Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 2: And we're live, Mayor, whenever you're ready. Mayor Stewart: Good morning, everyone. And we're live, Mayor, whenever you're ready. I declare the meeting open. This is a special council meeting. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional terms of the Kabi Kabi people. And I pay my respects to the Elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance and have no apologies. Today's special meeting is to consider draft Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan CHAP community consultation submissions. We have, I believe we have some conflicts of interest we need to deal with before we move forward. I believe we have some conflicts of interest we need to deal with before we move forward. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as my brother, Gabriel Cherisani, owns a property at Beaches Estate, Sunrise Beach, which is one of the properties identified as at risk under the draft CHAP. My brother owns a beachfront property. Sunrise Beach. The property is directly affected by the draft CHAP and directly covered by mapping, looking at future erosion risk based on future models.
00:01:00 My brother has also made a submission on the CHAP and is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. During my election campaign, my brother helped me with my campaign, handed out voting cards, and two of my election signs were outside his property on David Lowe Way. Speaker 2: At Monday's general meeting, I declared my conflict of interest and asked to leave the room as I had in the past, Councillor Lorentson: because although I believe that I could consider the matter impartially and in the public interest, I believe that some members of the public may still have a perception of bias. Because of the significance of the CHAP and its Shire-wide implications, and because I've received legal advice from Council's lawyers to state that I have only a declarable conflict of interest,
00:02:00 and not prescribed conflict of interest, I would like to exercise my right to due process under section 150 ES3 of the Local Government Act 2009, and ask that the councillors present at this meeting, be my judge and decide whether I must leave the room, or if I can stay and participate in the meeting, including voting on the matter. The legal advice received states that my personal interest in matters concerning the CHAP in fact form the basis of a declarable conflict of interest and not a prescribed interest. Quote, when matters being considered by Council is not an application, rather a draft CHAP, we consider that the personal interest is not caught by section 150 ES3 of the Local Government Act 2009, and is not capable of forming the basis of a prescribed conflict of interest in matters concerning the CHAP. It is on record that on a number of occasions, I've indicated to the CEO that I would strongly
00:03:00 prefer to be engaged in the CHAP process on the basis that this issue is a significant one for the whole community, and the whole Shire deserves the representation of all its elected representatives. In fact, the CHAP has political, political, and political implications. Legal and financial implications for the whole Shire of Council, not just Sunrise Beach and the narrow area that affects my brother. Many of these implications are unrelated to the perceived interest of one property on the eastern beaches. Everyone in this room and every ratepayer will be impacted by the CHAP, and not just my brother. Council assets, our beaches, the environment, and all ratepayers. This is evident on page 3 of the draft CHAP where the CHAP's core objectives are listed to include what actions are required to avoid, reduce, adapt to these risks to people, property, assets, and environment. Providing mapping and visual products and deliverables that are useful for a range of purposes across Council departments and functions within the community, and to provide
00:04:00 direction for a coordinated approach for Council and the community to adapt to climate change and coastal hazards. The CHAP covers open coast areas, Peregian Beach beaches, Sunshine Beach, Noosa Heads, and Noosa North Shore. It includes areas along the lower Noosa River, Noosa Heads, Tewantin, and in particular Noosaville that will be increasingly at risk of inundation associated with rising sea levels. Inundation and rising sea levels will pose the greatest risk to Council infrastructure such as stormwater networks, open space, roads, and some private property, as well as indirect consequences on adjacent retail and commercial activities. In open coastal areas impacts will be experienced not just to private properties but also to Council infrastructure such as roads and recreational areas including our beaches. It is understood that the CHAP in its final form together with the climate change adaptation plan, the zero emission
00:05:00 strategy, and the climate change policy will form Council's response to infrastructure planning, design, and management including roads, stormwater, and foreshores. Management of infrastructure assets including conservation and recreational areas, community resilience planning, and emergency management. These are significant Shire-wide implications that will impact more than just the one property that my brother owns at Sunrise Beach. It's my opinion that it's not democratic nor reasonable to exclude me from a significant or important Shire-wide issue which is in my opinion a part of the CHAP. I have a policy and not a planning instrument. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest and I believe I could consider myself, I can consider the matter impartially and in the public interest, I will choose, I have a declarable and I could consider the matter impartially and in the
00:06:00 public interest. I will choose to remain, no, yeah, I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. I would like to further add that I have another declarable conflict of interest as previously disclosed. A friend, Mark Bain, has a property on the Noosa North Shore. Again, an area identified under the CHAP has been impacted by coastal inundation lines. For the same reasons Speaker 2: already stated. Can I just clarify, I think at the ordinary council meeting in July you made a declaration in relation to that particular wording that you're proposing. It is identical but it's been omitted on this one. So I've got that wording here and we can incorporate that into the minutes
00:07:00 and take it as read that it will be identical to what was declared at the ordinary meeting in July. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: We've run out of time. Thanks for coming. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. I'll just hook it up. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I would like to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on 5th of March 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, donated $1,666.66 to my 2020 election campaign where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have
00:08:00 a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr Butt and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Wilkie: Madam Mayor, I'll move the resolution as stated there that the Council note the additional declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson, determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting room for this item on the condition that she does not participate in the debate, not to vote on issues regarding the private estate along the Eastern Beaches and the Noosa North Shore because Council believes Councillor Lorentson could provide valuable input into the discussion
00:09:00 on such a significant Shire-wide matter. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. We have a seconder for that. Councillor Wegener. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Look, we discussed this issue at length the last time a CHAP-related matter came before Council and I believe about an hour of the meeting time was taken up thrashing this out. The long explanation given in the declaration of the conflict of interest about the Shire-wide nature of the CHAP is true, but the most controversial issue of the CHAP is the coastal erosion mapping, which as Councillor Lorentson says directly affects her brother's property and that those properties along there are a very small minority of properties among the 26,000 of residential properties in the Noosa Shire and has potential implications for those properties and has sparked
00:10:00 the formation of a lobby group which has sent letters to the Council. We're well aware of the concern and the lobbying done by that group because of their real concerns about the implications of the CHAP on those small minority of property owners. The first time this matter came before Council, Councillor Lorentson left the room so that there would be no doubt on perceptions of lack of integrity around the process. In the second time we debated it, we took a more lenient approach that allowed that Councillor Lorentson to remain in the room, but on the condition that she does not participate in the debate nor vote on issues. I think that was a very lenient interpretation of the declaration of conflict of interest, but I think it's a fair one and so that's why I bring it up again. But the issue of the the CHAP, it does have shy
00:11:00 wide implications, particularly for those areas that are afflicted by inundation, which isn't the whole of the Shire, and coastal erosion, which is even afflicts a small smaller number of properties. So for that reason I think it's inappropriate that Councillor Lorentson debate any any aspect of the chapter relating to the the coastal properties or the inundation. Councillor Lorentson I've got a question for the CEO on this one. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr CEO, reading it, I don't know that I understand it, nor how it will actually be implemented, because for Councillor Lorentson to remain in the room, not debate nor vote on issues regarding the private state along the Eastern Beaches and Noosa North Shore, which are intrinsically a part of the CHAP,
00:12:00 what contribution can Councillor Lorentson have with regard to the discussions here and her voting rights, based on what's before us? Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks. And I guess the question raised at heart is, you know, what, if this was passed, what can Councillor Lorentson contribute or be out of bounds on, so to speak, in terms of the discussion? I think the way that the resolution is worded would mean that Councillor Lorentson could discuss, you know, the consultation process, talk about issues about monitoring what's happening in affected areas, issues about whether Council has done enough or that the CHAP has enough information about what Council's doing to protect its own assets, public land, because what this is talking about is only being out of bounds, if you like, about the private land, not public land, could comment about some of the ideas about the concept of a roadmap or a pathway which has been incorporated
00:13:00 in. So those are general matters that apply to the entire CHAP and not particular to just one area. What would be out of bounds, if I can use that term, in the way that the resolution is worded at the moment, would be to discuss things like what a future planning scheme change might look like if it's affecting private land in those localities, any of the mapping that might impact on that particular locality, whether it's the Noosa North Shore or the Eastern Beaches. But in terms of the final vote, if the CHAP, and I'll talk about this a bit later, but the CHAP today is a further draft to be able to go out for another round of community consultation in that final vote to determine whether or not we want to put that version out. I don't think based on this wording of the resolution that Council Lorentzen will be able to vote on that, because it does include material about the Eastern Beaches and the Noosa North Shore. Thank you, that was the element I was
00:14:00 looking for. Anyone else wish to speak to it? I just have a question, I can't, sorry, because you're also going to be covered by a conflict of interest, you can't participate in the debate about another Councillor's conflict of interest and don't get to vote on that either. I've got a question, so just Mayor Stewart: to clarify the actual resolution, it means that Council Lorentzen does not participate in the debate or vote on the issues regarding the private estate along Eastern Beaches and Noosa North Shore, but everything else, Council Lorentzen can participate in the debate, ask questions and it's Speaker 2: business as usual and vote on? Not the vote, because that vote to adopt the draft CHAP would include the private estate, but all the issues that I mentioned before about the whole of the CHAP issues, you know, a consultation process, some of the changes that have been made that don't relate to the Eastern Beaches or the Noosa North Shore, things about the counselling
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 infrastructure, all those sorts of things, there's no issue with that whatsoever under this resolution. It just can't, Council Lorentzen wouldn't be able to debate or raise issues relating to the impact on private property along those two areas. Mayor Stewart: Just on looking at that, and this is, this was a big debate and I think, Mr Sear, you're away when we had this debate and as Council, you said it went for about an hour, and I argued strongly that Council Lorentzen and Finzel could stay in the room and the basis of the CHAP really was just a document that stood alone on its own and that as it stands, it doesn't have any potential adverse impacts to any property. Specifically on page five, it says clarity on planning scheme in the amended, one of the misconceptions with the draft CHAP is it impacts on private use rights. It does not. So on that basis, is there the potential or the ability for Council Lorentzen and Finzel to stay in the room because
00:16:00 this document, as it stands alone, doesn't have any impact on any land rights for anyone in the Shire? Speaker 2: That's a very good question. I think the answer is no. And if you have a look on page 12 of the report, it does cover what the CHAP is talking about, what a future planning scheme should deal with. So it deals with state planning policy and the need to bring the planning scheme into compliance with the state planning policy, which will impact on private property in the future when the Council gets to that, the planning scheme change. But so the CHAP does refer to what a Councillor Jurisevic: future impact will be on private property. I'll speak to it. Look, I'm happy to support it. I think it's rather convoluted. And I think I said that at the time, I was curious to know how it was actually going to work in practice. And I thank the CEO for trying to add some clarity this morning on how this may or may not work. But I'm happy for Council Lorentzen to remain in the room, provided we can meet the conditions of the resolution before us.
00:17:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It is an interesting one. And what I'm thinking about in terms of I think she's beaten me the longest conflict of interest declaration we've ever had. I will try and beat that. The legal advice abandons the broad policy nature of this particular document. And the argument that supports this is around that the people with which Council Lorentzen has a relationship with are more affected than the majority of people. And that's to me, this is the key thing.
00:18:00 I look on page 27. And I suppose it highlights some of the additions and it talks about have revealed a set of adaptation options deemed most appropriate for responding to coastal erosion risk in Noosa. These include dune revegetation and management, clearly no conflict beach nourishment, dune augmentation and management, clearly no conflict. Planning scheme response, and that's the heart of it. And to me, making the decision now is important to be consistent with when those planning scheme policies come up. Because that's the heart of where the conflict arises, I believe. It talks about redesign and relocation of key recreational and infrastructure assets. I think it's really important to get as many councils around the table as possible on that one. But the other one, which is also stating what's not in the policy, which could be debated and discussed, which isn't planning scheme related, this is the line below. And it says options
00:19:00 relating to construction of hard engineered seawalls and acquisition of private residential properties were not deemed appropriate or feasible. So they're really, really, really big policy decisions that have very direct impact on the people with interest, particularly in the Sunrise Beach locality. And for that reason, I think it has to be the way that the motion's been moved, because they are incredibly significant policy decisions of specific impact on the related Mayor Stewart: party. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else like to speak to this motion? We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Unanimous. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, I'll also move that the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Finzel and determine that it's in the public interest that Councillor Finzel remain in the meeting room for this item under the condition
00:20:00 she does not participate in the debate, nor vote on issues regarding the private estate along the eastern beaches. Because Council believes Councillor Finzel could provide valuable input into the discussion on Shire-wide matters, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Stewart: I think we need a seconder for that. Oh, I'll second. Thank you, Councillor Jurisvich. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, again, this matter was thrashed out quite extensively the last time the CHAP item came up through a meeting round. In this case, there is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Lobby Group who continues to be a member of the Eastern Beaches Lobby Group, who could contribute to a Councillor's campaign, and their property is directly affected by the coastal hazard mapping. They are a minority of property owners affected in that way. I think it's a handful in relation to the 26,000 that make up the Shire's residential properties. So similar reasons,
00:21:00 Councillor Finzel could provide valuable input into the Shire-wide implications for the CHAP, and for that reason, it's appropriate that she can stay in the room, but not vote on issues relating to her campaign donor. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Finzel: No, similar to the reason stated earlier. Thank you, Councillor Stoffer. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Mayor Stewart: Unanimous. Thank you. We have Principal Strategic Planner Rebecca Britton here for this report, and I believe our CEO, Mr de Chastel, along with Rebecca, would like to say some words to introduce this report. Speaker 2: Thanks, Mayor. I thought it might be useful just to set the scene in terms of what we were up to in the CHAP process. As you know, we went through, I'll call it the first draft, which we put out to community consultation back at the end of January, which went through to early March,
00:22:00 and we got a lot of submissions. So what we've got today is, I'll call it the second draft, which we're looking to get Council to endorse for the purpose of another round of consultation. So what we've got before you today is a report which gives a really good summary of the issues that came back from the community, and I'll talk about that process in a moment. Attachment 2 is actually probably a good place to start, because that's the track changes. See what's changed from the first version to the second, so you can see what's moved, what's changed over time based on that feedback. And what we're seeking today is endorsement of Attachment 1, which is consolidated, or the version that picks up those changes, to go out for more community consultation in accordance with the engagement plan, which is Attachment 3. So in the first round of consultation, which I said was for a six-week period, we ended up with 233, I think it was, submissions. And they were both from individuals and from organisations. And
00:23:00 often with things in Noosa, it was a broad range of feedback we got from across the spectrum. We then realised that there were some really good issues that had been raised, really some important issues that had been raised in that process that made us think, okay, what do we need to enhance the plan or take on this feedback, because that's really what you do community engagement for. As part of that process, we set up a round table. And the purpose of that round table was not a decision-making framework at all. It was a chance for Council to listen and unpack and get more detail about some of those concerns that have been raised. So that round table met on six occasions. It was quite successful in terms of helping both Councillors and staff understand what people thought in details. I said really about unpacking is probably the best way to describe it, what the issues that were raised. There's been a lot of changes, but I always, as you know, Councillors, try and get
00:24:00 down to what are the core ones, what are the top three or four things that have changed as a result of the feedback. And I think the first one is the most significant, actually, from my perspective anyway. And that is that rightly or wrongly, there was a perception that the first draft of the CHAP was trying to take a plan at a point in time and roll it out over a longer period. And the big change is to say, well, the CHAP at the moment creates, it's the beginning of a pathway or the beginning of a roadmap in terms of where we need to go over the coming years. And credit that we're one of many Councillors in Queensland who's going through this process at the moment. And Bundaberg City Council has actually done this very well, the way they've described how things will move over time and how their roadmap type works. So we've used that as an example of how we've incorporated the roadmap or way forward rather than being the point in time. The second big piece of feedback we got is, and it's tied into that first one is, as things are moving forward, you need to monitor more carefully what's going to change. And it might be that the State goes back and reviews their modelling and some of the assumptions
00:25:00 underpinning that. They might do scenario planning. We need to do more monitoring in terms of what's happening locally on the beaches and beach erosion, things like that. So there's a lot more emphasis on monitoring in this report. And Councillors be aware, we're having a look at some work with Harvey Eyre and the team at Sunshine Coast University. The third there, the issue that came forward, and this was from a broad range of groups, including bush care groups and other groups in some of these areas, was the Council needs to do more to protect its own assets. And that's both physical assets or constructed assets and natural assets that we're responsible for. So a lot more emphasis in the next draft or the current draft of the plan about coastal management plans and what we can do more there. And the fourth one relates to what I just talked about before is in terms of what's going to be our planning scheme response. One of the assumptions, one of the misapprehensions, I think, that came out with the first draft of the plan is
00:26:00 that the CHAP in itself, the CHAP as a document that stands alone, takes away property rights. It doesn't, and it can't. All it can do is create a pathway about what might happen in a planning scheme change further down the path. And so what the current draft that the CHAP does is to make that a lot clearer in terms of what's going to occur there. We do have what I call it a minimum standard where we're required to incorporate state planning policy, and that's been made a lot more clear in this document. And page 12 of the report gives a very good summary of the planning scheme issues. It really comes to the heart of what's there. But overall, otherwise, we've tried to make the language very measured about taking a sensible and long-term approach. And we're starting on this journey now, and we're going to have to review how things happen and change over time and keep coming back and reviewing the plan. This plan is not going to be something that is going to sit in place for years and years and years. It's something
00:27:00 that's going to have to be continually revised as more information comes along, more details about what we do need to change going forward to react to what is inevitably going to occur in parts of our Shire as an impact of climate change. I think that's covered all of probably setting the scene. I probably just want to remind councillors also in terms of questions that the purpose of questions is to gather information that you don't know so you can make an informed decision. It's not using questions to make a point or enhance the debate. That's what debate's for. So if you want to push forward a point, please do so in debate, not the questions. But Rebecca, I don't know if there's anything I missed in terms of Speaker 1: these specifics. So for the revised CHAP, it retains two sets of maps, some maps for inundation and some maps for coastal erosion along the open coast beaches. What is removed is the risk maps that were in the original version that assigned risk
00:28:00 ratings for different asset types. It was felt as a result of feedback during consultation that they were potentially difficult to understand, could be misinterpreted, and that for a document of this kind that that level of detail wasn't necessary. So those maps have been removed as Deputy Mayor Stockwell: part of the revised CHAP. Madam Mayor, just for the purposes of getting things going, I've had Councillor Wilkie: to move the motion. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Noosa Council is just one of many local governments around Australia responsibly preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change. The science shows it's likely that predicted risks such as more intense fire seasons that we've already seen here in Noosa and storms will become more frequent and some new ones may emerge. Identifying coastal hazards is part of this work. Work on this plan started nearly
00:29:00 half a decade ago in early 2017. It has progressed with input from the Noosa community through various phases, each of which has been ratified by the state government and local government association of Queensland. Several background studies used to inform this plan reveal Noosa should expect erosion and inundation to increase particularly towards the latter half of the century and that proactive and well-considered actions are required to prepare and manage these risks. Second version of the final draft has again been informed by community feedback and recognises the potential for taking on board new predictive methodologies as they emerge from reputable scientific and regulatory authorities. The new draft CHAP acknowledges the need for a monitor and review approach. And a quote from the report itself, it's a plan based on the best available scientific data and information, noting the need for flexibility and iterative adaptive review over time,
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 as new locally specific information arises. The plan is based on principles that have helped establish Noosa as living proof that a healthy environment underpins a prosperous and resilient community. Primary among these principles are those that value the community's natural assets such as the beaches, natural dune systems, the plants and animals that populate them and the importance of seeking solutions that best complement our much loved environmental beaches, as well as public and private assets. For these reasons rock walls on the open beaches for instance are deemed inconsistent with these and a cost benefit analysis has found this option to be socially and economically unbiable and that's proposed to be as such in the draft for public coin. The preferred adaptive proposed responses intended to build the community's safety and resilience to risk are driven by the best available science, the most responsible risk management principles and involve community
00:31:00 residents and businesses. These include solutions the vast majority of stakeholders called for such as continuing the work to expand native vegetation on the frontal dunes, the redesign of beach accesses and use of fencing to deter foot traffic across the dunes. I'd like to thank all the community groups that participated in the chat round table during this final phase which took place over an additional 10 weeks as part of an extension of the six-week consultation process. This provided a highly valuable opportunity for questions to be asked in an open forum in the spirit of genuine inquiry. We all had access to experts in the field of climate science, coastal erosion, insurance and we're all better informed as a result. Because of the diversity of views the final draft is more well-rounded while not straying from the core purpose of using the best available science to identify, inform and prepare for, predict natural hazard risks now and into the future. I'd also like to reserve special praise for Noosa
00:32:00 Council's principal strategic planner Rebecca Britton and consultant Grant Hinner who tirelessly responded professionally to the many inquiries over the past four years and have put together this final draft and we all look forward to public feedback on this version. Thank you. Thank you Mayor Stewart: Councillor Wilkie. Would anyone else like to speak? I have a question. Rebecca we've talked a lot in the new I guess amendment about the state planning policy and we have to be in line with state planning. Can you talk a little bit about our requirements, what the state's mandating, where we are now, what the requirements are and how they Speaker 2: differed from from what's already in place? That's also covered by every other council. Mayor Stewart: Yeah as well as not just us as a silo. All other coastal councils so from Bundaberg to Sunshine Coast right down.
00:33:00 Speaker 1: Yep sure. The state has a state planning policy that deals with a range of state interests including interests relating to coastal hazards, inundation and coastal erosion. Within it are some specific policy provisions that relate to minimising the impact on people, property and the environment as a result of those hazards. So every local government in Queensland as part of preparing a planning scheme would need to have regard to those state interest requirements and embed those in the planning scheme. Noosa Council has had coastal hazard requirements in its planning scheme for some time, since at least 2006. As part of the recent amendments or review of the Noosa Plan 2020, we also looked at improving upon the coastal hazard requirements to make sure it aligned with the state planning policy. Through consultation during that process,
00:34:00 we received feedback from the community on the approach that we took at that time and decided that we would keep our planning scheme consistent with how it had been written since the Noosa Plan was first created back in 2006. The reason being that we needed to progress the coastal hazards adaptation plan to better inform our planning scheme approach. As a result of making that decision, the state advised us that we still needed at a future date to amend the planning scheme to ensure it was consistent with the state planning policy. So they imposed a ministerial condition on the council requiring council to make that amendment by December 2020. So council commenced a process of notifying the state that it would proceed with doing that amendment as a part of finalising the coastal hazards adaptation plan.
00:35:00 So that process will be picked up and continued once the coastal hazards adaptation plan is completed and signed off by the state. This is a process that all local governments need to go through. They do need to embed the state planning policy into their planning scheme. Because we've had a coastal hazard adaptation plan being prepared in parallel with a new planning scheme, there's been some timing issues we've had to navigate. It's appropriate that we complete this coastal hazards adaptation process so it can appropriately inform future amendments for those coastal hazards later on next year. If we just said the state planning policy out the window, Mayor Stewart: we don't want to do it. Can we do that? It's a mandate, isn't it, by the state that we have to do? Speaker 1: Yes, it's a statutory requirement under the planning legislation. It's a legislation for local governments to meet the requirements of the state planning policy. Mayor Stewart: So when we talk about in this new amendment that everything is in line
00:36:00 with the state planning policy, I think page 12 of the report was a good example, that is what every other coastal council in Queensland is having to do and what they are Speaker 1: having to implement into their planning scheme. Correct. And some of the chaps that other local governments have prepared have similar wording in there pointing to the need to amend their planning schemes to be consistent with the state planning policy and to pick up on the learnings from the coastal hazard adaptation plan as part of their planning scheme amendments. Councillor Jurisevic: Do we have any idea how many of those councils have actually started doing their planning scheme amendments based on their chaps at this stage? Speaker 1: I don't know the exact number, but there would be a small handful of those that have commenced their process, including Sunshine Coast Council has commenced that process. Councillor Lorentson: Rebecca, we keep talking about mandates. Is it possible for us to actually request the state
00:37:00 to abandon the RCP modelling and look at just different options or different modelling? Speaker 1: So what you're talking about is the carbon emission projections, that are set by the International Panel of Climate Change. And so the state has guidelines for local governments to prepare mapping that considers climate change impacts, including sea level rise. And they currently have that RCP 8.5 embedded in their guidelines, including a 0.8 sea level rise factor to the year 2100. We have new IPCC projections that are helping inform the state government on whether any revisions or further advice needs to be made to local governments around those projections. But for the moment, they are the minimum standards and requirements for all local government.
00:38:00 From the state's perspective, it's important that there's consistency in the mapping and methodology for local governments preparing their coastal hazards maps. So there's claims, there's clarity and consistency there. So we are required as a local government to consider those climate change factors at this point in time. And adding to that also, through the roundtable process, there was agreement that council would provide feedback to the state on our preference that other climate change factors also be considered, including lesser emissions projections, so that there's a range of possible scenarios depicted or represented in our coastal hazard mapping. Speaker 2: Just on that map, if you have a look at the bottom of page seven of the report for council and the right hand side, one of the things that we've identified that we're going to do is to document
00:39:00 concerns raised about the modelling scenarios and provide feedback to the state about that. So when they can have a look at their modelling, they might develop, you know, best works case scenarios, mid-scenarios and so on. So that's part of the process that we're asking council to do as well. Councillor Jurisevic: That's fine. Yeah, we're back on set. Pleased to see some of the change in particular reference box five with adaptive, Adaption Pathways and their benefits. I think that was one of the significant elements from community feedback that was there and one of the ones that I most understood, I guess, and related to. We talk about pathways and the word triggers came up somewhere. With these methods of adaption, what I'm seeing in the chat here, we're still looking at
00:40:00 dates like 2070 for something to have occurred by and things like that, which doesn't necessarily relate to data. We're talking a lot about data in this document, how we actually have factual data as to when change should occur or when we should start looking at an asset and the management of that asset, or perhaps the planning of change of that asset. It doesn't need to be relocated. Is it appropriate to continue to... Point of order, Madam Chair. Is there a question coming? It's coming, Councillor. Speaker 1: Be patient, be patient. Councillor Jurisevic: It's the lead-in for the questions. I think the question has some sort of scale to understand where you're going. So all those are on. Where within either the chat or is it outside of the chat and in other areas of council plans and policies, do we see how the data impacts upon our planning for the future of asset management? Did that get you there, Councillor?
00:41:00 Councillor Wilkie: Finally, and the cobwebs have gathered. Speaker 1: So the chat provides indicative timeframes for certain hazards to impact upon different asset classes for different localities. It's important that for council to inform their decision making around asset management and other core business to have an idea of when in the future certain risk profiles might change. So when and in the future what kind of location hazard, for example, in some low lying areas of our coastal villages might be no longer tolerable. So that it gives us time to be able to plan up until that time horizon for that hazard impact. So while this document doesn't provide the specifics around for example a road at 2070 being inundated to a point that's no longer tolerable, atownkние.gov that's no longer tolerable,
00:42:00 There's a lot of detail around what should we do about it at that point in time. What it does do is indicate what some of the early planning needs to happen, or at least monitoring that needs to happen in that intervening period, so that by the time we get to that point in time, we have all the information we need to be able to take action. It may be that those risks don't eventuate as predicted, but having that early planning there in place is important. So through our asset management planning, what we'll be encouraging the infrastructure team to do is to have early consideration of some of those potential risks, and that where appropriate, they build that into some of their design, maintenance, renewal programs for risks that have a potential early impact.
00:43:00 For risks that might be later in the century, there'll be a watch and monitor approach. So no need for action. Does that answer your question? Councillor Wegener: I think so. Councillor Jurisevic: So further from that, what I'm supposing this will do is identify the assets at risk, and within those asset management plans for those assets, we will then implement triggers at which point we start to review, manage, monitor the design and planning, whether it's appropriate for that asset to remain with us. Whether it needs relocation or some other redesign in its configuration. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Ben. Councillor Lorentson: I'll just follow on with what Councillor Jurisevic's just talking about. So we're looking at the value of the risk and the cost of protection, and whether that value of risk exceeds the cost of protection.
00:44:00 I'm talking, and I will ask for guidance from the CEO, whether I'm overstating the stepping, but I am talking in reference to Noosa Main Beach. When we look at Noosa Main Beach, has Council actually got an estimate on the economic importance of the main beach? Have we actually quantified the value of what the beach is in dollar terms? Speaker 2: No. Obviously, we have in the document itself, we've identified that Hastings Street Precinct is the major asset. We haven't contributed to the economy. But we haven't done a separate piece of work about what is the value or the economic value of the beach on its own. Councillor Lorentson: So how do we then assess the most appropriate management response to projected climate changes? Isn't it important that we really understand its dollar worth? I understand in places like in Sydney, Council has actually entered into memorandums of understandings
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 with universities, just to make sure that they understand the importance of climate change. I would encourage and hope that that's something that we may be able to explore. Speaker 2: We've quantified in terms of the value of the Hastings Street Tourism Precinct, as I call the street, so to speak, and that whole area, and the value of the tourism sector generally. But we haven't then drilled down and said the beach is worth $10 million, $50 million, $100 million, whatever it might be. It's dealt down as a precinct, not as an individual asset on the beach. Councillor Lorentson: Given the importance of our beaches, and again, I make reference to Noosa Main Beach as our major tourist infrastructure, and as trustees of state-owned public land, I would imagine that that's probably our most important or most valuable asset. Would you agree, Rebecca? Speaker 2: Sorry, that's not a question.
00:46:00 A question. Oh, maybe. Sorry for Greg. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a point of clarification. I think what Councillor Lorentson's asking is, is it appropriate to do the same thing for Noosa Main Beach as we have done for the eastern beaches, where we did have a cost benefit analysis, which did value the beach, I think, from a travel cost analysis, as well as its environmental value. If it's not appropriate, perhaps because we've already got the seawall protection there, what other benefit would come from knowing the value of the beach? I think the value, considering we are in this policy maintaining the current status of saying we're going to protect the asset by building or maintaining a rock wall to the level required for future climate conditions. Mayor Stewart: Is that a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah. Is there any value of doing the same valuation exercise that we've done for eastern beaches to that? Speaker 2: The answer to that potentially is yes. As I said, we've looked at that value as a precinct basis, not an individual beach basis at the moment.
00:47:00 And really taken, I mean, it's a given that Noosa Main Beach is the, if not, you know, one of, if not the primary tourist attraction in Noosa. And that's why that adjoining area is so popular in terms of tourism. So yeah, absolutely. In the future, that will be something to look at. Councillor Lorentson: Also in reference, and again, please correct me if I overstepping, but erosion issues in Noosa Woods. I know that those issues have been addressed in the Shoreline Erosion Management Plan. And the SEMP I've understood also, as because I've entered this conversation later, it doesn't form part of the chat, but I would think that quantifying a value would also have relevance at Noosa Woods. Whether, you know, Councillor Wilkie: There seems to be an opportunity for commentary. Free arranging commentary. Councillor Lorentson: Is there a question? Madam Mayor. Would quantifying value of the foreshores, Noosa Main Beach and foreshores even of Noosaville, again, help assist appropriate management responses to climate change?
00:48:00 Speaker 1: I think that information is always useful to inform our decision making. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Any other questions? Thank you to staff for the job you've done. It's a big body of work. And I understand that. So I have a question. It's a much broader question with regards to governance and management moving forward with the organisation. Given the conversation raised here is about that this will now be a roadmap. This is going to be continually revised. It's look and monitor and review. So we're now moving away from a static straight line. I do believe in decision making to be more flexible and can movement through the decision making. So my question is with regards then to the organisation. Does the organisation have the capacity for continuous improvement around how we're going to collect and analyse organisational data with regards to the CHAT?
00:49:00 How are we going to adopt the frameworks? How are we going to have continuous improvement as an organisation engaging stakeholders and recording the information and data collected, not just with community consultation but with regards to the data, the references, footnotes, supporting local and technical documents? At the moment, clients have told me, not clients, the community have indicated that your say is the only place that they're available to find documents. I believe I'm seeking today confirmation, affirmation, and I'm asking the questions, is the organisation ready and prepared with the largeness of this CHAT report? of this CHAT report? And how it's going to feed into, you know, financial decisions moving forward regarding infrastructure, which is a large expenditure over a long projection? How are we going to implement the improvements?
00:50:00 How are we building a workforce for motivation and capacity to meet the needs? Is there enough staff in the planning department to pursue the work that's required and report back to the state? What are we doing to assess risk management and long-term financial planning? So my question goes back to governance, and I'd like some answers at the next meeting to tell me how, in a succinct word, you can bring back to me how the organisation is prepared, based under the Local Government Act, that we are meant to provide accountability, effectiveness, efficient, and sustainable governance. So I just have a question around that. Thank you. Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks for that. The adoption of the CHAT, so what we're doing today is just adopting a version to go back out for community engagement. We'll get comments back and eventually adopt a final version. What that then helps the councillor do is prioritise for the very things that you talked about. So, for example, the CHAT says we will need to do more monitoring.
00:51:00 So then the next budget process comes up, staff will say, well, councillors, we're serious about doing more monitoring. We'll need to allocate resources to put in sensors or cameras or whatever it might be, or to advance the partnership with the university and so on. So it actually helps that resource allocation or that decision making as we go through budgets to say we've now got the basis for what we're going to do. Or we're going to fund a coastal management plan, and that coastal management plan will have actions to be able to do X, Y, and Z to implement those changes and looking after public assets. Let's do some more work about asset lives in these particular locations covered by the CHAT and say, right, we need to start planning to shift this piece of infrastructure from here to here in 10 years' time. And does that build into our asset management plan? So it's that sort of stuff that the CHAT will help inform that decision making. In fact, it gives structure to that governance to be able to do that. But the individual decisions about what resources we need to deal with assets or monitoring
00:52:00 or the public land will come up through each budget process where the council makes that decision. It's a broad question. Does that give you a summary of the issues you asked? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you, CEO. It does give a summary. I guess really also what I need assurance from and the question I'm asking you, say I was just a land property owner and I wanted to seek information because my, for example, insurance company needs further information and it is very difficult to get that information back onto the individual to make those arrangements. How can you ensure me that you have correctly recorded this data, which is specific around this, that can be collected and that it's being recorded and filed in such a manner that the general community can access this information with ease and confidence that it can access the information it needs to inform their decisions around protecting their properties?
00:53:00 Speaker 2: Yes. So the information in terms of mapping and the draft CHAPs and when the final CHAP is adopted, that will be part of our website as well where people can have a look online to find out information. We do, though, in the CHAP have a disclaimer that says that this is general information and people need to make their own inquiries to rely on that. The key question going forward though will be what change the council does in its planning scheme because that's when people are buying properties or making decisions. That's the key instrument, if you like, that will affect that. So when the council gets to the decision-making phase in terms of its planning scheme and bringing in the state planning policy, that's what people will be able to rely on. Councillor Jurisevic: If I'm hearing the councillor correctly with regard to data that we're going to source as a result of further monitoring on it, will that data be open source first of all?
00:54:00 Speaker 1: I think that would be a good aim. We're always building our capabilities in that area of being able to provide information to the community. At the moment we have some interactive maps that provide those hazard extents that people can zoom in and out of and add other layers to interpret how the hazard impacts upon potentially impacts upon their property or overlaps their areas of interest. As more local data is made available, we can have a look at how we can make that open source. I also wanted to mention that as part of the town planning certificates, when property owners do their due diligence, they're provided information that coastal hazard maps exist and for them to access them via our interactive mapping. So that's really critical that that mapping is made available. Council does have a duty of care to provide that information to the community and as I said, we'll keep building on that information and making that available.
00:55:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Well that's an interesting point to raise there, because what typically happens at the moment is that unless a property owner actually undertakes a specific search for something associated with their property, that search doesn't raise the issues on their property. How will that differ with something like the chap on a property registration? Do they actually have to seek the chap or will the chap be flagged as such? Speaker 1: So the responsibility is always with the existing property owner or a future purchaser to do their due diligence and to look across things like mapping on council's websites to inform themselves of the range of information that's available.
00:56:00 If they weren't to perform a town planning search, then they would need to rely on that information that's publicly accessible there. There are other options like putting notices on rates information to inform people as part of that rates process what information is available there. It's not appropriate to do that at this stage until the chap is complete, so I think we'll continue to explore how best we can get the information out there. The state also will be holding that mapping information as well. Councillor Finzel: I guess another basic question I need an answer to is in regards to the repository of information specifically linked to the chap and all that encapsulates, and I understand, thank you for the response around the chap and the mapping and that, when it gets to planning applications, I'm sort of looking like the documentation and how that is going to be managed through
00:57:00 the council process to ensure diligence and good administration and continuous improvement. Given this is a projection to the future and this data needs to be really well maintained, what systems and what assurance do we have that this is being correctly managed moving forward? Speaker 1: As part of implementing the chap there will be a detailed implementation plan and we've started to do work on that so that we know what the steps are along the way for us to implement this over time and to review it. Brett outlined some of those things around data, collecting data, assessing that, analysing that over time, having contact with the different areas of council to advise them of new information as it arises. That all forms part of an implementation process and a review process and so that level of detail for continuous improvement review will be embedded in a more detailed implementation
00:58:00 plan and that's normal for these types of policy documents to have that internal set of action steps there for council staff to follow over time and to report back to council on the progress of that either annually or every two years. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I've still got one question. Rebecca, if I was to buy property now or 10 years ago, I can go in and get that information. So it's been there forever and a day, the state planning, I guess, their lines and their policies. So nothing is really changing. If we're aligning this, then with those potential implementations, it's still business as usual. It's still in line with what we have to do with state planning policy, isn't it? Speaker 1: Yeah. So what has changed is that we've provided some revised mapping that are an improvement upon the state's mapping that has been in place for some years. It doesn't impact upon the existing coastal building lines that have been in place since
00:59:00 the mid 80s. What it does do is provide a finer scale mapping than what the state has produced so far. And the state has given us really clear guidance on how we need to do those revisions. So we think of the state's mapping that's been there for many years as a first pass assessment of potential coastal hazards. The CHAP allows us to take a bit more of a deeper dive and to look at some more of the local characteristics and provide an additional level of rigor to help inform planning. And the guidelines for preparing that mapping is linked with the state planning policy. So they're a requirement of local governments to complete. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to speak to this? Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, one last question, Rebecca. This was a question that's been asked of me a few times.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 What happens if all these future possible events don't happen in the manner and time predicted? I don't think anyone that I've spoken to don't believe in climate change. It's here. It's not happening. It's right here. The issue is whether the events happen in the manner and time predicted. And the question is, have we sought legal advice in regards to potential liability? Speaker 1: From the outset in embarking upon this process, there was always acknowledgement that we'd need to take an adaptive management approach and that we're dealing with projections where there's a level of uncertainty. And climate change presents that uncertainty to us. So we're always working to the best available information that we have. And we have a duty of care to have regard to that information through planning processes. So in terms of legal liability, for the council, in doing their best to have regard to the information
01:01:00 that's available at the time is helping us to meet our duty of care requirements. So I'm going to turn it over to Rebecca. And so that extends also to us preparing our planning schemes as well, making sure we make use of that information. So this coastal hazard adaptation plan will be an important document for informing that, as well as informing a range of other investments and council decisions that council makes. So does that help answer your question there around legal liability? We do have that duty to consider best available information and to consider new information as it comes along. And to be adaptable around how we apply that new information. And so it's by no means new in this revision that we're taking this iterative approach. It's always been embedded in the principles of the process from the beginning that we need to consider changes as they occur and have regard to local information and new projections.
01:02:00 Speaker 2: If I can summarise that legal issue, it really comes down to this, use the latest and best information available. Assess the risk. If you're aware of the risk and you fail to act, that's when you've got legal liability. If you assess risk and make a sensible approach forward and monitor and manage that risk, your liability is much reduced. That's it in the summary. Councillor Jurisevic: Would it be fair to say that since the state of mandate that all councils are required to implement a CHAP or undertake the process of implementing a CHAP, that if we didn't do that we'd be subject to more of a liability issue than if we did? Speaker 1: If I could just clarify that preparing a CHAP is not a mandatory requirement of a local government. Through meeting the requirements of the state planning policy, local governments in preparing their planning scheme need to do a risk assessment of coastal hazards and so a CHAP goes part
01:03:00 way, or goes the full way in doing a risk assessment of coastal hazards and then goes beyond that and says so how are we going to implement a range of adaptation options, not just for the planning scheme, but for infrastructure, assets, parks, community values. So it takes that next step. So the mandatory requirement under state planning policy is to prepare a risk assessment and all local governments need to do that as part of their planning scheme. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. So Rebecca, just to ask you some questions about what you've just said. So preparing the CHAP is not mandatory and what this CHAP is, is an exercise in risk management. So what happens then if we've overstated the risk or we've undervalued an asset? Would that expose us to potential legal liability? Speaker 2: I don't think Rebecca's a lawyer who can give that answer. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: You are, Brett.
01:04:00 I apologise for that. But they're concerns. For me, they're major issues, especially when you just clearly stated it's not mandatory for us to actually put together this CHAP. So we've got to be measured and careful and reasonable. There's a commentary. Oh, excuse me. It is a commentary. Sorry. I'll leave that for my debate. I'll just answer my question. Speaker 2: What I said before is still the same and whether we're using the CHAP mechanism or other risk assessment process is that we have to have the best information or the latest information, gather that up, assess the risk and then respond to that risk. If we do that properly, then our legal liability is much reduced. So that's the same principle whether it's under a CHAP framework or any other framework in doing risk assessment. Have you got the latest and best information? Have you assessed that? Do you monitor if that's changed and adapt? And do you manage that risk well? That's what it's in a nutshell. Councillor Lorentson: Probably another question for you, Brett. So part of risk analysis or risk management, is it right to say that you've also always got to present a best case and a worst case scenario?
01:05:00 Speaker 2: Not in all cases. It depends on what risk you're assessing. What you do look at is the likelihood and consequence matrix. So how likely is this to occur? Over what time period? What are the consequences? Are they small, medium, large? The different terminology used. So that's how you assess risk. And then you monitor it over time. Risk changes. It's not at a set point. And that's what Rebecca talked about, the adaptive approach here using the pathway approach is the best way to do that into the longer term. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to speak to this? Tom. Councillor Wegener: Just quickly. I would like to congratulate Rebecca and the team and Grant, because this is a fantastically easy to read, simple document that encapsulates an enormous complex body of information. And when it comes to people looking at and wanting to know what's happening in Noosa, this is a great resource for that. I think that the Noosa residents expect this and the best monitoring going forward.
01:06:00 And that's what the Noosa residents expect. The last turn of consultation really focused on was we want more monitoring. We want to know what, we want the best information possible so that we can make the best decisions possible. And that's what we've got. So that's what this last round of consultation has come up with. And it's very well documented here. So congratulations. Good job. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I have somebody else? Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you. I'll reiterate that, Councillor Wegener. And I won't reiterate everything Councillor Wilkie said. I think you covered more than fully. I don't think there's much more needs to be said. I think the process is . What we have before us is a second draft, a second review for public consultation. And we clearly heard from the first draft that we can get it right.
01:07:00 I've still got elements in my own head of areas there and I think some of the questions today have helped to clarify where we go from here and how this sits in the grander scheme of things for council and council asset management and activities for the future and budget considerations. I think some of those questions have been answered well here today. I do thank the staff for their time. I do think the, to quote a former councillor, language has power, words have power and the first draft I think had an element of concern in the language that was being used by the committee and a chance for us to go back and review the language used, the information provided and look at what other councils were doing and we learned from Bundaberg Council for an example as to how their approach and looked at a more measured approach. In the way this chapter has been presented and I thank the staff for taking all the concerns of the community on board, having this revised chapter and I look forward to hearing back from the community to see if the changes that have been made and the second draft that's been presented meets the concerns that they raised from the first draft.
01:08:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Mr. President. Mayor Stewart: Did you have to go last? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was going to go last. You go last. Mayor Stewart: I'm happy to speak. Indulge. In January 2021, council adopted a draft. CHAP, for the purpose of undertaking community consultation. This was funded by the state government with all coastal councils in Queensland working through a similar process. We received, as we've heard, 233 submissions, a number of respondents and community members had concerns and raised these issues. So a roundtable was instigated to better understand those issues and find a workable solution with key stakeholders, including Eastern Beaches Protection Association, Bushcare, relevant business associations and other community groups. Six meetings of the roundtable were held between, as council Wilkie said, July and September.
01:09:00 This was a process which helped discussing concerns, sharing information and clarifying details set out in the CHAP. Most significantly, the process highlighted areas where the CHAP could be improved. This is, and I think this is a great document, and I thank Rebecca for this, for putting in these track changes because it specifically shows where those changes are. So the changes include a pathways approach. More emphasis has been placed on showing how the adaptation works. More emphasis has been placed on showing how the action response may be staged over time as risk profiles change or more information becomes available. Protecting council assets. More emphasis placed on outlining what action council can take in relation to June management and our own infrastructure. More monitoring. More emphasis has been added in relation to the need to monitor changes over time. This includes enhancing our program of monitoring and data collection to inform future adaptation responses in partnership with state government, CSIRO, USC and the Bureau of Meteorology. Clarity on the planning scheme where the rubber hits the road. The new draft makes it clear that council will take a stepped, monitor, manage, review approach to help inform appropriate land use planning responses.
01:10:00 It does, however, recognise that council will need to amend the Noosa Plan 2020 to ensure it aligns with state planning policy requirements regarding coastal erosion risks. I reiterate that this is a requirement mandated by the state. If you don't like it, take it up with the state. They are providing the means. Minimum requirements. They are providing the modelling and they are mandating. This is state planning policy. We are required to do it. Again, it's a state issue. The wording of the CHAP has been amended relating to the planning scheme and future developments in the erosion prone as follows. So I think, again, there's been changes to some words. We've seen the word likely be changed to potential. We've seen the word some added rather than assumed by all. Similarly, the word likely has been changed to projected. So between pages three and five of the new draft, the language has been amended to ensure it's a more balanced approach in line with potential implications.
01:11:00 When we look at our appetite for risk, which is highlighted on page six, there is a specific mention of that monitor, review, manage approach. This is sensible and it is fair. It is balanced and it is in line with other regions such as Bundaberg. Page 11. As has already said, the predominant feedback from the Noosa community included, when we got their report, preference for protection and active on-ground management of local beaches. We're doing that with more management, with more monitoring, with more proactive things that we can do to help that. Need for scientific monitoring. Again, CHAP needs to be a flexible pathway approach that is a stage and evolves over time. We're doing that. This is very much a stepped monitor, manage, review approach. And the CHAP should not direct planning scheme changes that adversely affect private property or conflict with state planning policy. Again, we're doing that. Page 27 looks at our options for responding to coastal erosion risks.
01:12:00 Again, these are all noted in the draft. Point five specifically looks at locality risks and adaptation outcomes. Again, this word adaptation pathways. A pathways approach to changes. By using trigger points to indicate a preferred action or set of action is likely to be implemented. Again, words such as maybe, may, projected have been changed from likely. Again, it's more moderate, more balanced language. So I really commend, I want to keep going in regard to this, but I would note that as I said, the rubber hits the road in the land use planning. In regard to Peregian Beach beach, when we look at specific areas of the next five years, the words are, amend the new situation. This is a 2020 plan to ensure it aligns with the state planning policy requirements regarding coastal erosion risks. This is the same for Marcus Beach, for Castaways Beach, for Sunrise and for Sunshine. For Noosa North Shore and Tiwara, it's maintain land use planning approach and ensure the Noosa 2020 plan aligns with state planning policy.
01:13:00 Again, it's all about that state planning policy and having to align with that. We have to do what the state requires us to do. This is a more reasonable document. It's a more moderate document with a theme of monitor, measure, data collection, mitigate where we can and what we can do as a council. It's a stepped approach. I'd like to thank Rebecca and Anthony for all their hard work. I'd like to thank the community who have come in and who have provided feedback, but have also given up their time to meet with us on six separate occasions for lengthy periods. And that was their hard work and their toil. So I thank them very much for being involved. I believe that what we have here is a far more reasonable document. It has to be in line with the state planning policy. We have that ministerial condition. We can't get out of it. But I think it's a good approach. It's balanced and it's fair. And again, I look forward, it's only a draft, so I look forward to receiving further consultation from the community regarding that. But thank you, Rebecca. Again, it's a lot of hard work and I think you've been really proactive and engaged with the community really well and taken on board all their feedback.
01:14:00 So thank you for all your hard work too. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: What really builds strong communities is when people feel heard, understood and included. What the community asked for was a response that supports flexibility by allowing options to be adapted to changing circumstances. They asked that in identifying potential future risks that we do so in a responsible and measured manner that reflects the highly uncertain nature of what's being dealt with. And mostly they wanted that reflected and clearly articulated in the most important part of this plan, in the hazard mapping. When I opened the CHAP, I went straight to the maps. In the Noosa Heads and Noosaville, Tewantin and Boring Point areas.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 I didn't read the preamble and I didn't go to the 75 pages of words and diagrams. I went straight to the map. What I was hoping to see was a pop-out text box or a disclaimer that had clear statements like the CHAP has been prepared to assist Noosa Council with its long-term planning for coastal resilience and is not intended for emergency. That the report is provided for information only and it does not purport to be complete. What I would have liked to have seen is that Council makes no warranty about the accuracy, reliability, completeness, fitness or suitability for any purpose of the information in the CHAP. That the CHAP is based on modelled predictions of future conditions and is liable to change. What I was also hoping to see, and still an opportunity, we're going back to consultation, was a map that showed the real risk.
01:16:00 That there is actually less than 1% of chance of these hazards occurring in 2040, in 2070 and 2100. What I did see was a map. One map with one predicted extreme or worst case model. That has the potential, in my opinion, to be misinterpreted in possibly an adverse manner. On page 6 of the CHAP it states that it is possible that there is a potential to be misinterpreted over multiple time horizons and incorporate options that can be attuned to needs as they change over time. So my question is, why is the highly uncertain nature of what has been dealt with not made clear and unambiguous in the mapping? I understand in conversations today that the State has mandated us to use the RCP 8.5.
01:17:00 But I've also understood today that the CHAP is not mandatory. It's a mandatory. It's an exercise in essentially a risk management. It's essentially a risk management exercise. So we need neither to overstate nor understate the risk. So I would encourage Council's position to then use not only the RCP 8.5, but possibly another map that dictates a medium or better case scenario. In regards to the CHAP document, I think it's important to note that the CHAP 8.5 is not a standard document. I don't believe that the intent is clearly communicated. It's not clearly communicated enough. I think the document needs to clearly articulate the intent, which is to seek to protect life, property, infrastructure and its beaches. That should be the anchor and the principle that we must always go back for guidance in
01:18:00 the face of ever changing climate. I read that actually in Steve Covey's Seven Habits of Successful People. So I use that philosophy here. What is our primary purpose? What's our core principle? And in the CHAP, it's that. Protect life, property, infrastructure and most importantly, not most importantly, but as importantly, our beaches. So I'm hoping that staff will take into consideration some of the points I've made, which I would have loved to have given to you in the lead up to this meeting today, but as situation has it, I got invited late in the conversation. So I do thank Rebecca and all the staff. I know this is tireless work. But I do hope that we can do it.
01:19:00 You know, my points will be taken up. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Firstly, and again, I'd like to reiterate my thanks and appreciation to the staff for the work they've done. For the great engagement that we've had from the community and all the work that they've done, which has been a lot of work. So we really appreciate that. I've come in late to this as well. But I thank you. I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to be able to speak here today. I'm really excited that we can go back to community and engage community and engender trust in community that we are prepared to listen. We are prepared to act and implement things that are in the best interest of all parties concerned. We have fundamentally changed by COVID. And I believe moving forward, we're going to have to see more and more leadership that takes and provides opportunity to get all key stakeholders around the table so that
01:20:00 their voice is heard. We are moving into a future that at the moment is uncertain around climate change and all the things that are impacting us. In the words of Helen Keller, alone we can do so little, but together we can do so much. Thank you, Council. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What the report does today is respond to submissions and suggest changes to the policy as a result of those submissions. And those submissions are outlined in the document first. And I think that's fairly well as what was submitted during the consultation period. And on top of that, we had a roundtable where there was a range of different submissions and opinions. And during that period, a range of different information going into the public, which sometimes clarified and sometimes mystified what was happening. I think it's really important, firstly, to understand why we're doing this. And some like to oppose these sort of policies based on some radical green agenda. So I'm going to quote from a report from Ernst & Young, the International Investment
01:21:00 and Business Advisory Service, who did a report for the state government talking about how to capitalise on Queensland's opportunities in a zero net emissions future. They identified six key themes of policy to affect the whole economy. And two of those is what we're doing today. One was resilience and resource efficiency. And basically, they're suggesting what policy needs to do is look at long term planning and investment. To build resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate related risks and promoting efficient use of resources. So our cost benefit analysis is how we looked at how to efficiently use the community's resources to address those risks. And the other one is about addressing climate risks, which we've had a lot of discussion about. And they said, considering climate change risk in investment decisions through assessing, disclosing, and establishing strategies to reduce or manage exposure to climate related risks, including physical and environmental. So one thing we've done probably better than any other council have done, Chap, is disclosing.
01:22:00 We've disclosed detailed risk assessments. And one of the things that we've pulled back on is because they're multifaceted and somewhat complex to understand, such that they are being misinterpreted. So we were transparent, but people were getting confused about scale and how to use the maps. And I draw on that. We've got to get council's attention to the new addition on page 32, which does go to what Councillor Lorentson was talking about. It says, the risks discussed in this section, unless otherwise specified, are aggregated. That means we've lumped the range of risk together to the locality scale, which means not the property scale, based on the highest risk, so not all risks, but just what the highest one is with each locality, and are for land use planning, infrastructure services planning, The Public and Natural Area Management Purposes
01:23:00 At a smaller scale, each locality is subject to a range of risks from coastal hazards, from no risk to very high risk, depending on the particular location or asset within that locality. Decision makers and the individual private asset or lot scale are encouraged to review the supporting technical reports and make their own determination regarding any risk and how to mitigate these with the information available to them. We have provided probably a million dollars worth of information and thinking so people can make better decisions on their own property but they can't base it on mapping or locality scale. So that's important. Now Cathy could you bring up, I think it's also important that the report looks at the submissions and looks at how we've responded to them. And one of the big things that came up both in submissions and in the roundtable was this concept that RCP 8.5 was the worst case scenario.
01:24:00 So we're looking here at the proceedings of the National Academy of Science from August 2020 at USA and here you see a graph which is really important. The RCP 8.5 from 2005 to 2020 which is the left-hand side is the dark blue right beside the red. The actual historical emissions between that period is red. So the statement on the right is really really important. Not only are the emissions historically consistent with RCP 8.5 in close agreement with historical total cumulative CO2 emissions within 1% but RCP 8.5 is also the best match out to mid-century under current and stated policies with still highly plausible levels of CO2 emissions in 2100. That's saying if we just keep on doing what we're currently doing, that graph which shows the increase up to nearly two and a half thousand is what we're going to get. Okay? But more importantly it
01:25:00 says not using RCP 8.5 to describe the previous 15 years, if we start modelling and go from there, assumes a level of mitigation that did not occur thereby skewing subsequent assessments by lessening the severity of warming and associated physical climate. So that's really important. Not only is it important because we've got a statutory responsibility as a guideline to use RCP 8.5, it is also the most logical one. It overestimates certain parameters and doesn't include others that others think are important but it's clear for the 15 years modelled, it's what we're experiencing. So next, thanks Kathy. And as has been stated, there is no getting around. That's global mean sea level rise between 1993 and 2019. There's no disputing it. They're highly respected organisations that are referenced there. And so one of the things is about this, should we be using 0.8 of a metre? And should
01:26:00 we be using, you know, some of the submission says we shouldn't be just reliant on what the principal coastal engineer states. Okay. The underlying premises of QCoast 2100 program, which we're funded under, is for participating local governments to gain improved understanding of the effect of projected changes in mean sea level on three coastal hazards, permanent inundation, storm tide inundation and coastal erosion. The coastal hazard modelling developed as part of the CHAP project uses a mean sea level rise of plus 0.8 of a metre by 2100 relative to the present day, relative to 1986-2005 basis. A dedicated sea level rise monitoring gauge of high quality is available at Roslyn Bay. This distance is not critical for long-term global trend under investigation. That's by myself, Sultan. What that's saying is that we can rely on the sea level rise recorded by that station.
01:27:00 And my advice is it's pretty close to the global average and it makes 0.8 of a metre a very sensible thing to do. Another one. Thanks Kathy. That we've heard is the debate about 1% and whether that's, we're being too conservative of putting a 1% AEP in future as the map risk. And this has come out of a briefing note and they had two very good briefing notes come out to the rain table and I suggest we do make them available to the public. And this talks about the Poissan distribution and it says here, if we're going to do that 1%, say for the life of a household, a house built on the beach might go from 50 to 70 years. And what this shows that it's about 40% to 50% chance that they'll experience a 1% event in the life of that house. So when we're looking at risk, we're looking at the risk over the period that the asset
01:28:00 is going to be there. We're not looking each year. We're looking at the risk to the asset over its lifetime. Therefore, the 1% annual exceedance probability is going to be 1% over its lifetime. So the 1% annual exceedance probability is equivalent for a house between 40 and 50% likely to occur. Now, this is important. Now, this whole 1% thing, I'm going to tell you about what other countries are doing. So everyone will remember hurricane Katrina in 2005. After that, the US said you have to build your seawalls to one and a 100 year storm event or 1% AEP. The engineers, however, looked at climate change and they were exceedingly conservative in their approximations and they factored in certain variables twice. Those accounting for potential ocean waves, for example, were added in twice, meaning that the resulting levy was built a few feet of clearance above.
01:29:00 But if they had gone with a strictly 1%, they wouldn't have accounted for the likely increase with climate change, according to this article, and the engineer involved. And so the $1.1 billion seawall was built to roughly a one in 200 year event. And why is this important? In Katrina, 2,000 people were killed in 2005. Recently, Hurricane Heider came. If they'd built it to the 1% AEP, it also would have been overtopped. And in America, this article shows how there's an increasing frequency of 1% AEP events. In the Netherlands, they're developing some of the infrastructure to one every 10,000 years. So it's really important that we don't underestimate the risk. And that we do provide the information for our planners to provide sensible decisions, but also the individual lot owners, okay?
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Next. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell, I'm just in line for your time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think I'm getting very close to the end. We've talked about the value of the beach, and it's really important to understand how we discounted this, not only what's in there, but what's not in this. And this is the logic framework, and talked about the protection of the asset, protection of the beach, creation of public open space, change in recreation use, change in tourism, avoiding damage costs, existing benefits, including environmental benefits, amenity benefits, recreational use benefits, and tourism benefits. They're all things that were costed. Most of them are non-market, so they're using hedonic pricing to evaluate the different options. And this is what we came up with. Next. Thanks, Cathy. Councillor Wegener: This is what we came up with. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We said dune and re-vegetation management on the eastern beaches are positive $63 million, and Tewa Beach are positive $300,000.
01:31:00 That's why we've got it in the chat. Dune, re-vegetation, augmentation, and management. And this is one of those pathways if we get to the point we need augmentation. It suggests it has a positive cost-benefit analysis of $239 million. We've got it in. Sea walls in high-risk locations on the eastern beaches are negative $2.77 billion, and on Tewa, negative $67 million. Hence, that's why the document says it is not feasible, because this council doesn't want to lose all those benefits and probably would find it very difficult to raise the cost of actual construction. Acquisition of high-risk properties. It's a cost of $2.2 billion to the community, and therefore another reason why it's not in this chat and it's not in the pathway. And the final one, which is what we've yet to do, is changes to the planning scheme to reflect the risk, and that's got a positive cost-benefit analysis of $73 million.
01:32:00 So I think it's really important to understand that this is logical, it is realistic, and the risks are very, very real. And while I have no problems with looking at different scenarios and different modelling, I'll actually jump in the air and click my heels if they're ever realistic in the future, because it means there has to be substantial policy change, not at the local government level, but at the national and international level, for those to be realistic. That's the sad state of affairs. I'm going to finish with one thing. And that's, we've referred now to the state planning policy as the, what we're going to reflect in our planning scheme is important. And I'm going to refer now to the outcomes which the state planning policy seeks to achieve. And it's really important that we must integrate in planning and development outcomes where relevant the protection of the coastal environment.
01:33:00 Coastal processes and coastal resources statewide are to be protected by conserving the natural state of landforms, wetlands, and native vegetation. In coastal management districts, and see, maintaining or enhancing the scenic amenity and aesthetic values of important natural coastal land lines, views and vistas. That's what we want to look at. That's where the challenge is going to come first. And that's what is important about this document, that it gives us the pathway to address those risks and do the best we can in the changing circumstances. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Leung, you just closed. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, I think there's been, we've had a great opportunity for questioning and commentary, sometimes simultaneously. And I don't want to delay, I don't want to delay getting this document to the community. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Unanimous. Speaker 2: Can't vote. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: That's unanimous. Speaker 2: Thank you. We'll just go to Councillor Lorentson. Yeah. Councillor Campbell. Neither kelz band did a very important job. Councillor, just before we close, can I join in for what you said before about recognising
01:34:00 work done by staff, in particular Rebecca. This is obviously a very complex policy, science and risk issue that they always accepted together and obviously a lot of community interest and I think quite a political issue as well, so just once again thank you publicly for your ... Thank you Rebecca. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: The meeting is closed at 10.30.