A delegation from the Friends of Kuranda is scheduled to meet with Mareeba Shire Council on January 20th.

Below is the documentation we have submitted to Council in advance of the meeting.

Documentation to Councillors related to FoK’s forthcoming meeting with Mareeba Shire Council on 20^th January 2016

Friends of Kuranda Region Planning Group

 

1. Introductory Summary

2. Background

2.1  2004-2013: From MSC to TRC

2.2  Late 2013 onwards: MSC Again

3. Mapping and MSES

4. The Current Conflict

5. A Positive Initiative by Terrain NRM

6. More about Consultation and our Goals

7. The Special Case of the Kuranda Region

8. Our Resolution to Council

Appendix 1: Public Submissions to the TRC’s 2012/13 Consultation Process

Appendix 2 – Mapping Differences

 

1. Introductory Summary

Especially within the Kuranda region, there is growing concern about the draft Mareeba Shire plan (2015) which has never undergone any community consultation – and a wish to see the plan significantly modified to improve environmental protection.

Community concern is backed up by expert opinion.

For instance, Gary Searle of Terrain NRM has written a comparison of the Tablelands Regional Council 2012 draft plan and the 2015 Mareeba Shire Council Draft Plan and concludes that “Overall, the 2012 TRC draft provides greater protection and consideration of the environment and biodiversity of the Mareeba Shire.”

The Friends of Kuranda region Planning Group, an umbrella group of local and environmental groups in the Kuranda, wildlife experts and concerned individuals, urges Councillors to adopt resolutions consistent with our proposal set out in Section 8 of this document.

2/ Background

Councillors are no doubt familiar with the long and tortuous history of the attempts to revise planning on the Tablelands since the last decade of the new century.

Even so, to better understand the concerns of the Friends of Kuranda region Planning Group, it may be helpful for Councillors to view recent events from our perspective.

This brief summary attempts to sketch in some of the essential background to this affair.

2.1  2004-2013: From MSC to TRC

The Kuranda region – along with the whole of the Mareeba Shire – is still technically functioning under the rubric of the 2004 Mareeba Shire Plan. However, it has long been recognized that planning framework is out of date and in need of major revision. Within a few years of 2004, it had been overtaken by events such as a new State Government Regional Plan and major strategic changes associated with it.

When four Tablelands Councils, including Mareeba Shire, were amalgamated in early 2008, the larger and better-resourced new Tablelands Regional Council commenced a lengthy process to develop a new planning instrument for the whole tablelands. This was under the leadership of the united TRC’s first elected mayor, Tom Gilmore.

Most Kuranda residents welcomed the creation of the new TRC and the planning process it commenced. The professionalism of the new planning department and its commitment to effective public consultation was impressive and something new to our experience. In general terms, Kuranda residents felt services improved under the TRC. We were also glad to have at least a single Councillor from the Kuranda region (a rarity in previous Mareeba Shire Councils)

The draft TRC plan was released for public comment in 2012 and a public consultation period followed that extended into early 2013. This effectively meant that public discussion about the TRC draft plan merged with a simultaneous debate about de-amalgamation.

Led by former Mareeba Shire Mayor Mick Borzi, what we regard as populist misrepresentations of the TRC draft plan were used to boost the case for de-amalgamation.

There is a view that TRC Councillors could have countered the falsehoods, misrepresentations and simplistic spin leveled against the work of Council’s own planning team in this developer-driven campaign to break up the TRC.

Unfortunately, that never happened.  Under TRC Mayor Rosa Lee Long, Council effectively ran dead on the topic. The result was a very one-sided debate about the new draft plan, which left an impression that the Mareeba Shire community, as a whole is vehemently opposed to improving standards of biodiversity conservation if that entails any reduction in current “rights” to environmentally destructive activity.

We query that impression (see Appendix 1 for more about the submissions received by TRC and the misleading way they have subsequently been used to justify weakening conservation standards)

Most people, we believe, actually support the conservation of endangered species and do not want to see more of our native species go extinct – or continue to decline in range. Most people want to see our remaining native forests and other remnants of the original vegetation of this continent conserved. The concept of biodiversity conservation may be too abstract for some, but most people do appreciate the inter-relatedness of the natural world and the need to conserve habitat to sustain the web of life.

With enthusiastic and competent leadership, we believe that raising the bar on biodiversity conservation can indeed be popular, throughout the Shire as a whole.

We certainly believe that to be true for the Kuranda region. We believe a majority of the community in this part of the Shire support a planning instrument that aims to conserve our unique biodiversity in the long-term. Indeed, we think the community expects it.

2.2 Late 2013 onwards: MSC Again

In the March 2013 referendum, the Mareeba shire de-amalgamation campaign succeeded by a small overall margin. It was, however, strongly opposed in the Kuranda region. In the months following the referendum, a campaign in the Kuranda region to oppose de-amalgamation attracted the support of unprecedented numbers of residents.

We regret that the Newman Government ignored our concerns and proceeded with de-amalgamation. A ray of comfort, for many Kuranda people, was that Tom Gilmore decided to run for Mayor, challenging former Mayor Mick Borzi for the position. Tom Gilmore and his team received decisive support from the Kuranda region in the November 2013 election – support that was probably crucial to the election of Gilmore as Mayor, along with a majority of Councillors from his team.

Prior to the Council election, Friends of the Earth Kuranda sent out a questionnaire to candidates. This is an extract from the response from Tom’s Team:

· It is intended that our Council will have a detailed Environment Policy based on community consultation, council’s operational capacity and state and federal regulations.

· Tom’s Team supports the completion of a new Planning Scheme as soon as possible. The current Draft Scheme will be reviewed and finalized, after further consultation with communities.

· Our Council will assist Agencies and work closely with interested parties to protect endangered species. 

These commitments were published on the web (see The Nov 2013 Mareeba Shire Council Election: Summary of Candidates) and helped consolidate a belief within the Kuranda community that a Council under Gilmore’s leadership (which was also comprised of a majority of his team) would be consultative, inclusive and keen to work with conservationists and relevant scientists to better identify and protect biodiversity. We took it for granted that agencies such as WTMA and community bodies such as the local NRMs would be involved in finalization of the planning scheme to help ensure biodiversity and endangered species are adequately protected by the new plan.

It now appears our optimism was misplaced. The new Council has been in place since early 2014. As far as we’re aware, no one in the Kuranda region community has been consulted over the draft document or involved in discussions over the new plan. We cannot find a single scientist who has been approached for their expertise and advice. We understand neither Terrain NRM nor WTMA have been consulted – an extraordinary omission. A promised ‘Environment Policy’, based on community consultation, is nowhere in sight.

This is most disappointing given clear commitments made by Tom’s Team prior to the 2013 election – see Tom’s Team Response to FoE Questionnaire.

The latest draft of the planning instrument for this region was made public by Council in September 2015. Although released as a draft, from the day of its release Council made it clear it should be considered final – subject to amendment by the State Government if imposed, but not in direct response to community input.

Council’s argument for refusing another round of public consultation is that the new draft plan is essentially the same as the 2012 TRC draft – and that the public has therefore already been consulted back in 2012/3.

We believe this is spurious. In later sections of this document we present evidence of major changes between the TRC 2012 draft plan and the 2015 draft plan. The differences are so substantial that people in our network who made submissions in 2012/3 consider their input at that time was of little relevance to the current draft. Mapping has changed. Categories and codes have changed. These are not minor tweaks; they affect the likely outcomes significantly.

To be told consultation isn’t needed over the 2015 MSC Draft Plan because we’ve already had a chance to comment on the TRC 2012 Plan and the latest draft is not “Significantly Different” is an affront to common sense and the English language.

3/ Mapping and MSES

Friends of Kuranda is grateful that in recent weeks Council staff have been responsive to our requests for further information.

Chief Planner Brian Millard has replied promptly to our questions and this has been useful.

It appears, however, that the MSC Planning Department is operating on premises that we believe are highly questionable.

Here’s an extract from dialogue we had with Mr Millard last week:

Q: “Was the decision of council that the draft MSC plan 2015 is not significantly different to the draft TRC plan 2012 due in any way to the content and quantity of the public submissions received during the draft TRC submission process?”

A: “Council’s decision is based on the nature of the changes actually made to the draft scheme.  These changes were made in response to some of the submissions and also to reflect changes in State planning policy.”

Q: “Did these influence the reduced protection afforded to the environment in the plan?”

A: “No.  Council does not accept the premise that the level of environmental protection is reduced in the draft planning scheme.  As previously advised, the change to the Environmental Significance Overlay is due to the State’s move from Areas of Ecological Significance (AES) mapping to Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) mapping.  The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection only supports the use of MSES mapping as contained in the draft planning scheme.”

In Appendix 1 of this document, we rebut “convention wisdom” about submissions to the TRC draft plan in 2012/13, to which MSC Planning Department appears to subscribe.

However, Mr Millard’s reply raises another key issue: changes in statewide mapping of environmental values introduced by the Newman State Government between publication of the two draft plans.

The one-term Newman Government came to power in Queensland in 2012 and seemed to consider it had a mandate to weaken environmental protection in this State (protection which already falls far short of world best practice).

It commenced a major revision in statewide mapping of environmental values, introducing the ‘Matters of State Environmental Significance’ (MSES) category to supersede mapping based on Areas of Ecological Significance (AES).

The Newman Government’s motivation was probably driven by a desire to weaken environmental restraints on development. In any event, its revamp of State mapping forced Councils, such as the MSC, to “change course in ‘mid-plan’” and utilize the State’s new mapping.

This was a matter outside the control of local government and we acknowledge this.

Since the change of government once again in January 2015, it’s unclear whether this and future State governments will continue to use mapping categories devised and imposed during the Newman era.

MSES mapping was only recently introduced and at best must be considered a “work in progress”. If the MSES rubric is retained, mapping based on this approach indubitably needs a lot more work before it could be considered adequate. This was acknowledged by Council representatives at the public meeting convened by Friends of Kuranda in November 2015. It is well understood within the current State Government. Indeed, it was understood by the Newman Government back in 2014, when it issued an explanatory document in 2014 entitled “Method for mapping: Matters of State environmental significance for use in land use planning and development assessment”. This included a brief section entitled “Limitations of MSES mapping” which states:

“This is a biophysical mapping product. The data used to create it is scale dependent and care needs to be exercised in using the mapping at very large scales and it should not be used as a ‘point of truth’. It provides an indication of where the biodiversity values are expected to exist in the landscape. Site surveys will generally be required to determine if the depicted values are present.”

In other words, MSES mapping is largely not the product of recent site surveys; ideally more work on the ground should be undertaken in each locality where significant environmental values are likely to be present.

A crucial point is that while MSC was required by the State Government to utilize the MSES mapping, it had no obligation to LIMIT its mapping of environmentally significant areas to current MSES information.

Other Councils have been unwilling to be restricted in this way. For instance, we understand Douglas Shire Council intends to map areas of “Local Environmental Significance” to complement the MSES mapping for Douglas Shire.

Whether making distinctions between “State”, “Local” and even “National” areas of environmental significance is really the best way to map and protect biodiversity throughout Queensland is another matter. But in any case, unless and until State Policy is changed again, MSC is NOT constrained to use MSES and only MSES mapping and it is encouraged by the State Government to go further, not prohibited from doing so.

4/ The Current Conflict

People concerned about the new plan convened a meeting in Kuranda in early November 2015. Most – but not all – the attendees were from the Kuranda region. Three Councillors also attended, as well as senior Council staff. This was a useful chance for the concerns raised by various people in the community to be answered by representatives of the Council. Overall, it was a useful and convivial meeting.

The bottom line, however, was the meeting was told there would be no pause in Council’s attempt to seek immediate State Government approval for the new draft plan without further changes (unless changes are imposed by the State Government).

After Councillors and staff left, remaining attendees discussed how we felt about Council’s reopen and what to do next. We resolved:

1. To set up a ‘Friends of the Kuranda region Planning Group’
2. To note that Councillors and Council Officers who attended the meeting affirmed that they would regard the new Shire Plan, if and when approved by the State Government, as a “living document” open to amendment, including revision of maps in the plan.
3. To develop a proposal to the State Government incorporating a request that any approval given to the latest MSC Draft Plan is conditional on systematic, high-quality remapping of conservation/biodiversity values, especially within (but not necessarily limited to) the Kuranda region. This process should be carried out with the participation of scientists with relevant expertise, local conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts and other interested participants. Acknowledging the limited resources available to the recently de-amalgamated Mareeba Shire Council, we believe it should be resourced and overseen by the State and/or Federal Government.
4. That our aspiration for this region’s planning process is state-of-the-art, quality planning, that truly lays the foundations for genuine sustainability and biodiversity conservation.

This group functions as a network of existing community groups and concerned individuals. Since its inception it has met several times. We are growing in numbers as more people become aware of the inadequacy of the new plan and the possibility that another community campaign may be able to achieve significant improvements.

Because Council has so far refused to shift from what we regard as intransigent refusal to discuss and compromise – a refusal that we regard as a breach of promise and a violation of basic due process – we’ve been forced to take our case direct to the State Government and ask its assistance in amending the plan. Deputy Premier’s Trad’s office and staff in the Planning and Local Government departments have been appraised of our concerns.

So far, we have not sought media on the issue, preferring to avoid a public slanging match if possible, We want a positive outcome, with as little noise as possible.

We seek the hearing from Council we felt was denied to us in the latest round of this planning saga – and changes to the current plan to accomodate our legitimate concerns. Our campaign is driven by aspirations for the public interest – not partisan or pecuniary interests.

We therefore welcome this opportunity to meet Council.

We ask Council to reconsider it’s position on the new plan – and to work with us and other interested parties for a solution that’s in the best long-term interests of our community and this region’s outstanding heritage and biodiversity. The willingness of Terrain NRM to contribute expertise and resources and to help broker community agreement over improved conservation outcomes is a positive new initiative than can assist Council.

We seek a genuine change of direction from the current Council on this matter and ask the Mayor and Councillors to engage co-operatively with us to achieve better planning outcomes in the public interest, outcomes consistent with Councillors’ pre-election promises and State and Federal policies for environmental protection.

5/ A Positive Initiative by Terrain NRM

In Appendix 2 we show the large difference in mapping of environmental values in the Kuranda region between the 2012 and 2015 draft plans.

Not only boundaries are quite different in the two drafts; so are the actual categories used. The associated codes are also different.

Clearly, if this amounts to a plan that’s not “significantly different” the words no longer retain their generally accepted meaning.

Councillors need not take our word on there being significant differences between the two plans – and on our concern that environmental protection is less adequate in the 2015 MSC draft plan compared with its predecessor.

Gary Searle, currently Strategic and Knowledge Team leader with Terrain NRM, has a background in planning and was one of the united TRC’s planning team during the time of then TRC Mayor Tom Gilmore.

Last week, Mr Searle completed an analysis entitled Mareeba Shire Draft Planning Scheme Environmental and Biodiversity Provisions in which he compared the two draft plans: TRC 2012 and MSC 2015. We understand Council has already been sent a copy of this document.

These are Mr Searle’s concluding remarks (emphasis added):

To summarize the differences in the 2012 TRC draft and the 2015 MSC draft outlined above there are a six key differences to note. They are listed below:

1.The overlay mapping of biodiversity areas in the 2012 TRC draft covers a much greater area of the shire than the 2015 MSC draft overlay mapping and includes consideration of areas of general and local environmental significance.

2.Regional and local connectivity mapping is included in the 2012 TRC draft overlay mapping. They are only included in the strategic framework of the 2015 MSC draft and the regional corridors are only mapped as centrelines, rather than the full polygons mapped in the 2012 TRC draft.

3.For the 2015 MSC draft regional and local habitat connectivity is only really a consideration for impact assessable development.

4.Revegetation requirements are not specified for the 2015 MSC draft and revegetation is unlikely to be required except for impact assessable development.

5.Ecological Reports are going to be required for most applications that trigger the 2015 MSC draft environmental significance overlay due to the lack of acceptable outcomes. This is not necessarily a bad thing, provided the performance outcomes are well crafted.

6.The requirements on stormwater and wastewater discharge into waterways are improved in the 2015 MSC draft. The implications of these changes are quite significant, with the exception of HES wetlands and waterways where the changes are fairly minor and even include improvements. The implications of the greatly reduced overlay mapping to trigger assessment is a serious concern in and of itself.

Added to that is the lack of consideration of connectivity for code assessable development and the lack of clarity around what the likely requirements might be for revegetation/ rehabilitation in appropriate circumstances. Overall, the 2012 TRC draft provides greater protection and consideration of the environment and biodiversity of the Mareeba Shire.

In a letter to Friends of Kuranda region, Mr Searle has written:

“Terrain supports including provisions for habitat connectivity and biodiversity into planning schemes and has made an offer to the Mareeba Shire Council to assist them in amending their planning scheme to include better consideration of local and regional connectivity and matters of local environmental significance. The main areas Terrain have offered to provide assistance are mapping data/GIS support and assistance in facilitating or co-facilitating workshops and community consultation events. Terrain have also offered to provide some advice or feedback on draft code provisions and levels of assessment.”

We believe this is a very constructive offer that Council is well advised to accept.

Had local NRMs been invited to play this useful role at an earlier stage, we believe time, effort and possibly Council funds could have been saved.

6/ More about Consultation and our Goals

Not only has Council determined – until now – that there will be no more public consultation over its draft plan.

It appears that no-one we know was consulted during the preparation of the plan.

As far as we’re aware, no conservation group in our region was consulted. We cannot find a scientist who was consulted. It appears neither WTMA nor Terrain NRM were consulted either.

This is very unfortunate. Had that happened (as promised!), problems that may now occasion further delay in the new planning scheme could have been rectified much sooner.

We understand Council retained consultants to assist in its work regarding the new plan. It would be useful to know who, if anyone, the consultants consulted. Were they and the MSC planning department in contact with anyone at all as they prepared the latest draft of the Shire plan? Was there behind-the-scenes consultation with selected vested interests?

While we believe community consultation is important, we’re focused above all on outcomes. We want a plan that presents:

1. ¥ A coherent vision of how sustainability and prosperity can both be achieved
2. ¥ A realistic strategy to achieve both

Such a plan should utilize accurate, comprehensive, best-available data – and yes, genuine community consultation is important, including consultation with scientists, conservationists and relevant government instrumentalities. This does not need to cause inordinate delays, but it does need to happen. The alternative is protracted conflict and disputation, which really can waste a lot of time.

7/ The Special Case of the Kuranda Region

All parts of Mareeba Shire are important and other parts of the Shire have significant environmental values.

However, the greater Kuranda region can reasonably claim to be exceptional in some ways.

It is the sensitive and fragile border to the Wet Tropics at a narrow neck in its central area – a region of exceptional biodiversity whose conservation is integral to conserving the Wet Tropics as a whole.

This greater Kuranda region, from Koah to Top of the Range, is a transitional zone between rainforest and drier tablelands country. It has exceptionally high biodiversity and contains some species found nowhere else and considered entirely unique.

This region is, however, a partly inhabited area, with human settlements and remnant vegetation often in close proximity.

Moreover, the population covered by the Kuranda and Speewah booths tends to be more conservation-minded, as the results of many Local, State and Federal elections indicate.

In the Kuranda region, we have both a lot to lose AND a population that genuinely wishes to retain our natural heritage for future generations.

For all these reasons, we believe there’s a strong case for a Kuranda sub-plan, as part of the forthcoming MSC Plan – a sub-plan that raises the bar on conservation for this particular region in response to its high environmental values and the stronger conservation ethos within this particular community.

8/ Our Resolutions to Council

We understand that, as members of the public, we’re not able to submit resolutions directly to Council.

We have, however, drafted two resolutions that help clarify our immediate goals and may guide Councillors who wish to respond positively to our concerns.

They covers our proposal for a Kuranda region Sub-Plan as well as more general issues surrounding the MSC Draft Plan.

Council resolves to postpone finalization of the MSC Draft Plan until a new Kuranda Regional Plan* is prepared as a sub-plan, as a matter of urgency, once the new Council is in place following the forthcoming Council Elections.

Councillors note the distinctive demographic and environmental features of the Kuranda region, which is:

• • a border zone to the Wet Tropics with exceptionally high biodiversity and heritage values
• • a region whose inhabitants tend to have a strong interest in conservation 

Councillors agree the new Kuranda region sub-plan should be:

• • focused on achieving environmental sustainability, including protection of wildlife connectivity via suitable corridors
• • also concerned with prosperity and appropriate development
• • prepared promptly, but through a state-of-the-art consultation process, including meaningful participation by relevant regional, State and Federal instrumentalities, the scientific community, community groups and interested individuals within the region.

Note 1: The Kuranda region is defined as the region between Top of the Range to the east and Koah / Clohesy river to the west, and includes inter alia Kuranda township and environs, Top of the Range, Myola, Oak Forest, Speewah and Mona Mona.

2. Council notes that the biodiversity areas mapping in the draft MSC plan 2015 has significant gaps when compared with the draft TRC plan 2012 mapping. Council resolves to identify, map and protect regional corridors and local scale ecological connectivity, including habitat linkages, and areas of general and local ecological significance in the plan throughout the Shire**. This will enable endangered species and the habitat they require for long-term survival to be conserved and for biodiversity to be sustained.

Note 2: Documentation in the draft TRC plan 2012 can be utilized and organizations such as Terrain NRM invited to assist. Terrain NRM has indicated willingness to help prepare and broker agreement over a Kuranda Regional Plan, contributing extra resources to assist Council with this task.

We ask Councillors to give positive consideration to these proposals.

We believe the community, Council and higher levels of government can and should co-operate to get the best possible conservation outcomes.

By adopting a conciliatory and consultative approach over planning, Councillors can help ensure that if the issue surfaces in the forthcoming Local Government election campaign, Councillors are not called to account for failing to fulfill election pledges made in 2013.

Appendix 1: Public Submissions to the TRC’s 2012/13 Consultation Process

There has been no public submission period for the draft MSC plan 2015 so no opportunity to establish what people think of the new plan, which differs from the draft TRC plan 2012 and offers less protection to the environment, as explained in Terrain’s comparison of the two plans.

The only submissions considered were those submitted concerning the draft TRC plan 2012. 923 of these were of relevance to Mareeba Shire according to the Review of Submissions made on the Draft Tablelands Regional Council Planning Scheme relevant to Mareeba Shire prepared for Mareeba Shire Council in April 2015 by CARDNO.

The review notes ‘ inaccurate recording of submissions by the former Tablelands Regional Council, meaning a large body of submissions was required to be reviewed. As noted, these contained a number of duplicates and pro forma type submissions, which could have been otherwise grouped to reduce review time.

The existence of a large number of unidentified pro forma submissions also alters the statistical validity of any review undertaken.’

A total of 375 submissions were included in the Biodiversity Areas Overlay category, 116 from Mareeba and 56 from Julatten. Numbers from Kuranda were not given. No figures are given for how many of these objected and how many supported the biodiversity overlays, though the review notes a majority objected.

We also do not know how many were duplicates, pro forma or unidentified.

The review also notes that there were a ‘ small portion of submissions that identify a high level of support for the Biodiversity Areas Overlay. These submissions are generally from local environmental groups.’ We can therefore assume they represent more than one person. For example Friends of the Earth Kuranda has 150 supporters at present and is one of 5 environmental groups in Kuranda.

The review comments that many submissions made were due to ‘ a lack of good understanding of the planning system. While this may have been anticipated, it can be seen that a lack of available information led to significant submission numbers’.

Conclusions

The environmental protection afforded to Mareeba Shire has been decreased significantly. One of the reasons given for this by council has been the apparently high number of submissions received opposing the biodiversity overlay in the draft TRC plan 2012.

On closer examination of the submissions review, these submissions number 200­-300 maximum without taking out duplicate and unidentified submissions.

Unanswered Questions about the Submissions

• How many submissions opposed the biodiversity overlay?
• How many of these were pro forma?
• How many were unidentified?
• How many were duplicates?

 

Appendix 2: Mapping Differences

In this protracted planning process for our region, the last document over which there was community consultation was the TRC’s 2012 draft plan.

Conservation groups, scientists, government agencies and all interested individuals and organizations had a chance to make input to that plan.

The TRC’s 2012 draft plan included maps and associated codes. The codes attempt to facilitate coherent development and ensure consistent standards of environmental protection. Applicable codes varied according to the specific mapping overlays associated with any given block of land.

The same principles were used by MSC when preparing the 2015 Draft Plan. However, codes, mapping categories and boundaries have all changed.

As a consequence, detailed comments on codes and mapping made in submissions back in 2012/13 are effectively irrelevant to the current draft plan – rendering the entire community consultation process an exercise in futility.

The two maps below cover the same area of the Kuranda region and document its environmental values.

Compare them for yourself:

1/ Kuranda region: TRC Draft Plan (2012)

2/ Kuranda region: MSC Draft Plan (2015)