The Council media release follows…..

10 March 2010

 Landmark win for the environment in Court for Fraser Coast Regional Council

The Fraser Coast Regional Council successfully prosecuted a Townsville property developer in a landmark environmental protection case in the Magistrate’s Court in Hervey Bay on Monday of this week.

The Council instigated legal action against developer, Wulguru Heights Pty Ltd, (part of the Santalucia group of companies), after several Dundowran Beach residents complained about vegetation clearing on freehold beachfront land at Dundowran Beach in May 2008.

After pleading guilty to clearing vegetation without an effective development permit (under section  4.3.1 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997), Wulguru Heights Pty Ltd was convicted, fined $12,600 and ordered to pay costs of $20,000 to FCRC.  The company was also ordered to rehabilitate the cleared land, starting within six months.

Councillor Sue Brooks said the decision was just.

“It’s great to see the courts taking a tough stand on environmental issues and supporting the Council in its endeavours to protect our natural vegetation and although the rehabilitation will take a long time to mitigate the effects of the bulldozing I think it’s a great leap forward,” she said.

“Land owners need to be very aware that the Council will diligently protect vegetation and we encourage residents to report as soon as possible any vegetation clearing – especially broad scale clearing – that they suspect is illegal.”

When the Council’s Planning Compliance and Vegetation Management Officers investigated the complaints, they found that the 14 hectares of land where the clearing was undertaken, consisted of partially mapped natural areas and regrowth vegetation adjacent to mapped Of Concern and Essential Habitat (black breasted button quail) ecosystems.  No development applications or approvals existed over the land at the time of the clearing. 

The contractor who carried out the vegetation clearing will be sentenced at a later date.

Fraser Coast Regional Council’s Acting Director of Development Services Michael Ellery said the Council was pleased with the result.

“The penalty imposed and rehabilitation orders made by the Court send a strong message to land owners that they cannot pre-emptively clear vegetation and must obtain the appropriate development approvals,” he said.

End

 Council is not sending developers packing. Many developments have stalled in Hervey Bay because of the financial situation and due to a lack of demand not because of anything Council has or hasn’t done. Developing land anywhere within the Fraser Coast or in the rest of Queensland, is a complicated process. It is complicated due to the Legislation, by way of Acts and associated Planning Schemes, that were created long before the current Fraser Coast Regional Council came into being. There are many impediments within the Planning Schemes which hinder development. For instance we have bushfire layers, sewerage smell zones, natural area overlays and airport noise zones to mention just a few requirements. Even sheds are now caught up in Planning Schemes because Councillors of the day tried to make shed building on vacant land difficult to stop people residing in sheds! If you want to build a shed on vacant land I have news for you. It is expensive and complicated. On top of Planning Scheme requirements we have State and Federal requirements. The list of requirements seems to grow longer with every passing year. So if you have a permit to build an aquaculture farm from the State Government you still have to apply, pay fees and meet the requirements within the applicable Council Planning Scheme.

 Hervey Bay also has had to implement infrastructure charges in line with State Government requirements. The charges are not a Council invention but a State Government requirement! These charges are used to develop ‘trunk’ infrastructure which is primarily arterial roads and drains. When Council introduced the charges it consulted extensively with the development industry and it also agreed to reduce charges for any ‘shovel ready’ development. This reduction in charges has impacted on our budget projections and helped create the so called Chronicle ‘black hole’ but the fee reductions were done to assist the development and construction industry. It seems Council is damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

 Infrastructure charges are not used anywhere else but on core trunk infrastructure. Let me explain. Main Street in Hervey Bay takes traffic from many outlaying areas into the centre of Hervey Bay. For this reason the road is identified as a ‘trunk’ road. Originally this road was built and designed to cope with a limited number of cars. As the city grows more and more traffic needs to use this road. I think it is fair and reasonable that a developer who is creating new houses and new ‘traffic’ that will use Main Street, contributes a reasonable amount to the upgrade of this arterial road. This is in fact happening now with charges collected from developers being used to upgrade this road. If, instead of developer contributions we expect rate payers themselves to pay for these works then rates (or taxes) would need to be raised. Regardless of who has to pay for upgrading our roads etc someone in deed does. The funds to upgrade trunk infrastructure due to increasing population growth, have to come from someone’s purse. If the development doesn’t occur we don’t need to upgrade the infrastructure and hence we don’t need to spend money. This is perfectly logical to me so why doesn’t the Chronicle explain it so that readers can understand it? In other words there is no black hole! If  development doesn’t occur we don’t need the infrastructure upgraded and so life goes on as usual. Normal maintenance and upkeep of our infrastructure is not what infrastructure charges are used for. Upgrades and maintenance do come from general rates, fees and charges and grants and subsidies etc.

 Now to explain what Council staff do. Council planning staff, under the leadership of Mr David King, assess development applications and make recommendations. They assess an application against the relevant Planning Scheme as that is their job. Council staff cannot and must not assess a development application to arrive at an outcome that the Mayor or Councillors desire. If Councillors want development to occur then they must collectively ensure that the Planning Scheme encourages development to happen. Councillors can’t simply ask the staff to ‘make it so’. If we do direct staff in this manner we are, in my opinion, acting outside our responsibilities. The vast majority of applications that Council processes are dealt with by staff and are approved by staff. Take a look at the Council web site and you can see for yourself the number of applications in and the number out each and every month and you can see how many are refused. The refusals amount to less than 4 a month on average. December 2009 for example saw 62 applications approved and 4 refused! http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/services/town%20planning%20applications%20and%20decisions.shtml

 For complex larger developments the recommendations of staff are reported to Council and Councillors make the final decision to approve or refuse a development. Recently a residential development in Hughes Road, Hervey Bay, was deferred by Council. The Mayor then met with the developer’s representatives and with Council staff and changed conditions were applied to the development. The Councillors approved the development in this changed form. In the Saturday Chronicle on page 7, we read about a successful development to provide housing for RV owners in Maryborough. This development was also a challenge for Council as it was difficult to ‘make it fit’ into the current Planning Scheme but make it fit we did and the development is approved. In other words many developments have been approved throughout the region.

 So I am left to wonder what personal agenda the Chronicle editor has which requires him to publish story after story criticising Council and in particular our planning staff. It should be remembered that if our planning staff, in particular senior staff, decide to leave us or if Council decides to dispense with their services, then it is a very expensive and costly exercise to replace them. A cost that would be borne by our community. Our planning staff work in an extremely difficult environment. I would not be a planner for love or money. Planning staff have to constantly deal with some developers and consultants hell bent on getting what they want now, right now and then they also have to respond to intense questioning by Councillors! Most developers want to make their profit and move on to their next profit making project. This is all well and good if their developments comply with the rules. But frequently applications or enquiries to develop land do not meet Planning Scheme requirements. Developers have in the past in Hervey Bay and Maryborough speculated or gambled by buying land not zoned for residential development. The usual tactic is to buy rural farming land cheaply and then apply to develop it. If Council says sorry but no you are not allowed to develop this land somehow the Chronicle blames Council for ‘making developers leave in droves’. I have sat in Council meeting after Council meeting and read countless reports recommending approval for developments that I don’t believe comply with our rules but none the less are recommended for approval. This is because planning staff continually try their very best to find ways to make developments work within the framework of a set of rules not of their making. Let’s not forget that these rules were approved by us, the Councillors.

So at the risk of annoying you Mr Chapman may I respectfully ask why you are so cranky with Council when most development applications are approved and the ones that aren’t approved are knocked back for very sound reasons? Do you Mr Chapman, want Council to ignore its own Planning Schemes? Do you think you can pressure the Mayor and Councillors into getting rid of our highly skilled planning staff? Do you think that Councillors will respond to the pressure you are applying to them for fear of receiving negative press in the future? I have personally suffered negative press on more than one occasion after simply speaking out as I am doing now. I realise Peter that your paper relies heavily on the property industry for your income but is this reason enough to portray Council so negatively? Maybe sensationalist reporting does improve your circulation and thereby make you look successful. If so I am disappointed in my community. You have told me that Hervey Bay has a very low readership compared to Maryborough. Well the people I speak to in Hervey Bay these days, are telling me they will not buy a paper that plasters rubbish and sensationalist negative stories all over its front page and they don’t appreciate the negative journalism. I sincerely hope that your newspaper is not run simply as a business more concerned with making money than truthfully informing and inspiring a community within which you have chosen to reside.

Fraser Coast people tell me that they do not want development gone wild. Our residents live here because it is a beautiful, relaxed happy place to live. Hervey Bay residents don’t want Hervey Bay spoiled by ad hoc multi unit and high rise development anywhere near their foreshore. They don’t want a concrete coast. Maryborough people tell me they want to see their city retain its unique character and grow its population by encouraging development in appropriate well serviced locations. They do not want to see their beautiful and proud city ‘die’. Outlying townspeople tell me that they want to retain their schools and attract more people to their areas without compromising their rural based quality of life. What we need is a local newspaper that is assisting this process not hindering it by placing so much pressure on Council that our planning staff leave us.

This region is a beautiful place to live. Council staff are working as hard as they can to ensure a professional delivery of service. They have implemented PD Online and are continually trying to improve their level of service. How do we expect staff to function well and enjoy living here when their families have to cope with continual public criticism of their performance? If I was looking at applying for a job here one look at the local paper would see me turn on my heel and look elsewhere. We have never been able to attract enough planners to our region due to a nation wide shortage and I’m afraid the excellent ones we have now will turn tail and run.

So Peter, please realise we are doing our very best to help our community develop sensibly and efficiently. We must work within the rules and I would appreciate your involvement and assistance in changing our rules and improving them via our Fraser Coast 2031 process. Let’s all work together to make the Fraser Coast a happy place to live.

I hope you all enjoyed the day and took time to remember how lucky we are to live here in our tiny corner of the greatest country on earth.

Our flag flies high at Burrum Heads

The flag delivered via horseback at HowardSpeech time at Howard

Speech time at Howard

Eurong locals tell me that there are dingoes currently within the township. Funny how there has been no negtive interactions with these dogs and I really hope that these dingoes are not now euthanised simply for being in the wrong place!

Why has the State Government invested hundreds and thousands of our dollars into building dingo fences but did not provide their very hard working rangers with the necessary equipment and resources to adequately maintain the fences and associated grids?

I’m also told this morning that the grid at Happy Valley has been minus its solar panel so is that grid electrified? I am sure the grid at Eurong isn’t as we walked back and forth on top of the wires on Sunday without getting zapped!

It is time that our State Government removed this unworkable infrastructure and spoke to world renowned animal behavioursits such as Dr Temple Grandin and our local Adam O’Neill to develop a sensible management strategy for our dingoes. The one that they are using now simply does not work!

Eurong grid with Norma and Geoff

Eurong grid full of sand

http://www.facebook.com//video/video.php?v=106646312681721#/video/video.php?v=106646312681721&ref=mf

I made mention that International visitors, who don’t have an Australian licence, should possibly undergo a driving test, education or other application process before being “let loose on Fraser Island”.  Keeping in mind that the comments that go to air on any TV news story are usually one sentence or remark taken out of a longer winded response to a question I can see why someone might take issue with what I said but racism… I don’t think so.

To explain further. Many people live on Fraser Island or own property there. Many locals or interstate visitors frequently visit the island in their own vehicles. These people should not, in my mind, be made to comply with any restrictions at all that limit their access to the island.

However almost every single business owner with interests on the island itself that I have spoken to all say the same thing to me. Backpackers cause problems. Even some business owners that profit from backpackers speak negatively about backpacker behaviour. So maybe this is ‘backpacker prejudice’? My opinion is straight forward. That visitors to Fraser Island, predominantly young International visitors, should not be given easy access to a 4wd full of luggage and passengers. How to bring about tighter restrictions to this group of travellers in order to keep them safe, is not racist is it? Yes it is generalising and for that I apologise but aren’t all our laws made in the same way? What is best for the majority of people? Not all laws suit all the people all the time to my mind.

So I apologise if people did think my comment was racist it was not intended to be and I don’t believe I am prejudiced against any group of people regardless of anything about them. I tend to make my judgements about people solely on their behaviour. I do however generalise at times and I honestly believe that young backpackers are a problem group on Fraser Island under the current regime. The challenge is how to best cater for them so that we can continue to benefit from their visitation to our lovely region and to ensure that they have a healthy and safe time while they are here. I don’t want to see backpackers restricted from visiting Fraser Island I probably want to see their visitation better managed though. I welcome any and all suggestions.

The problem that Mr Souvlis faced was that he was asking for a large development that would not comply with the existing and still current Maryborough Planning Scheme. If the development did comply I would have expected that it would have been dealt with under the old Maryborough City Council and be under construction by now.

Councillors were generally keen to support an extension and rebuilding of the retail centre in that location and recently we decided to ask our staff to explore any options that would see the development go ahead and still be justifiable under the Maryborough Planning Scheme. This is because the officers had recommended to Council that the application be refused.

Yesterday Council received a report with grounds recommending approval for the development with a lengthy (but not unusual) list of attached conditions. These conditions related to such things as the total floor size of the building, bulk and scale of the building, setbacks to other boundaries, pathways and driveways conditions and car parking provisions amongst others.

I moved to support the recommendation and asked that the shopping centre trading hours be amended to facilitate late opening for appropriate retailers. Cr McNeven seconded my motion. At this point Cr Dalgleish attempted to amend the motion by asking that conditions be altered to reflect a document emailed directly to Councillors, by the developers consultant, at 5pm the evening before. To my mind the document was not relevant, did not properly list actual conditions and our staff had not even had time to read it or the suggestions to alter conditions. Cr O’Connell seconded the amendment

Much debate ensued and the Mayor decided that the proposed amendment was actually going to alter the original intent of the motion to such a degree that it made the amendment unacceptable. At this point the Mayor refused the amendment. My motion to give a permit with associated ‘reasonable and relevant’ conditions was then put and was lost.

Cr Dalgleish then proceeded to move a motion that the development be approved and listed altered conditions which include a reduced setback (to 2 metres from 5 metres) to adjoining properties, reduced car parking provision and reduced requirements in relation to other works. I believe that these altered conditions make the development so non compliant with the Maryborough Planning Scheme that I voted against the motion. I also believe there are now inconsistencies within the conditions and that another delay to Mr Souvlis is inevitable due to the ad hoc approach taken yesterday by the majority of Councillors.

I do not believe that Council should be making decisions as important as a large scale retail development ‘on the run’ and that it should be disregarding the Planning Scheme and officers considered recommendations to the extent demonstrated yesterday.

While it is very, very difficult for all Councillors to be presented with what to all intents and purposes is a ‘good quality’ development being undertaken by high qulaity developers does not negate the duty of a Councillor to apply relevant legislation correctly and appropriately. When I vote on development applications it is my most serious duty to make decisions based on how I believe the relevant Legislation (Planning Scheme etc) like it or not, is being addressed. I cannot make my decisions based on whether I ‘like or dislike’ a development.

I wish the Souvlis family every success in their venture and look forward to having input into the Fraser Coast Growth Strategy. I do believe that retail and commercial development is constrained in both cities due to current planning schemes and hope that we can alter this as we move towards a new ‘Plan’ for the entire region.

It will be interesting to see how many people attend and what type of questions are asked. The foreshore is always a hot topic and I hope that most of you agree with my personal views that the foreshore is a jewel in our crown, we are lucky to have such abeautiful sheltered and shady foreshore and I don’t want to see it turned into a manicured, pruned and trimmed lawn.

Council and related news..

 Recently Council decided to form an Economic Development Advisory group which has been created through the Economic Development portfolio under the guidance of Cr Gerard O’Connell. We have released our financial statements and Annual Report for 08-09 and dealt with many other issues. 

 Recently in confidential, Council dealt with issues relating to the WBWC Water Park and to USQ in the creation of the Fraser Coast Centre for Economic Development and Enterprise (CEDE). Council was asked to financially contribute to these projects. I declined to support financial assistance to the water park on the grounds that I don’t believe Council should be involved in the running of the park it being a WBWC responsibility, but I did support a limited contribution to the establishment of CEDE with ongoing support being dependent on results gained after the first year of operation.

 At the last Planning and Development meeting for the year Council will decide the future of the Souvlis retail development in Maryborough. This development is proposed to be larger than the Maryborough Planning Scheme requirements at over 2000sqm so Council has to decide how best to progress this development. It is very difficult at times to make decisions that go against the adopted Planning Scheme. I personally endeavour not to support development that is in contradiction with ‘the rules’ but it is difficult when one personally doesn’t support or like the ‘rules’. I believe retail development is very much constrained in our Planning Schemes and retailers have great difficulty in arguing the ‘need’ for their developments etc. It seems to me that residential development suffers less from such constraints.

 LAND USE STRATEGY LAUNCH

Yesterday Council launched our Land Use Strategy which is now called Fraser Coast 2031 Sustainable Growth Strategy. I have eagerly awaited this as it is the beginning of the process to formulate a brand new regional Planning Scheme. I encourage everyone to take an interest and have a say in the future development of our region. Public consultation will be a very important part of this process and will be widely promoted. It should commence in late January or February 2010. Stay tuned so that you can have your say…

FIRST-home buyers could be financially encouraged to settle outside of the booming southeast corner to help shift population growth to the regions.

Premier Anna Bligh is considering a $3000 boost to the  first-home owners’ grant for people buying property outside the southeast.

The Government believes a $10,000 grant would help encourage existing residents and those moving to Queensland to buy houses in regional areas, aiding the local economies.

The policy is the first the Government has proposed to actively discourage people away from the southeast, where population growth is putting huge strains on transport, electricity and water infrastructure.

My reaction and comment…….

This is a momentous occasion if Anna is serious and follows through to develop and implement such a policy. After living regionally most of my life I have come to realise that a city with a population of around 100,000 people is a good size. By good size I mean that a city with this many people can support a good range of employment options, high quality education, health and sporting services and facilities and excellent cultural and entertainment activity.

Cities with populations smaller than this struggle to raise revenue for infrastructure and the provision of services and are very much dependant on outside assistance to service their community needs.

With a hundred thousand people a city can become much more sustainable than a smaller city can. It can reduce the exodus of its youth to ‘the big smoke’ and still guarantee a relaxed but cosmopolitan lifestyle where traffic jams and grid lock are never seen. It can, more importantly, provide its food and water services in an economically efficient and sustainable manner.

I support the move towards decentralisation and believe that it will assist in the preservation of eco systems, rivers and other important and threatened natural habitat and the fauna that lives there.

To achieve this outcome requires careful planning and I look forward to debating these issues as the Fraser Coast Regional Council investigates our future land use planning.

On Friday I lunched at the Boat Club while listening to John Symond from Aussie Home Loans fame. It is always inspirational to hear the story of someone who has achieved success. His personal reasons for believing in the importance of home ownership show the power of personal adversity and how it can strengthen one. John shows by his deeds the power of hard work and dedication to a principal. I trust that the business he has launched here is a successful one.

On Friday evening I attended the Hervey Bay Regional Gallery opening of two exhibitions both of which are superb. TAFE students are to be commended for their works and I recommend a trip to the Gallery to view these beautiful exhibitions.

On Sat arvo we went snorkelling to monitor our patch of coral and the water was nice and warm and the coral and fishes ever so colourful. It was wonderful to swim in the warmer water after the chilly temps we encountered during winter.

Sat evening Graham and I travelled to Susan River to watch Guy McLean perform his last show in his home ‘town’ before embarking on a trip to the USA. Guy is an inspiration. The relationship he has with his horses has to be seen to be believed and I truly wish him every success overseas. Guy suffered a kick to his leg in the first part of his show when getting a young gelding ready for its first ride and I was amazed that he soldiered on even though it was quite obvious the kick was very painful. Norm his dad later told me when I said that I hope Guys leg was OK … “He’ll be right he’s got another one’! Typical have a go attitude which this country needs more of.  So a big thank you to Guy and the gang at Susan River for putting on a wonderful evening. If you haven’t experienced Susan River please take the opportunity to support a home grown business. I thoroughly recommend it. http://www.susanriver.com/FAMILY/Home.html

Sunday arvo Graham had the day off work so we both snuck off for a quick snorkel at Pt Vernon. The water wasn’t as clear as the previous day but both of us were still able to view lots of colourful coral and fishes. I am awed each time I snorkel to see the beautiful life that lays so close to our urban centre. Hervey Bay is truly blessed and I feel luckier and luckier, as time passes, that I live here.

Now it seems that the Esplanade/foreshore debate at USQ on the 26th includes myself as a speaker. I had better do my homework and produce something worth saying…. and maybe do some of that house work that I keep putting off and off and off…… Cheers, Sue

“It is a shame people keep thinking that this dam is needed and the people who lose their land are required to sacrifice for the greater good. It isn’t like that. I’m sorry to keep ranting about this, but people need to realise they are being conned. Anna Bligh is now saying a desal plant has to be built now if Traveston is knocked back. That is simply not true!! The Coordinator General knows that – here’s a direct quote from his report :

“Observing that the water supply initiatives to be implemented by 2012 (inclusive of the Project’s 70,000 ML/annum yield) will place the available supply at approximately 50 000 ML/annum greater than the projected demand at 2026″ ——-P21 Evaluation report

This is worked on the projected population increase and 230L a day per person. (Hervey Bay uses about 150-160 L per person per day right?)

So based on the figures they are currently using (which seem to be different to the ones they used before – which showed they didn’t need Traveston at all – the might be assuming high population growth whereas the used to assume medium population growth) the short fall is only 20,000 ML/a by 2026 in 17 years time. So why build something expensive and risky like Traveston which is more than three times what might be required in 17 years now?? All they need to do is extend the rebate schemes for domestic retrofit and tank installation and that shortfall would be easily made up (you might recall the ISF report identified 180,000 ML/a of savings).

Please feel free to share this information with anyone you think might be interested or benefit from understanding this”.

In this day and age I fail to see why our leaders are not seriously considering the long term implications of supplying essential natural resources (clean air, water and food) to a growing population versus the capacity of our environment to provide same.

Traveston Crossing Dam is in the wrong place. It will destroy essential farmland. It will impact on endangered species and fish breeding grounds. I think the dam is an example of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We have an essential natural resource in the Mary River and its valley and estuary. If we destroy it what can replace it? Do we forever keep damming rivers and drowning productive farm land to provide room for more people?