Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Welcome to the general committee meeting, I declare the meeting open, begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians on the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people, and pay respects to elders past, present and emerging. For the benefit of our guests in the gallery, any motions passed here today will be forwarded as recommendations to the ordinary committee meeting on Thursday evening. Do we have any apologies? None? Any presentations? No, not today. First item up is the development application for a material chance of use, attached house, seaward of the coastal building line, located
00:01:00 at 54 Seabee Terrace, Sunshine Beach, referred due to the significance of the issue. Councillors, do you have any questions for staff? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I have questions. I'd like to start asking Lisa, please, can you explain to us, as I understand it, the owners originally got advice from Council, possibly back in 2016 or around then, that it would be okay to replace? Yes, it was okay to replace their current house with a new one. They went ahead with getting an architect. And of course, now we find there's been a refusal of their proposal. Could you explain what's the difference between the advice that was given informally in 2016 and the formal advice that's being given now? Speaker 2: Okay. Councillor Jackson: What's changed? Speaker 2: Okay, so the applicant had originally said they wanted to have a new house, but they got some verbal advice saying that if the development was for like-for-like, that that would be supported.
00:02:00 Later on, prior to submitting the application, they received some advice that Council would not be supportive. Councillor Jackson: And when was that? Is that when you say Council had made that advice? Speaker 2: Oh, timing-wise, I believe it was shortly before the application was submitted to Council. Which was in last year? Which was the end of last year. End of last year. Oh, beginning of this year. Councillor Jackson: So my question is really, what's changed between that advice and the original advice? What's changed? Speaker 2: I believe that maybe some plans were cited. I wasn't part of that discussion. I'm sorry. Yeah. Speaker 3: What's changed is really the state planning policy has changed. Yeah. So there's been a new state planning policy that came out in July 2017. 2017. So with the new Planning Act. So that takes a much stricter approach when it comes to coastal erosion matters. Okay. And impacts of coastal processes. What's also changed is Council has embarked on a major study around coastal processes.
00:03:00 We've reviewed the Erosion Pro Line set by the state and actually refined it for our coastline to be more accurate than what the state had set, and we're working on a CHAT plan. So those two things have really changed since that advice. There's obviously a lot more knowledge has gone on since that advice. You know, a few years ago around the impacts of coastal processes and perhaps what planning role needs to play in that. Councillor Jackson: And could I ask then, this application, had it arrived back then when they originally looked into it before these changes took place, would it have been acceptable in the previous period? Is there anything about this application that nevertheless would not be acceptable? Speaker 3: Prior to these recent changes, the practice was, and certainly how the state policy
00:04:00 was worded, around essentially lining up buildings either side and making sure new development did not extend further seaward of that line. So can you add to where it goes further forward? Speaker 2: So basically the new proposal, the deck and the pool retreats somewhat than what currently exists. Councillor Jackson: They retreat. And back. Further away. Speaker 2: Just slightly. Yes. A couple of metres, I believe. Yeah. Existing buildings. They essentially line up with each side. They do. Councillor Jackson: So it would have been acceptable. Yes. In those days. I wonder if I could, and I do have, Kylie, a picture to put up, which is the 54 sea view existing and proposed picture. Oops. That's it. That's from the plan that we've been given. For the building. The new building. And I, as I understand it, there are red lines that show where the current building is. And then the black lines are showing where the proposed building is.
00:05:00 So can you explain how this current building differs, the footprint of the current building differs from the original building that exists there now? And how it relates to the six metre setback that has been required, I believe, by the new supply? Is that the final point? Speaker 3: Well, it's a 15 metre setback at the moment. Under the new supply. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So what's the six metre setback? There's a six metre setback that applies across the coastal overlay of all properties. But some sites also have a 15 metre building line from the back, and this is one of those. Councillor Jackson: Right. Okay. And how long has that been in place, that 15 metre? Speaker 3: 15 metres? It actually, that was a line initially drawn by the state back in the 80s. Councillor Jackson: Well, that's the building, coastal building line that you're talking about. That's the coastal building line. Yep. That's right. So that's a different, that's a state level line. Speaker 3: That's a state line.
00:06:00 Sure. That was brought into our planning scheme in 2006. Councillor Jackson: But at the same time, we've been given in the staff report, I believe, several examples of approvals that would have already been done under that building line. Speaker 3: Yes. Because. Councillor Jackson: And they are forward of the building line. Speaker 3: That's right. Because the practice was to line buildings up with either side of other development. So it was a question of that. That's right. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So the, can we just talk about the existing building, which is already there? Can you just explain how the new proposal differs to the existing building in the Seawood side? Speaker 2: The Seawood side. So on the Seawood side, the existing building, as you can see with the red dotted line, is a bit of an L-shape, which extends Seawood of the coastal build line. Below that L-shape is an existing pool on the lower level. On the top level, there is an existing deck that does, is a cantilever deck that extends
00:07:00 out. So that, with respect to the proposed dwelling, is that the proposed dwelling is set back six metres, wholly. Within that. With a small deck, cantilevered deck, that comes out beyond that, which is three metres step back from the rear boundary. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So it's further back. So I do have another question, Kylie, and that relates to the concept of minor redevelopment. State planning. SPP, minor redevelopment. Obviously, I've studied all the various documents that support the decision. And I've had a look at the state planning. The state planning policy. And it specifically has, at the very right there, it refers to minor redevelopment of an existing permanent building or structure that cannot be relocated or abandoned. And that then has a little number six there that goes down to the bottom, and it defines a minor redevelopment in an erosion prone area in a coastal management district.
00:08:00 Includes replacing an existing permanent building or structure with a building or structure that is the same, or substantially the same, in location and size, and monetary value of the existing building or structure, et cetera. So I'm wondering why, in this case, this particular replacement of an existing building is not being considered a minor redevelopment. Speaker 3: Well, I think that statement there goes on to give you some examples. And it talks about minor redevelopment, including adding 50 square metres, or an additional storey. This proposal is to demolish an existing house completely and rebuild, so I would not consider that minor in any way. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Would it be fair to say that that constitutes reusing the existing footprint of the building or part of the building in situ and redeveloping on the existing footprint
00:09:00 with components of the building remaining? Speaker 3: Well, there's a few complaints- Councillor Jurisevic: By an extension rather than, or as opposed to a redevelopment, as opposed to a complete demolition, that part of the building has to remain for that to be considered as the building structure in that area. Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't know whether that's well defined anywhere, Joe, but I think that it has to be minor. So I think if you maintain the floor or some part of the building, it's a minor redevelopment. I actually wouldn't consider that minor. I'd still consider that quite substantial. Okay. And that note there goes also to talk about the cost associated with coastal work. So it talks about whether the structure is more than the cost of associated coastal protection work. Now, I think associated coastal protection work would always result in a cost far greater
00:10:00 than a house building. Councillor Jackson: Well, it's interesting. I've put to you, and I'll ask you, for a good reason. For example, in Cooroy, where there has been a terrible incident with houses right on the beach, which have been highly affected by coastal erosion, I saw recently that the council and state have agreed to pay 20% of the cost of seawall, or rock wall, and the indication was that a rock wall would cost about $150,000 per year. So I don't see how that is so high compared to the cost of this development. Speaker 3: Grant might help me here, but I guess what we're seeing is the cost of a small section of wall is not significant, but the issue is the wall, just a wall out the front of the property is never sufficient. It has to extend quite some distance along the coastline, and that's an extremely costly
00:11:00 amount. Is that right, Grant? Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could I just ask, have you got any dollar figures per linear metre around that? Speaker 4: So those are being finalised at the moment, but the example Councillor Jackson talks to has cost it up at around $15,000,000 per metre length of wall. Councillor Mullington? Mayor Wellington: Isn't it true also that Collaroy and Narrabeen proved one of the major problems of building such walls is that when you present either just simple rocks or a piece of land, it's just a small section of wall, or a formed wall, that greater problems occur wherever the wall finishes, therefore the wall cannot, wherever the, if you put a section of wall in it creates greater problems at either end of that wall, and therefore in order to have an effective wall it actually has to wall off the entire beach, not just a section of it. Councillor Jurisevic: That's correct. Yeah, my question was going to allude to the same thing. You couldn't just build a section of wall for one property, it would have to be beyond
00:12:00 the bounds of the entire hazard that it's trying to protect. That's right. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: So I guess another question I then have is, I mean, having studied the state planning policy, the guidelines for development in coastal areas, as well as the Noosa Plan, and things about precautionary principle and duty of care, all of those refer to ensuring that... that existing coastal processes are not damaged further, and therefore do not cause problems to people. But the primary thing is that the... every one of those refers to not further damaging or affecting coastal processes. With the house already being there, which is on the...
00:13:00 I believe on a coast concrete slab and taking up a larger part of this property, and my understanding is from the drawings and from the other things we've received and from having spoken to the applicants, that the new proposed building would only take up 55% of the footprint, it would be further back, and in fact their landscape designer has given them a landscape design that would completely reinstate the native planting... Mayor Wellington: Point of order, Mr Chair, we appear to be going to an argument here rather than a question. Councillor Jackson: It is a question, councillor. My question is, why would replacing the house with a new house with a smaller footprint and natural landscaping be defined in relationship to the various plans and acts and laws as causing degradation to the environment and serious and irreversible environmental damage, when
00:14:00 there's already a house there? Speaker 3: Well, if you compare it with the existing house, I doubt that the impact is any greater, but we're looking at an application to build a new house. So I think there's an opportunity here for council to consider whether we permit the owners to invest substantially in that redevelopment, something that may be lost in the ocean. So yes, I understand your... I think I understand your point, in that there's no greater impact from this house than the existing house, but I'd suggest that the investment is greater than what the existing house is. It's a more substantial house in terms of its design and likely to cost a lot more money than the existing house. I don't know, Grant, do you want to add to anything? Speaker 4: Yes, I think what councillor Jackson alluded to there was around development inhibiting natural coastal processes. So what we've been trying to do is look at what we've been trying to do is look at the
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 future coastal processes are. And so you could argue that the natural alignment of the beach projection show will want to move landward. So the houses that are currently in that location would be potentially inhibiting natural coastal processes in future. Councillor Wilkie: Could I just ask, how has council's duty of care changed, given that there's been changes to the state planning policy, and also this new modelling, state-enforced modelling, which you've undertaken? It seems to go to the heart of the issue here. Can you explain how duty of care has changed as a result of those two things? Speaker 4: Well, I don't know if that's for me, that question, is it? I might have a crack at answering that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You hope it's not to you. Speaker 1: To some extent, duty of care hasn't changed. We've always had duty of care. What has changed is what's the information about that knowledge. So if you've got knowledge about a risk and you don't deal with that risk, then you
00:16:00 have a problem. If we didn't have information about that risk or what occurred as a result of climate change or how that's going to have an impact, then we would not need to act. But we have that knowledge. And failure to act with that knowledge is what the issue is. That's where the duty of care is going to be. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Thank you. So in relation to that, I would also like to ask Grant more about the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan and the Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Specifically, it's been, I believe, in public consultation process. And there have been some concepts put forward as options for solving the dangers or the impacts of climate change. And specifically, they are called, now you're going to have to remind me because I seem to have lost it on my piece of paper, either avoid, accommodate, protect, or retreat. Can you, in relationship to number 54, Seaview Terrace, which we're talking about now, tell
00:17:00 us how would avoid, accommodate, protect, and retreat, those four things look in relationship to this property? Speaker 4: So what you're referring to there are the broads. There's adaptation approaches. So as you would have seen previously, under each one of those, there's several different risk mitigation actions that could be undertaken. In terms of which of those apply to this particular location, whilst making it clear that the chat process is still underway. To me, it appears that the only real options that can even be investigated, avoid or protect in that location.
00:18:00 Councillor Jackson: Can you just tell us a bit more about what avoid and protect actually mean in this case? Yep. Speaker 4: So avoid essentially means ensure that, in this example, that development or structures aren't located within the high risk erosion prone area. And protect means, in this example, that development or structures aren't located within the high I'm putting in place a defensive barrier on the Seawood side of a particular asset. Councillor Wilkie: Could I ask where the idea of a strategy or relocatable or a temporary structure would fit within these strategies? Yeah. But other councils only permit houses that can be moved at short notice to be in these erosion prone zones. Speaker 4: So I had a look at the example that you cited at the previous committee meeting of Byron Shire Council. So they do have a policy in their development control plan for 2014 around the ability to relocate structures. I haven't seen any reference to 24 hours notice that you've referred to in the documents I've looked at.
00:19:00 What they have got is a policy of as the erosion escarpment moves back, moves landward from its present day position, properties of development, development must be a certain distance landward of that. So presently it's 20 meters, but in future they would like all new development to stay 50 meters landward of the, sorry, I'll just read here. It must be 50 meters or greater landward of the erosion escarpment. So as the erosion escarpment moves landward, the development must be moved. So I think the building types that could fit within that context are quite limited.
00:20:00 There's also questions about standing around the feasibility of actually doing that during a storm event. So if the erosion escarpment is gradually moving back, you could see how it's feasible to move a house if you've got time. But with with a storm approaching, you'd potentially be put in a situation where quite a number of property owners are seeking means to move their development out of the erosion prone area, and I'd be interested to understand how feasible that is in terms of getting access to cranes and other equipment to do so short notice. Speaker 3: And Byron Bay is 50 meters. How close is this one? Speaker 4: This property, the seaward boundary of this property, because it's at the erosion present day erosion prone extent is at an angle to the seaward boundary. So it ranges between 3.5 meters distant from the present day erosion escarpment to seven and a half meters. And the building itself looks to be around 10, 10 and a half meters from the present day erosion escarpment.
00:21:00 Councillor Wilkie: That's where erosion is occurring up to currently today. Speaker 4: That is the, that is the area prone to erosion. During the one in 100 year event. Councillor Wilkie: In 2019. Speaker 4: Yes, correct. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, can you just explain what one in 100 year event really means? Because again, we're talking about a risk here. So what what level of risk is one in a 100 year event? Speaker 4: Yep. So the one in 100 year event. Well, in engineering terms, it's sort of on the way out. It's referring to the return into bill of a particular scale and intensity of storm event that you would say occurs once every 100 years. But typically what we do use instead is probability. So that equivalent event has a 1% chance of occurring each year.
00:22:00 However, the probability of that event occurring obviously increases the longer the timeframe you look at. So Mayor Wellington: just, just to that point, is it not true that you can have more than one, 1% IEP event in a given year? In fact, Noosa has experienced three in one year. So that 1% doesn't mean it's only going to happen once in 100 years. It could happen multiple times in any year. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Council. Council. Councillor Jackson: Okay, I want to finish the question, though. Sorry. So with respect to the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan, and therefore the Climate Change Adaptation Plan, I think you've just mentioned Council has not yet agreed on an approach to Coastal Hazard Management, is that correct? Speaker 4: Well, we have our existing approaches. But yeah, that's correct. The Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan is still in development. Councillor Jackson: So in terms of deciding whether to avoid accommodate.
00:23:00 So whether you want to protect or retreat. Council has no policy at the moment about how, which way to go. Speaker 4: We currently have a position, so those approaches that you've described, and I believe it's the still draft environment strategy, discusses a hierarchy of responses, so with preferences for avoiding risks, which is standard engineering practice. with, Councillor Jackson: So again, it's not a policy because it's just in draft form. Speaker 3: And we also have a draft planning scheme, but yes, still a draft, but that does take a position around structures in this area. Councillor Jackson: And we haven't finalised that, it's only in public consultation at the moment, and perhaps councillors won't agree with what's in the scheme and perhaps it could change as a result Speaker 3: of submissions. Councillor Wilkie: And what's the position on the current planning scheme?
00:24:00 Speaker 3: The current planning scheme sets a 15 metre setback line for this site. Councillor Pardon: Sorry, Frank, you've been waiting? No, that's okay. Yeah, just a question through you to the CEO, I guess. With regards to insurance, so the insurance companies recognise global warming, regardless of what individuals recognise it or not. So with regards to insurance, go on. And you may not know this, Brett, but what's their position now on these dwellings that are clearly forward of the protection line, whether it be 2040, 2070, going forward, do you know what their position is? Because I don't know. Speaker 1: I can't give you advice about a particular site or a particular building line type issue in terms of the insurance companies. Countries might recall that we, or in fact, all councils across Queensland got advice through, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't
00:25:00 And just to summarise that, really going up on the question that Frank had me for, is if Council's got knowledge about a risk, then you need to address that through both your planning schemes and your development assessment process, which is enough to bridge it through that. And that duty of care really talks about, you have an obligation to consider the information you have at the time, and the information you have at the time is that there is sea rise, it's going to impact on the coastal areas, and the Council has got expert advice in terms of what that impact might be. So that's what you need to take into account. Obviously, then the question is, would that ultimately protect Council from... and then you can wait for claims into the future. Anyone can wait for claims. The question is whether it's defensible or not. And there's a couple of issues around that defensibility. One is that if we've effectively acted upon the best information that is available, and taken expert advice, like a due diligence type of thing.
00:26:00 You can say, well that information we had, and we made that decision. I think that would also apply to, within being practical about these issues, it's quite possible that at some stage, whether it's this case, or this particular application, or another, Mayor Tom About whether or not the council has made the right decision, a long decision through the Planning and Borrowing Court about what decision we might make. And in that case, as an example, the council refused this application, but taken the court and the court overturned the council's decision. And there was a subsequent claim 20, 30 years down the track. The council could still rely on the fact that we, at the time, took the best advice we could. We ran a defence through a court case and the court made that decision. So that would help defend any future claims as well. But the insurance companies haven't got down to that level of detail about, you know,
00:27:00 that they'll support you on this application or that or, you know, that site-specific stuff. But the general principles would apply that the council needs to consider the issues of the impact of climate change. We need to take the expert advice and make the decision according both through the planning scheme and through the development assessment process. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to... Councillor Joe has been waiting patiently. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Following on from some of the questions that Councillor Jackson raised, and I'll... And this state assessment, State Code 8, poses some interesting questions with regard to it. There's a statement on page 18 of the report that I think needs just a modicum of clarification first. I'm going to work backwards on my questions. I'm going to actually work backwards because they sort of follow on from where Councillor Jackson was. It says the State Code 8 seeks that there is no development, seaward of the coastal building line, except for coastal protection work. And PO6 seems to suggest that's not quite right. It actually seems to suggest that it's permissible where coastal protection work has been undertaken.
00:28:00 Coastal protection work has been undertaken. So to say that no development, seaward of the coastal building line can take place. I mean, if coastal building protection has been undertaken, if PO6 seems to suggest it can do, is that...would that be a correct assessment? Speaker 3: Um... I've only got part of it here, which is in the report, but first... Councillor Jurisevic: Well, PO6 states, in areas where a coastal building line is present, building work is located landward of the coastal building line, unless coastal protection work has been constructed to protect the development. So coastal protection work is there that... Rock walls? Yeah, if that is in place, then development could take place there. So only in that situation could work take place there. Or, sorry, building work take place within... Yeah. Speaker 3: Look, first, I just want to clarify that the state development assessment provisions are state provisions. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm heading back there, Kerry. I'm getting back to that point. Speaker 3: Well, I'll just finish. And Council is not required to assess development applications against that state code, okay?
00:29:00 State agencies use that to undertake their assessment when they are a concurrence agency to an application. But some of these... So it's not a relevant code for Council to be assessing against in the first instance. So these provisions... Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. So these provisions don't apply in the way that our planning scheme has been based? Speaker 3: No. No. This is code assessment. It's a bound assessment. The state development assessment provisions are for the state government to assess against. They're not for Council. Councillor Jurisevic: So only if they were a referral agency. If we deem this as an approval and took them as a referral agency in that approval, would this come into play? Speaker 3: That's right. The state would make their assessment against using these state development assessments. Councillor Jurisevic: That answers my original question. It goes back to the... Going to pick on another part of state planning idea with regard to that. But if it's not... If it's only relevant for the concurrent agency, then that explains a lot for me. Speaker 3: Yeah. But then going to your question, I mean, the state development assessment provisions include
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 a number of statements in there and development are required to meet each of them. So you have to read each of them in conjunction with each other. Councillor Jurisevic: And that goes back to where my question started. It said, how is it we say that this is in conflict with the planning scheme when the applicant has a state building approval with full knowledge of the erosion mapping? I mean, wouldn't you think that the state in giving building approval would take in erosion mapping for their approvals? Speaker 3: Yeah. So just to clarify, the state have not given an approval. They are not the assessment manager. They cannot approve building works or they cannot approve this house. They are a state agency for building works. So... They have given an early response as if the building application had been made. And what they have provided is conditions that must be imposed on a building works application were council to approve this MCU. Councillor Jurisevic: If only in the event the council were to approve. Speaker 3: That's right. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I wanted to clarify. Speaker 3: Thank you. Yeah. It's not an approval. They see us as the assessment manager, which we are.
00:31:00 We are the higher order in leading this. Councillor Jurisevic: The way it reads. And where do we sit within that? So we are the higher order with regard to this and that's a lower order agency giving a concurrent... Speaker 3: Yeah. So we've been confused and haven't quite understood the state's response in giving these conditions because it doesn't seem to meet their provisions. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, that's what I wanted to clarify. That's why I asked the question because that's exactly what I wanted to clarify. Speaker 3: Yeah. And their statement to us is that they see that we have the higher order position here, which we do. We are the assessment managers. Because ultimately, it's council who will be dealing directly with residents when their houses start to fall in the water. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Thank you. That was exactly what I was after with regard to that question. The next question, if you look on page five of the report, the applicant's actual drawing, given that the setback for any other property is six metres, and in this case, the setback should be 15 metres, that red dot of line is the exact same as the red dot of line is
00:32:00 the existing average setback line, which doesn't even get back to six metres. So this, even in a normal building application, this wouldn't even meet the six metre setback. Is that correct? That's right. Councillor Jackson: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify there. Councillor Jackson: I don't understand that. I thought we said it does meet the six metres. It does meet the setback. Speaker 3: No, there's part of the development and goes to three metres from the rear boundary. Isn't that just the- The cantilever. Councillor Jackson: That's the cantilever deck. Yeah. But the actual footing or the base is at six metres? That's right. So why are we saying that it doesn't meet the requirement if you just cantilever it? Councillor Jurisevic: That's their drawing that actually says that, Ingrid. It's on the development application drawings by the applicant. Can we see Ingrid's drawing of the two footprints again? There are other drawings. Councillor Jackson: That's not the only drawing. Councillor Jurisevic: No, but that's the drawing that I'm going to refer to in my next question about. So that red dotted line is on the far right is an existing sea wood setback line based
00:33:00 on the averages of the two properties either side, and the black line is the actual six metre setback from the boundary. Is that correct? Councillor Jackson: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: So can I just clarify that? Because my understanding from the other, from previously talking to Lisa. Is that there is a base underneath the building that we're seeing here, which is smaller. So the footprint is actually smaller than the building is in the air, and that that footprint is behind the six metre line. The footings are. Footings are. That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: So that section over is the cantilever that I can see in the design here, where the base is on the six metre line, but it's cantilevered over the six metre line. Speaker 3: The starting point with this one is 15 metres back from the boundary. Regardless. Understood. From there, the scheme allows some cantilevering of balconies into that 15 metre. Councillor Wilkie: Clarifying question from Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just traditionally a setback is measured from the outermost protrusion of the building or
00:34:00 from the footing? Speaker 3: That's right. Outermost projection. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That was the clarification. I was trying to see what the, what came out of that. Councillor Stockwell alluded to there. And I think that, based on that, that is the last of my questions in regard to it. Yep, that's it. Councillor, any questions before we move to the motion? Councillor Jackson: Yes. Speaker 3: I do have a couple of questions. Councillor Jackson: In the case where, say, Council did not approve this proposed application, that would mean the existing building would stay there, which protrudes further, and it would stay there. I believe, as I know, Council's climate change adaptation, we've been given by experts the suggestion of where erosion-prone area will continue developing in 2040, 2070, and 2100.
00:35:00 If this building is not removed and replaced, it will stay there. So it will still cause this, not, will it not cause the same issue anyway? Is there any real difference between a new one and leaving the old one? Speaker 3: Yeah. So I've clarified that the impacts are really no different between the existing building on coastal processes. The issue is here that a resident is looking to substantially invest in their house and spend a lot of money on a new house. In an area that's, you know, it's a lot of money. It's at risk to future coastal erosion processes. So our scheme currently seeks this building to be back at least 15 metres from that line. It's not meeting that requirement. I think that it's inappropriate we allow that intrusion to occur, given the future risks that we know about.
00:36:00 Mayor Wellington: The issue surely is not just that they're going to invest a substantial amount of money in a new building. But rather, we have a different duty on that. We have to take into account our duty of care now to the duty of care that the Council had when it approved the existing building. And we have to take into account. Councillor Jackson: Is this a closer check? Point of order? Mayor Wellington: Do we not have to take into account our duty of care now, which is a different set of knowledge to the knowledge that was present at the time the original building was approved? Therefore, there is some difference in terms of our duty of care. Speaker 1: I can answer that. The duty of care hasn't changed. What's changed is our knowledge of the risk. So the information that has changed in terms of what we face that decision on. Councils have always had a duty of care to make decisions to reduce risk for future owners, current owners and future owners. You can only make that decision as we said before in terms of the best information. So if the information in terms of what we make in that decision has changed compared to what we knew many years ago, the duty of care remains the same.
00:37:00 Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I accept that. But overall, we have a duty of care per se. And what I'm getting to is trying to clarify the answer that was given to Councillor Jackson's question. And that is what has changed in terms of a decision being made today is we've got to make a decision based on the best available information we have today, which is different to the information that was available when the original house was built, regardless of whether or not it is going to have greater or lesser impact. Correct. Councillor Glasgow: Councillor Glaston. Just from our conversation last Friday, Lisa. Yeah. What exactly is the council seat on this drive? The measurement on the Streetwood boundary, this renovation, we're going to call it a renovation, it was to go forward. They actually have ample room to go west. Is that right? Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, that's right. I mean, if you look, the black line is a six metre line. Is the dotted line the 15 metre? It is that black dotted line.
00:38:00 There's four black lines. Councillor Pardon: Sorry. Yeah. Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 3: Yeah. So, you've got a substantial portion of the site that the house could be built on. Councillor Glasgow: So, it's not boundary to boundary existing and then forced to go, you're saying boundary a lot too, which is confusing me. You should say Seawood boundary. Okay. Seawood boundary. They have ample enough room to go 15 metres west boundary. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. So, you're saying the current front boundary as per the design is as per the minimum front boundary setback at six metres according to page 13? Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So, the front boundary is set back six metres from the street? Speaker 2: Cool. I don't know. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what it says in the report. Yeah. It says roundy setback to six metres and proposed to six metres. Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks, Joe. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question, and probably is Grant. How does the 15 metre setback relate to the current recommendation within the draft planning
00:39:00 scheme or the coastal building line? Is there much difference between the two? Speaker 4: Well, on this particular lot, I would have to have the map up in front of me. Yeah. Sorry. Because that erosion line, which is where the draft planning scheme is using as a basis, varies on the coastline. Speaker 3: Yeah. There's a substantial area of this site that's at risk of erosion. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to ask a question of the CEO, Brett. You were referring to King and Co advice. Just checking that that was the King and Co advice given in 2014 to LGAQ. Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I did have an opportunity to read that advice before coming to this meeting. We read it. And one of the things that I note is that that advice was given to the City Council in response to the local government association in order to advise on to what extent councils
00:40:00 are liable. So liable for any decisions they make. So the whole advice is given in terms of liability, not necessarily about what the best solution is for a particular property. So is that... That's correct, isn't it? Speaker 1: That's correct. That's correct. It was a question, and it probably goes on to the question that the Mayor and yourself asked before about the... Yeah. What is... Oh, sorry. Council, pardon me. What is the liability in terms of councils in making decisions both on our planning scheme and our development ? Yeah. Councillor Jackson: And I also note that the... I'm sorry. Speaker 1: And it was general in nature across all councils, not . Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: But it was particularly concerned with liability. Correct. Not necessarily with how to make a good decision for a particular situation. Also I note that they do refer to... As a summary. Councils are obliged to properly consider coastal hazards such as erosion, storm, tidal
00:41:00 inundation, flooding when preparing planning schemes and assessing development applications. It doesn't say councils are obliged to refuse development of that application. It simply says are obliged to properly consider it. Is that correct? Speaker 1: Well, in terms of properly consider it is if the advice is that the application is problematic or in terms of whether it's flooding. And just going back a couple of steps. When I said the answer to the Mayor before about the duty of care hasn't changed, there have been cases against councils in the past about landslips or flooding or whatever it might be where liability accrues because councils have made decisions where they've either not got the correct information or have not followed the correct information from experts. This advice which was given in 2014 was really about that climate change is an emerging issue and how councils then address that and do they need to take that into account.
00:42:00 So yes, the advice was very much around the fact that climate change, there's sufficient information from experts that councils do need to take climate change into account in making decisions around both the planning scheme and development applications. How they... How they... It doesn't say you have to approve or refuse in this application... Sorry, in this advice. It is really that you need to take into account the expert advice and be satisfied when you make the decision that you are following that expert advice. And as I said, there's examples in the past where councils haven't done that and have been found liable. Councillor Jackson: And regarding expert advice, I'd like to ask Kerry. At the Planning and... Sorry. Planning and Environment Committee, I did ask about any precedents that might exist in the planning and environment committee. Any precedents that might exist in relation to such a decision of replacing like-for-like? And perhaps you could just inform everyone of what your response was to that.
00:43:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. So I went to council's planning solicitor, Wakefield Sykes, to ask how I could do a search on cases to try and find such precedents. And he said the way the court library system works is it's a difficult search. You have to search by a website. You have to use a word such as coastal processes. And then you would have to read each individual case and work out which returned in your search to work out whether it's relevant here. So he said that was a difficult search to do. It's quite time-consuming. He also suggested that because each site will be quite different, each planning scheme that applies will be different, that he didn't think it would be a productive sort of search or enquiry. So he suggested that because each site will be quite different, each planning scheme It's going to come down to the words in our planning scheme and in the state planning policy and the site characteristics in determining this matter if it was to go to appeal.
00:44:00 Speaker 1: Let me just add to that. There's two elements in terms of all of the legal issues here. One is in relation to whether or not a decision of council is dependable in the planning and environment court. And that's very much around, as Kerry said, the application of our town planning scheme and the application or the court would look at how that is determined against that or how the decision was made against our own planning scheme. And the second but separate issue is the question of liability. They're two slightly different things. And as I said, the duty of care issue in terms of local government is relatively well settled. It's been like this over the years, but in relation to other matters like climate change, the flooding landslips or whatever it might be. What will happen in practice is probably over the next. Five years, maybe a bit longer. There'll be a series of cases across Australia where it's tested about whether or not what the court will take in terms of that liability question. In fact, some of these issues might not be coming to fruition to 20 or 40 years time because that's when the damage or the impact might occur,
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 where the owners of the day will then try and refer back to decisions made at this time and whether or not they can hold council liable for that decision. So there are two slightly separate things in terms of the duty of care, which is the civil I'm sure that someone's taking damages for the decision of the council and the second is whether or not the decision in terms of the development assessment process, whether that decision would be supported by the court when they start to assess our planning scheme against the decision of the council. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. I have one last question. It might be a question you have to take on notice, Lisa. With regard to frontage setback of six metres, side setback of two and a half metres on both sides and a rear setback of 15 metres on this point, what would be the maximum footprint, building footprint that the applicant would have? Speaker 2: I'd have to measure that. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I said I thought it'd be a question on notice, but if you'd get back to me on that, that'd be an interesting question. Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely.
00:46:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Just out of curiosity. Councillor Glasgow, you had a question? Councillor Glasgow: Oh, yeah, actually, this is going to be for Brett. If the climate adaptation plan hasn't really been finalised yet, as Grant said, it's still working on it, and this MCU gets refused, but then it comes to council and we get, you know, we tweak it and we make it work, and suddenly they may be able to do something on this site, could they then come to us and say, well, you refused it, now it's finalised, you know, you did me over now, I want to do it again? Speaker 1: It's too far from that question. So the first is that what we do have is expert advice in terms of what the impact is going to be, and that's what we rely on. So that's the most important thing. In terms of if there's a refusal, the applicants have a right of appeal to the Planning and Environment Court right now, and they can choose to take that appeal. And as I said, I think this, whether it's this case or other cases in the future, there will be a number of precedents,
00:47:00 say, in terms of the coastal councils across the country. Queensland, New South Wales, about what the impact will be and whether the court, what approach the courts take in terms of development applications that are challenged based on decisions due to climate change. So I think it'll take a few years for some of that to be returned to the court system. Speaker 3: Yeah, and alternatively, they could re-launch a new application down the track. Councillor Glasgow: So when our climate adaptation court, or outside of the current one, or when the draft planning scheme, Speaker 3: becomes finalised as well. Speaker 1: Yeah, or they could lodge an appeal and see what the new planning scheme looks like and lodge another application. So there's a few options there for the applicant. It's great, I want to say that. Councillor Jackson: So could I also ask, this is the first time that council is considering a situation, given our knowledge of the climate change issues, about replacing an existing building. How many buildings, properties in the Shire are going to be affected by the precedents set by the decision about this matter?
00:48:00 Speaker 3: Well, we've looked at this matter in relation to the new scheme, and it depends which line council takes, whether it's the state building line that's adopted eventually, or the erosion prone line for 2070, which we've identified, or 2100. So are you able to answer in relation to that? Speaker 4: So we've done an exercise where we assessed the viability of lots along the coastal strip, starting at Teewah Township, right down to Peregian Beach,
00:49:00 and assessed the ability of each particular lot to construct a new or redevelop a building with a 180 square metre footprint. So that would take into account their setbacks from their frontal boundary, as well as their side boundary, and staying landward of the 2070 erosion prone extent. I don't have the exact number, but I believe that analysis revealed there would potentially be 43 lots that would be unable to meet that set of criteria. Councillor Jackson: Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move a slightly different to the recommendation with the augmentation you see in red there, councillors. One is, in item one, is an explanatory.
00:50:00 You might suggest that council reached out to change this one. Okay. So this is what SICO does. But the change is, in item one, for the reason of refusal, adding the words, and presents an unacceptable risk to people and property from coastal processes, including the projected impacts of climate change. And then the reason three is basically referring to the item raised in the report, and that is that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the draft planning scheme, in that it proposes development in the coastal protected area, extending seaward of the coastal building line, and does not allow for natural fluctuations of the coast and foreshore to occur, including allowance of climate change, which has not been cited in the amendment. It minimises the risk from coastal processes, as the development has not been located as far landward as practical to ensure people and property are not at risk from coastal hazards and avoid the need for additional coastal protection works. I'll second. Thanks.
00:51:00 Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Wellington. Question, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that this is before us now, and the planning scheme as mentioned in that is in a draft form, it hasn't been finalised, the draft planning scheme does not apply to this development application, and only the current planning scheme applies. Is that correct? Speaker 3: I have discussed this matter with Council's planning solicitor as to whether this was appropriate or not to include, because it wasn't initially included by ourselves. He indicates because if the matter goes to planning appeal, the scheme is likely to be closer to finalisation at the time of the trial, and so it would be relevant to consider, and the court would have regard to it if we include it as a reason for refusal. Councillor Jurisevic: But given that a draft would not be finalised at that time... It doesn't matter. So a draft has got... Yes. I just want to clarify the validity of a draft
00:52:00 without a final approval. Speaker 1: 23 years ago called the Cody principle or Cody case, where what that provides is that as a planning scheme, once it goes on public display, as you get closer to the final document, it starts to get more and more weight. It's been through a lot of processes, so it's something the court can take into account when assessing the application. Councillor Jurisevic: But at what point in time, from when a new planning scheme is finalised, can an applicant choose to have their development assessed under either the current or the future planning scheme? Speaker 3: Well... Councillor Jurisevic: There's an element of time... Speaker 3: For an application... I'm not sure I quite get your question, but for an application to be assessed under the new planning scheme, the new planning scheme will have to have taken effect. But as Brett's indicated, the further along a planning scheme advances, the more weight council and a court can apply
00:53:00 in deciding an application. OK. Councillor Jurisevic: So can I... That clarifies my question. Councillor Jackson: Can I clarify this? Because the word draft planning scheme is written in the proposal... The motion. There are two different things. There's the draft planning scheme, which is currently under public consultation, and there's eventually the new planning scheme, which may not have the same things in it. That's right. We have not finished consultation, let alone made a decision about what should be the final one. So that is saying that the draft planning scheme, which may no longer be valid by the time, as you're proposing, this gets to a court situation, would still have some impact on... Speaker 3: No. The court will look at the planning scheme as it's worded at the time. So if it's finalised, when we go to appeal on this matter, they will look at the new planning scheme and the wording of that. Councillor Jurisevic: So it will follow the process of the draft up to where the draft is at the time of the...
00:54:00 Yes. Speaker 3: Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: Of the actual appeal. Speaker 3: Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, speak to the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, I think it's important that we look at that motion in terms of what we're doing here. And the additions I've made are making clear that this decision is made in the context of what we currently know about the risks to this community from climate change. And it's a very important decision in that respect. And as the CEO has already pointed out, it's a decision that could set a precedent across the east coast of Australia. But the risk has got greater, but it is not imposing significantly different requirements than we've had for many years. In fact, in the 1970s, the Coordinator-General commissioned GHD to do a coastal processes study. And in volume four of that land use investigation conducted by GHD
00:55:00 from the Queensland, New South Wales border to the northern boundary of Noosa Shire, they quote that, the Beach Protection Authority has circulated widths of coast measured from the present top of the beach likely to be eroded during the next 50 years by summing the long and short-term effects and added a safety margin. And that widths of coastline vulnerable to erosion as assessed by the Beach Protection Authority in the 1970s for the high dune area of Sunshine Beach was 160 metres. The existing state planning policy is only 125 metres. So we've known that there's a risk for over 50 years. Every person who's built a house has known there's been a risk for over 50 years. But what has changed is the state planning policy has made it clear that councils in their determination of assessments and their determinations on planning schemes need to take into account the increased risk from climate change. And so while we've been focusing on the detail of the code that doesn't apply,
00:56:00 what we should be focusing on is the intent of the state planning policy. And it says for erosion-prone areas, that erosion-prone areas are intended to provide a buffer between permanent infrastructure and coastal waters to allow for fluctuations of coastline to occur as a result of physical coastal processes without the need for intervention to protect infrastructure or public safety. The buffer also allows for land to be permanently inundated by sea, removing the need for buildings and infrastructure to accommodate, respond to or be protected from sea-level rise. Okay. When we look about erosion-prone areas and coastal management districts, where a coastal hazard study and risk assessment has shown that the erosion-prone area may be at intolerable level of risk at the point in the future, at a point in the future, and that this risk cannot be avoided or mitigated, planned retreat to avoid the risk may need to be considered. To minimise the risk to people and property
00:57:00 to an acceptable or tolerable level, this may include, locating habitable buildings outside of or as far landward of the coastal hazard area as possible. That's what this motion says. This motion says that this development has not complied with the intent of the State Planning Policy and more specifically, has not complied with the specific provisions of our current planning scheme. The addition of the new planning scheme provides the security that we can raise that as a grounds for refusal should this go to appeal. Because we heard recently that under the Planning Act that the court may be restricting your ability to expand your reasons for refusal after you've made that decision, hence why I put it in there. But I also think it's important to identify that this Council has got to this point within a new planning scheme of being very clear about what we propose to do and this development doesn't accord with that. So while there may be some changes, I think it's really important to include.
00:58:00 So, Councillors, it is difficult if you look at this as a decision about a person's dream of having a beachside house. It is difficult when you're trying to see whether this is a good or bad design from an aesthetic perspective. It is a very simple decision if you think about our responsibility with a changing world under climate change, sea level rise, and the increased probability of storm surges and storms that will cause increased and accelerated erosion over the coming decades. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Could I ask a question, please? Yes. And I'll ask, please, Kylie, to see the JPEG landslide hazard overlay, Sunshine Beach. There is a, in the motion, there is a reason given for not proceeding with this proposed application because of the landslide hazard overlay and code.
00:59:00 This is from the Council's own mapping system showing where the landslide hazards exist at the moment in Sunshine Beach. I'm confused and want to know, as the staff report provided a whole list of properties that have been given building approvals over the past years, recent years, I'd like to know whether those properties were also, why is it they weren't refused, you know, refused on the basis of landslide hazard, and why is this one being specifically listed as having a landslide hazard? Speaker 3: Yeah. There's two different requirements in the planning scheme. One is this natural hazards for landslide, and it's essentially because it's a sand dune, so subject to slippage. And so the scheme in that regard, requires a geotechnical investigation
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 to ensure that the house doesn't slip down the hill because of this, you know, the construction. There's another provision that works in conjunction with this around the coastal management overlay and the setbacks. And that deals with the risks to people and property from coastal processes and the impact on coastal processes due to development. So there's two different requirements in the planning scheme. Councillor Jackson: And they're related? Speaker 3: They're related, but they are different. Councillor Jackson: So that does not answer my question. There have been many, we have evidence already in the staff report, there have been many applications which have been approved in Sunshine Beach for various types of building, new, old, extension, et cetera. And yet this one is being listed as one of the reasons for not approving. Yeah. So, what about the others? What's happened there?
01:01:00 Speaker 3: Oh, in terms of, okay, so natural hazards is about geotechnical and landslip. So not coastal processes. Yeah. So they have addressed that issue. This one, the application did not include a geotechnical study when it was lodged with Council. It's only just been submitted in the last couple of days to Council. So there was no geotechnical report to support their application under the natural hazard of the lake. Whereas other applications have provided a geotechnical report. Councillor Jackson: Without an information request. Speaker 3: That's... Councillor Jackson: I understood, sorry, I understood that the reason there was no geotechnical report was that they hadn't, it hadn't been requested by Council. Speaker 3: We didn't request it because we had other issues in relation to the coastal processes. It's a standard requirement for our natural hazard area, which all our consultants are aware of. So they, they chose not to submit it with the application. We didn't ask for it
01:02:00 because we knew we had the concerns about coastal processes. So didn't want to cause the expense to the residents of preparing that report. Councillor Jackson: And so, you're saying that all the other applications that were approved would have automatically given a geotechnical. Speaker 3: Yes, because that's what the planning scheme Councillor Jackson: And many of those are next door to this place. I mean, there's quite a lot of places here. So how would the geotechnical situation be so different in this one lot compared to all these others in that same street? Speaker 3: It goes to investigating, not necessarily in different geotechnical is usually there's an engineering solution to it. So it goes to just having an investigation into the site and designing the footings appropriately for the situation. They just haven't done, they hadn't done that previously. And so that's why it's included as a reason for refusal. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, sorry. Can I ask a question to clarify part of that? So part of the potential of landslip in that area
01:03:00 with regard to the sandy nature of soil is water inundation from some of those creek flows and that that are flowing down in that, through that area. Would that be correct? Speaker 3: I would expect that, but it doesn't go to coastal processes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that's it. The other form of that in terms of landslip there could relate to water, land-based water flow. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I have another question. This is probably of the CEO, but perhaps not. I'm just wondering from what Kerry told us, even our council's legal advisor suggested that it was too complex to simply find out if there were precedents about this kind of matter. And I think what we're finding as the more we delve into this, it is very complex. There are many legalities.
01:04:00 Point of order. Mayor Wellington: This doesn't appear to be a question. Councillor Jackson: It is a question. It'll become a question. I have to explain things before I ask a question. So there are, there's a complexity in the planning act and the way it's interpreted, the state planning policy, the, you know, guidelines, et cetera. And I'm wondering, given that this is the first time council is dealing with a significantly important decision about whether it's possible to simply replace one building when there's an existing building, why wouldn't council, instead of waiting for an appeal and spending megabucks, why wouldn't council have obtained our proper comprehensive legal advice in the first place in the first instance to present to council before council is making this decision, which is a first off and a fairly, you know, we just don't have the details of that complexity. Speaker 1: The short answer to that is
01:05:00 what we're doing at the moment is a planning assessment, not necessarily a legal assessment. So we're assessing a town planning application against our planning scheme and the normal process is our town planning experts look at the information and make a recommendation. If the recommendation is to refuse, then there's a likelihood that that may end up in court and our lawyers do look at our reasons for refusal to see whether that would stand up in a planning environment for the deal and that's what they've done here. So it's not normal practice to have a legal review of planning advice. Ultimately, that might get tested in the court, but what we're dealing with is a planning application and it's the planning advisor that's probably most critical here. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, just further on that, would it be fair to say that even with regard to other council decisions in other council areas, their planning scheme may not match ours, so the decisions would be based on the validity
01:06:00 and rigidity of their planning scheme. Yes, Speaker 1: so any appeal in relation to this will assess this application against our planning scheme. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Sissons, would you speak to the motion? Yeah. Councillor Park. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. I'll support the motion. Mr Chairman, and I too, as Councillor Stockwell alluded, the not only complexities, but the hard decision, I guess, with regards to people who have purchased a home in a beautiful spot, lack of knowledge, lack of knowledge et cetera, probably at the time, and with an expectation to build a dream home on this block, and being an Aussie battler myself, with regards to the, my piece of ground that I own, or any Aussie who owns
01:07:00 their own piece of ground, would be thinking that I can build my little piece of paradise there and live happily ever after. So, unfortunately, times have changed. Information's changed. And we've heard all that. It's all, it's all pretty much been said. With the knowledge we have now, it's not so easy to tick off this particular application. And I feel for the people, I really do, because they've been caught in a pretty, we say, complexities, and it is complex, but they're tangled up in the complexities. And, you know, whilst we've had certain knowledge going forward, those people may not have had that particular knowledge going forward. So, they put in something that seems very reasonable and in other areas could be constructed. So, I feel for those people.
01:08:00 It's, it's hard sometimes. We talk about being up the front and leading. And this has led on many occasions. This is one that I don't particularly like. That we have to lead on. But that's the way it is. So, we will lead. And, whether we can talk about court cases, we probably shouldn't, really. Because the CEO is quite correct. We're here. This is a, this is an application under our planning scheme, not a court case. But, it'd be interesting if it ends up that way. And, probably, sadly, that's the only way, you know, people will know. And, we're at the cutting edge here. And, that's the way it is. But, I think, for all the reasons, the advice we've had in the past, we have to make a hard decision here. So, I support the motion.
01:09:00 Councillor Warren. Mayor Wellington: For the sake of the record and to give any ammunition that Councillor Stockwell needs in his response, I'd just like to just outline the reasons for supporting the motion. The proposed development, firstly, is inconsistent with the current NUSA plan. The proposed development is inconsistent with the proposed new NUSA plan. The current state planning provisions do not count on its development eastward of the coastal building line, except for coastal protection works. And, perhaps, this has been suggested replacement of like-for-like existing building. The applicant's argument regarding alignment with neighbouring properties relies upon old state provisions under legislation that has since been repealed and is therefore no longer relevant. And, we have advice from LGAQ and King & Co that makes it clear that Council has a duty of care to consider the best available information that we have at any time when making
01:10:00 an assessment of a development. The referral agency response from the State does not override Council's response. Indeed, the State recognises that Council's assessment is prioritous. In other words, the State agency response that has been provided to the applicant is not an approval in itself. And, in any case, the referral agency response by the State is at odds with their own requirements under the State development assessment. Council's own coastal mapping provides most up-to-date modelling of future scenarios and the modelling has taken considerable time and effort to develop and it's been endorsed by the State, let us not forget. This modelling certainly presents Council with issues and conundrums but fundamentally that's why we did the work to find out what those issues and conundrums would be. And if we're not going to take our own expert advice then why the hell did we spend all this money and put in all this effort particularly by Grant Hinna here into developing that information.
01:11:00 We are beholden basically to the advice once we receive the advice and believe it to have veracity. And I believe we do. In the end the advice from strategic planning in the report said it well noting that we must take a strong position based on our current knowledge not on previously approved developments and it's critical that Council takes a consistent approach throughout. And I do note that we have previously refused a development in a similar place in that incident it was a swimming pool not an entire house nevertheless we have begun down this route already have taken a reasonably consistent line towards development that encroaches on the development that encroaches past the particularly the coastal hazard line. Look even if we hadn't done the sea level and climate change modelling we would still most likely be inclined
01:12:00 to refuse the application because it conflicts with our planning scheme by breaching the coastal protection line it conflicts with state directives breaching the coastal protection line and the attempt to use neighbouring properties as a reason for an approval relates to now repealed legislation and is no longer relevant. Councillor Pardon put it well he said we're at the cutting edge of dealing with climate change understanding and therefore hunting for precedence is of no use there's no point in looking at precedence whether they're in Byron Bay or Collaroy or anywhere else. This is a thorny problem that was always going to arise this was going to come flying at Council sometime here it is folks we've begun and if we equivocate now then we can be in trouble. It doesn't make it easy of course that we're having to be cutting edge it doesn't make our decisions any easier but our decisions will be looked at as precedence by other local government associations which gives to some degree
01:13:00 greater weight to the decisions that we're going to be making this week on this issue. And as Councillor Pardon noted this does have and I want to acknowledge unfortunate ramifications for well meaning property owners and that is indeed a great shame however we have to look after our duty of care to residents and properties into the future but more than that we also have a duty to ensure that our decisions today do not impact adversely on both the finances and the reputation of Noosa Council into the future and if we do make a decision today that is ultimately going to result in legal challenges to Council in the future or financial impostor to Council in the future then that is an erroneous decision I believe that we'll be making today. Really there's no shirking from a difficult decision I believe that this decision requires some degree of courage and some degree of fortitude
01:14:00 and therefore I support Councillor Stockwell in this motion. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Wellington. The councillors wish to speak to the motion. Yes I'll speak Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yeah I actually having studied this very carefully and asked a lot of questions I do believe there's still a lot of ambiguity around this matter and I think it is an extremely important matter being the first time we're looking at replacing an existing building with another building and I actually feel that we are having to make a decision without a full grasp of the correct interpretation of many of the matters. There is a house there already it is more seaward than the proposed house. The state planning policy appears to prevent damage to
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 coastal processes. A new house here will not damage coastal processes. They're already in the state that they're in due to the common house. If the application is refused the house will stay there, the old house will stay there and assumedly have a worst impact on coastal processes than a new house. There's a landslide hazard overlay which is of course across all the beach properties and it's just being used here as another reason for refusal. The draft new Noosa plan, the coastal hazard adaptation plan, the climate change adaptation plan and the environment strategy have not been approved by council. It may be that I will still have a say on what is going to be the content of some of these things and so to use these as a justification is a question mark. Particularly as the new Noosa plan is even now as we speak in public consultation and it hasn't even, we haven't even had full feedback from
01:16:00 our residents and rate payers. I am concerned about these things and I am concerned to be making a decision that has huge impact not only on the current applicant but potentially I think we heard 43 lots around the Shire situation of not being able to replace an old building and the implications that has for future sales of their property. But I am not a lawyer and as we have no complex legal information I as a councillor feel I need to respect the advice being given by our staff who are planning staff and the CEO has stressed that this is a planning decision made vis-a-vis the actual rules and regulations in place.
01:17:00 These may not ultimately be correct but I will support the proposed motion. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll support the motion. I do have empathy for the for the applicants. I think they have presented a an interesting design and they have well and truly considered the the landscape and the coastal erosion protection measures that they want to put in place to try and enhance the slope of the property. But going forward I too like Councillor Jackson see that what we're going to see rather than new development which is going to be challenged by the line to which they can build is an ongoing redevelopment of a number of properties that are already beyond the coastal building line and the erosion management lines for the future. So I don't know that what we're presenting here
01:18:00 is in any way going to for the next 100 years stop that potential of buildings falling in the ocean. I think we'll see major redevelopment rather than new development in this area. Whilst there is a possibility for these owners to redevelop in I've just said I see their design that they've come up with being severely compromised and I do empathise with them but I can see the rhymes and reasons why we do have to apply the planning scheme as it stands and draw that line in the sand and I'm sorry for using that term with regard to these type of developments in these erosion prone areas. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Councillor Jurisevic: Jurisevic. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Councillor Glasgow: Glasgow. Yeah I was with of Councillor Pardon to my left last week telling you know a man's man's his land and referring to the old maybe the castle and all that kind of stuff and then
01:19:00 you know I thought about it as I myself and probably my beloved man on my right I surf in front of this exact block regularly and a man's man's not going to be his land because it's going to be in the damn sea soon one day. So you know it excites me to say like we are really the future generations of Noosa Council could be paying the financial cost of this in we're not even talking in you know two or three councils we're talking like these kids probably aren't even born now that are going to be the Mayor and the CEO so this could be they could be paying the financial cost of it and it might not happen like you know for us coming to court why not with these people we don't know that kind of what they're going to do in terms of the legal ramifications for it so in terms of supporting entirely just for that reason I don't want to see my future you know Noosa Council generations paying the cost for this this one decision and if we don't if it does get accepted you know we could be setting a really bad precedent because I just looked up on the Google Maps and it's 14 houses or thereabouts in the whole Seabury Terrace
01:20:00 and you never know if it's going to happen so I fully support Councillor Stockwell's motion okay Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell you have to close I will briefly Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think all the councillors have spoken have clearly outlined what is a difficult decision from an individual perspective to make but all I think in one way or other have alluded to the fact that the motion is one that takes the best interest of Noosa and of future communities in to its heart I think the State Planning Policy encourages councils to do so and it's not just future costs it's also future safety these can be while very slow moving processes they can also be catastrophic during storm events and we we can look at many similar scenarios where in one event that significant areas of the of the fortunes
01:21:00 disappear with houses becoming imperiled and people becoming imperiled I do think the Mayor did point out very clearly that it's inconsistent with our current plan and I do think it's important to really take the opportunity to include where our current draft plan is because I think if this did go to court that they would be substantial matters for discussion particularly as it references the particularly the work that's been done on coastal hazards and the fact that that work has been approved by the State Government having had some experience as both a planner and a natural resource manager in this field I think that the interpretation within the report is one that I'd be happy to stand up in court and support I think it is a rigorous report and a rigorous approach that clearly takes the principles outlined both in our scheme
01:22:00 and in the state planning policy to its natural end and therefore I urge your support Councillor Wilkie: I put the motion those in favour against the motion is carried thank you Graeme thank you Lisa yes a toilet break for Councillor Glasgow Councillor Wellington and Councillor Wellington we'll see you in court five minute recess for a toilet break thank you and a prostate check