kay

Area: 2.2273 ha - land parcel and 2.0103 ha - development site

Planning Scheme: Mackay City Planning Scheme

Planning Scheme Designations: Locality: Precinct:

Mackay Frame Gooseponds Creek


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10301

Zone: Rural

Assessment Level: Impact

Submissions: Nil

Referral Agencies: Concurrence: Department of Environment & Resource Management (DERM) Trigger: Development completely or partially in a Coastal Management District

Department of Transport & Main Roads (TMR) Trigger: Development contiguous to a State Controlled Road

Attachments: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D:

Locality Plan & Aerial Image Proposal Plans Referral Agency Responses Proposal Plan SK 02

Recommendation: Approved Subject to Conditions

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION Purpose The applicant has lodged a Material Change of Use for primarily a residential development over part of the site in three, four-storey buildings. Additional uses of Caretakers Residence, Catering Shop and/or Shop over 7 tenancies are also included in the proposed complex. These retail uses are confined to ground floor tenancies of Building 2, closest to Kay Court. The allotment is located along the south side of Kay Court, with frontage to Heaths Road (refer to Attachment A – Locality Plan). The application is impact assessable and received no properly made submissions. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Background The site has been the subject of several applications in recent years. A combined MCU and RoL was lodged in 2003 to subdivide the site into 10 high density residential (HDR) allotments. This application was withdrawn officially on 12 February 2009. A further application under section 3.1.6 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 was lodged in 2007 for Preliminary Approval to Override the Planning Scheme Rural zoning for HDR zoning over the site. This application was withdrawn on 23 June 2008. In December 2009 Council approved DA-2009-262 to relocate the existing Outdoor Sales Premises over part of the site for the display and sale of caravans.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10302

It is the applicant’s long term vision to establish a motel, restaurant and conference centre on the area to be occupied by the Outdoor Sales Premises. The Outdoor Sales Premises are temporary and approval has been granted for an initial 4 year period with the option of seeking an extension of approval each successive 4 years subject to Council approval. Any extension of approval is linked to the progress of development which is the subject of this proposal. As a result of internal discussions it was directed that in order to support the application despite the conflict with the Planning Scheme codes it is necessary for the open space along the riverfront to be transferred to Council in order to preserve this riparian corridor for public use. However, this comes with inherent risks to Council in relation to the maintenance of the revetment walls in the erosion prone area and the liabilities included with such. In addition, the water easement is also required to be dedicated to Council fee simple. Subject Site and Surrounds The site is generally triangular and the longest arc-shaped boundary of approximately 500m is to the south west, shared with the Pioneer River. This boundary commences 40m from the Ron Camm Bridge road reserve to Heaths Road and effectively runs parallel to Kay Court. The site has approximately 150m frontage to Heaths Road however this is a slim strip of land up to 20m deep and no access to the property is gained from this area. To the north, the site fronts onto Heaths Road and Kay Court for approximately 370m with McDonalds and WOW buildings opposite. The third boundary to the east is shared with existing outdoor sales premises of North Jacklin (previously Honeycombs) and Warwick Holland Motors. The site is improved by a dwelling house, associated outbuildings and sealed access driveway. Part of the southern boundary, shared with the river has an approved revetment wall constructed. The approval of DA-2009-262 brings the total area used as Outdoor Sales Premises to 2,170m2 which leaves 2.0103ha as the site area of this application. The land is burdened by two easements. Easement C is 120m long and 13.5m wide and serves as the access road to the adjacent outdoor sales premises of North Jacklin and Warwick Holland. This easement runs from Kay Court along the eastern boundary. Easement B contains an existing Council 840mm dia water main. The easement runs through the allotment from Kay Court to the river and is 6m wide. Proposal The applicant proposes to develop a higher density residential precinct on part of the site and in association, some commercial activities on the ground floor along with a Care Takers Residence on the ground floor of building 4. The application also includes open space, landscaping and car parking provisions to compliment the precinct. The residential portion involves 79 residential units, two of which are dual key resulting in a total of 81 keys. The units are of varying sizes and range from single to three bedroom. The units are distributed over three residential buildings of four levels nominated as buildings 2, 3 and 4 (refer to the Attachment B: Proposal Plans – Sheet 1 - Location Plan). The proposal also involves a basement with car park storage and sufficient basement car parking for one space per unit. Balance car parking is partially basement and partially above ground.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10303

Building 2, which is closest to Kay Court, proposes some ground floor commercial uses. Seven tenancies have been included for which Shop and/or Catering Shop uses are proposed. Total Retail/Commercial GFA is 449m2. The Care Taker’s Residence is located in Unit 1 on the ground floor of building 4 which is closest to the river. The proposal includes 152 car parking spaces distributed both above ground for the shops and as basement car parking for the units. The total car parking numbers are in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Planning Scheme. Development Statistics include: Land Area 2.2273 ha Development Area (excluding the outdoor sales premises area)

2.0103 ha

Maximum height above natural ground 13m Total GFA 6,399m2 Total Building Footprint 7,687m2 Total Site Cover 9% Total impervious area 66% of development area Communal Open Space 3,600m2 Retail / Commercial Tenancies 7 Retail / Commercial GFA 449m2 Residences (Keys) Building 2 – 7 shops + 22 keys Building 3 – 28 keys Building 4 – 32 keys

81 Units + 1 Care Taker’s Residence = 82

Carparking 152 1 Bedroom Units 34 2 Bedroom Units 28 3 Bedroom Units 20

PLANNING SCHEME ASSESSMENT Overview The site is zoned rural and therefore a proposal of this nature is not generally supported by the Planning Scheme, however, the site is surrounded by other urban land uses, principally retail and outdoor sale type activities. The site is located conveniently and is within existing infrastructure networks. The proposal in impact assessable and therefore triggers assessment against the Mackay City Planning Scheme in its entirety. As reflected in the number of overlay codes applicable to the parcel, its shape, burden of the two easements, proximity to a State Controlled Road and within the Coastal Management District, the site does present significant constraints for development. The town planning report accompanying the proposal acknowledges that there is conflict with the scheme, however offers that the report and supporting information demonstrates that the site constraints can be overcome and therefore the parcel is suitable for urban purposes.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10304

While the proposal is inconsistent with the scheme, assessment and the supporting documents show that the proposal does not prevent achievement of the Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs). Applicable Codes The subject site is zoned Rural and affected by several overlay codes. The applicable codes are: The Mackay Frame Locality Code; The Rural Zone Code(Mackay Frame Locality); The Retail and Commercial Code; The Multiple Dwelling Units, Accommodation Units and Dual Occupancy Code; The Environment and Infrastructure Code; The Coastal Management and Biodiversity Overlay Code; Landscape Character Overlay Code (Image Corridor); Flood and Inundation Management Overlay Code; and Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code As the proposal is acknowledged to conflict with the zone codes, therefore no detailed assessment of those codes is considered resourceful, however additionally an assessment has been made of the proposal against the Higher Density Residential Zone code and the Urban Residential Zone Code to identify any issues. The site is practically unable to be used for rural purposes and as all required infrastructure is available to the allotment, it logically forms part of the urban footprint of the precinct. The assessment focuses on the protection of environmental elements and the achievement of the overall outcomes and DEOs. 1. Desired Environmental Outcomes The desired environmental outcomes of the Mackay City Planning Scheme are separated into four major categories of biodiversity, economic, cultural, amenity and infrastructure themes. Below is a overview of each of the four categories with comments against the DEOs relevant to this proposal.

(a) Biodiversity and Habitat/ Natural Features

(i) significant natural features1 are conserved and their values are not compromised in order to sustain ecological processes and maintain biodiversity in the City for present and future generations.

(ii) adverse effects on the natural environment including remnant vegetation,

coastal and inland wetlands, habitat and biodiversity, clean air, and water resources are minimised or prevented for their greenhouse, environmental health and amenity implications.

(b) Cultural Heritage & Landscape Character

(i) the aesthetic and amenity values of significant cultural heritage places and areas, as well as notable features of landscape character, are retained and enhanced for the benefit of present and future generations


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10305

(ii) places of cultural heritage are recognised

Comment: The environmental and landscape preservation considerations of the DEO’s are achieved through the proposed condition requiring the dedication of the open space corridor land and the DERM conditions of approval relating to prohibition of vegetation clearing. Further environmental considerations for water quality will form part of the Operational Works assessment. It is recommended that the developer be required to construct the pedestrian access way along the open space corridor in order that this natural asset remains publicly accessible and the wider community can enjoy the amenity value of this significant natural feature.

(c) Economic Development

(xiii) mixed use development and higher intensity residential development is located within the City Centre and possibly at transport nodes and some of the tourism nodes.

Comment: The economic development theme contains DEOs which serve to protect economic resources from incompatible or constraining development. This proposal does not impede the achievement of those outcomes and particularly does not impede the function of the commercial sub-regional centre. The outcome (xiii) presented above confirms that where Higher Density Residential projects are not located in the CBD the secondary preference is for them to be located at a transport node. The proposal is located within access of the public transport routes and major transport corridor.

(d) Amenity and Community Well-Being

(i) a wide range of affordable and accessible housing is available which is suitable for the climate, meets the needs of the City's population and is convenient to community facilities, employment and recreation opportunities.

Comment: The proposal includes 34 single bedroom units, 28 two bedroom units and 20 three bedroom units of which one is the Caretakers Residence. It is considered that the proposal provides a range of units sizes meets the changing demographics of the region. All units have sufficient open space, large openings and balconies and cross ventilation is demonstrated. The site is efficiently located in relation to road and transport networks, the CBD, Mater Hospital and the Mt. Pleasant sub-regional centre employment node.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10306

(e) Infrastructure and Urban Growth (ii) the sequence of urban growth within the City is based on achieving the most

efficient and equitable use of land and making greatest use of the existing network of development, transport and community infrastructure.

(iii) new development in the City is directed and consolidated into areas presently

serviced or areas able to be serviced efficiently and economically. (iv) ‘in sequence’ urban growth occurs in the following pattern:

urban consolidation occurs within the existing urban areas, particularly in the McCready's Creek, Goosepond Creek and Pioneer River (Urban) precincts of the City; and

Comment: Notwithstanding the zoning conflict, it is considered that if the proposal is confined to the developable area of the site, natural features are appropriately protected (as is demonstrated through the assessment and the conditions recommendations), that the proposal does present efficient use of land resources in the urban footprint area. Any infrastructure deficiency’s due to the increased load on the network incurred by the project will be addressed through the conditions of approval to be completed by the developer at no cost to Council.

2. Mackay Frame Locality Code and Goosepond Creek Precinct

Generally, the proposal is supported by the Overall outcomes of the Mackay Frame Locality Code as follows:

“(b) out of sequence urban residential growth occurs only when:

(i) there is insufficient comparable land within the City to meet the needs of the City’s population growth, based on historical growth rates over the preceding five (5) years and on forecast growth rates over the next five (5) years;

(ii) the land is physically suited for urban residential purposes and can be

serviced with development infrastructure economically and efficiently; (iii) development of out of sequence land will not result in an unsustainable

demand for development infrastructure, community facilities and services; and

(iv) development of the land will not diminish the amenity, biodiversity, habitat,

landscape or heritage character values of the City.

(d) urban development, particularly for residential purposes, is limited to land unconstrained by excessive slope, inundation by flooding, high risk of land slip or


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10307

bushfire hazard, proximity to major infrastructure and high impact activity areas including major transport routes and infrastructure.”

Comment: The land has significant constraints to development, however the proposal has been confined to the areas of the allotment which are unconstrained and therefore suitable for development. The zoning of the site as rural, favours rural uses, however rural uses are not practical or desirable in this location. It is considered that whilst it may appear out of sequence, allowing efficient use of the development portion of the site is considered a logical extension and is complimentary to the surrounding commercial activities. Further, the land is, or can be provided with the necessary infrastructure for the proposed development to proceed. Conditions of approval nominate the necessary upgrade work which is to be completed to cater for the increased capacity on the infrastructure network. The proposal has approval from the DERM for development in the Coastal Management District and 3rd Party advice was sought from the Pioneer River Improvement Trust (PRIT) in order to protect the biodiversity, habitat and landscape of the Pioneer River frontage. Proposed conditions of approval require the river frontage land portion to be dedicated to public ownership as Open Space to ensure its continued protection.

“(s) development of land fronting a State-controlled road or rail corridor, or land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Mackay Airport, includes design and siting measures which effectively mitigate the operational impacts of such infrastructure, including noise, diminished air quality and possibly vibration;”

Comment: The proposal has been approved by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) which has conditioned a monetary contribution to the State Controlled Road network for the upgrading of the Heaths Road/ Kay Court intersection to a left in left out configuration with a roundabout.

(w) new development in the Locality is: (i) in keeping with the role and function of the road network in terms of its scale

and intensity; (ii) in step generally with the planned development of major road transport

infrastructure; (iii) for intense forms of activity such as centres or major industries, situated at

key locations within the road transport network; (iv) accessible to public transport or accessible to convenient and effective

linkages with public transport; and (v) generally in keeping with the planning principles of the Mackay Area

Integrated Transport Plan and Shaping Up - A Guide to the Better Practice and Integration of Transport, Land Use and Urban Design Techniques;


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10308

Comment: Despite the zoning conflict for the site, it is considered that this site logically forms part of the urban footprint of the precinct and therefore the proposal is seen as complimentary to the existing surrounding uses, road network and transport system. The proposal has been conditioned to contribute to upgrading the road network due to the increased demand resulting from the approval of the proposal.

(bb) riparian vegetation and other areas of remnant vegetation are protected from encroaching urban development, or is developed in a manner consistent with the relevant overlay code;

Comment: Advice has been sought from PRIT, and the proposed conditions of approval require the river frontage portion of the site be returned to the state with Council as trustee to protect the riparian area.

(5) in addition overall outcomes for the Goosepond Creek precinct are:

(b) development in the Mt. Pleasant sub-regional centre supports and complements the role of the City Centre by servicing:

(i) primarily the needs of residents in the northern parts of the City; and (ii) some needs of those residing in other parts of the City as well as in

adjoining local government areas to the north of the City.

(c) as the second major focus for shopping and entertainment in the City, new development in the Mt Pleasant sub-regional centre is in line with changing commercial trends and practices and:

(i) incorporates a range of uses which recognise the role of a sub-regional

centre; (ii) maintains the amenity of adjoining land uses; (iii) is contained within its current zoned areas; (iv) provide access to a range of transport infrastructure (public bus

services, taxi services, private passenger vehicles, pedestrian movements and bicycles) in convenient and safe accessible locations; and

(v) maintains the efficiency of the Bruce Highway corridor.

Comment: The proposal supports the sub-regional centre by providing smaller support retail activities, particularly those of Catering Shop within an existing commercial area. The residential


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10309

component of the site is considered to make efficient use of the site, provide additional housing choice for the North Mackay area complimenting the primary role of the sub-regional centre and surrounding lower density housing options. The design and orientation of the residential units protects the amenity of future residents while capitalising on the river outlook. Conditions of approval will ensure amenity issues are addressed, particularly noise from the state controlled road network, by implementing the recommendations of the noise report provided with the application. 3. Retail and Commercial Code

This code is relevant for the 7 tenancies proposed for the ground floor of building A. The proposal is generally compliant with the code, save for some practicalities of refuse collection for the complex as a whole which appears to be combined with the residential areas. Conditions of approval will request the garbage collection points to be confirmed.

4. Multiple Dwellings, Accommodation Units and Dual Occupancy Code

The proposal complies with this code with the exception of the height of the buildings and one point of building 4 which does not achieve boundary set back requirements. The setback is not of concern as it only involves a small section of building 4 on the eastern boundary and the discretion is considered minor. Some elements of the code are incomplete, such as landscaping and fencing, which will be conditioned to comply with the code at the time of Operational Works. Density Using the current development site area the site density equates to one dwelling per 245m2 or 41 dwelling per hectare. This is a lower density than the current Higher Density Residential zoning levels of 1 dwelling per 200m2 but denser than the minimum lot size for the Urban Residential Zone of 300m2. Height The Multiple Dwelling Units Code requires a height of 12m. The planning report provides for an alternative solution to the code proposing buildings to 13m. Building 2 has a proposed height of 13m to the highest point and buildings 3 and 4 are 12.5m. The roof is generally flat and this height accommodates 4 levels. It is noted however that the Commercial and Retail Code does not have a particular height outcome for the designated centres. The proposed height from ground floor slab to ceiling for level 3 is 11.2m. The surrounding uses to the east are single level offices for the outdoor sales yard and as such the proposed buildings would be prominent in the landscape particularly when viewed from the Ron Camm Bridge. However the buildings will be set back approximately 80-90m from the highway road edge, whereas the Mater Hospital main building which is a similar height is set back 50m. The proposal requests a height of 1m greater than that permitted in the Higher Density Residential Zone and given the setbacks to both the river and the highway of approximately 25-30m and 80-90m respectively it is considered that the height is acceptable.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10310

5. Higher Density Zone Code and Urban Residential Zone Code Overall there are no conflicts with the proposal and the above codes. The codes focus on infrastructure being provided or available to the site, the protection of residential amenity and not placing residents at risk through development of unsuitable sites. It is considered that these elements have been addressed through attention to the DEO’s and the Environment and Infrastructure codes.

6. Environment and Infrastructure Code The ability for the proposal to provide all required infrastructure has been demonstrated in the application, however some upgrade works will be required as detailed in the engineering assessment and conditions of approval. The details of the infrastructure provision including landscaping and storm water control will be subject to a Development Permit for Operational Works. Some elements of the code, such as landscaping, fencing, lighting, safety and security which will be conditioned to comply with the code at the time of Operational Works.

7. Overlay Codes

The site is affected by several overlay codes, namely: The Coastal Management and Biodiversity Overlay Code; Landscape Character Overlay Code (Image Corridor); Flood and Inundation Overlay Code; and Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code. Coastal Management and Biodiversity Overlay Code The Coastal Management and Biodiversity Overlay Code is addressed though a proposed condition requiring the open space to be transferred to the State with Council as trustee. No development is proposed within the erosion prone zone. The vegetation on the open space corridor is not permitted to be cleared per the DERM conditions of approval. Public access to the open space corridor is assured though the proposed condition of approval requiring public pedestrian connectivity to be constructed within the future open space area. It is proposed that the land and works may be credited against parkland contributions where consistent with the Parks Contribution Policy. Further to this, historically as part of applications to develop east and west along the river, this area has been given to Council such as in association with DA-2004-149. Landscape Character Overlay Code The Landscape Character Overlay concerns the small portion of the site which is affected by the Image Corridor and does not present any issues for the proposal. The Flood and inundation overlay code is addressed through limiting development to the area of the site not affected by the code and conditioning ground floor levels in accordance with Council Policy and at above Q100 levels. The site is affected by the Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code, but not triggered as the basement car parks are not below RL 5m AHD.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10311

PLANNING SCHEME CONTRIBUTIONS POLICIES

Infrastructure Catchment Basis of Calculation

Number of Units/ET’s/ EP’s/VPD

Water Supply 1. Nth Mackay, Andergrove, Beasconsfield, Mt Pleasant, Glenella

Residential: 1 brm @.5 ET x 34 = 17 ET 2 brm @ .75ET x 28 = 21 ET 3brm @ 1 ET x 20 = 20 ET

58 ETs

Retail: 1ET per 200m2 = 449/200 = 2.25 x 1 =

2.3 ETs

Total Water ETs 60.3 EPs Sewerage Supply

1. Nth Mackay, Andergrove, Beasconsfield, Mt Pleasant, Glenella


58 ETs

Retail: 1ET per 200m2 = 449/200 = 2.25 x 1 =

2.3 ETs

Total Sewerage ETs 60.3 EPs Parks 1. Nth Mackay,

Andergrove, Beasconsfield, Mt Pleasant, Glenella

Residential: 1 brm @1.4ep x 34 = 47.6EP 2 brm @ 2.1epx 28 = 58.8 EP 3brm @ 2.8ep x 20 = 56.0 EP

162.4 EPs

Retail: 42 ep/ha = .0449 x 42 =

1.9 EPs

Total Parks EPs* 164.3 EPs Transport Network

Whole of City Retail: Shop / Catering Shop 40 vpds per 100m2

449/100 = 4.49 x 40

179.6 VPDs

50% ED Incentive to 31 March 2010 89.8VPDs Residential:

Caretakers Residence 1 x 6.5

6.5 VPDs

Residential: 81 MDU x 5 vpds

405.0 VPDs

Total TNC vpds (to 31 March 2010) Total TNC vpds (from 1 April 2010)

501.3VPDs 591.1VPDs

*NB: Parks contributions may be offset 100% against land resumed and public pedestrian pathways provision INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS Water Main The allotment includes an easement containing Council’s infrastructure. The easement protects the 840mm diameter water main and runs through the allotment north to south and continues into the Pioneer River. The easement is 6m wide. Mackay Water has given their consent to the proposal subject to conditions which will necessitate some redesign to relocate Carparking to ensure the main remained unencumbered by any structures.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10312

Traffic and Access TMR has approved the development subject to conditions and a contribution towards the upgrading for the external access and impacted intersection of Heaths Road and Kay Court. Internally the proposal has some issues which in order to be adequately resolved requires some redesign by the applicant. Initially the applicant advised that the private access easement could not be used for access to this proposal and therefore all access from Kay Court is proposed directly adjacent to the water main easement. Subsequent to Mackay Water’s advice that the easement may not be used for any purpose and car parking must be relocated, the applicant advised that the access easement could in fact be used. Car parking has been relocated and is now present on all sides of Building 2 which is not a optimal outcome for both pedestrian access streetscape to Kay Court, amenity for residents on upper floors and overall circulation. Following the feedback it shall be conditioned that additional access to the site is provided via the easement. One access is not considered acceptable given the size and scale of the development and the site. Water and Sewer Capacity There is an existing sewer line within the allotment which is to be relocated and a water main extension is to be constructed to connect to the existing main in Heaths Road. THIRD PARTY ADVICE Council requested advice from the Pioneer River Improvement Trust (PRIT) due to the proximity to the River and also approval from Mackay Water due to the water main easement burdening the allotment. PRIT have raised no objection, but have requested that the final stormwater arrangements are submitted for approval by the trust’s foreman. REFERRAL AGENCIES DERM is a concurrence agency for the development within a Coastal Management District. The agency responded with an approval subject to conditions (refer to Attachment C of this report). The conditions stipulate that no work is to be undertaken within the Erosion Prone Zone including storm water management. Further to this, the conditions require upgrading of the revetment walls prior to any future Development Applications, including Operational Works, otherwise the Erosion Prone Area reverts to 40m landward of the plan position of mean high water springs rather than 10m landward of the upper edge of the approved revetment wall. TMR is also a concurrence agency due to the site being contiguous to a State Controlled Road. TMR have responded with approval conditions requiring the applicant is responsible for noise attenuation for the residences. TMR also levied an amount on the applicant calculated by VPDs generated to contribute towards the construction of the proposed new intersection of Heaths’ Road and Kay Court.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10313

SUBMISSIONS The application was publicly notified in accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and no submissions to the proposal were received. CONSULTATION The proposed conditions attached have been provided to the applicant for comment. The applicant requested clarification in relation to the calculation of some of the infrastructure contributions including a request for further credits against the Transport Network Contributions, however, their request was not consistent with the policy and so not supported. The applicant has agreed in principal to the transfer of the parkland however, finalization of the area to be dedicated is subject to further negotiation with the applicant. RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS The proposed conditions of approval include returning the water main easement to Council as a freehold parcel, which Council will then be required to maintain. Similarly the open space corridor will require inclusion in Council’s maintenance schedules once transferred to the State with Council as trustee. CONCLUSION In summary, notwithstanding the zoning conflict, there are sufficient grounds to approve the proposal. The proposal is practically within the urban footprint and supports the sub-regional centre with essential residential options. The proposal does not prevent any of the DEOs of the Mackay City Planning Scheme from being realised. The site does have considerable constraints and therefore development is limited to the unconstrained portion of the land. Key concerns of protection of the open space corridor and significant natural assets along with Council’s infrastructure assets are addressed through the conditions of approval and dedication of those land areas. Therefore, It is recommended that the proposal be approved based on the following grounds:


A. THAT Council approve the application for a Material Change of Use for 81 Multiple Dwelling Units, Care Taker’s Residence, Shops and/or Catering Shop by Davkar Pty Ltd located at 7-17 Heaths Road, Mt Pleasant described as Lot 14 on SP132400, subject to the following conditions:

1. Plan of Development


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10314

The approved development must be completed and maintained generally in accordance with the Plan of Development (identified in the Table below) and supporting documentation which forms part of this application, except as otherwise specified by any condition of this approval.

Drawing Number

Drawing Title

Rev. Prepared by Date

DA01 Location Plan A EKO Architects July 2009 DA02 Environment and Access

Plan A EKO Architects July 2009

DA03 Connectivity Plan B EKO Architects November 2009

DA04 Q100 and EPZ Plan A EKO Architects July 2009 DA05 Basement Plan B EKO Architects July 2009 DA06 Site Ground Floor Plan D EKO Architects November

2009 DA07 Site Level 1 Plan C EKO Architects November



2009 DA10 Building 2 Ground &

Level 1 Plan A EKO Architects July2009

DA11 Building 2 Level 1 & 2 Plan

B EKO Architects July2009

DA12 Building 3 Ground Floor Plan

B EKO Architects November2009

DA13 Building 3 Levels 1 to 3 Plan

A EKO Architects July2009

DA14 Building 4 Ground Floor Plan

B EKO Architects November2009

DA15 Building 4 Levels 1 to 3 Plan

B EKO Architects November 2009

DA16 Building 3 & 4 Elevations

A EKO Architects July 2009

DA17 Building 2 Elevations A EKO Architects July 2009 DA18 Building 2 Elevations A EKO Architects July 2009 DA19 Building 3 Elevations A EKO Architects July 2009 DA20 Building 4 Elevations B EKO Architects November

2009 DA21 Communal Open Space

Plan B EKO Architects November

2009

2. Amended Plans Required

Prior to the lodgement of Operational Works application the approved plans of development must be amended to comply with the following matters:


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10315

a. Identify the entrance driveway width beside Building 2 which must comply with Australian Standards. If this is not the case amend the plans so that the driveway width complies with Australian Standards;

b. provide screening to all level one balconies of building 2; c. relocate the letterboxes for building 3 to adjacent to those of building 4; d. provide an efficient garbage collection solution as described in

condition 16 below; e. amend as appropriate and clarify the space between Units 1 and 8,

ground floor, building 4; f. separate the car parking spaces for the defined uses in accordance with

condition 39; g. relocate the bio-retention areas from the front boundary to allow for

feature landscaping; h. remove the access to the outdoor sales yard as it traverses the water main

easement i. show the community open space area as a lot to Council as per condition

9; j. show additional access to the eastern part of Kay Court (Easement C); k. show a footpath along the river frontage of the block within the land to

be transferred to Council .

The amended plans must be approved in writing by Council prior to the lodgement of an application for Operational Works approval.

3. Amended Layout – Building 2

Council has concerns that the current arrangement for the retail outlets and building 2 access and circulation does not represent efficient use of the site, or convenience for the users. In this regard and in consideration of Mackay Water’s advice for permitted activities in the vicinity of the easement, the applicant must revise the layout of this area. Prior to the lodgement of Operational Works application the approved plans of development must be amended to confirm or demonstrate workability of the following matters: a. pedestrian access from the proposed car parking spaces in the access

easement to the shops (refer to attached Sketch 1); b. vehicle manoeuvrability for the remaining car parks on the western side

of the proposed shops; c. proposed signage to direct customers or staff to the car parking off the

access easement; d. access and unobstructed safe parking for loading and unloading

deliveries to the shops; e. separation of refuse collection points for the residential uses and retail

outlets. f. The amended plans must be approved in writing by Council prior to the

lodgement of an application for Operational Works approval.

4. Water and Sewerage Headworks


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10316

Headworks contributions for Water Supply and Sewerage Services must be paid in accordance with Council’s Policy on Developer Contributions for Water Supply and Sewerage Services. Headworks will be applied based on an additional 59.3 ET’s which includes a credit of 1 ET for the existing dwelling.

5. Parkland Contribution

A parkland contribution must be paid in accordance with the Council’s Policy on Developer Contributions for Parkland. The parkland contribution will be applied based on an additional 161.5 EP’s which includes a credit of 2.8 EPs for the existing dwelling.

6. Transport Network Contributions A transport network contribution must be paid in accordance with Councils Policy on Transport Network Contributions. The transport network contribution will be applied based on an additional 584.6 vehicle movements per day (vpd’s) which includes a credit of 6.5 vpds for the existing dwelling.

7. Contributions Payment Timing All contributions and charges must be paid prior to the date of issue of the Development Permit for Building Works at the rate applicable at the time of payment. Pro-rata payment over multiple building works applications is acceptable. Further variation of payment timing to the commencement of use of a staged development is dependent upon the provision and approval of a staging plan to Council prior to the commencement of Operational Works.

8. Transfer of Open Space The area identified as Community Open Space south of Easement B, approximately represented on SK02 – Attachment D must be transferred to Council in Fee Simple at no cost to Council. The transfer shall be affected at the lodgement of the building works application. Prior to the transfer the developer shall ascertain the integrity of the two revetment walls within the Natural Environment area in accordance with DERM conditions. A copy of the certificate confirming the integrity of the wall to perform as an approved revetment wall from a suitably qualified structural engineer and be submitted to council with transfer documents.

9. Transfer of Water Main Easement The area of land covered by Easement B for Council’s 840mm diameter shall be transferred to Council as a freehold allotment in Fee Simple at no cost to Council.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10317

The transfer shall be affected prior to building works approval.

10. Landscape Plan Required A detailed site and footpath landscaping plan must be prepared by a qualified Landscape Designer and must be submitted with Operational Works Approval application. The plan must show for all areas identified as communal, public and private open space of the development excluding the areas to be transferred as conditioned by this approval the following: a. Landscape specification of sufficient detail so that landscape works are

to be carried out; b. Plant schedule detailing number of plants, species, pot size and height

at planting; c. Details of soil and mulch types, including depths, areas of turf, garden

edges and paving finishes; d. the details of the irrigation system. Any proposed landscaped works within Council’s Road Reserve must comply with Planning Scheme Policy No.11 – Landscaping.

11. Landscaping Details

The detailed site and footpath landscaping plan described above should also address the following: Internal fencing for privacy and security in consideration of public access and mixed uses; a. The bio-retention to the Kay Court boundary is not acceptable. A

minimum 2m wide dedicated landscaping strip is required along the full frontage of Kay Court to achieve the outcomes of the landscaping guideline with regard to streetscape, micro climate and visual enhancement; and

b. Pedestrian access or paths from proposed car parking in the access Easement C to Building 2

Any proposed landscaped works within Council’s Road Reserve must comply with Planning Scheme Policy No.11 – Landscaping.

12. Existing Landscaping to Access Easement

The applicant will re-establish existing landscaping areas to the standard of the new landscaping along the common boundary of the site and Easement C. The re-establishment can either: a. Formalise the informal car parking along this area with sealed and line

marked angle or parallel parking interspersed with appropriate landscaping for micro climate improvement and visual interest; or


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10318

b. Re-establish formal landscaping for a minimum depth of 2m with turf to the balance and vehicle barriers to all areas not used for car parking associated with this approval.

13. Public Pedestrian Bike Path

The developer is to construct a shared pedestrian and bike path in accordance with Standard Drawing A2-500 A to a width of 2.5m for the full length of the Natural Environment (open space) area as identified on drawing DA02. The path will commence at the eastern-most boundary point and continue approximately 320m and end at Kay Court at the approximate location of the existing property fence. In addition to the shared pedestrian and bike pathway street furniture is to be provided, to be approved by Council.

14. Fencing

A visual screen fence of 1.8m high must be erected on the eastern boundary from the water main easement, the length of the boundary to the point where car parking will be constructed to service the development. This should be approximately 110m, roughly ending in line with the northern alignment of building 3 to screen the residential open space from the adjacent commercial property. Similarly, a visual screen fence of 1.8m high must be erected on the western boundary from Kay Court along the eastern side of the water main easement, for approximately 60metres to the point where the water main changes direction. The fence must be tapered to a height of 1.2 metres within 6 metres of the front boundary. Other fencing may be considered in conjunction with the Landscaping Plan.

15. Open Space per unit

A minimum of 35m² of open space per unit is required to be provided, part of which shall comprise at least a 16m² private open space area with a minimum dimension of four metres. For the purpose this condition ‘private open space’ means a landscape and recreation space which is partitioned by walls, fences or the like into a court or yard which is provided within the curtilage of and immediately accessible from the living/dining room of the dwelling unit.

16. Balcony Space

Balconies with a minimum ‘useable area’ of 8m² shall be provided adjacent to the to the living/dining room of all dwelling units above ground level. For the purposes of this condition, ‘useable area’ means a minimum dimension of 2.4 metres x 2.4 metres. These balconies must not be enclosed as to form habitable rooms.

17. Waste Storage Area


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10319

The combined single location for waste collection is not acceptable. Separate waste storage areas must be provided for the retail and residential uses. Further, waste storage for buildings 3 and 4 must be located conveniently for both deposit and collection. The final waste location areas will require manoeuvrability to be demonstrated for the waste collection vehicles.

18. Waste Collection

The developer is required to enter into an agreement with a Council certified waste collection contractor. This agreement must include the method for collecting both waste and recycling bins and be able to manoeuvre the vehicle on site.

19. No Nuisance to adjoining properties

All service equipment, lighting and air-conditioning units shall be located so as not to cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties, tenancies and dwelling units. No air conditioning plant is to be placed within the open space balcony of any dwelling unit.

20. Caretakers Dwelling

The dwelling must only be occupied by persons associated with the use of the site in accordance with the zoning of the land and the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. This is deemed to include persons such as the manager, caretaker or other employee and the immediate family of any such person.

21. Demolish Remove Existing Structures

All existing buildings currently situated on the subject site must be demolished or removed from the subject site prior to the commencement of the use. A Building approval is required for demolition and should be issued by a Private Building Certifier.

22. Hours of Operation and Amplified Noise

For the catering shop and shop uses the use of amplified noise including, but not limited to music sources, microphones, stereos, are restricted to 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday. In addition it is the applicant’s/owner’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 and Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008.

23. Invert Crossing

Access to the development is to be provided from Kay Court by the provision of an invert crossing to be constructed in accordance with Council’s Standard Drawing No. PA3-773 and Council Policy 024. An additional vehicular egress is to be provided to the driveway access to the south of the retail/commercial car parking.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10320

24. Damage

Any damage which is caused to Council’s infrastructure as a result of the proposed development must be repaired immediately.

25. Compliance with Council Standards

All design and construction for the development must be in accordance with Council’s Policies, Engineering Design Guidelines, Standard drawings and standard specifications.

26. Stormwater Drainage

Stormwater from the site (including roofwater) is to be collected within the property boundaries and piped to stormwater discharge points generally in accordance with VDM Consulting Plan SMP1 (B) of November 2009 and DERM conditions of approval.

27. Clearance to Water Main

Stormwater lines crossing the water main easement must have 500mm clearance between the top of the water main and the underside of the culvert unless otherwise approved by Council

28. Ponding and Diversion of Stormwater

Ponding of stormwater resulting from the development must not occur on adjacent sites and stormwater formerly flowing onto the site must not be diverted onto other sites. The site shall be graded so that it is free draining.

29. Site Based Stormwater Management Plan - High Risk

Council’s Stormwater Quality Risk Classification has classified this development as “High Risk” as defined Mackay City Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines - Soil and Water Quality Management – Planning Scheme Policy No. 15.07. The developer is to implement the Stormwater Management Plan generally in accordance with VDM Consulting Stormwater Management Plan of November 2009 and DERM conditions of approval. For the operational works application, the Stormwater Management Plan is to be expanded to include Cost Assessment and Maintenance Plans in accordance with Section 5.1 of Council’s Policy 15.07.

30. Underground Car Parking – Entrance Level


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10321

The level at the entrance to the underground car parks is to be min. RL9.0 AHD as shown on the Schematic Drainage Strategy Plan. (Includes building 2 car park entrance).

31. Underground Car parking – drainage A pump system must be installed in the basement to pump all collected water to the Council Stormwater system.

32. Direct Pumping from Mackay Water’s Reticulation System If a booster pump is required for a fire fighting purposes, pumping direct from Council’s water mains is not permitted and break tanks must be installed.

33. Sewer Services The existing gravity sewer through the site is to be relocated generally in accordance with VDM Consulting Plan BH080304 SEW01. Provision is to be made for a service connection to the development site to the west of the Water Main Easement. A minimum clearance of 500mm is to be provided between the top of the water main and the underside of the sewer house drain at the crossing point.

34. Water Easement – Mackay Water Conditions The location of the buildings adjacent to the water main easement requiries compliance with the following conditions:- No buildings or structures are to be constructed over the water main easement (including roads, car parks and fences). The water main and easement is required to be located and surveyed prior to construction commencing on-site. All footings for buildings must extend below the zone of influence of the water main. The building foundation design is to be submitted to Council for review and acceptance prior to the building permit being issued. a) The use of heavy machinery and vibration equipment is forbidden

within the water easement. b) The driving of piles is not to be conducted without the prior approval of

Council. c) There is to be no cutting/filling within the water main easement. d) Access for service vehicles and machinery must be maintained by

avoiding the use of landscaping to an extent which will block or impede travel through the easement.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10322

35. Connection to Water Services To service the development, a 150mm dia water main is to be provided between the development site and the existing 150mm dia water main on the northern side of Heaths Road. Unless otherwise approved, all road crossings are to be underbored.

36. Sewers Policy All building work is to comply with Council’s Policy MW02 – “Building Over and Adjacent to Sewers”.

37. Live Connections Mackay Water is to carry out all water connection and live sewer work at the developer’s expense.

38. Minimum Car Parking Spaces The car parking area must be constructed, sealed, line marked and drained for a minimum of 152 car parking spaces in accordance with the approved plan and maintained thereafter. The car parking classification is Class 1 for internal parking and is to be designed in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS2890.1 – 2004. All car parking spaces and aisle widths shall be accessible by B99 design vehicles. At least one dedicated basement car parking space will be provided for each unit in the basement of that unit’s building.

39. Condition Survey of Access Easement The condition of the service road adjacent to the car park is to be inspected by the design engineer and upgraded as required. (As a minimum, a reseal is recommended).

40. Protection of Landscape areas from Car parking The landscaped areas adjoining the car parking areas must be protected from vehicles by a 150 mm high vertical concrete kerb or similar obstruction

41. Car Parking to Access Easement The car parking area adjacent to the access driveway is to be constructed generally in accordance with VDM consulting plan SMP2, or as modified to make provision of the exit only onto the access driveway.

42. Separation of Car parking

The car parking layout which combines car parking spaces for retail and residential purposes is not acceptable. The car parking layout shall be revised to clearly delineate between designated car parking spaces for residents and


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10323

those for shoppers. Car parking should be conveniently located for both uses directly in front or adjacent to the accesses of the relevant uses.

43. Vehicle manoeuvring

All car parking spaces must be designed to allow all vehicles to drive forwards both when entering and leaving the property.

44. Car parking for disabled persons A minimum of two (2) car spaces must be provided for the exclusive use of disabled persons. The car spaces must be provided as close as practicable to a suitable entrance of the building and must be clearly marked with a sign to indicate that the spaces must only be utilised by disabled persons.

45. Parking Signs A sign/signs to the satisfaction of the Council must be provided directing drivers to the area(s) set aside for car parking and must be located and maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. The area of each sign must not exceed 0.3 m².

46. Loading /unloading The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must at all times be undertaken entirely within the site and be so conducted as to cause minimum interference with other vehicular traffic.

47. Use of Carparking areas

The areas set aside for parking, vehicle manoeuvring and loading and unloading, must not be used for the storage or placement of goods or materials.

48. Lighting of Car park areas Install and maintain a suitable system of lighting to illuminate car parking areas. The car park lighting system and any other outdoor lighting, must comply with Australian Standard no. AS4282 – Control of the obtrusive Effects of Outdoor lighting.

49. Notice of Intention to Commence the Use Prior to the commencement of the use on the site, written notice must be given to Council that the use (development and / or works) fully complies with the decision notice issued in respect of the use (please see attached notice for your completion).

50. Conflict between plans and written conditions


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10324

Where a discrepancy or conflict exists between the written condition(s) of the approval and the approved plans, the requirements of the written condition(s) will prevail.

51. Maintenance of Development Maintain the approved development (including landscaping, carparking, driveways and other external spaces) in accordance with the approved drawing(s) and/or documents, and any relevant Council engineering or other approval required by the conditions.

B. THAT the applicant be provided with the following Assessment Manager Advice:

1. Summary of Developer Contributions as at date of approval.

Note: Contributions paid at the time nominated in the relevant condition

will be re-calculated at current applicable rate, at that time.


Number of Units/ET’s/EP’s/VPD

Water Supply 2. Nth Mackay,



58 ETs

Retail: 1ET per 200m2 = 449/200 = 2.25 x 1 =

2.3 ETs

Total Water ETs of 60.3 ET minus 1 Credit = 59.3 ETsSewerage Supply

2. Nth Mackay, Andergrove, Beasconsfield, Mt Pleasant, Glenella


58 ETs

Retail: 1ET per 200m2 = 449/200 = 2.25 x 1 =

2.3 ETs

Total Sewerage ETs of 60.3 ET minus 1 Credit = 59.3 ETsParks 2. Nth Mackay,


Residential: 1 brm @1.4ep x 34 = 47.6EP 2 brm @ 2.1epx 28 = 58.8 EP 3brm @ 2.8ep x 20 = 56.0 EP

162.4 EPs

Retail: 42 ep/ha = .0449 x 42 =

1.9 EPs

Total Parks EPs of 164.3 EPs minus credit of 2.8EPs =

161.5 EPs

Transport Whole of City Retail: 179.6 VPDs


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10325


Number of Units/ET’s/EP’s/VPD

Network Shop / Catering Shop

40 vpds per 100m2 449/100 = 4.49 x 40

50% ED Incentive to 31 March 2010 89.8VPDs Residential:

Caretakers Residence 1 x 6.5

6.5VPDs

Residential: 81 MDU x 5 vpds

405.0VPDs

Total TNC vpds of 501.3 ET minus 6.5 vpds Credit = (to 31 March 2010) Total TNC vpds of 591.1 ET minus 6.5 vpds Credit = (from 1 April 2010)

494.8VPDs 584.6VPDs

In order to calculate the quantum of the contribution at the time of payment, please refer to Council’s website for the indexed Policy Contribution rates.

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Perkins

CARRIED

8.7 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TRANSPORT DEPOT - HARTS TRANSPORT (QLD) PTY LTD - 961 HOMEBUSH ROAD, HOMEBUSH (704545-010-DA-2009-337)

Application Number: DA-2009-337

Date Received: 28 August 2009

Action Officer: Julie Brook

Applicant’s Details: Harts Transport (QLD) Pty Ltd C/-RPS PO Box 1895 MACKAY QLD 4740

Proposal: Material Change of Use - Development Permit for a Transport Depot


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10326

Site Address: 961 Homebush Road, Homebush

Property Description: Lot 10 on RP704545

Owner’s Details: Jeffrey and Natalie Hart

Area: 20.04500 Ha

Planning Scheme: Mackay City Planning Scheme

Planning Scheme Designations: Locality: Precinct: Zone:

Hinterland Pioneer River and Southern Streams Rural

Assessment Level: Impact

Submissions: Three (3)

Referral Agencies: Concurrence: Department of Transport and Main Roads Trigger: A Material Change of Use within 100m of a State Controlled Road

Attachments: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D:

Locality Plan Proposal Plan Site Photographs Referral Agency Response

Recommendation: Refused

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION Purpose Council has received an application for a Material Change of Use Development Permit for an existing unlawful Transport Depot operating at 961 Homebush Road, Homebush (refer to Attachment A – Locality Plan). The application was received as a result of a Show Cause Notice issued by Council in March 2009. The Transport Depot is located on a Homebush Road cane farm from an ancillary office building and gravel hardstand of approximately 40m² and 5000m² respectively (refer to Attachment B – Proposal Plan). The proposal required impact assessment and therefore underwent public notification. Three (3) submissions were received during the public notification period, objecting to the proposed development. The proposal is for an isolated industrial use within a rural area. The application to establish a Transport Depot conflicts with the intent of the rural zoning of the site. The area proposed to be used for the Transport Depot is identified as Good Quality Agricultural Land. Further to the above, the applicant has not responded to the Information Request in full and has failed to demonstrate that there is an overriding planning need for the development on this site, as suitable alternatives exist


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10327

elsewhere. This report finds that there are no supporting planning grounds to warrant approval of the proposal despite the conflicts. The application is recommended for refusal. Background Harts Transport (QLD) Pty Ltd employs ten staff in addition to the applicant and his daughter and own and operate 24 trucks from the site. The site is improved by a small dwelling house and also a donga-style building which it is assumed acts as the business office. The business has been operating at the site since it was purchased in 2006. Refer to Attachment C – Site Photographs. A complaint was lodged with Council highlighting the fact that Harts Transport were operating a transport depot from the site at Homebush. Following investigations, it was found the applicant had established the use without development approval. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued to Jeffery Hart, who is both the business and property owner in March 2009. This application has been made in response to the above Show Cause Notice. Initially lodged in June 2009 as an application for a Rural Industry, Council disagreed with this defined use and found the application Not Properly Made. This application was withdrawn and a new application lodged for a Transport Depot. In re-lodging the application, the supporting material and report was not amended to suit the new use definition and therefore considerable inconsistencies in the report refer to Heavy Vehicle Parking and possible Rural Industry, however the new application was lodged with the agreement of the applicant that the proposal was not a Rural; Industry nor was it Heavy vehicle Parking. The applicant was formally advised on 2 September 2009, that Council officers were unlikely to support a Transport Depot at the above location and subsequently, that the application should be withdrawn. The above was based on the fact that the application was not supported by a number of requirements within the Mackay City Planning Scheme. The applicant opted to proceed with the application. Subject Site and Surrounds The 20.045 hectare cane farm is located on the Homebush Road, south of Mackay approximately 15km west of the Bruce Highway. The subject site is currently used for sugar cane cultivation. The site also accommodates two dwelling houses, one ancillary shed and the Transport Depot. The depot is proposed to include an ancillary office building (existing) and 5000m² of hardstand area which is used for the parking of up to 24 trucks, as well as a number of staff vehicles. The property is located on the sealed Homebush Road where there is intermittent ribbon development, but maintains a predominantly rural atmosphere. The majority of the area surrounding the subject site is used for cane farming. Proposal The application involves the operation of a transport depot of 24 heavy vehicles from a site on Homebush Road. The business is operated from an ancillary office located on the site. There are no explicit details of how this office is constructed or its specific location. Site photographs reveal two structures towards the front of the lot. It is assumed one of these is the applicant’s dwelling house and the other is the office. Neither structure is included on the site plan. The application proposes 5000m2


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10328

gravel hardstand area used for parking the 24 trucks overnight or when not in use. The applicant has stated that approximately 20 truck movements occur per day. The trucks are used to transport cane harvesters, agricultural machinery as well as large items of mining machinery and equipment for primary producers in the Bowen Basin. The trucks range in size up to 100 tonne. The applicant has stated that the business does not service, wash down, detail nor refuel vehicles on site. THE PLANNING SCHEME The planning report accompanying the application argues extensively that the use is not industrial and that due to the rural nature of some of the machinery transported it could be considered ancillary to traditional rural activities. The report also argues that the use is akin to parking and notes that the Heavy Vehicle Parking is only Code Assessable in the Hinterland Locality. The report argues that the volume of land required for the operations forces transport operators into rural areas as industrial zoned land is neither available nor affordable. Codes Applicable to this proposal include: Hinterland Locality Code; Rural Zone Code; Industrial Code; Environment and Infrastructure Code; Good Quality Agricultural Land Overlay Code; and Landscape Character Overlay Code (Image Corridor). Applicable Use Definition

“Transport Depot” means any premises used for the storage of more than one bus, taxi or other small rigid truck, heavy rigid truck or articulated vehicle, including any freight in or on such vehicles. The term includes the servicing of such vehicles on the premises, and any administration of such business."

This definition clearly encompasses the proposed use of the land. It is noted that the applicant has not included vehicle servicing as part of the proposal. Alternative definitions are not suitable for this proposal and the most appropriate use definition is Transport Depot which is Impact Assessable in the Rural Zone. Desired Environmental Outcomes The overall outcomes of the codes and the Desired Environmental Outcomes of the planning scheme override the codes when determining an impact assessable application. The desired environmental outcomes of the Mackay City Planning Scheme are separated into four major categories of biodiversity, economic, cultural, amenity and infrastructure themes. Below is a summary of each of the four categories with comments against the DEOs relevant to this proposal.

"(a) Biodiversity and Habitat/ Natural Features

(iii) the use of land and resources:


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10329

(A) takes into account the direct and indirect, short and long-term, and

cumulative consequences of a use; and (B) has regard for the multiple use and values of land and resources for present

and future generations. (vi) a balance is achieved between the conservation and use of natural resources in

order to achieve sustainable economic, social and ecological outcomes." Comment: The proposal in isolation is problematic, but when considered over the long term, approval of such an intense transport-oriented activity results in a cumulative impact on the land resource which is unsustainable. The proposal neglects the long-term protection of valuable agricultural land uses and sustainable economic development

"(c) Economic Development

(i) economic resources such as good quality agricultural land, forests, fisheries, extractive materials, water and land resources are protected from the adverse or limiting effects of proximate, incompatible activity for future ongoing use. Good quality agricultural land is made available for urban uses only with a demonstration of overriding community need.4

(xi) Rural land:

(A) is protected from incompatible land uses; (B) is maintained in agricultural use, where possible, in order to ensure the

viability of the sugar industry in the City; and (C) provides opportunities for use for a wide range of economic activities

including extractive industries, forestry, grazing, intensive animal husbandry and water supply development.

Comment: Overriding need for the activity in this location has not been demonstrated and therefore does not justify the exclusion of this parcel of GQAL as an agricultural resource. Mackay Hinterland Locality Code (Rural Zone) The 20.045 hectare site is zoned rural and a specific outcome of the rural zone is that non-rural activities do not occur. A primary reason for Council not supporting non-rural uses on rural land is that the land is not serviced or provided with the infrastructure to appropriately accommodate an industrial land use and the employees that are associated with that use. The Mackay Hinterland Locality Code states:-

“Rural areas are protected from the constraining effects of encroaching incompatible

uses and that; Non-rural activities in rural areas do not adversely affect the operation of rural uses”.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10330

The proposal is considered an incompatible use due to the scale and intensity, it is expected to affect the operation of rural uses in the locality through fragmentation of rural land and incompatible traffic volumes and vehicles. The code also states that new development in the locality is:-

“In keeping with the role and function of the road network in terms of its scale and intensity; and

In step generally with the planned development of major road transport infrastructure.

Due to the scale and intensity, the proposal does not protect the operational efficiency of the surrounding road infrastructure. Further, the applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the use of this land results in a more efficient use of road transport facilities, taking into account the above mentioned requirements. The zone code reiterates further at the Overall Outcomes level and the Specific Outcomes level that:

(c) Non Rural Activities do not occur; and P5 Non-rural activities do not occur on land included in the rural zone

The proposal has been shown through the use definition that it is not a rural land use or a rural activity and therefore in accordance with the codes should not occur on rural land. Good Quality Agricultural Land Overlay Code The subject site is identified as Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL). The proposed development does not comply with the Specific Outcome P3 of the Code, which states:-

Development on land as shown on the Good Quality Agricultural Land Overlay Map as GQAL does not result in land taken out of agricultural use unless: i) an overriding community need for the development is demonstrated; and ii) no alternative sites are available.

The applicant has not:- established that there is an overwhelming need for an incompatible and inappropriate activity

on this particular site; adequately addressed the fact that more appropriate industrial sites exist in the locality; and

thus; not adequately addressed why the site would be more appropriately in its present location then

within an industrial zoned area. The applicant contends that the Transport Depot “provides a critical service to cane farmers in the Mackay area”. However, this does not constitute planning grounds to establish an industrial use in a rural area at the expense of Good Quality Agricultural Land. The proposal also provides service to other industries and as such could be located in an industrial area without impeding trade with rural clients. As such, there are no grounds to support this business being established on land being used for rural agriculture.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10331

Moreover the Overall Outcomes of the Code provide strict guidance to the future use of GQAL:

(2) The overall outcomes sought for the Good Quality Agricultural Land Overlay Code are to ensure:

(a) good quality agricultural land is conserved for continued agricultural use; (b) good quality agricultural land is protected from reconfiguration which fragments

otherwise productive rural land; (c) reconfiguration of lots in the Rural Zone facilitates viable and sustainable rural

land use pursuant to State Planning Policy No 1/9229 ,and (d) Agricultural uses are protected from encroachment by incompatible uses.

The subject site is identified as GQAL and is therefore intended for rural agriculture or ancillary rural uses only. The applicant has stated that the 5000m² hardstand area currently used for the Transport Depot was under cane, prior to the commencement of activity. Although the area of land used for the Transport Depot is not significant when compared to the area used for sugar cane cultivation in the region, it does represent a loss of Good Quality Agricultural Land to an industrial use that would be more appropriately located in an industrial zoned area. Further, it fragments the large and regular shaped agricultural parcel. Consequently, the proposal does not comply with the GQAL Overlay Code which is considered sufficient planning grounds for refusal Planning Need The applicant has sought to justify the proposal by asserting that there is an overriding need for development of this nature as the release of industrial land in the Mackay Region has not kept pace with the demand for land for industrial activities. Council requested that a Needs Analysis be undertaken by the applicant to demonstrate that planning need existed for additional industrial land in the Mackay City Planning Scheme area. The needs analysis highlighted that there were some constraints to the amount of available industrial land. In particular, with regards to the size required by the applicant. However, the needs analysis submitted analyses the applicant’s needs and not the overall land pool available for industrial development. It has not considered lots created, approved or under construction as requested by Council. Moreover, the report does not address the situation where if indeed more industrial land were required, would it be located on Homebush Road? It was mentioned in the report that this land ranged from $140 to $220 a square metre, thus meaning the applicant would require up to $1,000,000 to purchase an appropriate property. Such an amount is not significantly more than was paid for the subject site at Homebush Road. It is accepted that demand for industrial sites in Mackay has been strong in recent years, but an overriding planning need has not been demonstrated to justify the development of this site for industrial uses. Thus, there is not adequate need to locate out of scale and intensity industrial uses in rural areas and there is not supporting evidence that a Transport deport should be necessarily located on this particular site. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS The site is not serviced by town water or sewerage services.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10332

REFERRAL AGENCIES TMR was a concurrence agency for the application and have responded with standard conditions as Homebush Road is a State-Controlled Road. (Refer to Attachment D – TMR Approval). SUBMISSIONS The application was publicly notified in accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, and as a result of this process, three (3) jointly prepared written submissions were received. The public notification tasks were not completed in absolute accordance with the Act. That is, no sign was placed on the Zarbs Road frontage. There are no dwelling houses on this road frontage and the road reserve terminates at the cane tram line adjacent to the subject site. It can be said that no one was adversely affected by the non compliance in this instance and Council can proceed with the assessment of the application. The applicant provided written confirmation of the minor status of this road to Council on 16 March 2010. The submissions received, expressed opposition to the proposal. The principle concerns raised from the submissions are summarised and discussed below. A summary of submissions was forwarded to the applicant on 22 February 2010; however no response has been received to date for inclusion in the report.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10333

1. Safety Concerns “The address for the proposed Transport Depot in situated on a corner in a 100kmph speed zone and has no turning lanes” “Visibility in the late afternoon on that corner is increasingly reduced as the sun sets in the west’ Officers Comments: The site is located on Homebush Road which is a State-Controlled Road and not part of the Council network. Due to the recommendation for refusal significant traffic analysis has not been undertaken, however were the proposal approved a detailed analysis of impacts from the safety perspective would be required. The surrounding land uses are unperturbed by rural-type traffic, farm vehicles and intermittent cars. This uses purports to generate 40 Vehicles per Day (vpds), comprising 10 staff to and from and 10 trucks to and from, However the proposal involves 24 trucks and the planning report describes the balance vehicles as being on extended trips over 2-3 days and discounts them from the traffic count. In effect traffic movement additional to the current rural use is estimated to be as calculated in Table 1 below: Table 1: Estimated VPDs for Proposed Transport Depot These projections result in 176 movements over a 3-day period, or an average of 59 movements per day. These estimates on do not involve office staff or the owner’s regular movements, deliveries to collection of vehicles for serving and so on that would be a regular part of the business activities. It is considered that these estimate movement are a significant increase from the expected movement of 6.5 – 10 vpds if the dwelling house remained the only traffic-generator for the lot. This constitutes a significant increase in expected traffic volumes in the area. Therefore, it is considered that the traffic impacts are insufficiently demonstrated by the applicant.

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Staff Arrive 24 10 10 Trucks depart 24 10 10 Trucks return 10 10 24 Staff Depart 10 10 24 Total Movements 68 40 68

2. Establishment of the Use Unlawfully “They have set-up without regard for regulations or consultation…the area currently occupied by Harts Transport is in no way being utilized solely as a parking area for trucks serving the sugar and primary industries and are currently undertaking industrial functions more focussed at the mining industries” Officers Comments: Council issued a Show Cause Notice in response to this unlawful use and the applicant is now going through the appropriate channels.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10334

3. Industrial Land Supply Establishment of a business on rural land because of the high cost of suitable industrial land is not acceptable…. Industrial businesses established outside the legal industrial zone have an unfair advantage …” Officers Comments: Previous discussion confirms that the applicant has not established that there is indeed a shortage of industrial land and moreover if there were a shortage, a need for this particular rural site to be converted to an industrial use. A perceived shortage or expense is not sufficient planning grounds to establish a business outside of the appropriate land use zone. 4. Not Supported by the Planning Scheme “….farming families and rural residents would be negatively impacted by the establishment of a transport depot.” “approval of the Transport Depot would undermine people’s ability to make informed decisions using the Mackay City Planning Scheme…portray a mentality of build without approval and approval will be granted.” “Harts transport yard currently physically detracts from the rural environment.’ Officers Comments: The above report demonstrates that the proposal is not supported by the planning scheme. The establishment of the use has not influenced the decision to recommend refusal of the application.

CONCLUSION The applicant has not provided any valid planning grounds to support this application. It has been demonstrated that the proposal does not satisfy multiple objectives of Council’s Planning Scheme. As a result, the application is recommended for refusal. It is recommended that Council resolve to allow a period of 6 months for the applicant to progressively cease the land use. If after 6 months the land use has not ceased, including removal of the unapproved office building, Council will commence enforcement action against the illegal land use. This period of time is considered reasonable to allow the applicant to make alternative arrangements for the Transport Depot and protect interests of the employees of the business.


A. THAT Council refuse the application by Harts Transport (QLD) Pty Ltd for a Material Change of Use – Development Permit at 961 Homebush Road, Homebush or more formally described as Lot 10 on RP704545 on the following grounds:

1. The proposed Transport Depot does not satisfy the objectives of the Desired

Environmental Outcomes of Council’s Planning Scheme.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10335

2. The proposed Transport Depot conflicts with the intent of the rural zoning of the site.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with Good Quality Agricultural Land Overlay Code. 4. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is an overriding planning need for the

development. 5. The applicant has not demonstrated there are sufficient planning grounds to justify

approval of the development despite the conflict. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr May

CARRIED

8.8 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MACKAY CITY PLANNING SCHEME - AMENDMENTS 3 OF 2007- VEHICLE PARKING PROVISIONS

Author SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNER

Purpose

To propose that Council adopt the remaining items on proposed Amendments 3 of 2007 of the Mackay City Planning Scheme, with modifications, specifically relating to Vehicle Parking Provisions, which have been held in abeyance as part of the package of amendments to the Mackay City Planning Scheme (Amendments 2 and 3 of 2007) that were gazetted on 24 April 2009.


At the Ordinary Meeting of 23 July 2008 Council considered submissions made for the proposed Mackay City Planning Scheme Amendments 3 of 2007 and resolved to proceed with Amendments 3 of 2007, with modifications (resulting from the consideration of submissions made) in accordance with Section 16 (1) of Schedule 1 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA), with the exception of proposed amendments to the Vehicle Parking Provisions (contained with Schedule 2 of Part 12 of the Planning Scheme). The Vehicle Parking Provisions were held in abeyance for further consideration due to the number of submissions received. These items were removed from Amendments 3 of 2007, as gazetted on 24 April 2009, for reconsideration in detail at a later date.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10336

Of the 7 submissions received for the Vehicle Parking Provisions, 3 were site-specific submissions, pertaining to specific development applications. The majority of submitters did not concur with the new proposed parking rates, although it was acknowledged that some of the current parking rates were low and often resulted in inadequate on-site parking. On 17 July 2009, proposed amendments, with modifications, were submitted to the Minister to reconsider any potential adverse effects on State Interests. On 16 February 2010 and in accordance with Section 8 (4) of Schedule 1 of the IPA, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning advised that Council may adopt Amendments 3 of 2007 for the Mackay City Planning Scheme, with modifications, as proposed by Council (refer Attachment A). The Minister required the following final modifications: 1. Deletion of proposed Section 12.7 – City Centre Car Parking Contributions Department of Infrastructure and Planning advised that the proposed inclusion of a City

Centre Car Parking Contribution needed to be advanced through a Priority Infrastructure Plan, and not a planning scheme or planning scheme policy.

2. Inclusion of a notation in section 12.7 for Car Parking Requirements

Department of Infrastructure and Planning advised that a notation should be included in section 12.7 that states that “where calculations result in a fraction, or part of a car parking space, the required number of on-site car parking spaces is to be rounded up to the next whole number”.

It is further recommended that Council does not proceed with one of the proposed amendments, being the proposed amendments to the Multiple Dwelling Units parking rates. It is considered premature at this stage to amend the rates prior to the completion of the Residential Densities Strategy. Under Section 19 of Schedule 1 of IPA Council must, by resolution, adopt the proposed Planning Scheme amendments. As soon as practical after the amendments have been adopted, Council must publish in a local newspaper and in the Government Gazette a notice advising of the date of adoption, including the purpose and general effect of the amendments. The date of publication in the Government Gazette is the date on which Amendments 3 of 2007 for the Mackay City Planning Scheme will have force and effect and replace the current planning scheme wording. Attachment B shows amendments required to finalise this matter and to proceed to adoption of the proposed Amendments 3 of 2007. Scheme Amendment Process The process for Council to amend its Planning Schemes is prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Integrated Planning Act (IPA). An overview of the process for the Vehicle Parking amendments is as follows: In July 2007 the former Mackay City Council resolved to propose the amendments; On 26 July 2007 Council submitted the amendments to the Minister and the first State

Interest Review, which was completed in November 2007; Council considered conditions imposed as part of the State Interest Review process on 21

November 2007;


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10337

Between 14 January and 29 February 2008, amendments were publicly notified for comment in the local newspaper and were made available for purchase during the public notification period. Public meetings were held in February 2008. (The consultation period was extended until 10 March 2008 due to flooding events);

Council considered properly made submissions relating to Amendment 3 of 2007; A copy of proposed Amendment 3 of 2007 (with modifications) were provided to the

Minister for second State Interest Review in August 2008 (noting that the Vehicle Parking Provisions were held in abeyance at this stage);

A briefing to Council was undertaken on 24 June 2009 on submissions received relating to the proposed Vehicle Parking provisions;

Council submitted a copy of the proposed Vehicle Parking amendments, with modifications, to the Minister for further consideration of State Interests on 17 July 2009;

On 16 February 2010 the Minister reconsidered potential adverse effects of further amendments to State Interests and advised that Council may proceed with the adoption of Amendment 3 of 2007, with modifications, pertaining to the Vehicle Parking provisions.

Following receipt of the Minister’s advice that Council can adopt the amendments, the actions required to finalise these amendments are: Council resolves to adopt the proposed amendments; Council resolves not to continue with the amendment relating to the car parking

requirements for multiple dwelling units; Council reports back to all persons who lodged properly made submissions, explaining

how it dealt with their submission; Final amendments are published in the local newspaper and gazette; A copy of the amendments is made available for purchase and Council’s web page is

updated; A copy of the amendments is provided to the Chief Executive Officer of the Department

of Infrastructure and Planning.

Consultation

The proposed Amendments to the Scheme were subject to an internal consultation process in January 2007. Proposed amendments were presented to the former Mackay City Council for comment in February 2007, after which the amendments were subject to a second round of internal consultation and further proposed amendments presented to Council at a Briefing in June 2007. Council formerly resolved to propose the amendments at its Ordinary Meeting held 25 July 2007 and submitted for State Interest Review. A response on the first State Interest Review was received on 14 November 2007. The consultation period for submissions to the proposed Amendments 3 of 2007 were initially advertised from Monday 14 January 2008 to Friday 29 February 2008 however, the consultation period was extended until Monday 10 March 2008, due to flood events in February. Public information sessions were conducted in the Reception Room on 5 and 7 February 2008. In accordance with Section 16 (1) (b) of Schedule 1, Council considered all properly made submissions pertaining to Amendment 3 of 2007 and decided to proceed with the proposed amendments to the planning scheme, with modifications, with the exception of the Car Parking provisions.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10338

Written correspondence was forwarded to all submitters. Submitters who had made submissions about the proposed amendments to Vehicle Parking Access and Manoeuvring Standards where forwarded written correspondence advising that these issues were held in abeyance, and that they would be advised about further action when Council decides on these matters. Amendments 3 of 2007 were gazetted and became effective on Friday 24 April 2009, with the exception of the proposed changes to the Vehicle Parking Provisions and Car Parking Requirements. A briefing for the items held in abeyance from Amendment 3 of 2007 was undertaken on Wednesday 24 June 2009, on the submissions received on the Vehicle Parking Provisions. Council’s response to the submissions received on the Vehicle Parking Provisions was submitted for second State Interest Review on 17 July 2009. On 16 February 2010, the Minister advised that Council could adopt the proposed amendments, subject to modifications (Refer Attachment A). It is proposed that the effective date for Amendments 3 of 2007 will be 23 April 2010, to allow around 4 weeks notice to the development industry about upcoming amendments. If Council adopt the proposed Amendments 3 of 2007, with modifications, the development industry will be notified of Council’s decision and the proposed date of commencement. Further correspondence will be forwarded to all submitter’s advising that Council considered each submission and how each matter was dealt with. Once the amendments are gazetted, the relevant sections of the Scheme will replace the current Mackay City Planning Scheme.


Proposed Amendments 3 of 2007 for the Mackay City Planning Scheme will require planning and administrative resources to undertake and complete the administrative process to gazette the amendments.

Conclusion

The formal adoption of Amendments 3 of 2007 is required to finalise the proposed amendments and proceed to gazettal.


A. THAT Council resolves to adopt Amendments 3 of 2007 of the Mackay City Planning Scheme, with modifications, in accordance with IPA following the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning’s approval, specifically for the following components of the Vehicle Parking Provisions: Amendments to parking rates for Warehouse; Amendments to the Vehicle Manoeuvring Table – to include Dwelling House;


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10339

Amendments to update Australian Standards and correct typographical errors; Amendments to include a notation to round up parking spaces where

calculations result in fractions or part of a space.

B. THAT Council resolves not to continue with the amendments relating to the car parking requirements for Multiple Dwelling Units, as originally proposed in Amendments 3 of 2007;

C. THAT administrative procedures are carried out to formalise the amendments as

soon as practical. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Steindl

CARRIED

8.9 ATTENDANCE AT 2010 SUNCORP NORTH QUEENSLAND GAMES

Author Chief Executive Officer

Purpose

To request Council nominate Cr Paul Steindl as Council’s representative at the 2010 Suncorp North Queensland Games to be held in Cairns from 9-12 April 2010 as the portfolio Councillor for Sport and Recreation.


As Mackay Regional Council will host the 2012 Suncorp North Queensland Games, Cr Steindl will also accept the Games Flag at the closing celebration on 11 April 2010.


Costs of attendance at the Games are catered for in the current budget.

Conclusion

It is proposed to nominate Cr Paul Steindl as Council’s representative at the 2010 Suncorp North Queensland Games to be held in Cairns from 9-12 April 2010 as the portfolio Councillor for Sport and Recreation.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10340


THAT Cr Steindl be appointed as Mackay Regional Council’s representative at the 2010 Suncorp North Queensland Games to be held in Cairns from 9-12 April 2010.

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Perkins Seconded Cr Steindl

CARRIED

9. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

9.1 DRAFT MINUTES RURAL AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Author Director Community Services

Purpose

Attached is a copy of the draft minutes of the Rural Affairs Advisory Committee meeting held 18 February 2010, for information purposes.


THAT the draft minutes be received. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Steindl Seconded Cr Cameron

CARRIED


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10341

9.2 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AREA MULTICULTURAL PARTNERSHIP (LAMP) PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Author Manager Community Development and Libraries

Purpose

Attached are the draft minutes of the Local Area Multicultural Partnership (LAMP) Advisory Committee meeting held 25 February 2010, for information purposes.


THAT the minutes be received. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr May Seconded Cr Comerford

CARRIED

9.3 DRAFT MINUTES - CITY FOCUS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Author Manager Economic Development

Purpose

Attached is a copy of the City Focus Advisory Committee minutes of 4 March 2010 for information purposes and consideration of recommendations.

Advisory Committee’s Recommendation

THAT Council give consideration to approving creation of an Urban Enhancement Concept Plan for the CBD as part of a bid to attract State and/or Federal funding.

l Resolution


THAT the minutes be received. AND THAT the recommendation of the City Focus Advisory Committee be adopted.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10342

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Perkins Seconded Cr Comerford

CARRIED

10. RECEIPT OF PETITIONS:

Nil.

11. TENDERS:

11.1 APPROVAL OF TENDER - SALE OF LAND - 155A BROADSOUND ROAD, PAGET

File No MRC 2010-001 Sale of Land – 155A Broadsound Road, Paget Author Manager Property Services

Purpose

To approve tender submitted for the MRC 2010-001 Sale of Land – 155A Broadsound Road, Paget.


Tenders were invited on the 25th July 2009, via Council’s website and advertised locally in the Daily Mercury, requesting submissions from persons interested in purchasing the freehold title of Lot 22 on RP 715901 (“the property”) a parcel of 405m2. The property is located to the south of the Bruce and Peak Downs Highway intersection. The following submission was received by 2.30pm 18th August 2009.

BOMA Group An initial compliance check was conducted by the Evaluation Panel to identify that the submission was conforming with the immediate requirements of the RFT. This included compliance with contractual requirements and provision of requested information. The submission progressed through to the qualitative criteria assessment on the basis that the terms and conditions and mandatory requirements of the request for tender had been met. During the evaluation the tender was assessed against the nominated qualitative criteria.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10343

The weighting attributed to each qualitative criteria was:

Proposed use of the new reconfigured lot 35% Ability to reconfigure proponents land to land for sale 35% Price Offered 30%

The tendered Lump Sum Fixed Price is listed below.

BOMA Group $5,000.00 At the end of the assessment process, the assessment team ranked BOMA Group as the preferred tenderer.


The evaluation of the tenders was conducted by:

Property Coordinations Officer– Property Services Contracts Officer – Procurement and Plant


In accordance with previous negotiations between BOMA Group and Mackay Regional Council (Deed of Agreement attached) it was agreed to transfer (by way of Tender) the property to BOMA Group for market value less development works already undertaken by BOMA Group. BOMA Group then offered an initial tendered price of $5,000.00 for MRC 2010-001 Sale of Land – 155A Broadsound Road, Paget. Not satisfied with this initial tendered price a request was made to the BOMA Group that they provide a costing of all works completed to the property to further evaluate their offer. On 15 October 2009 BOMA Group provided the valuation and costing of works.

JD Dodds valuation of property received for $20,250.00 BOMA Group costing for removing and disposing of concrete, filling in and

compacting drainage easement for $14,084.40. BOMA Group final price for MRC 2010-001 Sale of Land – 155A Broadsound Road, Paget reads: JD Dodds valuation $20,250.00 Less works performed $14,084.40 BOMA Group balance $ 6,165.60 (includes initial submission of $5,000.00)

Conclusion

That awarding the contract to BOMA Group at the re-negotiated price of $6,165.60 represents the most advantageous outcome to Mackay Regional Council based on the ability to perform the works requested and demonstrated value for money.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10344


THAT the fixed price tender submitted by BOMA Group of $6,165.60 (ex GST) be accepted for the provision of MRC 2010-001 Sale of Land – 155A Broadsound Road, Paget, on the basis that the property is amalgamated with the adjoining lot and that no access is available to the property via Broadsound Road.

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr May Seconded Cr Camilleri

CARRIED

11.2 TENDER - MRC2010-20 - BRISBANE STREET RECONSTRUCTION (RIVER TO VICTORIA STREET)

File No MRC 2010-020 Brisbane Street Reconstruction (River to Victoria Street) Author Engineering Services – Manager Construction

Purpose

To present to Council for consideration of tenders submitted for the MRC 2010-020 Brisbane Street Reconstruction (River to Victoria Street) and to recommend that the contract be awarded to Epoca Construction Pty Ltd.


Brisbane Street is one of the main entrance to the new Bluewater Quay Q150 project. The condition of the road pavement, footpaths and the streetscape in general is in need of a significant upgrade. The reconstruction project includes the widening of the existing footpaths on both sides of the road, upgrading of stormwater drainage and pavement improvements. It should also be noted that construction works in Brisbane Street will coincide with the improved access to the Bluewater Quay at Sydney Street with the connectivity of the new Forgan Bridge. Tenders were invited on the 24 October 2009, via Council’s website and advertised locally in the Daily Mercury, requesting submissions from companies suitably experienced and resourced for the reconstruction of Brisbane Street from Victoria Street to River Street. The following submissions were received by 2.30pm 17 November 2009. The tendered amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10345

Epoca Construction Pty Ltd - $687,199 Vassallo Construction Pty ltd - $797,972 BMD Construction Pty Ltd - $868,809

The Evaluation Panel conducted an initial compliance check on 26 November 2009 to identify submissions that were non-conforming with the immediate requirements of the Request for Tender (RFT). This included compliance with the contractual requirements and provision of requested information. Two submissions were progressed through to the qualitative criteria assessment on the basis that all terms and conditions and mandatory requirements of the request for tender had been met. BMD Constructions Pty Ltd submission did not progress to the qualitative criteria assessment on the basis of failure to attend the mandatory site meeting on 29 October 2009. During the evaluation the tenderers were assessed against the nominated qualitative criteria. The weighting attributed to each qualitative criteria was: Relevant experience in performing works of similar nature 20% Key personnel skills and experience 25% Tenderers’ resources available to complete the works 20% Demonstrated understanding or methodology proposed 25% Local Content 10%

At the end of the assessment process, the assessment team ranked Epoca Construction Pty Ltd as the preferred tenderer followed by Vassallo Construction Pty Ltd.


The evaluation of the tenders was conducted by: Contracts Co-ordinator – Engineering Services Consultant – Mashumba Civil Contracts Officer – Procurement and Plant.


The current capital works program includes a budget allocation for this project of $700,358.63 made up as follows:-

$10,561.20 Tfr from 52000 to balance 08/09 Expenditure

$182,863.88 Transfers from Reserve Sept.2009 Budget Review

$400,000.00 Budget Allocation

$106,933.55 Flood Damage component

$700,358.63


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10346

The Project is anticipated to cost $892,875.19 which has been rounded up by $183.44 to simplify the budget transfer amount. This is made up as follows:- $ 54,777.26 Cost to Date $ 77,898.95 Current Commitments $ 687,198.98 Epoca’s Tendered Lump Sum $ 73,000.00 Council costs $ 892,875.19 This results in a financial shortfall for this Project of $ 192,316.56 which is rounded up to $192,500.00. This amount will be transferred from the 52000 header account within the Capital Works Program and will be funded from within the program. The contract will be managed using contracted Project Management and Supervision resources.

Conclusion

Aawarding the contract to Epoca Construction Pty Ltd represents the most advantageous outcome to Mackay Regional Council based on the ability to perform the works requested and demonstrated value for money to Mackay Regional Council.

Officer's Recommendation

THAT the fixed price tender submitted by Epoca Construction Pty Ltd of $687,198.98 (excluding GST) be accepted for the provision of MRC 2010-020 Brisbane Street Reconstruction (River Street to Victoria Street).

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Perkins Seconded Cr Camilleri

CARRIED

12. CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTIONS

Nil.


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10347

13. LATE BUSINESS:

The Mayor commended staff on their efforts and commitment in the lead up to and post Cyclone Ului. The dedication from staff has been remarkable, they have been working huge hours and in very difficult circumstances. He made special mention of the employees and volunteers who have been manning the phones over the last few days. The Mayor also acknowledged the assistance of all of the outside organisations including Ergon, Telstra, SES and Department of Communities. The Mayor advised that this morning Council staff would be sent to Eungella to provide assistance and the CQRESQ helicopter was also being dispatched to Eungella today. In the next few days the Mayor will meet with his fellow Councillors to discuss visiting residents around the region who have been affected by Cyclone Ului. The Mayor stated that the emergency management system worked well but some refinements are needed and planning for this will happen in the near future. Cr Hatfield congratulated the community on helping each other out at this time. Cr Comerford commended the Ergon and SES staff, particularly for their positive attitude in getting everything restored. The Deputy Mayor, Cr Camilleri, congratulated the Mayor on the way in which he has been dealing with the media over the last few days and for trying to put the community at ease in such trying circumstances. Cr May reiterated Cr Camilleri's comments regarding the Mayor. She made particular mention of his leadership of the Local Disaster Management Group. Cr Perkins spoke on behalf of the media and advised that over the weekend the Mayor, Councillors and staff were always available for interviews. He stated that he thought that an Ergon representative should have been present in the Disaster Coordination Centre from the outset.

14. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Nil.

15. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS:


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10348

15.1 URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Council Resolution

THAT Council receive the report.

Moved Cr Comerford Seconded Cr Perkins

CARRIED

16. MEETING CLOSURE

The meeting closed at 10:59am..

17. FOR INFORMATION ONLY

17.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INFORMATION - 28.02.10 TO 06.03.10

For Council Information Only – No Decision Required Development Applications Received

App no Address Applicant Description Officer

OW-2010-14 L 4 Hodges Road, SHOAL POINT

Moodie & Associates

Bulk Earthworks Peter Bratt

OW-2010-15 86 Andergrove Road, ANDERGROVE

Palmbild Pty Ltd Operational Works

OW-2010-16 L 4 Mirani-Eton Road, MIRANI

Yeats Consulting Pty Ltd

Operational Works Peter Bratt

CON-2010-25 22 Madison Avenue, GLENELLA

Kenneth J Weir Dwelling House Front Boundary Relaxation

Josephine McCann

ROLC-2010-53 187 Ian Reddacliff Drive, THE LEAP

Jacqueline E Hiron 1 Rural Residential Lot into 2 Rural Residential Lots

Kathryn Goodman

MCUC-2010-62 6-10 Silverton Court, PAGET

Ian P Nimmo Transport Depot Julie Brook

OW-2010-17 34-38 Mulherin Drive, MACKAY HARBOUR

Marina International Pty Ltd

Kitchen relocation, dining bar and amenities extension

Ray Gould

MCUI-2010-63 572 Devereux Creek Road, DEVEREUX CREEK

Arthur J Green Residential Storage Shed Darryl Bibay

RECONF-2007-240

L 200 Wallmans Road, RURAL VIEW

Denar Pty Ltd Request to Change Existing Approval - Reconfiguration of 3 lots to create 84 Urban Residential lots and Balance lots - Explorer Estate - Stages 3b, 4 & 5

Sonia Cannell

ROLC-2010-65 31 High Street, NORTH MACKAY

Catherine E Knudsen

One into two lot subdivision.

MCUC-2010-64 28 Campbell Street, SLADE POINT

Steppe Pty Ltd Car Repair Workshop and ERA 21

Sonia Cannell

OW-2010-18 2 Mangrove Road, MACKAY

James Foreman Bulk Earthworks for Shopping Centre Re-development

OW-2010-20 46 Sams Road, NORTH MACKAY

Palmview Village Pty Ltd

Bulk Earthworks


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10349

App no Address Applicant Description Officer

OW-2010-19 5A Bald Hill Road, GLENELLA

Darrin T Hart Earthworks

MCUC-2010-66 36 Mary Street, WEST MACKAY

Casey Verhey 3 Dwelling Houses on lots less than 450m2 and Situated in the Flood and Inundation Overlay

MCUC-2010-68 25 Cemetery Road, SARINA

Ian J Korte Oversized Outbuilding

Development Application Finalised

App No Location Applicant Description Officer

Approved Subject to Conditions

OW-ASPA-2010/8

382 Bridge Road WEST MACKAY QLD 4740

Magnanimity Enterprises Pty Ltd

Operational Works - Road Works, Drainage Works, Landscaping, Stormwater, Earthworks, Water Infrastructure and Sewerage Infrasture

Colin Kelleher

CON-ASPA-2010/21

11 Schooner Avenue SHOAL POINT QLD 4750

Queenslander 2000 Pty Ltd

Front Boundary Relaxation Darryl Bibay

CON-ASPA-2010/22

4 Kenmore Street SLADE POINT QLD 4740

Jose Uriarte Boundary Relaxation Darryl Bibay

MCUCD-IDAS-2008/248A

14-16 Corporation Avenue PAGET QLD 4740

Alamode Developments Pty Ltd

Amendment - Material Change of Use - General Industry Warehouse

Darryl Bibay

CON-ASPA-2010/23

3 Malone Drive ANDERGROVE QLD 4740

Vicki L Heck Road Boundary Variation Josephine McCann

MCUC-ASPA-2010/43

4 Ferries Terrace SARINA BEACH QLD 4737

Debbie A Fisher Carport Exceeding 60m2 in Residential Precinct and Road Boundary Setback Variation for Extension to Patio.

Josephine McCann

MCUC-ASPA-2010/23

4 Mango Avenue EIMEO QLD 4740

Murray Jones Building Pty Ltd

Dwelling House on a Small Lot (less than 450m2)

Julie Brook

OW-IDAS-2007/30A

3-9 Owen Jenkins Drive SARINA BEACH QLD 4737

RPS Group (Brisbane) Pty Ltd

Extension of Currency - Operational Works - Stormwater, Water Retiulation & Minor Earthworks

Peter Bratt

OW-IDAS-2009/68

L 4 Farrellys Road PAGET QLD 4740

Mackay Regional Council

Bulk Earthworks - Paget Depot

Ray Gould

OW-IDAS-2009/87

L 4 Bruce Highway SARINA QLD 4737

Caneraid Pty Ltd Operational Works - 33 Lot Industrial Subdivision

Renan Solatan

MCUC-ASPA-2010/34

21 Swan Street ARMSTRONG BEACH QLD 4737

Totalspan Mackay Oversized Outbuilding Simon Halcrow

MCUC-ASPA-2010/35

4 Arthur Street SARINA QLD 4737

Ian B Virgen Oversized Outbuilding Simon Halcrow

OW-ASPA-2010/11

29 Nindavale Avenue NINDAROO QLD 4740

Stuart V McMurtrie Operational Works - Earthworks

Trina Saunders

OW-ASPA-2010/3

98 Broad Street SARINA QLD 4737

Karl Fuchs Roadworks, Drainage Works, Landscaping, Stormwater, Earthworks, Water Infrastructure, Sewerage Infrastructure - MCU-00032 (ASS29)

Trina Saunders

OW-ASPA-2010/9

L 4 Farleigh-Habana Road HABANA QLD 4740

Paragon Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

Operational Works - Roadworks, Drainage works, Earthworks and Clearing Vegetation under the Planning Scheme

Trina Saunders


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10350

Negotiated Decision

MCUIMP-IDAS-2008/166

L 241 Slater Avenue BLACKS BEACH QLD 4740

Hawkhaven Pty Ltd Material Change of Use - Extension to existing Hotel (Liquor Barn and drive through)

Darryl Jones

MCUIMP-IDAS-2008/167


Hawkhaven Pty Ltd Material Change of Use - Shops (Supermarket & 6 Speciality Shops)

Darryl Jones

RECONF-IDAS-2008/168


Hawkhaven Pty Ltd Reconfiguration of 1 lot to create 3 Urban Residential lots

Darryl Jones

Confirmed on Wednesday 7 April 2010.

………………………………………

MAYOR


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10351


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10352


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10353


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10354


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10355


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10356


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10357


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10358


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10359


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10360


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10361


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10362


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10363


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10364


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10365


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10366


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10367


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10368


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10369


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10370


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10371


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10372


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10373


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10374


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10375


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10376


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10377


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10378


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10379


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10380


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10381


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10382


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10383


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10384


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10385


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10386


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10387


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10388


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10389


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10390


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10391


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10392


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10393


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10394


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10395


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10396


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10397


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10398


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10399


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10400


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10401


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10402


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10403


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10404


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10405


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10406


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10407


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10408


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10409


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10410


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10411


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10412


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10413


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10414


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10415


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10416


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10417


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10418


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10419


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10420


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10421


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10422


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10423


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10424


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10425


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10426


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10427


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10428


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10429


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10430


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10431


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10432


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10433


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10434


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10435


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10436


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10437


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10438


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10439


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10440


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10441


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10442


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10443


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10444


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10445


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10446


MIN/24.03.2010 FOLIO 10447

APPENDIX / ATTACHMENTS

final minutes - city of mackay · final minutes wednesday 24 march 2010 min/24.03.2010 folio 10295...

Documents