PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 12 …...19 Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 12/6/08 -...

17

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 12/6/08 - #1715261

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

12 JUNE 2008

4 PORT DOUGLAS WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN UPDATE – DIVISION 10 Jim Allen: 8/26/22-02: #1718377

RECOMMENDATION: That the update on the Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan be noted.

INTRODUCTION: The Douglas Shire Council (DSC) resolved in 2005 to plan for the integrated redevelopment of the Dickson Inlet Waterfront in Port Douglas. Following initial steps, a bolder commitment to an integrated master plan for this complex area emerged covering not just the waterfront but its integration with surrounding areas. Since the waterfront leasehold areas between Wharf Street and the Dickson Inlet are in State Government ownership, a key element has been State participation in the (non-statutory) strategic planning process. Community engagement was also given high priority, especially since early 2007 following parallel investigations by Council and The Coordinator General (Queensland Government) during 2006. A Waterfront Management Committee comprising Council, State Government and community and business representatives meets roughly every six weeks to consider and discuss project-related issues. A community-based Project Advisory Group also meets on a regular basis as part of the community engagement process. The DSC-adopted terms of reference for the Committee provide for regular reporting to Council. This is the first such report to the Cairns Regional Council. An aerial photo with defined Study Area is attached (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND: In early 2007, the DSC committed to an inclusive, multi-phased master plan process. In August 2007, the DSC adopted a summary methodology and timetable for delivery of the final phases of the master plan process – Phases 3, 4 and 5. The project is currently well advanced with the initial identification of community values undertaken in 2007, and a series of technical studies near completion. The overall project phasing is illustrated in the following table.

18


Table 1 Project Phasing

Project Phase Date Project Action

30 Jan 2007

• Coordinator General’s Due Diligence Review Released

Feb-Mar 2007

• Commencement of community consultation process • Community information and feedback sessions • Stakeholder briefings

Phase 1

Apr 2007 • Develop recommendations for an engagement and planning process to develop plan options and eventually a preferred plan that will guide the future of the plan study area

• Presented to the April meeting of Council

Phase 2 May-July 2007

• Approved engagement plan implemented – Values meeting conducted, PAG established and Waterfront Management Board established

• Phase 2 Report to 7th August meeting of Council Aug 2007 to Feb 2008

• Council to consider Phase 2 report and consider approval to proceed with balance of the project – Phases 3, 4 and 5

• In August 2007 Council approved the project moving through to Phases 3 onwards

• Council’s approval included the preparation of detailed project consultant briefs, refinement of the project budget and the early engagement of the project’s Planning Coordinator and Community Engagement Specialist

• Develop PAG and Waterfront Management Committee activities

Phase 3

Feb-July 2008

• Prepare project technical studies including transport, environment, sustainability, economic analysis, tourism, heritage and culture

Aug-Oct 2008

• Commence preparation of draft plan concepts • Confirm background technical information

Sept or Oct 2008

• Enquiry by Design

Oct-Nov 2008

• Refinement of preferred option to draft Master Plan • Public exhibition of draft Master Plan

Dec 2008 • Prepare revised draft Master Plan and business case – report to Council

Phase 4

Jan 2009 • Finalise Master Plan subject to Council direction

Phase 5 Jan 2009 onwards

• State Government approval process and plan gazettal

The comprehensive Phase 2 report adopted by the DSC on 7 August 2007 established a business case and interim methodology for Phases 3 through to finalisation. It also provides a much more detailed background and rationale for the project than is possible to include in this update. It points out that unless appropriate mechanisms are put in place to guide change, growth will occur in a more adversarial structure that eventually is more costly to the community in terms of funding and community interaction. Importantly, nine Guiding Principles for the Master Plan based on community consultation were adopted in August 2007– see Attachment 2.

19


The most recent Waterfront Management Committee was held on 23 April 2008 – see Minutes attached (Attachment 3). The WMC meets again on 3 June 2008. The Project Advisory Group last met on 6 April and meets again on 15 June. The membership of the two groups is set out in Attachments 4 and 5.

COMMENT: Phase 3: Technical Studies Following the WMC’s review of the terms of reference for technical studies in February, four consultancies were commenced in March. Three are close to completion: • Non-indigenous heritage (Maunsell) • Traffic (Maunsell) • Economics (Economic Associates) The fourth, an indigenous heritage study (by Australian Museum Business Services), will be delayed approximately a month to enabled a second round of consultation with indigenous contacts. Phase 4: Design Phase Phase 4 involves the preparation and review of design concepts (options), the Enquiry by Design - an intensive interaction between the design and technical teams and key stakeholders over several days – and then, preparation of the master plan for further consultation and subsequent Council adoption. Procurement of a Principal Design Consultant will commence shortly. This consultant will be a key participant in the Enquiry by Design (EBD) and subsequent preparation of the master plan. Planning Coordination Effectively this role was being shared by the Strategic Planner, Jim Allen (Project Manager) and the appointed Planning Coordinator, Tim Nevard from GHD, until in April, the latter became unavailable due to unforeseen health/family reasons. Given this unavoidable intermittency of consultant input, Council Officers have increased their involvement in both project management and planning coordination. Nevertheless, the project has proceeded through the post-amalgamation period otherwise smoothly and largely on track. The process is generally very well received by stakeholders. Subject to procurement of a Principal Design Consultant, there is the capacity to deliver the pivotal Enquiry by Design event in September 2008.

20


To counter risks in a supplier’s market of a lack of experienced planners and urban designers or high turnover of personnel, the terms of reference for the Principal Design Consultant (currently being finalised) will cover such contingencies more effectively. In addition, discussions have occurred with GHD to accommodate changes necessitated by the uncertainty regarding the return of the appointed Planning Coordinator. Good progress has been made to clarify GHD’s further input though (at the time of writing) a formal submission of further details from GHD is pending. What this means in practical terms is that Council will need to reserve the option of selecting specific master planning services from either firm, subject to capability, availability, cost and project appreciation. The Principal Design Consultant may emerge with extra tasks. Alternatively, the original suite of services from GHD may in time be resumed, though this appears less likely. Enquiry by Design Not everyone involved in the project is currently familiar with an Enquiry by Design. This is an intensive, interactive forum, over 2-4 days that aims to produce non-binding urban design and planning visions. Both the WMC and PAG sought briefings at their next meetings on the Enquiry by Design. The community engagement consultant, Elton Consulting, will conduct these briefings. The Cairns City Council utilised EBD for design projects and the experience gained, coupled with the consultant team’s expertise with this technique, will stand the project in good stead. EBD familiarity will be a key selection criteria for the design consultant. The involvement of a diversity of stakeholders will continue to be encouraged. To that end, engagement measures over and above the routine WMC and PAG meetings and community updates (prepared by Elton) are anticipated in the lead up to the EBD. Lease Issues It should be noted that some years ago, the MFS/Ray Group consortium secured approximately 10 hectares of the waterfront lease areas, making them the largest leasehold stakeholder. It is understood all or nearly all of those leases have been transferred to Meridian.

CONSIDERATIONS: Corporate and Operational Plans: The project is within the scope of the respective DSC plans. A further report on links to current plans will be provided in the next regular report to Council. Statutory: The statutory implications are contingent on the project reaching Phase 5 in 2009, when Planning Scheme amendments are envisaged. Also some waterfront lease renewals will need to occur in 2009.

21


Policy: The output of the project will include amendments to the Planning Scheme (phase 5) and there are likely to be implications for key Council assets within the Study Area, eg. the Sugar Wharf, Market, Anzac and Rex Smeal Parks, and perhaps other Council owned or controlled land. Integration with the concurrent preparation of a draft conservation management plan for the Sugar Wharf is being actively managed. Financial and Risk: The full consultancy budget committed by DSC is $932,000. The Planning Coordinator (PC) and Community Engagement (CE) consultancies commenced in the 2nd quarter of the financial year. At 30 April 2008, the PC and CE consultancies were approximately 44% and 18% spent respectively. This is “on budget” or thereabouts based on the DSC estimates. According to the DSC indicative methodology, ten other consultancies are scheduled to start in 2008 – four technical studies have commenced reflecting a more conservative approach to information gathering in the preliminary stages. The values of the four technical study consultancies commissioned in 2008 are close to the DSC estimates and three are on track. Since only four have commenced, the net position is “under budget”. It is timely to review aspects of the DSC methodology and estimates, but it should be noted that some under-spending reflects constraints in obtaining the right consultants not necessarily an over-estimate of the work required, or the urgency. Consultancy Firm DSC

Est. Fee Exp. to

30/4/08 % to 30/4/08

Work status

Comment

Community Engagement

Elton Consulting

$109K $97.6K $17.9K 18% On track Major input to come ie. Enquiry by Design

Planning Coordinator

GHD (Tim Nevard)

$189K $180K $80K 44% Was on track, but slipping

Do not expect to spend full amount.

Heritage - Indigenous

Aust. Museum

$30K $20K N/A Behind schedule

Indigenous consultation is very incomplete

Heritage – Non-indigenous

Maunsell $35K $35K Unknown Very advanced

Draft report received

Traffic & Transport

Maunsell $40K $40K Unknown On track Draft report in preparation

Economic Economic Associates

$40K $35K Unknown On track Draft report in preparation

Environment - $55K - Behind schedule, but some input can be based on past studies

Not procured yet. The estimated fee appears excessive at this stage, without greater clarity on likely future land use directions.

Geotechnical - $15K - - Not procured yet

22


Legal - $10K - - Not procured yet Engineering Design

- $40K - - Not procured yet – scheduled start: June

Urban / Landscape Design

- $170K - - Not procured yet - scheduled start: June

Valuation & Feasibility

- $50K - - Not procured yet – scheduled start: June

Quantity Surveying

- $35K - - Not procured yet

Consultancy availability and continuity of involvement remains the primary risk and is under active management – see “Comments – Planning Coordination”. Some of the outstanding technical studies should and can readily be postponed until after the EBD (on an as required basis) though it is to be expected that there will be varying stakeholder viewpoints about this. The risk is not covering a key issue that then emerges as such in the EBD and with potential to delay to the master plan preparation. The long gestation of the project and opportunity to review comments on previous major development concepts (ambitious but unrealised) suggests that the key constraints and opportunities should be apparent, ie. identified, if not fully investigated, by the time of the EBD. It should be borne in mind that the master plan will combine short, medium and long-term outcomes. For example, a walking track around Flagstaff Hill will not need to be resolved in 2009, in contrast to issues affecting some waterfront leases that come up for renewal next year. Sustainability: Sustainability is one of the project’s nine Guiding Principles – see Attachment 2.

CONSULTATION: The community and stakeholder consultation is built into the Master Planning Process.

OPTIONS: The report is for noting.

CONCLUSION: That Council note the update on the Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan.

23


ATTACHMENTS: 1. Study Area 2 Nine Guiding Principles 3. Minutes of Waterfront Management Committee Meeting on 23 April 2008 4. Membership of WMC 5. Membership of Project Advisory Group 6. WMC terms of reference (endorsed by DSC on 7 August 2008) Jim Allen Strategic Planner Peter Boyd Manager Planning Strategies Peter Tabulo General Manager Planning & Environment

24


Attachment 1 Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan Study Area

The diagram above indicates the general boundary of the proposed Plan area. The final Plan area will be resolved in detail as part of the Master Plan process. Note that the Plan area includes adjacent and adjoining area of the Port Douglas townsite. The Plan area includes non-waterfront land in order to ensure that an integrated use and development strategy is identified for Port Douglas as a whole. It is anticipated that the Waterfront study area will have detailed provisions for inclusion in Council’s Planning Scheme, while the remainder of the area may also see some changes to the Scheme.

25


Attachment 1: The Nine Guiding Principles The Nine Guiding Principles Douglas Shire Council, on 7 August 2007, endorsed the following nine guiding principles for progressing the preparation of the Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan - 1. Acknowledge the importance of sustainability which needs to underpin all aspects

of Port Douglas, the success of Port Douglas lies in its commitment to: Protecting and preserving the natural environment, including the mangroves

and marine park, for future generations Setting high level sustainability goals in line with the Shire’s carbon neutrality

policy Achieving broadly based social sustainability that balances the needs of both

the business community with that of key supporting community components such as housing affordability

Economic sustainability that protects the interests of the existing business community and provides it with a base to ensure its long term viability.

2. Provide a green heart for the town centre from the market area (and St Mary’s) to

Rex Smeal Park, where the community can gather to celebrate, commemorate and enjoy the uninterrupted vista. Ensure open space areas are usable and celebrate the tropical climate by: Enhancing open space areas with appropriate landscaping (appropriate

species and natural rather than formal style) Retaining mature trees Providing appropriate facilities and amenities such as weather protection,

seating, lighting, water fountains and BBQs Improving accessibility for all including those with a disability Improving maintenance and cleaning regimes Continuing to host a range of outdoor community events and activities Work with relevant authorities to ensure high levels of safety and security.

3. Make the waterfront the heart of Port Douglas – a place to be visited, a place that

is visually accessible and appealing from both land and water, and an active part of daily life, through: Improving public access to the waterfront for activities including walking,

cycling, fishing, viewing Maintaining a working waterfront with a range of commercial activities that

reflects the marine heritage and character of Port Douglas including meeting the needs of the fishing industry, tourism operators and the general boating public

Maintain and promote activities and businesses including the Sunday Markets, adaptive re-use of the sugar wharf, Combined Clubs

26


Plan for tourism trails that highlight local points of interest and new uses to

meet tourism needs Effectively managing the interaction of public and business activities in the

waterfront area Providing a range of facilities and activities for all – including residents and

visitors and people of all ages and socio-economic groups On-going maintenance of existing facilities and infrastructure.

4. Reflect the tropical, relaxed, unhurried character of Port Douglas in the way people

move around the town on foot, in the architecture and in the nature of low scale commercial activities, through: Improved pedestrian access to the waterfront and surrounds Improvements to the local road network and parking provision, to assist in

minimising traffic impacts and to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling

Built form that reflects and respects the heritage and character of the local area, achieves high quality and innovative design outcomes and adapts sustainability principles in line with overall environmental sustainability objectives

Commercial activities that reflect the heritage and character of the local area (i.e. retention of existing activities / introduction of any new activities).

5. Ensure planning for Port Douglas considers:

The importance of tourism to the local economy acknowledging its seasonal nature

Supports the growth of diverse industries that are independent of tourism. 6. Acknowledge the importance of safety for the Port Douglas community – planning

needs to ensure that crime and other safety issues are minimised wherever possible through application of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.

7. Ensure any development in the area comprising the waterfront and surrounds:

Complies with the statutory planning framework Is sympathetic to the local context in terms of height, scale, mass and

character Delivers high levels of design and innovation that meet aesthetic as well as

built form sustainability objectives Meets appropriate geotechnical design standards and sustainability criteria Respects and enhances local amenity through built form design that

increases public access to the waterfront, improves the streetscape through landscaping and provision of setbacks, provides increased visual interest and appeal, incorporates new community facilities

27


8. Thoroughly explore a range of options as part of the Master Plan process including

a ‘no development’ option for the waterfront and test the social, environmental and economic implications of this for the future of Port Douglas and the Shire.

9. Acknowledge, preserve and reflect the Indigenous and non Indigenous heritage of

Port Douglas through: Preservation, enhancement and where appropriate reuse, of iconic buildings

including the Old Courthouse, Sugar Wharf, St Mary’s, Combined Clubs, and where appropriate removal of existing buildings from the waterfront

Preservation of items and sites of Indigenous significance including Magazine Island

Facilities, cultural activities and celebrations that reflects the heritage and character of Port Douglas.

28


Attachment 3:

Project: Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan

Port Douglas Waterfront Management Committee UNCONFIRMED Minutes of Meeting No. 8

Held: Thursday 23 April, 2008 at 10:30am, Council Chambers, Front St Mossman

Name Initials

Position Organisation

PRESENT: Cr Val Schier VS Mayor Cairns Regional Council (CRC) Cr Julia Leu JL Councillor CRC Bryan Coulter

BC Deputy Director General Department of Tourism, Regional Development & Industry

Kev Allan KA Regional Service Manager North Region Department of Natural Resources and Water

Doug Ryan DR Representative Port Douglas & Daintree Tourism Ltd (PDDT) Ed Green, Chair

EG Representative Waterfront Project Advisory Group (PAG)

Peter Tabulo PT General Manager Planning & Environment

CRC

Peter Boyd PB Manager Planning Strategies CRC Katherine Gould

KG Planning assistant GHD

Jim Allen JA Strategic Planner CRC Susanna Andrews

SA Community Liaison Officer – Planning & Environment (minute secretary)

CRC

IN GALLERY

Tony Purves TP President Port Douglas Waterfront Protection Association and PAG member

Jennifer Hill JH Secretary Port Douglas Waterfront Protection Association and PAG proxy for TP

29


Item #

Item Action

10:13 am – Meeting opened by EG

1 WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND MATTERS ARISING

1.1 Apologies Tim Nevard, Planning Coordinator, GHD; Ray Legg, Representative, PAG.

1.2 Endorsement of Minutes of previous Meeting Minutes of Meeting 7 confirmed. BC mentioned that his comments about the design process and competition had not been fleshed out.

The Chair (EG) provided those in the gallery opportunity to make a 5-minute maximum deputation to WMC. TP requested confirmation of the Council’s position regarding the police station at Port Douglas. JL reported that no stance had yet been taken, but that the position was to be revisited by the full Council to see if it has the capacity to challenge the decision. Extensive discussions had been held with the previous Douglas Shire Council (DSC) Mayor, Mike Berwick and these have not been reported back. Jason O’Brien may talk to the Minister about the matter. Letters have been sent to the Minister advising of public opinion but no real reply has been received.

PT advised that a DSC decision would still stand.

JA reported that Bruce Ede (former A/CEO DSC) had sent a letter requesting further consultation and site plan.

PB advised that although a response had been received, the Police department was not prepared to provide a site plan.

1.3 Planning Coordinator EG announced that the Planning Coordinator, Tim Nevard, had advised he would be unable to continue his role on a full-time basis due to unforeseen circumstances. Various options were discussed for his replacement: another GHD employee; another consultant; or coordination work done in-house by council.

PT explained that council would now be required to review the terms of the contract, then discuss this with the Mayor, Council and GHD regarding the impact and bottom line, and that it was important to do this as soon as possible.

JL considered it important to let the general public know the circumstances under which TN is no longer available via the Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette, particularly regarding timelines, reports and recommendations.

JA clarified that TN had indicated he can still play an ongoing ad-hoc role in the project.

Council would organise a meeting to discuss the planning coordinator’s role and contract, as well as a press release.

EG suggested that when new consultancies go out, council would take over the planning coordinator’s role.

JA suggested a selection panel could be composed of council staff and an extra person yet to be decided.

JA to organise meeting with GHD

1.4 Matters Arising from Previous Minutes There were no matters arising from the previous minutes.

30


2 PLANNING COORDINATOR’S REPORT

2.1 JA outlined the history of the project for the benefit of new members of the committee. The State review run by the Coordinator General in 2006 did not sit well with the community or Council. In Phase 1, early 2007, DSC re-started the process “bottom up” with the community, leading to establishment of the Waterfront Management Committee. In Phase 2, the World Café helped develop nine principles to guide the preparation of the master plan. Phase 3 will be the technical studies for economics, heritage etc. Phase 4 will see the design and master planning process run from July to December, with the Enquiry by Design being held in September/October. Phase 5 will be the conversion to statutory documents, including the Planning Scheme, and review of waterfront leases.

Consultants have been contracted for four technical studies, as per the attached report:

Economic - Economic Associates

Traffic & Transport/Non-indigenous – Maunsell

Indigenous – Australian Museum.

Deadlines are tight.

Legal and geotechnical work can be direct-sourced as needed. No quotes have been advertised. Preliminary geotechnical work only is envisaged. The environmental study has several components and sustainability issues can be explored within the design phase.

KG referred to the draft terms of reference (ToR) for the design, engineering and feasibility/valuation consultancies that were circulated to WMC members prior to the meeting. She requested comment by the end of the week. She also reported on meetings with the various technical consultants.

An issue raised was that a figure has not yet been produced for the future development yield so it is difficult to fully assess future needs in the traffic and transport study. PT pointed out that thresholds and carrying capacities can still be estimated to work out the ultimate capacity for traffic. For example, the amount of traffic generated by, for example, a three-storey complex could be estimated. JA thought the economic report may be able to give some idea of what developments could be suitable for the area.

2.2 EG referred to past meetings’ discussion of State funding.

BC indicated that the Department of Tourism, Regional Development & Industry (DTRDI) is prepared to offer $200 000 towards the master planning process, but it believes it could be better utilised in the design phase. Thirteen waterfront tenures are due to expire in 2009-12. The Department needs to know what designs are out there. It proposed that if the committee wants to retain the iconic nature of the waterfront it might be better achieved through a design competition with a prize for the best design. Panels could adjudicate with the choice going forward as the design. The key issue is to get things moving very quickly.

EG suggested that a design competition held previously did not work. The new Council must determine whether this occurs. PT explained that previous Council decisions are binding on CRC. Also GHD has contractual conditions for timelines to fulfill and changes would need contracts changed. The Enquiry by Design process timeline is logical and probably the fastest it can be done. The brainstorming process will produce actual designs and participants will have prior knowledge of the waterfront and its issues.

EG reported a transfer of leases from MFS to Meridien in spite of the moratorium on trading in leases. This means there is one party to negotiate with and their cooperation is imperative.

KA explained that leases will expire with no right of renewal and Council will decide how to approach these including the improvements on the land, which will be the property of the council. The leases stay with council when they expire as the designation of the land cannot be changed from recreation to commercial. The DNRW and the Coordinator General agreed on the moratorium.

There was discussion on the need to engage Meridian.

EG sought staff advice on ongoing management of the project. PT reported that a briefing has been held with senior managers and that the operational aspects between JA and PB will continue. On an executive level there will be meetings held every two months with the review of major projects on the waterfront to be a standing item. This will provide an opportunity for the A/CEO to raise issues. There will also be a review of project management, a performance review and a budget review.

31


3 REPORTS ON RECENT VISITS AND MEETINGS

3.1 State Government visits There were no State Government visits reported.

3.2 PAG Meeting

The PAG meeting held a discussion on the location of the police station. The residential buildings would stay, except for the barracks. There was also a discussion around what an Enquiry by Design and PAG was keen for there to be another meeting with Elton specifically to address questions on this subject.

4 MATTERS ARISING

4.1 Community Update Another community update is needed to renew interest prior to the quite intense consultation coming up. It was suggested a full update be given in the Council Noticeboard.

Elton to prepare a community update

4.2 Iconic Legislation JA indicated that CRC has not formally been asked to comment on iconic values; nor has it been sent a copy of the iconic values statement. These values could have implications that affect the waterfront project.

JL explained background of Douglas Shire Council resolving not to consult the community on the matter and the former Mayor being forced to act alone.

4.3 WMC Membership and Administration Post-Merger Membership is considered sufficient. The committee’s ToR have been circulated. JA undertook to update these to reflect the current membership and other outcomes since 15 March. The next meeting will review the ToR for the committee.

JA to prepare an updated TOR.

5 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

5.1 Enquiry by Design BC reiterated that the DTRDI is trying to expedite the planning process and wants to see tangible options by September, although it is not expecting to have everything firmed up by then. The DTRDI had not agreed that the $200 000 would fund the Enquiry by Design (EBD). It prefers that it be used to expedite the process. The Department prefers that a design competition be held.

PT/JA: The various studies are providing the basic information for the master plan, then the EBD delivers the options, ie the sketch plans. As many people as possible can be involved – eg. the community, engineers, architects and the DNRW.

KA: Leaseholders should also be engaged due to their lease rights – problems with these stakeholders could see the outcome of the EBD not fully realized for up to twenty years.

PT/JA: The community engagement consultant was selected because of their prior experience with the EBD process. People should be primed to get involved. An indicative representation of the final design will be produced with the flair of the designer. This will then be turned into a planning code through the IPA.

The Mayor raised the need for fuller understanding of EBD.

It was decided that the committee would be briefed by Elton Consulting about the EBD process at their next meeting.

EG suggested that the committee meet on a boat at the waterfront to allow for an inspection of the site.

Elton to brief WMC at next meeting.

EG / JA to look into potential boat trip / meeting.

32


5.2 Planning Coordinator’s Contract

If changes are needed they must go through council. KG like others had only found out about the situation today and would confer with GHD colleagues later today.

Draft Consultant’s Reports EG asked who would get to see the draft reports from the technical consultants. JA indicated that they will firstly be seen by planning staff. Review by those who gave local input also may be appropriate. A later version can go to the committee. JA also noted that the committee’s ToR allows for consultants to be called in for a briefing.

JA to ask technical consultants how they will cater for external reviews

6 NEXT MEETING

WMC – 10.30am on Monday, 2 June TBC A special meeting called in the interim to discuss the Planning Coordinator situation was suggested.

33


Attachment 4: Membership of Waterfront Management Committee

WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, 2008 Voting Members Proxies Organisation

Cr Val Schier (Mayor)

TBA Cairns Regional Council

Cr Julia Leu

TBA Cairns Regional Council

Mr Kev Allen Mr Neil Cambourn Department of Natural Resources & Water

Mr Bryan Coulter Mr Dennis Bird / Mr Peter Mellor

Department of Tourism, Regional Development & Industry

Mr Ed Green (Chair)

Representative of Project Advisory Group

Mr Doug Ryan Mr Ken Dobbs Port Douglas & Daintree Tourism Association

Mr Ray Legg

Representative of Project Advisory Group

Permanent Non-Voting Members General Manager Planning & Environment Planning Coordinator

34


Attachment 5: Membership of Project Advisory Group

Project Advisory Group (PAG) Organisation Member Proxy

Arthouse PD Andrew McPhee

Australian Volunteer Coastguard Maureen Hughes

Bally Hooley Steam Railway Darryl Moore

Bamaga Bubu Ngadimunku Damian Britnell

Closehaven Marina John Morris

Douglas Arts Base John Burden

Douglas Shire Historical Society Ray Legg

Douglas Shire Sustainability Group Marion Freeman Roisin Allen

Fisherman's Boat Shed Peter Wright

Independent Local Historian Noel Weare Pam Willis-Burden

Island Point Marine Steve Stonier

Kuku Yalanji People Eddie Barney

Local Marine Advisory Committee Alex Mateer Doug Baird

Low Isles Preservation Society Ed Green

Marina Mirage Port Douglas Kerrie Jamieson

Meridian Warwick Bible

On the Inlet Seafood Restaurant Geoff Parmenter Julie Parmenter

Port Douglas & Daintree Tourism Ltd Ken Dobbs Doug Ryan

Port Douglas Chamber of Commerce Colin Cameron Sam Cullen or Tony Dickenson

Port Douglas District & Combined Clubs Terry Hooper Michael Jones

Port Douglas Fishermen Billy Dunne

Port Douglas Market Group Tania Morris

Port Douglas Restoration Society Virginia Donovan Rod Donovan

Port Douglas Surf Lifesaving Club TBA

Port Douglas Waterfront Protection Association Tony Purves Jennifer Hill

Port Douglas Yacht Club Bruce Wynn

Ray Group, The Simon Vinnicombe Daryl Hambling or Gill Salinos

Yirrigandji People Jeanette Singleton

35


Attachment 6: Port Douglas Waterfront Management Committee – Revised Terms of Reference [last revised in august 2007] Background On 24 April Douglas Shire Council resolved to establish a Waterfront Management group to guide the engagement, planning and design process for the Port Douglas waterfront and surrounds. The first stage of the community engagement and planning process for the Port Douglas waterfront took place in February/March 2007. This stage focused on better understanding community and stakeholder expectations and identifying the best way for Council and the community to work together to plan for the waterfront. The second stage of the process identified community and stakeholder values for the waterfront and surrounds. This stage included the establishment of the Port Douglas Waterfront Management committee to oversee the project and a Project Advisory Group (PAG) to provide community advice to the project. Purpose The purpose of the Committee includes:

(i) Interface with and provide assistance to the PAG, enabling it to perform its role of community representation and for the PAG to provide input into the engagement and planning process

(ii) Overseeing input to, management and delivery of the master planning and engagement process for the Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan project

(iii) Providing advice to and seeking direction of Council and the Planning Co-ordinator on project related matters.

Role The role of the Committee includes:

(i) Provide advice to and seek policy direction from Council. (ii) Assist with implementation of Council decisions relating to conduct of the planning

process (iii) Through the proposed Planning Co-ordinator, consult with and provide guidance to

the Port Douglas Waterfront Project Advisory Group (PAG) in its role of community representation

(iv) Develop a strong relationship with the PAG to enable the group to provide effective input to the engagement, planning and design process for the Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan

(v) Provide technical support to the PAG, as requested, to enable the PAG to provide effective input to the Master Plan preparation process

(vii) Provide strategic advice and direction to the Planning Co-ordinator regarding conduct of the engagement, planning and design process.

(viii) In association with the Planning Co-ordinator, prepare consultant briefs, call for quotations and assess quotations for on-going planning work relating to the waterfront and surrounds prior to preparing reports and recommendations for Council’s review and approval.

36


(ix) Ensure that appropriate input to and management of the master planning and

engagement process is achieved and that Council is advised on a regular basis, and in a timely and informative manner on project matters.

Required Outputs The Committee will be required to provide meeting minutes detailing recommendations and advice. Members

(i) Membership of the Committee will be by invitation (ii) Community representation on the Committee will be drawn from the PAG (iii) Committee members may nominate proxies to attend Committee meetings in their

absence (iv) Membership is as follows:

Voting Members: • Three (3) Councillors – [NOTE: DCS stipulated 3; CRC appointed 2.] • One (1) DNWR representative • One (1) DTRDI representative • One (1) business representative drawn from the (former) Douglas Shire • One (1) community representative drawn for the Shire, being the

spokesperson for the PAG • One (1) additional community representative drawn for the former (Douglas)

Shire, being an additional representative from the PAG –this is subject to review with the PAG.

Permanent Non-voting Members: • The General Manager Planning and Environment or his nominee (usually the

Strategic Planner) to attend Committee meetings and provide on-going technical assistance

• The consultant Planning Co-ordinator to attend Committee meetings and provide on-going technical assistance.

Chairperson The Chairperson shall be selected by the Committee from the above members. Meeting Attendees and Format

• The Committee may request specialist project consultants to provide technical assistance directly to the Committee on an as required basis

• Committee meetings will be open • Observers are welcome to attend Committee meetings • Observers may be requested to leave the meeting to allow Commercial-in-

Confidence discussions • Meetings will generally be held at Council’s Chambers at 64-66 Front Street,

Mossman.

Timeframes and Reporting

• The Committee will report to every second Council meeting • The Committee will structure its meeting schedule to allow for input from the

PAG and the project team and to programme its reporting cycle to meet with Council’s document lodgement procedures

37


• The Committee’s meeting schedule shall be included in the project

programme.

Reporting Guidelines

• Meeting minutes will be prepared by the Planning Coordinator and be distributed to all Committee members and Council

• Minutes will be provided to the project team.

Resources

• Council will provide meeting venues and administrative support.

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 12 …...19 Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 12/6/08 -...

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 12 …...19 Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 12/6/08 -...