800Th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 Planning and Environment

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 617 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 CITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Refer 5 page attachment

1 APPLICATION SUMMARY

Application information Address 47 Thomas Drive, Surfers Paradise

Lot and plan Lot 431 on RP93882

Site area 420m2

Properly made date 1 September 2020

City Plan version Version 7

Zone / Precinct Neighbourhood Centre Zone

• Acid sulfate soils; • Airport environs – Pan-ops contour; • Building height (HX); Overlays • Flood; • Light rail urban renewal area (Frame area); and • Residential density (RD5 – 1 bed/50m2).

Amend existing conditions of approval to:

Proposed Change • Remove gaming machine restrictions; and • Extend operating hours to 2am.

Categories of development Impact assessment and assessment • ACM Corporation Pty Ltd – Applicant; • Place Design Group – Planning Consultant; • Peter Wyman – Building Designer; Applicant and Applicant’s • CRG Acoustic – Acoustic Consultant; consultancy team • Craven Town Planning – Social Planning; and • RSA Liquor Professionals – Community Impact Statement.

ACM Corporation Pty Ltd Landowner Director: Adam Maley) 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 618 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Objections Support

• Four (4) properly made Two (2) properly submissions, including one made submissions. Submissions petition comprising 68 signatories; and • Two (2) not properly made submissions.

Objections: • Lack of need given proximity to Surfers Paradise Key matters raised by Centre; and submitters • Community impacts. Support: • Need for additional facilities in existing premises.

Decision due date 23 March 2021

Referral agencies Not applicable

Officer’s recommendation Refusal

2 PROPOSAL

2.1 Summary

Council is in receipt of an application for a Change ‘Other’ to a Development Approval for a Material change of use (Impact assessment) for a Tavern at 47 Thomas Drive, Surfers Paradise.

The applicant has sought to amend existing conditions within the development approval as follows:

• Amend condition 1 to reflect the latest suite of plans. These plans incorporate a new internal fit out to facilitate a 28 gaming machine room, relocation of the bar and TAB facility to the eastern wall; • Amend condition 3 to remove the restrictions for gaming machines within the premises; and • Amend condition 4 to extend the hours of operation to 10am - 2am. The current approval permits the hours of operation to between 10am – 12am (midnight).

2.2 Land use

The Tavern approval was assessed and decided under the now historic 2003 Gold Coast Planning Scheme and was defined as follows: 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 619 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

‘Tavern Any premises used, or intended to be used, primarily for the serving of alcohol and for which a general licence has been issued under the Liquor Act 1992 or any subsequent relevant legislation. Ancillary uses may include the serving of food and the provision of entertainment. This term includes bars and non-residential hotels. It may include a Totalisator Agency Board. It does not include Reception Rooms, Adult Entertainment Premises, Nightclubs or Cabarets.’

Pursuant to section 82 of the Planning Act 2016, the assessment of this application is required to be assessed under the City Plan (Version 7), being the planning scheme in effect at the time the application was lodged. Under the City Plan (Version 7), the equivalent land use is ‘Hotel’ which is defined as follows:

‘Hotel a. The use of premises for: i. selling liquor for consumption on the premises; or ii. a dining or entertainment activity, or providing accommodation to tourists or travellers, if the use is ancillary to the use in (I); but b. does not include a bar. Examples include: pub, tavern’

Pursuant to a review of Table 5.5.5: MCU – Neighbourhood Centre zone of the City Plan (Version 7), a ‘Hotel’ is not identified within the table which identifies the proposal as subject to Impact assessment.

2.3 Built form changes

The below extracts provide a comparison of the existing and proposed internal alterations to facilitate the proposed changes:

• Existing layout plan (approved through a Generally in accordance determination GIC/2020/134): 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 620 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Existing layout

Figure 1: Existing layout plan. Source: Peter Wyman.

• Proposed layout plan:

Extent of changes

Figure 2: Proposed layout plan. Source: Peter Wyman. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 621 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

The key considerations of the proposal relate to the land use suitability and the sites location within the Neighbourhood centre zone. Within the City Plan there is a clear policy direction that seeks to ensure Hotels are not located within Neighbourhood centres. Land uses within Neighbourhood centres are envisaged to “comprise a small mix of land uses to service residential neighbourhoods. It includes small scale convenience shopping, professional offices, community services and other uses that directly support the immediate community.” (City Plan – Version 7 – Neighbourhood centre zone code purpose statement). It is acknowledged that the site benefits from an existing Tavern approval. Officers can and have had regard to the reasons why Council approved the original land use at the site. - The Tavern was taken to be an undesirable land use, subject to impact assessment. Notwithstanding, it was recognised that the existing premises operated as a restaurant and sports bar and the inclusion of the TAB Facility was to replace the existing TAB Facility located at the corner of Thomas Drive and Adori Street, which was scheduled for closure; - The proposal simply sought to allow for a TAB facility to be co-located within the existing licensed premises; - The introduction of the proposed TAB facility resulted in the premises falling within the land use definition of Tavern, despite there being no apparent change in the scale or intensity of the existing land use; and - The proposed Tavern (Restaurant, Sports Bar and TAB Facility) would not operate in a materially different way to the existing sports bar and restaurant. To secure this position, officers conditioned the restrictions to gaming machines within the site and maintained the historic operating hours afforded to the existing operations.

In the same way that the historic planning scheme sought to preclude Taverns from operating at this location, it is considered that the removal of operational restrictions as sought, represent land use non-compliances with the City Plan (version 7) Strategic outcome 3.4.1(7), Specific outcome 3.4.5.1(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Strategic framework, Performance outcome PO10 and Overall outcome 6.2.5.2(2)(a) of the Neighbourhood centre zone code as:

- Hotels (Taverns) are not envisaged; - There is no demonstrated need/demand for the proposed 28 gaming machines or operating hours to 2am; - The proposal will not provide the neighbourhood centres catchment access to small scale commercial operations that directly support the needs of the immediate neighbourhood; and - The 12am (midnight) operating hours already exceed the schemes intended 10pm limitation. It is not considered appropriate to further exacerbate the operating hours for this Neighbourhood centre given its proximity to the Surfers Paradise Specialist Centre. Despite this area being within walking distance to the ‘Home Of The Arts’ and the Surfers Paradise Specialist Centre, it is still considered that the village character of Chevron Island is to be protected. Officers consider the community’s expectation is derived from the City Plan (10pm) or in specific circumstances, 12am (at this location) due to existing approved operating hours. No other land uses operate beyond 12am within the immediate commercial area.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 622 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

In accordance with section 45(5)(b) of the Planning Act 2016, in addition to an assessment against the City Plan, Council can and have had regard to other relevant matters submitted by the applicant to determine if a favourable decision can be made despite the identified non- compliance. Relevant matters have been considered including: - Evidence of existing Hotels (Taverns) established in a number of zones throughout the city, including the Neighbourhood centre zone which includes 14 (15 per cent) of the 92 Hotels (including the establishment of a Tavern within a historical court approval). - Demand for gaming machines within the Chevron Island neighbourhood centre and no adverse impacts of the proposed operating hours to 2am. - Submission of Surfers Paradise ‘Safe night precinct’ map.

These matters have been considered within section 5.3 of this report Strategic framework assessment, however, do not overcome the land use non-compliances identified with the City Plan. On this basis it is recommended the proposal is refused.

3 SITE CONTEXT

3.1 Subject site

The subject site:

• Comprises a single allotment at 47 Thomas Drive, Surfers Paradise;

• Is formally identified as Lot 431 on RP93882;

• Is currently improved by a low-rise Tavern;

• has a site area of 420m2;

• has two (2) road frontages both approximately 10 metres in width fronting Thomas Drive to the south (where the existing building orients toward) and Barranbali Street to the north;

• Is entirely built out and does not include any vegetation; and

• Is not burdened by any easements or infrastructure.

Street level views of the subject site are included below. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 623 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Figure 3: Chevron Tavern as observed from Thomas Drive to the south. Source: CoGC.

Figure 4: Chevron Tavern as observed from Barranbali Street to the north. Source: CoGC.

3.2 Immediate context

The subject site is located centrally within Chevron Island on the northern side of the Islands Neighbourhood centre. The commercial strip of Chevron Island is located on either side of Thomas Drive. The surrounding environment includes a variety of land uses largely comprising of commercial, retail, residential and areas of open space. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 624 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Subject site

Figure 3: Aerial view of subject site and Chevron Island, Surfers Paradise. Source: CoGC. 3.3 Local context

The subject site is located within the Neighbourhood centre zone, which applies to properties in the immediate local east, south and west of the site. The majority of the remaining properties on Chevron Island are designated within the High density residential zone and comprise a mix of low, medium and high rise residential developments.

More broadly and beyond Chevron Island to the:

• North: Is a continuation of the ‘Broadwater’ which separates Surfers Paradise and Main Beach to the east from Southport to the west. Approximately 2km to the north is the Sundale bridge.

• East: Is the Surfers Paradise Specialist Centre. Approximately 1.2km to the east is the Surfers Paradise foreshore.

• South: Approximately 400m, is the Home of The Arts (HOTA) and Gold Coast Cultural Precinct.

• West: Approximately 400m, is the Southport Golf Club. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 625 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Subject site

Figure 4: Aerial view of subject site and broader surrounds beyond Chevron Island, Surfers Paradise. Source: CoGC.

4 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Section 45(5) of the Planning Act 2016 identifies:

5 An impact assessment is an assessment that – a must be carried out - i against the assessment benchmarks in a categorising instrument for the development; and ii having regard to any matters prescribed by regulation for this subparagraph; and b may be carried out against, or having regard to, any other relevant matter, other than a person’s personal circumstances, financial or otherwise.

The proposed development triggers impact assessment and has been assessed in accordance with Section 45(5) of the Planning Act 2016. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 626 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

State Planning instruments

The application has been assessed against the following instruments: Instrument Comment State Planning Policy The City Plan appropriately reflects all aspects of the State Planning Policy apart from aspects relating to natural hazards, risk and resilience (coastal hazards). The proposal does not trigger assessment against any assessment benchmarks relating to natural hazards, risk and resilience (coastal hazards). South East Queensland In relation to the proposal’s consistency with the goals, Regional Plan elements and strategies; and the Southern Sub-regional directions of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (Shaping SEQ), the site or Chevron Island in its entirety, is not specifically identified at a regional level. While officers acknowledge that Chevron Island is located between the Surfers Paradise Centre and the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct, where pedestrian connectivity between these areas is an important element, the village character of Chevron Island remains equally important. The land use planning controls under the City Plan seek to protect this area from non-conforming land uses. On this basis, having regard to the land use and proposed operating hours at a higher level is not considered relevant. Planning Regulation 2017 The proposal does not trigger assessment against any assessment benchmarks listed in a Schedule of the Planning Regulation 2017.

4.1 Local categorising instruments

The application has been assessed against the following instruments: Local categorising Comment instrument Temporary Local Planning The proposal does not trigger assessment against any Instrument temporary local planning instruments. The proposal does not trigger assessment against a variation Variation approval approval. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 627 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

The proposal is within the City Plan area of the City of Gold Coast. This is discussed in section 5.3 below. City Plan (Version 7) Local Government Infrastructure Plan There is no new trunk infrastructure required as part of this development.

4.2 City Plan

The following is an assessment of the application against the City Plan.

Prelude to assessment of the City Plan:

As the application relates to an established commercial development which seeks to amend conditions relating to the operational restrictions and internal building alterations, Officers consider the nature of the proposal to not warrant consideration against the built form provisions of the City Plan.

The key consideration relates to the land use suitability within a Neighbourhood Centre.

4.2.1 Assessment against the Strategic framework

The Strategic framework requires balanced consideration of the provisions to best achieve the purpose and objectives of the City Plan. The strategic framework sets the policy direction for the City Plan and has a planning horizon of 2031.

This Policy direction is structured in the following way: (a) The strategic intent describes the planning vision for the Gold Coast over the coming decades; in particular, what our city will look like and how it will function, potential for major development over the next 20 years and areas for growth and protection. (b) The following six city shaping themes play an important role in shaping future growth and managing change across the city, and collectively represent the policy intent of the City Plan: i Creating liveable places; ii Making modern centres; iii Strengthening and diversifying the economy; iv Improving transport outcomes; v Living with nature; and vi A safe, well designed city. (c) Strategic outcomes for each theme. (d) Elements that refine and further describe the strategic outcomes. (e) Specific outcomes sought for each of the elements.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 628 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Strategic intent

The strategic intent flows through to the themes (strategic outcomes), elements (specific outcomes) and applicable codes. The strategic intent is achieved through assessment against these outcomes.

Theme/s and Elements

The following is an assessment of the application against the relevant theme/s and elements of the strategic framework identified in the table below: Theme/s Related element Maps • Strategic framework map 2 3.3.2 - Urban Creating liveable places - Settlement pattern – neighbourhoods Urban neighbourhoods • Neighbourhood centres are 3.4.5 – Neighbourhood Making modern centres not identified on any centres strategic framework map.

3.3 – Creating liveable places – 3.3.2 – Urban neighbourhoods

It is considered that the creating liveable places theme of the City Plan is largely not applicable to the proposal. Notwithstanding, the site is conceptually identified on the Strategic framework maps as being located within an Urban neighbourhood. Within Urban neighbourhoods and in this instance Chevron Island, the commercial area represents a focal point to its immediate residential catchment. The following specific outcomes have been considered.

Specific outcome 3.3.2.1(6)

“Urban neighbourhoods have a public transport hub, community facility, park or mixed use centre, specialist centre or neighbourhood centre as their focal point.”

Specific outcome 3.3.2.1(11)

“Urban neighbourhoods are diverse and distinguished by a distinct appearance, identity and built form in each neighbourhood.”

Specific outcome 3.3.2.1(14)

“The light rail urban renewal area provides a mix of small scale retail and commercial uses and activities.”

Officers comments

The whole of Chevron Island is located within an Urban neighbourhood, at which the Chevron Island neighbourhood centre is the focal point to deliver the mix of small scale retail and commercial uses to service the catchment. While the Urban neighbourhoods element provides a platform for considering non-residential development in these areas, the site is 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 629 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27 located within the Neighbourhood centre zone, where the land use appropriateness is further derived within the ‘Making modern centres’ theme, which is assessed below.

3.4 – Making modern centres –

Strategic outcome 3.4.1(7)

“Neighbourhood centres complement mixed use centres and specialist centres. They are pedestrian-orientated areas with smaller scale concentrations of business, employment, community, cultural, retail and residential uses. They provide a focal point for the local community and support neighbourhood identity and sense of place.

Neighbourhood centres serve an important local role within the centres network. These centres respond to specific local needs and provide convenience and accessibility within neighbourhood areas. They do not undermine the orderly development of nearby mixed use centres or specialist centres, or the viability of existing neighbourhood centres.”

3.4.5 – Neighbourhood Centres

Specific outcome 3.4.5.1(1)

“Neighbourhood centres differ from mixed use centres and specialist centres as they are smaller and comprise a mix of smaller-scale uses. While the potential land use options for neighbourhood centres vary, the scale of individual centres is limited to the specific needs of their neighbourhood.”

Specific outcome 3.4.5.1(2)

“Neighbourhood centres provide day-to-day goods and services and diverse business opportunities that directly support their immediate neighbourhood. They will vary from small groupings of shops to larger centres that may include shops and a supermarket. They provide for:

(a) retail facilities, such as neighbourhood stores and newsagents; (b) food and beverage outlets (not including drive through facilities); (c) cultural uses, medical and community facilities; (d) small-scale entertainment and licensed premises and service stations (where operated during the standard trading hours of the centre); (e) educational establishments and indoor recreation; and (f) local services such as post offices.”

Specific outcome 3.4.5.1(3)

“Hotel and nightclub entertainment uses are not established in neighbourhood centres.”

Specific outcome 3.4.5.1(6)

“Commercial operating hours in neighbourhood centres generally cease by 10pm to limit potential social and amenity impacts arising from these uses to nearby residents. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 630 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Note: It is acknowledged that on an individual basis it may be appropriate to review and adjust these operating hours based on the specific circumstances, role and function of some centres.”

Officers comments

The City Plan seeks to ensure Hotels (Taverns) are not established in Neighbourhood Centres. Further, the operating hours of commercial premises are limited to 10pm, or, to the specific role and function of the Neighbourhood centre.

The existing Tavern, both by way of the nature of the land use and the current operating hours, represent a non-compliance with the City Plan Strategic framework provisions. Notwithstanding, Officers have reviewed the merits of the existing approval and the assessment that arrived to approve the development under the now historic ‘2003 Gold Coast Planning Scheme’, which is detailed as follows:

- The Tavern was acknowledged in the original assessment as an unlisted, undesirable land use, subject to Impact assessment. Notwithstanding, it was recognised that the existing premises operated as a restaurant and sports bar and the inclusion of the TAB Facility was to replace the existing TAB Facility located at the corner of Thomas Drive and Adori Street and which was scheduled for closure; - The proposal simply sought to allow for a TAB facility to be co-located within the existing licensed premises; - The introduction of the proposed TAB facility resulted in the premises falling within the land use definition of Tavern, despite there being no apparent change in the scale or intensity of the existing land use; and - The proposed Tavern (Restaurant, Sports Bar, and TAB Facility) would not operate in a materially different way to the existing sports bar and restaurant. To secure this position, officers conditioned the restrictions to gaming machines within the site and maintained the historic operating hours afforded to the existing operations.

In the same way that the historic planning scheme sought to preclude Taverns from operating at this location, it is considered that the removal of operational restrictions as sought, represent land use non-compliances with Strategic outcome 3.4.1(7) and Specific outcome 3.4.5.1(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the City Plan (version 7) as:

Assessment from officers within Council’s Social Planning section provided the following commentary in relation to the proposed operating hours:

“The SHIA report submitted together with the Response to the Information Request provided further information with regard to why the proposed operating hours till 2:00 am are acceptable, these reasons are provided below: • Centre already performs a late-night entertainment function with bars, the existing tavern and restaurants operating till midnight; • All activity associated with the tavern occurs within the premises; • Thomas Drive is a main thoroughfare to Surfers Paradise therefore not seen as a suburban street.

From a Social Planning perspective, business hours of non-residential activities are to be between 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. The current approval permits the site to operate until 12:00 am (midnight) which is in conflict the scheme, though considered appropriate for the context of the area and other existing uses. While the scheme can consider operating hours beyond this time limit, Social Planning consider 12am (midnight) is the appropriate hours for this Neighbourhood centre and the extension of the hours of operation to 2:00 am is not supported.”

Summary of the Strategic framework

The proposal does not support nor promote the Strategic framework intent that Hotels (Taverns) are not to establish in Neighbourhood centres and uses are typically not to exceed 10pm operating hours. It has been established that the historical approval was unique in nature and included operational restrictions to ensure the City’s land use policy at the time of approval was not eroded. The current City Plan has no change to this policy intent and it is considered that the parameters stipulated within the conditions of approval are the full extent of operational characteristics afforded to the site.

Notwithstanding the above, under section 45(5)(B) of the Act, the Assessment Manager may assess the proposal against any relevant matter to justify a decision despite a non- compliance with the City Plan. The applicant has provided relevant matters. A summary of the relevant matters presented by the applicant are provided below:

Relevant matters identified by the Assessment Manager comments / Applicant Economic expert engaged by council advice

1 – Evidence of existing Hotels (Taverns) Precedence is not a relevant matter to established in a number of zones substantiate an approval. Officers do throughout the city, including the consider it relevant to review the submitted Neighbourhood centre zone which includes information to reaffirm whether the Officers 14 (15%) of the 92 Hotels (including the establishment of a Tavern within a historical assessment and position to not support this court approval). development due to the land use non- compliance, has been upheld throughout Statements include: the City.

• “The applicant has conducted a broader Officers have reviewed the tabled approvals 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 632 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

review of the development pattern (attached to this report) and specifically across the Gold Coast. Many of the those approved within Neighbourhood Neighbourhood centres in the City have centres. existing Taverns. …Council has accepted Taverns in Neighbourhood Council’s records indicates that the existing centres all over the city and that the Taverns that are located within the proposal is in keeping with the Neighbourhood centre zone were either development pattern of the Gold coast.” established before the historic 2003 Gold

• “The Chevron Island Tavern has Coast Planning Scheme and City Plan, or appropriate design features in the linked to an as of right land uses, which existing building which reduce any infers that these uses operated before the impact on residential amenity. Acoustic specific local commercial area was zoned impacts are mitigated by the location of ‘Neighbourhood centre’ under the City Plan. the entrance being on the opposite The City Plan policy has not been eroded by frontage of residential uses. The any existing Council approvals for Hotels separated entrance reduces likelihood of patrons walking by residential uses, (Taverns) in the Neighbourhood centre zone unless they are residents themselves. through Councils decision making process. Although there is an exit on the rear In relation to the court approval, this was frontage that is only for staff for rubbish founded on a planning need. The proposal disposal and service vehicles, which are has not demonstrated a planning need. limited to business hours. The design measures of the Chevron Island Tavern In relation to the proposals ability to control protect the nearby residential amenity or mitigate amenity impacts, this has been better than some of those in the City, considered in the assessment of the City namely the Pacific Pines Tavern, Plan General development provisions code Merrimac Tavern, Arundel Tavern and Kirra Beach Hotel.” and Social health and impact assessment code. Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged • “Although the strategic framework only that the applicant submitted assessment has provision for small scale services, reports, being a Community impact most of these taverns are large scale in statement, Social health and impact nature. Although the proposal is a statement and an Acoustic report, which smaller scale use that is more consistent largely demonstrated the lack of impact to with the Neighbourhood centre.” nearby sensitive land uses or land zoned for sensitive land uses. Notwithstanding, the response relates to only limited assessment benchmarks and does not overcome the land use non-compliance where there is a clear intent to retain Neighbourhood centres as small scale and locally servicing commercial areas that provide convenience needs for the residents.

2- Demand for gaming machines within the The information provided explained a need Chevron Island neighbourhood centre. for the use by comparing the ‘persons per gaming machine’ ratio on Chevron Island, Statements include: which has no relevance to the land use non- 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 633 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

compliance. • “The social impact assessment prepared by Steve Craven, among other findings, As part of the applicants City Plan has assessed the ratio of gaming assessment, the site’s proximity to the machines in the area compared to the Surfers Paradise Specialist Centre was Gold Coast area. Chevron Island acknowledged, being within 1,000 metres currently has no gaming machines, with (walkable catchment). Within the Surfers the proposal the ratio of gaming paradise Specialist Centre and within machines to adults on Chevron Island walking distance to Chevron Island are a well below the average ratio on the Gold number of Hotels (Taverns) that exist within Coast and in Queensland. As such there that catchment, which infers that were there is no risk of creating an oversupply.” to be any demand or need for such • “While the history of the earlier approval services, the area already caters for the is noted the current application must be demand within a 1,000 metre catchment for assessed on its merits. Relocating the all Chevron Island residents without needing TAB some years ago is not a material to occur within this Neighbourhood centre. consideration. Rather our client is This ensures that the hierarchy of centres is moving his business to specifically not undermined and Chevron Islands respond to the needs of the local commercial development is of a size and community including gaming machines scale that services the convenience needs and the late-night trading which did of the catchment. previously operate on the premises. There is an existing Hotel on the site and Given the site’s context, Officers do not given that the proposal involves no consider there to be any planning need for changes to the scale of the use but does gaming machines or the extension of propose a later night operation there are operating hours to 2am. no adverse impacts which should lead Council to not support the proposal.” Submission of Surfers Paradise ‘Safe night While the information is acknowledged in precinct’ map. relation to the Safe night precincts, specifically, the sites identification within the Surfers Paradise Central Business District, the Queensland State Government website provides further information regarding this initiative, where “Safe night precincts (SNPs) were created as a Queensland Government initiative to reduce late-night drug and alcohol-related violence. SNPs exist in key entertainment areas across Queensland.

SNPs are designed to achieve cultural change around drinking behaviour, promote responsible drinking practices and ensure a safe environment in and around Figure 5: QLD Government ‘Safe night Queensland’s licensed venues. precinct’ map. Source: Place Design Group. SNPs are managed by local boards operating as incorporated associations. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 634 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Statements include: These boards manage and plan for the precinct to deal with various community “The connection between HOTA and safety issues.” Chevron Island for late night trading, but it is also important that Chevron Island forms The ‘safe night precinct’ has no effect on part of the Surfers Paradise CBD Late Night land use provisions of the City Plan nor is it Entertainment Precinct. I attach the map relevant to be considered for land use and include the link to the Government suitability. Further, in relation to the hours of website below. The proposal is consistent with State government late night operation, land uses that operate beyond entertainment expectations. 12am (midnight) are to obtain relevant approvals accordingly. Officers have established that the hours of operation proposed are not appropriate for reasons discussed in the City Plan assessment.

The proposal does not comply with the Strategic framework, further the Relevant matters are not considered to justify support for the proposal despite the City Plan non-compliances.

3.4.1 Assessment against the codes

Under the City Plan, compliance with a code can be achieved by either compliance with the purpose and overall outcomes of the code, or, compliance with either the performance outcomes or acceptable outcomes. Acceptable outcomes are generally quantifiable provisions, with the performance and overall outcomes generally qualitative and performance based.

The following is an assessment of the application against the applicable codes of the City Plan identified in the table below: Zone code Overlay codes Development codes • Neighbourhood centre • Acid sulfate soils overlay • Commercial design code zone code code • General development • Airport environs overlay provisions code code • Social and health impact • Flood overlay code assessment code • Light rail urban renewal • Solid waste management area overlay code code • Transport code

3.4.1.1 Assessment against the zone code

The proposal has been assessed against the Neighbourhood centre zone code. As identified in the prelude to the City Plan assessment, the proposal does not include built form changes that constitute a materially different development as these relate to amendments to the internal layout only. The land use provisions of the Neighbourhood centre zone code are considered the only relevant provisions of the code and are listed below: 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 635 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Performance outcome Acceptable outcome PO7 AO7 Non-residential activities operate within Business hours of non-residential activities appropriate hours to minimise nuisance to are between 6am to 10pm. nearby, existing or intended sensitive land uses.

The proposed operating hours from 10am – 2am cannot achieve Acceptable outcome AO7 and have been considered against Performance outcome PO7. In support of the proposed operating hours, the applicant submitted an acoustic report to justify the appropriateness for the proposal in terms of acoustic impacts to 2am. Council’s Health and regulatory branch provided the following comments in support of the technical assessment:

“Unmanned noise monitoring was conducted from Tuesday 3 November to Monday 9 November 2020 in accordance with AS1055 to establish background levels for the surrounding area for day, evening and night-time periods. Predicted levels have been estimated for noise sources typical for the land use including ten patrons outside venue, 75 patrons inside venue & TAB, gaming room with music. Predicted levels are expected to comply with the acoustic quality objectives and background creep criterion until 2am”.

The technical detail and compliance with relevant criteria to justify support for the proposal against Performance outcome PO7 is acknowledged and the development is considered to comply with Performance outcome PO7. The management of amenity impacts is acknowledged, however, compliance with this provision does not overcome the non-compliance with other provisions of this code and the higher order provisions of the scheme.

Purpose of the Neighbourhood centre zone code: “to provide for a small mix of land uses to service residential neighbourhoods. It includes small scale convenience shopping, professional offices, community services and other uses that directly support the immediate community.” Overall outcomes: 6.2.5.2(2)(a) - Land uses: i. provide day-to-day goods and services and diverse business opportunities without exceeding the needs of the immediate neighbourhood, detracting from the residential amenity of the area or undermining the viability of mixed use or specialist centres; 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 636 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Performance outcome Acceptable outcome PO10 AO10 Non-residential development: No acceptable outcome provided (a) serves the needs of the immediate neighbourhood catchment – generally calculated as the planned population and jobs within a 1,000 metre walk from the centre; (b) supports a range of neighbourhood centre uses and enterprise opportunities; and (c) provides a range of goods and services to satisfy the day to day convenience needs of the immediate neighbourhood catchment.

Officers comments

In considering the nature of the proposal, being the inclusion of gaming machines within the existing tavern and extension of operating hours to 2am, the following information was provided, which broadly summarises the applicant’s reasons why there is a need for the proposal:

“Residents of Chevron Island are employed in the Accommodation and Food Services Industry at a significantly higher rate than the rest of the City. Accommodation and Food Services alone employees 17.7 per cent of the locality’s residents, compared to only 9.7 per cent in the LGA and 7.3 per cent across the State. This creates demand to service people that work in the Accommodation and Food Services industry. There is demand for venues that are open after 10pm or 12am, to allow workers to have drink with their colleagues after work. The proposed hours of operation are important to ensure the Neighbourhood centre provides for the day to day needs of the local neighbourhood, as required within element 3.4.5 of the Strategic framework, especially as the characteristics of this neighbourhood are not typical.”

It is not considered that gaming machines and operating hours to 2am for a Tavern within a Neighbourhood centre represent ‘convenience’ needs as required by Performance outcome PO10 and Overall outcome 6.2.5.2(2)(a).

Additionally, amongst the submitted common material, the applicant acknowledged the site’s proximity to the Surfers Paradise Specialist Centre, being within 1000 metres (walkable catchment). The figure below, submitted by the applicant identifies the proximity to other Hotels (Taverns) that exist within that catchment, which infers that were there to be any demand or need for such services, they already occur within the 1000 metre catchment for all Chevron Island residents without needing to occur within this Neighbourhood centre.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 637 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Figure 6: Chevron Island 1000 metre walkable catchment map. Source: Place Design Group.

It is acknowledged that the applicant submitted assessment reports, being a Community impact statement, Social health and impact statement and an Acoustic report, which largely demonstrated the lack of impact to nearby sensitive land uses or land zoned for sensitive land uses. Notwithstanding, the response relates to only limited assessment benchmarks and does not overcome the land use non-compliance where there is a clear intent to retain Neighbourhood centres as small scale and locally servicing commercial areas that provide convenience needs for the residents without undermining the viability of mixed use and specialist centres.

The proposal does not comply with the following City Plan benchmarks:

• Overall outcome 6.2.5.2(2)(a); and • Performance outcome PO10.

3.4.1.2 Assessment against the overlay code

As identified in the prelude to the City Plan assessment within this report, the nature of the proposal is not considered to require assessment of all City Plan assessment benchmarks, specifically Acid sulfate soils overlay code, Airport environs overlay code and Flood overlay code.

The proposal has been assessed against the land use provisions contained within the • Light rail urban renewal area overlay code.

The Light rail urban renewal area overlay code includes limited land use based assessment benchmarks applicable to the proposal as follows: 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 638 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Overall outcome 8.2.12.2(e)(ii)(B) “‘Frame areas’ are high density neighbourhoods which allow for a range of intense built form outcomes and activity and commerce of a scale that services the local neighbourhood requirements and supports the light rail stations;”

Overall outcome 8.2.12.2(e)(vii) “The light rail urban renewal area provides a mix of small scale retail and commercial uses and activities;” Officers comments

The majority of Chevron Island is located within the ‘Frame area’ of the Light rail urban renewal area overlay. While the overlay code includes provisions that contemplate non- residential development in these areas, the site is located within the Neighbourhood centre zone, where the commercial land use appropriateness is further derived. The proposal is not considered to represent non-compliance with the Light rail urban renewal area overlay code, through assessment of other relevant assessment benchmarks (Strategic framework and the Neighbourhood centre zone code), officers do not consider the proposal is appropriate for the local neighbourhood despite the proximity to the light rail network.

5.3.2.3 Assessment against development codes

As identified in the prelude to the City Plan assessment within this report, the nature of the proposal is not considered to require assessment of all City Plan assessment benchmarks, specifically the Commercial design code, Transport code and Solid waste management code.

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within the: • General development provisions code; and • Social and health impact assessment code.

Where there is no applicable acceptable outcome provided, assessment has also been undertaken against the following applicable Performance outcome: • Amenity Protection – General development provisions code.

The development is assessed as being compliant with the corresponding performance outcomes, which, in accordance with section 5.3.3 of the City Plan, means the development complies with the purpose and overall outcomes of the code – therefore complies with the code, as demonstrated below:

These provisions are assessed in relation to the General development provisions code.

Amenity protection Performance outcome Acceptable outcome PO2 AO2 The proposed development prevents loss No acceptable outcome provided. of amenity and threats to health and safety, having regard to: 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 639 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

(a) noise; (b) hours of operation; (c) traffic; (d) signage; (e) visual amenity; (f) wind effects; (g) privacy; (h) vibration; (i) contaminating substances; (j) hazardous chemicals; (k) odour and emissions; and (l) safety.

Officer’s comment

Acceptable outcome AO2 does not include an acceptable outcome and therefore, the development must demonstrate compliance with Performance outcome PO2. Of relevance to the proposal the assessment is provided as follows:

- PO2(a) Noise and PO2(b) Hours of operation: The applicant submitted an acoustic report to justify the appropriateness for the proposal in terms of acoustic impacts to allow an extension of operating hours to 2am. Council’s Health and regulatory branch provided the following comments in support of the technical assessment:

The technical detail and compliance with relevant criteria to justify support for the proposal against Performance outcome PO2 is acknowledged and the development is considered to comply with Performance outcome PO2. The ability to manage amenity impacts is acknowledged, however, compliance with this provision does not overcome the non- compliance with the higher order provisions of the scheme. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 640 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

These provisions are assessed in relation to the Social health and impact assessment code.

Social and health impact assessment Performance outcome Acceptable outcome PO1 AO1 Development demonstrates that social and No acceptable outcome provided. health impacts have been identified, positive impacts have been enhanced and negative impacts have been mitigated having particular regard, but not necessarily limited to, the following matters: (a) population characteristics; (b) accommodation and housing; (c) connectivity and accessibility; (d) social connection; (e) health and wellbeing; (f) crime and public safety; and (g) training, employment and local economic effects. Note: A Concise review and/or a full Social and health impact assessment report prepared in accordance with SC6.14 City Plan policy – Social and health impact assessment is the Council’s preferred method of addressing the above outcome.

Officers comments

As no Acceptable outcome has been provided, the proposed development was required to be considered against the Performance Outcome PO1.

Social planning reviewed the applicant’s assessment against the Social health and impact assessment code and reported on the information accordingly. This is provided as follows: “The Social and health impact assessment (SHIA) code is applicable for the assessment of the application and it was considered that there would not be a likelihood of significant negative or social health impacts resulting from the proposal. The purpose of this code is to ensure that the social and health impacts caused by the development are identified, positive impacts are enhanced and negative impacts are avoided. The SHIA Report discusses the demographic findings of the Community Impact Statement relating to age, employment, education, income, occupation and housing tenure. It is concluded that the community displays slightly below average socio-economic indicators determined using the below demographic findings. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 641 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

• Age: The residents in the local community area (LCA) are older in comparison to the Queensland and Gold Coast.

• Employment: The LCA has a slightly higher level of unemployment and similar level of full-time and part-time workers.

• Education: The LCA residents display relatively high levels of education in comparison to Gold Coast and Queensland.

• Income: The LCA has a slightly higher percentage of low to middle income earners

and a lower percentage of higher income earners. • Occupation: The LCA residents have a lower proportion of management and professional positions and a higher proportion of labourer positions.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 642 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

• Housing Tenure: The LCA has a high proportion of apartments and rental housing and a low proportion of owner occupiers, though virtually no state or welfare housing.

The SHIA report concluded there is nothing in the demographics to suggest that this is an at- risk community that may be more susceptible to problem gambling than other communities on the Gold Coast or elsewhere in Queensland. The impacts of problem gambling are not in dispute, but there is no reason to refuse the current application on socio-economic grounds.

• The SHIA Report recommended the following measures to reduce problem gambling: o Minors are excluded from designated gambling areas. o Hospitality services in areas where gambling is provided is managed to encourage customers to take breaks in play. o Customers who are unduly intoxicated are not permitted to continue gambling. o Where child play areas are provided, best efforts should be made to minimise exposure to areas where gambling activities are conducted. Where gambling providers offer adjunct child care, these facilities must provide safe and suitable standards of care in accordance with relevant child care legislation. o Staff working in gambling areas are not to encourage gambling customers to give them gratuities. o Gambling providers implement practices to ensure that customers are made aware of the passage of time. o Gambling providers implement practices to ensure that customers are discouraged from participating in extended, intensive and repetitive play. o Prior to the introduction of relevant new gambling products and services, including those which make use of emerging technology, consideration should be given as to the potential impact of the technology on responsible gambling behaviours. o ATMs are not to be located close to designated gambling areas or in the entry to gambling areas. o The operator is to establish a limit above which all winnings are paid by cheque or electronic transfer. Gambling winnings above the set limit are paid by cheque and are not cashed on the gambling provider’s premises until the next trading day or within 24 hours of the win. o The operator is not to provide credit or lend money to anyone for the purpose of gambling. o Advertising or promotions will not – . implicitly or explicitly misrepresent the probability of winning a prize; . give the impression that gambling is a reasonable strategy for financial betterment; . include misleading statements about odds, prizes or chances of winning; . offend prevailing community standards; . focus exclusively on gambling; 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 643 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

. be implicitly or explicitly directed at minors or vulnerable or disadvantaged groups; . involve any external signs advising of winnings paid; . involve any irresponsible trading practices; . promote the consumption of alcohol while engaged in the activity of gambling; . proceed without the consent of the person prior to publishing or causing to be published anything which identifies a person who has won a prize; and . will incorporate responsible gambling messages.

In addition, the venue should adopt the following staffing measures – • Staff and management development and training measures, including – o A designated Gaming Manager to supervise training, patron care, self- exclusion and barring measures; o A designated Customer Liaison Officer to assist and provide patrons with information regarding gambling related problems; o Trained staff to be identified by accreditation badges; o Provision of on-going training; and o An established complaints procedure. • Problem gambling support through self-exclusion measures and providing appropriate advice to patrons, or their families, on counselling and support services.

It is acknowledged that the submitted information presents demographics to demonstrate that Chevron Island may not be an at risk community, further, control measures to mitigate problem gambling would be implemented. While Social Planning concur with the applicants assertions that a refusal could not be given due to impacts of problem gambling based on socio-economic grounds and that Performance outcome PO1 of the Social health and impact assessment code is achieve, the matter at hand as iterated through the assessment relates to whether there is a planning need for the gaming machines and operating hours to 2am to locate at this site and within the Chevron Island neighbourhood centre.

Officers do not consider there to be any planning need given the strong City Plan Neighbourhood centre zone provisions.

6 INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES

Not applicable.

7 LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS THAT MAY BE MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposal does not trigger assessment against any assessment benchmarks for another local government area materially affected by the development.

8 PROPOSED DRAFT CITY PLAN AMENDMENT No regard has been given to the proposed City Plan amendments as part of the assessment of this application. The subject application was properly made to Council on 1 September 2020, and entered the decision making period on 12 January 2021. The City Plan (Version 7) was the planning scheme in effect at the time the development application was lodged. The 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 644 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27 application was unaffected between City Plan version 7 and 8 (current planning scheme in effect).

The information below concerning the proposed draft City Plan amendments are for information purposes only. Public consultation of the draft amendments is still underway and to date has occurred between the following dates: • First round - 27 September 2019 to 11 November 2019; • Second round - 6 January 2020 to 12 February 2020; and • Third round - 12 May 2020 to 10 June 2020.

Pursuant to the draft City Plan amendment the subject site and surrounding area will be specifically impacted by changes as follows: 8.1 Zone amendment: The site is proposed to be retained within the Neighbourhood centre zone, though included in the ‘Chevron Island’ precinct and ‘late night dining sub precinct’ (see figure below). Officers have reviewed the draft planning provisions for the Neighbourhood centre zone code (Chevron Island Late night dining sub precinct) and note that Required outcomes, Acceptable outcomes, Performance outcomes and Overall outcomes contemplate late night dining to no greater than 12 midnight. The provisions read as follows:

“Land uses involving commercial activities for Food and drink outlets (without drive-through facilities) and Bars (with a total use area up to 100m2 ) can operate up to 12am midnight to strengthen the tourist economy while achieving a reasonable level of amenity for nearby sensitive land uses.”

Subject site

Figure 7: Extract of Draft City Plan zone map for public consultation. Source: CoGC.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 645 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

8.2 Building height amendment: The site is currently identified on the Building height overlay map as HX (unrestricted height) and is proposed to be changed to a maximum of 33 metres (see figure below).

Subject site

Figure 8: Extract of Draft City Plan Building height overlay map for public consultation 2019. Source: CoGC.

8.3 Density The site is currently identified on the Density overlay map as RD5 (1 bed / 50m2). No changes to density are proposed within the draft scheme updates within the Chevron Island Neighbourhood centre zone.

Subject site

Figure 9: Extract of Draft City Plan density overlay map for public consultation 2019. Source: CoGC. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 646 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

REFERRALS

9.1 Internal referrals

Internal referral comments from both Health & Regulatory Services and Social Planning were included within the assessment of the City Plan.

9.2 External referrals

There is no concurrence or advice agency(s) triggered by this development application.

10 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

10.1 Overview

In response to public notification: a Six (6) properly made submissions were received, consisting of four (4) objections (inclusive of a petition comprising 68 signatories) and two (2) in support; and b Two (2) submissions were received that were not properly made, consisting of two (2) objections.

The following map indicates the location of submitters where addresses were provided:

Subject site

Figure 9: Submitters location (where address was provided). Source: CoGC. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 647 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Compliance with public notification requirements

The applicant has submitted a notice of compliance stating public notification has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the Development Assessment Rules under the Planning Act 2016.

Council has reviewed the public notification material and considers the applicant has complied with the requirements of the Development Assessment Rules.

10.2 Accepted submissions

Clause 19.1(b) of the Development Assessment Rules allows the assessment manager to accept a submission even if the submission is not a properly made submission.

The issues raised through the submission have been considered in section 9.4 below.

In order for a submitter to have appeal rights under Schedule 1 of the Planning Act 2016, the submission must be a properly made submission. In this instance, the assessment manager accepts the submission in accordance with Clause 19.1(b), however the submitter does not have appeal rights.

10.3 Matters raised in submissions

The matters raised by submitters who made a properly made submission or a submission that has been accepted by the assessment manager are discussed below:

Matters Officer’s comment Objection: Officers acknowledge the concerns raised in relation to the proposal not being needed given that any demand for Lack of need given proximity to services are located across the island and within the Surfers Paradise Centre Surfers Paradise Centre.

In response, officers don’t disagree and as established in the assessment of this proposal a planning need for the proposal has not been established, as such the officer’s recommendation is to not support the proposal. Objection: While officers acknowledge the concerns raised in relation to community impacts of the proposed gaming Community impacts machines, the applicant submitted information that presents demographics to demonstrate that Chevron Island is not an at risk community, further, control measures to mitigate problem gambling would be implemented.

Notwithstanding, Officers do not consider there to be any planning need given the strong City Plan Neighbourhood centre zone provisions, as such the officers recommendation to not support the proposal aligns with 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 648 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

the community’s reasonable expectation for Chevron Island. Support: Officers acknowledge the submitters supporting submission that referenced the proposal will introduce Provides much needed much needed services, however, this has not been services for the premises substantiated to overcome the land use non-compliance.

11 CONCLUSION

Council is in receipt of an application for a Change ‘Other’ to a Development Approval for a Material change of use (Impact assessment) for a Tavern at 47 Thomas Drive, Surfers Paradise. After a detailed assessment, it has been determined the proposal does not meet the purpose of the applicable themes and elements of the Strategic framework and the Neighbourhood centre zone code.

It is recommended the application be refused because:

-The proposal represents a land use non-compliance with the Strategic framework in that Hotels are not to establish in Neighbourhood centres. Neighbourhood centres are areas that are preserved for small scale and locally servicing commercial uses that provide convenience needs for residents to preserve the established centres hierarchy. The proposal, specifically the removal of restrictions of the existing use to permit gaming machines and operations to 2am are not considered to promote a convenience need for the residential catchment; and - The Relevant matters provided do not overcome the City Plan non-compliances.

It is noted that the refusal of this application has no impact on the ongoing operations of the approved development.

12 NOTIFICATIONS

Not applicable. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 649 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

That Council refuses the issue of a Development permit for a Change ‘Other’ to a Development Approval for a Material change of use (Impact assessment) for a Tavern at 47 Thomas Drive, Surfers Paradise, on the following grounds: a The proposed land use and operating hours is contrary to the planning intent for the site, in particular: i The development is non-compliant with the Strategic framework 3.4.1(7) and Specific outcome 3.4.5.1(1), (2), (3) and (6); and ii The development is non-compliant with Overall outcome 6.2.5.2(2)(a) and Performance outcome PO10 of the Neighbourhood centre zone code. b Relevant matters presented by the applicant do not demonstrate a planning need for the changes sought to the existing approved development at the subject site.

Author: Authorised by: Alex Glassington Alisha Swain A/Senior Planner Director Economy, Planning and Environment March 2021 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 650 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 6 (CONTINUTED) REPORT ON CHANGE OTHER (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN AT 47 THOMAS DRIVE, SURFERS PARADISE - DIVISION 10 OTH/2020/27

Committee Recommendation Adopted at Council 23 March 2021

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.005 moved Cr Hammel seconded Cr Owen-Jones

CARRIED

Cr Gates voted in the positive.

Cr Vorster and Cr Caldwell returned to the room at 10.53am.

Cr Caldwell resumed the chair.

ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 23 March 2021 RESOLUTION G21.0323.019 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr PC Young

That Committee Recommendation PE21.0318.005 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:-

CARRIED

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 651 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

ITEM 6 PRESENTATION

Change ‘Other’ to a Development Approval for a Material change of use (Impact assessment)

18 March 2021 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 652 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Agenda Item 6

Proposal: Change ‘Other’ to a Development Approval for a Material change of use (Impact assessment) for a Tavern

Real Property Description: Lot 2 RP93622

Address: 47 Thomas Drive, Surfers Paradise

Planning & Environment Committee 18 March 2021 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 653 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Subject site and surrounding area

Subject site

Surfers Paradise

Cultural precinct

Slide 3 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 654 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Thomas Drive frontage

Barramballi Street – Back of house

Slide 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 655 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Zone map

Subject site

Slide 5 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 656 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Changes sought to existing conditions of approval

• Condition 1: Amend the approved plan condition to reflect an amended internal layout (inclusive of a new gaming machine room).

• Condition 3: Delete the operational restrictions that currently restrict gaming machines at the site.

• Condition 4: Amend the hours of operation conditions to extend trading to 2am.

Slide 6 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 657 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Public notification

8 submissions

• 6 objections; and • 2 in support.

Online petition (68 signatories), no addresses identified.

Subject site

Slide 7 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 658 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

City Plan Assessment

- Hotels (Taverns) are not envisaged within Neighbourhood Centres. - The gaming machines do not provide the catchment access to operations that directly support the needs of the immediate neighbourhood. - The extension of operating hours to 2am are not appropriate considering the role and function of the Neighbourhood Centre.

Applicant’s Other Relevant Matters - Evidence of existing Hotels (Taverns) throughout the city. - Demand for gaming machines within the Chevron Island Neighbourhood Centre. - Submission of Surfers Paradise ‘Safe night precinct’ map.

Slide 8 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 659 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ATTACHMENT 1

Subject site

Surfers Paradise

Cultural precinct 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 660 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

ATTACHMENT 2 TAKE NOTICE THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COPYRIGHT. DUPLICATION WILL RESULT (Page 1 of 2) IN PROSECUTION.

NORTH

...... A Approval Issue 05.05.20 ISSUE DETAILS DATE AMENDMENTS

building designer

QBCC Licence : 1139399 ABN : 92 768 277 257 52 Clubhouse Drive, Arundel, Q, 4214 Mobile : +61 405 319498 [email protected]

CLIENT

PROJECT

LOCATION

DRAWING

SCALE DATE 1:100 @ A3 May 20 DRAWN PLOT DATE PJW 6-May-20 CAD FILE SHEET - 2020_09-01-200 - EXISTING FLOOR PLAN.DWG ATTACHED XREF'S 2020_09-SITE, 2020_09-EXISTING PLAN DRAWING No ISSUE 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 661 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

TAKE NOTICE THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS COPYRIGHT. DUPLICATION WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION.

NORTH

...... D Revised Approval Issue 05.05.20 C Approval Issue 30.04.20 B Issued for client approval 29.04.20 A Preliminary issue for discussion purposes 18.04.20 ISSUE DETAILS DATE AMENDMENTS

building designer

QBCC Licence : 1139399 ABN : 92 768 277 257 52 Clubhouse Drive, Arundel, Q, 4214 Mobile : +61 405 319498 [email protected]

CLIENT

PROJECT

LOCATION

DRAWING

SCALE DATE 1:100 @ A3 April 20 DRAWN PLOT DATE PJW 5-May-20 CAD FILE SHEET - 2020_09-01-210 - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN.DWG ATTACHED XREF'S 2020_09-SITE, 2020_09-PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN DRAWING No ISSUE 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 662 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

ATTACHMENT 3 Subject site 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 663 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 AdoptedATTACHEMNT Minutes 4 Premises_name Premises_name2 Site_typRegistered_address Suburb Lvl1_zone Zone_prec1 Lvl1_zone ADVANCETOWN HOTEL Advancetown Hotel Hotel NERANG-NUMINBAH ROAD, ADVANCETOWN QLD 4211 ADVANCETOWN Rural Rural 1 GEM HOTEL Gem Hotel Hotel 287 STAPYLTON - JACOBS WELL ROAD, ALBERTON QLD 4207 ALBERTON Medium impact industry Future medium impact industry preMedium im 2 ARUNDEL TAVERN Arundel Tavern Hotel 226 NAPPER ROAD WEST, ARUNDEL QLD 4214 ARUNDEL Neighbourhood centre Neighbourh 14 15% ASHMORE TAVERN Ashmore Tavern Hotel CURRUMBURRA ROAD, ASHMORE QLD 4214 ASHMORE Centre Centre 37 CENTRAL PARK TAVERN Central Park Tavern Hotel 18 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, ASHMORE QLD 4214 ASHMORE Mixed use Fringe business precinct Mixed use 12 BENOWA TAVERN Benowa Tavern Hotel 117 ASHMORE ROAD, BENOWA QLD 4217 BENOWA Mixed use Fringe business precinct Innovation 1 DUBLIN DOCKS - HARBOURTOWN Dublin Docks - Harbourtown Hotel OXLEY DRIVE, BIGGERA WATERS QLD 4216 BIGGERA WATERS Centre Medium de 5 THE BROADBEACH TAVERN The Broadbeach Tavern Hotel OASIS CENTRE, SHOP 35 & 37, CHARLES AVENUE, BROADBEACH QLD 4218 BROADBEACH Centre Low density 1 THE ENVY HOTEL The Envy Hotel Hotel LEVEL 2, 17 VICTORIA AVENUE, BROADBEACH QLD 4218 BROADBEACH Centre Special pur 10 SOFITEL GOLD COAST Sofitel Gold Coast Hotel 81 SURF PARADE, BROADBEACH QLD 4218 BROADBEACH Centre Waterfront 1 ONE50 TAVERN One50 Tavern Hotel 150 BUNDALL ROAD, BUNDALL QLD 4217 BUNDALL Innovation Township 1 BURLEIGH HEADS HOTEL Burleigh Heads Hotel Hotel 4 THE ESPLANADE, BURLEIGH HEADS QLD 4220 BURLEIGH HEADS Medium density residential High densit 4 BURLEIGH TOWN TAVERN Burleigh Town Tavern Hotel TOWNSHIP DRIVE, BURLEIGH HEADS QLD 4220 BURLEIGH HEADS Mixed use Fringe business precinct Sport and r 2 VARSITY LAKES TAVERN Varsity Lakes Tavern Hotel 2 SANTA MARIA COURT, BURLEIGH WATERS QLD 4220 BURLEIGH WATERS Mixed use Major touris 1 TREETOPS TAVERN Treetops Tavern Hotel EXECUTIVE DRIVE, BURLEIGH WATERS QLD 4220 BURLEIGH WATERS Centre 92 CHEVRON ISLAND TAVERN Chevron Island Tavern Hotel 47 THOMAS DRIVE, CHEVRON ISLAND QLD 4217 CHEVRON ISLAND Neighbourhood centre THE COOLANGATTA HOTEL The Coolangatta Hotel Hotel MARINE PARADE, COOLANGATTA QLD 4225 COOLANGATTA Centre COOLANGATTA SANDS Coolangatta Sands Hotel MCLEAN STREET, COOLANGATTA QLD 4225 COOLANGATTA Centre EDDIE'S GRUB HOUSE Eddie's Grub House Hotel GROUND FLOOR, 171 GRIFFITH STREET, COOLANGATTA QLD 4225 COOLANGATTA Centre COOMERA WATERS TAVERN Coomera Waters Tavern Hotel 941 HARBOUR VILLAGE PARADE, COOMERA QLD 4209 COOMERA Low density residential Large lot precinct THE BOATHOUSE TAVERN COOMERA The Boathouse Tavern Coomera Hotel 101 DREAMWORLD PARKWAY, COOMERA QLD 4209 COOMERA Neighbourhood centre TAPWORKS BAR AND GRILL Tapworks Bar And Grill Hotel WESTFIELD COOMERA SHOPPING CENTRE, SHOP R006, LEVEL 1 AND 2, 103 FOXWELL ROADCOOMERA Centre CURRUMBIN CREEK TAVERN Currumbin Creek Tavern Hotel 3 TRADERS WAY, CURRUMBIN QLD 4223 CURRUMBIN Neighbourhood centre PACIFIC PINES TAVERN Pacific Pines Tavern Hotel PACIFIC PINES BOULEVARD, GAVEN QLD 4211 GAVEN Neighbourhood centre OPTIONS TAVERN Options Tavern Hotel WESTFIELD SHOPPING CENTRE, SHOP 1109, TOWN CENTRE DRIVE, HELENSVALE QLD 4210HELENSVALE Centre HELENSVALE TAVERN Helensvale Tavern Hotel 8 SIR JOHN OVERALL DRIVE, HELENSVALE QLD 4210 HELENSVALE Centre SALT WATER CREEK HOTEL Salt Water Creek Hotel Hotel 22 SIGANTO DRIVE, HELENSVALE QLD 4210 HELENSVALE Mixed use Fringe business precinct IO ESCO Io Esco Hotel SANCTUARY COVE VILLAGE, BUILDING 3A & 3B, SANCTUARY COVE, HOPE ISLAND QLD 421 HOPE ISLAND Special purpose Special development areas precinct THE HOPE ISLAND TAVERN The Hope Island Tavern Hotel 87-97 BROADWATER AVENUE, HOPE ISLAND QLD 4212 HOPE ISLAND Centre COVE TAVERN Cove Tavern Hotel BUILDING 7A, SANCTUARY COVE VILLAGE, HOPE ISLAND QLD 4212 HOPE ISLAND Special purpose Special development areas precinct THE BOARDWALK TAVERN The Boardwalk Tavern Hotel 8 SANTA BARBARA ROAD, HOPE ISLAND QLD 4212 HOPE ISLAND Special purpose Special development areas precinct RAMADA HOTEL HOPE HARBOUR GOLD COAST Ramada Hotel Hope Harbour Gold Coast Hotel JOHN LUND DRIVE, HOPE ISLAND QLD 4212 HOPE ISLAND Waterfront and marine industry JACOBS WELL BAYSIDE TAVERN Jacobs Well Bayside Tavern Hotel 1170 PIMPAMA JACOBS WELL ROAD, JACOBS WELL QLD 4208 JACOBS WELL Township Commercial precinct HARRIGAN'S DRIFT INN Harrigan's Drift Inn Hotel CALYPSO BAY MARINA VILLAGE, HARRIGANS LANE, JACOBS WELL QLD 4208 JACOBS WELL Neighbourhood centre DOG AND PARROT TAVERN Dog And Parrot Tavern Hotel PROSPECT COURT, KERRYDALE QLD 4226 KERRYDALE Special purpose Special development areas precinct KIRRA BEACH HOTEL Kirra Beach Hotel Hotel MARINE PARADE, KIRRA QLD 4225 KIRRA Neighbourhood centre THE GRAND HOTEL LABRADOR The Grand Hotel Labrador Hotel 352-366 MARINE PARADE, LABRADOR QLD 4215 LABRADOR High density residential FISHERMANS WHARF TAVERN Fishermans Wharf Tavern Hotel 60-70 SEA WORLD DRIVE, MAIN BEACH QLD 4217 MAIN BEACH Centre KING CRAB CO GC King Crab Co Gc Hotel MARINA MIRAGE SHOPPING COMPLEX, SHOP 26, 74 SEA WORLD DRIVE, MAIN BEACH QLD 4MAIN BEACH Centre MERMAID BEACH TAVERN Mermaid Beach Tavern Hotel 2500 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, MERMAID BEACH QLD 4218 MERMAID BEACH Mixed use THE LONE STAR TAVERN The Lone Star Tavern Hotel SUNSHINE BOULEVARD, MERMAID WATERS QLD 4218 MERMAID WATERS Mixed use MERRIMAC TAVERN Merrimac Tavern Hotel 11 GHILGAI ROAD, MERRIMAC QLD 4226 MERRIMAC Neighbourhood centre MIAMI TAVERN Miami Tavern Hotel 2047 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, MIAMI QLD 4220 MIAMI Mixed use WALLABY HOTEL Wallaby Hotel Hotel 45 RAILWAY STREET, MUDGEERABA QLD 4213 MUDGEERABA Mixed use WOODCHOPPERS INN Woodchoppers Inn Hotel 64 RAILWAY STREET, MUDGEERABA QLD 4213 MUDGEERABA Centre HIGHLAND PARK FAMILY TAVERN Highland Park Family Tavern Hotel HIGHLAND PARK PLAZA, 106 ALEXANDER DRIVE, NERANG QLD 4211 NERANG Neighbourhood centre COMMERCIAL HOTEL NERANG Commercial Hotel Nerang Hotel CNR PRICE STREET & FERRY ROAD, NERANG QLD 4211 NERANG Centre HINTERLAND HOTEL Hinterland Hotel Hotel 53 STATION STREET, NERANG QLD 4211 NERANG Centre NORFOLK TAVERN Norfolk Tavern Hotel PASCOE ROAD, ORMEAU QLD 4208 ORMEAU Neighbourhood centre SHEARERS ARMS TAVERN Shearers Arms Tavern Hotel 23 PEACHEY ROAD, ORMEAU QLD 4208 ORMEAU Neighbourhood centre OXENFORD TAVERN Oxenford Tavern Hotel 179-191 OLD PACIFIC HIGHWAY, OXENFORD QLD 4210 OXENFORD Mixed use Fringe business precinct PALM BEACH HOTEL Palm Beach Hotel Hotel 1118 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, PALM BEACH QLD 4221 PALM BEACH Centre WONDERS GRILL Wonders Grill Hotel EPHRAIM ISLAND, PARADISE POINT QLD 4216 PARADISE POINT Medium density residential PARKWOOD TAVERN Parkwood Tavern Hotel 3 WINTERGREEN DRIVE, PARKWOOD QLD 4214 PARKWOOD Mixed use Fringe business precinct PARKWOOD VILLAGE Parkwood Village Hotel 76-122 NAPPER ROAD, PARKWOOD QLD 4214 PARKWOOD Sport and recreation PIMPAMA TAVERN Pimpama Tavern Hotel PIMPAMA CITY SHOPPING CENTRE, T39/102 PIMPAMA JACOBS WELL ROAD, PIMPAMA QLD PIMPAMA Centre DIAMONDS TAVERN Diamonds Tavern Hotel CHRISTINE AVENUE, ROBINA QLD 4226 ROBINA Neighbourhood centre RUNAWAY BAY TAVERN Runaway Bay Tavern Hotel LAE DRIVE, RUNAWAY BAY QLD 4216 RUNAWAY BAY Centre ANGLERS ARMS HOTEL Anglers Arms Hotel Hotel 50 QUEEN STREET, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215 SOUTHPORT Special purpose Special development areas precinct THE CECIL HOTEL The Cecil Hotel Hotel 42 NERANG STREET, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215 SOUTHPORT Special purpose Special development areas precinct FERRY ROAD TAVERN Ferry Road Tavern Hotel 201 FERRY ROAD, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215 SOUTHPORT Mixed use Fringe business precinct THE RAILWAY HOTEL The Railway Hotel Hotel 146 SCARBOROUGH STREET NORTH, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215 SOUTHPORT Special purpose Special development areas precinct MANTRA AT SHARKS Mantra At Sharks Hotel MELIA COURT, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215 SOUTHPORT Sport and recreation HOTEL PACIFIC Hotel Pacific Hotel AUSTRALIA FAIR SHOPPING CENTRE, MARINE PARADE, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215 SOUTHPORT Special purpose Special development areas precinct SURFERS PARADISE TAVERN Surfers Paradise Tavern Hotel CAVILL AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre LANSDOWNE ROAD Lansdowne Road Hotel CHEVRON RENAISSANCE CENTRE, 25 FERNY AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre QT GOLD COAST Qt Gold Coast Hotel 7 STAGHORN AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE High density residential CLOCK HOTEL Clock Hotel Hotel 3282 SURFERS PARADISE BOULEVARD, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre KOOKOO TAPAS & LOUNGE BAR Kookoo Tapas & Lounge Bar Hotel 3120 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre WAXY'S Waxy's Hotel 3206 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre MELBA'S ON THE PARK Melba's On The Park Hotel GROUND FLOOR, 46 CAVILL AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre ONE CAVILL BEACH BAR One Cavill Beach Bar Hotel LEVEL 1, 1 CAVILL AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre ISLAND HOTEL Island Hotel Hotel 3128 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre CROWNE PLAZA SURFERS PARADISE Crowne Plaza Surfers Paradise Hotel 2807 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE High density residential THE D'ARCY ARMS The D'Arcy Arms Hotel 2921 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE High density residential HELM BAR & BISTRO SURFERS Helm Bar & Bistro Surfers Hotel 30-34 FERNY AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre STEAMPUNK Steampunk Hotel HILTON SURFERS PARADISE, SHOP L01, L02 & L03, LEVEL 1, 3113 SURFERS PARADISE BOULSURFERS PARADISE Centre WALRUS SOCIAL HOUSE Walrus Social House Hotel GROUND FLOOR, 3032 GOLD COAST HIGHWAY, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre SHOOTERS SALOON BAR Shooters Saloon Bar Hotel 3 ORCHID AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre FINN MCCOOLS GOLD COAST Finn Mccools Gold Coast Hotel 39 CAVILL AVENUE, SURFERS PARADISE QLD 4217 SURFERS PARADISE Centre SEA WORLD RESORT & WATER PARK Sea World Resort & Water Park Hotel SEAWORLD DRIVE, THE SPIT QLD 4217 THE SPIT Major tourism Sea World precinct PALAZZO VERSACE Palazzo Versace Hotel SEA WORLD DRIVE, THE SPIT QLD 4217 THE SPIT Medium density residential SHERATON GRAND MIRAGE RESORT GOLD COAST Sheraton Grand Mirage Resort Gold Coast Hotel SEAWORLD DRIVE, THE SPIT QLD 4217 THE SPIT Medium density residential TUGUN HOTEL-MOTEL Tugun Hotel-Motel Hotel GOLDEN FOUR DRIVE, TUGUN QLD 4224 TUGUN Medium density residential COOMERA LODGE HOTEL Coomera Lodge Hotel Hotel MAUDSLAND ROAD, UPPER COOMERA QLD 4210 UPPER COOMERA Neighbourhood centre COOMERA TAVERN Coomera Tavern Hotel 1-2 CITY CENTRE DRIVE, UPPER COOMERA QLD 4209 UPPER COOMERA Centre WATTLE HOTEL COOMERA Wattle Hotel Coomera Hotel 1 BRYGON CREEK DRIVE, UPPER COOMERA QLD 4210 UPPER COOMERA Neighbourhood centre HOTEL CBD - VARSITY LAKES Hotel CBD - Varsity Lakes Hotel LAKE STREET, VARSITY LAKES QLD 4227 VARSITY LAKES Centre THE BURNSIDE TAVERN The Burnside Tavern Hotel 10 BURNSIDE ROAD, YATALA QLD 4207 YATALA Medium impact industry ROBINA STADIUM TAVERN Robina Stadium Tavern Hotel CNR LAVER & CHELTENHAM DRIVE, ROBINA QLD 4226 ROBINA Special purpose Special development areas precinct THE LUCKY SQUIRE The Lucky Squire Hotel SHOP 1W05 - 1W08, 3 ORACLE BOULEVARD, BROADBEACH QLD 4218 BROADBEACH Centre RYDGES GOLD COAST AIRPORT HOTEL Rydges Gold Coast Airport Hotel Hotel 1 TERMINAL DRIVE, BILINGA QLD 4225 BILINGA Special purpose 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 664 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 CITY PLANNING BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

Refer 46 page attachment

1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Not Applicable.

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of the report is to present the findings and recommendations of the Burleigh Ridge koala survey data analysis and Population Viability Analysis report (the 2020 Burleigh Koala Report) and to seek support for the use of the report and its recommendations to inform future koala protection measures and infrastructure upgrades in the area.

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS

Ex Minute CP17.0913.005 refers (in part):

3. That the Koala Conservation Plan be adopted with implementation to occur immediately following adoption.

5 DISCUSSION

Burleigh Ridge Koala Priority Area

The Burleigh Ridge area supports a small but long-established koala population that is particularly vulnerable to threats posed by vehicle strike, injury caused by domestic dogs and habitat fragmentation, isolation and degradation. The Burleigh Ridge koala population is the most southerly of the City’s remnant koala populations to the east of the Pacific Motorway. This koala population is well known and highly valued within the local community and has historical significance for early tourism and the cultural identity of the Burleigh area.

Burleigh Ridge incorporates approximately 135 hectares of preferred koala habitat, within State and Local Government conservation reserves as well as privately owned land. The focal area is bound by Tallebudgera Creek in the south, high-density residential areas and commercial activities in the north, the Pacific Motorway in the west and the coastal fringe to the east. The area falls within the eastern section of the Burleigh to Springbrook Critical Corridor, which has State significance for regional biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. Landscape connectivity is fragmented within the focal area due to urban development and associated infrastructure including the Pacific Motorway.

Burleigh Ridge is identified as a Priority Koala Area in the City’s Koala Conservation Plan. City-designated Priority Koala Areas are patches of high-quality koala habitat that support and sustain long established koala populations. However, these areas are also recognised as being susceptible to the major threatening processes affecting koala populations.

Vehicle strike is one of the largest known causes of mortality in the Burleigh Ridge koala population, with 26 vehicle strikes recorded in 2019 and 2020 (most were fatalities). The majority of vehicle strikes at Burleigh Ridge occur on the Pacific Highway around the Burleigh Heads exit, West Burleigh Road and the Gold Coast Highway. Currently, koalas can 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 665 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3) cross over both West Burleigh Road and the Gold Coast Highway to access habitat on either side, albeit with high risk of injury or death from vehicle strike. On the Gold Coast Highway, there were five recorded vehicle strike incidents occurring in 2019 and four in 2020 – seven of these koalas died as a result of their injuries, one was released and one was unable to be rescued.

Significant future transport infrastructure projects in the area, including the Pacific Highway upgrade from Varsity Lakes to Tugun, the Old Coach Road upgrade at Reedy Creek, extension of the heavy rail and potential transport infrastructure upgrades aligned with the Gold Coast Highway, have highlighted the importance of an accurate and detailed understanding of the status of the Burleigh Ridge koala population. These projects have the potential to impact the Burleigh Ridge koala population as a direct result of habitat removal and creation of barriers that could restrict or prevent movement through the landscape. Informed project planning allows for incorporation of threat mitigation measures.

As a result of detailed environmental investigations incorporating available koala data, the Department of Transport and Main Roads - Varsity Lakes to Tugun Pacific Highway upgrade project, has dedicated a fauna crossing under the highway at Burleigh Heads, in association with roadside fauna fencing. To the west of the Pacific Highway, the City is also undertaking significant upgrade works to Old Coach Road, Reedy Creek with Stage 1 and 2 complete and Stage 3 progressing in the planning phase.

While Old Coach Road lies outside the focal area of this report, city officers have been consulting with Transport and Infrastructure, particularly regarding Stage 3 onwards, to maximise positive environmental outcomes for koalas and other fauna and to maintain and enhance connectivity through the Burleigh to Springbrook Critical Corridor. Transport and Infrastructure’s environmental assessment processes will continue to include identification and consideration for koala management, with ongoing consultation with officers from City Planning.

2020 Burleigh Koala Report

Detailed baseline koala surveys were undertaken in the Burleigh Ridge area in 2013, which informed the development of a Koala Conservation Plan for Burleigh Heads in 2015 and a citywide Koala Conservation Plan in 2017. Subsequent to this baseline study, koala habitat and population assessments have been carried out by the City at two yearly intervals (2015, 2017 and 2019). Within the Koala Conservation Plan, the Population monitoring Action 2 - refers to the need to coordinate koala population monitoring, including population viability analysis, for each priority koala area and use the results to update actions.

Therefore, the objectives of the 2020 Burleigh Koala Report (Attachment 1) were to: • Synthesise and undertake statistical analysis of field survey data from all four of the preceding monitoring events (2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019) to consolidate knowledge in terms of: o Koala density and population size o Koala distribution o Habitat utilisation, activity and occupancy • Examine trends in koala distribution, habitat use and abundance between all four monitoring events (where applicable) • Undertake a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) for a range of ecological and landscape management scenarios 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 666 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

• Provide recommendations for future conservation and land use planning and development.

5.1 Key findings

5.1.1 Koala habitat use and population dynamics

About 75 per cent of habitat across Burleigh Ridge can be classified as Preferred Koala Habitat (PKH), based on presence of preferred koala food tree species, as confirmed by survey data. Resident koalas at Burleigh Ridge occupied a significantly greater proportion of PKH in 2019 compared with 2013 (76 per cent and 24 per cent respectively). The 2019 habitat occupancy is at the higher end of optimal ecological levels, which is estimated to be around 50 per cent of available habitat. This 50 per cent optimal occupancy rate accommodates population contraction and expansion associated with future events such as wildfires and droughts.

Since the first comprehensive site survey analysis was undertaken in 2013, the koala population at Burleigh Ridge has consistently demonstrated population density estimates that are above average when compared with 2007 city-wide estimates of 0.09 to 0.11 koalas/ha. The most recent Burleigh Ridge survey event in 2019 indicated a koala density estimate of 0.42 koalas/ha, which corresponds to a population size estimate of 61 koalas for Burleigh Ridge. The 2013 surveys resulted in a koala population size estimate of 48 koalas. The optimal population size at Burleigh Ridge for the amount of available PKH is between approximately 45 and 55 animals.

Should the koala population exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat, it is anticipated that there would be a decline in tree health and an increased incidence of clinical signs of disease in the koala population. The City continues to monitor tree health as a component of the biennial surveys and works closely with Currumbin Wildlife Hospital and Wildcare Australia to monitor the health and welfare of the koala population at Burleigh Ridge.

The 2019 survey data was an input into a spatial modelling program to create a koala population model for Burleigh Ridge. The model takes into account the observed koala activity at each site and nearby field sites to predict the locations of discrete population clusters. Population modelling based on 2019 field survey data identified four main clusters of koala activity in the Burleigh Ridge focal area, consistent with the locations of koala activity clusters in the 2013 population model.

These areas are indicated in Figure 1 (Figure 2.1 in Attachment 1). The contour cells delineate important areas which support established resident breeding koalas, with higher contour values representing areas of greatest koala activity.

5.1.2 Population Viability Analysis

PVA is a modelling tool used to determine the probability of persistence or extinction of a given species within a specified time period. A number of ecological and landscape management scenarios were considered for the koala PVA modelling at Burleigh Ridge, as follows.

Baseline modelling and population recruitment

A standardised ‘baseline’ PVA model was generated, from which all subsequent scenarios were derived and compared. The baseline PVA was informed by several input parameters 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 667 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3) specifically relating to koala demographics, biology and threats. All subsequent scenarios were run by changing relevant baseline input parameters.

Figure 1: 2019 koala population model for Burleigh Ridge

The baseline PVA initially treated the Burleigh Ridge koala population as a closed population, i.e. with no outside recruitment, however it was clear from the results that the predicted population trend from the baseline model did not correspond to the observations from the survey data obtained over the previous 6 year monitoring period. The 2019 PVA hypothesised that koala recruitment to the Burleigh Ridge population is occurring, and although bound by significant natural and artificial barriers, the population is not closed.

This is supported by genetic analysis confirming three koalas rescued along the southern border of Burleigh Ridge (on or near the Pacific Motorway) showed a genetic profile more akin to animals from Tallebudgera / Currumbin Valley. The mechanism by which on-going recruitment is most likely to be occurring (natural recruitment, human assisted recruitment and/or deliberate introductions) remains speculative. Ongoing loss of koala habitat in Burleigh Heads and surrounding suburbs of Reedy Creek, Tallebudgera and Tallebudgera Valley may be a contributing factor in the recruitment of koalas to Burleigh Ridge and the observed population trends and increase in habitat occupancy.

The 2019 PVA for the Burleigh Ridge koala population indicates its long-term viability is reliant upon ongoing recruitment of other koalas from areas to the west and it is females, not males, which have the biggest impact on longer-term population survivorship. It is noteworthy that if the recruitment process stops at any point along the 50-year modelling timeline, the population begins a steep trajectory of decline. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 668 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

Modelled scenarios

Subsequent to development of the baseline PVA model, a variety of different hypothetical scenarios were considered, including:

1 Change to mortality rate 2 Change to fire frequency and severity 3 Peripheral habitat removal 4 Infrastructure upgrade at Gold Coast Highway o with connectivity structures o without connectivity structures. 1 Change to mortality rate Mortality due to major threats such as domestic dog attack, vehicle strike and disease are embedded within the mortality data PVA input parameters and therefore considered within each scenario. An increase in threats would need to be substantial to have a measurable outcome in this circumstance.

2 Change to fire frequency and severity The PVA did not identify fire as a major threat to the Burleigh Ridge koala population, as long as recruitment of new animals into the population continues. If recruitment does not occur, even a small increase in fire intensity can cause a decline in the population size.

3 Peripheral habitat removal There is a comparatively small amount of koala habitat remaining outside of the protected areas in Burleigh Ridge. A decrease in this peripheral habitat is expected to have less of an impact on the koala population than a loss of recruitment to the population.

Removal of peripheral habitat that forms part of a linkage or corridor for koala movement will impact on the ability for new koalas to recruit to the population which could have a significant impact.

4 Infrastructure upgrade at Gold Coast Highway Two scenarios were modelled for an infrastructure upgrade along the Gold Coast Highway transport corridor, to model the predicted impacts of either facilitating or hindering koala connectivity across the corridor. Both scenarios factored in the exclusion of koalas from the transport corridor (using fencing) and the removal of an estimated 0.6ha of habitat.

a Upgrade with connectivity structures For the purposes of PVA analysis, this resulted in a two-population system (north- east and south-west of the Gold Coast Highway), as a result of incomplete separation of the population.

The outcome of analysis is the likely survival of both populations, if connectivity between the two populations is maintained and annual recruitment of females to the Burleigh Ridge Population from the west is ongoing.

b Upgrade without connectivity structures The outcome of the analysis was a highly probable loss of the koala population to the north-east of the Gold Coast Highway and a commensurate decline in koala numbers across the whole Burleigh Ridge population. The south-western population could continue to survive if there is ongoing annual recruitment of females. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 669 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

5.1.3 Long-term outlook

The current long-term outlook for the Burleigh Ridge koala population is positive. Continued management to maintain this outlook is important, as is ensuring a sustainable and genetically robust population that does not exceed the carrying capacity.

PVA modelling indicates that the long-term viability of the koala population at Burleigh Ridge relies entirely on the ongoing recruitment of female koalas into the population from other areas (such as Tallebudgera on the western side of the Pacific Motorway). A dedicated Pacific Highway fauna underpass at Burleigh Heads (Varsity Lakes to Tugun Pacific Highway upgrade project) and provisions for fauna movement in association with the Old Coach Road upgrade at Reedy Creek will greatly assist in achieving this goal.

5.2 Recommendations to support the Burleigh Ridge koala population

The 2020 Burleigh Koala Report provides a set of recommendations for the purpose of future conservation and land use planning and development at Burleigh Ridge, targeting koala population connectivity, population monitoring, and managing human-facilitated koala movements.

In summary, the report recommends to:

• Consolidate, optimise and safe-guard connectivity of the Burleigh Ridge koalas with populations to the west of the Pacific Highway.

• Continue SAT-based koala monitoring and carry out koala scat genetic profiling to increase understanding of population dynamics (especially regarding population stabilisation and recruitment).

• Maintain effective connectivity for koalas across the Gold Coast Highway in the instance of future infrastructure upgrades. Koalas will need to be excluded from the majority of the transport corridor and directed towards appropriate connectivity structures (such as a fauna overpass suitable for koalas).

• Ensure a coordinated approach is adopted regarding koala releases into the Burleigh Ridge koala population.

These recommendations are within the scope of the citywide Koala Conservation Plan. It is proposed that they be incorporated into the next implementation plan update for the Koala Conservation Plan, to strengthen existing management actions.

The report can additionally be used to inform State and Local Government infrastructure planning, future updates to the State Government koala mapping and planning reforms, and future City Plan updates. Any proposed changes to the Koala Conservation Plan and potential City Plan updates will be presented to the Planning and Environment Committee.

City officers will continue to liaise with the State Government Department of Transport and Main Roads, Department of Environment and Science and the City’s Transport and Infrastructure Directorate to ensure opportunities for improvement of koala population connectivity are considered in this area.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 670 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

Achieving all recommendations will require the continued coordination between City, State Government, and koala welfare providers (particularly Wildcare Australia and Currumbin Wildlife Hospital). City officers recommend that fauna connectivity structures in combination with exclusion fencing be considered regardless of infrastructure upgrade commitments.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

Corporate Plan – Gold Coast 2022

The implementation of the Citywide Koala Conservation Plan is a signature action of the Corporate Plan and consistent with Outcome 1.2 of the Corporate Plan.

Signature Action: Develop and implement a Citywide Koala Conservation program

Outcome 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.

Key programs of work: Restore ecosystems and fauna through weed control, natural regeneration, revegetation, maintenance, education and voluntary programs.

Our Natural City Strategy

Key priority action 2.1: Investigate collaborative monitoring and reporting arrangements on the health, condition, quality and protection of our city’s natural assets to inform management actions.

Key priority action 2.2: Prioritise and implement management actions to improve health, quality, condition and level of protection for our priority natural assets.

Key priority action 3.3: Partner with government, research institutions and businesses to undertake targeted research and conservation actions on strategic habitat and priority species in the city.

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

Budget/Funding Considerations Recommendations of the report are within the scope of the existing citywide Koala Conservation Plan and additional funding /budget allocation is not required. Mitigation measures in response to future infrastructure upgrades have not yet been estimated.

People and Culture Implementation of the report recommendations are within the scope of the existing citywide Koala Conservation Plan and will utilise existing staff approved for the 20/21 financial year.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk CO000672

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 671 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

Critical Species Management – City wide critical species continue to decline resulting in domestic and international reputational damage impacting the economy, environment and City image.

Mitigation actions

• Development of City Wide Critical Species Management Plan (Koala Conservation Plan) • Species Prioritisation Framework • Koala Conservation Plan for Burleigh Ridge

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

The koala is listed as a ‘vulnerable’ species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and within the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992.

• State Planning Policy (SPP) 2017 – Biodiversity – Viable koala populations are protected by conserving and enhancing koala habitat extent and condition. • Nature Conservation and Other Legislation (Koala Protection) Amendment Regulation 2020 – amends the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014, Planning Regulation 2017, Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2017 and Vegetation Management Regulation 2012 to provide increased protection to koala habitat areas in South East Queensland. • SEQ Regional Plan 2017 – koala conservation is listed as a Goal of the Regional Plan with specific strategies to achieve a network of interconnected koala habitat to sustain SEQ’s koala population over the long term. • Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2017 – promotes the continued existence of viable koala populations in the wild and aims to prevent decline of koala habitats through management strategies and prescribed requirements for clearing vegetation. • South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2020-2025 – identification of Koala Priority Areas and Koala Habitat Areas and targeted actions to protect koalas into the future.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not applicable. . 11 DELEGATIONS

Not applicable.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 672 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Directorate or Is the Stakeholder Stakeholder Consulted Organisation Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate) Mark Pease, Coordinator Transport and Yes Environmental Management Infrastructure Dale Jepson, Executive Transport and Yes Coordinator Strategic Infrastructure Operations Portfolio Tim Robson, Coordinator Lifestyle and Community Yes Natural Areas

13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

External / community stakeholder Impacts • This information will provide positive reputational benefits for the City for managing the koala population within urban areas. • This information will allow wildlife rescue and veterinary organisations to have a better understanding of current status of the population and have better guidance on future koala management issues. • This information will inform State Government planning for future infrastructure projects, and updates to koala reforms.

Internal (Organisational) Stakeholder Impacts • Councillors will be better informed and equipped to respond to community enquiries. • The study will assist Natural Areas Management Unit in prioritisation of reserve management actions, including planning for Hazard Reduction Burns. • The study will assist the Environmental Planning and Conservation Team to assess, amend (where required) or target current conservation actions. • The study will assist Transport and Infrastructure with future planning. • The study will inform messaging and media enquiries regarding the ongoing Koala Conservation Plan.

14 TIMING

Once endorsed by Council, city officers will immediately use this report to strengthen existing management actions and to inform new planning measures at Burleigh Ridge, in partnership with relevant stakeholders. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 673 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

15 CONCLUSION

The 2020 Burleigh Koala Report has determined that the Burleigh Ridge area contains a koala population that has been maintained over the 2013-2019 monitoring period, despite the presence of anthropogenic-related stressors. Field survey results imply a progressive increase in the Burleigh Ridge koala population size from ~ 48 in 2013 to ~ 61 in 2019, with corresponding increases in habitat utilisation. Koala occupancy of available habitat on Burleigh Ridge now appears to be at the higher end of optimal ecological levels. Exceedance of the habitat’s carrying capacity would likely result in a decline in tree health from over- browsing and an increased incidence of clinical signs of disease in the koala population.

Population Viability Analysis modelling indicated that the 2019 estimated population size is a direct consequence of ongoing recruitment of koalas from outside Burleigh Ridge into the population. If recruitment stops altogether, even with an initially larger population size, the modelling predicts a population decline with a medium risk of localised extinction within 50 years.

Modelling outcomes for an infrastructure upgrade through Burleigh Ridge (along the Gold Coast Highway corridor) concluded that it would be likely to have little impact on koala population trends so long as connectivity between koalas on both sides of the Gold Coast Highway transport corridor was maintained and recruitment of animals from outside Burleigh Ridge continued. City officers recommend that fauna connectivity structures and exclusion fencing be considered regardless of infrastructure upgrade commitments.

Recommendations of the report emphasise:

• optimisation and safeguarding of east-west connectivity pathways for the Burleigh Ridge koala population (including at the Pacific Highway) • maintenance of connectivity across the Gold Coast Highway in the instance of any future infrastructure upgrades • continued monitoring of the Burleigh Heads koala population with additional genetic research to better understand population dynamics • a coordinated approach regarding koala releases into the Burleigh Ridge koala population.

It is proposed that the recommendations from the 2020 Burleigh Koala Report are incorporated into the next implementation plan review for the Koala Conservation Plan to enhance existing actions. This report is proposed to be shared with key internal and external stakeholders to inform decision making for future planning and conservation actions associated with the Burleigh Ridge koala population.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 674 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

16 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

1 That Council notes the Biolink Burleigh Ridge koala survey data analysis & Population Viability Analysis report and its recommendations. 2 That Council supports the use of the Biolink Burleigh Ridge koala survey data analysis & Population Viability Analysis report to inform future planning and conservation actions including infrastructure upgrades in the Burleigh study area in consultation with stakeholders. 3 That Council supports the integration of recommendations of the Biolink Burleigh Ridge koala survey data analysis & Population Viability report into an updated citywide Koala Conservation Plan – Implementation Plan. 4 That the Priority Species Conservation Team liaises with internal and external infrastructure providers, to develop a plan to improve connectivity of koala habitat in the Burleigh study area.

Author: Authorised by: Alicia Powell Alisha Swain Senior Conservation Officer Director Economy, Planning & Environment Priority Species Conservation 8 March 2021 Objective A55917960 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 675 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 7 (CONTINUED) BURLEIGH RIDGE KOALA SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS & POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS CE196/430/01/01(P3)

Committee Recommendation Adopted at Council 23 March 20201

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.006 moved Cr Hammel seconded Cr PC Young

CARRIED

ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 23 MARCH 2021 RESOLUTION G21.0323.020 moved Cr McDonald seconded Cr Owen-Jones

That Committee Recommendation PE21.0318.006 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:-

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 676 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

ATTACHMENT 1 (Page 1 of 46) Burleigh Ridge koala survey data analysis & Population Viability Analysis

Final Report to City of Gold Coast May 2020

Revised August 2020 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 677 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Table of contents

Executive Summary ...... 5

Part 1 – Introduction ...... 7

1.1 Introduction ...... 8

1.2 Focal area ...... 8

1.3 Previous studies and surveys ...... 9

1.4 Objectives ...... 10

1.5 Structure of this report ...... 10

Part 2 – Koala survey data analysis ...... 11

2.1 Methodology ...... 12

2.1.1 Field surveys ...... 12

2.1.2 Data analysis ...... 12

(i) Koala activity ...... 12

(i) Koala density and population estimates ...... 13

(ii) Temporal changes in koala density, habitat utilisation and significant activity ...... 13

2.2 Results ...... 13

2.2.1 Koala habitat availability ...... 14

2.2.2 Koala habitat utilisation and activity...... 14

2.2.3 Koala density and population size estimates ...... 16

2.2.4 Temporal changes in koala density, habitat utilisation and significant activity ...... 16

2.3 Key outcomes ...... 19

Part 3 – Population prognosis and derived PVA baseline input parameters ...... 20

3.1 Objective ...... 21

3.2 Population prognosis ...... 21

3.3 Baseline input parameters ...... 21

3.3.1 Single or multiple populations? ...... 21

3.3.2 Scenario settings ...... 21

3.3.3 Species description ...... 21

3.3.4 Dispersal ...... 22

3.3.5 Reproductive system ...... 22

Page | 2

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 678 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

3.3.6 Reproductive rates ...... 22

3.3.7 Mortality rates ...... 23

3.3.8 Catastrophes ...... 23

3.3.9 Mate monopolisation ...... 24

3.3.10 Initial population size ...... 24

3.3.11 Carrying capacity (K) ...... 24

3.3.12 Harvest ...... 25

3.3.13 Supplementation ...... 25

3.3.14 Genetics ...... 25

Part 4 – Population Viability Analysis scenarios and outputs ...... 26

4.1 Objective ...... 27

4.2 Baseline scenarios ...... 27

4.2.1 Baseline PVA without recruitment ...... 27

4.2.2 Baseline PVA with recruitment ...... 29

4.2.3 Baseline PVA with increased reproductive output ...... 30

4.3 Modelled scenarios ...... 31

4.3.1 PVA with changes to mortality ...... 31

4.3.2 PVA with fire ...... 31

4.3.3 PVA with habitat loss ...... 34

4.3.4 PVA with transport infrastructure development and connectivity structures ...... 34

4.3.5 PVA with transport infrastructure development and no connectivity structures .... 37

4.4 Recommendations ...... 39

References ...... 41

Appendix 1 ...... 43

Appendix 2 ...... 46

Cover photo: Rainforest vegetation on the Burleigh Ridge headland; look carefully and you will see a koala on a rock in the middle of the image. The koala was observed jumping from rock to rock as it traversed the terrain; gender undetermined, some large E. tereticornis were located approx. 50 m downslope. Photo: Steve Phillips.

Page | 3 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 679 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description BHA Burleigh Heads Area EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EV Environmental Variation GIS Geographic Information System Ha Hectare K Carrying Capacity LGA Local Government Area NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 NSW New South Wales P(E) Probability of Extinction PVA Population Viability Analysis PKFT Preferred Koala Food Tree PKH Preferred Koala Habitat QLD Queensland SAT Spot Assessment Technique SD Standard Deviation SE Standard Error RE Regional Ecosystem

Acknowledgements

We commend the City of Gold Coast Council (The City) for undertaking this study and acknowledge a number of The City staff for their enthusiasm and support particularly Alicia Powell, Tina Strachan and Josh Bassett.

Page | 4

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 680 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Executive Summary

The Burleigh Ridge koalas are an iconic City of Gold Coast biodiversity asset. As surrounding parts of the Gold Coast have progressively become more intensively developed, with associated increases in vehicle numbers and traffic flow, the density of domestic dogs, habitat loss and other anthropogenic stressors, the Burleigh Ridge koalas have persisted and indeed, even flourished. Field survey results imply a progressive increase in the Burleigh Ridge population from ~ 48 koalas in 2013 to ~ 61 koalas in 2019, supported by commensurate increases in habitat utilisation, with estimates in 2019 (90% of available habitat) statistically higher than that recorded in 2013 (52% of available habitat). Surprisingly perhaps, occupancy of available habitat on Burleigh Ridge is now arguably at the higher end of optimal ecological levels.

This report conducts a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) for Burleigh Ridge koalas, initially utilising 2013 survey data as a baseline; this was done to better understand the mechanisms that may have played a role in recent population trends. The use of this approach confirmed that when considered as a closed population, the Burleigh Ridge koala population progressively declines, with a medium (19%) risk of localised extinction within 50 years. Conversely, with the recruitment of females into the population on a regular basis, extinction is averted. For this reason and confirmed by PVA analysis, we consider that the current trends of population increase and the current estimated population size of 61 individuals to be a direct consequence of ongoing recruitment into the population.

Analysis implies a recruitment minimum of four young female koalas every year over the last six years as providing the best outcome in terms of the growth trend detected by field survey. This notion is supported to some extent by recent genetic studies of the Burleigh Ridge koalas which show evidence of genetic input from populations to the west (i.e. Currumbin-Tallebudgera). Whether by natural process or deliberate introduction, the source of recruits remains speculative. PVA modelling also demonstrates that the same result could be achieved by increasing the reproductive output of breeding females in the Burleigh Ridge population, such as may be achieved by large scale vaccinations, however this process carries intrinsic risks including inbreeding and has a range of logistical disadvantages, not least of which is cost.

Revised input parameters involving the ongoing recruitment of four adult females annually were subsequently used as the baseline for all ensuing scenarios, with outcomes displayed for the same modelling inputs without recruitment for comparison purposes. Scenarios involving changes to mortality as may arise from changes in the rates of domestic dog attack, vehicle strike etc. were not included as such considerations were already embedded in mortality data input parameters, and to this end it would require a substantive change in these factors to materially affect population outcomes. Modelled scenarios included the impacts of fire and the implications arising from potential future transport infrastructure traversing the study area and associated landscape connectivity matters. Modelling the impacts of fire revealed that increases in the frequency and severity of fire needed to be substantive, for example fires every five years and declines of 70% in survival and Page | 5

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 681 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA reproduction, in order for the population to be at high risk of extinction. Given the urban landscape setting and a likely prompt fire response by authorities, we consider this circumstance unlikely. PVA modelling of future transport infrastructure along the Gold Coast Highway evidenced little impact on population trends so long as connectivity between koalas on both sides of the Highway / transport infrastructure was maintained and recruitment of animals from outside Burleigh Ridge continued.

Three primary recommendations arising from the project focus firstly on the need to maximise and consolidate east-west connectivity options for the Burleigh Ridge koalas, the intent of which is to enable ongoing recruitment from other populations in Tallebudgera and Currumbin Valleys, in the absence of which they will decline. The second recommendation goes to the importance of ongoing monitoring of population numbers and genetics; the current field-based monitoring regime and associated results have proved invaluable in terms of both informing and enabling refinement of the PVA process. A final recommendation is recognition of the importance of maintaining connectivity across the Gold Coast Highway in the instance of transport infrastructure development, knowledge of which should inform the transport upgrade.

Page | 6

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 682 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Part 1 – Introduction

Page | 7

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 683 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

1.1 Introduction

The koala is Australia’s largest arboreal marsupial folivore and a globally recognised, iconic mammal. Restricted to eastern areas of the Australian continent, the koala’s distribution extends from far north- eastern Queensland (QLD) to the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia (Strahan and Van Dyck 2008). The koala is currently listed as a vulnerable species for purposes of the QLD Government’s Nature Conservation (NC) Act 1992 and the Commonwealth Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.

Within the City of Gold Coast Local Government Area (hereafter referred to as The City LGA), Burleigh Ridge is one of only three1 remaining koala populations that occur to the east of the Pacific Motorway (Biolink 2007; Ecosure 2013; City of Gold Coast 2017). The Burleigh Ridge koalas are an iconic local biodiversity asset, having persisted as surrounding parts of The City have become progressively more intensively developed. Such development typically results in greater vehicle numbers and traffic flow, increases in the density of domestic dogs, habitat loss and other anthropogenic stressors, all of which can manifest in increased disease prevalence and its associated lowered reproductive rate and (typically) population decline. Following field assessments in 2013 (Ecosure 2013) and 2015 (the City of Gold Coast [The City]), the Koala Conservation Plan for Burleigh Ridge 2015-2019 was created (Strachan et al. 2015). Further, The City identified Burleigh Ridge as a priority area for the purposes of their Koala Conservation Plan (City of Gold Coast 2017). Priority areas contain patches of high-quality koala habitat that support and sustain long established koala populations; however, these areas are also recognised as being susceptible to the major threatening processes affecting koala populations across The City LGA. In contrast, the recently developed Draft South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024 (Queensland Government 2019) does not recognise Burleigh Ridge as a priority koala area.

1.2 Focal area

To align with terminology used in The City Koala Conservation Plan (City of Gold Coast 2017), the focal area for this report is herein referred to as Burleigh Ridge2. Defined by Ecosure (2013), the focal area is “… bound by Tallebudgera Creek (east), the Pacific Motorway (south), Bermuda Street (west), Reedy Creek road (north), and the Pacific Ocean (north-east)” (Figure 1.1).

Recent koala habitat mapping by Biolink (2019) indicates that ~ 135 ha (of ~175 ha mapped vegetation) warranted classification as Preferred Koala Habitat (PKH) because it contained the following Preferred Koala Food Tree Species (PKFTS): Eucalyptus microcorys (tallowwood), E. tereticornis (forest red gum) and/or E. propinqua (grey gum). This estimate of PKH is based on current Regional Ecosystem (RE)

1 The other two remaining areas being Coomera-Pimpama and Helensvale-Coombabah-Parkwood. 2 Burleigh Heads Area (BHA) in Ecosure (2013). Page | 8 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 684 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA mapping (Neldner et al. 2017) and therefore does not include un-mapped areas of PKH and/or individual PKFTS that may be present in residential backyards.

Figure 1.1 Location of the Burleigh Ridge focal area. Inset shows the location of the focal area in the City Local Government Area.

1.3 Previous studies and surveys

An assessment of 25 field survey sites and 12 associated transect searches by Ecosure (2013) concluded that Burleigh Ridge supported an estimated population size of ~ 48 individuals. These individuals were in turn found to be utilising ~ 52% of available habitat, with ~ 24% of this habitat deemed to be occupied by resident animals.

In 2015 and 2017, The City conducted an assessment of 13 randomly selected sites from those established in 2013. Findings from these assessments implied a trend of increasing koala density, habitat utilisation and extent of occupancy by resident populations. In 2019, a comprehensive assessment was again carried out by Council officers. This assessment included the re-sampling of all 25 sites established as part of the 2013 survey, plus an additional six new sites. The results of this most recent survey event, in combination with recommendations stemming from a City-wide koala monitoring report (Biolink 2019) led to The City initiating the current project as outlined below.

Page | 9

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 685 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

1.4 Objectives

The purpose of the current project is to:

• Synthesise and undertake statistical analysis of field survey data from all four of the preceding monitoring events (2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019) to consolidate knowledge in terms of the following: o Koala density and population size, o Koala distribution, and o Habitat utilisation, activity and occupancy. • Examine trends in koala distribution, habitat use and abundance between all four monitoring events (where applicable), • Undertake a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) for a range of ecological and landscape management scenarios, and • Provide recommendations for future conservation and land use planning and development.

1.5 Structure of this report

Following on from this Introduction (Part 1), the report includes the following components:

• Part 2. Provides the requested analysis and comparison of field survey data for Burleigh Ridge; • Part 3. Details the baseline input parameters to be used to inform the PVA process; and • Part 4. Details the scenarios and outputs from the PVA and informs future management and conservation planning about the potential response of the Burleigh Ridge koala population to a range of hypothetical circumstances.

Page | 10

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 686 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Part 2 – Koala survey data analysis

Page | 11

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 687 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

2.1 Methodology

2.1.1 Field surveys

Overlain onto The City’s koala habitat mapping layer, in 2013 a series of 25 baseline monitoring sites were established and surveyed across Burleigh Ridge using a 250 m x 250 m grid3 (Ecosure 2013) to sample an effective habitat area of 156.25 ha (25 x 6.25 ha).

Since 2013, The City has conducted three subsequent field survey assessments as follows:

i. 2015 - 13 randomly selected sites from the 25 baseline monitoring sites, ii. 2017 - 13 randomly selected sites from the 25 baseline monitoring sites, and iii. 2019 - all 25 baseline monitoring sites, six new4 monitoring sites within Burleigh Ridge and three new ‘of interest’ sites outside of Burleigh Ridge.

All monitoring sites and events were assessed using the Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) protocols of Phillips & Callaghan (2011), with direct count data obtained by counting koalas within 25 m fixed radius searches centrally located around each sampling point / field site, as well as within site-based strip transects approximately 250 m x 40 m (1 ha).

2.1.2 Data analysis

This component of the report focuses on two aspects: (i) a considered review, analysis and summary of field survey data (i.e. 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019) and (ii) temporal comparisons between monitoring events.

(i) Koala activity

Koala ‘activity’ for each SAT site surveyed was obtained by dividing the number of trees that scored positive for koala scats by the total number of trees for that site.

Koala activity data from field sites was interpolated using thin-plate splining techniques5 enacted through the spatial analyst extension in ArcGIS 10.5. To assist this process, null (zero activity) sites were incorporated into the modelling process at ~ 250 m intervals to delineate distributional and/or dispersal barriers such as water bodies and/or large expanses devoid of trees, or otherwise at a distance outside the focal area concordant with 50% of the sampling interval, this latter process being done to contain the splining process. Splining output was then utilised to produce an activity contour model to delineate areas occupied by resident koala populations by identifying those contours

3 A sampling intensity of 250 m intervals represents habitat blocks of 6.25 ha. 4 All new sites aligned with the 250 m baseline monitoring grid. 5 Regularised spline using default weighting parameters. Page | 12

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 688 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA concordant with the significant activity thresholds detailed in Table 2.1. Lower order activity contours were included in the activity model to assist coarser interpretations of connectivity.

Table 2.1 Categorisations of koala activity based on use of mean activity level ± 99% confidence intervals. Activity levels in the medium (normal) and high use range for east coast (low) activity categories indicates occupancy by resident koala populations (Source: modified (by authors) from Table 2 in Phillips and Callaghan 2011).

Activity category Low use Medium (normal) use High use

East Coast (low) < 9.97% ≥ 9.97% but ≤ 12.59% > 12.59%

(i) Koala density and population estimates

Estimates of koala density were derived during each monitoring event using direct counts of koalas within prescribed transect search areas (sensu Dique et al. 2003). Density estimates could then be applied in conjunction with understandings on the extent of PKH in order to derive a koala population estimate.

(ii) Temporal changes in koala density, habitat utilisation and significant activity

For the purpose of testing for temporal changes in density, habitat utilisation and extent of significant activity, we considered the 2013 and 2019 events to be most relevant6 given they offered data that approximated that of the most recent koala generation.

Given a primary interest in the directional change of utilisation measures, we considered results provided by a one-tailed t-test to better reflect the potential for statistically significant change in koala activity between the two time periods. In contrast, utilisation and occupancy estimates are not typically normally distributed, to which end we used a Chi-square test to compare differences between the two time periods.

2.2 Results

Field surveys have been undertaken across Burleigh Ridge over the following time periods. Note that the number of sites and sampled habitat area relates to SAT methodology.

Table 2.2 Field survey details. Sampled habitat area refers to implementation of a 2.5 km x 2.5 km grid.

Survey Team Dates No. sites Sampled habitat area Ecosure 23rd May – 14th June 2013 25 156.25 ha (25 x 6.25 ha) City of Gold Coast 23rd – 27th November 2015 13 81.25 ha (13 x 6.25 ha) City of Gold Coast 20th July – 3rd August 2017 13 81.25 ha (13 x 6.25 ha)

6 Estimates from 2015 and 2017 have been incorporated (where appropriate) for illustration purposes; however, these represent intra-generational timeframes. Page | 13

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 689 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

City of Gold Coast 8th April – 16th May 2019 31 193.75 ha (31 x 6.25 ha)

2.2.1 Koala habitat availability

A combination of sites from 2013 and 2019 (excluding replicates) resulted in 36 ‘potential’ sampling sites. Of these, 27 sites (or 75%) contained PKFTs, and were subsequently identified as areas of Preferred Koala Habitat deemed to be PKH.

2.2.2 Koala habitat utilisation and activity

(i) 2013

Evidence of koalas was recorded at thirteen of the 25 sites, an outcome which translates to an overall habitat utilisation estimate for koalas across the area covered of 52.00% ± 10.20% (SE) of the available habitat, with activity levels from 3.33% – 70.58% (Mean activity level (active sites only): 17.12% ± 5.45% (SE)).

Koala activity levels in seven of 25 sites qualified as ‘Medium’ or ‘High Use’, thus indicating that 28.00% ± 8.98% of sampled habitat was supporting resident koala populations.

(ii) 2015

Evidence of koalas was recorded at nine of the 13 sites, an outcome which translates to an overall habitat utilisation estimate for koalas across the area covered of 69.23% ± 13.32% (SE) of the available habitat, with activity levels from 3.33% – 100% (Mean activity level (active sites only): 39.63% ± 10.58% (SE)).

Koala activity levels in seven of 13 sites qualified as ‘Medium’ or ‘High Use’, thus indicating that 53.85% ± 14.39% of sampled habitat was supporting resident koala populations.

(iii) 2017

Evidence of koalas was recorded at 10 of the 13 sites, an outcome which translates to an overall habitat utilisation estimate for koalas across the area covered of 76.92% ± 12.16% (SE) of the available habitat, with activity levels from 6.67% – 60.00% (Mean activity level (active sites only): 20.67% ± 4.84% (SE)).

Koala activity levels in seven of 13 sites qualified as ‘Medium’ or ‘High Use’, thus indicating that 53.85% ± 13.32% of sampled habitat was supporting resident koala populations.

(iv) 2019 - Resampled 2013 sites only

Evidence of koalas was recorded at 22 of the 25 re-sampled sites, an outcome which translates to an overall habitat utilisation estimate for koalas across the area covered of 88% ± 6.63% (SE) of the

Page | 14

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 690 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA available habitat, with activity levels from 6.67% – 56.67% (Mean activity level (active sites only): 26.06% ± 3.41% (SE)).

Koala activity levels in 19 of 25 sites qualified as ‘Medium’ or ‘High Use’, thus indicating that 76.00% ± 8.72% of sampled habitat was supporting resident koala populations.

(v) 2019 - All sites

Evidence of koalas was recorded at 28 of the 31 sampled field sites, an outcome which translates to an overall habitat utilisation estimate for koalas across the area covered by the field survey of 90.32% ± 5.40% (SE) of the available habitat, with activity levels from 3.33% – 56.67% (Mean activity level (active sites only): 26.19% ± 3.22% (SE)).

Twenty-four of the 31 field sites qualified as ‘Medium’ or ‘High Use’, thus indicating that 77.42% ± 7.63% of the sampled habitat was supporting resident koala populations.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the resulting distribution of koala activity following splining and contouring of activity data from the 2019 survey event7.

Figure 2.1 Koala meta-population model boundaries derived for the Burleigh Ridge Koala Population in 2019.

7 Site-specific data and data sheets are maintained by The City. Page | 15

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 691 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

2.2.3 Koala density and population size estimates

Density estimates were calculated using strip transect survey data arising from each monitoring event. SAT radial survey data (25m2 from central tree) can also be used to generate density estimates however in this case and because of the smaller numbers of sites that were sampled, strip transect searches covered larger areas and thus enabled more accurate density estimates. . Parameters and outcomes are provided in Table 2.3.

A population estimate for Burleigh Ridge was calculated using the 2019 density estimate. The sampled habitat area for 2019 (193.75 ha) was refined using estimates of PKH availability (75%) to provide a more representative estimate. The resulting population size based on 145.31 ha of PKH and a density of 0.42 koalas ha-1 can be estimated at ~ 61 koalas. Using this same approach, the resulting population estimate for 2013 was ~ 48 individuals, thus giving us two points of reference of potential relevance to the PVA exercise.

Table 2.3 Koala density estimates derived using strip transect and SAT radial survey methods over four monitoring periods across Burleigh Ridge. Density estimates derived from strip transects represent a refinement of SAT radial search results and were preferentially utilized.

Transect n No. Search area Density estimate Year type koalas (ha) (koalas ha-1 ± SE) Strip- 12 4 12.00 0.33 ± 0.14 2013 transect Radial (SAT) 25 1 4.91 0.20 ± 0.18 Strip- 6 2 4.75 0.42 ± 0.20 2015 transect Radial (SAT) 13 1 2.55 0.39 ± 0.3 Strip- 6 3 3.92 0.77 ± 0.17 2017 transect Radial (SAT) 13 2 2.55 0.78 ± 0.26 Strip- 12 6 14.30 0.42 ± 0.14 2019 transect Radial (SAT) 25 1 4.91 0.20 ± 0.18

2.2.4 Temporal changes in koala density, habitat utilisation and significant activity

Estimates of density between monitoring events indicated the following trends (Figure 2.2):

• No significant difference in koala density between the 2013 and 2019 monitoring events, and • No significant difference between all four monitoring events, despite the trend towards a higher estimate arising from the 2017 survey data.

Page | 16

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 692 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Koala density (koalas/ha)

0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Survey year

Figure 2.2. Changes in koala density estimates over four monitoring events (2013 – 2019) completed across the Burleigh Ridge focal area. Density estimates are plotted with two standard errors, the overlap of which between years indicates no significant difference across all monitoring events.

A comparison between the 2013 and 2019 (re-sample sites and all-sites) survey periods yielded the following results for habitat utilisation, average activity levels, and extent of habitat being occupied by resident koalas (see Table 2.4 for statistical test results):

• A statistically significant increase in the proportion of habitat being utilised by koalas from 2013 (60%) to 2019 re-sampled sites (88%) (Figure 2.3), • No statistically significant difference in average koala activity levels (active sites only) from 2013 (17.12%) to 2019 re-sampled sites (26%) or 2019 all-sites (26%). • A statistically significant increase in the extent of habitat being occupied by resident koalas from 2013 (24%) to 2019 re-sampled sites (76%) and 2019 all-sites (77%) (Figure 2.4).

Table 2.4 Results of statistical tests comparing koala habitat utilisation, average activity, and the extent of habitat occupied by resident koalas (significant activity) in Burleigh Ridge from 2013 to 2019.

Parameter Test result Habitat utilisation Chi-square = 7.7143; P = 0.005

Koala activity levels t = -1.47, 33df, P = 0.08 Significant activity Chi-square = 11.5385; P = 0.0007

Page | 17

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 693 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Habitatutlisation (proportion)

0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Survey year

Figure 2.3. Changes in koala habitat utilisation over four monitoring periods (2013 – 2019) across Burleigh Ridge. Data implies a steady increase across monitoring events, resulting in an overall significant increase from 2013 to 2019. Note: data used in this figure for 2019 represents only sites re-sampled from 2013 (n = 25). Estimates are plotted with two standard errors.

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5 (%) 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Sampled habitatsupporting resident koalas 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Survey year

Figure 2.4. Changes in the percentage equivalent proportional amount of habitat supporting resident koalas over four monitoring periods (2013 – 2019) across Burleigh Ridge. Data implies a steady increase across monitoring events, resulting in an overall significant increased from 2013 to 2019. Note: data used in this figure for 2019 represents only sites re-samples from 2013 (n = 25). Estimates are plotted with two standard errors.

Page | 18

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 694 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

2.3 Key outcomes

The 2019 field survey data indicates high measures of habitat utilisation by koalas across Burleigh Ridge, with the majority (~77%) of activity indicative of the presence of resident koala populations. Key outcomes are summarised below.

• Based on a consideration of site data from 2013 and 2019 (excluding replicates), ~ 75% of habitat across Burleigh Ridge can be classified as PKH by virtue of the presence of PKFTs. • Habitat utilization has increased steadily since 2013, with estimates in 2019 (90% of available habitat) now statistically higher than that recorded in 2013 (52% of available habitat). Similarly, resident koala populations now occupy a significantly greater proportion of Burleigh Ridge PKH (77%) when compared to 2013 (24%). • The 2019 occupancy of approximately 77% of available habitat on Burleigh Ridge is arguably at the higher end of optimal ecological levels, which has been otherwise estimated to be around 50% of available habitat8. • All four density estimates obtained for Burleigh Ridge since 2013 are above average when compared to previous city-wide estimates of 0.09 to 0.11 koalas ha-1 (Biolink 2007). • A density estimate of 0.42 koalas ha-1 in 2019 indicates a corresponding population size estimate of 61 koalas for Burleigh Ridge.

8 Phillips, S., et al. (submitted). Manuscript Submitted to Landscape and Urban Planning. Page | 19

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 695 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Part 3 – Population prognosis and derived PVA baseline input parameters

Page | 20

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 696 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

3.1 Objective

The purpose of this Part is to detail the baseline input parameters required to inform the PVA process in Part 4.

3.2 Population prognosis

The preceding information (Part 2) indicates the presence of a koala population that appears to be at the higher end of the available habitat’s optimal carrying capacity (~ 77% of available PKH occupied by resident koalas). The Burleigh Ridge population appears to have been increasing over recent ecological time, with intra-generational evidence of lower numbers in 2013 as part of this current monitoring project, and indications of a lower population estimate in 2006 (Biolink 2007). As such the current long-term prognosis for the Burleigh Ridge population is retrospectively positive; hence, ongoing management to maintain this circumstance is important, as is ensuring a sustainable and genetically robust population that does not exceed the carrying capacity. The latter will be an important consideration in the event of mitigation that reduces the potential for vehicle-strike along the Pacific Motorway and Gold Coast Highway.

3.3 Baseline input parameters

3.3.1 Single or multiple populations?

Consistent with findings in 2013, population modeling in 2019 identified four main clusters of koala activity across the Burleigh Ridge focal area. Based on knowledge detailed in previous parts of this report, we consider all population cells in the current landscape configuration (Fig. 2.1 refers) to be in contact throughout. Thus, for baseline PVA modelling purposes we propose that the Burleigh Ridge population be regarded as a single population.

Based on available knowledge and the requirements of Vortex Version 10 (6th January 2020 update) the following baseline input parameters are proposed:

3.3.2 Scenario settings

Outcomes to be informed using a minimum of 500 iterations over a 50-year timeframe, with extinction defined as only 1 sex remaining.

3.3.3 Species description

(i) Inbreeding Depression

Previous genetic analysis indicates that there is no current evidence of inbreeding in the Burleigh koala population (Seddon 2016). We do not consider that any potential exists that would warrant inbreeding depression being incorporated for baseline PVA modelling purposes.

Page | 21

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 697 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

(ii) Environmental Variance (EV) concordance

EV concordance (the relationship between environmental fluctuations and population thriftiness or vitality) should be confirmed.

3.3.4 Dispersal

Not required for baseline PVA input parameter purposes for a single population.

3.3.5 Reproductive system

• The koala’s reproductive system/life history strategy is polygynous. • Age of first offspring for Females: 2 • Age of first offspring for Males: 4 • Maximum age of reproduction (male and female): 10 • Maximum lifespan: 12 • Maximum number of broods year-1: 1 • Maximum number of progeny brood-1: 1 • Sex ratio at birth in % males: 50 • Make offspring dependent on dam for 1 year: Yes (box checked)

(i) Density Dependent Reproduction

Investigations of factors influencing koala population demographics required to inform PVA assessment of the Ballina koalas (Phillips et al. 2015), identified that variation in the numbers of koalas known to have died from disease over the period 1989 – 2014 reflected a cyclical phenomenon over an ~ 15-year period when considered at a landscape scale. Moreover, peaks in the cycle appeared independent of climatic considerations, while levels of incidental mortalities remained relatively constant over the time period between the two peaks. This outcome, interpreted as a sinusoidal function of disease related mortalities, is consistent with the role of disease as a density-dependent regulator of population growth. Regardless and because of the relatively small population size on Burleigh Ridge, we considered any influence of density dependent reproduction in Burleigh Ridge to be accounted for in mortality estimates and the EV for % Adult Females Breeding (see below).

3.3.6 Reproductive rates

(i) % Adult females breeding

Based on data collected for purposes of the PVA for East Coomera and Parkwood-Coombabah (Biolink 2017a, 2017b), the reproductive rate used was 100% ± 20% (EV).

(ii) Distribution of broods per year

Page | 22

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 698 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

The breeding rate for adult female koalas was set at 53% having one brood and 47% having zero broods based on previous investigations and detailed work undertaken by The City for the East Coomera Koala Conservation Project (2010-14). This value was also used for the East Coomera and Parkwood-Coombabah PVA process (Biolink 2017a, 2017b).

(iii) Specify the distribution of number of offspring per female per brood

Normal distribution with a mean of 1 offspring per female per brood, with no SD value.

3.3.7 Mortality rates

In the absence of site-specific mortality rates or detailed population demographics for Burleigh Ridge, estimates of mortality were used from the aforementioned assessment conducted in Ballina (Northern NSW) by Phillips et al. (2015). Based on the outcomes of this assessment, the following baseline mortality rates are detailed in Table 3.1, with the associated standard deviations (SD) estimated on the basis of the Coefficient of Variation of 59.06% determined from an analysis of mortality data (see Phillips et al. 2015 for more detailed information).

Table 3.1. Baseline mortality rates and associated standard deviations used for the Burleigh Ridge Population Viability Analysis. Estimates are based on an assessment of population demographics in Ballina (Northern NSW) (Phillips et al. 2015). Koala age was determined using tooth-wear classes of Gordon (1991).

Age (years) P(%) SD Age (years) P(%) SD Females Males 0-1 19.7 11.63 0-1 19.45 11.49 1-2 19.7 11.63 1-2 19.45 11.49 2+ 7.00 4.42 2-3 30.56 18.05 3-4 4.30 2.54 4+ 4.00 2.53

3.3.8 Catastrophes

The primary catastrophe incorporated as a baseline input parameter was fire. Recent fire-scar mapping for 2019 provided by The City and online fire mapping since 20019, indicates no catastrophic fire event within Burleigh Ridge over the past two decades. Without any additional data, we thus assessed the baseline probability of a significant fire event (although likely to be conservative) within Burleigh Ridge to be 1 in every 20 years (i.e. a frequency of ~ 0.05).

9 Source: (NASA 2020). Fire Information for Resource Management System, available at: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#z:3;c:0.0,0.0;d:2020-02-10..2020-02-11 Page | 23

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 699 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Given the focal area’s urban landscape setting and a likely prompt fire response by authorities to any fire outbreak, we consider the most recent fire event in 2019 – a hazard reduction burn which impacted 6.12 ha (or 8.89%) of the estimated 145.31 ha of available PKH – to be representative of potential fire impacts. Given this knowledge, we considered the geographic extent of such an event for baseline purposes to be set at 10% of the available PKH, with impacts on reproduction and survival also considered low and likely to be applicable to ~ 6-7 individual koalas (proportional estimates: 0.10 and 0.10 respectively).

3.3.9 Mate monopolisation

Based on a four-year study by Ellis and Bercovitch (2011), genetic data identified ~ 37% of males as successful sires, the lower number (as a function of all sexually mature males) a direct consequence of koala male-dominance hierarchies. Without the addition of any site-specific data, we propose that male reproductive success to be rounded down to 35% for baseline input purposes.

3.3.10 Initial population size

To enable some independent modelling validation of current trends, we commenced the PVA with a 2013 population size estimate of 48 individuals, rather than the 2019 estimate of ~ 61 individuals. The use of this earlier starting date and associated population size thus enabled insight into the PVA output by requiring associated output in 2019 (i.e. 6 years on) to mirror that of available knowledge.

The estimate of 48 individuals was calculated using the following data:

• Koala density of 0.33 koalas ha-1 in 2013 • Sampled habitat area for 2019 (193.75 ha); and • The best estimate of PKH availability using a combination of sites from 2013 and 2019 (excluding replicates). The resulting amount of PKH (from 193.75 ha) = 145.31 ha.

3.3.11 Carrying capacity (K)

On the basis of information provided in Part 2 of this report, we have calculated a notional upper limit estimate of 79 koalas for Burleigh Ridge, an outcome which would apply if all available habitat were to be fully occupied. This is based on a population estimate of 61, in which approximately 77% of available koala habitat is currently occupied by resident koalas.

It is important to note that although a maximum carrying capacity of 79 (100% occupancy) is suitable for use in the PVA modelling process, reports wherein populations have been assessed at demographic equilibrium imply that approximately 50% of available habitat will be occupied at any one point in order to accommodate population dynamics and growth, minimise issues related to overcrowding (i.e. stress, disease etc.) and enable recovery following future stochastic events (e.g. Phillips and Forsman 2005; Phillips, Hopkins and Callaghan 2007; Phillips and Allen 2014). To this end, it is of particular relevance that detailed assessments in East Coomera (2006/07) and Coombabah (2006/07 and 2017)

Page | 24

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 700 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA identified occupancy rates of 52.5%, 52%, and 55.9%, respectively. As a result, we propose that the koala population at demographic equilibrium in Burleigh Ridge would ideally comprise ~ 43 koalas, which corresponds to the average recorded occupancy rate (53.47%) across all three focal areas.

Transect data from 2019 were used to estimate the EV for K. This was calculated using 10 randomly generated subsets of six transects (from 12), whereby the Standard Deviation (SD) across all 10 density estimates was used (= 0.165). The resulting SD for EV purposes = 24 koalas.

(i) Future change in K

Outside of any scenario modelling listed below, we propose that this parameter be left unchecked (i.e. a zero change in K) for the purposes of baseline PVA modelling purposes.

3.3.12 Harvest

No harvest is envisaged for the purposes of baseline input parameters.

3.3.13 Supplementation

No population supplementation program currently exists for baseline input parameters.

3.3.14 Genetics

No studbook exists for the free-ranging Burleigh koala population, so this box was left unchecked. We incorporated allele frequencies from 30 neutral nuclear loci, using the output of genetic analysis by Seddon (2015) as provided to us by The City. This was included in PVA to accurately represent the initial allele frequencies within the baseline and additional modelled scenarios, so as to produce a more precise estimate of genetic variation within the population. The number of neutral nuclear loci to be modelled was therefore set to 30, with loci to be included in summary statistics set at ‘all loci’. No loci were subject to mutation. No genetic management program currently exists for the purposes of baseline input parameters.

Page | 25

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 701 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Part 4 – Population Viability Analysis scenarios and outputs

Page | 26

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 702 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

4.1 Objective

The objective of this Part of the report is to inform future management about the potential response of the Burleigh Ridge koala population to a series of hypothetical and stochastically-themed scenarios as follows:

• Implications of changes to mortality rates arising from anthropogenic related factors such as domestic dog attack, vehicle-strike, disease etc.; • Changes to female reproductive output; • Impact of wildfire; • Loss of peripheral koala habitat; • Implications arising from potential future transport infrastructure traversing the study area; and • Changes in landscape connectivity affecting recruitment and dispersal processes.

4.2 Baseline scenarios

Outcomes arising from the preceding scenarios must be interpreted in the context of the likely forecast for the population in the absence of such scenarios. For this reason and as alluded to in Part 3, it is important to generate a standardised ‘baseline’ PVA against which all subsequent scenarios are derived and compared. The baseline PVA is primarily informed by the input parameters determined in Part 3 of this report, with all subsequent scenarios manufactured by implementing changes to these baseline input parameters.

In terms of modelling the potential impact of various scenarios on PVA output, it is also important to recognise that changes in baseline input parameters must typically be substantive (i.e. beyond the inherent SD / EV values typically varied in each Vortex iteration). It is also pertinent that the capacity of Vortex to reliably inform on population trends over time becomes increasingly problematical with temporal distance from the designated starting point. For these reasons we advocate that forecasts beyond a 2 – 3 koala generational timeframe (~ 20 years) be treated with caution.

With the preceding qualifications in mind, outcomes from the scenarios are as follows:

4.2.1 Baseline PVA without recruitment

Summary of initial input: closed population, no changes to baseline input parameters.

Figure 4.1 illustrates trends when the Burleigh Ridge koala population is considered as a closed population, solely informed by the baseline input parameters. The trend reflects a progressive decline

Page | 27

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 703 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA in the population to an estimated 26 koalas over the 50-year timeframe, with an estimated Probability of Extinction (PE) of 0.17 ± 0.04 (SE) (i.e. 85 of 500 iterations went to extinction over the modelling time frame),

Figure 4.1 Population trend for the Burleigh Ridge koala population based on 500 iterations over a 50-year time frame. Starting population size is 48 individuals as determined in 2013. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

Comment: This modelling outcome is clearly inconsistent with current knowledge regarding the Burleigh Ridge koala population, resulting in a hypothesis that some measure of recruitment is occurring. Support for this hypothesis comes in the form of genetic analysis by Seddon (2016) which confirmed the presence of three animals along the southern border of the Burleigh Ridge showing a genetic profile more akin to animals from the Tallebudgera / Currumbin Valley. It should be noted that these animals were generally subject to vehicle strike along the M1, however this still provides evidence for the movement of koalas from nearby southern and western populations. The mechanism by which on-going recruitment is most likely to be occurring (natural recruitment, jump [human assisted] recruitment and/or deliberate introductions) currently remains speculative. It is of interest that the three animals with genetic profiles akin to the Tallebudgera / Currumbin koala population were in close proximity to the M1 bridge over Tallebudgera Creek which has some habitat connectivity potential. Wildlife carers records made available by the City also suggest that the Scout Hall in Burleigh

Page | 28

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 704 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Ridge has on occasion been used as a release site for koalas, in compliance with wildlife release protocols.

4.2.2 Baseline PVA with recruitment

In order to gain some understanding of the scale of recruitment that may be occurring, we proceeded through a series of progressive PVA models, each time supplementing the population with a simulated recruitment event, commencing with one young male and one young female koala and progressively adding one more animal of both sexes with each subsequent model. Figure 4.2 illustrates the positive influence of the regular (annual) recruitment of young female koalas into the Burleigh Ridge population, the example below based on four females annually. The population trend over the first six years of the PVA output is more consistent with current knowledge about the population trend from 2013 – 19. Importantly, lower numbers of female koalas being recruited on an annual basis does not necessarily precipitate a decline in viability, only a lower population size estimate at the end of the 50-year period. Moreover, if recruitment stops altogether, even with an initially larger population size, a decline is then initiated.

Figure 4.2. Population trends for the Burleigh Ridge koala population based on 500 iterations over a 50-year time frame. Baseline with recruitment trend is the result of the annual recruitment of four young (1 – 2 years old) female koalas. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

Page | 29

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 705 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

4.2.3 Baseline PVA with increased reproductive output

Could an increase in female reproductive rate be responsible for the 2013 – 19 population trends?

Amongst scenarios proposed for consideration were changes to female reproductive output, presumably arising from a vaccination program intended to reduce the perceived negative impacts of disease. To investigate the potential of this consideration to both mirror current knowledge regarding population trends and maintain a measure of long-term viability, we again proceeded through a series of progressive PVA models, each time increasing reproductive output of the females by factors of 5%. This approach revealed the need for a substantive increase in female reproductive output from the current estimate of approximately 50% utilised as the baseline PVA input parameter, to that of a consistent 85% annually (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3. Comparison of population trends arising from the baseline estimated female reproductive output of ~ 50% annually (blue line), with that of 85% annually otherwise required to mirror current knowledge of population trends between 2013 – 19 and afford the population a meaningful measure of long-term viability.

Conclusion: At this point in time and into the foreseeable future, long-term population viability of Burleigh Ridge koala population is entirely reliant upon ongoing recruitment into the population from other areas to the west. Further scrutiny / manipulation of these data demonstrate that it is females, not males that have biggest impact on longer-term population survivorship. It is also noteworthy that

Page | 30

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 706 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA if the recruitment process stops at any point along the modelling timeline, the population begins a steep trajectory of decline.

An increase in female reproductive output to a measure of ~ 85% annually will also result in a short- term growth trend, followed by the surety of longer-term viability. However, if this option was to be pursued, presumably by vaccination, we proffer that it would invariably prove to be logistically and economically unsustainable.

It is also notable that regardless of the mechanism, the 50-year predicted population estimates afforded by the preceding modelling outcomes both settle between 45 and 55 animals, numbers which approximate that which we have proposed as the optimal population size for the amount of available PKH within the Burleigh Ridge focal area.

4.3 Modelled scenarios

To model the impacts on the Burleigh koala population of a variety of potential circumstances, we used the ‘baseline with recruitment’ (outlined in Section 4.4.2) as our input, altering other input values as outlined below.

4.3.1 PVA with changes to mortality

Changes in mortality as may be due to changes in the rates of domestic dog attack, vehicle strike, disease etc., were not modelled. This is because such considerations are already embedded in the analysis of mortality data input parameters, and the associated standard deviations would also accommodate such fluctuations as may occur over time. To this end, it will require substantive change to materially affect PVA outcomes.

4.3.2 PVA with fire

Several fire scenarios were run with incremental increases in both the frequency and severity of fires. Baseline PVA includes a fire every 20 years, which adversely impacts reproduction and survival by 10%. This was incrementally altered, as outlined in Table 4.1.

Page | 31

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 707 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Table 4.1. PVA input accommodating changes to the fire regime, with increasing fire frequency and fire severity as is manifested in % survival and reproduction.

Fire Fire severity – Fire severity - Mean N at Probability frequency survival reproduction year 25 (± SE) extinction

Baseline with recruitment 20 years 90% 90% 61 ± 0.83 (SE) 0.03

Increased fire regime 1 10 years 75% 75% 58 ± 0.81 (SE) 0.02

Increased fire regime 2 7.5 years 50% 50% 47 ± 0.94 (SE) 0.09

Increased fire regime 3 5 years 30% 30% 27 ± 0.85 (SE) 0.55

Output from PVA (Figure 4.4) implies minimal long-term impact of fire if recruitment is maintained and a drastically altered fire regime which would involve a catastrophic fire every five years, is avoided. Such a substantive change to both fire frequency and severity is considered highly unlikely due to the urban landscape context.

Figure 4.4. Comparison of population trends arising from the baseline input with recruitment (blue line) under a range of fire scenarios. Red line shows fire every 10 years with a 25% severity, green line shows fire every 7.5 years with 50% severity and purple line shows fire every 5 years with 70% severity. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

Page | 32

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 708 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

For comparison purposes the scenario incorporating ‘increased fire regime 1’ in Table 4.1, which otherwise displayed minimal impacts of fire, was run without recruitment (Figure 4.5). Output indicates a decline in koala numbers with a P(E) of 0.07 and mean population size estimate of 32 ± 0.82 (SE) koalas at year 25, compared to a P(E) of 0.02 and mean population size estimate of 58 ± 0.81 (SE) at year 25 with the recruitment of four females annually.

Figure 4.5. Comparison of population trends arising for the baseline input with no recruitment (red line) compared to the same scenario including the recruitment of four females annually (blue line), both subject to ‘increased fire regime 1’. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

Conclusion: PVA output does not identify fire as a major threat to the Burleigh koala population. Doubling the estimated baseline fire frequency from one fire every 20 years to one fire every 10 years, with an associated further 15% decrease in survival and reproduction (90% survival and reproduction under the baseline scenario and 75% survival and reproduction under ‘increased fire regime 1’) has only minimal impacts on the estimated mean population size after 25 years, changing from 61 ± 0.83 (SE) to 58 ± 0.81 (SE), with no adverse impact on the probability of extinction. In order to seriously threaten the on-going viability of the Burleigh koala population, fires would need to be at an extremely high frequency (every five years) and with catastrophic impacts on survival and reproduction. Alternatively, a smaller increase in fire intensity may become problematic in the absence of the ongoing recruitment of young female koalas into the population.

Page | 33

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 709 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

4.3.3 PVA with habitat loss

Peripheral habitat around Burleigh Ridge is not mapped at this time which makes this scenario difficult to quantify. However, we estimate that the amount of such vegetation is proportionally very small in the context of the ~175 ha of vegetation, including ~135 ha PKH, currently mapped within Burleigh Ridge. The loss of such peripheral habitat would thus be unlikely to significantly impact local population trends. This applies to habitat in a general sense and it is acknowledged that some habitat may be critical for connectivity - the removal of this specific habitat will have greater impacts. Reducing K by ~5% to exemplify the loss of some peripheral habitat does not materially change population outcomes or reliance upon recruitment.

4.3.4 PVA with transport infrastructure development and connectivity structures

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) has undertaken a Multi-modal Corridor Study between Burleigh Heads and Tugan to develop an updated transport strategy for this corridor. One outcome of this study was the proposal to implement transport upgrades along the existing Gold Coast Highway alignment, including that part of it which traverses the Burleigh Ridge. There is discussion whether such upgrades would incorporate koala exclusion fencing or connectivity structures such as over / underpasses and as such we model this scenario both with and without these features.

In this scenario we include the approximate loss of 0.6 ha of habitat (equivalent to 0.44% of Burleigh Ridge habitat) along the road verge over a two-year period to reflect the probable maximum impacts of transport infrastructure construction. This was achieved by making changes to the input parameters for Carrying Capacity (K), checking the box for ‘future change in K’ and specifying a 0.22% decrease in carrying capacity each year for two consecutive years.

The modelling of incomplete separation of koalas north-east and south-west of the Gold Coast Highway in Burleigh Ridge reflects the potential use of exclusion fencing around the Highway alignment and potential transport infrastructure, in conjunction with the implementation of koala connectivity structures. This scenario changes the input parameters in a range of ways, most notably increasing it from a one to two population system within the Scenario Settings. We refer to these as the north-eastern and south-western populations hereafter, reflecting the locality of each in relation to the current Highway alignment (Figure 4.6). Using the amount of habitat on each side of the Highway in conjunction with the 2019 density estimate of 0.42 koalas ha-1, this equates to an Initial Population Size of ~11 koalas in the north-eastern population and ~50 koalas in the south-western population. Carrying Capacity (K) was also modified to reflect this change in the amount of available habitat, with K = 14 set for the north-eastern population and K = 65 for the south-western population. Recruitment (Supplementation) of new animals from outside the system was set to occur only into Page | 34

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 710 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA the south-western population, keeping the same rate as used previously (four females annually). Changing to a two population system allowed the Dispersal settings to become accessible, where it was specified that this process was to occur in koalas of both sexes aged 1 -3 years, to reflect known dispersal patterns (Dique et al. 2003). Survival of dispersers was set to 100% (as Mortality settings already account for higher mortality of dispersing-age animals) with 10% of animals in each applicable age class dispersing north-east to south-west annually, along with a converse movement of 10% of animals in each specified age-class dispersing from the south-west to north-east annually. Dispersal was set to not occur into populations which had already reached their carrying capacity.

Figure 4.6. The separation of Burleigh Ridge into two populations, namely north-eastern (blue outline) and south-western (green outline) resulting from upgrades along the Gold Coast Highway.

The outcome of analysis is the likely survival of both populations; south-western population P(E) = 0 and mean population size estimate 63 ± 0.11 (SE) at year 25; north-eastern population P(E) = 0.001 and mean population size estimate 13 ± 0.04 (SE) at year 25 (Figure 4.7).

Page | 35

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 711 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Figure 4.7. Population trends arising from the extension of transport infrastructure along the Gold Coast Highway through Burleigh Ridge. The metapopulation is shown in green, the south-western population is shown in red and the north-eastern population is shown in blue. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

For comparison purposes, the same analysis was run on a population without the on-going recruitment of four females annually (Figure 4.8). The outcome being lower mean population estimates across both the south-western (N = 37 ± 0.56 (SE) and north-eastern (N = 12 ± 0.56 (SE)) populations, and increased probability of extinction in the south-western P(E) = 0.012 and north- eastern populations (P(E) = 0.07).

Page | 36

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 712 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Figure 4.8. Comparison of population trends arising from the extension of transport infrastructure along the Gold Coast Highway through Burleigh Ridge and no external recruitment. The metapopulation is shown in green, the south-western population is shown in red and the north-eastern population is shown in blue. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

4.3.5 PVA with transport infrastructure development and no connectivity structures

To accommodate the possibility of future transport infrastructure upgrades along the Gold Coast Highway in which exclusion fencing is used without the implementation of associated connectivity structures, we modelled the complete separation of north-eastern and south-western populations, along with the removal of habitat associated with construction as detailed in Section 4.3.4. The input parameters were as in the preceding section (4.3.4), however no dispersal occurred in either direction. The recruitment of four females annually into the south-western population was maintained. The outcome of analysis is the probable loss of the north-eastern population P(E) = 0.53, mean population estimate (N = 4 ± 0.16 (SE)) by year 25. The south-western population fares better with P(E) = 0, mean population estimate (N = 64 ± 0.11 (SE)) at year 25. The metapopulation is of a smaller overall size, reflective of the sharp decline of the north-eastern population (Figure 4.9).

Page | 37

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 713 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Figure 4.9. Population trends arising from the extension of transport infrastructure along the Gold Coast Highway through Burleigh Ridge, with complete separation of koala populations to the north-east and south- west. The metapopulation is shown in green, the south-western population is shown in red and the north- eastern population is shown in blue. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

For comparison purposes, the same analysis was run without the on-going recruitment of four females annually into the south-western population (Figure 4.10). Under this scenario the north-eastern population is subject to effectively the same probability of extinction P(E) = 0.52 and mean population estimate of 4 ± 0.15 (SE) as previously at year 25. This is unsurprising given that it remains disassociated from the source of external recruits, as in the previous analysis. The south-western population under this scenario has a higher P(E) = 0.01 and a lower mean population estimate (N = 43 ± 0.53 (SE)) after 25 years, compared to previous analysis which incorporated recruitment.

Page | 38

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 714 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Figure 4.10. Comparison of population trends arising from the extension of transport infrastructure along the Gold Coast Highway through Burleigh Ridge, with complete separation of koala populations to the north-east and south-west and no external recruitment. The metapopulation is shown in green, the south-western population is shown in red and the north-eastern population is shown in blue. Trend data are displayed with a single standard error.

Conclusion: Without an appropriate approach to connectivity in the event of future transport infrastructure development aligned with the Gold Coast Highway through Burleigh Ridge, koalas on the north-eastern side of this upgrade have a high probability of extinction, with a commensurate decline in koala numbers across the Burleigh Ridge population as a whole. The loss of habitat associated with construction is proportionally very small and unlikely to impact the outcomes for either the north-eastern or south-western population.

4.4 Recommendations

We make three primary recommendations arising from PVA outputs:

1. Consolidate / optimise east-west connectivity - safe-guarding connectivity options for the Burleigh Ridge koala population to populations to the west. This matter highlights the

Page | 39

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 715 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

importance of identifying potential connectivity pathways and a particular emphasis on safe passage across the M1. 2. Ongoing SAT-based monitoring and scat-based genetic profiling will enable an understanding of whether the population stabilises over time and whether ongoing recruitment is occurring. Some ‘red-flags’ can be promoted that should alert Council in the event that the population starts to decline. 3. Maintenance of connectivity across the Gold Coast Highway in the case of future transport infrastructure development. In order that connectivity measures are effective this will require an integrated approach whereby koalas are excluded from the majority of the Highway alignment and directed towards appropriate connectivity structures. Appendix 2 shows examples of overpasses which are effective versus ineffective for supporting koala movement.

We close with a final, secondary recommendation that a coordinated approach is adopted regarding releases into the Burleigh koala population. While it is clear that this area requires on-going recruitment in order to thrive, it is important that human-facilitated movements of koalas are documented and managed.

Page | 40

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 716 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

References

Biolink (2007). Koala Habitat and Population Assessment for Gold Coast City LGA. Report to City of Gold Coast. Biolink Ecological Consultants, Uki, NSW. Biolink (2017a). East Coomera koala population study 2017. Report to City of Gold Coast. Biolink Ecological Consultants, Uki, NSW. Biolink (2017b). Parkwood-Coombabah koala population study 2017. Report to City of Gold Coast. Biolink Ecological Consultants, Uki, NSW. Biolink (2019). City-wide koala monitoring – Habitat mapping and monitoring program. Final report for City of Gold Coast. Biolink Ecological Consultants, Uki, NSW. City of Gold Coast (2017). Koala Conservation Plan for Elanora-Currumbin Waters. Planning, Environment and Transport Directorate. City of Gold Coast, QLD. Dique, D.S., Thompson, J., Preece, H., de Villiers, D.L., Carrick, F. (2003). Dispersal patterns in a regional koala population in south-east Queensland. Wildlife Research 30: 281 – 290. Ellis, W.A.H., and Bercovitch, F.B. (2011). Body size and sexual selection in the koala. Behavioural Ecological and Sociobiology 65: 1229-1235. Gordon, G. (2001). Estimation of the age of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus (Marsupialia: Phascolarctidae) from tooth wear and growth. Australian Mammalogy 14: 5-12. Hawkes, N.H. (1978). Identification and Management of Koala Eucalypt Trees in New South Wales. In: ‘The Koala - Proceedings of the Taronga Symposium’ (Ed T.J. Bergin) pp 89-96. (Zoological Parks Board of NSW). Hindell, M.A., and Lee, A.K. (1991). Tree preferences of the Koala. In ‘Biology of the Koala’ (Eds A.K. Lee, K.A. Handasyde and G.D. Sanson) pp 117-121. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney). Lee, A., and Martin, R. (1988). The Koala - A Natural History. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Lunney, D., Phillips, S., Callaghan, J., and Coburn, D. (1998). Determining the distribution of Koala habitat across a shire as a basis for conservation; a case study from Port Stephens, New South Wales. Pacific Conservation Biology 4: 186-196. Melzer, A., and Lamb, D. (1996). Habitat utilisation by a central Queensland koala colony. Pp 17-26 in Koalas – research for management, edited by G. Gordon. World Koala Research Incorporated, Brisbane. Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A., Dillewaard, H.A., Ryan, T.S., and Butler, D.W. (2017). Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland. Version 4.0. Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane. https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/redd/resource/6dee78ab-c12c- 4692-9842-b Phillips, S. (1990). Koalas, the Little Australians We’d All Hate to Lose. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Phillips, S. (1999). Habitat utilisation by the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus - towards a new approach for effective management & conservation. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Resource Science, Southern Cross University. Phillips, S. (2000). Tree species preferences of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) as a basis for the delineation of management areas for recovery planning in New South Wales. Report to the NSW Koala Recovery Team. Page | 41

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 717 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Phillips, S., and Allen, C. (2014). Strzelecki Ranges Koala Survey. Report to NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. Phillips, S., and Callaghan, J. (2000). Tree species preferences of koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in the Campbelltown area south-west of Sydney, New South Wales. Wildlife Research 27: 509-516. Phillips, S., and Callaghan, J. (2011). The Spot Assessment Technique: a tool for determining localised levels of habitat use by koalas Phascolarctos cinereus. Australian Zoologist, 35(3), pp.774-780. Phillips, S., Hopkins, M., Callaghan, J., Warnken, J., and Brearley, G. (submitted). Splines in the sand: modelling the distribution of koala metapopulations across the landscape to provide greater certainty for conservation and management purposes. Submitted to Landscape and Urban Planning (November 2019). Queensland Government (2019). Draft South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2019- 2024. Department of Environment and Science, Queensland Government. Seddon. J. (2016). Koala Genetic Analysis – Elanora-Currumbin Waters, East Coomera and Burleigh Areas. A Uniquest Report prepared for the Council of the City of Gold Coast. University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD. Strachan, T., Lawson, B., Powell, A., Malone, M., Davidson, A., Callaghan, J., Mahoney, K., and Currie, D. (2015). Koala Conservation Plan for Burleigh Ridge. Planning and Environment Directorate - July 2015 to June 2019. City of Gold Coast, QLD. Strahan, R. and Van Dyck, S. (2008). The mammals of Australia. New Holland Publishers: Sydney. White, N.A., and Kunst, N.D. (1990). Aspects of the ecology of the koala in south-eastern Queensland. In ‘Biology of the Koala’. (Eds A. K. Lee, K. A. Handasyde and G. D. Sanson.) pp. 109–116. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney).

Page | 42

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 718 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Appendix 1. Baseline 2019 - PVA modelling parameters for Burleigh Ridge Koala Population Study 2020.

PVA Parameter Value Scenario settings Number of iterations 500 Number of years 50 Duration of each year (in days) 365 Run as a population model Checked ✓ Extinction definition Only 1 sex remains Number of populations 1

Species description Inbreeding depression Unchecked Lethal equivalents na % due to recessive lethal alleles na EV correlation between r & s 1 Sample EV from Beta Unchecked

State Variables na (offspring dependence automatically added)

Dispersal na

Reproductive system Type Polygyny Age at first offspring for females 2 Maximum age of reproduction 10 Age at first offspring for males 4 Maximum age of reproduction 10 Maximum lifespan 12 Maximum number broods per year 1 Maximum number progeny per year 1 Sex ratio at birth (in % males) 50 Make offspring dependent on dam for 1 year Checked ✓

Page | 43

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 719 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Density dependent reproduction na

Reproductive rates % adult females breeding 100 EV in % breeding 20 Distribution of broods / years 0 47 1 53 Specify distribution of number of offspring Normal Mean 1 SD 0 Data 1 offspring 100

Mortality rates Mortality of females aged 0-1 (%) 19.70 ± 11.63 (SD) Mortality of females aged 1-2 (%) 19.70 ± 11.63 (SD) Mortality of females after age 2 (%) 7.00 ± 4.42 (SD) Mortality of males aged 1-2 (%) 19.45 ± 11.49 (SD) Mortality of males aged 1-2 (%) 19.45 ± 11.49 (SD) Mortality of males aged 2-3 (%) 30.56 ± 18.05 (SD) Mortality of males aged 3-4 (%) 4.30 ± 2.54 (SD) Mortality of males after age 4 (%) 4.00 ± 2.53 (SD)

Catastrophes Number of catastrophes 1 Label Fire Frequency and extent of occurrence Local Checked ✓ Frequency (%) 5 Severity Reproduction severity 0.90 (= 10% decline in reproduction) Survival severity 0.90 (= 10% mortality)

Mate monopolization % males in breeding pool 37

Page | 44

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 720 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Initial population size Distribution Stable age distribution Initial population size 61

Carrying capacity (K) 79 ± 24 (SD in K due to EV) Future change in K Unchecked

Harvest population na

Supplementation Population supplemented Checked ✓ First year of supplement 1 Last year of supplement 50 Interval between supplements 2

Number of females of each age to be supplemented 1 (supplement from after age 2) Number of males of each age to be supplemented na

Genetics Read initial studbook file na Number of neutral nuclear loci to be modelled 30 Loci to be included in summary statistics All loci Number of loci to be subject to mutation 0 Read initial loci frequencies from file Specify path to microsatellite allele frequencies Read metapopulation structure from file na Genetic Management na

Page | 45

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 721 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Biolink Burleigh Ridge Koala PVA

Appendix 2.

Effective versus ineffective overpass design examples.

Effective fauna overpass over Pacific Highway in northern NSW. This type of overpass will be utilised by koalas.

Experimental design constructed in Redlands Local Government Area in south-eastern Queensland. Despite the presence of koalas in the immediate area there is no evidence of utility or use of this structure by koalas.

Page | 46

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 722 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 CITY PLANNING VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1)

Refer 11 page attachment

1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Not Applicable.

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to seek Council adoption of proposed amendments to the Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy (refer Attachment 1) to improve the scheme’s uptake and effectiveness, and to address recommendations made by the Targeted Environmental Covenant Trial Report.

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS

Ex Minute G01.0504.010 resolved in part: 1 That the Voluntary Conservation Agreement Scheme Policy be adopted and endorsed for implementation.

Ex Minute G06.0407.008 resolved in part: 2 That the changes to the Voluntary Conservation Agreements Policy (adopted by Council on 27 April 2001) be endorsed.

Ex Minute G11.1024.010 resolved in part: 1 That the revised Voluntary Conservation Agreement Scheme Policy be adopted.

Ex Minute G20.0915.029 resolved: 1 That Council note the progress, achievements and learnings of the Targeted Environmental Covenant trial. 2 That Council note that relevant components of the Targeted Environmental Covenant trial will be incorporated in the upcoming review of the Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy, scheduled for review in late 2020.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Background

Much of the city’s native vegetation in the rural zone is located on private land. Council recognises that private landholders are a major partner in biodiversity conservation and delivers a Conservation Partnerships Program, including Voluntary Conservation Agreements, to encourage and support landholders undertaking conservation management on their property. The Voluntary Conservation Agreement (VCA) Policy was adopted by Council in 2002. VCAs are legally binding agreements between Council and a landholder which seek to protect the ecological and strategic values of private land and complement land protected in Council’s conservation areas and National Parks. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 723 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 (CONTINUED) VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1)

Council currently offers two types of VCA, a General and a Higher. Both types of VCA are terminated when the landholder sells the property. The key difference between the two types is that the General VCA does not require a permanent protection to be registered on title over the agreed conservation area, while the Higher VCA does. The permanent protection mechanism used to achieve this can be a: • statutory covenant under the Land Title’s Act 1994, or • Nature Refuge under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.

The Higher VCA also requires all or part of the property to be rezoned to Conservation Zone, or equivalent, under the City Plan. Therefore, while the Higher VCA itself terminates when the property sells, the covenant or Nature Refuge, along with the Conservation zoning, provide ongoing protection beyond the term of property ownership. Recognising the high level of commitment required of landholders entering into these binding agreements, Council offers defined financial and technical support in the form of a rates donation, reimbursement of management expenses and technical advice on conservation management.

5.2 Benefits of VCAs

Voluntary Conservation Agreements: • increase the area protected for conservation in the city • provide excellent cost efficiency, as Council does not incur the cost of land acquisition • improve the quality and quantity of native vegetation cover in the city, by providing landholders with ongoing management assistance • promote effective management of areas adjoining Council-managed Conservation Areas and in turn, reduces Council’s management costs • can protect existing Council investments e.g. Nature Conservation Assistance Program funding • help Council to achieve its corporate targets, including 51% vegetation cover.

5.3 Targeted Environmental Covenant (TEC) trial

Between 2017 and 2020 Council ran a three-year Targeted Environmental Covenant (TEC) trial targeting key properties with significant ecological values for perpetual protection, through a Higher VCA. The trial offered an initial $10,000 incentive payment to landholders, with the intention of increasing the uptake of VCAs in the city and providing landholders with seed funding to carry out management activities (e.g. ecological restoration) required by the VCA in the designated conservation area.

Prior to the trial’s commencement, there were 11 Higher VCAs in the scheme with a total protected area of 163 hectares. No new Higher VCAs had been executed since 2013. The TEC trial was successful in reinvigorating the scheme and instigated seven new Higher VCAs, which will protect a further 216 hectares. Six of these VCAs (with a collective protected area of 156 hectares) have been finalised, and the final VCA resulting from the trial (which will protect 60 hectares) is in progress.

5.4 Current Status

There are currently 22 VCAs in the city (five General and 17 Higher) with a total conservation area of 522 hectares. Of this area, 319 hectares are protected in perpetuity through a 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 724 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 (CONTINUED) VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1) covenant or Nature Refuge and registered as a Higher VCA. The scheme has protected a further 218 ha with a covenant, but the original landholders have since sold and new owners have not entered into a VCA with Council. Several new Higher VCAs are currently under negotiation (one being the final VCA resulting from the TEC trial).

5.5 VCA Policy Review

As part of a scheduled review and in response to the findings of the TEC trial, an evaluation of the VCA Policy has found it has been generally successful in increasing the amount and quality of protected area on the Gold Coast. However, several opportunities have been identified to improve the delivery and outcomes of the Policy.

The major recommendations being proposed as part of this Policy review are:

• Retirement of the General VCA for new properties A General VCA does not provide ongoing protection of the conservation area beyond the term of property ownership. As such, a property that has been in the scheme for a number of years and then changes ownership can represent a significant loss of Council investment if the new owner does not enter into a VCA with Council.

Since the VCA scheme’s 2002 inception, the Nature Conservation Assistance Program (NCAP) has been introduced (in 2011) to support restoration projects on ecologically valuable properties, without requiring the landholder to enter into a VCA.

Essentially, the NCAP has replaced the need for a General VCA and is more effective in terms of community engagement and on-ground outcomes, and has shown to be a more effective stepping stone to Higher VCAs, which in turn protects Council’s investment in the property made through NCAP. Therefore, it is recommended that no new General VCAs be offered. Instead, it is proposed that the scheme’s resources should be focussed on Higher VCAs, which contribute to the city’s protected area estate and better respond to Council’s native vegetation cover targets. Existing General VCAs will continue to be honoured.

• Introduction of an initial incentive payment for the Higher VCA The TEC trial found that the incentive payment offered both an encouragement to entering into a Higher VCA and seed funding to undertake the required management and restoration activities. Currently, the landholder must provide the initial funds to undertake the first year’s round of management, which are then reimbursed at the end of the financial year. If the landholder is unable to provide the initial funds, less management activities are undertaken, and reduced outcomes are achieved. This diminishes the effectiveness of the scheme and its desired outcomes.

Given the benefits of an incentive payment demonstrated through the recent TEC trial, it is proposed that an incentive payment matching the annual allowance for management expenses (that is, $7000 for individual landholders and $8000 for Body Corporates) be introduced for new Higher VCAs.

• Increase to annual reimbursement for management expenses for Higher VCAs The existing annual reimbursement allowance for management expenses has been in place since 2011. As the VCA scheme has evolved to stipulate that contractors be suitably qualified and experienced, the cost of management activities in the conservation area has increased significantly in line with current qualified contractor fees. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 725 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 (CONTINUED) VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1)

Whilst qualified and experienced contractors are more expensive, their use provides an assurance that works undertaken are efficient and effective and therefore increases value. For this reason, it is proposed to increase the annual allowance of the Higher VCA reimbursement for management expenses from $5000 to $7000. The allowance landholders are eligible to receive with an existing General VCA is not proposed to change.

• Introduction of specific level of annual reimbursement for management expenses for Body Corporate properties In 2020, as a result of the TEC trial, Council entered into its first VCA with a Body Corporate. In doing so, it was noted that there are gaps in the current Policy. Specifically, as Body Corporates do not pay rates, landholders in the Body Corporate do not benefit from the rates donation received by other landholders with a VCA. To make it more equitable across all landholder types, it is recommended that Body Corporates be eligible for a higher level of annual reimbursement for management expenses ($8000) in the body corporate’s conservation area.

• Change to calculation of rate donations Currently, the rate donation is calculated as the actual percentage of area protected. Following discussion with Revenue Services, it is proposed that to streamline the calculation of rate donations, landholders will be eligible for one of six levels of rate donation, depending on the percentage of property protected. For example, a landholder who has protected 50-59 per cent of their property will be eligible for a 55 per cent rate donation.

Further to the above major amendments, minor amendments are being recommended as part of the Policy review, including: • removal of references to financial incentives relating to General VCAs with a Nature Refuge or which have been rezoned to Conservation, as there are no examples of these in the scheme, making the references obsolete • removal of rationale regarding the calculation of rates donations • clarification that adjoining properties owned by the same landholder but individually eligible for a VCA should be registered as separate VCAs • clarification of management expenses eligible for reimbursement • addition and clarification of definitions and terminology used throughout the Policy • inclusion of additional legislation and relevant delegation numbers • update to levy titles to make them current • update from iSpot numbers to Objective Id references, in accordance with the current corporate filing system.

Changes made to the Policy through this review will be communicated via the City’s policy register and dedicated VCA website, and internally via the intranet’s publication scheme and emails to relevant stakeholders.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

Corporate Plan – Gold Coast 2022: • Place 1.2 We live in balance with nature o Restore ecosystems and fauna through weed control, natural regeneration, revegetation, maintenance, education and voluntary programs. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 726 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 (CONTINUED) VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1)

o Management of the conservation network across public and private land, including Voluntary Conservation Agreements and the Nature Conservation Assistance Program.

Our Natural City Strategy: • Action 3.1 - Establish new and grow existing partnerships with private landowners, volunteer groups and government programs to increase the area of land protected, restore strategic habitat and conserve priority species. • Action 3.2 - Implement a suite of tools which are fiscally responsible to enable practical, community-focused partnerships to safeguard areas of high value for their environmental, recreational and hazard mitigation functions. • Action 3.4 Continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders and landowners to coordinate bushfire, pest plant and animal management in the city.

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

The VCA scheme is funded through Council’s Open Space including Koala Habitat, Maintenance and Enhancement Special Charge (OSKHMESC). The current annual budget allocated to the VCA scheme is $100,000.

With the introduction of an incentive payment, anticipated increased uptake of VCAs (in accordance with the results of the TEC trial), along with increased annual management assistance, additional budget will be requested as part of the 2021-22 budget process to accommodate new VCA landholders and support existing members. Resourcing will be considered as part of the ONC Strategy Implementation plan.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk Number: CO000672 - City wide vulnerable species continue to decline resulting in domestic and international reputational damage impacting the economy, environment and City image. Control Number: CN001898 - Conservation Partnerships Program

Risk Number: CO000675 - A reduction in the extent and quality of the City's natural asset network, green space and community access opportunities, resulting in a possible decline in city liveability, image and economic potential. Control Number: CN001899 - Delivery of Conservation Partnerships Program

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

The VCA scheme requires landholders to apply a permanent protection measure over the conservation values on their property. These measures include statutory covenants under the Land Titles Act 1994 and Nature Refuges under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. Voluntary Conservation Agreements require landholders, where possible and in accordance with the Planning Act 2016 and the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules, to rezone their property to the Conservation Zone under City Plan.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

This report recommends amendments to the Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 727 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 (CONTINUED) VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1)

11 DELEGATIONS

The Manager Property Services can enter into a Covenant under delegation 1605. The Chief Executive Officer can sign a VCA under delegation 2031 and apply a rates donation to VCA landholders under delegation 2335.

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Directorate or Is the Stakeholder Satisfied Stakeholder Consulted Organisation With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate) Gahan Estella - Senior Property Organisational Yes Officer Services Cherie Watt - City Solicitor, Legal Office of the Chief Yes Services Operating Officer Leigh Jackson - Executive Organisational Yes Coordinator, Revenue Services Services Katrina Jasper - Coordinator, Office of the Chief Yes Governance, Strategic Planning Operating Officer and Policy

13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

External / community stakeholder Impacts

The amended VCA Policy provides current VCA landholders with an increased level of annual management assistance to encourage greater improvement of the conservation area’s ecological values. It also encourages greater uptake of the scheme by providing an incentive payment to landholders entering into a new Higher VCA with Council, which they can use as seed funding for their management activities required by the VCA.

Internal (Organisational) Stakeholder Impacts

The benefits of the scheme to Council include: • increased natural area protection without any acquisition costs • increased quantity and improved quality of city’s ecological values e.g. vegetation cover • effective and complementary management of areas adjoining Council managed natural areas, reducing ongoing management costs incurred by Council • perpetual protection of conservation outcomes achieved with other Council investments, e.g. eligible Nature Conservation Assistance Program properties.

14 TIMING

The amended Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy will become effective immediately following Council endorsement.

15 CONCLUSION

The VCA scheme increases the area protected for conservation and improves the city’s vegetation cover and ecological value in a fiscally responsible manner. There are currently 22 VCAs in the scheme, including 17 Higher VCAs with 319 hectares of strategic and high ecological value land protected by covenant or a Nature Refuge. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 728 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 (CONTINUED) VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1)

The changes to the Voluntary Conservation Agreements Policy seek to: • respond to recommendations made in the trial Targeted Environmental Covenant Report • increase uptake of VCAs in the city • improve management outcomes, such as increased vegetation cover and quality, on properties with a VCA.

The proposed changes include: • retiring the General VCA for new properties • introducing an upfront incentive payment of $7000 for individual landholders and $8000 for Body Corporates to: o increase VCA uptake o provide seed funding for management and restoration activities, in accordance with the VCA and associated management recommendations • increasing the annual reimbursement for management expenses for ecological restoration and land management from $5000 to $7000 for individual landholders • specifying a higher level of funding ($8000) available to Body Corporate properties for annual management expenses, to address their ineligibility for a rates donation and make the support more equitable, and • addressing minor administrative amendments.

It is anticipated that implementation of the revised Policy will result in a greater uptake of VCAs by landholders and consequently increased protection and management of high ecological values in the city.

16 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

That Council adopts the amended Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy which is Attachment 1 to this report.

Co Author: Authorised by: Lexie Webster Alisha Swain Supervising Conservation Officer Director Economy Planning & Environment 15 January 2021 Co Author: Adrian Carr Senior Conservation Officer 15 January 2021 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 729 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 8 (CONTINUED) VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT POLICY REVIEW CE196/275/04(P1)

Committee Recommendation Adopted at Council 23 March 20201

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.007 moved Cr Hammel seconded Cr PC Young

That Council adopts the amended Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy which is Attachment 1 to this report.

CARRIED

ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 23 MARCH 2021 RESOLUTION G21.0323.021 moved Cr Tozer seconded Cr O'Neill

That Committee Recommendation PE21.0318.007 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:-

That Council adopts the amended Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy which is Attachment 1 to this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 730 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT FOR REVIEW (Page 1 of 11)

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy

DETAILS Council Admin Effective from: 8 November 2019 Contact officer: Supervising Conservation Officer, City Planning Next review date: October 2020 File reference: CE196/275/04/01(P1) iSpot This policy 23743643A48684100 #Objective Value 54771345A43822794 ID Proposition

OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES

Objectives • Conserve the city's biodiversity and natural assets by protecting, managing and restoring a diverse, connected and viable conservation network. • Foster cost effective, community-centred partnerships that assist landholders committed to conserving their property's ecological values.

Performance measures • Area (hectares) of native vegetation managed under Voluntary Conservation Agreements. • Number of properties in the Voluntary Conservation Agreements scheme.

Risk assessment Medium

POLICY STATEMENT Council of the City of Gold Coast (Council) is committed to conserving biodiversity and natural assets in the city and The majority of the city’s native vegetation in the rural zone is located on private land. Council of the City of Gold Coast (Council) recognises that private landholders are as a major partner in biodiversity conservation and management. and delivers a Conservation Partnerships Program tTo encourage and support landholders undertaking conservation management on their property, Council delivers a Conservation Partnerships Program, including Voluntary Conservation Agreements (VCAs). are theVoluntary Conservation Agreements are Council’s highest level of conservation partnership agreement offered by Council, to, designed to protect biodiversity on private land and complement land protected in Council’s conservation reserves and in national parks. Recognising the high level of commitment required of landholders entering these binding agreements and in a spirit of partnership, Council offers defined financial and technical support in the form of an incentive payment, rates donation, assistance with management costs and technical advice on conservation management. All proposed properties are assessed for eligibility against the criteria outlined in Section 3 of Attachment A – Policy Standards to ensure only properties that make a significant contribution to biodiversity conservation are eligible for a VCA. Private land conservation programs are cost effective, as the landholders themselves typically undertake most of the required management and Council does not incur the costs of land acquisition.

SCOPE This policy applies to VCA applications from private landholders of properties within the Gold Coast boundaries, which meet the policy’s eligibility criteria. It does not relate to Crown land, State owned land, land owned by Council or land administered by Council as trustee for the State. It does not relate to property outside the city’s boundaries.

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 1 of 3 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 731 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy

DEFINITIONS Conservation aArea an area of a property identified for protection and/or management under the Voluntary Conservation Agreement

Conservation a Council officer responsible for delivering the Conservation Partnerships Partnerships Officer Program, including Voluntary Conservation Agreements.

Council of the City of the elected body responsible for the good rule and local government of the Gold Coast (Council) cityCouncil of the City of Gold Coast

Covenant a statutory covenant registered on title for the purpose of preserving native animals and plants and/or natural or physical features of cultural or scientific significance on that land, under the Land Titles Act 1994

Ecological the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, Restoration damaged or destroyed

General VCA a type of VCA that was entered into prior to March 2021, that did not require a covenant or Nature Refuge to be registered over the Conservation Area

Higher VCA a type of VCA that can be entered into pursuant to this Policy that requires a Covenant or Nature Refuge to be registered over the Conservation Area

Landholder owner of private land

Management Plan a schedule of the Voluntary Conservation Agreement which documents the property's Conservation Area’s natural values and how they are to be conserved (included as a schedule to the Voluntary Conservation Agreement)

Nature Refuge a perpetual voluntary agreement acknowledging a landholder's commitment to protect land with a significant conservation value, registered on title under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA)

Private Land land owned by individuals or corporations or not-for profit companies, that is not owned or controlled by the Federal or State Government or CouncilCrown land, land owned by the State, land owned by Council, or land administered by Council as trustee for the State

Restoration Action an annual guide on what management activities should be undertaken in the Plan (RAP) Conservation Area, developed by a Conservation Partnerships Officer in consultation with the Landholder and updated on an annual basis Statutory Covenant under the Queensland Land Title Act 1994 it is possible for Local Authorities with the agreement of landholders, to register statutory covenants on land titles for the purpose of preserving native animals and plants and/or natural or physical features of cultural or scientific significance on that land

VCA Scheme The Voluntary Conservation Agreement (VCA) Scheme outlined in this Policy

Voluntary a formal, legally binding agreement, between a lLandholder and Council, to Conservation manage the natural values of a designated cConservation aArea on pPrivate Agreement (VCA) lLand

RELATED POLICIES AND DELEGATIONS

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 2 of 3

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 732 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy

Code of Conduct for Employees Policy Open Space Preservation Levy LandNatural Areas Acquisition Policy Public Funding Involving Private Property Policy Delegation DE01605 Delegation DE02031 Delegation DE02335

LEGISLATION Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Land Title Act 1994 Local Government Act 2009 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006 Planning Act 2016

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment A – Policy Standards General Voluntary Conservation Agreement (A19651947)– General (iSpot #19634565) Higher Voluntary Conservation Agreement - Covenant (A18952581)– Higher (iSpot #24489370) Higher Voluntary Conservation Agreement - Covenant (New Owner) (A19802064) – Higher (New Owner) (iSpot #24472437) Higher Voluntary Conservation Agreement – Higher and - Nature Refuge (A55887935)(iSpot #69509490) Higher Voluntary Conservation Agreement – Higher and - Nature Refuge (New Owner) (A55958766)(iSpot #69621186) Voluntary Conservation Agreement – Higher and Targeted Environmental Covenant (iSpot #70686349) Voluntary Conservation Agreement – Higher and Targeted Environmental Covenant and Nature Refuge (iSpot #70685465) Template - Voluntary Conservation Agreement Management Plan (A32402305)Template (iSpot #39386761) Voluntary Conservation Agreement Process Map (iSpot #63245935) Gold Coast City Plan Gold Coast 2022 Our Natural City Strategy South East Queensland Ecological Restoration Framework (SEQERF)

RESPONSIBILITIES Sponsor Director, Economy Planning and Environment Owner Manager, City Planning

VERSION CONTROL

Document Date Approved Amendment

A48684100

23743643 v9 08.11.19 COO #74927294 No changes

23743643 v8 23.07.18 CPO #71691500 Minor corrections

23743643 v7 30.05.18 CPO #69779094 Minor corrections

23743643 07.08.17 A/COO #63473270 Minor changes

23743643 24.10.11 SC11.1018.009/G11.1024.010

23743643 07.04.06 SG06.0328.002/G06.0407.008

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 3 of 3

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 733 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy

23743643 04.05.01 C01.0427.002/G01.0504.010

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 4 of 3

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 734 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy ATTACHMENT A - POLICY STANDARDS

1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE A committed and supported lLandholder is a major partner for Council in managing large areas of habitat, particularly in rural areas. Private land conservation schemes complement land acquisition programs by providing for more effective and consistent natural area management across land of different tenures. Council recognises that many private landholders are active and willing contributors to the conservation and restoration of native vegetation and wildlife habitat in the city.

Traditionally, all the responsibility and cost of protecting and managing significant native vegetation on private land rested with the individual landholder even though the whole community shared the benefits. Council’s Conservation Partnerships Program offers a range of schemes and incentives to assist property owners in protecting and managing native vegetation and wildlife habitat. The Voluntary Conservation Agreement (VCA) sScheme) targets properties which are most significant in terms of size, strategic location and conservation value.

A VCA is a formal, legally binding agreement between a lLandholder and Council to manage the natural values of a designated cConservation aArea on pPrivate lLand. As specified in the agreementVCA, Council provides incentives such as a rates donation and reimbursement of approved management costs expenses to assist lLandholders with the management of their cConservation aArea. In return, the lLandholders agrees to protect and suitably manage their cConservation aArea.

The VCA scheme contributes to the protection of the Ccity’s biodiversity by: • promoting a sense of community responsibility for nature conservation • recognising and rewarding good conservation management by private landholders and encouraging them to integrate nature conservation with overall property management • building the capacity of private landholders to undertake eEcological rRestoration • integrating management across public and private land • consolidating or restoring critical corridors throughout the Ccity.

From the VCA Scheme’s inception until the review of this Policy in March 2021, two types of VCA were offered, General and Higher. Since March 2021, only Higher VCAs are offered to a Landholder wanting to enter into a VCA with Council but existing General VCAs continue to be honoured for the current Landholder’s term of property ownership.

2 TYPES OF AGREEMENTOVERVIEW OF VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS Both General VCAs and Higher VCAsCouncil offers two types of VCA: a General VCA and a Higher VCA. Both types of VCA: • are legally binding on the lLandholder/s who enter into the agreementVCA • are terminated when the property changes ownership or where both parties agree to terminate (noting that any registered Covenant or Nature Refuge survives termination of a VCA) • can apply to all or part of a property • allow the lLandholders to undertake activities on the property outside the cConservation aArea that are permitted in the relevant zone of the City Plan or equivalent • provide financial support (see section 4) as well as specialist advice on conservation management in the form of tailored annual management Restoration Action pPlans, annual and visits from a Conservation Partnerships Officer, workshops and newsletters.

The two types of VCA differ in that the Higher VCA requires: • a statutory cCovenant or Nature Refuge to be registered on the property title, which remains in place after the agreement VCA is terminated • all or part of the property to be included within the Conservation Zone, or equivalent, where appropriate (i.e. where the whole property or part of the property meets the criteria for the Conservation Zone under the City Plan).

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 1 of 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 735 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy ATTACHMENT A - POLICY STANDARDS

Whilst it is not a requirement of the General VCA, landholders with a General VCA may choose to nominate their property for inclusion in the Conservation Zone, which will result in higher entitlements (see Table 1). Under a VCA, a breach has been committed when actions not negotiated within the mManagement pPlan or Restoration Action Plan contravene the terms of the agreement VCA, or the cCovenant or Nature Refuge. In such circumstances, Council can act in accordance with ‘Breach’ clauses detailed in the General and Higher AgreementsVCA, including:. In this situation, Council can • requiringe the owner Landholder to remedy the non-compliance with remedial Ecological Restoration work • requiring the Landholder to and/or pay to Council an amount up to and including the total amount of rates donated and cash reimbursement provided to the owner Landholder by Council under the terms of the VCA • withholding any form of VCA assistance or benefit while the Landholder is in breach of the VCA • terminating the VCA.

3 PROPERTY ELIGIBILITY A Landholders applying for a Higher VCA will have their property assessed against the following eligibility criteria. • The property is located in an area where future urban, park livingliving, or equivalent development is not proposed in the City Plan. • The property has high nature conservation values including one or more of the following: o endangered’ or ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems o flora or fauna that is listed as endangered, vulnerable or near threatened under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006 (Qld) or as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) o high quality, intact, old growth vegetation o native vegetation forming part of a wildlife corridor or adjoining national park or other conservation reserve o land suitable for eEcological rRestoration as habitat or a movement corridor for native flora or fauna, that is either: ▪ located within a mapped biodiversity area under the City Plan ▪ a buffer to, or linkage between any matter of environmental significance in the City Plan. • The size of the property will be adequate, taking into account connectivity to other remnant vegetation, to ensure the nature conservation values can be conserved in the long term.

Further to the above criteria, the lLandholder must be able to work in partnership with Council.

Adjoining properties owned by the same Landholder that individually meet the above eligibility requirements of the VCA Scheme should be considered as separate VCAs.

4 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE A Landholders with a VCA are is eligible for financial assistance in the form of a rates donations and an annual reimbursement of conservation management expenses. Landholders entering a new Higher VCA are also eligible for an incentive payment to use as seed funding for management expenses, once the VCA is executed and the Covenant or Nature Refuge is registered on title. . Tables 1 and 2 summarises the financial assistance available to VCA lLandholders, taking into account the type of Landholder, size of Conservation Area, type of VCA and year the VCA was entered into., if the

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 2 of 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 736 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy ATTACHMENT A - POLICY STANDARDS

property has a statutory covenant or Nature Refuge on title, if the property has been rezoned to 'Conservation' in the City Plan and the size of the conservation area.

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 3 of 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 737 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy ATTACHMENT A - POLICY STANDARDS

Table 1 Financial assistance available to a Landholder with a Higher VCA Type of Incentive Size of For VCAs For VCAs entered into after Annual Landholder payment Conservation entered into March 2021 manage- Area (ha) prior to ment March 2021 expenses reimburse- Annual rates % of property Annual rates ment donation included in donation Conserva- tion Area

<10 50% NA 50%

< 50% 50% 50-59% 55% Individual / $7,000 Up to $7,000 Company 60-69% 65% >10 50% - 100%* 70-79% 75% 80-89% 85% 90-100% 95% Body Corporate – $8,000 NA NA NA NA Up to $8,000 Common Property

*directly proportional to percentage of property included in Conservation Area

Table 2 Financial Assistance available to a Landholder with a General VCA Size of Conservation Area (ha) Annual rates donation (as a Annual management expenses percentage of annual general reimbursement rates) <10 30% Up to $2,500 >10 50%

Table 1 Financial assistance available to landholders with a VCA Type of VCA and level Size of Annual rates Annual of protection conservation donation (as a management area (ha) percentage of reimbursement annual general rates) <10 50% Higher VCA Up to $5000 >10 50% - 100% General VCA with a <10 50% Up to $5000 Nature Refuge >10 50% - 100% General VCA placed <10 50% in the Conservation Up to $4000 >10 50% - 100% Zone or equivalent General VCA <10 30% Up to $2500

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 4 of 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 738 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy ATTACHMENT A - POLICY STANDARDS

Type of VCA and level Size of Annual rates Annual of protection conservation donation (as a management area (ha) percentage of reimbursement annual general rates) >10 50%

4.1 Incentive Payment The incentive payment encourages a Landholder to enter into a Higher VCA with Council. It also provides the Landholder with seed funding to undertake management and restoration activities required by the VCA’s Management Plan and/or annual Restoration Action Plan.

4.21 Rate Assistance The rate assistance will only apply on the general rate component of the rates (i.e. excluding all levies e.g. the State Emergency Management Levyrural fire service levy) although Council will donate the Open Space including Koala Habitat, Maintenance and Enhancement sSeparate cCharge (OSKHMESC).

Each rate assessment issued to the lLandholder, including a general rate component and/or OSKHMESCopen space preservation separate charge, will show the applicable donation amount. The amount of rates donation a lLandholders are is eligible to receive is outlined in Tables 1 and 2explained in more detail below.

In the case of Higher VCAs: • properties with more than 10 hectares placed under a statutory covenant are entitled to a 50% - 100% rate donation (based on proportion of property included within the covenant) • properties with less than 10 hectares placed under a statutory covenant are entitled to a 50% rate donation In the case of General VCAs: • properties with more than 10 hectares placed within the conservation area of a General VCA are entitled to a 50% rate donation • properties with less than 10 hectares placed within the conservation area of a General VCA are entitled to a 30% rate donation

If a General VCA property has been declared a Nature Refuge, or included in the Conservation zone or equivalent, the applicable rates donation is equivalent to that of the Higher VCA.

The rationale for calculating the rates donation is outlined below. • Eligible properties can vary considerably in size and ecological significance. The resources of the VCA scheme will be directed, as far as possible, to maximize the benefits for nature conservation across the city. • Generally, conservation areas larger than 10 hectares offer better prospects for maintaining biological diversity over the long term, so are eligible for a larger donation than properties with a small conservation area. Smaller conservation areas with high conservation values will be supported but at a lower level of rates donation. • Landholders with a Higher VCA are offered a higher rates donation than landholders with a General VCA, in recognition of their commitment to conservation in allowing a covenant or Nature Refuge to be registered on the property title. The covenant is binding on all future owners of the property and therefore may restrict future development. A further commitment associated with the Higher VCA is having the whole property, or part of it, included (where appropriate) within the Conservation Zone or equivalent of the City Plan.

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 5 of 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 739 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy ATTACHMENT A - POLICY STANDARDS

• Permanent protection mechanisms do not apply to the General VCA, which is only binding on the current landholder. However, in the case where a General VCA property has been declared a Nature Refuge or included in the Conservation Zone, Council will offer the same level of rates donation as would apply to a property with a Higher VCA. This is because the Nature Refuge is considered to offer a similar or higher level of security as a statutory covenant and the inclusion of the property in the Conservation Zone also provides a degree of long term security for the conservation area.

Where Council resolves to withdraw the VCA Scheme unilaterally, the Statutory Covenant or Nature Refuge and the Conservation Zone or equivalent will remain in place. Therefore, Council agrees to maintain the percentage rate assistance as determined by the VCA,Agreement whilst these mechanisms are in place on the land.

4.32 Reimbursement of Management Expenses This funding is intended for conservation management activities, such as Ecological Restoration, within the Conservation Area. Council will reimburse the lLandholders for approved management expenses in accordance with the VCA the conservation area. The annual entitlement, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2, is up to: • $2,500 per annum in the case offor a General VCA • $4000 per annum for a General VCA that has been rezoned to Conservation under the City Plan • $57,000 per annum for a Higher VCA or a General VCA with a Nature Refuge.on land owned by an individual or company • $8,000 for a Higher VCA on Common Property owned by a Body Corporate

The differences in maximum entitlement reflects the security of the agreement raging from a General VCA, with no permanent protection mechanism (lowest entitlement) to a VCA with a covenant or Nature Refuge, which are binding on all future owners (maximum entitlement).

The VCA Management Plan, annual Restoration Action Plan and associated advice will guide management activities and can be used to determine if claims are reasonable. To facilitate the reimbursement, tax invoices are required for GST purposes and Daily Record and Herbicide Sheets much be provided for Ecological Restoration activities, such as weed management. This funding is intended to be used for routine conservation management, land management and/or ecological restoration within the conservation area.

Specified management expenses must fall into one or more of the following categories to be eligible for reimbursement:

(1) General expenditure on any of the following in the VCA conservation area: • use of a suitably qualified and experienced contractor (excluding your own or a relative’s labour) as outlined in the Voluntary Conservation Agreement and/or Restoration Action Plan to undertake: o weed management and Ecological Restoration in accordance with the South East Queensland Ecological Restoration Framework (SEQERF) o pest animal control o track maintenance o Ecological Restoration of waterways or eroded areas o other conservation works • equipment and herbicides registered for control of declared and environmental weeds • ecological restoration of waterways and other disturbed or eroded areas • purchase of tubestock, approved by a Conservation Partnerships Officer, for eEcological rRestoration • wildlife-friendly fencing where necessary to protect waterways, native vegetation or areas under restoration in the cConservation aArea (excluding boundary fencing) • implementation of a fire management plan

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 6 of 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 740 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

DRAFT FOR REVIEW

Voluntary Conservation Agreement Policy ATTACHMENT A - POLICY STANDARDS

• protective clothing and equipment necessary for any of the management activities listed above, approved in writing by a Conservation Partnerships Officer • use of a contractor (excluding your own or a relative’s labour) for weed management and ecological restoration, fire management, track maintenance or other conservation works. • (2) Oother expenses, as approved by a Conservation Partnerships Officer, provided written approval has been obtained prior to undertaking the work or purchasing the equipment.

4.34 Miscellaneous Council will cover all costs to the lLandholder associated with the establishment of a General and Higher VCA, including the Statutory Covenant or Nature Refuge.

5 POLICY REVIEW The VCA pPolicy will be reviewed as needed but at least every two years.

6 AMENDING A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT To come into effect a VCA must be signed by the lLandholder and by the Council’s Chief Executive Officer. A VCA may need to be amended from time to time e.g. due to changes in management requirements or new responsibilities under state or federal legislation. Any such changes will be approved by the Chief Executive Officer or delegated Council officer and must also be approved and signed by the property ownerLandholder. Both Council’s copy and the lLandholder's copy of the VCA must be amended accordingly to replace the earlier version of the VCA.

Printed copies are uncontrolled. It is the responsibility of each user to ensure that any copies of policy documents are the current issue

Page 7 of 4 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 741 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 CITY PLANNING PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

Attachment A - Independent Arboricultural Services Attachment B – Summary of submissions

1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Not Applicable.

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this agenda item is to propose that the Vegetation Protection Order (VPO) made by Council on 29 January 2021, over an Araucaria heterophylla tree, with the common name Norfolk Island Pine, be revoked. The tree was located in the south-eastern portion of the common property described as Lot 0 on BUP67 and was of considerable historical, cultural and visual significance. It is proposed to revoke the VPO as the damage to the tree’s anchoring and structural roots, that occurred prior to the VPO coming into effect, has resulted in the tree being deemed unsafe and subsequently removed on 22 February 2021.

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS

Ex Minute G21.0129.020 resolved in part:

1 That the technical report titled Vegetation assessment – proposed Vegetation Protection Order 1 Second Avenue Burleigh Heads be noted. 2 That, having considered the report, a Vegetation Protection Order be made in accordance with Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) over the individual tree which is an Araucaria heterophylla with the common name Norfolk Island Pine, located in the south-eastern portion of Lot 0 on BUP67, which also can be described as “Common Property of Nagambie Community Titles Scheme 14982” at the address 1 Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads 4220. 3 That the VPO be made on the grounds of the tree’s considerable historical, cultural and visual significance. 4 That the VPO comes into force when public notice of it is given. 5 That a report be brought back to Council for consideration once the Vegetation Protection Order process has been completed in accordance with Local Law No 6.

5 DISCUSSION

A mature size individual Araucaria heterophylla tree was located in the south-eastern portion of the common property described as Lot 0 on BUP67, also described as “Common Property of Nagambie Community Titles Scheme 14982” at 1 Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads (Figure 1). The property is a residential property with no existing boundary fence.

The tree was approximately 28 metres in height. The canopy spread of the subject tree was approximately 17.6 metres east-west and 18.1 metres north-south. The age of the subject tree was approximately 75-85 years and it was estimated to have been planted in the 1930s or 1940s based on the similarity in size to the trees known to have been planted at this time. The tree had a trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 970mm, which was the second largest DBH of all the Norfolk Island Pines in this area from Goodwin Terrace in the south, 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 742 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02 along The Esplanade to Third Avenue in the north. The only Norfolk Island Pine that has a marginally larger DBH at 1003mm is located in front of the Burleigh Heads Mowbray Park Surf Life Saving Club.

Figure 1 - Subject tree viewed from north side on The Esplanade, showing the tree in good health prior to being damaged

On Friday 29 January 2021, Council resolved to protect the subject tree under a VPO in accordance with the provisions of Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management), with specific justification under s. 6(2)(d) - to facilitate protection of vegetation that is of considerable historical, cultural or visual significance.

On 30 January 2021, the Vegetation Protection Order, under Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) took effect following publication of the public notice in the Gold Coast Bulletin.

5.1 Tree damage

On Thursday 28 and Friday 29 January 2021, prior to the VPO coming into effect, works were carried out at 1 Second Avenue. These works resulted in substantial damage to the roots and over-pruning of the branches of the Norfolk Island Pine to a height of 4-5 storeys (Figure 2).

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 743 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

Figure 2 - Subject tree during arboricultural assessment on 5 Feb 2021

The applicant identified that the works were undertaken in order to construct a boundary fence, that included footings of a sufficient width that enabled the removal of the subject tree, in accordance with the accepted development (subject to requirements) provisions of the City Plan. The Vegetation management code currently allows for damage to assessable vegetation to occur if the vegetation is within 1.5 metres of an existing property boundary fence. This provision also applies to a proposed property boundary fence, providing the fence is constructed within 21 days of the damage occurring. The 1.5 metres is measured from the centre of the diameter of the tree’s trunk at ground level to the nearest edge of the fence foundations.

The subject tree was located approximately 1.7 metres from the property boundary; however, the proposed construction of a wide footing could reduce the separation to within the distance stated in the Vegetation management code.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 744 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

5.2 Arboricultural inspection

On Friday 5 February 2021, City Officers and a City appointed consulting arborist (Independent Arboricultural Services) attended the property to carry out an assessment of the tree and investigate the extent of the damage caused by the works. Australian Arboricultural Operations Pty Ltd, who were engaged by the applicant, also attended the site and made their own assessment on 5 February 2021.

Independent Arboricultural Services has prepared a report that outlines the findings of the onsite assessment (Attachment A). The report concludes that: • Due to the amount of major structural and anchoring root damage, the long-term health and structural viability of the tree has been affected by the works. • In assessing the impacts previously undertaken to the tree, the potential target zone and the risk of failure from the prevailing storms it is recommended the tree is removed and replaced.

The findings of the report are consistent with those identified by Australian Arboricultural Operations Pty Ltd, which states: • Due to the structural damage that has been caused within the SRZ (structural root zone) of the tree, an introduced level of risk has become evident and there is now a higher risk of whole tree failure. The subject tree is located in an area with frequent and constant targets within the target zone, placing the targets at higher risk. • Structural root damage has been caused that is irreparable and the level of risk has now been raised, especially if the subject tree is impacted by a sudden weather event. • The structural roots that were removed on the north-eastern side of the tree would have acted as the tree’s main anchors and if a strong wind were to come from a north-easterly direction it would greatly enhance the risk of whole tree failure. • After observing the structural damage that has been caused to the subject tree, due to safety reasons and level of potential risk, the author of this report recommends the subject tree is safely removed.

An example of the root damage is visible in Figure 3, where large structural roots are severed and broken up into the tree trunk, visible at the top of the photo. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 745 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

Figure 3 - Damage to large structural roots on the Norfolk Island Pine

Based on the advice provided by Independent Arboricultural Services regarding the impacts of the damage to the tree’s structural viability, the potential target zone and the risk of failure, an authorised City officer authorised the tree’s removal under Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) section 25(2)(c)(i) and (ii) on the basis that the tree is now actually or potentially dangerous as a result of being structurally unsound.

On 22 February 2021 the subject tree, being a Norfolk Island pine of considerable heritage, cultural and visual significance, was removed. Because the damage to the tree was undertaken before the VPO came into effect, the damage was lawful and enforcement options (including penalties and reinstatement orders) under Local Law No 6 are not applicable.

5.3 VPO process

The process for making a VPO is set out within Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management). The VPO must be made or revoked by Council resolution. On making the VPO, the City must give public notice and notice of the order to the landowner. The notice must invite written submissions by a specified date, in this case 3 March 2021. The public and landowner may make written submissions about the VPO by the specified date, and these submissions must be properly made (in accordance with legislation).

The City must consider the properly made written submissions and evaluate any arguments proffered against confirming the VPO. Then, the VPO may be confirmed, confirmed with modifications, or revoked by Council resolution. The landowner and submitters must be notified of the outcome.

The City invited the public to make written submissions about the Vegetation Protection Order on Saturday 30 January 2021. Four weeks were provided within which submissions 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 746 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02 could be made. Advertising was undertaken in the Gold Coast Bulletin and notification was made to the landholder in accordance with the requirements of the Local law.

During the notification period, the City received 4 written submissions which are summarised in Attachment B. Three submissions supported the order, while one submission opposed the order.

The submitters supported the protection of the tree and the considerable visual significance ground the VPO was made on. Submitters also expressed support for future VPOs, and for penalties for damage to significant trees. The supporting submissions were also concerned about the process that allowed damage to the tree to occur prior to the VPO coming into effect; concern about the fence installation; and the development application.

The submission opposing the VPO questioned the grounds on which the order was made, including the cultural, historical and visual significance of the tree; the tree’s age; the qualifications of Council officers; and other matters listed in Attachment B.

Given the extent of damage to the tree as described in the two arborist reports, and its subsequent removal, it is recommended that Council revoke the VPO.

5.4 Enacting future VPOs

Through the process of making this Vegetation Protection Order there have been a number of learnings including the desirability of updating Local Law No 6, having particular regard to the provisions around the making of a VPO, including the timing and process for giving public notice.

Following a review of this process, it is proposed that a policy position be brought to the Planning and Environment Committee, before a report with any changes to Local Law 6 is brought to the Governance and Administration Committee, as required by the Local Law amendment process.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

Corporate Plan – Gold Coast 2022

. Protecting significant trees aligns with the City’s Corporate Plan – Gold Coast 2022:

i 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. ii 1.6 Our modern centres create vibrant communities - We can work, live and play in our local neighbourhoods, which includes the specific outcomes to deliver the Urban Greenspace Program. Our Natural City Strategy

. Protecting significant trees supports the Our Natural City Strategy’s theme of ‘Places for nature – our natural asset network sustains healthy, diverse and resilient habitats and includes areas for people to enjoy nature’. It directly relates to key priority action 2.2 Prioritise and implement management actions to improve health, quality, condition and level of protection for our priority natural assets.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 747 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

The cost of replacement plantings within public open space is estimated at $500 per tree for 100L Norfolk Island pines.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

Corporate Risk

Protecting significant trees supports the mitigation of Corporate Risk No. CO000675 - A reduction in the extent and quality of the City’s natural asset network, green space and community access opportunities, resulting in a possible decline in city liveability, image and economic potential.

Directorate Risk

Protecting significant trees supports the mitigation of Economy, Planning and Environment risk No. RIS0000002 - The city's cultural heritage is not preserved and protected resulting in permanent, irreplaceable loss or deterioration of places of cultural and heritage significance.

Tree Risk

The City arranged for an independent arborist to inspect the damage to the Norfolk Island pine, in order to mitigate the risk of tree failure. The inspection, undertaken by Independent Arboricultural Services, found that the damage had resulted in a risk to public safety and as such removal of the tree was recommended and subsequently authorised under Local Law No. 6 (Vegetation Management) section 25(2)(c)(i) and (ii). The applicant also relied on the emergency works exemption provisions of the Planning Act to authorise the removal of the tree without a development permit.

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

Revocation of Vegetation Protection Order

The submissions on the VPO, and recommendation to revoke the VPO, have been considered in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management (below):

Section 15

(1) After considering the submissions made in response to the notice of the order and evaluating any arguments against confirming the order in the light of the reasons for the order, the local government may, by resolution, revoke a vegetation protection order (including an interim protection order if the order has not been confirmed.

(2) If the local government revokes a protection order under this section, it must: (a) give notice of the revocation to the owner of the land on which the vegetation is situated; and (b) give public notice of the revocation by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the City area; and (c) give written notice of the revocation to those persons who duly made submissions in accordance with section 12.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 748 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

(3) A notice under Section 15(2)(a) may be given by a written notice served upon the landowner.

Should Council support the recommendation to revoke the VPO, the necessary notifications will be undertaken as outlined in the Local Law No 6.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not Applicable.

11 DELEGATIONS

An appointed authorised City officer authorised the tree removal under Local Law No 6, section 25(2)(c)(i) and 25(2)(c)(ii).

Statutory authorisation SA0055 was used to authorise local government workers to access the subject property to complete the arboricultural inspection on 5 February 2021.

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Directorate or Is the Stakeholder Satisfied Stakeholder Consulted Organisation with Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate) Tony Cockram City Development Yes Senior Arboricultural Economy, Planning and Planning Officer Environment Sam Hartley City Development Yes Executive Coordinator Economy, Planning and Engineering and Environment Environmental Assessment Grazi Reistenbach Prada Office of Architecture and Yes A/ Cultural Heritage Heritage Coordinator Economy, Planning and Environment Lily Chan Office of Architecture and Yes A/City Architect Heritage Economy, Planning and Environment Andrew Young Legal Services Yes Executive Coordinator Office of the Chief Legal Services Operating Officer

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 749 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

Jo Furey-Lopez Health and Regulatory Yes Executive Coordinator City Services Regulation Lifestyle and Community Stuart Patrick Health and Regulatory Yes Coordinator Strategic Services Development Lifestyle and Community

13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

External / community stakeholder Impacts . The process for making a VPO, as set out in Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) is complex. The community may not understand how this significant Norfolk Island Pine could be damaged and not be protected by the Council resolution to make the VPO. . There may be pre-emptive action taken by landholders to remove significant trees. . Ongoing loss of the City’s large and significant trees will impact negatively on the City’s urban forest, biodiversity and liveability. . Ongoing loss of the City’s large and significant trees may impact negatively on the City’s reputation. . The community may increase requests for protection of significant, individual trees in the city.

Internal (Organisational) Stakeholder Impacts . The process of making a VPO may impact on the willingness to use this proactive protection mechanism. . There may be increased impacts on the workload associated with an increase in VPO requests.

14 TIMING

The VPO came into force when public notice of it was given on Saturday 30 January 2021. The damage to the tree was undertaken before the VPO came into effect.

Public submissions closed on Wednesday 3 March 2021. Submitters will be notified of the outcome as required by the VPO process.

15 CONCLUSION

The subject tree being an Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine at 1 Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads was a mature sized tree identified as being of considerable cultural, heritage and visual significance.

Prior to the Vegetation Protection Order over the subject tree coming into effect, works were undertaken that damaged the tree. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 750 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

The extent of the works resulted in damage to, and removal of, structural and anchoring roots and over-pruning of the branches. Given its location, and the risks of failure resulting from that damage, the City appointed consultant arborist recommended that the tree be removed. The subject tree was removed on 22 February 2021.

As a result of the damage to the tree and its subsequent removal, it is recommended that Council resolve to revoke the Vegetation Protection Order.

16 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

1 That the written submissions in response to the public notice of the Vegetation Protection Order be noted. 2 That, having considered the written submissions, the Vegetation Protection Order made in accordance with Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) over the individual tree being an Araucaria heterophylla, with the common name Norfolk Island Pine, located in the south-eastern portion of Lot 0 on BUP67, which also can be described as “Common Property of Nagambie Community Titles Scheme 14982” at the address 1 Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads 4220 be revoked. That the Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) be updated and a policy position 3 be brought back to a future Planning and Environment Committee for consideration.

Author: Authorised by: Samantha Bonney and Lara Solyma Alisha Swain Environmental Planning Director Economy, Planning and Environment 4 March 2021

Objective Ref: A64214099 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 751 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 9 (CONTINUED) PROPOSAL TO REVOKE A VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER CE196/1097/11/02

Correction to part 3 - Lifestyle and Community Committee, not the Planning and Environment Committee

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.008 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr O'Neill

1 That the written submissions in response to the public notice of the Vegetation Protection Order be noted. 2 That, having considered the written submissions, the Vegetation Protection Order made in accordance with Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) over the individual tree being an Araucaria heterophylla, with the common name Norfolk Island Pine, located in the south-eastern portion of Lot 0 on BUP67, which also can be described as “Common Property of Nagambie Community Titles Scheme 14982” at the address 1 Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads 4220 be revoked. 3 That the Local Law No 6 (Vegetation Management) be updated and a policy position be brought back to a future Lifestyle and Community Committee for consideration.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 752 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 11) Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Audit Report Prepared For: Gold Coast City Council

Second Avenue Burleigh Heads QLD 4220

05 February 2021 IAS7036 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 753 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Independent Arboricultural Services - Disclaimer The material contained in this document has been prepared on an independent basis free of any bias and represents the honest opinion of the consulting arborist.

Tissue or soil samples have not been collected nor submitted for testing unless otherwise stated. Excavation is limited to minor earthworks and we submit this assessment on the basis that all data is based on visual inspection of the tree/s and its/their location, species, health and condition at the time of writing unless otherwise stated. Measurements and tree locations noted in this report are approximate and have not been determined by survey unless information and analysis has been provided by the consultant or such information is otherwise noted. Please request a more detailed arborist report if further information and analysis is required. Depending on site requirements, specific alternate specialist advice including engineering consultancy and certification maybe required in combination with this assessment. This assessment contains arborist advice and associated general information only and does not purport to provide other site-specific specialist advice such as engineering certification unless arrangement to source such advice for inclusion in this assessment has been requested and authorised.

This report containing opinions, advice and recommendations based on information and data gathered from site inspections carried out by personnel from Independent Arboricultural Services as well as information provided by the client and/or its representatives, is to be relied on by the client in that context. It is assumed that all such information provided to Independent Arboricultural Services is correct. All recommended arboricultural works detailed in this assessment including pruning of tree canopy or roots, tree removal, tree transplantation or other associated works including stump grinding or the application of any prescribed treatment shall be carried out in accordance with applicable standards including Australian Standards AS 4373-2007- Pruning of amenity trees and AS 4970-2009- Protection of trees on development sites.

This report is subject to copyright laws and no part of it may be reproduced or used without the express written permission of the client or Independent Arboricultural Services, nor shall it be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the written consent of the consultant and no responsibility will be accepted by Independent Arboricultural Services should such unauthorised use of this report be made. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements have been made including payment of additional fees for such services.

The invoice for this report will be issued to the person or entity as per the address advised at the time of confirmation of appointment. Assessment in this report is based on plans provided at the time of confirmation of engagement and report preparation. Additional time required for re-assessment of report detail due to subsequent re-issue of plans after report preparation will be subject to an additional fee which will be charged at our hourly rate. This report shall not be conveyed to any third party including regulatory authority/s until full payment of this invoice is received by Independent Arboricultural Services and a finalised report has been issued unless agreement to do so has been granted.

Factors including the absence of historical records or local knowledge, recognition of the variability of the integrity of a tree as a naturally living organism as well as the impact of conditions within its surrounds to which it maybe subject including the impacts of mechanical force and the occurrence of weather events, do not allow an arborist to guarantee the age of a tree, or the length of time a tree/s may live or such time as it /they may fail. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that the problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.

1 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 754 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Document Tracking & Information

Project Name Co-ordination and supervision of air-vac

Project Arborist Garry Rangi (AQF Level 5)

Client Gold Coast City Council

Address Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220

IAS Reference IAS7036

Prepared By Garry Rangi (AQF Level 5)

Checked By Roger Rankine (AQF Level 8) Date 8th February 2021

Revision 1

Andrew Rankine • Diploma Arb. (AQF Level 5) • TRAQ (Qualified) • Arboriculture Australia • ISA Certified Arborist & Municipal Director Registered Professional Arborist Specialist AU-0269AM Mobile: 0412 035 396 • QTRA (Lic. 2768) • QAA Qualified Member • Diploma Arb. (AQF Level 5) • TRAQ (Qualified) Roger Rankine • Grad Cert Arb. (AQF Level 8) • Arboriculture Australia Registered • ISA Qualified Arborist (QL- Director Professional Arborist Mobile: 0408 161 015 0001A) • QAA Qualified Member • QTRA (Lic. 4988) Stephen Catchpoole • Diploma Arb. (AQF Level 5) • TRAQ (Qualified) Consulting Arborist • QTRA (Qualified) • Bachelor of Science Forestry Mobile: 0400 473 500 • Doctor of Philosophy in Forestry • Bachelor of Science (Hons Botany) (PhD) • QAA Qualified Member

• Diploma Arb. (AQF Level 5) Mick Maher • TRAQ (Qualified) • Cert IV Project Management Consulting Arborist • Cert II Horticulture (Turf Management) • Cert III Conservation and Land Mobile: 0400 606 640 • QAA Qualified Member Management

• Diploma Arb. (AQF Level 5) • TRAQ (Qualified) • Cert III in Civil Construction: • Dip. Horticulture (Plant Operations), (Pipe • Dip. Project Management Garry Rangi Laying), (Road Construction & • Dip. Business Management Consulting Arborist Maintenance) • Associate Dip. (Wilderness Reserves & Mobile: 0418 793 534 • Advanced Diploma of Civil Wildlife) Construction • Arboriculture Australia Registered • Cert III in Conservation Consulting Arborist Earthworks • QAA Qualified Member Sam Gilbey • Trainee Consulting Arborist Trainee Consulting • Bachelor of Science in Ecology and (Diploma Arb. AQF Level 5 Arborist Conservation Biology Commenced) Mobile: 0400 229 587

Contact Details Postal address (07) 3399 5865 PO Box 287, Morningside QLD 4170 [email protected] [email protected] ABN www.independentarb.com.au 65 062 099 495

2 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 755 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Abbreviations

GCCC Gold Coast City Council RPA Root Protection Area

DA Development Application TMP Tree Management Plan

VPO Vegetation Protection Order CMP Construction Management Plan

ULE Useful Life Expectancy VMP Vegetation Management Plan

BLF Building Location Footprint AS Australian Standard

BLE Building Location Envelope AS 4373: 2007 Pruning of amenity trees

TPZ Tree Protection Zone AS 4970: 2009 Protection of trees on development sites

SRZ Structural Root Zone DBH Diameter at Breast Height

All comments and recommendations in this report have been determined in accordance with Australian Standards AS 4373-2007- Pruning of amenity trees and AS 4970-2009 – Protection of trees on development sites. All recommended tree work should be carried out in accordance with these standards.

Garry Rangi Consulting Arborist

3 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 756 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Map

Figure 1: Subject Site

(Nearmap 2020)

4 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 757 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Introduction

This report is based on a visual inspection carried out from the ground on 05 February 2021. No soil or tissue sampling has been conducted. Tree assessment and Qualitative Visual Tree Analysis has been carried out in accordance with TRAQ ISA guidelines. Data and information provided to the client by others has been incorporated into this report as appropriate.

Arborist Comment

A review of Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220 was undertaken by Garry Rangi (AQF Level 5) on 05 February 2021.

In summary, • Site visit and supervision of dry exploratory excavation was undertaken by the Project Arborist, Mr. Garry Rangi (AQF Level 5) • A toolbox meeting and discussion on the days activities was held with representatives of GCCC, machine operators and the Project Arborist to discuss the scope of activities. • Work was commenced on the damaged root plate area – north/east corner. • The tree appears to be in good health, and it has been over pruned (lion tailed) with lower lateral branches removed (please see photos). • Approximately 20 to 25% of the root plate has been damaged and torn by an excavator. There is visible evidence of root shattering up into the base of the trunk. • Anchoring roots have been removed by the excavator and no structural anchoring roots were observed in the exposed area. • There is visible evidence where two (2) major structural roots have been impacted with the excavator. • Targets within the fall zone of the tree include the unit complex, foot path, car parks, vehicle movements along the road, park and toilet block over road. • All exploratory work was undertaken in accordance with AS4970:2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites Arborist Comment • Due to the amount of major structural and anchoring root damage undertaken on the tree, the long-term health and structural viability has been affected by the previously undertaken works. • In assessing the impacts previously undertaken to the tree, the potential target zone and the risk of failure from the prevailing storms it is recommended that the tree is removed and replaced.

5 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 758 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Tree Detail

Botanical Name Common Name DBH (cm) SRZ (m) Height (m) Spread (m) Health Form

Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine 101 123 25 11 Good Typical / Poor*

*Tree has been lion tailed and lateral branches removed.

Table Legend: Health Form Aged Class Further Detail G: Good G: Good J – Juvenile DBH - Diameter at Breast Height measured at 1.4m above ground level F: Fair F: Fair FTLM – Full to Late Maturity DBH is the circumference divided by π P: Poor P: Poor M – Mature TPZ - Tree Protection Zone displaced as metres radius D: Dead T: Typical S – Senescent Note: TPZ - minimum area is 2.0m / maximum area is 15m 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 759 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Photos

Photo 2: View of damaged roots – north/east Photo 1: General view of site corner of root plate

Photo 3: View of trench works and exposed roots Photo 4: View of woody root <70mm torn off the southern side of root plate root plate

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 760 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Photo 6: View of air-vac set up and starting Photo 5: View of tree over pruned (lion tailed) operational works

Photo 7: View looking down into air-vac area, Photo 8: View of root shattering into the trunk NOTE: torn roots

8 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 761 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Photo 9: View of torn anchoring roots under the Photo 10: View of structural root impacted during driveway previous operations works

Photo 11: View of another major structural root Photo 12: View of possible replacement planting impacted during previous operational works site in parkland opposite

9 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 762 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

Audit Report - Gold Coast City Council - IAS7036 - 05 February 2021

Company Details Independent Arboricultural Services

Independent Arboricultural Services, incorporated in May 2007, offers a completely independent arborist consulting and reporting service. Its directors and associated consultants bring extensive arboricultural knowledge gained over many years to this company. All consulting staff hold AQF Level 5 (Diploma of Arboriculture). Specialised advice when required, such as provision of survey mapping or engineering advice and certification is sourced from reputable professional providers according to site requirements as per Australian Standard 4970-2009. Statement of Goal

To deliver continual improvement through the use of world’s best arboricultural practices, supported by ongoing education and exposure to leading industry experts and research throughout the world. Mission Statement

To provide timely, relevant and actionable consulting advice and practice based on the latest available and best scientific arboricultural knowledge. Environmental Statement

Independent Arboricultural Services supports long term environmental sustainability sustainable sourced paper and ensuring all inks cartridges are recycled where possible.

Independent Arboricultural Services actively seeks to maintain a positive carbon footprint status and to that end is committed to protecting and preserving the environment, continuing to carry out tree planting, transplanting and replacement planting where practical, having planted in excess of 4000 trees in the first 2 years after its inception in May 2007 alone. Arboricultural recommendations involving the removal of tree/s will include replanting at a minimum ratio of 2 trees for any tree removed where possible. All arboricultural recommendations are made in accordance with world’s best arboricultural practice and within the Australian Standards AS 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees and AS 4970 – Protection of trees on development sites so as to ensure optimal outcomes for all living trees.

Independent Arboricultural Services acknowledges the benefits of healthy trees with good vigour and vitality and actively promotes better understanding in the general community of the contribution that trees make to reducing greenhouse gasses, the contribution of trees to better water retention and the prevention of soil erosion, the ability of trees to provide protection to infrastructure by diffusing strong winds in weather events and the contribution of trees to general liveability within the urban environment.

It is an acknowledged fact that air temperature beneath a tree canopy can be in excess of 5o Celsius lower than the surrounding ambient air temperature thereby reducing reliance on greenhouse gas producing air conditioners and coal fired power sources.

10 | P a g e www.independentarb.com.au 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 763 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ATTACHMENT B Summary of submissions on VPO 1 Second Avenue Burleigh Heads Ref Supports Submission summary Properly made number VPO VPO001 Submitter concerned about process that allowed applicant to damage the significant tree Yes In part. Submission didn’t before the VPO came into effect. address the grounds on which Submitter supports penalties. the VPO was made. Submitter supports future VPOs. VPO002 Submitter supports the retention and protection of the tree, supports the VPO and Yes Yes supports the visual significance grounds. VPO003 Submitter contends the tree is not of historical significance. No Yes Submitter contends the tree's age, arguing it is younger than 75-85 years. Submitter contends that the City officers were unqualified to make the visual, cultural and heritage significance assessments. Submitter states the VPO agenda report says the tree is healthy, when it was no longer healthy after the damage occurred. Submitter states that the tree was not as visually significant after the damage occurred, as it was before the damage. Submitter contends that the Burleigh Heads Heritage and Character Study found the tree not to be of cultural heritage value. Submitter contends that Council failed to demonstrate the tree was of considerable historical, cultural or visual significance. VPO004 Submitter concerned about development application compliance with City Plan. Yes In part. Submission didn’t Submitter questioned why ground works were undertaken when there is a development address the grounds on which application. the VPO was made. Submitter considers the tree’s removal to be related to the development. Submitter supports confirming the VPO.

P 1300 GOLDCOAST (1300 465 326) W cityofgoldcoast.com.au

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 764 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 CITY PLANNING NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

Refer 2 page attachments

1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Eighty four percent (84 per cent) of the Gold Coast land area is mapped as being exposed to one or more natural hazards. The City has various long-standing policies to mitigate a property’s exposure to natural hazards for flooding, bushfire, landslide, coastal erosion and storm tide inundation (coastal erosion and storm tide inundation are also referred to as coastal hazards).

Pursuant to the Planning Act 2016, the subordinate State Planning Policy 2017 (SPP) and the Minister’s Guideline and Rules 2017, with regards to natural hazards, local governments are now directed to undertake a risk-based approach to planning for land use and development.

Under the SPP, the ‘State interest for natural hazards risk and resilience’ is expressed as:

“The risks associated with natural hazards, including the projected impacts of climate change, are avoided or mitigated to protect people and property and enhance the community’s resilience to natural hazards.”

The City is currently preparing City Plan updates associated with flood (Designing for flood) and landslide, with an update to coastal hazards and bushfire being scoped.

The proposed Designing for flood major update will deliver a new Flood overlay map based on the most up to date assessment of flood hazard across the City as well as an updated Flood overlay code. The development of the new Flood overlay map and Flood overlay code will be informed by the findings of the SPP required risk assessment.

There has been a significant delay to the Designing for flood update in response to a Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) investigation relating to the City’s design rainfall map. This investigation was initiated upon City Planning’s receipt of the 2019 BOM’s revision of the national Intensity Frequency Duration (IFD) map. Officers identified that the rainfall database that underpins the IFD did not include local data collected by Council since 2000.

Since the completion of this investigation in February 2021 and the preliminary outputs provided, the City is now equipped with a rainfall map that is better informed by a longer period and greater database of the historical rainfall. City officers are reviewing the BOM’s findings in order to generate the necessary inputs for use in the City’s flood models. However, this investigation has impacted the timeline for preparation of the City’s flood models, flood overlay code and risk assessment.

It is important to note other South East Queensland Councils have undertaken similar investigations for their local government area with respect to the national IFD database and face similar issues.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 765 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to provide an update of the progress of the various natural hazard's updates detailing:

• a background on natural hazards in the city; • the requirements of the State and risks to Council when integrating the State interest for natural hazards risk and resilience into City Plan; and • an overview of the actions, outputs and progress of the natural hazard updates being delivered and scoped.

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS

See attachment A.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Overview of Natural Hazards on the Gold Coast

The term ‘natural hazard’ applies to natural processes which include flood, bushfire, landslide and coastal hazards (coastal erosion and storm tide inundation), that pose a hazard to human safety or property.

Approximately eighty four percent (84 per cent) of the City’s 1334 km2 land area is mapped as affected by one or more natural hazards, with Figure 1 illustrating how much of this impacted area is affected by a specific natural hazard.

AREA OF LAND (HA) AFFECTED BY A NATURAL HAZARD

11646, 6%

16920, 9%

Bushfire Landslide 77,380, 42% 27055, 15% Flood Stormtide Erosion

52120, 28%

Figure 1 Land affected by specific natural hazards

There is a long and documented history of natural hazards impacting residents of the Gold Coast with images of flooding in the city dating as far back as 1887. However, throughout the 1950’s until the mid-1970’s the city experienced a series of extreme weather events (e.g. cyclones and east coast lows) which resulted in the Council implementing specific measures 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 766 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1) to protect people and property from coastal erosion and inundation from storm tide. These measures included:

• Identification of the seawall A-line along the open coast and construction of the seawall; • Implementation of the Delft Report recommendations such as groyne construction, waterway entrance training and beach nourishment; and • Creating a database of previous flood levels to inform flood planning levels.

Recent history of natural hazard events such as flooding in 2001, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2017 resulted in damage to local infrastructure including bridges, roads and local homes in low lying areas experiencing over the floor flooding. Between 2008 and 2009, Hinze Dam was raised, providing both an increase in water storage capacity and greater flood mitigation potential for downstream properties in the Nerang River catchment (the city’s most urbanised catchment).

In 2005, a landslide following heavy rainfall resulted in damage to nine (9) homes on the southern Gold Coast, with Council undertaking remediation works. In 2019, intensive heat wave conditions led to a significant bushfire within the Gold Coast hinterland.

The City’s various planning schemes have long included measures to mitigate a property’s exposure to natural hazards. These measures include providing overlay mapping in City Plan which trigger assessment of development against corresponding overlay codes with these overlay codes setting out the requirements to either:

• prepare site specific assessments of natural hazard risk in supporting potential mitigation measures; and/or • the acceptable outcomes development is expected to deliver.

Understanding of natural processes and the extent to which they threaten human safety and property continues improving with modern advancements in technology, engineering, data collection and science. These advancements have not only influenced the City’s approach to enhancing our mitigations of natural hazard risks, now and into the future, but has also reformed the operation of Queensland’s planning system with regards to natural hazards.

5.2 Planning for natural hazards under the Planning Act 2016

Under the Planning Act 2016, SPP and the Minister’s Guideline and Rules 2017, local governments are required to undertake a risk-based approach to planning for land use and development. The ‘State interest for natural hazards risk and resilience’ is expressed as:

In applying this State interest within a planning scheme, development in a natural hazard area must either; • avoid the natural hazard area; or • where it was not possible to avoid the natural hazard area, mitigate the risk to an acceptable or tolerable level.

The SPP requires local governments to demonstrate that its land use planning and development controls to mitigate natural hazard risks are based on: 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 767 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

• the most up-to-date assessment of natural hazard exposure; • a best practice risk assessment methodology as per the SPP guidance material; and • are informed through consultation with the community undertaken in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Planning Act 2016.

5.2.1 Amending City Plan for natural hazards

Where a natural hazard risk assessment results in actions to amend the planning scheme to ensure risks are tolerable or acceptable, the process for undertaking a natural hazard major update includes the formal steps as detailed under section 20 of the Planning Act 2016.

5.2.2. Minster’s Rules for Making a Planning Change to Reduce a Material Risk of Serious Harm to Persons or Property from Natural Events or Processes

Where an amendment is made to a planning scheme to reduce material risk of serious harm to persons or property on the premises from natural events or processes (bush fires, coastal erosion, flooding or landslides, for example), and the amendment is made under Chapter 4 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules, the amendment is not treated as an adverse planning change for compensation purposes (s. 30(4)(e) Planning Act).

Chapter 4 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules requires a local government to prepare a Feasible Alternatives Assessment Report for each parcel of land affected by the proposed planning change.

The requirements for a Feasible Alternatives Assessment Report are outlined in Chapter 4 Part 2 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules and in summary are to: • Assess and anticipate risk to premises associated with natural hazards; • Present the outcomes of the risk assessment undertaking by Council; • Identify how the proposed planning change is consistent with the SPP and State interest guidelines with regard to natural hazards risk and resilience; • Canvass any alternatives available to making the planning change; • Assess proposed planning changes in terms of mitigating the risks of the natural hazards (including the impact of not making a planning change); and • Seek input of every property owner affected by the proposed change.

For each alternative identified in the Feasibility Alternative Assessment Report, Council must investigate all options for avoiding or mitigating the risk.

5.2.3 Providing information about Natural Hazards

Recent experience indicates that the time taken to complete a first State interest check and proceed to public notification of a major amendment to a planning scheme under the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules can take around 12 months. Under the statutory process, an affected landholder will only be made aware of any proposed amendments to the planning scheme related to the changed natural hazard circumstances of their property when formally notified in accordance with the Planning Act 2016.

Due to this time constraint, in advance of formal notification under the Planning Act, the City directly notifies, in writing, affected property owners alerting them to the proposed changes to their property’s natural hazard risk which will be subject of a major update.

This preliminary notice endeavors to ensure landholders have the most up to date information available to them. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 768 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

The following sections of this report provides a summary of the activities undertaken to date to progress a natural hazard major update for each of the natural hazards identified in City Plan.

5.3 DESIGNING FOR FLOOD MAJOR UPDATE

Council has endorsed undertaking the Designing for Flood major update to City Plan (G17.0530.018). The scope of the package intends to deliver the following: • a new Flood overlay map, based on the most up to date assessment of flood hazard for the Logan-Albert, Coomera, Loders, Biggera, Nerang, Tallebudgera, Currumbin and Coolangatta catchments; • a new Flood overlay code (the first since 2005) based on stakeholder feedback and supported by a risk assessment of the proposed policy; • amendments to the Strategic Framework, the table of assessments and various zone and or use codes for developments located in flood affected areas; • the introduction of new planning scheme policies for Flood Emergency Management Planning, Shelter in Place and undertaking flood risk assessments; and • The integration of Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 8 (Development in the Guragunbah flood plain area) 2020.

The package will also include the State mandated risk assessment and Feasibility Alternative Assessment Report.

The technical aspects to deliver the above products require a commitment to ensure all products generated are fit for purpose and are based on the best data available. The process and method of generating flood information (including flood models, flood model inputs, model calibration, the refinement of model outputs and the creation of flood mapping products and other tools) is supported by continuous peer review.

Table 2 - ‘Designing for Flood progress’, highlights the range of technical activities undertaken by City Planning officers to support the development of fit for purpose flood information products, such as:

1 Development of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) map product; 2 Reviewing rainfall inputs for flood models based on the assessment of Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 and local rainfall data; 3 Reviewing the impact of Wave Setup on flooding for southern Gold Coast creeks.

In addition to implementing the peer review of the above technical studies, a parallel holistic review of the City’s flood policy maps and ongoing consultation with technical/industry stakeholders has been undertaken to scope the required body of work and ensure outcomes are consistent with best practice flood risk management.

The key issues identified through the review include: • The need for an integrated flood risk management approach; • The requirement to develop flood maps and tools to support policy development and implementation, including: o Flood maps with differing planning horizons; o Flood hazards maps based on different return periods including the Probable Maximum Flood for all catchments across the city; o Overland flow maps; and o Flood resilient home building guidance advice for development in high flood risk areas. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 769 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

• Benchmarking acceptable outcomes for inundation of non-habitable spaces such as garages and undercroft areas; • Improving knowledge of flood model noise and its consideration for development assessment; • Preparing solutions to manage the burden to emergency managers into the future; • A guideline on alternative solutions to evacuation for development in high flood risk areas; • The need for a policy for minimum flood free land in moderate to extreme flood risk areas; and • Managing the impacts of extreme floods (i.e residual risk) to people.

Table 2 details the activities undertaken by the City Planning Branch in response to the outputs of the review.

Table 2 – Designing for flood major update progress (Technical and Policy development)

Activity (status) Description Technical Water Level data collection at the The purpose of this study was to create a database for the mouth of Tallebudgera analysis of wave setup at the mouth of Tallebudgera and Creek. (2014 to 2020) Currumbin Creeks. COMPLETED Analysis of data associated with The purpose of this study is to review Council’s existing wave setup in Gold Coast approach for inclusion of wave setup in flood models for the SCHEDULED FOR rivers that directly flow into the ocean. COMPLETION IN MARCH 2021 Update of the City’s Digital The purpose of this study has been to collect latest Elevation Model (DEM) of the topographic information and update City’s DEM. This is a Gold Coast. crucial input to the City’s flood models. COMPLETED Review of Gold Coast The purpose of this assessment is to ensure the City’s rainfall Intensity-Frequency- design rainfall map is adequately informed by historical Duration (2019-2021) rainfall data. SCHEDULED FOR (See section 5.3.1) COMPLETION by MARCH 2021 Preparation of preliminary 1%AEP The purpose of this map is to ascertain flood model outputs, Flood Map for testing. based on the inputs detailed above, are representative and fit SCHEDULED FOR for purpose. COMPLETION MAY 2021 Development of flood models and The SPP requires a risk assessment of flood hazard for a maps for a range of return periods range of rainfall return periods (i.e the frequency of rainfall) for eight major catchments of the including up to the Probable Maximum Flood. The outputs of city (2018-2021) this assessment can be utilised as supporting tools for flood SCHEDULED FOR risk management purposes including development COMPLETION JUNE 2021 assessment. The modelling used to develop flood hazard maps will be based on the IFD and wave setup investigations detailed above. The development of the flood models and outputs are subject to peer review. Policy Review of existing Flood Overlay The purpose of this study was to review the efficacy of Code (2018) Council’s existing flood overlay provisions further to SPP COMPLETED requirements, statutory requirements and best practice flood risk management. Flood Emergency Management The purpose of this study was to develop a guideline on how Plan for Shelter in place (2018) a shelter must be equipped to adequately manage residual COMPLETED flood risk in residential developments. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 770 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

Flood Code’s garage flooding The purpose of this study was to critically review Flood Code policy review (2019) policy with respect to inundation of non-habitable spaces and COMPLETED undertake benchmarking of the flood policy positions with respect to garages/carports/carparks currently in place within other local authorities. Preparation of a preliminary draft The purpose of preparing a draft Flood overlay code is to test Flood overlay code for testing proposed wording with stakeholders, fine tune policy purposes (2019-2020) positions for risk assessment testing and identify potential COMPLETED implementation issues. Developing Temporary Local Council resolved (G17.1017.008) to adopt the Minimum Planning Instruments (TLPI) No.6 Flood Free Land policy for inclusion in a future update to the and No. 8. Flood overlay code and to be implemented in the short term COMPLETED via TLPI for the Guragunbah flood plain area.

The Minimum Flood Free Land policy requires that land intended for developed for residential, industrial and commercial uses, be exposed to no more than a 0.6m flood inundation. The TLPI also limits the proliferation of platform development in the Guragunbah Flood plain area. Developing policy of required The purpose of this policy is to regulate development on land minimum flood free land for for development in moderate to extreme hazard risk areas. development in moderate to extreme hazard risk areas COMPLETED Development of a policy position The purpose of this study is to determine if the output of flood on tolerable afflux resulting from models that are used for development assessment contain model noise any noise, how to quantify it and how to consider it in development assessment. (2020-2021) SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION by April 2021 An investigation into the impact of The purpose of this study is to investigate likely afflux changes in balance cut and fill resulting from relaxation of balance cut and fill in certain practices in coastal areas sections of the coastal area. ONGOING Update of the City’s Flood The purpose of this update is to help manage the burden on Emergency Decision Support emergency services as well as minimising the impact of System residual risk to the community. ONGOING Flood risk assessment of the The output of these investigations will inform the Feasibility city’s catchments Alternative Assessment Report. ONGOING

5.3.1 Issues impacting amendment update

The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) released rainfall maps for the whole of Australia as a draft in 2013, a final version in 2016 and a revision in 2019. The new design rainfalls are based on an expanded database which incorporates rainfall data collected by organisations across Australia and have been analysed using contemporary statistical methods.

Following assessment of the rainfall data it became apparent that the database did not include the City’s extensive network of ALERT rainfall sites that have been in operation since the early 2000’s. The database also did not include the additional data available from 2012 to 2019, particularly in high elevation areas where the BoM stations have a poor coverage. Therefore, some sections of the city were under-represented in the data base which was supposed to underpin the City’s design rainfall map, particularly with respect to sub-daily rainfall information. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 771 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

Sub-daily rainfalls are the main contributors to flooding in many catchments of the Gold Coast. This important issue has also impacted other local governments across South East Queensland. Council officers have engaged with BoM to investigate the impacts that inclusion of the City’s ALERT rainfall network (improved dataset) could have on the Gold Coast design rainfalls.

As a result of this study: • An additional 27 sub daily rainfall stations met the BOM’s minimum required standards and were included in the investigation; • The period of rainfall database increased by 7 years, therefore, the most recent flood event, i.e. ex-tropical cyclone Debbie was now included in the database.

As a result, the City will be equipped with a rainfall map that is informed by a longer period of historical rainfall with all sections of the city now adequately represented in the rainfall database.

However, the review of the rainfall database has led to an eight-month delay in updating of the City’s flood models and flood policies. At the time of writing this report, City officers are analysing the first tranche of study outputs to determine its fit for purpose. From this analysis additional information from the BOM may be required.

5.3.2 Stakeholder consultation

Ongoing stakeholder engagement is important to support the update of the Flood Code and assist with the delivery of the flood modelling projects. As well as an internal Project Working Technical Group, the external Flood Forum has provided valuable input. The Flood Forum includes representatives from the Property Council of Australia (PCA), Urban Development Industry Association (UDIA), Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) and relevant City officers from City Development, City Planning and City Assets.

The purpose of the Flood Forum is to: • more effectively communicate with industry to better understand contemporary issues, implications and concerns responding to Council’s flood and stormwater policies and their implementation; • engage directly with industry through the forum and associated workshops; and • provide an avenue for industry to provide feedback on the technical elements associated with the Flood Code Review project.

5.3.3 Expected timeframe

It is anticipated that the Major Update Designing for Flood package will be presented to Council for endorsement to commence State interest check in December 2021. To assist in the preparation of this package, a draft Flood code and draft Flood overlay map is intended to be presented to Councillors in July 2021.

5.4 COASTAL HAZARDS

The City has sought to undertake a Major Update to City Plan to integrate the State interest for natural hazard risk and resilience (coastal hazards). This project was initiated following advice from the Minister for Planning, advising Council to undertake the major update when City Plan commenced in 2016.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 772 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

A City Plan Major Update (coastal hazards) package was progressed and later presented to Council for endorsement for State interest review (November 2017). Council subsequently withdrew the Major Update after securing Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy (CHAS) funding in 2018, as the State accepted that it would be better to integrate the State interest for coastal hazards into City Plan, once the CHAS had been completed.

5.4.1 Coastal Hazards Adaptation Strategy

In 2017, the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) was appointed by the State to administer funding, under the QCoast2100 program, so that local governments could prepare a CHAS. Under the funding program, councils are reimbursed for the costs in preparing a CHAS and required to submit material periodically to the LGAQ for review and signoff by the State.

In July 2018, Council resolved to apply for CHAS funding and was successful. A condition of the funding is that Council contribute 14 per cent of the costs associated with preparing the CHAS and that it be completed within three years and be informed by community input. Whilst the CHAS is non-statutory, its principles and methodology align with meeting the State interest for integrating coastal hazards into City Plan.

The CHAS enables the City to assess its exposure to coastal hazards now and into the future and sets in place the framework for Council to start planning adaptation responses and actions in areas of high to extreme coastal hazard risk.

The City’s draft ‘Coastal Adaptation Plan’ (aka the CHAS) completed public exhibition on the 19th February 2021. This final phase of the CHAS is on track to be completed and presented to Council for endorsement in April 2021. If endorsed by Council, the CHAS will be submitted to the LGAQ for State endorsement.

5.4.2 Coastal Hazards major update

The final Coastal Adaptation Plan will be accompanied by an internal program of works which will enable City officers to reintroduce the City Plan Major Update (coastal hazards) so that it may integrate the State’s interest for coastal hazards.

The products to be delivered as part of this update will include: • A new coastal hazard overlay map; • A new coastal hazard overlay code; • Amendments to the strategic framework, zone codes and use codes for land affected by coastal hazards; • Supporting planning scheme policies; and • Guidance material to assist applicants and development assessment officers.

5.4.3 Expected timeframes

It is expected that the final Coastal Adaptation Plan and proposed internal program of works will be presented to Council in April 2021.

Upon Council’s endorsement of the Coastal Adaptation Plan, officers will undertake a scope of work to deliver the major update to City Plan (coastal hazards). It is important to note that by completing the CHAS, the City will have met its requirement to undertake a citywide coastal hazard risk assessment in accordance with meeting the State interest for coastal hazards. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 773 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

5.5 LANDSLIDE MAJOR UPDATE

City Plan currently includes a Landslide hazard overlay map, where proposed development in the mapped area triggers assessment against the Landslide overlay code. The Landslide hazard overlay map identifies properties with more than medium risk of landslide hazard. Properties not mapped are considered to have low or less than medium landslide risk and do not require assessment against the Landslide hazard overlay code.

The current City Plan Landslide overlay map is based on a 2012 Landslide Susceptibility Assessment Report which utilised a digital terrain model with a 25m grid resolution. A 2017 Landslide Susceptibility Assessment was completed using a digital terrain model with a 10m grid resolution. The finer resolution allowed for a more detailed assessment of landslide risk across the city.

In January 2020, in response to this updated assessment, the Council resolved to submit for State interest check a new updated Landslide overlay map to be included in City Plan.

The scope of the proposed update is detailed in Table 3 below, which highlights the change in Landslide hazard rating based on the 2011 and 2017 assessments.

Table 3: Change in landslide hazard and proposed rating

Change Count Description No Longer has Hazard 3007 Assessment not required Now has a Hazard 17723 Now need an assessment No Change in Hazard Rating 34030 Same as before - still need an assessment H1-VH2 133 Hazard Rating Increase 3 Same as before - still need an assessment M -H 814 M-VH 60 H-M 63 Hazard Rating Decrease Same as before - still need an assessment VH-H 11 VH-M 11

1 High Hazard / 2 Very High Hazard / 3 Medium Hazard

As part of the Council resolution, the City notified affected landholders of potential changes to their property’s landslide risk exposure in advance of the statutory public consultation period required under the City Plan major amendment process.

5.5.1 Issues impacting amendment update

In March 2020, the City directly notified 55,852 properties that a major update to the Landslide overlay map will be progressed and that landholders will have the opportunity to provide comment as part of the statutory notification period. Landholders were directed to a dedicated Council webpage, which allowed landowners to view the proposed changes to the landslide assessment. Over 770 separate enquiries were managed and recorded by City officers.

During this period, the City Planning Branch identified the need for a further geotechnical assessment of the outputs to better inform the risk assessment and the associated Feasibility Alternative Assessment Report.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 774 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

Additional geotechnical work was commissioned in May 2020. This additional assessment was received by the City Planning officers in December 2020 and is currently being reviewed by the Natural Hazards team.

5.5.2 Expected timeframe

It is anticipated that the additional requirements to support the Landslide major update will be presented to Council in August 2021.

5.6 BUSHFIRE

The City Plan’s Bushfire hazard overlay map identifies land that is bushfire prone from medium to very high hazard. The City has approximately 77,380 ha of mapped Medium, High, Very High bushfire hazard and Potential Impact Buffer. The City’s natural area estate contains approximately 11,874 ha (15 per cent) of the city’s mapped hazard.

Mapped bushfire hazard found within other land tenures includes:

• Queensland National Parks & Wildlife 12,433 ha (16 per cent); • Seqwater 5,167 ha (6.6 per cent); • Other State managed land (not including road reserve) 610 ha (0.78 per cent); • Commonwealth land 1,480 ha (1.9 per cent); and • Privately owned land 41,160 ha (53 per cent).

Development on bushfire prone land, triggers assessment against the Bushfire hazard overlay code. Approximately 56 per cent of the city’s total area has the potential to be impacted by bushfire. This exposes approximately 41,797 structures/building used as dwellings, commercial, industrial purposes and essential infrastructure to varying levels of bushfire risk. Most of these structures/buildings (90 per cent) are located within the 100m of the potential impact buffer and not within the mapped Very high, High or Medium bushfire hazard areas.

The Bushfire Resilience Framework 2019, which was endorsed by Council (G19.1206.009) on 12 June 2019, allows for a consistency of bushfire mitigation outcomes for the various bushfire stakeholders across the city. The Bushfire Resilience Framework 2019 supports actions to ensure bushfire hazard mapping is up to date and that controls in City Plan to mitigate bushfire hazard remain best practice. This includes ensuring the City Plan bushfire overlay code reflects State Planning policy bushfire requirements.

5.6.1 City Plan bushfire mapping and policy

On the 29 August 2020, the Honourable Craig Crawford MP, Minister for Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, wrote to the City to encourage a review of the City’s Bushfire Prone Area mapping and the designation of bushfire prone areas for the purposes of triggering the National Construction Code and Australian Standard AS 3935:2018 Construction of buildings in a bushfire prone area.

The current City Plan Bushfire Hazard overlay map reflects the most up to date bushfire prone area mapping that has been issued by the State (dated 2015). The State have in writing advised Council that they are progressing an update to the State Bushfire Prone Area mapping layer of the State Planning Policy Interactive Mapping System. When this is finalised by the State, this will inform a future update to the City’s Bushfire Hazard overlay map. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 775 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

Following the State’s release in December 2019 of the ‘Bushfire Resilient Communities’ document, which advises Council’s on how best to integrate the State interest for bushfire hazard into City Plan, the City Plan’s Bushfire Hazard overlay code will require a review.

5.6.2 Expected timeframes

It is anticipated that a review of the City’s Bushfire Hazard overlay code will commence in August 2021.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

Action 1.8 of Corporate Plan requires us to: ‘Implement the City Plan to undertake risk based land use planning that considers natural hazards as a fundamental element in city planning.

City Plan section 3.8.7.1 details the overarching principles that are to guide land use development decisions in relation to natural hazards.

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

Note applicable

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

In alignment with other mitigation tools, programs and strategies, this update supports mitigation of the existing corporate risk CO000644 - Natural Hazards Resilience.

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

The State Planning Policy for natural hazards recommends councils should undertake a fit- for-purpose investigation and risk assessment for landslide, coastal hazards, flooding and bushfire.

The risk assessments are to consider the risks presented by natural hazards to existing and future communities and infrastructure for at least the range of events identified by State Planning Policy guidance material and where such information is available.

The progression of the natural hazard program aims to satisfy the requirements of the State Planning Policy.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not applicable.

11 DELEGATIONS

Not applicable.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 776 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Directorate or Organisation Is the Stakeholder Stakeholder Consulted Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate) Catherine Rollo – Executive Economy, Planning and Yes Coordinator, Strategic, Urban Environment and Regional Planning, City Planning Branch Jodie Sekac, Executive Office of the Chief Operating Yes Coordinator, Legal Services Officer

13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

Given the extent of natural hazards throughout the City, natural hazard stakeholders include a wide array of internal and external groups, including the tens of thousands of property owners of land with mapped natural hazards. Internal stakeholders include all of Council’s directorates. External stakeholders can comprise affected landholders, development industry representatives, infrastructure providers, state government agencies, commercial and business entities and community groups.

Proposed City Plan major updates will ensure external and internal stakeholders will have the most recent and up to date information on natural hazard risks for landslide, coastal hazards, flooding and bushfire.

14 TIMING

The natural hazard updates are scheduled to be delivered as noted in this report:

• Coastal Adaptation Plan (CHAS) – April 2021 • Expected Scope of Works for Major Update Coastal Hazards June 2021; • Amendment to Landslide Overlay map – August 2021; • Designing of Flood major update package – December 2021; • Bushfire (report on audit against state interest) – February 2022.

15 CONCLUSION

The City Planning Branch are undertaking amendments to ensure City Plan effectively integrates the State interest for natural hazards risk and resilience which include flood, coastal hazards, landslide and bushfire.

These updates are being undertaken in accordance with the requirements and guidance material which supports the State Planning Policy. This includes the requirement for the City to undertake a city-wide risk assessment of its exposure to the specific natural hazards to inform planning and development controls and ensure risks are maintained at acceptable levels. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 777 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

16 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

That Council note the progress of the various natural hazard major update packages detailed in this report.

Author: Authorised by: Pradesh Ramiah Alisha Swain Supervising Natural Hazards Planner Director Economy, Planning and Environment. 8 March 2021.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.009 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr Owen-Jones

That Council note the progress of the various natural hazard major update packages detailed in this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 778 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

ATTACHMENT A Previous resolutions

Flood On 26 July 2016, Council resolved;

1) to amend the flood overlay map in the City Plan to be amended (G16.0726.015) to include:

a) State Government mandated 80cm sea level rise b) State Government mandated 10% increase in storm tide intensity c) MTAC recommended 10% increase in rainfall intensity d) Adoption of 50% of total wave setup at the mouth of the Tallebudgera and Currumbin Creeks e) The most up-to-date flood related topographic, land use, technological and hydrological data.

2) That the proposed flood map be included as part of Council’s submission to State Government for first State interest check as part of City Plan Major update

3) That officers continue investigations regarding the wave setup at the mouth of the Tallebudgera and Currumbin Creeks.

On 30 May 2017, Council resolved to include Designing for Flood updates within the scope of the City Plan Major update 2 (G17.0530.018). This item included the investigation of flood free access, minimum requirement of flood free land and other administrative updates to improve the workability of the code.

In October 2017, Council endorsed new policy directions in regard to Shelter in Place and Minimum Flood Free Land policies (G17.1017.008 and G17.1017.008). Council also endorsed expediting the Minimum Flood Free Land policy through a Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI).

On 29 May 2018, Council endorsed to remove the flood component from the Major update 2 & 3 amendment packages (G18.0529.018).

TLPI 6 was adopted by Council on the 27 August 2019 (G19.0827.030) with an earlier effective date of 28 August 2018. The purpose of the TLPI is to prevent the potential loss of the city’s flood resilience and to enable the sustainable mitigation of flood hazard on flood prone land in the Guragunbah flood plain area.

On 26 February 2019, an introductory paper on the Flood Code Review Project was noted by Council (G19.0226.017), with the scope of the review including:

• Flooding policy review for garages, car parks, and car ports; and • Catchment flood storage in areas subject to storm tide

October 29 October 2019 (G19.1029.016) an update to Council, Council officers identified that new information and data warranted an update to the City Plan Flood overlay map and was briefed on the modelling and technical activities being progressed to undertake this task. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 779 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 10 (CONTINUED) NATURAL HAZARD AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLAN – PROGRESS UPDATE PD113/1303(P1)

Council resolved to note a progress update on the Flood Code Review Project and that the Insurance Council of Australia be invited to join the Flood Forum.

On 18 June 2020 Council resolved (G20.0618.016) to endorse draft TLPI No.8 to replace TLPI No.6 and submit it to the Minister for approval.

On 25 August 2020, Council resolved (G20.0825.043) to adopt TLPI No.8 with an effective date of 31 August 2020.

Landslide On 7 December 2018, Council resolved (G18.1207.017), in part: to include an update to the Landslide hazard overlay as part of the City Plan work program. This update to the landslide map will form part of a future Major update.

On 26 February 2019, Council noted (G19.0226.01), that the Landslide Susceptibility Assessment was being undertaken to inform the update to the landslide map.

On 30 January 2020, Council (G20.0130.011) resolved to submit City Plan Major Update – Landslide for State interest check and commence early notification of affected properties.

Coastal Hazards On 7 December 2016 Council resolved (G16.1207.016) to endorsed to prepare a major update to City Plan (Coastal Hazards)

On 14 November 2017, Council resolved (G17.1114.015) to endorse the City Plan Major update (Coastal Hazards) package and forward to the Minister for State interest check.

On 31 July 2018 Council resolved (G18.0731.05) to apply for QCoast2100 funding to complete its Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy

On 26 March 2019, Council resolved (G19.0326.019) to formally withdraw the City Plan Major Update (coastal hazards) from state interest review.

Bushfire On 12 June 2019 Council resolved (G19.1206.009) to endorse the City of Gold Coast Bushfire Resilience Framework

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 780 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 11 CITY PLANNING PRODUCTIVE GOLD COAST PROGRESS UPDATE PD98/1132/04/73

1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Not Applicable.

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of the report is to provide a progress update on the Productive Gold Coast project. This project seeks to provide a data platform to formulate strategic policy on the scope of future City Plan amendments with respect of employment land, including land within Centres, Industry, Mixed use and Innovation zones.

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS

Ex Minute G20.0825.041 resolved in part:

That the contents of this introductory paper be noted and that Steps 1,2,3 and 4, as outlined, be commenced with reports to be brought back to Planning and Environment Committee on the outcomes of each step.

Ex Minute G20.02728.045 resolved in part:

That a review of the Innovation Zone Code under the City Plan be undertaken, particularly having regard to table 5.5.17: MCU Innovation Zone (including the Bond University Precinct), having specific regard to the levels of assessment for land uses.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Project background and schedule of work

The City has committed to an ongoing review program for City Plan. While City Plan has been prepared with a 20-year horizon, it requires periodical reviews in accordance with the Planning Act 2016, to ensure that it appropriately responds to the changing needs of the community at a local, regional and state level.

In August 2020, the City commenced work on the Productive Gold Coast project, which seeks to inform the scope of City Plan updates necessary to ensure the City’s employment land planning policies remain current, enabling and equipped to deal with emerging issues. The approach to this work, as outlined below, is based on a series of data collection tasks targeting Centre, Industry, and Mixed use zoned land.

As reported to Council in August 2020, Productive Gold Coast adopted a four-staged approach, involving the following:

Step 1: Gather the right data (commenced June 2020; completion February 2021) Step 2: Formulate Options and Issues Paper (April – June 2021) Step 3: Prepare Policy Directions Paper (July – September 2021) Step 4: Deliver Productive Gold Coast Strategic Policy (October – December 2021). 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 781 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 11 (CONTINUED) PRODUCTIVE GOLD COAST PROGRESS UPDATE PD98/1132/04/73

In accordance with this schedule of work, Productive Gold Coast is now approaching the end of data collection activities, detailed in section 5.2 below.

5.2 Data collection progress

Step 1 of the project included extensive data collection activities, with the following datasets collated and ready to inform further policy work:

a Industrial land drive-through. The City contracted researchers from Bond University to undertake fieldwork (drive-throughs) in the city’s industrial precincts. Eleven industrial precincts were identified for this task, excluding Ormeau-Yatala-Stapylton precinct, where similar work was recently undertaken in relation to the high impact industry investigation work. This work delivered a thorough, contemporary register of the current use of land within industrial precincts, enabling robust analysis on encroachment of non-industrial land uses, as well as comparative analysis between the precincts.

b Industrial land survey. Bond University research staff also conducted interviews and surveys among business owners operating from industrial precincts. Over 100 responses have been recorded, with Bond University staff now in the process of collecting late responses and collating results. Whilst this sample number is not sufficiently high to consider the results to be representative for industrial land across the city, this data does offer a very valuable insight into some of the processes affecting industrial land, the role of locational preferences, clustering, networking and innovation within industrial land.

c Home-based work survey. In October/November 2020, the City deployed a city-wide survey seeking to measure how this emerging way of working is changing the way in which the residents interact with the city. A total of 887 completed responses were received, suggesting that the topic of home-based work is of relevance and interest to many residents. Findings of the survey indicate home-based work leads to increased patronage of local parks, shops, cafés and restaurants, whilst reducing distant car trips and use of public transport, offering opportunities to advance City Plan aspirations of delivering cohesive, liveable neighbourhoods. It is anticipated a further, deepened analysis of the survey will be undertaken in the later stage of Productive Gold Coast project, to consider the impacts of home-based work on planning policy matters such as impacts on centres, neighbourhood centres and local amenity.

d Co-working spaces investigation. The City has appointed researchers from the Queensland University of Technology to explore and collect data from local co- working spaces. A total of 40 co-work spaces are currently operating locally, with this number gradually growing. This indicates an increasing popularity of remote work and the importance of local networking and collaboration. This investigation was finalised in February 2021, with a summary report provided to the City for further analytical work.

e Centres’ character assessment. The City engaged Griffith University’s Cities Research Institute to undertake an analysis of the amenity and character of the city’s centres (district, major and principal). As part of this work, Griffith University’s students and academic staff evaluated urban structure, sense of place, pedestrian experience and car accessibility. Results of this work were provided to the City in form of a technical report which will complement previous work on centres undertaken in 2019, which included assessment of centres’ economic performance. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 782 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 11 (CONTINUED) PRODUCTIVE GOLD COAST PROGRESS UPDATE PD98/1132/04/73

f Locative insight (Optus telecommunication towers data). The City, under its Digital City Program, has partnered with Optus to access telecommunication towers data enabling analysis of people’s movements across the city. While this data is currently assisting with tourism-related statistics, it offers opportunity to measure the hierarchy of the city’s centres based on the volumes of traffic and the distance which customers are willing to travel to access a particular centre. For the purpose of the Productive Gold Coast project, the City’s spatial team has assembled an interactive portal enabling mapping analysis of this data.

g Neighbourhood centres. The City has conducted an analysis of the land use character of land within the Neighbourhood centre zoning. Findings of this analysis will inform policy analysis during Stage 2 of the Productive Gold Coast project.

h Mixed use land investigation. The City has investigated the current use of land within the Mixed use zoning. Findings of this investigation will inform further analytical work envisaged for Stage 2 of the Productive Gold Coast project.

i Regional comparison. The City has engaged with adjacent local government areas, particularly Logan City Council and Tweed Shire Council to enquire about the current policy position of these two LGAs with respect of employment land. City staff also participated in a large workshop arranged by Brisbane City Council in December 2020, during which planning staff from local governments across South East Queensland discussed upcoming policy work on employment land.

j Waterfront and marine industry zoning – Council has appointed Bond University to undertake a series of drive-throughs and interviews with businesses operating from land within the Waterfront and marine industry zoning, which includes land in Coomera, Steiglitz, Hope Island, Paradise Point, Hollywell and Main Beach. This work has recently commenced and is expected to be completed by the end of March 2021.

5.3 Upcoming analysis and formulation of policy options

Step 2 of the Productive Gold Coast project will commence in April. It will involve a thorough analysis of data compiled in Step 1, supplemented by other data of relevance to employment land investigation, including, but not limited to: • a register of recent development approvals, • Mastercard expenditure data (pending negotiations with the data owner), • mapping information and relevant technical reports commissioned by the City in recent years

The City seeks to ensure the right balance between numerical, quantitative data and qualitative feedback collected from workers and the business community. Procurement is underway to appoint a consultancy with expertise in planning, economics and data analysis to formulate the following: • Technical report identifying policy focus areas. The consultant will undertake a thorough analysis of the currency of the City Plan policy position in context of the emerging trends affecting work in the city. Datasets compiled in Step 1 will inform this task. • Technical report identifying policy options. The consultant will formulate a suite of policy options for consideration (including potential for City Plan amendment). 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 783 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 11 (CONTINUED) PRODUCTIVE GOLD COAST PROGRESS UPDATE PD98/1132/04/73

5.4 Consultation and further work

Policy options, underpinned by a thorough evidence analysis, will be reported to Council for a workshop during Step 3 of the project. This is anticipated to take place in July-August 2021. Broader community consultation will then be undertaken to seek feedback and support to inform the preferred scope and breadth of policy options guiding any required future City Plan amendments.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

This project is aligned to the following Corporate Plan 2022 objectives:

Objective 1.5 We are an active digital city

We use data and real-time information to shape our City.

Relevant key plans and work program: • Increase the use of real-time data to deliver services and provide information to the public through the roll out of sensors and devices to support disaster responses, public safety and other initiatives.

Objective 1.6 Our modern centres create vibrant communities

We can work, live and play in our local neighbourhoods.

Relevant key plans and work program:

• Implement principal activity centres (Southport CBD, Broadbeach, Robina and Coomera) as the main business areas of the City.

• Provide clear vision and direction for the future growth of the CBD; identify and prioritise key projects and optimise opportunities.

Delivery action: We plan for the future of the city

We make good choices that create a better future for the Gold Coast community.

Relevant key plans and work program:

• Manage the long term growth of the city through the City Plan, focusing on the redevelopment of urban centres and key inner city neighbourhoods, ensuring nonurban areas such as the hinterland ranges and foothills are protected.

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

This project is funded from City Planning’s Operational budget. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 784 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 11 (CONTINUED) PRODUCTIVE GOLD COAST PROGRESS UPDATE PD98/1132/04/73

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

The activity supports the mitigation of the following Directorate Risk:

CO00510 – City Plan delivers inadequate and / or ineffective strategic/development policy (e.g. poor planning, built form, growth, social and environmental outcomes).

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

The Planning Act 2016 (the Act) identifies the statutory requirements for making an amendment to a planning scheme. A local government can either amend the planning scheme following the process in the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules or propose a process to amend the planning scheme (i.e. ‘Tailored Process’) under Section 18 of the Act.

The outcomes from Productive Gold Coast will be used to inform future updates to City Plan.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not applicable.

11 DELEGATIONS

Not applicable.

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Input has been sought from the Office of Innovation and Economy, City Planning, Transport and Traffic and Water and Waste Directorate, in the development of this project’s scope.

Officers from the Office of Innovation and Economy, City Planning, City Development, Connected Communities, Transport and Traffic and Water and Waste Directorate are engaged and regularly consulted throughout this project.

13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

This project has engaged external stakeholders in Step 1 by partnering with Griffith University, Queensland University of Technology and Bond University to engage with the local business community through surveys and interviews. In addition, a home-based work survey was undertaken with the City’s residents invited to share their work from home experiences and ideas for the future.

Further engagement with external stakeholders will occur during the consultation of policy options, scheduled for Step 3 of the project, expected to commence in July/August this year.

City Planning have been and will continue to engage with key stakeholders from the City on this project

14 TIMING

Not applicable. 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 785 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 11 (CONTINUED) PRODUCTIVE GOLD COAST PROGRESS UPDATE PD98/1132/04/73

15 CONCLUSION

The Productive Gold Coast project is progressing in accordance with the schedule of work reported to Council in August 2020. The project is expected to deliver a strategic policy basis for future City Plan amendments with respect of employment land, including land zoned Centres, Industry, Mixed use and Innovation. The overall purpose of the project is to ensure that City Plan policy position on employment land is current, enabling and equipped to deal with emerging issues.

16 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

That the content of this report is noted.

Author: Authorised by: Matthew Zenkteler Alisha Swain Principal Regional Planner Director Economy, Planning & Environment 17 February 2021 Objective A64251918

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.010 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr Gates

That the content of this report is noted.

CARRIED 800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 786 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 12 GENERAL BUSINESS PUBLIC HOUSING PD113/1275/11

Committee Recommendation Adopted at Council 23 March 2021

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.011 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr PJ Young

1 That Council submissions to the Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy in response to public housing proposals made under the Planning Act 2016 are made non-confidential and publicly available on request. 2 That, in the interests of transparency, the Mayor write to the responsible Minister seeking changes to the State Government consultation process for public housing, specifically that all submissions be made publicly available through State channels. 3 That the Mayor also write to the responsible Minister seeking an urgent update on the State’s plans to deliver social housing on the Gold Coast so State-induced infrastructure issues — including on roads and public open space — can be better anticipated.

CARRIED

Cr Gates left the room at 12.07pm

ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 23 MARCH 2021 RESOLUTION G21.0323.018 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr PC Young

That Committee Recommendation PE21.0318.011 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:-

1 That Council submissions to the Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy in response to public housing proposals made under the Planning Act 2016 are made non-confidential and publicly available on request. 2 That, in the interests of transparency, the Mayor write to the responsible Minister seeking changes to the State Government consultation process for public housing, specifically that all submissions be made publicly available through State channels. 3 That the Mayor also write to the responsible Minister seeking an urgent update on the State’s plans to deliver social housing on the Gold Coast so State- induced infrastructure issues — including on roads and public open space — can be better anticipated.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 787 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes ITEM 13 GENERAL BUSINESS PACIFIC VIEW ESTATE PN291494/16

Committee Recommendation Adopted at Council 23 March 2021

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PE21.0318.012 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr Owen-Jones

1 That a report be brought forward detailing a pedestrian movement plan for the entirety of the proposed Pacific View Estate (PVE), including along the road reserves and through parks. 2 That the report contemplate various outcomes (including options for signalisation) and address visibility concerns along corridors that permit on street parking.

CARRIED

ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 23 MARCH 2021 RESOLUTION G21.0323.017 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr Owen-Jones

That Committee Recommendation PE21.0318.012 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:-

CARRIED

There being no further business, the meeting was declared closed at 12.11pm.

800th Council Meeting 23 March 2021 788 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 18 March 2021 Adopted Minutes

These Pages

Numbered 1 to 788

Constitute The Adopted Minutes Of The Meeting

Of The Planning and Environment Committee

Held 18 March 2021