Start of recording ¶
00:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good afternoon. Mayor Stewart: I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance. This is a special meeting and we have one item on the agenda today. Item one is development application for transport type two car park at four to eight and 16 Lower Mill Road, Cooroy, an open space type one sport and recreation at one, three and nine Maple Street, Cooroy. Before we begin, I might ask our CEO, Mr. de Chastel, to talk about the different roles that Council has in this project and specifically what we are looking at today. Speaker 3: Thanks, Mayor. Look, it's not uncommon, but it is a bit unusual for Council to wear a number of hats through different processes and this is one of those scenarios. So, as you know, we are a town planning authority. We make applications, sorry, assess applications made by people under our town planning scheme
00:02:00 and we then, we do that. In this particular one, we're also the proponent where we put quarter project for assessment. So, we have two hats where, I'll use the term developer loosely, but we're the applicant if you like and we're also the assessment agency. Today's meeting is about the assessment agency hat where we're assessing something against the planning scheme, determining whether or not, what we think of it from a town planning perspective. So, I'll come back to that in a moment. We then have another hat which is proponent or the applicant hat which is where we start to talk about what are the project costs, what's the design issues in terms of what we're looking at, what's the project timing, how we're getting funding from other agencies, what are we doing with community consultation about that project, what's the economic benefit if we want to push this project forward. So, that's where we have, we'll have a separate report to a future Council meeting dealing with those components of this process.
00:03:00 That's our applicant hat on and that's where you no doubt have lots of questions about this project and how much are we spending, what's the purpose of the process and so on. Today is about the assessment of this project against the planning scheme and that's what the purpose of this meeting is. I did toy with the idea of putting both of those reports to the one meeting, but actually it makes it a bit difficult to keep those two roles separate. So that's why we deliberately today only got the one item on the agenda which is our assessment authority hat where we look at, from a town planning perspective, what do we think of this project, do we approve it or not approve it, if we approve it what conditions should we apply. If that approval goes through then the future report will look at, with our applicant hat on, what is the cost to the community, what engagement process have been through, what's the cost benefit, so to speak, proceeding with this project or not. So that's set a bit of the scene in terms of what we're dealing with today in terms of being the assessment authority hat on.
00:04:00 I'm happy to take any questions about that. It's not something that comes up a lot where we are both the applicant and the assessment authority, but when we do have that up we need to keep those hats and those roles separate as well. And we've done that internally within our staff. We've got Chinese walls where staff make an appointment and come and talk to the assessment authority staff. We try and deal with it as much as possible as we can, like any other application we would do with that process. And that included in this case having independent experts having a look at particular elements of it as part of the assessment process. So I'm happy to take any questions on that process element before we get down to the detail. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Brett, I had a question in regards to Council being both the applicant and the assessment authority. Yep. How does Council ensure that the application is processed impartially and how does the community ensure that proper process and transparency is applied in the application?
00:05:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good question. And the first part is that Council is by default the assessment agency. No one else can do it. We're the local authority under the Planning Act and it's our planning scheme. So we're the ones who have to assess that. So what we do internally is make sure we have those Chinese walls, so we have a different part of the organisation being the applicant and a different part or a normal part through our development assessment team being the assessment agency. We'd also look at where it's necessary to get independent advice on any particular issues, which is what we've done in this case. We got independent flood advice where someone looked at and says, okay, very objectively, what's needed here or what's appropriate here. So we do make sure we do that. And in this particular case, we make sure we keep the different components of the application process about the tender and contracts and all that separate from the assessment process as well. So we take it pretty seriously. Those who have known me for a number of years know that I do always get a bit focused on this stuff, but that's why we do it. We do have different roles. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We have staff here to answer any questions.
00:06:00 Anyone else? Councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, Patrick, I've got a question. Page 23, under water quality, the second dot point by the hydraulic engineer notes that the model includes existing devices, which in the admission of the stormwater management plan authors may not actually exist. I'm challenged by how you can model something with devices that may not actually exist. And I'm assuming that is why they have recommended an updated stormwater quality model. Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct, Councillor. As you can see from the report, our consulting hydrologist has raised a number of concerns with the stormwater management plan. That is one of those concerns, and hence why an updated report is required. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So in that regard, how, with an updated hydraulic engineer's management plan, will it impact
00:07:00 or what potential impacts could that have on the conditions per se? We're sort of on a hiding to nothing here until we know the results of that plan. Speaker 2: Council's external hydrologist is happy that the modelling and work that has been done is accurate, that it accurately tells us the risk from flooding, so we can make a decision as to whether this playground is appropriate on the site. Yes, there's some issues with the modelling and there's some disagreements by the two hydrologists who've worked on this project, one for the applicant and one for the DA group, but overall he's happy that he can advise what the risks are and they are reflected in detail in the report to Council. So whilst there's some disagreements with the way it's been done, we know what the risks are in making this decision. Councillor Jurisevic: So to clarify the conditions that are placed upon the applicant through this report and
00:08:00 this approval. It's not going to be approved. We'll cover any necessary additions to any stormwater quality management. Speaker 2: Yeah. The main issue that needs reviewing is the emergency response, the evacuation plan, how do we make sure people get safely off this site. So that's the element that requires the most revision. We're not particularly asking them to redo the modelling in full. We know those risks, but it's really that evacuation plan that we want fully reviewed. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Leading on from that, you've led on to the next level of questioning I've got, is with regard to emergency evacuation devices and the like, do we have, within the Shire, other community facilities located in land that may potentially flood and do those areas have
00:09:00 the same type of requirement for flood warning or impending flood warning as this area is? Speaker 2: This is the first application we've dealt with for a playground in the Shire. Typically across the Shire, playgrounds and our open space was land that was dedicated to council as part of a development application, and it was the area that wasn't usable, wasn't developable. So a lot of our land in the Shire that is currently used for sports grounds or playgrounds is flood affected. Whether the risks are similar, we don't know. We would have to inspect and review each individual one. So I can't do that comparison to show you whether there are similar risks elsewhere, but certainly all our other playgrounds in the area are probably subject to flooding, if not similar impacts. Speaker 4: Thank you. I think you'd also need to look at what's the nature of the flooding event that would be occurring. So for example, the Lions Park down at Kempe Terrace, right next to the river, but a different
00:10:00 type of flooding. It's not, it'd be something that come up over a number of days, not something that would come up quickly, whereas this would be coming up in a much quicker time. You'd also look over the road from the site where you've got the BMX track and the skate park and the other park area, which is also adjoining this land as well, which has been used to that purpose for probably 20 plus years, I would have thought. Councillor Jurisevic: And that essentially leads to the next part of my question, which is the adjoining facilities, the sports grounds and the boating club and the like, are all in the same area and are subject to similar inundation. Will there be a requirement for those facilities to have the same sort of flood indication requirement from Council's perspective? Speaker 4: Well, at the moment they're not covered by this planning application. Speaker 3: What's before us at the moment is this planning application. If the Council wants to go back and revisit all of the other flood prone areas where activity Speaker 4: is occurring, that's something we can do as a separate component, but it's not part of the planning application before Council today.
00:11:00 Thank you Mr. Speaker. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a follow on question. Now, Councillor Jurisevic mentioned the water quality section. Now, the music model which was referenced there is traditionally used in terms of this, that urban stormwater water quality. So, it's about the treatment train to make sure that water running off the site is at a suitable standard to meet the environmental values and water quality objectives when it gets to the creek. Is that the same model that we're using to interpret the flooding level or was there a separate exercise done in terms of the local flooding? Speaker 2: So, my understanding is they are separate models. So, one is about quality, the other is about quantity and risk. So, they are different models. Councillor Wilkie: Just a general question to help put the flood modelling in perspective. It says that this application is being assessed under the superseded planning scheme, this is plan 2006.
00:12:00 Could you explain whether or not there was flood overlay that included the Cooroy Library at that stage? Speaker 2: So, under the 2006 planning scheme, the flooding overlay and the flood planning mapping shows that both the playground site and the library are affected. That mapping has been redone for the 2020 planning scheme and it shows that the library is no longer affected by flooding. I'm not sure of the reason for that, whether the modelling has just been reviewed with more updated information or whether, when we built the library, there was some fill there. I'm not quite sure. I can't recall that. But the 2020 mapping for flooding does show the playground is affected by flooding. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I just recall that when the Cooroy Library was being proposed, there was concerns that the Council was building something in a flood-prone area and this Cooroy Library is a very important piece of infrastructure. To the best of your knowledge, has the Cooroy Library ever flooded? Speaker 2: No, it hasn't.
00:13:00 If I may say also, the Office's recollection about this playground site is we've never seen this site flood. So even though the modelling is suggesting it will occur frequently, 50% chance in any year, no one's actually observed it in our time here. And I've been with Noosa Council since 2000. So I'm not sure why we haven't observed it and the mapping is, and the modelling is showing that it floods. Councillor Wilkie: So would it be fair to say that this modelling is very conservative, risk-averse modelling? Speaker 2: Certainly. I would agree with that. It's very conservative in their, in their modelling because flooding can have potential serious impacts. So it's necessary to be conservative. Speaker 4: And I'll just add to that, I think it needs to be conservative too, the way it's structured because of what's at stake. Yes. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll go because I think it carries on. So Kylie, if we can bring up that map so that you've highlighted that the model we've got
00:14:00 that has been done specifically for this site is perhaps not something that reflects local knowledge, which I, you know, I've been visiting there since I used to collect sawdust from the sawmill in the early 80s. And I believe one staff member might have seen the flood in 2008. This is the map we currently have on the system for a 1% AP, which is a 100-year flood. And you can see there that the majority is the lightest, which is in a 100-year flood, it's still suggesting that the majority of the site is less than a half a metre. Can you explain any conversations you've had with the hydrographer about the difference between this and a one and two-year event, which suggests a largely similar depth of flooding? Speaker 2: Yes. So council's hydrologist that we've engaged for the DA suggests that the comparison between a one and 100-year event and a one and two-year event, which is your 50% chance in any year,
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 that the flooding characteristics will not vary greatly for this site, which is interesting. A one and 100-year event is a very large event, whereas a one and two-year, more frequent, but they tend to have less impacts. So in terms of the amount of water that goes over the site, in a one and two-year event, you will have, across the majority of the site, around 400 millimetres during a one and two-year. That's what the modelling is showing. So remember, this is worst-case scenario. And the 400-mil... Okay. So the amount of water that goes over the site will vary. In some areas, there'll be no flooding, such as where the amenities building is proposed. But in other areas, it may be a little bit worse. And there is a channel that runs through the site currently, and it will be over a metre worth of flooding. So flooding depths will vary according to topography variations and characteristics.
00:16:00 So that will vary as well. So I think I'll... Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Just a question regarding the flooding. I was out on site today, and there's a walkway between the lower mill site, where the woodworkers are, across to the area for development of the playground. There was lots of water on the path today, and a significant flow just under the height of that. What's the height of the, I guess, the bottom side of that walkway that goes over the waterway? And how often would that go over water? Yeah. How often would the water go over that? Would that be submerged? Speaker 2: I'm not sure I can give you the specific answers to that question, but I can say that during a one and two year event, that floodway should not be used by people to access to the outside. So it's likely to flood. So it will go underwater. It's quite low down in the site, and people will need to access their cars by going down
00:17:00 Maple Street, around that way, and not use that bridge. So signage is proposed across the site, and that will be one of the areas that will need to be signed, so people understand it's not usable during a major event. Councillor Finzel: Does the water come over that walkway when it's not a major event? I'm just trying to work how many times a year would that go under if it's not a major event? Speaker 2: No. Well, we haven't seen it go under recently. We've had some rain events, but they're fairly minor events. They're not the one and two year events. They're smaller, and it doesn't go under that. So it's usable for a lot of the time, except when those really big, heavy storm peaks that we have. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, the report, I couldn't see in the report any reference made to Ginson or the playground. We've spoken before the meeting, and that changed my whole position on this application.
00:18:00 We've spoken before the meeting, and that changed my whole position on this application. So will you speak to the benefit of the viewers and for the councillors at the table, the condition of the application in regards to fencing and locks? Speaker 2: So officers understand from the applicant that... Speaker 4: Sounds funny saying that, but you have to do it. Speaker 2: You have to keep this in mind. I don't want to spoil it, but from the applicants, they told me that they are proposing fencing around the site, and the reason being is to provide for that all-abilities use, that some Some children will just run off and, you know, parents would be looking for some fencing to keep them safe. So they are looking at some fencing, and that's okay from a DA perspective. But we have put a further condition forward for council's review today around that because any fencing will need to be able to lay down during the flood time because it has the potential to create blockages. Debris will build up against that fence and then potentially have impact on other properties
00:19:00 as it blocks the flood water. So we can certainly put fencing up, but it will need to be designed in a way that it lays down during a flood event. And there's a condition there on the screen now that we've imposed just to make sure that happens. We'll recommend it. Councillor Jurisevic: Just leave the electric fence. Change where the line of questioning has been going. I'll just go to the contamination on the site. There has been some concern by at least one resident as regard to historic contamination of the site being a former timber mill. I note in the report it states that lot one of two on the northeast of the road reserve are not listed on the EMR, the Environmental Management Register. Yet 16 locations across all three lots were analysed and soil was taken. I'm assuming that the only site that... ...had contamination detected was that third site and that that is the only site that is required to be remediated for the purposes of contamination.
00:20:00 Speaker 1: Yes, that is correct. One borehole, borehole 27 on that site. Councillor Jurisevic: So out of the 16 locations where boreholes were taken, or soil samples were taken, how many were on each of the respective lot? Do we have any idea? Or were they all... Were they primarily focused on the contaminated lot, or were there a fairly equal number across each of the three lots? Speaker 1: There were a fairly equal number across the three lots, and also the road reserve. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Regarding remediation of the site, following on from Councillor Wilcievic's question, the report recommends that there be excavation take place, and then validation testing take place on the site before the work commence. Can you explain what validation testing means, please?
00:21:00 Speaker 1: There are a series of conditions regarding the contamination of the site. The soil contamination on page 8, condition 14, deals with the processes that's to be undertaken. So the validation needs to occur actually after the remediation has occurred, and it's validating that the toxins have been removed from the site. Speaker 2: It's further testing. Speaker 1: Sorry, it requires further testing. It's further testing to determine that. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And so work won't commence on the site until it's a clear reading. Speaker 1: That's correct. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, on page 23, the report talks about how the lateral spread, if there is a flood, of the border is actually slower than the estimated average walking velocity for a three- to six-year-old. Can you tell me a bit about disabled access and people with a disability getting out? Speaker 2: Okay. So this site floods. You know, we have, imagine we have heavy rain in the catchment in the area. So it doesn't flood at that point.
00:22:00 It only starts flooding once the ground is fully saturated. So the surrounding area is saturated and we have another event. So you can imagine, you know, over a week of rain, we've had rain, it's very wet, it's overcast. I would expect not many people on the site because of that, you know, we've got wet weather and people tend not to go to a playground when it's raining. When it starts to flood is when that ground is saturated and it breaks its banks at around 13 minutes. It then goes across the site fully after 39 minutes. So that's the timeframe, I guess, people have to leave the site, whether they're in a wheelchair or the like. And I expect there's pathways through the site that people will be able to leave, whether they're in a wheelchair, able-bodied. Or a young child, because the speed is at a speed that a child can crawl. It's very slow. So that's what to imagine, that people will be able to leave the site safely. Thank you.
00:23:00 Councillor Lorentson: So back to the contamination, maybe a question for you, Patrick, probably just need some understanding or an explanation. This was quite concerning. Findings from March 2019 and December 2019. Found that the site was considered to pose a potential health risk to site users based on the TCDD assessment undertaken at the site. What is TCDD? Sorry. Speaker 1: I'm not a scientist. I've had to do some research on this. They're dioxins, which are a consequence of general industrial activities that have taken place on the site. And they're obviously in the soil. And they can pose a health risk to users. So I can't give you a breakdown as to what the chemical component of them is. But generally associated with the industry, such as the timber milling that occurred on
00:24:00 the site. Councillor Lorentson: As part of the assessment process, does Council have any guidelines for thresholds for these dioxins? Speaker 1: There are no universal guidelines in terms of what is safe in terms of these dioxins. And you'll see that the report refers to US standards and German standards, which are the standards that are accepted and have been used. And obviously that report that's been provided as part of the application has been reviewed by our environmental health coordinator, who's satisfied with the recommendations for remediation of the site. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Is that, just to go into the uses that may have caused that, is that consistent with treated timber logs and petroleum and oil being used on the site? Speaker 1: That is correct. Yeah. Thank you.
00:25:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just following up on the second last question there, that we've got the typical flood scenario being one of stream flood. You'd have high rainfall. You'd have high velocity flows going through the channel. But once it goes over the bank, the velocity is quite slow. Is there any concern in terms of the modelling suggesting that in, say, one 100-year event, that we would have flash flooding that would come across, and so the main channel actually having some sort of velocity over this site? Speaker 2: The advice we have is this site's not subject to flash flooding. Our hydrologist doesn't term it that way at all. Yes. The site will flood. It comes up after the ground is saturated, and it comes up, you know, it breaks its bank at 13, and then the site's fully inundated at a further 29 minutes, but he doesn't call it flash flooding. Yes, it's a risk, and it's one that has to be managed, and managed well to ensure people
00:26:00 are safe. Councillor Wegener: Could we go back to the photos? Yeah. Okay. So, I'd love to stand up if you know, get up here and look at the map. The, here's the site right here, which are our three lots, and then running right just on the, sort of on the outside is the creek, so that there's a bridge going over the creek to the lower mill site, and then there's the creek, and then there's the park here. Am I to, to hear what the, the fences that will lie down, will, will they be on the border there? And to me, that, that's, they'll lie, they'll have to lie down, because that's where the force of the water is, because they're right along the creek bed there, where it'll be the deepest, so the water will flow this way, I just am assuming the water will flow that way. Is that right? Speaker 2: The water flows in both directions, so it is coming across from the road, and also from
00:27:00 the creek itself. So this is the creek here, where the main flooding is coming across, and the flooding is also coming across the road through the channel. Councillor Wegener: So where, where would the fences that are gonna lie down be located? Speaker 2: Um, at this stage, what's been lodged with council, which is a typical for a DA, is, is a concept plan, and the fencing shows, fencing essentially around the boundary and along the creek line. So it's about ensuring people are, or children who have a tendency to run away are, are contained. Um, so that's what's proposed at this stage. Yeah. So that design needs to be detailed up, um, in the further documentation. Speaker 4: And I think the condition that the staff are recommending, planning staff are recommending, is that the design of that fencing has to enable, that it's not gonna work as a barrier to any flooding. So as they get into the detailed design, where that flooding might intersect with Councillor Wegener: this, um, memory of the, the Steve Irwin's Animal Park flooding, remember?
00:28:00 And, and the branches got in there, and when the Steve Irwin's right-hand man jumped in, and the croc was on the other side and waited for him, he got attacked. Of course, there's no crocs in our river. But, we're the same sort of thing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But we could have one so that, that, that people don't go there when it floods. Councillor Wegener: But, um, but you know, there, there is obviously an issue with, you know, as the floodwaters come up, and it, as the, the bark and so forth that's in the bark is catching up in the, the fence, the fence has to be able to, to lie down. Yeah. It's quite an engineering, you know, thing, because it has to withstand kids, pull the kids back, but not the river. Speaker 2: Yeah. It, it, um, my understanding is that type of fencing has been designed and is in use in other, other places. We haven't seen it yet in Noosa, but that's, that's something our infrastructure services will have to investigate. Councillor Wegener: And so, that's not, learning about the fence isn't part of this, that's more of a part of the next stage, and we've put on our other hat. Is that right? Yes. Speaker 2: The recommended conditions set the objectives that the fence needs to meet, um, and they
00:29:00 need to meet that requirement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, if I could help answer the question. Traditionally with flood fencing that falls over, it's those fences that are 90 degrees to the direction of flow, because that's what can then act like a sort of semi-down. In this case, there's a whole lot of vegetation on the creek, so the fence along the creek is going to add very little in terms of catching friction. It might catch a little bit of very low-fly stuff, but yeah, the ones you have to worry about is, is the ones that are going to stop, you know, it'll be, won't be as significant of issue as if it was right in the big flow, flow paths all going down the stream. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Yeah. And then, uh, how, you, you've got to talk about the water flow, but the water will flow deeper, flow quicker in the, where the creek bed is than it, than it will of course above the, the shallow water, um, you know, the, and so the, the argument is, and the, the idea is that people will, will move out and hopefully there'll be an alarm system and so forth there so that, hey, there, there's, there's flooding coming, the water's on its
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 way up, plenty of warning here, let's all, let's all get out of the way, but besides there shouldn't be very many people there anyway because it's raining. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Well, that, that's right. Shouldn't be many people there, but during a major event, it will be important that people move off the site. Yeah. And that's what the conditions are about, recommending a warning system in place to ensure people do, because if people remain on site, uh, there is potential with the current design that, you know, they may choose to shelter on a higher spot and then they'll become isolated, so we need to address that and one of the conditions deals with that, or two, um, the site will, the amount of water and the velocity across the site will be unsafe for children in a major event. So it is important we have requirements that make sure people leave the site before we get to that point. Speaker 3: Can I just add to that answer, and obviously with my, uh, regulatory hat on, I've been liaising with Kerry on this for, for a little while, and that question about human behaviour and how do you manage human behaviour during an event is, is quite critical.
00:31:00 And we look across the road and the same thing, the same applies to where the skate park is and the BMX track about what would stop people going into that area during a flood compared to voluntary leaving. And the same behavioural issue would be here, um, the issue here is that we're not doing anything to trap people in there or to, to make it more difficult for them to leave. So it's quite appropriate to have the approach where is if they do want to shelter in place, you know, you know, under cover or whatever, can they still get out or are we creating anything that would not get them out? So the appropriate conditions are to make sure that we don't have anything that adds to the risk if people choose to be, behave well, or if they leave it too late. That's the issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a, a flip side question? Would it have been appropriate can, uh, if the emergency management plan for the flip side, if we asked the applicant to have in a process where the playground was locked if we knew a flood was likely to be occurring, so people couldn't get in?
00:32:00 Speaker 2: Um, the early work that was done on fencing for the site, um, indicated that the fence needs to lie down during the flood. So that's, that's not going to act to prevent people accessing the site during a flood event. So it was considered as a potential solution to make it safe for people, but it's not one that will, will work based on the hydrology advice. Mayor Stewart: For the benefit of people at home, Kerry, could you talk a bit about those audiences audio and visual sort of warnings? Speaker 2: Yeah. Uh, so, um, uh, the, the required flood emergency evacuation plan will, um, will ask for signage on the site. So people will come to the site and they will see the signage warning them that at times this site will flood during major events. And that when they hear an alarm system, they need to leave the site immediately. So the alarm system works. There is, there'll be a gauge in the creek.
00:33:00 Which measures the flood level. And when it comes up to a certain point, the alarm will sound. And that will be the time for people to leave the site. Um, so we need to set that alarm system, um, and we, we think the most appropriate time would be around just as the site's starting to break its banks, uh, cause that doesn't occur very often. But equally gives people enough time to leave the site. Councillor Wilkie: Given that there's a similar flood risk on the OPEX Park and Skateball and Tennis Courts, will that flood warning system be heard at these other locations as well and perhaps alert users of those facilities as well that, uh, they should be back off? Speaker 2: Um, definitely. I'm not sure how far the alarm will carry, but it will certainly carry further than the playground site. So that's something that can be looked at, um, as Council, you know, if they proceed to choose to develop their plans for the playground that we could look at it potentially has benefits for other sites in the area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So a question I pointed out, um, the existing flood ga- uh, storm, uh, creek gauge, stormwater
00:34:00 gauge is there. Is that what we're basing it on or is the conditions envisaging another gauge system way in there? Cause it would, this would be the best gauge to go. There's already one there that's constructed and linked. Speaker 2: Yeah. The conditions require sign-off by a registered engineer, um, so whether that gauge is sufficient or a new gauge has to be put in, uh, that would be the decision of the engineers. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Um, concerning that, um, you know that four people have, um, lost their lives, you know, years ago with, with the, uh, the wires going down and trying to save the kids in that area. Was that at the same area here in Cooroy? Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with that, um, circumstance. I've never heard of that one. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Well, it, it, I've, I've understood that that a year's passed, um, four people with those, with the power lines got low and they thought that the electricity was turned off so they jumped in the water and one of them grabbed it and people went in to save them.
00:35:00 So the next question of course is, um, confidence in the safety of power lines and so forth in a, in a flood prone, prone area. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Uh, is, is, I mean, are you, are you confident that you, that you can engineer your way around, um, uh, the situation where electric, electric lines are under water or just lightly above the water? Speaker 2: Yeah. Do you want to answer? Speaker 1: Um, there is a condition on the approval which requires that, um, all infrastructure, uh, with the potential to be impacted by the flood waters, uh, including the electrical and plumbing systems. So, um, the technology associated with the system would need to be above the flood level. Councillor Wegener: So it's above the one, one in a hundred year. Speaker 1: That is correct. Councillor Wegener: Is it, an insurance question, is it, is that, is, is it insurable that, you know, the, the people that put it in, is that? Speaker 4: For the, for the, just to clarify, what's the insurable element about the warning system?
00:36:00 Councillor Wegener: No, no, about, um, the, the electrics and the pumps and, and the, um, lights and the, and, and the, uh, warning system itself. Speaker 4: That's probably a question for when we get to the, uh, the other side of the equation. I see the hat. Yeah, with the other hat on. I think that, it's not actually a, a planning issue. Speaker 2: There's a different page there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is a follow up question, which may be directed to one of the engineers sitting in the room. Uh, it's my recollection that the overhead lines, um, across the creek, uh, were changed to a conduit, um, when the new Mary River Road bridge, and it would have been designed to take flood rather than be above the flood level. Could you confirm or deny that, please? Councillor Jurisevic: I can break it. Perfect. That's what I understand. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, would we need to, um, have a, uh, have that as, rather than say everything has to be above the 1%, have to be able to withstand the 1% safely, or something like that, in the condition?
00:37:00 Speaker 2: Sorry, just needed a bit of time to digest that a minute. So, we've asked for it to be, is located above the 1%, and you're suggesting that, um, the Deputy Mayor Stockwell: flood level, if it's under ground power, for example, it's not going to be above the 1%. No. Um, if it's linked to that conduit that goes across the bridge, once again, it's not going to be above the 1%. Speaker 4: So, it might be better, it might be better worded to be located above the 1% AEP flood Speaker 3: level, or be able to withstand, safely withstand, or something, safely withstand the 1%. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah, that sounds right. Because this, this condition deals with, um, the amenities on the site, the plumbing fixtures, which, that should be above the Q100. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was just a response when I was listening to the story that I had an issue for. Speaker 2: I think that works, and addresses the issue.
00:38:00 Councillor Wegener: Go ahead. Councillor Lorentson: Um, sorry. So, science is telling us that we've got to get used to unstable conditions. And that the occurrence of flash flooding, although we haven't experienced it, um, science is also telling us that that's going to be more frequent. Um, has this development appropriately considered climate change? That's a good question. Speaker 2: So, this application has to be assessed against the new supply in 2006. Um, we may have regard to the 2020 scheme, but nevertheless, we can't introduce new requirements. Um, the 2006 scheme has no flooding requirements for playgrounds, so there's nothing in there, let alone a dealing with climate change. Um, our future schemes will have climate change requirements. So, I think that's, uh, not a consideration for the application itself, but more a consideration,
00:39:00 as Brett's indicating, as the developer of the playground, as to whether we should continue to develop a playground in this area, and what impacts it will have. Speaker 3: That'll be a great question when we get to the next stage. Councillor Lorentson: So, back to the fencing, because this was, um, an issue that was quite important to me, Kerry. So, the condition that's in front of us is not the condition that I was alluding to, and I think Brian touched on it. I would like fencing around the entire park with a lock, and I understand that it needs to drop down, so it doesn't impede, um, water flow. But, sure, it's a good question. Surely we can have fencing with high ratio openings, um, I've lived on a canal with, and we've had fencing with good openings, um, and I think that would serve two purposes. Um, it would give parents with teenage kids peace of mind, um, if their kids have just
00:40:00 wandered down the park. We talk about that rain's a deterrent, um, for teenagers and kids, it's the actual opposite. Um, kids don't read science, um, and kids love water, um, and drownings, lots of drownings occur in flood waters. So, to me, as a mother of a parent, and as a counsellor, we, public safety has to be number one. We cannot allow a development unless... Sorry, Madam Chair, is this a question? Oh, excuse me. Sorry. So, so my, my question is, can we consider, as a condition, fencing with, um, high ratio openings, um, to have dual purpose, A, to allow, um, it to collapse, and B, to allow, um, people inside, uh, to feel safe, that, um, that kids can be locked out and stopped from going in during a rain event?
00:41:00 Councillor Finzel: Mm. Councillor Lorentson: I don't think they can do it mutually. I don't think they can mutually do it, but, but I would like to see the latter, actually. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Because if, if there's openings, Kerry, um, surely that issue of impeding flood waters or leach or blockage is, is overcome. Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. So, um, I think... Speaker 4: I might even ask the question a slightly different way to help Kerry. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 3: And that is, is it going to be possible to have some fencing that deals with the access issues, but in those areas on that diagram, which are more likely, this comes back to Councillor Stockwell's question, of where there's, there's going to be potential, um, fencing that's acting as a flood barrier, that that lays down there, but we've got access restriction in other parts that don't have that flood component? Councillor Wilkie: Mm. Speaker 3: Is that? Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: That's exactly, yeah. Speaker 2: I think the answer to this is that may be possible, but it would need to be reviewed by the hydrologists, um, to know whether that will work or not.
00:42:00 And it's a little bit about what Councillor Stockwell was saying. In some areas, a fence is going to cause more issues than in other areas, so it needs to be carefully designed, and whether it can be done or not, I'm not sure. It would have to be looked at by hydrologists. Um, there's no requirement from a planning sense for us to recommend to you that this development should be fenced. I think that is a question that can be deferred to a later stage when we're considering developing the park. Okay. The important part now as, as the assessment manager is we need to make sure that the development doesn't make it worse for other properties, which that's where fencing can potentially cause flooding issues for other properties, because it blocks flood waters. Um, so that condition won't stop fencing of it in the future, if it can be designed in a way that, um, doesn't cause any blockages and impact on other properties. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll follow on from that, because I think I've, your, your question sort of alluding
00:43:00 to, to, to where I was going with this. Um, there is no time restrictions or access restrictions apart from, um, any fencing may be designed within this, um, these conditions. But the developer could. Um, indicate that they want to, uh, restrict access to the, uh, to the playground equipment by some time restriction, some sort of blockable access and the like. That's something that the developer could actually, uh, uh, propose as opposed to having to be a condition of, um, assess or condition of, um, approval is, as we, that we have before us now. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes. If, if council chooses to operate it in a more restrictive manner than what these conditions are suggesting, that, um, that would be council to define. That wouldn't be in conflict with the condition. Speaker 4: But to take that one step further, the, from what our planning had on, the only limit we've been put is if they're going to do that, then it mustn't be impacting on the plant issues. That's what I'm finding. That's what the condition rise to be. Councillor Jurisevic: Have the differentiation of the two, two areas of where we, we can place it into.
00:44:00 Councillor Finzel: Um, with regards to the fencing, um, it is an all abilities playground and this may not be the right, um, agenda to bring it up in. But I met with, um, women with children with disabilities last week with regards to fencing in playgrounds across our Shire, saying that there was only a few that had fencing. Fencing is highly rated in the area when it comes to all abilities playgrounds and access to such. Um. So I just need to understand that there is provision that fencing will be in line with parents of children with disabilities in regards to safety, not just flood mitigation. Speaker 4: Yeah, you've probably answered your own question at the beginning. It's probably a question for the, um, when we have our applicant hat on and looking at the design and the tender and all that sort of material. Probably not just for the planning application side of it. But a good question at that time. Councillor Wegener: Okay. We're going to vote.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 I think I've got a very, um, um, esteemed, um, resident that's a question that I'd like to ask. If this were a private development, would it rate council approval given that it is in the repair-in zone and prone to flooding? Speaker 2: Hmm. Councillor Wegener: Hmm. Speaker 2: It is a good question. I, I don't know if a private developer that's ever built a playground before, so that would be great. I think there's many developments that a private developer might build on the site where you would say that it's not appropriate for the site. So I would say childcare centres, elderly people's homes, those sorts of uses that you'd see a private developer build would not be appropriate on the site. A playground though is something that's going to benefit the whole of the Shire. It's a Shire-wide facility and for that reason we're suggesting it's okay for this playground to be built in the riparian buffer. Because typically we would normally not support development in a riparian buffer. With the flood risks, Council's got its hat on.
00:46:00 We are the disaster managers for the area. We play an important role in that and I think we are best able to manage the flood risks around the site, perhaps more so than a private developer would be able to do. So it's a good question because it's one I've struggled with too because we needed to make sure we recommended consistently. But yeah, that's my answer. Councillor Wegener: Can I just have one quick follow-up question? We have the park across the road with the creek that runs through it. And of course anybody can go down in that creek and there's no fences or anything like that. We're over there at the skate park. And then this one, will there be a higher risk of liability considering that this is an all-ages park and there's a river that floods, the creek floods right next to it and the bridge goes over the little creek? Will there be a higher percentage of liability because the park is there versus the skate park across the road? Because you're inviting people all ages into this park.
00:47:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, good question. That one's probably at the borderline, whether it's our planning assessment hat or the other hat on. Speaker 3: I think the answer is I don't think so. I don't think so if we don't make it any worse. I think the answer is I don't think so if we don't make it any worse. So it is true that someone could go over the road and spend time there with young kids at the skate park or the BMX track or whatever it might be. I took my kids there when they were four or five years old. And you have a choice then about whether or not you take them away when there's rain or flooding events occurring. The same thing's going to apply here. The only additional risk that might apply is if we, through this planning approval process or in terms of our design with our other hat on, where we make the risk higher than it would otherwise have been. And that's why the issue of fences might come up if we create a dam and that has an impact on the danger. That might be the case. But if we get the design right and we've gone through a due diligence process, both through
00:48:00 this town planning assessment process with our flood advice and with our other hat on in terms of the design that we do, then I could see that there would be no greater risk in this than there would be in any other park that we have around the Shire at the moment. Councillor Jurisevic: Tim, I'm a little challenged by your response to the last question. I'm aware of a number of subdivisions that have occurred within the Noosa region, certainly since the 1980s, where the developer has also placed playground equipment, which I would consider to be an adult park. There's been a lot of issues with the development of outdoor, outdoor facilities in those developments. And I don't see that a developer would use land that could be developed for housing for playgrounds. And my understanding is that a private developer would undertake the same sort of process here of using lesser developable land for development.
00:49:00 The nature of parks and playgrounds. I'm thinking of Noosa Parklands, Noosa Outlook and those sort of areas. Is that, historically, have we not had the same sort of situation that private developers have done with regard to playground and park life care situations? Speaker 2: Yeah, I take your point. I would suggest that, you know, Noosa Parklands was developed in the early 90s, I think. Late 80s? Go back a bit further. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Very early 80s. It was released when I got here in 1981. Speaker 2: Well, there you go. I say that because my mother bought a block of land in there in the early 90s. So she was one of the first house owners. So planning obviously changes over time. The risks around flooding have certainly been highlighted by, you know, events in Brisbane and Grantham and Ipswich.
00:50:00 Planners do learn over time and planning requirements do change. So yes, I would agree with you that in the past there's been developments, subdivision developments with playgrounds built by developers that have been under water. I'm just suggesting to you that, you know, there has been some serious impacts from flooding in the past. And we need to carefully consider this matter. And that's what we're doing. Councillor Jurisevic: Clarifying the statement that you made. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to bite the bullet. I'm going to move the motion with those two little amendments we've discussed. One in terms of the lie down fencing and the other in terms of the 100 year condition also being safe, which was that one there. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. Sorry. Just for the people at home, Councillor Stockwell, would you like to read out those? Okay.
00:51:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Read out condition five. Yeah, read out condition five. The change to condition five says all infrastructure with potential to be impacted by floodwaters, including electrical and plumbing fixtures and pump room plant and equipment is to be located above or be able to safely withstand the 1% AEP flood level corresponding to year 2100 planning period. And a new condition 10, which reads, any fencing must be designed in a manner so that it does not impede floodwaters or lead to blockage. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'm just going to second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so because I think the key consideration today is about our statutory responsibilities and compliance with the Noosa Planning Scheme. And the staff, after many months of due diligence and in assessing, both the applicant's submissions and getting their own assessment on the key issues, have come to us with a recommendation.
00:52:00 In planning terms, in the urban area, there is no doubt in my mind that the most frequent use of floodplains is for parks and recreation. There's no doubt. The one that comes to mind in terms of a similar site is Matthew Street, Nambour, where there's a lovely little playground, which is to take my kids when they go to school. And it is a flat flooding site, but no problems because when it floods, people aren't there. You might get your car caught in the old coal site, but you wouldn't let your kids get caught in the flood. I think it's really important to understand that the maps that I put up before was showing what we as a council would look at if we didn't have the site specific about what is a 100 year flood for the site. And it was saying that the majority of the area is less than half a metre. Now the complication is because the detailed modelling says there's not much difference between what is a 1 in 100 and what's a 1 in 2, even though I think the latest I've heard anyone say it might have had water on it was 2008.
00:53:00 And I've had a look just as the phone call comes in. Say mum I'll ring you back. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I pause this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've had a look to try and understand this because I've done quite a bit of work in catchments. And I think I've worked it out is that if you look at this site, its catchment only goes up to the intersection between Lawndal Road and Croybello Creek Road. So the whole catchment is that area between that intersection down to Croy. So it's a fairly small sub-catchment. So compare it, say, to the flash flooding we had in Kin Kin. The catchment upstream in Kin Kin is much larger. So the fact that there's not a high volume of water that can be generated in a small catchment. So to me that probably explains it in my mind that this is not likely to be within our current understanding a flash flood environment, which would be the only real risk.
00:54:00 I agree with Councillor Lorentson that as an investor, we may wish to think about the longer term implications of climate change and what it might mean for the society. And whether that would then potentially lead to flash flooding. But as a statutory authority in this case, we need to look at what the planning scheme says. I think C12H4CL402 is another issue. Sorry, I looked up what TDCC means or CCDD means. The dioxins. And it's quite, I think it's important to make sure that the site is decontaminated for the use. I look at the likelihood that another use would be better suited to the site and I can't find one. So from a planning perspective, it's only before us because the site's own community purposes rather than parks and open space, which would be the normal.
00:55:00 This was a normal developer when the, if they developed the library, they would have probably had parks and open space here. So to me, if I take off the council also being the developer and look at it from a planning perspective, I think it's just logical that we go with the recommendation of staff as with some minor amendments. Mayor Stewart: Thank you councillors as well. Would anyone else like to speak to this report? Councillor Wegener: Living in Cooroy since 2000, since 2000, I saw the 2008 floods. And one thing I do know is when it's raining that hard in order to flood it, because I've seen that flood twice. One in 2008 much more than the other time. There's a lot of press on. The schools are generally closed. The roads are closed. I mean, the radio is going on and on about it. It's not a secret. It doesn't happen without everybody knowing about it, basically.
00:56:00 So the concern that people are going to get carried away in floodwaters I think is absolutely minimal, especially with Brian pointing out that the catchment is minuscule the way it is. And I've wandered around there and the water, like you said, the water movement is very, very slow through that area because it's not a big catchment. And it doesn't have, it's not what you think of a storm, normal storm runoff. It's more of a lake that rises and the tide comes up and the tide goes down. That's what I saw when I was there. And I stormed around and got up to this deep wandering out to the skate park and so forth during the 2008 flood. So in that, the safety concerns are, well, considering that where there's kids, local kids, there's rivers everywhere. There's creeks everywhere. And this is just one part of one creek where kids can go. So that is a safety concern. But if we don't.
00:57:00 So forth will actually help us understand that like the one thousand thousand people that didn't actually know of the flood at the time. You know that it raises that awareness even more so more than the ABC radio and so forth. So I'm confident that that the safety concerns are outweighed by the public use of this park for going out there to join and making this adventure park that people all of our residents will enjoy. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Whigley. Anyone else like to talk to this? Councillor Lorentson: My head's been buzzing with questions over the last week. Lots of them. So I'm going to start this by just running through some of the questions that have kept me up at night. First, does the revised flood risk assessment and emergency management plan, which includes modification to the playground design and other strategies, such as active warning and emergency management, and other things.
00:58:00 Is it enough? Is Council's risk management strategy, which relies on people to self-evacuate and signage and flood warning signs at key entry points and throughout the site? Is that adequate? Do kids read signs? Can Council be confident that there is no reasonably foreseeable likelihood that the public will remain on the site during a rain event? What flood risk is there? Is it acceptable to the community? Should our most vulnerable members in the community, that is our kids and elderly, have a playground that's located in a flood zone? Why are we developing land in a flood zone and within a riparian buffer? And why are we encouraging development for areas predicted to have high flood risk in coming decades? Isn't science telling us that we need to get used to unstable climate conditions? Aren't weather events, such as flash flooding, predicted to be more frequent?
00:59:00 And aren't kids drawn to rain and playgrounds? The reality is that we cannot remove risk in its entirety. We can't stop people from making poor decisions, especially children. It's not uncommon, as we've discussed at this table today, that facilities such as parks and playgrounds should be located in areas subject to flooding. What flood risk is there? Directly across the road, as again we've talked about, is the BMX track, skate park, and the play area, and tennis courts, which have been in the same flood-prone area for the last 20 years without any problems. Also, Lyons Park, the AFL grounds, and the whole of Gympie Terrace is subject to flooding. And just for everyone's information, the entire city of Brisbane is built on a flood plain. So yes, it is preferred that this playground of this scale and regional significance is located somewhere else, and not in an area subject to flooding.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 But this is not the case. And this is something I think we should not fear. It's something we should actually get used to. This is the new normal. Science is already showing us that we need to get used to unstable conditions. We can't eliminate flooding, but we can adapt. We can adapt to flooding by managing flood risk through better design and strategies, such as flood mitigation infrastructure, flood awareness and information, flood emergency management, and development control. And we can build fences. So the two questions that I needed answering today is, one, can Council be confident that there is no reasonably foreseeable likelihood that the public will remain on a playground site during a flood event? And number two, whether the economic and social benefits of the flood will be reduced? Allow for relaxation of the Noosa Plan. In regards to the first question, the risk to people has been addressed.
01:01:00 And in regards to question two, I actually respect Council staff in taking a non-prescriptive approach to this application. I support the Noosa Plan, but also acknowledge that there is time for minor relaxation. And the social and economic benefit and regional significance of having a $5.2 million nature-based playground is one such time. The site was chosen knowing that the land was flood prone and that design could address all the risks we've discussed today. Again, this has not been a black and white decision for me. If the development was unable to meet the safety objective to protect human life and provide safety from a flood hazard, I would reject this. But I'm satisfied that this development meets that safety objective. I'm therefore happy to support the staff recommendation to approve the application, subject to the conditions and amendments discussed.
01:02:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Winston. Speaker 2: Anyone else like to speak? Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Thank you. For the benefit of those listening at home, this application is for 56 car parks and a playground in Cooroy. The playground consists of water play areas, climbing structures, timber towers, slides, walkways and public amenities, all within a landscape setting. 12 car parks on the western side of Maple Street adjacent to Apex Park, 34 spaces in Lower Mill Road and 22 car parks along Merry River Road are proposed. This amount of parking was based on an assessment of 10 other similar playgrounds in South East Queensland. The traffic consultant states this may actually be an excessive amount of parking spaces. Given that many park loans are also flood prone, like Gympie Terrace and across the road from the site at Apex Park and Skate Bowl, the nearby tennis courts, and that people tend not to congregate in parks when heavy rains and flooding is underway, I'm satisfied that the risks involving flood and contamination from the site being used formerly as a timber mill can be adequately managed by the stringent measures proposed.
01:03:00 The concept of an adventure playground for this site was flagged back in 2003 as part of the Cooroy Forest Park Master Plan. In 2015, the Council revisited the infrastructure needs of the hinterland townships, and Cooroy was identified as the most suitable location based on criteria that included available space, environmental impacts, existing facilities, connectivity to services, parking and economic development. Since then, designs were done and communicated through a dedicated Council website showing fly-throughs of the playground, frequently asked questions and a feedback facility. A pop-up display at Cooroy Library since 2019 with feedback was taken. Mobile pop-up displays for community events were used at the Noosa show. Christmas in Cooroy. There were on-site meetings with interested groups, for example, Mums and Bubs, the Cooroy Camp for Laurel Society. There were about four meetings in 2019. Through the project news, most recent in December 2019, media releases and social media.
01:04:00 Two Council posts on Facebook in 2019 featuring the playground attracted hundreds of comments overwhelmingly positive about the project. There was an external reference group formed. It's had 10 meetings since November 2019. The reference group consists of representatives from key Cooroy associations, namely Cooroy Chamber of Commerce, Cooroy Area Residents Association and Cooroy Future Group. They have been having input into the design and have been communicating the progress of the project with their networks also. The social, physical and economic benefits of such a playground to the hinterland communities cannot be estimated. I'm happy to approve these applications. Mayor Stewart: Council meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to support the development application and the conditions that have been placed upon it by this approval. Some significant opportunities for Cooroy here. A contaminated site will be cleaned up.
01:05:00 Some additional parking will be provided. And an all amenities playground will be facilitated which will be able to be used the majority of the year round. Because Cooroy is subject to flooding on a regular basis and the last pictures I have of Cooroy being inundated were the cricket fields back in 2013 when inundation and not flash flooding was the issue. So I don't see that there are a number of parks around the Noosa Shire that have the same sort of challenges and parks and playgrounds are frequent the Shire wherever they are in these sort of areas and I live close by one of them. I see the benefits here far outweigh the negatives and I appreciate the work that the planning staff have put into it. I would like to thank everyone who is here with their development assessment hat on to ensure that this is absolutely safe for the use of Cooroy residents and the greater community for the future.
01:06:00 Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Yes I too support staff recommendation and thank them for their hard work on this. When you read this it's been a long and winding road in regard to the chronology of events concerning this site and this project. Look there were some concerns certainly when reading this specifically around the flood hydraulic report from the engineer. However I am satisfied from the information provided in the report as well as what we have spoken about today. Those risks can be mitigated specifically with the audio and the visual warning signs and also the addition of the fence. And I have confidence that everything will be done in the design to mitigate those risks. I mean as other councillors have alluded to this isn't a site that across the roads it's a BMX track, a skate park and a play area.
01:07:00 All of which have been in that locality for 20 years and all of which have had no problems. So as much as we have to consider the risks we also have to be a realist and we're putting a park in an area that has other similar sites around it. So I'm very happy to support this. I'd also draw what Councillor Wilkie said the contamination and the validation testing is heartening and that will be something that will be done. So I feel that with the information before us all the measures in place to mitigate the risks I think this will be a good outcome and a safe outcome. And we will mitigate the risk for the best of our community. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I would just like to say the overall outcome is compatible so as not to place people, property, economic activity and social wellbeing together with the natural environment at risk.
01:08:00 Especially given the conditions we have talked about today with risk mitigation around soil contamination and the evacuation plan. And I would like to also add with Councillor Wilkie that there has been extensive community consultation. I think it puts Cooroy on the map as a destination location and will support the health and wellbeing economically, socially within our Shire. So thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell would you like to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just briefly I think I only made one note and that was about Councillor Wegener's mention of the lake and I suppose that's really important for people to understand is that the sort of flood we're going to get here, during floods there will be a flood, there will be a flood there will be a high stream velocity within the bed and banks of the creek system. But once a flood goes over the bank full level it is like a lake so all the stream power goes out.
01:09:00 That's why we have things called levee because the water slows down, things are deposited on the flood plain. So the risk is minimal from what our modelling says. The risk says no we're not having flash flooding so water is coming down the flood plain. We're having overtopping of the banks slowly going out. And to me that is a manageable risk as proposed in the approval conditions. Councillor Wilkie: So no stream evulsion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The risk in a climate change would be a scenario which is outside the scope today but you may wish to consider as an investor is whether in an extreme event under a climate scenario whether a stream evulsion would change that scenario. Yes. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. I would like to put this motion to vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you Kylie. Thank you Terry. Thank you Patrick. That finishes the meeting.
01:10:00 So I declare this meeting closed at 3.07. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.