Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wegener: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated September 12th, 2023, and I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Kabi Kabi people, and I pay my respects to the past elders, the past, present, and emerging. We also have Councilors Lawrence and Wilkie attending as well, but did, did Frank leave? No, he's okay. He's okay. Okay, good. And welcome to the gallery. Tom. Tom. Tom. Tom. It's a little bit funny because we have technical issues today, and we've been working through them, but this is not being live streamed today. This will be recorded and put up on YouTube later on. We did it in the past. Yes. May I have a mover and a seconder for the confirmations of the minutes the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held in August?
00:01:00 Councillor Finzel: So moved. Happy to second. Thank you. All in favor? Councillor Wegener: All in favor? We have no presentations, no deputations. We're looking at the reports for consideration by the committee, and the first up is the Flying Fox Statement of Management. Okay. And we have David Gorman here. Thank you. You're welcome to give us an overview. Speaker 1: Yeah, great. Thanks for everyone attending today. So today we're seeking, Environmental Services seeking final endorsement on the Flying Fox Statement of Management in turn. The purpose of the Statement of Management is to articulate Noosha Shire Council's approach to Flying Fox Management. Now that's across Council land, private land, and also State. The purpose of the Statement of Management intent too is just to provide that guidance to all the different stakeholders across the Noosha Shire on how Noosha Council plans to manage flying foxes moving into the future.
00:02:00 So that's providing advice to residents, landholders, stakeholders, whether it be businesses or health facilities or whatever it is. It's just to provide that overall guidance on the framework around flying fox management and how Council will approach that moving forward. A little bit of a background on flying foxes across the Noosha Shire just quickly. We currently have around 10 active roosts across the Shire. Now that number is variable. Flying fox roosts are highly dynamic. It can change overnight. Out of the 10 active roosts that we have at the moment, around 8 demonstrate some level of community conflict. It may be low or it may be high. It just depends on the site and the numbers of the flying foxes relative to residential properties and other businesses and other stakeholders. So across the Shire too, we have a bit of an interesting dynamic, and this is not just across Noosha.
00:03:00 This is South East Queensland as a whole. We have two species of flying foxes, the grey-headed and the black flying fox, which permanently reside within the Noosha Shire all year round. We also have a third species of flying fox called the little red flying fox. Now these do occur over the Noosha Shire around those warmer months, so anywhere from November to April. When they do arrive at certain locations, they can have greater impacts on residents or stakeholders surrounding flying fox roosts just because of the numbers that we can see. It's not uncommon to see anywhere from 50 to 400,000 little red flying foxes occasionally in flux areas across South East Queensland. We haven't had too many over the last couple of years. We had some major influxes of little reds back in 2015 and 2016 at Wallace Park, Noosaville. The most recent influx we had was at Warratah Reserve earlier this year where we had around 70,000 flying foxes.
00:04:00 I may add, though, the little red flying foxes, they do only stay for around that six to eight weeks mark at a maximum before they migrate out west again. So they're a different situation than I guess we would expect. That's what we face year round across the Shire. Now, why does Council require a SOMI? Well, that's because the state government delegated flying fox management responsibilities to local councils in 2021. So state government devolved that responsibility to councils to manage flying foxes within urban flying fox management areas, which basically cover all of the urbanised areas across local governments within Queensland. As part of that transition, the state government also established a grants program. So that kicked off in 2021. It was a three year grants program which offered around one and a half to two million dollars for local governments to implement, I guess, to transition to that management approach.
00:05:00 So that was for the generation of statement of management intents, risk management actions, developing site specific risk management plans. So the SOMI, the statement of management intent, is the overall arching council policy approach for flying foxes. But that's at a regional context. So everything under that, we're looking at site specific risk management plans that we need to develop for high conflict risk. I should note too that the grants program is a little bit limited in fact that it only offers a 50 50 split for funding of local governments with a population above 50,000. So that is the Noosa Shire Council situation. So any any projects that we elect to chase under that grants program, it's a 50 50 contribution between the state and council. Since 2021, when the state devolved that responsibility over to council, we have generated a flying fox statement of management intent, which we are here to discuss today.
00:06:00 And we've also generated four site specific flying fox risk management plans. So we have one now for Wallace Park, Noosaville. We have one for Waratah Reserve, Tewantin. We have one for a roost located out of Kin Kin called Keys Creek. We also have one for a roost located at Cooroy next to an aged care facility. Moving back to the SOMI. Council did endorse this document back in May 2022. For the purpose of community consultation. Since that was endorsed, we've undertaken an extensive consultation program over the last 12 months. That's included, obviously, publication on our Your Say Noosa survey. We've advertised that opportunity for the community to provide feedback through the, you know, obviously councils, media and comms avenues, Facebook, social media, etc.
00:07:00 We've also targeted the roosts where we would do that. We're developing our site specific management plans for. So we're inviting those residents to not only provide feedback on the site specific risk management plans, but at the same time, have a read of the SOMI. Understand, okay, you know, read that document first, how it sits and presents that overall framework and guidance for stakeholders. And that was really productive because we were actually able to apply the SOMI in a real life situation of conflict roosts. So, as I said, two sort of sectors to the consultation process. The wider community Your Say Noosa option. And then we went to the site specific roost applications. So in detail provided the results within the council report. So I won't go through every, every page of that report. But the main outcomes that we're here to discuss today is the main feedback that we got from the consultation progress program.
00:08:00 Through the Your Say Noosa surveys and the application of site specific roosts. Was that originally within the statement of management intent, the SOMI, we used level of conflict to guide council through the transitioning of management actions. So within the original SOMI, we had, we basically classified roosts as low, medium or high conflict. And from there, that would trigger council's approach and moving down the management actions. So management actions can include things like monitoring. It can include things of application of Noosa Council's Flying Fox subsidy program for residents. It can move into the generation of site specific roost management plans. And then from there, we can go on to potentially works, buffer work. So trimming of vegetation, et cetera. Just a little bit of an overview there. But the issue with having conflict as our main guide for council to transition through these management approaches is that conflict is very subjective, obviously. So conflict can be different.
00:09:00 For people living next to a flying fox roost. Some people actually really enjoy having flying foxes next to their property. Other people, it's not what they're after. And that's fair enough too. So the idea of having that conflict there, it's very difficult to attribute an accurate level of conflict for a roost as well. Because roosts move around within the footprint. And they can affect different properties at different times with greater impacts. We can have residents that may work from home or they may be out all day. So it's not really impacting their day to day life. So we didn't view that as a suitable trigger within the SOMI. So we've now updated the SOMI to reflect other council's approaches where they've actually, regardless of trigger level, we've gone through a stage management action approach. So if we have a roost that's exhibiting some level of conflict, council will work through our staged approach. Now, which is presented on page 10 within the statement of management intent, not within the report.
00:10:00 And that basically, as I said, so that approach allows a few things. So firstly, it promotes equity between stakeholders. So council's applying the same approach across all of our flying foxes. Flying foxes roosts. It also, sorry. Yeah, so as I said, but basically having that stage approach, it does allow council to provide that equity between different stakeholders. So we can look at a roost, we can say, okay, there's conflict observed at this roost. We're going to action this conflict by going through a stage management approach. Now, noting that that doesn't prevent council from recognising that. At a particular roost, potentially overnight, we've had a huge influx of flying foxes. We may have a very high level of conflict.
00:11:00 The SOMI doesn't prevent council from jumping through those stage management approaches to find the appropriate mitigation. So that was the major outcome of the consultation process, which was a fairly major change to the SOMI. As I said, removing that level of conflict as a trigger, replacing it with a staged approach, regardless of the situation in the roost. Speaker 7: Probably the only thing I've noticed out there is in terms of having specific numbers of flying fox triggers, that wasn't included in the SOMI, because that would be then reflected in a site-specific roost management plan. Because obviously you can have very small roosts that cause high conflict, or you can have very large roosts that cause high conflict, if that makes sense. So it's hard to put an arbitrary number on the conflict trigger level. So that's why we haven't done it in this case. Speaker 1: And that's the importance. As I said, it is a little bit, you know, there's a lot in this. But as I said, the statement of management intent is the overall overarching document on how council approaches flying foxes across the Shire.
00:12:00 When we get into actually looking at management options for specific roosts, we need to have those site-based management plans, which identify things like Camille mentioned, in terms of actual proximity of flying foxes roosting to private property, numbers as triggers, etc. Not possible within the SOMI. We just have that stage management approach throughout there, which may trigger the development of a site-based flying fox roost management plan, if required. So future application of the SOMI, if it's endorsed. The SOMI is highly important for council to be able to, again, communicate our approach to flying fox management to stakeholders, whether it be residents, business owners, whatever it may be, schools. It's also equally important to guide council staff in the communication side of things about how council will manage flying foxes when we do get requests coming from the community.
00:13:00 It also provides guidance to those staff members on site as well. So often we'll have natural areas staff working within proximity to the flying fox roost. We get a lot of questions from the community about, hey, what can council do here? What assistance can you provide? At the moment, we don't have that document. But clearly says this is what council will. This is what council will not do, based on state and Commonwealth legislation. Now, I also see the document as being an assistance to councillors and the executive team as well. So this document will also provide that clear information for councillors to distribute to their residents in terms of providing that initial guidance. It also prevents the opportunity for potentially misuse. It also prevents miscommunication to occur, whether it be, you know, natural areas staff members that may not have a complete understanding of flying fox management legislation. It removes that potential for miscommunication to come into the play of things when we're dealing with the community and the residents.
00:14:00 And I think that's one of the most important things, is to provide that clear and concise information. We've done a lot of work on our website recently as well. So we've provided a lot of information within our website. Which we've referenced to within the SOMI. So if people do want to dig down a little bit to find out additional information about our subsidy program, about state legislation that council's bound to in delivering our management approaches, that information is now available on our website. And people are directed from the SOMI to the website if they choose to have a look. Obviously, we invite all residents to contact council too for further information as required. So the commitments under the SOMI. As it stands now, as I mentioned earlier, we do have four roost management plans current across the Noosa Shire. So our commitments under the SOMI would be to, would be the continued implementation of those roost management plans, obviously.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 And also to provide that clear guidance to residents. So moving forward with the recommendations of this report that's in front of us here. Obviously, A approve the SOMI for the purposes. The purpose of implementation so that we can provide those clear directions to our community, our staff members and councils and executive team. We're also noting within the report that environmental services would like to undertake a review of our subsidy program as well. Earlier I mentioned that council does have a flying fox subsidy program. Some feedback during the consultation process was that that program did not really satisfy the needs of some residents. Some residents are very appreciative of the program as well, I might add. But I think it is timely for council to have a look at that program, review it. Noosa Council is actually one of three councils across the southeast Queensland region that has a flying fox subsidy program.
00:16:00 It's not standard. It's a very, very valuable offering the council has at the moment for the residents. And it does help relieve a lot of stresses of flying foxes. But regardless of that, it is probably time for a review on that subsidy program based on the feedback we've obtained. We also haven't quite got to the stage of communications with the broader community. So flying fox management is all about building that education across the community. The understanding of flying foxes, where they fit into our urban environment, our natural environment. And ultimately building a little bit more tolerance amongst the community to live with flying foxes at times where there are no other options. So that communications program is something council hasn't implemented as yet.
00:17:00 There are other councils across the region that do do that extremely well. And they have actually seen really positive outcomes for the residents and flying foxes and the environment as a whole. So that's something council would really like to look at doing, environmental services, if we do have the adequate resources there to deliver that in the future. Talking about resources, we also are noticing within the report that environmental services are seeking additional resources to implement the SOMI. And also to action future requirements under the SOMI. In the pipeline we do have a flying fox roost management plan for Pinneroo Park. That we'd like to get delivered to the community. And also to align with other councils and the state government's recommendations. We would like to have what's called a regional flying fox management plan. Now as I said, the SOMI sits at the higher level.
00:18:00 We have the roost management plans underneath. Between that, it would be great to have a regional flying fox management plan. So that can go into specifics about how council manages roost across the Shire as a whole. It can identify, you know, what triggers we may have between roosts. If we get influxes, it will also generate a procedure for influxes of little red flying foxes. The benefits of that is obviously council then has a firm procedure on how to deal with unexpected influxes of flying foxes. Presenting, I guess, cost opportunities and avoiding knee jerk reactions that are, you know, can occur with flying foxes. Because as I said, they can literally turn up overnight in their hundreds of thousands in locations. And if council doesn't have a SOMI and a supporting regional flying fox management plan, we really have no justification or guidance on how we're going to deal with a future influx. Which I think is extremely important.
00:19:00 Now, I guess I have touched a little bit on the risks there. But we do also hold some legislative risk if council doesn't actually have a, you know, a statement of management intent. So as I said, the aim of the statement of management intent is to provide that legislative guidance to all stakeholders, including council staff and councillors on how we manage flying foxes across the Noosa Shire. So flying foxes are protected under the Nature Conservation Act and the Commonwealth Legislation, the EPPC Act as well. So without that SOMI there, without the guidance and the legislative constraints clearly communicated to all stakeholders, we do possess some legislative risk in terms of the flying fox management if we don't have procedures in place. I should mention too that obviously I mentioned the grant program earlier that was over the last three years, which was administered by the state to help local governments transition to flying fox management.
00:20:00 The state has just offered an additional $2 million. worth of funding over the next three years to further allow councils to transition through that management delegation now. I guess without the appropriate resources and a statement of management intent, it's going to be very difficult for council to make the most of those grant funding opportunities for items, as I mentioned before, a management plan for Pinaroo Park and a regional flying fox management plan and also that communications program that we'd like to develop over the coming years. So I think that's covered most of it there. So I guess I'll open it up to questions unless Ben or Camille would like to add anything further. Councillor Wegener: That was a thorough discussion. Thank you very much. That's all right. The flying foxes are something when you think your life is hard and then the flying foxes come and roost next door,
00:21:00 then your life gets a whole lot harder. So I'm glad that you put so much thought into that. Incredible effort in this. Any questions? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So for the last X number of years, we have really been spending all our flying fox management time reacting to influxes. And we know in this report of suggesting that we think we need more staff to actually implement the plan appropriately, which we'll do in the next budget. The question is long-term strategies, like the Little Root, for example, seems to come here just for the Caribbean intermediate, the Bloodwoods. Do we start looking at trying to attract them away from the urban areas by places like Ringtail, Ural and other large planings we have to start to establish those alternative roosting sites away from urban areas?
00:22:00 Are there other long-term strategies we should be thinking about which isn't purely reacting to the urban? Speaker 1: Yes, I totally agree. So I do see this work that we're talking about here is trying to reduce some of that reactive approaches that Council have. I should have mentioned too that Noosa Council is part of a project called the Southeast Queensland Regional Flying Fox Analysis Project. So that is exactly what you're talking about, about identifying, you know, mapping flying fox habitat across the Southeast Queensland region. Actually collectively mapping all of our roosts across Southeast Queensland. Tracking the movement of flying foxes and even down to, you know, planting guides for local governments in terms of if they do or do not want to attract flying foxes to a certain area. And that can be in our streetscape or whatever it may be. But yeah, so there is some research being done in that area. And Noosa Council is actively involved in that, which is nice.
00:23:00 Speaker 6: Can I also add? When Ed Gershaw made the presentations to the community members, we did look at a couple of cases of attempted dispersal, which was basically use that mechanism of trying to create a habitat to draw them away from those high conflict areas. And most notably, it was the botanical gardens in Melbourne and Sydney. And they'd spent quite some millions of dollars creating habitat. And flying foxes eventually predominantly moved away from botanical gardens, but moved somewhere else. And so they created this palace for them. Which is basically a baking palace. So when we do that, we'll undertake some work to find out whether that investment is likely to achieve success. Some of the information we've got for similar programs, yeah, it's hedging bets as to whether that will work. Particularly, you know, when you consider, you know, the cost of planting specific species does tend to run up fairly high when you look at the broader terms of elder attraction.
00:24:00 So... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does the current project analyse all the sites, multiple different criteria, to see whether we can see whether there is some method in their madness or whether it's just random? Speaker 1: So it's actually a diet analysis of flying foxes. So they're getting an indication of what their predominant food sources are. And as I said, also mapping the roost across the Shire. Sorry, not across the Shire, across South East Queensland as a whole. Now, the benefit that I see that feeding into hopefully a regional flying fox, is that at the moment we don't actually map our roosts across the Shire. You know, obviously we have that information internally, but we don't have that opportunity within the SOMI to actually map all of our flying fox roosts. Also map out the potential regional ecosystem that flying foxes, you know, do prefer in terms of habitat. So it's about identifying those potential future roosts and, yeah, if you get what I mean, sort of tying it all in nicely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, there may be something in there that we can just research, find out.
00:25:00 Like I remember one time, I think it was a dry, hot spring. Oh yeah. And the ones from around the library started moving over to Goat Island. Oh yeah. You know, where it was cooler, surrounded by water. So it is temperature, you know, are they finding little cool hollows, for example, and things like that. Yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah, I would like that. Which are the, predominantly in the open areas, the Viperian zones, which we've grabbed these great vegetation buffers, which just draw them in, you know, hence the area like Wallace Park is absolutely perfect for them. Speaker 1: Obviously associated with water as well, so a lot of our stormwater retention areas are vegetated and they do provide favourable habitat for flying foxes, so. Councillor Wegener: You know, with the difficulties in the flying fox program, just one of them, is that when you're going to go out there and trim the trees and so forth and take, you know, go to the steps,
00:26:00 you have to do it at night because the flying foxes aren't there at night, so you can't disturb them during the day, so that just adds, you know, another level of the complexity of how you, of the plan and how to deal with that. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's in those sort of emergency work situations which we had at Waratah Reserve earlier this year with the red flying foxes, we are, as I said, flying foxes are protected under the state and Commonwealth legislation, so councils have to operate under codes of practice in terms of managing flying fox roosts and that does require in some situations a councillor to have us out there at night time working under lights to do emergency trimming work, so obviously we try to avoid, you know, those sort of works because obviously the health and safety concerns for our contractors and staff and whatnot, it's a big process. So, yeah. Councillor Wegener: Is this the end of the interview? No, no. No, no. Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me, hi. I think all the councillors we've met with the residents and, you know, some residents, as you say,
00:27:00 are really quite content with being next to a roosting and others not so happy. So, part of the report, you know, they're dispersing. Dispersals is not an option for this council and it was quite interesting because I was starting to think, well, how else do you move them? I did find a really good report by CSIRO and it probably touches a little bit on what Councillor Stockwell was referring to. It actually reviewed 48 dispersal management across all of Australia and their conclusions, and maybe this should be as part of the education to our residents. Is this a question? It is a question. So, dispersals are high risk, high cost activities with low success rates. And in the majority of cases, blind boxes will either not move or move only a kilometre away.
00:28:00 So, my question to you is can we have some of that peer reviewed scientific information as part of the information we feed to residents who understandably are tormented, are under a lot of mental stress? Because that helped me understand why dispersal is not always, well, it's not an option. Speaker 1: A hundred percent. We do that at the roost level at the moment. So, with, for example, our much recent management plan that we delivered for Warratah Reserve blind box roost, we had a lot of members of the public come to those community meetings, chasing dispersal. But once we actually had our consultants and council present those case studies that they were talking about earlier about the success rates, what the issues are, the unlikelihood
00:29:00 of them working and what's actually required to implement those programs, I actually saw and I think Camille and Ben would agree that we definitely saw a shift in people's opinions and it was actually quite surprising. I will give credit to EcoSure. They presented it very well. As well, you know, but we, yeah, we definitely saw that shift in attitude within 20 minutes of the community meeting. And as I said, we are doing that at the roost level, but we need to do that across the Shire because, as I said, blind boxes can show up anywhere at any time. And we don't have that information out there with the community at this point. So, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Dave, isn't there a good example of that down at Coorong in recent years where the Sunshine Coast Council dispersed a roost and it split the, actually split the roost and caused problems in two locations rather than one? Speaker 1: That's exactly right. So that was the last dispersal, I believe, that Sunshine Coast attempted quite a number of years ago.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 And, you know, the other thing to consider too is that, you know, as I said, it's a high-risk activity. If we go dispersing 70,000 little red blind boxes, scientific evidence in the community literature says that they will probably move a couple of hundred metres and there'll be a problem at another person's residence behind their property. So it's not a space that Council or other local governments across South East Queensland want to enter or pursue. And it's because we simply don't have the science to work out how to do it successfully at the moment. If we did, it would probably be a good option, but we don't have that ability at this point in the science to show us how to do it. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Finzel has a question. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you, through the Chair. Firstly, I'd like to commend the staff on the report, the strategic thinking and planning around this process. I would like to commend, especially when you're moving away from conflict to more, you know, the content around that strategic plan is to have a higher level of how we can approach
00:31:00 this as a Council. My question is around the health and safety. I've been in the community of the communities with their mental health and wellbeing in relation to when the roost is really active in that space. I've been out to the sites, the smell is overwhelming, the droppings, you know, the mess that they've got to live within every day. And I receive like lots of emails regarding this. I'm just wondering how we are supporting the people that are living in our biosphere that are having to live with us on a day to day basis. I see we offer some program where people can get support, but I'm looking more like their mental health and wellbeing. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a tricky one. So I guess the first thing to touch on there is probably a couple of things. But the first thing is the subsidy program certainly doesn't relieve all the answers for the residents. But under site specific roost management plans, we have actually sought funding from the state
00:32:00 government to increase our subs. So at OneRoost, we're actually offering $1,500 per property to alleviate some of those mental health and health impacts that we see from flying fox roost. Secondly, I should note that Queensland Health, the Maroochydore office, they are fantastic in terms of offering that support. So we actually had Queensland Health representatives at Queensland Health. The community meeting that we held for the Waratah Reserve residents back when we had the influx. So we actually had Queensland Health representatives come down there. They supplied a doctor who talked to the health risks around flying foxes and provided that mental health advice as well. So the support is there, but it's very challenging, I guess, for people to live in those situations,
00:33:00 in some cases. It's a little bit tricky. As I said, Queensland Health is the, I guess, the governing agency for health. It's not council, but we need to strike that balance. And again, it's very dependent on the roost dynamics. With Waratah Reserve, we were working very closely with the high-viscous retirement village staff there to address some of those concerns that they had for residents within the retirement village there as well. So, yeah, it's a little bit tricky. Speaker 7: Yeah. It's something we probably could look at as part of that regional flying fox plan and the management of that. I know Sunny Coast are grappling with it as well and sort of where does our responsibility end and our duty of care to the community. So during that influx, obviously, we did provide contact numbers for people for Lifeline and that sort of thing. But it's obviously something that if it had gone on longer, yeah.
00:34:00 Speaker 1: And everyone's, sorry. Speaker 7: No, you go. Speaker 1: Everyone's impacted differently too. So from the outside, we may, I might have the opinion, oh, it's probably not really that big of an impact for that property. But I don't know the situation in that household. There could be an elderly resident who's quite vulnerable and at home most of the day or something. It's extremely variable. But I think it's that comes down to that consultation too, working with all the residents closely when we have those influxes to identify what the impacts are. And when we develop those site-specific risk management plans, we obviously take that into consideration. So during the consultation process, we identify what the impacts on the residents are by talking to them. And that's incorporated into our management actions. And at some risk, we will, I guess, progress management actions based on whether there's a sensitive resident nearby or a sensitive receiver, like a school or a healthcare facility. Whatever it might be. It all plays into when we generate those plans.
00:35:00 Speaker 7: So to last this point, that's why we escalated the trimming so quickly at Warratah, given the impacts on the retirement village residents there and the stress it was causing those residents. We made the decision that we needed to do something. And that was what we could do in that instance. So yeah. Speaker 1: Even though those swine foxes were only ever going to be there for a maximum of six to eight weeks because of the species, the little reds, but the priority was there. So if it was in a different situation, we wouldn't have gone to that level of works. Probably spent about $100,000 on that site. So over the last six months. So yeah. It's been a good week. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I don't see a reason to put this to general. So would anybody like to? Happy to move it. Councillor Finzel: Happy to second. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Wegener: All in favor? Anonymous? Thank you very much. It is a very, very difficult situation for swine foxes.
00:36:00 And we all congratulate you, but I congratulate you especially on the strategy there and the management stages. And it's very easy to understand for people that it's really difficult. Yeah. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And pass it on to Camille and Ben as well. They've been quite involved. I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Okay. Speaker 1: Thanks. Have a good day. Councillor Finzel: You too. Bye. Councillor Wegener: Okay. We're on to 5.2 application for reconfiguring of a lot. One of the two lots at 28 Sacame Drive, Tewantin. Yes. Patrick. And Georgina. Sitting at the table with us today. Georgina, are you going to walk us through these things today? Speaker 2: Yes. Good morning. So the application in front of us today is a one into two lot subdivision at 28 Sacame
00:37:00 Drive. And today this application is recommended for refusal. As you will note, we have made a minor amendment to the recommendation. So this just relates to point 2a. So just in red, you'll see that we've made reference just to council land as well as council reserve. Okay. And then I suppose more so leading to one of the reasons why this application has been recommended for refusal is that there is a provision in the scheme that stipulates that there is to be no further subdivision of land in this location. The main intent behind this requirement is so that we can retain the character of this area and the larger lot sizes in particular in use of park lands. So subdivision of this lot would essentially change the density of the development that use of park lands currently has.
00:38:00 And it would impact the amenity afforded by the larger lot here. And then in addition to, I suppose, the character element of concern here, the site is also boarded by the National Park and Council Reserve. So the site is identified as having high bushfire risk here. And then in addition to, I suppose, the character element of concern here, the site is also boarded by the National Park and Council Reserve. And then as you refer to in the report that the building envelope provided in support of the application does not achieve the 28 kilowatts, sorry, the 29 kilowatts, I think it is, as required by the state planning policy. So we don't have an adequate area essentially to accommodate dwelling on the site, should it be supported and further developed. What else do we have? So the building envelope provided in support of the application does not achieve the 28 kilowatts. So essentially, I suppose, in summary, approval of the subdivision here would result in intensification of an area, increasing the number of persons and property at risk.
00:39:00 And then it's also, I'm sorry, the lot size is not characteristic in the area. So the two main elements of concern are bushfire and the lot size. Councillor Wegener: Questions? Do you not deal with, do you not deal with, do you not deal with, do you not deal with bushfire? That's just up there. Good question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Georgina, when you went out in the site, did you estimate the height of the vegetation behind the block? Speaker 2: I did go outside with our environment officer as well. I believe that quite approximately there, around the 20 meters, I believe. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: At least 20 meters of some of those mature trees. Just in terms of the fire risk, is it substantial? Yes. You don't think it's substantial? You know, like the, I'm just looking at the RE, but reasonably it's a MAP 1256, which is grey, iron, black, and it also has some blackbuck.
00:40:00 Now, blackbuck can get up to 10, 40 metres, and generally, for fire protection, you want to be more than one and a half metres of height on the treeway for your building. Where, if we subdivide this, there's probably no way that they could get that, even that one and a half percent of the thing, hence why you're saying that the rating is, they can't get a safe rating. I know we're much more sophisticated in our fire planning, but in the old days, these sort of forests, we used to have a 1 to 10 scale for fire risk, and these sort of forests were 10. And that's because they don't often burn, but when they burn, they burn very, very hot. So they're actually, some of the studies... We showed that they had some of the highest carbon-ladings in any forest in the world, and it's dry, October, understory, you get these really hot fires that go through. So, yeah, it is purely from that perspective, it would be an unwise move to increase the opportunity for dwellings quite close to the back boundary, and that's what the report says.
00:41:00 It would rely on both Council and QPWS having responsibility. We generally do not agree to it. Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to move the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second it. And I've said all I need to say? Yeah, yeah. I think, yeah, with this one, in this part, we need to balance this between creating more dwellings, and if there were, if it didn't have a range of these, the other constraints, particularly fire, then perhaps there would be some need to look at discretion, to look at that particular clause within the planning scheme, but creating a lot can't be, can't be done. Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Okay, we're on to 5.3.
00:42:00 Application for other changes. Development approval 12637CA, integrated permaculture design, organic orchard and golf course complex, 18 walls. To include group farm stay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at 59 Kabi Road, Kiberba. And we have Nadine here to walk us through this. Councillor Lorentson: You told me to do your COI. Councillor Wegener: Oh, yes. Councillor Lorentson: And we need to appoint a new chair as well. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. I have a potential conflict of interest in this action, so we'd like to change the chair. Speaker 5: Yep, you just probably need to. Do we have it? Yeah. If you could read it. Read it out, Tom. Councillor Wegener: In accordance with Chapter 50. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry, Linda. That screen is not changing. Councillor Lorentson: No, it's not. Sorry. Yeah.
00:43:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. In accordance with Chapter 58B, the Local Government Act of 2009, Councilor Wegener, he's done, he's another E, provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. I have a declarable conflict of interest. The author of the Permaculture Report, Tom Kendall, is a friend of mine, and I am also the President of Permaculture News. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest. I have, but we haven't changed the chair yet. Can I read this out? We can do that after you. After you. Okay. I believe I can make a judgment 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. Speaker 5: No. Let's see. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll take charge from here. Speaker 5: We can appoint a new chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Finzel is the most logical candidate.
00:44:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 5: Councillor Finzel, would you like to be the chair? Councillor Finzel: Yes. I'm happy to take the chair. Thank you, Mr. CEO. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we'll deal with the matter before us with the conflict. Do you have any questions, Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there any potential ongoing involvement of Plymouth Hodge and Noosa in this development, in this site, to use commences? I would say no. Okay. Okay, so do you know if you're, I suppose it depends on, you talked about Mr Kendall as a friend, does it constitute a close personal relationship under the Act in terms of regular social gatherings,
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 or is it just because you're the President? Councillor Wegener: I would suspect it wouldn't follow that under the Act because it's meetings, it's not social, it's usually permaculture-centred activities that would come into contact with each other. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then the last question, do you know whether there's any ongoing benefit contributing to Mr Kendall's failure to develop them? Councillor Wegener: I don't know for a fact if there would be or not, but I suspect there would be, because it's a very small... There's a whole world out there of experts in this field. Councillor Finzel: I have a question. Given the report talks about distribution of food from the site as part of the rationale as to why, you know, they want to proceed forward here, I have concerns around that relationship and that conflict because it definitely, to me,
00:46:00 would be a close connection to food, permaculture, and where you're acting. How do you see yourself not being a person of influence in that space? Councillor Wegener: Oh, I really have nothing to do with what they're doing with the food or it's just very separate. I really have nothing to do, I have an interest in permaculture in general, but how they deal with the food on their property is well and truly outside of my scope of influence or what they're doing with the food. It's just a matter of the way that there's going to be a growing food, I suspect. And the principles, we share principles and an ideology, but that's about it. I'm going to try something. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to say, I'm going to move that Councillor Wegener remain in the room, but not vote on
00:47:00 this matter. And I think the substantive decision should be made by more than just two councillors. That's what I'm, is that I'm quite happy for Councillor Wegener. The conference has been cleared. The matter is likely to be deferred, referred to the general committee. That allows him to stay in the room. But just not vote on the matter. And then we can have the decision about whether to just stay or vote on the next Monday's meeting. I'm not looking to set a precedent. I'm just thinking there's only two councillors. I think I might have a different view to Councillor Finzel. And... Speaker 5: Given, given that... Through the Chair? Yes. Given that we're, um, we're looking to, um, let's just say, we're looking to, um,
00:48:00 defer this to the, to the, to general, then that may be a position we take, um, that we, that we lay this on the table and we, and we take a decision to immediately to, to, to, um, refer it to, to general. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We could do that. I just know there may be people in the, um, Cabinet who came particularly for the discussion on this item. That's right. Right. Yeah. Speaker 5: But I think... I might, yeah. Councillor Finzel: I just think given, um, your public link, and it's very public, with permaculture and what you do there, and your involvement there, which is fantastic, a community champion there, um, I just think we have to be cautious. It's an overabundance of caution around how we manage your conflict, um, you know, that protects you as well further down the track to make sure that, um, you know, there's no, no issues going to arise. Um. So I think that I'd like to take it to the vote that we laid on the table and refer the
00:49:00 matter, uh, to the general. Speaker 5: We can do that. This is, this is a little bit odd. Come on. We just have to think about, from our, with our standing orders. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Uh, we, we, I, I think we can, uh, can a procedural motion occur? Probably can. Would you like to mind that for me? Seconded. A procedural matter can occur at any time. I'm just thinking whether we have to actually make a decision on the conflict at all. Councillor Lorentson: We didn't last time, a couple of meetings ago we did the same thing where we had that many conflicts. Yeah. That you moved it to the forum meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll go that way. I think so. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. Mm. And then. Speaker 5: Unfortunately we're not going to have any discussion here today, but I think that's, that's the position. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I think it's the, yeah. I think when we're dealing with conflicts, in my opinion, I think we've got to just make sure that we've. Yeah. We're protecting everybody in the, in the space.
00:50:00 Speaker 5: This is a matter that requires discussion with the, with the whole council. Councillor Lorentson: Through the, through the chair, recollection is when we're in a situation like this, the person with a declarable conflict of interest to, to exercise abundance of caution will leave the room. However, at the general meeting, make a declaration again for the whole of council to make a decision whether to stay or not stay. And that allows discussion of the matter today. So declare, walk out, and then redeclare at general for whole of council to make their mind up. That's my recollection of how it would address to the situation. Speaker 5: We could do that. We could have that. That would allow conversation today. How's the conversation today? Yeah. Or whether we want to just, just immediately refer it to, to general. We can have that conversation at general. Okay. Otherwise we're going to be prosecuting it twice.
00:51:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah. If you leave. I think we'll refer to general. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So I think it's been moved and seconded, hasn't it? Councillor Finzel: Which one are we referring to? General. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Your one. Mine hasn't been seconded yet. I think I seconded it. Didn't I? Councillor Finzel: Did you second it? Councillor Lorentson: We've only wanted to chair. You've moved the, this motion where you are. Yeah. Now that hasn't been seconded. That wasn't seconded. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Places for want of a seconder. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Yeah. So we can just give in the significance of the matter, move it to the general. If that wasn't even seconded. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask why there's no seconder for the appointment of a chair? Oh, sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You haven't seconded it yourself. Oh, I second myself. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then Councillor Finzel moved it. The matter be. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Given the significance of the matter that we move it to the general meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. That's just a standard.
00:52:00 Speaker 1: Sorry. We have to go back to the manual system. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, everyone. We've got technical issues here today. Yeah. So thank you for your patience. And to the people that come in the gallery, we apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you. So for those at home, we are just waiting for the staff to ... It's not that you're up straight. Councillor Lorentson: Oh. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. It's just us. It's just us. Speaker 4: So Karen, you move that one. And second time. Councillor Finzel: You want to second that? Yeah. Okay. All in favour? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Due to the significance. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Due to the significance of the matter.
00:53:00 Speaker 5: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Only you two can vote on it anyway. Speaker 5: That's right. So Tom, yours is laid on the table for the general meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So we'll take it to the vote. Due to the significance of the matter, we refer this agenda item to the general committee. All in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous. Okay. And we welcome Councillor Wegener back to the chair. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Okay. We're happy to catch up. Thank you.
00:54:00 Councillor Finzel: And we've got a code of conduct towards Tom to make sure that he's, you know, we're going to look after your mate, so. Speaker 5: Yep, I think that covers that. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Are we ready? Yep. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay, we're up to 5.4, application for a hospital and healthcare service surgery and associated facilities at 47 Foodchap Street, Tewantin. And we have Nadine back in Walker Street, and thank you very much, Nadine. Speaker 3: Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Good morning. So this is a development application for a material change of use, as Tom said, for a hospital and healthcare service at Goodchap Street. So it's the site right next door to the northwest of the existing hospital. The site's owned by Gramsie Health. Now, the proposal is for two buildings on the site. The front building is for a healthcare centre of about 453 square metres.
00:55:00 The second building is a two-storey building, I have some basement car parking, and that's for a day surgery of around 1,083 square metres. The site is included in the residential low-density zone, the intent of which is for residential dwellings. This proposal is inconsistent with that zoning intent and is contrary to the surrounding local plans. The proposal will sterilise land, and so it will not be able to be used for housing, and we consider the site should be retained for housing. The proposal is out of scale with the character of the surrounding area, which is... generally small houses, to the north, basically to the north, and even the hospital has a smaller development scale than this proposal. There is insufficient car parking provided on site for both uses. But also, the development will have an impact on the amenity visually, but also in terms
00:56:00 of the operations, noise, loading, et cetera. The Mnusa plan specifically talks about co-location of facilities. The Mnusa plan talks about co-location of these type of facilities on the hospital site. There are also other sites available within the Shire that are zoned for this type of use. So basically, staff do not support this proposal. Any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Your last grounder in Fusil talks about there is no need. I presume what we're talking about there is planning need. I don't know if that's the right word. Speaker 6: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And therefore, can you give, I think it's good to get an understanding what you think between a commercial need, a gross need, versus a planning need. And in your answer, do you think it would be helpful to actually insert the word planning in front of the word need, in terms of making it clear?
00:57:00 Speaker 3: Yes. That's fine. It's good to hear that. I don't think I had a... Start with your question. I'll take back the phone. Well, so the applicant is, well, in their own submission, which is actually detailed in the report, they've indicated to us that they don't own the current hospital site. So one of their reasons for moving to the other site, to this site, is to basically security of tenure. So there is currently a hospital operating in the Shire that caters for a range of activities and it's appropriately zoned. So in terms of planning need, we have an existing facility, we have a site that's identified, and that, and other sites available in the Shire that can cater for that need and the demand from the community. We don't really need this additional facility to be provided in this location.
00:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because we've approved a couple of other day surgeries recently, quite large ones. Speaker 3: Well, quite large ones we've approved, yes. So we've... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's vacant space up the road that is also zoned appropriately. Speaker 3: Yes. So we've recently... Well, council has recently approved the one at Pacific, so that's got oncology. There's also been an extension to the one at Goodchap Street for another oncology section. There's also on Hofmann Drive, next to the self-storage place, that was approved again for a two-storey, that's sort of day surgery and medical centre as well. So there are several sites, and even with the balance of the Civic, there's also area available for further day surgery or medical facilities available. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And there's seven adjoining residential properties? Yes. Of which we see valid objections. Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. Yes.
00:59:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other questions? I'm happy to move it. Yes. With the installation. The addition in... If you can scroll down, please, Linda. Speaker 3: Item seven. Ground seven. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There is no planning need. Speaker 3: Yes. That's a good... Yes. Good point. Councillor Wegener: I do so, it's a, go ahead Brian, but I actually forgot to ask Laura a question, didn't we, we'll give her like a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it's, yeah, there's two issues we've got here. One is we've got a hospital that's under a public partnership, which they have a long-term lease over, then they've got a block of land beside that they don't see as logical to develop.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 On the other hand, we've got a housing crisis, we've got quite a large-scale residential block that could be developed for a multiple, I would have thought, in various configurations. And most importantly, the only way you'd override that zoning would be if there was overriding community need, if we didn't have any other day surgery, didn't have any other oncology availability. It may be something to say, well, this is an urgent need, we've got an ageing population, but the applicant, I believe, hasn't demonstrated that there is that overriding community need that justifies their conflict with the zoning scheme. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, and I would have to reiterate. And with that, I think, you know, the proof is in the pudding for the housing crisis. I agree with the additional wording of the planning scheme. I think, yeah, we have supported evidence to say at the moment we need to look after available land for housing, and given that's the crisis, and I support the recommendation of the staff.
01:01:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah, that was a good key in the question. If there are any questions, I guess, staff. Councillor Lorentson: Just a question. Just a question. Just some clarity on the joining properties. How many houses can they provide? So on the existing zone, I think, when I went through the information requests, I think they, the applicant said six. That's correct. Speaker 3: As a conventional subdivision, 600 square metres, yes, you can approximately get six houses. Six houses, that's right. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You might be able to get six secondary dwellings as well. That's correct. Speaker 3: So there's other options. Yes. For any accommodation section. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: And the supper will just be closed. And give it to the vote. Announce. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no general. Speaker 4: Patrick, do you have a say?
01:02:00 I'll have to report. Nearly got one. The most important one of the day. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Michael. Councillor Wegener: We have that six report. 6.1 Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority for July 2023. Anyway, Patrick Murphy. Councillor Finzel: Oh, I've got a conflict. Yes, yeah. I, Councillor Finzel, 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... No, that's not right. Speaker 6: Is the applicant listed in the Delegated Report? Councillor Finzel: Oh, you're calling him an applicant? OK, listed in the Delegated Report. Applicant number one 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 a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe that a reasonable person could have a perception of bias
01:03:00 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: Just a question. Wouldn't it be that... I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because these decisions made under delegated authority have already been made? Yeah. Yes. So you're saying that there is an obvious close personal relationship? Speaker 4: Yes. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: That's a good little issue. Thank you. Thank you. Under delegated authority. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Thank you. That's good.
01:04:00 Councillor Lorentson: And the report is for nation only. Yeah. Yeah. The report is for nation only. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And councillors, I do say that because if this was a live application, which we had to make a decision upon, then you'd not be in the room. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: How do you move? Councillor Wegener: The way that the committee suggested. Yeah. Yeah. I second that. Councillor Lorentson: Do you want to change the... Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to change the wording as well? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, that's sort of it. Yeah. I vote for this amendment because it's just cut and paste from above, because the decision has already been made under delegated authority and the report is the notion only. Councillor Finzel: Thank you.
01:05:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 5: I'm busy this morning. Councillor Wegener: All in favour? Councillor Stockwell and Wegener? If I had to accept, I would. Councillor Finzel: Thanks, Alinda. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, we're back in there. Any questions concerning the development of the report
01:06:00 and the applications that have been made by delegated authorities? Councillor Finzel: I don't have any questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Was there any Friday afternoon inspection of application number three, Atelier Weinbach? Speaker 4: It was... No. Councillor Finzel: No, it's fine. I didn't think about that. Councillor Wegener: It doesn't seem to be much controversial here. I don't see any short-term accompanies in that case. Oh, sorry. Amelia, get your hand up. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I can probably look this up. But there was vehicle crossover proposals, quite a few, in the report. Can you explain what that is? Speaker 4: Yeah, so the report includes all the applications that were decided under delegation. So you'll have a cross-section of types of applications for material change of use, development permit for building works, some exemption certificates, and there'll be operational works approvals included in there.
01:07:00 So when someone seeks to develop a driveway that's considered to be non-standard, doesn't comply with our standard engineering drawings, or potentially the second driveway, it needs an approval. And it could also be associated with a subset of a material change of use application where there is approval needed for car parking and access and the like. So it could come through that way as well. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Question number five, an alteration in addition to dwelling house, roof, terrace, and setback. Oh, it's not a roof terrace, it's not a roof common terrace, it's a roof terrace. So is that a roof terrace being put onto a house? An alteration to it's already there. Speaker 4: I might have to come back to you, Councillor, and give you the exact details. But I would say looking at that, it's likely that it did involve, it would either be the modification of an existing roof terrace, or the development of a new roof terrace. Councillor Wegener: We've had long discussions about roof terraces, one on each.
01:08:00 Speaker 4: And certainly there's something that takes serious consideration from the officers to ensure the visual impact on the surrounding area, but also the overlooking is addressed as well. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, that's good. Do you want further information on that one, about the overlooking? Councillor Wegener: No, we've got heavy loads coming up. Okay, we'll go with that. Yeah. Yeah. So I'll move the recommendation. Councillor Finzel: I'll be the second. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Any other questions? I don't need to speak to it. Councillor Finzel: I'll take it to the vote. Councillor Wegener: All in favour? Unanimous? Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, Patrick. I'll call this morning's environment meeting to a close at 2.44. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you to everybody joining today. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you.