sleeman sports complex initial assessment report attachment: …€¦ · sleeman sports centre,...

Appendix 17

Copy of Submissions (Initial Assessment Report)

From: [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]: ROWE JanetteCc: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]

Subject: TMR Submission: Sleeman Sports Complex - Proposed Ministerial Designation of Land for CommunityInfrastructure (Initial Consultation)

Date: Thursday, 29 May 2014 3:33:23 PMAttachments: Attachment 1.docx

Attention: Janette Rowe Building Asset Services Department of Housing and Public Works RE: Sleeman Sports Complex - Proposed Ministerial Designation of Land forCommunity Infrastructure (Initial Consultation) - TMR Submission

Dear Janette,

Thank you for your letter dated 7 May 2014 requesting the Department of Transport and MainRoads (TMR) review the "Notice of Proposed Ministerial Designation of Land for CommunityInfrastructure" pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. An assessment of the InitialAssessment Report (IAR), including the Transport - Community Infrastructure Designation Report(Transport Report), has been completed in accordance with the TMR's jurisdiction.

The review identified that the IAR and Transport Report do not adequately address the impacts ofthe proposed infrastructure on the State Transport Network, particularly public passenger transport,active transport and the State-controlled road network. As such, it is requested that the IAR andthe Transport Report be amended prior to public notification. Details of the recommendedamendments are included in Attachment 1.

If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me on 30661623.

***********************************************************************WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legallyprivileged, confidential or private information and may be protected bycopyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it wasintended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No oneis allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, printor copy this email without appropriate authority.

If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies ofthis email and delete it and any copies of it from your computersystem. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is notwaived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility withyour computer system).

Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect theopinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.***********************************************************************
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1: SLEEMAN SPORTS COMPLEX - PROPOSED MINISTERIAL DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Public Passenger Transport and Active Transport

a) An assessment of the overall impact of the proposed development on all forms of public passenger transport (urban bus services, private/chartered coaches/buses/mini-buses, taxis, railway passenger services). This assessment should address the following, amongst other relevant considerations:

i. all existing public passenger transport services (the current report only addresses urban bus services);

ii. an assessment of the impact (including demand) of the proposed development in ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes on all forms of existing and planned public passenger transport. This should include the impact of the anticipated site population (athletes, visitors, employees, spectators, patrons etc.) and the likely timing, frequency and nature of events. The intended site population and capacity during ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes should be addressed;

iii. the likely modal split between private vehicle travel, public passenger transport and active transport supported by appropriate justifications;

iv. the capacity of the existing public transport network to support the anticipated development impacts, including demand, in ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes. This should give consideration to, for example, consultation with relevant operators and TMR and factors such as bus size, public passenger transport timetables, demographics and other relevant considerations;

v. the development may need to make suitable provision for private buses/coaches, mini-buses and taxi facilities where existing scheduled public passenger services cannot accommodate the impact of the development;

vi. the identification of necessary public passenger transport infrastructure required to support the development in both ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes. This should consider how public passenger transport outcomes will be achieved. In particular, the following should be addressed:

· any nominated bus zones (temporary and permanent) must be sufficient to cater for the demand generated by the development in ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes. The number of bus parking bays (temporary and permanent) required, the length of buses and whether nose to tail or independent operation is required should be addressed;

· demonstrate how an appropriate design vehicle can safely and conveniently access the site, manoeuvre into and out of any proposed bus zones and through the site via a swept path analysis;

· bus zones should be appropriately signed and marked, incorporate weather protection and allow for access by persons with a disability; and

· any required dedicated taxi facility should be provided parallel to the kerb within close proximity to the main entrance and should include at least one taxi parking bay with a length and width suitable for use by people with disabilities.

b) An Access and Mobility Plan demonstrating that the provision, location and design of pedestrian and cyclist pathways is safe, direct and sufficient to meet the anticipated demands of pedestrians and cyclists accessing the Sleeman Sports Centre, including to existing or proposed public passenger transport. This should include:

· a cycle network reflecting cycle network planning and projected travel demand. This should provide linkages between trip attractors, including to end of trip facilities within the development and ensure the safety and convenience of users, including separation from pedestrian and vehicular traffic, where possible;

· a pedestrian pathway network within the site that provides convenient and safe access between entries to the development, various building and sporting facilities, end-of-trip facilities, public passenger transport provisions and vehicle drop-off and pick-up areas. The pedestrian pathway network should be in accordance with crime prevention through environmental design principles and provide access for people with a disability;

· connectivity of any proposed on-site cycle and pedestrian network with active transport infrastructure adjoining the site and in the surrounding locality;

· a pedestrian and cycle network that ensures any proposed public passenger transport can be accessed safely and conveniently; and

· the adequate provision and location of end of trip facilities.

State-controlled Road Network

a) Items to be addressed and clarified regarding the Transport – Community Infrastructure Designation Report

i. The TIA addresses the traffic generated by a new leisure/sport facility and not the proposed new velodrome, which is assumed to generate commensurate trips to the existing velodrome. Clarification is required regarding this assessment, specifically the impacts of the new velodrome, including:

· The reduction in provisions for permanent on-site car-parking, and for over-flow parking generated by special events;

· The timing, type, regularity, and coincidence of events.

ii. The TIA should also provide:

· validation of the suitability of the traffic data used for analysis, according to the daily/monthly variation of traffic flows experienced on Old Cleveland Road, and the scheduling of regular and special events on the site;

· validation of the adopted 25 percent additional generated traffic flows (associated with the proposed new sports/leisure centre only); and

· validation of the adopted design horizon (year) – which is inconsistent with the standard day-of-opening and/or 10-year scenarios.

b) Items to be addressed and clarified regarding the general proposal

i. The following development requirements for Old Cleveland Road / Tilley Road are recommended:

· The existing right turn lane on Old Cleveland Road (west) approach is to be extended to cater for the increased volume of right turning traffic. This analysis shows that this should be extended to a length of approximately 220m which would be adequate for all but the PM commuter peak where queuing on the through road extended over 800m; and

· Further consideration is required in relation to the free left turn from Tilley Road south. The development would impact on this movement which currently experiences significant delays and queues. A suitable treatment should be considered to ensure that this movement can operate safely. Possible considerations could include signalisation or provision of a formalised acceleration lane.

ii. The following measures should be investigated as requirements for mitigating development impacts on the Old Cleveland Road Northern Access:

· Closure of this Access, including closure of the existing median break. Consideration of this closure will require an investigation of the requirements to provide for the displaced demand for right-turn movements to the Old Cleveland Road/Tilley Road intersection; and

· If the median opening is considered essential for providing a balancing access/egress movements, or essential for use during special events, the following works should be considered in conjunction with any Traffic Management solution during events:

· Extend the existing right turn pocket to meet relevant Road Planning and Design Manual (RPDM) Standards;

· Provision of a AUL left turn lane in accordance with the RPDM Standards; and

· Consideration of a left turn acceleration lane for movements from the site heading westbound on Old Cleveland Road.

c) Stormwater

i. Stormwater management of the development must ensure no worsening or actionable nuisance to the State-controlled road network caused by peak discharges, flood levels, frequency/duration of flooding, flow velocities, water quality, and sedimentation and scour effects.

d) Advertising Devices

i. All advertising devices visible from the State-controlled are to be non-rotating, static illuminated (maximum luminance level 300cd/m2), or non-illuminated;

ii. All advertising devices are to be located entirely on private property; and

iii. Any advertising signs or devices associated with the proposed development are to be in accordance with the Transport and Main Roads’ Roadside Advertising Guide.

ATTACHMENT 1: SLEEMAN SPORTS COMPLEX - PROPOSED MINISTERIAL DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Public Passenger Transport and Active Transport a) An assessment of the overall impact of the proposed development on all forms of public passenger transport

(urban bus services, private/chartered coaches/buses/mini-buses, taxis, railway passenger services). This assessment should address the following, amongst other relevant considerations:

i. all existing public passenger transport services (the current report only addresses urban bus services); ii. an assessment of the impact (including demand) of the proposed development in ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes

on all forms of existing and planned public passenger transport. This should include the impact of the anticipated site population (athletes, visitors, employees, spectators, patrons etc.) and the likely timing, frequency and nature of events. The intended site population and capacity during ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes should be addressed;

iii. the likely modal split between private vehicle travel, public passenger transport and active transport supported by appropriate justifications;

iv. the capacity of the existing public transport network to support the anticipated development impacts, including demand, in ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes. This should give consideration to, for example, consultation with relevant operators and TMR and factors such as bus size, public passenger transport timetables, demographics and other relevant considerations;

v. the development may need to make suitable provision for private buses/coaches, mini-buses and taxi facilities where existing scheduled public passenger services cannot accommodate the impact of the development;

vi. the identification of necessary public passenger transport infrastructure required to support the development in both ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes. This should consider how public passenger transport outcomes will be achieved. In particular, the following should be addressed:

• any nominated bus zones (temporary and permanent) must be sufficient to cater for the demand generated by the development in ‘legacy’ and ‘games’ modes. The number of bus parking bays (temporary and permanent) required, the length of buses and whether nose to tail or independent operation is required should be addressed;

• demonstrate how an appropriate design vehicle can safely and conveniently access the site, manoeuvre into and out of any proposed bus zones and through the site via a swept path analysis;

• bus zones should be appropriately signed and marked, incorporate weather protection and allow for access by persons with a disability; and

• any required dedicated taxi facility should be provided parallel to the kerb within close proximity to the main entrance and should include at least one taxi parking bay with a length and width suitable for use by people with disabilities.

b) An Access and Mobility Plan demonstrating that the provision, location and design of pedestrian and cyclist pathways is safe, direct and sufficient to meet the anticipated demands of pedestrians and cyclists accessing the Sleeman Sports Centre, including to existing or proposed public passenger transport. This should include:

• a cycle network reflecting cycle network planning and projected travel demand. This should provide linkages between trip attractors, including to end of trip facilities within the development and ensure the safety and convenience of users, including separation from pedestrian and vehicular traffic, where possible;

• a pedestrian pathway network within the site that provides convenient and safe access between entries to the development, various building and sporting facilities, end-of-trip facilities, public passenger transport provisions and vehicle drop-off and pick-up areas. The pedestrian pathway network should be in accordance with crime prevention through environmental design principles and provide access for people with a disability;

• connectivity of any proposed on-site cycle and pedestrian network with active transport infrastructure adjoining the site and in the surrounding locality;

• a pedestrian and cycle network that ensures any proposed public passenger transport can be accessed safely and conveniently; and

• the adequate provision and location of end of trip facilities. State-controlled Road Network

a) Items to be addressed and clarified regarding the Transport – Community Infrastructure Designation Report i. The TIA addresses the traffic generated by a new leisure/sport facility and not the proposed new velodrome,

which is assumed to generate commensurate trips to the existing velodrome. Clarification is required regarding this assessment, specifically the impacts of the new velodrome, including:

• The reduction in provisions for permanent on-site car-parking, and for over-flow parking generated by special events;

• The timing, type, regularity, and coincidence of events. ii. The TIA should also provide:

• validation of the suitability of the traffic data used for analysis, according to the daily/monthly variation of traffic flows experienced on Old Cleveland Road, and the scheduling of regular and special events on the site;

• validation of the adopted 25 percent additional generated traffic flows (associated with the proposed new sports/leisure centre only); and

• validation of the adopted design horizon (year) – which is inconsistent with the standard day-of-opening and/or 10-year scenarios.

b) Items to be addressed and clarified regarding the general proposal i. The following development requirements for Old Cleveland Road / Tilley Road are recommended:

• The existing right turn lane on Old Cleveland Road (west) approach is to be extended to cater for the increased volume of right turning traffic. This analysis shows that this should be extended to a length of approximately 220m which would be adequate for all but the PM commuter peak where queuing on the through road extended over 800m; and

• Further consideration is required in relation to the free left turn from Tilley Road south. The development would impact on this movement which currently experiences significant delays and queues. A suitable treatment should be considered to ensure that this movement can operate safely. Possible considerations could include signalisation or provision of a formalised acceleration lane.

ii. The following measures should be investigated as requirements for mitigating development impacts on the Old Cleveland Road Northern Access:

• Closure of this Access, including closure of the existing median break. Consideration of this closure will require an investigation of the requirements to provide for the displaced demand for right-turn movements to the Old Cleveland Road/Tilley Road intersection; and

• If the median opening is considered essential for providing a balancing access/egress movements, or essential for use during special events, the following works should be considered in conjunction with any Traffic Management solution during events:

Extend the existing right turn pocket to meet relevant Road Planning and Design Manual (RPDM) Standards;

Provision of a AUL left turn lane in accordance with the RPDM Standards; and Consideration of a left turn acceleration lane for movements from the site heading westbound

on Old Cleveland Road.

c) Stormwater i. Stormwater management of the development must ensure no worsening or actionable nuisance to the State-

controlled road network caused by peak discharges, flood levels, frequency/duration of flooding, flow velocities, water quality, and sedimentation and scour effects.

d) Advertising Devices i. All advertising devices visible from the State-controlled are to be non-rotating, static illuminated (maximum

luminance level 300cd/m2), or non-illuminated; ii. All advertising devices are to be located entirely on private property; and iii. Any advertising signs or devices associated with the proposed development are to be in accordance with the

Transport and Main Roads’ Roadside Advertising Guide.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines South Region Centenary Square Building 52-64 Currie Street PO Box 573 NAMBOUR QLD 4560 Telephone + 61 7 5451 2256 Facsimile + 61 7 5451 2260 Website www.dnrm.qld.gov.au ABN 59 020 847 551

DNRM Reference: NM0514NAM0001

10 June 2014 Building and Asset Services Department of Housing and Public Works GPO Box 2937 BRISBANE QLD 4001 Attention: Janette Rowe

Dear Ms Rowe

PROPOSED MINISTERIAL DESIGNATION – SLEEMAN SPORTS COMPLEX OVER LOT 1 ON SP150590 (1699 OLD CLEVELAND ROAD / 679 TILLEY ROAD, CHANDLER) – BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL – RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT I refer to your letter dated 7 May 2014, inviting the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) to comment on the proposed Ministerial designation for “community infrastructure” of a site for the Sleeman Sports Complex.

DNRM has reviewed the Initial Assessment Report dated May 2014 and considers that the proposed ministerial designation will not adversely affect the state interests of the agency.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IAR for the proposed Ministerial designation of land for community infrastructure for the Sleeman Sports Complex. Please contact Mason West on 07 5451 2256 if you require further assistance. Please quote the reference number NM0514NAM0001.

Yours sincerely

Dale Bell A/ Manager – Planning Services South Region

Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Ministerial Designation for Community Infrastructure QLD Velodrome Project – Sleeman Sports Complex Chandler – State Interest Check Comments from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection June 2014

Interest of concern Comment /Recommendation

Scope of the Designation

The designation seems to relate to the whole chandler sports precinct including the old velodrome but the IAR only provides detail about proposed development at the new velodrome site. Therefore EHP has not provided comment on the whole area, although some of the comments relating to koala habitat and offsets may also apply to that area.

Include further information about the proposed development on the balance of the site (outside of the new velodrome site) and consult with EHP on these proposals.

Matters of State Environmental Significance – SPP 12/13

Matters of National and State Environmental Significance were detected in the ecological survey undertaken for the project – namely habitat for the koala. There is possibly arboreal fauna habitat, and frog habitat associated with the wetland and waterway present on the site. As no nocturnal surveys were conducted there is limited information to determine the presence or not of other species. Also, measures to avoid and mitigate impacts have not been fully stated. The site provides refugia for animals moving through the core habitat areas surrounding the site. The site was probably once core area for koalas. Lighting spill could occur into habitat thereby extending impacts into core habitats. There is no mitigation measures suggested for lighting spill. A landscape plan is not provided that would indicate which trees will be retained, which will be removed and how planted koala food trees can be put into landscaping. Also, allowance for signage and other awareness messages could be made to promote the safe movement of koalas through the site and across roads. The SPP 12/13 policy State Interest Biodiversity states: For national environmental significance: (1) considering matters of national environmental significance in the local government area, and the

requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 19996, and For state environmental significance: (2) identifying matters of state environmental significance, and

Ensure adequate survey effort to determine all National and State Matters are identified and addressed in the design and mitigation measures proposed.

Ensure that the “avoid, mitigate, offset” policies are met.

Provision of a landscape plan using koala food trees, provision of offset areas (5:1 ratio), provision of safe movement opportunities across roads, provision of signage to promote awareness of the koalas to drivers and visitors of the centre.

Is it preferred that at a minimum, offsetting the clearing of non-juvenile koala habitat trees is to be undertaken in accordance with the Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in south East Queensland Policy at a ratio of five new koala habitat trees for every on non-juvenile koala habitat tree removed or equivalent cash contribution. https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/koalas/legislation/pdf/koala-guideline-offset-net-gain.pdf

As stated in the Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in

Ministerial Designation for Community Infrastructure; QLD Velodrome Project – Sleeman Sports Complex Chandler – State Interest Check IAR Comments from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 11 June 2014 Page 1 of 5

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/koalas/legislation/pdf/koala-guideline-offset-net-gain.pdfhttps://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/koalas/legislation/pdf/koala-guideline-offset-net-gain.pdf

Interest of concern Comment /Recommendation (3) locating development in areas that avoids significant adverse impacts on matters of state environmental significance, and (4) maintaining or enhancing ecological connectivity, and (5) facilitating the protection of matters of state environmental significance by requiring development to, in order of priority:

(a) avoid significant adverse environmental impacts, and (b) mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts, where these cannot be avoided, and (c) where applicable, offset any residual adverse impacts, and

(6) facilitating a net gain in koala bushland habitat in the SEQ region, and For local environmental significance: (7) considering matters of local environmental significance, where considered appropriate by a local government. Offsets Non-juvenile habitat trees (NJHT) will removal in the proposal for a new velodrome. The IAR does not clearly indicate on a plan the location of the NJHT and how many of them will be removed. To meet the requirement of the SPP 12/13 to “facilitate a net gain in bushland habitat in the SEQ region” The Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in south East Queensland Policy is the sensible policy to apply in an attempt to offset koala trees. https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/koalas/legislation/pdf/koala-guideline-offset-net-gain.pdf

south East Queensland Policy (page 1), the Minister responsible for deciding the community infrastructure designation is responsible for ensuring this occurs.

Koala Conservation in SEQ – Nature Conservation Act 1992

The site supports general habitat and non-juvenile habitat trees suitable for koalas. EHP’s Wildnet database indicates koala records within 1.5 km of the site. As the IAR acknowledges, there are areas of regrowth and remnant vegetation and essential habitat suitable for koalas in close proximity to the site and in the surrounding area. EHP’s and Council’s data indicates that koalas do utilise this site and that the adjacent sites are important habitat for koalas. There may be particular trees that koalas visit on the site. The IAR has proposed that if native species are to be impacted then relevant mitigation permits etc. will be sought from EHP. EHP would normally expect to see a Koala Assessment and Conservation Management Plan

The site is in Brisbane and is therefore in a Koala District A. Therefore the proponent should address any requirements of the NCA and the Nature conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2005 (current as at 27 September 2013). The Department of State Development and Planning should provide:

• a plan in the indicating how the location of the proposed building design and location will avoid the need to remove NJHT and incorporate them in


https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/koalas/legislation/pdf/koala-guideline-offset-net-gain.pdf


prepared in support of the project and that suitable measures will be put in place to ensure the sequential clearing, safe dispersal plans, and plans to ensure the safety of koalas and other wildlife generally if they are found in trees proposed to be cleared. There is no mentionof such plans in the IAR.

landscape plans.

• a Koala Assessment and Conservation Management Plan particularly addressing part 3 – Clearing in particular areas, Section 15 and 16 of the Nature conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2005 (current as at 27 September 2013).

A permit may be required under the nature conservation act. Contact PALM on 1300130372 or [email protected] for further information.

Nature Conservation Act 1992 - Protected Plants

The IAR has proposed that if native species are to be impacted then relevant mitigation permits etc. will be sought from EHP.

The proponent should be aware of the requirements under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.

Prior to any clearing of protected plants, a person must check the flora survey trigger map (published on the EHP website) to determine if the clearing is within a high risk area.

If in a high risk area, a flora survey must be undertaken and a clearing permit may be required for clearing endangered, vulnerable and near threatened plants (‘EVNT plants’) and their supporting habitat.

If a flora survey identifies that EVNT plants are not present, or can be avoided by 100m, the clearing activity may be exempt from a permit. An exempt clearing notification form is required.

In an area other than a high risk area, a clearing permit is only required where a person is, or becomes, aware that EVNT plants are present and that they can’t be avoided.

Clearing of least concern plants is exempt from


mailto:[email protected]


requiring a clearing permit within a low risk area.

Nature Conservation Act 1992 – Animal Breeding Places

A person must not, without a reasonable excuse, tamper with an animal breeding place. The proponent should be aware of the requirements under the NCA.

A person may remove or otherwise tamper with an animal breeding place if the removal or tampering is:

• part of an approved species management program for animals of the same species; or

• authorised under a damage mitigation permit for the animal; or

• if the breeding place is a flying-fox roost: o authorised under a flying-fox roost

management permit; or

o undertaken by a local government dealing with a flying-fox roost located in an urban flying-fox management area in the local government area; or

o a ‘low impact activity’ undertaken by a person acting in compliance with the Code of Practice – Low impact activities affecting flying-fox roosts.

Environmental Protection Act 1994

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 requires a duty of care to prevent and minimise environmental harm.

The Construction Management Plan, Stormwater Management Plan and other plans required for the development should ensure that they assist in attaining the duty of care required under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

Ensure contractors and construction teams are aware of the requirements of the SWMP/CEMP and other plans and comply with them.



Noise is possible an issue of risk for the development if there are sensitive land uses in the vicinity and depending on the design of the velodrome. The Minister should be satisfied that noise nuisance risk is minimised.

Other approvals may be required under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Consider all the approvals required in the development that might require specific permits etc. For example Sewage Treatment.

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/

SPP - 4/10 Healthy Water

The State Planning Policy 12/13 – State Interest Water quality. The emphasis of the SPP is on providing relevant Management Plans (i.e. Stormwater Quality Management Plans, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Waste Water Management Plans) prepared by suitably qualified person. Ideally the relevant plans are provided at the IAR stage, to demonstrate that appropriately sized devices (such as stormwater detention basins and bioretention basins) can be accommodated on the site, rather than relying on the provision of detailed designs at the operational works or construction documentation phase. SPP Appendix 2 provides design objectives relevant to the climatic region. Design Objectives relating to stormwater quality and stormwater flow management, for both the construction and post construction phase of development. These can be adopted or current best practice can be demonstrated. Future development after Ministerial designation Please note that EHP will not undertake the assessment of the detailed management plans. The designating agency must establish a mechanism to demonstrate that management plans required have been prepared by suitably qualified persons and have been approved by the relevant Local Government authority or by a suitably qualified person with the Agency or a Third party Auditor. Mechanisms for achieving the requirement once designation has occurred must also include incorporating the requirements and management plans into tendering and contract documentation.

Adopt the design objectives found in SPP 12/13 Appendix 2.

A Site Based Stormwater Management Plan and a Construction and post construction EMP will need to be prepared which includes management of dust, waste and erosion and sediment.

Ensure contractors and construction teams are aware of the requirements of the Plans and comply with them.

Consultation with Council should be undertaken to ensure measures are suitable.


OFFICE OF THELORD MAYORBrisbane

OfficeCity HallKing George SquareBrisbaneOld 4000AustraliaTel 07 34034400Fax 07 [email protected] Box 2287BrisbaneOld 4001Australia

5 June 2014

The Honourable Tim Mander MPMinister for Housing and Public WorksGPO Box 2457BRISBANE QLD 4001 BY;

RECEIVED6 JUN 2014

I refer to a letter of 7 May 2014 from Ms Janette Rowe, Senior Town Planner, seeking Council'scomment on the Initial Assessment Report dated 7 May 2014 for the proposed Ministerialdesignation of land for community infrastructure over the Sleeman Sports Complex at 1699Old Cleveland Road and 679 Tilley Road, Chandler.

While Council does not generally support Ministerial designation of sites where the form ofdevelopment is consistent with the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (City Plan), Council is fullysupportive of the Queensland Government's plans to develop track cycling infrastructure at theSleeman Sports Complex to host cycling events for the 2018 Commonwealth Games. Theproposed Queensland State Velodrome will be a world class indoor facility capable of hostingpremier international events and, as such, will be a welcome drawcard for the city.

The advice I have is that the complex is currently identified as Special Purpose centre SP4 MajorSporting Stadium in the City Plan.

I would like to take this opportunity to note a number of matters about the proposed designationthat Council is seeking further clarification on.

Nature and Clarity of Proposed Uses

Further clarification on the uses identified in the designation description is necessary (Section 4,page 11). Commercial uses that are not necessarily ancillary to or compatible with the MajorSporting Stadium use envisaged by the planning scheme are proposed. While such uses may beappropriate, Council would appreciate clarification on the following so as to ensure that theimpacts of any future development is considered and appropriately addressed in the Master Plan:

• Office• Retail• Restaurant, cafe and takeaway food premises• Short term accommodation• Conference facilities• Function rooms• Child care facility

.. .12

Delivering for our suburbs

-2-

Council has also noted the description in stating that the use and supporting "commercialactivities and alliances" may include "but are not limited to" the above stated range of uses. Iunderstand that Council officers raised this several months ago prior to the completion of theInitial Assessment Report.

While I understand that Stadiums Queensland are still assessing future development opportunitiesfor the site, it would be appreciated if all uses outlined in the use description are identified so as tomeet the legislative requirement for environmental assessment.

External Road Network, Access and Parking

Council officers' assessment of the information supplied in the Initial Assessment Report is thatthe velodrome is of a similar capacity to the existing facility. Should similar events continue, thetransport impacts would be similar to those that currently exist. However, Council wouldappreciate any further information about any future development plans, including for the balanceof the site.

For example, a large additional spectator indoor stadium with capacity for over 10,000 peoplecould generate significant parking demands and transport impacts. Without clarification of whatwill happen on this site, Council's assessment of a Master Plan from a transport and traffic pointof view would be impacted. A significant increase in generated traffic could also affect otherexisting nearby congested intersections.

As the Initial Assessment Report indicates, the adjacent Old Cleveland Road/Tilley Roadintersection is at capacity in both weekday peaks. The access on Old Cleveland Road at thewestern comer of the site is also congested by vehicles leaving the site at the conclusion of events.This congestion could be alleviated if some of the left turning movement could be relocated to theTilley Road intersection where there currently is spare capacity for this movement.

It is understood that the only upgrade that the Department of Transport and Main Roads arecurrently considering for the Old Cleveland Road/Tilley Road intersection is the addition ofbicycle lanes on the Old Cleveland Road legs. However, this improvement will not increase trafficcapacity.

Council is also of the opinion that bus stop and pedestrian provision on Old Cleveland Roadrequires significant improvement.

Bushfire Hazard

The velodrome development will potentially result in changes to Council's bushfire risk andmaintenance regime and responsibilities. Even though the proposed development is within theexisting built footprint, the provision of the velodrome adjacent to the southern boundaryheightens the bushfire risk with the adjoining Council-owned conservation land.

I understand that Ms Rowe has met with Council officers to discuss the Bushfire ManagementPlan and the suggested 'protection zone', cleared fire line and recommendation for increasedhazard reduction burning on Council land (appendix 9, pages 31 and 39). My understanding isthat, at the meeting, Council officers indicated the following for consideration:

• that the greatest bushfire risk to the proposed velodrome does not originate from theadjoining bushland, given the nature of fire risk in the area and prevailing winds, and thatgreater risk is from ember attack generated to the northeast and east of the site

.. .13


- 3 -

• that any proposal would not adversely impact on the conservation values of Council'sadjacent landholding and

• that Council ratepayers would not bear the cost of more frequent hazard reduction bumsand construction of a fire line within public conservation land.

Council requests that the Master Plan is amended to ensure that all risk to future occupants ismitigated within the bounds of the Sleeman Sports Complex and through the design of anydevelopment, without adversely impacting the environmental values of Council bushland.

Biodiversity

Council understands that accommodating the velodrome development footprint will require theremoval of some native vegetation. The proposed velodrome footprint is within a KoalaConservation Area, being partly within a habitat area and ecological corridor and is covered byCouncil's Natural Assets Local Law 2003 (significant native vegetation category). Council

------J'(;Gemmene-s-thatthe-impacts-en -ex-ist-ing-bi-odivers-ity-fitncti-on--(-specificallykoala-habitat) areoffset to ensure a net ecological gain is achieved.

Cessation of Chandler Markets

Following discussions with officers earlier this year, I understand that Council officers haveworked with the market operator to assist him with relocating the Chandler Markets from the site.While I appreciate that the markets constrain future sports-related use of the site, Council officershave invested significant time assisting the operator to identify suitable alternative sites. As such,I would appreciate any ongoing assistance that your officers may also be able to offer to themarket operator.

If your Department has any further enquiries about this submission or are able to provide anyfurther clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Ms Georgina Aitchison, Senior UrbanPlanner, City Planning and Economic Development, on 34034707.

I wish you and the project team every success in the planning for the 2018 CommonwealthGames.

Yours sincerely

Graham QuirkLORD MAYOR

Ref: LM02806-2014

cc: Councillor Adrian Schrinner


sleeman sports complex initial assessment report attachment: …€¦ · sleeman sports centre,...

Documents