Climate change and aircraft noise set the night alight

The Noosa Council Ordinary Meeting of Thursday 18 April

Dusk was giving way to dark as the 70 or so protesters milled outside the Tewantin council chambers. They waved placards showing they were demonstrating against changes to aircraft flight paths which they claimed would affect the peaceful solitude of their lives.

Just before six o’clock they piled into the public gallery of the chambers where extra seating had been hastily arranged. Immediately, Cr Brian Stockwell presented a petition signed by 1,370 people unhappy about flight path changes for aircraft transiting to and from the new Sunshine Coast runway, where work to construct an international class landing strip is well underway. The petition was clearly coast-centric covering areas such as Peregian Beach, Marcus Beach, Castaways Beach and Lake Weyba. The hinterland, which will probably experience even more aircraft noise, was strangely absent from the consideration of these people.

Cr Wellington explained to the restive crowd of campaigners that the aircraft flight path debate was listed for later mention, imploring them to be patient and to remain mute and undemonstrative. Such is the role of the public at a council meeting, he said. And in return the audience mumbled and spoke loudly as if feeling the need to immediately articulate its dissent.

The old beachside house versus the new beachside house

The first formal item for discussion was the matter of a house at 54 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, the owners of which wish to knock it down and replace it with something smaller and nicer. And it was here that the spectre of climate change reared its dramatic head. Moving a motion to refuse the application, Cr Stockwell said it was a precedent (this council likes firsts but doesn’t like precedents) for decisions concerning erosion as a result of climate change (not ‘possible erosion’, mind you, or ‘speculated erosion’). He claimed there was also concern for 43 other houses on this street and this one…. well this one was going to be a precedent.

Cr Ingrid Jackson explained the requested development was to replace an existing home on a concrete slab with a dwelling occupying a smaller footprint, plus landscaping to suit the dune environment. She felt that, for such an important first-time decision and, er, precedent, there was not enough evidence to make a sound judgement on the application. Cr Jackson said legal advice specific to this case had not been sought, the council’s response to climate change had not been agreed and alternative solutions had not been considered.

It was quite a list and, to me, her position seemed fair and reasonable. It appeared wise for the council to confirm the legal status of a whole range of matters and avoid a costly court appeal which would be the probable outcome of a refusal. Cr Wellington said this was a “tricky” matter and would be the first of many of its kind. (Noosa councillors too often claim something to be ‘a first’, which communicates an arrogant and inflated view of this small council’s importance.)

The mayor continued, saying the application was inconsistent with the existing planning scheme and a draft new planning scheme, it was outside the ‘coastal building line’, it didn’t conform with a ‘risk map’, the council had a duty of care, it didn’t need legal advice, “we’ve had legal advice” (really?), the application did not canvass other options.… It seems to me that Cr Wellington can always find a hundred ways to say goodbye to what appear to be reasonable proposals. After all, if the council refused this application, there would still be a house on the site – the existing bigger house. It wasn’t like the lot would be turned over to a rice paddy.

Cr Joe Jurisevic (who often appears to mentally wring his hands on issues such as this) sighed that this was not an easy decision and he felt sorry for the applicants but he would support the refusal. (He could have soothed his anguish by voting ‘no’ to buy more time and information, but he didn’t.) Deputy mayor Cr Frank Wilkie entered the debate and said climate change was a factor in this matter. But, to me, its effects had not been defined or even reasonably forecast. And he added a piece de resistance, that the planning department had given legal advice that a refusal was OK.

Whereupon Cr Jackson quietly asked the planning manager to substantiate Cr Wilkie’s claim that the planning department was conveying legal advice. The manager demurred, saying she was a town planner, not a lawyer. Cr Wilkie’s argument disappeared in a whiff of fact checking.

That didn’t matter, of course, because Cr Stockwell asserted a legal opinion was unnecessary anyway and that councillors had all the information they needed to make a decision. This sounded absurd in a matter that seemed certain to head to the courts, where legal opinions would abound and the council’s decision would be tested. Noosa Council may end up finding itself neck deep in litigation on this one. At ratepayers’ expense, of course.

Cr Jackson said she would abstain from the vote because she felt under-informed about a range of complex and contentious matters. But the other councillors weren’t so reluctant and the refusal was duly passed 5-1 (Cr Frank Pardon was absent on the night and Cr Jackson’s abstaining vote was counted in the negative under the quaint rules of Queensland local government). I thought, ‘Brava Ingrid!’ The community know this councillor fully investigates matters that come before the council for decision and is constantly speaking up for ratepayers’ interests.

As Cr Jackson later wrote on her Facebook page: “I decided to abstain from voting because I felt that, for such an important first-time decision and precedent, the information and analysis provided to Council was inadequate and Council positions on response to climate change coastal hazards have not yet been agreed.”

When wind in the trees is noisier than an aircraft overhead

With a new, longer runway due for completion in 2020, rendering the Sunshine Coast well and truly open to international flights from Asia, new flight paths have been designed by the responsible federal agency, Airservices Australia. A consultation on this was undertaken five years ago but the flight paths had been varied somewhat since and further community soundings were required. This has triggered a raucous and unhappy outcry to say the least.

It was this agenda item that most of the 70 people crowding the public gallery had come to witness (and, as some saw it, interject, cheer and hiss along to). The council, which has no authority over the matter, it being in the federal jurisdiction, decided to press on anyway and seek a night-time curfew, a new environmental impact statement and an extra month of public consultation (which would delay finalising the flight paths), none of which is likely to happen.

Keen not to raise expectations to a point where dashing them could be a personal political catastrophe, Cr Wellington offered a cautious summary of the motion councillors were asked to agree to. He said the council was not the decision maker on flight paths (shouted interjections asked for an independent inquiry), he understood residents’ concerns but there had been a consultation in 2014 (interjections of “we weren’t told; we didn’t know”) and the airstrip construction was well underway. Cr Wellington added that the council couldn’t change Airservices Australia policy, which had formulated the best flight paths they could for residents (further loud jeering and expressions of ire from the gallery). The mayor then resumed his place having taken considerable flak.

Cr Wilkie said he supported the curfew and an extension of time for consultation and consideration. For some inexplicable reason he decided to say there was conflict between the coast and the hinterland on the flight path issue (there is, but why shine a spotlight on the shire’s dirty washing). He concluded by saying he would like a review of the flight paths, even though this was not part of the motion (but it drew warm applause from the gallery).

Cr Jackson then moved an amendment to the motion that would seek the support of the two federal parliamentarians who represent this part of the world. After some toing and froing about wording it was carried.

Cr Stockwell proceeded to take us on an electric bike ride he’d been on around the shire making decibel readings on his cellphone. The meeting had already been told by the mayor that Airservices Australia had promised nothing over 65 decibels and Cr Stockwell revealed the information that in a quiet timber area he’d recorded the breeze in the trees at 80 decibels. Having effectively destroyed the argument about noisy airplanes, he went off topic to declaim that Noosa has different values and must restrict growth from the south. He spoke for a very long time and the mayor by now was in no state to stop him.

Cr Jurisevic moved another amendment proposing a new environmental impact statement for Noosa areas affected by flyovers at Lake Weyba, Castaways Beach and Marcus Beach (there was loud applause, I think the beach people had stacked the gallery). The councillor said he had read this suggestion in emails from residents and felt he had to act on “community concerns”. Cr Glasgow said he supported Cr Jurisevic’s amendment and, flourishing his cellphone, said he was already texting Wide Bay federal MP Llew O’Brien asking for an independent inquiry, a stunt which I thought was totally out of order.

Cr Wellington responded, saying it was up to the Sunshine Coast Council to assess such things and that Mayor Mark Jamieson might not agree, prompting uncalled for comments from the gallery denigrating Cr Jamieson. Despite the Noosa CEO affirming it had little chance of success, Cr Jurisevic’s amendment passed unanimously. The motion to fling this and other suggestions into the air then came up for a final vote and was passed without dissent. It left me thinking that nothing in the motion will fall on fertile ground, it was all a waste of effort and I sincerely hope a new council will be elected next year that will be better adjusted and equipped to meet such challenges.

Sequel

The following day (Good Friday), the Sunshine Coast Council issued a media release which, amongst other things, noted “the irresponsible resolution” made by Noosa Council. It went on to say that Noosa Council’s “own officers acknowledged there would be minimal impact on Noosa Shire from the proposed airspace and flight paths design for the new runway at the Sunshine Coast Airport.

“This decision was also made after Mayor Jamieson had briefed Mayor Wellington some weeks ago and Noosa Councillors were briefed on two occasions recently by the Airport Expansion project manager on the minimal implications for Noosa Shire and the extensive additional cost to the project if the current consultation period is extended.”

The release continued, “Sunshine Coast Council will not be dictated to by Noosa Shire Council or support its proposals…. Noosa Shire derives significant economic benefit from the Sunshine Coast Airport – given the Noosa economy’s substantial reliance on tourism. Yet its Council has never seen fit to offer any support for the Airport Expansion project. The reality is that Noosa Shire Council is happy to sit back and attempt to frustrate or oppose the project – but does so in the full knowledge that the project will proceed….”

And there, with turbulence breaking out along the length of the Sunshine Coast, I leave you with this account of what had turned out to be a rather disorderly April meeting of Noosa Council.