Sue Brooks' Blog

Sue Brooks February 28th, 2009

Just to belatedly advise you all of the recent press and other chattering about Council inviting FTQ to reapply. Quite simply we have not invited them to reapply. Anyone can apply at any time to develop within our region however Council had an outstanding resolution that required finalizing and this is the result included below.

Council determined the main issues that it requires if FTQ wanted to reapply to come to our airport. In other words Council has clearly stated publicly the issues that we would require to be resolved for FTQ to reapply which they, or any other group, are free to do. I believe that this resolution in no way implies that FTQ are ‘invited’ to reapply and it in no way implies that Council would necessarily be in favour of any application forthcoming. It does however publicly outline the issues that Council would want to have addressed.

It is also important to remember that for a flight training group to come to a Council owned airport wanting to build a school, requires two separate processes. A Development Application (to build buildings etc) as well as a Lease etc. Both processes are separate but a school cannot be set up on Council owned and controlled land without both being successful.

I hope that this information helps you. I believe the conditions that Council has outlined are stringent and responsible ones.

Cheers, Sue

http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/council/meetings/Ordinary%20Meetings/ORDINARY%20MEETING%20AGENDA%20and%20MINUTES.shtml

Ordinary Meeting No. 2 Minutes – 18/02/09

ORD 15 CONFIDENTIAL

ORD 15.2 Flight Training Queensland – Progress Report

RESOLUTION ( Brooks / Hawes )

That, in the event that Flight Training Group wish to recommence negotiations, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to recommence negotiations with the Flight Training Group subject to the following:

1. Commercial Return – to meet the requirements of the Department of Local Government. This will be achieved through the structuring of a commercial lease agreement which ensures that the project remains cost neutral to the Council and takes into account all of the fees, charges and borrowings to be made to Council by the Flight Training Group.

2. Insurance requirements – to address the concerns raised through the Risk Assessment there is a need to insure or adequately indemnify the Council against potential claims due to noise or other issues associated with the operations of the Flight Training School and increase in aircraft noise.

3. Development Application – a new Development Application is required along with a second round of public advertising to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act.

4. Community consultation is to be undertaken in both Maryborough and Hervey Bay outlining the proposal and the implications for Council and the community.

5. Finalisation of the above arrangements will be by Council resolution.

Carried Unanimously

• Development issues
• Comments(1)

Sue Brooks February 22nd, 2009

As someone who has spent most of her life in Victoria I was quite saddened to read the FCC Editorial of Wednesday 18/2/09 written by the Editor Nancy Bates

The Victorian climate and vegetation is markedly different from much of the Queensland vegetation and fires ‘down South’ have always claimed more lives and destroyed more property than areas more Northerly. Victorian summers are dry, hot and windy whereas Queensland summers are more likely to be humid and wet and windy. Grass around Hervey Bay spends far less time dry and yellow than the grasses down South do. When I first arrived in Bundaberg from Victoria I lived on acreage at the edge of town and well remember the day a fire started up near by. I ran around my house like a mad thing wondering if I had enough tennis balls to block up my down pipes etc, checking hoses and becoming quite frantic till I realised all my neighbours calmly going about their daily routine. Some time later the fire truck turned up and quickly put out the blaze. An experience so different to everything I had ever experienced growing up in Victoria that it got me thinking about the different threats fire bring to different areas of our countryside. A one size fits all approach is not the answer.

So back to the editorial. Ms Bates says that “the green madness has ‘nature lovers’ building thousands of lifestyle homes in the bush, delighting in the trees cuddling their homes and the birds and animals that were their friends. They have now been incinerated.”  The editorial concludes by stating that relatives of victims should not blame arsonists or power companies but that they should “look at the over powerful greenies threaded through bureaucracies, the environmentally concerned councillors and the weak politicians who created holocusts in a beautiful bush they never understood.”  There is also a statement that says ” ..the policy makers and leading greenies who have prevented controlled burning in rural Victoria should be considered accessories to manslaughter”

Very emotive and strong language which I would expect after a disaster of this proportion. I struggled with giving these words web space and further exposure but I think that to let them go unchallenged would distress me more. Victoria does have regular burning off activities. In fact property owners are required to keep their properties free of fire fuel. Please refer to http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfoe.nsf/childdocs/-A33AA7D81F96F3114A2567CB000DB43A-1C0CF21706909C04CA256DAC00169D3B-5EDCE94D4AD3D6E54A256DEA0013E4B6-F33FA589BF9EED344A25679400258B1C?open 

or the Victorian Dept of Sustainability and Environment (if this link does not work). The restrictions to burning are primarily in relation to weather conditions as Victoria often has days called Total Fire Ban days where no one is allowed to light a fire in the open anywhere as the risk of fire is so great. When I part owned earth moving machinery we could not work the machines either on these days in case they caused a fire! So while burning off is an accepted practice in many areas it can only be done ‘when conditions allow’ otherwise burning off can create the fire situation that you are trying to prevent. You can’t burn during much of winter as it is usually too cold and wet and once the undergrowth grows there is only a small window of opportunity before summer sets in and burning anything anywhere is a madness.

Many people living in areas like Kinglake are not  necessarily ‘nature lovers’ but hard working urban dwellers with young kids and jobs and reside in these outlying areas more due to affordability than a love of nature. When viewing film of the devastation after the fires many burned houses were still surrounded by trees carrying green leaves! Usually however wind is the enemy. Fires travel at speeds unbelievable and are carried in the tree tops. The undergrowth and houses burn while the fire front is still racing ahead.

Environmentally concerned citizens and bureacrats and politicians don’t like to see humanity or wildlife or habitat destroyed. Fire destroys most everything  in its path. Fires aren’t choosy. As a result many of the ‘fire management plans’ now introduced are the work of environmentalists. You see a wild fire kills everything so why would a ‘greenie’ ever want to create an environment that endangered life?

I don’t like ‘burning off’ everywhere and all the time. I worry that soils are depleted and fragile life forms extinguished when fire is the constant visitor, but I also believe very strongly that to live close by the Aussie bush can only be done safely if the bush is managed carefully in the surrounding area. I also thought that in 1939 when many people died on Black Friday, there were no restrictions at all on ‘burning off’. In fact this article seems to blame burning off for causing fires. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/c20thc/fire4.shtml

I simply cannot believe that building restrictions have not been made tougher so that every dwelling has a fire proof cellar, shed or bunker. Green lawns need to be a part of the landscape around a house or other non flammable plants. A secure water supply not dependant on mains power should also be mandated. I could go on….

I’m sad. I’m sad for the families who have lost those dearest to them. I’m sad for the people who have survived but lost everything that they own. I am sad for the destruction of businesses and of livelihoods. I am sad for the wildlife and vegetation that has been destroyed. I am sad that for the rest of his life my son will mourn lives lost on what should be a happy day, his birthday. But most of all I am sad that some people are using their energies to cast blame and to point hurtful fingers at those who are not to blame. We do not yet know that any amount of burning off would have prevented this awful loss of life.

Let us use our energy to help the people left behind and let every bureaucrat, politician, ‘greenie’ and media reporter work together to ensure that lives are protected when fire happens. The one thing I know with all certainty is that if we want to share our planet with our ‘Aussie bush’ we have to learn to live with fire. I cannot see a day when fires will cease to be a threat.

• Media comment , Uncategorized
• Comments(5)

Sue Brooks February 18th, 2009

Andrew McNamara – Water Plan.

On reading the plan I must acknowledge firstly that it is good to see our Local Member, Andrew McNamara, raising the issue of our long term water supply. I would however hope that he pays equal attention to the need to discuss population size.

The plan focuses on removing the Barrage on the Mary River, piping water between existing and new storages and creating new off stream storages. The costings are in the order of $300million.

My initial reaction is that removing the barrage is an excellent win for the river but does not compensate for the building of the proposed Traveston Dam. Any wall built to block a river will have negative impacts on that river as does pumping water out of a fresh water supply or from ground water.

Building offstream storages is a good idea and better than building a dam or barrage but the size of the storages required is very large and I am interested in where exactly they would go. They have to be lined and they too will be subject to great evaporation losses. Would more but smaller sized storages be preferred?

Not taking water from Fraser Island is an excellent aspect of the plan but desalination is not an option for our Great Sandy Strait as our waters are already hyper saline. In other words we have a rising salt level in our ocean which is not a good thing.

There are neither references nor acknowledgements so the plan is at this stage a set of personal ideas and it is worthy of discussion. I commend Andrew for having a keen interest in our ongoing needs and sincerely hope that our community take the time to read the plan and provide comment. It is a discussion that we ‘have to have’. Recycling and piping water instead of open channels are excellent and ‘must have’ ideas.

But no matter how much storage is supplied and how many pumps we have pumping from rivers and from ground water, what do we do if it simply does not rain? If we are still planning to take as much or more water from the environment than we do now, we are still demanding a lot from a resource that may not have much more to give us. I cannot see the wisdom in piping water over very long distances. One kilolitre of water = 1 ton I am told. Lenthalls Dam cannot supply enough water to meet future population projections for Hervey Bay so I don’t agree with taking water from there and piping it far away.

Population growth is the key. We simply cannot keep growing our population especially in places with a limited water supply. The earth will sooner rather than later run out of resources for us all. Better to build good sized communities that can rely on a sustainable economy that provides job security for everyone forever and that has an adequate water supply close by to sustain it..  This would include everyone collecting water in water tanks also.

Creating sustainable cities (maybe with a pop of between 75-100 thousand) that assist and reward farmers to grow our food, supports innovative and creative business and cultural pursuits and  retail and commercial sectors that can service the needs of its peoples, is my vision for the future. Construction and infrastructure services will be focussed on replacing and renovating existing infrastructure and adapting our buildings where needed. Employment won’t be subject to unending cycles of boom and bust. Innovation will be rewarded and tourists will want to visit because we will have vibrant cities and towns full of  happy people who care for and value our beautiful natural environment. The tourism dollar is largely earned by utilising our natural resources ie Whale Watching etc.

Andrew is looking to the future but is he looking far enough into the future? We need to plan for 50 years for 100 years for 500 years. We do know, now more than any time in our past, what impact we are having on our planet and short term planning has to stop now. The thinking that says ‘let tomorrow look after itself’ is destructive and erroneous. We are amazingly lucky to be living in the manner in which we do, but I care about how my children’s children will think of me in the years to come. I don’t want to be part of an era that spoiled a planet so that my descendants can’t enjoy its riches like I can.

• Environment & Sustainability
• Comments(2)

Sue Brooks February 13th, 2009

Briefs – Fraser Coast Regional Council’s Planning and Development Committee meeting – 11 February 2009

Watson Street office extension

The Council has agreed to a proposal by Dixon Homes to extend its Watson Street office in Pialba to create 100 square metres of additional space. The building will sit above seven car parks. It will replace a shed and carport.

Urangan Street subdivision

An application to reconfigure one 2.85ha lot into 32 residential lots and parkland in Urangan Street was approved by the Council subject to conditions. The lots range in size from 600 square metres to 741 square metres.

Senorita Parade subdivision

Preliminary approval was given by the Council for the reconfiguring of one 2.137ha lot into eight residential lots in Senorita Parade, Urangan subject to conditions that include the provision of stormwater drainage information. The proposed lots range in size from 2000 square metres to 3693 square metres and will be developed in two stages. (I voted against this due to all the constraints apparent on this block especailly concerning drainage although all these 5 acre blocks are now zoned to allow them to be developed. I am sad to see the loss of so much open space and the impact that subdividing a block has on an adjoining neighbour who wants to live in a peaceful environment and also to traffic.)

Manskie Street subdivision

An application for a Development Permit to reconfigure five lots into 75 low density residential lots and parkland was approved by the Council. The 9.2ha subdivision in Manskie Street, Tinana, adjacent to the Bruce Highway, will be developed in six stages with stage one incorporating 16 lots and parklands. The proposed lot sizes range from 650 square metres to more than 900 square metres. The plan includes a 40-metre wide buffer along the Bruce Highway and a centrally located park. A landscaped pedestrian link is also proposed from the road reserve in the north of the site through to Central Road.

Offices and three-level car park in Torquay Road

A Development Permit for a Material Change of Use was approved by the Council for a four-storey office complex and three-level car park in Torquay Road, Pialba adjacent to the skate park.

Access to the car park will be from Torquay Road. The complex proposes 21 tenancies, one of which is designed as a medical centre catering for two doctors. The proposed premises range in size from 48 square metres to 153.4 square metres with a total floor area of 3060 square metres. An underground walkway links the car park to the internal stairwells of the commercial building.

Council, in a collaborative approach with the developer, was able to make mutually acceptable changes to the development so that an approval could be issued in less than four months.

There were several other large scale developments for Hervey Bay (mainly multi storey unit blocks) that Council has decided to assess under the Transitional Planning Scheme. There was a last minute rush to lodge applications prior to the Dec 15th 2008 cut off date. No one can now lodge an application under the ‘old’ Planning Scheme but have to apply under the current scheme which has been in place for 2 years now.

There was also a negotiated decision in relation to the Beach House Hotel site which will be 8 storeys when constructed.

It seems that applications are still being lodged but many of the lots seem to go on the market once they gain a Development Approval. I wonder how many of these buildings will ever be constructed!

• Development issues
• Comments(1)

Sue Brooks February 8th, 2009

I have personal concerns about mass medicating our community but have recently received enough email correspondence to raise the issue again. The Queensland State Government has legislated that all Queensland Local Governments must introduce flouride into our water supplies. This means that fluoride will become increasingly prevalent in our environment as well as inside us.

We will be paying to water our garden, to swim and to shower and bath in fluoride as well as to drink it and cook with it. There are many people who think this will be a good thing as it will reduce tooth decay. There are many other people, myself included, who wonder if the costs (both health and financial), outweigh the benefits.

In these, our scientific and medically advanced times, surely we know enough to be sure. Is fluoride good for us or is it bad for us? Or is the evidence so murky one way or the other that we should wait till we are sure? I often wonder why some diseases are increasing in frequency with our communities. Why are there more children diagnosed with autism than were in the past for example?

Personally I prefer to avoid being forced to ingest a substance that will have no direct benefit on my 50 plus year old teeth but may in fact have negative consequences for the rest of my body to which I am still somewhat attached. I am not sure that at this late stage continued debate is worthwhile but it is an election year. So let the debate continue. After all shouldn’t we be the ones deciding the quality of the water we pay to drink?

• Fluoride
• Comments(20)

Sue Brooks February 4th, 2009

Wonderful news recently received and warmly welcomed by all of us concerned about the health of our local corals, is the granting of nearly nine thousand dollars to conduct coral bleaching monitoring in Hervey Bay. Our media release follows but a big personal thank you to everyone who helped put together the grant application. Let me know if you are interested in helping as there is always room for some more snorkellers.

SNORKELLERS CELEBRATE FUNDING SUCCESS – $8900 to study our local coral

The snorkellers of Hervey Bay are celebrating receiving a grant of $8900  from the federal Community Coastcare Program for a project of coral bleach monitoring. Not many cities can boast coral reefs only 100 metres from the shore – but at Hervey Bay there is 15km of coral reefs conveniently within walking or snorkelling distance from the shore. 

The Great Barrier Reef receives such overwhelming attention that the 600 hectares of coral reef in Hervey Bay is not well known.  Ardent snorkellers Sandy and Lloyd McKay are totally wrapt in the coral reefs of Hervey Bay.  Lloyd says “Our coral is just an underwater garden of paradise. Every time we snorkel there is something different to see”

While Hervey Bay doesn’t have the legions of brightly coloured fish seen on the Great Barrier Reef, you can see dozens of colourful hard corals including subtropical or rare species not normally seen on the GBR. Cr Sue Brooks was amazed the first time she donned her snorkel and flippers. “I have snorkelled in many, many places from the Cook Islands to North Queensland but simply didn’t realise what wonders lie beneath the waves within a short walk and paddle off our city beaches. Our coral must be preserved and I hope that we can make our coral a prominent tourist attraction”.

Carol Bussey from Wildlife says “The stress of city life can prove too much for a coral community already suffering from the increasingly hot waters produced by climate change. The result is bleaching, which has already happened in 1996″.

Fraser Coast Wildlife Preservation Society’s Coral Care project has been funded by the Australian Government to monitor coral bleaching and recovery along our coast. The project will also look at factors to increase the reef’s resilience to stress such as improving water quality. 

A free training workshop will be held at Bundaberg by GBRMPA in February to train snorkellers in Bleachwatch monitoring followed by practical training in monitoring coral and taking GPS readings at Torquay Beach on Feb 21. If you are interested in attending the training or joining our volunteer coral monitoring group please contact Carol Bussey 4129 5979 or email frasercoastwpsq@bigpond.com To be successful we need as many volunteers as possible.

local coral

• Environment & Sustainability
• Comments(0)

Sue Brooks February 1st, 2009

Last week was our first Ordinary Meeting for 2009. You can read the Council briefs via this link http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/news/2009/Council%20Meeting%20Briefs%20280109.shtml

One of the matters on our confidential agenda was very interesting.

Council resolves that the Meeting be closed to the public in accordance with Section 463(1)(f) (starting or defending legal proceedings involving Council) for the purpose of considering Item ORD 15.1 – Prosecution Under Hervey Bay (Parks and Reserves) Local Law No. 14. ORD 15.1

ORD 15 CONFIDENTIAL -

Prosecution Under Hervey Bay (Parks and Reserves) 123 – 146 Local Law No. 14 The unconfirmed minutes will show that a motion was moved by myself and seconded by Cr Hovard to proceed with a prosecution but that on the casting vote of the Mayor this motion was lost. Another motion succeeded in that the CEO will negotiate an outcome prior to the court hearing the outcome being one agreed to by the majority of Councillors.

Local law 14 deals with matters within our Parks and Reserves and I personally believe that sometimes we should take advantage of the legal process. However there are some occassions when negotiating an outcome can lead to a better resolution for all concerned.

The other excellent news is that the long awaited Esplanade pedestrian crossing, that many residents have asked for, should commence construction during February. It is situated on the Esplanade between Scarness and Torquay to the West of Denmans Camp Rd. I was asked by some of our more elderly and sight impaired residents about the need for a crossing in this area soon after I was elected in 2005 and am thrilled that the crossing will now become a reality. It should benefit everyone else who walks to the beach in this area and hopefully help as a traffic calming device also.

Public functions during the week included the celebration and recognition of the beautiful artwork to be found on the amenities block along the Esplanade at Tavistock Street. Our talented youth have made what was a drab wall into a beautiful wall. I thank everyone involved and am pleased that a dingo is portrayed in one of the paintings.

Amenties block beautified

• Council related issues
• Comments(0)