Late Items
General Meeting
Wednesday 23 April 2014
Roma Administration Centre
NOTICE OF MEETING
Date: 22 April 2014
Mayor: Councillor R S Loughnan
Deputy Mayor: Councillor W S Wason
Councillors: Councillor J L Chambers
Councillor R J Denton
Councillor P J Flynn
Councillor W M Newman
Councillor C J O’Neil
Councillor M L Price
Councillor D J Schefe
Chief Executive Officer: Ms Julie Reitano
Senior Management: Mr Cameron Castles (Director - Infrastructure Services)
Mr Rob Hayward (Director - Development, Facilities & Environmental Services)
Ms Sharon Frank (Director - Corporate, Community & Commercial Services)
Officers: Ms Jane Frith (Coordinator - Corporate Communications)
Please find attached agenda for the General Meeting to be held at the Roma Administration Centre on April 23, 2014 at 9.00am.
Julie Reitano
Chief Executive Officer
Maranoa Regional Council
General Meeting - 23 April 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Subject
No
L Late Items
L.1 Response to QAUHD - Request for Support for their Recommendations on the Regulation of Minimum Access Features in New Housing...................... 2
Prepared by: Wendy Newman, Councillor
Attachment : Correspondence received from Queensland Action for Universal Housing Design....................................................................... 5
L.2 Request for Dust Solution, Continuation - George St East................... 12
Prepared by: Kylie Fleischfresser, Specialist - Infrastructure Planning
Attachment 1: Customer Complaint - Brenda Hill - George St East........ 15
Attachment 2: Initial acknowledgement letter - Brenda Hill and Harold Rose - Re: Closure of East George Street, Roma and Dust Solution (Response to GM/01.2014/04 & GM/01.2014/05) - 20 February 2014 21
Attachment 3: GM/01.2014/04 GM/01.2014/05 - Letter To Brenda Hill - Request for Dust Solution - George Street East (Council Meeting 22 January 2014)......................................................................... 22
Attachment 4: General Meeting - 22 January 2014 - Dust Solution - George Street East........................................................................................... 24
Attachment 5: Acknowledgement Letter to Brenda Hill Re: Request for Closure of East George Street, Roma.................................................... 32
Attachment 6: Request for Dust Solution or Road Closure - George Street East 33
Councillor Report
Meeting: General 23 April 2014 |
Date: 22 April 2014 |
Item Number: L.1 |
File Number: D14/27310 |
SUBJECT HEADING: Response to QAUHD - Request for Support for their Recommendations on the Regulation of Minimum Access Features in New Housing
Classification: Open Access
Author & Councillor’s Title: Cr Wendy Newman
That Council does not support this proposal.
|
Background:
QAUHD wrote to Council last month asking for our support for their proposal for regulation for minimum access requirements in the Building Code of Australia for all new and extensively modified housing. They have requested a response by 30 April for inclusion in a submission they are preparing for lodgement with both state and Commonwealth governments.
QAUHD approached LGAs in 2012 regarding this issue, asking them to support what they describe as Lord Mayor Quirk’s commitments, which they list as:
1. He supports our position that regulation for access requirements in housing will be necessary to provide a reliable supply of accessible housing. This task is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government through the Building Code of Australia and the Queensland Government through the Building Act 1975;
2. The Brisbane City Council is able to encourage developers to voluntarily provide access features in housing; and
3. The Brisbane City Council sees they have a key role to advocate to the Queensland and Commonwealth Government to support QAUHD’s goal of truly accessible and inclusive communities in Queensland.
They approached all Councils in 2012 requesting support for this issue. MRC did not respond, nor is there any evidence of the request being processed by staff or brought to council for a determination. They provide a table of responses in 2012 as an attachment to their report, in which they used population statistics rather than numbers of LGA’s to indicate 77% support:
Population of respondent LGAs as a proportion of Queensland’s total population Organisation |
Population |
Supportive |
Brisbane City Council |
1,067,279 |
1,067,279 |
Sunshine Coast Council |
330,934 |
330,934 |
Cairns Regional Council |
168,251 |
168,251 |
Blackall-Tambo Regional Council |
2,086 |
2,086 |
Somerset Regional Council |
22,519 |
22,519 |
Redland City Council |
142,822 |
142,822 |
Rockhampton Regional Council |
115,526 |
115,526 |
Bundaberg Regional Council |
96,936 |
96,936 |
Logan City Council |
282,673 |
282,673 |
Toowoomba Regional Council |
162,057 |
162,057 |
Moreton Bay Regional Council |
382,280 |
382,280 |
Gold Coast City Council |
527,828 |
527,828 |
Gympie Regional Council |
49,334 |
|
Tablelands Regional Council |
46,937 |
|
Mackay Regional Council |
118,842 |
|
South Burnett Regional Council |
33,040 |
|
Etheridge Shire Council |
925 |
|
North Burnett Regional Council |
10,805 |
|
Townsville City Council |
185,768 |
|
Ipswich City Council |
168,131 |
168,131 |
TOTAL |
3,772,151 |
3,469,322 |
Queensland's ERP Population |
4,513,850 |
|
Proportion of respondents councils ERP compared with Queensland’s population |
84% |
77% |
In 2012 there were 74 LGA’s. 13 were supportive – 18%.
The specific strategies QAUHD are requesting are:
· A step-free entrance and pathway from the street or car parking
· A bathroom, living and bed space on the entrance level
· A bathroom with step-free shower and toilet with turning space for mobility aids
· Reinforced shower and toilet walls for optional grab rail installation
· Doors and corridors wide enough to allow ease of movement between rooms
· Installation of switches, power points and window controls at an accessible height
· Slip resistant floors in kitchens, bathrooms and laundries.
The responses given by Brisbane City Council/Lord Mayor Quirk are fairly generalised comments of support to the concept of enhanced housing accessibility for people with physical challenges, related to both disability and aging.
Our Planning staff have reviewed the proposal and noted that:
There are a number of implications with the implementation of such controls through local planning instruments and in general, including but not limited to:
· Single detached housing is generally not subject to planning approval.
· Opportunities to increase housing densities would be considerably reduced:
o Sloped allotments would potentially become unsuitable for development
o The development of highset housing would be substantially limited resulting in a loss of the advantages associated with this, such as flooding immunity, improved ventilation, views etc.
o Increased floor areas necessary to achieve an accessible design will limit the intensification of residential development.
· Potential conflicts with heritage building provisions and reduced opportunities to extend existing housing.
· Regulated building design will limit housing diversity and deny people the opportunity for individuality of design.
· Significant increases in housing construction costs.
· Less affordable housing as a result of increased construction costs.
· Inefficient use of land through the provision of additional floor areas where they are not necessarily required.
Conclusion:
While the concept of enhancing building access arrangements to improve opportunities for people to live as independently as possible for as long as possible is admirable, using legislation to enforce it is a potentially dangerous strategy.
QAUHD seems to be taking any indication of support for their core position as support for significant changes to the Building Code of Australia, and I would therefore recommend that we either respond in a clear negative to this request, or give no response at all.
Consultation:
Director - Development, Facilities & Environmental Services, Robert Hayward
Manager - Planning & Building Development, Danielle Pearn
Coordinator – Planning, David Fermer
Policy Implications:
Financial Resource Implications:
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Correspondence received from Queensland Action for Universal Housing Design |
D14/27327 |
Officer Report
Meeting: General 23 April 2014 |
Date: 17 April 2014 |
Item Number: L.2 |
File Number: D14/27197 |
Subject Heading: Request for Dust Solution, Continuation - George St East
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location:
Author & Officer’s Title: Kylie Fleischfresser, Specialist - Infrastructure Planning
Executive Summary: Council has received numerous correspondences from Brenda Hill with a complaint of dust from traffic along George Street East. Ms Hill’s concerns have previously been addressed by Council at the meeting 22 January 2014, in which Council determined that it was appropriate to liaise with Ms Hill in order to construct a dust seal in accordance with the Dust Seal Policy adopted by Council 26 June 2013 (GM/06.2013/38).
Since this meeting Council has received more correspondences and other forms of contact from Ms Hill expressing her discontent. Ms Hill has advised that she is not prepared to contribute to a dust seal.
|
That Council uphold its previous decision to apply the Dust Seal process, as per the Dust Seal Policy.
|
Body of Report:
Council has received numerous correspondences from Brenda Hill with a complaint of dust from traffic along George Street East. Ms Hill’s concerns have previously been addressed by Council at the meeting 22 January 2014, in which Council resolved that it was appropriate to liaise with Ms Hill in order to construct a dust seal, in accordance with the Dust Seal Policy adopted by Council 26 June 2013 (GM/06.2013/38). This policy was developed with the view of treating each dust seal request/dust complaint in a transparent and equitable manner.
Ms Hill has received a Dust Seal agreement form, a copy of the policy and a letter indicating the outcome of her request at the Council meeting 22 January 2014. Ms Hill has indicated both verbally and in writing that she is not prepared to contribute funds to a dust seal.
Ms Hill disputes the chainages on the agreement, she is indeed correct and we welcome this feedback. The chainage should have been written down as approximately 0.57 km – 0.77 km as the report was for a 200 metre dust seal. This may not satisfy Ms Hill in terms of positioning and length however applicants have always been able to have input into the positioning of the dust seal and the length.
It should be noted that Ms Hill purchased a block surrounded by road reserve and several roads were already in existence.
In response to Ms Hill’s persistent complaints council has conducted a traffic count along George Street East. Traffic counters were placed at (1) east of the intersection of George Street East and Ashburn Road, and (2) west of the intersection of George Street East and Clayton Road from 25 February 2014 to 3 April 2014. The average vehicles per day (vpd) for this period were (1) 135 and (2) 99.
Further investigation is required to determine why there is a difference in vpd between the two points and to ascertain if traffic is using Short Street. It should be noted that, because of the levee construction project, Miscamble Street East is currently closed to traffic and this may be impacting on traffic flow on George Street East (as an alternate route to Roma waste facility).
In the current Register of Roads George Street East is classified as Rural Residential. Council adopted design standards for our road network in December 2013 (GM/12.2013/08). The standard for rural residential is based on traffic on the road.
George Street East, according to the traffic count sample, has an average daily traffic flow of 99-135 vpd. Based on this, possibly skewed, data George Street East, if constructed now, would be sealed to a 7 metre width. However the retrospective application of this standard should be prioritized according to the adopted road hierarchy and the relative importance of a section of road within the hierarchy.
Consultation (internal/external):
Julian McEwan – Manager – Roads and Drainage North, Infrastructure Services
Noel Kerr – Technical Officer, Infrastructure Services
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Nil
Policy Implications:
Council Policy; Dust Seal Policy
Council Policy; Road Network Design Standards
Council Policy; Request for Capital Upgrade of Roads
Financial Resource Implications:
Nil
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 —
8.5.1(a) To provide professional and technical engineering advice and support
for Council in an effective and timely
manner.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Customer Complaint - Brenda Hill - George St East |
D14/27259 |
2View |
Initial acknowledgement letter - Brenda Hill and Harold Rose - Re: Closure of East George Street, Roma and Dust Solution (Response to GM/01.2014/04 & GM/01.2014/05) - 20 February 2014 |
D14/11809 |
3View |
GM/01.2014/04 GM/01.2014/05 - Letter To Brenda Hill - Request for Dust Solution - George Street East (Council Meeting 22 January 2014) |
D14/5222 |
4View |
General Meeting - 22 January 2014 - Dust Solution - George Street East |
D13/60008 |
5View |
Acknowledgement Letter to Brenda Hill Re: Request for Closure of East George Street, Roma |
D13/59113 |
6View |
Request for Dust Solution or Road Closure - George Street East |
D13/60339 |
Report authorised by:
Kym Downey, Manager - Infrastructure Planning & Design
Initial acknowledgement letter - Brenda Hill and Harold Rose - Re: Closure of East George Street, Roma and Dust Solution (Response to GM/01.2014/04 & GM/01.2014/05) - 20 February 2014 |
Customer Reference ID: 750
Our Ref: D14/5222; D14/11767; D14/11809
20 February 2014
Mrs Brenda Hill & Mr Harold Rose
1A Bungil Street
Roma QLD 4455
Dear Ms Hill and Mr Rose
Re: Dust Solution – George Street East
Thank you for your letter that was received on 19 February 2014, in response to Council resolutions GM/01.2014/04 and GM/01.2014/05 regarding your request for a dust solution for George Street East.
The matters you have raised will be fully investigated for consideration, and as part of this process, traffic count data will need to be collected.
We expect our investigation to be completed by the end of March 2014, at which time we will provide you with a formal response.
If you have any queries in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact Erin Tompkins in my office, or myself, on 07 4624 0677.
Yours sincerely
Michael Parker
Acting Chief Executive Officer
GM/01.2014/04 GM/01.2014/05 - Letter To Brenda Hill - Request for Dust Solution - George Street East (Council Meeting 22 January 2014) |
Enquiries: Kylie Fleischfresser
Phone: 4624 0762 (Direct)
1300 007 662 (via Customer Service)
Our Ref: D13/60339; D14/5222
11 February 2014
Ms Brenda Hill
E-mail: rose22@internode.on.net
Dear Ms Hill,
Re: Request for Dust Solution – George Street East
I am writing to update you on your request for a dust solution behind your property on George Street East.
An inspection of the section was completed on 3 December 2013 and your request was presented to Council at its meeting held on 22 January 2014. The outcome from the meeting was that Council resolved as follows:
Resolution No. GM/01.2014/04
That at George Street East, and the section of Short Street between the Archery Range and George Street East, be re-opened and available for use by traffic.
This resolution has been passed onto the Manager – Roads and Drainage (North East & Central) for action. He advises that road closure signs and fencing have now been removed.
Council further resolved as follows:
Resolution No. GM/01.2014/05
That Council progress the request for a dust solution, in accordance with the adopted Dust Seal Policy.
Council adopted a Dust Seal Policy on 26 June 2013. This Policy allows for Council to offer a subsidy of up to 50% of the total cost of works with the percentage of subsidy and total allocated funds to be determined on an annual basis. It also provides property owners with the guidelines for the dust sealing of unsealed rural roads. A copy of this policy is enclosed.
Council held the 2013/14 budget meeting on 31 July 2013, and has allocated funds for the 50% subsidisation of dust seals. These funds are available on a first come – first serve basis.
The policy details the guidelines for requests and processes involved. As part of the process an inspection is completed along with a cost estimate and report provided to Council. This process has already taken place.
George Street East has recently had works completed on it and is in good condition. Additional pavement is required to construct the seal to the desired width. It is recommended that a 200 metre seal of 7 metres width be constructed for the level of dust protection sought.
The total cost to complete the required works is $21,554.00 (excluding GST). As Council has adopted a 50% subsidy towards this cost this financial year your contribution, if you choose to proceed with this option, is currently calculated to be $11,854.70 (including GST).
By way of further clarification, Section 5 of the policy is as follows:
5. Conditions and Obligations
5.4 Payment for cost of the works will be made prior to commencement of works and will be based on the cost estimate provided. Final costs shall be reconciled at completion of the works. Either party, as necessary, will adjust payment within 30 days of notification of final costs.
5.5 Prior to Council undertaking the work, it will be necessary for the landholder to sign and execute an agreement prepared by Council confirming the conditions and obligations of this policy.
If you would like to progress the placement of a dust seal on George Street East please complete and return the attached Dust Seal Applicant Agreement Form to Council. An invoice will then be raised for your contribution.
If you have any further queries in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact Kylie Fleischfresser, Specialist – Infrastructure Planning on 4624 0762 (Direct) or 1300 007 662 (via Customer Service).
Yours sincerely
Julie Reitano
Chief Executive Officer
Enclosed
D13/46888 - Dust Seal Policy
D14/5973 - Dust Seal Applicant Agreement Form
General Meeting - 22 January 2014 - Dust Solution - George Street East |
Officer Report
Meeting: General 22 January 2014 |
Date: 3 December 2013 |
Item Number: 12.2 |
File Number: D13/60008 |
Subject Heading: Dust Solution - George Street East
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location:
Author & Officer’s Title: Kylie Fleischfresser, Specialist - Infrastructure Planning
Executive Summary: Council has received a request for a dust solution or road closure of George Street East
|
Officer’s Recommendation: That Council consider this request, in accordance with the adopted Dust Seal Policy, in future budget considerations.
That George Street East and the section of Short Street between the Archery Range and George Street East be reopened and available for use by traffic |
Council has received a request from Brenda Hill for either increased maintenance - mainly road watering, some other dust solution or the road closure of George Street East between Ashburn Road and Beaumont Road. Ms Hill indicated that traffic along this section is causing a dust issue. Ms Hill’s property is adjacent to George Street East and her access is from Bungil Street.
This road was inspected 3 December 2013. A temporary road closure sign with soft fencing was observed at the corner of Ashburn Road and George Street East, and at the corner of Short Street and George Street East. These had been tampered with and vehicles can pass through. The Manager – Roads and Drainage North advised that several efforts have been made to deter traffic from this section however road users continually pull signs and fencing down in order to access this road.
Council has also received a letter from Ms Little, of rural address 153 George Street East, objecting to the road closure and requesting it be reopened as it is her preferred route to town and her only property access. Closing this section will add approximately 2km onto her route. Ms Little also states that she has had discussions with other residents of George Street East and they too want the road reopened. As part of the current closure Ms Little no longer has access to her frontage (approximately 670m) and she was using this to access the feed troughs for the cattle and sheep on her property.
By way of background there are 4 road closures surrounding or close to Ms Hill’s property:
· George Street East - Closed between Ashburn Road and 153 George St East (at the request of Ms Hill)
· Short Street - Closed between Maranoa Archery and George Street East (at the request of Ms Hill)
· Bungil Street - Closed between 1Bungil Street and Short Street
· Short Street - Closed between Bungil Street and George Street East (in response to a dust complaint from Mr Rose of 1 Bungil Street, Resolution No. 0210.03.GM - 24/09/03)
Current Road Closures
Ms Hill states that this particular section of George St East has not received maintenance for some time due to its temporary closure. Although no watering has been done in this time it should be noted that George Street East has received flood recovery works from the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) funds through the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) for Events 1 and 4 to the amount of $99,801.82 and is currently in good condition.
In order to address this request, in which the concern is dust from traffic, four (4) possible options are provided to Council, these are:
Option 1 That Council liaise with Ms Hill to construct a dust seal, in accordance with the Dust Seal Policy.
Option 2 That Council seal this road, in accordance with the Request for Capital Uprgrade of Roads Policy.
Option 3 That Council close this road, in accordance with the Local Government Act (2009).
Option 4 That Council do nothing, lift the temporary road closure and continue road maintenance as per the road maintenance program.
Option 1
Council lift the temporary closures and liaise with Ms Hill to construct a dust seal in accordance with Council’s adopted Dust Seal Policy. This option is consistent with Councils response to dust complaints, and ensures that dust complaints are dealt with in an equitable and transparent manner.
Option 1 |
||||||
Location |
George St East |
|||||
Road Details: |
||||||
Length: |
0.2 |
kilometres |
|
|||
Properties accessed: |
0 |
|||||
Traffic: |
10 - 39 |
|||||
Class: |
Rural Access - Primary B |
|||||
Standards |
||||||
Adopted standard for rural roads with 10 - 39 VPD is 8m formation and 4m pavement |
||||||
Current: |
> Rural Access - Primary B (to include provision of seal) |
|||||
Sealed Surface |
- |
m wide |
- |
0.000 |
k |
|
Gravel Pavement |
6 |
m wide |
- |
0.200 |
k |
|
Formation |
8 |
m wide (ave) |
- |
0.200 |
k |
|
Flood immunity |
- |
year ARI |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||
Proposed: |
Rural Collector Minor |
|
||||
Sealed Surface |
7 |
m wide |
- |
0.200 |
k |
|
Gravel Pavement |
8 |
m wide |
- |
0.200 |
k |
|
Formation |
8 |
m wide |
- |
0.200 |
k |
|
Flood immunity |
- |
year ARI |
|
|
|
|
Associated Costs |
||||||
Construction |
||||||
0.200 |
kilometres of |
2 |
m wide |
Pavement - 150mm |
||
$15.00 |
/ m2 = |
$6,000.00 |
||||
0.200 |
kilometres of |
7 |
m wide |
Seal surface (2 coat) |
||
$11.11 |
/ m2 = |
$15,554.00 |
||||
$21,554.00 |
||||||
Whole of Life |
||||||
Current: |
||||||
Light maintenance grade |
1 per 12 months |
$125.20 |
pa |
|||
Capital renewal |
$190.56 |
pa |
||||
Total |
$315.76 |
pa |
||||
Proposed: |
||||||
Maintenance only as required |
$0.00 |
pa |
||||
Capital renewal |
$848.79 |
pa |
||||
Total |
$848.79 |
pa |
||||
Variation: |
||||||
An annual increase of |
$533.03 |
pa |
Option 2
Council lift the temporary closures and seal this road in accordance with Council’s Policy Request for Capital Upgrade of Roads.
Option 2 |
||||||
Location |
George St East |
|||||
Road Details: |
||||||
Length: |
1.5 |
kilometres |
|
|||
Properties accessed: |
3 |
|||||
Traffic: |
10 - 39 |
|||||
Class: |
Rural Access - Primary B |
|||||
Standards |
||||||
Adopted standard for rural roads with 10 - 39 VPD is 8m formation and 4m pavement |
||||||
Current: |
> Rural Access - Primary B |
|
||||
Sealed Surface |
- |
m wide |
- |
1.500 |
k |
|
Gravel Pavement |
6 |
m wide |
- |
1.500 |
k |
|
Formation |
8 |
m wide (ave) |
- |
1.500 |
k |
|
Flood immunity |
- |
year ARI |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||
Proposed: |
Rural Collector Minor (to include provision of seal) |
|||||
Sealed Surface |
7 |
m wide |
- |
1.500 |
k |
|
Gravel Pavement |
8 |
m wide |
- |
1.500 |
k |
|
Formation |
8 |
m wide |
- |
1.500 |
k |
|
Flood immunity |
- |
year ARI |
|
|
|
|
Associated Costs |
||||||
Construction |
||||||
1.500 |
kilometres of |
2 |
m wide |
Pavement - 150mm |
||
$15.00 |
/ m2 = |
$45,000.00 |
||||
1.500 |
kilometres of |
7 |
m wide |
Seal surface (2 coat) |
||
$11.11 |
/ m2 = |
$116,655.00 |
||||
$161,655.00 |
||||||
Whole of Life |
||||||
Current: |
||||||
Light maintenance grade |
1 per 12 months |
$939.00 |
pa |
|||
Capital renewal |
$1,429.20 |
pa |
||||
Total |
$2,368.20 |
pa |
||||
Proposed: |
||||||
Maintenance only as required |
$0.00 |
pa |
||||
Capital renewal |
$6,365.93 |
pa |
||||
Total |
$6,365.93 |
pa |
||||
Variation: |
||||||
An annual increase of |
$3,997.73 |
pa |
Option 3
Council close this road in accordance with the Local Government Act (2009).
Residents of George Street East have already objected to the temporary closure and would oppose this solution. Closure of George Street East from Ashburn Road to Beaumont Drive would cut off access to 3 residences. Even partial closure from Ashburn Road to Short Street, although there is an alternative route, would be onerous for these access points for several reasons including emergency access.
Furthermore, in submissions for funding for the emergent/reconstructive works on George St East Council has certified that the projects deliver value for money (VfM) as described in the approved VfM statement outlined in the Queensland Reconstruction Authority Submission Guide for NDRRA Funding Applicants. This information is collected pursuant to Part 2, Division 2 of the Queensland Reconstruction Authority Act (201).
Should George St East remain temporarily or become permanently closed Council cannot demonstrate that the projects on this road have delivered VfM. This may have financial implications on the recent claims and Maranoa’s ability to obtain future NRDDA funding.
If Council proceeds with this option Council would need to ensure that an acceptable process has been used to ensure all parties are considered and treated in an equitable manner.
Section 69 of the Local Government Act (2009) outlines the obligations and authority of Council with respect to closing roads:
Closing roads
(1) A local government may close a road (permanently or temporarily) to all traffic, or traffic of a particular class, if there is another road or route reasonably available for use by the traffic.
(2) Also, the local government may close a road to all traffic or traffic of a particular class—
(a) during a temporary obstruction to traffic; or
(b) if it is in the interests of public safety; or
(c) if it is necessary or desirable to close the road for a temporary purpose (including a fair, for example).
(3) The local government must publish notice of the closing of the road, in the way that the local government considers appropriate (including on its website, for example).
(4) The local government may do everything necessary to stop traffic using the road after it is closed.
(5) If a road is closed to traffic for a temporary purpose, the local government may permit the use of any part of the road (including for the erection of any structure, for example) on the conditions the local government considers appropriate.
Option 4
Council does nothing, lifts the temporary road closure and continues to maintain this road as per the road maintenance program. As Clayton Street and Miscamble Street East have now been sealed, through traffic on George Street East is expected to reduce.
Ms Hill is an adjoining landowner of George St East and as such she may be able to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for permanent closure of this road under the Land Act (2004). It is important to note that the Land Act (2004) definition of a road closure varies from that of the Local Government Act (2009) and this is explained by the Department of Natural Resources on its website:
Closing and opening roads
When a road is set aside and dedicated as road, the road is considered to be open: that is, available for use by the public as road. However, a local government may, under the Local Government Act, choose to close a road to traffic (for example, for works or for use as a mall).
This type of closure to traffic is different to the closure of a road as provided for under the Land Act. Permanent road closure under the Land Act is the act of changing the status of the land from road to unallocated State land and then being able to sell or lease the land or reserve it for a community purpose (for example, a park).
Road closure under the Land Act is only undertaken as a precursor to the reservation, sale or lease or other disposal of the land.
Consultation (internal/external):
Julian McEwan – Manager – Roads and Drainage North, Infrastructure Services
Noel Kerr – Technical Officer, Infrastructure Services
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Potential financial risk with recent and future NRDDA claims.
Policy Implications:
Council Policy; Road Network Maintenance Standards
Council Policy; Road Network Design Standards
Council Policy; Dust Seal Policy
Council Policy; Request for Capital Upgrade of Roads
Local Government Act (2009) Section 69, Closing Roads
Queensland Reconstruction Authority Act (2011) Part 2, Division 2
Queensland Reconstruction Authority Submission Guide for NDRRA Funding Applicants
Land Act (2004)
Financial Resource Implications:
Option 1
Dust Seal Capital Cost of $21,554.00 (or $10,777.00 as per Dust Seal Policy) and an annual increase of $533.03 per annum in maintenance and renewal costs.
Option 2
Bitumen upgrade Capital Cost of $161,655.00 and an annual increase of $3,997.73 per annum in maintenance and renewal costs.
Option 3
In claiming $99,801.82 of NDRRA funds through the QRA for Events one (1) and four (4) emergent/reconstructive works Council has certified that George St East is an Essential Public Asset and that those projects deliver VfM. Closing this road may result in financial implications of these monies claimed and future funding.
Option 3
Nil, reverts back to the normal operating maintenance program.
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 —
8.5.1(a) To provide professional and technical engineering advice and support
for Council in an effective and timely
manner.
Supporting Documentation:
1 |
Request for Dust Solution or Road Closure - George Street East |
D13/60339 |
2 |
Acknowledgement Letter to Brenda Hill Re: Request for Closure of East George Street, Roma |
D13/59113 |
3 |
Alonna Little - George Street Road Closure Roma - Request for Information / Complaint |
D13/57879 |
4 |
Initial Acknowledgment Letter - Alonna Little East George Road Closure |
D13/58252 |
5 |
Council Resolution 0210.03.GM - Dust Nuisance (Short Street) |
DWR31555 |
6 |
Advertisement: Road Closure - Short Street |
DWR32095 |
Report authorised by:
Acknowledgement Letter to Brenda Hill Re: Request for Closure of East George Street, Roma |
Our Ref: D13/53567; D13/59113
Enquiries: Clara Aitken
Phone: 4624 0712 (Direct) or
1300 007 662 (via Customer Service)
Office: Infrastructure Services
4 December 2013
Brenda Hill
Via E-mail: rose22@internode.on.net
Dear Brenda
Re: Request for Closure of East George Street, Roma
Thank you for your correspondence addressed to Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Ms Julie Reitano dated 5 November 2013, in which you request the closure of a section of East George Street between Ashburn Road and Beaumont Drive, Roma.
I have undertaken an initial review of your concerns raised and have allocated this matter to Kylie Fleischfresser – Specialist Infrastructure Planning for further investigation. Following this investigation, a report will go to the Council meeting of 8 January 2014 for resolution.
Following this meeting we will advise you of the outcome.
Again, thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of Council’s Chief Executive Officer Ms Reitano, I will continue to keep you informed through to finalisation of your request.
Please do not hesitate to contact Clara Aitken of my office on (07) 4624 0712, or by email – clara.aitken@maranoa.qld.gov.au if you have any further questions or concerns with progression of this matter.
Yours faithfully
Kym Downey
Manager – Infrastructure Planning & Design