Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Jurisevic: What I'm trying to do, which is get onto my agenda, that's right. Speaker 3: That's great. What was that last time? Four hours at Ross. Oh, man. Where, Beth? Councillor Glasgow: Airport Steering Group. Jason O'Pray and no other council was there except me. Oh, really? Oh, yeah. It was huge. I got that out in front of the central office last night.
00:01:00 Speaker 3: We'll get on. Mayor Wellington: Get away. Thank you, everyone. Thank you all for your attendance. I call the meeting to order. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land that we're gathered on today. That's the Gubbi Gubbi or Kabi Kabi people. We pay council's respects to their elders past, present and emergent. We have an apology tonight, and that is Councillor Frank Pardon, who was unable to be here. All other councillors are present. We begin with a confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the... On the 21st of March, moved Councillor Glasgow, the seconded Councillor Jurisevic. I'll put that, all those in favour. Thank you. That's carried. There are no mayoral minutes. I believe we have a petition. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, we do. So, I would like to present this petition. The petition commenced on the 15th of April, which is only two days ago, and in two days enlisted 1137 signatures. The petition states that the proposed new flight path for the Sunshine Coast Airport has the potential to significantly impact on the lifestyle, environment, property values, and the image of Noosa Shire.
00:02:00 We are concerned that the reasons that we have chosen to live in Noosa will be compromised. We respectfully request that Noosa Shire's council strongly advocate on behalf of its many impacted families and communities by... And there is four. Reasons listed. The first being seeking a one-month extension of the feedback submission period to the 31st of May 2019 from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council and Air Services Australia. The current timeframe is insufficient to properly consider and prepare submissions on the complex environmental impact statement, its associated documents, and information. Two, preparing a comprehensive council submission into the impacts on the lifestyle, environment, property values, and the image of the Noosa Shire as a... And the image of the Noosa Shire as a... ...result of the proposed flight paths. Three, requesting Sunshine Coast Regional Council to conduct an EIS for Lake Wyver, Noosa National Parks, and coastal dunes of Castaways and Marcus Beach as the current EIS does not consider this.
00:03:00 And four, work with the Sunshine Coast Regional Council to investigate new flight paths north of the project area to minimise environment and social impacts. Now, we request that this petition be presented today. And I shall move that the petition be presented to the CEO for appropriate action. For appropriate action. Mayor Wellington: Do I have a seconder, please? I'll second it. Seconded Councillor Jurisevic. I put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. Councillor Jackson? I'll second. Thank you. Okay. Now the motion is carried. Ladies and gentlemen, I realise many of you are here to listen to the discussion, debate and motion with regard to the consultation on the flight paths for the new airstrip. We do have a bit of business to get through before then. We'll get through that as fast as we can.
00:04:00 I do ask that when we get to that debate that you listen respectfully, please, to the discussion that occurs. There is no real opportunity for members of the audience to be able to engage in a local government council ordinary, statutory ordinary meeting. But by all means, we hope that you remain for that item, which I'm sure you will. We have no notified motions, so we move on to consideration of committee recommendations. And we start with the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations. Item number one was referred to the General Committee. Item number two is the development application for an MCU for a fitness centre at 26 Project Avenue, Noosaville. Item number three is a request to change the development approval for 5 Memorial Drive, Tewantin.
00:05:00 That's the RSL across the road. Item number four was referred to the General Committee. Item number five is a Planning and Environment Court. Appeal with regard to 42 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Item number six was referred to the General Committee. The recommendation is that the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations dated 9 April be adopted except where dealt with or held over. Moved, Councillor Jackson. Seconded, Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the motion almost in favour. Thank you, that's carried. We go on to the recommendations from the Services and Organisation Committee. Number one is the sole and specialised supplier listings. Number two is the proposed lease of a shop at Two Grass Tree Court, Sunrise Beach. Item number three was referred to the General Committee and will be dealt with later. Item number four is the Noosa North Shore Beach Campground proposed management agreement extension. Item number five is waste management six-monthly report. And item number six is the update to organisational structure.
00:06:00 Again, the recommendation is that they be adopted. Moved, Councillor Jurisdict. Seconded, Councillor Glasgow. I'll put the motion. Thank you. That's carried. We now move on to the General Committee recommendations. And item number one is a development application for an MCU for a building at 54 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Mr Chair, I would like to have that dealt with separately. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Certainly. Okay. Councillor Jackson: I didn't move it, I just said I would like it. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'm happy to move it. Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded, Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Stockwell, yes, to speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will speak briefly. As pointed out at the General Committee, this is probably a precinct setting decision. This is the first time we've considered for a whole house rebuild within close proximity to an area identified in our coastal hazard area mapping as being subject to erosion and
00:07:00 increasing threat as a result of climate change. As was well discussed at the General Committee, we have to consider the long-term impacts of consistent decision-making to ensure we don't expose future generations in this town and on these coastal areas to the significant costs that may come from up to 43 houses that will be, have been identified as being potentially impacted by erosion events. We'll look at that later. So it's important, I believe, that we set the precedent early, that we're consistent for not just this term of council but into the years in the future and to ensure that both the current Noosa Plan and the proposed Noosa Planning Scheme provisions are abided by it. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion?
00:08:00 Councillor Jackson: Yes. Councillor Jackson. I wish to speak. Well, as Councillor Stockwell has said, this is a very first time. We are dealing with a very difficult time. We are dealing with an application like this. This is an item where the application is to replace an existing house at Sunshine Beach that is on a concrete slab taking up most of the property with a smaller footprint new house and landscaping designed to suit the dune environment. After, oh, and the recommendation is to refuse the application. After carefully considering the staff report about this development application, we have found that there is not enough information to make a good decision on such an important matter. The policy's guidelines and assessment codes may be ambiguous and open to interpretation when it comes to replacing an existing house in this location and in my view, this requires
00:09:00 specific legal advice. Council has not yet decided its preferred coastal hazard adaptation option. I'm sorry. It says it's applicable to all coastal hazards. And the legal advice provided to councils by the Local Government Association, LGAQ, offers a number of ways to avoid liability in areas with potential climate change impacts, but the staff report does not canvass these options other than refusal. Council has not yet approved the coastal hazard adaptation plan, the environment strategy and the new NUSA plan, in other words we have not yet agreed on whether to manage climate The State Planning Policy and the Local Government Act concerned to prevent damage to environment does not seem applicable when in this case there is a house there already, and it seems self-evident that a replacement house with a smaller footprint would not cause further
00:10:00 damage to the environment. In the Unfinished Climate Change and Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan, there are options other than refusal. Under the heading Avoid, there's also the option of requiring more resilient building design. Under the heading Protect, other than sea walls, there's also dune revegetation, dune stabilization and beach nourishment. Legal advice specific to this case has not been sought, even though this is a complex, first-time decision and an important precedent. The 2014 legal advice provided by the local government association to us focused on how councils can avoid liability for damages, and the advice included a number of relevant recommendations and options which we have not canvassed or considered. These include
00:11:00 the imposition of conditions, seeking indemnities, or noting in planning and development certificates or land records that the development may be impacted by worsening climate change. For all these reasons, I am choosing to abstain from voting because I do not feel I have sufficient information to vote in favour or against, and I feel the alternative solutions haven't been considered fully. I do understand that under the Local Government Act, if a councillor abstains from voting, the councillor is taken to have voted in the negative. Of course, that is not really what I'm doing. What I'm doing is I'm saying I do not believe I have sufficient information to make a sound decision in this case. Nevertheless, I do call for a division. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: A division has been called for. A question to the CEO. Mr CEO, under our standing orders,
00:12:00 there is no provision of a division. Is there a provision of a division? Is there a provision made for an abstaining? So, I'm presuming that Councillor Jackson's, if she chooses not to vote at the end of the debate, her vote will be recorded as a no vote. Councillor Jurisevic: That's correct. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? So this is a tricky one, and it's a tricky one because it's the first of what's probably going to be a number of development applications that we have dealing with properties that we now know have the potential to be subject to the impacts of climate change on our coast. The proposed development is inconsistent with the current Noosa plan. It's also inconsistent with the draft new Noosa plan, and the current state planning provisions do not countenance development eastward of the coastal building line, and this proposed development does encroach well beyond the coastal building line. The applicant's argument regarding the development
00:13:00 in alignment with neighbouring properties does not successfully meet the requirements of the state government's own imposts, in that the legislation that related to building alignments has since been repealed and superseded by new legislation. That new legislation makes it quite clear that buildings should not encroach beyond the coastal building line unless they happen to be works. Council has done some significant mapping in terms of the possible impacts of climate change and sea level rise and this modelling has taken Council a number of years and we are on the cusp now of adopting it and incorporating it into the new planning scheme. We have a duty of care to operate with the most up-to-date and contemporary information
00:14:00 that we have when we are making decisions about planning and more particularly when we are making decisions about the safety of both people and property. We have to take a strong position in terms of our current knowledge not based on previous knowledge which allowed houses to be built in areas that were not built in areas that today we would probably not allow them to be built. The suggestion that we need legal advice I don't necessarily accept I'm afraid because we have had advice, we've in fact had a lawyer come and talk to Council, we've had advice from LGAQ and King & Co and that advice has been clear and the advice is that we have a duty of care to operate on the most contemporary information that we have with regard to safety and security of people and property. The suggestion that there should be other solutions doesn't necessarily work when we
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 have a planning application because all we can do is assess the planning application that we've received. The planning application has not offered us a range of opportunities or suggestions for different alternatives of building structure etc. What we have received is a planning application that we have to assess on its merits and the merits do not include alternatives. We only have the design and the plans that we are given and that's what we have to assess. Look, even if we hadn't carried out this recent sea level monitoring and our climate change and sea level adaptation modelling, we would still likely end up refusing this application and that is because it conflicts with our current planning scheme, it conflicts with the draft planning scheme. And as I say, the attempt to use neighbouring properties as a reason for approval is a product
00:16:00 of outdated repeal legislation and is no longer valid. So I very much support the motion moved by Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak? Thank you Mr Chairman. Councillor Wilkie. Look, this is not so much about protecting against damage to the environment as damage to property, life and limb. This is about building in a more intense storm event, clearly shown by modelling to be more prevalent in the future. It's all part of climate change adaptation. But apart from that, this building is proposed to be rebuilt seaward of the coastal building hazard line, which is in conflict with the current planning scheme and the draft planning scheme. We've had no shortage of legal advice about this, in fact the planning scheme is enforceable by law. And the advice from staff is in effect implemented. In fact, some form of legal advice which has to be adhered to. There is no shortage of images on the eastern seaboard of houses and pools and other forms
00:17:00 of property falling into the ocean in other local government areas. And it's arguable that those councils charged with a duty of care when they give those planning applications may not have made those decisions to approve those properties, those applications in erosion prone zones. Had they had the type of information that we now have before us. The coastal hazard adaptation modelling is funded by the state. It's been peer reviewed and endorsed by the state. It's another, it helped bolster our decisions as we look forward to adapt to climate change. And it reinforces the council, the staff's decision. I think it's a prudent one and I think we would be negligent. There's a lot of nervousness about it. There's a lot of anxiety about being at the forefront of new, new information and making new groundbreaking decisions that will be tested by the court. But I think it's the responsible decision and I support the recommendation.
00:18:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else to speak? Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, these decisions are never easy and they do take a lot of, a lot of thought, a lot of research, a lot of understanding in a very short span of time in some cases. But as the other councillors have alluded to, as the other councillors have alluded to, the application before us is contrary to the Noosa plans, contrary to the lines that are drawn by the state with regard to coastal hazards at this point in time. We've got new information with regard to coastal hazards and coastal mapping going forward. And we've already seen evidence in other jurisdictions where those houses that are built close to the sea have been challenged by some of the storms and recent events, recent weather events that have caused them to plummet into the sea. And that's not something we want to see here in the future. So to be prudent at this point in time and to, to adhere with our planning scheme is
00:19:00 the only, is the only way forward. I feel very much for the applicants and they've clearly gone to a lot of trouble to, to work on a well thought out plan and some great landscaping options here to, to try and maintain the, the, the bank behind their, behind their property. But at this point in time, based on the information before us, I can only support the, the refusal of the application. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Are you care to close Councillor Stockton? Councillor Jackson: I'm here to ask a question. Yeah, sure. There was a... Mayor Wellington: Who's the question directed to please? Councillor Jackson: I believe I'll need to direct it to Kerry Coyle. Thank you, Kerry. There was a statement made that our council planners, in effect, give legal advice. Could you please clarify whether or not that's the case? Did you, in fact, yourself and other council planners give legal advice? Mayor Wellington: I think I said that council has given legal advice. Councillor Jackson: It was actually, it was actually Councillor Wilkie that said this.
00:20:00 Mayor Wellington: Kerry, thanks. Speaker 5: I'm, my qualifications are town planning. I'm not a lawyer. So I can convey legal advice that's provided by our solicitor, but I don't provide legal advice. Thank you very much. Councillor Wilkie: If I can clarify. Yes, you may. If I ask a question, if the planning scheme has weight in law and you're interpreting the planning scheme, are you not, in fact, giving legal advice relating to planning law? Speaker 5: I'm enjoying the promotion here. Look, I have to say, the planning scheme is law, so it is legislation. It's recognised as legislation, and it is law. So I do give advice on the planning scheme. But it doesn't make me a lawyer. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Scottwood. I'll start where we just finished. We're making a planning decision. We're not making a legal opinion, a legal decision. And any attempt to try and suggest that we require legal advice to make a planning decision,
00:21:00 in my opinion, is mine. It's clear that we have all the necessary information to make the decision on a planning application. It is clear that we have the most up-to-date mapping about the potential impacts of coastal erosion from climate change of anywhere in the state that has been prepared by experts, peer-reviewed by the state experts, and approved by the state for use in planning decisions. It's clear that the state demands that we take that information into consideration. There was a suggestion that there's some... lack of clarity in a code, but at the General Committee, it was clearly said that the code that councils are getting confused about does not apply. So I don't care how much lack of clarity is in a code that doesn't apply, because it doesn't apply. I don't need to wait to clarify a code that doesn't apply to make this decision.
00:22:00 Now, it is a shame that between the start of the Beach Protection... the end of the Beach Protection Act, the IPER Act came in, and silly policy provisions allowed the houses to creep up. And now, the state has identified the error in their ways, and they have said the councils can no longer consider where the adjacent property houses are in their decision. What it says is the house should be built as far back, as far landward as possible. And it says that it should be behind the coastal building line. Now, we didn't need a whole lot of fancy legal advice. All we need to look at is what the planning scheme said in 2000. And that's it. And it said that a house in this location needed to be 15 metres back from the back boundary. This house design is less than six metres back. So on one ground alone, you'd need to refuse it. But that's not the only criteria.
00:23:00 I think it's really important that we look at what our coastal hazard adaption project has identified in terms of the potential. And it's essential that every decision between the time that was endorsed by the state and the time it hopefully doesn't become a reality is consistent, or otherwise we're exposing future councils and future ratepayers to significant financial costs, and the owners of buildings in those areas exposing them to personal risk. Now, I wouldn't like to be part of that decision. So, councillors, thank you. I urge you to support the motion. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? That is councillors Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic, Glasgow and Wellington. Those against? Councillor Jackson will be recorded as against. Thank you. We move on.
00:24:00 The next item from the General Committee is the Development Application for Operational Works and Advertising Device at 1 Strade 100, Rennie Street, Noosaville. Item number three. Now, this was a confidential item and some new information has occurred. So, I'm going to move that this matter be deferred. Procedural motion, this is, of course, that the matter be deferred and considered in the confidential session, which is part of the agenda later in the meeting. I'll second that. Thank you. Councillor Glasgow. As I explained, some more information has arisen. I do want to leave the confidential session there. I'll put that information where it is at the end of the agenda. And that means when we've done with all the other matters, you can hear that new information, folks. So, I'll put the procedural motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. We move on to the rest of the General Committee recommendations. And the next one is item number four, the Noosa North Shore Ferry Service Review and
00:25:00 Lease Extension. This item was referred to the ordinary meeting. Therefore, we need to deal with this item separately. I'll move that. We haven't got a motion as yet. I think there has been a suggestion. Yes, I think we have. Your possible motion is prepared there, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the resolution there. I'll read it out, because others may not have had the time to read it. The Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the Services and Organisation Committee meeting dated 9 April 2019. The Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the Services and Organisation Committee B, subject to obtain the operator's agreement agreed to only extend the lease for three years from 1st July 2019 to 30th July 2022 at this time with the remaining balance two-year extension period to be further considered prior to the lease expiry to allow Council to investigate opportunities for digital technology introduction and C, request staff further investigate opportunities for a simplified concession system as outlined in the report.
00:26:00 I'll just talk briefly. As was discussed at General Committee, we have got a TOA Beach and Camping Ground Working Group which is working on the issues of how do we look at achieving the aims of sustainable tourism on the New South Shore. Part of what may come out of that group will influence the ongoing operations. We will also have to look at the operation of the ferry and one of the most likely outcomes is a move to some form of digital technology. The reason why I propose that we don't go the full five years is that to me that's too long to allow those considerations to be put in place.
00:27:00 What it does allow for is a review period. We do understand if we go to tender it will take up to two years to kit up so that's why the three years. But it does allow us to have a look at what comes out of that TOA Working Group, have a look at how the ferry can integrate with other services, other permitting systems and see if we can make the transition to a more sustainable use of the Noosa North Shore both from a vehicle driving and camping perspective in a timely fashion. Thank you Councillor Adams for the suspected motion. Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'd like to support this motion and I support the motion. I agree with a lot of the things that Councillor Stockwell has just said. In particular, when I read about a full commitment to five years without making any changes to streamlining payment systems and responding to resident needs, I felt that might be a bit long and I much prefer a concept of having a three year period during which we can have a look at responding better to the needs of the residents of the North Shore.
00:28:00 Thank you. And that will be including some more efficient payment system because that actually slows things down in the ferry. So I'm supporting this motion. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else? Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll add that final point that Councillor Jackson just alluded to. Not only are we looking at digital technology introduction here, but with the opportunity for a new lease would also look at the options for potential for annual passes for a three year period. So we're looking at a lot of the options for the residents instead of ongoing trip by trip payments and things like that. So within that digital technology introduction, it allows for a raft of other opportunities, including a simplified concession system mentioned in Part C to be incorporated online as most systems are now being done.
00:29:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? You care to close, Councillor Stockwell? I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. The motion is carried. Item number five referred to the general committee is the draft events policy for Noosa Shire. Now, although that's what it says is the heading, this is not an adoption of the policy, but rather an agreement to proceed to community consultation on the policy. Item number six is the Boring Point Campground Management Services contract tender. Item number seven is a commercial high use permit application by Neon Ride. Item number eight is budget review three for the financial year. And item number nine is the financial performance report for March. The recommendation is that the general committee recommendations be adopted. I'll move on, Mr Chair. Move, Councillor Wilkie. I'll second it, thank you. Seconded, Councillor Jackson. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. We now unusually have a report direct to Council.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 And this is, of course, the proposed flight path changes for Sunshine Coast Airport. Now, we don't... Well, we do have a motion. I'm going to move the motion with a Part C, if I may. Or, in fact, change Part B to Part C and add a Part B, if you wouldn't mind, please. I'll second that. Councillor Glasgow: I can read it. It's on the screen. Mayor Wellington: There's more to come. Oh, there's more of the red stuff. Yeah. So, Part B is a request from Air Services Australia. A detailed explanation. As to why the intensity of flight numbers over the coastal flight path versus hinterland flight paths has changed. Councillor Glasgow: I'll definitely second that. Mayor Wellington: I think it's, rather than move to debate, I think that there's a good deal of information that needs to be ventilated.
00:31:00 And it's probably best to do that by question and answer. So, I'll set things rolling by... This report, of course, comes from the CEO. So, my first question to the CEO is, what are the differences between the flight paths in the 2014-15 EIS process and the current Air Services Australia consultation? Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are you happy if I remain seated? Yeah, sure. I'll just go for a while. Mayor Wellington: Thanks. Speaker 4: Look, there's a couple of changes between the original EIS, which was in 2014 and 2015, and then approved by the Coordinator-General in May 2016. At that time, the EISs contained what they called preliminary airspace and concept flight design. What is being put out for consultation by Air Services Australia at the moment has a couple of different changes. Some of those are around changes to arrival and departure.
00:32:00 Particularly in the hinterland, where there's been some changes where previously one of the tracks went east of Cooroy, now it's to the southwest. Some of the departure flights were near Cooroy Bar. They're now between Lake MacDonald and Cooroy Bar and so on. But the second significant one is the, I'll call it the level of density, or intensity is probably a better word, of what's known as the green flight path on the coastal area, which is now taking more of the proposed traffic than what was originally planned. It was proposed in the EIS, which was approved through the Coordinator-General's office back in May 2016. So there's the two fundamental ones. Some of the track changes, if you like, out in the hinterland area. And the second is the level of intensity in that green track area in the Marcus Castaway beach locality. Mayor Wellington: So further to that question, Mr CEO, what does the new modelling show in terms of impacts on Noosa residents under both those flight paths, please?
00:33:00 Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. To answer that, and I'm going to primarily focus on noise, you'll see in my report that the original EIS has dealt with a whole range of issues. There are about 15 or more issues that were dealt with. The flight path issue has been enlivened, if you like, by what air services are going through their consultation. And one of the things that triggers, of course, is the question of noise and what's the impact on residential amenity. In terms of the noise impact, there are a number of different ways that noise is measured. Some relate to the number of events when a particular decibel limit is reached, and that's in airports. They often use N70. And I'll put in the report some maps which show the extent of that N70. They also have the NEF, the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast, which relates to one of the Australian standards, 2021.
00:34:00 Which is more about the impact on people, and they use a methodology there which talks about acceptable or not acceptable, and have a number. Essentially, anything under A, N, E, F, 20 is deemed, by that standard, to be acceptable. And the third way that these impacts can be measured is about the... I'll call it the decibel impact on particular types of flights. And particular aircraft when they're landing or taking off. And you can develop decibel charts, if you like, that show where that impact is. So when you have a look at those particular things, I'll set it out in the report where the graphs for the N70, which is the number of times that noise would reach 70 decibels. Anything over 5 would be in that vicinity of Majimba. Mark Kula heading out towards Yandina Creek.
00:35:00 But none of the N75, which is the last one they measure for the N70, touches on the Noosa Shire. And ditto, that's in 2020, and ditto for 2040. By the time that comes around, it does extend further out. The number of events that would be reaching that N40, sorry, N70, would be more frequent. But again, none of those reach into Noosa Shire. In terms of the noise exposure forecast, similar things that most of the big serious numbers around that occur very close around the airport itself. We're talking about the Majimba, Mark Kula, the back of Mount Kulin there heading out into Yandina Creek. And there's nothing below the ANEF 20 doesn't extend up into the Noosa Shire either at 2020 or 2040. But when you get to the issue in terms of individual planes and what impact that has at the decibel level, I'll put in the report one example, which is the Boeing 737-800, which is the one that Virgin currently flies.
00:36:00 That does get into the Noosa Shire. So that comes into the southern part of Lake Wyver on the departure side when it's leaving. And that's when it's flying from, I want a better phrase, from east to west. When it's departing into the hinterland area and turning up across to the north. And it's also just touching upon the southern part of our Cooroy mountain area as well into our Shire. And similarly with its arrival, it is touching in that 60 decibel level at the southwestern corner of Lake Wyver. But probably coming further into that Mount Cooroy area. Particularly around, just on the, let's say on the western side and the eastern side of Mount Cooroy itself. So there's the major ones.
00:37:00 It's probably important to note that in terms of noise, I think most people who would be, and I've done the research on this, most people would say that it's not an exact science, Mr Mayor. Certainly there are models and predictions, but that doesn't tell you what's actually going to happen. It's simply a model. The second is that people are affected by noise differently. Certainly all the studies show that. And often noise depends on a range of environmental factors, whether it's a cloud, time of year. So, for example, in winter, noise might travel further than summer. There might be mountains or things like that that affect it as well. And the other one that affects in terms of the ANEF, the impact on people, is about the level of background noise that's already in existence. And that's one of the things that is a big issue. And so that's, for example, if you, you know, we all have it. I live not far away from a busy road. I hear it at night, but not during the day.
00:38:00 It's that level of background noise which is a significant impact in terms of the impact on people. So that's one of the background noise issues. And that's probably more significant at night than it is during the day when there's less background noise. Mayor Wellington: Thanks. In terms of the noise, there are some useful analogies that I believe can be made regarding what 40 decibels sounds like and 60 decibels. Do you have that at hand in terms of if around 62 decibels, I understand, is the maximum noise that will be likely to be heard under the current modelling in the Noosa area? Is that correct? That the modelling suggests that 62 decibels in the Noosa Shire area is around the maximum? And what does that equate to? Speaker 4: Yeah, if you have a look on page 21 of my report, there's a whole lot of examples around the world where people try and line up. What is the, what's a decibel sound like?
00:39:00 And one of the things about decibels is it's an incremental scale. So it's not a linear thing that 10, every 10 it sort of goes up. It ramps up very quickly in terms of that impact. Okay. So in the report, you'll see that one of the examples is that 60 decibels is conversational speech. I haven't actually got a decibel reading on there, but I suspect I'm probably close to 60. And I'm sure some of the councils will be a bit louder than that. But once you get up to 70, you are talking about, you know, radio noise, much louder street noise and things like that. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, what's the second part of your question for now? Mayor Wellington: The question was the analogy for 60 decibels. And is that the maximum that will be experienced over Noosa Shire? Speaker 4: It's hard to say that absolutely. Because as I said before, it's modelling at this stage only, not in terms of what would actually occur. So I couldn't answer that definitively. But certainly the modelling is showing that the 60 decibels for the, that Boeing would certainly go into Lake Weyba and certainly out past Cooroy Mountain.
00:40:00 Mayor Wellington: There seems to be some confusion about the heights of aircraft. And I've received a number of emails today claiming that they will be 1,000 feet above Noosa. In terms of the lowest they will be flying over the Noosa Shire, is it possible to say what the height will be at their lowest extremity before they leave Noosa Shire? Speaker 4: I'm going to have to rely on what the information is put out through the... Air Services Australia. And at the moment, according to their information, they're looking at 3,000 feet roughly. It will be up or down around that number, but that's the figure that they're publishing in terms of their consultation. Mayor Wellington: So the 1,000 feet does not equate with the information we're receiving from Air Services Australia? Correct. Speaker 4: Correct. Mayor Wellington: There also appears to be a belief by some people that...
00:41:00 Flight paths can be moved around and it can be readily determined how often planes fly in from the north versus the south. But my understanding is that the flight paths are designed not only to deal with residential conurbations underneath the flight paths, but also to deal with potential predominant wind direction. Thus, the information I believe we've received from Air Services Australia is the number of times that planes would be flying in from the north. Would equate with the number of times that a predominant southerly wind was operating, for example. And if they were flying out over Noosa, that would be a product of a northerly wind. Speaker 4: Yeah, that's essentially correct, is that the flight paths are designed to deal with, I'll call it safe flights, landing into the wind or taking off into the wind. And that will depend on the wind. Obviously, there's some historic records about wind direction, about what percentage of time the wind blows from the east or the west.
00:42:00 In this area. And I think that, to my knowledge, is how Air Services has worked out their estimate of the number of flights that are coming in from different directions. Councillor Glasgow: Mr CEO, what legal ramifications do we exactly have with... They're telling us one thing, 3,000 feet, 65 decibels. And if they do, let's just say, God help us, but they do the complete opposite thing in 12 to 14 months. What legal ramifications does Council have to have with such a body like Air Services Australia? Speaker 4: I couldn't answer that without going through any cases or that's occurred elsewhere. Councillor Glasgow: You haven't heard of it much in the past ever? No. So we just have to hope that they are spot on. Speaker 4: Yeah, I can't answer that. I just don't know whether that's been challenged in other airport cases. I'd need to go and research that. Mayor Wellington: It might be useful if you explain where Council's authority begins and ends with regard to this matter in terms of us influencing it.
00:43:00 And the outcome, please, Mr CEO. Speaker 4: Sure. Obviously, we can make a submission to Air Services and the Commonwealth Government. Ultimately, this is their decision. It's probably fair to say that as a local authority, we would have a reasonable amount of sway. And they would certainly listen to a cogent argument. But ultimately, it's there to figure that out. Speaker 1: Sorry, can I just say that 3,000 feet... I'll ask the question and thank you. Mayor Wellington: Sorry, we can't accept... Speaker 1: I'm just wondering how much of the information you were given was wrong there. They showed 3,000 feet over Marcus Beach and descending. That means they would be lower than 3,000 feet in the Shire. Speaker 6: And the other thing is an airport has to put in a submission for a master plan every five years on their EIS. So if they change it... Mayor Wellington: OK, thank you. Look, I'm sorry, but we don't allow interjections from the audience. I'm sorry, it's not part of the standing orders and not part of useful practice. Because when we start going down that path, then unfortunately, we lose the ability to be able to make relevant decisions
00:44:00 and be able to hear arguments from the councillors who ultimately have to make the decision. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, my question is a little bit about if this was a development application. So it's a question about what standards we may apply if we did have the decision-making power. So the question to the CEO is what sort of standards or requirements, probably in our draft scheme more than our existing scheme, would we be looking at as a measure to protect the amenity of residential areas? Speaker 4: So can I just clarify your question as to whether or not if we were making a decision, it might be about a development application for a factory or an operation or whatever, and noise was an issue, what criteria we'd take into account? That's correct. Sorry, I'll preface my comments as we're not the decision agency in this case. But what we'd normally do in our planning process, and I'll probably answer in two parts.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 One is about our current planning scheme and the other one is our draft scheme that's out for public comment. With our current planning scheme, we have codes of development, if you like, that apply for different localities or locality codes. What we talk about in there is about avoiding any significant adverse change. And that covers not just noise, but it's light or air quality or things like that. So we make sure that there's not an impact on neighbourhoods. There's not a defined, in our current scheme, not a defined number, if you like, in terms of if it's more than 5 or 10 or whatever it is decibels. But the practice has been to use 5 decibels as a difference between what's the background noise and whether that's going to impact by more than 5 decibels on neighbourhoods. And if that's the case under our current planning scheme, we would introduce conditions around our town planning approval to deal with that.
00:46:00 We'll move now to deal with our draft planning scheme. And that's essentially what the draft planning scheme has done. It says that if there is going to be an impact on background noise levels of more than 5 decibels, then we would take that into account in assessing the application and probably look at conditions about how we would minimise the impact of noise. Any other questions? Mayor Wellington: Okay, I shall speak to the motion. Look, I fully accept that there are many Noosa residents who are very concerned about this issue. I will point out that consultation did occur in 2014-15 and for some reason we had less concern and interest at that time, it seems, than there is now. The Noosa Council had only just formed at the time that happened. There was two sets of consultation, in fact, and it was reasonably well ventilated back then in the local media, etc.
00:47:00 However, I accept that there have also been some changes made to the flight paths, both in terms of their trajectory at the northern end and also to the intensity on the flight paths over Noosa. None of us sitting here at this table are experts, so we do have to rely on expert advice. And that's not necessarily easy either, because there's an awful lot of people coming to us saying, I'm an expert. So, to some extent, we have to filter the information we're receiving and work on our best judgement as to what the most, likely, credible information is that we have to deal with here. And obviously the motion seeks to get further information. This is difficult because, as a result of the EIS process that happened in 2014-15,
00:48:00 the airstrip is now being built. The airstrip will be used. There is no going back on that, folks, because the funding is in place. The construction is underway. It's a multi-million dollar project. And the airstrip, the new airport, will be used. As I say, Noosa Council was caught on the back foot somewhat because when the EIS process happened previously, under the previous mayor, we were busy trying to gear up and get our house in order. However, there was discussion going on with residents at that time. I appreciate that there's more concern from coastal residents this time around because the purpose of the current consultation is to deal with the changes that have occurred and those changes most impact certainly on coastal residents. However, we are in a very difficult situation
00:49:00 because we can't actually say stop building the airstrip. And to be absolutely blunt, it is very unlikely that they are suddenly going to rework, re-work flight paths to suit an airstrip that is already under construction in any really significant way. The presentation we've had from Air Services Australia, the first one, I wasn't able to attend the second one. The first one made it clear that they believe that they have found flight paths that have the least impact in terms of resident amenity as compared with other alternatives and would suit both the direction of the airstrip and the prevailing winds that they're expecting to occur. We can either take them at their word or not and that puts us in an awkward position, I'm afraid.
00:50:00 I think that we could go to Air Services Australia and say start again, but I think that's not going to happen. So there's really no point in doing it. However, if we ask for a continuation... If we ask for a... I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen. If we ask for an extension of the consultation, this does allow us and residents to be able to gather more information. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Woodley. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, I support the submission for an enforced nighttime curfew for Sunshine Coast Airport, an extension to the consultation period, which will allow us to further understand the implications of the proposed higher traffic on the coastal flight path across the coast. The calls for a curfew and more time to consider things such as this are the two consistent unequivocal... Apart from the general dismay that there will be flights across Noosa Shire,
00:51:00 these are the two consistent unequivocal messages heard from residents during this process. Four other Australian airports have a mandatory curfew on jet operations. That's Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne's Essendon Airport and Adelaide. Limiting the hours of operation at night, similar to what happens at these other airports, would minimise the noise impacts when they're most noticeable, better protect the amenity of residents and still allow the airport to operate efficiently. We appreciate Sunshine Coast as a voluntary fly-neighbourly policy involving minimal flights at night, but believe a curfew enforced by legislation would provide a stronger level of protection for residents. In regards to general airport curfews, the general restriction on commercial flights are between 11pm and 6am. There are exemptions for emergency circumstances and their fines and prosecutions can apply for breach of the curfew, which is a lot more stringent than the fly-neighbourly policy which they intend to keep in place until 2040.
00:52:00 Given the significance of the project, we also want Air Services Australia to extend the consultation period by a month to provide adequate time for feedback. Mr Council, we have no regulatory authority on this issue but we have an advocacy role on behalf of residents who are affected. Another difficulty surrounding this issue is the deep hinterland coastal community divide as to where the flight paths should go. Councillors are receiving representations from coastal residents understandably upset about the changes in the coastal flight path, wanting the green path abandoned in favour of the yellow flight path or another more westward flight path. At the same time, hinterland residents are pushing back equally strongly, insisting Councillors resist changes that will shunt flights from the coastal path westward and further disadvantage them. This divide was also reflected in the views shared by coastal Noosa Shire residents who attended the Viradar Hall meeting versus those expressed by hinterland residents who mostly turned out for the Cooran, Pomona and Cooroy consultations.
00:53:00 Speaker 3: That said, Councillor Wilkie: if the green coastal flight path is now going to be a primary approach path due to the trend of more craft moving towards this more sophisticated navigation tracking system, then there is a strong case that we need to take some time to have a look at the implications of that. The extra time for the consultation period would also give us an opportunity to make improvements to make sure that all flights into Noosa are going from the southern states and track on the northern approach are going to trend towards one flight path only. Then there's an opportunity to examine whether this is the flight path that overflies the least number of residents and disadvantages the least number of people. There's an opportunity for that and there will be noise associated with the flight path wherever it is.
00:54:00 But the risk is if we put that out and we advocate for that, we have no control over where that flight path should be. But there may be a case for advocating for a flight path of least resistance, if I can put it that way, or the flight path. If one flight path is going to be used to approach from the north, investigations take place that would be over an area that disadvantages the least number of people. Look, it's a diabolical situation to be in, but I, I urge councillors to support this resolution for a curfew, a submission on a curfew, an extension to the consultation period for residents and for us to consider other, the implications of the changes that are before us. Thank you. Speaker 3: I have a question of the CEO, please.
00:55:00 Councillor Jackson: The decision, who makes the decision about whether an airport would have a curfew? Speaker 4: Yeah, good question. The Air Services certainly have a role, but the final decision is made through another part of the Commonwealth. It's the Commonwealth Government who makes that decision. And it's actually through the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and City, which is one of the Commonwealth departments. They make the final decision. Councillor Jackson: Okay. And what about Air Services Australia? That's a good question. Are they a federal government body? Speaker 4: They are. They're a Commonwealth agency. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I would like to make an amendment to the motion, an addition D, which would say, oops, and request, and request, Federal Member Lou O'Brien's
00:56:00 supportive action, supportive action, on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second the amendment. Mayor Wellington: I know this question here, councillor. Yes. Supportive action doesn't actually, you mean supporting A, B and C? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I do mean that. To support our council's action. Mayor Wellington: Okay. To support council's advocacy on behalf of the community? Councillor Jackson: Well, Mayor Wellington: I mean, his supportive action could be supporting the airstrip, you know. Councillor Jackson: Well, no, we're not asking for that. Good point. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So to support council's advocacy. Speaker 4: Council's position. My suggestion would be and request Federal Member Lou O'Brien to support council's position on this matter. Yes, that's good. Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:57:00 Mayor Wellington: I'll second the amendment. Thank you. Seconded by councillor Wilkie. You should speak to the amendment, councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Oh, very briefly. I think we are facing a situation where actually the responsibility for these key decisions are made at a federal level. And clearly, there will be some support given if the federal member was involved. Mayor Wellington: I think you've lost the word. Lost the word. To support council's position Speaker 3: on this matter? Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to further amend the... Speaker 3: You can't go on. Councillor Jurisevic: One amendment at a time. One amendment at a time. One amendment at a time. I'd like to further consider your request there, councillor Jackson. Given that Lou O'Brien isn't the only federal member within the local area, I would suggest that any submission
00:58:00 to federal members incorporate all local federal members in the area. And I won't be supporting just a request to federal member Lou O'Brien. Mayor Wellington: The lion's share is Lou O'Brien, but it's true that Ted O'Brien encroaches as well. Correct. Councillor Jackson: Well, you can make an amendment to it. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, you can change the word Councillor Jackson: as long as your seconder is happy. Well, I can make an amendment. Are you happy for that? Yes. We'll make that amendment. We'll say federal members. Mayor Wellington: Lou O'Brien. Councillor Jackson: Lou O'Brien and Ted O'Brien. Mayor Wellington: And Ted O'Brien. Speaker 4: That's fabulous. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That's viable. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Jackson has spoken. Who else wishes to speak Councillor Jurisevic: to it? I've spoken to it, so I've got the chance of one. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'm going to put the amendment always in favour. Thank you. That's carried. The amendment becomes the motion. I have spoken to it. Councillor Wilkie has spoken to it. That's all. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. With regard to questions, Mr CEO, I'm just tired to go through. We're focused on the establishment
00:59:00 of the curfew, some of the Gold Coast. I'm going to make a submission in relation to opposed changes. Who would we be making that submission to? Speaker 4: In relation to A? Yes. That's what I said before. We'll obviously provide a copy to Air Services Australia, but the decision maker on the curfew is the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and City. Councillor Jurisevic: So we'd make a submission to both those entities? Thank you. Speaker 4: Just to clarify where that curfew ... They're the decision maker at that department, part of the Commonwealth, different part of the Commonwealth agencies. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Anyone else wish to speak Deputy Mayor Stockwell: to the motion? Councillor Stockwell? I will. And I'm going to start, firstly, at the strategic. Go through a bit of the practical and finish the strategic. And the strategic is that there's no doubt that growth in flights and the new runway will impact Noosa. There is no doubt that there will be, over decades to come, a continuing divide between the cultures of people who move to the north part of the coast for lifestyle and for environment,
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 for peace and quiet, who have an aspiration that growth is within sustainable limits versus forces moving from the south that will want growth on a concept that there is unlimited growth without impact. I think this is just one of the things that the southern front will face in the decades to come as we feel the pressure coming across the border from growth, both from a residential perspective Mayor Wellington: but also from a tourist perspective. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: However, I think it's also important if we are leaders of the community to put the level of threat into the right context. So, Kylie, if you could bring up the PDF. So, today, I got on my bike and went for a 68km ride around the Flypath area. And the first place that I took a noise reading was on the shores of Lake Wyver where the decibel level as a result of the wind in the trees was 82 decibels.
01:01:00 Now, this is one of the great problems with using decibels as a measure of noise uses because that level of wind through the trees is relaxing. Okay? When I got to the Berrydale Road intersection with Noosa Croy Road, you can keep going, you see that's only 72 decibels. Now, that is the standard that you'll see for traffic. And you see here underneath the little dial you see traffic and vacuum cleaners. It's 72 decibels. So, this is only a handheld app on a phone. But if you see the results we get, they're very consistent with the table in the CEO's report. If a truck went by, that would go up to 83. So, if we go then further to the next stop at the Berrydale Hall, there was less traffic. I waited until the motorbike went off which was well over 80 decibels and took that
01:02:00 at 67 decibels. Which is about the average of the conversation that we've had in here tonight. Go down further, you get to Murdering Creek. And once again, close, the first house away from the intersection of the motorway and Murdering Creek. Once again, a reading of about 80 decibels. Now, that is a noise nuisance even though it's lower than the wind. Just before then, I must have missed a slide, there was one reading of just under 60 at the corner of Doonan Bridge Road, north, south, the next where I took the wrong turn. But, the lowest level around about 60 was there. So, keep on going and I went through to the edge of the National Park at Clarendon Drive is where you go through the closed section of the road to Woodland Drive. And, it was 69 decibels. And it was either a large truck
01:03:00 or a way quite distant from traffic. We are getting noise. Go then next to Marcus Beach where we see once again at the roundabout normal traffic volume 73. I then went to the beach which should be the next one at the top of the dune, sound of the waves, 73. Two very different noise profiles, one that would be annoying, one that would come back from the beach and you get to a nice quiet spot. And the sound of birds, 61. That's all you could hear was birds. Okay? And then you go to the back to Mahogany Drive and you get to 57. Okay? And so, then we look at 57 and that's probably the most important number because that's what people will be expecting particularly at night when they can't hear traffic regardless of where it is. And so, I didn't, my battery ran out so I didn't ride all the way home but when I got home, 60 okay is not bad
01:04:00 for a 59 year old, come on. So the next one is when I got home and it was 49 and I did it again and you see there, 52 the second time. And so that, what that tells me is that while a lot of the people in Marcus Beach have become alive to the potential impact, there is more Noosa Shire residents in the rural part of the Shire under the flight path than the orange flight path and it's that quietness that will be more likely to have a greater than five decibels during the day. So, I think it's really important to put the level of noise. As the CEO said, the model says that no part of Noosa will be going more than 70 and we know that just normal urban around traffic will just be that during the day but we'd expect it to get quieter at night. So that's why I think it is the most important thing to do for our whole community is to push for a regulated curfew. Push for an EIS. Okay. So, We need an EIS.
01:05:00 Speaker 6: The EIS Deputy Mayor Stockwell: has been approved and if this set of the existing approved flight paths I asked that question. So, the best thing we can do for our community is trying to limit a curfew to try and keep the proponent to what they said they would do in the EIS and I think that's important that the item to be that the Mayor Why can't you ask Speaker 6: for an updated EIS? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The Mayor put in there was to have an understanding and I've kind of come back because I think in today's paper a very old local Bill Taint he talked about Robert the Bruce Scotland and modern day Noosa have a lot in common wild heath lands making up in the north of their fiefdoms the main populous right on their southern border and both under constant invasion
01:06:00 from the south. Now I don't this is not a council versus council this is about a community with different values and I think it's really important to note that it's not only trying to limit the impact of flights we have to worry about we have to as a community keep vigilant and keep the fire in our belly about the flow on impacts if we allow growth to go on without limits and what he said is imagine your morning Noosa Park clifftop jog coming into a halt behind a line of forty tourists following a flag bearing guide who has stopped to look at a bush turkey tried to slip past them and oh no another flag bearing of forty followers come. So as the Mayor said five years ago we had a consultation but it was five years too early because people either and I've met lots who were in the area who were knowledgeable who were professional and didn't understand what was happening um we certainly know the Mayor spoke to the Noosa residents and road payers meeting during that time and communicated some of the
01:07:00 the noise information but the worst time to try and decide to make to change a decision is one minute to midnight what we have to look at as this community is what are the threats in five years time and what do we do now to try and avert them. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to move an amendment Speaker 3: and the amendment Councillor Jurisevic: will be ah you might as well make as D and move the other one into ah move the ah the federal members in I've been inundated this afternoon with a number of requests and I'm even hearing it from the gallery behind me regarding and I don't know how effective it'll be I don't know how effective a number of these Can we just word it before you talk to it please
01:08:00 Speaker 4: Thank you Councillor Jurisevic: I'm stealing the wording from the emails that I've been getting Requesting Sunshine Coast Regional Council to conduct an EIS for Lake Weyba Noosa National Parks Hang on Speaker 3: hang on Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would it be the wording in the petition you already had Councillor Jurisevic: In essence in essence it's the wording out of the email which I believe is in the petition Ah Noosa National Parks ah and Coastal Dunes of Castaways and Marcus Beach I think that's I think that's all it needs to say Speaker 1: about an independent EIS for an independent body Speaker 3: Yeah Yeah Not how you say Yes Yeah Should have been I'm sorry I just wanted to say thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you
01:09:00 Mayor Wellington: All right, do we have a seconder for that, a seconder for that, a seconder, oh yes, you're quite right, you can't second it, do you have anyone else wishing to second this, I can't second it, I can't either, I'll second it for the purpose of the debate. Councillor Glasgow: Hopefully I support this. Councillor, hang on, I'm going to let Joe speak first on the break. Are you happy with the wording yet, Councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm kind of thinking whether there needs to be, the reason why we've been requesting it. An updated EIS? An updated EIS, probably an updated. I hope you don't have the word independent there.
01:10:00 Speaker 1: Yes. Mayor Wellington: Okay, a moment from the speaker. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, given that in the last hour in particular, and with regards to the petition and the rest of it, there seems to be some conjecture that an EIS, the current EIS that is there, did not include areas of local government. And that's the reason why I've been using National Park and the Council of Junes, or the Council of Marks Beach. And given that Noosa is renowned for its sensitivity to the environment, and our consideration of environmental impacts on everything we do, I believe it's prudent here to try and make sure that every avenue has been covered in this regard. I'm unsure as to how successful we'll be in getting a change here, but at least if we request it, it can be considered. If we don't request it, it can't be considered.
01:11:00 So I'm bowing to the request from our community to add that element into the request that we've made. We've requested a curfew, which is one of the things that have been requested from the members of the community. We requested an extension of time. We requested to look at, investigate flight paths. We've looked at elements of the flight paths in our request, and I'm just adding this element, which is in line with the request we're getting from the community, to submit to the powers that be to at least consider the environmental impacts on those sensitive areas. Mayor Wellington: I just have a little fear about the wording still, because the way it's written... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to work on the wording. I've stolen that directly from the email. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, Noosa National Parks could mean all Noosa National Parks, wherever they are, the way it's worded at the moment. You're referring to Noosa National Park in the Castaways and Marcus Beach area.
01:12:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, within the flight path. Mayor Wellington: Well, Lake Wyver plus Noosa National Park and Coastal Dunes within the Castaways and Marcus Beach area. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that'll do. Mayor Wellington: You happy with that, Councillor Stockton? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy with that. Oh, yeah, sorry. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, no, to change the wording. Councillor Glasgow: I fully support what Councillor Jurisevic's doing here, and as I'm doing this, I'm madly texting Lou O'Brien as we speak, saying very, very, very simply, flight paths not happy by Noosa residents. At the very minimum, put pressure on for an independent EIS. It's only a text to Lou. I know Lou's on the campaign trail, as we know at the moment, but he can put pressure on maybe at the federal level. I do support exactly what Councillor Jurisevic's doing here.
01:13:00 There seems to be a lot of emphasis about independent, so we'll take it from there. But like I said, it's a very, very hard subject to sort of get right at the moment. And I do like what Councillor Wilkie said at the very end. We are advocates for the Noosa people and Noosa Shire, so this is what exactly we're paid to do. So thank you. Speaker 6: If you ask the Sunshine Coast Council, are they just going to say no? Shouldn't you put that to the State Department? Mayor Wellington: But I do want to warn my fellow councillors that we're under considerable pressure from the Sunshine Coast Council in 2015 to fully support the extension of the airport.
01:14:00 And that request has continued into the current council request for Noosa Council to support the airport. And I... I'm just warning that I'm happy to make the request, which I will be doing, or the CEO will be doing. But I don't want to raise expectations too high, given the discussions I've had with the Mayor of the Sunshine Coast Council. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a question to the CEO, and just to clarify the amendment, that the Sunshine Coast Regional Council is the correct person to address the request for an EIS? Speaker 4: Yeah, they manage the EIS. That EIS process is then ultimately approved through the Coordinator-General. If they go through an EIS request... If they go through an EIS process, the first part of that process is to have a Terms of Reference determined.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 That takes a period, and those Terms of Reference are assessed. And then the Coordinator-General, which is the State Government, then makes that determination on the EIS itself. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Do you wish to close, Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: No, again, I don't wish to raise the expectations of the community either. But this is a request from our community, a direct request to the councillors, to make that request. And on behalf of the community, I'm making that request in this amendment. Mayor Wellington: I'll put the amendment, all those in favour. The amendment's carried. The second amendment becomes the motion. The only ones who have spoken to the original motion are myself, Councillor Wilkie, and Councillor Stockwell. Does anyone else wish to speak to it? Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Why don't we get some good ones? Look, yes, we did, you know, I was part of the council when the original EIS, the original request came before council.
01:16:00 That council didn't support or object to the airport. We stayed fairly neutral on the thing, because there seemed to be some benefits for the community going forward, but there also seemed to be some impacts, and those impacts were presented at that time, through the EIS, and here we have some changes that have got our community concerned. And I think it's only right as councillors that we try to convey those concerns to the powers that be, as best as we can, and to make them aware of the concerns of our community, and try to, where we can, influence the decision making so that it does take the concerns of our community on board. I believe that what we're doing here is meeting all of those concerns. Having gone, you know, having, as Councillor Wellington alluded to before, having gone all the way down the path that it has already with, you know, sand being pumped and a new runway soon to be delivered,
01:17:00 I can't, I see real challenges in getting any amendments at the last hour, but all we can do is ask, and all we can do is submit, try to get support for our community with regards to the concerns that they raise. Councillor Jackson: Oh no, that's not what I'm calling. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, some of the expectations of this airport in the future will meet with challenges. I mean, it's not the only airport that's being built. There's new, the Wellcamp Airport also trying to get, you know, a number of growth and development, a second airport, second runway in Brisbane and the like. So, the effectiveness and growth and future expansion of this airport is yet to be seen and possibly may never be realised. But these are the expectations of the Sunshine Coast Council and this is one of the challenges we face with the amount of growth
01:18:00 in and around the Noosa area going forward. It won't only be airports, it'll be, you know, we've got highways, railways, all sorts of other expectations of the community going forward and progress is one of those challenges that we all strive to achieve. And that's what we're trying to strive to meet for the future, trying to get the expectations of transport initiatives and that for the future is only going to raise other expectations within the community and also raise other challenges going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak? No? I'll briefly close. Councillor Wilkie referred to the Fly Neighbourly Policy which is very much a voluntary policy and that's why this motion goes to a request for a curfew of an evening. Certainly the Fly Neighbourly Policy had very little bearing on the efforts that I was putting in to prevent helicopters low-flying
01:19:00 over Noosa some years ago to Noosa North Shore landing ground. So it is important and I think it is absolutely critical in fact that we put pressure on the decision makers regarding the airport with regard to an evening curfew. And I accept Councillor Stockwell's argument though it was somewhat lengthy that the sound amenity that becomes a nuisance is very much a product of the background noise and that background noise is also very much a product of the individual environment and the time of day or night. So once again I think the curfew is a sensible and hopefully reasonable request. I also accept that coastal residents don't want to see greater intensity. However the hinterland residents also don't want the flights simply moved to the hinterland. As a hinterland resident I'm getting a lot of pressure up there
01:20:00 to keep the coastal residents from pushing flights up there and so it goes on. This is a no-win situation. No one wins out of that battle and ultimately what we want is the best outcome we can get. For something that is already happening. Now had there not been changes to the flight paths in the original EIS we wouldn't be here discussing this now. In fact they'd just proceed and do it. The only reason that we're in a consultation process and that residents have a chance to voice their concerns is because changes have been made and that's in fact forced Air Services Australia to go out and consult once again. Otherwise the 14-15 consultation process would have been it. This motion does seek to gather further discussion. Further information on behalf of our community and it also I hope reflects many of the concerns of the community and Council's desire to convey those concerns. So I commend the motion to you. The community has requested a division
01:21:00 and I'm happy to request that. Councillor Stockwell has requested a division. Councillor Jurisevic: We don't have a mover and a seconder actually on the original. What's the CR? Mayor Wellington: Just clarifying. They were there once. Myself and Councillor Glasgow. Okay. I'll put the motion to all those in favour. Everyone voted in favour. There are no against. The motion is carried. Thank you very much everyone. That concludes that item. We're going to now move on to a confidential session. So we're going to have to clear the room of guests I'm afraid. Thank you for your attendance.
01:22:00 Speaker 3: My favourite meeting place. Mayor Wellington: Well, once the air conditioning stops, it cuts off at a certain time.
01:23:00 Okay, we need a motion to close the meeting. This is Councillor Glasgow, seconded Councillor Jackson. I'll put the motion and all those in favour. Thank you.
90 minutes in ¶
01:31:00 Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Mayor Wellington: So as this was, just for the sake of the tape, as this was originally a confidential item, and it was a confidential item because it is commercial in confidence because it involves a land purchase and a decision about a land purchase, the details of which might prejudice our success or otherwise in the land purchase if the details were to be made public.
01:32:00 It had to be dealt with in confidential session. There were some changes as a result of information, new information, which we have just discussed in confidential session. However, of course, we can't deal with a resolution on any matter in confidential session. So we've now come back into open session and there's a mover here. I'll move the motion. I'll second the motion. Seconded Council of Jurisdict. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And for the sake of the tape, I'll read the motion. Report by the Principal Environment Officer to the Planning and Environment Committee, meeting date of 9th of April 2019, and A, authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the purchase of lot 3, RP186809, up to the valuation obtained by Council. B, remove the confidentiality in relation to this report upon the signing of a contract to purchase lot 3. And C, noting that subject to recent advice, the opportunity for a subdivision of the land for the purpose of a revolving fund appears not to be...
01:33:00 in accord with the South East Queensland Regional Plan. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. If you want to speak to it, you have to speak very generally because you can't breach the confidential information. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I need to say that I think it's a good way forward. And I thank the community member who brought it to our attention. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. The motion is carried. Folks, that concludes tonight's Ordinance. The next meeting, in fact, is on the 16th of May, and it will be held at the Cooran Memorial School of Arts Hall in King Street, Cooran, commencing at 6pm. Please note that as it will be off-site, the meeting will be recorded, but we won't be able to live stream it. So it will go up on our website as soon as we can after the meeting, but people won't be able to watch it while it's happening. So I invite them to come to the meeting. We'd love to see you there.