Home Society & Politics Development Future in Doubt: NNSA submission to the New Noosa Plan

submission-banner2 — Noosa Plan Submission Banner

Future in Doubt: NNSA submission to the New Noosa Plan

May 18, 2019

1974

Submission to the 2019 Draft Noosa Plan on behalf of Noosa North Shore Association Inc members

While Noosa Council has gone to great lengths to engage the community through a long consultation process, the reality is that many residents simply do not have the time nor the skills needed to delve into the Draft Plan in the detail required to understand the impacts on their property. And arguably of more importance, most people do not understand the potential impacts of the long-term strategic intent of the Plan.

The average age of the local population is 55 and computer skills are not a strong point for many people and the President has been contacted by many members of the NNSA Inc asking for guidance. In the main his response has been to refer them to the Council in order to meet with staff to discuss their specific property. Sadly, he has learned that many people are somewhat ashamed or embarrassed to do this, not wanting to appear ignorant or unable to understand the Plan. Others simply make statements to the effect that it won’t be their problem but their grandkids’…..

We doubt that our population is much different to those on the southern side of the river. For the benefit of all, it would be worthwhile understanding what percentage of total dwellings in the shire have residents/owners who have made a submission so the Council can measure its success in engaging the community. In our view, a failure to submit should not be taken as agreement or acceptance of the Plan because of the social factors outlined. Perhaps the Council should do some ‘post-plan’ research to understand the true nature of ‘community engagement’.

Despite the Council’s generous offer to meet with anyone, I have been asked to make a collective submission on behalf of Noosa North Shore constituents to ensure that the Council has a clear understanding of their position.

To quote Council’s strategic intent document…”Noosa Council has consistently taken a long term planning approach to sustainable planning. It is this long term approach that has ensured that the community’s values and principles have not diminished by unintended development decisions.” This is particularly the case with the Noosa North Shore where hard fought battles have prevented the area from being developed beyond what we see today.

It is the uniqueness of our environment and shared common values for the future that appeals to resident here. In broad terms no-one wants more development. Everyone wants preservation of the relaxed ‘bush’ lifestyle we have and not the peak season traffic and at times chaos on our roads, river and the beaches. Finally, we want our natural environment protected.

What comes with choosing to live in an area such as ours are the positives of being closer to nature but also heightened risks of exposure to events like hazardous fauna, bush fires and occasional minor flooding – risks we accept when choosing to live here.

We are not asking for special treatment. But what we do demand are the same rights and responsibilities afforded to those in land use categories elsewhere in the Shire. We do not want to be singled out for excessive controls and a strategic outcome that sees many homes penalised, potentially disappear or otherwise significantly affected.

Our needs are simple and include, for example:

All weather access roads of safe standard.
Dust suppression on roads behind the two low density housing clusters.
A long-term solution to effluent disposal.
Continued basic Council services such as waste collection.

After carefully reviewing the Draft Plan, we now believe that the Council has gone beyond protecting the Noosa North Shore from development to significantly impacting many properties here in a negative way that places our futures here in doubt.

Similar to what is happening at Sunshine Beach with the two recently rejected development applications based on forecast outcomes between 20-80 years into the future (CHAP), we strongly feel that Council (working on the principle that today’s houses have an engineering life of 50 years) is adopting the same principles in terms of existing development on the North Shore.

That is, not only will there be no new development but, when it comes time to rebuild or undertake major renovations, these are unlikely to be approved on the grounds of many existing and newly introduced overlays.

Use of the Precautionary Principle

The Noosa North Shore Association rejects this perceived strategic intent and demands that all overlays are based upon credible, proven empirical evidence and should Council continue to use the Precautionary Principle with Town Planning for the Noosa North Shore, it must abide by the fundamental conditions and obligations mandated by law.

Recently Cr Stockwell passionately demanded that Council adopt the Precautionary Principle in all matters relating to the environment, but what appears to now be happening is a misuse of the Principle – a misuse that potentially exposes Council to greater risk of litigation.

Generally speaking, the Precautionary Principle is only activated where there is:

A threat of environmental harm which is serious or irreversible (i.e. not trivial harm); and
Where there is a level of scientific uncertainty as to that threat.

The Principle was never designed nor intended to be a vehicle for providing policy makers with a means to apply controls, covenants or policies that adversely affect private property simply on the grounds that they think, believe or hypothesise some future event or possibility. Courts have ruled that today the onus is upon proponents of the Principle to clearly demonstrate that the two conditions above have been satisfied. That is, the environmental damage threatened must attain the threshold of being serious or irreversible.

Assessing the seriousness or irreversibility of environmental damage involves consideration of many factors. These include:

(a) The spatial scale of the threat – for example, local, regional, statewide, national, international;
(b) The magnitude of possible impacts on both natural and human systems;
(c) The perceived value of the threatened environment;
(d) The temporal scale of possible impacts in terms of both the timing and the longevity – or persistence – of the impacts;
(e) The complexity and connectivity of the possible impacts;
(f) The manageability of possible impacts, having regard to the availability of means and the acceptability of means;
(g) The level of public concern, and the rationality of and scientific or other evidentiary basis for the public concern; and
(h) The reversibility of the possible impacts and, if reversible, the time frame for reversing the impacts, and the difficulty and expense of reversing the impacts.

If there is not a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, there is no basis upon which the Precautionary Principle can operate. It simply does not apply.

The second condition necessary to trigger the application of the Principle, and the necessity to take precautionary measures, is that there be “a lack of full scientific certainty.” Three points arise about this formulation of the precautionary principle.

First, the subject matter about which there is to be a lack of full scientific certainty is the nature and scope of the threat of environmental damage. Assessing the degree of scientific uncertainty about the threat of environmental damage involves a process of analysis of many factors, including:

(a) The sufficiency of the evidence that there might be serious or irreversible environmental harm caused by the development plan, program or project;
(b) The level of uncertainty, including the kind of uncertainty – such as technical, methodological or epistemological uncertainty; and
(c) The potential to reduce uncertainty having regard to what is possible in principle, economically and within a reasonable time frame.

Essentially, there needs to be “reasonable, credible scientific plausibility” about the assessment of the uncertainty of the threat of environmental damage. Something which at this stage is lacking in some key areas that the Council is attempting to address.

Recently, the courts explained how the ‘test’ of this condition works. That is, the condition would be fulfilled when empirical scientific data (as opposed to simple hypothesis, speculation, or intuition) make it reasonable to envisage a scenario where risk begins to represent a minimum degree of certainty, supported by repeated experience.

Fundamentally, what we are saying is that unless the Council can fulfill these requirements, it needs to remove overlays from individual properties as we note below. We will demonstrate how Council has clearly in many cases inaccurately, inconsistently and in an unsubstantiated manner applied overlay mapping.

But first some area facts:

Houses – There are a total of 258 houses/properties in the area defined by the ABS from Teewah south to the river.
There are four defined clusters of low density housing:
o 108 – Teewah
o 13 – Maximillian Road area
o 36 – Noosa River Drive
o 21 – Wygani Drive
o 178 – Total
There are a further 42 Rural Residential properties located south of Beach Road.
There are a further 70 Beach Houses at Beach Road that are considered today as temporary visitor accommodation.
The total land area of the NNS from Teewah south to the river is approximately 54 sq. kms.
Of the total land area low density housing development only occupies 0.04%:
o .12 sq. kms – Teewah
o .02 sq. kms – Maximillian Road
o .06 sq. kms – Noosa River Drive
o .03 sq. kms – Wygani Drive
Of the total land area the 42 rural residential development properties occupy some 3.15 sq. kms or 6%.
Total development (including visitor accommodation, retail and leisure) on the Noosa North Shore is less that 10% of the total land area.
179 – Resident population (2016 ABS).

Strategic Intent

With the advent of Shaping SEQ 2017 we have seen NSC deliberately remove the NNS as a locality. We believe this was done to enable and facilitate achievement of longer-term objectives. As a consequence, this has lead to the disappearance of any overt statement as to our future here.

In Shaping SEQ – South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017, we are designated as a Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area were the SEQ regulatory provisions do not restrict the use of land for a private residence. But with the absence of a strategic statement for our region it will continues to cause major concerns for the majority of all property owners here.

Council therefore needs to allay concerns about security of tenure in the future as well as assure property owners that they are not being targeted deliberately for resumption. The New Noosa Plan Strategic Outcomes states:

(i) On Noosa North Shore no further subdivision is permitted. The area is largely dedicated for conservation. Limited visitor accommodation and services are provided for in the Tourism Accommodation Zone and the Recreation and Open Space Zone.

Clearly from the above statistics that the strategic objectives have already been achieved with less than 10% of the land area having some form of development. But why is there not a statement confirming the existing low density housing and rural residential footprints?

In previous town plans our existence has always been recognized by way of having a separate Locality as well as a clearly defined strategic outcome that has always recognized us here. Failure to acknowledge over 150 years of existence here opens the door to negative Strategic Town Planning outcomes. As such, we would like to see the following statement to (i) New Noosa Plan Strategic Outcomes and 3.3.1 Settlement as follows:

Action Item 1.

“On the Noosa North Shore the historic, existing low density housing clusters and residential rural footprint will remain as it is today with no further subdivision permitted. These properties will enjoy the same services, rights and responsibilities as other such zoned properties in the Shire have. Some 90% of the area is dedicated for conservation. Limited visitor accommodation and services are provided for in the Tourism Accommodation Zone.”

Furthermore, we request that Council within its strategic Land Use maps clearly defines the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area designation at the outset and that our properties have, in perpetuity, low density housing rights.

Action Item 2.

On Settlement Map 1/Land Use Categories Map 1 the small low density housing clusters do not have any colour coding at all. We need to see ‘Pink’ colour coding to reflect these low density housing clusters.

Biodiversity & Environment Mapping

None of the Low Density Housing nor the Rural Residential properties are considered as Protected Areas (map 4).

Most of the Low Density Housing is not of Biodiversity Significance (OM-BWW-(i) )

Yet, Ecological Linkage Map 4 shows selective mapping over existing houses in 3 of the 4 Low Density Housing clusters. Teewah has no Ecological Linkage mapping whatsoever. And neither do virtually all of the Rural Residential properties. Yet over the entire 54 sq. kms land area, only the houses on the Maximillian Road, the Noosa River Drive and Wygani Drive clusters this overlay exists – see below.

The definition of Ecological Linkages is:

‘Ecological linkages means existing and potential habitat connections within and between ecologically important areas that promote movement of fauna and gene flow between populations and include patches of remnant and regrowth vegetation that provide ‘stepping stones’ to other habitat.’

Now given that these three low density housing clusters occupy 0.11% of the total land area and typically are around 1000 m2, with an existing house, shed, water tanks and surrounding gardens, it is unrealistic to apply such an overlay at all – especially in light of all of the surrounding untouched land.

How is it possible that an area that has a house and other associated development on it is as fauna or gene linkage? What specific fauna and gene flow is intended to be promoted between the river and terrestrial zones over or around a house? How does applying an ecological linkage over a house improve connectivity or linkages? It clearly does not!

It is noted in the criteria for Assessable Development that: ‘Development is sited and designed to protect the physical and ecological integrity and biodiversity of ecologically important areas through protection of: 1. existing habitat areas and ecological linkages. If the newly mapped areas are already cleared or have buildings on them then they are of the lowest ecological value already.

If in reality it is not a linkage today, then it is only if Council intends to prevent or restrict future development/redevelopment that the introduction of such an overlay makes any sense irrespective of whether it bears any semblance to reality.

Noosa Council needs to either remove the overlay or provide the scientific evidence for the affected areas and adopt the same logic as elsewhere and so be consistent with e.g. Noosa Hill, around Weyba Road, Sunshine Beach, etc which are currently exempt.

Action Item 3:

Remove Ecological Linkages mapping from the three Low Density Housing clusters of Woods Lane, Noosa River Drive and Wygani Drive.

Connecting Habitat Area Map 4

This overlay mainly affects Wygani drive properties as Teewah, Maximillian Road and Noosa River Drive are mostly unaffected. A riverfront undeveloped property and most properties on the northern side of Wygani Drive have been mapped with this overlay as have all Rural Residential properties.

The problem is that when you look at individual properties, you will see that mapping of native flora is incorrect – in many cases these properties are cleared or have only a few trees on the road reserve. Or as is the case with No 12 Wygani Drive which has a fully constructed house over most of the property yet is covered by the map as Connecting Habitat? Some areas marked as not having Connecting Habitat conflict with the Environment Management Overlay in some cases e.g. No. 1 and No. 5 Wygani Drive.

Action Item 4:

Review Wygani Drive Connecting Habitat Overlay for accuracy and apply (field verify).

OM-BWW-(i) MSES Values Category R (Regulated Vegetation)

This is a State biophysical mapping product that Council has taken and simply applied to all properties on the Noosa North Shore. However the State cautions that the data used to create it is scale dependent and care needs to be exercised in using the mapping at very large scales and it should not be used as a ‘point of truth’. It provides an indication of where the biodiversity values are expected to exist in the landscape. Site surveys will generally be required to determine if the depicted values are present. If site surveys show that MSES values are not present, the SPP biodiversity policy does not apply. It appears that NSC needs to refer to the SPP (biodiversity) guideline for more information regarding site surveys mapping amendments in order to correct this?

We fail to understand how Council can overlay the MSES mapping mainly on Wygani Drive properties? Teewah and Maximillian Road are exempt. Most properties along Noosa River Drive are also exempt. All properties in Noosaville, Noosa Sound, etc are not affected. Yet most of Wygani Drive is affected as are the Rural Residential properties.

Action Item 5.

As per State recommendations, please provide the site surveys for all Wygani Drive properties affected by this new overlay conducted by Council or remove the MSES overlay or remove this overlay consistent with all other Low Density Housing properties in this area.

Riparian Buffer Zone

This overlay affects a few Rural Residential properties, e.g. Maximillian Road. The inconsistency is that you have 8 Low Density lots without any riparian overlay next to an adjoining Rural Residential lot that is almost completely covered by the overlay. Biologically speaking this is not possible.

The other issue is one of Council definition. We have interpreted that Council defines a Riparian area for a tidal river being 250 metres from the top of a bank.

According to Queensland’s EPA Dept. of Parks and Wildlife – Wetland Mapping and Classification Methodology Overall Framework – A Method to Provide Baseline Mapping and Classification for Wetlands in Queensland VERSION 1.2: Riparian is defined as “of or relating to or located on the banks of a river or stream” (Princeton University).

A further definition (Wikipedia Dictionary), a riparian zone or riparian area is the interface between land and a river or stream. Plant habitats and communities along the river margins and banks are called riparian vegetation, characterized by hydrophilic plants. Plants that have the ability to thrive in waterlogged conditions are called ‘hydrophilic’ plants.

It is difficult to understand how a Riparian area can be declared on some of these Rural Properties beyond the immediate river bank especially extending uphill some 250 metres and around 15 metres above AHD and especially considering that none of those properties are Wetland.

As there are no hydrophilic plants in those areas marked with the exception of Couch grass (lawn) growing to the riverbank (demonstrating that the land is not waterlogged), by definition it cannot be and in reality is not a Riparian Area or Zone.

Action Item 6.

Correct Riparian mapping boundaries to be consistent with adjoining properties and to reflect the actual physical nature of the area along Maximillian Road/Woods Lane.

Flood Hazard Overlay Map OM-FH-12

From the outset what Council needs to acknowledge is that Flooding Hazards on the lower Noosa North Shore have been fundamentally man-made over the past 50 years. Flood waters that came downstream from the lakes naturally spread directly south over the floodplain that now is Noosa Waters and Noosa Sound.

The construction of these two residential areas in parallel with the relocation of the river mouth northward has seen water back up moreso over the northern shoreline during flood events. It is negligent to now ‘sacrifice’ the Noosa North Shore or not allow property owners full rights of protecting their properties or filling land over time as per the precedent in Noosaville and elsewhere.

We know that through recent professional contour surveys and local knowledge (e.g. where hills/high ground are) that it is not conceivable nor realistic to map the entire area as a flood hazard unless a rise of several metres above AHD was being used in the model.

As Council are aware, the NNSA is currently providing staff with empirical evidence and is carrying out local surveys to demonstrate actual contour levels and to map the possible extent of flooding in the future.

We understand and appreciate the statutory need for Council to incorporate the requirements of the State Planning Policy which essentially has two parts:

A rise in sea level of 0.8 metre; and
An increase in rainfall of 10%

These two factors fundamentally determine the Q2100 Storm Tide Inundation Area. But of concern is what non-statutory variables Council uses and to what extent given its mapping on OM-FH-12.

We also understand that many parts of the lower NNS are low lying and do form part of the overall floodplain. But we also need to recognize that there are equally other parts that do not get affected by major flood events today. There was a valid reason why the first settlers chose specific areas on the NNS to establish wharves, mills, houses, etc. on the high ground. We need to recognize this going forward and accurately map all land that may be subject to impacts from a 1% AEP storm tide event under current climatic conditions – not all land, as is the case now.

Action Item 7.

That Council continues to work with and engage the NNSA with flood/inundation/surge mapping to develop a fair, reasonable and realistic model – one that includes accurate hydrological and hydraulic modelling for the area that reflects actual conditions based upon local geography and local experience and not to take an extreme case scenario that is based upon desk-top assumptions and is one that has incredibly minor risk associated with it e.g. .2% AEP.

Additionally, property owners should be given rights of protecting their properties and filling exactly in the same way e.g. Noosaville property owners have today and planned for the future.

SC6.11- PSP10 Effluent disposal

SC6.11.3 Siting: The effluent disposal system is located on land: at least 15 metres from any potable water supply tank; above the 1% AEP (1:100 ARI) flood level; and more than 40 metres horizontally from the level of the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT); Any onsite effluent treatment system and disposal area is: not located on a slope greater than 10% (1 in 10); not located at or below the 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood event; not located within a riparian buffer area mapped on a Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Map;

This puts most on-site septic systems outside of the new criteria (except where properties have underground holding tanks that are regularly pumped out). A solution needs to be provided for the small clusters of Low Density Housing and adjoining Rural Residential properties where feasible in this plan.

Action Item 8.

Options that should be considered include connection to the reticulated mains sewerage system under the river some 165 metres (i.e. at Noosa River Drive then to Wygani Drive and adjoining Rural properties) and a separate solution for Maximillian Road properties such as a local mini-treatment plant.

Draft Other Plans Map/Koala Habitat Area/Habitat

Much of the koala mapping on the lower NNS around Wygani Drive is not accurate. Firstly, there are no Koalas nor their food trees (Qld Arborium Survey) in this area because of the physical nature of the land (and will never be). It is contradictory to have ‘Possible Habitat’ in swampy land that is mapped Flood prone that has no food trees as ‘Possible’.

Action Item 9.

The NNSA recommends that NSC undertake an accurate survey of the area to confirm what we are stating and then remap correctly by removing map coverage off all Wygani Drive properties.

Environment Protection and Enhancement Mapping Many NNSA members have expressed concerns about the accuracy of mapping on small urban properties. As previously stated, the vast majority of them do not have the physical space for extensive gardens of native species nor will – nor do they exist today yet they have been incorrectly mapped with these overlays.

Action Item 10.

We suggest that in partnership with the NNSA, that NSC resurvey each property for mapping accuracy or allows the NNSA to commission a suitably acceptable Council-approved contractor to do the work and then publish an accurate overlay.

8. Design, Construction and Safety – jetties, wharves and pontoons: table 9.4.10.3 Criteria for assessment (part)

In previous town plans Council has recognised the fact that the river plays a vital role for transport for those living on the river here. In acknowledgement, specific concessions with regard to jetty dimensions were afforded residents here. One such concession and in recognition of the fact that boats play a vital transport role for residents, was the ability for riverfront property owners to construct a lightweight, cantilever roof structure over a boat tied off at a private jetty. This has now disappeared.