founding partners platinum sponsor gold sponsors … · 1.2 i recommend that the report/attachment...

FOU

ND

ING

PAR

TN

ERS

GO

LDS

PO

NS

OR

S

BR

ON

ZE

SP

ON

SO

RS

MED

IA

SP

ON

SO

RS

SU

PP

OR

TER

SP

LAT

INU

M

SP

ON

SO

RS

ILV

ER

SP

ON

SO

RS

FOCUS ON ARCHITECTURE PHOTOGRAPHY COMPETITION

AR

CH

IFLI

X

FILM

NIG

HT

771st Council Meeting 26 March 2019 Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 20 March 2019

764 ADOPTED REPORT

• We met some lovely volunteers and found talking to the guys that served in the military so interesting and informative we enjoyed their company for a good hour. We would have liked to visit more buildings but one day is not enough, it was hard just picking a few.

• Loved the experience!

• Should propose one more day! Not enough time to visit all my interested buildings. Melbourne Open House has 2 days.

• My wife and I attended two buildings-the Desalination Plant and Keith Williams’ (Sep and Flora Abedian’s) place. Both places people went to a lot of trouble and we were very appreciative. Much better than Brisbane Open House. Last year was good as well.

• Excellent program

• One of my favourite events of the year. More buildings southern end of the coast Coolangatta / Tweed would be good.

• Excellent initiative

• Just keep on doing it. People will always be slow to realise the worth of what we have. That Naval display was priceless.

• It was a great day out and I was able to get to a few sites They opened my eyes to what is going on behind the fences and was very informative and everyone was so friendly. I can’t wait till next time.

• We thoroughly enjoyed what we saw. Volunteers very informative and helpful.

• I thoroughly enjoyed the day visiting iconic buildings on the Gold Coast. All the volunteers were friendly and informative, with an excellent knowledge of their building. I will definitely attend again next year.

• There were too many buildings on display this year to see them all. But that’s okay because hopefully the others will be on the list again next year and we’ll be able to visit them.

• Thank you for giving us the opportunity to visit such great places that we would normally not see.

• It’s so amazingly generous of people to open up their own private homes eg. Monaco Street. Incredibly giving of them.

• The selection of houses is very diverse and I would like to see more interesting private homes open to public.

• The desalination plant was very interesting and the volunteers were incredibly passionate and gave a great insight into the workings of the plant. We would love to see a recycling plant on the list

of buildings next year if there is one on the Gold Coast, or a mail centre/sorting office for Australia Post.

• My experience has been excellent. I moved from Perth 2 years ago and have now enjoyed 2 GCOH. I suggest more venues south, eg Kirra SLSC, Eco Village, a traditional “beach house” in Tugun, walk around James St Burleigh explaining the rejuvenation.

• I visited two private homes and the Main Beach apartment and thought each was excellent and inspirational. A thoroughly fabulous day.

• It was amazing, had a great day.

• Channel 9 Gold Coast, loved it, great tour, very worthwhile doing, glad I did it. Also DBI Architects was very interesting and glad I went.

• Really loved the experience, I hope it keeps growing and growing each time! As I was a volunteer I was not able to go and explore other buildings, but I would love to do it maybe next year! Thanks a lot for the experience! And congratulations to all!

• 2 days would mean we could get to see more.

• Fascinated at St Hildas high tech yet casual learning environment. Sports stadium architecture was spectacular and a versatile building. Tour guides were excellent. Broadbeach Catholic church had two architects present and enjoyed talking to them. An impressive structure. Great to see a church in residential area.

• It’s a great event.

• Was great.

• Rock Cote was great!

• Jewel visit was fantastic - would love to see it again next year when it might be finished. Site Manager was great with info and tour.

• The open house is generally a good thing to have. Friendly people, some interesting experiences.

• Great day to see things you would not normally be able to.

• Very enjoyable. But in one day, you can’t attend all the open houses you are interested in, so you have to make a choice to see which open house.

• The event was well organised and the volunteers and architects gave very interesting talks. It was hard to do everything in the 1 day. Perhaps consider 2 days so people can attend more buildings.

• It was awesome, the Channel 9 news tour was a once in a lifetime experience

FEEDBACK FROM THE GOLD COAST OPEN HOUSE SURVEY


765 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 9 CITY PLANNINGINTRODUCTORY PAPER - WETLAND AND WATERWAY BUFFER PROVISIONS WITHINTHE CITY PLANCE196/1097/31

Refer 112 page attachment

1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

1.1 I recommend that this report be considered in Closed Session pursuant to section275 (1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the reason that the matterinvolves

(h) other business for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice theinterests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gaina financial advantage.

1.2 I recommend that the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for thoseparts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance withsections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to introduce the wetland and waterway buffer review that iscurrently being undertaken as part of a proposed update to the following aspects of the City Plan:

• Environmental significance overlay code• Environmental significance – Wetlands and waterways overlay map• City Plan policy – Ecological site assessments• Strategic Framework• City Plan definitions

It is anticipated that recommendations from the assessment will be presented forconsideration at a future Economy, Planning and Environment Committee.

3 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS

A review of the policy position guiding wetland and waterway buffers is identified as part ofthe City Plan work program. The work program was formally endorsed by Council on 7December 2018 (G18.1207.017).

4 DISCUSSION

The City’s Catchment Management Unit undertook a Surface Water Environs Mapping(SWEM) project to remap the city’s wetlands and waterways. The new maps were preparedand incorporated into the City Plan upon it’s commencement in 2016.


766 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 9 (Continued)INTRODUCTORY PAPER - WETLAND AND WATERWAY BUFFER PROVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY PLAN CE196/1097/31

The City Plan includes assessment benchmarks for buffers to wetlands and waterways mapped on the Environmental significance - Wetlands and waterways overlay map. These assessment provisions are identified within the Environmental significance overlay code, with further guidance provided within the City Plan policy – Ecological site assessments. While the Environmental significance – Wetland and waterways overlay map was updated to more accurately reflect the location of wetlands and waterways, the existing buffer provision assessment benchmarks within the Environmental significance overlay code (i.e. 30m for a waterway, 60m for a major waterway and 100m for a wetland) and the associated provisions such as definitions, remained largely unchanged from the Our Living City Planning Scheme 2003.

In response to feedback from City officers and development industry representatives, Environment Planning is undertaking Phase 2 of the SWEM project. SWEM Phase 2 involves a comprehensive review of the City’s wetland and waterway buffer assessment benchmarks and includes the definition and function of buffers, recommended buffer distances and technical supporting information.

As part of SWEM Phase 2, a literature review was prepared by Biome Consulting (Attachment 1), that identifies current best practice science, government guidelines/legislation and a review of planning schemes from other South East Queensland (SEQ) local governments. The literature review identified a number of key recommendations for the City, including (but not limited to) a review of current buffer definitions, a review of current buffer distances, and the development of a decision support tool to assist industry and Council officers with assessment of alternative buffer proposals.

Based on the outcomes of the literature review, further work is proposed to be undertaken to address the literature review’s recommendations, with a view to presenting this work to a future Economy, Planning and Environment Committee for consideration as part of a future Major update package.

REDACTED


767 ADOPTED REPORT


5 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That Council note the attached literature review prepared by Biome Consulting (Attachment 1).

3 That the contents of this report be noted.

Author: Authorised by:

Sinclair Britton Alisha SwainA/Supervising Environmental Planner Director Economy, Planning and

Environment21 February 2019


768 ADOPTED REPORT


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.0320.008 moved Cr PJ Young seconded Cr Baildon


2 That Council note the attached literature review prepared by Biome Consulting (Attachment 1).

3 That the contents of this report be noted.

CARRIED


769 ADOPTED REPORT

Wetlands and

Waterways

Buffer

Review

City of Gold Coast

December 2018

BC-18096

Attachment 1 (1 of 112)771st Council Meeting 26 March 2019 Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 20 March 2019

770 ADOPTED REPORT

Document Control

Report Title: Wetlands and Waterways Buffer Review Report for the City of Gold Coast

Prepared By: Nadya Lees BSc (Hons)

Kristina Entwistle MSc, BAppSc

Brad Comley CEnvP MEIANZ, MIEAust, MSc, BAppSc

Approved By: Brad Comley CEnvP MEIANZ, MIEAust, MSc, BAppSc

Dated: December 2018

Distribution:

Revision Digital .PDF

Version 1 Draft 1 x City of Gold Coast

1 x BIOME Consulting

Version 2 Final 1 x City of Gold Coast


Version 3 Updated report – further client comments

1 x City of Gold Coast


Issued in confidence for the sole benefit of our client, this document has been prepared to support a development application and is only to be used for the purpose for which it is supplied. Unofficial use of this document in any form is prohibited. BIOME Consulting Pty Ltd or any employee, contractor, or sub-consultant do not accept any liability with respect to unauthorised use. This disclaimer is valid despite recognition that the document may be made available to other persons for an application for permission or approval to fulfil a legal obligation.

Biome Consulting Pty Ltd

ABN: 86 166 087 476

PO Box 3469, Australia Fair SOUTHPORT QLD 4215

Office: 5532 7779 Mobile: 0415 935 222

Email: [email protected]: www.BIOMEconsulting.com.au


771 ADOPTED REPORT

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.biomeconsulting.com.au/

Acronyms

Acronym Meaning

AO Acceptable Outcome

CAMBA China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

City Plan City of Gold Coast Planning Scheme

EDL Ecological dominant layer

EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Queensland)

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

HES High Ecological Significance

IPA Integrated Planning Act 1997

JAMBA Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance as defined under the EPBC Act.

MSES Matters of State Environmental Significance (Queensland)

MLES Matters of Local Environmental Significance – typically defined by a planning scheme

NCA Nature Conservation Act 1994 (Queensland)

Planning Act Planning Act 2016 (Queensland)

PO Performance Outcome

QFS Queensland Fisheries Service

RoKAMBA Republic of Korea and Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

SDAP State Development Assessment Provisions

SPP State Planning Policy

SQUID Stormwater Quality Improvement Device

The City The City of Gold Coast

VMA Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Queensland)

WEV Wetland Environmental Values

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design


772 ADOPTED REPORT

Terms and Definitions

Term Definition/Meaning

Acceptable Outcome

Acceptable Outcomes are established ways to achieve the compliance with the code. They provide an example of how to comply with the code

Bankfull The water level, or stage, at which a stream, river or lake is at the top of its banks and any further rise would result in water moving into the flood plain.

Buffer The area of land adjacent to wetlands and waterways that protect these areas from the impacts from adjacent land uses.

Debil Debil Small hummocks which rise above the planar surface. They can vary from rounded to flat topped, are relatively steep sided and elongate (Department of Natural Resources and Water 2008).

Fauna Refers to all animal species.

Flora Refers to all plant species.

Land use intensity Extent to which land is used.

Performance-based planning system

A form of planning regulation that in theory is focused upon quantifiable performance standards, as opposed to more prescriptive, inflexible forms of spatial planning (Frew 2011; Buckley Vann 2016).

Performance Outcome

Specifies the overall aim of the code to which it pertains

Ramsar Convention The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as waterfowl habitat established at Ramsar, Iran, on 2 February 1971.

Riparian Corridor A strip of vegetation adjacent to an aquatic system that connects two or more larger patches of vegetation and through which an organism will likely move over time.

Riparian Vegetation Vegetation adjoining a waterway.

Setback Regulated distances that separate activities such as human and animal inhabited spaces and surface and subsurface water resources.

State significant aquatic systems

Includes fish habitat area A and B under the Fisheries Act 1994 and ‘marine national

park’, ‘marine conservation park’, ‘scientific research’, ‘preservation’ and ‘buffer’ zones

under the Marine Parks Act 2004.

Waterway Waterway includes a river, creek, stream, watercourse or inlet of the sea (under the Fisheries Act 1994 - Queensland).

Wetland Areas of land where water covers soil, either permanently or intermittently.


773 ADOPTED REPORT

Executive Summary

A high demand for land in urban areas leads to encroachment of the built environment into the riparian zone, which impacts numerous riparian functions. Buffers are recognised as useful planning tools for helping to protect aquatic ecosystems. They can play important roles in reducing sediment and pollutants, providing wildlife habitat, moderating water temperature, attenuating flooding and protecting wetlands and waterways from impacts. Unfortunately, there is uncertainty on how best to determine and apply appropriate buffer widths.

Within the literature, there is inconsistent use of the term “buffer”. To standardise some of the semantic issues and frame the scope of work undertaken in this review, buffers are defined as: The area of land adjacent to wetlands and waterways that protect these areas from the impacts

from adjacent land uses.

This report aimed to review scientific and technical literature surrounding the application of wetland and waterway buffers. Buffers were specifically examined in terms of their ability to protect waterways and wetlands and mitigate the impact of stressors typically arising from the existing or anticipated adjacent land use.

The optimal buffer width is dependent upon the conservation significance of the wetland or waterway and the purpose of the buffer. For instance, effective buffers for reducing sediment may be as narrow as 10 m, whereas the protection of biodiversity may require a buffer in excess of 100 m.

The buffer form and dimensions may vary depending on the landscape context in addition to the function of the buffer. For example, vegetation structure, water residence time, land slope, the soil type and water holding capacity all influence the buffer dimensions.

A variety of methods to determine buffer widths are documented. Many of the decision support tools available involve (at least in part), the identification of impacts to the waterway or wetland and ascribing an appropriate buffer width based on the results of scientific research.

REDACTED


774 ADOPTED REPORT

REDACTED


775 ADOPTED REPORT

Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Scope and Objectives .................................................................................... 2

1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 2

2 Legislation Review .......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 International Conventions and Agreements .............................................................. 4

2.1.1 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ................................................................. 42.1.2 Other Conventions and Agreements ............................................................. 4

2.2 Commonwealth ........................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ........... 52.2.2 Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance .............................................. 52.2.3 Commonwealth Strategic Plans .................................................................... 6

2.3 State of Queensland ................................................................................................ 6

2.3.1 State Guidelines ........................................................................................... 72.3.2 Planning Act 2016 ......................................................................................... 82.3.3 State Development Assessment Provisions State Codes ............................. 8

2.4 City of Gold Coast .................................................................................................. 12

2.4.1 Strategic Framework ................................................................................... 122.4.2 Element – Green Space Network ................................................................ 122.4.3 Element – Nature Conservation .................................................................. 142.4.4 Element – Coastal, Wetland and Waterway Areas ...................................... 152.4.5 Overlay Codes ............................................................................................ 16

3 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Definition ................................................................................................................ 17

3.2 Definitions and Terminology used by Other Local Government Authorities ............ 17

3.2.1 Logan City Council Wetland Definition ........................................................ 173.2.2 Sunshine Coast Council Wetland Definition ................................................ 173.2.3 Beaudesert Planning Scheme Wetland Definition ....................................... 18

3.3 City Plan Wetland Definition ................................................................................... 18

3.3.1 Suggested Considerations for Amendments to the City Plan ...................... 183.3.2 Stakeholder Workshop Considerations ....................................................... 18

3.4 State of Queensland Wetland Classification ........................................................... 18

3.4.1 Riverine Wetlands ....................................................................................... 213.4.2 Lacustrine Wetlands ................................................................................... 213.4.3 Palustrine Wetlands .................................................................................... 213.4.4 Marine Wetlands ......................................................................................... 223.4.5 Estuarine Wetlands ..................................................................................... 223.4.6 Subterranean Wetlands .............................................................................. 22

3.5 Classification of Wetlands by Other Local Government Authorities ........................ 22

3.6 City Plan Classification of Wetlands ....................................................................... 23

REDACTED


776 ADOPTED REPORT

3.7 Wetland Mapping ................................................................................................... 23

3.7.1 Wetlands of International and National Importance ..................................... 233.7.2 Wetlands of State Significance ................................................................... 243.7.3 Mapping of Wetlands by Other Local Government Authorities .................... 24

3.8 City Plan Wetland Mapping .................................................................................... 25

4 Waterways ..................................................................................................................... 26

4.1 Definition ................................................................................................................ 26

4.1.1 Water Act 2000 ........................................................................................... 264.1.2 Fisheries Act 1994 ...................................................................................... 27

4.2 Definitions and Terminology used by Local Government Authorities ...................... 27

4.2.1 Logan City Council ...................................................................................... 284.2.2 Moreton Bay Regional Council.................................................................... 284.2.3 Sunshine Coast Council .............................................................................. 284.2.4 City of Ipswich ............................................................................................ 294.2.5 Beaudesert Planning Scheme..................................................................... 29

4.3 City Plan Waterway Definition ................................................................................ 29

4.4 Waterway Classification ......................................................................................... 29

4.4.1 Classification of Waterways by Local Government Authorities .................... 304.4.2 City Plan Classification of Waterways ......................................................... 31

4.5 Mapping of Waterways ........................................................................................... 31

4.5.1 Water Act 2000 ........................................................................................... 314.5.2 Fisheries Act 1994 ...................................................................................... 314.5.3 Waterway Mapping by Other Local Government Authorities ....................... 314.5.4 City Plan Waterways Mapping .................................................................... 32

5 Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways ........................................................................... 33

5.1 Impacts to Wetlands ............................................................................................... 33

5.1.1 Direct Pressures ......................................................................................... 335.1.2 Indirect Pressures ....................................................................................... 34

5.2 Impacts to Waterways ............................................................................................ 34

6 Buffers ........................................................................................................................... 45

6.1 Buffer Terminology Overview ................................................................................. 45

6.2 Definitions and Terminology Used by Local Government Authorities ..................... 46

6.2.1 Sunshine Coast Council .............................................................................. 476.2.2 Scenic Rim Regional Council ...................................................................... 476.2.3 Brisbane City Council ................................................................................. 476.2.4 Beaudesert Planning Scheme..................................................................... 47

6.3 City Plan Buffer Definition ...................................................................................... 48

REDACTED


777 ADOPTED REPORT

6.4 Mapping of Buffers by Other Local Government Authorities ................................... 49

6.5 City Plan Buffer Mapping........................................................................................ 50

7 Buffer Function ............................................................................................................. 51

7.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 52

7.2 Water Quality Functions ......................................................................................... 53

7.3 Erosion Control ...................................................................................................... 53

7.4 Habitat Creation ..................................................................................................... 53

7.5 Buffer Functions Defined by Local Government Authorities .................................... 54

7.6 Defining Buffer Function under the City Plan .......................................................... 55

8 Buffer Design Considerations ...................................................................................... 57

8.1 Vegetation Structure .............................................................................................. 57

8.2 Slope...................................................................................................................... 58

8.3 Zoned Buffers ........................................................................................................ 58

8.3.1 Three Zone Riparian Buffers ....................................................................... 588.3.2 Two Zone Riparian Buffers ......................................................................... 59

8.4 Land Use Intensity ................................................................................................. 59

8.5 Buffer Management ................................................................................................ 60

9 Buffer Widths ................................................................................................................ 61

9.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 61

9.1.1 Factors Affecting Buffer Widths ................................................................... 619.1.2 Abiotic Factors ............................................................................................ 629.1.3 Biotic Factors .............................................................................................. 639.1.4 Environmental and Structural Factors ......................................................... 659.1.5 Stream Migration and Retreat Pathways ..................................................... 659.1.6 Optimal Buffer Widths ................................................................................. 65

9.2 Prescriptive vs Variable Based Buffer Width .......................................................... 68

9.3 Buffer Widths Ascribed by Other Local Government Authorities ............................. 70

9.4 City of Gold Coast Buffer Widths ............................................................................ 76

9.5 Measuring Buffer Widths ........................................................................................ 77

9.5.1 City of Gold Coast Specifications for Measuring Buffer Widths ................... 779.5.2 Other Local Government Authorities Specifications for Measuring Buffer Widths 78

10 Buffer Elements ............................................................................................................. 80

REDACTED


778 ADOPTED REPORT

10.1 Co-location of Infrastructure ................................................................................... 80

10.2 Buffer Elements Permitted by Other Local Government Authorities ....................... 81

11 Decision Support Tools ................................................................................................ 83

11.1 Wenger (1999) ....................................................................................................... 83

11.2 Castelle et al. (1994) .............................................................................................. 84

11.3 Hansen et al. (2015) ............................................................................................... 84

11.4 Melbourne Water ................................................................................................... 86

11.5 Northern Territory Department of Environment and Natural Resources.................. 86

11.6 New South Wales Department of Primary Industries .............................................. 87

11.7 Queensland Fisheries ............................................................................................ 87

11.8 Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management ................... 87

11.9 Western Australian Planning Commission .............................................................. 88

11.10 Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities ....................................... 90

11.11 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology ........................................ 91

13 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 94

14 References ..................................................................................................................... 96

Figures Figure 2.1 Green Space Network Strategic Framework ........................................................ 13

Figure 9.1 Extract from Logan Planning Scheme v5.1 – Defining the Top of Bank ................ 79

REDACTED


779 ADOPTED REPORT

Tables Table 2.1 State Legislation Relevant to Wetland and Waterway Protection ............................. 6

Table 2.2 State Guidelines Relevant to Wetland and Waterway Buffer Planning ..................... 7

Table 2.3 Buffer Widths Specified within SDAP State Codes ................................................ 10

Table 3.1 Factors and Criteria from Wetland Program Definition ........................................... 18

Table 3.2 Conclusive and Non-conclusive indicators in the Wetland Program Definition ....... 20

Table 3.3 Comparison of Wetland Classification ................................................................... 22

Table 3.4 Wetland Mapping .................................................................................................. 25

Table 4.1 Local Government Authorities Waterway Terminology .......................................... 28

Table 4.2 Comparison of Waterway Classification ................................................................ 30

Table 5.1 Wetland Pressures (Department of Environment and Science, 2018) .................... 36

Table 6.1 Buffer Terminology Used by Local Government Authorities ................................... 47

Table 6.2 Buffer Mapping ...................................................................................................... 49

Table 7.1 Wetland and Waterway Buffer Functions ............................................................... 51

Table 7.2 Buffer Functions .................................................................................................... 54

Table 9.1 Summary of Biophysical Factors Affecting Buffer Effectiveness ............................ 62

Table 9.2 Recommended buffer widths .................................................................................. 66

Table 9.3 State Guidelines Relevant to Wetland and Waterway Buffer Planning ................... 69

Table 9.4 SEQ Local Governments Wetland and Waterway Buffer Distance Summary ........ 71

Table 9.5 Variable and Prescriptive Buffer Requirements to Waterways and Wetlands ........ 72

Table 9.6 Comparison of Buffer Widths ................................................................................. 76

Table 10.1 Riparian Corridor Matrix (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2012) ............ 81

Table 10.2 Permitted Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 81

Table 12.1 Minimum Widths Based on Land Use Intensity (Hansen et al., 2015) .................. 84

Table 12.2 Definitions of Terminology (Hansen et al., 2015) ................................................. 85

Table 12.3 Waterway Buffers (NT DENR) ............................................................................. 86

Table 12.4 Riparian Zones (NSW DPI) ................................................................................. 87

Table 12.5 Recommended Separation Distances for Key Threatening Processes ................ 89


780 ADOPTED REPORT

1 Introduction

Buffers are recognised as useful planning tools to assist in minimising impacts to waterways and wetlands integrity and function. Buffers help to protect remnant environmental features, and their associated functions, from some of the impacts of adjacent land uses in both rural and urban contexts. Buffers to wetlands and waterways can help filter sediments, remove pollutants, protect wildlife against edge effects and serve as habitat transition zones. Additionally, an effective and functional buffer can help to attenuate the effects of flood and drought, protect wetlands and waterways from development impacts and in some instances, provide passive recreational opportunities.

The City of Gold Coast’s Planning Scheme (City Plan) includes assessment provisions and requirements for buffers to be provided between development and wetlands and waterways mapped on the Environmental Significance - Wetlands and Waterways Overlay Map. These assessment provisions are specified in the Environmental Significance Overlay Code and City Plan Policy – Ecological Site Assessments.

In line with performance-based planning, the City Plan allows for two possible outcomes: An acceptable outcome (AO) or a performance outcome (PO). The Environmental Significance Overlay Code contains an AO in relation to wetland and waterway buffer provisions. This AO presents Council’s preferred outcome for the provision of buffers specific to wetland and

waterways areas mapped on the Environmental Significance – Wetlands and Waterways Overlay Map. Buffer width is aligned to different waterway and wetland classifications (i.e. 30 m for a waterway, 60 m for a major waterway and 100 m for a state/local significant wetland).

If a development does not strictly comply with the example identified in the AO, the planning scheme provides flexibility to allow for innovative solutions or different approaches that still achieve the overall aim of the code; that is, the Performance Outcomes. The PO lists the ecological functions the buffer is to achieve, allowing for alternative buffer widths to be proposed, provided the nominated buffer functions can be achieved.

Typical considerations in determining buffer widths include:

• The feature being protected;• The nature and intensity of the anticipated adjacent land use;• The functions which the buffer is expected to perform;• Existing ecological communities; and• The local biophysical context (e.g. slopes, soils, surface drainage, groundwater

conditions and flows).

To further exacerbate the issues in ascribing buffer widths, there is often little understanding how different natural areas, and the species they provide habitat for, respond to changes in adjacent land uses, particularly in an already fragmented landscape.

REDACTED


781 ADOPTED REPORT

The City of Gold Coast has identified a need to develop guidance based on the current science and best practices to ensure that buffer requirements are identified and applied as appropriately and consistently as possible.

The purpose of this review is to:

• Undertake a critical review of the current City Plan provisions associated with theapplication of buffers to wetlands and waterway;

• Determine whether these provisions accord with current science best practices andlegislative requirements; and

• Provide recommendations on whether improvements to the City Plan should be furtherinvestigated for implementation.

The ultimate aim of this literature review is to provide recommendations on whether drafted amendments to the City Plan’s Environmental Significance Overlay Code and City Plan Policy – Ecological Site Assessments, and where required, the City Plan Strategic Framework,should be investigated to ensure that appropriate wetland and waterway buffers are achievedthrough the development assessment process.

1.1 Study Scope and Objectives

The objectives of this review are to:

1. Undertake a review of the current scientific and technical literature surrounding theapplication of wetland and waterway buffers;

2. Undertake a review of current policy and practices, particularly within planningschemes of local governments within south-east Queensland, related to wetland andwaterway buffers;

3. Document decision support tools for determining buffers surrounding wetlands andwaterways used by other organisations; and

4. Provide recommendations on whether amendments to the City Plan should be furtherinvestigated based on the findings of the previous objectives.

Although the focus of the literature review is on research that examines effective buffer widths, it is understood that there are many factors that can influence the effectiveness of a buffer apart from its width. Therefore, research on biophysical factors and buffer design elements that influence effectiveness has also been explored and discussed.

1.2 Methodology

The methodology used to undertake this report consisted primarily of a review of relevant literature, supplemented with consultation with key City of Gold Coast officers. The literature review primarily focused upon:

• Scientific literature (primary and secondary sources including journal articles andreviews, book chapters and other documents) related to wetland and waterway buffersas defined in this review; and

• Grey literature from a range of sources, including government policy, guidelines,manuals, technical reviews and reports.

REDACTED


782 ADOPTED REPORT

The review of local government policies and practices in southeast Queensland, with respect to buffers to wetlands and waterways, constituted scrutiny of the planning schemes to compare and contrast approaches to wetland and waterway protection through the use of buffers. The review focused upon the following areas:

• Terminology used within planning schemes with respect to buffers;• Classification and mapping of waterways and wetlands; and• Buffer widths and other associated planning regulations.

The other local governments planning schemes subject to assessment were:

• Brisbane City Plan Version 13.00/2018,• Logan Planning Scheme Version 5.1,• Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme Version 3,• Redland City Plan Version 1,• Draft Scenic Rim Planning Scheme 2018;• Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006;• Beaudesert Shire Planning Scheme 2007;• Boonah Shire Planning Scheme 2006; and• Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014.

A stakeholder workshop was held after the completion of the draft buffer review. Recommendations arising from this workshop have been included in this document.


783 ADOPTED REPORT

2 Legislation Review

The responsibility for the management of waterways and wetlands resides with the Australian federal government, State and Territory governments, local governments, landholders and the community. These obligations are formalised within legislation enacted by the Queensland and Commonwealth governments, as well as a suite of policies, programs and international agreements.

The overarching intent is to ensure that ecologically significant wetland and waterways are protected. A key management tool in achieving this outcome is the provision of buffers aimed to separate and limit impacts resulting from development pressures.

2.1 International Conventions and Agreements

This section includes a brief summary of the main international conventions and agreements to which Australia is a signatory and that are applicable to the management of waterways and wetlands. It is recognised that there are several other treaties currently in force that relate to the protection of the environment, however only the most relevant are listed here.

2.1.1 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

The Ramsar Convention (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance) was signed by Australia in 1971 and aims to reduce the global decline in wetlands and conserve those that remain. In Queensland, declared sites under the convention include Moreton Bay, Great Sandy Strait and Shoalwater Bay. The convention establishes guiding principles for the management of wetlands; including guidance on buffers.

While buffer widths are not specified in the convention, general guidance on the establishment of buffer zones are included within the principles, which include the development of wetland management plans. Management plans need to consider the designation of buffers outside the core Ramsar wetland, with the objective for land use within the buffer zone being “one of

sustainable use through ecosystem management, consistent with the maintenance of the

ecological character of the wetland” (The Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2003).

2.1.2 Other Conventions and Agreements

Other international conventions and agreements which apply to waterway and wetland protection, and to which Australia is a partner, include:

• The East Asian – Australasian Flyway Partnership – a regional Ramsar initiativefacilitating protection for migratory waterbirds and their habitats; underpinned by anetwork of flyway sites of international importance;

• Bilateral agreements for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats withJapan (JAMBA - 1974); China (CAMBA – 1986); and the Republic of Korea (RoKAMBA- 2007);

• The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (known asthe Bonn Convention) with the purpose of the conservation of animal species whichmigrate across international boundaries;

• The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and associated Strategic Plan

for Biological Diversity 2011-2020 – a legally binding treaty and 10-year framework for


784 ADOPTED REPORT

action on biodiversity respectively, that aim for the conservation and sustainable useof biological diversity; and

• World Heritage Convention – World heritage areas are outstanding examples ofnatural and cultural heritage which are overseen by the World Heritage Committee onbehalf of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. InQueensland, there are currently five World Heritage areas, most of which includeextensive areas of wetlands.

Buffer widths based upon these agreements are not provisioned in the Commonwealthlegislation.

2.2 Commonwealth

The main objective of this section is to describe policy direction regarding the establishmentof buffers to waterways and wetlands within relevant Commonwealth legislation. Importantly,there are no prescribed buffer widths to wetlands and waterways within federal legislation.

The central piece of federal environmental legislation is the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

2.2.1 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The primary federal legislation that pertains to waterways and wetlands is the EPBC Act. TheAustralian Government Department of the Environment and Energy administers this act andit applies to matters of national environmental significance. There are nine matters of nationalenvironmental significance: of most relevance to this review are Ramsar Wetlands ofInternational Importance.

Other matters that may relate to wetland and waterway management include world heritageproperties, threatened species and ecological communities, and migratory species protectedunder international agreements including JAMBA, CAMBA, RoKAMBA and the BonnConvention.

2.2.2 Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance

Part 3, Subdivision B of the EPBC Act – Wetlands of International Importance - sets out therequirements for approval of activities with a significant impact on declared Ramsar wetlands.A person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impacton any of the matters of environmental significance or other protected matters without approvalfrom the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Energy (the Minister).Therefore, an action that has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on theecological character of a Ramsar wetland must be referred to the Minister and undergo anenvironmental assessment and approval process.

The EPBC Act also establishes a framework for managing Ramsar wetlands. AustralianRamsar management principles include the preparation of Ramsar wetland managementplans. The principles may also be used for the management of any wetland throughoutAustralia.


785 ADOPTED REPORT

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/world-heritage

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/world-heritage

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/migratory-species

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/glossary#significant

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected

2.2.3 Commonwealth Strategic Plans

Commonwealth strategic plans that indirectly relate to waterway and wetland management includes:

• Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030;

• Australian Government’s Threatened Species Strategy;

• Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017-2027; and

• Australian Weeds Strategy 2017-2027.

2.3 State of Queensland

A number of acts and associated regulations, plans, and guidelines relate to wetland and waterway protection (including buffer determination) in Queensland. An overview of those relevant to waterway and wetland buffers is included in Table 2.1, however guidance on buffer planning is found within several disparate acts, guidelines, policies and plans. State development assessment provisions (SDAP) provisions with respect to buffer widths is summarised in Section 2.3.3.

Table 2.1 State Legislation Relevant to Wetland and Waterway Protection

Legislation Overview

Environmental Protection

Act 1994

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) is a keystone of Queensland’s

environmental legal framework. The main objective of the EP Act is to provide environmental protection whilst allowing ecologically sustainable development to proceed. The EP Act establishes the requirements for environmental impact assessment of proposals that are likely to have a significant impact upon the environment, provides an approval system for environmentally relevant activities and enforcement tools such as environmental protection orders.

Nature Conservation Act

1992

The Nature Conservation Act 1992 provides for the declaration and management of areas that have been dedicated for conservation as well as individual specimens of native plants and animals that are prescribed as extinct, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened, special least concern and least concern under the schedules of the Act’s Regulation, the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006.

Fisheries Act 1994 The purpose of the Fisheries Act 1994 is to provide for the use, conservation and enhancement of fisheries resources and fish habitats in Queensland. The Fisheries Act is administered by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and provides protection for important marine and estuarine wetlands and waterways in Queensland waters, including within marine park and declared fish habitat areas. Under the act, any development application which proposes to remove, destroy, or do damage to marine plants requires assessment under the SDAP.

Vegetation Management

Act 1999

The Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) regulates the clearing of remnant vegetation, high value regrowth vegetation, and high value vegetation near regrowth watercourses across Queensland. The purpose of the VMA is mainly achieved through the classification of vegetation units and defining permissible clearing for each unit in accordance with its level of significance.

Environmental Offsets

Act 2014

Under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 there is a requirement in the first instance of avoiding impacts on prescribed environmental matters, and if avoidance cannot be achieved, it must be demonstrated that impacts have been carefully managed and minimised. If after avoidance and mitigation there is a significant residual impact on prescribed environmental matters, an offset may be required. Offsets may be applicable for any development required to address any of the State


786 ADOPTED REPORT

Legislation Overview

codes of the State Development Assessment Provisions. More specifically, offsets may be required for:

• Wetlands in a wetland protection area;• Wetlands of high ecological significance shown on the map of referrable

wetlands; and• Wetlands or watercourses in a high ecological value waters.

Other state legislation and plans that relate to the protection and management of wetlands and waterways and their associated values include:

• Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006;

• Water Act 2000;

• Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995;

• Biosecurity Act 2014;

• State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971;

• Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009;• The Coastal Management Plan (2013); and• Regional Plans.

2.3.1 State Guidelines

Several state guidelines contain specific reference to buffer planning and implementation and are summarised in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 State Guidelines Relevant to Wetland and Waterway Buffer Planning

Document Title Relevant Content

Queensland Wetland

Buffer Planning Guideline

This guideline has been developed to assist with the design of buffers that will maintain wetland environmental values and protect wetlands from current and future threats from adjacent land uses. Default buffer widths are not specified within the guideline, instead, detailed methodology is provided on how to determine an appropriate buffer width which recognises two distinct areas — a Wetland Support Area and a Separation Area.

Fisheries Guidelines for

Fish Habitat Buffer Zones

Buffers zones are recognised as a valuable and legitimate planning tool in the development and protection of terrestrial habitats bordering fish habitats. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland Fisheries Service (QFS), has adopted a generic policy position which recommends a minimum buffer width of 100 m (incorporating natural vegetation and other buffer elements) set back from the level of Highest Astronomical Tide in tidal areas. In freshwater areas, QFS recommends a minimum 50 m setback (incorporating natural vegetation and other buffer elements) from freshwater habitats. These generic buffer widths are considered a ‘starting point’ from which site-specific requirements can be negotiated.

State Planning Policy –

State Interest Guideline

Biodiversity

(Queesnland Government 2016)

This guideline stipulates that development should provide for wildlife refugia through appropriate buffers, levels of access, lighting and noise mitigation impacts; and maintain and/or restore buffers around sensitive areas or other areas of high sensitivity to avoid off-site impacts.

Acceptable outcomes are suggested to be adopted by local government biodiversity overlay planning codes:


787 ADOPTED REPORT


A buffer for an area of state environmental significance (wetland protection area) has a minimum width of:

a) 200 metres where the area is located outside an urban area; or

b) 50 metres where the area is located within an urban area.

OR

A buffer for an area of state environmental significance is applied and maintained, the width of which is supported by an evaluation of the environmental values, including the function and threats to matters of environmental significance.

The State of Queensland has enacted comprehensive environmental protection and resource conservation laws which broadly address land use planning, protected areas, vegetation management and statutory reporting requirements as they relate to waterway and wetland protection. These laws, policies and programs are administered by differing government agencies to manage and regulate the impacts of development upon wetlands and waterways and are described further below.

2.3.2 Planning Act 2016

The Planning Act 2016 (Planning Act) and the underlying Planning Regulation 2017 form Queensland’s primary planning and development assessment system. The Planning Act provides the legal basis for managing the development process; managing the effects or impacts of development on the environment; and coordinating development assessment at local, regional and State planning level.

Subordinate planning instruments that address state, regional, and local instruments include State Planning Policy (SPP), regional plans and local government planning schemes. State planning policy is supported by the SPP interactive mapping system that provides spatial representation of Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) including Queensland wetland mapping, fish habitat areas, and marine parks.

These and all other State interests are translated into State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) that are a statutory instrument under the Planning Regulation 2017.

2.3.3 State Development Assessment Provisions State Codes

Development proposals where the State of Queensland has jurisdiction, or a particular interest, are assessed by the State Assessment and Referral Agency against State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) State Codes (version 2.4). The SDAP provides a coordinated, ‘whole of government’ system to the State’s assessment of development applications.

The following State codes address wetland and waterway values and functions:

• SDAP State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works;• SDAP State code 9: Great Barrier Reef wetland protection areas;• SDAP State code 10: Taking or interfering with water;• SDAP State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants;• SDAP State code 12: Development in a declared fish habitat area;• SDAP State code 16: Native vegetation clearing;


788 ADOPTED REPORT

• SDAP State code 18: Constructing or raising waterway barrier works in fish habitats;and

• SDAP State code 22: Environmentally relevant activities.

The following table summarises buffer widths where specified within the SDAP State codes. Setbacks in which clearing of vegetation is not permitted to occur (State Code 16) are also summarised. Note that the term buffer is not used, as the acceptable outcomes of the code simply state the area in relation to the boundary of the wetland or waterway in which clearing is not permitted to encroach. This is considered a form of buffering and thus has been included for discussion purposes.


789 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 2.3 Buffer Widths Specified within SDAP State Codes

State Code Specified Buffers (Summary)

9: Great Barrier Reef wetland protection areas

• 200 metres, where the wetland is located outside a prescribed urban area; or

• 50 metres, where the wetland is located within a prescribed urban area.

11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants

Aquaculture development is designed and constructed to prevent impacts on waterways and wetlands by being located away from important natural features such as waterways and wetlands:

Tidal habitats:

i. 100 metres from highest astronomical tide outside an urban area; orii. 50 metres from highest astronomical tide within an urban area b.

Non-tidal habitats:

i. 50 metres from bankfull width outside an urban area; andii. 25 metres from bankfull width within an urban area.

16: Native vegetation clearing

Restrictions on vegetation clearing associated with wetlands are listed within the code, according to four categories:

• public safety, relevant infrastructure activities, consequential development of Planning Act approval, a coordinated project, extractiveindustry;

• necessary to control non-native plants or declared pests, encroachment, managing thickened vegetation, fodder harvesting;

• necessary environmental clearing (land restoration and natural disaster preparation); and

• necessary environmental clearing (natural channel diversion and contaminants removal).

Clearing is not permitted to occur within set distances of the defining bank of the wetland according to the category of use. The minimum distance from the defining bank in which clearing is permitted to occur is 5 m (for clearing necessary to control non-native plants or declared pests). The maximum width in which clearing is not permitted to occur ranges from 20 to 50 m of the defining bank (all other categories).

Restrictions on vegetation clearing associated with watercourses and drainage features are also listed within the code, according to the following categories:

• public safety, relevant infrastructure activities, consequential development of IPA approval, a coordinated project, extractive industry;

• necessary to control non-native plants or declared pests, encroachment, managing thickened vegetation, fodder harvesting;

• necessary environmental clearing (land restoration and natural disaster preparation);

• necessary environmental clearing (natural channel diversion and contaminants removal); and

• Clearing associated with watercourses or drainage features (encroachment);


790 ADOPTED REPORT

State Code Specified Buffers (Summary)

The minimum distance from the defining bank in which clearing is permitted to occur ranges from 5 to 20 m or alternatively the distances listed within Table 16.2 of the Code. This table specifies distances from defining banks of watercourse and drainage features in which clearing is not permitted (reproduced below). Distances are listed by stream order and are differentiated between coastal and non-coastal bioregions and subregions.

Stream order Distance from the defining bank of a

watercourse or drainage feature (m)

Coastal bioregions and subregions

1 or 2 10

3 or 4 25

5 or greater 50

Non-coastal bioregions and subregions

1 or 2 25

3 or 4 50

5 or greater 100

Where it cannot be reasonably avoided, rehabilitation and/or offsets is required for clearing associated with Matters of State Environmental Significance.


791 ADOPTED REPORT

2.4 City of Gold Coast

The following sections outline the planning provisions contained within the City Plan that seek to protect wetland and waterways on the Gold Coast.

2.4.1 Strategic Framework

The strategic framework sets the policy direction for the City Plan and aims to ensure appropriate and sustainable development of the City of Gold Coast. The framework includes two central elements: the strategic intent, and six policy themes that collectively represent the policy intent of the plan.

The Strategic Intent includes reference to Ramsar listed wetlands (comprising the islands and waters of Southern Moreton Bay) as one of several “outstanding examples of ongoing ecological

and biological processes and the world's natural and cultural heritage”.

Of greatest relevance to this review is Policy Theme 5 (Living with Nature), which contains several strategic outcomes relating to wetland and waterway protection and maintenance. These outcomes can be summaries as:

• A comprehensive green space network of natural landscape areas is enhanced,maintained and protected;

• Freshwater and marine ecological processes and other matters of environmentalsignificance are protected and supported through a connected green space network;

• Matters of environmental significance within biodiversity areas are protected in situ; and• Water quality and quantity in drainage catchments maintains the operation and health of

ecosystems.

These strategic outcomes are then further defined and progressed primarily through the following elements:

• Green Space Network;• Nature Conservation; and• Coastal, Wetland and Waterway Areas.

These elements are designed to protect and maintain the City’s wetlands and waterways values

and contain references and content to allow for measures to be progressed via the development assessment process (further detailed provided below).

2.4.2 Element – Green Space Network

This element looks to create a green space network throughout the City (Figure 2.1) that provides for recreation, community wellbeing, biodiversity, scenic amenity, water catchment management, cultural heritage, tourism, education and research.

In relation to wetlands and waterways, this element seeks to protect waterways and riparian areas as part of natural green space corridors to:

• Protect vegetation, wildlife habitat and ecological corridors;• Protect scenic amenity;• Provide continuous public access and parkland corridors for recreation, walking and

cycling;


792 ADOPTED REPORT

https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=GCCC_CityPlan




• Provide visual relief from the built environment and a retreat from developed areas;• Provide flood mitigation, flood resilience, drainage and water quality functions;• Provide natural and renewable water cycle processes (water health and water quality);

and• Protect foreshores from erosion and stormwater inflows.

Figure 2.1 Green Space Network Strategic Framework


793 ADOPTED REPORT


2.4.3 Element – Nature Conservation

This element seeks to conserve, protect and enhanced the City’s biodiversity areas and other matters of environmental significance to maintain a diversity of terrestrial, aquatic and marine species, ecosystems and ecological processes. It defines the City’s matters of environment

significance and includes within this definition coastal environments, wetlands and waterways.

The City’s matters of environmental significance include:

• Native vegetation of national, state or local significance;• Coastal environments, wetlands and waterways;• Core habitat areas and substantial remnants;• Hinterland to coast critical corridors, including:• Burleigh Heads to Springbrook;• Springbrook to Wongawallan;• Southern Moreton Bay to Wongawallan;• Southern Moreton Bay to Clagiraba;• Currumbin to Cobaki Broadwater (Tweed Shire);• Currumbin to Currumbin Valley; and• Habitat for threatened species, such as Koalas.

The specific outcomes of this element develop a hierarchy for conservation across the City where all matters of environmental significance within biodiversity areas are protected in situ and more tailored outcomes are sought outside biodiversity areas. The City’s biodiversity areas

are listed as:

• Hinterland core habitat systems and coastal wetlands and islands core habitat systems,that are extensive tracts of intact habitat within the hinterland and coastal wetlandsareas; support a variety of vegetation associations; provide habitat for diverse faunapopulations; and require the highest level of protection;

• Hinterland to coast critical corridors that link core habitat systems and isolated areas ofbiodiversity value by retaining existing vegetation and restoring degraded areas toenhance fauna movement between different ecosystems and landscapes; and

• Substantial remnants of intact areas of vegetation that retain and enhance the diversity,extent and condition of habitat by avoiding impacts that originate from their urbancontext.

As a matter of environmental significance, the nature conservation element clearly provides for the protection of wetlands and waterways in situ when located within a biodiversity area. However, no specific reference is made to the provision of buffers.

Outside a biodiversity area, the outcomes are less specific in terms of protection. Reference is made instead to the provisions of buffers to wetlands and waterways. It could be inferred that via the requirement to buffer a wetland and waterway, the wetland and waterway would first need to be retained. However, it could also be interpreted that buffers are only needed when/if a wetland or waterways is retained.

REDACTED


794 ADOPTED REPORT














2.4.4 Element – Coastal, Wetland and Waterway Areas

In relation to this project, this element is of most relevance. This element has been included to specifically protect coastal terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems and their ecological processes.

Section 3.7.5.1 lists the specific outcomes as follows:

1. Coastal terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems and their ecological processes areprotected to sustain their viability. This includes the conservation and enhancement ofendemic vegetation on beaches, dunes and coastal headlands, and along naturalwaterways and floodplains.

2. Public access to coastal waters and foreshores is maintained and enhanced where it issafe and where coastal environments are protected.

3. Disturbance to undeveloped parts of erosion-prone areas, storm-tide inundation hazardareas, tidal waterways and nutrient hazard areas is avoided other than for maritimeinfrastructure where impacts are minimised.

4. The aquatic, riparian and intertidal ecosystems of Moreton Bay Broadwater areconserved to support the objectives of the Moreton Bay Marine Park and declared fishhabitat areas. This includes its value as a commercial fishery and recreational area.

5. South Stradbroke Island is recognised as part of a complex system of sand islands ofglobal importance. These islands are protected for their environmental, ecological andvisual significance.

6. Water quality and quantity in all catchments is maintained to support water body healthand biodiversity, and support compatible water-based leisure opportunities.

7. The integrity of catchment areas is maintained in natural landscape areas, ruralproduction areas and rural residential areas. Disturbance to existing landforms,ecological features, surface drainage, waterways and groundwater movement is avoidedor minimised. Water is used and managed as part of a total water cycle in which:

• Natural drainage regimes and hydrological processes are maintained as faras possible;

• Ecosystem health and water quality are protected or enhanced;• Public health and safety are protected and damage to property is avoided;• Run off is controlled;• Water is used efficiently as a limited resource; and• On-site sewerage facilities are appropriately designed and maintained.

8. The Hinze and Little Nerang Dam water supply catchment areas are managed to ensurethe highest level of protection possible to the City’s potable water supply.

9. Marine industries have minimal impacts on water quality, vegetation and bankstabilisation. Dredging is managed to maintain boat access and channel integrity inareas of high boat traffic while maintaining foreshore integrity.

10. Marina development facilitates the proper and convenient disposal of ship-sourcedpollutants and are designed and operated to ensure the risk of spillage from operationsis minimised.

REDACTED


795 ADOPTED REPORT










2.4.5 Overlay Codes

Overlay codes progress the City Plan’s strategic intent by identifying areas that reflect state and

local interests and that have one or more of the following characteristics:

• There is a particular sensitivity to the effects of development;• There is a constraint on land use or development outcomes;• There is the presence of valuable resources; and• There are particular opportunities for development.

The wetlands and waterways considered to be of state or local interest within the City of the Gold Coast have been mapped on the Environmental Significance – Wetlands and Waterways Overlay. The overlay map flags any potential conflicts between infrastructure development and protection of wetlands and waterways. They may also signal the conservation importance to development proponents.

The Environmental Significance Overlay Code is applicable to this review of wetland and waterway buffers. Changes, where required, to this overlay code are discussed in relevant sections of this report.

REDACTED


796 ADOPTED REPORT





3 Wetlands

Wetlands are the vital link between land and water. They protect shorelines from wave action, reduce the impacts of floods, absorb pollutants, improve water quality and provide habitat for flora and fauna (Department of Environment and Energy, 2018).

Wetlands are areas of land where water covers the soil, either permanently or intermittently. Wetlands may be natural or artificial. The water within a wetland may be static or flowing, fresh, brackish or saline (Department of Environment and Energy, 2018).

Wetlands occur at the interface between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Their forms are diverse and may permanently, periodically or intermittently contain fresh or saline water.

3.1 Definition

The Queensland Wetlands Program defines wetlands as:

Areas of permanent or periodically intermittent inundation, with water that is static or flowing

fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not

exceed 6 metres (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010).

To be classified as a wetland, the area must have one or more of the following attributes:

1. At least periodically, the land supports plants or animals that are adapted to anddependent on living in wet conditions for at least part of their life cycle, or

2. The substratum is predominantly undrained soils that are saturated, flooded or pondedlong enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper layers, or

3. The substratum is not soil and is saturated with water, or covered by water at some time(Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010).

3.2 Definitions and Terminology used by Other Local Government

Authorities

Based on a review of other local council planning schemes in South East Queensland, the term wetland is consistently used across all Councils, however, may not be explicitly defined within the planning scheme Administrative Definitions. Where it is included, the definitions used are generally consistent with the definition relied upon by the Queensland Wetlands Program.

3.2.1 Logan City Council Wetland Definition

Areas of permanent or periodic / intermittent inundation, whether natural or artificial, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.

3.2.2 Sunshine Coast Council Wetland Definition

An area of permanent, periodic or intermittent inundation that includes areas of open water and/or native vegetation, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt. The term may include wetlands which lie within floodplains but does not include the whole of a floodplain. This definition includes natural features as well as constructed water bodies but does not include waterways as separately defined.


797 ADOPTED REPORT

3.2.3 Beaudesert Planning Scheme Wetland Definition

A plant community which forms part of an area of permanent, periodic or intermittent inundation, whether natural or artificial, with water that is static or flowing, brackish or salt, including areas of marine waters the depth of which at low tide does not exceed 6 metres.

3.3 City Plan Wetland Definition

In keeping with the Queensland government definition of wetlands, Schedule 1 of the City Plandefines wetlands as:

Areas of permanent or periodic/intermittent inundation, whether natural or artificial, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres, including in this City, for example:

• Ocean beaches, including rocky shores and inshore waters less than 6 metres in depthat low tide;

• Estuaries and intertidal flats;• Areas of sea grass, salt marsh, mangrove;• Areas above high water mark influenced by freshwater such as Melaleuca paperbark

forests and sedgelands, and by brackish or tidal water such as casuarina forests;• Freshwater rivers, creeks, lakes, lagoons and streams; and• Man-made canals and lakes.

3.4 State of Queensland Wetland Classification

The classification of a wetland is based on four criteria; hydrology, biota, soils and non-soils/non-biota, as shown in Table 3.1 (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010).

Table 3.1 Factors and Criteria from Wetland Program Definition

Factor Criterion

Hydrology Areas of permanent or periodic/intermittent inundation, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed 6 metres.

Biotic Supports plants and animals, at least periodically, that are adapted to or dependent on living in wet conditions for at least part of their life cycle.

Soils The substratum is predominately undrained soils that are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper layer (hydric soils).

Non-soils, non-biotic The substratum is not soil and is saturated with water, or covered by water, at some time.

REDACTED


798 ADOPTED REPORT

The Queensland Wetland Definition and Delineation Guide: Part A (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010) provides examples of conclusive and less conclusive indicators and thresholds of criteria for use in wetland identification (Table 3.2).

A ‘multiple lines of evidence’ approach is used to identify wetlands. This method requires that wetlands are identified in the first instance by inundation plus at least one of three further criteria, as outlined in Table 3.2. For each criterion there may be a variety of indicators, which range from those that are broadly applicable across Queensland (e.g. wetland indicator plants) to more specific indicators that may only be applicable in certain regions (e.g. some soil indicators). More conclusive indicators can be used by themselves to determine that a criterion has been met, while other, inconclusive indicators only suggest a feature has some wetland characteristics and require additional supporting evidence to confirm if a criterion has been met (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010).

There is often a strong relationship between soil saturation and the development of communities dominated by plants adapted to and requiring such conditions. Therefore, plants are often particularly useful indicators for the identification and delineation of wetlands (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010).

A list of wetland indicator plants and animals that are adapted to and dependent on living in wet conditions for at least part of their life has been prepared to help identify wetlands (Department of Environment and Science, 2018). Similarly, wetland fauna species have been identified.

The Queensland wetland indicator fauna and flora species lists contains an extensive suite of wetland species that have been selected by a justification process and, therefore, can be used as one line of evidence when testing a feature for wetland status.

To conclusively delineate the wetland, the vegetation must be dominated by wetland indicator species. Plant dominance is determined as the dominant species within the ecological dominant layer (EDL). The EDL is defined as the layer of vegetation that makes the greatest contribution to the overall biomass at a site (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2010).

The biotic–plants criterion in the wetland definition is met when the abundance of wetland indicator plants in the EDL is greater than 50 per cent of the total (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011a).

Because of the great diversity of wetlands in Queensland, it is necessary to divide them into broad types, based on systems (marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, subterranean and palustrine) (Department of Environment and Science, 2018).

The information on the categories of wetlands has been extracted from the Wetland Info website (www.wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au), which is managed by the Department of Environment and Science.


799 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 3.2 Conclusive and Non-conclusive indicators in the Wetland Program Definition

Factor Conclusive Indicators and thresholds – criterion is

met

Less Conclusive Indicators and thresholds –

additional information is required

Sources of Evidence

Hydrology Direct observation; water saturation/inundation.

Indirect observations; micro relief, Debil Debil, algal mats, aerial roots, floodmarks, iron staining.

Presence of wetland soils, vegetation dominated by wetland indicator plants, observation of inundation on imagery, hydrological monitoring

Wetland landform such as closed depressions, wetland drainage patterns, mud cracks, surface staining, algal flakes and salt crusts, stream flow meter data.

Indicators of hydrological modification may mean that conclusive soil and biotic indicators are inconclusive on their own.

Historic records, time series imagery, field observations. Tidal level and stream flow records.

Biota

Flora Predominance of wetland indicator plants Presence of any flora species, or parts of these, e.g. underground perennating plant parts and seeds although seeds can be found anywhere floodwaters go, previously compiled wetland or vegetation mapping.

Field survey by relevant expert, Queensland Wetland flora/fauna indicator list, site databases. Fauna Species recorded at lifecycle stage known to be dependent

on wet conditions.

Species known to be dependent on wetlands for all stages of their lifecycle

Presence of any species that are not confined to a wetland for all of life, or evidence of fauna.

Soils Indicators in parts 1 and 2 of wetlands soil key Indicators in part 3 of wetlands soil key Field survey, soils maps

Non-soil,

non-biotic

Partially or non-weathered rock.

Beds and banks of creeks, rivers and other drainage lines, beaches below Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) but exposed at low tide.


800 ADOPTED REPORT

3.4.1 Riverine Wetlands

Riverine wetlands are all wetlands and deep-water habitats within a channel and their associated streamside vegetation. The channels are naturally or artificially created, periodically or continuously contain moving water, or connect two bodies of standing water.

The riverine ecosystems in Queensland have been divided into Freshwater Biogeographic Provinces using broad patterns in the natural distribution of faunal communities. The South-East Freshwater Biogeographic Province consists of the Baffle, Kolan, Burnett, Burrum, Mary, Pine, Brisbane, Logan-Albert and South Coast drainage basins.

3.4.2 Lacustrine Wetlands

Lacustrine wetlands are large, open, water-dominated systems (for example, lakes) larger than eight hectares. This definition also applies to modified systems (for example, dams), which are similar to lacustrine systems (for example, deep, standing or slow-moving waters).

Although lakes may have fringing vegetation, much of the wetland area is open water.

Lacustrine wetlands are further classified as:

• Floodplain lakes:o Coastal and sub-coastal floodplain lake.

• Non-floodplain lakes:o Coastal and subcoastal non-floodplain sand lake—Perched;o Coastal and subcoastal non-floodplain sand lake—Window;o Coastal and subcoastal non-floodplain rock lake; ando Coastal and subcoastal non-floodplain soil lake.

• Arid and semi-arid lakes:o Arid and semi-arid floodplain lake;o Arid and semi-arid non-floodplain lake;o Arid and semi-arid permanent lakes; ando Arid and semi-arid saline lake.

Within the City of Gold Coast limits, coastal non-floodplain lakes are present on South Stradbroke Island around non-tidal freshwater wetlands on siliceous sands in coastal dunes.

3.4.3 Palustrine Wetlands

Palustrine wetlands are primarily vegetated non-channel environments of less than 8 ha. They include billabongs, swamps, bogs, springs, soaks etc, and have more than 30% emergent vegetation.

Palustrine wetlands are further classified as:

• Floodplain swamps:o Coastal and subcoastal floodplain grass, sedge, herb swamp;o Coastal and subcoastal floodplain wet heath swamp;o Coastal and subcoastal floodplain tree swamp—Melaleuca spp. and Eucalyptus

spp.;o Coastal and subcoastal tree swamps—Palm; ando Coastal and subcoastal saline swamp.

• Non-floodplain swamps:


801 ADOPTED REPORT

o Coastal and subcoastal non-floodplain grass, sedge, herb swamp;o Coastal and subcoastal non-floodplain wet heath swamps; ando Coastal and subcoastal non-floodplain tree swamp.

• Arid and semi-arid:o Arid and semi-arid tree swamp;o Arid and semi-arid lignum swamp;o Arid and semi-arid grass, sedge, herb swamp; ando Arid and semi-arid saline swamp—Isolated and fringing lake.

3.4.4 Marine Wetlands

Marine wetlands include the area of ocean from the coastline or estuary, extending to the jurisdictional limits of Queensland waters (3 nautical mile limit).

3.4.5 Estuarine Wetlands

Estuarine wetlands are those with oceanic water sometimes diluted with freshwater runoff from the land. It is usually an area where a river meets the sea. Mangroves are usually the most common vegetation. Estuarine wetlands protect the coastline from storm surges and cyclones.

3.4.6 Subterranean Wetlands

Subterranean wetlands are wetlands occurring below the surface of the ground and that are fed by groundwater (i.e. caves and aquifers). These wetlands provide water to groundwater dependent ecosystems. Australia supports a rich diversity of these subsurface aquatic environments ranging from the aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin to the karst system in Ida Bay, Tasmania.

3.5 Classification of Wetlands by Other Local Government Authorities

With regards to the classification of wetlands, each south-east Queensland local government has adopted either a single all-encompassing classification or have divided wetland areas into two sub-categories. These sub-categories are generally reflective of wetland significance, e.g. Major, Minor, Ramsar etc.

The different approaches used by each Council are summarised in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Comparison of Wetland Classification

Local Government or Planning Scheme Wetland Classification

Logan City Council • Minor wetland• Major wetland

Brisbane City Council • Wetland

Moreton Bay Regional Council • MLES Ramsar Wetland• All other wetlands

Redland City Council • Wetland

Sunshine Coast Council • Wetlands• Ramsar wetlands.

Scenic Rim Regional Council • High Ecological Value Waters (Wetland)• High Ecological Significance Wetlands


802 ADOPTED REPORT

Local Government or Planning Scheme Wetland Classification

Boonah Planning Scheme • Wetland

Beaudesert Planning Scheme • Wetland

City of Ipswich • Wetland

3.6 City Plan Classification of Wetlands

The City Plan has adopted a sub-category classification system dividing wetland areas in to either:

• State significance wetlands or• Local significance wetlands.

This approach provides a level of flexibility when addressing wetland protection as tailored outcomes can be developed based on wetland value as opposed to a single classification.

3.7 Wetland Mapping

The following provides a brief overview on how wetlands of international, national, state and local significance are mapped under various legislative measures.

3.7.1 Wetlands of International and National Importance

Australia currently has 65 Ramsar wetlands that cover more than 8.3 million hectares. Ramsar wetlands are those that are representative, rare or unique wetlands, or are important for conserving biological diversity. These are included on the List of Wetlands of International Importance held under the Ramsar convention (Department of Environment and Energy, 2018).

Australia also has more than 900 nationally important wetlands. These are wetlands that are a good example in a particular area, an important habitat for native species, or that have outstanding heritage or cultural significance. Nationally important wetlands are listed on the directory of important wetlands (Department of Environment and Energy, 2018).

All Australia's internationally and nationally important wetlands are listed on the Australian Wetlands Database, which is managed by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy.

REDACTED


803 ADOPTED REPORT

The Department of Environment and Energy has developed the Protected Matters Search Tool which enables the identification of any wetlands of international and national importance within a defined area surrounding a point of interest.

3.7.2 Wetlands of State Significance

The State of Queensland identifies wetlands of importance as referable wetlands. The map of referable wetlands is a state-wide regulatory map under the Environmental Protection

Regulation 2008 and SDAP State codes that require offsets for matters of state environmental significance (MSES) under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.

The map of referable wetlands identifies wetlands of high ecological significance (HES) and general ecological significance across the state. HES wetlands on the map are identified as MSES under the planning and environmental offsets legislation. HES wetlands within Great Barrier Reef catchments are subject to the provisions of SDAP State code 9: Great Barrier Reef Wetland Protection Areas.

The Queensland Wetlands Program mapping and classification project has mapped wetlands throughout the state, integrating satellite imagery with field data and refining the mapping through expert opinion.

The Queensland Wetland Data (Version 4) maps wetlands across the state. In coastal regions, the wetlands are mapped at a scale of 1: 50,000 (+/- 50 m).

Wetland mapping is based on water body area (including drainage and springs) and regional ecosystems associated with the water body.

In the mapping process, water bodies are initially placed in a drainage division and then a basin or catchment. They are then classified to an ecological system level; marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine or palustrine. Water regime, salinity and local hydrology/disturbance modifiers are applied.

Water bodies are allocated one or more regional ecosystems using a GIS program that selects the most appropriate intersecting regional ecosystems by matching the water body system with the wetland type from the Regional Ecosystem Description Database.

Identification of HES wetlands is been determined using the Department of Environment and Resource Management's Aquatic Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology (AquaBAMM). Biodiversity and aquatic conservation values are assigned to each of the mapped wetlands through an assessment which is developed using diagnostic and expert panel criteria.

3.7.3 Mapping of Wetlands by Other Local Government Authorities

The south-east Queensland local government planning schemes reviewed as part of this report except for Ipswich, all include overlay mapping that cleared identify the location and extent of wetland areas. Ipswich planning scheme does not provide overlay maps for any wetland, although does identify “designated watercourses” within the Vegetation Management Code.

The mapping detail varied based upon the differing classification of wetlands used by each local government planning schemes (see section 3.4 above). All Councils except for Brisbane City Council combined wetland mapping with waterway mapping.


804 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 3.4 Wetland Mapping

Local Government Wetland Mapping

Logan City Council • Waterway Corridors and Wetland Overlay Trigger Map• Waterway Corridors and Wetland Overlay Map – Wetlands

Brisbane City Council • Wetlands Overlay Map

Moreton Bay Regional Council • Environmental Areas Overlay• Riparian and wetland Overlay

Redland City Council • Waterway Corridors and Wetland Overlays Map – Mainland• Waterway Corridors and Wetland Overlays Map – Islands

Sunshine Coast Council • Biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlay.

Scenic Rim Regional Council • Environmental Significance Overlay Wetlands and Waterways

Boonah Planning Scheme • Natural Features Overlay – Natural Values

Beaudesert Planning Scheme • Catchment Management Waterways and Wetlands

City of Ipswich • Mapping of designated waterways

3.8 City Plan Wetland Mapping

The City Plan maps wetland areas on the Environmental Significance – Wetlands and Watercourses Overlay Map. Similar to most other local planning schemes, wetland mapping is combined with waterway mapping.

City of Gold Coast wetland mapping was reviewed and updated in 2014 (RPS, 2014) using methodology that closely followed the Queensland Wetland Mapping and Classification Methodology.

High resolution imagery was used to identify waterbodies and likely wetlands which enabled mapping to be prepared at a finer scale than that prepared by the State. Satellite imagery was from 2009. The waterbody mapping was combined with the watercourse polygons layer and wetland regional ecosystems extracted from the City of Gold Coast’s 2012 vegetation map to

define wetland areas.

REDACTED


805 ADOPTED REPORT

4 Waterways

4.1 Definition

The term “waterway” and “watercourse” are often used interchangeably. However, the legal

definition as supplied in Duhaime's Law Dictionary (Duhaime, no date), defines:

• A “watercourse” as the channel that a flowing body of water follows; and• A “waterway” as a body of water on which navigation is practicable and practiced.

In Queensland, the legislative definition of a watercourse differs depending on the act or planning scheme.

4.1.1 Water Act 2000

Part 2 Section 5 of the Water Act 2000 gives the meaning of a watercourse as:

(1) A watercourse is a river, creek or other stream, including a stream in the form of ananabranch or a tributary, in which water flows permanently or intermittently, regardless of thefrequency of flow events—

a) in a natural channel, whether artificially modified or not; orb) in an artificial channel that has changed the course of the stream.

(2) A watercourse includes any of the following located in it—

a) in-stream islands;b) benches;c) bars.

(3) However, a watercourse does not include a drainage feature.

(4) Further—

a) unless there is a contrary intention, a reference to a watercourse in this Act, other thanin this part or in the definitions in schedule 4 to the extent they support the operation ofthis part, is a reference to anywhere that is—

i. upstream of the downstream limit of the watercourse; andii. between the lateral limits of the watercourse; and

b) a reference in this Act to, or to a circumstance that involves, land adjoining awatercourse, is a reference to, or to a circumstance that involves, land effectivelyadjoining a watercourse.

Note for paragraph (b) — Generally, the non-tidal boundary (watercourse) of land bounded by a watercourse, as provided for under the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003, would not correspond precisely with the line of the outer bank of a watercourse under this Act.

Schedule 4 of the Water Act 2000 defines a drainage feature as:

a) if a feature is identified on the watercourse identification map as a drainage feature—

the feature identified on the map; orb) otherwise—a natural landscape feature, including a gully, drain, drainage depression

or other erosion feature that—


806 ADOPTED REPORT

i. is formed by the concentration of, or operates to confine or concentrate, overlandflow water during and immediately after rainfall events; and

ii. flows for only a short duration after a rainfall event, regardless of the frequencyof flow events; and

iii. commonly, does not have enough continuing flow to create a riverineenvironment.

Example for paragraph (b)(iii)— There is commonly an absence of water favouring riparian vegetation.

4.1.2 Fisheries Act 1994

The definition of a waterway under the Fisheries Act 1994 includes a river, creek, stream, watercourse or inlet of the sea, with ‘watercourse’ further defined as per the definition of a

watercourse under the Water Act 2000. This includes freshwater and tidal waters, both permanent and ephemeral waterways, and includes drainage features. It also includes channels along which fish are expected to move if they connect isolated water bodies to defined waterways during times of flow. However, it does not include isolated waterbodies where no connectivity is available.

To meet the above definition, a waterway must have at least one of the following attributes:

1. Defined bed and banks: The bed and banks need to be continuous upstream anddownstream of the site rather than isolated and broken sections of a depression.

2. An extended, if non-permanent, period of flow: Flow must continue beyond theduration of a rain event and have some reliability attached to rainfall. There is a need todistinguish between channels that funnel immediate localised rainfall; and waterwayswhere flow has arisen from an upstream catchment.

3. Flow adequacy: The flow needs to be sufficient to sustain basic ecological processesand habitats, and to maintain biodiversity within or across the feature. The adequacy ofthe flow depends on the ecological function of the channel e.g. waterways that connectto fish habitat like a wetland or waterhole may only need infrequent and short-durationflows to provide connectivity for fish.

4. Fish habitat at, or upstream of, the site: Most instream features provide habitat forfish under adequate flow conditions or, in the case of pools, during dry periods. Therefore,it is important to have some knowledge of the fish species for the site and their habitatuse, particularly in headwater streams. Periodic connectivity to upstream and off streamfish habitat are also considered fish habitat.

4.2 Definitions and Terminology used by Local Government Authorities

Local governments across south-east Queensland are variable in their use of waterway/watercourse terminology (Table 4.1).


807 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 4.1 Local Government Authorities Waterway Terminology

Local Government or Planning

Scheme Term

Logan City Council Waterway

Brisbane City Council Waterway (no definition)

Moreton Bay Regional Council Waterway

Redland City Council Waterway (no definition)

Sunshine Coast Council Waterway

Scenic Rim Regional Council Waterway and Watercourse (no definition)

Boonah Planning Scheme Waterway (no definition)

Beaudesert Planning Scheme Waterway and Watercourse

City of Ipswich Watercourse (definition of Designated Watercourse)

A review of the Administrative Definitions within the various planning schemes illustrates that there a broad range of definitions currently being used to define a waterway or watercourse.

4.2.1 Logan City Council

Waterway - means any of the following:

a) A creek, river, stream or watercourse; orb) An inlet of the sea into which a creek, river, stream, watercourse or waterway flows; orc) A dam or weir

Note: this definition is from the Land Title Act 1994.

4.2.2 Moreton Bay Regional Council

The Moreton Bay Regional Council defines a waterway as a watercourse as defined in Section 4, Water Act 2007 (Commonwealth) Watercourse:

Waterway - means a river, creek or other natural watercourse (whether modified or not) in which water is contained or flows (whether permanently or from time to time); and includes:

a) A dam or reservoir that collects water flowing in a watercourse; andb) A lake or wetland through which water flows; andc) A channel into which the water of a watercourse has been diverted; andd) Part of a watercourse; ande) An estuary through which water flows.

4.2.3 Sunshine Coast Council

The Sunshine Coast Council define a waterway as:

Waterway - A river, creek or other stream, including a stream in the form of an anabranch or a tributary, in which water flows permanently or intermittently, regardless of the frequency of flow events, in a natural channel, whether artificially modified or not or in an artificial channel that has changed the course of the stream. A waterway includes any of the following located in it:

a) In-stream islands;


808 ADOPTED REPORT

b) Benches;c) Bars.

The term includes constructed storm water drains with surface water flows but not piped water drains.

4.2.4 City of Ipswich

City of Ipswich identify Designated Watercourses and define such as:

Designated Watercourse - means that section of a watercourse identified on Map 6 in Schedule 7.

4.2.5 Beaudesert Planning Scheme

The Beaudesert Planning Scheme principally uses the term “waterway” throughout. It does

however, provide a definition for both watercourse and waterway.

Watercourse - has the meaning in Schedule 4 of the Water Act 2000. The term includes a watercourse in a wetland or watercourse area.

Waterway - means a tidal or non-tidal channel or water body, whether natural, artificially improved, or artificial, in which water flows permanently or intermittently, including a watercourse, canal, estuary, gully or natural drainage line. The term includes the streams shown as Stream Order Category A, B and C on the overlay maps.

Note: The term does not include a closed conduit carrying stormwater.

4.3 City Plan Waterway Definition

Under the City Plan, the meaning of a waterway is given as:

• Identified on the Environmental significance – wetlands and waterways overlay map; or• Identified within an ecological site assessment; or• A watercourse as defined under the Water Act 2000.

4.4 Waterway Classification

Within Australia, the Strahler stream classification system is the most commonly used to classify a section of waterway. It gives waterways an ‘order’ according to the number of associated tributaries, providing a measure of system complexity (Straher, 1952). Order numbering begins at the top of a catchment with headwater flow paths being assigned the number 1. Where two flow paths of order 1 join, the section downstream of the junction is referred to as a second order stream. Where two second order streams join, the waterway downstream of the junction is referred to as a third order stream, and so on.

REDACTED


809 ADOPTED REPORT

Where a lower order stream (e.g. first order) joins a higher order stream (e.g. third order), the area downstream of the junction will retain the higher number (i.e. it will remain a third order stream). Third order streams and above are generally considered likely to contain valuable fish habitat (Bavins et al., 2000).

Other classification approaches include (but are not limited to) (Jasiewicz, no date):

• Hack’s Main Streams: Also called Classic Stream Order or Gravelius' Order, is a “bottom

up” hierarchy that allocates the number 1 to the river with its mouth at the sea. Its

tributaries are given a number one greater than that of the river or stream into which theydischarge. So, for example, all immediate tributaries of the main stem are given thenumber 2. Tributaries emptying into a 2 are given the number 3 and so on.

• Shreve Stream Magnitude: Outmost tributaries are allocated a number 1. At aconfluence, the stream orders were added together.

• Horton Stream Order: Top down system upon which the Strahler method was based.• Topological stream order: Bottom up approach where the stream order is increased by

one at every confluence.

4.4.1 Classification of Waterways by Local Government Authorities

With regards to classification of waterways, each local government adopted different terminology, however appear to be based on a Stream Order approach – see Table 4.2. Generally, waterway classification is based upon size and location within the catchment. With lower order stream (minor, W3) located in the upper catchment and moving through to higher order streams (major, river and W1) representing rivers and larger creeks.

Table 4.2 Comparison of Waterway Classification

Local Government or Planning Scheme Waterway Classification

Logan City Council

• Minor waterway;• Medium waterway;• Major waterway; and• River waterway.

Brisbane City Council • Local waterway corridor;• Citywide waterway corridor; and• Brisbane River corridor.

Moreton Bay Regional Council • W1 waterway;• W2 waterway; and• W3 waterway.

Redland City Council • Stream order 3 and 4; and• Stream order 5 and greater.

Sunshine Coast Council • Stream order 1 and 2;• Stream order 3 and 4; and• Stream order 5 and above*.

Scenic Rim • Stream Order 2;• Stream Order 3 and 4; and• Stream Order 5 to 7

Boonah Planning Scheme • None specified


810 ADOPTED REPORT

Local Government or Planning Scheme Waterway Classification

Beaudesert Planning Scheme • Stream Order Category A;• Stream Order Category B; and• Stream Order Category C

City of Ipswich • Designated Waterway

4.4.2 City Plan Classification of Waterways

Waterways have been incorporated into the overlay maps for the City Plan, whereby they are described as either a ‘major waterway’ or ‘waterway’. As per other local governments in south-east Queensland, the City Plan relies upon the Strahler Stream Order (RPS, 2014). However, the City Plan limits waterway classifications to either ‘major waterway’ for those with a Strahler Order of greater than 5 or ‘waterway’ for those of 4 and below.

4.5 Mapping of Waterways

4.5.1 Water Act 2000

Under Section 5AA of the Water Act 2000, watercourses, drainage features, downstream limits and lakes are identified on the Watercourse Identification Map. Watercourses mapped under the Water Act 2000 are subject to the provisions of the act.

4.5.2 Fisheries Act 1994

Waterway barrier works are regulated under the Fisheries Act 1994 and Planning Act 2016 when barriers to fish movement are installed across waterways.

The Queensland-wide spatial data layer was created to better delineate the extent of interest in barrier works on waterways. On the data layer, these waterways are depicted as a coloured stream network from the upstream limit, downstream to the tidal or wetland conclusion. Uncoloured streams are not considered waterways (Fisheries Queensland, 2013).

4.5.3 Waterway Mapping by Other Local Government Authorities

As discussed in Section 3.6.3 and in Table 3.4, all local government authorities in south-east Queensland provide mapping of waterways. Buffers to waterways are also identified on the relevant overlay maps of some Councils (refer to Section 6.5). This mapping incorporated the mapped extent of the waterway and an additional nominated buffer/setback area.

REDACTED


811 ADOPTED REPORT

4.5.4 City Plan Waterways Mapping

Automatically generated flowlines generally defined the waterways mapped for the City Plan (RPS, 2014). Although the spatial data layer assists planners and consultants with waterway determinations, it is still only a representation of the physical and hydrological attributes that exist on site. RPS (2014) acknowledged that the physical form of lower stream order watercourses (less than 3) is less defined and there is a greater level of inaccuracy in the mapping. Consequently, City Plan overlay mapping does not always correspond to field observations.

REDACTED


812 ADOPTED REPORT

5 Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways

With more than 88% of Queenslanders now living within 50 km of the coast, the pressures on coastal wetlands and waterways are significant. Any changes in land use may result in changes to physical, chemical or biological processes in adjacent wetlands or waterways (Walsh et al., 2004). Development pressures may be incremental, such as cumulative impairment of wetland and waterway functions, or total, such as the entire loss of wetland systems (Department of Environment and Science, 2018).

The severity of impacts upon waterways and wetlands is heavily influenced by adjacent land uses. For example, the concentration and types of pollutants carried in stormwater runoff will vary according to land use. In agricultural areas, sediment, nutrients and pesticides are likely to be major pollutants in runoff. In urbanised residential areas, major pollutants are sediment and nutrients. Highway and road runoff will include heavy metals and hydrocarbons (Greenway & Jenkins, 2004).

Rainfall intensity and duration can influence the quantity of pollutants transported in stormwater. The time between rainfall events also affects the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff due to the build-up of contaminants on impervious surfaces (Greenway and Jenkins, 2004). Existing management strategies also influences the severity of these impacts (Department of Environment and Science, 2018).

Impacts caused by one stressor may be modified by other disturbances within the system, creating complex interactions between them (Papas et al., 2008). For example, as a result of urbanisation changes in sediment loads and water quality, aquatic systems and associated organisms may be exposed to elevated concentrations in trace metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons and nutrients (Lee et al., 2006).

A changing climate will compound the pressures identified in the following sections. Rising sea levels will affect the landward movement of estuarine wetlands, resulting in pressure on existing freshwater wetlands. Extreme weather events associated with climate change, including higher temperatures, more intense rainfall and droughts will result in increased pressure on wetland and riparian ecosystems (Department of Environment and Science, 2018).

5.1 Impacts to Wetlands

Direct and indirect pressures to wetlands are summarised in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 respectively. Table 5.1 summarises the pressures on wetlands, the biological or physio-chemical changes resulting from each of the pressures, factors affecting the vulnerability of the wetland or waterway to the pressure and suggested management responses to mitigate these pressures.

5.1.1 Direct Pressures

Direct pressures on wetlands have been identified by the Department of Environment and Science (2018) as:

• Impacts on water quality through:o direct input of contaminants (e.g. nutrients, sediments, metals, pesticides and

herbicides, pathogens, litter, excess heat) to wetlands from:➢ stormwater;


813 ADOPTED REPORT

➢ groundwater contamination, e.g. septic systems;➢ sewage outfalls;➢ agricultural runoff;➢ seepage from landfills;➢ salinity changes; and➢ increased water temperature.

o increased sediment suspension.• Impacts on wetland soils through:

o mechanical disturbance of soil which can lead to acid sulfate soils; ando disturbances and changes to soil structure and nutrients caused by:➢ grazing; and➢ pest species, e.g. feral pigs, cane toads, carp, tilapia.

• Impacts on wetland biota through:o disturbance or removal of wetland flora and/or fauna; ando influence of pest flora or fauna (e.g. water hyacinth, pigs, carp).

• Impacts on physical form of the wetland from mechanical changes including changes tohydrology.

• Miscellaneous impacts including inappropriate fire regimes and litter.

5.1.2 Indirect Pressures

Indirect pressures on wetlands have been identified by the Department of Environment and Science (2018) as:

• Catchment disturbance from:o land use changes;o wetland draining or filling;o vegetation clearing;o the introduction of sediments and pollutants to the wetland; ando increases in weed and pest animal species.

• Impacts on the fringing zone of the wetland.• Loss of connectivity of the wetland to the overall landscape.• Hydrological disturbances including:

o the diversion of water from wetlands;o increased flows of water to wetlands through altered stormwater flows;o changes to the hydrological water regime of the wetland through water extraction

(both surface and groundwater); ando impoundments.

5.2 Impacts to Waterways

Urban land development can drastically alter waterways. Increased stormwater runoff associated with development often begins a chain of events that includes flooding, erosion, stream channel alteration and ecological damage. Combined with an increase in man-made pollutants, these changes in waterway form and function can result in degraded systems no longer capable of providing good drainage, healthy habitat or natural pollutant processing (Dorworth & McCormick, 2017).

The effects of urbanisation on water resources can be categorised into four categories:


814 ADOPTED REPORT

1. Hydrology;2. Fluvial geomorphology (stream channel shape and function);3. Water quality; and4. Habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species (Donaldson & Hefner, 1999).

The disruption of hydrology can lead to:

• Increased volume and velocity of runoff, resulting in erosion and stream channelalteration (Dorworth & McCormick, 2017; Donaldson & Hefner, 1999);

• Loss of natural runoff storage capability in riparian vegetation, resulting in temperaturefluctuations and loss of both terrestrial and aquatic habitat (Dorworth & McCormick,2017)

• Loss of natural storage capability in soil (Dorworth & McCormick, 2017; Donaldson &Hefner, 1999); and

• Disruption of natural water balance and groundwater recharge (Dorworth & McCormick,2017; Donaldson & Hefner, 1999).

Urbanisation impacts fluvial geomorphology by widening the stream, decreasing channel stability and degrading in-stream habitat (Donaldson & Hefner, 1999).

More intensive land use results in a corresponding increase in pollutants and sediments entering waterways, decreasing water quality (Dorworth & McCormick, 2017; Donaldson & Hefner, 1999).

As with wetlands, the provision of an adequate buffer can mitigate the impacts to waterways.


815 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 5.1 Wetland Pressures (Department of Environment and Science, 2018)

Pressure Source Management Responses Impact Vulnerability dependent on

Sediments • Sediments enter wetlands viaoverland surface flow, flood watersor directly from urban andagricultural land use or pointsources.

• Land use activities, such asagriculture, urban development,mining and forestry, disturbsoil/vegetation and can result inincreased erosion and thussediment loads.

• Clearing of wetland and fringingzone vegetation can result inincreased wind driven resuspensionof bottom sediments in shallowwaters.

• Hydrological modifications canchange water velocities and resuspension rates

• Livestock and feral pig trampling/digging within a wetland can resuspend sediments.

• Clearing of wetland, fringing zone orcatchment vegetation, or vegetationloss through poor fire management,can result in increased sedimentrunoff

• Adequate buffer zones

• Application of artificial and naturalmeans for preventing erosion

• Appropriate cropping practices• Appropriate environmental flow

releases• Appropriate stock grazing regimes

for land type• Avoidance of structural

disturbance of the wetland• Boat speed limits• Conservation tillage methods• Construction (to best practice

standard) of contours, detentionreservoirs, sedimentation ponds orsettling basins

• Farm management systems (soils)• Fire management plans• Minimal disturbance of the

foreshore/bank • Point source licensing and

enforcement• Presence of conservation buffers• Proper repair and maintenance of

drainage ditches and levees• Reduction of sediment excesses

arising from construction activities• Revegetation (wetland/fringing

zone/catchment, reduce bareground)

• Sealing roads/curbing• Use of land and water

management best (or

• Water clarity• Light penetration• Thermal absorption

• Vegetation to slow water flowand allows suspendedsediments to settle out

• Vegetation to stabilisesediments and preventerosion and resuspension

• Vegetation to bind very fineparticles to stems and leaves

• Water salinity—increased salinity results in sediment flocculation and settlement

• Water velocity—faster flowingwater results in increasedresuspension of sediments

• Benthos type—smallerparticles (e.g. muds)resuspend more readily andstay suspended for longerthan larger ones (e.g. sand)

• Water residence—wetlandswith shorter water residencetimes are less vulnerable thanthose with long periods ofinundation (e.g. permanentlakes)

• Water depth—shallow waterwetlands have more winddriven resuspension thandeeper water wetlands


816 ADOPTED REPORT


recommended) practices on the watershed

• Wind breaks

Nutrients • Nutrients enter wetlands fromdiffuse catchment via overland localsurface flow, in floodwaters(overbank flow) or groundwater ordirectly from urban and agriculturalland use or point sources.

• Nutrients can be dissolved in thewater or bound to sediments

• Plants and algae can act as nutrientsinks as they remove nutrients fromthe water column/groundwater

• Nitrogen from Sewage TreatmentPlants

• Clearing of wetland, fringing zone orcatchment vegetation, or vegetationloss through poor fire management,can result in increased runoff ordecreased nutrient removal from theincoming waters

• Agricultural activities can increasenutrient loads through fertiliserrunoff or erosion (nutrients bound tosediments).

• Dense fauna populations (e.g. birdcolonies, feral pigs) and livestockcan increase nutrient loads directlyto wetlands through faeces andurine

• Land-use activities, such asfeedlots, N-fixing crops, golfcourses, aquaculture, mining,forestry, housing (septic tank


• Alternative uses of manure/manure transport

• Farm management practices• Fire management plans• Nutrient application methods (e.g.

subsurface application), rates (e.g.appropriate for plant growth stageand current soil levels) and timing(e.g. Not during heavy rain/rainyseason)

• Point source licensing andenforcement

• Revegetation (wetland/fringingzone/catchment)

• Septic denitrification to reduce theamount of nitrogen that leaves theseptic system

• Stock management (e.g. controlled grazing regimes, fencing out of wetlands)

• Stormwater and drainage management (e.g. tail-water detention, sediment traps, grassed swales)

• Management practices thatreduce erosion/soil loss

• Altered primary production

• Altered food webs• A loss of sensitive

species• Altered community

structure• Eutrophication

• Light availability—in clear,unshaded shallow watersnutrients generally limitprimary production

• Longer water residencetimes, poor flushing and lowdilution result in higher levelsof vulnerability as nutrientsare in the system for a longerperiod and therefore more ofit can be taken up by plantsand algae which may result inblooms

• Nutrient bioavailability andspeciation—some nutrients,such as dissolvedphosphorus, are more readilyavailable for plant uptake thanothers


817 ADOPTED REPORT


leakage), can be sources of nutrients to wetland.

Water Quality -Bacteria/pathogens

• Mammal derived bacteria/pathogens are sourced from urban areas, septic tanks/on-site sewerage treatment plants (STPs), stormwater runoff, STP pump station overflows or from the watershed catchment.

• Native and livestock/domesticated/pest animals (dogs are known to be a major source in urban areas).

• Intensive animal production, such asdairies, feed lots, abattoirs andaquaculture facilities.


• Appropriate location of intensiveanimal production operations

• Appropriate grazing regimes• Appropriate maintenance of

sewerage and septic systems • Aquaculture best management

practices • Bunding and appropriate storage

of soil amelioration/additiveproducts

• Fencing of wetland area• Government regulation• Intensive animal production best

management practices• Retrieval of dog droppings by

owners• Sewage treatment plant

wastewater licensing and enforcement, and plant upgrades

• Stormwater and drainage management

• Use of composted waste animalproducts

• Lesions/disease• A loss of sensitive

species• Mass mortality events

• Water salinity: mammalianderived bacteria generally dieoff more quickly in salinewater

• Water temperature: mammalian derived bacteria generally survive longer in warmer water

• Water clarity: bacteria/pathogens generally die off more quickly in clearer water due to UV sterilisation processes

• Longer water residencetimes, poor flushing rates andlow dilution result in higherlevels of vulnerability

Biodiversity Protection -

Biota removal/disturbance

• Plant removal• Recreational activities (e.g. Boating,

fishing, vehicle access, camping)

• Conservation areas• Government regulation (e.g.

fisheries—catch and size limits,equipment regulations, licenses,fauna and flora protectionlegislation and policy)

• Impacts on target species• Altered community

structure and functioning

• Presence of species refugia• Remoteness of/access to

wetland• Size and population structure

of affected species

Biodiversity Protection -

• Habitat removal increases habitatfragmentation and thus reduceshabitat connectivity

• Conservation/protection areas • Direct habitat removalfrom a wetland can affectwetland habitat extent

• Presence of habitat refugia• Size of similar habitat

remaining


818 ADOPTED REPORT


Habitat removal • Extractive operations, reclamationand modification of natural drainagepathways

• Uncontrolled vehicle access andrecreational activities

• Government regulation (e.g.licenses, fauna and floraprotection legislation and policy)

• Changes to wetlandhabitat extent can resultin a loss of sensitivespecies

Biodiversity - Connectivity

• Habitat removal increases habitatfragmentation and thus reduceshabitat connectivity.

• Drainage modification• Stream barriers such as dams,

weirs, flood gates and culvertsphysically prevent movement ofbiota

• Larger impoundments affectconnectivity by reducing thefrequency and extent of bankovertopping which under naturalconditions recharges off-streamwetlands and allows biota to move inand out of the wetlands, e.g. a lossof lateral connectivity between riversand billabongs

• A loss of connectivity can also resultin a change in the natural movementof materials such as ions, nutrients,organic matter and sediments

• Poor water quality can stop animalsfrom accessing areas of habitat


• Appropriate environmental flowreleases

• Appropriate transport corridordevelopment (i.e. allowingadequate animal and watermovement)

• Fish friendly crossings andfloodgates (e.g. functional fishways)

• Re-establishment of naturaldrainage/connectivity networks(e.g. wildlife corridors)

• Removal of barriers to connectivity(e.g. bunds)

• Revegetation/rehabilitation ofhabitat

• Lateral connectivity (connection to other wetland systems)

• Longitudinal connectivity(connection within the wetland)

• Timing of connections

• Location within landscape(e.g. distance to next wetland,stream channel or patch ofthe same habitat)

• Size of the wetland

Salinity • Ions enter wetlands from diffusecatchment (via local overlandsurface flow, in overbank flow orgroundwater) or directly from pointsources.

• Mining activities• Dryland salinity


• Appropriate drainage that does notaffect water table levels


• Appropriate management ofdryland salinity

• Soil salinity• Water conductivity• Changes to the soil

salinity and/or waterconductivity of a wetlandcan result in a loss ofsensitive species, mass

• Evaporation rates• Natural conductivity range• Residence times, flushing

rates, dilution• Salinity tolerance of native

species of plants and animals


819 ADOPTED REPORT


• Sea level rise • Establishment of maximumirrigation drawdown limits

• Government regulation (e.g. waterextraction licenses)

• Installation of appropriate floodgates (tide activated, etc.)

mortality events and altered community structure

Groundwater - Hydrological changes or disruptions

• Water extraction and impoundmentreduce the amount of water enteringa wetland

• Point sources can increase waterflows to wetlands

• Livestock and feral animals canreduce the amount of water presentin a wetland through drinking anddisturbance (resulting in increasedevaporation)

• Activities that change the wetlandform, such as excavation, drainage,infrastructure and landforming/reclamation, result inaltered hydrology of the wetland

• Clearing of vegetation and soilcompaction/impervious surfacesresult in increased surface waterflow and decreased groundwaterrecharge


• Government regulation (e.g. waterextraction licenses, legislation andpolicy regarding reclamation anddrainage activities)

• Seasonality of flow• No inflow spells• Low/base or flood flow• Rate of rise and fall of

water levels• Changes to the

seasonality, no flows,low/base flows, floodflows or the rate ofrise/fall of water levels ofa wetland can result in aloss of sensitive species.

• Climate (rainfall) patterns• Groundwater recharge• Interactions between natural

and managed flows (additiveor subtractive)

Pollutants - Litter • Rubbish enters wetlands throughinappropriate disposal from land orboat sources.

• Clean-up activities• Education programs• Government regulation (e.g. fines

for littering)• Presence and maintenance of

rubbish bins• Use of gross-pollutant traps• Waste (specifically rubbish)

management plans

• Changes to the rubbishload entering a wetlandcan result in changes tonutrients, direct impactson wildlife and increasedorganic material.

• Rubbish in wetlandsdetracts from aestheticvalues

• Strength and direction of windand/or currents

• Stream flow


820 ADOPTED REPORT


• Changes to rubbish loadwithin wetlands can resultin a loss of individualplants or animals

Pollution – heavy metals and pesticides

• Pesticide and heavy metal toxicantsenter wetlands from diffusecatchment via local overland surfaceflow, in floodwaters or directly fromurban, mining and agricultural landuse or point sources.

• Oil toxicants generally enterwetlands from cars, roads, parkinglots, washdown facilities, otherurban sources or boat engines

• Toxicant spills• Direct application of insecticides

(e.g. mosquito control) or herbicides(e.g. aquatic weed control)


• Chemical application method,rates and timing

• Farm management systems(chemicals)

• Government regulation• Organic (non-chemical) farming• Point source licensing and

enforcement• Spill prevention and

control/response plans • Various management practices

that reduce erosion/soil loss assome chemicals bind to sediments

• Changes to the toxicantload entering a wetlandcan affect toxicantconcentrations in thewater/soil/biota.

• Residence times, flushingrates, dilution

• Resuspension rates

Ecological Processes and Nutrient Inputs

• Organic matter enters wetlands fromdiffuse catchment via local overlandsurface flow, in floodwaters(overbank flow) or directly fromurban and agricultural land use orpoint sources.

• Internal production of organic matterfrom plants and phytoplanktonoccurs within the system.

• The clearing of wetland, fringingzone or catchment vegetation, orvegetation loss through poor firemanagement, can result inincreased runoff or decreasedorganic matter filtering from theincoming waters

• Appropriate maintenance ofsewerage and septic systems

• Appropriate management of boatsewage and its safe removal

• Aquaculture best managementpractices

• Farm management systems(organic matter)

• Fencing of wetland area• Fire management plans• Government regulation• Gross pollutant traps• Intensive animal production best

management practices• Point source licensing and

enforcement• Adequate buffers

• Eutrophication• A loss of sensitive

species

• Low flushing rates or smalldilution are more vulnerableas organic matter (and itsassociated impacts) isconcentrated in a small areafor longer periods

• Shorter residence time areless vulnerable than thosewith long periods ofinundation, e.g. permanentlakes

• Wetlands with naturallyhigher amounts of organicmatter will be less vulnerableto increased organic matterloads

• Water depth and verticalmixing—shallow and well


821 ADOPTED REPORT


• Dense fauna populations (e.g. birdcolonies, feral pigs, intensive animalproduction) can increase organicmatter loads directly to wetlandsthrough faeces.

• Land-use activities, such asfeedlots, aquaculture, forestry,residential housing (e.g. Lawnclipping), can be sources of organicmatter

• Agricultural activities can increaseorganic matter loads throughorganic matter runoff or livestockfaeces

• Prevention of sewage overflowevents

• Sewage treatment plant wastewater licensing and enforcement, and plant upgrades

• Stock management (e.g. controlled grazing regimes, fencing out of waterways)

mixed system are less vulnerable as re-oxygenation from the surface more rapidly penetrates the whole water column

Pest species • Aquarium release• Garden/agriculture and domestic

pet escapees• Plant dumping• Aquaculture escapees• Vehicle/equipment movement• Other recreational activities (e.g.

bait for fishing, attached toshoes/camping gear)

• Deliberate release (e.g. fishstocking, deer, rabbits) or naturallyover time through pestmigration/dispersal via wind (e.g.seeds), water (e.g. aquatic weeds)or over land (e.g. pigs, cane toads).

• Aquaculture best managementpractices

• Farm management systems(pests)

• Pest management plans

• Out-compete or prey onnative species

• Introduction of diseaseand the loss of sensitivespecies

• Altered food webs,community structure,habitat, biodiversity orspecies richness

• Connectivity• Habitat availability• Health/naturalness of wetland

pH changes • Disturbance of acid sulphate soils,resulting in acid water runoff

• Acid rain

• Acid Sulphate Soil ManagementPlan

• ASS mapping• Adequate buffer zones

• Appropriate liming rates• Best practice ASS management

• Changes to the acidicload entering a wetlandcan affect pH ofwater/soil.

• Natural buffering ability of thewetland

• Natural pH• Flushing rates, dilution


822 ADOPTED REPORT


• Drain shallowing• Government regulation• In-drain structures to prevent low

lying areas from overtopping withtidal water

• Re-establishment of nativewetland species

• Rehabilitation of ASS scalds andthe reintroduction of naturalwetting and drying cycles, utilisingseasonally ponded freshwater

• Stock management, e.g. off-stream watering, fencing out ofwaterways

• Tidal flood gate management tobuffer low pH water

Temperature • Release from point sources, urbanareas via stormwater outflows orfrom upstream impoundments


• Government regulation (e.g. pointsource licensing and enforcement)

• Stormwater management plans

• Water temperature notonly has a direct physiological effect on biota but also influences several key processes/pressures such as oxygen solubility (i.e. dissolved oxygen levels), toxicant absorption or the toxicity of some chemical, bacteria/pathogen persistence, conductivity, pH and nutrient cycling (e.g. denitrification and nitrogen fixation rates).

• Hot or cold water in-flowsmay result in stratification(thermoclines) and

• Flushing rates and dilution• Level of shading of wetland

from surrounding vegetation


823 ADOPTED REPORT


associated declines in water quality

• Loss of sensitive species.


824 ADOPTED REPORT

6 Buffers

Wetlands and waterways are subject to multiple stressors that originate in adjacent upland areas. These disturbances can result in changes in the biological, chemical and physical properties of wetlands and waterways. Due to external influences, aquatic areas may be exposed to higher levels of noise, light, temperature, pollutant loading, stormwater runoff, invasive species establishment and human activity. These disruptions often lead to a reduction in wetland and waterway functional value (Castelle et al., 1994).

Ecological buffers can insulate a wetland or waterway from the impacts of adjacent land uses without compromising the ecological functions of the wetland or waterway. The importance of a buffer is universally acknowledged as critical to aquatic-terrestrial ecosystem function and ultimately, to waterway and wetland health (Hansen et al., 2010). This is illustrated by the substantial body of evidence that concludes that the provision of ecological buffers of sufficient width protects and improves water quality by intercepting and trapping non-point source pollutants and sediments in surface and shallow subsurface water flows (Fischer et al., 2000a; Wenger, 1999).

Additionally, buffers are known to protect a wetland or waterway by reducing flow velocities. This reduction in flow velocity causes deposition of some of the suspended particulates, offering water quality benefits (Helmers et al., 2005). Buffers can also promote the uptake of nutrients and denitrification by trapping and removing non-point source pollutants as well as providing water quality improvement through reduced erosion (Fischer et al., 2000; Helmers et al., 2005).

Vegetated buffers also improve habitat within waterways, by providing shade and contributing the woody debris that is critical for aquatic organisms (Castelle et al., 1994). They may also function as a movement corridor for terrestrial species (Fischer et al., 2000), and provide enhancement or restoration opportunities.

6.1 Buffer Terminology Overview

Understanding of the term “buffer” is often informed by background or experience. A planner or developer may consider buffers to be defined as regulatory areas in which development may be constrained. A scientist or ecologist may apply a definition characterised by the ecological setting, form and function (Environmental Law Institute 2008).

The term “buffer” is generally used to denote an area of land between two or more others that is typically associated with maintaining or promoting ecological functions. It generally refers to the area of land adjacent to a sensitive or protected core area of natural habitat of either terrestrial vegetation or a water body, or both (Newtown 2012).

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines “buffer” as: something or someone that helps protect from harm.

The Marriam-Webster Legal Dictionary defines the “buffer zone” as: an area designed to separate land used for different purposes.

There are several terms that are often used interchangeably when referring to buffers. These include:

• Vegetated filter strip;


825 ADOPTED REPORT

• Buffer strip;• Riparian area;• Riparian zone;• Riparian corridor;• Waterway corridor; and• Setback.

The term buffer is defined inconsistently within the scientific literature. For example:

• Hickey and Doran (2004) define a ‘buffer strip’ as any strip of vegetation between a

river, stream or creek and an adjacent upland land use activity, that is maintained forthe purposes of protecting or improving water quality or enhancing the movement ofwildlife among habitat patches.

• Fischer et al. (2000) defined ‘riparian buffer strips’ as a linear band of permanent

vegetation adjacent to an aquatic ecosystem intended to maintain or improve waterquality by trapping and removing various nonpoint source pollutants from both overlandand shallow subsurface flow.

• Naiman and Décamps (1997) defined ‘riparian zone’ as the interface between

terrestrial and aquatic systems.• Castelle et al. (1994) define ‘buffers’ as vegetated zones between natural resources

and adjacent areas subject to human alteration.

What is generally consistent within the scientific literature is that buffers (or their alternative terms) are referred to as the interface between aquatic and terrestrial environments, with the primary function of protecting aquatic environments from negative impacts.

The inconsistencies in the scientific literature are reflected in the grey literature produced by government authorities. The inconsistency of the use of the term may be attributable to the functions a buffer is to perform (discussed in detail in Section 7).

To standardise some of the semantic problems and to frame the scope of work undertaken in this review, buffers have been defined as:

The area of land adjacent to wetlands and waterways that protect

these areas from the impacts of adjacent land uses.

6.2 Definitions and Terminology Used by Local Government Authorities

Other local government authorities in south-east Queensland use a variety of terms within overlay codes to refer to the area of land between aquatic and terrestrial environments and proposed development. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the terms.


826 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 6.1 Buffer Terminology Used by Local Government Authorities

Local Government or Planning Scheme Term

Logan City Council Buffers

Brisbane City Council Setbacks

Buffers

Moreton Bay Regional Council Waterways Buffers

Wetland Buffers

Redland City Council Setbacks

Sunshine Coast Council Buffers

Scenic Rim Regional Council Buffers

Boonah Planning Scheme Buffers

Beaudesert Planning Scheme Buffers

City of Ipswich Riparian Corridor

A review of the Administrative Definitions of the planning schemes of local governments within south-east Queensland highlighted that few include a specific definition of the term for buffer (or equivalent). The following sections present the descriptions in the planning scheme.

6.2.1 Sunshine Coast Council

Buffer (or landscape buffer) - An area required for ecological, acoustic or scenic amenity protection purposes that incorporates a separation distance and associated landscape, structures and works:

a) between different land uses;b) from a major noise source;c) from a conservation area or a public recreation area; ord) from a wetland, waterway or waterbody

6.2.2 Scenic Rim Regional Council

Scenic Rim Regional Council includes the term Buffer Landscaping (or buffer landscape) within their new planning scheme and defines it as:

Buffer landscaping (or buffer landscape) - Means a vegetative barrier or landscaping principally designed to physically or visually separate one use from another for the purpose of preventing adverse impacts and conforms with relevant design and standard of landscaping.

6.2.3 Brisbane City Council

Setback - Regulated distances that separate activities such as human and animal inhabited spaces – including residences, urban areas, schools, hospitals – and surface and subsurface water resources (New South Wales Government Chief Scientist and Engineer 2014).

6.2.4 Beaudesert Planning Scheme

Buffer - means an area of the land required for protective purposes through the maintenance of separation distances—


827 ADOPTED REPORT

a) between different land uses; orb) from major roads, gas pipelines, electricity transmission lines and railways; orc) from a public recreation area; ord) from an Ecologically Significant Area; ore) identified in the development constraints Overlay

6.3 City Plan Buffer Definition

The current definition of a buffer within the City Plan is:

An area of land, or waterway, required for maintaining separation, for example:

• between different land uses;

• from a major noise source;

• from a conservation estate or a public recreation area;

• from a wetland, waterway or ecologically significant feature as described in SC6.7 City

Plan policy: Ecological site assessments.

The major difference between the buffer definition within the City Plan and those used in scientific literature when referencing riparian buffer areas, is that the City Plan definition limits the functional requirements of a buffer to “maintaining separation”. This is similar to the

approach of other local Councils.

With reference the City Plan, restricting the definition of a buffer to a separation distance is most likely a result of the term “buffer” being relied upon more widely throughout the City Plan in a general planning context, rather than as a specific term relating to environmental and ecological issues.

Examples where the same “buffer” term and definition are relied upon include:

• the Airport Environs Overlay Code to refer to a VHF 500 m buffer;• the Extractive Industry Code in the context of protection of visual character and

amenity; and• the Industrial Design Code to refer to a 10 m wide landscape buffer.

REDACTED


828 ADOPTED REPORT

6.4 Mapping of Buffers by Other Local Government Authorities

Most of the planning schemes used by local governments within south-east Queenslandinclude overlay mapping of buffers areas to wetlands and waterways (Table 6.2). Theterminology used across the councils varies from buffer to corridor however it is clear acrossall the planning schemes examined, that the area immediately adjacent to both wetlands andwaterways has been specifically identified on overlay maps.

Brisbane City Council spatially represents the waterway corridors as incorporating the mappedextent of the waterway plus a setback either side of the waterway.

Sunshine Coast Council map buffer areas, which again encompass the mapped extent of thewaterway and buffers from both banks. Similarly, Moreton Bay Regional Council and ScenicRim Regional Council include waterway and wetland buffers in their overlay mapping.

It is unclear if the distance of the mapped areas equates specifically to the buffer/setbackprovisions (widths) specified within each code. However, it appears likely that this is the case.

Table 6.2 Buffer Mapping

Local Government or Planning

Scheme Buffer Mapping

Logan City Council• Wetland Buffer• Waterway Corridors

Brisbane City Council• Brisbane River corridor sub-category• Citywide waterway corridor sub-category• Local waterway corridor sub-category

Moreton Bay Regional Council• MLES Waterways Buffer• MLES Wetland Buffer

Redland City Council • Waterway Corridors

Sunshine Coast Council • Waterway Corridors

Scenic Rim Regional Council

• Waterways and Wetlands Buffer Area• Watercourse Buffer Area A• Watercourse Buffer Area B• Watercourse Buffer Area C

Boonah Planning Scheme• Do not show extent of buffers around wetlands or

waterways

Beaudesert Planning Scheme• Do not show extent of buffers around wetlands or

waterways

City of Ipswich • Do not show extent of riparian corridor around waterways

REDACTED


829 ADOPTED REPORT

6.5 City Plan Buffer Mapping

The City Plan does not contain any mapping of buffer areas to wetlands or waterways. Instead, the mapping is limited to extent of each feature i.e. waterway or wetland.

REDACTED


830 ADOPTED REPORT

7 Buffer Function

The primary function of buffers to wetlands and waterways is to protect them from the impacts of adjacent land use. They may also function as a movement corridor for terrestrial species (Fischer et al., 2000), and provide enhancement or restoration opportunities.

Table 7.1 provides a summary of the functions of a wetland or waterway buffer (as presented in Newtown, 2012).

Table 7.1 Wetland and Waterway Buffer Functions

Function Benefit

Water Quality Protection of surface water runoff from surrounding land into the wetland (i.e. filtering/trapping of toxins)

Reducing sedimentation (soil erosion, trapping sediment)

Reducing eutrophication (excess nutrients, e.g. from fertilizers) – serving as nutrient sinks for surrounding watershed

Reducing pollution and spray drift (e.g. pesticides/herbicides, heavy metals)

Protection from rising salinity

Protection of inflowing groundwater quality

Microclimate Maintain microclimatic gradient

Provide shading and moderate water temperature

Provide wind break

Hydrology Reducing peak floods – water fluctuations

Moderate the impacts of altered hydrologic regimes and flooding

Stabilising stream channels and banks (e.g. enabling roots to hold soils)

Increase flood storage capacity of wetlands

Serving as key recharge points for renewing groundwater supplies

Protecting hydroperiod (which can influence ecology)

Reducing rate of infilling from sedimentation

Influences depth of water table

Enhances stream ‘roughness’ which affects flow regime

Groundwater interaction – prevention of groundwater drawdown

Wetland Fauna Habitat Maintenance of ecological processes

Providing feeding habitat - maintain productive food webs in-stream

Provision of a source of carbon to the wetland

Providing leaves and woody debris critical for aquatic organisms

Providing breeding/nesting habitat

Providing shelter/cover/overwintering sites

Protection of biodiversity

Minimisation of invasion by exotic species/weeds

Absorbing ‘edge effects’ on ecology


831 ADOPTED REPORT

Function Benefit

Protection from rising salinity

Wildlife Corridor Contribute to wildlife corridors between wetland and adjacent wetlands or bushland or other habitat fragments (i.e. for dispersal, migration, foraging etc.)

Fauna Protection Reduce disturbance from surrounding development (e.g. noise, light, movement from residential development; human activities)

Absorbing ‘edge effects’ on ecology

Provide a transition zone between upland and lowland habitats

Promote gene flow

Aesthetics/Recreation Provide buffer between residential areas and nuisance insects e.g. midges, mosquitoes

Create a screen from incompatible scenery (e.g. industrial development)

Provide area for passive recreational activities (e.g. bird watching)

Management Tool Achieving desired values, processes, functions and other attributes/ ecosystem services of wetlands

Mitigate fragmentation and increase connectivity of isolated habitats

Protection against margin dieback

Biodiversity conservation and reserves of native species

Accommodate for ‘fuzziness’ of wetland boundaries (i.e. allow for expansion in times

of flood)

7.1 Hydrology

Hydrology is the most important factor in waterway or wetland functioning and processes (Department of Environment and Science, 2018). The hydrologic regime influences a buffer’s

effectiveness although is dependent upon the amount and frequency of overland flows, as well as the catchment area, local topography, soil type, and other factors such as impervious surfaces and land use in the given watershed (Beacon Environmental, 2012).

Alterations to the hydraulic regime impact on several other stressors, such as sediments, nutrients, organic matter, pH, conductivity and connectivity by altering inflows, dilution and outflows. In general, a change to the hydrological regime will result in a loss of sensitive species and change the waterway or wetland species composition and biodiversity. This can lead to changes in almost all aspects of aquatic ecology (Department of Environment and Science, 2018).

Ecological buffers promote floodplain storage and minimise downstream flooding impacts in a variety of ways. They intercept overland flow and increase water retention time, which results in reduced flood peaks (Fischer & Fischenich, 2000). They also regulate stream flow and facilitate infiltration of surface water, which leads to less severe water level fluctuations during storm events (Flanagan et al., 2017).

This regulation of water level fluctuation is important since sudden, high magnitude fluctuations often destroy riparian vegetation. This loss of native riparian vegetation can then


832 ADOPTED REPORT

lead to an increased abundance of invasive plant species and alteration of invertebrate communities (Castelle et al., 1994).

Buffers also impede the flow of runoff by allowing it to percolate into the ground, which preserves soil composition in periods of intense rainfall ( Castelle et al., 1994).

7.2 Water Quality Functions

Much of the research on ecological buffers to wetlands and waterways has focused on their ability to mitigate impacts to water quality. Vegetated buffers have been shown to be able to attenuate nutrients, sediment and contaminants.

The attenuation efficiency of vegetative buffers varies by pollutant (e.g., sediment, nitrate) and depends on site specific factors such as runoff volume, soil properties, buffer management (Castelle et al., 1994; Schmitt, et al., 1999; Tate et al., 2006) and vegetation type (e.g. Yamada et al., 2007). Given these variables cannot be controlled, the buffer widths proposed in the scientific literature varies accordingly. For example, Liu et al. (2008) stated that a 10 m buffer would be an appropriate width for sediment removal given efficacy did not increase much beyond this distance. While this data was upheld by Wenger (1999), effective water quality functions beyond sediment removal are best performed with buffers of at least 30 m (Environmental Law Institute, 2008; Wenger, 1999). In tropical areas, smaller vegetated systems were found to be effective only in the dry season or in low flow conditions (Debose et al., 2014).

Ecological buffers are also typically ascribed with the ability to moderate stream temperatures (e.g., Castelle et al., 1994; Davies and Lane, 1995). This capacity has been shown to vary with the stream width, height of buffer vegetation canopy and orientation of the waterway (Davies et al., 2007).

7.3 Erosion Control

Maintaining or re-establishing vegetation cover can help stabilise soils and prevent erosion. There is however, little empirical research on the ability of different widths and types of vegetated buffers to stabilise steep slopes and/or contribute to erosion control in flood prone lands. Where buffer widths have been prescribed in the literature (e.g. Fischer and Fischenich, 2000), they have not been based on data collection, rather professional opinion and judgement.

7.4 Habitat Creation

Buffers to wetlands and waterways create habitat for a range of terrestrial fauna. Vegetated buffers to watercourses, particularly buffers comprised of shrubs and trees, support aquatic habitat by providing large woody debris, which is known to be important for stream hydrologic dynamics and fish habitat. Vegetated buffers also contribute to organic matter to watercourses, which are a source of nutrients for aquatic organisms (Beacon Environmental, 2012).


833 ADOPTED REPORT

7.5 Buffer Functions Defined by Local Government Authorities

Based on the scientific literature and a review of other local Council planning schemes the commonly cited functions of a buffer to a wetland or waterway include:

• Ecologically important/significant areas, systems and processes;• Natural hydrological processes• Water quality and flow conditions;• Retention of riparian vegetation;• Protection of flora and fauna habitat;• Ecological connectivity (movement);• Bank stabilisation and erosion reduction;• Water quality;• Landscape amenity and value;• Flood storage and conveyance;• Hazard (primarily flood) mitigation/hazard reduction; and• Open space and recreation opportunities.

Table 7.2 specifies the buffer (or equivalent) functions for each of the local governments within south-east Queensland.

Table 7.2 Buffer Functions

Local Government or

Planning Scheme Identified buffer functions

Logan City Council To maintain:

• Ecosystem processes;

• Water quality;

• Function;

• Scenic amenity; and

• Landscape values

Brisbane City Council To minimise:

• Edge effects• Habitat fragmentation• Adverse impacts on water quality

Moreton Bay Regional Council

• Ensure natural filtration and reduced sediment loads

• Maintain hydrological flows

• Minimise adverse impacts of stormwater runoff

Redland City Council • Protect water quality;• Protect the stability of stream bank and bed;• Allow for natural hydrological and geomorphological processes;• Minimise erosion;• Maintain or achieve healthy water temperatures and in-stream

conditions; and• Support viable wildlife habitat and movement.

Sunshine Coast Council Protect and enhance the environmental values and integrity of natural waterways and wetlands, having particular regard to:

• Fauna habitats;

• Wildlife corridors and connectivity;


834 ADOPTED REPORT

Local Government or

Planning Scheme Identified buffer functions

• Adjacent land use impacts;

• Stream integrity;

• Water quality;

• Sediment trapping;

• Resilience to flood and storm tide inundation events and consequenterosion, including the safety of people and risk of damage to propertyon the site;

• Overland and groundwater flows; and

• Recreational amenity

Scenic Rim Regional Council • Protects or enhances habitat values (including maintenance of fishpassage), ecological connectivity and other ecological functions andvalues;

• Protects water quality and aquatic conditions;

• Maintains natural micro-climatic conditions;

• Maintains natural hydrological processes;

• Prevents mass soil movement, gully erosion, rill erosion, sheeterosion, tunnel erosion, stream bank erosion, wind erosion, orscalding; and

• Avoids loss or modification of chemical, physical or biologicalproperties or functions of soil.

Beaudesert Planning Scheme To maintain and enhance:

• Ecological functioning;• Water quality;• Habitat values; and

• Associated Nature Conservation Values

Boonah Planning Scheme To protect:

• Biodiversity;

• Habitat values; and

• Water quality

City of Ipswich To prevent land degradation

7.6 Defining Buffer Function under the City Plan

The Environmental Significance Overlay Code lists overall outcomes to be achieved through the development assessment process. In relation to buffers to waterways and wetlands the relevant outcome is stated as:

Buffers are provided between matters of environmental significance and any proposed

development, to manage impacts.

This outcome is reflected within Performance Outcome 5 (PO5):

Buffers are provided to wetlands and waterways identified on the Environmental significance

– wetlands and waterways overlay map to ensure the:

• protection of matters of environmental significance mapped onsite or identified through

an ecological site assessment;


835 ADOPTED REPORT

• unimpeded movement of fauna along the waterway;

• water quality is maintained;

• bank stability; and

• protection of property and infrastructure.

REDACTED


836 ADOPTED REPORT

8 Buffer Design Considerations

A great deal of professional judgement is still required to extrapolate current knowledge of buffer functions to abate impacts to aquatic systems. It is not possible to specify a buffer width that will protect the aquatic environment from every potential threat (Broadmeadow & Nisbet, 2004). Consequently, buffers should only be considered as a secondary conservation practice after controlling stressors (such as pollution) at their source (Barling & Moore, 1994).

Selecting an appropriate buffer width or design involves consideration of the desired functions, site conditions, and what is economically or practically feasible.

A buffer may incorporate a range of land management practices. These practices can range from restricting activities from within a specified distance from a water body, to complex recommendations for habitat management designed to protect specific groups of organisms or perform functional roles (Flanagan et al., 2017).

Specific land use practices are often implemented within the buffer to meet the ecological function objectives. These land use practices can either be activities that are prohibited, such as construction, or encouraged, such as maintenance or rehabilitation of natural vegetation (Flanagan et al., 2017).

8.1 Vegetation Structure

The composition of vegetation communities strongly influences the ability of a buffer to retain sediments. Woodland soils tend to be drier and absorb surface runoff. Woody debris and surface roots create a network of dams and pools that act as sediment traps (Broadmeadow and Nisbet, 2004). Ground layer vegetation is very effective at trapping sediments (Bavins et al., 2000).

Broadmeadow and Nisbet (2004) and the Department of Water (2006) recommended that buffer vegetation comprise of open tree cover that provides sufficient light to maintain a vigorous understorey and ground cover for retaining sediment and minimising bank erosion. The species composition should be reflective of the density and diversity of undisturbed local native vegetation (Department of Water, 2006). Re-establishment of a buffer to an aquatic system should be cognisant that some plant species can hold on in the highest energy areas (e.g. on the outside of a bend), while others can only grow where the energy level is low (upper banks and floodplains) (Natural Resource Management South, 2004). In addition, the Department of Water (2006) suggests that buffers with lower vegetation density should be wider than those of high density.

The establishment of local, native grass filter strips upstream of buffers can improve nutrient, pathogen and sediment attenuation from wastewater spills or polluted runoff (Department of Water, 2006). Debose et al. (2014) concluded that buffers should contain a grass buffer upslope to assist with trapping of nutrients and sediments.

In addition to assisting with the improvement of water quality, riparian vegetation can regulate light penetration and the thermal regime of a waterway. The capacity of vegetation to shade the stream is dictated by channel width and orientation, stream depth, canopy height and foliage density (Rutherford et al., 2004; DeWalle, 2010).


837 ADOPTED REPORT

In general, riparian vegetation provides the greatest shade when the canopy is high (e.g. trees) (Essential Environmental Services, 2005), when the stream channel is narrow (< 10 m) and when the channel has an east-west orientation (Davies et al., 2007). Conversely, riparian vegetation has a reduced capacity to control instream light and temperature when the canopy is low (e.g. grass or herb), when the channel is wide (> 30 m) and where the channel has a north-south orientation (Davies et al., 2007).

8.2 Slope

Land slope should influence the setting of buffers widths. The steeper the slope, the wider the buffer needs to be (Phillips, 1989; Wenger, 1999).

Broadmeadow and Nisbet (2004) recommended that for each 10% increase in slope, the buffer is increased by 6 m. Wenger (1999) suggested that 0.6 m be added for every 1% increase in slope to the “base” buffer width. Lee et al. (2004) identified that the average addition to the baseline buffer width was 0.79 m for each 1% increase in slope. Other studies in North America have suggested an increase of 3 m for every degree increase in slope (Beacon Environmental, 2012).

The Department of Water (2006) suggests that buffers should be widened by five metres for each stepped increase in slope above a gradient of one in ten, until the slope reaches a gradient of one in seven. Slopes exceeding one in seven are generally considered too steep for development unless effective engineered erosion control systems are in place.

Soil conservation officers in the state of Victoria, often use the following formula to determine the width of a buffer strip:

W=8+0.6S

Where W is the buffer strip width (m), and S is the slope (%) (Barling & Moore, 1994).

8.3 Zoned Buffers

Zoned buffers recognize that, depending on local planning policies and regulations, some types of activities or elements (e.g. detention basins, walking trails) are permitted within the buffer (refer to Section 10). Therefore, there needs to be a distinction between the areas of the buffer these activities are permitted and those where they are not. A discussion of the most commonly used buffer zone systems is presented in the following sections.

8.3.1 Three Zone Riparian Buffers

A three-zone riparian buffer was developed for protecting streams against timber harvest or agricultural use. It is characterised by a zone of grasses and forbs immediately next to the area of disturbance, a middle zone of shrubs, and a zone of trees nearest to the stream channel. In theory, sediments and nutrients in surface runoff from agricultural fields or timbered areas are intercepted first by the grass zone, while nutrients entering deeper subsurface pathways are taken up by shrub and tree roots (Mayer et al., 2005).

The width of the zone closest to the stream edge typically varies between 5 and 8 m. The width of middle zone is dependent on objectives, stream type, soil type, or topography. The outer most zone closest to the disturbance has a minimum recommended width of 4.5 m (Fischer & Fischenich, 2000).


838 ADOPTED REPORT

No buffer elements are recommended for the zone closest to the waterway (Fischer &Fischenich, 2000).

8.3.2 Two Zone Riparian Buffers

The Queensland Wetland Buffer Design Guideline (Department of Environment and ResourceManagement, 2011b) recognises two distinct buffer components: the Wetland Support Areaand the Separation Area. The fundamental principle is each performs a distinct role and thedistance to each is determined separately. These roles are to maintain and support wetlandenvironmental values and protect these values from external negative impacts. Wetlandenvironmental values are described as hydrological processes, food webs, physical habitat,nutrient cycling, sediment trapping and stabilisation, water supply, recreation and education.

The wetland support area is connected to the wetland. It does not protect the wetland fromexternal impacts, rather is part of the core area on which the wetland’s environmental values

depend. For example, it provides roosts for birds or shading of fish habitat. The separationarea is adjacent to the wetland support area and provides a barrier between the wetland andexternal pressures (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b). Theseparation area performs the buffer functions as described in this review.

The separation area may incorporate land uses such as recreation areas, detention basinsand open space (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b).

Melbourne Water (2013) also described two distinct riparian zones: a core riparian zone ofhigh-quality native vegetation immediately adjacent to the waterway to provide the greatestbiodiversity benefit; and a robust vegetated buffer between the core riparian zone and adjacentland uses to protect the high value vegetation in the core riparian zone from impactsassociated with edge effects. Each of these zones have defined buffer widths which also takeinto consideration the size of the stream. For example, smaller streams have smaller bufferwidths.

Melbourne Water’s buffer guidelines stipulate that underground services such as power, water

and sewerage, should be located outside the core riparian zone to maintain the integrity ofwaterway function. Similarly, sports ovals, playgrounds, and maintenance tracks should alsobe located outside the core riparian zone. Stormwater treatment systems such as constructedwetlands and bio-retention systems may be located within the core riparian zone but shouldform a relatively small proportion of the area of the core riparian zone so as not to degrade itsecological function or put the asset at undue risk from flooding and/or stream migration(Melbourne Water, 2013).

8.4 Land Use Intensity

Land use intensity is the extent to which land is used. More‐intensive uses of land (such asagriculture and urbanisation) is usually linked to changes in land cover (such as deforestation),which is defined as the physical coverage of the land, for example, by grass and built‐up areas(Pellissier et al., 2017).

Land use intensity has an influence on the required buffer width to protect the environmentalvalues of a waterway or wetland. Recommended buffer widths for low intensity land use aregenerally smaller than those for high intensity land uses (Hansen et al., 2015; Castelle et al.,1994; Mayer et al., 2007). The greater the land use intensity, the wider the riparian zonerequired to buffer against catchment modifications and disturbances (Hansen et al., 2015).


839 ADOPTED REPORT

Therefore, where land use changes are proposed, adjustments to the buffer width may need to be made to account for forecast increases in disturbance.

The Australian Land Use and Management Classification Version 8 (2016), classifies land use intensity on a sliding scale. Low intensity land use includes nature conservation, managed resource protection (e.g. traditional indigenous uses), stock routes and production native forests. Moderate intensity land uses are grazing modified pastures, cropping and plantation forests. High intensity land uses include intensive animal production, urban development, utilities, transport and mining (Australian Collaborative Land Use and Management Program Partners, 2016).

8.5 Buffer Management

Aquatic buffers are a “best management practice” that should be used in conjunction with a

comprehensive catchment management plan that includes control and reduction of point and non-point sources of nitrogen from atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic inputs (Mayer et al., 2005).

For maximum and long-term effectiveness, buffer integrity should be protected against:

• Soil compaction from vehicles, livestock, and impervious surfaces (e.g. pavement) thatmight inhibit infiltration or disrupt water flow patterns (Dillaha et al., 1989);

• Excessive leaf litter removal or alteration of the natural plant community;• Practices that might disconnect the stream channel from the flood plain (i.e.

channelization, bank erosion, stream incision) and thereby reduce the spatial andtemporal extent of soil saturation (Paul & Meyer, 2001); and

• Smothering of the buffer vegetation by stormwater eroded soils (Department of Water,2006).

Any bioretention basins or other stormwater quality improvement devices require regular maintenance to ensure they are functioning effectively.

Invasive species are widespread in riparian zones and control is usually required to reduce their impact on native vegetation survival and recruitment. Weed invasion into riparian zones may be pronounced when widths are small (Ferris et al., 2012). By outcompeting native plants, weeds can reduce native diversity and the suitability of the riparian vegetation for fauna. Exotic perennial grasses may can also choke the stream channel (Beesley et al., 2017).


840 ADOPTED REPORT

9 Buffer Widths

A high demand for land in urban areas can lead to encroachment of the built environment into the riparian zone and wetland edges. Reduced distances between adjacent land uses and aquatic habitats impacts numerous buffer functions. For example, buffers reduced to 5-10 m adjacent to small streams cannot be shaded and leaf litter subsidies into the waterway are limited (Beesley et al., 2017).

One of the common management options for the impacts to wetlands and waterways as identified in Table 5.1, is the provision of an adequate buffer.

9.1 Literature Review

The following section summarises the findings of the literature review on buffer widths to wetlands and waterways. This review discusses appropriate buffer widths based on scientific research and the factors that influence buffer effectiveness. The focus of the literature search was on relevant peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles, however technical articles were also included where deemed appropriate.

Most empirical evidence for defining buffer widths is skewed towards improving water quality and predominantly originates from North America and Europe. While the general physical processes are likely to be similar on most continents, biotic processes may not be comparable. For example, sediment transport, stream shading and inputs of riparian material to aquatic environments are consistent. However, information relating to terrestrial habitat buffer widths is likely to be species dependent (Hansen et al., 2015).

9.1.1 Factors Affecting Buffer Widths

The width of the buffer accounts for the maximum variation in effectiveness (Phillips, 1989). Hydrologic dynamics, topography and slope, soil type and conditions, and vegetative structure of the buffer are all recognized as factors influencing buffer efficacy (e.g. Ducros and Joyce, 2003; Polyakov et al., 2005).

The consideration of buffering an aquatic ecosystem from catchment disturbances needs to consider the landscape context and incorporate the acknowledged interdependencies between the two (Hansen et al., 2010).

The following sections detail the biophysical and structural factors of the environment that affect the effectiveness of buffer widths.

Table 9.1 provides a summary of the factors influencing the effectiveness of a waterway or wetland buffer.


841 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 9.1 Summary of Biophysical Factors Affecting Buffer Effectiveness

Factor References

Structure or species of vegetation Abu-Zreig et al., 2003; Debose et al., 2014; Greenway and Jenkins, 2004; Liu et al., 2008; Mayer et al., 2007; Polyakov et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 1999

Depth of surface water versus vegetation height and density

Borin et al., 2005; Debose et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2008; Wenger, 1999

Holding capacity of buffer zone soils Debose et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2007; Polyakov et al., 2005

Width and slope of catchment Barling and Moore, 1994; Broadmeadow and Nisbet, 2004; Department of Environment and Science, 2018; Liu et al., 2008; Phillips, 1989; Polyakov et al., 2005; Walsh et al., 2004; Wenger, 1999

Rate of surface water flow Debose et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2008; Phillips, 1989

Soil type Debose et al., 2014; Gharabaghi et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2008; Polyakov et al., 2005

Pollution concentration Polyakov et al., 2005

9.1.2 Abiotic Factors

The following sections discuss the abiotic factors that influence the effectiveness of a buffer.

9.1.2.1 Hydrologic dynamics

Hydrological modifications (including altered storm water runoff, drainage and filling characteristics) influence buffer effectiveness (Lee et al., 2006).

Buffers are most effective when uniform sheet flow through the buffer is maintained; they are less effective in stopping sediment transported by concentrated or channelized flow (Daniels & Gilliam, 1996; Debose et al., 2014). The efficacy of buffers is reduced dramatically by concentrated flow after intense rainfall because of increased velocity (Debose et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2004). When these conditions occur, riparian buffers cannot slow the flow sufficiently to allow infiltration of water into the soil, although some sediment may still be trapped by vegetation (Wegner, 1999). This can be a significant issue in urban settings where there is much more impervious surface, and surface water is often piped or directed to culverts.

Storm events that result in relatively sudden and intense overland flows do not provide much opportunity for buffers to wetlands or watercourses to attenuate nutrients, sediments or other substances (Beacon Environmental, 2012).

9.1.2.2 Water Residence Time

The residence time of water in trapping mediums is an important measure of sediment trapping effectiveness (Debose et al., 2014). Sediment trapping efficiency can be defined as the capacity of a buffer to retain a fraction of sediment from the incoming runoff (Phillips, 1989). In grassed buffers sedimentation of coarse particles (e.g. sand) in minutes, sedimentation of silt in hours, but sedimentation of fine sediment (e.g. clay) may require days. Chemical breakdown (i.e. by bacteria, light, etc.) of most pesticides will require weeks to years depending on the half-life of the particular chemical (Debose et al., 2014).

Residence times decrease with water volume and flow velocity. Prosser et al. (1999) suggested that buffer widths can be narrower where slope and soil promote infiltration and


842 ADOPTED REPORT

high residence time of water (i.e. permeable soils with gentle slope). In contrast buffers shouldbe wider where slope and soil promotes a low residence time of water (i.e. steeper slope, lowpermeability soils) (Prosser et al., 1999).

9.1.2.3 Soil type

The rainfall intensity, soil properties and antecedent moisture determine how much runoff abuffer can capture (Liu et al., 2008; Debose et al., 2014).

The effectiveness of a buffer is low when the soil is saturated before the runoff event. Duringfrequent rainfall events, soils in the buffers become saturated with water and infiltration rate isvery low (Liu et al., 2008). This impacts on the rate and magnitude of subsurface nutrientremoval (Debose et al., 2014).

Soils with limited organic matter have less capacity to remove nitrogen from sub-surface flows(Mayer et al., 2005; Gift et al., 2010). Moderately coarse soils with some organic content areexpected to be the best at supporting buffer effectiveness (Beacon Environmental, 2012).

9.1.3 Biotic Factors

The predominant biotic factors that affects buffer effectiveness is vegetation composition.

Riparian vegetation may be defined as that vegetation (whether herbaceous or woody)adjoining a waterway. Riparian vegetation has been widely recognised for its capacity toremove agricultural contaminants from groundwater and surface water and protect aquaticecosystems. While typically occupying only a small fraction of the landscape area, due to itsposition in the landscape between terrestrial and aquatic environments, riparian vegetationplays a disproportionately important role in controlling and processing contaminant flow toaquatic environments (Debose et al., 2014).

Buffer vegetation increases surface roughness, which augments infiltration by decreasing flowvolumes, turbulence and velocity (Abu-Zreig et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2008; Borin et al., 2005),thereby increasing sedimentation trapping. By slowing velocity, water has time to infiltrate,and then percolate into the soil profile. As a result, sediment and other suspended materialssettle out of the runoff (Liu et al., 2008).

Both grassed and forested buffers are considered effective at trapping sediment (Mayer et al.,2007). A brief discussion of the positive and negative attributes of both is included below.

9.1.3.1 Grass Buffers

Grass buffers are useful for maintaining sheet flow and preventing rill and gully erosion(Wenger, 1999). However, when the depth of runoff water moving through the filter is greaterthan the height of the vegetation in the filter, the rate of flow through the filter increases, whichdecreases the amount of sediment that settles from the water column (Liu et al., 2008). Grassbuffers are also more likely to be inundated by exceptionally high levels of sediment (Wenger,1999).

The efficiency of grassed vegetative systems varies depending on their species composition,width, slope and condition such as dried out, mowed versus not mown, weed dominance andwhether the buffer has high vehicle use. Increased effectiveness has been associated withhomogeneous, densely growing plants which prevents the formation of erosion rills andmedium height (native) grass species which are maintained at a height of at least 10-15 cm(Smith, 2008).


843 ADOPTED REPORT

Grass buffer strips used in temperate climates may be much more effective at trappingsediment and nutrients than in areas where rainfall intensities are much higher (such as, inthe tropics and sub-tropics). In high-intensity rainfall, significant surface flow can becomeconcentrated, and can overload simple grass buffer strips, as such forested buffers may bemore effective (Lovett & Price, 2001). Trapping in grass buffer systems is only effective in thedry season or in low flow conditions (Debose et al., 2014).

Bavins et al. (2000) summarised previous studies on the effectiveness of grass, shrubs andtrees in attenuating impacts to waterways. They concluded that shrubs and trees were moreeffective in stabilising bank erosion, filtering spray drift, flood protection, aesthetics and wildlifehabitat than grass. Grass was more effective than shrubs and trees as a sediment filter.

9.1.3.2 Forested Buffers

Forested buffers have been documented to be more efficient than grass buffers at removingnutrients present in fertilisers such as phosphorus, through sedimentation, infiltration and plantuptake. The efficiency of the buffer has been shown to increase with a corresponding increasein vegetation cover (Abu-Zreig et al., 2003). The presence of organic matter typicallyassociated with forested environments can improve the interception of contaminants and mayadsorb some pesticides. The presence of organic matter also drives many biogeochemicalprocesses in riparian forests and supports microbial communities that can further contributeto the processing and transformation of contaminants (Passeport et al., 2014).

It is expected that increasing maturity and complexity of riparian buffers would promote agreater diversity of microbial functional groups, and therefore increased biogeochemicalactivity for processing and transformation of different contaminants. In comparison, grassyareas accumulate less organic matter and generally have lower rates of biogeochemicalactivity (Debose et al., 2014).

While riparian vegetation is helpful to reduce erosion, physical factors such as size of the banksediment has a greater role (Bettess and White, 1987 as cited in McMahon et al. 2017). Ifisolated trees are located at the top of riverbanks vulnerable to erosion, the additional weightof the tree may contribute to erosion (Abernethy and Rutherfurd, 2000). Isolated stands oftrees may also deflect flow and lead to localised scour (Gurnell et al., 2012). However,McMahon et al. (2017) determined that a 12% increase in riparian vegetation can reduce astreambanks susceptibility to erosion.

Forested buffers provide other benefits as well, such as habitat for terrestrial fauna, shadingof aquatic environments, the provision of in-stream structures (e.g. fallen logs) and leaf litter(Barling & Moore, 1994), all of which improve habitat complexity. The deeper root system alsoprovides more bank stability (Department of Water, 2006).

In sum, forested buffers promote a more natural, stable, and effective stream ecosystem thando their grass counterparts (Sweeney & Blaine, 2007).

Highlighting the interdependencies of landscape characteristics, many factors influence theability of vegetated areas to remove sediments from land runoff, including the sediment sizeand loads, slope, type and density of riparian vegetation, presence or absence of a surfacelitter layer, soil structure, subsurface drainage patterns, and frequency and force of stormevents (Osborne & Kovacic, 1993).


844 ADOPTED REPORT

9.1.4 Environmental and Structural Factors

9.1.4.1 Slope

In steeper catchments, runoff is generally faster, producing more peaked discharges and greater erosive power (Department of Environment and Science, 2018). This reduces a buffer’s ability to trap pollutants (Barling & Moore, 1994). On slopes greater than 5%, sheet flow starts to become channelized (Phillips, 1989). Buffers are most effective in removing sediment or pollutants from sheet flow and have little benefit where water is channelized (Debose et al., 2014; Wenger, 1999). This loss in effectiveness may be compensated by increasing buffer width and introducing more vegetative structure (e.g. fallen logs) to slow the flow of water.

9.1.4.2 Stream Order

Stream order is most commonly determined through the Strahler System in Australia. Some government organisations have used stream order to apply a fixed buffer width (e.g. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Office of Water, Melbourne Water and Tasmania Forestry). However, it is worth noting that small streams and wetlands have smaller catchment areas than larger streams and wetlands. An area of altered land-use is therefore likely to have a greater impact on a small stream than it would have on a large river, because it will cover a larger proportion of the smaller stream’s catchment area (Walsh et al., 2004).

9.1.5 Stream Migration and Retreat Pathways

Retreat paths of wetlands have not been considered in any planning policy, despite increasing awareness of sea level rise and the effects, particularly on coastal wetlands (Prahalad et al., 2019). However, global climatic modelling has inherent uncertainty and are contingent on prevailing conditions and assumptions (Morgensen and Rogers, 2018). Prahalad et al. (2019) recommend using flood modelling as a proxy, as has been for overlay codes for planning policy in Tasmania.

Natural adjustment of waterways is also rarely considered and is not specifically identified in any planning scheme for Councils within south-east Queensland. This may be because stream migration is dependent upon several factors such as topography, soil type and water velocity. Water velocity has the most significant impact on waterway bank erosion (McMahon et al., 2017) and therefore stream migration.

One study has suggested that a buffer of three to 10 times the bank height will be sufficient to allow natural channel self-adjustment in a low-level urban setting (Ward et al., 2008 as cited in Beesley et al., 2017). For larger streams, the natural process of channel migration is usually around 1% of the channel width per year - so approximately half the channel’s width should

be established as a riparian buffer (Beesley et al., 2017).

9.1.6 Optimal Buffer Widths

Buffer dimension selection tends to be controversial and may require negotiation between competing interests. For instance, buffer re-establishment within freehold land could affect land values and productivity in both rural and urban settings (Department of Water, 2006).

Buffer form and dimensions may vary depending on local conditions and planning regimes. Optimal buffer widths depend on the conservation significance of the wetland or waterway and the purpose of the buffer (Water and Rivers Commission, 2000). In addition to the specific objectives ascribed to the buffer, the risk mitigation measures proposed, length of time that


845 ADOPTED REPORT

the buffer needs to be effective and availability of resources, will also influence design (Department of Water, 2006).

While wider buffers are more effective at protecting fauna (Fischer et al., 2000a), reducing heavy metal pollution and minimising groundwater drawdown (Davies & Lane, 1995), the cost of buffer establishment and maintenance increases with width. The costs of applying inappropriate design widths are not trivial. Under-sized buffers provide inadequate protection for water bodies. Oversized buffers remove land from production unnecessarily (Liu et al., 2008) and limit yield for developers.

Table 9.2 provides a summary of the recommended buffer widths for the identified impacts to waterways and wetlands.

The range of buffer widths as shown in Table 9.2 is influenced by factors such as soil type, topography and land use. In addition, the structural formation of the buffer (e.g. presence of grass swales, slope, forested areas or bare land), also influences the width of the buffer required to mitigate the identified impact. This shows the complexity and difficultly in ascribing buffer widths. Optimal buffer design should be based on site specific conditions and tailored to the impacts that are relevant to the development being considered on adjacent uplands.

Therefore, local governments attempt to provide fixed buffer in acceptable outcomes and allow the opportunity of variable buffer widths to be proposed within the performance outcomes.

Similarly, the Queensland government uses a standard or default wetland buffer width for non-HES wetlands, wetlands that do not have wetland environmental values, or where there is a statutory requirement and a default width is specified.

Table 9.2 Recommended buffer widths

Impact on: Function Recommended

buffer width

References

Temperature Water temperature moderation/ shade

12-30 m Castelle et al., 1994

20 m Davies and Lane, 1995

>30 m Sweeney and Newbold, 2014

45 m Fischer et al., 2000b

27.5 m Hansen et al., 2015

RANGE 12 - 45 m

Nutrients Reduce nutrient inputs (removal)


>1 m Tate et al., 2006

>100 m Davies and Lane, 1996

9 m Coyne et al., 1995

200 m (sandy soils) Water and Rivers Commission, 2000

(reducing nitrate) 30 m Wenger, 1999


30 – 48 m Castelle et al., 1994

(removal of phosphorus) 9 – 30 m McElfish et al., 2008

>15 m Abu-Zreig et al., 2003


846 ADOPTED REPORT


buffer width

References

(removal of nitrogen) 30 – 48 m McElfish et al., 2008

20 m Wenger, 1999

>50 m Mayer et al., 2007

RANGE 9 - 200 m

Pollution Reduce pollution (heavy metal) input


200 m (sandy soils) Water and Rivers Commission, 2000

Reduce pollution (pesticide removal)

>15 m Wenger, 1999

RANGE 15 - 200 m

Sediment Reduce sedimentation (removal)

9 – 30 m McElfish et al., 2008

30 m Wenger, 1999


15 m Abu-Zreig et al., 2003

20 m Gharabaghi et al., 2006

18 m Lim et al., 1998 cited in Polyakov et al., 2005

10 m Liu et al., 2008

100 m Davies and Lane, 1995; Water and Rivers Commission, 2000

RANGE 9 - 100 m

Water Quality 5 – 30 m Fischer et al., 2000b

≥6 m Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005

Protection from land use 30 - 60 m Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001

RANGE 5 - 60 m

Ecological Processes

Maintain ecological processes/major food webs

10 – 30 m Wenger, 1999


(carbon flow) 20 – 50 m Davies and Lane, 1995; Water and Rivers Commission, 2000

10 m Price and Lovett, 2004

(large woody debris and organic litter)

30 – 50 m Wegner, 1999

30 m Sweeney and Newbold, 2014

RANGE 10 - 50 m

Bank Stability Protect bank stability 20 – 30 m Department of Primary Industries, Parks and Water, 2003

RANGE 20 - 30 m

Biodiversity Protect species diversity, wildlife and fauna habitat

30 – 90 m McElfish et al., 2008



847 ADOPTED REPORT


buffer width

References

>100 m Wenger, 1999

100 – 170 m Keller et al., 1993

30 m Department of Conservation and Environment, 1990

78.5 m Hansen et al., 2015

Bird habitat 40 – 500 m Fischer et al., 2000

Reptile/amphibian habitat 30 – 1000 m Fischer et al., 2000; Semlitsch and Bodie, 2003

Mammal habitat >50 m Fischer et al., 2000

Maintain benthic invertebrates in streams adjacent to logging

32 m Erman et al., 1977 and Newbold 1980 cited in Castelle et al., 1994

RANGE 3 - 1000 m

Insects Nuisance insects 100-800 m Davies and Lane, 1995; Water and Rivers Commission, 2000

RANGE 100 - 800 m

Groundwater Protection of inflowing groundwater quality

2000 m Davies and Lane, 1995; Water and Rivers Commission, 2000; Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005

Minimise groundwater drawdown

35 – 170 m Brown et al., 1990 cited in Newtown, 2012

RANGE 35 - 2000 m

Salinity Protection from rising salinity

250 m Davies and Lane, 1995; Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005

9.2 Prescriptive vs Variable Based Buffer Width

The results of the scientific and grey literature review illustrate the complexity in the determination of appropriate buffer widths to wetland and waterways. Widths can be highly dependent on a range of environmental factors and the impacts relevant to the development that is being considered.

A buffer width suitable for the moderation of water temperature within a waterway or wetland may not be wide enough for to adequately support ecological processes.

In the context of a performance-based planning environment state and local authorities have respond to this complexity by implementing a two-pronged approach to the provision of wetland and waterway buffers.

Prescriptive or fixed buffer widths are generally specified within overlay code provision as required outcomes (RO) or acceptable outcomes (AO). Prescriptive width buffer zones, such as those currently employed by the City of Gold Coast, are administratively simple to apply and to enforce (Richardson et al., 2012; Bavins et al., 2000).


848 ADOPTED REPORT

Prescriptive buffer widths are generally based on conservative assumptions and provide a default position or preferred outcome to address development impacts. They have the additional benefit that their implementation does not require specialised ecological knowledge.

However, fixed-width buffer zones do not consider site specific requirements (e.g. adjacent development or land-use intensity), and site specific conditions (e.g. soil type, slope, vegetation type/density) (Bavins et al., 2000). As such, the use of variable-width methodology may be more appropriate for selecting an effective buffer zone width (Natural Resource Management South, 2004; Bavins et al., 2000) so that the position in the landscape (i.e. alluvial reaches or headwaters) and site-specific conditions can be considered.

Variable buffers are often considered within the performance outcomes of planning schemes. The buffer width ascribed may depend on the value of the waterway (e.g. Brisbane City Council and Moreton Bay Regional Council), existing site conditions (e.g. Scenic Rim Regional Council – Beaudesert Planning Scheme) or classification of the waterway (Logan City Council, Redland City Council and Sunshine Coast Council).

The performance outcome (buffer width) is generally demonstrated via an ecological assessment report prepared for the specific site and designed to assess the impacts associated with the proposed development.

Current Queensland state legislation or policies that specify a standard or default wetland/waterway buffer are summarised in Table 9.3.

Of note is that several polices give consideration of where a wetland or waterway is located within a planning context i.e. outside or within an urban area. The prescriptive buffer width decreases when a wetland or waterway is located within an urban area.

This reduction in width seems in conflict with the scientific literature, in that one would expect greater impacts to be evident within urban areas and therefore the requirement for a wider buffer would be necessary. Within some state policies, it appears an approach has been adopted whereby lessor value is placed on wetlands or waterways within an urban setting. Alternatively, this maybe reflective of the planning outcomes sought within urban areas with oversized buffers removing land from production (Liu et al., 2008) and reducing urban development outcomes.

Table 9.3 State Guidelines Relevant to Wetland and Waterway Buffer Planning


Fisheries Guidelines for Fish Habitat

Buffer Zones (2000)

For terrestrial habitats bordering fisheries a minimum buffer width of 100 m (incorporating natural vegetation and other buffer elements) set back from the level of Highest Astronomical Tide in tidal areas. In freshwater areas,

A minimum 50-metre setback (incorporating natural vegetation and other buffer elements) from freshwater habitats.

These generic buffer widths are considered a ‘starting point’ from

which site-specific requirements can be negotiated.

State Planning Policy – State interest

guideline Biodiversity (2016)

A buffer for an area of state environmental significance (wetland protection area) has a minimum width of:

c) 200 metres were the area is located outside an urban area;or

d) 50 metres where the area is located within an urban area.


849 ADOPTED REPORT


OR

A buffer for an area of state environmental significance is applied and maintained, the width of which is supported by an evaluation of the environmental values, including the function and threats to matters of environmental significance.

SDAP 9: Great Barrier Reef wetland protection areas

• 200 metres, where the wetland is located outside a prescribedurban area; or

• 50 metres, where the wetland is located within a prescribedurban area.

SDAP 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants

Aquaculture development Buffers:

Tidal habitats:

iii. 100 metres from highest astronomical tide outside anurban area; or

iv. 50 metres from highest astronomical tide within anurban area B.

Non-tidal habitats:

iii. 50 metres from bankfull width outside an urban area;and

iv. 25 metres from bankfull width within an urban area.

SDAP 16: Native vegetation clearing Stream order Distance from the defining bank of a watercourse

or drainage feature (m)

Coastal bioregions and subregions

1 or 2 10

3 or 4 25

5 or greater 50

Non-coastal bioregions and subregions

1 or 2 25

3 or 4 50

5 or greater 100

9.3 Buffer Widths Ascribed by Other Local Government Authorities

Local government authorities within south-east Queensland generally rely upon prescriptive buffers within the acceptable outcomes and variable performance-based provisions within performance outcomes. The prescriptive buffers used by each Council vary considerably in width and application however, a general trend can be seen – the higher the stream order, the greater the buffer.

Table 9.4 provides a summary of the minimum and maximum buffers applied across the local government planning schemes and includes the common distance relied upon for each wetland/waterway type. Table 9.5 provides a more detailed assessment.

Several local Council also give consideration to the location of a waterway or wetland within a planning context i.e. urban area.


850 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 9.4 SEQ Local Governments Wetland and Waterway Buffer Distance Summary

Wetland/Waterway Type Minimum

Buffer/Setback Distance

Maximum

Buffer/Setback Distance

Common Distance

used

Minor Waterways 10 m 20 m 10 m

Medium Waterway 15 m 30 m 25 m

Major Waterway 50 m 50 m 50 m

River Waterway 20 m* 100 m 100 m

Minor Wetland/Local Significant Wetland

10 m^ 100 m 50 m

Major Wetland/State Significant Wetland

100 m 100 m 100 m

*Urbanised sections of the Brisbane River^A buffer of 10 m is specified for a specific use in the rural zone (animal husbandry other than grazing of poultry)-elsewhere it is 25 m minimum.


851 ADOPTED REPORT

Table 9.5 Variable and Prescriptive Buffer Requirements to Waterways and Wetlands

Local Government Performance Outcome Acceptable Outcomes

Logan City Council Variable Performance Based Outcomes

Performance outcome is to be demonstrated by an ecological assessment report prepared in accordance with part 2 of planning scheme policy 3–Environmental management.

Prescriptive Buffers

• Minor waterway – 10 m from the high bank;

• Medium waterway – 30 m from the high bank;

• Major waterway – 50 m from the high bank;

• River waterway – 100 m from the high bank;

• Minor wetland – 50 m from the outer landward boundary of the mapped wetland;

• Major wetland – 100 m from the outer landward boundary of the mapped wetland.

Brisbane City Council

Biodiversity Overlay Code

Variable Performance Based Outcomes

Ecological assessment to inform location of the development to minimise edge effects is provided in the Biodiversity areas planning scheme policy.


Wetland overlay code

Variable Performance Based Outcomes

Ecological assessment to inform location of the development to minimise edge effects is provided in the Biodiversity areas planning scheme policy.


Waterway corridors overlay code

Prescriptive Setbacks

For new development:

• Brisbane River corridor sub-category sections:

o Section 1 – 30 m set back from the high-water mark.

o Sections 2-5 – 20 m set back from the high-water mark.

• Is not located within a citywide waterway corridor sub-category (no set back specified):

• Local waterbody – 15 m minimum setback from the waterway corridor sub-categorycentreline.

For extensions to existing building footprints:

• Is located within an approved development footprint plan or building envelope plan;

• The above setbacks apply, OR;


852 ADOPTED REPORT

http://eplan.brisbane.qld.gov.au/CP/BiodiversityPSP

http://eplan.brisbane.qld.gov.au/CP/BiodiversityPSP


• Does not extend closer to the Waterway corridor sub-category centreline than theexisting building footprint;

• Does not result in the removal of vegetation from the balance of the waterway corridor.

For ancillary works:

Development involving ancillary buildings or structures and hard-stand areas does not covermore than the following proportion of the corridor:

• 30% in the Brisbane River corridor sub-category – section 1;

• 50% in the Brisbane River corridor sub-category – section 2 or 4;

• 70% in the Brisbane River corridor sub-category – section 3 or 5.

Wetlands overlay code:

Setback distances are not specified

Moreton BayRegional Council

Within DevelopmentCodes

Variable Performance Based Outcomes Prescriptive Buffers

• W1 waterway and drainage line - 50 m from top of bank;



MLES Wetlands buffers – 100 m from the edge of a Ramsar wetland, 50 m from all otherwetlands

Redland City Council Variable Performance Based Outcomes Prescriptive Buffers

• Stream order 3 and 4 – 25 m from the defining bank;

• Stream order 5 and greater – 50 m from the defining bank.

Note that setback distances are not specified to wetlands specifically within the code

Sunshine CoastCouncil


Dwellings:

• Stream order 1 and 2 (urban zone) – 10 m;

• Stream order 1 and 2 (non-urban zone) – 10 m;

• Stream order 3 and 4 (urban zone) – 10 m;

• Stream order 3 and 4 (non-urban zone) – 25 m;

Rural uses:


853 ADOPTED REPORT


• Stream order 1 and 2 – 10 m;

• Stream order 3 and above – 10 m (where animal husbandry other than grazing ofpoultry); or 25 m where otherwise not specified.

Wetland – 10 m (where animal husbandry other than grazing of poultry); or 25 m where otherwise not specified.

Scenic Rim Regional Council


High Ecological Value Waters (Watercourse), High Ecological Value Waters (Wetland) and High Ecological Significance Wetlands which has a minimum width of:

1. 100 m where the area is located outside an urban area; or

2. 50 m where the area is located within an urban area; or

3. the buffer width of which is supported by an evaluation of the environmental values(identified by a suitably qualified person), including the function and threats.

Development within a Watercourse Buffer Area (A, B or C) the development footprint is not located within:

1. 10 m from the high or outer bank of the watercourse located in Watercourse BufferArea A;

2. 25 m from the high or outer bank of the watercourse located in Watercourse BufferArea B;

3. (3) 50 m from the high or outer bank of the watercourse located in WatercourseBuffer Area C.

Beaudesert Planning Scheme

Variable Performance Based Outcomes Variable Performance Based Outcomes

Development in the Tamborine Mountain Zone ensures buildings and waste water disposal areas maintain a minimum setback distance of 50 m from - (a) Sandy Creek;(b) Guanaba Creek; and(c) Cedar Creek

For all other areas, refer to as a riparian buffer zone width determination as per the table below.


854 ADOPTED REPORT


Riparian Buffer Zone Width Table

Pollutant Load

Risk

Low Medium High

Riparian

habitat

presence

Absent Present Absent Present Absent Present

Stream Order Category

A (1 & 2) 5 m 35 m 15 m 45 m 20 m 50 m

B (3 & 4) 35 m 65 m 55 m 75 m 65 m 85 m

C (5 & 6) 90 m 120 m 100 m 120 m 110 m 120 m

Note: 1. Pollutant load risk refers to the risk of increasing sediment and nutrient loads carried

to Moreton Bay as a result of development involving land disturbance or land useactivities releasing nutrients.

Riparian Buffer Zones to be measured from the centre of the stream out to each side.

Boonah Planning Scheme


• 40 m from any wetland or watercourse

• A vegetated buffer of at least 50 m width is provided between any waterway or wetlandand any incompatible development activity.

City of Ipswich Variable Performance Based Outcomes Prescriptive Buffers

Clearing of vegetation does not involve the removal of native vegetation from land within a Designated Watercourse or land within 30 m of a Designated Watercourse or within 10 m of the top of the bank of a Designated Watercourse where the slope of the bank exceeds 15%.


855 ADOPTED REPORT

9.4 City of Gold Coast Buffer Widths

The Environmental Significance Overlay Code adopts a similar approach to other planning schemes within South East Queensland. Prescriptive buffer widths are included as acceptable outcomes (AO5.1 – AO5.5) and variable performance-based outcomes are provided for within PO5.

The variable performance-based outcomes provided within PO5 as a Note:

Recommendations provided in an ecological site assessment (prepared in accordance with

SC6.7 City Plan Policy – Ecological Site Assessments) is Council’s preferred method for

determining alternative buffer widths.

Unfortunately, the SC6.7 City Plan Policy – Ecological Site Assessments lacks guidance and direction on how to undertake an assessment of buffer areas and which environmental factors should be considered.

REDACTED


856 ADOPTED REPORT


https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?hid=40985



https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Pages/Plan/Book.aspx?hid=40985

9.5 Measuring Buffer Widths

Within the literature, there is considerable variation as to where buffer widths should bemeasured from. In most cases, buffer widths are measured from the edge of the wetland orstream edge. Others have measured from seasonally inundated zones (Davies & Lane, 1995;Water and Rivers Commission, 2000), from the edge of wetland dependent vegetation (Daviesand Lane, 1995), or the outer edge of open water or the edge of permanent water (Davies &Lane, 1995; Water and Rivers Commission, 2000).

Newtown (2012) recommended that where margins to ephemeral waterways are unclear,buffers should be measured outward from grade changes defining runoff channels. TheDepartment of Water (2006), suggested that buffers should be measured outward from anyscientifically recognised ‘dampland’ vegetation fringing the water resource or where the

margins of missing riparian vegetation are uncertain, the wet season banks of the waterbody(excluding flood events). The NSW Department of Primary Industries (2012) recommendsmeasuring the buffer from the top of the high bank of a waterway.

9.5.1 City of Gold Coast Specifications for Measuring Buffer Widths

The City of Gold Coast measures buffer widths from the outer bank. The City Plan refers tothe definition of outer bank under the Water Act 2000.

Section 5A of the Water Act 2000 provides the meaning of outer bank as:

(1) The outer bank, at any location on one side of a watercourse, is—

a) if there is a floodplain on that side of the watercourse— the edge of the floodplain thatis on the same side of the floodplain as the watercourse; or

b) if there is not a floodplain on that side of the watercourse—the place on the bank ofthe watercourse marked by—

i. a scour mark; orii. a depositional feature; oriii. if there are 2 or more scour marks, 2 or more depositional features or 1 or more

scour marks and 1 or more depositional features—whichever scour mark ordepositional feature is highest.

(2) However, subsection (3) applies if, at a particular location in the watercourse—

a) there is a floodplain on one side of the watercourse; andb) the other side of the watercourse is confined by a valley margin.

Examples of valley margin—hill, cliff, terrace

(3) Despite subsection (1)(b), the outer bank on the valley margin side of the watercourse isthe line on the valley margin that is at the same level as the outer bank on the other side ofthe watercourse.


857 ADOPTED REPORT

(4) Despite subsections (1) to (3), if under this part the chief executive has declared an outerbank on a side of a watercourse for any length of the watercourse, the outer bank on that sideof the watercourse for that length is the outer bank as declared by the chief executive.

(5) To remove any doubt, it is declared that an outer bank of a watercourse—

a) cannot be, or be a part of, an in-stream island, bench or bar located in the watercourse;and

b) cannot be generally closer to the middle of the watercourse than any part of an in-stream island, bench or bar located in the watercourse.

9.5.2 Other Local Government Authorities Specifications for Measuring Buffer

Widths

Methodology for the measurement of buffers within overlay codes of other south-east Queensland local government authorities is wide-ranging. Most are considered open to interpretation.

For wetlands, the dominant approach is to measure distances from the outer landward boundary or ‘edge’ of the wetland. For waterways, buffer widths are measured from either the

‘outer bank’, ‘high bank’ ‘top of bank’, ‘centreline’ or ‘high water mark’.

Only the Logan Planning Scheme gave further instruction on how to accurately delineate the buffer by detailed representation on how to define the ‘high bank’ of a waterway (see Figure

9.1).


858 ADOPTED REPORT

Figure 9.1 Extract from Logan Planning Scheme v5.1 – Defining the Top of Bank

REDACTED


859 ADOPTED REPORT

10 Buffer Elements

A buffer element is a natural or artificial feature or management action within a waterway or wetland buffer that mitigates a negative impact and may reduce the separation distance required. A buffer element may include open ground, grassed areas, natural vegetation, fencing or structures to restrict access (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b).

Buffer elements can influence the shape of a wetland buffer by reducing the distance needed to protect the ecological values of the wetland. For example, a well vegetated filter strip around a wetland could reduce the buffer distance required to maintain water quality and trap sediment and litter. Used upstream of a wetland, it may reduce the separation distance required (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b).

Vegetation is one buffer element. Other buffer elements include stormwater detention basins (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b; Melbourne Water, 2009; NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2012; Wenger, 1999), bridle and walking trails (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2012; Department of Water, 2006; Essential Environmental Services, 2005; Melbourne Water, 2013), fences (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b) and stormwater outlet structures (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2012).

10.1 Co-location of Infrastructure

The Queensland Department of Primary Industries Fisheries Guidelines for Fish Habitat Buffer

Zones (Bavins, Couchmand & Beumer 2000) is of the view that water quality improvement devices should not be permitted within buffers: “The buffer zone should not be viewed as an

area for treatment of stormwater, sediment or erosion control associated with development

activities”.

The Department of Water (2006) suggests that roads or service corridors may cross buffer zones, although should occupy the minimum practical area of the buffer. Unpaved roads, however, pose a risk to waterbodies due to stormwater causing surface erosion and associated water channelling, which increases the rate of contaminated water movement. Unpaved roads include public and private roads, logging tracks, mining roads, road-work deviations, and access tracks for surveillance and fire-fighting purposes. Roads (where essential) should cross buffers at right angles to the stream alignment and include run-off distribution channels to drain turbid water into filter vegetation. Pedestrian and bridle trails normally do not require drainage controls unless containing long runs with steep gradients (Department of Water, 2006).

Wenger (1999) proposed that all major sources of contamination should be excluded from the buffer. These include construction resulting in major land disturbance, impervious surfaces, logging roads, mining activities, septic tank drain fields, agricultural fields, waste disposal sites, livestock, and clear cutting of forests. Application of pesticides and fertilizer should also be prohibited, except as needed for buffer restoration.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries (2012) identifies certain works and activities that can occur within riparian buffers (referred to by this organisation as Vegetated Riparian Zone). Stream order constrains the construction of some activities. Table 10.1 reproduces the


860 ADOPTED REPORT

Riparian Corridor Matrix as presented in Controlled Activities on Waterfront Land - Guideline

for Riparian Corridors on Waterfront Land (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2012).

Table 10.1 Riparian Corridor Matrix (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2012)

Stream

Order

Vegetated

Riparian

Zone

(VRZ)

Cycleways

and paths

Detention

basins

Stormwater

outlet

structures

and

essential

services

Stream

realignment

Road crossings

Only within 50%

of outer VRZ

Online Any Culvert Bridge

1st 10 m ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

2nd 20 m ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

3rd 30 m ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

4th 40 m ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

10.2 Buffer Elements Permitted by Other Local Government Authorities

Table 10.2 summarises the infrastructure permitted within the buffer (or equivalent) for the other local governments within south-east Queensland.

Table 10.2 Permitted Infrastructure

Local Government Infrastructure Permitted

Logan City Council Pedestrian path

Brisbane City Council Waterways:

Development involving ancillary buildings or structures and hard-stand areas does not cover more than the following proportion of the corridor:

• 30% in the Brisbane River corridor sub-category – section 1;

• 50% in the Brisbane River corridor sub-category – section 2 or 4;

• 70% in the Brisbane River corridor sub-category – section 3 or 5.

Wetlands:

Development footprint is to be located outside of wetland.

Moreton Bay Regional Council None.

Impacts to native vegetation within buffers are to be offset.

Redland City Council None.

Sunshine Coast Council Development and/or clearing is not permitted within a riparian protection area or within 10 m from the high bank of a waterway identified on the overlay map or otherwise.

Scenic Rim Regional Council No development within high ecological value wetlands and watercourses and high ecological significance wetlands, waterways and wetland buffer areas.


861 ADOPTED REPORT

Local Government Infrastructure Permitted

Beaudesert Planning Scheme Vehicle or pedestrian access when unavoidable and must be offset.

Boonah Planning Scheme No buildings or infrastructure within 40 m of any watercourse or wetland.

City of Ipswich Unspecified.

Clearing of native vegetation not permitted on land within a DesignatedWatercourse or land within 30m of a Designated Watercourse or within10 metres of the top of the bank of a Designated Watercourse where theslope of the bank exceeds 15%.

REDACTED


862 ADOPTED REPORT

11 Decision Support Tools

Fixed width buffer zones, such as those currently employed by the City of Gold Coast, are administratively simple to apply and to enforce (Richardson et al., 2012; Bavins et al., 2000). They have the additional benefit that their implementation does not require a specialised ecological knowledge. As such, they are often used as a statutory staring point (Prahalad et al., 2019). However, fixed-width buffer zones do not consider site specific requirements (e.g. adjacent development or land-use intensity), and site specific conditions (e.g. soil type, slope, vegetation type/density) (Bavins et al., 2000).

The use of variable-width methodology may sometimes be more appropriate for selecting an effective buffer zone width (Natural Resource Management South, 2004; Bavins et al., 2000), so that the position in the landscape (i.e. alluvial reaches or headwaters) and site-specific conditions can be considered.

The acceptable outcomes of a planning scheme code can identify fixed width buffers as the preferred way of protecting the aquatic environment. However, the performance outcomes should not be prescriptive and ought to allow for alternative approaches to be taken in determining appropriate buffer widths.

The following sections outline decision support tools within the literature.

11.1 Wenger (1999)

Wenger (1999) proposed three options for determining buffer widths as described below. For all options, buffer vegetation should consist of native forest. Restoration should be conducted when necessary and possible.

For riparian buffers to be most effective, some related issues must also be addressed. These include reducing impervious surfaces, managing pollutants on-site, and minimising buffer gaps.

Option One:

• Base width: 30 m plus 0.6 m per 1% of slope;• The entire floodplain is included in the buffer;• The buffer width is extended by the width of the wetlands, which guarantees that the

entire wetland and an additional buffer are protected;• Existing impervious surfaces in the riparian zone do not count toward buffer width (i.e.,

the width is extended by the width of the impervious surface, just as for wetlands);• Slopes over 25% do not count toward the width; and• The buffer applies to all perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams.

Option Two:

The same as Option One, except:

• Base width is 15 m plus 0.6 m per 1% of slope;• Entire floodplain is not necessarily included in buffer, although potential sources of

severe contamination should be excluded from the floodplain; and• Ephemeral streams are not included. The buffer can be applied to all perennial

streams plus all intermittent streams of second order or larger.


863 ADOPTED REPORT

Option Three:

• Fixed buffer width of 30 m; and• The buffer applies to all perennial streams plus all intermittent streams of second order

or larger.

11.2 Castelle et al. (1994)

Castelle et al. (1994) suggest four criteria for determining adequate buffer sizes for aquatic systems:

1. Resource functional value (i.e. ecosystem function and ecosystem serviceperspective);

2. Intensity of adjacent land use;3. Buffer characteristics (e.g. slope, soil type, nature (natural versus artificial barrier, etc.);

and4. Specific buffer functions required (e.g. sediment/nutrient removal, species diversity,

etc.).

Castelle et al. (1994) provides a range of buffer widths based on four primary buffer functions: sediment removal (10-60 m), water temperature moderation (15-30 m), nutrient removal (5-90 m) and maintaining species diversity (5-100 m).

Smaller buffers are considered adequate when the buffer is in good condition (e.g. dense native vegetation and undisturbed soils), the wetland or waterway is of relatively low functional value (e.g. high disturbance regime, dominance of non-native flora) and the adjacent land use has low impact potential (e.g. park land). Larger buffers are required for high value wetlands and streams that have high impact adjacent land use and buffers in poor condition (Castelle et al., 1994).

11.3 Hansen et al. (2015)

Hansen et al. (2015) developed minimum width recommendations for riparian management in Victoria, based on a review of empirical evidence and land use intensity.

Table 12.1 summarises the results of their review. Hansen et al. (2015) stressed the low level of confidence in the minimum widths for improving terrestrial biodiversity as much of this research was conducted in the northern hemisphere and is not directly translatable to Australian conditions or species.

Table 11.1 Minimum Widths Based on Land Use Intensity (Hansen et al., 2015)

Management Objective Land use

intensity

LOW

Land use

intensity

MODERATE

Land use

intensity

HIGH

Floodplain

and wetlands

Steep

catchments

and low order

streams

Improve water quality 20 m 29 m 38 m 29 m 38 m

Moderate stream temperatures

28 m 46 m 64 m 28 m 28 m

Provide food and resources

30 m 50 m 70 m 30 m 30 m


864 ADOPTED REPORT

Management Objective Land use

intensity

LOW

Land use

intensity

MODERATE

Land use

intensity

HIGH

Floodplain

and wetlands

Steep

catchments

and low order

streams

Improve terrestrialbiodiversity

50 m 80 m 110 m 110 m 50 m

Definitions of the terminology used in Table 12.1 is presented in Table 12.2.

Table 11.2 Definitions of Terminology (Hansen et al., 2015)

Terminology Examples

High intensity land use Dairy (high stocking rates >10 DSE/ha/annum*)

Irrigated dairy

Dryland cropping (e.g. canola, wheat)

Livestock grazing (stocking rates >15 DSE/ha/annum)

Swine and poultry

Market gardens (vegetable production)

High fertilizer application rates (>15kg P/Ha/yr or >110kg N/Ha/yr)

Sealed roads within 30 m

Moderate land use intensity Dairy (all other stocking rates ≤ 10 DSE/ha/annum)

Grazing (stocking rates 5-15 DSE/ha/annum)

Other forms of dryland cropping

Orchards

Other production crops including vines hops olives

Medium-low fertilizer application rates (<15 kg P/Ha/yr or ≤110kg N/Ha/yr)

Unsealed roads within 30 m

Low land use intensity Grazing (low stocking rates <5 DSE/ha/annum all stock)

Pasture cropping

Timber plantations

Forestry operations

Pesticide application

Steep catchments

Low order streams

Highly incised waterways with slopes typically exceeding 30 degrees whereadjacent land is cleared or partially cleared of woody vegetation

Headwater systems and low order streams (1-4)

Floodplain

Wetland

Typically, higher order waterways with complex geomorphological features likeanabranches, oxbow lakes and billabongs, and paleo-channels, and where thelateral extent of floodplain vegetation is large but highly variable and usuallysubjected to seasonal inundation.

Chain-of-ponds or lakes or similar that are connected at any time to flowingwaters (which may resemble lowland floodplains)

*Dry Sheep Equivalent (DSE) is a standard unit frequently used in Australia to compare the feed requirements ofdifferent classes of stock or to assess the carrying capacity and potential productivity of a given farm or area ofgrazing land.

The Australian Land Use and Management Classification Version 8 (2016), classifies land useintensity on a sliding scale. Low intensity land use includes nature conservation, managedresource protection (e.g. traditional indigenous uses), stock routes and production nativeforests. Moderate intensity land uses are grazing modified pastures, cropping and plantation


865 ADOPTED REPORT

forests. High intensity land uses include intensive animal production, urban development, utilities, transport and mining (Australian Collaborative Land Use and Management Program Partners, 2016).

11.4 Melbourne Water

Melbourne Water is a statutory authority under the Victorian Government responsible for the management and protection of Melbourne’s major water resources.

Melbourne Water (Melbourne Water, 2013) uses a fixed width setback for protecting waterways. Three standard widths apply; 20 m, 30 m and 50 m. The underlying principle is that smaller waterways require smaller setbacks (20 m). Major waterways are prescribed the widest setback (50 m).

Each setback comprises a core riparian zone (the width of which varies depending on the stream order) and an adjacent fixed 10 m vegetated buffer. So, for a major waterway, the core riparian zone width is 40 m and the vegetated buffer is 10 m, given an overall setback width of 50 m. The vegetated buffer is intended to protected the core riparian zone from edge effects (Melbourne Water, 2013).

The guidelines do not ascribe a stream order, rather encourage developers to obtain further advice from Melbourne Water regarding appropriate setbacks.

Site specific values and land uses (such as, occurrence of high value species or the area forming part of a habitat corridor) may require setbacks more than the minimum (Melbourne Water, 2013).

11.5 Northern Territory Department of Environment and Natural

Resources

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, administered by the Northern Territory Government, specifies fixed buffer widths based on stream order classification (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2018). Table 12.3 has been adapted from the Native Vegetation Buffers and Corridors guidelines.

Table 11.3 Waterway Buffers (NT DENR)

Waterway Stream Order Minimum buffer width

Drainage areas Not applicable 25 m

Intermittent streams First 25 m

Intermittent streams Second 50 m

Creeks Third and forth 100 m

Rivers Fifth and sixth 250 m

Wetlands Not applicable 200 m


866 ADOPTED REPORT

11.6 New South Wales Department of Primary Industries

The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries administers the Office of Water. Intheir Guidelines for Riparian Corridors on Waterfront Land, vegetated riparian zones arespecified for waterways based on stream order. Table 12.4 summarises the recommendedriparian zones in New South Wales (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2012).

Table 11.4 Riparian Zones (NSW DPI)

Watercourse Type Vegetated riparian zone (each side of

watercourse)

First order 10 m

Second order 20 m

Third order 30 m

Forth order and greater

Wetlands

Any part of a river influenced by tidal waters

40 m

11.7 Queensland Fisheries

Queensland Fisheries (Bavins et al., 2000) acknowledge the need to identify current andpotential impacts to the waterway or wetland and establishing a buffer based on the bufferfunction. They recommended a four-step process be employed to set up a buffer zone:

Step 1. Confirmation of the need for a buffer zone which includes identifying detrimentalimpacts (existing and potential) between fish habitats and developed or developingareas.

Step 2. Determination of the buffer design that will prove effective in reducing identifiedimpacts between fish habitats and adjacent land uses (site characteristics, bufferfunctions, width).

Step 3. Provision of appropriate vegetation or structures (buffer elements) to fulfil the requiredfunctions of the buffer zone.

Step 4. Implementation of a management plan to ensure the buffer zone will be monitored andits integrity maintained.

The minimum buffer width ranged from 5-300 m, depending on the buffer function and wereadapted from Castelle et al. (1994).

11.8 Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management

The Department of Environment and Resource Management has prepared the Queensland

Wetland Buffer Planning Guideline (2011b) to assist with the design of wetland buffers thatwill maintain wetland environmental values and protect from impacts from adjacent land use.The buffer design method is based on the premise that an effectively designed and managedwetland buffer not only helps maintain and protect the visible wetland, but also the suite ofWetland Environmental Values (WEVs) that are unique to that wetland.


867 ADOPTED REPORT

The wetland buffer design method recognises two distinct areas — a Wetland Support Area and a Separation Area.

The Wetland Support Area is the area adjacent to or connected to a wetland that helps to support the wetland and its associated WEVs. This area does not protect the wetland from external threats, rather it is part of the core area on which the wetland and associated WEVs depend (e.g. shading fish habitat, providing roost sites for birds).

The Separation Area is the area adjacent to the Wetland Support Area that protects a wetland from negative impacts by providing the necessary distance and/or a barrier between the wetland and external pressures. The Separation Area may incorporate land uses which are compatible with the wetland, such as recreation and open space. The Separation Area is determined by identifying and conducting a risk assessment of the direct pressures to the WEVs (such as adjacent land uses), prioritising these pressures, and then estimating the area required to buffer the wetland and its WEVs from these pressures. WEVs include hydrological processes, food webs, physical habitat, sediment and pollutant trapping, local climate regulation, ecological connectivity etc. (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b).

For mapped high ecological significance wetlands within Queensland, WEVs have been determined and are available from the Wetland Maps website, administered by the Department of Environment and Science.

The Wetland Buffer Distance is determined by adding the Wetland Support Distance to the Separation Distance. The buffer may not be uniform around the perimeter of the wetland, depending on where pressures and elements are located (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011b).

A standard or default buffer width may be used for non-HES wetlands or wetlands that do not have WEVs or where there is a statutory requirement and a default width is specified. The Wetland Buffer Planning Guidelines do not however, specify the default buffer width.

11.9 Western Australian Planning Commission

In determining appropriate buffer widths, the Western Australian government is directed by the Guidelines for the Determination of Wetland Buffer Requirements (Essential Environmental Services 2005). These guidelines require an individual approach be used rather than “one-size-fits-all”.

The process to determine an appropriate buffer between a wetland and an existing or proposed land use requires the systematic consideration of wetland attributes (existing or desired), threatening processes associated with adjacent land use, and the role of the buffer in mitigating these threats. This approach requires a seven-step process:

Step 1. Acknowledge existence of wetland.

Step 2. Identify wetland attributes, wetland management category and establish management objective.

Step 3. Define wetland function area (the area which needs to be protected to ensure the important functions and values of the wetland can be maintained). The wetland function area is defined by the outer boundary of wetland vegetation or geomorphic boundary, whichever is larger.


868 ADOPTED REPORT

Step 4. Identify threatening processes. Threatening processes that can be mitigated by buffers include: alteration to the water regime, habitat modification, inappropriate recreational use and diminished water quality.

Step 5. Identify role of separation (e.g. protection from direct disturbance, linking habitat areas, support hydrological or terrestrial processes etc.).

Step 6. Establish separation requirement.

Step 7. Apply separation requirement to proposal and assess its ability to achieve management objective.

Wetland attributes are valued characteristics which may not necessarily provide a function (e.g. aesthetic qualities, recreational attributes, cultural heritage and habitat or scientific attributes). They fall into the category of either natural (e.g. habitat values) or human use (e.g. recreation).

The guidelines assign wetlands to one of three management categories:

• C category (conservation): wetlands with high conservation value for both natural orhuman use;

• R category (resource enhancement): wetlands with moderate natural and human useattributes that can be restored or enhanced; and

• M category (multiple use): wetlands that score poorly on both natural and human useattributes.

Table 12.5 summarises the recommended separation distances for each of the wetland management categories and key threatening processes.

Table 11.5 Recommended Separation Distances for Key Threatening Processes

Key threatening

process

Recommended separation and/or management

Category C wetlands Category R Wetlands Category M Wetlands

Alteration to the water

regime

Regulation of groundwater abstraction as catchment management measure



Habitat modification • 100 m weedinfestation

• Up to 100 m for birdhabitat dependenton extent of use

• 6-50 m firebreak• Fence for

controlling exoticfauna access

• ≥100 m to minimiseedge effects

• 50 m weedinfestation

• 50 m avifaunahabitat

• 6 m firebreak

• 50 m weedinfestation

• 50 m avifaunahabitat

• 6 m firebreak

Inappropriate

recreational use

• ≥50 m to improve

aesthetics• ≥50 m for barrier

• Fence, paths forcontrolling access

• 10 m - 50 m forimprovingaesthetics

• 10 m - 50 m forbarrier

• 10 m - 50 m forimprovingaesthetics

• 10 m - 50 m forbarrier


869 ADOPTED REPORT

Key threatening

process

Recommended separation and/or management

Category C wetlands Category R Wetlands Category M Wetlands

• Fence, paths forcontrolling access

Diminished water

quality

• Drainage inflowseliminated ormanaged

• Where a proposalmay affect wetlandwater quality,detailed site-specific work shouldbe undertaken todetermine thespecific separationmeasures required





The Western Australian Planning Commission requires mitigation of only those threats that are present. For example, if there is no potential for loss of vegetation (habitat modification), there is no need for a separation requirement to manage this impact. Similarly, if the only threat identified is the potential for alteration to the water regime, no separation distance is required (Essential Environmental Services, 2005).

The guidelines acknowledge that land planning decisions often make securing required buffering distances or necessary associated management regimes, impractical. For example, where significant residential development has already been allowed to develop within the recommended separation distance.

11.10 Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities

The Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities has developed guidelines to inform the ecological restoration of urban waterways (Beesley et al., 2017). These guidelines are designed to synthesis what is broadly known about riparian zones and apply it to an urban context.

The guidelines stipulate that the riparian buffer must be sufficiently wide to allow for natural adjustment of the channel. A buffer of three to 10 times the bank height will be sufficient to allow natural channel self-adjustment in a low-level urban setting (Ward et al., 2008 as cited in Beesley et al., 2017). For larger streams, the natural process of channel migration is usually around 1% of the channel width per year - so approximately half the channel’s width should

be established as a riparian buffer (Beesley et al., 2017).

Within the buffer, trees should extend away from the bank for at least 5 m, plus the height of the bank, plus an additional width if the bank is actively eroding (Abernethy & Rutherfurd, 1999; Rutherfurd, 2007).

The erosion allowance is calculated as the rate of bank erosion in metres per year, multiplied by the number of years it will take for replanted vegetation to reach a height of 10 metres (Rutherford, 2007). For example, if the dominant overstory vegetation matures in 20 years and the bank erosion rate is 0.5 m/year, then 10 m is the additional width that must be added. Abernethy and Rutherfurd (1999) advise that, if the erosion rate for a migrating outside bend


870 ADOPTED REPORT

is unknown, then a rough rule-of-thumb is 1.6% of channel width per year. Therefore, a 40 m wide meandering channel, where the vegetation takes 50 years to mature, needs an additional 32 m of riparian zone (i.e. total vegetated buffer will be > 37m) (Beesley et al., 2017).

11.11 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology

The Guidelines for Stabilising Streambanks with Riparian Vegetation (Abernethy & Rutherfurd, 1999) provide techniques to help specify the width and composition of vegetated riparian zones for bank stability. Riparian vegetation interacts with a range of geomorphological, geotechnical, hydrological and hydraulic factors to affect the type and extent of riverbank erosion. Riverbank erosion is strongly influenced by the density and type of riparian cover. The guidelines stipulate minimum riparian widths and are site-specific. The basic allowance is 5 m measured from the bank crest. In addition, a height allowance (height of the bank measured from the toe of the bank to the crest) and establishment allowance (time taken for rehabilitated areas to become established) are included in the final buffer width determination. It does not take into consideration the ecological, sediment and filtering or other buffer functions. The guidelines therefore, need to be considered in light of other requirements for riparian zone management.

The guidelines present a decision tree for determining minimum riparian buffers. Where the waterway bank is stable, the width is calculated on base plus bank height. Where the bank will be stabilised by the establishment of riparian vegetation, the buffer width is calculated as the basic allowance, plus height of the bank, plus the establishment allowance.

The establishment allowance is determined by the rate of bank erosion in metres per year, multiplied by the number of years it will take for replanted vegetation to reach a height of 10 metres (Rutherford, 2007). For example, if the dominant overstory vegetation matures in 20 years and the bank erosion rate is 0.5 m/year, then 10 m is the additional width that must be added. If the erosion rate for a migrating outside bend is unknown, then a rough rule-of-thumb is 1.6% of channel width per year (Abernethy & Rutherfurd, 1999).

Where high levels of stability are required to protect infrastructure, such as buildings or bridges, or where the erosion rate is such that vegetation cannot be established, alternatives such as rock revetment, bank profile battering or groynes are to be considered (Abernethy & Rutherfurd, 1999).

REDACTED


871 ADOPTED REPORT

REDACTED


872 ADOPTED REPORT

12.12 Decision Support Tool

To provide guidelines for proposing alternative buffer widths, it is recommended that the City of Gold Coast develop a decision

REDACTED


873 ADOPTED REPORT

13 Conclusions

The City Plan specifies fixed width buffers regardless of site conditions. No considerations are made for buffer functions, existing buffer condition or proposed buffer elements. Consequently, the fixed width buffer may not adequately buffer aquatic resources, or conversely, impose inappropriate restrictions on land use.

Fixed buffer widths are administratively simple to apply and enforce. Variable width buffers require greater knowledge of ecosystem ecology and offer less predictability for land use planning. Buffer width decisions should be underpinned by one important consideration: clear definitions of the ecological objectives of management.

Any proposed changes in buffer width specification in the City Plan must be defensible, that is, based on empirical evidence rather than opinion.

The development specifications or codes in the City Plan allow for two possible outcomes: an ‘acceptable outcome’ or a ‘performance outcome’. Acceptable outcomes are established ways to achieve the compliance with the code. They provide an example of how to comply with the code.

If a development does not strictly comply with the example identified in the acceptable outcome, the planning scheme provides flexibility to allow for innovative solutions or different approaches that still achieve the overall aim of the code; that is, performance outcomes.

The performance outcomes (i.e. PO5) for wetland and waterways require buffers to enable the functions of the buffer to be maintained and/or enhanced.

REDACTED


874 ADOPTED REPORT


875 ADOPTED REPORT

14 References

Abernethy, B & Rutherfurd, ID 1999, Guidelines for stabilising streambanks with riparian

vegetation, Victoria.

Abernethy, B., Rutherfurd, I.D., 2000, Does the weight of riparian trees destabilize riverbanks? Regulated Rivers.: Research and Management, vol. 16, no.6, pp. 565-576

Abu-Zreig, M, Rudra, RP, Whiteley, HR, Lalonde, MN & Kaushik, NK 2003, ‘Phosphorus

Removal in Vegetated Filter Strips’, Journal of Environment Quality, vol. 32, no. 2, p. 613, retrieved from <https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/32/2/613>.

Australian Collaborative Land Use and Management Program Partners 2016, The Australian

Land Use and Management Classification Version 8, Canberra.

Barling, RD & Moore, ID 1994, ‘Role of Buffer Strips in Management of Waterway Pollution: A

Review’, Environmental Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543–558.

Bavins, M, Couchman, D & Beumer, J 2000, Fisheries Guidelines for Fish habitat buffer zones, Brisbane, Queesnland.

Bavins, M, Couchmand, D & Beumer, J 2000, Fisheries Guidelines for Fish baitat Buffer

Zones, Queensland.

Beacon Environmental 2012, Ecological Buffer Guideline Review, Prepared for Credit Valley Conservation.

Beesley, LS, Middleton, J, Gwinn, DC, Pettit, N, Quinton, B & Davies, PM 2017, Riparian

Design Guidelines to Inform the Ecological Repair of Urban Waterways, Melbourne, Australia.

Borin, M, Vianello, M, Morari, F & Zanin, G 2005, ‘Eff ectiveness of buff er strips in removing

pollutants in runoff from a cultivated field in North-East Italy’, Agriculture Ecosystems and

Environment, vol. 105, pp. 101–114.

Broadmeadow, S & Nisbet, TR 2004, ‘The effects of riparian forest management on the

freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice’, Hydrology and

Earth System Sciences, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 286–305, retrieved from <http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/8/286/2004/>.

Castelle, A, Johnson, A & Conolly, C 1994, ‘Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements—

A Review’, Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 23.

Coyne, MS, Gilifillen, RA, Rhodes, RW & Blevins, RL 1995, ‘Soil and fecal coliform trapping by grass filter during simulated rainfall’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 50, pp. 405–408.

Daniels, RB & Gilliam, JW 1996, ‘Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass and riparian

filters’, Soil Science Society of American Journal, vol. 60, pp. 246–251.

Davies, PM, Bunn, S, Mosisch, T, Cook, B & Walshe, T 2007, ‘Temperature and light’, in S

Lovett & P Price (eds), Principles for riparian lands management, Land and Water Australia, Canberra, pp. 33–46.

Davies, PM & Lane, JAK 1995, Guidelines for Design of Effective Buffers for Wetlands on the

Swan Coastal Plain, Report to the Australian Nature Conservation Agnecy, Canberra.


876 ADOPTED REPORT

Debose, J, Coppo, C, Mcintyre, R, Nelson, P, Karim, F, Davis, A & Brodie, JE 2014, ‘Effectiveness of vegetated systems in managing contaminated runoff from sugarcane and banana farms to protect off-farm aquatic ecosystems , particularly the Great Barrier Reef’,

TropWATER Report No. 14/10. James Cook University, Townsville

Department of Conservation and Environment 1990, Environmental guidelines for river

management works, Melbourne, Victoria.

Department of Environment and Energy 2018, ‘Wetlands’, retrieved from

<http://www.environment.gov.au/wetlands>.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2018, Vegetation Management in the

Northern Territory. Native Vegetation Buffers and Corridors, Northern Territory.

Department of Environment and Resource Management 2010, ‘Queensland Wetland

Definition and Delineation Guideline: Part A: A guide to existing wetland definitions and the application of the Queensland Wetlands Program definition’, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Department of Environment and Resource Management 2011a, Queensland Wetland Buffer

Planning Guideline. Part B., Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Department of Environment and Resource Management 2011b, Queensland Wetland Buffer

Planning Guideline, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Department of Environment and Science 2018, ‘Wetland Info’, retrieved from

<https://wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/wetlands>.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 2008, Soil Indicators of Queensland Wetlands, Brisbane. Queensland Government, Brisbane

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and E 2003, Wetlands and Waterways

Works Manual No 7: Environmental Best Practice Guidelines: Management of Riparian

Vegetation. Tasmanian Government, Hobart.

Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005, The Index of Wetland Condition:

conceptual framework and selection of measures, Victorian Government, Melbourne.

Department of Water 2006, ‘Vegetation buffers to sensitive water resources’. Water Quality

Protection Note, WQPN 6, February. Government of Western Australia, Perth.

DeWalle, DR 2010, ‘Modeling stream shade: Riparian buffer height and density as important as buffer width’, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 46, pp. 323–333.

Dillaha, TA, Reneau, S, Mostaghimi, S & Lee, D 1989, ‘Vegetated filter strips for agricultural

nonpoint source pollutiopn control’, Transactions of the American Society of Agricultral

Engineers, vol. 32, pp. 513–519.

Donaldson, S & Hefner, M 1999, The Impacts of Urbanisation, Center for Watershed Protection, University of Nevada, Reno.

Dorworth, L & McCormick, R 2017, Impacts of development on river flows, retrieved from <www.planningwithpower.org>.

Ducros, CM & Joyce, CB 2003, ‘Field-based evaluation tool for riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments’, Environmental Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 252–267.


877 ADOPTED REPORT

Duhaime, L ‘Duhaime’s Legal Dictionary’, retrieved November 24, 2018, from

<http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary.aspx>.

Environmental Law Institute 2008, Planner’s Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments, Environmental Law Institute, Washington DC.

Essential Environmental Services 2005, Guideline for the Determination of Wetland Buffer

Requirements, Perth, Western Australia.

Fischer, RA & Fischenich, JC 2000, ‘Design Recommendations for Riparian Corridors and

Vegetated Buffer Strips’, Development, pp. 1–17.

Fischer, RA, Martin, CO & Fischenich, J. 2000a, ‘Improving riparian buffer strips and corridors

for water quality and wildlife.’, in International conference on riparian ecology and

management in multi-use watersheds, American Water Resources Association.

Fischer, RA, Martin, CO & Fischenich, JC 2000b, ‘Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds’, Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 6199, pp. 1–7.

Fisheries Queensland 2013, Guide for the determination of waterways using the spatial data

layer Queensland waterways for waterway barrier works, State of Queensland, Brisbane.

Flanagan, SE, Patrick, DA & Leonard, DJ 2017, ‘University of New Hampshire Scholars ’

Repository Buffer Options for the Bay : Exploring the Trends, the Science, and the Options of Buffer Management in the Great Bay Watershed Key Findings from Available Literature Buffer Options for the Bay : PREP Reports and Publications. 380

Gharabaghi, B., Rudra, RP & Goel, PK 2006, ‘Effectiveness of vegetative filter strips in removal of sediments from overland flow’, Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, vol. 41, pp. 275–282.

Gift, DM, Groffman, PM, Kaushal, SS & Mayer, PM 2010, ‘Denitrification potential, root

biomass and organic matter in degraded and restored urban riparian zones.’, Resoration

Ecology, vol. 18, pp. 113–120.

Greenway, M & Jenkins, GA 2004, ‘A comparative study of the effectiveness of wetlands and

ponds in the treatment of stormwater in subtropical Australia’, 9th IWA Conference on Wetland

Systems for Water Pollution Control, p. 12, retrieved from <http://calamvalecreek.awardspace.com/Papers/Comparative_study_Greenway_Jenkins.pdf>.

Gurnell, AM, Bertoldi, W, Corenblit, D 2012, Changing river channels: the roles of hydrological processes, plants and pioneer fluvial landforms in humid temperate, mixed load, gravel bed rivers. Earth Science Review, vol. 111 no. 1-2, pp. 129-141.

Hansen, B, Reich, P, Lake, PS & Cavagnaro, T 2010, ‘Minimum width requirements for

riparian zones to protect flowing waters and to conserve biodiversity: a review and recommendations’, Report to the Office of Water, Victorian Department of Sustainability and

Environment. Monash University., no. April, p. 150pp, retrieved from <http://www.ccmaknowledgebase.vic.gov.au/resources/RiparianBuffers_Report_Hansenetal2010.pdf>.

Hansen, BD, Reich, P, Cavagnaro, TR & Lake, PS 2015, ‘Challenges in applying scientific

evidence to width recommendations for riparian management in agricultural Australia’,

Ecological Management and Restoration, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 50–57.


878 ADOPTED REPORT

Helmers, MJ, Isenhart, T, Dosskey, M, Dabney, S & Strock, J 2005, ‘Buffers and Vegetative

Filter Strips’, Gulf Hypoxia and Local Water Quality Concerns Workshop September 26-28,

2005, Ames, IA, p. 17, retrieved from <http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/tfproducts.cfm>.

Hickey, MBC & Doran, B 2004, ‘A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance

and enhancement of riparian ecosystems’, Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 311–317.

Jasiewicz, J ‘Stream Order’, Stream order modules, retrieved November 24, 2018, from <https://svn.osgeo.org/grass/grass-addons/grass7/raster/r.stream.order/r.stream.order.html>.

Keller, CME, Robbins, CS & Hatfield, JS 1993, ‘Avian communities in riparian forests of

different widths in Maryland and Delaware’, Wetlands, vol. 13, pp. 137–144.

Lee, P, Smyth, C & Boutin, S 2004, ‘Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines

from Canada and the United States’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 70, no. 2004, pp. 165–180.

Lee, SY, Dunn, RJK, Young, RA, Connolly, RM, Dale, PER, Dehayr, R, Lemckert, CJ, McKinnon, S, Powell, B, Teasdale, PR & Welsh, DT 2006, ‘Impact of urbanization on coastal wetland structure and function’, Austral Ecology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 149–163.

Liu, X, Zhang, X & Zhang, M 2008, ‘Major Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Vegetated Buffers

on Sediment Trapping: A Review and Analysis’, Journal of Environment Quality, vol. 37, no. 5, p. 1667, retrieved from <https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/37/5/1667>.

Lovett, S & Price, P 2001, Managing riparian lands in the sugar industry: A guide to principles

and practices, Sugar Research and Development Corporation & Land and Water Australia, Brisbane.

Mayer, PM, Reynolds, SK, Canfield, TJ & Mcutchen, MD 2005, Riparian Buffer Width,

Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness:, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Mayer, PM, Reynolds, SK, McCutchen, MD & Canfield, TJ 2007, ‘Meta-Analysis of Nitrogen Removal in Riparian Buffers’, Journal of Environment Quality, vol. 36, no. 4, p. 1172, retrieved from <https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/36/4/1172>.

McElfish, JMJ, Kihslinger, RL & Nichols, S 2008, ‘Setting buffer sizes for wetlands’, National

Wetlands Newletter, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 6–17.

McMahon, JM, Olley, JM, Brooks, AP, Smart, JCR, Rode, CW, Curwen, C, Spencer, J & Stewat-Koster, B, 2017, An investigation of controlling variables of riverbank erosion in sub-tropical Australia. Environmental Modelling and Software, vol. 97, no. 2017, pp. 1-15.

Melbourne Water 2013, Waterway Corridors. Guidelines for greenfield development areas

within the Port Phillip and Westernport Region, Melbourne Water Corporation, Melbourne.

Mogensen, LA & Rogers, K 2018, Validation and comparison of a model of the effect of sea-level rise on coastal wetlands, Scientific Reports 8, pp. 1369

Natural Resource Management South 2004, Managing Waterways Fact Sheet, South Hobart, Tasmania, retrieved from <www.nrmsouth.org.au>.


879 ADOPTED REPORT

New South Wales Government Chief Scientist and Engineer 2014, Independent review of coal

seam gas activities in NSW – Information paper: on managing the interface between coal

seam gas activities and other land uses (setbacks)., retrieved from<http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/56923/140930-Final-Setbacks-info-paper.pdf>.

Newtown, G 2012, ‘Buffer zones for aquatic biodiversity conservation’, Australasian Plant

Conservation, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 18–22.

NSW Department of Primary Industries 2012, Guidelines for riparian corridors on waterfront

land, Government of New South Wales, Sydney.

Osborne, LL & Kovacic, DA 1993, ‘Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restorationand stream management’, Freshwater Biology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 243–258.

Papas, P, Lyon, S, Jin, C & Holmes, J 2008, Development of a Wetland Catchment

Disturbance Index, Departmenf of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Passeport, E, Richard, B, Chaumont, C, Margoum, C, Liger, L, Gril, JJ & Tournebize, J 2014,‘Dynamics and mitigation of six pesticides in “Wet” forest buffer zone’, Environmental Science

and Pollution Research, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 4883–4894.

Paul, MJ & Meyer, JL 2001, ‘Streams in the urban landscape’, Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics, vol. 32, pp. 333–365.

Pellissier, V, Mimet, A, Fontaine, C, Svenning, J-C & Couvet, D 2017, ‘Relative importance of

the land-use composition and intensity for the bird community composition in anthropogeniclandscapes’, Ecology and Evolution, vol. 7, no. 24, pp. 10513–10535, retrieved November 15,2018, from <http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ece3.3534>.

Phillips, JD 1989, ‘An evaluation of the factors determining the effectiveness of water qualitybuffer zones' Journal of Hydrology vol. 107, pp. 133–145.

Polyakov, V, Fares, A & Ryder, MH 2005, ‘Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint

source pollutant loading into surface water: A review’, Environmental Reviews, vol. 13, no. 3,pp. 129–144, retrieved from <http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/a05-010>.

Prahalad, V, Whitehead, J, Latinovic, A & Kirkpatrick, JB 2019, The creation and conversationeffectiveness of State-wide wetlands and waterways and coastal refugia planning overlays forTasmania, Australia, Land Use Policy 81 (2019) pp. 502-512.

Price, P & Lovett, S 2004, Managing riparian widths. Fact sheeet 13., Land and WaterAustralia, Canberra.

Prosser, I, Bunn, S, Mosisch, T, Ogden, R & Karssies, L 1999, ‘The delivery of sediment and

nutrients to streams’, in S Lovett & P Price (eds), Riparian land management technical

guidelines. Volume 1, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation,Canberra.

Queensland Government 2016, ‘State Planning Policy - state interest guideline - Biodiversity’,

Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, Brisbane.

Richardson, JS, Naiman, RJ & Bisson, PA 2012, ‘How did fixed-width buffers becomestandard practice for protecting freshwaters and their riparian areas from forest harvestpractices?’, Freshwater Science, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 232–238, retrieved from<http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1899/11-031.1>.


880 ADOPTED REPORT

Roughan, J 2016, Performance Based Planning in Queensland, Buckley Vann Planning and Development, retrieved from <https://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/7429>.

RPS 2014, Gold Coast Surface Water Environments Mapping Project. Report to City of Gold Coast.

Rutherford, JC, Marsh, NA, Davies, PM & Bunn, SE 2004, ‘Effects of patchy shade on stream

water temperature: How quickly do small streams heat and cool?’, Marine and Freshwater

Research, vol. 55, pp. 737–748.

Rutherfurd, ID 2007, ‘The influence of riparian management on stream erosion’, in S Lovett &

P Price (eds), Principles for riparian lands management, Land and Water Australia, Canberra.

Schmitt, TJ, Dosskey, MG & Hoagland, KD 1999, ‘Filter strip performance for different

vegetation,widths and contaminants.’, Journal of Environment Quality, vol. 28, pp. 1479–1489.

Semlitsch, RD & Bodie, JR 2003, ‘Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and

riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles’, Conservation Biology, vol. 17, pp. 1219–1228.

Semlitsch, RD & Jensen, RB 2001, ‘Core habitat, not buffer zone’, National Wetlands

Newsletter, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 5–11.

Smith, R 2008, SmartCane Riparian and wetland areas on cane farms: SmartCane best

management practice booklet, Sugar Research and Development Corporation, Brisbane.

Straher, A 1952, ‘Dynamic Basis of Geomorphology’, Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 63, pp. 923–938.

Sweeney, BW & Blaine, JG 2007, ‘Resurrecting the In-Stream Side of Riparian Forests’,

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, vol. 136, pp. 17–27.

Sweeney, BW & Newbold, JD 2014, ‘Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream

water quality, habitat, and organisms: A literature review’, Journal of the American Water

Resources Association, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 560–584.

Tate, KW, Atwill, ER, Bartolome, JW & Nader, G 2006, ‘Significant Attenuation by Vegetative

Buffers on Annual Grasslands’, Journal of Environment Quality, vol. 35, no. 3, p. 795, retrieved from <https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/35/3/795>.

The Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2003, ‘The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands’, retrieved

from <www.ramsar.org>.

Walsh, CJ, Leonard, AW, Ladson, AR & Fletcher, TD 2004, ‘Urban stormwater and the

ecology of streams’, Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology and Cooperative

Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Canberra.

Water and Rivers Commission 2000, Wetland Buffers. Water Notes WN4, Perth, Western Australia.

Wenger, S 1999, A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and

vegetation,.

Yamada, T, Logsdon, SD, Tomer, MD & Burkart, MR 2007, ‘Groundwater nitrate following

installation of a vegetated riparian buffer.’, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 385, no. 1–

3, pp. 297–309.


881 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 10 CITY PLANNINGCOASTAL HAZARD UPDATE – SEEKING FORMAL WITHDRAWAL FROM MAJORUPDATE PACKAGEPD113/1303/05(P1)






2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City Plan does not currently integrate the State interest for coastal hazards and thereforerequires development in areas affected by state declared erosion prone areas to beassessed against the State Planning Policy assessment benchmarks in addition to Council’scurrent Coastal erosion hazard overlay code.

Upon City Plan’s commencement, the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing,Infrastructure, and Planning (Minister) recommended the City undertake a major amendmentto integrate the State interest within 12 months of commencement.

Council subsequently endorsed the City Plan Major update – coastal hazard package(coastal update) on the 14 November 2017 (G17.1114.015). The coastal update wasforwarded to the Minister to commence State interest review in January 2018. On receipt ofthe amendment package, the Minister issued a ‘Stop the clock’ notice on the 24 January2018 and requested further detail regarding the proposed amendment.

In parallel with Council’s submission of the coastal update, the City resolved to apply forfunding in July 2018 (G18.0731.005), to prepare a Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy(CHAS). The City was subsequently successful in obtaining $452,891 from the LocalGovernment Association of Queensland (LGAQ) under the State Government’s QCoast2100initiative.

The purpose of the CHAS is to facilitate the development of high quality information toenable defensible (legally, socially and economically), timely and effective local adaptationdecision making for land subject to coastal hazards across the city, up to the year 2100. Thisprocess includes extensive community consultation and a refinement to the erosion pronearea maps which are currently the subject of the coastal update.

However, the LGAQ has recently informed the City that the timelines to complete the CHAShave been brought forward with an October 2020 completion date.


882 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 10 (Continued)COASTAL HAZARD UPDATE – SEEKING FORMAL WITHDRAWAL FROM MAJORUPDATE PACKAGEPD113/1303/05(P1)

In responding to the ‘Stop the Clock’ notice on the City Plan Major update – Coastal hazards(Attachment 1), City officers not only provided detailed responses to the various mattersraised by the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning(DSDMIP), but also highlighted that in response to the amended CHAS timelines, the longterm planning and communication of coastal hazards risks would be more effectivelydelivered through prioritising and finalising the CHAS process.

With both the Major update and the CHAS requiring extensive city wide communityconsultation, Council officers identified that the CHAS delivery consultation would coincide oroccur shortly after exhibition of the coastal update. This dual consultation has the potential tocreate confusion in the community, leading to sub optimal planning outcomes.

On 25 January 2019 the DSDMIP, responded to Councils request for consideration of asuitable pathway forward to ensure effective long term coastal planning on the Gold Coast.Consequently, the DSDMIP have therefore supported the Council officer’s request toprioritise the CHAS and recommend that Council withdraw the proposed coastal amendment(Attachment 2).

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement to formally withdraw theproposed City Plan Major Update – Coastal Hazards from State interest review while the Cityprepares its Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy by October 2020.


Council resolved 7 December 2016 (G16.1207.016):

2 Council endorses the proposed policy approach to integrate State interest into City Plan.

3 Council proposes a major amendment to City Plan for Natural hazards, risk and resilience (Coastal hazard).

...

6 Upon receipt of letter from the Minister confirming state interests, officers proceed to prepare a major amendment to City Plan.

Council resolved 21 June 2017 (G17.0621.012)

2 To propose to make a Schedule 6 – City Plan policy – Coastal Resilience Assessment Guideline in accordance with section 117 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and Statutory Guideline 01/16 ‘Making and amending local planning instruments’.

3 To note that the drafted content for the Schedule 6 – City Plan policy – Coastal Resilience Assessment Guideline be brought back for consideration by the City Planning Committee, as part of the Major Coastal Hazards Update package.


883 ADOPTED REPORT


Council resolved 14 November 2017 (G17.1114.015)…

3 That in accordance with section 117 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and Statutory Guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments:

a write to the Minister requesting a State interest review of the City Plan Major update – coastal hazards amendment package and the Minister's agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendments;

b provide the Minister with a consultation report which outlines the extent and outcomes of consultation undertaken with State agencies and the public in preparing the proposed amendments;

c provide the Minister with a written statement about the communication strategy Council intends to implement at the public consultation phase of the proposed amendments;

d provide the Minister with the written statement about how the proposed amendments coordinates and integrates matters of State and regional dimension;

e provide the Minister with the written statement about how the proposed amendments addresses the relevant state interests;

f provide the Minister with the written statement about how the key elements of a planning scheme mentioned in s88 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 are addressed; and

g provide the Minister with any relevant background studies or reports that informed the preparation of the proposed amendments.

4 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to make minor editorial modifications where required to the proposed City Plan Major update – coastal hazards amendment package outlined in Attachment A.

5 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare a letter and any supporting documents advising the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning of recommendation 2.

Council resolved on the 31 July 2018 (G18.0731.05)

1 That Council applies for QCoast2100 funding from Queensland State Government to complete the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy;

2 That Council approves establishment of a Project Reference Group and Technical Working Group to oversee development of the CHAS;

3 That a progress report will be presented back to Council in 12 months.


884 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 10 (Continued) COASTAL HAZARD UPDATE – SEEKING FORMAL WITHDRAWAL FROM MAJOR UPDATE PACKAGE PD113/1303/05(P1)

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Integrating the state interest for coastal hazards

Currently, City Plan does not integrate the State interest for coastal hazards and thusrequires development in areas affected by state declared erosion prone areas to beassessed against the State Planning Policy assessment benchmarks in addition to Council’scurrent Coastal erosion hazard overlay code.

Upon City Plan’s commencement, the Minister recommended the City undertake a majoramendment to integrate the State interest for coastal hazards within 12 months ofcommencement.

City Plan commenced on 2 February 2016, with Council resolving to make the update on 7December 2016 (G16.1207.016). Subsequently, on the 14 November 2017, Councilendorsed the City Plan major update – coastal hazard package (G17.1114.015) which wasforwarded to the Minister to commence State interest review in January 2018.

On receipt of the coastal amendment package, DSDMIP issued a ‘Stop the clock’ notice andsought clarification on a number of points. The City forwarded its response on the 30 October2018 (Attachment 1).

In summary, the City’s response consisted of:

detailed responses to the various matters raised by the Department; the revised Waterway and coastal erosion hazard overlay code and associated

overlay mapping; and the revised SC.6.5 City Plan Policy – Coastal resilience assessment guideline that

includes the Department’s requested amendments.

The preparation of this Major update had been informed through regular consultation withDSDMIP officers since 2016 as integration of the state interest for coastal hazards is highlycomplex given:

the City’s existing coastal protection policies that mitigate current erosion risk acrossthe City;

the extent of unmitigated erosion prone areas identified by the State’s erosion pronearea mapping; and

the endorsement of the City’s new Flood overlay map which incorporates the coastalhazard of projected sea level rise of 80cm by the year 2100.

Lastly, State policy dictates that where development is proposed on land in a declarederosion prone area, development is to avoid the hazard area or where avoidance is notpossible, mitigate risks to an acceptable or tolerable level.

Adding to this complexity is that the Major update is an interim measure (G16.1207.016)while the City develops its long term planning approach for coastal hazards, through thepreparation of the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy (CHAS).


885 ADOPTED REPORT


5.1.2. Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy

Separate to integrating the State interest for coastal hazards into local government planningschemes, the State is encouraging Queensland’s coastal local governments to prepare longterm plans to address coastal hazards through preparation of a CHAS. The development of aCHAS is predominantly funded by the State and administered by the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland (LGAQ) under the State Government’s QCoast2100 initiative.

The preparation of the CHAS will result in the City developing finer resolution erosion pronearea mapping that will supersede the State declared erosion prone area maps, currently thesubject of this Major update. This localised erosion prone area mapping will better defineand reduce the extent of short and long term erosion prone area widths in accordance withthe current definition of erosion prone areas, particularly in areas comprising estuarineenvironments (ie the tidal extent of open waterbodies, creeks, rivers and canals) and whereapproved revetment structures exists.

Further to Council’s submission of the coastal update to the Minister, the City resolved(G18.0731.05) to apply for additional CHAS funding. The City completed stages 1 and 2 inJune 2018, with an additional funding request for stages 3 to 8 recently successful. InNovember 2018, the City received $452,891 from the LGAQ to prepare and complete theCHAS.

Council has appointed consultants to complete Stage 3, which involves the identification ofcoastal erosion hazard areas throughout approximately 400km of estuarine environments(i.e. tidal waterways not along the open coast). This work program aims to be completed byJune 2019. In addition, a governance structure to oversee the project has been endorsed byCouncil (G18.0731.05) and an internal technical working group has been established toguide each of the remaining phases of the CHAS. A progress report will be provided toCouncil in July 2019.

However, the LGAQ has recently informed the City that the timelines to complete the CHAShave been brought forward with an October 2020 completion date. This amended timelinehas impacted the parallel processes of the coastal update and CHAS delivery. With both theMajor update and the CHAS requiring city wide community consultation, Council officersidentified that the CHAS delivery consultation would coincide or occur shortly after exhibitionof the coastal hazards Major update. This level of complexity has the potential to createconfusion in the community and lead to sub optimal planning outcomes.


886 ADOPTED REPORT


5.1.3 Consultation with State on suitable pathway for effective long term coastal planning

In responding to the ‘Stop the Clock’ notice on City Plan Major update – coastal hazardsamendment package (Attachment 1), City officers wrote to DSDMIP on 30 October 2018seeking consideration of a suitable pathway to ensure progression of the proposed coastalupdate which does not inhibit the long term planning for coastal hazards through the CHAS.

City officers have considered the benefits and opportunities of carrying forward both projectssimultaneously and have concluded it would be prudent to prioritise the CHAS and then seekto integrate the State interest for coastal hazards into City Plan at a point in time once theCHAS has been finalised.

On the 25 January 2019 DSDMIP responded (Attachment 2) and noted the following:

Therefore in response to the correspondence received from DSDMIP it is recommended thatCouncil resolve to:

(1) formally withdraw the coastal update from State interest review; and(2) write to the Minister seeking formal withdrawal.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES ANDOPERATIONAL PLAN

Corporate Plan 2022: Place, 1.8 Our city is resilient to natural hazards, we can adapt tochange.

o Key Strategy – Implement the City Plan to undertake risk based land use planningthat considers natural hazards as fundamental element in city planning.

Operational Plan: Program 1 City Planning - Land use and Urban Planning

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

Not applicable

REDACTED


887 ADOPTED REPORT


8 RISK MANAGEMENT

Corporate Risk No. CO000644

Natural Hazards Resilience – The City is not adequately resilient to natural hazards shockresulting in loss of life, cessation of Council business, reputational damage and economicdownturn.

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

Section 286 of the Planning Act 2016 identifies that an update to a statutory instrument which commences under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) continues under SPA. The decision to undertake the amendment to integrate the coastal hazards was made in 7December 2016 while SPA was still enacted.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not applicable

11 DELEGATIONS

Not applicable

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate or Organisation

Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Steve Brett, ExecutiveCoordinator, MajorAssessment

Economy Planning andEnvironment

Yes

Kelli Adair, ExecutiveCoordinator, City andRegional Planning

Economy Planning andEnvironment

Yes

13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

City Development will need to continue to assess developments in State declared erosionprone areas against the State Planning Policy benchmarks.

14 TIMING

Upon Council’s endorsement of the recommendations, City Planning will write to the Ministerof State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning to withdraw the coastalupdate from the State interest review and continue to progress with the CHAS.


888 ADOPTED REPORT


15 CONCLUSION

The endorsed coastal hazard package adopted by Council was an interim approach tointegrating the State interest for coastal hazard, in anticipation of Council completing itsCHAS. However, in response to the CHAS timelines being brought forward, the simultaneousdelivery of the coastal update and the CHAS will have the potential to create inconsistentplanning and mitigation outcomes.

This concern was brought to DSDMIP’s attention and DSDMIP have recognised thecomplexities associated with the conflicting timelines. Consequently, DSDMIP havesupported the City to prioritise the preparation of the CHAS by October 2020.

It is therefore recommended that Council endorse to write to the Minister for StateDevelopment, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning to formally withdraw the City PlanMajor update – coastal hazards from State interest review.

16 RECOMMENDATION


1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those partsdeemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance withsections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That Council:

a Endorse the formal withdrawal of the City Plan major update - coastalhazards amendment package from state interest review; and

b write to the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructureand Planning to formally withdraw the City Plan Major update – coastalhazards from state interest review.


Pradesh Ramiah Alisha SwainSupervising Natural Hazard Planner Director, Economy, Planning and

Environment20 February 2019


889 ADOPTED REPORT


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.0320.009 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr O’Neill


2 That Council:

a Endorse the formal withdrawal of the City Plan major update - coastal hazards amendment package from state interest review; and

b write to the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning to formally withdraw the City Plan Major update – coastal hazards from state interest review.

CARRIED .


890 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 11 CITY PLANNINGMUDGEERABA INVESTIGATION AREA COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMESPD113/1275/14/02


Attachment A: Community engagement and marketing report (Mudgeeraba investigation area)Attachment B: Mudgeeraba investigation area community meetings report (Articulous, November 2018)Attachment C: FAQs and simplified plan of investigation area opportunities and challengesAttachment D:Attachment E: (confidential) Draft City Plan update of the strategic framework



(g) any action to be taken by the local government under the Planning Act,including deciding applications made to it under that Act; or



2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Mudgeeraba investigation area study includes 53 properties in the Rural Residentialzone and two within the Limited development zone, located between Mudgeeraba Road andthe Motorway. In November 2017, a report to Council identified potential for between 328and 504 new dwellings in the Rural Residential zoned area and the feasibility of servicing thispotential growth with trunk infrastructure.

However, the feasibility of servicing the area with trunk infrastructure is dependent onidentified growth opportunities being realised in various potential development precincts. Thisrequires support from property owners to assemble development sites. If only a smallnumber of sites were developed in the short term, there is a financial risk for Council tooutlay costs for trunk infrastructure earlier than required.

To address this financial risk to Council, community engagement (particularly with propertyowners) was considered necessary to determine when Council should for further pursueplanning for growth opportunities. In November 2018, a community engagement strategywas endorsed by Council to assist with making a decision on whether to carry out furtherwork to facilitate the transition of the Mudgeeraba investigation area for urban development.

The first stage of community engagement involved informing the community (targetingproperty owners and community groups) of the identified potential development opportunitiesand gaining initial feedback to inform further consultation. This included letters to propertyowners and community groups with information, a dedicated gchaveyoursay webpage,facilitated community meetings and informal community ‘drop in sessions’.

REDACTED


891 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 11 (Continued)MUDGEERABA INVESTIGATION AREA COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMESPD113/1275/14/02

The second stage of consultation included a survey targeted to property owners (with paperresponses offered) and open to the wider community through an online survey. The primarypurpose of this survey was to seek feedback on the identified potential developmentopportunities to assist Council’s decision-making on whether to progress further land use andinfrastructure planning. Responses to the survey were received from owners representing 37of the 53 rural residential properties (69.8 per cent) within the investigation area. A majority(57 per cent) of these responses did not supporting change at all or only after 25 years.Spatial analysis of the survey responses did not identify any precincts within the investigationarea where there is support (within 5-15 or 15-25 years) for identified developmentopportunities.

Analysis of the survey responses concludes further strategic planning for the Mudgeerabainvestigation area is not warranted as it would present a financial risk to Council for deliveryof infrastructure before it is required. However, the City Plan investigation area isrecommended to be retained. The absence of responses from 30 per cent of properties inthe investigation area and the likelihood of changing demographics in the area means therecould be a different outcome if another survey was carried out in 10 to 15 years.

A minor update to City Plan is recommended to clarify that following completion of aninvestigation, the intent of City Plan is to maintain a rural residential character and intent.This enables Council to pursue further investigation if in the future there is a demonstratedneed. It is also recommended to write to survey respondents and property owners within theinvestigation area to notify them of Council’s resolutions on the community consultationoutcomes.

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of community consultation on potentialfuture low-medium density residential development opportunities for the Mudgeerabainvestigation area and provide recommendations on the findings.


On 23 August 2016, Council resolved (CP16.0817.006 / G16.0823.018):

‘That further investigation into urban development opportunities and infrastructure costing for Mudgeeraba North, Parkwood and Oxenford investigation areas is carried out in the 2016-17 financial year’

On 3 March 2017, Council noted (CP17.0301.007 / G17.0303.014) a project update report onthe Mudgeeraba North, Parkwood and Oxenford investigation areas.

On 28 November 2017, Council resolved (CP17.1122.010 / G17.1128.013) to prepare aproperty owner engagement strategy for the investigation areas:

1. That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemedby the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171(3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2. That the contents of this report and attachments be noted.3. That a property owner engagement strategy, to assist decision making on whether to

pursue development of City Plan updates for urban development opportunities in eacharea, is prepared in consultation with relevant local councillors and reported to Council.

4. That the order of priority for future strategic planning and property owner engagementis as identified in the report.


892 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 11 (Continued) MUDGEERABA INVESTIGATION AREA COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMES PD113/1275/14/02

5. That the preliminary recommendations for each area are used to inform future strategicplanning and property owner engagement.

On 28 August 2018, Council endorsed a community engagement strategy (EPE18.0822.009 / G18.0828.020) for the investigation areas:

1. That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemedby the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171(3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2. That the community engagement strategy phases and evaluation measures, providedin Attachment C, are endorsed.

3. That the ‘Investigation Areas Program – Project Update 2’ report and attachments tothe Economy, Planning and Environment Committee on 22 November 2017 bedeemed non-confidential.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Project background

Investigation areas were first identified in a draft State interest review version of City Plan in November 2013. The South East Queensland Regional Plan (SEQRP) was under review at the time and 17 investigation areas with the potential to accommodate projected population growth were identified.

The Investigation Areas Program assists Council to effectively plan for new housing supply opportunities. The program seeks to deliver long-term strategic planning which is necessary to ensure:

development opportunities are preserved; there is efficient planning of infrastructure to support future urban development; and the implications of additional population growth are considered when planning for

infrastructure upgrades around the investigation areas.

Two investigation areas (Eggersdorf Road, Ormeau and Courtney Drive, Upper Coomera) that facilitate approximately 1,000 new dwellings are currently being progressed through various City Plan major update amendment packages. Land use and infrastructure planning for new dwellings in these areas was undertaken in consultation with the community following strong property owner interest.

In 2016, the Mudgeeraba investigation area (previously referred to as the Mudgeeraba North investigation area) was identified as a high priority for investigation together with the Parkwood and Oxenford investigation areas, subject to further feasibility assessment to determine potential urban development opportunities. An overview of the planning process as it relates to the Mudgeeraba investigation area is provided in Figure 1.


893 ADOPTED REPORT


Figure 1: Investigation area program overview (Mudgeeraba)

In 2017, Council completed an investigation area study for Mudgeeraba which identified future low-medium density residential development opportunities that could accommodate between 328 and 504 new dwellings (dependent on market demand for apartment product). Council’s study considered the cost of infrastructure upgrades required to support urban development and considered the costs were reasonable (i.e. could be offset by infrastructure charges) subject to the identified development opportunities being realised.

In 2018, a community engagement strategy was endorsed for the Mudgeeraba, Parkwood and Oxenford investigation areas. A key purpose of this strategy was to involve the local community in the plan making process and assist Council with making a decision on whether to carry out further work to prepare a City Plan update for new housing.

The Mudgeeraba investigation area study boundary (refer Figure 2) includes 53 rural residential properties and two large properties in the Limited development zone.

The rural residential properties include a high proportion of owner-occupier homes (83 per cent) compared to the Mudgeeraba average of 72.5 per cent. The average length of ownership in the investigation area is 15 years, which is twice as long as the City average of 7-8 years.

The Limited development zoned properties are owned by the Baptist Church and have a retirement village on part of the site. The remainder of the Limited development zone properties are constrained by flood plain (wetlands) and significant vegetation. The investigation area study did not identify development opportunities for these properties.

Opportunities and Constraints Analysis, Preliminary Concept Plan and Developer Feasibility Assessment - 2016-2017

Community engagement - 2018

Infrastructure Needs and Costs Assessment (Stormwater, Water and Wastewater, Recreation Open Space) Preliminary Structure Plan - 2017

Next Steps

Inform community of consultation outcomes Progress minor update to strategic framework

Co

mp

lete

d p

ha

se

s

Current phase

Council Check Point - Report on community engagement outcomes / endorse next steps

Identification of Investigation Areas in draft City Plan - November 2013

Prioritisation of Investigation Areas - 2016


894 ADOPTED REPORT


Figure 2: Map of Mudgeeraba investigation area study boundary

5.2 Community engagement overview

Community engagement for the investigation area studies was important to ensure strategic land use planning is carried out in a transparent manner, involving the community and aligning with recent State Government directions on plan making (i.e. Queensland Government Community Engagement Toolkit for Planning, August 2017).

As prefaced in the Community Engagement Toolkit for Planning, local communities benefit the most from good planning. Queensland’s planning system encourages effective and genuine community engagement so that local communities can participate in the plan making process. It does this while supporting efficient and consistent decision making that instils community confidence and investment.

Previous studies for the Mudgeeraba investigation area identified a number of properties would need to be assembled (i.e. amalgamated) to achieve desired residential development outcomes (i.e. urban design, developer and infrastructure feasibility). Without property owner support, development opportunities within the investigation areas cannot be realised. This also presents a financial risk to Council for recovering costs of trunk infrastructure before it is required.

The endorsed community engagement strategy (G18.0828.020) provided a plan to work with the local community, particularly property owners, to ensure that concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered in Council’s decision making process. The community engagement outcomes sought to assist the City in making a decision on whether or not to pursue further land use and infrastructure planning to develop a City Plan update and how to further involve the community.


895 ADOPTED REPORT


The community engagement included the following activities:

Briefing the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) and Department of StateDevelopment Manufacturing Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP).

Writing to property owners and local community groups to inform them of the consultationand engagement activities.

Creating a dedicated GChaveyoursay.com.au webpage, with a forum for questions andanswers and information (e.g. fact sheet, timelines and investigation area technicalstudies).

Facilitating property owner meetings (day and evening options) which provided a forumfor discussion and generated feedback using live polling technology.

Following up the property owner meetings with three ‘drop-in’ sessions open to propertyowners and the wider community.

Inviting the community and property owners to participate in a survey viaGChaveyoursay.com.au. This included writing to property owners with the option tocomplete a paper survey. Reminder letters were sent to property owners who did notrespond by the initial due date, giving an extension to 25 January 2019.

5.3 Property owner meetings and drop-in sessions

Property owners were invited to attend one of two meetings at the Mudgeeraba Show Grounds, with the breakdown of those who attended as follows:

Community meeting

Participants* Number of lots represented

% of lots in the investigation area

1pm 23 October 25 18 6pm 23 October 44 26 Total 69* 41* 77%(*) Some participants at the 1:00pm community meeting chose to attend the 6:00pm meeting as well. They were asked to refrain from the live polling activities, but were asked to participate in the Q&A.

These meetings gauged initial community sentiment towards the potential transition to urban development and sought to identify participants’ aspirations for the future of the area and their appetite for change. Information was given about Council’s obligations to plan for the future of the area, the technical investigations undertaken to date, and the timing and nature of planning for redevelopment, should the Council decide to proceed in that direction.

This approach allowed participants to be as informed as possible prior to completing a survey on GChaveyoursay.com.au. The planning and facilitation of these meetings was assisted by expert community engagement consultants Articulous (refer to full meeting report in Attachment B).

A feature of the meetings was the use of live polling, which allowed the collection of questions and feedback in real time. Participants could see how their views, opinions and aspirations align with (or differ to) their neighbours. Figure 3 details an example of a question asked and the responses received.


896 ADOPTED REPORT


Figure 3: Responses to live polling question ‘How supportive would you be of redevelopment in your area?’ (from both property owner meetings)

Number of responses

After the community meetings, the following information was uploaded to the GChaveyoursay webpage and posted to property owners:

presentation provided at community meetings, including polling results (referAttachment B);

more detailed responses to Frequently Asked Questions prepared followingcommunity meetings, phone conversations and via gchaveyoursay.com.au (referAttachment C); and

a simplified plan of the Mudgeeraba investigation area, with discussion onopportunities and challenges (refer Attachment C).

The wider community (including property owners) were invited to attend drop-in session events, also held at the Mudgeeraba Show Grounds. The three events were attended by 14 people from the Mudgeeraba/Tallai locality including members of three local community groups (Scouts, Gold Coast Hinterland Museum and Gold Coast Wood Turners).

Local community groups raised concerns in relation to future widening of Mudgeeraba Road and the impacts of future land resumptions on these groups. Council officers had previously liaised with TMR on this matter and relayed advice that a four lane upgrade in the vicinity of Scullin Street is not on the current TMR future works program. Advice was provided to the community that this upgrade was identified as necessary prior to the identification of future population growth in the Mudgeeraba investigation area.


897 ADOPTED REPORT


5.4 Evaluation of survey responses

A total of 103 survey responses were received as part of the Mudgeeraba Investigation survey (refer full report at Attachment A). Many of these responses were from people who did not own a property in the Mudgeeraba investigation area. Of the total survey responses received, it was identified that 37 out of 53 rural residential properties (69.8 per cent) provided a survey response.

The responses from property owners to the following two key survey questions has influenced the proposed recommendation of whether or not to proceed with further planning.

Figure 4: Charts showing response to survey questions on potential growth opportunities

Question: Some areas of the Gold Coast have large lot residential properties (e.g. 1,000sqm or greater) which are well located to existing services (e.g. schools, parks, centres and employment).

What is your level of support for increased housing (2-3 storeys) and subdivision of these large lot residential properties across the Gold Coast as a way to plan for long-term sustainable growth?


898 ADOPTED REPORT


Question: The investigation areas present potential long-term opportunities that may take up to 25 years to be realised.

Thinking about the future of properties within the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area, are you supportive of this area accommodating increased housing (2-3 storeys) and subdivision?

As demonstrated in Table 1, compared to the live polling results from the property owner meetings, the survey responses received from property owners indicate less negative sentiment with regard to redevelopment and increased housing within the investigation area.

Table 1: Comparison of property owner community meeting and survey responses

Property owner meeting (live polling) GChaveyoursay survey

(property owners)

Supportive to some degree of redevelopment

21 % Within 5-15 years Within 15-25 years

35 % 3%

Not supportive at all or have reservations

76 % Do not support any change (or only after 25 years)

57 %

Interestingly, the wider community were somewhat more opposed to change in the investigation area.

A number of respondents justified their support or opposition to the proposed changes in the open-ended survey question. A summary of the open ended responses is provided in Attachment A.

As part of the endorsed community engagement strategy, evaluation measures were developed to assist City officers to give consideration of both the nature and location of feedback from property owners. This allowed a finer grain understanding of the planning opportunities and constraints and the creation of precincts (Attachment D). After plotting the survey responses, it is evident there is no support within any investigation area evaluation precinct for realising development opportunities in either 5-15 years or 15-25 years. The evaluation criteria are provided in Table 2.


899 ADOPTED REPORT


Table 2: Evaluation criteria and response approach

Response Category

Criteria Council’s response to this approach

Strong support

At least fifty percent of responses for properties within an evaluation precinct are supportive of a change for urban development as soon as possible.

Timing: 5-15 years (subject to infrastructure).

Strong support positively influences Council planning opportunities to rezone a precinct for urban development.

Such areas would be subject to further consideration of the cost and timeframe for providing suitable urban infrastructure and will require additional precinct planning with property owners to provide a more detailed planning response. This will be explored through Phase 2 of the proposed community engagement strategy.

Longer term support

At least fifty percent of responses for properties within an evaluation precinct are supportive of future urban development at some time.

Timing: either 5-15 years or 15-25 years (subject toinfrastructure).

This response provides Council an opportunity to pursue longer term infrastructure planning and ‘future urban’ development opportunities. This outcome may include a higher level of strategic planning which may not result in a change to an urban zone, instead resulting in review of the City Plan strategic framework and planning for longer term delivery of infrastructure.

Negative response

At least fifty percent of responses for properties within an evaluation precinct are unsupportive of a change for urban development within 25 years.

A negative response may lead to Council abandoning further planning investigation for urban development opportunities and potentially reinvestigating in 10-15 years.

Undecided Undecided response These responses may be discounted or further consultation may occur to determine a response.

5.5 City Plan update recommendations

The land use and infrastructure planning study prepared for the Mudgeeraba investigation area identified the opportunity for between 328 and 504 new dwellings. At both lower and higher yields, the cost to service the investigation area with trunk infrastructure was deemed acceptable, subject to recovery of infrastructure charges through development of the area.

However, if only a small number of sites were developed in the short term, there is a financial risk for Council to outlay costs for trunk infrastructure earlier than required. The fragmented property ownership within the investigation area also contributes to the difficulty of developing the area which requires sites to be assembled for development. Consequently, community engagement (particularly with property owners) was considered necessary to determine if or when Council should pursue further planning for growth opportunities.


900 ADOPTED REPORT


The following major infrastructure upgrades were identified as critical to facilitate increased housing in the investigation area:

converting rural residential standard roads to urban standards (including road pavementdesign, road width and stormwater);

upgrading the intersection of Scullin Street with State controlled Mudgeeraba Road forvehicular safety and safety of pedestrians crossing Mudgeeraba Road, before anyresidential intensification within the investigation area; and

supply of wastewater infrastructure including future upgrades to pump stations within thecatchment, a new local pump station and rising mains (for Piallingo Street catchment)and trunk gravity mains for to service Scullin Street, Rivett Court and NarrabundahStreet.

If a decision was made to progress identified low-medium density residential development within the investigation, further work would be required to plan for infrastructure delivery. Detailed precinct planning would also be required to ensure an acceptable yield could be achieved (to support required infrastructure) and urban design outcomes.

Even if a change of zoning was to occur and the State controlled Mudgeeraba Road intersection upgraded, survey responses indicate development would be unlikely to commence within the life of City Plan. Without property owner support, a developer will not be able to assemble enough properties for a catalyst development (i.e. large enough to achieve economic feasibility with delivery of infrastructure).

From the survey responses received (refer Attachment A), most property owners in the investigation area are strongly opposed to further planning for low-medium density residential development opportunities. Spatial analysis of the responses received (refer Attachment D) shows that there is not a suitable cluster of properties supporting change.

Based on the strong opposition from the current property owners who responded to the survey (and also the wider community) to future low-medium density residential development of the investigation area, officers recommend no further strategic planning be undertaken for the investigation area within the life of City Plan.

However, given responses from 16 (30 per cent) of properties to the survey were not received and property ownership, demographics and housing preferences are subject to change, there could be a different outcome if another survey was carried out in 10 to 15 years. Consequently, it is not recommended to remove the City Plan investigation area.

The current demographic profile is that of ageing population (median age is 50 years and almost a quarter is aged over 65) who have been residing in the same property for 15 or more years. It is likely that the ownership will in time shift towards a younger age group. The acreage sized blocks and close proximity to schools and community services is likely to appeal to younger purchasers with children.


901 ADOPTED REPORT


As new owners move into the investigation area, they may have different views on future urban development opportunities and realising potential capital gains. There may also be a change in the views of existing property owners. Consequently, officers recommend the investigation area status be retained to provide a strategic planning direction that the area may be investigated for future development opportunities again at some stage in the future.

Together with retaining the investigation area, it is recommended to include a minor update to the statutory note in the strategic framework for Rural residential areas element, specific outcomes (s3.3.7.1). The intent of the recommended minor update (refer Attachment E) is to ensure that following completion of the investigation, the community and development industry are aware that the purpose of City Plan is to maintain a rural residential character and intent of the investigation area.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

The investigation areas program project is aligned to the following Corporate Plan 2022 objectives:

1.1 Our city provides a choice of liveable places We can choose diverse lifestyle and housing options from rural to city living.

Relevant key plans and work program:

Regularly amend the City Plan to ensure the city is safe, accessible and can takeadvantage of emerging opportunities.

Consolidate population growth in ‘priority growth areas’, including mixed useactivity centres, urban neighbourhoods, light rail corridor urban renewal areas,remaining greenfield, specialist business precincts and identified future growthareas.

Protect identified areas for their distinctive character or lifestyle attributes,including parks, green space, City assets, high value ecological areas or land withrural production and scenic amenity values.

Support the delivery of housing choice to support liveability and affordability in thecity.

Plan and implement appropriate community facilities for residents across the city.

1.2 We live in balance with natureWe manage quality rural and urban living while looking after the future of the city’s rainforest, bushland, waterways and open space.


Support the preservation of the city's natural environment (open space, naturalresources and conservation) through a strategic leadership approach to the CityPlan and environmental strategies.


902 ADOPTED REPORT


1.6 Our modern centres create vibrant communities We can work, live and play in our local neighbourhoods. Relevant Performance Measure:

Percentage of residents who live within 400m of a recreational park (by 202280%)

Percentage of people who live within 800m of public transport (by 2022 90%)A. We plan for the future of the city

We make good choices that create a better future for the Gold Coast community.


Manage the long term growth of the city through the City Plan, focusing on theredevelopment of urban centres and key inner city neighbourhoods, ensuring non-urban areas such as the hinterland ranges and foothills are protected.

The City Plan is an initiative in the Operational Plan.

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

Not applicable.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

The activity supports the mitigation of the following Directorate Risk:

CO00510 – City Plan delivers inadequate and / or ineffective strategic/developmentpolicy (e.g. poor planning, built form, growth, social and environmental outcomes).

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

Community engagement strategy

Queensland’s planning system includes opportunities for genuine and effective community engagement in the plan making process, secured in the state’s planning legislation. The Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (MGR) under the Planning Act 2016 (July 2017) requires City Plan amendments to be developed in accordance with a community engagement strategy, prepared having regard to the ‘Community Engagement Toolkit for Planning’, prepared by the State Government.

The community consultation undertaken for the Mudgeeraba investigation area was part of community engagement strategy to prepare a potential City Plan major update.

Proposed minor update

The proposed minor update to City Plan update (refer Attachment E) is proposed to be included in a future Minor and Administrative update package. The next package is Minor and Administrative Update 6, which is presently scheduled in mid-2019, subject to Council endorsement.

Minor updates to City Plan are required to follow the process outlined in sections 5 and 6 of the MGR. The process to make a minor update does not include public consultation, State interest review and the Minister’s consideration. There are only two steps in the process to make a minor update:


903 ADOPTED REPORT


Planning and preparation; and Adoption.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not applicable.

11 DELEGATIONS

Not applicable.

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate or Organisation

Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Martine Cousins Coordinator Program Management

Economy, Planning and Environment

Yes

Grant Harris A/Coordinator City Plan

Economy, Planning and Environment

Support is provided for draft Minor Update.

Kylie Petersen Account Officer Corporate Communication

Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Yes

Consultation statistics summary

69 people (representing 41 properties) attended one of two community ‘property owner’meetings

14 people attended one of three community drop-in sessions, including 3 communitygroups

12 questions were raised on gchaveyoursay website 37 out of 53 properties were represented by survey responses 103 unique responses to survey GC have your say analytics summary:

o 504 aware participants – visited at least one page on the siteo 287 informed participants – visited multiple pages, viewed images and contributed


904 ADOPTED REPORT



External / community stakeholder Impacts

The survey responses received during the community consultation indicate that mostproperty owners within the investigation area and members of the Mudgeeraba and Tallaisuburbs will be satisfied with there being no further planning for urban development of theMudgeeraba investigation area at this time.

Internal (Organisational) Stakeholder Impacts

The recommendations of this report will not have any impacts on internal stakeholders.

14 TIMING

The proposed minor update to City Plan update (refer Attachment E) is proposed to be included in a future Minor and Administrative update package. The next package is Minor and Administrative Update 6, which is presently scheduled in mid-2019, subject to Council endorsement.

15 CONCLUSION

As prefaced in the State Government Community Engagement Toolkit for Planning, local communities benefit the most form good planning. Queensland’s planning system encourages effective and genuine community engagement so that local communities can participate in the plan making process. It does this while supporting efficient and consistent decision-making that instils investment and community confidence.

In an effort to genuinely involve the community early in the plan making process, community consultation was recently undertaken on potential future low-medium density residential development opportunities for the Mudgeeraba investigation area (mostly rural residential land located between Mudgeeraba Road and the Pacific Motorway).

Community support, particularly from property owners, for identified growth opportunities was identified as important to assist Council’s decision making on whether or not to pursue further planning for the area. Without there being strong support from property owners, there is a financial risk for Council to outlay costs for trunk infrastructure earlier than required. This would be the case if Council prepared an amendment and only a small number of sites were developed in the short term.

The community consultation was carried out in accordance with a Council endorsed community engagement strategy. The first stage of consultation was to inform/educate the community on previous studies identifying development opportunities and challenges for the area.

The second stage of consultation included a survey to seek feedback on the identified potential development opportunities in order to assist Council decision making on whether to progress further land use and infrastructure planning (and development of a City Plan Major update). With consideration of the survey responses, the report recommends no further strategic planning actions for the Mudgeeraba investigation area.

However, it is recommended to retain the City Plan investigation area. The absence of responses from 30 per cent of properties in the investigation area and the likelihood of changing demographics in the area means there could be a different outcome if another survey was carried out in 10 to 15 years.


905 ADOPTED REPORT


A minor update to City Plan is recommended to clarify that following completion of an investigation, the intent of City Plan is to maintain a rural residential character and intent. This allows Council to pursue further investigation if in the future there is a demonstrated need. It is also recommended to write to survey respondents and property owners within the investigation area to notify them of Council’s resolutions on the community consultation outcomes.

16 RECOMMENDATION



2 That the attached ‘Mudgeeraba Survey Report’ (Attachment A) be noted by Council.

3 That the attached ‘Mudgeeraba Investigation Area – Community Meetings Report’ (Attachment B) be noted by Council.

4 That attached draft City Plan update of the strategic framework (Attachment E) is endorsed to be included in a future Minor and Administrative update package.

5 That the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area is to maintain a rural residential character and intent.

6 That that the respondents to the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area Survey and property owners within the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area are notified of the above Council resolutions.


Justin Collofello Alisha Swain Principal Regional Planner Director Economy, Planning & Environment 5 March 2019


906 ADOPTED REPORT


Committee Recommendation Adopted At Council 26 March 2019

Changed recommendation

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.0320.010 moved Cr Tozer seconded Cr Owen-Jones


2 That the attached ‘Mudgeeraba Survey Report’ (Attachment A) be noted by Council.

3 That the attached ‘Mudgeeraba Investigation Area – Community Meetings Report’ (Attachment B) be noted by Council.

4 That attached draft City Plan update of the strategic framework (Attachment E) is endorsed to be included in a future Minor and Administrative update package.

5 That the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area is to maintain a rural residential character and intent with the ability for further investigation to occur as part of a future review of policy direction for growth and development in the city beyond 2031.

6 That that the respondents to the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area Survey and property owners within the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area are notified of the above Council resolutions.

CARRIED

RESOLUTION G19.0326.018 moved Cr Tozer seconded Cr Caldwell

That Committee Recommendation EPE19.0320.010 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:-

1. That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those partsdeemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance withsections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2. That the attached ‘Mudgeeraba Survey Report’ (Attachment A) be noted byCouncil.

3. That the attached ‘Mudgeeraba Investigation Area – Community MeetingsReport’ (Attachment B) be noted by Council.

4. That attached draft City Plan update of the strategic framework (Attachment E) isendorsed to be included in a future Minor and Administrative update package.

5. That the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area is to maintain a rural residentialcharacter and intent with the ability for further investigation to occur as part of afuture review of policy direction for growth and development in the city beyond2031.

6. That that the respondents to the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area Survey andproperty owners within the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area are notified of theabove Council resolutions.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


907 ADOPTED REPORT

Community engagement and marketing report

Investigation Areas Program Mudgeeraba

iSPOT#72812310 v5 March 2019

Attachment A (1 of 15)


908 ADOPTED REPORT

iSPOT:#72812310 – MUDGEERABA INVESTIGATION AREA ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING REPORT Page 2 of 15

Version history

Document version

Author Comments Date

1 Ali Bec Separated Mudgeeraba results 15 Feb 2019

Document distribution and approval

Name Title Action Signature (iSPOT#) Date

Joe McCabe Chief Operating Officer, OCOO Approve

Wayne Moran Chief of Staff, OOM Approve

Chris Lynch Policy Implementation and Community Engagement Officer, OOM Approve

Alisha Swain Director Economy Planning and Environment, EP&E Approve

Amanda Tzannes Manager City Planning, EP&E Approve

Kelli Adair Executive Coordinator City and Regional Planning, EP&E Approve

Renee Trezise Coordinator Regional Planning, EP&E Approve #72851062 21 Feb 2019

Justin Collofello Principal Regional Planner, EP&E Approve #72836655 19 Feb 2019

Nicole Waters Executive Coordinator Corporate Communication, OCOO CC only

Bernice Jones Coordinator Marketing, Communication and Engagement, OCOO Approve #72764813 11 Feb 2019

Kylie Petersen Account Officer EP&E, OCOO Approve #72749437 7 Feb 2019

Skye Ross Account Officer Community Engagement, OCOO Approve #72761728 8 Feb 2019

Alexandra Bec Community Engagement Officer, OCOO Endorse #72749448 31 Jan 2019


909 ADOPTED REPORT


Table of Contents 1. Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Key findings ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 ‘GC have your say’ analytics ............................................................................................... 4 1.3 Report considerations .......................................................................................................... 4

2. Project background ....................................................................................................................... 5

3. Community engagement objectives ............................................................................................ 5

4. Scope and timing .......................................................................................................................... 5

5. Communication strategy .............................................................................................................. 6 5.1 Key messages ..................................................................................................................... 6 5.2 Marketing and communication of the engagement .............................................................. 6

6. Survey results ................................................................................................................................ 8

Appendix A – Community engagement tools .................................................................................. 12 GC have your say project page .................................................................................................. 12 Online survey .............................................................................................................................. 13


910 ADOPTED REPORT


1. Executive summaryCity of Gold Coast (the City) conducted an online survey on GC have your say and a paper-based survey to ensure local community opinions were considered regarding future land use opportunities and constraints within the Mudgeeraba investigation area.

Key land use planning information was mailed to property owners and also available for download and review on the project page and an online survey was open to the public. During the engagement, a marketing and communication plan was implemented to inform the community and encourage participation.

The engagement period ran from 12 November to 25 January 2019. This report provides a summary of the engagement, marketing and communication activities undertaken and the feedback received. The next step in the process is to reflect the community feedback in any future land use planning decisions relevant to the Investigation Area.

1.1 Key findings

A total of 103 unique survey responses (excluding duplicate responses per property) were received for theMudgeeraba investigation area.

o 64 per cent of property owners either strongly opposed or somewhat opposed the proposed increasein housing and subdivision of property across the Gold Coast, whilst 28 per cent somewhat orstrongly supported it.

o 50 per cent of property owners did not support any change within the Mudgeeraba investigation area.

o 36 per cent of property owners supported change in the next 25 years (33 per cent supportedchange within 5-15 years and 3 per cent supported change in 15 plus years).

o The main reason provided for opposing the changes was a desire to maintain semi-rural atmosphereand unique characteristics of the area, such as seclusion, tranquillity and space that motivateresidents to live there.

1.2 ‘GC have your say’ analytics

‘GC have your say’ analytics summary below shows:

504 aware participants – visited at least one page on the site

287 informed participants – visited multiple pages, viewed images and contributed.

1.3 Report considerations

The responses to this survey provide an indication of Gold Coast community views within a specific geographic area. They are not a randomly selected representative sample.

The survey format consisted of both closed and open-ended questions. The first survey question was in relation to the level of support for increased housing (2-3 storeys) and subdivision of large lot residential properties. The second survey question focused on the support for increased housing and subdivision in the relevant locality. The qualitative data from the open-ended questions was analysed using coding and data tagging to identify common themes and produce the graphs contained in this report.

The survey data files are located at #72765546 containing all online and hardcopy survey responses.


911 ADOPTED REPORT


2. Project backgroundMudgeeraba North is presently included in the Rural residential zone. The City Plan identifies this area in the strategic framework as being subject to investigation for land use opportunities and constraints. The Mudgeeraba North Investigation Area consists of 53 existing dwellings.

During consultation of the draft City Plan in 2014 there was mixed community response to the inclusion of this investigation area in City Plan. In August 2016, a preliminary feasibility assessment investigated land use opportunities and constraints for the investigation area located inside the previous SEQ Regional Plan Urban Footprint. The Mudgeeraba North was ranked as one of the highest areas, with funding approved for further investigation.

Planning and infrastructure investigations for Mudgeeraba Investigation Area was carried out and reported to City Planning Committee on 22 November 2017. This included a draft structure plan for the area identifying future urban development opportunities and critical infrastructure required to support transition from rural residential to urban. The report also identified preliminary recommendations to inform future strategic planning and property owner engagement.

The Council resolution included the following actions relating to future property owner engagement:

3 That a property owner engagement strategy, to assist decision making on whether to pursue development of City Plan updates for urban development opportunities in each area, is prepared in consultation with relevant local Councillors and reported to Council.

4 That the order of priority for future strategic planning and property owner engagement is as identified in the report.

5 That the preliminary recommendations for each area are used to inform future strategic planning and property owner engagement.

Queensland’s planning system includes opportunities for genuine and effective community engagement in the plan making process, secured in the state’s planning legislation. The Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (MGR) under the Planning Act 2016 (July 2017) requires City Plan amendments to be developed in accordance with a community engagement strategy, prepared having regard to the department’s Community Engagement Toolkit for Planning.

The community engagement strategy for the Mudgeeraba was developed with regard to Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure, and Planning (DSDMIP) community engagement toolkit for planning.

3. Community engagement objectivesThe community engagement objectives were:

To create a positive climate for the project through meaningful engagement with property owners of theinvestigation area, at regular intervals.

Use a facilitator to lead community meetings to engage with property owners of the investigation area todiscover interests, needs, concerns, preferences and potential issues in order to inform a Council decision onfuture changes to residential form and a possible City Plan major update.

To ensure that views expressed throughout the engagement process are recorded and reported accurately.

Avoid speculation and raising expectations of development opportunities prior to completing a City Plan update.

4. Scope and timingThe Corporate Communication team’s scope was to:

Ensure engagement activities aligned with Corporate Communication guidelines.

Develop and manage a project page on GC have your say with the associated survey.

Manage and deliver social media and communication requirements.


912 ADOPTED REPORT


Provide survey consultation results and report to the directorate.

The community engagement ran from 21 November 2018 to 25 January 2019.

5. Communication strategy

5.1 Key messages

The key messages for this community engagement were:

The Gold Coast is one of the fastest growing cities in Australia. In 2017, the Gold Coast welcomed more than 15,000 new residents.

Under the South East Queensland Regional Plan (ShapingSEQ 2017), the Queensland Government has established population growth targets for the Gold Coast. This requires the delivery of 158,900i new dwellings by 2041, across a diverse mix of housing types.

To ensure that we can achieve projected population growth, and protect the city’s enviable lifestyle, we are undertaking long-term strategic planning.

The City Plan Investigation Area Study is one way that we’re planning for long-term, sustainable growth within our city.

Planning for sustainable growth doesn’t happen overnight. Outcomes of the City Plan Investigation Area Study may take up to 25 years before development opportunities can be realised.

The City Plan Investigation Area Study identifies opportunities to better utilise land close to existing services and employment that have the potential to support growth.

By undertaking the City Plan Investigation Area Study, the City, in consultation with Queensland Government, is equipped to:

improve how we manage growth within the city involve residents and property owners in the planning process for their community effectively plan for upgrades of services, including stormwater, sewerage and roads, in the most cost

effective manner. plan for new and/or improved community amenities (e.g. landscaping, parks, sporting facilities, pathways

etc.) where we are planning for long term population growth accurately forecast and plan for expenditure create opportunities for residents to live in a diverse mix of housing types share potential future plans to give residence improved visibility of the planning process and enable

community feedback to be considered.

In 2016, an initial study was undertaken across 17 areas within City of Gold Coast to investigate the specific opportunities and constraints within each area.

The study identified that Mudgeeraba has specific land use opportunities and, with the right planning and investment, have the potential to support long-term growth.

5.2 Marketing and communication of the engagement

The Investigation Area engagement specifically targeted affected property owners within Mudgeeraba.

Information packs including letters and factsheets were directly mailed to property owners/residents within the area. The Mudgeeraba Investigation Area had 53 rural residential zoned properties.

Community groups within the local area were also provided with letters and factsheets.

Key messages were also supplied to local Councillors to share information about the consultation with local residents.


913 ADOPTED REPORT


Example creative

Mudgeeraba


914 ADOPTED REPORT


6. Survey resultsThe survey was distributed as both a hard copy version and online.

Mudgeeraba Responses

Total submissions 109

Duplicates (where more than one response was received for a property within the investigation area)1

6

Property owner 38

Outside of the investigation area 63

Renting in the investigation area 2

Total unique submissions 103

Response rate from properties in the investigation area (total of 53 properties in the area)

71.7%

A total of 103 unique respondents completed the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area survey. The majority of the survey respondents (63.1%) did not own a property within the Investigation Area (of which only 2 rented within the Investigation Area). Property owners equated to approximately 36.9% of the total respondents. Tenant responses were low and results have combined the tenant responses with the responses from those who neither owner nor rented a property within the area. These responses have been labelled as ‘Non-owner’. For more information please refer to #72765546 for the data file for this engagement.

Overall 30.1% of respondents attended a property owner meeting prior to completing the survey, with 63.7% of respondents not participating or contacting the project team regarding the proposed changes. Of note, the consultation was primarily targeted to property owners, including letters to all property owners. Respondents outside of the Investigation Area were not targeted for the consultation.

1 Multiple responses per property were combined to make sure all views are captured.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Unknown age 15‐24 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 65‐74 75+

Number of respondents

Property owner Non‐owner Male Female


915 ADOPTED REPORT


The results found that the majority of property owners and non-owners (62.2% and 69.2% respectively) strongly or somewhat opposed increased housing (2-3 storeys) and subdivision of the large lot residential properties across the Gold Coast in general. However, it should be noted that considerable numbers of non-owners did not participate/engage in the project prior to completion of the survey. Comparatively, a smaller proportion of both owners and non-owners (28.9% and 27.7%) either strongly or somewhat supported this type of growth.

The length of time that respondents had owned the property in the investigation area was compared with the extent they supported or opposed the changes. A total of 15 (65.2%) property owners who have owned the property for more than 10 years either somewhat or strongly opposed the changes. Similarly, 9 (60%) owners who had owned the property for 10 years or less were somewhat or strongly opposed to the changes.

30.1%

4.9%1.9% 1.9%

61.2%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

I attended a propertyowner meeting

I attended a community'drop-in' session

I contacted theplanning team via

email or phone

I left a question on theGC have your say

website

None of the above


Property owner Non-owner

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Non-owners

Property owners

Strongly support it Somewhat support it Neither support or oppose it

Somewhat oppose it Strongly oppose it


916 ADOPTED REPORT


When thinking about the future of properties within the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area, more non-owners (58%) and around half of property owners (50%) did not support any change, while around a quarter of both groups supported increased housing (2-3 storeys) and subdivision within the next 5-15 years. It should be noted that more property-owners (34.2%) were supportive of growth within this period compared to non-owners (25%). Relatively smaller proportions of both groups supported increased housing and subdivision within the next 15-25 years and/or beyond.

The length of time that respondents had owned the property in the investigation area was compared with the timeframe in which they supported change. A total of 43.5% of property owners who have owned the property for more than 10 years did not support any change. A slightly higher percentage (53.3%) of owners who had owned the property for 10 years or less did not support any change.

32

1 1

8

2

4

2 2

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Strongly support it Somewhat support it Neither support oroppose it

Somewhat oppose it Strongly oppose it


0‐10 years 10+

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Non-owner

Property owner

Within 5-15 years Within 15-25 years Only after 25 years

I do not support any change I haven't decided yet


917 ADOPTED REPORT


Overall 79.6% of the respondents would like to remain informed of the outcomes and future engagement opportunities. Please refer to #72676983 data file for respondent contact details.

Respondents justified their support or opposition to the proposed changes in the open-ended survey question. One additional letter submission was received and has been included in the qualitative results (refer to #72688029).

Reasons opposing the proposed change included:

Several respondents wanted to maintain the semi-rural atmosphere and unique characteristics of the areasuch as seclusion, tranquillity and space that motivate residents to live there.

Multiple respondents expressed concerns over wildlife and vegetation protection. Respondents frequently noted that new developments would intensify existing traffic and road infrastructure

issues, as well as strain other services such as schools. If these issues were rectified, some respondents weresupportive of the changes.

Many respondents were supportive of subdividing but oppose the development of 2-3 story buildings. Multiple respondents believed the proposed changes would jeopardise the ‘community feel’. One respondent expressed concern over the development on floodplains and other flood zones that were

proposed in the changes. One respondent also felt there are more suitable areas for development than Mudgeeraba.

Reasons supporting the proposed change included:

Respondents believed the area was a suitable location for higher density housing, situated near shops,schools and transport.

One respondent believed it would be beneficial for job creation. One respondent stated that they believe thearea currently feels too secluded and new developments may stimulate activity in the area.

Irrespective of the support or opposition to the changes other comments included:

If development were to proceed one respondent encouraged the design to maintain the ‘country feel’. One respondent suggested a high school was needed in the area. One respondent asked for more inclusion of property renters in the engagement. One respondent asked if police in the area will be increased, as higher crime rates may result from the

increased density.

6

1

87

12

10

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Within 5‐15 years Within 15‐25 years Only after 25 years I do not support anychange

I haven’t decided yet


0‐10 years 10+


918 ADOPTED REPORT


Appendix A – Community engagement tools

GC have your say project page


919 ADOPTED REPORT


Online survey


920 ADOPTED REPORT



921 ADOPTED REPORT


i Additional dwellings (2016-2041) as identified in ShapingSEQ 2017

For more information P 1300 GOLDCOAST (1300 465 326) W cityofgoldcoast.com.au


922 ADOPTED REPORT

`

28 NOVEMBER 2018

City of Gold Coast Council Mudgeeraba Investigation Area – Community Meetings

Amanda Newbery Emma Andrews MANAGING DIRECTOR CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER

articulous.com.au Level 1, 123 Charlotte Street, Brisbane

Attachment B (1 of 64)771st Council Meeting 26 March 2019 Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 20 March 2019

923 ADOPTED REPORT

1

Contents

1 Executive Summary 2 2 Background 3 3 Engagement Approach 4

3.1 Approach 4 3.2 Desired outputs 4 3.3 Live polling 5

4 Community meetings overview 7 4.1 Agenda 7 4.2 Presentations: key messages 9

5 Community meetings’ results 10 5.1 Essential points 10 5.2 Participants’ general concerns 11 5.3 About the respondents 11 5.4 What people like about the area, and what they see as threats 11 5.5 Support, or otherwise, for redevelopment in the area 12 5.6 If redevelopment was going to occur… 12 5.7 Analysis of each question 12

6 Appendices 31 A Section 5.2: Participants’ general concerns 32 B Community Meeting PowerPoint presentation with live polling results (as

provided to property owners)33

C Verbatim answers to live polling questions at the community meetings 56


924 ADOPTED REPORT

2

1 Executive summary City of Gold Coast Council engaged Articulous Communications (‘Articulous’) to co-ordinate and run two community meetings for land owners in the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area. The area is a rural residential estate adjacent is close to retail and community facilities. The Council, through its obligations under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, is investigating this area – a many others – to ascertain whether it should consider an amendment to the Planning Scheme to allow for redevelopment to accommodate a greater number of dwellings. The community meetings were intended to gauge initial community sentiment towards the potential transition. Additional community engagement activities were to follow these meetings, particularly a survey of all property owners, and the opportunity for any interested person or party to have informal ‘drop-in’ sessions with Council officers.

The community meetings were well attended by 25 people at the afternoon meeting on Tuesday 23 October 2018, and 44 at the evening meeting later that day. The meetings focussed on identifying the aspirations of those present for the future of the area and their appetite for change in the area. The meetings also provided information from Council officers on the Council’s obligations to plan for the future of the area, the technical investigations the Council has undertaken to date, and the timing and nature of planning for redevelopment, should the Council decide to proceed in that direction. This report summarises the outcomes of the community meetings. The Council gave undertakings at the meetings to make abridged versions of the meetings’ outcomes available to those who participated.


925 ADOPTED REPORT

3

2 Background

The Mudgeeraba City Plan Investigation Area comprises 53 rural residential zoned land (acreage lots averaging around 4,000m2) where Council has investigated land use planning and infrastructure opportunities. These areas have the potential to transition to urban development in the longer term.

The Council has prepared a community engagement strategy to involve the community, particularly landholders, in the Council’s decision making process to determine if further strategic planning for urban development opportunities should be pursued. Community and stakeholder engagement activities have been informed by a stakeholder analysis.

The community consultation for the Mudgeeraba City Plan Investigation Area commenced in early October 2018 with the release of community materials (go to https://www.gchaveyoursay.com.au/mudgeeraba), a website and invitations for property owners to attend a community meeting or 'talk to a planner' event. The final stage of the community engagement is a survey which will assist Council to determine if further strategic planning for urban development opportunities should be pursued.

Articulous was engaged by City of Gold Coast Council (‘the Council’) to provide expert community consultation advice, including the development of an agenda and presentation for the community meetings and lead, facilitate and record outcomes of the community meetings. These meetings were important to assist with informing the community on the investigation area planning studies and to provide a forum for property owners to express views and ask questions prior to Council holding a survey on future growth opportunities.

Following the community meetings, ‘talk to a planner’ style drop-in consultation events were held for both the wider community and property owners.


926 ADOPTED REPORT

4

3 Engagement approach 3.1 Approach Articulous identified the following engagement features to assist the Council with the community meetings:

- Devise agendas for the community meetings which equips the participants with usefulinformation about:

- Why the investigations are happening - the State Government’s and Council’sobligations to plan for increased development intensity

- The constraints to development in their area

- Changing housing preferences

- Options for their own future

- Use digital technology that the community can touch and feel

- Deliver a conversational and empathetic tone in the community meetings:

- Remove angst and apprehension, and foster an atmosphere of discussion andclarity

- Explain the planning process, its length, its milestones, and the way for them toremain informed and ‘on top of it’

- Take time to debunk untruths and incorrect assumptions about timing,outcomes, and matters which they perceive have an impact on their comfortand decision-making

- Provide examples of how redevelopment could be realised in an ordered and logicalway – and the controls that would need to be brought to bear to achieve this.

- Use digitised response formats alongside paper-based recording

- Interpret the feedback, add meaning

3.2 Desired outputs The agenda for the community meetings was designed to deliver these outputs:

1. The most important outcomes for each participant in the near-to-far future

2. An understanding of the Council’s obligations to investigate the potential for moreintensive development of land in good proximity to centres, facilities and within areasalready serviced by trunk infrastructure

3. Participants have a robust understanding of the planning scheme amendment andland development processes, and the range of plausible development outcomes fortheir own land, groups of lots, and the investigation area. This includes anunderstanding of:

a. Hard constraints (non-negotiables)

i. Green corridors

ii. Wetlands / Storm water paths and retention basins / Flooding

iii. Road and other Infrastructure upgrades – esp roads, pedestrian/cyclepaths, water, sewer, power, telecommunications, community services


927 ADOPTED REPORT

5

iv. The timing of planning scheme amendments and the processing ofdevelopment approvals

b. Soft constraints (negotiable, resolved by design)

i. The range of individual interests and aspirations

ii. The timing and challenges of land acquisition/amalgamation

iii. The timing/challenges/vagaries of land development – from acquisitionthrough to occupation

4. Participants’ level of acceptance and/or their appetite for change

5. Participants’ level of acceptance of higher residential density (or non-residentialintensification where appropriate)

6. How soon that change would be acceptable

7. Participants’ preferences for involvement in the future planning of the area

3.3 Live polling This engagement tool enables the participants to be engaged in real time.

It is a digital tool.

Participants use their mobile phone or tablet and log onto the website. Once the facilitator has turned on the questions, participants can see each question and answer by typing into their phone or tablet. Within a few moments, the collective answers from all participants are projected onto a screen for all to see.

This tool has several advantages which made it a useful part of the community meetings:

- We were able to ask participants a range of questions, from open ended, to multiplechoice (both select one option, or multiple options)

- The information was collected live and in real time, and

- Within a few moments the participants’ answers were uploaded to the projectionscreen, either as their verbatim words (in the case of an open ended question) or as alive bar chart, indicating the percentage of responses for each option available.

An important feature of the meetings was to allow participants to see how their views, opinions and aspirations align with (or differ to) their neighbours:

- Each participant’s privacy was secured. There is no way (short of a participant actuallyshowing their answers to someone) that their answer could be traced back to them.

- Minimisation of biased answers: Often when community engagement activities seekparticipant’s views or aspirations, or deal with controversial or emotionally chargedsubjects, some participants can either not be heard over those who might benaturally more demonstrative or feel they’re opinions are swayed as they see other’sexpressed forcefully. Live polling enables every participant to have their answer orview/opinion, recorded with the same weight as everyone else’s.

Note:

1 The Council ensured there was an independent WiFi router at hand so that participants did not need to use their own data to participate.

2 Where participants did not have access to a phone or tablet, Council staff were on hand to either lend them a phone or tablet or assist them with using their device.

3 At the community meetings participants were asked to restrict their interaction with the live polling so that only one device per lot was logging their answers. This was to


928 ADOPTED REPORT

6

enable the analysis to be more accurately reflective of the views of lot owners, rather than the number of people at the meeting. Our analysis of the data suggests that, by and large, participants complied with this request.


929 ADOPTED REPORT

7

4 Community meetings overview Two Mudgeeraba Investigation Area community meetings were held at the Mudgeeraba Showgrounds: - 1:00pm – 3:00pm Tuesday 23 October 2018- 6:00pm – 8:00pm later that day

The breakdown of those who attended is:

Community meeting

Participants * Number of lots represented*


1pm 23 October 25 18

6pm 23 October 44 26

Total 69* 41* 77%

(*) Some participants at the 1:00pm community meeting chose to attend the 6:00pmmeeting as well. They were asked to refrain from the live polling activities, but were invited to participate in the Q&A.

Also in attendance at the meetings were: - Cr Glenn Tozer- Amanda Tzannes, Manager, City Planning Branch, City of Gold Coast Council- City of Gold Coast Council staff- Mark Doonar, Articulous- Kim Stone, Articulous

4.1 Agenda This agenda was followed, albeit with some changes where questions from the floor required more detailed discussion. For example, questions about the following matters were asked by participants from the floor through the meetings:

- How will wider Mudgeeraba find out about survey in November? Letterbox droprecommended by community.

- How will live polling data be used and analysed?- Who makes the final decision? Council.- Who funds the investigations? State govt.- Need both online and paper surveys in November.- Q100 flood mapping inaccurate- What constitutes an environmental constraint? Vegetation, fauna- Is subdivision 1 into 2 lots allowed on 4000m2 rural residential lots? Not anymore.

Influx under superseded planning scheme in 2016/2017.- When will we have certainty?- Do we have to connect to sewer if available? No.


930 ADOPTED REPORT

8

Time Session Detail

-30 min Pre-meetingarrival

Arrival, registration and refreshments, etc

0 General welcome

Cr Glenn Tozer, Welcome, quick overview, hand over to facilitator

5 min Introductions & Program

Mark Doonar, Facilitator Introductions, program for the event, etc

10 min Your concerns

Mark Doonar, Facilitator Concerns, from the floor

10 min Your aspirations

Mark Doonar, Facilitator Live polling What are our aspirations?

40 min The Council’s obligations

Amanda Tzannes, Manager City Planning, City Planning Branch, CoGC Why growth opportunities are being investigated, and the Council’s obligations

1 hr 10 min

Your view of Change

Mark Doonar, Facilitator Live polling How much change? and what type? and when?

1 hr 30 min

Next steps Amanda Tzannes, Manager City Planning, City Planning Branch, CoGC The next steps in the investigation area planning and consultation process

1 hr 40 min

General Q&A

Mark Doonar, Facilitator General discussion on matters raised during the meeting

1 hr 55 min

Closing comments

Mark Doonar, Facilitator Cr GlennTozer

2 hr Close


931 ADOPTED REPORT

9

4.2 Presentations: key messages The community meetings included the following keynote speakers and experts:

Speaker (in order of appearance)

Mee

ting

15 O

ctob

er

Mee

ting

17 O

ctob

er

Faci

litat

or

Coun

cillo

r

CoG

C of

ficer

s

Expe

rt

Cr Glenn Tozer, Mudgeeraba Councillor yes yes yes Amanda Tzannes, Manager City Planning, City Planning Branch, CoGC

yes yes yes yes

Mark Doonar, Project Manager, Articulous

yes yes yes

Significant information presented during the meetings included the following, summarised as:

1. The Council is obligated to look at Investigation Areas across the City - Mudgeerabais one of many

2. The work to date has been technical

3. The community meetings are part of a number of consultation activities – to helpboth land owners and the Council be better informed

4. Land owners each have different points of view, which can reflect their differentcircumstances and our views of the future

5. There are a number of plausible outcomes for Mudgeeraba – ranging from ‘nochange’ through to ‘major redevelopment’

6. If redevelopment does occur, there are many challenges to be met by a developer

7. The process to amend the Planning Scheme runs from now through to 2023

A more detailed summary of what was presented is included in the appendices. Thiscovers:

- What this community meeting is (and isn’t) about

- Why growth opportunities are being investigated

- The Council’s obligations

- Investigation areas

- Technical work undertaken to date

- Planning challenges

- Development challenges

- Planning Scheme amendment process/timing

- Next Steps


932 ADOPTED REPORT

10

5 Community meetings’ results Covered in this section:

- Essential points

- Participants’ general concerns

- About the respondents

- What people like about the area, and what they see as threats

- Support, or otherwise, for redevelopment in the area

- If redevelopment was going to occur…

- Analysis of each live polling question

The live polling questions are not intended to be part of the Council’s decision making process. The purpose of asking questions has been:

- To enable property owners to see there are differing opinions

- To give participants the opportunity to have input into the meeting (without having to be vocal)

- To help property owners to start thinking about their views on change (as a precursor to the survey in November)

- To give the Council an idea of initial community sentiment

- To help to inform the preparation of material to accompany survey (e.g. FAQs) and whether or not the draft survey questions in November required to be adjusted

Background to these results is included in section 5.7 and the appendices. This includes bar charts of the answers to each live polling question and the verbatim answers to open-ended questions.

5.1 Essential points - A very high proportion of the people who participated in the live polling (‘the

respondents’) have lived in the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area for a very long time, and over three quarters would like to stay there for as long as they can.

- Nearly two thirds would prefer houses (of some type) in the area, and the retention of the area’s character.

- Three quarters (76%) are not supportive of redevelopment in the area. 21% are supportive, to some degree.

- If redevelopment was to occur, two thirds (65%) of respondents would prefer to stay where they are, with no changes, and would prefer redevelopment to occur 25+ years from now.


933 ADOPTED REPORT

11

5.2 Participants’ general concerns At the start of the meetings the participants were asked to state any concerns they had about the meeting or the subject matter. They were encouraged to contribute these from the floor, and these were recorded on posters at the front of the room.

The name of the person making the contribution was noted, and these people were asked to keep track of the extent to which the meeting captured their concern.

The facilitator noted on the posters which of the concerns would probably have been covered in the program, and those which could be addressed in general Q&A through the meeting.

Most of the concerns were addressed during the meetings. Participants, particularly those who were noted on the posters, were asked to discuss their concerns with the facilitator or the Council representatives after the meeting.

The list of concerns has been included in the appendices.

5.3 About the respondents: - The number of land owners (representing 41 Lots) who attended the community

meetings was a good representative sample size - about 77% of the total propertiesin the investigation area

- Most people want to be more informed about their options for the future

- A very high proportion have lived there for a very long time

- Over three quarters would like to stay there for as long as they can

- In the next 5-10 years, about 40% expect to be living in Mudgeeraba

- Nine out of ten (90%) would like to participate in future meetings (eg designworkshops) so that their concerns can be considered in preparing a draft plan for thearea (should this occur)

5.4 What people like about the area, and what they see as threats

- They like their lifestyle, community, village, rural setting, open space, lack of traffic,and the area’s heritage.

- They also like the wildlife, nature, lack of noise, peace of mind, and peaceful aspectsof the area

- They are concerned about threats posed by over-population, high densitydevelopment, undesirable people

- They’re also concerned about change to their lifestyle, loss of wildlife, trees, publicspaces, and heritage.


934 ADOPTED REPORT

12

5.5 Support, or otherwise, for redevelopment in the area

- Three quarters (76%) are not supportive of redevelopment in the area

- 21% are supportive, to some degree

- Two thirds (64%) do not expect to gain any benefit from redevelopment next to theirplace of residence (although about a quarter (24%) expect some increase in the valueof their property, or ease of redevelopment of their property, with betterinfrastructure)

- Nearly two thirds (60%) consider the current house types to be the most appropriatefor the area

- Over half (52%) would have concerns about crime & safety, noise & dust, traffic &parking of redevelopment

- About a quarter (24%) would have concerns about privacy & amenity, more renters,neighbours too close, loss of community and lifestyle, peace & quiet

5.6 If redevelopment was going to occur… - Two thirds (65%) of respondents would prefer to stay where they are, with no

changes

- Three quarters (73%) identified houses of some type (excluding tiny houses) asappropriate for the area. 60% of would prefer no change to the current range ofhouses.

- Nearly two thirds (63%) would prefer redevelopment to occur 25+ years from now

- 14% would prefer it to occur in the next 5-25 years

5.7 Analysis of each question In the following pages we’ve set out for each question:

- The question

- The limits on answers (eg, select one option, or select any)

- The number of respondents (multiple participants representing a lot - typically 2people – were asked to restrict their contributions to just one device, so that a moreaccurate assessment could be made of the responses per lot)

- The number of responses (this could be more that the number of respondentswhere the answers could be more than one option, or an open-ended question)

- A bar chart of the responses, expressed as a percentage of the total responses, and

- A quick summary of the outcomes

Note:

- The results/answers from both community meetings have been combined, and sothe results will differ from those seen (courtesy of the immediate response functionof live polling) at the community meetings


935 ADOPTED REPORT

13

- Responding to the questions was not mandatory and some respondents did notrespond to some questions. The number of respondents varied from 23 to 54.

Q1 What’s your main interest in being here today?

The 43 respondents could select any of the options. There were 81 responses. Each respondent selected about two of the options, on average. The percentage of total responses is shown.

The most frequent responses were:

- 33% of respondents wanted to become more informed about their options.

- 20% wanted to understand more about the planning and development processes.

- 15% wanted to hear what other people think and contribute their own ideas andaspirations.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

g. Other reasons

f. Hear what other people think

e. Understand more about the planning anddevelopment processes

d. Hear about investment opportunities

c. Find out how to get involved in the futureof the area

b. Become more informed about my options

a. Contribute my ideas and aspirations


936 ADOPTED REPORT

14

Q2 How long have you lived at your current address in the area?

The respondents (44) were asked to select one option. The percentage of total responses is shown.

70% of respondents have lived at their current address in the area for more than 10 years. (30% for less than 10 years.)

50% have lived there for more than 20 years.

Only 11% have lived there less than 5 years.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

e. More than 20 years

d. 10 – 20 years

c. 5 – 10 years

b. 2 – 5 years

a. Less than a year


937 ADOPTED REPORT

15

Q3 What do you like most about living in the area? There were 41 respondents, who contributed 88 responses. The nature of the responses to this open-ended question is illustrated in the word cloud below. It captures and displays each of the different verbatim responses and highlights those words that are used more frequently. Thus, at a glance, this reflects the most frequently stated words that most respondents used to describe what they like about living in the area.

The verbatim responses are included in the appendices.

The most frequently use words (and their context), in order of the frequency with which they were used are:

- Close (proximity), (open) space, rural (setting)

- Proximity (to) everything, (feeling of) community, environment / wildlife, and

- Safety, peaceful / peace, location/amenities, nature/natural, born here


938 ADOPTED REPORT

16

We have analysed the phrases that respondents used and grouped them into consistent and closely related themes. These are presented in the following table. The percentage of total responses is shown.

With regard to what most respondents like about living in the area:

- 42% of the responses were about lifestyle, community, village, sural setting, openspace, lack of traffic, heritage

- 26% were about wildlife, nature, lack of noise, peace of mind, peaceful.

- 18% were about proximity to amenities.

- 14% were about privacy, safety, security.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Lifestyle, community, village, sural setting,open space, lack of traffic, heritage

Proximity to amenities

Privacy, safety, security

Wildlife, nature, lack of noise, peace of mind,peaceful


939 ADOPTED REPORT

17

Q4 What are the biggest threats to what you like most about living in the area in the future?

There were 54 respondents, who contributed 69 responses. The nature of the responses to this open-ended question is illustrated in the word cloud below. It captures and displays each of the different verbatim responses and highlights those words that are used more frequently. Thus, at a glance, this reflects the most frequently stated words that most respondents used to describe what they think the biggest threats are to what they like most about living in the area.



- Traffic

- Development

- Allowing (development), (higher density) housing, (traffic congestion), (traffic) noise,over (development), and high density (housing)


940 ADOPTED REPORT

18


With regard to what most respondents think the biggest threats are to what they like most about living in the area:

- 31% of the responses were about the threats posed by over-population, high densitydevelopment, undesirable people

- 29% were about change to respondent’s lifestyle, loss of wildlife, trees public spaces,& heritage

- 25% were about issues that related to traffic, traffic noise, crime, lack of publictransport

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Over population, high density development,undesirable people

Change to our lifestyle, loss of wildlife, treespublic spaces, & heritage

Traffic, traffic noise, crime, lack of publictransport

Poor infrastructure, services

Having to leave, find somewhere else to live,increased insurance, developer & town

planner interference, Councillors not listening


941 ADOPTED REPORT

19

Q5 How long do you want to live in the area?

There were 44 respondents. They were asked to select one option. The percentage of total responses is shown.

77% of respondents said they would like to live in the area for as long as they can.

18% would like to live in the area for between 5 and 10+ years.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

e. For as long as I can

d. 10 or more years

c. 5 – 10 years

b. 1 – 5 years

a. I want to leave asap


942 ADOPTED REPORT

20

Q6 What do you think you will be doing in the next 5 – 10 years?

There were 40 respondents, who contributed 59 responses. The nature of the responses to this open-ended question is illustrated in the word cloud below. It captures and displays each of the different verbatim responses and highlights those words that are used more frequently. Thus, at a glance, this reflects the most frequently stated words that most respondents used to describe what they think they will be doing in the next 5-10 years.



- Enjoying living (with) family (at) Anaroo

- Still continue (to be at) home, beautiful property, Mudgeeraba


943 ADOPTED REPORT

21


42% of respondents expect to be living in Mudgeeraba, renovating, paying off the mortgage.

37% expect to be enjoying life, family, children, grandchildren, & staying healthy.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Travelling

Enjoying life, family, children, grandchildren,& staying healthy

Living in Mudgeeraba, renovating, paying offthe mortgage

Retirement

Still working


944 ADOPTED REPORT

22

Q7 How supportive would you be of redevelopment in your area?


76% of respondents are not supportive of redevelopment in the area:

- 61% are not supportive at all, and

- 15% have reservations

21% are supportive, to some degree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

f. Very supportive

e. Supportive

d. Somewhat supportive

c. Neutral

b. I have reservations

a. Not at all supportive


945 ADOPTED REPORT

23

Q8 If redevelopment was going to occur, which of the following would you prefer?


If redevelopment was going to occur:

- 65% of respondents would prefer to stay where they are, with no changes

- 20% would prefer to sell their property in 1-10 years

- 18% would prefer to:

- Redevelop their own land with new dwellings (11%), and/or

- Redevelop their own land as part of a larger parcel with neighbouringproperties (7%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

f. Redeveloping my own land as part of alarger parcel with neighbouring properties

e. Redeveloping my own land with newdwellings

d. Staying where I am (and in my currenthouse) and adding more dwellings for sale or

rent

c. Selling my property in the next 5-10 years

b. Selling my property in the next 1-5 years

a. Staying where I am with no changes


946 ADOPTED REPORT

24

Q9 If a neighbouring property was to be redeveloped with higher density housing while you are living in your current house, what are the benefits you would expect to gain?

There were 23 respondents who made 47 contributions. The nature of the responses to this open-ended question is illustrated in the word cloud below. It captures and displays each of the different verbatim responses and highlights those words that are used more frequently. Thus, at a glance, this reflects the most frequently stated words that most respondents used to describe what benefits they would expect to gain if a neighbouring property was to be redeveloped with higher density housing while they are living in their current house.



- None


947 ADOPTED REPORT

25


64% of respondents reported that they would expect to gain no benefit.

24% expect to:

- Financial / increase in property value - easier to redevelop my property (11%), and

- Better infrastructure, roads, connect to sewer (13%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Little or no benefit

Financial / increase in property value - easierto redevelop my property

Better infrastructure, roads, connect to sewer

More neighbours, noise, crime, rates, things Idon't want


948 ADOPTED REPORT

26

Q10 If a neighbouring property was to be redeveloped with higher density housing while you are living in your current house, what are the concerns you would have?

There were 44 respondents, who made 112 contributions. The nature of the responses to this open-ended question is illustrated in the word cloud below. It captures and displays each of the different verbatim responses and highlights those words that are used more frequently. Thus, at a glance, this reflects the most frequently stated words that most respondents used to describe the concerns they would have if a neighbouring property was to be redeveloped with higher density housing while they are living in their current house.



- Noise, traffic,

- Loss (of a number of values, such as privacy), crime


949 ADOPTED REPORT

27


52% of respondents expect to have concerns about crime & safety, noise & dust, traffic & parking

24% expect to have concerns about privacy & amenity, more renters, neighbours too close, loss of community and lifestyle, peace & quiet

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Crime & safety, noise & dust, traffic & parking

Privacy & amenity, more renters, neighbourstoo close, loss of community and lifestyle,

peace & quiet,

No concerns

Lower valuations, higher rates

Drain on infrastructure, schools, loss ofvegetation & wildlife

Change, having to sell


950 ADOPTED REPORT

28

Q11 Which of the following higher density housing types would be the most appropriate in the area?

There were 44 respondents who selected 57 options. Respondents were asked to select any option. Respondents selected an average of 1.3 different housing types each. Photos of the housing types were on display. The percentage of total responses is shown.

73% selected houses of some type (excluding tiny houses).

60% of respondents selected no change to the current range of houses.

12% selected granny flats

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

m. High rise apartments (5+ stories)

l. Medium-rise apartments (3-5 stories)

k. Low rise apartments (up to 3 stories)

j. Larger scale town houses (with more than 10dwellings)

i. Small scale town houses (dwellings sharing acommon wall, next to each other, 2 stories, with

less than 10 dwellings)

h. Duplexes (2 dwellings in one building)

g. Houses on small lots in their own masterplanned precinct or neighbourhood

f. Houses on small lots (eg less than 400m2)

‘e. Granny flats’ (self-contained, one bedroom units, near to existing houses)

d. Tiny houses (many) in their own master plannedprecinct or neighbourhood

c. Tiny houses (just one or two, moveable, butmore permanent than a caravan)

b. New houses in front of, beside, or behindexisting houses

a. No change to the current range of houses


951 ADOPTED REPORT

29

Q12 If the area were to be redeveloped what is your preferred timing?


If the area was to be redeveloped, respondents would prefer the following timing:

- 63% would prefer it to occur 25+ years from now

- 14% would prefer it to occur in the next 5-25 years:

- 5% in the next 5-15 years, and

- 9% in the next 15-25 years

- 23% would prefer it to occur between now and the next 5 years:

- 7% immediately

- 2% in the next 1-2 years, and

- 14% in the next 3-5 years

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

f. 25+ years from now

e. 15-25 years

d. 5-15 years

c. 3-5 years

b. Next 1-2 years

a. Immediately


952 ADOPTED REPORT

30

Q13 How would you prefer to be consulted on future growth opportunities if the Council makes a decision to pursue an update of the Planning Scheme?


90% of respondents would like to participate in future meetings (eg design workshops) so that their concerns can be considered in preparing a draft plan for the area.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

b. I don’t wish to participate in futuremeetings however, I want an opportunity to

provide feedback on a draft plan for the area.

a. I wish to participate in future meetings (e.g.design workshops) so that my concerns can be

considered in preparing a draft plan for thearea.


953 ADOPTED REPORT

31

6 Appendices A Section 5.2: Participants’ general concerns

B Community Meeting PowerPoint presentation with live polling results (as provided to property owners)

C Verbatim answers to live polling questions at the community meetings


954 ADOPTED REPORT

32

A Section 5.2: Participants’ general concerns

General concerns

Like

ly to

be

capt

ured

in th

e pr

ogra

m

Can

be

capt

ured

in Q

&

A

- We don’t want change – Margaret X

- Lifestyle – safety, traffic – David X

- The unknown – Trevor X X

- Traffic everywhere – Bruce X

- Devaluation of properties (more info about it) – Margaret X X

- What are the benefits for this area and surrounding – Darryl X

- Move schools *an issue – Marie X

- Preserve wildlife – Laurie X

- Land size, low density, space, infrastructure, children andgenerations – Nicole

X X

- Rural atmosphere, uncluttered, strong history, unnecessary commercial, unique – Brian

X

- Noise – can’t hear the traffic for the birds X

- Encroachment on flooding areas, tree clearing - Chris X

- Impact of new roads on land owners – Adam X

- The plan/proposal X

- Adequate schools for population increase – Michelle X

- The survey – Ilona X

- Property values - David X

- Construction impacts and development process – Col X X

- Council’s responsibility to protect heritage sites and character – Greg X

- Traffic – Bruce X

- Habitat & high density, sewerage lines – Chris X

- Loss of Scouts, Guides and tennis courts (Community facilities) –Adam

X

- Atmosphere, uniqueness, environment – Marilyn X

- Safety & change – Ilona X

- Landscape change (moonscape) – Frank X

- *Transport links/road network – connections over M1

- Displaced groups

- *Crime increase – complaints from new neighbours

Notes:

(*) In discussions with participants it was generally agreed that these concerns were not captured in the meeting and would be recorded as such in this report.


955 ADOPTED REPORT

33

B Community Meeting PowerPoint presentation with live polling results (as provided to property owners)

Mudgeeraba Investigation Area Community Meetings – Summary of Outcomes

23 October, 2018

Slide 2

This documentTwo Mudgeeraba Investigation Area community meetings were held at the Mudgeeraba Showgrounds: - 1:00pm – 3:00pm Tuesday 23 October 2018, and- 6:00pm – 8:00pm Tuesday 23 October 2018

The breakdown of those who attended is:

Community meeting Participants * Number of lots represented *


23 October (afternoon) 25 1823 October (evening) 44 26

Total 69 41 * 77%

(*) Some participants at the 23 October afternoon community meeting chose to attend the evening meeting as well. The total number of lots represented takes this into account. These participants were asked to refrain from the live polling activities, but were invited to participate in the Q&A.

At the meetings the Council gave an undertaking to those who attended to make a summary of the outcomes of the meetings available to them.


956 ADOPTED REPORT

34

WelcomeCr Glenn Tozer

Your facilitatorsMark Doonar and Kim StoneProject ManagersArticulous Communications


957 ADOPTED REPORT

35

Slide 5

Today’s program1. Your concerns

2. Your aspirations

3. The Council’s obligations

4. Your view of change

5. Next steps

6. Questions and answers

Slide 6

What this community meeting is (and isn’t) aboutIt IS about:

• Only land owners in the area are attending

• Answering your questions - giving you usefulinformation

• Respecting the privacy of your views and opinions,and preferences

• Helping you make more informed decisions

• Understanding your views, your aspirations, andthose of your neighbours

• What you like about the area

• How supportive you are about change in the area

• Your preferences for housing styles

• How you’d like to be involved in the future

It IS NOT about:

• Forcing you to do anything with your house oryour property

• Making you agree to something you don’t like

• Forcing (or allowing) redevelopment in the area

• A pre-determined outcome that the Councilalready has in mind

• Using a community meeting to push or favour aparticular interest in the future of the area

• Disputing site-specific development issues


958 ADOPTED REPORT

36

Session 1Your concerns

Recording your concerns

Slide 8

Your concernsAt the start of the meetings the participants were asked to state any concerns they had about the meeting or the subject matter. They were encouraged to contribute these from the floor, and these were recorded on posters at the front of the room. The name of the person making the contribution was noted, and these people were asked to keep track of the extent to which the meeting captured their concern. The facilitator noted on the posters which of the concerns would probably have been covered in the program, and those which could be addressed in general Q&A through the meeting.Most of the concerns were addressed during the meetings. Participants, particularly those who were noted on the posters, were asked to discuss their concerns with the facilitator or the Council representatives after the meeting.

• We don’t want change – Margaret• Lifestyle – safety, traffic – David• The unknown – Trevor• Traffic everywhere – Bruce• Devaluation of properties (more info about it) – Margaret• What are the benefits for this area and surrounding – Darryl• Move schools *an issue – Marie• Preserve wildlife – Laurie• Land size, low density, space, infrastructure, children and generations – Nicole• Rural atmosphere, uncluttered, strong history, unnecessary commercial, unique – Brian• Noise – can’t hear the traffic for the birds• Encroachment on flooding areas, tree clearing - Chris• Impact of new roads on land owners – Adam• The plan/proposal • Adequate schools for population increase – Michelle• The survey – Ilona• Property values - David• Construction impacts and development process – Col• Council’s responsibility to protect heritage sites and character – Greg• Traffic – Bruce• Habitat & high density , sewerage lines – Chris • Loss of Scouts, Guides and tennis courts (Community facilities) – Adam• Atmosphere, uniqueness, environment – Marilyn• Safety & change – Ilona• Landscape change (moonscape) – Frank• *Transport links/road network – connections over M1

• Displaced groups• *Crime increase – complaints from new neighbours


959 ADOPTED REPORT

37

Session 2Your aspirations

Live polling exercise

Slide 10

Live polling sessionsHow to get your mobile phone or tablet ready for the live polling sessions:

www.pollev.com/art2018

Open up a browser.

Don’t do a google search

Simply type in this url: http://www.pollev.com/art2018

Don’t click on just www.pollev.com.

You don’t need to register or log in

Your responses are anonymous

Please ensure that there’s only one response from each lot or household

Free Wi-FiNetwork: goldcoastPassword: goldcoast

An important feature of the meetings was to allow participants to see how their views, opinions and aspirations align with (or differ to) their neighbours:

• Each participant’s privacy was secured. There is no way (short of a participant actually showing their answers to someone) that their answer could be traced back to them.

• Minimisation of biased answers: Often when community engagement activities seek participant’s views or aspirations, or deal with controversial or emotionally charged subjects, some participants can either not be heard over those who might be naturally more demonstrative or feel their opinions are swayed as they see other’s expressed forcefully. Live polling enables every participant to have their answer or view/opinion, recorded with the same weight as everyone else’s.

Note:

1. The Council ensured there was an independent WiFi router at hand so that participants did not need to use their own data to participate.

2. Where participants did not have access to a phone or tablet, Council staff were on hand to either lend them a phone or tablet or assist them with using their device.

3. At the community meetings participants were asked to restrict their interaction with the live polling so that only one device per lot was logging their answers. This was to enable the analysis to be more accurately reflective of the views of lot owners, rather than the number of people at the meeting. Our analysis of the data suggests that, by and large, participants complied with this request.


960 ADOPTED REPORT

38

Slide 11

Analysis of each question In the following pages we’ve set out for each question:• The question• The limits on answers (eg, select one option, or select any)• The number of respondents (multiple participants representing a lot - typically 2 people – were asked to

restrict their contributions to just one device, so that a more accurate assessment could be made of theresponses per lot)

• The number of responses (this could be more that the number of respondents where the answers could bemore than one option, or an open-ended question)

• A bar chart of the responses, expressed as a percentage of the total responses, and• A quick summary of the outcomes

Note: This document consolidates the answers received at both Community Meetings, and so the information displayed in the charts and summaries will differ to those which were displayed at each meeting.

Slide 12

Q1 What’s your main interest in being here today?The 43 respondents could select any of the options. There were 81 responses. Each respondent selected about two of the options, on average. The percentage of total responses is shown.

The most frequent responses were:

• 33% of respondents wanted to become more informed about their options.

• 20% wanted to understand more aboutthe planning and development processes.

• 15% wanted to hear what other people think and contribute their own ideas andaspirations.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

g. Other reasons

f. Hear what other people think

e. Understand more about the planning and development processes

d. Hear about investment opportunities

c. Find out how to get involved in the future of the area

b. Become more informed about my options

a. Contribute my ideas and aspirations


961 ADOPTED REPORT

39

Slide 1

Q2 How long have you lived at your current address in the area?The 44 respondents were asked to select one option. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 70% of respondents have lived at their current address in the area for more than 10 years. (30% for less than 10 years.)

• 50% have lived there for more than 20 years.

• Only 11% have lived there less than 5years.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

e. More than 20 years

d. 10 – 20 years

c. 5 – 10 years

b. 2 – 5 years

a. Less than a year

Slide 14

Q3 What do you like most about living in the area?There were 41 respondents, who contributed 88 responses. We have analysed the phrases that respondents used and grouped them into consistent and closely related themes. These are presented in the following chart. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 42% of the responses were about lifestyle, community, village, sural setting, open space, lack of traffic,heritage

• 26% were about wildlife, nature, lack ofnoise, peace of mind, peaceful.

• 18% were about proximity to amenities.

• 14% were about privacy, safety, security.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Lifestyle, community, village, sural setting, open space, lack of traffic, heritage

Proximity to amenities

Privacy, safety, security

Wildlife, nature, lack of noise, peace of mind, peaceful


962 ADOPTED REPORT

40

Slide 15


There were 54 respondents, who contributed 69 responses. We have analysed the phrases that respondents used and grouped them into consistent and closely related themes. These are presented in the following chart. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 31% of the responses were about the threats posed by over-population, high density development, undesirable people

• 29% were about change to respondent’s lifestyle, loss of wildlife, trees public spaces, & heritage.

• 25% were about issues that related to traffic, traffic noise, crime, lack of public transport

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Over population, high density development, undesirable people

Change to our lifestyle, loss of wildlife, trees public spaces, & heritage

Traffic, traffic noise, crime, lack of public transport

Poor infrastructure, services

Having to leave, find somewhere else to live, increased insurance, developer & town planner interference,

Councillors not listening

Slide 16

Q5 How long do you want to live in the area? There were 44 respondents. They were asked to select one option. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 77% of respondents said they would like to live in the area for as long as they can.

• 18% would like to live in the area for between 5 and 10+ years.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

e. For as long as I can

d. 10 or more years

c. 5 – 10 years

b. 1 – 5 years

a. I want to leave asap


963 ADOPTED REPORT

41

Slide 17

Q6 What do you think you will be doing in the next 5 – 10 years?There were 40 respondents, who contributed 59 responses. We have analysed the phrases that respondents used and grouped them into consistent and closely related themes. These are presented in the following chart. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 42% of respondents expect to be living in Mudgeeraba, renovating, paying off the mortgage.

• 37% expect to be enjoying life, family,children, grandchildren, & staying healthy.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Travelling

Enjoying life, family, children, grandchildren, & staying healthy

Living in Mudgeeraba, renovating, paying off the mortgage

Retirement

Still working

Session 3The Council’s obligations


964 ADOPTED REPORT

42

Amanda TzannesManager, City Planning BranchCity of Gold Coast Council

Slide 20

This session1. Why the growth areas are being investigated

2. The Council’s obligations

3. Technical work undertaken to date

4. Your interests, and other’s

5. Some plausible outcomes

6. Development challenges

7. Planning Scheme amendment timing

8. Questions


965 ADOPTED REPORT

43

Slide 21

Quick summary1. The Council is obligated to look at Investigation Areas across the City - Mudgeeraba is one

of many

2. The work to date has been technical

3. This community meeting is part of a number of consultation activities – to help both you andthe Council be better informed

4. As land owners we each have different points of view, which can reflect our differentcircumstances and our views of the future

5. There are a number of plausible outcomes for Mudgeeraba – ranging from ‘no change’ through to ‘major redevelopment’

6. If redevelopment does occur, there are many challenges to be met by a developer

7. The process to amend the Planning Scheme runs from now through to 2023

Slide 22

Why growth opportunities are being investigated

• Quick access to the M1• Proximity to shops/jobs• Proximity to education,

recreation and sportingfacilities

• Existing infrastructure(roads and water)


966 ADOPTED REPORT

44

Slide 23

The Council’s obligations

SEQ Regional Plan Southern Sub-region directions City Plan Zoning Map

Slide 24

The Council’s obligations17 Investigation Areas in total

Completed investigations1. Upper Coomera (Courtney Drive)2. Eggersdorf Rd, Ormeau

Current investigations3. Goldmine Rd, Ormeau4. Oxenford5. Parkwood (Napper Rd)6. Mudgeeraba North

Future investigations7. Gaven North (Glade Drive)8. Highland Park9. Molendinar10. Gaven Central (Hymix Road)

Not investigating further11. Mudgeeraba (Bonogin Road)12. Gilston (Pyrus Court)13. Carrara (Whitian Drive)14. Coomera (Amity Road)15. Stanmore Rd, Yatala

Outside Urban Footprint16. Canelands17. East Coomera / Yawalpah

2

1

4

6

5

3


967 ADOPTED REPORT

45

Slide 25

Technical work undertaken to dateInfrastructure

Legend

Investigation area boundaryWaterSewer

Mudgeeraba Road is State controlled

Slide 26

Technical work undertaken to dateSlope and vegetation constraints

Vegetation management

State significant species

5m contour

Slope greater than 16% (1 in 6)

Legend


968 ADOPTED REPORT

46

Slide 27

Technical work undertaken to dateFlood and environmental constraints

Slide 28

Planning challengesPlanning Schemes get reviewed

Source: Matusik Property Insights and APP Corporation

ReviewNow Review2026 Review2036


969 ADOPTED REPORT

47

Slide 29

Some plausible outcomesHow amalgamations can affect the outcomes

1 house on 1 lotbecomes 5 houses

2 houses on 2 lotsbecomes 10 houses

4 houses on 4 lotsbecome 20 houses

4 houses on 4 lotsbecomes 14 houses and 20 townhouses

Source: Place Design Group

Slide 30

Development challengesDevelopment is complex and risky

Source: Matusik Property Insights and APP Corporation

Getting a project going Co-ordinating the details Delivery• The pedigree of the developer• Where is the site? and when

is the right time to begin?• How should the project be

positioned in the market?• What will the Return on

Investment need to be?• What is the competition? How

exposed is the project tofailure?

• How long will thedevelopment approval take?

• Timeframes and target dates• Valuations – site, the

development, products• Construction costs,

availability of trades• Regulations, taxes and

charges• Development finance• Exit strategy

• Market depth & direction• Marketing plan & focus• Sales and marketing

commissions• Settlement process• Future projects


970 ADOPTED REPORT

48

Slide 31

Planning Scheme amendment process/timingShould the Council decide to pursue a Planning Scheme amendment ….

Mid 2019 • Council endorse development of a draft City Plan amendment for part or wholeof the Investigation Area (pending outcome of consultation)

2019 – 2020 • Prepare draft City Plan amendment with input from local community• Confirm planning assumptions for infrastructure

2021 - 2022 • Prepare infrastructure delivery strategy• State Government review / approval of draft amendment• Finalise draft amendment

2022 • Statutory public consultation of draft amendment

2023 • New version of City Plan

2025 – 2050 • Rolling delivery of infrastructure to support growth opportunities (pendingmarket demand and Council priorities)

Slide 32

Questions?Shortly we’ll have some more live polling – this will cover your views on change with topics like:

1. How supportive (or not) you are about redevelopment, and when

2. What you think the benefits and concerns are with redevelopment

3. What preferences you have for housing in the area

4. How you’d like to stay involved in planning for the area

But are there any questions about what you’ve heard and seen tonight?


971 ADOPTED REPORT

49

Session 4Your view of change

Live polling exercise

Slide 34

Q7 How supportive would you be of redevelopment in your area?There were 46 respondents. They were asked to select one option. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 76% of respondents are not supportive of redevelopment in the area:

• 61% are not supportive at all, and

• 15% have reservations

• 21% are supportive, to some degree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

f. Very supportive

e. Supportive

d. Somewhat supportive

c. Neutral

b. I have reservations

a. Not at all supportive


972 ADOPTED REPORT

50

Slide 35

Q8 If redevelopment was going to occur, which of the following would you prefer?


If redevelopment was going to occur:• 65% of respondents would prefer to stay

where they are, with no changes• 20% would prefer to sell their property in

1-10 years • 18% would prefer to:

• Redevelop their own land with new dwellings (11%), and/or

• Redevelop their own land as part of a larger parcel with neighbouring properties (7%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

f. Redeveloping my own land as part of a larger parcel with neighbouring properties

e. Redeveloping my own land with new dwellings

d. Staying where I am (and in my current house) and adding more dwellings for sale or rent

c. Selling my property in the next 5-10 years

b. Selling my property in the next 1-5 years

a. Staying where I am with no changes

Slide 36


There were 23 respondents who made 47 contributions. We have analysed the phrases that respondents used and grouped them into consistent and closely related themes. These are presented in the following chart. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 64% of respondents reported that they would expect to gain no benefit.

• 24% expect to:

• Financial / increase in property value - easier to redevelop my property (11%), and

• Better infrastructure, roads,connect to sewer (13%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Little or no benefit

Financial / increase in property value - easier to redevelop my property

Better infrastructure, roads, connect to sewer

More neighbours, noise, crime, rates, things I don't want


973 ADOPTED REPORT

51

Slide 37


There were 44 respondents, who made 112 contributions. We have analysed the phrases that respondents used and grouped them into consistent and closely related themes. These are presented in the following chart. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 52% of respondents expect to have concerns about crime & safety, noise &dust, traffic & parking

• 24% expect to have concerns about privacy & amenity, more renters, neighbours too close, loss of community and lifestyle, peace & quiet

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Crime & safety, noise & dust, traffic & parking

Privacy & amenity, more renters, neighbours too close, loss of community and lifestyle, peace & quiet,

No concerns

Lower valuations, higher rates

Drain on infrastructure, schools, loss of vegetation & wildlife

Change, having to sell

Slide 38

Q11 Which of the following higher density housing types would be the most appropriate in the area?

There were 44 respondents who selected 57 options. Respondents were asked to select any option. Respondents selected an average of 1.3 different housing types each. The percentage of total responses is shown.

• 73% selected houses of some type (excluding tiny houses).

• 60% of respondents selected no change to thecurrent range of houses.

• 12% selected granny flats

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

m. High rise apartments (5+ stories)

l. Medium-rise apartments (3-5 stories)

k. Low rise apartments (up to 3 stories)

j. Larger scale town houses (with more than 10 dwellings)

i. Small scale town houses (dwellings sharing a common wall, next to each other, 2 stories, with less than 10 dwellings)

h. Duplexes (2 dwellings in one building)

g. Houses on small lots in their own master planned precinct or neighbourhood

f. Houses on small lots (eg less than 400m2)

‘e. Granny flats’ (self-contained, one bedroom units, near to existing houses)

d. Tiny houses (many) in their own master planned precinct or neighbourhood

c. Tiny houses (just one or two, moveable, but more permanent than a caravan)

b. New houses in front of, beside, or behind existing houses

a. No change to the current range of houses


974 ADOPTED REPORT

52

Slide 39

Q12 If the area were to be redeveloped what is your preferred timing? There were 43 respondents They were asked to select one option. The percentage of total responses is shown.

If the area was to be redeveloped, respondents would prefer the following timing:

• 63% would prefer it to occur 25+years from now

• 14% would prefer it to occur in the next 5-25 years:

• 5% in the next 5-15 years, and

• 9% in the next 15-25 years

• 23% would prefer it to occur between now and the next 5 years:

• 7% immediately

• 2% in the next 1-2 years, and

• 14% in the next 3-5 years

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

f. 25+ years from now

e. 15-25 years

d. 5-15 years

c. 3-5 years

b. Next 1-2 years

a. Immediately

Slide 40

Q13 How would you prefer to be consulted on future growth opportunities if the Council makes a decision to pursue an update of the Planning Scheme?

There were 42 respondents They were asked to select one option. The percentage of total responses is shown.

90% of respondents would like to participate in future meetings (eg design workshops) so that their concerns can be considered in preparing a draft plan for the area.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

b. I don’t wish to participate in future meetings however, I want an opportunity to provide feedback on a draft plan for

the area.

a. I wish to participate in future meetings (e.g. design workshops) so that my concerns can be considered in

preparing a draft plan for the area.


975 ADOPTED REPORT

53

Session 5Next steps

Slide 42

Next Steps

The next steps in the investigation area planning and consultation process:

• Completion of meetings with property owners

• Community ‘drop in’ sessions

• Have your say online in November - gchaveyoursay.com.au/mudgeeraba

• CoGC Council decision timeframes

Questions


976 ADOPTED REPORT

54

Session 6General Q&A

Closing comments


977 ADOPTED REPORT

55

Contact detailsPO Box 5042 Gold Coast MC QLD 9729P 1300 GOLDCOASTE [email protected] cityofgoldcoast.com.au


978 ADOPTED REPORT

56

C Verbatim answers to live polling questions at the community meetings

Q3 What do you like most about living in the area?

- Lifestyle- Close to everything- Safety and community- Lifestyle and the uniqueness of the rural setting- The lack of traffic and noise.- The character and amenity.- Rural small community with plenty of space and close to amenities. A real sense of

community with rich pioneering heritage.- Lifestyle and proximity to everything- Open space and privacy- Peace of mind- Proximity to amenities. Lifestyle- The land size, space environment, wild life, community, life style, safe, people.

They are homes not just a house. We are the village- Close to amenities- Close knit community. Rural open space for children to grow.- Peace and quiet. Safety. Wildlife.- Close to everything also can we have our sign back- Precious unique country rural life style not cluttered part othe the historical

mudgeeraba- Locality, safeness of area closeness to most facilities- Proximity to everything- Peaceful and tranguil- Semi rural aspects.- Open Space and rural aspect- Space tranquility- Privacy unique safe environment- location- Peace and quiet, safety and security. Close proximity to essential services. Village

atmosphere. Nature, bird life- I have always lived here - born here, schooled here, grown a family here and I will

die here, try to move me- Space, trees, nature, handy to work, handy to grandkids, everything we need close

to home- Location with open green space with plentiful wildlife and safe environment- Amenity, natural environment, rural feel, room for my horse, fauna habitat in close

proximity to major facilities and access to everything- Location with space, wildlife, safety- Natural environment- Peaceful living habitat rural neighbours- No crime, peaceful. Good place to bring kids up in


979 ADOPTED REPORT

57

- Proximity to schools,shopping, M1.- Space, privacy, low traffic, close to motorway/robina. Nature.- large allotment, tranquil environment, no hussell and bussell, quite rural aspect- Space, safe, family friendly, wildlife, close to everything but still away from the

busy gold coast- Peace , safe, tranquility, wildlife,- Space, animals, if I wanted to live in high density living I would move to Surfers

Paradise, location, Open space.- Open space. Close proximity. No high density living. Born and bred on the coast.

Natural environment


- High density.- Rezoning to high density- Take away what we have today- Traffic- Overpopulation and poor infrastructure- Development, traffic- Overpopulation. Wildlife disappears.- Having to leave the area- No threat within Anaroo, however the population explosion on the Gold Coast will

encr- Population density traffic , access to mudgeeraba road from scullin st- Change. High density housing. Finding somewhere else to live- Housing density; threats to native flora and fauna; pressure on infrastructure and

losing sight of Mudgeeraba's heritage- Over population. High density housing. Losing trees & wildlife- Traffic issues,- Traffic- Traffic explosion- Developer's , planning, not staying focused on what mudgeeraba is about.

Leaving area & life style. Why our area.- Over population.- Council, developers destroying Mudgeeraba and its rural and historic area- Traffic- Potential of high density living- Development, where do you find a comparable property if development goes

ahead.- Loss of natural environment- Getting out of our family home of 37 years- scumbags moving in, break-ins and crime, traffic, increased insurance, loss of

culture and history, making change without consideration to local families- Development, changes to our lifestyle.- Do not want crime Anaroo is my Shangrila,


980 ADOPTED REPORT

58

- Noise from main roads,total lack of public transport- traffic jams and over population of one of the city's best rural heritage and historic

areas- Population growth, council changing zoning to increase density. Traffic, loss of

environment- Council redevelopment- Trafic noice- High density development will remove trees and open space driving the animals

away. Traffic. Crime.- Neighbours too close, traffic increases, losing the rural atmosphere- potential for all tranquil areas being taken away, destruction of a liveable area,

moon scaping of areas, not being able to keep 10 chickens and 8 cars- Development of our rural area, too busy for a country town. Would not want to live

anywhere else- Traffic not coping with population growth- interference from developers and town planners. Lack of public transport.

Congestion on the M1. No parking space in Mudgeeraba any time of day. Changeof lifestyle. Councilors not listening to their constituents.

- High density living with the though that this development and council willallowing the mudgeeraba district 9 to become another western suburbs of sydney

- Traffic. Change in environment High density living. How do you replace whatwe already have.

- Crime. Lack of services. Highway traffic.- Loss of public spaces, guides, scouts, etc

Q6 What do you think you will be doing in the next 5 – 10 years?

- Continue travelling- JetSki everyday- Living the dream in Narrabundah st with my family- Living in Anaroo- Enjoying my retirement- Living in anaroo- Living in anaroo- Renovate my house- Enjoy life as safely as possible- Still paying the mortgage off to stay at this property- Continue our lifestyle. Stay healthy. Travel.- Continue to enjoy life in our unique area- Living happily with my family in Anaroo, Mudgeeraba- Travelling so we can come home again- Still extracting honey from my bees from my property- Enjoying what we are lucky to have today to happy with my family tomorrow- Still enjoying our beautiful property with our family- Living in our home in Anaroo


981 ADOPTED REPORT

59

- Enjoying retirement, looking after grandchildren.- Living in Anaroo with my family- Enjoying Mudgeeraba with moderate development.- still working and enjoying my open space- Retire and fish- Enjoying living on my acre in Anaroo- Living where I am now with the fruit trees and open space.- Retire and enjoy- Hopefully exactly the same as I am doing now, with a bit more time off work so I

can spend the time growing our own fruit and veges- working hard to re elect someone who will look after locals without selling out to

developers- Growmy own vegetable garden , gofishing- Staying where I am.- I would love to have a house for my children to get married at and have their

children come for visits- Enjoying my tranquil life at anarroo. Enjoy watching my children and grandchildren

enjoying the property- Retiring and enjoying my extended family in our family home- Raising my family. Working and living amongst the community of Mudgeeraba- Retirement in Mudgeeraba- Retiring with options open- Having my happy hour in a peaceful serine environment. Listening to the birds in

the morning while doing yoga.- Riding off into the sunset with my new mega-wealthy partner. Any takers?- Continuing enjoying the beautiful coloured birds, and the tranquility of my

beautiful peaceful property.- Raising our family and growing wealth- Living in our home in Anaroo


- Better roads- None- Financial- None- Nil- None- Absolutely none... zip...- None- None- Little or no change- Financial


982 ADOPTED REPORT

60

- None- None- "none- Connect to sewer- Little- None- None- None- None- None- Infrastructure- "No benefits- None- None- "I would hope a free sewer connection- It may be easier to redevelop my own

property.- No benefits- None that I can think of- None- Improvement in infrastructure.- None- None- no benefits- "More neighbours- increase property value"- increased value"- None- None- None- None- Sewerage

- more noise- more crime- increased rates- more traffic- more of things i dont want"


983 ADOPTED REPORT

61


- Crime- Loss of privacy/amenity- None- Low life moving in- Lower property valuations- Loss of community, concerns for safety.- noise, increased traffic, loss of privacy, over crowding, drain on infrastructure- Safety, change of life style- Dust noise- Noise crime- Amenity, privacy, loss of value, crime, noise, parking, traffic,- Property prices fall, neighbours too close,- Noise, Traffic, Crime,- No concerns- Increased traffic, crime, noise- How this should not of happened in the first place- Loss of amenity, reduced safety; increase traffic , loss of flora and fauna- Noise, loss of privacy, change, increase of rentals- Change of life stule- Noise, early starts , heavy machinery used- Increased crime ,noise, loss of trees- Valuation- would it increase or decrease the value of my home- Crime, traffic, construction noise,- None.- moon scaping, crime, noise, whinges about my lifestyle, traffic and many many more- Noise dust traffic- Loss of peace, security and privacy.- Trees would be cut down, noise- Noise, effect on wildlife, traffic- Loss of our peace and quiet, too much heavy traffic- Valuation would decrease on your property. Lifestyle would be changed dramatically- stupid question - traffic increase- Noice loss of privacy- Loss of privacy and increased traffic- Increase in traffic, noise, privacy- Quality of life- More neighbours, more noise, more traffic, higher rates, higher crime, lower

valuations, more scumbags in the area- Privacy, crime, increased traffic, wildlife reduction, schools.- Loss of privacy, security issues, loss of precious habitat


984 ADOPTED REPORT

62

- Valuation decrease increase traffic lifestyle decreaae- Crime privacy. Feeling pressured about having to sell. Traffic. Noise.

Environmental clearing. Lifestyle stress.- Traffic , animal habitat loss. Noise , fencing- property value, traffic, loss of wildlife,- It would change the region. Noise, loss of security,traffic etc


985 ADOPTED REPORT

63

Thank you!

articulous.com.au Level 1, 123 Charlotte Street, Brisbane


986 ADOPTED REPORT

FAQs – Mudgeeraba Investigation Area Page 1 of 6

Ispot # 72031825

Frequently Asked Questions Mudgeeraba Investigation Area

Contents

Why would I participate in this? What is the benefit of this for me? .............................................................. 2 How many people must agree for a change to zoning to be developed? ...................................................... 2 How will this impact on the value of my property? Will this impact my rates? ............................................... 2 Can properties be developed individually or will amalgamation be required? ............................................... 3 What if my neighbour doesn’t want to amalgamate but I do? ........................................................................ 3 If developers do not become involved, will single land owners be able to subdivide? Will we be required to have new sewerage facilities before we can subdivide? ............................................................................... 3 If a sewerage main is provided in our street, will we be forced to connect to the sewerage? ....................... 3 Why can’t we subdivide into two blocks? ....................................................................................................... 4 What if my property is on slope-constrained land? ........................................................................................ 4 Will it now be harder to build a house on an existing block? ......................................................................... 4 What kind of development could happen if there is strong support? ............................................................. 4 What is being done to ensure that our roads and schools are going to be able to handle the influx of residents? ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Will I be informed as the project progresses? ................................................................................................ 5 What are the plans for Mudgeeraba Road? Will this affect public land? ....................................................... 5 How are the City’s flood maps produced? ..................................................................................................... 5 What will be the process of investigating and protecting the current ecological footprint of the area? ......... 6

Attachment C (1 of 7)771st Council Meeting 26 March 2019 Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 20 March 2019

987 ADOPTED REPORT


Frequently asked questions Why would I participate in this? What is the benefit of this for me? The Investigation Area study is a way for us to identify different opportunities across the Gold Coast and ensure that we start planning now for what we will need in five, ten or 20 years and beyond.

The outcome of this consultation will influence the City of Gold Coast’s (City) decision to invest in planning for future urban development opportunities. This includes longer term provision of urban infrastructure such as sewerage reticulation and improvements to roads, stormwater and open space.

The City has not made a decision to prepare an update to the planning scheme (City Plan) for the Investigation Area. To date, we have identified potential opportunities and challenges for discussion. Available on www.gchaveyoursay.com.au/mudgeeraba are reports which identify concept scenarios for future growth opportunities and the challenges for achieving these. These concepts give an indication of the type of future growth which may occur without placing a heavy financial burden on the City to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements. They are not Council endorsed policy.

In November 2018, there we will be a survey which will assist us to determine if further planning should proceed. Whilst property owners are a key stakeholder, the survey will be open to the whole community.

How many people must agree for a change to zoning to be developed? There will need to be at least half of property owners supporting short term change (5-15 years) if the City is to pursue planning for rezoning of the investigation area (or part of the investigation area). If there is at least half of property owners supporting short term change or longer term transition to urban development (redevelopment commencing in 15-25 years), the City may pursue longer term strategic planning which may not

result in a change to zoning. This will result in infrastructure planning and amendments to the City Plan’s strategic framework.

If the majority of property owners in the investigation area (or part of the investigation area) are strongly opposed to a transition to urban development within the next 25 years, the City may abandon further planning (for whole, or part of, the investigation area). The area may be investigated again as part of a future whole-of-planning scheme review, which occurs approximately every ten years.

How will this impact on the value of my property? Will this impact my rates? A change to the zoning of land may lead to an increase in land value over the longer term.

However, a change to the zoning of your property is only one factor that can contribute to your rates changing.

The valuation of land takes into account a range of matters including improvements on the property and zoning that generally reflect the value of land in the open property market and the rent that could reasonably be obtained for lease of the premises in the open market.

The rates charged for a particular property can be expected to increase if the Valuer General determines that the value of the property has increased.

You may be entitled to the State Government pensioner rates subsidy and/or City of Gold Coast's pensioner rate remission (Council Remission) on your next rates bill if you own and occupy the property and are the holder of either of the following:

Queensland Pensioner Concession Card; or

Queensland Gold Veterans' Affairs Card.For more information, go to www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/council/pensioner-concessions


988 ADOPTED REPORT


Can properties be developed individually or will amalgamation be required? If an amendment to City Plan is developed to support future urban development, this is likely to require a minimum sized development area which would require sites to be amalgamated (i.e. at least two sites). There are many benefits from amalgamating sites including:

a higher development yield;

increased design opportunities which canresult in a better housing form with improvedliveability and improved marketability ofproduct;

opportunities realised for slope orenvironmental constrained sites (e.g. utilisingaccess from adjacent site, increasedopportunity to retain an existing house as partof a larger development proposal);

lower development costs (e.g. economies ofscale, more efficient and shared costs withinfrastructure provision); and

lower risk in the development assessmentprocess (e.g. easier to comply with planningoutcomes, lower chance of public submissionsand appeals).

What if my neighbour doesn’t want to amalgamate but I do?Property laws in Queensland require a binding contract of sale between an offeror and the property owner/s. The law does not allow for an individual or company to forcefully acquire a property without all owners signing a contract of sale.

If developers do not become involved, will single land owners be able to subdivide? Will we be required to have new sewerage facilities before we can subdivide? If an amendment to City Plan is developed to support future urban development, it is likely to

require a minimum size development area. This requirement encourages the amalgamation of sites (i.e. at least two sites).

There are many benefits from amalgamating development sites including:

a higher development yield;

increased design opportunities which canresult in better housing design, improvedliveability and improved marketability ofproduct;

better development opportunities for slope orenvironmental constrained sites (e.g. utilisingaccess from adjacent site, increasedopportunity to retain an existing house as partof a larger development proposal);

lower development costs (e.g. througheconomies of scale and shared costs for theprovision of infrastructure); and

lower risk in the development assessmentprocess (e.g. easier to comply with planningoutcomes, lower chance of public submissionsand appeals).

To support this area to redevelop, sewerage services will be required to protect human and environmental health. A sewerage servicing strategy for the area will be developed. Timing and staging of this infrastructure will be determined by the timing, scale and location of development activity with the investigation areas. Sewerage infrastructure may be delivered by Council or a developer as part of the development approval process.

If a sewerage main is provided in our street, will we be forced to connect to the sewerage? If a reticulated sewerage main is provided (which your property could connect into), the City will not force you to provide a connection to the network for your existing house.

However, should there be future development on your property; the City will not approve any further on-site septic systems if the proposed development can connect to the reticulated sewerage network.


989 ADOPTED REPORT


Why can’t we subdivide into two blocks? Lots less than 4,000m2 with on-site sewerage facilities have greater risk of environmental harm and/or health impacts.

If this type of development was approved, there is a risk that the City would need to undertake costly retrofitting of the area with reticulated sewerage in the event of environmental or health issues.

The City Plan 2016 provides a strong policy position in relation to subdivision in the Rural residential zone, restricting subdivision of lots less than 4,000m2. There are some areas of the City where development approvals issued under the previous planning scheme were carried over into City Plan 2016, allowing for subdivision in the Rural residential zone to 2,500m2 (e.g. Parkwood). However, this lot size requires connection to reticulated sewerage.

The City has an obligation to ensure land and the provision of infrastructure is utilised in the most efficient manner.

What if my property is on slope-constrained land? Land with slope constraints (i.e. grade of greater than 1:6) is more difficult to develop. Any resulting development must avoid negative visual impacts, such as large unsightly retaining walls and scarring of the landscape. Development of slope-constrained land may result in some allotments with rear access.

If there is support to prepare a zoning amendment to City Plan, property owners will be given the opportunity to be involved in preparation of a draft plan for the area. This may include details such as preferred locations for new roads and access points to ensure quality development opportunities can be realised.

If an amendment to City Plan is developed to support future urban development, this is likely to require a minimum sized development area. It is expected that sites will need to be amalgamated (i.e. at least two sites). This will help to ensure slope-constrained properties are considered as part of a larger development proposal.

Will it now be harder to build a house on an existing block? There are currently no changes proposed to the existing requirements for building a house on an existing lot (i.e. block of land). If an amendment to City Plan is developed to support future urban development, there could be changes to the requirements relating to building a house on new lots.

What kind of development could happen if there is strong support? www.gchaveyoursay.com.au/mudgeeraba includes reports which identify concept scenarios for future growth opportunities and the challenges for achieving these. These concepts give an indication of the type of future growth which may occur without placing a heavy financial burden on the City to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements. They are not Council endorsed policy.

The concept which Council tested for infrastructure planning feasibility identified an ultimate long-term opportunity for 328 dwellings in the area. This assumes every site would be developed.

A higher yield of 504 dwellings was also considered which assumed a greater amount of apartment (or retirement/residential care facility) product. This yield is considered overly optimistic. However, the additional yield would have little consequence on other infrastructure planning.

If there is strong support in the Investigation Area (or part of the area), a City Plan update may be prepared to provide for a mix of detached and attached housing, depending on the location and attributes of the land. This type of housing will be low-rise (two to three storeys). Larger lots are expected on land with slope constraints (i.e. a grade more than 1:6). Greater density (i.e. smaller lots and apartment/attached housing product) may be achieved where closer to commercial areas.

In preparing a draft City Plan update, provisions will need to be considered to ensure new housing mitigates impacts to privacy and existing rural residential amenity on adjacent rural residential properties. This could be achieved by providing separation through generous building setbacks,


990 ADOPTED REPORT


avoiding grade separations on boundaries and provision of dense landscaping or placement of roads alongside adjoining boundaries.

Future development in the area will seek to optimise a legible and permeable subdivision pattern. This may be achieved by creating clusters of development with a sense of place, interconnected system of streets and open spaces that provide pleasant and comfortable walking and cycling environments and support public transport.

What is being done to ensure that our roads and schools are going to be able to handle the influx of residents? The Investigation Area is long-term planning for the future of our city. By identifying areas that may be suitable for future growth in the medium and long-term, Council and State Government can be better equipped to plan, budget and upgrade the necessary infrastructure and amenities to support long-term growth. This includes ensuring schools, roads and public transport are planned accordingly.

The State Government is currently planning a number of upgrades to the Pacific Motorway M1. Information is available on the Department of Transport and Main Roads website:

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/P

Will I be informed as the project progresses? In mid-2019 an update will be provided on the outcomes of the community engagement.

What are the plans for Mudgeeraba Road? Will this affect public land?Mudgeeraba Road is a State Government controlled road. Future improvements to the road are the responsibility of State Government. Over ten years ago the State Government indicated Mudgeeraba Road would need to be upgraded in the future to accommodate two lanes in each direction. This would also include improvements to the intersection of Scullin Street with Mudgeeraba Road to improve safety. The upgrade is necessary

regardless of future growth in the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area.

Additional land would be required to carry out the upgrade to Mudgeeraba Road. However, the land requirement is subject to future design work. The State Government have no budget or timeframe to carry out the future upgrade of Mudgeeraba Road.

Future growth in the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area is dependent on improvements to the intersection of Scullin Street with Mudgeeraba Road to improve safety.

How are the City’s flood maps produced? Flood overlay maps identify properties where future development will need to meet the provisions of the Flood overlay code.

Flood overlay maps reflect the impact of a one in 100 year ARI (Average Recurrence Interval) rainfall.

The City has recently updated existing flood overlay mapping which will commence as part of City Plan Version 6 on 20 September 2018.

The updated mapping considers future changes to climate, incorporating the projected increase in sea level of 0.8m above present day levels by 2100 established by the State Government in 2015. The updated mapping also includes the State Governments projected 10 per cent storm tide intensity and 10 per cent rainfall intensity, based on advice from industry representatives.

More FAQs on flood mapping is available on www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/council/flood-heights-maps-2222.html


991 ADOPTED REPORT


What will be the process of investigating and protecting the current ecological footprint of the area? The City undertook an environmental site assessment of the Mudgeeraba North Investigation Area in 2016. This assessment confirms the value of vegetation in areas mapped with state significant species (e.g. the rear of properties along Narrabundah Street). The vegetation communities within these areas are very important and must be protected if there was to be more housing planned for the area.

The environmental assessment identified other ecologically significant vegetation located within and adjacent to the urban woodland in the Piallingo Street Corridor Park. There is also ecologically significant vegetation along

Mudgeeraba Road where there is Spotted Gum/Grey ironbark open forest habitat for koalas. Areas of regrowth Acacia along the rear of the M1 between Piallingo Street are identified and whilst this may not be of high ecological significance, some of this vegetation could be retained as part of a buffer to the M1.

Other vegetation within the investigation area is not identified as being of high environmental significance. Should urban development progress within the area, there could be opportunity to retain some of this vegetation where located along property boundaries. However, to enable future urban development opportunity there would need to be removal of much of this vegetation for earthworks and construction of new dwellings.


992 ADOPTED REPORT

Meteor

Court

Sun

Cou

rtNorong Court

Inlet

Court

Serene Court

Ophir Court

Walk

er D

rive

Aqua

tic D

rive

Uni

vers

e C

ourt

Macbeth Court

Cove

Cou

rt

Injune Place

Balla

rat C

ourt

Paralla Place

Crocker Street

Firth Place

Cape Court

Venu

s C

ourt

Retreat Place

Moss Street

Acom

a Te

rrace

Island Court

Autumn C

ourt

Calwell Court

Alter Court

Prospector Road

Navajo Road

Baymill Court

Swan Lane

Birdsville Street

Bell

Pla

ce

Roa

d

Kiow

aD

rive

School Street

Mar

cus

Way

Soma Court

Springt ime Court

Link Road

Hay

lett

Cou

rt

Lalor Court

Congrev e Close

Sate

lliteCourt

Mis

sion

Driv

e

Hinterland Drive

Rivett Court

Fran

cho

Stre

et

Talgarno Place

Wallandra Road

Rando

m Way

Outrigg

er

Driv

e

KerynC

lose Terra ceC

ourt

Rainbow

Drive

Eclipse Court

Pathway

Anton

son Crescent

Clune

sCourt

SherwoodC

lose

Cabot Co urtN

olan

Stre

et

Hol

terman Court

Constellation

Cre

scen

t

Scullin

Street

ColonialC

ourt

BendigoCrescent

No rth Hill Drive

Otiose Court

Marina

Court

Twilight Drive

Sum

merhil l C

ourt

Rutherglen Court

Creeks

ideCourt

Leisur e

Lane

Ch ip pewa

Circ

uit

Milky

Way

Robert Street

Zied

anD

r ive

Tuen

a S

treet

Railw

ayS

treet

Cromwell

C

ourt M

oo nb ea mP

ar ad e

Viscount Drive

Grosvenor Court

Coba iDriv

e

NarrabundahStreet

Equinox Court

Settlement Court

Dulhunty Way

Tara

wara

Avenue

Mooralla

Street

Regency Place

Sug a rglid

e rLa

ne

Franklin Drive

Piallingo Street

Old

Coa

ch R

oad

Hi ghfield

Drive

Woodvale Dr ive

Thredbo Drive

Glades

Drive

Alawara D rive

Talla

iRoad

Mud

geer

aba

Roa

d

Mew

sdal

eR

ow

Worongary Road

Pacific Motorw

ay

400m radius

800m radius

Land use opportunities and constraints - Mudgeeraba Investigation Area

0 250 500125Metres

Legend

MudgeerabaState School

All SaintsAnglican School

Notes:To support the investigation area to redevelop, sewerageservices will be required to protect human and environmentalhealth.A sewerage servicing strategy for the area will be developed.Timing and staging of this infrastructure will be determined bythe timing, scale and location of development activity in theinvestigation area. Sewerage infrastructure may be delivered by Council or adeveloper as part of the development approval process.

ApprovedRetirementFacility

Low-medium density residential (i.e. low rise townhouse/apartment/small lots) opportunities exist with lower densities where land is slope-constrained. Future urban development will need to be part of amalgamated development sites.

The concept which Council tested for infrastructure planning feasibility identified an ultimate long-term opportunity for 328 dwellings in the area. This is assuming that every site would be developed.

A higher yield of 504 dwellings was also considered. This assumed a higher proportion of apartment (or retirement/residential care facility) product. This yield is considered overly optimistic. However, the additional yield would have little consequence on other infrastructure planning.

Areas affected by slope (i.e. grade of greater than 1:6) are more difficult to develop. Any resulting development must avoid negative visual impacts, such as large unsightly retaining walls and scarring of the landscape. Development of slope-constrained land may result in some allotments with rear access.

Further on-site ecological assessment is required to determine the presence and value of State significant vegetation, presently mapped as the City Plan ecological significance overlay. Some increased density could be supported on part of these sites to compensate for protection of environmental values.

Flood assessment is required for areas identified on the City Plan Flood hazard overlay map.

Stormwater detention areas (shown conceptually) will need to be identified to address a regional approach to stormwater management.

The Piallingo Street area requires a more costly (non-gravity) solution to service with sewerage including rising mains and a new sewerage pump station.

Mudgeeraba Road is a State Government controlled road. Over ten years ago the State Government indicated Mudgeeraba Road would need to be upgraded in the future to accommodate two lanes in each direction. This would also include improvements to the intersection of Scullin Street with Mudgeeraba Road to improve safety. The upgrade is necessary regardless of future growth in the Mudgeeraba Investigation Area. Future development of this area cannot occur without an upgrade to the Scullin Street intersection with Mudgeeraba Road.

Existing open space. Urban development will enable Council to invest in improvements to the recreation open space network.

Community uses and approved retirement facility

800m radius to supermarket

400m radius to Neighbourhood centre

Wetland and other land with high environmental values where no further development is proposed.

Investigation area boundary


993 ADOPTED REPORT

REDACTED


994 ADOPTED REPORT

Note: An investigation completed for the Mudgeeraba investigation area (conceptually shown on strategic framework map 1 between Mudgeeraba Road and the Motorway) identified potential future low-medium density residential development opportunities. Due to the findings from the investigation on the identified potential development opportunities, this area will maintain a rural residential character and intent.

Attachment E (1 of 1)

Attachment E (confidential)

Draft City Plan update of the strategic framework

Intent

Include a new statutory note in the strategic framework for Rural residential areas element, specific outcomes (s3.3.7.1). The intent of the statutory note is to ensure that, following completion of the investigation, the community and development industry are aware of the purpose of City Plan to maintain a rural residential character and intent for the investigation area.

Draft Minor update

In the Rural residential areas element, specific outcomes (s3.3.7.1), at the end of the existing statutory notes, include the following new statutory note:


995 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 12 CITY PLANNING LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN STORMWATER QUALITY DRAFT AMENDMENT – APPROVAL TO PROCEED TO MINISTERIAL APPROVAL AND ADOPTION PD113/1306(P1)

Refer 5 page Attachment A: Local Government Infrastructure Plan Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment Submissions Report for Council


1.1 It is recommended that this report be considered in Closed Session pursuant to section 275 (1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the reason that the matter involves


1.2 It is recommended that the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report seeks Council’s endorsement to progress the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) Stormwater quality draft amendment to the Minister’s final review and approval to adopt the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment in accordance with the Statutory Guideline 01/16: Making and amending local planning instruments (MALPI). In particular:

endorse the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment Submissions Report(Attachment A) for publication (with personal and identifying information removed);

proceed with the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment without changes;

submit the final LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment to the Appointed Reviewerfor the second compliance check;

submit the final LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment to the Minister seekingapproval to adopt the LGIP stormwater quality draft amendment; and

proceed with the adoption of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment if theMinister requires no major changes.

If the Minister requires major changes to be made to the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment, a report will be brought back to Council prior to adoption.


996 ADOPTED REPORT

ITEM 12 (Continued) LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN STORMWATER QUALITY DRAFT AMENDMENT – APPROVAL TO PROCEED TO MINISTERIAL APPROVAL AND ADOPTION PD113/1306(P1)


At the 751st Council Meeting on 27 February 2018 (EPE18.0221.003) Council resolved, in part:

1 That the report and attachments be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That Attachment A be endorsed as the updated Major amendment for LGIP Stormwater quality draft package.

3 That in accordance with Statutory Guideline 01/16: Making and amending local planning instruments:

a. The Chief Executive Officer be authorised to write to the Minister for StateDevelopment, Infrastructure and Planning to provide the updated Majoramendment for LGIP Stormwater quality draft package (Attachment A), inresponse to the State’s ‘stop the clock’ notices.

4 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to make editorial and minor changes if required to the updated Major amendment for LGIP Stormwater quality draft package (Attachment A).

At the 761st Council Meeting on 21 September 2018 (EPE18.0919.007) Council resolved, in part:


2 That Attachment B be endorsed as the updated LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment.

3 That the attached Community Engagement and Communications Plan (Attachment C) be endorsed.

4 That consultation for the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment occurs in accordance with the attached Community Engagement and Communications Plan.

5 That a copy of the Minister’s letter allowing the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment to progress to public consultation be published on Council’s website.


997 ADOPTED REPORT


4 DISCUSSION

Background

On 21 June 2017, Council resolved to submit to the State for review two (2) separate LGIP amendment packages subject to minor and editorial changes, being:

1. Major amendment 1 to the LGIP (LGIP1) which contains four (4) trunk infrastructurenetworks, water, sewer, transport and public parks and land for community facilities,and

2. Major amendment for Stormwater quality to the LGIP.

LGIP1 commenced on 27 June 2018.

On 8 August 2018, State approved the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment to proceed to public consultation and this was endorsed by Council on 21 September 2018.

Public consultation

On 21 September 2018, Council resolved to proceed to public consultation of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment, in accordance with the endorsed Community Engagement and Communications Plan. Public consultation was undertaken between 2 October and 13 November 2018 (31 business days), which was notified with a formal notice in the local newspaper.

During the public consultation phase, the City engaged the community through four public information sessions conducted at the Nerang and Bundall Customer Service Centres. Hard copies of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment were available at the Bundall and Nerang offices. The draft amendment was also displayed and available for download on the City’s website, along with an interactive mapping tool to assist the public in identifying where the trunk infrastructure is proposed. Industry awareness was targeted via the City’s Planning and Development Alert.

A total of three properly made submissions were received in relation to the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment. These submissions raised 13 separate points requiring consideration. The majority of these points related to the City’s stormwater management strategy generally and how the City intends to manage its stormwater longer term.

Submissions include support for stormwater quality network planning and raised technical questions with regard to forecasts and definitions. The full description of the public submissions can be found in Attachment A: LGIP Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment Submissions Report, including responses to the 13 separate points.

After reviewing submissions received, City officers are recommending no changes be made to the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment.

Statutory Process

Council is required to consider all properly made submissions in accordance with MALPI. Upon consideration of each submission, Council may then:


998 ADOPTED REPORT


a make changes to the proposed LGIP Stormwater quality amendment to:

i address issues raised in a properly made submission ii amend a drafting error iii address new or changed planning circumstances or information

b must ensure any changes continue to appropriately comply and address any relevant requirements identified in a statutory guideline for LGIPs

c advise persons who made a properly made submission about how the local government has dealt with the submission

d write to the Minister seeking approval to adopt the proposed LGIP Stormwater quality amendment

e after receiving advice from the Minister that it may adopt the proposed LGIP Stormwater quality amendment, comply with any conditions imposed by the Minister which must be undertaken prior to adoption

f proceed to adoption of the proposed LGIP Stormwater quality amendment.

City officers are recommending Council write to the Minister seeking approval to adopt the proposed LGIP Stormwater quality amendment, and proceed to adoption if the Minister has no conditions that require revisions to be made to the draft LGIP Stormwater quality amendment.

5 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

Theme: Place 1.1 Our city provides a choice of liveable places. We can choose diverse lifestyle and

housing options from rural to city living. 1.2 We live in balance with nature. We manage quality rural and urban living while

looking after the future of the city’s rainforest, bushland, waterways and open space. 1.4 We have fast, frequent and reliable public transport. We can get around the city easily

and cheaply. 13.6 Our modern centres create vibrant communities. We can work and play in our local

neighbourhoods.

Theme: Prosperity 2.3 We have infrastructure that supports productivity and growth. We have connected

and vibrant economic precincts.

Theme: People 3.6 We are an active and healthy community. We enjoy our city and its enviable climate.


999 ADOPTED REPORT


6 RISK MANAGEMENT

CO000544 - A stormwater network in the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) is not prepared in accordance with the MGR (Minister's Guidelines and Rules Planning Act 2016) by 30 June 2019 resulting in the City not being able to levy infrastructure charges to collect funds for the impervious area charge.

The current LGIP was implemented on 27 June 2018 and contains four networks (Transport, Water supply, Sewerage, Public parks and land for community facilities). The absence of a stormwater network impacts the City’s ability to levy the maximum adopted charge prescribed by the State and impose trunk infrastructure conditions for stormwater on future development under the Planning Act 2016.

Every effort is being made to progress the Stormwater quality draft amendment through the State-prescribed process for amending an LGIP as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to minimise the financial impact. Commencement of the Stormwater quality draft amendment allows Council to levy infrastructure charges to collect funds for the impervious area charge.

7 STATUTORY MATTERS

This draft stormwater quality amendment to LGIP was prepared in accordance with the amendment process set out in Making and amending local planning instruments (MALPI), which is the statutory guideline under Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (SPA). However, this amendment package has been aligned to the terminology of the Planning Act 2016 and associated regulations and guidelines. Section 287 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) provides if a process for making an LGIP had begun under the SPA, but not ended before SPA’s repeal, the SPA continues to apply in relation to the LGIP amendment.

Section 117 of SPA requires an amendment to LGIP to follow the process as set out in MALPI.

Section 117 of SPA also require an amendment to LGIP to be prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in Statutory guideline 03/14: Local government infrastructure plans (LGIP statutory guideline).

The proposed changes constitute a major amendment to Part 4 of City Plan in accordance with MALPI. Figure 1 outlines the overall process to be followed for a major amendment to an LGIP under MALPI.


1000 ADOPTED REPORT


Figure 1 Major Amendment process under MALPI

8 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

Stakeholder consulted Directorate Stakeholder satisfied with content of report & recommendations?

Amanda Tzannes, Manager City Planning

Economy, Planning and Environment Yes

Andrew Young, Executive Coordinator Legal Services

Office of the COO Yes

Jordon Reeves, Executive Coordinator Financial Planning And Strategy

Office of the COO Yes

Shannon Hunt, Executive Coordinator Stormwater Beaches & Waterways

Transport and Infrastructure Yes

Kelli Adair, Executive Coordinator Strategic Urban and Regional Planning

Economy, Planning and Environment Yes

Information sessions were held with Councillors throughout the development of the LGIP. These sessions included an overview of the State’s Information Request, the Stormwater quality network proposed Desired Standard of Service and the Stormwater quality trunk infrastructure proposed by the City.


1001 ADOPTED REPORT



As previously noted, the Council adopted Community Engagement and Communications Plan which was delivered during the public consultation of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment. This plan engaged key stakeholders and the broader community in the process of public consultation.

Three submissions were received from industry. All submitters have been advised of the receipt of their submission through an acknowledgement email.

All submitters will be advised about how their submission was dealt with by electronic notification and publication of Attachment A on the City’s website following approval from Council. Attachment A will be edited prior to publication to remove the submitter and/or location details.

10 TIMING

It is anticipated the Stormwater quality draft amendment will commence on 1 July 2019, subject to minimum turn-around times for all required statutory steps required to be followed under MALPI.

11 CONCLUSION

This report provides an update and summary of the submissions received during public consultation of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment.

This report seeks Council endorsement to respond to submissions and proceed to the next steps in the MALPI process, including:

a) proceeding with the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment without changes;b) writing to the Minister seeking approval to adopt the LGIP Stormwater quality draft

amendment; andc) proceeding with the adoption of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment if the

Minister requires no major changes.


1002 ADOPTED REPORT


12 RECOMMENDATION



2 That in accordance with section 117 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 andStatutory Guideline 01/16 'Making and amending local planning instruments'(MALPI), Council decides to:

a proceed with the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment without changes;

b engage the Appointed Reviewer to conduct the second State Interest Check; and

c write to the Minister seeking approval to adopt the proposed LGIP Stormwater quality amendment and proceed to step 8 of MALPI.

3 That Attachment A – Local Government Infrastructure Plan Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment Submissions Report be endorsed and authorised to bedisplayed online and at administration centres for submitters and the community, with the submitter and/or location details redacted.

4 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to write to the Minister to satisfy the requirements under step 6.10 of MALPI, including giving the following to the Minister:

a LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment;

b LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment Submissions Report; and

c Checklist and written statement prepared by the appointed reviewer.

5 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to make any administrative or minor modifications to the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment or the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment Submissions Report (Attachment A) prior to submitting to the Minister for consideration.

6 That Council proceed to adoption of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment in the circumstance that the Minister has no conditions that require revisions to be made to the draft LGIP Stormwater quality amendment.

Author: Authorised by:Paul Brookfield Alisha Swain Coordinator Strategic Infrastructure Director Economy, Planning & Environment 1 March 2019 1 March 2019


1003 ADOPTED REPORT


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.0320.011 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr O’Neill 1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts

deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That in accordance with section 117 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and Statutory Guideline 01/16 'Making and amending local planning instruments' (MALPI), Council decides to:

a proceed with the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment without changes;

b engage the Appointed Reviewer to conduct the second State Interest Check; and

c write to the Minister seeking approval to adopt the proposed LGIP Stormwater quality amendment and proceed to step 8 of MALPI.

3 That Attachment A – Local Government Infrastructure Plan Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment Submissions Report be endorsed and authorised to be displayed online and at administration centres for submitters and the community, with the submitter and/or location details redacted.

4 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to write to the Minister to satisfy the requirements under step 6.10 of MALPI, including giving the following to the Minister:

a LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment;

b LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment Submissions Report; and

c Checklist and written statement prepared by the appointed reviewer.

5 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to make any administrative or minor modifications to the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment or the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment Submissions Report (Attachment A) prior to submitting to the Minister for consideration.

6 That Council proceed to adoption of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment in the circumstance that the Minister has no conditions that require revisions to be made to the draft LGIP Stormwater quality amendment.

CARRIED There being no further business the meeting was declared closed at 12.03pm


1004 ADOPTED REPORT

City of Gold Coast Local Government Infrastructure Plan Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment Submissions Report Page 1 of 5

Local Government Infrastructure Plan Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment Submissions Report

Draft Local Government Infrastructure Plan

Local Government Infrastructure Plan Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment

Submission Report – March 2019


1005 ADOPTED REPORT



Introduction

0BOverview

The City of Gold Coast (City) invests significantly in new and upgraded trunk infrastructure to facilitate urban development on the Gold Coast. The Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) is Part 4 of the City Plan and outlines where, when and how trunk infrastructure will be delivered over the next 15 years. The role of the LGIP is to clearly show the City’s plans for trunk infrastructure to support future growth and urban development. It ensures trunk infrastructure is efficiently coordinated and delivered. The LGIP also guides the City’s future capital works program and assists with long term financial planning.

State interest review of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment was completed in August 2018, following which Council endorsed the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment for public consultation. The official public consultation period was held from 2 October to 13 November 2018 (31 business days). Council officers reviewed all properly made submissions to the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment and a Council response to each submission is provided in this report.

1BPublic consultation

During the public consultation phase, Council engaged the community through advertising and four public information sessions that were conducted at the City’s administration centres at Bundall and Nerang, with hard copies of the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment available at these centres. The LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment was also displayed and available for download on the City’s website, along with an interactive mapping tool to assist the public in visualising where trunk infrastructure will occur.

2BSubmissions received

Council received three properly made submissions during the public consultation period, which were analysed into 13 separate points requiring consideration.

All points of submission have been considered by City officers and if applicable, sent to the relevant City network for consideration. Responses were then consolidated and reviewed internally by Strategic Infrastructure. Final responses can be viewed within the table of this report – the Local Government Infrastructure Plan Stormwater Quality Draft Amendment Submissions Report.

All submitter comments or ‘points of submission’ are listed with the following details:

Submission numbers relating to each comment/point of submission.

Summary of submitter comments or point of submission.

Council’s response to each submitter comment/point of submission.

Whether the comment/point of submission has resulted in a change to the LGIP Stormwater quality draft amendment.

If the submission will result in future action. This could include investigation and analyses that may or may not eventuate in change to future LGIP amendments.

3BHow to view your submission response

If you made a submission you will receive a formal response from the City, that will include your unique submission number (e.g. LGIPSWQ02). Using this unique submission number you can find the comments/points of submission you raised and Council’s subsequent response.

To find Council’s response to your submission, use the following instructions:

For PC, press Ctrl-F (hold down the control key on your keyboard and press ‘F’)

For Mac, press Command-F (hold down the command key and press ‘F’)

A search field should appear on your screen. Enter your unique submission number in the search field and click “Enter”. If your submissions raised more than one issue there will be multiple responses throughout the report. To find all responses against your submission number use the following instructions:

For PC, use the arrow keys to the right of the find box

For Mac, use the next/previous buttons below the find box

4BFurther support

If you are not able to locate your unique submission number, or for all other general enquiries regarding the LGIP, please contact Strategic Infrastructure on (07) 5582 8229.


1006 ADOPTED REPORT



Table of contents

Section 1: General enquiries ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4


1007 ADOPTED REPORT



Section 1: General enquiries * Please note: The “Submitter” column will be deleted before this report is uploaded to the City’s website.

# Submission reference

Submitter* Point of submission State interest matter?

City response Plan change?

Mapping change?

Future action?

1.1 LGIPSWQ01 Industry body has circulated the draft to members. Would like to organise future workshop to consider the water quality documents and to work with Council on water quality matters.

No

Council agrees Stormwater quality infrastructure is critically important to the ongoing health of the receiving environment. We look forward to further consultation with

members post implementation of the LGIP Stormwater quality amendment.

No No No

1.2 LGIPSWQ02 Support for the inclusion of the stormwater quality network within the LGIP in order to logically plan and strategically allocate stormwater quality infrastructure across the region.

No Noted. No No No

1.3 LGIPSWQ02 Support for network planning approach for stormwater quality for efficient and effective outcomes.

No

The City conditions each development to remove a percentage of the pollutants that the development will generate. With this approach, the pollutants to be removed and the percentages of pollutants to be removed, are consistent with the State Planning Policy July 2017 i.e. 90% Gross Pollutants > 5mm, 80% Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 60% Total Phosphorus (TP) and 45% Total Nitrogen (TN).

The City's proposed LGIP amendment will not change the above described practices, acknowledging the important function provided by non-trunk development infrastructure.

With non-trunk infrastructure removing only part of the pollutants generated by future development, the City is proposing a trunk infrastructure network that will remove the residual pollutant load generated by development. This is the Desired Standard of Service (DSS) for stormwater quality i.e. no worsening. This will occur within each of the City's regional service catchments i.e. the portion of pollutants generated by development not removed by non-trunk infrastructure, will be removed by trunk infrastructure.

No No No

1.4 LGIPSWQ02 Support for the inclusion of swale drains as trunk stormwater quality infrastructure within ‘table 2.5-1: Trunk Stormwater Quality Infrastructure’ that are a sustainable WSUD option.

No Noted. No No No

1.5 LGIPSWQ02 Concern regarding the omission of the stormwater quantity network within the amendment that would complete and complement the LGIP and clarify charges.

No Council is currently investigating options for the inclusion of the stormwater quantity network in the LGIP. This requires consideration and resolution of technical, financial and planning objectives, which are being addressed. This work is ongoing.

No No No

1.6 LGIPSWQ02 Concern that the demand and growth assumption within the Long Term Financial Forecasts (LTFF) differs from the LGIP, suggesting misalignment that could lead to incorrect outcomes.

No

Council will be monitoring the performance of the LGIP over time, including projected revenue and expenditure figures. Variances can be managed through adjustments to the capital expenditure budget in the short term. Over a longer time frame the LGIP will be reviewed and amended in accordance with legislative requirements.

No No No

1.7 LGIPSWQ02 Concern that the trunk stormwater quality items as part of this amendment do not adequately address the greater region, including the growth areas.

No

After development has provided non-trunk infrastructure compliant with development conditions, the residual development pollutant demand will be addressed by trunk stormwater quality infrastructure. Proposed trunk stormwater quality infrastructure have been identified and located to address the greater regional service catchments.

For further explanation of the above, please refer to the "Extrinsic Material Report Stormwater Quality Network", Figure 1 on page 10.

The most cost effective means of achieving the DSS, and hence servicing trunk demand, is to provide trunk stormwater quality infrastructure at locations where there are high pollutant load concentrations within each regional service catchment. Ideal sites for trunk stormwater quality infrastructure are typically located in areas within the regional service catchments external to development sites. As such Council believes the proposed trunk stormwater quality projects provide water quality coverage at a regional level, including growth areas.

No No No

1.8 LGIPSWQ02 Concern at some of Council’s definitions of trunk infrastructure and non-trunk infrastructure items that may be inconsistent with state guidelines.

No Council’s identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure items are consistent with the “Ministers Guidelines and Rules Under the Planning Act 2016” (MGR). Non-trunk infrastructure is identified as that provided to service the subject site only. The City has

No No No


1008 ADOPTED REPORT



# Submission reference

Submitter* Point of submission State interest matter?

City response Plan change?

Mapping change?

Future action?

conditioned developers to provide such infrastructure since circa 2000 and identified same as non-trunk. Whereas trunk infrastructure services only any net increase in pollutant load caused by multiple developments within the City’s service catchments.

This approach is consistent with each of the relevant requirements set-out in the MGR, particularly Chapter 5, Part 4, Section 14.3 and Chapter 6, Part 2, Section 4.1.

1.9 LGIPSWQ02 Concern at the uncertain effect of the cost of the network and the future quantity network on infrastructure charges that gives some uncertainty to industry operations.

No Infrastructure charges are capped by the State and Council is not able to charge more than the maximum amount permitted. No No No

1.10 LGIPSWQ02 Concerned the cost of the future quality network will impact on infrastructure charges and therefore create uncertainty for industry.

No

Council charges 99.5% of the capped charges for residential uses to recover the cost of providing the water supply, sewerage, transport and public parks and land for community facilities networks.

The 0.5% reduction is not:

• derived from the removal of the stormwater networks

• the cost of supplying the trunk stormwater infrastructure network

• a reduction from the actual cost of supplying five infrastructure networks.

The charge for residential uses recovers the cost of providing the water supply, sewerage, transport and public parks and land for community facilities networks.

City officers have instigated initiatives to ensure the formulation of future amendments and new LGIPs are cost effective and transparent.

No No No

1.11 LGIPSWQ03 Request extension of time to undertake and submit review of base unit rate costs. No

The request was not granted as timeframes are set by legislative guidelines.

Council had the unit rate costs of the LGIP independently reviewed in 2017. They were found to be comparable with similarly sized Councils in South East Queensland. It is not considered necessary to duplicate this work so soon after it was completed.

No No No

1.12 LGIPSWQ03 Submitter suggests another product may be a more suitable water quality treatment solution for Council.

No Noted. No No No

1.13 LGIPSWQ03 Performance of quality infrastructure devices depends upon ongoing maintenance. Actual performance may be less than modelled if maintenance is not appropriate. No

Council accepts performance of quality infrastructure depends upon maintenance and will ensure infrastructure items will be appropriately maintained over time. No No No


1009 ADOPTED REPORT

These Pages

Numbered 1 to 1010

Constitute The Adopted Report Of The Meeting

Of The Economy, Planning and Environment Committee

Held Wednesday, 20 March 2019


1010 ADOPTED REPORT

founding partners platinum sponsor gold sponsors … · 1.2 i recommend that the report/attachment...

Documents