Minutes of proceedings

The Chairman submitted to the Chamber the motion for the adoption of the Moving Brisbane program and it was declared carried on the voices.

FOURTH DAY – Thursday, 25 June 2015

The Chairman of Council, Councillor Margaret de WIT (Pullenvale Ward) – LNP

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE 2015-2016 BUDGET:

The Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, declared the adjourned meeting open and continued as follows.

3. FUTURE BRISBANE PROGRAM:

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that that for the services of the Council, the allocations for the Operations and the Projects for the year 2015-16 and the Rolling Recurrent Operations Contracts and the Rolling Projects for the Future Brisbane program as contained on pages 68 to 78, so far as they relate to Program 3, be adopted.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On opening debate for this program, I would first of all of course like to thank the LORD MAYOR and Councillor SIMMONDS for their strong support for Program 3. Since we sat here last year and discussed the 2014-15 Budget, there have been significant achievements in this area. We, of course, have been focusing on implementing our requirements under the State Government's SEQ Regional Plan to accommodate 156,000 new homes by introducing new City Plan and continuing our award-winning Neighbourhood Planning program.

We are continuing with more Talk to a Planner sessions, these sessions which are very beneficial for residents to talk one-on-one with Council officers to find out more about how City Plan works and how it helps to manage our city's future growth. We also have been implementing our requirements under the State Government's legislation changes for Council to convert our existing Priority Infrastructure Plan into a different new form, the Local Government Infrastructure Plan.

However, of course, this year we are delighted to see Program 3 including new projects, such as the Edward Street revitalisation project which will see an upgrade of Edward Street to include new improved pavement, increased pedestrian space, increased planting, street furniture and creative lighting. This precinct has become a very busy retail precinct working in conjunction with Queen Street Mall, and of course has been a significant tourism drawcard to our city.

This upgrade will ensure the infrastructure in the area supports the precinct's role and promotes pedestrian access throughout that important city streetscape. We will also introduce the Suburban Construction Management Taskforce. This taskforce is based on the success of the Erosion and Sediment Control Compliance project which has significantly decreased the amount of soil and sediment issues with development from approximately 1,200 to 80 complaints per year over the past four years.

Through providing proactive engagement with the development industry, it will particularly expand on the functions of the Built Environment team. This team will aim at mitigating and significantly reducing the number of built environment complaints. This will run as a pilot project with three full-time employees dedicated to working closely with the industry and the community to provide proactive advice and early intervention to reduce and mitigate any problems for our local residents.

Another new project for this financial year is public artwork on key infrastructure. In the 2014-15 financial year, we delivered two projects that incorporated artwork onto existing public infrastructure around Brisbane. In February of this year, we installed nine light boxes in the King George Square car park along the pedestrian access route. This pedestrian path really showcases a gallery of Queensland College of Art students' artwork.

Recently we also saw the Coronation Drive viaducts painted by Brisbane artist Matt Stewart. These viaducts were reimagined as canvases for Cirque du Soleil inspired artwork. This project will see other pieces of public infrastructure across our city transformed. So it expands on our Vibrant Laneways commitment to enhance and activate unused spaces across our city.

The Central Business District (CBD) New World City lighting project will ensure we see key icons of our city creatively lit. Tourists and locals all enjoyed the Colour Me Brisbane program that was conducted for G20, with 28,000 people estimated to attend the G20 celebrations from 24 October to 16 November 2014. Colour Me Brisbane saw the city showcased in lights with colourful feature lighting. Lighting can deliver great outcomes to improve our city, such as showcasing an icon as we have with Storey Bridge and, of course, the William Jolly Bridge, celebrating an event such as the recent success of the Firebirds, activating spaces and increasing the safety for pedestrians in our city.

The planning for our suburbs will begin work on three new neighbourhood plans: Newstead North, The Gap and one in the Coorparoo Holland Park area. A neighbourhood plan within the Coorparoo/Holland Park area will see Council working with the local community to get involved in the planning for their local area. As part of the neighbourhood plan, Council will review the zoning within that area and look at necessary infrastructure to accommodate growth, both infrastructure existing and future.

The Gap Neighbourhood Plan will commence in this financial year. This neighbourhood plan will review zoning and community facilities and, particularly, green space within that local area. It will also address economic, social and environmental requirements of the area.

Finally, an urban renewal neighbourhood plan for Newstead North. This plan is in part response to submissions to new City Plan seeking further planning work to be done, and particularly the high level of development interest in that area. The area has historically been the home to industrial land. However, over the years, we have seen some new renewal occurring. Of course, it is becoming a key urban precinct in our city. So this neighbourhood plan could support the implementation of the Rivers Edge strategy to activate a key gateway into our city.

We continue with progressing eight neighbourhood plans. To just have a snapshot since 2010, there have been 26 neighbourhood plans completed. Of course, they are a great opportunity to ensure that there are locally specific planning outcomes delivered in conjunction with our community.

Along with these new projects, we are continuing with our Suburban Centre Improvement Project (SCIP) rolling program. Council has completed, of course, 44 SCIPs and we have two soon to open in Kenmore and Cannon Hill. I know that you, Madam Chair, are looking forward to seeing Kenmore delivered. Alderley and Graceville were announced last year focussing on the consultation, so we have had all of the preparation work under way, consultation with the property owners group and a community reference group established. Construction on these SCIPs will commence in July for Alderley and October for Graceville.

We will also continue our public artworks program which will deliver new stand-alone public art across Brisbane. This program also includes money for artwork maintenance, funds allowing, of course, for rectification, retirement and maintenance of the $28 million worth of public art that we have across the city. In August 2014 we reviewed the state of all of the approximately 500 art pieces to ensure property asset management of this important cultural asset.

There is also money allocated to expand on the Artforce initiative to include the painting of Energex pad-mounted transformers. We also will continue to protect and support our heritage with further funding for the Heritage Incentive Scheme and commitment for two new heritage trails. This Heritage Incentive Scheme has seen over $3 million worth of rectification works undertaken on heritage places across the city since it was introduced in 2005 by the then Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman.

We will also continue with our Infrastructure Charges Subsidy for hotel developments, student accommodation and eligible organisations. I urge all Councillors to take this opportunity to promote this initiative. It is particularly valuable to our not-for-profit community sector, and of course in conjunction with the Inclusive Brisbane Board, which has established the Professional Advice Alliance, this ensures our not-for-profit organisations can remain open and sustainable for many years to come. We also have the Rochedale project continuing this year with resumptions for infrastructure works assessed on a year-by-year basis. The project is still on track to deliver 6,500 new dwellings by 2021.

This program is a strong program for this financial year. I would particularly like to thank all of the officers who put so much hard work and effort into this program area. It is very much a labour of love, and I think it is a great outcome for our city, and I thank everyone for their hard work and effort in preparing Program 3. Thank you very much.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor ABRAHAMS.

Councillor ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to highlight some of the issues on Program 3, Future Brisbane. The first one is just to look at the revenue that we see in this budget document. There was an increased revenue in the 2014-15 of 7.6 per cent between what was proposed and what was anticipated. The document shows that there was a 45 per cent increase in that same figure of what was proposed and what was anticipated. This is a significant increase.

What has the community seen for that increased revenue? Well, the Councillors over this side of the Chamber are very aware that we are seeing residents who are far from happy, who are across the city speaking out, coming into the Council Chamber. We know that almost 70 per cent of the people who come in, take the time, apply, wish to speak to Councillors, are doing so because of their concern of a development application or a strategic planning process.

This is just new. It is a completely skewed representation of the issues that are raised in these speeches which reflects the concern of the community. What are people seeing? Well, they are seeing cranes; they are seeing noise; they are being woken up. There is dust; there are cars everywhere around the construction sites. They are treated with total disrespect if they live next to a construction site. But they are not seeing new parkland, they are not seeing improvement in the roads, and they are not seeing any community facilities. Even the often promised boulevards I would recommend they are not seeing.

So no wonder they are concerned about buildings being taller, buildings being closer to their property boundaries, and buildings with more people than was ever intended in the City Plan which is the norm.

They are also, I would suggest, concerned about the quality of the design. We have, and we always hear about the New World City. The New World City as this city does need to grow. It is moving into apartment buildings, but we are a subtropical city in one of the most stable political environments, stable planning environments, so we have a unique opportunity to actually develop our own sense of architecture. What are we then doing? We are just importing from Dubai. If we're not doing that, it is literally a glass and concrete wall. This is totally inappropriate and is another reason for even the architects and those who are interested in design being concerned.

I started off with the increased revenue; $23 million additional revenue from the third budget review. How is that extra money being spent, being spent timely, so it is judicious expenditure? Well, Madam Chair, I would suggest there is a little bit of where we're trying to put a little magic fairy dust over the city to try and get rid of all the opposition. That fairy dust is the new world lighting, the $250,000 to light up our city and the CBD only so that we can pretend we're at G20 all the time around. Madam Chair, nothing for the suburbs from that. I would suggest nothing from where much of the development is happening in the inner-city frame.

The other part of the fairy dust is the painting of our infrastructure. Both the projects you cannot object to, but surely we deserve more out of the infrastructure, that $23 million additional revenue. Then, looking at some of the other capital expenditure, the $11 million capital spend for Edward Street. I would just like to highlight some of what that will entail. It is going to have a traffic study; it is going to involve talking to the traders, and I am delighted to hear that. Footpath widening; an increase of the pavement width, but more space for pedestrian spaces making it easier for them to move around; tree planting; footpath lighting; the creative lighting of the trees; street furniture and public art.

Within that, too, I am sure there will be some outdoor dining. So if you actually go to the definition of a road diet, taken from Wikipedia, it is widening a footpath, adding cycle lanes, boulevarding, public art, widening the lanes for safety, and increasing bicycle lanes. This is a road diet in no other term. It is a road diet costing $11 million for a very exclusive part of our CBD, and there is no indication that any of those property owners are paying a benefitted area levy for that work. So what do all the other SCIP contributors think when they have been asked for a 10 per cent contribution, and in the past it has been a 15 per cent contribution, and in these ones they are now making no contribution whatsoever.

So, hypocrisy in terms of their continued complaint or ridicule of my support for appropriate places to reduce the road space where we want to make it a non-car dominated area. I support it in principle, but as always, that side of the Administration can never implement properly. Why would you do it just to such an exclusive area without them making some contribution to the effort? Possibly because they are not contributing, it is why there is no new SCIP in this budget. We are rolling over, recycling, the Alderley and Graceville SCIP. Why would you put your hand up for a SCIP if you actually knew about Edward Street?

The Vibrant Laneways, now with the contribution of $1.8 million this year following on the $2.6 million last year, has a total of $18.4 million allocated for this project since it was created. Last night I had a look at Burnett Lane. This morning I had a look at Burnett Lane. There are six grey lights up on the top where once that was really lovely artwork. I couldn’t suggest that it is at the moment. There were more than 10 cars, including yet again the police and the service vehicles in that area. There has been no change. It is a complete waste of money.

But Councillor COOPER actually understands that, because the Vibrant Laneways are changing now, to the pop-up of Albert Street, where we are going to permit—and the words are wonderful—we are going to permit in a light, quick and cheap way, for $200,000, the process of closing that road, popping up small outlets, many of them may be food in that area, drawing away from the existing retailers paying the huge overheads in the CBD for a pop-up to make a bit of glitz in our city.

I have concerns with this project, but at least Councillor COOPER is acknowledging the Vibrant Laneways as we know it are not working and trying to find another initiative for that process. When we were listening to the questions, the one thing that Councillor COOPER was so proud about was the student accommodation incentive. I have had a look at this, and there certainly is an incentive for our city to have the benefit from it.

But would she answer one question about how much has been allocated in the budget for foregoing on infrastructure charges from this? Not one question. We were told it did not apply to this program. I have got 2,000 and more student accommodations in the pipeline. I think the residents of Brisbane do need to know just how much—need to know, deserve to know—just how much we are going to subsidise that accommodation.

Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS, your time has expired, thank you.

Further debate?

Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am delighted to rise to speak to the important work that is achieved through Program 3, Future Brisbane. The outstanding achievements of this Administration, led by Councillor COOPER, is something that we are all very proud of, because we know these achievements will enhance our lifestyle and our economy.

I am going to focus my comments on the outcome of 3.2 and 3.3 regarding our heritage, our city centre upgrades, and the construction taskforce. I was very pleased to read in the budget documents that service 3.3.1.1 about the new suburban construction management team as part of how we provide efficient and effective development assessment and regulation.

Sometimes it seems like we live in an overly regulated era. Everywhere you look you see warning signs or caution labels; news and current affairs programs carry stories about rules that will affect how we eat, drive, work or play. However, when it comes to building code compliance, the price we pay is tiny compared to the gains society has made over the last several decades. Today's homes and businesses are far safer and better built than those constructed only a few years ago. In no small part, this is due to our planning and building compliance activities, including as service 3.3.1.1 says, investigating unlawful uses of land, ensuring the conditions of DAs are met, and responding to complaints about development.

I am pleased to hear that there will be a new taskforce that will employ three dedicated officers in Compliance and Regulatory Services (CaRS) branch to work with their Development Assessment counterparts to identify risks associated with developments and engage with developers to mitigate these risks. Further, the team will work in a reactive capacity to respond to complaints from the community associated with these developments prior to the commencement of use. I am sure that 99 per cent of builders and developers are complying with all the rules, and I thank them for that. Sadly, it is probably the 1 per cent that cause problems with their neighbours and the community. So my message to them is: don't try to dodge the building codes; let us help you to comply with them.

New structures and their construction are important, but so too is the preservation of the past. As I have said in this place before, there is a common root in the terms conservative and conservation: both involve keeping the best of what we have, and no less than the imperative to live within our means. The imperative to conserve what is best in our heritage is part of this Administration's DNA. That is why I want to touch briefly on the importance of strategy 3.3.2 on page 84 regarding the promotion and protection of our city character.

Brisbane City Council is committed to preserving our unique cultural heritage. Indeed, as it says on page 75, as an Administration, we want our city to be a city that supports the retention of character houses and the conservation of heritage places. Heritage conservation will continue to be encouraged by a simplified development assessment process and through heritage grants and the availability of technical assistance from Council, including architectural advice. Those grants and advice from Council come through the Heritage Incentive Scheme that was established in 2005, and the purpose of the scheme is to foster an appreciation of Brisbane's heritage. It offers professional advice and financial assistance in the form of grants to owners of heritage-listed properties, and our professional officers work together with owners to conserve our city's rich cultural and architectural heritage.

Importantly for me are the two aspects of the scheme: expert consultation and specific grants. I am delighted that recently we have been able to assist properties like Green Gables and Alston Court in New Farm, and the Ann Street Presbyterian Church in the city, all three in Central Ward with funds for specific projects.

There are many buildings in Central Ward on the register, and hence potentially available for assistance through the scheme, and it is very encouraging to see in the forward budget that this Administration's commitment will rise from $371,000 this year to $389,000 in 2016-17, and over $400,000 in 2018-19. Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and now, because of the Administration's allocations in service 3.3.2.1 more people will be able to appreciate the beauty of our older buildings in Spring Hill through the new Heritage Trail.

The story behind one of the city's oldest suburbs is being revealed to the public, thanks to Councillor COOPER's launching of a new Heritage Trail in Spring Hill through a detailed guide of visitor destinations in the area. The Heritage Trail is an opportunity to protect the area's significance, while showcasing the interesting features of its heritage with locals and visitors, and it highlights 21 different sites spanning over 3.2 kilometres. Residents can experience the Spring Hill Heritage Trail at their own pace with family and friends by downloading the free Heritage Trail through the Council's website.

While you are wandering the footpaths of Spring Hill, you are, of course, part of postcode 4000. Postcode 4000 also includes the city, and we all know that on this side of the Chamber we are focused on new ideas for a better Brisbane and creating investment and job opportunities now and for years to come. Just like it says in strategy 3.2.1 we want to facilitate economic prosperity, protect local character, provide vibrant public places, set standards for new development and facilitate the delivery of infrastructure.

Strategy 3.2.2 reiterates that the key focus will be on renewal and revitalisation of key precincts in the city. In order to do this, we need to keep investing in maintaining and modernising our streetscape infrastructure so that residents can continue to explore the city on foot in a safe and pleasant environment. That is why our Administration supports the further expansion of Edward Street as a retail destination, and streetscape upgrades to a wider, tree-lined boulevard.

Postcode 4000 with Brisbane City alone—so not including Spring Hill—has around 6,000 residential apartments. That is right, Madam Chairman, 6,000. These residents have just as much right to streetscape upgrades as any other postcode, and that is why I thought it a great shame that those opposite seemingly have taken the position that certain footpath and streetscape projects in the city should not occur.

It is such a shame that those opposite seemingly don't want to widen city footpaths to improve pedestrian flows. They do not want city footpaths upgraded to improve the accessibility, maintainability and the appearance of the streetscape. They do not want the advanced tree-planting to improve visual and physical amenity, and to deliver on Council's commitment to shaded footpaths. They do not want city footpath lighting improved for pedestrian accessibility and safety.

Every day retailers and residents in the city tell me that they want us to continue to invest in their streets and footpaths. Every day retailers and residents in the city tell me that they want safer, smoother surfaces. Every day residents and retailers tell me they want us to continue to invest in upgrades so that businesses themselves can continue to invest, grow and deliver jobs for Central Ward.

So many Central Ward residents rely on a job in retail in the city. I really am puzzled as to why these residents appear to have been told by Labor, through statements by their Lord Mayoral candidate to the media that certain streets in their area are not deserving of streetscape upgrades and footpath maintenance. These residents, who work in the city pubs and bars, the hairdressers, small, medium and large retailers, the jewellers, homewares stores, restaurants—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor HOWARD: —and cafes.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor HOWARD: —seemingly have all been told by Labor that their area does not need support. Well, Madam Chairman, I—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON!

Councillor HOWARD: —well, Madam Chairman, I stand for jobs—jobs for the city and jobs for Central. Our Queen Street Mall precinct, including now the Edward Street area, is a world-class destination that is a huge employer. It is the most successful and iconic retail area in Australia, which today accommodates 26 million visitors and more than 1,000 retails.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor HOWARD: As the strategy says, we need to provide vibrant places to set standards for new development and to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure. We are getting on with the job, creating opportunities for increased and sustainable employment, and I thank our Development Assessment teams, Councillor COOPER and the LORD MAYOR for their hard work in this space.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman; I rise to speak on Program 3, Future Brisbane, and clearly we have entered the comedy floorshow portion of the budget today with the comments from the LNP Councillors opposite. It is astonishing, astonishing the way in which they go about interpreting what they think they are doing versus what is actually happening out in our community. I just think it just shows how out of touch they are. Clearly they are not talking to their residents, or maybe their residents are not coming in because they know they are not going to get listened to or heard or whatever. But there has to be something that explains the disconnect between what this Administration is doing, what they think is happening, and what is actually happening on the ground in this portfolio.

There are a few issues that I want to speak on today. Firstly, I think this program should be really renamed Subsidies for Big Business, because the initiatives in this budget that are being funded, including subsidies for developers who are building commercial apartments, is just wrong. It just should not be happening. I think this is inappropriate use of ratepayers' funds to subsidise commercial developers who are making extensive profits, and ratepayers in our city who are struggling to pay rates are funding this. That is what we are being asked to approve in this budget today. I think that is morally and ethically wrong, and I do not support it.

I do not think it should have happened for hotels either. It is problematic from my point of view that the Administration is now rolling out this scheme and we are going to see a flurry of inappropriate development on the basis of this subsidy. I am shocked that this is the way the Administration wants to go when people are doing it tough out in the suburbs. I think residents would be shocked to know that their rates are subsidising major commercial property developers, multinational companies, and I just think that is wrong. It should not be happening.

It also leads into the Edward Street revitalisation SCIP, and it is very interesting, isn't it, that out in the suburbs, in Graceville, my business owners have been required to contribute a levy towards the Graceville SCIP. They are required to contribute 10 per cent of the overall cost of the SCIP. I am presuming it is the same out in Alderley. I don't know, but I think it is quite normal that there is a levy for business owners.

It is interesting, isn’t it, that we come into the city, we come to Edward Street, where we have some of the largest property investment companies in Australia who own properties, very large companies, multinationals, these are the property owners, and we are not asking them to pay a cent. So it is okay for small business owners out in the suburbs to pay to contribute to have their street upgraded, but it is okay for big business in the city not to. That is what this Administration is asking us to approve today.

I don't really have a problem with doing a bit of work on Edward Street, but the fact that this Administration is not being fair in the way it is delivering the project, and the fact it is providing a benefit to big business and bit property owners in the city, and it is not prepared to provide a similar benefit to small property owners and small businesses in the suburbs is, in my view, morally and ethically wrong. That is what we are being asked to approve today.

I know Councillor COOPER is leaving, and we can see she is thrilled to be here. We can see she is thrilled to be here today. She gave a six-minute speech, and sat down basically, so she's really proud of her portfolio. The other thing in here that at the time I thought was quite good when I heard the LORD MAYOR announce it, was that we are investing $400,000 into a suburban taskforce to investigate construction issues. I thought, that's excellent.

Then in the estimates, I asked Councillor COOPER some questions about it, and the answer I got was quite astonishing in my view. Firstly, this is for the three extra people, so that part of it is quite good. I asked her how much do we put at the moment into CaRS in this area to do development investigations, and she told me, $7.72 million. The great benefit that we are about to get, and all these extra investigations and all this extra looking into things that Councillor COOPER and Councillor HOWARD have been speaking about is an extra $400,000. That is less than 5 per cent increase to the total budget.

If with $7.7 million you are not getting it right, I am not sure what benefit an extra $400,000 is going to make. I will be following this up, because I have had dozens and dozens of complaints. It is clear that the system is not working. I suspect that all of the complaints my residents have been making are part of why there is some attempt, belatedly now, to actually do something about this. But it seems to me there is a fundamental problem.

The letters I get back from the LORD MAYOR or the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) say, oh, I am sorry, we can't investigate this. Yes, there's a building approval, or sorry, yes there's a development approval but we are not responsible for enforcing that development approval. We can't do anything about it; go to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). I go to the QBCC; they say, oh, it's a Council issue. That is what is going on at the moment out there. Meanwhile I have residents in Yeerongpilly, three residents around a development site that has been poorly managed, and they have been flooded on multiple occasions because the developer is failing to manage the erosion, failing to manage water, and it is causing hardship and despair to residents out in the community.

I've got a resident today here in the folder; they started contacting Council back in February. They made three requests to Council for assistance about development in their street, and I've got it all in writing, all in writing. I followed up—they came to me after the third time they personally tried with Council to get an outcome. I have now followed up. They have written to me again saying that Council has opened a new job because it has been moved to a different area in Council, and blah, blah, blah.

These people are getting the run-around, and that is the normal experience of residents who are out there dealing with inappropriate development in our suburbs. It has been approved with so many relaxations to make it adverse for neighbours; then the builders come along and they've got carte blanche to do whatever they want, all over the street. That is wrong. It is wrong.

This Council does not have the guts to enforce development approval conditions; it does not have the guts to tell developers that what they are doing is inappropriate. I will keep pushing and pushing and pushing about this matter until we get better outcomes for our residents, because clearly that is not happening at the moment. That is a massive failing of this Administration, and I can tell you out there residents are screaming it from the rooftops. What they can't understand is why—well, they don't understand why Council approve developments that don't meet the town plan to start with. Then they can't understand why Council won't enforce the conditions, their own conditions that Council set down that this Council will not enforce. That is massively problematic.

The Graceville SCIP—I just want to make mention of the Graceville SCIP. I have said all along—and this has been my position for about five years—half of this funding should have gone to the Graceville five-ways, which is a critical area in need of an upgrade, and about half of it should have gone to the Bank Road precinct that is the subject of the SCIP. I think that would have been the fair way to do it. Both areas are in need of an upgrade, and probably the five ways quite significantly.

I have been astonished to watch the process unfold. Some $3.75 million is just a huge amount of money. We are basically fixing footpaths and planting trees. There is going to be an artwork which is interesting. There have been public workshops where two residents have turned up, and there have been more Council officers present than residents. I was asked not to publicise these. They were going to do it directly. Then a couple of days beforehand, they thought numbers were a bit low and I should maybe do something, but I followed the Council officers' instructions. I had two days to let people know that they could go along. But I tried my best to do so.

I think there is very good intention behind what is happening with the Graceville SCIP but I think there is not the right focus and emphasis on making sure that this is handled in a very cost effective and efficient way. Also the funding has been rolled out. So this is one of those episodes of where they started it last year; they are rolling it over to this year. No doubt it will be—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —launched in March 2016.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in support of Program 3, Future Brisbane. I need to begin by addressing an argument put forward by the Opposition that somehow the work on Edward Street is for free to those businesses while the work in Graceville and Alderley is at a cost to those landowners. If you are a landholder in the city heart, you have been paying a long-standing levy, a special activity levy for many years for the City Heart Activation Levy which is about drawing people into the city and making it a more attractive place to come and shop and to recreate—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, you've had your turn.

Councillor WINES: My understanding is that landowners pay this on the understanding that Council will work to bring people into the city to shop and to recreate. I love how the Opposition Councillors are talking about how it's all for big business and that no one shops there. Councillor DICK was just able to reel off every brand in the street—Armani, Louis Vuitton, he knew them all. I am confident that when he has been sworn in as the member for Oxley next year, he will be wearing a coat and tie purchased in our very own Edward Street. The uptown boy himself will be down there in Edward Street enjoying the works of this Council—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor WINES: Councillor DICK, I am always willing to take lessons from a stylish gent such as yourself. You know where to shop.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor WINES: I'll see you on Edward Street, Councillor DICK; I'll see you on Edward Street.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor WINES: The truth is that the Edward Street upgrade is actually going to be a wonderful extension of a pedestrianisation of a popular and increasingly popular shopping destination. Sure, some of those are higher end brands, but we want people to come into the city; we want them to spend their money here, because interestingly, my aunt is a shop assistant in one of the brands down there. She is on an hourly rate and depends on people buying shirts and ties for her employment.

Councillor WINES: What I am saying, Councillor SUTTON, is we should give—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

Councillor WINES: We should give shop assistants a real chance. I know that you don't want people to have—there are people out there who need some assistance. I always understood the Labor Party—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor WINES: —was about that. But I will continue on.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor WINES: Councillor DICK just said don't dig the hole deeper. I just think to myself, Councillor DICK, you know full well that you will be enjoying this upgrade, more than anyone else in this room, and the hypocrisy is amusing to me.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor WINES: Also this section talks about the Alderley suburban centre upgrade—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor WINES: —or the Alderley SCIP, and it is going to be fantastic for Alderley. Alderley is a real go-ahead place which has in its centre a shopping centre which has been there since before the greater City of Brisbane existed. It was the frontier town where you would come to water your horses before you journeyed out to the farms of Mitchelton, Samford and the Outer Kedron areas, where the farms used to be. The Alderley Arms Hotel was long the watering hole for the humans, and they used to have a trough out the front, a watering hole for the horses.

Councillor CUMMING: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order.

Yes, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Where is this in the budget?

Chairman: Just a minute, Councillor WINES. Councillor CUMMING, I have allowed a lot of levity in terms of what is being debated on both sides of the Chamber. A lot of it, quite frankly, is not to do with this year's budget. So I am assuming by your raising that point of order that your side is going to stick strictly to what is in the budget book?

Chairman: Thank you.

Order! Order!

Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: When they quieten down a bit.

Councillor WINES: For Councillor CUMMING, I was merely providing context to give you some idea of the age of the centre. But now, a new life is about to spring forward from this centre provided by the Alderley SCIP. Businesses are already returning their interest to the area. There are more inquiries about taking leaseholds there because they know what is coming. People are more interested in purchasing homes in the Alderley area because they know that these projects are here to try and make the place much more attractive.

The truth is that Alderley is four to five kilometres from the city and still relatively affordable by comparison to other suburbs that are that distance from town. This will make it a focal point for the north-west, sort of once again an entry treatment to the further out suburbs and a real landmark in our north-western suburbs.

I also would like to talk about public art. In my opinion, public art is about a demonstration of pride in your area. It also is a demonstration of an attempt to make things more attractive and to draw people's eye, and it also battles things such as a concrete jungle and the fact that grey can be a little bit cold and confronting. It also has practical elements; public art reduces the incidence of graffiti, and graffiti is also an indicator of other crimes along the way. Where there is graffiti, other crimes tend to occur, or at least the sensation that the place is not safe can be attributed to graffiti and other sorts of vandalism.

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

Councillor WINES: But where there is public art, you are less likely to see graffiti, which increases safety, which increases the attractiveness of a place. I must remark that the work done for G20 on the train bridge near Kurilpa Point is extremely attractive, and I really took a moment to go and have a look at the work on the viaduct of the Go Between Bridge, and it was also remarkable as well. These sorts of works are just a demonstration of pride in our city to make it more attractive, but also to increase the sense of safety and battle graffiti.

I also want to briefly touch on the Suburban Construction Management Taskforce which I would like to recognise is an important part of this program. It is about putting a dedicated and specialist team at the sort of pointy end to try and deal with construction management issues early. Many of us would have complaints come through our ward offices about these sorts of things. I am very much looking forward to being able to have specialist case workers who work on these things quickly and promptly and accurately. I am a great supporter of this initiative, and I hope that not only the Councillors will support this initiative but this entire program, as I will be later. Thank you.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on this program. I guess for me the most concerning issue in this program is the significant financial windfall that this Council is going to be receiving from development in this year's budget, a 45 per cent increase in expected revenue.

We always said when City Plan 2014 was endorsed by this Chamber, rammed through by the LNP Administration, that it would give the green light to developers to do whatever they want to do in our suburbs. When you compare in the 12 months that that City Plan has come into operation the fact that we now have a 45 per cent increase in revenue, clearly in this town under this Administration, money talks.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON—

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, that is a fairly offensive comment. You are imputing motive, and I ask you to withdraw it.

Councillor SUTTON: Well, Madam Chair, at your direction, and only at your direction, I will withdraw it.

Chairman: Furthermore, on that basis, I ask you to apologise for making that statement.

Councillor SUTTON: Well, Madam Chair, I have withdrawn the comment at your direction.

Chairman: No, I just—because you did not withdraw it with any intent. I am asking you to apologise for making what was an offensive comment.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON!

Councillor SUTTON: There seems to be some—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, do not debate my direction. I am directing you to apologise for that statement.

Councillor SUTTON: Given the offense—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON—

Councillor SUTTON: I apologise.

Chairman: —if you wish to continue, you apologise for your statement.

Councillor SUTTON: I was just saying, I will apologise given the offense that has been taken. I don't know what you are talking about, but I am talking about a 45 per cent increase in the revenue gained from development.

Chairman: I know exactly what you said, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, the fact is that, week after week, day after day, in my office we have got people, residents of this city, coming into my office, coming into this Council Chamber, complaining about the types of development this Administration is allowing to be approved. Clearly, this Administration is getting a significant windfall from those DAs.

I can spend my time, my full 10 minutes, rattling off the details of development applications in my ward that have been approved that are inconsistent with the acceptable solutions under the City Plan. But do you know what? It is not specifically budget related, so I won't do that. But there is a problem with the City Plan that this Administration has introduced. There is a problem, and we see that problem through the concerns that are being expressed, and people are using words like they have been disenfranchised, they have been disempowered, they have lost all control, there is no one on their side. This is from an Administration who introduced neighbourhood planning which claims to be this planning panacea, a utopia, that was going to allow residents to have a greater say.

This budget funds neighbourhood plans this financial year for Alderley, Holland Park and The Gap—finally in The Gap after the most significant development application those residents were concerned about, it has already been approved. We wait to give them an opportunity to have their say until the single biggest development application has been done and dusted. Madam Chair, there is a problem. What I would have liked to see in this budget is a significant review of City Plan that actually empowers residents, that actually enables them to have a real say in what happens in their community, and something that actually makes developers stick to the City Plan, because they are not sticking to the City Plan.

We are approving anything and everything that is put to us, and as a consequence, we see a 45 per cent revenue increase in this budget. I say it just shows how much this LNP Administration is dependent on DAs to fund their budget bottom line. They are a cash-strapped Administration that is increasingly looking to the development sector to fund its operations, and that is my concern.

I share Councillor ABRAHAMS' and Councillor JOHNSTON's concerns about the rebates or remissions to developers for hotels and student accommodation. I don't think it is appropriate either. I think for them to have infrastructure charges waived, given the impact that those developments create on our local community—imagine if we didn’t waive the infrastructure charges for student accommodation and actually put funding into public transport infrastructure that those students use to get around our city.

The LORD MAYOR is bent on his economic development drive. Well, imagine if we actually got the hotels to pay infrastructure charges, how those infrastructure charges could actually help fund some of these Economic Development initiatives that he is actually wanting to pursue. Instead, we are foregoing that cash, and we are asking Brisbane residents, through their rates, to fund these initiatives. These businesses aren’t building hotels because it is in the public interest; they are profiting from it.

They aren’t building student accommodation out of the goodness of their heart; they are profiting out of it, and all we are doing is allowing those profits that go into the private hands of often multinational companies that aren't necessarily reinvested back into Brisbane, and Brisbane sees no benefit from it, that is not good economic sense, and it is highly inappropriate, and I think highly offensive to the bulk of Brisbane residents that quite frankly probably don't know that this has been a drive of their LORD MAYOR. But I will take great pleasure in telling more and more people about it.

On the Edward Street upgrade project, when I was sitting here writing my notes, I did actually think that I would try to respond to Councillor WINES, but he just demonstrated that he is in such la-la-land when it comes to the fact that it is some kind of magic concoction that he has come up with about how these high end retailers are actually already paying, which is just quite frankly ludicrous.

Chairman: Councillor WINES!

Councillor SUTTON: I will treat that argument with the contempt—

Chairman: Councillor WINES!

Councillor SUTTON: —with the contempt that it deserves.

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor WINES, if you continue to interject, I will warn you.

Councillor SUTTON: As far as I understand, there will be no specific levy—there will be no specific levy to the Edward Street traders against—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SUTTON: That is what I said, no specific levy to the Edward Street traders for this Edward Street precinct upgrade. Like there is to all those businesses in Alderley and in Graceville SCIPs, the Cannon Hill traders had to pay it; all those other SCIPs traders—

Councillor SUTTON: Because if there was a specific levy against this project, it should be seen in the revenue section of this budget, and there is nothing. So, again, in black and white, here in their own budget, the Edward Street, the high end Edward Street traders, will not pay one cent towards this—are you okay?

Chairman: I am being distracted by one of your fellow Councillors, that is all. Continue, Councillor SUTTON; don't be distracted.

Councillor SUTTON: Right—they will not pay one cent towards the construction of this upgrade, unlike all of those suburban traders who have been patiently waiting for SCIPs to be delivered. All of those traders in all of those suburban centres, all of those suburban SCIPs have always paid a levy, but when it comes to this Administration, the CBD and the CBD traders get whatever they want, and the suburban retailers, and the smaller scale small business, who this Administration proposes to support, have to dig further into their own pockets to actually see improvements in their suburbs.

In terms of the Laneways project, I actually have to say I have lost all confidence in this Laneways project. I would like to see the detailed criteria about how these projects are selected, because as far as I can see, whoever recommended Burnett Lane and the outcomes in Burnett Lane quite frankly should be sacked. I am not often in the city on a Saturday night these days, but I was a couple of weeks ago, and I actually specifically went past Burnett Lane specifically to see the vibrancy of it, and it was as dead as a doornail.

Perhaps, Councillor DICK, if you were in there having dinner, it would have come to life, because clearly that is a measure of the lane's success. But unfortunately you were otherwise engaged on that night that I was in there. But whoever recommended the outcomes of that lane should be sacked. That was a complete and utter waste of money in any way, shape or form that you look at it.

As to Mooney Fountain, quite frankly, all that has delivered in my view is private footpath dining space for the operator that is out there. You drive past that, and all you see are all the tables and chairs for the café that is there, sitting out in all the public space. That is a really great use of public money, to construct a deck so some private business—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, your time has expired. Thank you.

Councillor SUTTON: —can actually just get more revenue through footpath dining.

Chairman: Thank you. DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman; I rise to support this program, Future Brisbane. It is, according to its name, supporting the future of our city. It is a forward looking program, one that goes ahead and does a number of things which Labor, as we have heard today, just does not have the guts to do or the vision or the foresight to do.

Investment in a whole range of initiatives, such as the ones that they are criticising, like streetscape improvement, pedestrian improvement, public artwork, lighting for the CBD to bring people into the city—these are not things that cities like Brisbane or modern cities can ignore. These are not things that we can bury our head in the sand about. If we don't do these things, we will be left behind. You only have to look at the Vivid Festival in Sydney to see just the massive impact that creative lighting can have, bringing literally tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people to that city specifically for that lighting festival. We have an Opposition here who are against anything new. But they are also arguing against their own arguments. We heard a classic example—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —we heard a classic example from Councillor SUTTON. I took notes while she was speaking. But the logic there confused the absolute hell out of me, I've got to say. Councillor SUTTON said it is outrageous that we are getting a 45 per cent windfall, apparently, from development activity, through application fees and infrastructure charges and other things like that. She made an outrageous claim about money talking, which was just disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful.

Then, in the next breath, she said, it is outrageous that we are not charging developers more for building hotels or student accommodation. It does not make sense. It does not make sense.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order

Yes, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Thank you.

DEPUTY MAYOR: You didn’t do a very good job of representing yourself just before, so good luck explaining what you have said. The reality is: do you want us to charge developers more, or do you want us to charge developers less? Come clean; explain yourself, because—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —there is no consistent position from the Opposition here. Apparently we are charging too much, and we are charging too less, or not enough. Let's have a look at this hotel infrastructure charges reduction that was in place. Apparently all of these new hotels, we should have collected money from. Guess what; those new hotels would not have existed without the subsidy. Guess how much money we collected from new hotel developments in the 10 years prior to this policy being implemented. Nothing. Guess how much money we lost from this policy being implemented. Nothing.

So, if there was no hotel investment for 10 years, and we collected no infrastructure charges, then we are actually not giving anything away. But what we have done is supported and encouraged the development of new hotels in this city which support our economy, provide jobs and investment in our city—

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: We are collecting rates from these properties. The investment is flowing on to the people of Brisbane; and Labor, if they were in office, quite clearly would have just wanted to charge them. That would have meant that these projects would not happen. These hotels would not exist without the support of Council and the facts will prove that that is the case.

When it comes to development activity and the comments that were made about the activity that is going on at the moment in the new City Plan, Labor really is nowhere on this issue. They have tried to peddle this line that all of the development activity that is happening in Brisbane at the moment, particularly in the residential sphere, is somehow because we have suddenly pushed a big green button. I would like to be able to say that is the case, but do you know what? We cannot claim the credit for that. It is called market conditions. The residential property market is going gangbusters. Guess what; it is going even more gangbusters in Sydney and Melbourne as well. Did they have a new City Plan? Did they press a big green button? No. It is the economy.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, I was going to say that, but no, I’d better not. It is the economy and market conditions that are driving this investment in our city. We continue to hear the absolute false claims that developers are getting approvals that don't comply with the City Plan. Absolute rubbish. If developers were getting approvals that don't comply with the City Plan, those approvals would end up in court, and those approvals would be overturned. But do you know what happens more often than not? When we refuse an application, it goes to court; subsequently approved. That happens more often than not. So what does that say about Labor's claims?

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: A complete fantasy, manufactured claims, and lowest common denominator, politics. We are seeing in this city a big investment in providing homes for the people of Brisbane, and homes for our residents. Labor can call it anything they want, but that is what the majority of the development activity in our city is doing—providing homes for people to live in. You can take the not in my backyard attitude all you like; you can try and score political points, but this is about the growth and development of our city, the creation of homes for people to live in, the creation of jobs and economic activity across the city.

We know that construction is one of the major pillars of our economy. We know of the tens of thousands of union members that are currently in work because of this economic activity. Many of those union members are over in South Brisbane working on projects right now. So they had better worry if Labor ever gets into administration and puts the kybosh on all of these projects like they are falsely promising people.

But we know that so many of the developments that we are seeing at the moment would have been possible under the City Plan 2000 which Labor brought in. I know for a fact in my ward that the complaints about developments that are occurring, almost every single one of them relate to City Plan 2000 developments, developments that were permissible for 15 years, but now are only happening because of market conditions, but apparently—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —it is all our fault. Labor needs to—

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —Labor needs to get their position straight when it comes to this program, because they are all over the place, making false claims, misleading the community blatantly, and of course, playing the politics of envy with projects like Edward Street.

The footpath in Edward Street that we are going to upgrade belongs to the people of Brisbane. It doesn’t belong to any particular business; it doesn’t belong to property owners; it belongs to the people of Brisbane, and we are upgrading it for the people of Brisbane.

Those property owners, which Opposition Councillors have claimed are somehow getting a special deal or a sweetheart deal, not only are they paying the highest rates in the city because they are in the CBD, they are also paying an economic development levy on top of that. They have been paying that for years and years and years. They are contributing towards—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SUTTON!

Just a moment, DEPUTY MAYOR.

Councillor SUTTON, if you continue to interject, you will be warned.

Thank you. DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you. They are contributing towards a whole range of initiatives that this Council does, and this year they will be contributing around $11 million in that levy. So the people that are supposedly getting a free ride, Labor is simply misleading the Chamber and misleading the people of Brisbane. They are paying far more in rates than the suburban businesses that the Opposition talked about, and what we are doing is simply providing a safe, attractive, enhanced pedestrian environment for the people of Brisbane. There's been a lot of private investment in Edward Street.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired.

DEPUTY MAYOR: It is about time we made some public investment in Edward Street.

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor SUTTON; misrepresentation.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor SCHRINNER claimed that I said that it was outrageous that we are not charging developers more when it came to the hotels and student accommodation rebates. That is not what I said. I said that it was my view that they needed to pay the infrastructure charges that they were required to, and that this Council should not be subsidising those infrastructure charges or reducing them.

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor DICK.

Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on Program 3, Future Brisbane. There is a lot to debate today. Disappointingly, there is not a lot to actually argue with in this program, because all we heard from the Chair was, as Councillor ABRAHAMS said, just more fairy lights for the city and artwork, not actually what is the future planning direction for our city.

I want to start with neighbourhood planning. I note that we are getting three Neighbourhood Plans—one for the Coorparoo Holland Park district, The Gap and Newstead North. I will give it to the LNP that they came up with Newstead North on their own, but the other two have been driven by the community, against opposition from the LNP. I go back to when residents petitioned this Council at The Gap, and this was a media report at the time about the very neighbourhood plan we are discussing in the program items today. The Gap does not need a neighbourhood plan, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk believes, and last week surprisingly wrote to every single household in The Gap to explain his position.

Councillor DICK: So we remember the fierce opposition by the LNP for when residents wanted a neighbourhood plan, what's changed? What's happened?

Councillor DICK: Well, what's happened is we know that the then State Member backed in what the community want, and there was a disagreement with the Chairperson and the LORD MAYOR and the local State Member. What has happened since then? The hard-working and well-respected local Councillor is retiring today, and there is a new Councillor coming in there. What I want to know is: why did the LORD MAYOR at one stage say they didn’t need a neighbourhood plan, and why do they now say they do? Pretty clear. The Gap does not need a neighbourhood plan, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk believes.

So, there was no, well, we will take your views on board. Definitive: we won't deliver a neighbourhood plan. We know that. Also at the time—and I respect her—Councillor Geraldine KNAPP wrote against the local plan in the local newspaper this month, and did not support a neighbourhood plan for that, with good reasons around the density levels. I understand that and respect that.

However, fast forward to this budget, and I certainly hope this is not because we are re-setting the structure for the LNP inside the ward of The Gap to try and win the ward of The Gap. So that is the first thing.

The second neighbourhood plan was the Coorparoo/Holland Park neighbourhood plan. I know locals out there have been petitioning this Council and have been circulating petitions to get this going. In fact, the local Councillor, Councillor McKENZIE, launched his own petition to get a neighbourhood plan up and running, and hasn’t even tabled that petition in response to what residents were petitioning.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor DICK: Well, he tabled it—sorry, the day before the budget came down.

Chairman: Order! Order!

Councillor DICK: So you can imagine they pulled the budget off the printers and said, hang on, before we go and start printing on page 69 of the budget, wait, just wait. Cool your jets; we have got some amendments to make because very last night, the local Councillor—nothing to do with the community campaign running around—tabled the petition in Council. I mean, come on. What we are seeing with neighbourhood planning is just a political tool by the LNP to prop up their election campaigns, which really much as this budget is true and true.

Under service item 3.2.3.2 which is the CBD Lighting program, on page 74 to 75 of the budget, we are asked today to approve this total project of $3 million. That is a lot of investment by this Council for an inner-city lighting project. I understand that is a priority for the LNP. This side of the Chamber believes that sort of money should be invested in our suburbs to improve suburban lighting. That is the difference between this side of the Chamber and that side of the Chamber. We think the safety of residents should come first before we get into a lighting spectacular for the city.

We know we have the Gold Lotto emblem on City Hall at Christmas time. I certainly hope we are not going to see more brands being used as a result of this lighting program as well, which segues nicely into the Edward Street upgrade, which is on part of 3.2.2.1 The Urban Futures of Brisbane. Right on this issue, as we have been speaking about today, is an $11 million allocation.

We have heard from the DEPUTY MAYOR and we have heard from other Councillors that this is some sort of return on the investment for the businesses in Edward Street. Well, if that is the case, what of businesses in Elizabeth Street, George Street, Albert Street? The argument is flawed, because we are hearing, well, they deserve this. They deserve the allocation. What about the businesses at Alderley and Graceville? It is the community's footpaths there too. So they are paying through their rates. It makes no sense.

The only sense we make out of it and the only sense the people of Brisbane work out is that the LNP want to look after high end luxury brands; they want to make sure that those struggling brands, as Councillor WINES said that I was across, the multinational companies which are—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor DICK: —no, not a high end brand—I've got enough to deal with fashion advice on this side of the Chamber, let alone moving across to that side of the Chamber, I tell you. See what I've got to deal with in the front row with Councillor FLESSER and Councillor CUMMING; I've got my hands full before I move over there. Nonetheless, it is an awful amount of money that we are spending—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor DICK: The other issue, and a serious issue I've got concerns about, is the traffic issues surrounding this. You take out a lane of traffic; what does that do for public transport, for parking in the city—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor DICK: —those serious questions. When I put them to the LORD MAYOR, he sort of harked back to Maureen Hayes and said that this was her grand plan or something. I don't think Maureen Hayes has been here for about eight or 10 years—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor DICK: I understand that this is a significant investment, and we are simply asking: what is the direct return for the ratepayers across our city. When you ask inner-city residents to have a gift of $11 million, but residents in the Alderley and Graceville SCIPs, which I may add are simply re-announcements from last year—the issue I have today is: where are the new SCIPs for this year? Where are the new SCIPs for the 2015-16 Budget? Has this Council given up on providing this well-loved and well-needed program? There are no funding allocations for any future SCIPs at all.

So, I've got a number of concerns, particularly when we have spoken about the revenue, where we know that we are seeing a spike in revenue. As Councillor ABRAHAMS said, what are the residents getting in return? What are we getting when we are getting this revenue through the door, when we are using the new City Plan, and of course City Plan is mentioned right throughout Program 3, but not one mention of City Plan by the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee Chairperson.

Councillor SCHRINNER, if you think you are on a winner with City Plan, come out to some of the public meetings that I have been holding right across the city. Seriously, come out. This is what people think of last week's commentary about the City Plan: residents fear sham process. Residents fear sham process. Community groups say City Plan could turn Brisbane into a slum. Our new plan leaves city open to unacceptable development. So, you are living in a parallel universe if you think the City Plan is a popular and well-loved document. You are kidding yourself. Hundreds and hundreds of residents right across Brisbane are angry—that is the only word I can use—angry against what this Council has done, where they are seeing time and time again. This article was interesting, because residents fear sham process. It was in Councillor WINES' ward; frustration over development process is boiling over in Mitchelton. Mitchelton Action Group member said she was disappointed to read comments by the developer in the North-West indicating that Council refusal of his application to develop was just a process—

Chairman: Councillor DICK, your time has expired. Thank you.

Councillor DICK: —and eventually development would be cleared by the courts. It says it all in black and white.

Councillor DICK!

Further debate?

Councillor KNAPP.

Councillor KNAPP: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on Program 3. In the 18 years that I have been here, the constant in relation to this program has been the underpinning of the 2000 City Plan and the 2014 City Plan. Previously, when I became a Councillor, it was the 1987 plan.

Without the planning of a city plan of what does the city look like, it is not simply about land use. We keep on talking in this place about something has gone wrong because of all of a sudden there are units where there shouldn’t have been units. Well, really, nothing much changed from the 2000 plan to the 2014 plan. In fact, in the 1987 plan, the land use was Residential (Res) A or Res B. It changed from Res A to low density; it changed from Res B to low-medium density. Nothing has changed. It is just as the DEPUTY MAYOR said. The reality is that the city was a big country town in 1970.

I think we've got to actually take it in a historical context. It has grown exponentially and grown well—grown well under Sallyanne Atkinson; grown well under Jim Soorley. That underpinned the growth by how the city should expand. Today the City Plan is a living, breathing document. Really, in the service provider of 3.1.2 which is Strategic Land Use and Planning, it is a living, breathing document. There are amendments that are made. Sometimes Government legislation changes the way in which we need to change requirements in the City Plan.

Road use—it tells us what the hierarchy of roads are. It tells us what you can do on the land. You know, is it acceptable to have a childcare in a residential area. Well, a lot of people don't like it, but that's where you can have childcare. It once prevented childcare going on main roads, for a very good reason.

Whilst everyone doesn’t understand that that is how it directs the planning in relation to the city, it is the critical document that allows us to be a terrific, really wonderful New World City, the best capital city in Australia. The reality is that this is a vibrant capital city because of the things we have done. I am amazed, and I suppose half of the people in this Chamber weren't born in 1970 when I came to Brisbane. I think you actually have to look at the fact that, in 1970, everything shut.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor KNAPP: There was not 24-hour trading.

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS!

Councillor KNAPP: The reality is that, coming to Brisbane in the 70s, at lunch time on a Saturday, everything shut. Everything shut.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor KNAPP: But all of a sudden, Expo came along and it changed the way we looked at our city. The 1987 plan started to reflect the outdoor dining nature of the city. In 1970, regional shopping centres were a new-fangled thing. Chermside had just been built. Indooroopilly was just being built as I came. Of course, the reality is that, what happened was, it took away trade from the CBD. People wanted to shop in their localities. It was important, so the CBD languished. It was a place for business, and yes, there was a Coles and whatever, but people started going to their regional shopping centres.

All of a sudden, Expo brought us back in with the view of opening up the river. Again, I pay tribute to the previous mayors who actually implemented the beginning of us becoming this fabulous city that we are today. So, Madam Chair, I think that we should recognise this and stop whinging and whining about the City Plan 2014 has done this, when the only great change, and one of the small changes was you could build up to 9.5 metres.

When I look at the people that put in submissions against the City Plan, I did not see many—you know, the submissions in 2000 when we were in Opposition, I can assure you, there were over 7,000 submissions. We did our homework. I don't see it today, and I think people like living in Brisbane. I think they understand that there is change afoot. I don't like change; nobody likes change. Nobody likes a house that goes next to them and takes their views away. Oh, where are my views? Well, City Plan has never protected the views of people.

Madam Chair, I am pleased that there is a local plan. Whilst I agree that at the time, and I still believed at the time, the thing that drove the local plan was certainly not Cedar Woods; Cedar Woods was not even a glint in anyone's eye. What happened was, there were some units being built at The Gap Shopping Centre, and it was also driven by the Bunnings, again which was over in Councillor WINES's ward, where people actually got really concerned about the impact of that and traffic, and also about a three or four-storey block of units that had been legitimately approved under a code in a shopping centre, which was a Suburban Centre (MP3).

I appreciated the view that people wanted to keep the wonderful amenity of The Gap suburb. It is truly one of the unique suburbs in Brisbane. So when people signed the petition, it did not say we needed a local plan; it basically said we need a plan to protect what we've got. Inherently, the City Plan protected what they had. So, Madam Chair, it is time to have a plan for The Gap, and it is a small scale plan. The Gap is low density. There is no capacity in any way, shape or form to actually change it to low-medium. Economically it wouldn’t work.

There are 5,200 dwellings in The Gap. There are three zonings in The Gap, and environmental blocks, and there are 160 of those that ring around The Gap. They will never be changed. Is there much land left to develop? No, there is not. I have one block left, one block which could potentially have some townhouses on it, because it is over 3,000 square metres. There are 256 townhouses in The Gap. As a mix against providing a mix of housing, it is certainly less than it should be, but that is the reality of it.

So what will the local plan do? It will engage everybody, and let them work out what we want to protect. It is not just about the amazing Enoggera and Fish Creek. It is about the sporting fields; it is about road use. It is about all of those things that layer into a local plan.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor KNAPP: Payne Road is a district access road.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor KNAPP: Settlement Road is a suburban road; it is 60. It links The Gap across to Samford Road.

Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS!

Councillor KNAPP: Madam Chair, I think that, when people asked for it, they were asking something that they didn’t realise inherently was protected by the City Plan. But as we have done the plans, which were driven by the fact that we needed to plan for density across the city, then the post-war suburbs were the ones where we needed to come in and bring them inherently into the City Plan.

I would like to say that, over the 18 years, I would like to thank the members of the Development Assessment team. For 18 years, they have provided amazing advice. Any time I wanted to ring them to have a discussion about a DA, they gave me frank and fearless advice. I learned an amazing amount from them. I want to thank all the managers and all of the people that have been involved in my time as a Councillor in this place.

Of all of the things that we do, I think planning and how we plan for the growing to make us and keep us the best capital in Australia has been a very great important thing that we do. I value and appreciate always and will always remember the great work that they did as part of this amazing program. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: I will take another speaker. I have been advised that morning tea is 10 minutes late.

Is there any further debate?

Councillor FLESSER.

Councillor FLESSER: Madam Chair, I would love to. Mainly I would like to respond to comments that the DEPUTY MAYOR made in relation to Edward Street in particular. He was espousing, I suppose, it is the LNP's philosophy, that if you pay more in taxes, then you're actually entitled to a greater benefit than someone who pays less—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor FLESSER: —someone said that's right. Well, Madam Chair, that is not what I believe in. The DEPUTY MAYOR has been caught out I think today, saying something like that. We know that he was caught out yesterday when he was speculating about who introduced parking meters to Brisbane. We found out it was actually the Liberal Party in 1957. He has been caught out again today. So forever and a day—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor FLESSER: —we will be saying we know who brought parking meters to Brisbane. It is those people over there, and Councillor SCHRINNER was good enough to highlight that yesterday. What is happening in this budget—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order! Order! Can we just get back to the budget and Program 3 please?

Councillor FLESSER: Absolutely, Madam Chair. Let's talk about Edward Street. I certainly don't believe that those rich traders in Edward Street should be entitled to a benefit that is disproportionate with what other ratepayers pay in Brisbane. I've got no problem with them paying a benefit area levy, like my business traders have done in Nundah and Banyo and other SCIPs across Brisbane, but let's be fair: $11 million for that one very small part of Brisbane, and no benefitted area levy. I don't accept the fact that because they pay higher rates there, like other businesses in the city do, is a reason to give them such a bigger benefit.

The philosophy that Councillor SCHRINNER was talking about today is that, well, they pay lots of rates, so therefore we are going to give them a bigger entitlement. What about the residents in my ward? Sure, they pay lesser rates, but does that mean that this Council should not be as accommodating for them? When you look around at some of the small shopping centres that I have, and every Councillor would have here, we see broken footpaths, we see poor maintenance of those footpaths, not enough lighting in parks and around shopping centres, I just don't believe that we should have a philosophy that if you pay more in rates, then you are entitled to a bigger benefit.

So, Madam Chair, as far as that Edward Street development is concerned, and the money that is allocated in this program in the budget, I do not believe that is a good use of ratepayers' money. If there was a benefited area levy, I would have a completely different view about it. But, Madam Chair, I just don't believe that we are being fair on the ratepayers of Brisbane by allowing this to go through. I think it is a bad move, and certainly something that would be very hard for me to go out and explain to my ratepayers who complain to me.

I am sure every Councillor here gets the same complaints, that the footpaths aren’t good enough, and then they read in the paper that these traders in Edward Street are getting $11 million spent to pretty up their footpath and make it a nicer place. How do you then go and explain to them, well, look, they're getting a better footpath because they pay a lot of money in rates. It doesn’t wash with me, and it doesn’t wash with the residents of Brisbane.

Chairman: Further debate?

Okay.