Home › Meetings › Environment and Sustainability Committee — 2021-09-02
Environment and Sustainability Committee — 2021-09-02
2. Traditional Owner Reference Group
Doc ID No: A7209982
ITEM: 2
SUBJECT: Traditional Owner Reference Group
AUTHOR: Native Title and Cultural Heritage Officer
DATE: 20 August 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report concerning the establishment of the Traditional Owner Reference Group and its subsequent role, relationship and responsibilities with Ipswich City Council (Council) and the Native Title Party.
Recommendations
A. That Council endorse the formation of the Traditional Owner Reference Group as detailed in the Draft Terms of Reference outlined in Attachment 1.
B. That Council endorse the proposed structure of the roles, relationships and responsibilities for the Traditional Owner Reference Group, Council and the Native Title Party as defined in Attachment 3.
RELATED PARTIES
· Ipswich City Council
· Yuggera Ugarapul Native Title Party (YUP Native Title Claim)
· Indigenous Respondents of YUP Native Title Claim
There may be a “perceived” conflict of interest in the formation of the Traditional Owner Reference Group by the Native Title & Cultural Heritage Officer in so far as identifying as being a descendent of the Jagera people (Apical Ancestor – Roger Bell).
This has been managed by using an external advice in relation to Traditional Owner determination and eligibility to ensure the members of the group have been objectivity selected.
IFUTURE Theme
Safe, Inclusive and Creative
Purpose of Report/Background
The formation of a Traditional Owner Reference Group is an action item of the Ipswich City Council Indigenous ACCORD 2020 – 2025.
As per ACCORD Action Item 2.1.1 - a governance and collaboration framework is to be implemented with Traditional Owners to support an ongoing working relationship and dialogue through the establishment of a Traditional Owner Representative Steering Committee (referred to Traditional Owner Reference Group to align with the naming convention of Council’s other reference groups). It is proposed that this Traditional Owners Reference Group would serve to meet the requirements of that action.
Traditional Owners are the descendants of the original Aboriginal inhabitants of the area and have ongoing spiritual and cultural ties to the land and waters where their apical ancestors lived. Ipswich City Council Local Government Area (Ipswich LGA) sits within the cultural landscape boundaries of the Yagera/Yugara Language Group.
Council respectfully acknowledges all persons who identify as being a part of the Yagera/Yugara Language group and who asserts cultural and spiritual connection to the lands and waters within the Ipswich LGA. It is acknowledged there is currently a registered Native Title Claim (Yuggera Ugarapul People Native Title Claim) with registered Indigenous Respondents attached to the Claim process. It should be noted that Council is not in a position to pass judgement on the legitimacy of any one claim group over another in order to be culturally inclusive and ensure compliance with the below listed legislative provisions.
In constituting the membership of the Traditional Owner Reference Group, Council will consider expressions of interest from descendants of the Apical Ancestors listed below; as taken from YUP Native Title Claim – Form 1 and registered Indigenous Respondents (refer Attachment 2):
YUP Native Title Claim Apical Ancestors
· Harry Thompson (son of Janie/Janey Billie/Billy)
· Daisy Moreton (nee Thompson) (daughter of Janie/Janey Billie/Billy)
· Amy Turner (daughter of Billy Turner)
· Robert Anderson Snr (social son of Emily Harvey & Thomas Duggandan; social grandson of Jackey Harvey)
· Jimmy Edwards Jnr (son of Topsy of Ipswich)
· Elsie Richards (daughter of Ted Myer/Meyers/Myers and Molly Myers (nee Crow))
Indigenous Respondents Apical Ancestors
· Roger Bell (son of Jamie/James/Jimmy Bell)
· Stanley Bell (son of Jamie/James/Jimmy Bell)
The proposed Terms of Reference for the Traditional Owner Reference Group is detailed in Attachment 1.
The proposed roles, relationship and responsibilities structure between Traditional Owner Reference Group, Council and the Native Title Party is detailed in Attachment 3.
This may change if Native Title is determined in the future.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:
· Native Title Act, 1993
· Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 1999
· Signing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (3 April 2009)
· International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (10 December 1975)
· Human Rights Act, 2019 – Sections 27 & 28
· Queensland Local Government Act 2009
· Ipswich City Council Indigenous ACCORD 2020 - 2025
· iFuture Corporate Plan 2021 - 2026
· Councils 5 Year Corporate Plan 2017 - 2022 “Making it Happen” (under review)
· Councils Operational Plan 2018 – 2019 “Staying on Track” (under review)
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Council could be at risk of breaching the above listed legislative provisions if approval is not granted for the formation of the Traditional Owner Reference Group as proposed in Attachment 3.
human rights implications
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION
(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?
Recommendations A and B state that Council endorse the formation of the Traditional Owner Reference Group and the proposed structure of the roles, relationships and responsibilities for the Traditional Owner Reference Group, Council and Native Title Party.
(b) What human rights are affected?
Cultural rights
(c) How are the human rights limited?
s 27 & 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 are rights directed towards ensuring the survival and continued development of culture and the right to enjoy culture, religion and language. Moreover, protecting the right to live life as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander who is free to practice their culture.
The Traditional Owner Reference Group as proposed in the Report by the Native Title & Cultural Heritage will ensure these legislative provisions are adhered to.
(d) Is there a good reason for limiting the relevant rights? Is the limitation fair and reasonable?
Not application
(e) Conclusion
The decision is consistent with human rights.
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are minimal financial/resource implications if the Traditional Owner Reference Group is governed similarly to Council’s other Community Reference Groups, which are voluntary community reference groups, whereby all community members participating in the group are doing so in an entirely voluntary capacity. The exemption in comparison to the other Community Reference Groups is the proposal to include budget for catering.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
Extensive internal and external stakeholder engagement was undertaken during the ACCORD Indigenous community consultation process, the subsequent drafting and formal endorsement of the Ipswich City Council Indigenous ACCORD 2020 – 2025.
Conclusion
Council has made a commitment to form the Traditional Owner Reference Group as an action item of the recently endorsed Ipswich City Council Indigenous ACCORD 2020 - 2025. Approving the formation of the Traditional Owner Reference Group as constituted in Terms of Reference (Attachment 1) will ensure Council complies with the legislative and strategic responsibilities listed above (refer Attachments 4 - 6).
Attachments and Confidential Background Papers
1.
Terms of Reference TORG ⇩
2.
YUP NNTT Application ⇩
3.
Proposed Roles, Relationship and Responsibilities Structure ⇩
4.
Burra Charter ⇩
5.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ⇩
6.
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ⇩
Tina Longford
Native Title and Cultural Heritage Officer
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Phil A. Smith
Natural Environment and Land Manager
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Kaye Cavanagh
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
I concur with the recommendations contained in this re
Mentions: Ipswich
3. Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust 2021-2022 Annual Precept
Doc ID No: A7490720
ITEM: 3
SUBJECT: Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust 2021-2022 Annual Precept
AUTHOR: Manager, Environment and Sustainability
DATE: 18 August 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report is concerning the 2021-2022 annual precept for the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust (IRIT), as per Part 6 Division 2 section 14(1) of the River Improvement Trust Act 1940 .
Council is liable to contribute to the trust each year the sum prescribed in the precept.
Recommendation
A. That Council negotiate with the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust to agree on an alternative sum for their 2021-2022 Precept for a reduced works program this year.
B. That Council work in partnership with the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust to develop an agreed 3-5 year works program and funding model.
RELATED PARTIES
The current members of the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust are:
· Peter Johnstone – Chair
· Leanne Savage – Deputy Chair
· Dr Georgina Davis – member
· Cr Andrew Fechner - member
· Cr Jacob Madsen - member
Non-member
· Norm Craswell - Secretary
ifuture Theme
Natural and Sustainable
Purpose of Report/Background
The Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust (IRIT/trust) is a statutory body established under the River Improvement Trust Act 1940 (the Act) and covers the entire Ipswich local government area (LGA). The objectives of the Act are to provide for the responsible management of river catchment areas through:
· planning for and implementing measures that improve the protection, health and resilience of rivers and their catchments; and
· repairing, and preventing damage to, rivers and their catchments; and
· restoring natural resilience to flooding and cyclones in rivers and their catchments; and
· protection of water security; and
· improving water quality and river system function in rivers and their catchments
Each year, the IRIT adopts an annual works program by resolution at an ordinary meeting. The works program informs the activities to be carried out that financial year and is used to set the precept to be issued to the contributing local government.
Table 1. lists the annual works program as adopted at the IRIT meeting held on 30 July 2021.
Subsequent to the IRIT meeting held on 30 July 2021, the trust issued Council with the precept notice via email to the Manager Environment and Sustainability on 4 August 2021 (Attachment 1). The precept for 2021-2022 is for $300,000.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:
Local Government Act 2009
Rivers Improvement Trust Act 1940
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Ipswich City Council is the constituent local government which falls within the river improvement area for the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust. Under Part 6 Division 2 section 14(1) of the Act, Council is liable to contribute to the trust each year the sum prescribed by the trust. The sum is the amount of revenue estimated by the trust in their adopted annual budget.
The trust has full power and authority under the Act to issue a precept to Council and to require Council to pay the precept within a specified timeframe.
If there is a failure to negotiate and agree on an amount within a reasonable timeframe, the amount the local government must contribute will be the amount decided by the Minister.
If Council agrees to pay the amount prescribed within the precept, there is limited risk for Council regarding the requirements of the Act. If Council does not negotiate and agree on the amount within a reasonable timeframe, there is a risk the Minister will determine what amount Council must contribute.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
NON-DISCRETIONARY DECISION
The recommendations state that Council is liable to pay a sum to the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust as prescribed in their annual precept. Council has no ability to act differently/make a different decision because of Part 6 Division 2 section 14 (1) of the River Improvement Trust Act 1940 that requires ‘every local government in an area or any part of the area of which is included in a river improvement area shall be liable to contribute to the trust constituted for such river improvement area in each year the sum hereinafter prescribed’. Therefore, while the proposed decision may not be compatible with human rights Council’s decision will not be unlawful under the Human Rights Act 2019 .
Human Rights Impact Assessment Checklist
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
The allocated amount for the trust precept in the 2021-2022 budget is $150,000 (as set in line with the previous 2020-2021 precept). If Council agrees to pay the amount prescribed within the 2021-2022 precept of $300,000, an additional $150,000 will need to be allocated above the current budget or reallocated from other projects / programs within the current Environment and Sustainability budget. This may have an impact on the agreed projects and programs to be delivered by the Environment and Sustainability Branch in 2021-2022.
The precept amounts over the preceding 5 years were:
2016 $150,000 (+ GST)
2017 $150,000 (+ GST)
2018 $150,000 (+ GST)
2019 $150,000 (+ GST)
2020 $150,000 (+ GST)
OPTIONS:
In accordance with the Act, Council may consider the following options:
Option 1:
Council pays the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust the sum of $300,000 as prescribed in their 2021-2022 Precept Notice, and that the funds be drawn from the existing budget of $150,000 and a budget amendment for the additional $150,000.
Option 2:
Council negotiates with the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust an alternative sum for their 2021-2022 Precept that is in line with the allocated budget and previous years precept amount of $150,000.
Option 3:
Council negotiates with the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust and agrees on an alternative sum for their 2021-2022 Precept for a reduced works program this year, and that Council works in partnership with the trust to develop an agreed 3-5 year works program and funding model.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
Consultation has occurred with the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust Chair and Secretary to seek clarification on the increased precept amount. The trust has provided their adopted annual works program (Table 1.) as justification for the prescribed sum in the 2021-2022 precept.
Further, the Chair and Secretary have been advised that the precept is to be considered at this committee, and as such, Council is unable to make the precept payment by 31 August 2021 as stipulated in the precept notice. Within this advice, it was requested that the trust consider payment to be made post the Council meeting in September.
Conclusion
Council is liable to contribute to the Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust each year the sum prescribed by the trust by way of a precept notice. The 2021-2022 precept has been set at $300,000 by the trust as per their adopted annual works program.
Within the provisions of the River Improvement Trust Act 1940 , three (3) options have been presented for considered, with Option 3 being recommended as the preferred option.
Kaye Cavanagh
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Sean Madigan
Acting General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment
“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Mentions: Ipswich
4. Natural Environment Policy
Doc ID No: A7147778
ITEM: 4
SUBJECT: Natural Environment Policy
AUTHOR: Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Conservation Planning)
DATE: 11 May 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report concerning Ipswich City Council’s Natural Environment Policy. The policy has been developed to fill a policy gap. Extensive internal and external consultation was undertaken when developing the policy.
RecommendationS
That the policy titled ‘Natural Environment Policy’ as detailed in Attachment 1 be adopted.
RELATED PARTIES
There is no declaration of conflicts of interest in drafting the Natural Environment Policy.
iFUTURE Theme
Natural and Sustainable
Purpose of Report/Background
The Natural Environment Policy (Attachment 1) has been developed and drafted as part of a policy gap identified in the Business Transformation Project #9. In addition, it is timely to have an adopted policy position ahead of updating key corporate documents such as the Nature Conservation Strategy and Ipswich Planning Scheme.
A Natural Environment Policy also supports the Natural and Sustainable theme within council’s Corporate Plan 2021-2026 (iFuture). Commencing 1 July 2021, the plan identified having a Natural Environment Policy (and strategy) as one (1) of the theme’s catalyst projects. A project to develop a strategy to deliver on this policy is scheduled to commence in the coming months.
The natural environment is an important topic to the community of Ipswich and council, as demonstrated by the feedback received through extensive external and internal consultation undertaken. The seven (7) policy focus areas directly reflect this consultation feedback and common themes.
Policy development involved reviewing other local government natural environment policies as well as state, national and international natural environment frameworks. As such, the policy links to Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2019-2030 goals and objectives and several United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Effort was made to ensure that other council policies that were either in development or adopted were considered in drafting the policy. Of note is the Ipswich Enviroplan Program & Levy Policy and Sustainability Policy (and associated strategy), where it was identified that there are synergies in both policy’s intent.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:
Local Government Act 2009
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There is an economic risk for council’s demonstrated commitment and investment towards protecting and enhancing the natural environment, if an overarching direction (Natural Environment Policy) is not implemented. In addition, one (1) of the key messages from internal and external consultation is for council to provide leadership regarding natural environment management, which may impact its reputation and social licence should the policy not be implemented.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION
(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?
Adoption of a Natural Environment Policy
(b) What human rights are affected?
Recognition and equality before the law
Freedom of movement
Freedom of expression
Peaceful assembly and freedom of association
Taking part in public life
Property rights
Cultural rights
(c) How are the human rights limited?
Not applicable
(d) Is there a good reason for limiting the relevant rights? Is the limitation fair and reasonable?
Not applicable
(e) Conclusion
The decision is consistent with human rights.
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications in adopting the Natural Environment Policy.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
Extensive stakeholder engagement, both internally and externally, was integral to developing a meaningful and forward-thinking policy. A dedicated policy page on Council’s web-based community engagement platform was used https://shapeyouripswich.com.au/draft-natural-environment-policy .
The engagement process provided insight and feedback to help shape the policy. Feedback also identified additional actions and opportunities for council to consider or include within the strategy review and development planned to commence in the coming months.
Concurrently the policy oversight and discussion around direction was Community Reference Group for Environment and Sustainability. Progress reports were also given at subsequent Community Reference Groups.
Mayor and Councillors
Mayor and Councillors were provided opportunities to have input during the policy development.
In July 2020 at the very start of the policy journey a collaboration workshop was undertaken to provide insight into policy focus areas. These priorities informed drafting of the policy statement and principles.
An opportunity for feedback was offered via an email from the Branch Manager (Environment & Sustainability) prior to releasing the draft policy statement and principles to the community in February 2021. The statement and principles were released in a discussion paper at that time.
A briefing session was undertaken in May 2021 to inform finalisation of the daft policy. Invite for comment was put out as part of that briefing and followed up via email to the Mayor and Councillors from Branch Manager (Environment & Sustainability) on 21 June 2021 and followed up through the Chief of Staff (Office of the Mayor) on 6 July 2021. The Branch Manager also raised the policy at a monthly catch-up with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment & Sustainability committee.
Local Community and External Stakeholders
Throughout policy development council invited a diverse and broad range of participants including:
§ Community and general public
§ Government environmental agencies identified
§ Traditional owners/indigenous community groups identified
§ Development industry representative organisations and identified large scale developers
§ Citywide community environmental groups
§ Lineal infrastructure utility providers
§ Recreation and natural area user groups
§ Council landholder partners (urban and rural)
§ Youth sector representatives
§ School environmental groups
§ SEQ Regional scale environment groups
§ Commerce, industry and tourism representatives and groups
§ Waterway user groups and businesses
Participants could contribute by taking part initially in an on-line survey and later draft policy principles. 107 contributions were provided through the survey, and a further 55 submissions were later received on the principles.
12 high valued external stakeholders representing various key sector participated in targeted phone or email interviews during the initial stage.
The Environment Community Reference Group (CRG) members were provided an opportunity to participate on several occasions. A workshop was held to gain an understanding of priorities, as well members were asked to participate through Shape Your Ipswich in the on-line survey and draft policy principles consultation.
Council Employees
Internal engagement involved subject area representatives from key sections including:
§ Infrastructure & Environment Department – City Maintenance, Infrastructure Strategy & Planning, Emergency Management & Sustainability and Natural Environment & Land.
§ Planning & Regulatory Services Department – Strategic Planning, Local Laws & Regulated Parking and Environment Assessment.
§ Coordination & Performance Department – Integrated Planning & Reporting.
§ Community, Cultural & Economic Development Branch – Sport & Recreation and Destination Development.
Representatives were engaged both during the research phase through an email questionnaire, as well as provision of feedback on the draft principles.
Supporting Consultation Resources
At milestones in the policy’s development, supporting consultation resources were made available to the public through Shape Your Ipswich including:
§ Natural Environment Policy – Background Paper (Attachment 2)
§ Natural Environment Policy – Community Engagem
Mentions: Ipswich
5. Ipswich Platypus e-DNA Monitoring Report for 2020-2021
Doc ID No: A7423219
ITEM: 5
SUBJECT: Ipswich Platypus e-DNA Monitoring Report for 2020-2021
AUTHOR: Waterway Health Officer
DATE: 20 July 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report concerning the results of Ipswich City Council’s 2020-2021 platypus eDNA (environmental DNA) monitoring program. This sampling represents the fifth and most extensive platypus monitoring event council has undertaken across the city’s waterways.
Recommendations
A. That the platypus eDNA monitoring program be continued annually to monitor the city’s existing populations, as well as transient individuals moving throughout systems.
B. That habitat protection and improvement be conducted around key strongholds such as the Woogaroo, Sandy and Opossum Creek catchments to ensure the long-term sustainability of these populations.
C. That detailed habitat assessments be undertaken to identify areas of high-quality habitat and better understand key threats to platypus sustainability.
RELATED PARTIES
There are no related party matters nor conflicts of interest associated with this report.
ifuture Theme
Natural and Sustainable
Purpose of Report/Background
Platypus eDNA monitoring involves filtering a sample of water from a waterway and analysing the filter for the presence of platypus DNA. This is then used to indicate the presence or absence of platypus from the site of the sample being taken. Through strategic site selection, we are developing an understanding of the key strongholds where platypus persist, and also continuing to monitor sites they are not inhabiting in the hope of new populations establishing.
The most recent monitoring program was undertaken in May 2021, at 24 sites across 8 of the city’s major waterways. Results obtained were in alignment with previous results, showing the catchments of Woogaroo Creek, Opossum Creek and Sandy Creek as the primary strongholds.
No positive records were confirmed at any other sites outside of these systems. This is despite the habitat quality index scores of many other sites being equal to, or higher, than systems where platypus persist. This suggests there may be a range of other issues such as in-stream barriers and low source population numbers impacting their ability to access and colonise new areas with good habitat such as Bundamba Creek and the Bremer River.
Of particular note in this years’ sampling was the degradation of water quality and habitat condition in Woogaroo and Opossum creeks. The primary threat identified in the report at these sites is water turbidity, which was significantly worse than previous years. This is resultant from sediment which is eroded and washed into the waterways. Excessive turbidity and sedimentation can impact pool depth, food availability, habitat condition and streambank stability which is critical to maintain burrows. The primary source of turbidity in developing areas such as Woogaroo and Opossum Creek Catchment is disturbed land associated with development, construction and clearing.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:
Local Government Act 2009
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
The rapidly deteriorating water quality and habitat conditions of Woogaroo and Opossum creeks present a significant risk to the platypus populations, and broader aquatic ecology of these systems. With these systems recognised as being the city’s remaining strongholds for platypus since 2016, continued degradation of these systems will be detrimental to platypus.
The recommendations regarding continued platypus monitoring and habitat improvements will involve investment on council’s behalf. However, the likely alternative to not maintaining a strong focus on improving these waterways and riparian areas will be the loss of platypus to our local environment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
OTHER DECISION
(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?
The report attached has three (3) key recommendations. Recommendation A proposes that the platypus eDNA monitoring program is continued annually to monitor the city’s populations. Recommendation B proposes that habitat protection and improvement is conducted around key strongholds such as the Woogaroo, Sandy and Opossum catchments to ensure the long-term sustainability of these populations. Recommendation C proposes habitat assessments are undertaken to identify areas of high-quality habitat and better understand key threats to platypus sustainability.
(b) What human rights are affected?
No human rights are affected by these recommendations.
(c) How are the human rights limited?
Not applicable
(d) Is there a good reason for limiting the relevant rights? Is the limitation fair and reasonable?
Not applicable
(e) Conclusion
The decision is consistent with human rights.
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
The 2020-2021 platypus eDNA monitoring program cost approximately $6,000 (excl. GST) to sample 24 sites across the city’s waterways. It is anticipated that a similar annual expenditure will be required to continue the program across a similar number of sites each year.
The broader recommendations put forward of habitat improvement works will require significantly greater annual investment. Some of the required actions will be delivered through the operational and capital programs associated with the Waterway Health Strategy.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
No internal or external consultation has been undertaken as part of this report. Some distribution of the results has occurred specifically to landholders who allowed council to access waterways for sampling through their property. All private landholders contacted for access were extremely supportive of this monitoring program and all had hopes of platypus becoming established once again through our waterways.
Conclusion
The 2020-2021 platypus monitoring program has confirmed that platypus populations are persisting in the Woogaroo, Opossum and Sandy Creek catchments. On-going threats associated with urban development such as habitat degradation continue to threaten their long-term sustainability.
It is hoped through continued monitoring and delivery of waterway rehabilitation programs, the city’s platypus populations can persist in their current locations and become established at a range of new areas throughout our waterways.
Attachments and Confidential Background Papers
1.
2020-2021 Platypus eDNA Monitoring Report ⇩
Jack McCann
Waterway Health Officer
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Phil A. Smith
Natural Environment and Land Manager
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Kaye Cavanagh
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Sean Madigan
Acting General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment
“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Item 5 / Attachment 1.
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
6. Stormwater Quality Offset Program Annual Report
Doc ID No: A7494118
ITEM: 6
SUBJECT: Stormwater Quality Offset Program Annual Report
AUTHOR: Waterway Improvement Officer
DATE: 12 July 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report concerning the Stormwater Quality Offset’s Program status from commencement until June 2021. It consists of an overview of the program’s rules, list of water quality improvement projects delivered to date including expenditure, liability, efficiency and most recent implementation plan review.
Recommendations
That the Ipswich City Council Stormwater Quality Offset Program Annual update report be received and the contents noted.
RELATED PARTIES
There are no related party matters nor conflicts of interest associated with this report.
ifuture Theme
Natural and Sustainable
Purpose of Report/Background
New urban development in Queensland is required to manage stormwater to meet the water quality requirements of the State Planning Policy (SPP). Ipswich is guided by the Ipswich Planning Scheme Implementation Guideline No 24: Stormwater Management to minimise impacts of development on water quality and subsequently regional waterway health. Furthermore, the ICC Stormwater Quality Offset Program Implementation Plan (completed in 2015 and reviewed in 2020) provides guidance to ensure the delivery of coordinated water quality improvement projects since 2015.
Over the life of voluntary contributions, Council has received approx. $19.8M in contributions accruing obligations to remove an equivalent volume of pollutants (e.g. Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Total Suspended solids) from our stormwater. $3.1M of voluntary contributions from developers were received within 2020-2021 financial year.
Sixteen major projects have been completed since the Stormwater Offset program commenced, with eight (8) of these projects completed within allocated budget and timeframes for the financial year 2020-2021. These are listed below:
1. Ironpot Creek Bank Stabilisation
2. Small Creek Stage 3 Channel Naturalisation
3. Moodai Reserve Floodplain Re-engagement
4. Fail Park Bioretention Basin
5. Bob Titcombe Park Bioretention Basin
6. Sarah Drive Park Bioretention Basin
7. Water Smart Street Trees refurbishment of 36 Biopods
8. Franklin Vale Creek Initiative Stage 2 Revegetation works
The above listed projects are now on a five (5) year maintenance phase schedule to ensure they are fit for purpose and that the associated vegetation performs the required function regarding pollutant removal.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions: State Planning Policy (SPP)
Ipswich Planning Scheme Implementation Guideline No24 (IG24)
ICC Stormwater Quality Offset Program Implementation Plan
Ipswich Planning Scheme Table 2.3.1, Planning Scheme Policy 3, Division 3, Part 2—Stormwater Drainage
Local Government Act 2009
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
The projects delivered to date are selected from the investment strategies developed as part of the program’s implementation plan completed in 2015 and later reviewed in 2020. A multi criteria assessment was undertaken to help prioritise stormwater offset projects in terms of multiple benefits they provide.
In addition, environment and safety risks are assessed for each project during the design phase (e.g. environmental approvals required).
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT
The recommendation states that the report be received and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Total water quality offset expenditure has been addressed in the annual report with project costs categorised as administrative overheads, design, construction and maintenance.
Projects for the financial year 2020-2021 have been delivered within the allocated budget.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
No community and other consultation were conducted for this report. However, it is valid to mention the following:
- Internal stakeholder consultation was conducted as part of the program’s implementation plan review between July and November 2020
- A community information session was conducted at Poplar Street Park in Raceview on the 15 March 2020 regarding the design and upcoming works for Small Creek Stage 3 Channel Naturalisation.
Conclusion
An update of the Stormwater Quality Offset Program Annual Report has been completed incorporating the financial year 2020-2021 delivery outcomes.
Attachments and Confidential Background Papers
1.
Stormwater Quality Offsets Program Annual Update Report 2020-2021 ⇩
2.
ICC Stormwater Quality Offsets Implementation Plan Review FINAL Oct 2020 ⇩
Jennifer Mackay-Ortiz
Waterway Improvement Officer
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Phil A. Smith
Natural Environment and Land Manager
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Kaye Cavanagh
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Sean Madigan
Acting General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment
“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Item 6 / Attachment 1.
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Item 6 / Attachment 2.
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Mentions: Poplar Street · Sarah Drive · Water Smart Street · Ipswich · Raceview
7. Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction Project
Doc ID No: A7477135
ITEM: 7
SUBJECT: Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction Project
AUTHOR: Acting Senior Emergency Management Officer
DATE: 11 August 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report concerning the Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction Project undertaken by Council throughout 2020-2021.
Recommendation
That the report be received and the contents noted.
RELATED PARTIES
Council partnered with the following organisations to deliver this project:
· Centre for Disability Research and Policy at The University of Sydney
· Queenslanders with Disability Network
· Queensland Government (Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy)
There was no declaration of conflicts of interest.
ifuture Theme
Safe, Inclusive and Creative
Purpose of Report/Background
Research shows that people with disability are at higher risk from and disproportionately impacted by disasters; for these reasons and others, people with disability are identified as a vulnerable group within the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Plan. The Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction (DIDRR) project aims to reduce disaster risk for people with disability through education, awareness and most importantly through person-centred emergency planning.
Council undertook the DIDRR project to improve its emergency management and community resilience under the 2020-2021 Operational Plan.
Consultation with people with disability from within the Ipswich community was not only essential to this project’s success, but indeed shaped the project’s direction and outcomes. Full details of community consultation undertaken throughout this project is outlined at the ‘Community and other consultation’ section of this report.
Key outcomes from this project include:
· Two (2) workshops undertaken with and co-facilitated by people with disability, disability support organisations and emergency services, to introduce DIDRR and start their Person-Centred Emergency Preparedness (PCEP) journey;
· Creation of a Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction page on Council’s website making the DIDRR Framework and PCEP Workbook available to the community;
· Increased representation in and accessibility of the new 2021-24 City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Plan (pending publishing at time of writing):
o Representation of people with disability in the ‘If Ipswich were 100 people’ graphic
o Addition of alternative text to all graphs and images to improve the experience of people using screen readers
o Inclusion of the DIDRR framework as Council’s approach to reducing disaster risk for people with disability in the Ipswich community
· Addition of Auslan, closed captions and transcripts to all emergency preparedness videos on the Emergency Management YouTube channel (pending publishing at time of writing);
· Inclusion of the DIDRR approach in Councils’ new Community Development Strategy; and
· Creation of invaluable connections with the disability community in Ipswich, including residents, support organisations and local agencies.
This project has highlighted future opportunities available to incorporate disability representation and accessibility when developing content, publishing material, hosting events etc. as part of Council’s emergency management program to reduce disaster risk for people with disability in Ipswich.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:
Disaster Management Act 2003
City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Plan
City of Ipswich Disaster Management Policy
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risks associated with the recommendation of this report.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT
The recommendation states that the report be received and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no additional financial or resources implications resulting from this report.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
Consultation on this project was guided by the essential stakeholder groups identified in the DIDRR framework: people with disability, local disaster management and community and disability support services. Over 30 representatives from across all three (3) groups attended a DIDRR workshop in February 2021 hosted by Council to introduce the DIDRR framework and Person-Centred Emergency Preparedness Workbook. The workshop was co-facilitated by the University of Sydney project lead Professor Michelle Villenueve and was well received by all participants, which included 12 Ipswich residents with disability and their carers, six (6) local disability support organisations and 13 representatives from government agencies providing disability support services in Ipswich.
Council hosted a follow up workshop in May 2021 with people with disability who wanted to further their disaster preparedness journey as a result of the first workshop. Council worked with this group on identifying and understanding their personal disaster risk, learning where to go for local emergency information, working through specific challenges in response and start working on actionable preparedness activities tailored to the individual’s capabilities and support needs.
Peter Tully, a well-known local disability advocate, invited Council to participate in monthly meetings of the Queenslanders with Disability Network (QDN) Ipswich Peer Support Group meetings throughout the life of the project. The relationships developed through the Ipswich Peer Support Group were invaluable and significantly informed the project delivery approach and several changes that have resulted in a more inclusive, representative, and accessible emergency management program at Ipswich City Council.
The approach undertaken with the community and Council has since been used as a case study (Attachment 1) by the University of Sydney as an example of best practice intended to assist other local governments deliver on DIDRR outcomes for people with disability across Queensland.
Conclusion
The relationships developed and lessons identified throughout the DIDRR project have been invaluable and have informed several changes resulting in a more inclusive, representative and accessible disaster management program at Ipswich City Council.
Attachments and Confidential Background Papers
1.
Case Study - DIDRR in Ipswich ⇩
Kristie Mckenna
Acting Senior Emergency Management Officer
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Matthew Pinder
Emergency Management and Sustainability Manager
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Kaye Cavanagh
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Sean Madigan
Acting General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment
“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Item 7 / Attachment 1.
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Mentions: Ipswich
8. Get Ready Queensland Week 2021
Doc ID No: A7478875
ITEM: 8
SUBJECT: Get Ready Queensland Week 2021
AUTHOR: Acting Senior Emergency Management Officer
DATE: 13 August 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report concerning Get Ready Queensland Week in October 2021 and the community education, awareness, and engagement activities that council will carry out in support of the initiative.
Recommendation/s
That the report be received and the contents noted.
RELATED PARTIES
There are no declarations of conflict of interest.
ifuture Theme
Safe, Inclusive and Creative
Purpose of Report/Background
Get Ready Queensland Week (GRQ Week), occurring in 2021 from 10 to 17 October, is a time for council and its disaster management partner agencies to focus their efforts on helping the community prepare for severe weather and disasters while continuing to build their resilience to future disasters.
The objectives of the GRQ program, which aligns with Council’s general disaster management objectives, are to help the community understand their disaster risk and undertake disaster preparedness activities that increase resilience to future emergencies and disasters.
During GRQ Week 2021, Council will achieve disaster preparedness and resilience objectives through a variety of education, awareness and engagement activities such as:
· Distribution and promotion of disaster preparedness information and resources through a variety of internal and external channels;
· Promotion of the Get Ready Queensland Schools Competition; and
· Direct community engagement activities such as:
o ‘pop-ups’ at one (1) high-traffic community venue per division (such as a shopping centre)
o a ‘Get Ready Community Safety & Crime Prevention’ expo (pending approval of the Community, Culture, Arts and Sport Committee) - Note: this proposed expo is led by the Queensland Police Service, supported by Council through Community Development and Emergency Management Sections.
o ‘Story Time’ at Ipswich Libraries.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:
Disaster Management Act 2003
City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Plan
Council’s Disaster Management Policy
Queensland Strategy for Disaster Resilience
Get Ready Queensland 2021–22 Grants Guidelines
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Get Ready Queensland Week 2021 is a key opportunity for council to reduce disaster risk in Ipswich by helping the community prepare for disasters and emergencies through education, awareness and engagement activities.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT
The recommendation states that the report be received and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Activities will be funded through the GRQ grants program, which is administered by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
The following internal council stakeholder groups have been or will be consulted in designing and delivering council’s Get Ready Queensland Week 2021 activities:
· Community Development
· Libraries and Customer Service
· Marketing and Promotion
External stakeholders, including but not limited to, members of the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Group, will also be invited to participate in Council’s Get Ready Queensland Week 2021 activities.
Conclusion
Get Ready Queensland Week 2021 is an excellent opportunity for Council to engage with the community and help them prepare for the season ahead, contributing to a stronger, more disaster resilient Ipswich.
Kristie Mckenna
Acting Senior Emergency Management Officer
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Matthew Pinder
Emergency Management and Sustainability Manager
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Kaye Cavanagh
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Sean Madigan
Acting General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment
“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”
Environment and Sustainability Committee
Meeting Agenda
2 September
2021
Mentions: Ipswich
9. Deputy Chairpersons for the Local Disaster Management Group and the Local Recovery and Resilience Group
Doc ID No: A7478049
ITEM: 9
SUBJECT: Deputy Chairpersons for the Local Disaster Management Group and the Local Recovery and Resilience Group
AUTHOR: Acting Senior Emergency Management Officer
DATE: 13 August 2021
Executive Summary
This is a report concerning the appointment of an additional Deputy Chairperson to the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Group and a Deputy Chairperson to the City of Ipswich Local Recovery and Resilience Group.
Recommendations
A. That Council appoint one (1) of its Councillors as the secondary Deputy Chairperson of the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Group.
B. That Council appoint one (1) of its Councillors as the Deputy Chairperson of the City of Ipswich Local Recovery and Resilience Group.
RELATED PARTIES
There are no declared conflicts of interest.
ifuture Theme
Safe, Inclusive and Creative
Natural and Sustainable
Purpose of Report/Background
The Local Disaster Management Group (LDMG) and its subgroup, the Local Recovery and Resilience Group (LRG), are established pursuant to the Disaster Management Act 2003 . The Act requires the Chairperson of the LDMG be a Councillor and convention is that the Deputy Chairperson/s and LRG Chairperson and Deputies also be Councillors.
Mayor Harding is appointed as the Chairperson of the LDMG and Cr Kunzelmann is appointed as the Deputy Chairperson. Cr Kunzelmann is also appointed as the Chairperson of the LRG.
During disaster operations, there is often enough workload for both the Chair and Deputy Chair of the LDMG to be actively operating in these roles. Accordingly, there is limited redundancy for the function of LDMG Chairperson if both Councillors are absent or otherwise incapacitated, or during a prolonged disaster response.
A deputy Chairperson is not currently appointed for the LRG, which presents similar redundancy challenges as described above, particularly given that recovery is often the most protracted phase of disaster management.
Legal/Policy Basis
This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:
Disaster Management Act 2003
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Appointing Deputy Chairpersons to the LDMG and the LRG mitigates risk to council by providing redundancy in important disaster management functions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION
(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?
A. That Council appoint one (1) of its Councillors as the secondary Deputy Chairperson of the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Group.
B. That Council appoint one (1) of its Councillors as the Deputy Chairperson of the City of Ipswich Local Recovery and Resilience Group.
(b) What human rights are affected?
There are no human rights affected by the decision.
(c) How are the human rights limited?
The decisions will not limit human rights.
(d) Is there a good reason for limiting the relevant rights? Is the limitation fair and reasonable?
The decisions will not limit human rights.
(e) Conclusion
The decision is consistent with human rights.
Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications.
COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION
The following key disaster management stakeholders have been consulted:
· Chairperson, LDMG
· Chairperson, LRG/Deputy Chairperson, LDMG
· Local Disaster Coordinator
· Deputy Local Disaster Coordinator
Conclusion
Sufficient Deputy Chairpersons on both the LDMG and the LRG will provide important redundancy and support to these groups and ensure council can continue to effectively respond to community needs during prolonged disaster response and recovery operations.
Kristie Mckenna
Acting Senior Emergency Management Officer
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Matthew Pinder
Emergency Management and Sustainability Manager
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Kaye Cavanagh
Manager, Environment and Sustainability
I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.
Sean Madigan
Acting General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment
“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”
Mentions: Ipswich
Source: Ipswich City Council meeting agenda (CC BY 4.0).