Original source · versioned page text
2020-02-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 11 February 2020
commencing at 9.30am
Committee Room, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Jess Glasgow, Ingrid Jackson, Tony Wellington
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of sections 2 to 95 (of 111)
Section 2
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
DEPUTATIONS -
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 3
1 MCU18/0166 - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE
SERVICE AND UTILITY - TYPE 3 TOWER, SITUATED AT 244 TABLELANDS
ROAD, COORAN 3
2 MCU19/0124 - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE -
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS TYPE 1 WAREHOUSE (SELF STORAGE UNITS) AT 15
JARRAH STREET, COOROY 38
3 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING APPEALS 57
4 ADOPTION OF CONSOLIDATED VERSIONS OF NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL LOCAL
LAW NO. 1 (ADMINISTRATION) 2015, SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 1
(ADMINISTRATION) 2015 AND SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 4 (LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AREAS, FACILITIES AND ROADS) 2015 66
5 NOOSA BIOSECURITY PLAN 2020 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION OUTCOMES 70
6 FLYING-FOX SUBSIDISED SERVICES INITIATIVES 75
7 MULTI-YEAR ENVIRONMENT COLLABORATIVE GRANTS 80
REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 97
8 ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPDATE -
2ND QUARTER 2019-20 97
CLOSED SESSION 111
9 ENVIRONMENT LEVY
PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE 111
Page 2 of 119
Section 3
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE
1 MCU18/0166 - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE SERVICE
AND UTILITY - TYPE 3 TOWER, SITUATED AT 244 TABLELANDS ROAD, COORAN
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planners, Nadine Kirley and Lisa Pienaar
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU18/0166
Attachments 1. Proposal Plans
2. Visual Impact Assessment
(Note: 42 page attachment has been provided separately to this report)
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant NBN C/- Aurecon Australasia
Proposal Material Change of Use - Service And Utility - Type 3 Tower
Properly Made Date 10 October 2018
Information Request Date 25 October 2018
Information Response Date Final 28 May 2019
Decision Due Date 28 February 2020
Number of Submissions 458
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 244 Tablelands Rd Cooran Qld 4569
RP Description Lot 22 SP 148684
Land Area 190600 m²
Existing Use of Land Dwelling and associated structures
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area
Locality Mary River Catchment
Zone Rural
Overlays Biodiversity Overlay
Natural Hazard Overlay – Bushfire and Slide Hazard
Assessment Type Impact
Page 3 of 119
Section 4
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planners to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2020 regarding Application No MCU18/0166 for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use Service and Utility - Type 3 Tower, situated at 244
Tablelands Rd, Cooran and:
A. Refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed infrastructure is located in an area identified by the SEQ Regional Plan
as being of regionally significant scenic amenity and the proposal compromises this
scenic amenity and regional landscape of the area.
2. The proposed development is inconsistent with Desired Environmental Outcome 3.1.3
m) viii of the Noosa Plan as the proposed development is visually prominent in the view
from premises along Tablelands Road.
3. The development application proposes a use that is inconsistent in the Rural Zone of
the Mary River Catchment Locality;
4. The proposal is contrary to Specific Outcome O2 and Overall Outcome 8.7.2 a)iii, k)iii,
v) and mm)ii of the Mary River Catchment Locality Code as,
4.1 The visual amenity enjoyed by users of nearby premises is adversely impacted;
and
4.2 The scale and form of the structure is not integrated into the landform and
landscape; and
4.3 The siting of the proposed structure does not protect significant views to Mt
Cooroora, Mt Cooran and Mt Pinbarren; and
4.4 The scenic values and rural amenity of the locality are adversely impacted;
5. The proposal is contrary to Overall Outcome 14.37.2 b) and 14.37.2 c) and Specific
Outcome O10 of the Infrastructure Uses Code as the proposed infrastructure,
5.1. Detracts from the visual amenity of the rural and residential amenity enjoyed by
residents and visitors to the area and does not satisfactorily visually integrate
with the landscape; and
5.2. Fails to co-locate with the existing telecommunications nearby.
6. The proposed tower, if approved, would be afforded immunity under the
Telecommunications Act 1997 enabling further extension up to 5 metres without further
reference to Council which would exacerbate the visual amenity impacts;
7. The visual impact on a number of premises in the area, which have direct line of sight
in their viewshed, is considered significant and unacceptable for those residents.
8. The applicant’s visual impact assessment is deficient to satisfactorily determine the
degree and extent of visual impacts from the proposed development and impacts are
likely to be greater than has been currently identified in the reports.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
Page 4 of 119
Section 5
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
Original Proposal
The applicant originally proposed to install a new fixed wireless NBN facility which consists of a 35
metre monopole with a dish antenna and 5 panel antennas. The overall height with the antennas
resulted in a total tower height of 36 metres. Ancillary equipment associated with the operation of
the facility is included in the proposal consisting of outdoor cabinets at ground level, cabling, bird-
proofing, electrical and air-conditioning equipment. The facility would be accessed by a track
entering from the existing site access and deviating from the internal driveway directly to the
proposed tower site.
The original application indicates that the facility was designed to provide wireless coverage to
approximately 360 premises in Cooran, Pinbarren, Pomona and Traveston. This number has since
been indicated by the applicant as being closer to 277 premises. The proposed location of the
tower on the subject site is illustrated in Figure 1 – Subject site and proposed tower location.
A Visual Impact Assessment Report submitted with the application provides the applicant’s
response to visual amenity considerations outlined in the planning scheme.
Figure 1 – Subject site and proposed tower location
Amended Proposal
In response to submissions received during public notification and Council officer’s concerns with
respect to visual amenity impacts, the applicant amended the height of the monopole to 25 metres
(plus antenna) resulting in an overall height of 26 metres. The applicant determined that at this
height the tower was still viable, servicing approximately 247 premises located in Cooran and parts
of Pinbarren, Pomona and Traveston.
A second Visual Impact Assessment Report addressing the revised tower height was provided in
support of the changed proposal. A detail survey plan was also provided clarifying which trees
would be removed.
Page 5 of 119
Section 6
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Amended plans received on 14/01/2020 document alterations to the proposal to include
realignment of the proposed access track to coincide with the existing access track into the property
for approximately 60 metres. A new gravel track, approximately 15m long is proposed to provide
vehicle access to the NBN compound. The proposed tower is intended to be sited on the premises
along the edge of a small ridge at an elevation of approximately RL 175.0m AHD. The tower
compound will be cut and filled to provide a level pad, with retaining walls constructed up to 1 metre
in height on the cut and filled embankments. From the proposed tower location, the site slopes
down towards Tablelands Road.
Realignment of the access track minimises the clearing needed to enable construction of the facility
in the selected location. The applicant maintains that 8 mature trees and 4 smaller trees will be
removed to make way for the construction area, access and proposed tower compound.
No other alterations were made to the original proposal.
Figure 2 – Applicant’s overall site plan, Figure 3 – Proposed Tower Elevation and Figure 4 –
NBN Tower Compound illustrate the plan and elevation of the proposed tower as per the
amended proposal.
Figure 2 – Applicant’s overall site plan
Page 6 of 119
Section 7
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 3 – Proposed Tower Elevation at 26 metre height
Figure 4 – Proposed NBN Tower Compound with revised access driveway
Page 7 of 119
Section 8
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
The proposal was submitted to Council for assessment in October 2018. In accordance with
Section 32 of the development assessment rules, the applicant stopped the current period a
number of times in order to provide Council with further information and to respond to submissions
received. The number of days the applicant has stopped the current period totals 130 business
days.
The application was publicly notified from 31 May 2019 to 24 June 2019.
The content of submissions and Council’s concerns around impacts on visual amenity prompted
the applicant to consider the visual impacts more closely. As a result, the applicant lodged a minor
change to the application in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning Act 2016. Amended plans
were received on 17 December 2019. The applicant requested that Council agree to extend the
decision making period until 28 February 2020 to enable application material to be submitted and
assessment by Council officers to occur.
2.2. Site Description
The subject property is an undulating rural lot which is predominantly vegetated. The immediate
area surrounding the tower site is currently vegetated. Small cleared areas accommodate the
dwelling, shed and various other structures such as shipping containers and caravans located on
the site.
It is noted that the only building approval recorded by Council for this property is an existing shed.
It is not known which shed this relates to within the site. There is no record of a building approval
for the existing dwelling or other structures located on the subject site.
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
The site is located about 5 minutes drive from the town of Cooran. Tablelands Road accesses trails
2 & 3 of the Noosa Trail Network and the James McKane Memorial Lookout (also known as Cooran
or Tablelands Lookout). Woondum National Park adjoins and is also accessed from Tablelands
Road. Tablelands Road climbs from the Cooran township with scenic viewpoints from all directions,
including views to Mt Pinbarren, Mt Cooran, Mt Cooroora, Black Mountain and various Noosa
waterways.
Densely treed, rural lifestyle properties are located on Tablelands Road. Small scale business such
as Noosa Quad Bikes and Noosa Tablelands Escape are also located on Tablelands Road.
An existing 30 metre high phone tower (not NBN) is located at 265 Tablelands Road. This existing
tower is located on the western side of Tablelands Road approximately 100m downslope from the
proposed NBN tower. The existing phone tower is visible from parts of Cooran township and Risley
Road but it is not visible from submitters’ properties visited during site inspections for this
application due to its elevation and positioning.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
Page 8 of 119
Section 9
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The Noosa Plan is generally consistent with the State Planning Policy July 2017 (SPP). The SPP
raises no further issues relevant to the proposed development.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
The site is located in the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area (RLRPA) as identified in
the South SEQ Regional Plan. The relevant parts of the stated intent of RLRPA are:
protect the values of this land from encroachment by urban and rural residential
development; and
protect natural assets and regional landscapes, and ensure their sustainable use and
management
Appropriate development in the RLRPA includes activities that are associated with primary
production, land management, some tourism activity, and community and recreation activity.
Through the goals, elements and strategies, the SEQ Regional Plan is clear in its intent to seek to
‘use its existing infrastructure networks and embrace innovative new infrastructure solutions to
increase the region’s productivity and efficiency, while minimising its environmental footprint and
maximising community amenity.’
The regional plan recognises this site and surrounding area for its regional biodiversity value. The
site also falls within the regional biodiversity corridor.
SEQ Regional Plan recognises the Noosa Biosphere Reserve and the value of Noosa’s natural
landscapes and identifies the subject site, the majority of Tablelands Road, James McKane
Lookout, Noosa Trail Network and surrounds as regionally significant scenic amenity in SEQ.
Figure 5 is extracted from Map 5c: Sustain- Regional Landscape Values in the SEQ Regional Plan
2017 and identifies where the site sits within the area identified as containing scenic amenity value.
Figure 5 – Scenic Amenity Values in the SEQ Regional plan
Page 9 of 119
Section 10
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The SEQ Regional Plan supports sustaining regional landscapes to benefit and support the
community’s physical and mental health and wellbeing, enhance a sense of place and community
cohesion and benefit tourism. High value scenic amenity represents a concentration of multiple
landscape values, functions, ecosystem services and community benefits. Values such as scenic
amenity contribute to SEQ being a biodiverse and liveable region.
A NBN tower in this location is not entirely consistent with the above intent as the proposal is
considered to conflict with the protection of the regional landscape values.
Planning Regulation 2017
The proposal is not considered an urban activity in the regulation. The site is located within the
Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area and is consistent with the assessment
benchmarks contained in the Planning Regulation 2017 for the SEQ Region.
3.3. Local Planning Instruments – Planning Scheme
The application must be assessed against the whole of the planning scheme. The following section
of this report outlines the pertinent matters raised in the Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs),
Strategic Framework, Codes and Policies of the Planning Scheme.
Desired Environmental Outcomes
The proposal has been assessed against the DEOs of the Planning Scheme and is considered to
be generally in accordance with the exception of the following matters:
(j) RESIDENTIAL USES
The proposed NBN tower has the potential to be considered as incompatible with
residential dwellings in proximity to the tower;
The proposed tower is considered inconsistent with the character and amenity of the
Mary River Catchment Locality;
(m) INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
The NBN tower is located in a visually prominent location when viewed from some
vantage points
Strategic Framework
The proposed NBN Tower is generally consistent with the intent of the Strategic Framework with
the following key issues identified as warranting consideration:
1.7.12 Natural Environment Protection
b) Activities that have potential to impact on water quality, bank or slope stability, fauna
habitats and linkages, or significant scenic vistas are inconsistent within the scheme.
Some scenic amenity impacts are experienced from different locations in the vicinity of the
proposed NBN tower. The degree of impact varies between locations.
Codes
The following codes are relevant to the proposed development:
Mary River Catchment Locality Code
Infrastructure Uses Code
Mary River Catchment Locality Code
The subject site is located in the Mary River Catchment Locality and is zoned Rural. The proposed
use is identified as an inconsistent use within the zone and is subject to impact assessment.
The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the Mary River Catchment locality when
measured against the following overall outcomes:
Page 10 of 119
Section 11
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to-…
iii. Avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of either premises,
including acoustic and visual qualities; and
iv. Avoid significant impacts to native habitat including fragmentation, attrition, or removal
of vegetation or significant habitat features.
f) The physical setting, characterised by steeply dissecting mountain ranges and narrow valley
floors, is preserved and protected including:-…
iii. land in the north dominated by the Woondum Plateau, including the Cooran
Tablelands/ Mothar Mountain range system;
vii. the intrusive volcanic plugs of Mt Pinbarren, Mt Cooran, and Mt Cooroora as prominent
topographical and scenic features;
h) The rural heritage and character, lifestyle, privacy, open space, vistas and level of
accessibility enjoyed by residents of the locality is maintained;
k) The scale and form of buildings and other structures are-
i. designed to be responsive to the rural character and amenity of the locality;…
iii. integrated into the landform and landscape;
v) Development is designed and sited to protect significant views to Mt Cooroora, Mt Cooran
and Mt Pinbarren particularly views from town and village centres and from the major road
network;
mm) For the Rural Zone – rural land is protected and appropriately managed such that:-
i. agriculture and habitat protection are the dominant land uses;
ii. the scenic and environmental values, the distinct rural amenity and agricultural
productivity of the locality are preserved and are not adversely impacted as a
consequence of development on or adjacent to that land.
The applicant has sought to address the potential impact of the development on the surrounding
Mary River Catchment Locality. The measures employed to address the above outcomes include:
The use of a slimline monopole in preference to a lattice tower with the view to minimising
the visual clutter and adverse visual effect of the structure on the landscape;
The height of the monopole has been reduced to 25 metres resulting in an overall height of
26 metres including antennae attachments;
The proposed monopole is to be painted in a bushland green colour such as Colorbond Pale
Eucalypt to help the structure blend into the vegetated background;
The monopole and attachments would be treated with a non-reflective finish;
Removal of existing trees has been minimised and confined to an area within the construction
footprint and immediate area of risk;
All equipment will be contained within the designated boundaries and NBN tower compound
area; and
Stockpiles, waste and vehicle parking during construction would be located within the site
and set back from Tablelands Road.
The applicant maintains that the placement of the proposed monopole when combined with the
undulating terrain in the local area, the retention of vegetation and the distance to the tower from
several key vantage points combine to result in a minor adverse to negligible impact on the scenic
amenity of the area.
Page 11 of 119
Section 12
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The locality code seeks to protect remnant and regrowth vegetation as well as biodiversity and
habitat values.
The applicant has sought to reduce the number of trees to be removed, including retention of two
key mature trees which provide a substantial screening effect from neighbouring properties. The
number of trees to be removed has been further reduced in the latest amended plans to require
removal of 8 mature trees and 4 smaller trees.
The proposed tower is located outside of the Biodiversity Overlay area. The impact on vegetation
is considered to be minimal.
However, if the application were to be approved a condition requiring tree numbers 7053 & 7062
to be retained should be included in the decision notice as these two trees play a significant role
in screening the proposed tower from the neighbouring properties, particularly 250 Tablelands
Road.
The Mary River Catchment Locality Code expresses the intent to maintain the scenic qualities
afforded through rural amenity and environmental and recreational values.
It should be noted that while the surrounding area in proximity to the proposed tower holds high
scenic value, high voltage power lines, other NBN towers and various buildings and infrastructure
can be observed in the landscape. From the Cooran township and Risley Road, the existing Telstra
tower near Tablelands Road can also be observed.
The degree of impact varies between vantage points. Premises and vantage points visited and
assessed for visual impact are considered to be representative of similar premises with comparable
elevation, aspect or views. Many premises experience minor to negligible visual impact and this is
not considered to result in significant adverse impact on the visual quality of the locality. Those
which experience a higher degree of adverse impact are few, but are considered to result in conflict
with the outcomes sought for the Mary River Catchment Locality Code. These premises are
generally in direct line of sight, with the tower in the foreground. The view from the proposed house
site at 298 Tablelands Road, is such that the proposed tower is the only infrastructure
distinguishable in the foreground or background of the viewshed and is prominent and central to
the view.
Infrastructure Uses Code
The Infrastructure Uses Code seeks to consider the impact of towers on health & safety and
location and siting. These are discussed as follows:
Health & Safety
The proposed tower is located approximately 50 metres from the existing dwelling on the subject
site and approximately 100 metres from the closest neighbouring residence at 250 Tablelands
Road. The next nearest residence at 268 Tablelands Road is located 200 metres from the
proposed tower.
The applicant has provided a summary of the maximum cumulative radiofrequency (RF) and
electromagnetic energy (EME) levels at ground level emitted from the proposed tower, assuming
full power usage. The summary indicates the proposed tower will emit a maximum EME level from
the tower, which is 0.31% of the maximum acceptable public exposure limits to radiation as set by
the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) regulatory authority.
In comparison, the existing Telstra tower is reported to currently operate at 2.33%. As such, the
exposure levels of the proposal are well below the regulated levels of exposure. Fact sheets
obtained from the Australian Government ARPANSA website indicate that the agency has
examined international research that indicates that there are currently no established health effects
resulting from the low exposure to RF EME from NBN base station antennas.
Taking a precautionary approach to the sensitive issue concerning health and safety over time, if
approved, it would be prudent to require certification from the telecommunications carrier upon
request demonstrating annual compliance with the Health & Safety requirements compared to
ARPANSA regulations.
Page 12 of 119
Section 13
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Location and Siting
The Infrastructure Uses Code seeks to ensure that infrastructure does not detract from the visual
amenity of the major road network, rural and residential amenity and protects the natural character
and environmental values from adverse impacts. An overall outcome of the code is to seek co-
location of facilities where appropriate and practical.
An existing telecommunications tower at 265 Tablelands Road, Cooran is located approximately
100 metres south-west of the subject site and accommodates equipment from Telstra, Vodafone
and GWN. Figure 6 illustrates the proximity of the proposed tower and existing tower locations.
Figure 6 – Proposed tower location in relation to existing Telstra tower
The applicant submits alternative sites were explored prior to finalising the selected site for the
facility. Consideration for site selection is reported to include radio frequency efficiency, planning,
property and engineering requirements as well as anticipated local community concerns. The
viability of co-locating with the existing tower has been dismissed by the applicant due to the
following factors:
The existing Telstra tower is at a lower elevation compared to the proposed facility, being up
to 15 metres below the subject site;
The existing Telstra tower has already been extended by 5 metres in the past to currently
have a monopole height of 30 metres.
Due to the existing Telstra, Vodaphone and GWN equipment on the existing Telstra tower,
co-location of the NBN service would mean that the maximum available height of the NBN
antennae equipment would be 20m above ground level. At this height, NBN maintain that a
good reliable service would not be able to be provided to the targeted premises;
Further extension of the existing Telstra tower would require a stronger, possibly lattice tower
structure, to be constructed to accommodate all of the services. The applicant maintains that
the lattice tower is more obtrusive in the landscape and would need to be 50m high.
Page 13 of 119
Section 14
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The existing service would also need to be interrupted to allow for the installation of a new
facility at this location.
It is acknowledged that the nature of this facility demands that a line of sight must be achieved in
order to provide connection to the service.
The applicant’s proposed use of colour to help camouflage the tower is considered to have variable
effect. It is noted, that the existing Telstra Tower is sited approximately 10 metres from Tablelands
Road downslope of the proposed tower and is painted a similar colour to the proposed. At close
range it is difficult to distinguish the tree trunks from the tower monopole. When viewed from below,
the existing tower is visible, but is integrated into the visual setting as the overall extent of the tower
does not extend into the skyline.
The greatest visual amenity impact by the proposed tower is from viewpoints located closer to the
proposal site; at elevations above it where a vegetation backdrop is very distant; or from lower
elevations where the height extends into the skyline. Where there is a reasonable distance
between the receptor and the proposed tower, it is generally not visually dominant but can be
considered obtrusive when viewed in closer proximity.
Planning Scheme Policy 23 - Telecommunication Towers
The key points of PSP23 relevant to the proposal are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Assessment against PSP23
Policy Assessment
Council is unlikely to support proposals that result The proposed tower is located on a ridgeline and
in the following: will be seen above the existing treeline from some
a) Loss of vegetation on steep slopes or vantage points. The proposal has been designed to
ridgelines, or minimise vegetation clearing.
b) Visual scarring or degradation of views or Impacts on vegetation are not considered
vistas from the major road network; or significant.
c) Loss of distinct character associated with the The proposed tower would be located in a
various towns, villages or rural areas; or predominantly rural catchment. It will be viewed
from multiple locations, with varying degrees of
d) Alteration to key landform and landscape
impacts.
characters such that they become dominated
by the facility;
e) Impact on views to and from waterways,
beaches and riparian zones.
Wherever practical, towers should: The tower is not visible from the James McKane
a) Maintain the integrity of landmarks and Memorial Lookout, due to the orientation of the land
places of significance; and viewshed.
b) Avoid interrupting significant views; The proposed tower is generally screened by
vegetation or has some vegetation backdrop as
c) Be architecturally integrated with the building
viewed from some vantage points, with the
or structure they are mounted on;
exception of a proposed house site located at 298
d) Be positioned to minimise clutter of multiple Tablelands Rd. On that site the proposed tower
facilities; interrupts a significant viewshed from the proposed
e) Be colour matched to their background, using house site. The tower is also likely to be visible from
no reflective paint; the proposed house site at 410 Tablelands Road.
f) Be at least partially screened by vegetation; The structure will be seen from Trails 2 & 3 in the
g) Be positioned and designed to be less visible Noosa Trail Network, which is utilised by locals and
by pedestrians. visitors travelling by foot, horse or bicycle, and will
generally have a vegetated backdrop. It should be
noted that an assessment from every part of the trail
has not been conducted, so there may be areas
where a vegetated backdrop may not be the case.
Vegetation around the NBN tower location will be
largely retained.
Page 14 of 119
Section 15
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Policy Assessment
Carriers are obliged to consider co-locating on As discussed above, the applicant has dismissed
existing towers or public utility structures in the the option of co-location with the nearby existing
area. However it is acknowledged that co-location Telstra tower and has determined this is be not
will not always result in the best visual outcome. desirable.
Access to NBN
The proposed tower is part of the rollout of the NBN service in the region to service remaining
areas in Cooran, parts of Pinbarren, Pomona and Traveston which currently do not have access
to the national broadband network. The service uses low level radio frequency electromagnetic
energy to communicate between towers, base stations and small rooftop installations on
residences which form the NBN network.
If there is no line of sight facility to connect to, it is assumed that satellite connection would be
possible. Residents on Tablelands Road have advised that they have access to a reliable NBN
service (NBN Satellite), thus receive no benefit from the tower while being impacted by the visual
effects.
Mapping of the Broadband ADSL Quality sourced from the Australian Government National Map
databases have been provided by the applicant to demonstrate the need for new NBN services in
the Cooran area. The map provided indicates that large areas of rural Cooran, Pinbarren and
Traveston currently experience, on average, ADSL Broadband Quality ‘E’ service which is the
lowest level quality on the service scale and equates to a median speed of 0Mbps. Refer to Figure
7 below showing the current ADSL broadband quality in the area.
Subject
site
Cooran
township
Figure 7 – Current Telstra average ADSL broadband speeds provided by applicant August 2019
At the currently proposed 25 metre height the applicant has indicated that approximately 247
premises will have a direct line of sight to the tower which will enable them to access the fixed
wireless NBN. The applicant advises that coverage from the tower will extend approximately 380m
to the north-west along Tablelands Road, 1.3km to the east, 3.4km south-east to Bell Bird Flat
Road, 4.1km south to Wirruna Drive and 3.7km south-west to Greenridge Pinbarren Road. The
applicant advises that the coverage will fill a large portion of the gap in the NBN coverage in the
Page 15 of 119
Section 16
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
area. The NBN rollout map shown in Figure 8 below illustrates the areas that currently have access
to fixed wireless and fixed line NBN services. The pin shown on the rollout map shows the location
of the proposed tower. Based on information provided by the applicant, the coverage from this
tower will predominantly be to the south and south-east of this location in the area with no
coverage.
Figure 8 – NBN Rollout map as at January 2020
3.4. Telecommunications Act
Under the Telecommunications Act 1997, a tower as proposed by this application is considered as
a ‘high impact facility’ requiring Council approval. Once a high impact facility is approved, the
provider can make changes without Council approval if it complies with the provisions of a ‘low
impact facility’ under the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 2018 (under
the Telecommunications Act 1997).
Low-impact facilities are those which, because of their size and location, are considered to have a
low visual impact and be less likely to raise significant planning, heritage or environmental
concerns.’ The relevant parameters for facilities to be considered low impact includes the following:
Extension to an existing tower not exceeding 5 metres (only 1 extension allowed in a rural
area);
Panel, yagi or antenna (flush mounted to an existing structure), not more than 2.8 metres
long and protruding not more than 3 metres from the structure;
Radio or satellite communications dish not more than 1.8 metres in diameter (if attached to
supporting structure) and colour matched;
Omnidirectional antenna, not more than 4.5 metres long and not more than 5 metres apart
and does not protrude from the structure than more than 2 metres;
Equipment installed inside the structure.
The abovementioned legislation is considered relevant to the assessment of the application as the
Telecommunications Act 1997 authorises low impact facilities to be installed without approval of
Page 16 of 119
Section 17
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
an administrative authority under State or Territory Law. This includes local government planning
provisions. The consequence of the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination
2018 is such that the proposed 25 metre tower could be extended to 32 metres without further
reference to Council.
3.5. Visual Impact Assessment
Applicant’s Visual Impact Assessment Report
The applicant submitted a Visual Impact Assessment report (VIA) with the original proposal for a
35 metre tower. A revised VIA was subsequently submitted for the height change to 25 metres.
Both reports were peer reviewed by Council’s independent consultant.
With regard to the height change, the applicant’s report determined as follows:
The view from north of the tower and properties south of the tower at a distance of
approximately 1 km would receive minor adverse impacts on visual amenity.
The Tablelands Lookout (ie. James McKane Lookout) and Cooran township were assessed
as receiving negligible impact.
The vantage points assessed in the applicant’s original VIA report are found in Figure 9.
Figure 9 – Viewpoints assessed in Applicant’s original VIA
The applicant’s VIA found that:
250 Tablelands Rd: The monopole would be screened by intervening vegetation and
landform there would be no perceived change in the amenity of this view and a negligible
visual impact. (This assessment was done from outside of the boundaries of the site)
268 Tablelands Rd: The intervening vegetation and landform would largely screen views to
the monopole from this property. There would be no perceived change in the amenity of this
view and a negligible visual impact.
Page 17 of 119
Section 18
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
226 Tablelands Rd: The landform on this property rises to the north and towards the site.
The aerial photograph shows trees to the north of the residence that would filter and screen
views to the site. It is expected that this intervening vegetation would screen views to the
monopole from this property. This would result in no perceived change in the amenity of this
view and a negligible visual impact.
Noosa Trail, Tablelands Lookout, Arthy’s Rd and Cooran Township, Negligible visual impact
Site inspections
A number of site inspections (5) were conducted during the assessment process and discussions
with submitters occurred during that time to better understand the visual impacts of the tower.
Several locations were visited to understand the visual impacts of the tower including:
226, 250, 268, 298, 486 & 560 Tablelands Road;
View points on the Noosa Trail Network at the beginning of Trail 2 & 2/3;
Arthys Road;
Brewers Road;
Queen Street
During the decision period, the applicant arranged for a cherry picker to be placed on the subject
site within a couple of metres of the proposed construction pad (up slope from) to provide a visual
assessment tool for the tower at 25 metres in height.
The applicant was advised to notify local residents of the deployment of the cherry picker. The
applicant sent letters to residents within a 1 km radius of the subject site. Based on resident
feedback many did not receive the letter prior to the cherry picker installation. Residents who saw
the cherry-picker wrote to Council to convey their concerns with regard to visual impacts.
The cherry picker was erected on Thursday morning 21 November until Saturday afternoon 23
November 2019. Figure 10 illustrates the cherry-picker in place on the site. The placement of the
cherry-picker was done prior to the applicant lodging the change to their application which included
the height decrease with the view to informing the revised VIAR.
Page 18 of 119
Section 19
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 10 – Cherry picker in place on the proposed tower site
VIA Peer review
Council officers sought an independent consultant to conduct a peer review of the applicant’s VIA.
The scope of the review included the methodology used, rationale of findings and if these findings
can be relied upon to demonstrate compliance with the relevant planning provisions. Impacts on
views on private property were considered from private open and internal living space areas.
Ground-truthing and the use of Lidar technology formed part of the assessment by Council’s
independent visual consultant. Council’s Development Planner and the independent visual
consultant visited several properties by invitation from submitters including 226, 250, 268, 298,
301, 486 & 560 Tablelands Road (refer Figure 11 below for locations).
Page 19 of 119
Section 20
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 11 – Properties assessed as referred to in the applicant’s VIA
The peer review concludes that,
The methodology used in this report was based on terrain and did not consider tree heights
or the degree of influence of trees;
It would appear that the applicant’s visual consultant did not visit any private property,
including submitters to the application;
There was no methodology around why particular vantage points were chosen. The VIA
contains no justification as to the selection of particular sight lines and viewpoints and several
important viewpoints were missed;
The VIA does not demonstrate that impacts would be appropriately limited for receptors at
250, 298, 301 and 486 tablelands road, Risley Court, Arthys Road and the Noosa Trail
Network.
Following inspection of the cherry-picker crane and submission of the revised VIA, the independent
consultant was able to confirm the observations made in their previous review, reinforcing that a
lower tower would result in lesser impact from most viewpoints. It also confirmed the findings of
moderate visual impact from 298 Tablelands Road. The results of the peer review assessment for
each receptor examined is described in Table 2.
Page 20 of 119
Section 21
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Table 2: Peer review conclusions of likely impacts
Viewpoint (VP) Receptor location Likely Impact
VP1 226 and 268 Tablelands Road Negligible, as described in the applicant’s VIA.
VP1 250 Tablelands Road Negligible if the screening vegetation remains.
VP2a 374, 382 Tablelands Road negligible, as described in the applicant’s VIA
VP2b 398, and 428 Tablelands Road negligible, as described in the applicant’s VIA
VP2c 486, and 301Tablelands Road Minor Adverse
VP2c 298 Tablelands Road (taken from Moderate Adverse
future house site)
VP3 Cooran Tablelands Lookout Negligible, as described in the applicant’s VIA
VP4 Arthys Road Negligible
VP5 Noosa Trail Network Negligible
VP6 Risley Court Minor adverse
VP7 Brewers Road Minor or Negligible
VP8 King Road Negligible, as described in the applicant’s VIA.
Not numbered Cooran Township Negligible
VP9 Queen Street negligible, as described in the applicant’s VIA
Figures 12-16 are photographs taken while the cherry-picker crane was in place. The owner of
298 Tablelands Road would not permit Council’s Development Planner or independent visual
consultant to take photographs from their property on the day the cherry-picker was in place. A
subsequent submission from this owner received in January 2020 included a photograph that the
owner had taken of the cherry-picker depicting the view of the proposed tower from his proposed
house site. Council’s Development Planner and Manager Planning Assessment returned to the
site in January 2020 to verify the location that the submitted photograph had been taken. It is
considered that the photograph of the cherry-picker taken by the owner is an accurate
representation of the view from the proposed house site with the proposed tower in place. The
photograph taken by the owner of 298 Tablelands Road is shown at Figure 17 below.
Page 21 of 119
Section 22
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 12 – View from 560 Tablelands Road
Figure 13 – View from 560 Tablelands Rd, zoomed to show details
Page 22 of 119
Section 23
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 14 – View from Risley Rd near intersection with Weemilah Ct
Figure 15 – View from Risley Rd near intersection with Weemilah Ct zoomed to show detail
Page 23 of 119
Section 24
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 16 – View towards the subject site from 250 Tablelands Rd with cherry-picker in place
Figure 17 – Photograph and commentary by owner included in further submission received in January 2020
Page 24 of 119
Section 25
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 18 was taken by the Development Planner on the return visit to 298 Tablelands Road to
verify the above submitted photo. The proposed tower would be located central to the most likely
viewshed of the proposed house on the cleared house site at 298 Tablelands Road and will be
clearly seen between the trees at the proposed 25 metre height.
Figure 18 – View from proposed house site at 298 Tablelands Road
At 298 Tablelands Road the tower will be visible from the proposed house site located on the
cleared ridgeline on the property which looks out to the south and east. At this location, even at
the reduced monopole height of 25 metres, the tower extends above surrounding trees into the
view and at approximately 440 metres away, is prominent in the view from the proposed house
site. In context of the overall viewshed, the view of the proposed tower from 298 Tablelands Road
is considered significant as it sits central to the view. The tower rises between existing trees and
in the foreground of the view. The vista is interrupted by the tower and will stand out against the
distant background. A clear line of sight to the tower is not available from the existing cottage on
this property.
The property at 298 Tablelands Road is the only site that has been investigated that is known to
have moderate adverse impact resulting from the siting of the tower in this location. The owner of
410 Tablelands Road submits that the proposed tower would also impact the proposed house site
at that address but was not visited during site inspections. The property is at a higher elevation
than 298 Tablelands Road and the cleared, potential house site is located approximately 750
metres from the proposed tower. It is likely that some impacts yet slightly lesser impacts may be
experienced by 410 Tablelands Road in comparison to 298 Tablelands Road.
Figure 19 below illustrates the view lines examined throughout this assessment and reported in
the peer review of the applicant’s 2nd VIA. The intensity of visual impact is expressed in variation
of colour on the below figure. The peer review concludes that the 25 metre monopole tower results
in negligible visual impact in all but 4 viewpoints examined. It is considered that even a moderate
visual impact on at least 1 property is in conflict with the intent of the locality.
Page 25 of 119
Section 26
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The degree of visual impact varies depending on the aspect, topography, natural features, time of
day, light, sun angle, weather and backdrop. It is also important to note that being visible and being
a significant part of the view are two distinct differences when considering the degree of impact on
the sensitive receptor. It is noted that some properties view up to 2 other towers and high voltage
power lines that are many kilometres away and generally blend into the background of the distant
landscape.
Figure 19: View lines to the Proposed NBN Tower indicating intensity of visual intrusion
Page 26 of 119
Section 27
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
4. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The Overall Outcomes in the Hinterland Villages Local Plan Code and the Infrastructure Uses Code
in the Draft Planning Scheme outline the importance of protecting scenic and landscape values
with respect to development and for telecommunication towers. The relevant codes are generally
consistent with the current Noosa Plan.
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
Not applicable
5.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
Environment Officer, Development Assessment
Visual Impact Assessment Report was peer reviewed by Council’s consultant (Visual
amenity).
5.3. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Planning Act
2016. A total of 458 submissions were received as a result of the public notification of the
development application. 442 properly made and 16 not properly submissions were received. Two
further submissions were received in January 2020. All submissions objected to the proposal.
Of the 442 properly made submissions, 156 of those were received from a submitter with a Noosa
Shire address.
A total of 67 submissions were received from residents within the potential NBN tower service area.
Three (3) of those submissions were from residents outside Noosa Council area and two (2) of
those submissions were not properly made.
Several common themes were expressed in the submissions which primarily centred around visual
amenity, non-compliance with planning scheme policy and codes, close proximity to residential
dwellings, effect on tourism and vegetation clearing.
Table 3 provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Table 3: Summary of public submissions
Summary of Matters Raised Comments
The visual amenity should be protected for all to It is agreed, that the proposed tower has impacts on
enjoy – a tower impacts on the visual amenity of the scenic amenity of the area. The degree of
the area. It will ruin the beautiful vista and impacts is different depending on the location.
beauty and character of the area and be a
contrast to the rural landscape. Rural amenity is
Cooran’s main aspect.
Object to a tall tower in the proposed location
that is located on a prominent ridgeline - above
the landscape.
Visual impact from several properties (nearby
and at a distance), the township, Noosa Trail
network, Cooran Lookout and Woondum
National Park.
Will have a negative visual impact on users of
the Noosa Trail network (eg. Trail 3 connecting
the James McKane Lookout to Arthys Rd which
is the most used – 1 km away). This track has
uninterrupted scenic views. The tower will be a
Page 27 of 119
Section 28
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Summary of Matters Raised Comments
prominent focal point. It will be seen from the
base to the top in some locations.
Will visually dominate the whole valley including
the view from McKanes Lookout and the entire
length of the popular section of the Noosa Trail
that runs from the Lookout to Cooran via Arthys
Road
It will impact on the authenticity of the
experience for tourists and residents.
Visible against the views to Mt Cooroora.
Views ruined from No. 226, 250, 268, 298 It is acknowledged that the properties mentioned in
Tablelands Rd (seen in full – from base to the these submissions may have a clear view line to the
top from some properties). The upper section proposed tower. Their scenic amenity may be
silhouetted in the sky. 350m from no. 298. impacted upon as a consequence of the
250 is in close proximity to the existing tower and development. No. 250 is in close proximity to the
the proposed – 2 towers is worrying as we have proposed tower which will be largely screened by
a young family. Construction and ongoing vegetation, but there may be instances where
maintenance will have an impact on amenity, in glimpses through the vegetation are possible.
addition to the scenic amenity impacts. The
tower is only 100 metres away and will largely
visible from every part of the property at No. 250
Tablelands Rd.
The visual analysis provided by the applicant It does appear that in some instances this may have
does not give an accurate visual representation occurred.
of the impact of the proposed tower. It shows Council sought third party perspective in regard to
sites that have minimal impact and left those the Visual Impact Assessment report and the
sites/areas out which have greater impact. revised Visual Impact Assessment report provided
Sections of the surrounding road network were by the applicant.
not taken into account. Cross sections
representation does not reflect accurate amount
or positioning of trees.
The applicant’s consultant was contacted to
provide them with the evidence on visual
impacts/ viewpoints, prior to the conclusion of
the visual impact report, but they failed to return
any calls.
The tower which impedes on views will have a There are some impacts on scenic amenity which
negative effect on future enterprises in this area detract from the natural environment.
such as eco cottages.
Proposal does not comply with all Noosa The proposal has varying effect on the landscape
Policies, including Noosa Planning Scheme and in some instances would be considered that it
Policy 23 (Telecommunication Towers) does not comply with the Mary River Catchment
(particularly section 3, or Noosa Plan (Locality Locality Code, Infrastructure Uses Code and PSP
Code, Rural Zone Code & Infrastructure Uses 23.
Code) and the SEQ Regional Plan. Please Comments regarding PSP23 are noted. The
enforce this policy. proposed tower is visible to varying degrees in the
PSP 23 states that towers should be positioned landscape. Where close proximity and distant
so they are less visible. The proposed tower is background is experienced, the tower tends to
very visible. feature more prominently.
Contrary to Noosa’s biodiversity and protection The tower is not located in an area of high value
of the environment. Infrastructure should be biodiversity identified in the Planning Scheme.
placed sensitively and protect rural views and
character.
Page 28 of 119
Section 29
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Summary of Matters Raised Comments
‘will impact the authenticity of the experience Several other structures are able to be viewed from
that tourists travelling to our shire seek to tourist locations. The tower is not visible from James
receive’ McKane Lookout. The view from the Noosa Trails
network has been assessed as having minor/
negligible visual impact.
Location of the tower is detrimental to the Noosa The site is located in the Regional Landscape and
biosphere and UNESCO’s principles. Rural Production Area (RLRPA) as identified in the
‘The purpose for wanting to live and invest in this SEQ Regional Plan. The intent of RLRPA is:
area is for the highly sought after rural scenic protect the values of this land from
amenity this area offers. It is unique in its natural encroachment by urban and rural residential
heritage with spectacular rural views taking in all development; and
the volcanic plugs of the Noosa Hinterland. protect natural assets and regional
Something Council should protect and value as landscapes, and ensure their sustainable use
an asset to the greater Noosa Shire.’ and management
In this regard, a NBN tower in this location could be
seen to not meet this intent. Appropriate
development in the RLRPA includes activities that
are associated with primary production, land
management, some tourism activity, and
community and recreation activity.
Strategies outlined in Element 6: Digital
infrastructure in the SEQ Regional Plan support
improvement in digital infrastructure.
The SEQ Regional Plan recognises Noosa
Biosphere Reserve and the value of Noosa’s
natural landscapes
The SEQ Regional Plan is intended to be applied
giving appropriate weight to all themes, goals,
elements and strategies to deliver a balanced
approach to planning and development throughout
the life of the plan. One element cannot be
excluded or given undue bias without due
consideration of the overall outcome sought.
The height of existing trees at the sites location The applicant has chosen to reduce the height of the
are 12 metres, and the tower 36 metres. Towers tower by 10 metres.
approximately 24 metres over existing The latest survey plan provided by the applicant
vegetation. seeks to remove 8 mature trees and 4 smaller trees.
Clearing vegetation for the tower will decrease These are predominantly contained within the tower
efficiency of vegetation screening and leave a compound as the most recent change to the plan
scar on the land. The construction of the tower alters the alignment of the proposed access to
will have impacts on fauna. coincide with the existing site access, deviating
close to the compound some 60m in from the site
The proposal relies upon mature vegetation to
access.
create a visual barrier… The trees appear to be
mature with limited life span and have been Trees around the tower site will be retained.
subject to wind and fire damage in the past; Species likely to be impacted upon to facilitate the
therefore we believe they should not be used as tower include Acacia’s, immature camphor laurels,
a visual buffer to tower. …Dominant regrowth lantana and one immature Hard Quandong (2m
has a height of only 5-10m. high).
Tower will be seen either side of the drive entry Agreed. The top of the tower will be visible at this
to 244 and the first corner after the bridge location.
coming up to Tablelands Rd. Generally
prominent along the road within 300m of the
tower.
Page 29 of 119
Section 30
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Summary of Matters Raised Comments
Consider 5G antennas – people not wanting to The proposal does not indicate that 5G will operate
come within close proximity or live near them. from this site. If approved, the infrastructure could
be upgraded to include any new technology in the
future.
Property values will be affected due to the visual It is acknowledged that this is an issue for residents.
impact. Further, a tower in close proximity to The Planning Act 2016 states that a planning
dwellings will cause devaluation with no right to scheme is not to include matters concerning a
compensation. person’s financial circumstances in the assessment
benchmark. Further, impact assessment may be
carried out against, or have regard to, any other
relevant matter, other than a person’s personal
circumstances, financial or otherwise. The
submitters concerns are nevertheless noted
Concerns that the applicant’s consultant has The applicant’s consultant had a public meeting for
been evasive eg. advertising in Gympie Times, public consultation in Pomona, rather than in the
public meeting in Pomona, when development is Cooran township. Some Cooran residents believe
in Cooran. that this was to avoid feedback. The applicant’s
The consultation process was flawed due to the consultant provided reasoning that there was not a
lack of proper notice given to those directly suitable site available in Cooran at the time of the
affected by the proposal. Advertising was public meeting, resulting in the meeting being held
limited to a Gympie newspaper and not the in Pomona.
Noosa News, which is circulated in the Cooran Under the Planning Act 2016, public notice
locality. requirements include the publishing of a notice ‘in a
newspaper circulating generally in the locality of the
There has been no contact by them to
premises the subject of the application’. The
understand impacts, even when asked for a call
applicant’s consultant provided Council with
back. Some owners tried to contact the applicant
evidence that the circulation of the Gympie Times
to discuss visual impacts, but messages left for
includes the town of Cooran. Refer Figure 20–
the applicant’s consultant were unanswered.
Newspaper Circulation Area below
Letters sent to people within the catchment from
It is noted that some residents may have mistaken
applicant’s consultant that looked like junk mail
communication from the applicant’s consultant as
– addressed to ‘The Occupier’.
junk mail.
If it has to be placed in the Cooran region, The applicant maintains that the existing tower on
position it alongside the existing tower or replace Tablelands Rd cannot be upgraded to obtain the
this (across the road from proposed tower), or coverage NBN are seeking and would need to be
position it where the visual impact is not so replaced with a stronger, lattice style structure up to
great. The existing tower does not protrude the 50m in height. At this height the structure would
trees and is discrete. protrude above the tree line and be almost twice the
height of the existing Telstra tower.
The applicant maintains that this is cost prohibitive
and the phone network would need to be disabled
while construction was occurring.
The applicant also maintains that even if the existing
Telstra tower at its current height was certified to be
able to carry the extra weight of equipment, the
available height for the NBN equipment would be
20m above ground which the applicant maintains is
too low to be able to get the coverage needed for the
area required to be serviced.
Any tower approved will be able to be upgraded The proposed tower is considered a ‘high impact
which will add to the approved (by Council) facility’ under the provisions of the
height. Telecommunications Act, which requires Council
approval. Upgrades can be made to an approved
facility if they are enabled under the guidelines the
‘Determination (low impact facility)’ which includes,
Page 30 of 119
Section 31
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Summary of Matters Raised Comments
an extension to an approved tower up to 5 metres
(once only), additional panels up to 2.8m long and
antennas up to 3m high (from the structure/tower).
This means that should the tower be approved at a
height of 25 metres (plus 1 metre of antennae), the
provider could increase the tower by an additional 5
metres, antennae height by another 2 metres, which
increases the overall height of the structure, by
potentially another 7 metres. This matter is
considered relevant to the impact assessment of the
application.
Allowing towers on private land will set a town Noosa Plan has no jurisdiction over agreements
planning precedent. between landowners and the telecommunications
providers for lease areas required to provide legal
right of access to private property. The provider has
landowner agreement to lease an area of land on
the property to facilitate the proposed tower should
Council approve the application.
Studies of magnetic radiation from these towers Fixed wireless links use Radio frequency (RF) and
have not been proven 100% that they do not electromagnetic energy (EME) to communicate
harm health. Not confident about the radiation between NBN base stations to small rooftop
level assessment. installations on premises. Emissions are regulated
by the Australian Communications and Media
Authority (ACMA). The ACMA requires NBN base
stations to comply with exposure limits in the
ARPANSA RF Standard. This standard is based on
scientific research that demonstrates the level at
which harmful effects occur and sets limits, below
the identified harmful levels, based on international
guidelines.
The Environmental EME report provided for the
subject tower showed the maximum EME level is
equivalent to 0.31% of the public exposure limit,
where 100% is considered safe (322 times below the
safety standard).
Should the tower be approved, suggest that With regard to the road, the number of vehicles
developer seal the road up to the subject site using the road during construction and maintenance
and compensate residents whose view is would temporarily increase, but generally the use
compromised. does not attract an increase in daily vehicle trips.
With regard to views to the tower from the residential
premise on the subject site, this matter would be
addressed between the developer and the affected
landowners.
Further submission maintains that an alternative Visual impact assessment of the tower from 298
siting could be achieved if the applicant sought Tablelands Road was not included in the applicant’s
to engage with the local landowners. VIA(as amended). Mention of the property is
The resulting impact of the proposed NBN tower included in an overview of views from the north and
to be built at 244 Tablelands Road would create Woondum National Park but no specific
a clear high modification to the visual amenity assessment undertaken.
from 298 Tablelands Road. Council’s independent visual consultant assessed
the property as having a moderate adverse visual
The applicant’s assessment conflicts with the
impact as a result of the 25 metre tower. Council
methodology of assessing levels of scenic
officers consider that the neighbourhood sensitivity
amenity impacts as set out by SEQ Regional
of this site may be even higher considering the
Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee and
Darryl Low Choy.
Page 31 of 119
Section 32
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Summary of Matters Raised Comments
proximity of the tower to the premises and the
prominence in the view.
Council’s independent consultant identified flaws in
the methodology of the first VIA which do not appear
to have been addressed appropriately in the 2nd VIA.
Figure 20 – Newspaper circulation area
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The development application seeking a development permit to construct a NBN tower at 244
Tablelands Road has been amended from the original proposed height of 35 metres to a monopole
height of 25 metres. The proposal includes a slimline telecommunications tower which will be
painted in colours to blend in with surrounding vegetation. The site is located adjacent to
Tablelands Road on a small ridgeline to the east of the road. The proposal has sought to minimise
the removal of trees by siting the tower and associated access at the edge of an existing cleared
area and aligning the access road with the existing driveway to the house site on the property.
The applicant has submitted 2 Visual Impact Assessment reports which have been peer reviewed
by Council’s independent consultant. The peer review has identified shortcomings in the
methodology used in the applicant’s visual impact assessment. Based on the methodology used,
the majority of vantage points which will view the tower from the surrounding area are considered
to have negligible impact on the scenic amenity of the area due to a combination of distance and/
or vegetated backdrop preventing the upper parts of the tower to extend into the skyline. It is
unclear as to the full extent of properties which are adversely affected that have not been visited
by either the applicant’s visual consultant or Council’s visual consultant. At least 4 known sites are
likely to have low to moderate visual impact. At least one of these site is known to have a prominent
view of the proposed tower in context of the viewshed overall. The view of the proposed tower
from 298 Tablelands Road is significant as it sits within a central aspect of the view, between
existing trees and in the foreground of the view.
The proposed tower site is located 100metres from an existing Telstra tower. The Telstra tower is
unable to be viewed from elevations above it due to its siting and screening by surrounding trees.
The applicant has elected not to co-locate the infrastructure as would be the expectation of the
Infrastructure Uses Code. The Mary River Catchment Locality Code contains strong themes of
protection of scenic amenity, rural character and protection of environmental and recreational
values. It is considered that the departure from these two key aspects of the planning scheme
warrant further consideration of alternative sites.
If approved, the operation of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications (Low-
Impact Facilities) Determination 2018 enables extension of the tower by up to 7 metres in total
without returning to Council for comment or assessment. The immunities afforded to ‘Low Impact
Facilities’ are considered a relevant mater for consideration in the assessment of this application.
Page 32 of 119
Section 33
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The Noosa Plan seeks to ensure that the community is provided with the services and infrastructure
needed in the current age of technology but not at the expense of the scenic amenity values and
rural character of the region. The planning scheme is clear in its intent to protect these values and
it is considered that the proposed development in the location identified by this proposal does not
meet the expectations of the community nor the overall intent of the Noosa Plan. The application
is recommended to Council for refusal.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director X Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service X Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 33 of 119
Section 34
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 34 of 119
SITE LOCATION Seeme ATTACHMENT 1
ee) LOT 10; ; ee
CGR RP891664 (Dr) pn
= 2.
Ss ~~ +s <y, Sh ms
LD ' we, os ot | Be:
LoT 2 4 IE
Cuca) RP192052 [7 ; , eer
- : < ‘
by i | f Client
‘ 7 AutoCAD SHX Text 1 LOT 22 ! y
‘S ft . LOT 2 RP192052 SP 148684 | } s
= ? =S (19.06ha) i
*, ¢ ‘Sp jo | | ERICSSON
NS z, Yao | EXISTING DWELLING (TYP.| ! oOo.
SO yf} ay
Lf f/f, ‘ DETAIL |
= ‘ J PRK Lot 2
— ya | v WO & |
a Oo i LOT 21-4 | sptg2012
COMRAN = fen —_// SP148684 | WEN ES | '
we = if \\ ~=\'& ' .
COPYRIGHT © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, CC BY-SA \\ | ‘
eas J fpoFe ae Wi Lot 3
‘Pip vcrestvecommons orplicencestby-sa'2.0) a -- \
Se Lot 89; \\\_. /RP8B7963 op
MCH1219 Lo NaN Lol? A “=
| \ \ ‘ posses NATIONAL BROADBAND
SITE CO-ORDINATES . RPBB7963 NETWORK
OVERALL SITE PLAN SITE No: 4POM-51-45-CRNA
MONOPOLE LOCATION SCALE 45000 COORAN
DATUM: MGA (GDA94) | ZONE: 56 EXISTING SERVICE MAINS TO BE REMOVED BY SUPPLY AUTHORITY 244 TABLELANDS ROAD
LATITUDE 2631594" | ExisTING DWELLING SAAN
5 1 1 1 35 7 1559 1317 7 28 16 '
5 1 1 1 35 8 1976 1304 47 19 96 NEW
5 1 1 1 35 9 2033 1303 106 20 96 SERVICES
5 1 1 1 35 10 2149 1304 53 19 94 MAIN
5 1 1 1 35 11 2212 1303 30 20 94 BY
5 1 1 1 35 12 2253 1303 88 20 96 SUPPLY
5 1 1 1 35 13 2352 1303 128 20 96 AUTHORITY
5 1 1 1 35 14 2994 1327 53 24 5 Slo
5 1 1 1 35 15 3053 1327 58 24 5 ase
4 1 1 1 36 0 341 1327 2478 56 -1
5 1 1 1 36 1 341 1327 145 55 96 LONGITUDE
5 1 1 1 36 2 780 1354 140 24 0 15283023 COORAN
| CONTRACTOR TG LOCATE ANOS. NEW PROPERTY POLE TO COMPLY WITH QECM WITH NEW POINT OF SUPPLY
EASTING 4830561 sans VIA POLE FUSE/S \b ee _[ 1 (7 GROUP METER PANEL ON EXISTING PROPERTY POLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
\\ / > EXISTING METER PANEL CONVERTED TO A SWITCHBOARD AND NEW | FOR CONSTRUCTION |
ISOLATE EXISTING NBN SERVICE , \\\ /
NORTHING 7 089 316 EXISTING ENERGEX ot NV < f _>-— EXISTING POINT OF CONNECTION BETWEEN NBN SERVICE MAINS AND |
POWER POLE 162371 \ \ \ 4. _y JL fo CONSUMERS MAINS CABLES TO BE REMOVED. REFER NOTE 4.
EXISTING PROPERTY POLE To Ae 7 os aE ~ ROT EXISTING VEHICLES TO BE MOVED BY LANDOWNER oe eee ore ate See Fee
REMAIN INSITU UNTIL SUPPLY \ \\ SAY S- rs NBN CONSTRUCTION AREA
AUTHORITY REMOVE EXISTING “\*\\ [ a | ~ WS EXISTING CONTAINER TO BE RELOCATED BY NBN ee
AERIAL SERVICE MAINS CABLE. \\/ VG, (&
REFER NOTE 4. V4 KAN ERS -s
NEW 3 PHASE SUPPLY AUTHORITY \\ ZN RS bon NOTES:
LV NETWORK EXTENDED BY SS NN VAY Ww a aurecon
SUPPLY AUTHORITY a WA NBN SITE 1. THE NBN ELECTRICAL ROUTE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS IS | Mie Sun n,, SS oer os
7 SWAN INDICATIVE ONLY. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE
NEW SUPPLY AUTHORITY POLE Vv ae \\8 EXACT ROUTE. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE AND
NEW NBN SUBMAIN ~~ 4 AE \e IDENTIFY EXISTING U/G SERVICES PRIOR TO PoEsioneR. =O MHC
~-—~-.__ =e COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. :
EXISTING TELSTRA SITE “7-H 2, ENERGEX MAY REQUIRE NBN TO CARRY OUT VEGETATION [SHESKED: JR
! \o ~-——..__ CLEARING FOR SUPPLY AUTHORITY NETWORK EXTENSION
! “By AND SERVICES MAINS. Drawing Tie:
ALEGEND | rt Bl 3. VEGETATION CLEARING SHALL BE CARRIED OUT FORNEW | OVERALL
— Af — AE — EXISTING AERIAL ELECTRICAL ROUTE DETAIL COB NSUNER MAINS AND NBN SUB-MAINS | SITE PLAN
—NuE — NUE — NEW NBN ELECTRICAL ROUTE SCALE 1:2500 4, EXISTING SERVICE MAINS CABLES WILL BE REMOVED BY
ee SUPPLY AUTHORITY DURING THEIR EXTENSION WORKS ON | Srammgre: Ravan
PROPERTY BOUNDARY THE PROPOSED LAYOUT. 4POM-51-45-CRNA-C2
COPYRIGHT © NBN Co LIMITED ABN 85 136 533 741 . ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. VERSION 10- SEPT 2011 20 19 o 10 20 30 40 50mm |)
Page 34 of 119Section 35
Page 35 of 119
6LL 40 GE abeg
i WD S oF of oz Oo 4 oO 02 LO Ld - Ol NOISHSA ‘CSAHSSSu SLHOIY Ty PZ S85 SEh SENG@W CSLINI CO NGN O LHORAGOO
COWNYO-SILSNOdP
vorsaw on
5 1 1 1 4 3 549 289 64 45 0 Buwesc
5 1 1 1 4 4 1277 303 69 20 14 “MYOM
5 1 1 1 4 5 1357 304 26 19 67 JO
5 1 1 1 4 6 1393 304 176 19 4 LNAWIINAWHO2
5 1 1 1 4 7 2739 293 122 22 16 AMWONNOG
5 1 1 1 4 8 2872 293 119 22 18 ALYIdOud
5 1 1 1 4 9 3099 304 30 3 91 --
4 1 1 1 5 0 734 335 2485 26 -1
5 1 1 1 5 1 734 335 28 20 90 OL
5 1 1 1 5 2 772 335 63 20 0 MOlNd
5 1 1 1 5 3 846 335 106 20 13 SINANIS
5 1 1 1 5 4 963 335 40 20 80 9/N
5 1 1 1 5 5 1013 335 101 20 31 ONILSIXS
5 1 1 1 5 6 1124 335 99 20 46 ASLLNAG!
5 1 1 1 5 7 1233 335 45 20 86 ONY
5 1 1 1 5 8 1288 335 84 20 0 31307
5 1 1 1 5 9 1384 335 28 20 93 OL
5 1 1 1 5 10 1422 335 147 20 0 YOLIVYLNOD
5 1 1 1 5 11 2798 339 59 21 62 vady
5 1 1 1 5 12 2869 339 122 22 0 Isv1N@N
5 1 1 1 5 13 3009 348 28 3 68 —
5 1 1 1 5 14 3047 348 172 3 68 —————
4 1 1 1 6 0 799 367 770 20 -1
5 1 1 1 6 1 799 367 131 20 0 WIINLIITS
5 1 1 1 6 2 939 367 79 20 14 “ALNOY
5 1 1 1 6 3 1028 367 74 20 46 LI¥X3
5 1 1 1 6 4 1112 367 122 20 28 ININYILIG
5 1 1 1 6 5 1243 367 28 20 86 OL
5 1 1 1 6 6 1281 367 148 20 22 YOLIVALNOD
5 1 1 1 6 7 1441 367 128 20 0 TWI8L1II73
4 1 1 1 7 0 517 385 2705 44 -1
5 1 1 1 7 1 517 385 92 44 45 NV1d
5 1 1 1 7 2 711 398 64 21 36 ATNG
JAILWJIONI SI SONIMWYC SHL NO NMOHS 3LNOY WWIHLIITI NEN JHL 1 JIN44 ONNOdWOD NEN — / —— / —
INOLSS SLIS an J1a¥) VHLS73L GNNOYSNIGNN. ——— 1 ——
_mufwrn OoLt FWIS 31NOY WILI373 GNNOWDY3IGNN NEN — 3nN— ann —
W130 oT
| sf _asres¥0 | =m S1lV.L30 HO4 ZL00-O.LS-NEN ‘434 ‘ILVD JTONIS JOM LY ey ido ued nae ols teem
| HIN 8 NoISa | WS'L HLIM 3IN3J ALIINDIS JYIMNIVH3 HOIH W4'z NEN ~ . ~als-
\ °900] YIGWIL HIM L¥W 39M YAO T3AVU9 G3ZIS JTONIS WIIHL WEL
$1I¥L30 LNNOW YO4 S-1 SLI3HS / a . 1
c126e1 SOD PS NY on Kigerensny uoary | SOLLLVD '43U ‘SVNNJLNY T3N¥d ONIH3@ (440-8) SLINN ye ke 2S 8 IS“WNEI-S9-LS-“WOd4 438 “T1¥M ONINIV 13 8407 HOIH W8'0
uoDeJnD OlGVY SLOWIY HLIM 40-91 SVNNALNV TANVd NEN 7 : STIVL30 UOd 2-1 SLIBHS Y6OLVD 2 S-1 SITIHS
eo STV 130 LNNOW UOd S-l SLISHS 9OLLLV9 “Jay >» Yee * SOLILY9 “43d 'SNVUSOVSH MV INDUID HLIM J10dONOW WSZ NEN
‘(VEVYVHLOOI OL) YNNILNV aoavavd 0090 MEN x Mp, X ee YK TT OOS NEN 49d
5 1 1 1 18 16 2649 809 84 24 53 (440-1)
5 1 1 1 18 17 2745 811 74 22 90 LNNOW
5 1 1 1 18 18 2829 811 76 22 19 d¥YLS
5 1 1 1 18 19 2915 812 28 20 91 NO
5 1 1 1 18 20 2952 811 50 22 59 LINN
5 1 1 1 18 21 3013 811 43 22 0 Sd
5 1 1 1 18 22 3066 811 43 22 92 NEN
4 1 1 1 19 0 1488 824 671 50 -1
5 1 1 1 19 1 1488 845 16 17 43 S
5 1 1 1 19 2 1634 842 11 17 15 :
5 1 1 1 19 3 1673 824 74 50 35 eee
5 1 1 1 19 4 2139 856 20 10 30 _
4 1 1 1 20 0 1351 850 1758 58 -1
5 1 1 1 20 1 1351 854 43 47 83 \
5 1 1 1 20 2 1478 854 16 17 44 s
5 1 1 1 20 3 1601 852 56 56 70 Ag,
5 1 1 1 20 4 1667 864 39 29 34 et
5 1 1 1 20 5 1942 850 41 44 56 SX
5 1 1 1 20 6 2118 866 20 11 9 ~
5 1 1 1 20 7 2760 868 93 21 48 $1W130
5 1 1 1 20 8 2863 868 40 20 0 YOd
5 1 1 1 20 9 2914 868 47 20 77 1€00
5 1 1 1 20 10 2972 868 14 20 61 ¥
5 1 1 1 20 11 2996 868 47 21 48 S100
5 1 1 1 20 12 3054 866 55 23 7 “S100
4 1 1 1 21 0 1616 875 1492 73 -1
5 1 1 1 21 1 1616 891 253 51 21 Stee
5 1 1 1 21 2 1987 875 129 73 41 <a
5 1 1 1 21 3 2595 897 172 24 0 €L00-OLS-NAN
‘438 'LSOd Luoddns 43IGQ¥1
(ODN IRAN TRE OGG GAS NS FTE) 407} HIM 430007 3189 FOI OOE NEN
/ Z yee _ ,
\ frat ee TS Ng yj
( / A ie eh o Ap 5
fc AN FR \ B& yy
NOILONYLSNOD YOS , oy J Re Nw ye KIX, Q
69s GTO V4 AQ SS BY aN 9 Sy eS QUIT) 38 O1 GAYINDSY SIRL TVWS 7
> 4 OO NNT SN \> YO x)
NvNOO9 4A eu Qe \ SC ©. Ye 7 5 ONY WNIGSW 8 ‘W3N¥ NOILINYLSNOD ONY
ff No LAA SA ONO RP 4 So GNNOdWOD HOI GIINDIY ONIAVIID IFL
VOU SGNVTST8V1 P67 7? SN ge Ne BD vY \ Mn 4
> S1IVL3O HOS OEOOINWAL ATW NV NH A NOY SAP \S see PPR eS .
NVYOOO L 5 ' _ Ne Se ON x EAE 4 QA,
- / NOILWONNOS 310dONOW NON = ieee NO NN SOX WS ao
YNYO-SHLS-WOd? -ON SLIS . oy BC io NN at ie SDP oO SY 5
MYOMLAN J a %, wa) QE yp 7 OY Ss )
CGNVEGVONE TWNOILVWN A Wau NOLLVLSNO3 25 9 IS-YNUD-S4-1S-Wod4 Ud \ SK MOS Ng AX oe ays 2 S1IV.130 404 € LHS-€00-01S-NEN ¥
< NEN ZK» mst “TAWM ONINIY L3Y HOIH Wo" =a Xv YER. SS ) Z LHS-9100-GLS-NEN ‘434 ‘GV 7S ILIWINOD
oe . Mee NG NS AS 38 4 NO (440-1) 0ZL9S@Y LINIG¥) YOOGLNO NEN
\ GAL¥20134 Je STV130 YOd € LHS-4EOO-GIS-NEN® 2 SY NS {
\ O1 Y3NI¥LNOD), onnen | ecnleay ane ! Se fe SOK Yara ce tee ae ,
ONLLSIXA } LHS~9L00-OLS-NEN “3Y ‘BV IS 3LAWINOI = Fa LN ae, S25 8 LS-YNUD-S17-1S-WOd"7 “438 “TTVM ONINIV3Y UaddN HOI W8"0
SO? ¢ NO (440-1) LOLS S@@ LINI@¥I YOOGLNG NEN aN 2 So {
SS ? $W130 YOd ZZ00-GLS-NEN ‘JHU? we AN 4 { Sulv1s ONY Hi¥dLO0s 31389NO>
\ > 'SWWYI-H NO CYYOG NOLLNGINLSIC YIMOd NEN ms NX \ \ {
\ONNOdWOD OL LNIDVAV foe sr tae “SY )
( of er Se oy Im \ 4 JLNOY LIVX3 INIWYILIG OL YOLIVYLNOD
YIdY WHOM OL SSIIDW WAVED
NA AA AN NE OL NOILINYLSNOD O1 HOld G3LNOY-3e ONY
tp \ NX folie TUN@ / SS 0311901 34 OL 318¥9 VHLSTAL ONILSIXS
ty . po eet iy y _—
NOSSOI4S ey, \ ~~ pre Pa se
4 \ < bor Nn ny v / _—
— ac \ a ny : mo
aD ne te pe L wy é
. we Ne : svn NaN
oe, SONG “~ wid “| ~~
ool Bos rN) \ 5 ON é aN
s 4 i ee \ woe g
as . No NN. oN
“ 290 VY os Y | —
* * ~™ a £
wadSection 36
Page 36 of 119
Ctlent
s
1 gia.
oog as
334 } 33
oun ee,
SITE MATERIAL PAINTING SCHEDULE SP -
FEATURE MATERIAL | FINISH | COLOUR EL 26.0m a
oo,
[Sasa eee eat
| Cllent
ANTENNA MOUNT | EL 25.0m TOP OF MONOPOLE
); xo
1 Uy / — WITHREMOTE RADIO UNIT (8-OFF)
RADIG COMMUNICATION DISH if it / REF. GA11706 SHEETS 1-5 FOR MOUNT DETAILS —_—
a
Bid ae C/L NBN CANISTER (2-OFF) ERICSSON
POWER DISTRIBUTION BOARD EL 2.0m
- C/L 6600 NBN PARABOLIC ANTENNA (1-OFF)
REF. GA11706 SHEETS 1-5 FOR MOUNT DETAILS
=! \w EL 20.0m
C/L NBN GPS UNIT (1-OFF)
f ON STRAP MOUNT (1-OFF)
i REF. NBN-STD-0036
| “a
Sa EXISTING TREES, APPROX 16-18m HIGH
| ' Pres
425 6 : yes NATIONAL BROADBAND
vila A 5 v2 ‘ NETWORK
aN Brn 5 \ SITE No: 4POM-51-45-CRNA
aan : PROPOSED NBN FEEDER CABLES TO BE
_/ RUN VERTICALLY INSIDE MONOPOLE COORAN
; . | es 244 TABLELANDS ROAD
aS DAA Nae COORAN
NBN 25m MONOPOLE WITH CIRCULAR HEADFRAME; REF. GA11706 OLD 4569
| ; |. SHEETS 1-5 & GA7894 SHEETS 1-2 FOR DETAILS
NBN 2.4m HIGH CHAINWIRE SECURITY ‘ | ree } FOR CONSTRUCTION
FENCE WITH 3.0m WIDE ACCESS GATE; \ ., i k vent _—
REF, NBN-STD-0012 FOR DETAILS \ tah |e 5
NBN OUTDOOR CABINET BBS 6101 (1-OFF) ON \ | yo NBN 300 WIDE CABLE LADDER WITH 1-OFF CABLE LADDER SUPPORT POST;
CONCRETE SLAB; REF.NBN-STD-O016-SHT1 = |\ | / _ REF, NBN-STD-0013, 0014, 0015 & 0031 FOR DETAILS
& NBN-STD-0034-SHT 3 FOR DETAILS \ \ ZW [eae sev sre ener
NBN POWER DISTRIBUTION BOARD ON H-FRAME; Yop 4 Ir NBN OUTDOOR CABINET RBS6120 (1-OFF] ON CONCRETE SLAB;
REF. NBN-§TD.002? FOR DETAILS eS. - REF, NBN-STD-0016-SHT 2 & NBN-STD-0034-SHT 3 FOR DETAILS
cy Ne Be a
a : ae HL 000 (RL 15 ureco
| — asi 3.908 sis aurecon
/e\, © 0m HIGH UPPER RETAINING WALL; —}>———_-—_ Ea) HIS /
REF. 4POM-51-45-CRNA-S1 & S2 eS Ep / g EL -0.15m (RL. 175.30m)
NBN MONOPOLE FOUNDATION et] SR [oesene |
NA AAAAAAAAS — , Ss J]. FINISHED GROUND LEVEL
Fer. Ebeureea6 POA DETAILS 0.8m HIGH LOWER RETAINING WALL; REF. lPOM-S1-45-CRNA-S1 & $2
Drawing Tite:
SITE ELEVATION
NORTH WEST ELEVATION AND DETAILS
SCALE 1:150 =
4POM-51-45-CRNA-C4
COPYRIGHT © NBN Co LIMITED ABN 86 136 533 741 . ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. VERSION 10- SEPT 2011 20 19 p 0 20 | 30 40 SOmm |g
Page 36 of 119Section 37
Page 37 of 119 pee © [atte He 8 Le eye: Pos ns | YP, oo reo? By ey eT Ng. “° oe [ase e] ey 5 1 1 1 5 4 3127 365 20 18 25 . 4 1 1 1 6 0 570 410 2372 55 -1 5 1 1 1 6 1 570 415 55 20 96 TREE 5 1 1 1 6 2 635 415 28 21 95 TO 5 1 1 1 6 3 673 415 26 21 96 BE 5 1 1 1 6 4 711 415 108 21 96 RETAINED 5 1 1 1 6 5 828 410 67 48 43 (TYP) 5 1 1 1 6 6 1905 439 10 17 0 / 5 1 1 1 6 7 1928 416 44 46 0 a 5 1 1 1 6 8 1991 416 40 36 50 wh 5 1 1 1 6 9 2043 435 13 27 0 : 5 1 1 1 6 10 2070 416 81 49 36 ae 5 1 1 1 6 11 2159 420 15 11 0 us 5 1 1 1 6 12 2186 414 19 48 25 J 5 1 1 1 6 13 2896 430 46 14 57 oat 4 1 1 1 7 0 570 464 2547 106 -1 5 1 1 1 7 1 570 548 45 20 95 TYP. 5 1 1 1 7 2 631 548 55 20 93 TREE 5 1 1 1 7 3 696 548 28 20 93 TO 5 1 1 1 7 4 734 548 26 20 96 BE 5 1 1 1 7 5 772 548 104 20 93 REMOVED, 5 1 1 1 7 6 892 548 66 20 90 8-OFF 5 1 1 1 7 7 969 548 82 20 96 MEDIUM 5 1 1 1 7 8 1260 526 105 44 28 ro 5 1 1 1 7 9 1801 502 53 47 67 XE 5 1 1 1 7 10 1862 482 45 77 0 * 5 1 1 1 7 11 1917 470 93 85 21 eee 5 1 1 1 7 12 2020 470 164 85 17 soe) 5 1 1 1 7 13 3022 464 95 89 51 S 4 1 1 1 8 0 570 536 2549 99 -1 5 1 1 1 8 1 570 565 70 35 91 TREES 5 1 1 1 8 2 651 580 44 20 93 AND 5 1 1 1 8 3 706 580 69 20 37 4-OFF 5 1 1 1 8 4 785 565 102 35 95 SMALLER 5 1 1 1 8 5 898 559 69 41 95 TREES 5 1 1 1 8 6 1102 559 152 76 26 Nr 5 1 1 1 8 7 1456 542 18 70 0 r~ 5 1 1 1 8 8 1736 595 13 12 0 LU 5 1 1 1 8 9 1779 561 17 26 1 “a 5 1 1 1 8 10 1816 563 45 41 31 ae 5 1 1 1 8 11 1915 563 66 43 17 eons 5 1 1 1 8 12 1993 561 87 49 22 ee 5 1 1 1 8 13 2089 561 47 44 54 a 5 1 1 1 8 14 3022 536 97 55 64 — 4 1 1 1 9 0 570 611 2615 79 -1 5 1 1 1 9 1 570 611 110 23 95 (SMALLER 5 1 1 1 9 2 690 612 71 21 96 TREES 5 1 1 1 9 3 771 613 44 20 93 NOT 5 1 1 1 9 4 825 611 95 23 82 SHOWN)) 5 1 1 1 9 5 1218 639 8 51 0 ] 5 1 1 1 9 6 1504 627 18 47 62 \ 5 1 1 1 9 7 1682 611 118 47 19 JOSE 5 1 1 1 9 8 2033 611 26 49 0 ge 5 1 1 1 9 9 2088 611 27 46 0 F 5 1 1 1 9 10 2956 611 229 30 96 ERICSSON 4 1 1 1 10 0 749 728 1409 57 -1 5 1 1 1 10 1 749 746 28 32 39 t 5 1 1 1 10 2 1200 742 119 39 46 aw 5 1 1 1 10 3 1340 730 87 42 0 MV 5 1 1 1 10 4 1610 742 101 49 9 Se 5 1 1 1 10 5 1723 742 144 49 8 Eide 5 1 1 1 10 6 1995 736 74 55 14 OR) 4 1 1 1 11 0 705 821 2038 117 -1 5 1 1 1 11 1 705 851 12 49 60 [ 5 1 1 1 11 2 896 901 16 27 56 C 5 1 1 1 11 3 1060 879 44 13 30 Ss 5 1 1 1 11 4 1163 874 90 29 8 PK 5 1 1 1 11 5 1267 889 41 16 8 RYN 5 1 1 1 11 6 1494 821 89 117 28 mH 5 1 1 1 11 7 1701 865 33 50 14 \ 5 1 1 1 11 8 1740 860 42 53 21 oe 5 1 1 1 11 9 1795 860 38 51 17 me 5 1 1 1 11 10 1841 860 70 55 55 a 5 1 1 1 11 11 1917 860 426 55 32 ey 5 1 1 1 11 12 2354 885 85 20 96 ACCESS 5 1 1 1 11 13 2449 885 45 20 96 AND 5 1 1 1 11 14 2504 885 168 20 96 CONSTRUCTION 5 1 1 1 11 15 2683 885 60 20 96 AREA 4 1 1 1 12 0 713 911 2020 174 -1 5 1 1 1 12 1 713 974 29 38 68 S 5 1 1 1 12 2 795 993 37 31 1 7 5 1 1 1 12 3 922 969 123 51 45 NTA 5 1 1 1 12 4 1071 945 72 113 0 Mi 5 1 1 1 12 5 1282 978 44 40 0 ~ 5 1 1 1 12 6 1409 978 41 44 47 YK 5 1 1 1 12 7 1616 963 272 57 26 BRE 5 1 1 1 12 8 2689 911 44 174 31 NX 4 1 1 1 13 0 741 976 2213 129 -1 5 1 1 1 13 1 741 1033 63 71 1 x 5 1 1 1 13 2 1033 1005 103 100 35 Bs 5 1 1 1 13 3 1216 1026 51 51 43 Lo 5 1 1 1 13 4 1337 1010 69 70 17 “, 5 1 1 1 13 5 1557 1029 21 49 83 \ 5 1 1 1 13 6 1604 995 95 99 41 g»» 5 1 1 1 13 7 1728 976 84 84 20 \N 5 1 1 1 13 8 1852 1045 15 15 91 \ 5 1 1 1 13 9 1884 1032 44 58 16 Ss 5 1 1 1 13 10 1938 1030 89 60 39 oy 5 1 1 1 13 11 2037 1030 45 64 14 a 5 1 1 1 13 12 2092 1030 53 62 9 oo 5 1 1 1 13 13 2157 1039 61 55 37 \ 5 1 1 1 13 14 2884 1029 70 46 13 Pret 4 1 1 1 14 0 711 1130 2545 81 -1 5 1 1 1 14 1 711 1140 11 50 77 [ 5 1 1 1 14 2 1019 1173 30 31 87 > 5 1 1 1 14 3 1092 1153 178 43 0 eye 5 1 1 1 14 4 1314 1142 101 61 35 KS 5 1 1 1 14 5 1590 1133 182 78 59 Qe. 5 1 1 1 14 6 1875 1130 299 75 35 QQ!” 5 1 1 1 14 7 2888 1165 62 32 95 SITE 5 1 1 1 14 8 2959 1165 41 32 93 No: 5 1 1 1 14 9 3008 1165 248 32 86 4POM-51-45-CRNA 4 1 1 1 15 0 712 1179 2451 99 -1 5 1 1 1 15 1 712 1192 240 56 31 BPO 5 1 1 1 15 2 1021 1188 397 90 46 NR 5 1 1 1 15 3 1642 1179 153 81 23 Gos, 5 1 1 1 15 4 2062 1210 68 31 9 ry 5 1 1 1 15 5 2980 1211 183 33 92 COORAN 4 1 1 1 16 0 719 1216 2502 108 -1 5 1 1 1 16 1 719 1264 26 38 0 ‘ 5 1 1 1 16 2 993 1252 30 29 42 ? 5 1 1 1 16 3 1058 1276 13 48 0 ; 5 1 1 1 16 4 1132 1245 37 59 36 L 5 1 1 1 16 5 1620 1216 125 108 5 re 5 1 1 1 16 6 1749 1246 52 45 5 21 5 1 1 1 16 7 2014 1236 53 32 0 ~: 5 1 1 1 16 8 2079 1254 45 41 55 \ 5 1 1 1 16 9 2923 1258 43 24 93 244 5 1 1 1 16 10 2973 1258 166 24 93 TABLELANDS 5 1 1 1 16 11 3148 1258 73 24 96 ROAD 4 1 1 1 17 0 1621 1287 1506 36 -1 5 1 1 1 17 1 1621 1289 121 34 35 LPN 5 1 1 1 17 2 1757 1287 36 14 35 FT 5 1 1 1 17 3 3016 1298 111 24 93 COORAN 4 1 1 1 18 0 747 1278 2383 122 -1 5 1 1 1 18 1 747 1323 41 26 47 ~ 5 1 1 1 18 2 1042 1334 6 6 5 , 5 1 1 1 18 3 1065 1302 64 85 85 > 5 1 1 1 18 4 1139 1343 14 48 86 / 5 1 1 1 18 5 1189 1293 36 87 0 tC 5 1 1 1 18 6 1410 1278 76 75 52 \ 5 1 1 1 18 7 1639 1288 157 84 40 wy 5 1 1 1 18 8 1894 1316 42 84 29 G@ 5 1 1 1 18 9 2102 1302 65 36 50 ~ 5 1 1 1 18 10 3013 1314 48 56 93 QLD 5 1 1 1 18 11 3072 1314 58 56 95 4569 4 1 1 1 19 0 791 1349 1415 79 -1 5 1 1 1 19 1 791 1349 19 44 27 ( 5 1 1 1 19 2 1010 1373 36 38 48 h 5 1 1 1 19 3 1263 1370 49 15 53 — 5 1 1 1 19 4 1321 1377 31 31 64 L 5 1 1 1 19 5 1458 1353 84 75 74 NN 5 1 1 1 19 6 1878 1387 5 8 76 4 5 1 1 1 19 7 2180 1354 26 45 93 \ 4 1 1 1 20 0 829 1394 2420 71 -1 5 1 1 1 20 1 829 1396 97 32 31 Tu 5 1 1 1 20 2 1120 1413 67 33 13 A 5 1 1 1 20 3 1277 1432 27 28 83 4 5 1 1 1 20 4 1373 1402 48 16 66 = 5 1 1 1 20 5 2151 1417 80 48 33 SY 5 1 1 1 20 6 2896 1394 69 33 96 FOR 5 1 1 1 20 7 2976 1394 273 33 95 CONSTRUCTION 4 1 1 1 21 0 1141 1443 2121 21 -1 5 1 1 1 21 1 1141 1443 2 2 1 ° 5 1 1 1 21 2 1207 1451 50 7 59 — 5 1 1 1 21 3 2172 1443 4 6 0 , 5 1 1 1 21 4 3260 1444 2 20 46 | 4 1 1 1 22 0 1160 1428 2102 103 -1 5 1 1 1 22 1 1185 1477 173 21 0 TTL 5 1 1 1 22 2 1380 1428 241 75 17 EEN 5 1 1 1 22 3 1734 1443 92 88 6 Ge 5 1 1 1 22 4 2113 1483 23 21 68 » 5 1 1 1 22 5 2882 1467 380 43 0 ——————— 4 1 1 1 23 0 1219 1483 2043 99 -1 5 1 1 1 23 1 1219 1529 2 3 45 | 5 1 1 1 23 2 1515 1516 10 50 77 I 5 1 1 1 23 3 1634 1472 58 114 67 WG 5 1 1 1 23 4 2085 1527 3 2 53 oN 5 1 1 1 23 5 2202 1478 49 97 70 N 5 1 1 1 23 6 2799 1501 30 30 36 6 4 1 1 1 24 0 608 1536 2654 27 -1 5 1 1 1 24 1 608 1541 13 20 91 R 5 1 1 1 24 2 780 1541 13 20 92 R 5 1 1 1 24 3 1238 1550 8 9 76 \ 5 1 1 1 24 4 2048 1561 2 2 0 . 5 1 1 1 24 5 2872 1532 35 34 20 po 4 1 1 1 25 0 1263 1534 1999 69 -1 5 1 1 1 25 1 1263 1578 2 2 63 . 5 1 1 1 25 2 2252 1549 16 47 92 J 5 1 1 1 25 3 2793 1534 469 69 31 ——<—<<< 4 1 1 1 26 0 481 1575 1776 96 -1 5 1 1 1 26 1 481 1575 168 96 24 rape 5 1 1 1 26 2 649 1575 112 96 44 pw 5 1 1 1 26 3 761 1575 120 96 6 [i 5 1 1 1 26 4 1514 1588 12 49 37 \ 5 1 1 1 26 5 1874 1577 67 43 41 Qu 5 1 1 1 26 6 2226 1609 31 37 0 X 4 1 1 1 27 0 473 1638 2444 98 -1 5 1 1 1 27 1 473 1638 144 96 45 pet 5 1 1 1 27 2 641 1654 128 48 38 Te 5 1 1 1 27 3 769 1638 112 96 13 Te 5 1 1 1 27 4 1528 1647 34 89 35 YS 5 1 1 1 27 5 1896 1660 44 40 65 A 5 1 1 1 27 6 2893 1706 24 24 2 . 4 1 1 1 28 0 493 1705 397 47 -1 5 1 1 1 28 1 489 1680 154 92 38 Pepe 5 1 1 1 28 2 642 1680 123 92 40 f= 5 1 1 1 28 3 780 1680 70 92 46 fo 4 1 1 1 29 0 1414 1728 824 42 -1 5 1 1 1 29 1 1414 1746 2 2 19 . 5 1 1 1 29 2 1678 1743 12 20 90 / 5 1 1 1 29 3 1831 1757 2 2 0 / 5 1 1 1 29 4 2203 1728 35 42 15 a) 4 1 1 1 30 0 497 1728 2746 100 -1 5 1 1 1 30 1 497 1728 101 100 51 of 5 1 1 1 30 2 647 1755 117 50 26 ps 5 1 1 1 30 3 1567 1751 13 48 0 A 5 1 1 1 30 4 1782 1776 30 27 52 \ 5 1 1 1 30 5 2182 1763 17 47 92 \ 5 1 1 1 30 6 2887 1731 356 79 46 aurecon 4 1 1 1 31 0 542 1804 1643 106 -1 5 1 1 1 31 1 542 1804 283 106 7 pt 5 1 1 1 31 2 1592 1815 69 51 0 ™~I 5 1 1 1 31 3 2146 1830 39 35 36 J 4 1 1 1 32 0 524 1854 1606 102 -1 5 1 1 1 32 1 524 1858 133 98 0 po 5 1 1 1 32 2 678 1858 121 83 49 — 5 1 1 1 32 3 798 1854 31 91 20 | 5 1 1 1 32 4 835 1858 17 83 0 * 5 1 1 1 32 5 1618 1888 195 63 3 NA 5 1 1 1 32 6 2016 1877 114 57 33 V7 4 1 1 1 33 0 493 1909 2769 105 -1 5 1 1 1 33 1 493 1909 397 98 21 aT 5 1 1 1 33 2 1818 1952 190 21 29 PNT 5 1 1 1 33 3 2882 1919 380 95 21 ——— 4 1 1 1 34 0 2895 2001 246 55 -1 5 1 1 1 34 1 2895 2001 246 55 96 VEGETATION 4 1 1 1 35 0 2306 2064 887 64 -1 5 1 1 1 35 1 2306 2064 75 64 54 sep 5 1 1 1 35 2 2898 2068 186 32 96 REMOVAL 5 1 1 1 35 3 3097 2068 96 32 96 PLAN 4 1 1 1 36 0 1458 2114 1316 53 -1 5 1 1 1 36 1 1458 2114 208 53 95 CLEARING 5 1 1 1 36 2 1692 2118 111 39 96 PLAN 5 1 1 1 36 3 2294 2150 35 5 83 — 5 1 1 1 36 4 2345 2142 10 19 48 / 5 1 1 1 36 5 2367 2138 28 33 48 — 5 1 1 1 36 6 2427 2142 30 19 89 / 5 1 1 1 36 7 2470 2150 29 5 90 — 5 1 1 1 36 8 2504 2138 61 33 69 NBN 5 1 1 1 36 9 2567 2138 128 33 69 COMPOUND 5 1 1 1 36 10 2708 2138 66 33 96 FENCE 4 1 1 1 37 0 1562 2163 1687 56 -1 5 1 1 1 37 1 1562 2181 69 21 92 SCALE 5 1 1 1 37 2 1643 2181 49 20 82 1:100 5 1 1 1 37 3 2294 2197 65 2 78 —— 5 1 1 1 37 4 2369 2197 26 2 30 — 5 1 1 1 37 5 2405 2197 26 2 30 — 5 1 1 1 37 6 2441 2197 28 2 72 — 5 1 1 1 37 7 2479 2197 28 2 89 — 5 1 1 1 37 8 2524 2188 124 20 92 NBNLEASE 5 1 1 1 37 9 2658 2188 61 20 96 AREA 5 1 1 1 37 10 2882 2163 102 56 0 APOALS 5 1 1 1 37 11 3187 2167 62 13 22 _ 4 1 1 1 38 0 2895 2192 336 33 -1 5 1 1 1 38 1 2895 2192 271 33 68 4POM-51-45-CRNA-C5| 5 1 1 1 38 2 3203 2192 28 33 96 A 4 1 1 1 39 0 241 2245 3028 24 -1 5 1 1 1 39 1 241 2249 243 14 85 (COPYRIGHT 5 1 1 1 39 2 334 2245 18 26 96 © 5 1 1 1 39 3 351 2245 38 26 96 NBN 5 1 1 1 39 4 388 2245 27 26 90 Co 5 1 1 1 39 5 414 2249 70 14 90 LIMITED 5 1 1 1 39 6 483 2245 38 26 88 ABN 5 1 1 1 39 7 525 2245 20 26 73 86 5 1 1 1 39 8 553 2245 27 26 95 136 5 1 1 1 39 9 579 2245 31 26 86 533 5 1 1 1 39 10 609 2245 29 26 82 741 5 1 1 1 39 11 646 2260 4 2 40 _ 5 1 1 1 39 12 652 2245 34 26 96 ALL 5 1 1 1 39 13 685 2245 64 26 96 RIGHTS 5 1 1 1 39 14 750 2245 95 26 96 RESERVED. 5 1 1 1 39 15 845 2245 75 26 93 VERSION 5 1 1 1 39 16 928 2249 27 14 25 10- 5 1 1 1 39 17 956 2245 44 26 25 SEPT 5 1 1 1 39 18 1001 2245 39 26 95 2011 5 1 1 1 39 19 2681 2246 18 16 74 20 5 1 1 1 39 20 2760 2246 14 16 81 10 5 1 1 1 39 21 2839 2246 8 16 56 0 5 1 1 1 39 22 2912 2246 15 16 77 10 5 1 1 1 39 23 2987 2246 19 16 96 20 5 1 1 1 39 24 3062 2245 20 18 74 36 5 1 1 1 39 25 3139 2246 20 17 69 40 5 1 1 1 39 26 3201 2245 47 18 56 Somm 5 1 1 1 39 27 3266 2263 3 6 10 i 4 1 1 1 40 0 2956 2288 314 44 -1 5 1 1 1 40 1 2956 2288 105 44 95 Page 5 1 1 1 40 2 3076 2289 49 34 96 37 5 1 1 1 40 3 3140 2288 43 35 96 of 5 1 1 1 40 4 3198 2289 72 34 96 119
Section 38
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
2 MCU19/0124 - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE -
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS TYPE 1 WAREHOUSE (SELF STORAGE UNITS) AT 15
JARRAH STREET, COOROY
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Billy Glover
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index Application/ MCU19/0124
Attachments 1. Proposal Plans
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant SECU Pty Ltd TTE
Proposal Material Change of Use - Industrial Business - Type 1 Warehouse
(Self Storage Units)
Properly Made Date 25 October 2019
Information Request Date 15 November 2019
Information Response Date 27 November 2019
Decision Due Date 21 February 2020
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 15 Jarrah St, Cooroy Qld 4563
RP Description Lot 10 RP 883226
Land Area 2,316m²
Existing Use of Land Warehouse (Self Storage Units)
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Cooroy & Lake Macdonald
Zone Industry
Overlays Natural Hazards (Bushfire)
Assessment Type Code
Page 38 of 119
Section 39
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2020 regarding Application No. MCU19/0124 for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Industrial Business - Type 1 Warehouse (Self
Storage Units) situated at 15 Jarrah St, Cooroy and:
A. Approve the application in accordance with the following conditions:
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with
prior to the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the
use continues.
Approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with
the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table
unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
AR-0001 A Title Sheet, prepared by Multi Span Australia 20.11.19
AR-1001 A Site Development Plan, prepared by Multi Span 20.11.19
Australia
AR-1002 A Use Area Plans, prepared by Multi Span Australia 20.11.19
AR-2001 A Lower Ground Floor Plan, prepared by Multi Span 20.11.19
Australia
AR-2002 A Upper Floor Plans, prepared by Multi Span Australia 20.11.19
AR-3001 A Elevations, prepared by Multi Span Australia 20.11.19
AR-4001 A Sections, prepared by Multi Span Australia 20.11.19
Nature and Extent of Approved Use
3. No external storage or use areas are permitted.
4. The development must be undertaken and operated in a manner that causes no
detrimental effect upon the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the creation of
excessive noise, lighting nuisance or other emissions.
Currency Period
5. The Currency Period for this development approval lapses if the use has not happened
by 21 February 2026, unless an application to extend the currency period is approved
by Council.
Building Height
6. The maximum height of the development must not exceed 10 metres above the
finished ground level and the natural ground level.
7. Certification must be submitted to Council from a Licensed Surveyor which certifies
that the building does not exceed the maximum height requirement of this Decision
Notice.
Page 39 of 119
Section 40
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Performance Bond
8. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $15,000
must be submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this approval,
prior to the issue of a Development Permit for Operational Works. The cash bond or
trading bank guarantee will be returned on performance of the conditions of approval
less any costs incurred by Council in respect of enforcing performance of this permit.
Council reserves the right to call upon the bond or guaranteed sum to effect compliance
with conditions.
Building Appearance
9. The development (including the existing building) must be finished with subdued and
complimentary external building colours.
10. The northeast wall of the development must be finished with a minimum of two (2)
neutral colours to visually break up the wall and maintain an external building
appearance of two (2) storeys.
Landscaping
11. The development site must be landscaped. The works must be undertaken in
accordance with an Operational Works approval and the Noosa Plan for that specific
area and must include in particular:
a. Landscaped area as per the approved site plan;
b. The area between the PWD circulation space and front property boundary must
be landscaped; and
c. Provision of two (2) mature size street trees (100 litre pot size) within the road
reserve of the Jarrah Street frontage between the site driveways.
12. All landscape works must be established and maintained in accordance with the
approved design for the life of the development, and in a manner that ensures healthy,
sustained and vigorous plant growth. All plant material must be allowed to grow to full
form and be refurbished when its life expectancy is reached.
Fencing and Walls
13. A 2.0 metre high screen fence must be erected along the full length of the west
boundary of the site.
Waste Storage Areas
14. Waste storage areas must be screened by landscaping or fencing.
Street Identification
15. The street address of the development must be clearly visible and discernible from the
primary frontage of the site by the provision of a street number and, where appropriate,
the building name.
Water & Sewer Connections
16. An underground connection to reticulated water and sewerage must be provided to the
development site in accordance with the standards and requirements of Northern SEQ
Distributor–Retailer Authority (Unitywater).
17. A Certificate of Completion from the Northern SEQ Distributor–Retailer Authority
(Unitywater) must be submitted to Council that certifies an underground connection to
reticulated water and sewerage has been provided to the development site.
Advertising Signage
18. Any advertising sign or device must comply with Council’s policies on advertising.
Page 40 of 119
Section 41
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
ENGINEERING
Property Access and Driveways
19. Entry to the site must be through the northernmost driveway and exiting from the
southernmost driveway only. Suitable signage and line-marking to indicate the access
limitations and the traffic direction must be installed prior to the commencement of the
use.
Car Parking
20. A minimum of 4 car parking spaces must be provided and marked on the site, and
made available and accessible at all times while the use is open for business. The
works must be installed prior to the commencement of the use and must include in
particular:
a. suitable signage and line-marking to indicate the car parking spaces;
b. provision of vandal resistant public lighting with intensities to satisfy the
requirements of Australian Standard AS1158: Public Lighting Code;
c. dimensions, crossfalls and gradients in accordance with Australian Standard
AS2890: Parking Facilities for the relevant user class.
21. All car parking areas and access driveways must be maintained exclusively for vehicle
parking and manoeuvring and kept in a tidy and safe condition at all times.
Paving Treatment of Vehicle Movement Areas
22. Alternative materials, patterns, or threshold treatments must be used to articulate the
pavement treatment of vehicle movement areas.
Stormwater Drainage
23. The site must be provided with a stormwater drainage system connecting to a lawful
point of discharge.
Electricity and Telecommunication Services
24. Unless otherwise stipulated by telecommunications legislation at the time of
construction, the development must be provided with all necessary conduits, pits and
pipes to accommodate the future connection of optic fibre technology
telecommunications.
25. Certification must be submitted to Council from all relevant service providers which
certifies that the development has met the requirements of this Decision Notice and all
applicable legislation at the time of construction.
Easements
26. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the relevant service provider, any public or third
party infrastructure located on the subject site must be placed within an easement
registered against the title of the property.
27. All easements must be designed in accordance with the planning scheme and granted
at no cost to the Grantee. Where the Grantee is Council or a service authority, the
easement documentation must be in accordance with the Grantee’s standard
easement terms. Draft easement documentation must be submitted to Council for
endorsement.
28. All works must be kept clear of any existing or proposed easements on the subject
land, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Grantee.
Page 41 of 119
Section 42
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Damage to Services and Assets
29. Any damage caused to existing services and assets as a result of the development
works must be repaired at no cost to the asset owner at the following times:
a. where the damage would cause a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle safety,
immediately; or
b. where otherwise, upon completion of the works associated with the development.
Any repair work which proposes to alter the alignment or level of existing services and
assets must first be referred to the relevant service authority for approval.
B. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the
application:
1. The proposed development’s height is consistent with the character of the Cooroy
Industry Zone and maintains the maximum height for the area of 10 metres.
C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for a Material Change of Use - Industrial Business - Type 1
Warehouse (Self Storage Units).
The proposal is for a new three storey building on site with a total use area of 1030m2. The
proposed building is an addition to the existing 930m2 self storage warehouse building, increasing
the total use area of the development to 1960m2.
The locality and proposal plans are included below.
Figure 1 – Site Locality
Page 42 of 119
Section 43
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Figure 3 – Elevations
Page 43 of 119
Section 44
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 4 – New Proposed Building 3D Rendering
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
The existing self storage warehouse development was approved by a building approval circa 1988,
as a planning approval was not required at the time.
The existing development and business use is one of only two self storage business uses in the
Cooroy area.
2.2. Site Description
The site is generally flat with a gentle slope from the southwest to the northeast.
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
The site is predominantly surrounded by industrial uses in the Industry Zone and adjoins
Carpenters Road in the Rural Zone to the west (easement), followed by residential uses in the
Rural Settlement Zone.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The Noosa Plan is generally consistent with the State Planning Policy July 2017 (SPP) and the
SPP raises no further issues relevant to the proposed development.
Page 44 of 119
Section 45
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
The site is located within the Urban Footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Planning Regulation 2017
The following assessment benchmark from the Planning Regulation 2017 applies to the
application:
SEQ Development Area
The proposal is for urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the assessment
benchmarks contained in the Planning Regulation 2017 for the SEQ Region.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The application must be assessed against each of the following codes to the extent they are
relevant to the development:
Cooroy & Lake Macdonald Locality Code
Business Uses Code
Landscaping Code
Engineering Works Code
The subject site is located in the Cooroy & Lake Macdonald Locality and is zoned Industry. The
proposed use is identified as a consistent use within the zone and is required to follow a code
assessable application process.
The pertinent issues arising out of the assessment are discussed below:
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Site Area Not applicable 2,315.01m² N/A
Use Area No requirement Existing Building N/A
2
Ground Floor: 930m
Proposed Building
Lower Ground Floor: 340m2
First Floor:
345m2
Second Floor: 345m2
Total: 1960m2
Landscaping open space 15% of site area 6.5% of site area (150m2) X
Landscaping Setbacks
Frontage 6 metres 6 metres
Sides 0 metres 0.5 & 0 metres
Rear 0 metres 0.3 metres
Building height
storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys X
metres 10 metres 10 metres
Page 45 of 119
Section 46
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Boundary setbacks
Frontage 6 metres 7.2 metres
Side (north) 0 metres 3.4 metres
Side (south) 0 metres 6 metres
Rear 6 metres 4.8 metres (existing building) X
Carparking 1 space per 500m2 of 4 spaces
use area
Bicycle Spaces No requirements None proposed. Sufficient space -
End of Trip Facilities* for bicycle parking if required.
*(required only where 5 +
spaces are required)
Height (Storeys)
Probable Solution S7.1 of the Cooroy & Lake Macdonald Locality Code states Buildings and other
structures have a maximum building height if in the Industry Zone—10m.
The corresponding Specific Outcome O7 states:
Buildings and other structures-
a) are low rise and present a building height consistent with structures on adjoining and
surrounding premises;
b) have a maximum building height of 2 storeys;
c) do not visually dominate the street, surrounding spaces or the existing skyline;
d) preserve the amenity of surrounding land uses;
e) respect the scale of existing vegetation; and
f) respond to the topography of the site by avoiding extensive excavation and filling.
The proposed building is 10 metres and 3 storeys in height, contrary to Specific Outcome O7 b)
(see figure 5). In this regard the applicant submits the following:
The additional section plans are included, which show three storeys of storage areas within the
new building. The external appearance of the building includes a zincalum awning at 5m height
with metal louvre ventilation and express joint/monoclad wall cladding.
Because of the awning along the Jarrah Street façade, the building appears to be two storeys
in height from the road frontage. It is noted that a large three level pallette racking flooring
system could be provided within the industrial 10m high building and not change the appearance
from the street. Only two fixed metal louvre ventilation perforations at the rear of the building,
the building appears similar to other large industrial 10m high buildings within the Cooroy
Industrial area.
The design meets the relevant Specific Outcomes a and c-f of the Cooroy and Lake Macdonald
Code, presenting a building height consistent with structures on surrounding premises which do
not visually dominate the industrial streetscape. The design also meets the corresponding
Overall Outcomes which seeks to accommodate uses and works that are designed and
managed to contribute positively to the character of the locality without adverse impacts on the
environment.
Page 46 of 119
Section 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Figure 5 – Elevations
Considering the building is proposed to but not exceeding the 10 metre maximum building height,
the proposed three storey building will present the same outcome if it were a two storey building in
terms of size, scale and bulk.
Whilst the proposed building height does not comply with the Cooroy & Lake Macdonald Locality
Code, the proposal is considered to comply with the Overall Outcomes of the code, as follows:
a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
i be compatible with other uses and works;
pp) For the Industry Zone—land in this zone—
i accommodates the principal industrial centre of the hinterland including businesses
associated with manufacturing, production, storage, repairs and the like to the
exclusion of inconsistent uses such as residential or community uses;
ii has good access to the major road network including the Bruce Highway; and
iii accommodates uses and works that are designed and managed to contribute positively
to the character of the locality without adverse impacts on the environment including
excessive noise, odour, dust and other waste.
Existing development in the street ranges from one to two storeys and up to 10 metres in height.
The proposed number of storeys is reflective of the proposed use for small self storage units and
otherwise meets Specific Outcome O7. The proposed three storey building is consistent with the
overall height and/or presentation of the existing surrounding industrial buildings and as such will
not be detrimental to the industrial character of the area. This approach is considered reasonable
in this instance considering the surrounding land uses and character, however such a proposal is
unlikely to be supported in other areas, such as a residential zone or visitor mixed use zone.
Page 47 of 119
Section 48
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The applicant’s consultant has further advised that the applicant is agreeable to conditions
requiring the site to be renewed by repainting both the existing and proposed buildings with neutral
but complementary colours; on-site landscaping in accordance with the planning scheme policy;
and street trees to be provided at the frontage of the site. The following conditions are
recommended accordingly:
Building Appearance
The development (including the existing building) must be finished with subdued and
complimentary external building colours.
The northeast wall of the development must be finished with a minimum of two (2) neutral colours
to visually break up the wall and maintain an external building appearance of two (2) storeys.
Landscaping
Probable Solution S1.1 of the Landscaping Code states Landscaped areas, not less than the
minimum areas and dimensions specified… …are provided and maintained. Minimum area – 15%
of the site area.
The proposal provides landscaped areas over a total of 6.5% of the site area (150m2), in lieu of
15% (347.25m2) required by the code.
Under the planning scheme at the time of the original development, the site was required to be
provided with landscaped open space area of not less than 20% of the gross floor area of all
industrial buildings on the site. The original development complied with this requirement, by
providing a landscaped area of 102m2 for a building area of 432m2, being only 4.4% of the site
area overall. Council’s Building Department advises an extension to the building was approved
circa 1989 (year after the original approval), however no plans or details are available from Council
records.
With regard to landscaping, the applicant submits the following:
Although not providing for the full 15% landscaping requirement as sought by Probable Solution
S1.1 of the Landscaping Code, the design increases the existing landscaping on the site from
90m2 to 150m2 .The relevant Specific Outcomes seeks for new development to retain existing
vegetation and enhance buffer areas around property boundaries; suit the relative size and
nature of the development and its setting and conceal service areas.
The proposed additional landscaping is located in areas around the perimeter of the building
and increases the size of the existing buffer areas in the corners of the site. This is also an
opportunity to provide for more meaningful plantings within the existing landscaped areas.
Considering the existing minimal landscaping and hardstand areas, the proposal reduces the
amount of hardstand areas and allows for landscaping in front of carparking and service areas
in accordance with the relevant Specific Outcomes.
The proposed increased landscaped areas will contribute an enhanced outcome to the existing
site. It is recommended conditions be included to require the existing and proposed landscaped
areas to be replanted with plantings in accordance with the planning scheme policy and two street
trees to be provided at the frontage of the site between the site driveways.
4. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The Draft Noosa Plan identifies Warehouse (Self Storage Facility) uses as inconsistent in the Low
and Medium Impact Industry Zones.
The applicant’s consultant advises the subject site and business is one of only two self storage
businesses in Cooroy and provides an affordable alternative to other storage facilities within the
shire. The existing and proposed use of the site dates back to circa 1988.
Page 48 of 119
Section 49
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
Engineering, Development Assessment
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The application seeks approval for a Material Change of Use - Industrial Business - Type 1
Warehouse (Self Storage Units). The proposed use is a consistent use on the site under The Noosa
Plan.
With regards to the proposed building height (storeys) and landscaping on site, the proposal will
result in an outcome that is consistent with the character of the Cooroy Industry Zone and is not
considered to impact the amenity of the area.
The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement X Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service X Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 49 of 119
Section 50
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 50 of 119
ATTACHMENT 1
Sins,
PEPPii reir irra CUT rien] |
, = co
| 2 ae
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
STORAGE UNITS EXTENSION E, ig Aesteatie
MULTI SPAN
Page 50 of 119Section 51
Page 51 of 119
ig
i$ !
ie |
; Hi]
* | © l i=
6 OE NSO pA - TTT Ih |
\ \ oy we/ — INA Hh
o% Se / 5 1 1 1 8 5 1762 1493 171 185 66 i
5 1 1 1 8 6 1977 1495 183 178 0 <
5 1 1 1 8 7 2200 1532 5 105 82 |
5 1 1 1 8 8 2305 1564 69 47 14 “
4 1 1 1 9 0 611 1564 1322 181 -1
5 1 1 1 9 1 611 1564 83 48 0 a
5 1 1 1 9 2 1766 1581 509 172 35 Nk
4 1 1 1 10 0 840 1597 1393 276 -1
5 1 1 1 10 1 840 1597 323 135 31 AAT.
5 1 1 1 10 2 1762 1647 471 226 5 ak
4 1 1 1 11 0 896 1701 1374 191 -1
5 1 1 1 11 1 896 1701 40 15 25 ~
5 1 1 1 11 2 969 1729 28 69 26 .
5 1 1 1 11 3 1011 1707 153 100 56 Re
5 1 1 1 11 4 1372 1802 81 35 22 =
5 1 1 1 11 5 2183 1779 87 113 40 i
4 1 1 1 12 0 1105 1753 1167 266 -1
5 1 1 1 12 1 1105 1753 957 266 28 SLL
5 1 1 1 12 2 2080 1883 192 111 41 S|
4 1 1 1 13 0 868 1883 1398 153 -1
5 1 1 1 13 1 868 1883 10 29 0 '
5 1 1 1 13 2 1151 1899 140 76 33 Q
5 1 1 1 13 3 1374 1946 45 26 19 \
5 1 1 1 13 4 1477 1921 84 68 30 Ree
5 1 1 1 13 5 1591 1961 198 44 31 w=
5 1 1 1 13 6 1846 1982 20 20 58 <=
5 1 1 1 13 7 2058 1994 96 42 12 Cal
5 1 1 1 13 8 2202 1978 32 48 0 /
: | ay |
y
sl ° PSs
7: i ey
| : Lethe ahen ae
i
ZazSection 52
Page 52 of 119
gz} BS |3|
= | :
PLY li |
=== li 2
Fil rr
c a
ri
| 7 Hee
| a) Pe
] | 5 ks
! .
ce
eS
: terre tS
: z
5Section 53
Page 53 of 119
Section 54
Page 54 of 119
Section 55
Page 55 of 119
| & 2
sf me) 3
Bs} 22: 2
281 am
| Bs
g ©
Lt |
Wil fg ah a :
tH ler te at
as re re ee
I | | | | LE
f) bod thi
pe |
a fy !
|e} | |
“i = = 2 a
9 = gq) 3
LL TSE Ta B| |S
VQ Pe B|
- 3
! 7 , de
g Pe i |
2 || re Wik:
3 | ie =~"
| at a Bat
: | HI | : Ue oN ES}
; | 2 | hee ul
Fe a a al 4
7 | Ve
|__ | tay NA AL 4 2h
_ ig | | | 5 és
| | | & a
| | | | if 4
{ | ' x
wn
S
>
w |
st
o |
WwW 32Section 56
Page 56 of 119
tT.
| | |
i
STORAGE UNITS EXTENSION = = i mnSection 57
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
3 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING APPEALS
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Development Assessment, Kerri Coyle
Environment & Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 27.19 - Legal Appeals
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2020 regarding an update on Planning
Appeals and:
A. Request that the Chief Executive Officer write to the Department of State Development,
Infrastructure & Planning requesting:
1. A comprehensive review of the current cost provisions of the Planning & Environment
Court Act 2016 with a view to including the ability for the Planning & Environment Court
to award costs where a development proposal is found to significantly conflict with the
Planning Scheme; and
2. A review of the appointment and selection process of referees to support more
consistent and rigorous Tribunal decisions.
B. Submit a motion to the Local Government of Queensland 2020 conference requesting LGAQ
lobby the Department of State Development, Infrastructure & Planning for a comprehensive
review of the current cost provisions of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016 with a
view to including the ability for the Planning & Environment Court to award costs where a
development proposal is found to significantly conflict with the Planning Scheme.
REPORT
1. Planning & Environment Court
Under the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016 applicants and submitters who are not satisfied
by Council’s decision on a development application to either approve the application with
conditions or refuse the application may challenge the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal in the
Planning & Environment Court. Appeals must be lodged within 20 business days after the Decision
Notice is received and there are court fees associated with filing the Notice of Appeal or joining an
appeal.
The Notice of Appeal must set out the grounds upon which the decision is appealed and the relief
sought from the Court. An applicant always has the onus to prove their case, no matter who started
the appeal, though notably this onus rests with Council on appeals lodged against Enforcement
Notices. Once the Notice of Appeal has been filed, within 3 months the parties are required to seek
orders and direction from the Court as to the conduct of the appeal, including obtaining orders
about:
Disclosure and the discovery and inspection of documents
Page 57 of 119
Section 58
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The nomination of experts and the joint meetings of experts
The legal representatives participating in a without prejudice case management conference
The parties participating in a without prejudice mediation before the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Planning & Environment Court Registrar.
Initially experts are identified, retained and briefed and then they are nominated to give evidence
in the appeal. Each party is permitted to engage one expert in relation to each field of expertise.
The experts are required to participate in a joint meeting process to prepare a joint report for the
Court. Experts have an overriding duty to the court and cannot be influenced by their instructing
party as to which opinions they should accept or reject.
As well as hearing and deciding appeals on decisions arising from development applications, the
Planning and Environment Court also has the jurisdiction to hear and decide:
Appeals about infrastructure charges;
Appeals against decisions on compensation claims – for example, for a claim about rezoning
of land;
Appeals from decisions of the Development Tribunal;
Appeals against Enforcement Notices issued for breaches of a development approval or
Planning Scheme requirement;
Applications for enforcement orders to remedy or restrain the commission of a development
offence;
Applications for declarations.
The court may award costs against a party in certain situations, including:
when a party fails to comply with a directions order without a good reason;
in a procedural default;
when a party acts frivolously or vexatiously.
Some limited planning matters may be heard by the Development Tribunal including applications
for dwelling houses and sheds that require development approval under The Noosa Plan. Tribunals
are established from a pool of appointed referees, that includes building designers, private building
certifiers, town planning consultants etc. Parties to appeals to the tribunal are not allowed legal
representation at tribunal hearings, with hearings conducted in an informal manner often at the
subject site.
2. History of Planning Appeals
Since March 2016, there have been a total of 34 appeals to the Planning & Environment Court in
respect to development applications that are now finalised. Of these 34 appeals, 7 matters
proceeded to trial and Council was successful in defending its decision in all 7 cases. 17 appeals
were settled after amended plans were provided by the applicant or agreement reached on
amended conditions, with 10 appeals withdrawn. No appeal that proceeded to trial was lost by
Council.
In practice, many applicants will lodge an appeal to protect their rights and seek advice on their
prospects in a court appeal. Quite a few appeals are withdrawn by appellants if they receive
advice that their prospects of success in the Planning and Environment Court are low (i.e. the Court
will be likely to uphold Council’s decision).
Page 58 of 119
Section 59
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The following table provides details of each of these historical appeals, including the total cost of each appeal for Council.
Appeal Appeal Details Total Costs Outcome
Multispan Australia Refusal of shopping centre at Rufous St, Peregian Beach $45,720 Appeal Withdrawn
Noosa on Weyba Refusal of mixed use community title development at Eenie Creek Rd, $316,148 Council successful on minor change point
Hollett Rd, Noosaville and Tidswell Rd, Weyba Downs – appeal withdrawn
Sundale Refusal of retirement units and aged persons home at 82 McKinnon Dve, $16,956 Appeal settled after amended plans
Tewantin received
Makepeace Island Appeal against conditions of approval for multiple dwelling at Makepeace $79,089 Appeal withdrawn
Island
Milligan Refusal of poultry farm at 136 Top Forestry Rd, Ridgewood $104,964 Appeal withdrawn
Neate Refusal to extend currency period of approval for 30 multiple dwelling $63,341 Appeal withdrawn
units & 12 accommodation units at 27 Attunga Heights
Corilla Submitter appeal against 9 multiple dwelling units at 226 David Low Way, $10,069 Appeal settled with amended conditions
Peregian Beach
McHenry Submitter appeal against NBN Tower at 292 Pomona Kin Kin Rd, $8,014 Appeal settled
Pinbarren
Sharpe Refusal of signage at 64-66 Rene St, Noosaville $20,039 Appeal settled after amended plans
received
Noosaville Medical & Refusal to change conditions for multi storey car park for commercial $40,304 Appeal settled after appellant agreed to
Professional Centre development at 90 Goodchap St, Noosaville pay for construction of bus stops on
Goodchap St
Creekgold Appeal against conditions of approval for supermarket at 5 Garnet St, $9,138 Appeal settled with amended conditions
Cooroy
Iluka Refusal to allow clearing of vegetation in covenant area at 10 Serenity $11,278 Appeal withdrawn
Close, Noosa Heads
Noosa Civic Refusal of expansion of Noosa Civic $803,471 Council successful in trial
Como Glasshouse Appeal against Infrastructure Charges for tomato greenhouses at 305 $80,009 Council successful in trial
Lake Macdonald Dve, Lake Macdonald
Page 59 of 119
Section 60
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Appeal Appeal Details Total Costs Outcome
Moneybourne Refusal of signage at 78-80 Rene St, Noosaville $22,324 Appeal settled after amended plans
received
Elandra Refusal to allow clearing of vegetation in covenant area at 6 Serenity $79,591 Council successful on minor point – appeal
Close, Noosa Heads withdrawn
Synergy Property Partners Refusal of service station and shop at 115 Eumundi Noosa Rd, Noosaville $51,185 Appeal withdrawn
Pty Ltd
Sharpe Enterprise Pty Ltd Refusal of signage at 64-66 Rene St, Noosaville $678 Appeal settled after amended plans
received
Nichols Building Refusal of building works in coastal setback at 26 Lorikeet Dve, Peregian $1,914 Appeal withdrawn
Beach
Woolley Appeal against conditions of approval for deck in setback at Park Rd, $194,464 Appeal settled after amended plans
Noosa Heads received
Quadrant Holdings Pty Ltd Refusal of deck expansion at Noosa Marina, 2 Parkyn Crt Tewantin $39,134 Appeal settled after amended plans
received
Kenlynn Pty Ltd Refusal of subdivision for 6 lots at 2 David Low Way, Castaways Beach $573,464 Council successful in trial
Thomco Refusal to extend currency period of approval for commercial $1,070,478 Council settled after appellant changed
development and multiple dwellings application to all visitor accommodation as
Refusal of Multiple Housing of 26 units, visitor accommodation of 20 units sought by Council.
and 12 multiple housing/visitor accommodation units at 215 David Low Extension to currency appeal withdrawn
Way, Peregian Beach Application to change court approval -
Application to Change the Court Approval current
Trowbridge & Strudwick Refusal to permit 19 units at 90 Beach Rd, Noosa North Shore for $291,249 Council successful in trial
permanent residency
J & G Knowles Refusal of Aged Persons Home at Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville $822 Appeal withdrawn
J & K Hofmann Refusal to extend currency period of rural residential subdivision at 191 $196,484 Current Appeal
Hollett Rd, Noosaville under SPA and Planning Act and appeal against
Action Notice for plan sealing
Harber Refusal of home-based business (swimming school) at 8 McKenna Crt, $22,893 Appeal withdrawn
Noosaville
Page 60 of 119
Section 61
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Appeal Appeal Details Total Costs Outcome
Eaglerise Developments Appeal against conditions of approval and Infrastructure Charges Notice $203,777 Appeal settled with amended conditions
for subdivision at 29 Tait St, Tewantin and agreement to pay for part of
stormwater management device
The Trust Company - Appeal against conditions of approval restricting signage $17,943 Appeal settled after amended plans
Noosa Village Shopping received
Centre
Simmons Appeal against conditions of approval for duplex dwelling at 38 Park Cres, $23,365 Appeal settled after amended plans
Sunshine Beach received
Hope Central Church Refusal of paintball at 113 Marara St, Cooroy $3,836 Appeal withdrawn
Denmac Appeal against conditions of approval for signage at 140-142 Eumundi $12,216 Appeal settled after amended plans
Noosa Rd, Noosaville received
M Design & Fourteen Refusal of swimming pool and deck extension in coastal building setback $43,634 Appeal settled after geotechnical design
Enterprises at 42 Seaview Tce, Sunshine Beach received
Reece Ltd Refusal of signage at 1/100 Rene St, Noosaville $428 Appeal settled after visual amenity report
received and overall signage reduced
Page 61 of 119
Section 62
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
As demonstrated in the previous table, appeal costs can vary greatly depending on the range of
issues raised by the proposed development, the complexity of those issues and the number of
experts engaged by Council for the appeal. The appellant is also afforded the opportunity to make
changes to their proposal during an appeal, subject to the Planning Act 2006 requirements, which
contributes to additional costs for Council.
The total cost of Planning and Environment Court appeals to Council in any one year has varied
over time as set out in the table below, but generally appeal costs are rising. Where a complex
matter has proceeded to trial, costs for a single trial can be close to or exceeding $1,000,000.
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
as at 31 Dec 19
$740,309 $392,834 $1,127,888 $1,298,463 $1,184,130 $563,537
3. Current Planning Appeals
There are 11 current appeals with the Planning & Environment Court regarding development
applications in Noosa. This is considered generally an average number of appeals active at any
one time, noting that some appeals can extend across several years. The current appeals are
summarised in the table below.
Appeal Description of Matter Status
Thomco Originating application appeal seeking to The appeal is allocated for a 2 day hearing
change a condition of the approval to during the February/March 2020 sittings
allow the approved motel to be built in
stage 2
J&K 3 appeals against Council’s decision to Applicant has lodged an application with
Hofmann refuse an application to extend the Council to change the approved
currency period of a subdivision approval subdivision plan. The proposed changes
for 52 lots and park and issue an Action will be reported to a future Council meeting
Notice to their application for plan
sealing.
Gabarrin Appeal against Council’s decision to A second mediation with the Court
refuse an application to subdivide 135 Registrar is proposed in February 2020
Lake Weyba Drive, Noosaville for 4 lots.
RACV Appeal against Council’s decision to Applicant has lodged an application with
refuse an application to extend the Council to change the development
currency period of an approval for 10 approval. The proposed changes will be
multiple dwelling units at 142 Noosa reported to a future Council meeting
Drive, Noosa Heads
Tritton & Appeal against Council’s decision to Appellant is preparing further information
Loxton refuse an application to subdivide 20 Mitti to address the flooding impacts and
St, Noosa Heads for 2 lots identify any possible resolutions
Andema Pty Appeal against Council’s decision to Expert joint reports are currently being
Ltd refuse an application to extend the prepared
currency period of an approval for to
redevelop 6 Heron St, Peregian Beach
Brett Mason Appeal against Council’s decision to Geotechnical joint report due by 28
refuse an application for a new house at February 2020, with all other joint reports
54 Seaview Tce, Sunshine Beach due by 6 April 2020
64 Gateway Appeal against Council’s decision to All parties attended mediation on 23
Drive Pty Ltd refuse an application for 16 ancillary January 2020, but no resolution reached
dwelling units at 64 Gateway Drive,
Noosaville
Page 62 of 119
Section 63
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Appeal Description of Matter Status
Pelican Noosa Appeal against Council’s decision to This appeal is listed for further review on
Pty Ltd refuse an application to extend a Jetty 24 January 2020
180 Gympie Tce, Noosaville
Serratore Appeal against Enforcement Notice No current direction orders made.
issued for clearing remnant vegetation Council’s experts have completed their
without a development approval at 105 reports.
Illoura Place, Cooroibah
4. Appeal Management
All Planning & Environment Court appeals are reported to Council on receipt and an initial
resolution sought from Council to defend the appeal. Prospects for the appeal and likely costs are
not known at this stage until an initial review is undertaken by Council’s Planning Solicitor, though
it is often difficult to determine prospects until joint expert reports have been prepared.
While the Manager Development Assessment generally manages Council’s appeals and provides
instructions to Council’s Planning Solicitor, all appeals are regularly reviewed by Council’s Case
Management Working Group. This group includes the Mayor, Chair of the Planning & Environment
Committee, Chief Executive Officer, Director Environment & Sustainable Development, Director
Corporate Services, Manager Development Assessment and Council’s Planning Solicitor. At each
meeting appeal costs are monitored, an update on appeal progress is made by Council’s Planning
Solicitor and discussion is had on appeal strategy such as prioritising certain appeals, request for
appeal prospects etc. No decisions are made by the Case Management Working Group, with all
matters requiring a decision reported to a Council meeting.
At the conclusion of each appeal, appeal judgements and any learnings are shared with Council’s
Development Assessment and Strategic Planning teams to help inform assessment of
development applications in the future and possible Planning Scheme amendments.
5. Planning & Environment Court
The Planning & Environment Court Act 2016 provides for each party to a proceeding to pay its own
costs, except in limited circumstances. This has meant that parties are able to take matters to the
Planning & Environment Court when they are not happy with an outcome but this has also meant
there are no real consequences for parties which have little prospect and often very high costs for
councils in defending planning schemes on behalf of their community.
While amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) in 2012 gave the Planning &
Environment Court a wide discretion to award costs against a party to a proceeding, this SPA cost
regime was widely criticised and resulted in the Planning & Environment Court making cost orders
against parties in numerous decisions. Parties, particularly residents, who wished to raise genuine
issues in the public interest were highly discouraged and appeals became prohibitive for many.
Queensland’s Planning & Environment Court has long been regarded as a dynamic, specialist
court allowing public, accountable and transparent access to justice. The Planning & Environment
Court has, over the years, developed a rich jurisprudence in a highly technical, niche area of the
law. As there are specialist judges sitting in the jurisdiction, there has been a degree of consistency
between decisions on similar facts and circumstances and consequently perhaps a lot more rigour
than occurs in other Australian state planning appeal systems.
The approach to case management by the Planning & Environment Court has assisted in ensuring
efficiency in the process and reducing the costs of a lengthy trial. The increasing role of alternative
dispute resolution in the Planning & Environment Court has also seen the resolution of many
appeals thereby saving Court time and the parties costs for those that did not previously use
‘without prejudice’ meetings to try and resolve matters.
Page 63 of 119
Section 64
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
However, not all conflicts are simple to resolve and many appeals will see the parties fundamentally
opposed to one another’s position and inevitably lead to appeals progressing to a full trial and
substantial costs for all parties.
The answer to the appeal cost issue and who bears this cost is not a complete reversal of the costs
rule as the SPA amendments led to, but is to simply broaden the exceptions to the existing cost
rules. It is not appropriate that councils and their communities have to expend such large sums to
defend their planning schemes when proposals significantly conflict with the planning scheme.
Given the Planning & Environment Court often refers to planning scheme conflicts in terms of
whether there is a minor or significant conflict when weighing up matters in an appeal it would be
appropriate that when the Court identifies a matter is of significant conflict with the planning
scheme, costs are awarded by the judge.
What is typically happening now, is that an application that is contrary to the planning scheme is
refused by Council with the applicant appealing to the Planning and Environment Court. Council
is then spending significant ratepayer funds to defend the planning scheme in court and in our
Council’s case, successfully defending our planning scheme. Yet in those cases, ratepayer funds
are being expended with no prospect of recovery of those costs despite the application being found
to be contrary to the planning scheme.
Experience of the Tribunal system has shown that while very cost effective for the appellant and
Council, a Tribunal is currently not the most consistent or rigorous system for hearing planning
matters. Members appointed to the tribunal are often not well versed or experienced in planning
law, which has resulted in some highly questionable Tribunal decisions and decisions that are
impactful for adjoining residents and lands. A greater level of appropriate experience when dealing
with planning matters for Tribunal members is considered warranted.
6. Conclusion
Noosa Council has a very strong record of successfully defending planning appeals and its success
has been primarily due to excellent planning schemes, consistent decision making and a highly
experienced planning solicitor.
In the future, Council is likely to face more legal challenges, as developers seek to maximise the
financial benefit from remaining development capacity in the Shire. With the value of land generally
continuing to increase, there is more at stake financially in planning decisions, which encourages
more legal challenges. Generally only the more challenging development sites with constraints
are still to be developed and renovations, refurbishments and extension will be used to try and
justify further expansions and increased density.
The continuance of strongly defending planning decisions is one for the Council to consider, but
generally this approach has had support within the community and ensures the integrity of The
Noosa Plan is maintained.
However, the current cost provisions in the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016 requires a
comprehensive review before it becomes prohibitive to councils and their communities to defend
their planning scheme. Review is also required of the Tribunal system to ensure it remains cost
effective for appeals on small matters but is also a robust system that delivers consistent and
rigorous decisions.
It is therefore recommended that Council write to the Department of State Development,
Infrastructure and Planning calling for a review of the costs provisions in the Planning &
Environment Court Act 2016 and for improvements to the current Tribunal system.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance
$1,000,000 has been budgeted for in legal and consultancy fees for planning appeals for the
2019/20 financial year.
Page 64 of 119
Section 65
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Chief Executive Officer Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development x Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director x Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 65 of 119
Section 66
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
4 ADOPTION OF CONSOLIDATED VERSIONS OF NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL LOCAL LAW
NO. 1 (ADMINISTRATION) 2015, SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 1
(ADMINISTRATION) 2015 AND SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 4 (LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AREAS, FACILITIES AND ROADS) 2015
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Principal Strategic Planner, Anita Lakeland
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 37 Local Laws – 37.10, 37.04
Attachments 1. Noosa Shire Council Local law No. 1 (Administration) 2015
2. Subordinate Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015
3. Subordinate Local Law No. 4 (Local Government Controlled Areas,
Facilities and Roads) 2015
(Note: All attachments have been provided separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Draft local law amendments for advertising devices were adopted by Council at its meeting on 19
December 2019.
The amendments have now been consolidated into Noosa Shire Council Local Law No. 1
(Administration) 2015, Subordinate Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015 and Subordinate Local
Law No. 4 (Local Government Controlled Areas, Facilities and Roads (2015) for adoption by
Council. The consolidated version of the local law and subordinate local laws reflect the changes
previously adopted by Council with no additional changes.
Fees associated with applications for approval made for advertising devices under Subordinate
Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015 are also proposed for Council adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the Planning and Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2020 and resolve to:
A. Adopt, pursuant to section 32 of the Local Government Act 2009-
1. in the form contained in Attachment 1 to this report, a consolidated version of Noosa
Shire Council Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015; and
2. in the form contained in Attachments 2 and 3 to this report, a consolidated version of
each of Subordinate Local Law No.1 (Administration) 2015 and Subordinate Local Law
No. 4 (Local Government Controlled Areas, Facilities and Roads) 2015.
B. Adopt the following Fees and Charges 2019-2020 for applications for approval made for
advertising devices under Subordinate Local Law No.1 (Administration) 2015:
1. pylon sign, pole sign, freestanding sign - $150 per sign
2. illuminated sign - $100 per illuminated sign
Page 66 of 119
Section 67
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
REPORT
At its meeting on 19 December 2019 Council resolved to make Administration (Amendment) Local
Law (No.1) 2019 and Administration and Other Subordinate Local Law (amendment) Subordinate
Local Law (No. 1) 2019 incorporating amendments for the inclusion of new provisions for the
regulation of advertising devices to:
Noosa Shire Council Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015;
Subordinate Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015; and
Subordinate Local Law No. 4 (Local Government Controlled Areas, Facilities and
Roads) 2015
As required by the Local Government Act 2009, public notices of Council’s decision were placed
in the Queensland Government Gazette on 17 January 2020 and on Council’s website. The public
notice advised a commencement date for the amendments of 28 February 2020.
A letter was forwarded to the Minister for Local Government notifying of Council’s decision and its
compliance with requirements under the Local Government Act 2009.
Council further resolved to bring forward for adoption consolidated versions of:
Noosa Shire Council Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015;
Subordinate Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015; and
Subordinate Local Law No. 4 (Local Government Controlled Areas, Facilities and
Roads) 2015
Once adopted, the consolidated versions will be certified by the Chief Executive Officer, placed on
Council’s website and forwarded to the Minister for Local Government.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 19 December 2019, Item 3, Page 12
That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee Meeting
dated 16 December 2019 and resolve:
A. To make the following changes in response to submissions to the Administration and Other
Subordinate Local Law (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No.1) 2019 shown in tracked
change extracts in Attachment 1:
i. amend the requirements for sandwich board / A-Frame signs to clarify that the
sandwich board / A-Frame must be placed on the property to which it refers, or where
this is not practically possible, immediately abutting the property on public land;
ii. remove the 2m clear pedestrian walkway requirement for sandwich board / A –Frame
signs and instead state that clear pedestrian, wheelchair and pram access must be
maintained at all times;
iii. clarify the wording for event directional signage to say that it must only be displayed on
the days of the event and not more than 7 days prior to the event;
B. Having considered the content of a public interest test report in relation to anti-competitive
provisions contained in each of Administration (Amendment) Local Law (No. 1) 2019 and
Administration and Other Subordinate Local Law (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No.
1) 2019, note the content of the public interest test report in Attachment 2 and implement the
recommendations of the public interest test report;
C. To proceed with the making of, and make, Administration (Amendment) Local Law (No. 1)
2019 as altered in Attachment 3;
D. To proceed with the making of, and make, Administration and Other Subordinate Local Law
(Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2019 as altered in Attachment 4;
Page 67 of 119
Section 68
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
E. To note that each of Administration (Amendment) Local Law (No. 1) 2019 and Administration
and Other Subordinate Local Law (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2019 contain
anti-competitive provisions;
F. To bring forward the consolidated version of:
a. Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015;
b. Subordinate Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015; and
c. Subordinate Local Law No. 4 (Local Government Controlled Areas, Facilities and
Roads) 2015;
for adoption and commencement in early 2020 to enable the local law amendments to
commence when the new Noosa Plan takes effect.
Finance
There are minor costs associated with public notification and advertising. These costs are being
managed within existing budgets.
Subordinate Local Law No. 1 (Administration) 2015 requires an application for approval for pylon,
pole, freestanding and illuminated signs. There is a one off fee associated with the application
process.
The fees proposed for the sign applications required by the local law are:
Pylon sign, pole sign, freestanding sign - $150 per sign
Illuminated sign - $100 per sign
The proposed application fees are cost recoverable and based on the anticipated cost of receipting
and assessing an application and issuing an approval under the local law.
Risks & Opportunities
Consolidated versions of the local laws need to be adopted and in place at the commencement of
the new Noosa Plan to ensure the continued regulation of advertising devices.
There is a risk the local law amendments will take effect prior to the commencement of the new
Noosa Plan if the Minister’s approval delays the new Noosa Plan’s adoption by Council.
If this occurs, the current Noosa Plan will prevail over the local law where duplication arises
between the provisions relating to permanent signage which is currently regulated by The Noosa
Plan.
There will be no duplication for temporary signage which is currently already regulated by local
laws.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Further communication will occur advising the community and stakeholders of the commencement
of the advertising device amendments will be undertaken leading up to and after the 28 February
2020, including:
Notices in Noosa News, on Council’s website and Facebook
Email notification to stakeholders and submitters
Fact sheets
Internal Consultation
Internal consultation will be undertaken across Council advising of the proposed amendments and
adoption of the consolidated versions.
Page 68 of 119
Section 69
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 69 of 119
Section 70
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
5 NOOSA BIOSECURITY PLAN 2020 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Principal Environment Officer, Peter Milne
Environment & Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Pest Management
Attachments 1. Summary of submissions
2. Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2020
(Note: 43 page attachment provided separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Principal Environment Officer to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2020 and;
A. Note the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 1 and thank the submitters for
their input into the Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2020;
B. Adopt the Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2020 as shown in Attachment 2; and
C. Note that subject to Council adoption of the Biosecurity Plan a 2020/21 budget submission
will be made to undertake a data mining and mapping project to help build knowledge of the
extent of invasive species across the shire and assess the effectiveness of management
controls in accordance with the Biosecurity Plan.
REPORT
The Noosa Pest Management Plan 2015-2019 expired last year. New biosecurity legislation was
enacted in 2014 that requires local governments to have a Biosecurity Plan in place, consistent
with the new Biosecurity Act 2014. A Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2020 was provided to Council
at the P & E Committee Meeting on 12 November 2019. Council requested additional information
on the Draft Plan with regard to the Noosa Environment Strategy 2019 targets and strategies,
climate change impacts and investigation into alternative technologies and techniques for
managing biosecurity threats. The updated draft was approved for public consultation at the
Ordinary Meeting of 21 November 2019.
1. Public consultation
Under biosecurity legislation, a public consultation process is not required for the development of
local government biosecurity plans. However, it is considered good practice and the draft was
released for consultation between 25 November 2019 and 23 December 2019. The consultation
period was further extended to 20 January 2020 to allow more time for input.
A range of media was used for the consultation process. Targeted consultation was undertaken
with internal Council staff and external key stakeholders including other government agencies,
natural resource management groups and environment organisations. Notifications of the draft
Plan were sent to over 220 Land for Wildlife (LfW) participants and Bushcare Program Leaders
(over 200 participants in the Bushcare Program). Your Say Noosa and Facebook social media
were used to promote the Draft Plan to the general public.
Page 70 of 119
Section 71
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
2. Summary of submissions
Twelve submissions were received and are summarised in Attachment 1. Generally the plan was
well regarded and submissions covered a broad range of topics:
The categorisation of invasive species for prevention, eradication and containment
Methods of invasive species control
Pest surveys and data collection
How the Biosecurity Plan meets objectives and targets
The use of Glyphosate
The classification of dingoes as a pest species
The use of 1080 for pest animal control
Support and credit for the draft Plan
Clearer program of works needed
Include other Council sectors in management responsibilities e.g. Parks & Gardens
Credit for including species that have been previously eradicated from the shire
Include species that occur in adjoining shire to allow for early detection and eradication
Stronger wording around landowner obligations with managing biosecurity matters on their
land
Council officer responses to each of the submissions are summarised in Attachment 1 and where
appropriate the Draft Plan has been amended in response to the submitters comments.
3. Noosa Environment Strategy and the Biosecurity Implementation Action Plan
The Noosa Environment Strategy 2019 identifies a number of strategies to meet environmental
targets for biodiversity; waterways, wetlands and coasts; sustainable living; and climate change
adaptation and resilience. The Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2020 supports the strategic outcomes
of the Environment Strategy. In particular the Environment Strategy identifies key activities/projects
that are to be delivered in the next 3 years. These activity/projects are referenced in the Biosecurity
Implementation Action Plan.
Most of the identified actions in the Biosecurity Implementation Action Plan are ongoing and part
of normal business operations. The action plan identifies four new project initiatives. Three of these
projects can be managed within existing resources and budget and/or through collaborative grant
opportunities. One project initiative requires additional resourcing as mentioned in the finance
section of this report.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 21 November 2019, Item 7, Page 14
That Council note the report by the Principal Environment Officer to the Planning and Environment
Committee Meeting dated 12 November 2019 and the Further Report to the General Committee
Meeting dated 18 November 2019 and resolve to commence public consultation on the Draft
Noosa Biosecurity Plan provided at Attachment 1, from 25 November until 23 December 2019.
Finance
The Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2002 can largely be implemented within existing resource allocations.
However the Implementation Action Plan identifies the need to improve our knowledge of invasive
species across the shire to better inform management actions and assess the effectiveness of
previous invasive species control programs. The project involves searching historical records,
customer requests, development assessment reports, ecological restoration plans and seeking
expert advice. This project is over and above current resource allocations and is recommended for
consideration through the budget process. The estimated cost of this project is $10,000.
Risks & Opportunities
Page 71 of 119
Section 72
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The release of the Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan may raise concerns from some members of the
community regarding the use of chemicals for managing invasive species. Council follows industry
best practice and codes for invasive species management. These standards are identified in the
Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan and respondents can be supplied with this information on request.
Council continues to explore opportunities for alternative technologies and techniques for
managing biosecurity matters.
There is opportunity to progress the implementation of the Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2020 through
environment groups, bushcare volunteers, natural resource management groups and Land for
Wildlife participants. Participants cover a large cross section of the community and are
geographically distributed across the shire. Council’s engagement with these groups helps build
capacity for the management of biosecurity matters, particularly in relation to early detection and
eradication of new species.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Noosa & District Landcare
Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Gympie Regional Council
Transport and Main Roads
SEQ Water
SEQ Healthy land and Water
Queensland Rail
Noosa Parks Association
Noosa Integrated Catchment Association
Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service
Land for Wildlife (LfW) participants
Bushcare Program Leaders and participants
General public consultation through social media Your Say Noosa and Facebook
Internal Consultation
Pest Management team
Natural Areas
Development Assessment
Parks and Gardens
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director x Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services x Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development x Civil Operations
People and Culture x Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 72 of 119
Section 73
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ON THE
DRAFT NOOSA BIOSECURITY PLAN 2020
Subject Submitter’s comments Officer’s comments
Species categorised for prevention, Supportive of species identified for prevention, eradication and Species list has been adjusted accordingly
eradication and containment containment with some minor changes
Methods of control More information required of the costs/benefits of each More information included
method required
Biosecurity survey methodology Further clarification of survey frequency needed and stronger Amended
correlation with the Action Plan required
Objectives and targets Integrate objective and targets rather than just outputs Environment Strategy objectives and targets have been
integrated into the Plan
Mapping Improvements to cartography Maps amended
Use of glyphosate Submitter supports the use of Glyphosate and considers it Noted
effective and safe
Dingoes Dingoes do not attack domestic animals and do not transmit All animals have the potential to transmit disease. Alternative
disease and parasites. Domestic animals transmit disease to methods are already employed in some sectors in the shire
other animals and humans. Alternative methods to lethal where appropriate. Biosecurity controls follow industry best
control should be employed such as electric fencing, guardian practice and standards. There is uncertainty as to the scientific
animals and changes to animal husbandry. Any harm to classification of dingoes. Council is guided by Biosecurity
dingoes and other animals should be subject ethical and Queensland and scientific experts as to its nomenclature.
empirical standards and should be only at a last resort.
Submitter disagrees with the current classification of dingo as
Canus lupus dingo, being a sub species of domestic dog, and
should be classified a separate species.
Page 73 of 119
Section 74
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Subject Submitter’s comments Officer’s comments
Use of 1080 The use of 1080 is cruel and indiscriminate and is encouraged Council invasive species management practices are guided by
by manufacturers. Alternative ethical measures need to be Biosecurity Queensland and National Codes of Practice.
explored such as using Maremma sheepdogs. Council will continue to part of authorised coordinated baiting
It is dangerous to humans and pets. Poisoning of pests only programs. However, Council will continue to explore cost
creates a temporary ‘space’ which is quickly filled. effective alternatives to the use of 1080 as new technologies
and techniques emerge.
The aim of the Biosecurity Plan is to maintain pest species to
a manageable level to help landholders and wildlife
populations including koalas, not entirely eradicate the
invasive species.
General comment Excellent plan and supportive Noted
Overall plan direction Submitter would like to see a clearer programs of works with Action Plan updated and timeline included
time frames
Council controlled land Include ‘parks’ in definition of Council controlled land and Amended
investigate opportunities to raise community awareness in
these areas.
Stakeholders Include neighbouring Councils in stakeholder list Amended, neighbouring Council’s are part of the Biosecurity
stakeholder group
Management methods Include information on how Council will develop pest Invasive species occurring in Parks and on Road Reserve are
management plans for parks and road reserve and how referred to Pest Management team and managed as part of
invasive species are considered in asset management plans Council’s ongoing works program and on a priority basis as
which will support budget allocations. per the Biosecurity Plan.
Resourcing implementation of Include other areas of Council to support delivery of Included
Biosecurity Plan Biosecurity Plan e.g. Parks
General comment Well done for including species that have been previously Noted
eradicated from the shire.
High risk species Include photos of high risk species that occur in adjoining shire Given the number of species and the need for regular updates
to allow early detection and eradication. we will develop a dedicated web page.
Landowner biosecurity obligation Make wording stronger on landowner obligations with Amended
biosecurity
Page 74 of 119
Section 75
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
6 FLYING-FOX SUBSIDISED SERVICES INITIATIVES
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Environmental Services Manager, Craig Doolan
Environment & Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/Flying Foxes/Bats
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
No applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2020 and:
A. Approve the implementation of an ongoing subsidy program for localities affected by flying-
fox colonies, and
B. Delegate to the CEO the authority to apply the subsidy program where the program meets
all of the following criteria;
Support may be offered for those living within 100m of a roost site.
The roost should be at least partly on Council-managed land.
Flying-foxes will have been at a location in significant numbers for at least 6 weeks.
A significant number of the flying-foxes must be Black or Grey-headed Flying-foxes,
rather than Little Red Flying-foxes.
REPORT
Flying-foxes fill an important ecological role of forest pollination and seed dispersal, but increased
urbanisation has encroached upon flying-fox habitat and increased human-wildlife conflict.
Although flying-foxes appear plentiful nationally, populations are on the decline and some species
are protected under both State and Commonwealth environmental legislation. It is not possible to
control the movement of flying-foxes across the Noosa landscape and they can feed and roost
anywhere and anytime throughout the shire. It is unknown how long camps will remain in a
particular location, they can last a few days or can stay for many years.
Flying-foxes are a concern to some residents because of noise, smell, property damage from
droppings and potential infection. Queensland Health advises that there are only 3 known cases
of infection from Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV) since records began and ABLV can only be
transmitted to humans from saliva of an infected bat penetrating the skin or contacting a mucous
membrane.
In 2015 Council engaged Ecosure to develop the Wallace Park flying-fox roost Management
Options Report to look at ways to reduce the impact of flying-foxes on residents. At the October
2015 Ordinary meeting Council resolved to implement recommended flying-fox actions in the
report, which to date has included;
The creation of an increased buffer zone, through clearance of vegetation and installation of
sprinklers along the western and south-western edge of the site.
Page 75 of 119
Section 76
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Implementation of a subsidy scheme that provided for nearby residents to access cleaning
products and services, car/boat/clothesline covers and air fresheners (endorsed by Council
at the November 2016 Ordinary Meeting).
Interpretive signage and education materials around the Wallace Park site.
Monitoring of flying-fox numbers at Wallace Park.
This work has been quite successful and while there are still flying-foxes at Wallace Park, the
initiatives have gone some way to alleviating the impacts on neighbouring residents.
Responsibility of management of flying-fox roosts lies with the landholder and is directed by State
legislation. Where Flying-fox camps are located in close proximity to housing on Council-managed
land, Council may undertake vegetation works or use deterrents such as sprinkler systems to
‘nudge’ flying-foxes further away from residential boundaries.
This is very much dependent on the site and subject to the State Government’s Code of Practice:
Ecologically sustainable management of flying-fox roosts. In the example of Wallace Park, the use
of sprinklers was outside the Code of Practice and a Flying-fox Roost Management Permit is
required from the State Government, which Council still holds. Any vegetation works need to
consider the impact on other species of removing vegetation.
Recent influx of flying-foxes in Kin Kin
In early December large numbers of flying-foxes descended on the centre of Kin Kin, impacting on
residents. They were initially in the area south of Main Street, between Palmer and Bowman Street,
before expanding into the area north of Main Street, on Council-managed land adjacent to Overton
Way.
Reports of the numbers present were variable and their location and number appeared to change
over time. Council engaged an experienced ecologist to visit the site on 29 January to undertake
a count, and recorded 6100 Grey-headed Flying-foxes and 730 Black Flying-foxes. At this time
they were located north of Main Road, along Overton Way, and around Leggett’s Loop. On a further
inspection on 4 February, no flying-foxes at all were observed in the area.
Page 76 of 119
Section 77
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Subsidy scheme
At the November 2016 Ordinary Meeting, Council endorsed the introduction of a subsidised
services initiative for residents around Wallace Park. The scheme was to provide for covers for
cars and clotheslines, automatic air fresheners, professional cleaning of solar panels and access
to high pressure water cleaners estimated at a cost of $10,000. The original program called for it
to be implemented with a trigger amount of 7000 flying-foxes, which was considered a reasonable
figure for the Wallace Park site.
An absolute measure of numbers is not very useful when assessing the impact and potential
support as tens of thousands of flying-foxes in some locations can have little to no impact, when
just a few hundred can have significant impact in other locations.
Expenditure on the program has varied according to the numbers of flying-foxes at the camp;
2016-17 $4,357
2017-18 $0
2018-19 $10,702
2019-20 $947
The $10,700 spent on the subsidy scheme for residents of Wallace Park in the 18/19 financial year
was a result of a significant long-term influx of tens of thousands of Black and Grey-headed Flying-
foxes. In 19/20, only a further $947 has been spent, as a result of low numbers. The resolution for
the subsidised services scheme from the November 2016 Ordinary Meeting was specifically for
Wallace Park.
Given the success and relatively low cost of the program at Wallace Park, it serves a useful model
by which to mitigate flying-fox impacts for residents given the inability to disperse the flying-foxes
altogether in other locations.
This report proposes that the subsidy scheme be broadened for application across the Shire where
certain conditions are present and regular impacts from flying foxes occurs. The report proposes
to maintain the existing program at Wallace Park on a needs basis and extend the program to other
localities if required.
This report proposes that to enable effective and efficient application of the subsidy program in a
responsive manner to resident concerns, that the CEO may authorise the triggering of financial
support for residents impacts by flying-foxes, on the advice of the Environmental Services
Manager, and in accordance with the following guidelines;
Support may be offered for those living within 100m of a roost site.
The roost should be at least partly on Council-managed land.
Flying-foxes will have been at a location in significant numbers for at least 6 weeks.
A significant number of the flying-foxes must be Black or Grey-headed Flying-foxes, rather
than Little Red Flying-foxes.
The types of support will vary depending on the site and the needs of adjacent residents. This may
include, but is not restricted to, car covers, hire of cleaning equipment, clothesline covers, water
tank filters, solar panel cleaning and air fresheners.
All triggers for subsidised initiatives will be reported to Council for noting as soon as practicable,
either as a separate report or as part of the Department quarterly reports, after their implementation
is started.
For the purposes of the guidelines above, a ‘roost site’ is defined as a location that flying-foxes
congregate during the day for the purposes of resting. It is recognised that Little Red Flying-foxes
may occur in very large numbers in Noosa from time to time, however they are extremely mobile
and always move on in a relatively short period of time (6-8 weeks). This not always the case with
Page 77 of 119
Section 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Black and Grey-headed Flying-foxes, which are more sedentary and may remain for longer
periods, although their numbers may fluctuate.
The types of support will vary depending on the site and the needs of adjacent residents. This may
include, but is not restricted to, car covers, hire of cleaning equipment, clothesline covers, water
tank filters, solar panel cleaning and air fresheners.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 17 November 2016, Item 5, Page 6
That Council note the report by the Flying Fox Management Officer to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 8 November, 2016 and implement a Subsidised Services Initiative to
provide covers for cars and clotheslines, automatic air fresheners, professional cleaning of solar
panels and access to high pressure water cleaners at a total cost of $10,000 based on predicted
subscription.
Finance
A base budget of approximately $5,000 will be maintained within the Environment Services team
to maintain existing flying-fox subsidised services. Any further funding needs will be reported to
the Council Executive Team for consideration at a budget review. Any application of the program
will also be reported to Council for noting as soon as practicable after the implementation of any
program has started.
Currently there are limited administrative resources to support the scheme when it is triggered.
The need for this support will be reviewed at the same time as new implementation of the scheme.
Risks & Opportunities
This presents an opportunity to meet the needs of impacted residents through an effective scheme
in a timelier and more responsive manner. There is some risk of additional funds being required
outside of annual budget process, via budget review, due to the unpredictable nature of the
presence and somewhat transient nature of flying foxes Previous experience with Wallace Park
program has provided a better indication of funding required, and this risk is also mitigated by;
Any new initiative requiring CEO authorisation.
A clear set of guidelines that are adaptable to multiple locations across the Shire.
A requirement to report back to Council for noting as soon as practicable after the
implementation of a program.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Regular contact with affected residents in the Kin Kin area is occurring.
Internal Consultation
Environmental Health team
Page 78 of 119
Section 79
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer x Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
x Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director X Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture x Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 79 of 119
Section 80
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
7 MULTI-YEAR ENVIRONMENT COLLABORATIVE GRANTS
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Craig Doolan, Environmental Services Manager
Environment & Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Environmental Grants
Attachments 1. MEC Grant Project Descriptions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2020 and:
A. Award the 3 year Multi-year environment grants to the initiatives recommended for funding
as identified in table 1 of the report; and
B. Authorise the CEO to enter into three-year Funding Deeds with successful organisations, as
per the recommended funding amount.
REPORT
At the Ordinary Meeting of February 2019, Council approved the Environment Grants Policy.
Noosa Council has previously provided grants to community groups for environmental projects,
programs and events through the Community Grants Program. There had been no specific criteria
for the assessment of environmental projects, with applications for environmental initiatives being
assessed along with other non-environment community applications.
The Environment Grants Policy allows for three types of Environment Grants to be delivered,
through funding from the Environment Levy;
1. Environment Project Grants
These grants will be for projects, programs or events that align with Council’s key
environment strategies and plans and have a positive impact on the Noosa
environment. They will typically be completed within 12 months of commencement.
2. Environment Organisation Alliance Grants
These grants will provide organisational support to community groups that are primarily
focused on environment activities.
3. Multi-year Environment Collaborative (MEC) Grants
Multi-year Environment Collaborative (MEC) Projects will support longer-term, larger-
scale strategic initiatives that align with the Environment Strategy and have a significant
positive impact on the Noosa Environment.
The Environment Project Grants are delivered at the same time as the Community Grants
Program, utilising the same guidelines. Since the adoption of the Environment Grant Policy, two
rounds of Environment Project Grants have been completed.
Page 80 of 119
Section 81
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The Environment Organisation Alliance grants were delivered at the same time as the Community
Alliance Grants program in early 2019, utilising the same guidelines.
The Environment Grants Policy was updated and endorsed at the Ordinary Meeting of September
2019 to incorporate stronger alignment with the Noosa Environment Strategy. This report also
noted the Operating Guideline for the MEC Grants, which outlined the criteria by which the grant
applications would be assessed. This was based on the following three broad categories and
weighted assessment;
Environmental Outcomes (50%)
Developing Partnerships (25%)
Value for Money & Organisational Capacity (25%).
This is first time Council has advertised for applications for the Multi-year Environment
Collaborative Grants program. The MEC Grants program was open for applications from 14
November 2019 to 18 December 2019. Upon opening, a media release was sent out, the grants
were advertised on Council’s Facebook page, and the grants were placed on the front page of the
Noosa Council website.
As per the Council resolution at the September Ordinary Meeting, applications were sought
specifically relating to outcomes of the Biodiversity and Waterways, Wetlands and Coast themes
of the Noosa Environment Strategy.
Applications received
Ten applications were received for MEC Grants and staff had meetings with groups regarding 12
potential projects. This was a great response. Further detail on the applications received can be
found in Attachment 1: MEC Grant Project Descriptions.
Noosa Council has provided funding of $375,000 per year for the Environment Grants Program in
2019/20, of which $250,000 has been allocated to the MEC Grants. All of the grant applications
applied for funding for three years and with the same, or very similar, amounts, for each of the
years.
Total funding request for the 10 applications received was:
2019/20 $474,894
2020/21 $464,005
2021/22 $465,400
The standard and quality of applications was extremely high. Of particular note was how well many
of the projects aligned with the Noosa Environment Strategy, and the effort applicants went to align
their projects with Council’s key environmental strategic document.
The overall level of organisational capacity and value for money was also very high, which is not
surprising given the high level of capability that exists within local environmental and community
organisations. Most applications were accompanied with in-kind contributions close to, or in excess
of, the Council grant funding request.
The grant applications also demonstrated good collaborative and partnership opportunities
amongst environment groups and organisations. It would have been good to see more partnering
with non-environmental groups in the applications provided, as the potential was there for some of
the applications.
Assessment
The MEC Operating Guideline calls for three separate assessors of all the grants;
A member of the Environmental Services team
Another Noosa Council employee, from a different part of Council
An external assessor, with subject matter expertise.
Page 81 of 119
Section 82
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
The same assessor from each of three groups assessed all 10 applications to ensure consistency
of scoring. The Council employee outside of the Environment Services team was from Strategic
Planning and an independent paid ecological consultant was appointed as the external assessor.
It was especially useful to get qualified independent assessment from outside of Noosa, by
someone who has no knowledge of the applicants of the projects, but a high level of expertise in
environmental management.
All three assessors came up with similar results and a moderation meeting was held to develop a
final order of merit, which was unanimously agreed upon.
The table below identifies the recommended funding, with a total funding of:
2019-2020 $259,338
2020-2021 $259,959
2021-2022 $261,354
This represents a small increase on the $250,000 generally allocated to the MEC Grants, out of
the total pool of $375,000 funding for the Environment Grants Program. In the absence of any
increase in funding being made available over the following two years, it is anticipated that a small
reduction in the funding allocated to Environment Project Grants (currently at $75,000 per year)
will offset this. For the 2019/20 financial year, there is already an underspend in the Environment
Project Grants to allow for the extra funding to the MEC Grants.
Page 82 of 119
Section 83
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
TABLE 1 - 2019-20 GRANTS – MULTI-YEAR ENVIORNMENT COLLABORATIVE GRANTS
Applicant Project Title and Overview (taken from the application) Special conditions Recommended funding
Reef Check Australia Promoting marine stewardship in the Noosa Region through Not recommended for
on-ground activities, educations and increased community funding at this time
capacity - Reef Check Australia aims to actively engage
community members in appreciating, understanding and
protecting their local marine environment through reef health
monitoring, citizen science initiatives and hands-on education;
promoting and celebrating a healthy marine ecosystem;
contributing to a sustainable environment.
Noosa & District Landcare Keeping It In Kin Kin Project (KIKK) - On ground 2019-20 - $79,156
Group implementation of the Keeping It In Kin Kin project aims to reduce
2020-21 - $80,739
erosion hot-spots, remediate riparian areas and improve soil
health. 2021-22 - $82,354
Mary River Catchment Protecting Noosa's Biodiversity through community Liaise with Council staff over the 2019-20 - $7,200
Coordinating Committee programs monitoring program to ensure date
2020-21 - $7,200
can support implementation actions
1. Deliver the Find a Frog in February citizen science program in
of the Noosa Environment Strategy. 2021-22 - $7,200
February 2020 across the Noosa Shire.
2. Conduct surveys along the two long-term frog monitoring
transects - 6 Mile Creek and Cooroora Creek.
Tourism Noosa Plastic Free Noosa - Plastic Free Noosa protects the 2019-20 - $61,800
environment by empowering the Noosa community in eliminating
2020-21 - $61,800
single-use plastics through direct engagement, recognition and
facilitating circular economies to create lasting change. 2021-22 - $61,800
Noosa Environmental Noosa Young Environmental Custodians Biodiversity Not recommended for
Education Hub Restoration Project - Connecting Noosa schools in partnership funding at this time
with Environmental Groups to projects within the Noosa
Biosphere through rich, curriculum linked, grassroots
opportunities. The programs deliver year by year involvement of
schools in biodiversity protection projects through hands on, in
field delivery.
Page 83 of 119
Section 84
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Applicant Project Title and Overview (taken from the application) Special conditions Recommended funding
Eastern Beaches Bushcare Coastal Connect 2 - The project aims to restore ecological Ensure that three quotes are 2019-20 - $76,182
Collaborative linkages and connectivity by rehabilitating coastal peat creek obtained for all works over $7,500.
2020-21 - $75,220
mouths, dunes and ephemeral wetlands along Noosa’s eastern
beaches to ensure species resilience in the face of climate 2021-22 - $75,000
change.
Noosa Integrated Catchment Islands In The Stream - Collaborative staged rehabilitation of Not recommended for
Association four Lower Noosa River Islands to restore ecological function to funding at this time
estuarine wetland linkages-refugia of national significance, build
climate change resilience, enhance biodiversity and viability, and
create community partnerships. Detailed cultural and biodiversity
investigations will inform works.
Noosa & District Landcare Strategic Transformer Woody Vine Weed Management in the Not recommended for
Group Noosa Shire - Transformer vines threaten the structure and funding at this time
integrity of endangered riparian vegetation, placing streambanks,
water quality and aquatic life at risk. This project will strategically
manage priority vine sites in Noosa Shire to reduce the extent and
severity of vine infestations.
Mary River Catchment Hinterland Rural Extension Program - This rural landholder 2019-20 - $35,000
Coordinating Committee program will target high priority sub-catchments of the Mary River
2020-21 - $35,000
catchment for extension and on-ground incentives to improve
downstream water quality. This project links with the MRCCC 2021-22 - $35,000
Reef Trust program, Noosa & District Landcare and Country
Noosa.
Noosa & District Landcare Drones and Artificial Intelligence for broad scale monitoring Not recommended for
Group of koala abundance and evaluation of revegetation - Yurol funding at this time
and Ringtail Forest - The objective of this project is to establish
a baseline estimate of koala abundance at representative sites in
the Yurol/Ringtail area, to digitize remnant, regrowth and
replanted areas, and to evaluate how revegetated and remnant
landscapes are utilised by koalas.
Page 84 of 119
Section 85
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Implementation
Following endorsement by Council, the CEO will enter into funding deeds with the successful
parties. Funding will be provided soon after and projects are expected to being in March 2020.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 19 September 2019, Item 6, Page 9
That Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2019 and:
A. Repeal the Environment Grants Policy adopted on 21 February 2019 and adopt the revised
Environment Grants Policy provided at Attachment 1 to the Report with the additional words
included under the heading of Council Policy: “All initiatives funded by the Environment
Grants Program will have tangible and measureable outcomes.”;
B. Note the Draft Multi-year Collaborative Environmental Grants - Operating Guideline provided
at Attachment 2 to the Report, developed by the Environment Levy Working
C. Group, as per the Environment Grants Policy; and
D. Approve the Environment Grants being directed towards outcomes of the Biodiversity and
Waterways, Wetlands & Coasts sections of the Noosa Environment Strategy, while the
Environment Levy remains the sole funding source for the Grants.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 21 February 2019, Item 7, Page 19
That Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the Planning &
Environment Committee meeting dated 12 February 2019 and the further report to the General
Committee meeting dated 18 February 2019 and:
A. Adopt the Environment Grants Policy as set out in Attachment 1 to the report to the General
Committee meeting dated 18 February 2019 with the addition of the following words:
“CONDITIONS OF FUNDING
All successful applicants will be required to enter into a funding deed of agreement with
Council and acquit funds within the allocated timeframes. The timeframes and acquittal
requirements are outlined in the supporting Grant Guidelines for the specific funding
program. Successful applicants will be required to actively and publicly acknowledge
Council’s support.”
B. Approve Interim Evaluation Criteria for the next round (February 2019) of Environment
Grants only, based on relevant Strategic Outcomes of the Biodiversity and Waterways,
Wetlands and Coasts themes in the Draft Environment Strategy, listed below;
Ecological linkages and connecting habitat areas are improved and rehabilitated to
increase landscape connectivity and species resilience.
Community conservation partnerships on public and private land are developed to
deliver successful biodiversity conservation outcomes.
Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as fauna and flora species, are protected
from significant human impacts.
Invasive pest species are managed strategically to reduce impacts on native species
and habitats, fisheries, recreation and tourism values.
Water quality, riparian areas and catchment health is protected and improved by
partnering with landholders and stakeholders to actively manage and rehabilitate
priority stream reaches.
Page 85 of 119
Section 86
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Aquatic biodiversity is improved through the preservation and enhancement of diverse
instream, riparian and wetland habitats.
Point source and diffuse pollution is identified and effectively managed to reduce
impacts on waterways, wetlands and coasts.
Waterways, wetlands and coastal environments are protected, managed and
maintained in their natural state and are enhanced to support healthy and diverse
ecosystems.
The quality and quantity of groundwater, surface water and wastewater discharge is
optimised to minimise impacts to receiving waters, aquatic ecosystems and human
health.
C. As a result of the introduction of a new separate Environment Grants Program and Policy,
Council approve the amendments required to the Community Grants Policy as detailed in
Attachment 2 to the report to the General Committee meeting dated 18 February 2019;
and
D. Authorise the CEO to make any required minor amendments to the Policies prior to
publication.
Finance
Noosa Council has provided funding of $375,000 per year for the Environment Grants Program in
2019/20, of which $250,000 has been allocated to the MEC Grants. All of the grant applications
applied for funding for three years and with the same, or very similar, amounts, for each of the
years. As a result, we did not need to consider how variable amounts of funding from year to year
would impact on the projects.
The recommended funding for the next three years is:
2019-2020 $259,338
2020-2021 $259,959
2021-2022 $261,354
This represents a small increase on the $250,000 generally allocated to the MEC Grants, out of
the total pool of $375,000 funding for the Environment Grants Program. In the absence of any
increase in funding being made available over the following two years, it is anticipated that a small
reduction in the funding allocated to Environment Project Grants (currently at $75,000 per year)
will offset this. For the 2019/20 financial year, there is already an underspend in the Environment
Project Grants to allow for the extra funding to the MEC Grants.
Risks & Opportunities
The MEC Grants projects provide the first opportunity in quite a few years for Noosa Council to
provide long-term, significant financial support to community groups undertaking high-value
environmental projects in Noosa. A robust evaluation process, aligned with the endorsed Noosa
Environment Strategy, ensures that the projects are the best ones for Council to support.
There is a risk that community groups may not be able to deliver on these projects. This has been
initially managed by including the organisational capacity of groups within the assessment process.
This included a consideration of experience in delivering similar types and sizes of projects in the
past. Each project will also have a single Council Officer as a point of contact throughout the
project, so any issues are quickly identified and resolved.
Page 86 of 119
Section 87
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
One-on-one meetings were held with prospective applicants for the grants program.
A suitably qualified environmental consultant was engaged to undertake the assessment of the
grants, as well as two separate Council Officers. The consultant also took part in the moderation
process.
Internal Consultation
A workshop was held with Councillors to provide a more detailed overview of the proposed grant
applications following final assessment.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer x Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support x Community Development x Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director x Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture x Environmental Services Disaster Management
x Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 87 of 119
Section 88
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
ATTACHMENT 1
MULTI-YEAR ENVIRONMENT COLLABORATIVE (MEC) GRANT APPLICATIONS – 2019/20
This document includes the full project description provided by applicants for the latest round of
MEC Grants, in no particular order. Significant further information was provided by applicants in
their responses to detailed questions against the evaluation criteria.
1. Reef Check Australia
Project Title - Promoting marine stewardship within the NOOSA region through on ground
activities, education and increased community capacity
Brief Project Overview
Reef Check Australia aims to actively engage community members in appreciating, understanding and
protecting their local marine environment through reef health monitoring, citizen science initiatives and
hands-on education; promoting and celebrating a healthy marine ecosystem; contributing to a sustainable
environment.
Full project description
Reef Check Australia is seeking further support to assist with the growth of 2 priority project components to
form a cohesive program that actively engages community members in appreciating, understanding and
protecting the wider NOOSA marine environment. This project will empower volunteers and community
members to participate in citizen science initiatives, promote and celebrate a healthy marine ecosystem, and
contribute to a sustainable environment. In 2019, we obtained one year of funding for this program through
Noosa Shire Councils, Community Project Grant, but in order to ensure the project is sustainable into the
future, we hope to acquire more support to ensure an exceptional standard of work can continue to be
delivered.
1) Reef Check Australia reef health monitoring and mapping along the Noosa coastline conducted by
trained volunteers to collect locally relevant, globally standardised information on reef health.
Established in 2007, Reef Check offers some of the only available long-term data for many of these
sites and this project showcases the value of citizen science initiatives as a powerful tool to empower
volunteers to contribute useful science information for management and education initiatives. The
continuation of our long-term data collection compliments and builds on the legacy of our existing
programs. Reef Check survey data is freely available to all managing bodies. It has previously been
used as part of the SEQ Catchments Natural Resource Management Plan review process, Noosa
Biosphere Reserve Reports, and we are continuing to investigate new data applications and
opportunities to value add where possible.
RCA has previously monitored two locations at Jew Shoal in 2011, 2012 and 2013, however since this
time RCA had been unable to continue regular monitoring due to funding constraints. We received
funding from Noosa Council in 2019 to conduct surveys on Jew Shoal for the first time since 2013, in
addition to conducting surveys on Little Halls Reef (a key existing RCA location) and three new
locations in 2019. Surveys conducted in 2020 will provide a vital update on the health of these
important nearshore reef areas, and allow us to monitor for changes (as seen on Little Halls Reef).
2) Community training and on-ground activities to nurture marine stewardship by sharing reef health
findings, building community capacity to engage in reef health topics and fostering action on locally-
relevant ocean health issues in the Noosa Council area. We believe that empowering volunteers to
collect reef data for science and management applications is a critical pathway for engagement, but
just as important is sharing this information with the community to motivate broader engagement and
action. When community members can truly understand the marine environment on their doorstep,
they are better prepared to appreciate these unique systems and are better equipped to personally
and collectively take positive action to care for and protect them. This will be completed through key
project components including our award winning Reef Ambassador program, in addition to
collaborative community events.
Page 88 of 119
Section 89
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
We will also utilise local Noosa based Emmy award winning videographer, Clint Hempsall, to capture the
beauty of these largely unknown reef resources to create a selection of short videos to be shown through
social media and during community outreach activities such as our Reef 101 presentations. These short
videos will be used to highlight the significance of our marine assets within the Noosa region, as well as the
methodology behind Reef Checks programs. These videos have the potential to viewed by over 7000
followers through RCA's social media platforms, and will also be shared with the Noosa Regional Council,
to be used within their own social media outreach.
Through this strategic, science-based and collaborative outreach network, RCA will continue to increase
ocean literacy, support grassroots reef education, continue to build a network of passionate and informed
community members, boost partnership for conservation and translate citizen science findings into
meaningful action.
Our 2019 RCA-Noosa Council project was extremely successful and we believe it would be strategic to utilise
the momentum created to continue to build a solid Noosa region group of reef champions.
2. Noosa & District Landcare
Project title - Keeping It In Kin Kin Project (KIIKK)
Brief project overview
On ground implementation of the Keeping It In Kin Kin project aims to reduce erosion hot-spots, remediate
riparian areas and improve soil health.
Full project description
Previous studies highlighted the increase of sediment build on the benthic floor of Lake Cootharaba, the
source of which predominantly originated from the Kin Kin Creek catchment area. LiDaR analysis from
images of the Kin Kin catchment between 2008 and 2015 highlighted major erosion points, the source of
Lake Cootharaba sediment, and became the basis for the KIIKK project.
The desired outcome for the KIIKK project is to reduce the nutrient laden sediment entering Lake
Cootharaba. NDLG aim to achieve this through the remediation of active and high risk erosion sites and
reduce the number of potential sediment erosion areas.
KIIKK objectives are to:
Restore and increase riparian buffer zones with tube stock plantings.
Rehabilitate active erosion sites – targeting soil stabilisation through coir logs, jute matting , high
density plantings and low impact construction of leaky weirs.
Improve soil health and increase quality and quantity of productive top soil on farming land – via an
increase in both diversity and density of soil microbial activity, improved pasture diversity and best
practice land management principles.
Improve water quality of the local Kin Kin Creek and its tributaries ensuring access to clean water for
agricultural and livestock use with off point water sources, thus limiting direct contact of livestock with
waterways.
Management of environmental weeds such as Cats Claw Creeper and Madeira vine, and other
invasive species.
Actively engage landholders both one on one and as a collective to enhance sustainable production
and management of the agricultural landscape.
This project sits as one of three discrete applications within the wider 'Noosa Hinterland Rural Extension
Program'. Educational and awareness activities across all three projects will be shared so be to most efficient
and effective. An overarching steering group comprising MRCCC, Noosa Council, Noosa Landcare and
Country Noosa will form to oversee extension and awareness raising activities. This already occurs in a
casual format with existing programs.
Page 89 of 119
Section 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
3. Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee
Project title – Protecting Noosa´s Biodiversity through community programs
Brief project overview
1. Deliver the Find a Frog in February citizen science program in February 2020 across the Noosa Shire.
2. Conduct surveys along the two long-term frog monitoring transects - 6 Mile Creek and Cooroora
Creek.
Full project description
Worldwide 1/3 of all species of frogs are listed as under threat of extinction and, in the Mary River and
adjacent coastal catchments, 1/4 are listed as threatened; two having disappeared in the 1970's and 1980's.
As a fauna group frogs are broadly recognised as indicators of environmental health due to their high
sensitivity to chemical components of both water and air and to their heavy reliance on both terrestrial and
aquatic habitats to complete their lifecycle. Locally some species are highly habitat specific in their
requirements (eg stream frogs and wallum dependent frogs) while others currently appear common and
robust.
The MRCCC has been surveying and monitoring frog species in the Mary and coastal areas for around 16
years now, and in recent years we have become concerned about the drastic breeding opportunity for all
local amphibians and what this may mean for both threatened and apparently common species. Under the
current regime of climate change and uncertainty we recognise that it is critical to know where different
species occur and how their populations are faring. The area is large and public participation is one way to
cover ground and to improve the catchment community's awareness and ethic of care. Compared with many
other fauna groups, frogs are relatively easy and inexpensive to observe and they are endearing to a large
proportion of our population.
As an addition to the MRCCC's overall catchment care program that aims to increase the sustainability of
human activity as well as improving the resilience of natural areas, species and processes, we see this
program as a valuable addition to community engagement and increased collective knowledge.
1. The MRCCC is seeking support for the delivery of the annual Citizen Science Find a Frog in February
(FFF) program in the Noosa region. Components of the program will include:
- Extensive media material disseminated to the whole community
- Two public frog workshops
- One public frog survey
- Noosa-based coastal Bushcare group frog workshop and setup of a long-term frog monitoring
site on project land (second and third years only)
- Facilitation of a school-based educational frog program and setup of a frog monitoring site on
or near the school grounds (Noosa District High School, Pomona and their outdoor education
facility at 'Mimburi').
This catchment wide program provides opportunities to reach many varied sectors of the community
and provides people from all walks of life an opportunity to contribute to species management through
increased awareness and submission of their frog observations. In 2020 we will be focusing on the
habitat requirements of local frogs, how to protect and enhance sites, frogs as indicators of
environmental health and the encouragement of long-term monitoring at participants' preferred site/s.
All incoming data is provided to the Queensland Government WildNet database.
2. The MRCCC seeks to continue the long-term frog monitoring surveys that target threatened stream
frog species at two sites in the Six Mile Creek sub-catchment. Surveys will occur twice during ideal
detection conditions to obtain certainty that these indicator species of riparian and environmental
health are persisting in undisturbed (Six Mile Creek) and disturbed (Cooroora Creek site) habitats.
Should any changes in species composition or population levels be detected we will be alerted to
changes in the environment and be able to respond accordingly.
Page 90 of 119
Section 91
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
These sites have been monitored for 14 years and have provided information on the ideal conditions
required to detect the key stream dependent frog species. This has become our guide for determining
survey timing for optimum use of resources. Over the years of surveying the same sites we have
collected a suite of facial photographs of the individual Giant barred frogs encountered. These have
been collated and are added to annually to determine if facial individuality occurs.
4. Plastic Free Noosa/Tourism Noosa
Project Title – Plastic Free Noosa
Brief Project Overview
Plastic Free Noosa protects the environment by empowering the Noosa community in eliminating single-use
plastics through direct engagement, recognition and facilitating circular economies to create lasting change.
Full Project Description
This is an established source reduction program that is relatively low cost with significant environmental
outcomes. The program goals address the multiple aspects of the plastic pollution issue, including:
Plastic Pollution Marine & Land (plastic reductions, clean-ups)
Microplastics (reductions)
Single-use plastics (reusables, compostables)
Reductions to landfill (events, composting options, waste separation)
Reduced CO2 emissions (reusables, compostables)
The project overview and plan are detailed on the Plastic Free Noosa website at www.plasticfreenoosa.org.
5. Noosa Environmental Education Hub
Project title - Noosa Young Environmental Custodians Biodiversity Restoration Project
Brief project overview
Connecting Noosa schools in partnership with Environmental Groups to projects within the Noosa Biosphere
through rich, curriculum linked, grassroots opportunities. The programs deliver year by year involvement of
schools in biodiversity protection projects through hands on, in field delivery.
Full project description
The Noosa EEHub engenders our next generation of environmental custodians through rich curriculum
extension opportunities that are focussed on the environmental needs of our region. We deliver programs
that cause our young people to reflect and observe the ecosystems that support life in our region. Through
a detailed curriculum linked program that runs for a full term and includes assessment, we ensure that our
students understand in detail the natural environments that make up our Noosa Biosphere. They explore
how to protect and restore them and we culminate this learning in on the ground, real programs.
This grant application is requested to cover the on the ground components of NEW project delivery, this
includes the revegetation, establishment and grassroots biodiversity work completed by our students teams
in collaboration with local environmental groups.
The benefits are:
Increased awareness and understanding of our biodiversity, vulnerable species and the ecosystems
that support life.
Ownership and integration of environmental custodianship for the places we live.
Sense of pride and involvement for students as they explore solutions for their community.
Providing an opportunity for voice on environmental issues for our young people.
Increased involvement and interest in environmental matters.
Page 91 of 119
Section 92
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Reducing environmental anxiety through real action on climate change concerns.
Connecting young people to the many environmental groups in our region.
We believe that young people have far more capacity than what we give them credit for and so we adopt a
student led inquiry model. We allow them to think through the process and evaluate the best path forward.
We support their development and understanding through detailed, year level appropriate, programs
designed to deliver education and grassroots outcomes.
In doing so we allow young people to thrive and take ownership of the outcomes, develop their problem
solving skills and give them a sense of pride for being active participants in their local community. The
benefits of our approach have been proven. The outcomes for our local environs are measurable as we
apply Citizen Science data collection as part of the programs.
Our programs reduce Environmental Anxiety (a growing despair in young people) by allowing them to
become active participants in local environmental projects with rich outcomes. We provide real action
opportunities.
We have negotiated the development of the Noosa NatureMapr service. This easy to use interface allows
students to enter observations they make in the field. This includes the detailed mapping of biodiversity
through transverse studies in the field. Students are then supported to evaluate a way forward for the
revegetation strategies, once implemented the progress of their work is mapped in intervals and entered into
the database, providing a rich, measurable outcome for their assessments and for use by authorities such
as Noosa Council.
6. Eastern Beaches Bushcare Collaborative (auspiced by Noosa Integrated Catchment
Association)
Project title - Coastal Connect 2
Brief project overview
The project aims to restore ecological linkages and connectivity by rehabilitating coastal peat creek mouths,
dunes and ephemeral wetlands along Noosa’s eastern beaches to ensure species resilience in the face of
climate change.
Full project description
This project is an innovative collaboration of Bushcare groups from Peregian to Noosa Heads. It aims to
transition the current local activities into a strategic district level program of rehabilitation which will conserve
coastal values while increasing the resilience of high-risk coastal ecosystems to the forecasted threats of a
changing climate. Clearly targeting outcomes and initiatives envisaged in Council’s Environment Strategy
Implementation Plan, the actions are prioritised based on the priorities emerging from Council's more
detailed studies on Coastal Hazards, Waterways and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems and will embody
the priorities outlined in the Draft Biosecurity Plan.
We have divided the Eastern Beaches into 3 manageable strategic areas, with each area receiving an equal
amount from the grant. Some areas are larger, harder, or in worse condition but at the end of the day, we
are all about collaborating to rehabilitate the entire Eastern Beaches and.... it will be ongoing for years.
Group A – Peregian South and Peregian North
Group B – Peregian Creek, Castaways, Marcus (Marcus Beach Bushcare Association MBBA inc)
Group C – Sunshine (Noosa Bush Beach and Creek Care, NBBCC
Page 92 of 119
Section 93
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
NICA is the Auspice partner and responsible for Project Administration of non on-ground activities. Noosa
and District Landcare will assist with Project Management of on-ground activities, while Coolum Coastcare
will contribute their expertise in turtles. It is envisaged that the broader community local marine science and
geography students from local schools will also be involved in on-ground activities.
Promotional and informative material will be disseminated over 3 years through multi-media, the channels
of various community groups, community events and workshops as well as hand delivery of relevant material
to residents of properties adjoining or adjacent to the proposed areas. This project will align with NICA’s
Urban Wildlife Gardens program. It will also align with The Pandanus revegetation project.
An environmental triage approach will be used to focus efforts around the higher value wetlands and
waterways running to the eastern beaches with dune management and monitoring focused on high risk areas
either side of the mouths of the creeks in the first instance. The long-term goal is to link the activities for the
full stretch of the eastern beaches from the shire boundary in the south to Lion Head at Sunshine Beach in
the North. Expenditure of grant funds will focus on:
Employment/contracting experienced bushland management and rehabilitation personnel to augment
volunteer labour and assist in the administration of the project and skills development of participants.
Purchase of plants, chemicals and equipment required for on-ground activities.
Marketing, venue hire and catering for skills development workshops, field days and working bees.
Events aiming to diversify and increase membership and volunteer participation.
Colour coded Identification Poles for each Beach Access, for visitor and tourist’s safety.
7. Noosa Integrated Catchment Association
Project title – Islands in the Stream
Brief project overview
Collaborative staged rehabilitation of four Lower Noosa River Islands to restore ecological function to
estuarine wetland linkages-refugia of national significance, build climate change resilience, enhance
biodiversity and viability, and create community partnerships. Detailed cultural and biodiversity
investigations will inform works.
Full project description
Project goals:
Enhance condition of estuarine wetland, tree swamp and forest linkages and refugia, restore ecological
function, enhance viability of threatened species; improve resilience to climate change; improve
understanding (baseline) of ecosystem structure and biodiversity; record and preserve cultural values; create
effective community partnership targeting estuarine wetland areas; foster community awareness and
custodianship of Noosa River.
Project activities:
1. Cultural investigation – detailed literature and field surveys will be conducted to identify and record
cultural and heritage values within the Project area by volunteers with input from Kabi Kabi traditional
owners (subject to final agreement); and
2. Biodiversity assessment – extensive high-definition photogrammetry mapping, modelling and field
surveys (“ground truthing”) will be conducted before and after rehabilitation works to establish
baselines of terrain, elevation and ecosystem structure, regional ecosystem extents, species presence
and abundance (endemic and invasive);
Page 93 of 119
Section 94
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
These initiatives will inform and stage the primary objective of the Project:
3. Staged rehabilitation works - volunteers from NICA and partners, in consultation with Noosa Council,
QPWS and supported by Landcare contractors, will rehabilitate the four island sites in stages over
three years using best practice site-specific in-situ techniques. Invasive weed species will be removed
to facilitate rapid natural endemic regeneration and restoration of ecological function; and
4. Awareness and engagement –a diverse community engagement strategy involving innovative
techniques and communication methods will be used to raise awareness, foster volunteer participation
and encourage stewardship of the Project and river; and
5. Monitoring and maintenance – Systematic site-specific monitoring program will preserve rehabilitated
land, whilst photogrammetry and field surveys will be repeated to monitor changes to ecosystem
structure and health.
8. Noosa & District Landcare
Project title - Strategic Transformer Woody Vine Weed Management in the Noosa Shire
Brief project overview
Transformer vines threaten the structure and integrity of endangered riparian vegetation, placing
streambanks, water quality and aquatic life at risk. This project will strategically manage priority vine sites in
Noosa Shire to reduce the extent and severity of vine infestations.
Full project description
This project will progress coordination and strategic management of the transformer woody vine weeds in
the Noosa Shire and comprises the following two specific actions:
1) Continued implementation of the Kin Kin Catchment Cats Claw Creeper & Madeira Vine Management
Strategy 2018-2023. Infestations in high priority locations will be treated and eradicated where
feasible.
2) Commencement of the Six Mile Creek Catchment Woody Vine Weeds Management Strategy 2020-
2025 (In preparation). Infestations in high priority locations will be treated and eradicated where
feasible.
Our goal will be to treat, repetitively during the three years, all high priority infestation sites with the aim of
eradication in these areas. Further, community awareness and capacity building activities will be embedded
within the project with targeted workshops and field days (One each year) for landholders in priority areas.
Preliminary on-ground effort pertaining to this funding proposal equates to 168 labour days in the first year,
and approximately 493 labour days over the three year time frame. This labour comprises Noosa Landcare
professional contracting crew, Kabi Kabi Cert III trainees and Skilling Qlders for Work Trainees.
Additional leveraged funding will be sought to boost this projects objectives. Having three years secured
funding to be able to utilise as in-kind funds will greatly assist attempts to value-add this activity.
This project sits as one of three discrete applications within the wider 'Noosa Hinterland Rural Extension
Program'. Educational and awareness activities across all three projects will be shared so be to most efficient
and effective. An overarching steering group comprising MRCCC, Noosa Council, Noosa Landcare and
Country Noosa will form to oversee extension and awareness raising activities. This already occurs in a
casual format with existing programs.
Page 94 of 119
Section 95
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 FEBRUARY 2020
9. Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee
Project title - Hinterland Rural Extension Program
Brief project overview
This rural landholder program will target high priority sub-catchments of the Mary River catchment for
extension and on-ground incentives to improve downstream water quality. This project links with the MRCCC
Reef Trust program, Noosa & District Landcare and Country Noosa.
Full project description
This rural landholder extension program will occur across the hinterland of Noosa Shire, with multiple
partners (MRCCC, Noosa & District Landcare Group, Country Noosa) assisting to deliver this project in the
Noosa hinterland. This project sits as one of three discrete applications within the wider 'Noosa Hinterland
Rural Extension Program'. The MRCCC component of this project will target rural landholders in the group
of sub-catchments in the Noosa hinterland known as the "Mary River hinterland sub-catchments" which are
the Skyring, Middle, Coles, Happy Jack, Blackfellows and Belli Creek sub-catchments. These sub-
catchments of the Mary River are collectively identified as high sediment sources to the southern Great
Barrier Reef. Currently the MRCCC manages a Reef Trust project in these sub-catchments offering
extension support to rural landholders eg. 1-on-1 on-property consultations, grazing land management
workshops and field-walks. In the Noosa hinterland these activities are jointly organised by MRCCC and
Country Noosa.
However, where previously the MRCCC also offered landholder incentives to implement best land
management practices eg. riparian fencing, presently the MRCCC can only offer extension support and the
development of property action plans. This proposal will enable MRCCC to continue to offer extension
support (from Reef Trust funding) and importantly, landholder incentives to implement on-ground projects
(from Noosa Council funding).
This project plans to assist landholders to transition through a structured extension education program where
participants will enter through a grazing land management workshop that introduces landholders to a suite
of sustainable land management concepts focused on improving land management practices and
subsequently land condition. To consolidate this learning, participants are trained, in a group, on a working
grazing enterprise (during a fieldwalk). During this hands-on learning situation training involves best land
management practice options, land and riparian zone condition monitoring, forage and groundcover
assessments etc. After the workshop and group fieldwalk, 1-on-1 on-property consultations are conducted
to put in practice on-farm the learnings and priority actions from the workshop. During this process a property
action plan is developed, coupled with on-site training of land and riparian zone condition and benchmarking
of current land management practices. The property action plan will also develop indicative budgets for
identified priority on-ground actions.
Goals - empower the rural community of Noosa hinterland to implement best land management practices to
improve downstream water quality for the Mary & Noosa River and the Great Barrier Reef.
Activities
sustainable land management workshops targeting grazing enterprises
field-based activities eg. fieldwalks to showcase participating best land management activities
1-on-1 on-property consultations, benchmarking, training and preparation of property action plans
on-ground implementation projects at a property level eg.'
riparian fencing
off stream stock watering facilities eg. tanks, troughs, polypipe
remnant vegetation fencing eg. wetlands, rainforest, vinescrub etc
Outcomes
improved downstream water quality outcomes for the Mary River and the Great Barrier Reef through
adoption of best land management practices
improved understanding in the community of best land management practices and its impact on
downstream water quality
linking community groups of the Noosa Shire focused on promoting best land management practices
leveraging existing programs eg. Reef Trust to maximise investment in the Noosa Shire
Page 95 of 119
The text continues on section 96.