Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to begin by an acknowledgement to country. I would like to respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional custodians of the lands and waters that form the region we call Nisa. Council pays its respect to elders past, present and future and welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Nisa community. I'll start with their attendance and apologies. I note Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell are in attendance. I also note an apology from their Frank Wilkie who's on leave at the moment. Can I please request before the meeting starts that everyone has their phones on silent or turned off. And I'd also like to remind councillors of their obligations under the council rules. So code of conduct to treat fellow councillors and council employees respectfully.
00:01:00 I'll start firstly with confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and seconder please? Happy to move. Thank you. Thank you Tom. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. There are no presentations and no deputations. So we'll go to the only report for consideration on the committee. Unity Water Nisa Netserv Planning. Speaker 1: So councillors the purpose of this report is to seek council's endorsement of the planning assumptions and growth projections derived from Unity Water's DMAT model and tracking. It's a demand modeler and tracking tool. We call it DMAT. To inform Unity Water's Netserv Plan.
00:02:00 The draft technical note is attached to this report and it provides the methodology, planning assumptions and growth forecasts for Nisa Shire's population, dwellings, gross floor area, employment and network demand in five year increments up to 2046 and ultimate. So the ultimate capacity of Nisa Plan. So they've requested that we, that council endorse these assumptions under chapter 4B part 1 section 99BK of the South East Queensland Water Distribution and Retailing Restructuring Act 2009. So we have been involved in the preparation of this model. So we work closely with Unity Water and have done over many years refining. So we have been involved in the preparation of this model. It is a population and development forecasting tool which takes the provisions of Nisa Plan and forecasts what the development capacity is of the plan and how it will develop in five year increments and then the ultimate capacity.
00:03:00 So there's a number of inputs to that plan. So all of the provisions of Nisa Plan including the constraints on land. So they remove the constraints. And then they forecast how much development can occur on that based on the provisions of Nisa Plan. They've considered the Queensland Statistician's Office projections as well as the SAQ regional plan dwelling targets and projections as well. So they're all inputs to the model. And then they put it into the mix. They do the modelling and then forecast how that might pan out in five year increments. Based on which land would develop more likely before other parcels based on their readiness and attractiveness for development.
00:04:00 So we're not asking Council to endorse this for our LGIP at this stage because we do have the planning scheme amendments out there. So there might be some changes to that. The model can be amended following the consultation phase if things change for the purposes of our LGIP planning. Councillor Lorentson: I'll throw it to the table. Councillor Stockwell, Wegener. Any questions of staff? Councillor Wegener: Not at this stage. The constraints that they talk about. The land constraints. Can you just elaborate on that a bit? Because I would try, it just was a bit light on detail it seemed to me. What it really meant by constraints and examples. Speaker 1: So the hazards and constraints on the land are what we see as overlays in Nisa Plan. So the overlays represent the constraints on the land. So for instance things like biodiversity, riparian, bushfire, flooding. Those kind of constraints which limit development.
00:05:00 So they consider those constraints on a parcel of land and remove them from the developable area to come up with what development capacity is on that site. Director Rawlings: What's left on the site? Speaker 1: Some constraints can be mitigated through the development assessment process. And they consider that more so after the fact. So if a development has been approved and they've been able to mitigate some of the minor kind of constraints, they'll put the outcomes of that approval back into the model. So they take a conservative approach. They say, well, you know, these are the constraints on the land. You know, we conservatively think that this is how much development capacity is left once you take those constraints away. Councillor Wegener: They're like flooding. Flooding. Speaker 1: Flooding is generally a fairly hard constraint. And, you know, the biodiversity riparian as well. Councillor Wegener: And those constraints are, those are, those were put on by council.
00:06:00 They're not state constraints. Those are our own council. Speaker 1: Oh, they also consider the MSES and other state planning constraints on the site as well. Councillor Wegener: They don't just say these are. They can look at a state constraint. They can restrict it. Oh, we can drop that state restraint as well. No. Director Rawlings: No. You can take, take that constraint into account. Yeah. So our planning scheme represents both local overlays and state overlays. So state mapping as a state significance is reflected in our planning scheme. So when we talk about constraints, it's both the state level ones and our own. So they're both taken into account when the model looks at what the development capacity of the site might be. Councillor Wegener: And when they look at other things like our roads and roundabouts and the whole philosophy that was, the whole, the whole transportation philosophy that was built considering the
00:07:00 population cap, saying this is our carrying capacity, that doesn't weigh into their consideration with this plan much, I would suspect. Speaker 1: No. No. So they're only concerned with the provision of water and sewage. Our own local government infrastructure plan, the ELP plan, is not really concerned with those other types of infrastructure. So what roads and roundabouts and what the philosophy is, is about transport and movement. We consider that in our own equivalent plan, which is the LGIP. Director Rawlings: Which will come to you later in the year. Speaker 1: Yeah. So we're in the process of starting that review process of the LGIP, the five-year review now. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Will this, this plan, if endorsed, will it, in effect, have influence over our, the next version of the LGIP? Speaker 1: The projections? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. So currently, the current LGIP has the, the previous projections that were done also by Unity Water in collaboration with us. So when we review the LGIP, we'll consider the new projections based on any amendments
00:08:00 to this plan. So depending on what, what the outcomes are there. So the figures will change. Councillor Wegener: And lastly, I feel when I read this, like, there's not a lot of option to, to knock it through the, to knock. Speaker 1: Well we're, what we're doing is we're endorsing their assumptions to say that they are consistent with our planning forecasts as well. And they are. Because we've been working collaboratively with them, based on the current NUSA plan and, and what the amendments might, might include as well. Director Rawlings: And it's a, it's a necessary process. Yeah. To form a plan for water and sewage infrastructure for the future. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yeah. I guess, I guess, I guess, being somewhat autistic, getting wrapped up in the constraints being taken away and then all of a sudden they're flawed assumptions. The, the, the base, the foundation of the plan isn't actually in reality. But. Director Rawlings: So when we say the, the constraints aren't taken away, the constraints are considered.
00:09:00 So if you've got a, a, a parcel of land and half of it is constrained, then the development portion is only assumed on the other half. So if half of it's constrained by flooding, bushfire, biodiversity, then the model, the first assumption is that only the remaining half can have development capacity on it. As Anita said before, what then happens, because it's an iterative model, is if there's a development approved on that site, that might mitigate some of those constraints or manage some of the flooding and more than half of the site's developed, the model then takes into account what's approved. So it's both, both assumed on the planning assumption, there are a number of inputs into this model. It's not just the planning scheme and the constraints and the assumptions. It's then validated with if there's a development approval as well. Councillor Lorentson: I might throw some questions in.
00:10:00 I'm going to start with the, the draft. So this is Queensland Regional Draft Plan. How can DMACC forecasters, how can they, how can they, how can they, how can they, how can they, when they assess and leverage to oppose the state's proposed mandatory growth targets and can we present this forecast to strengthen that pace against mandatory growth? Speaker 1: So you can probably read in here that the model indicates that we have enough supply to meet those targets. We have indicated that back to the state in our housing supply statement to say that, you know, we've been working on this model and, and we know that we've got capacity to deliver So we're using it for that purpose and it will continue and ultimately the figures in here form part of the planning scheme too when we do an amendment to the LGIP. So they're our forecasts. Director Rawlings: We're not the only local government that uses DMAT. So Sunny Coast and Wharton also use the DMAT model.
00:11:00 So the state do take it into account. So we do need to continue to use it in this space. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just have a clarifying? There's two different terms. The regional plan sets dwelling targets but has a population projection. This report identifies that we meet the dwelling targets but still disagree with the population projection because they've used unreasonable average occupancy rates. Occupancy rates. So in agreeing to this report, we're not agreeing to the forecast population SDQ regional plan. We're saying we can meet the dwelling targets. Is that right? Speaker 1: We don't need to meet those projections. They're not targets. Yes. Yeah. And as I think in the report that they're based on unrealistic occupancy rates that aren't consistent with nuisance occupancy rates.
00:12:00 Councillor Lorentson: So going back to the report. How does this tool affect the management of water demand and supply? Will it improve efficiency and sustainability in water usage? And I'm referencing wastewater discharge levels due to this forecast in Burgess Creek. So how is that identified and managed? Or is that a separate process? Speaker 1: They have a schedule of works, similar to how we have a schedule of works, which are informed by their forecast as to what upgrades they may need to do to their infrastructure. But we don't need to endorse that. They've not asked us to do that. That's their own plan. It's just about the planning assumptions. Councillor Lorentson: So given significant changes in population or water usage patterns. And again, maybe a question of community water.
00:13:00 Will these sort of adjustments, will they involve, will they trigger in development processes like a material change of use? Will it trigger environmental permits and regulations? I'm just wondering at the moment we've got a licence to allow x and y people. This will involve an increase. What are the implications in terms of, just in terms of planning and zoning regulations and processes? Speaker 1: So I guess most of their infrastructure is probably in the community facility zone. So it would depend on, I guess, I don't have it offhand, what the level of assessment is for what works they're doing. And how it fits within the scope of that. Yeah, I don't have it in front of me.
00:14:00 I'm sorry. Director Rawlings: Yeah, I think Councillor Lorentson, we have actually got unity water lined up. Because we thought we might want to, you know, get into the model. And then what that means for unity water. You know, endorsing this, we're not endorsing what that means for unity water's ongoing schedule of works. And their legislative triggers and things. But no doubt this will, like it does for our LGIP, underpin their schedule of works and what the triggers might be. So, you know, I think probably you'd get a better answer or a more comprehensive answer from unity water. Councillor Lorentson: I might try this in our next questions. I've only got a couple. And in terms of, sorry, in terms of their discreet. So, we have an integrated water catchment plan that's been identified for funding through council.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 My questions are, does this influence the funding of this catchment plan? Does it sort of highlight the influence of funding integrated water catchment plan given that there are going to be some significant population changes to this? Director Rawlings: I think that question's probably outside the scope of this report. Yeah, it probably is outside the scope of this report. As you know, we are working in a phased approach to get to that integrated water management. You know, it's a really important piece of work. But yeah, that probably kind of sits outside the scope of this report. Councillor Lorentson: You could say, oh, so council's stopped on you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you continue. I've got a totally different question. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. I was going to just refer this to the general meetings. So, we can ask some questions directly to unity water. But you go ahead.
00:16:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it might be one that they need to consider. I notice in the section on population, it talks about resident population being forecast to go from 58 to 68. But when you include short term accommodation, it goes from 70,800 to 81,000. Suggesting at the moment, we have about 12,000 people per night staying in and out. And it also models employee demand based on gross floor area. Does the model include any forecast in terms of the demand on infrastructure from daytrippers? Speaker 1: I don't believe so, no. It's people who are, I guess, staying overnight. So, they're being, they're occupying a dwelling. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's only really in public infrastructure. Yeah. But I'm, I'm just thinking like, is that. Councillor Lorentson: Good question to ask. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You know, if we're on a, if we're on a capacity yet. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. So, it's like, oh, it's starting to time travel.
00:17:00 Good question. Councillor Wegener: So, when you think, when you know, you are working with, with the state on this, what is it, just out of curiosity, what does it look like? When you, it's sending emails back and forth and. Speaker 1: Working with Unity Water on this. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 1: So, they, they have a GIS format. So, we have mapping and we'll cross check and click on particular lots and see what the forecasts are and see if the assumptions are right. So, we do some cross checking. We make sure that they've, they've put, input the right development parameters as per allowed under particular requirements. So, we kind of work mutually, mutually. Yeah. Together. Collaboratively. Councillor Wegener: And, you know, because we, we've spoken about this before where other places they think, okay, if you have a, a, this lot above the beach, you know, somebody's going to want to put six units there. Yeah. And, and other places, that's, that's the norm. But when you're in Nissan, you know, you're thinking somebody's going to build a bench
00:18:00 Does that kind of go back and forth as to the planning, where the assumptions are just a little bit skewed here? Speaker 1: No, we model the highest and best use. So what the full capacity is under the plan, allowable on that lot. So if it's zoned for medium density and has capacity for 12 dwellings, then that's what will be modelled. I guess we need to use our planning provisions around not allowing a single dwelling to be developed on that land rather than this model. Councillor Wegener: And then, last question, so Unity Water, they're relatively local, they're far from a state entity where Unity Water deals with our northern Brisbane, there's a handful of us. It's a smaller group than dealing with the state, so they're inter-mediary between the state and local government in a way? Speaker 1: Well, they're an infrastructure supply authority for water and sewer.
00:19:00 So like us, they've got to do their own equivalent LGIP, which is their net serve plan, to forecast how they'll supply that infrastructure for growth. They work with the state separately to us. Yeah, they're a different entity. Councillor Wegener: I'm glad that it's not a state entity, which may have a cookie-cutter approach, but they're not. They understand you, so they understand you. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Absolutely. We've had a long relationship with them, understanding the nuances of NUSA and also what our growth model is, which is about consolidation, not expansion, and that's reflected in the assumptions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I agree that we should have a broader conversation with them. Just because I read out some figures, I also assume that everyone gets excited about population, is that elsewhere in the report it is noticed that when you're modelling for infrastructure,
00:20:00 you're modelling for the ultimate use, but in reality it's somewhere about 75% to 80% of what's forecast. Yeah. And I suppose that's important to understand. Councillor Lorentson: So if I can, with councillors, I move that we refer this report to our general meeting. And I also request if there are any technical questions or questions directed to New York, Thank you so much for your time and I hope that we see each of you so that we will have the opportunity to have a look at the questions in advance. My review of some of the questions I'm asking, they definitely need environmental impact assessment, teacher upgrades and growth, so I'll give them the opportunity to respond. So, can I... I'll have a second. Fantastic, all in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous and we'll refer this to the meeting.
00:21:00 I think that's it. There's no reports for noting by the committee, no confidential session. I now declare this meeting closed at 9.51am and thank you everyone.