Original source · versioned page text
2018-05-14 General Committee Meeting Agenda
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (10.8 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
General Committee
Meeting
Monday, 14 May 2018
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Jess Glasgow, Ingrid Jackson,
Joe Jurisevic, Frank Pardon, Brian Stockwell, Tony Wellington
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 73 sections
Section 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
ITEMS REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 2
1. MCU17/0572 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MCU FOR RETAIL
BUSINESS TYPE 2 (SHOP & SALON) & RETAIL BUSINESS TYPE 5 - VEHICLE
USES (SERVICE STATION) & OPW17/0611 DEVELOP. PERMIT FOR
OPERATIONAL WORKS (ADVERTISING DEVICES) AT 175 EUMUNDI NOOSA RD,
NOOSAVILLE
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 8 May 2018, Item 1, Page 3)
Reason for referral - significance of the issue.
2. MCU17/0546 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - HOME BASED
BUSINESS - TYPE 3 SIGNIFICANT SCALE SITUATED AT 54 BORONIA ROAD,
COOTHARABA
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 8 May 2018, Item 2, Page 41)
Reason for referral - for further consideration.
3. MCU12/0012.02 - CHANGE TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL
CHANGE OF USE (HOME BASED BUSINESS - TYPE 3 - SIGNIFICANT SCALE)
SITUATED AT 298 TABLELANDS ROAD, COORAN
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 8 May 2018, Item 4, Page 69)
Reason for referral - a quorum could not be met after declaration of Conflict of Interests
ITEMS REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE 2
4. TOURISM NOOSA 2018-19 SPONSORED EVENTS - TEMPORARY PERMIT
APPROVALS
(Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 8 May 2018, Item 4, Page 19)
Reason for referral – for further consideration.
5. SIX Mile CREEK FLOOD STUDY COMPLETION
(Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 8 May 2018, Item 9, Page 42)
Reason for referral – For a further report (refer to Item 5)
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 3
6 FURTHER REPORT - SIX MILE CREEK FLOOD STUDY COMPLETION 3
7 1718T050 - MARY RIVER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - TENDER
AWARD 5
8 1718T068 - OLD NOOSA ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - TENDER AWARD 12
9 CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CARPARKING 20
10 1718T126 NOOSA AQUATIC CENTRE CAFE LEASE - TENDER
ACCEPTANCE 34
11 NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE LAND USE MASTER PLAN - FINAL
CONSULTATION OUTCOMES AND AMENDED PLAN 37
12 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - APRIL 2018 65
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 2 of 74
Section 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
6 FURTHER REPORT - SIX MILE CREEK FLOOD STUDY COMPLETION
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Project Coordinator – Flooding, Coastal and Foreshores, Daniel Wishaw
Infrastructure Services Department
Index ECM / Subject / Flood Studies
Attachments 1. Lake Macdonald Drive Community Reference Group Investigations
Report October 2017 (42 page attachment provided separately to this
report)
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Project Coordinator – Flooding, Coastal and Foreshores to
the to the Services and Organisation Committee Meeting dated 8 May 2018 and the Further
Report to General Committee Meeting dated 14 May 2018 and note the Lake Macdonald Drive
Community Reference Group Investigations Report October 2017 provided as Attachment 1 to
the Report.
REPORT
The Six Mile Creek Flood Study Complete report was considered at the Services and
Organisation meeting dated 8 May 2018. At this meeting a further report to the General
Committee was requested providing a copy of the Lake Macdonald Drive Community Reference
Group Investigation report. The Lake Macdonald Drive Community Reference Group
Investigations Report October 2017 is attached.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance
Refer to previous report to Service and Organisation Committee meeting 8 May 2018.
Risks & Opportunities
Refer to previous report to Service and Organisation Committee meeting 8 May 2018.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Refer to previous report to Service and Organisation Committee meeting 8 May 2018.
Internal Consultation
Refer to previous report to Service and Organisation Committee meeting 8 May 2018.
Page 3 of 74
Section 4
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development X Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning X Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 4 of 74
Section 5
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
7 1718T050 - MARY RIVER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - TENDER AWARD
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Project Coordinator, Dennis Luinstra
Infrastructure Services Department
Index ECM\ Projects (T1)\ Mary River Road Bridge Replacement - CAP.WORK –
500813
ECM\ Subject\Funding/Grants Donations\Roads (State & Federal Funding
Schemes/Projects)
ECM\ Subject\Contracting\Road Construction
Attachments 1. Mary River Road Bridge Replacement Tender Assessment
2. Design Drawing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides a recommendation for the appointment of the preferred contractor for the
construction of the Mary River Road Bridge replacement project.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Project Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated
14 May 2018 and award tender 1718T050 for the Mary River Road Bridge replacement situated
in Cooroy to ARK Construction Group for the lump sum price of $1,495,399 (excluding GST).
REPORT
The project is for the replacement of the Mary River Road Bridge situated on Maple Street at
Cooroy. The project includes demolition of the existing timber load limited bridge and
replacement with a concrete bridge. The new bridge will comprise two vehicle lanes, bicycle
lanes and a separated shared pathway. The targeted useful life of the new concrete bridge is 100
years.
The construction is scheduled for commencement in mid May 2018 with completion in October
2018.
1. Tender Process
Due to the value of the works being greater than $200,000, Council called a public tender for the
works through the LG Tenderbox in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and
Council’s Procurement Policy.
An open invitation to tender was released via LG Tenderbox on 7 February 2018 with advertising
in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 3 February 2018. The tender closed on 14 March 2018. Five (5)
conforming tenders were received.
2. Tender Assessment
The tender evaluation panel undertook an assessment of the tender submissions from the
following respondents (listed in alphabetical order):
Ark Construction Group;
Hall Contracting;
NQ Civil Contractors;
Pentacon; and
PJM Civil Contractors.
Page 5 of 74
Section 6
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria, with scores reflecting the tenderers
ability to demonstrate how they met the criteria:
Capability and resourcing;
Contract experience and capacity;
Timeline and methodology
Quality;
Health and safety;
Environment and sustainability;
Contribution to local economy; and
Price.
Post tender box close, clarifications were undertaken with a number of tenderers.
The tender evaluation team finalised tender evaluations and considers the Ark Construction
Group tender to be the most advantageous to Council, presenting the best value for money. Ark
Construction Group tender submission is favourable on the following basis:
They were able to
Demonstrate significant previous experience with construction of 10 bridges in the past 5
years;
Demonstrate a well thought methodology, quality and a high level of Work Health and
Safety; and
Demonstrate that they have the necessary resources to meet Council’s contractual
timeframes for practical completion.
The tender evaluation team considers this total tender submission to be the most advantageous
to Council and presents the best total score of combined price and non-price elements.
3. Programme & Next Steps
Pending Council approval, Ark Construction Group propose to construct the project (including
wet weather allowances) within 23 weeks, targeting practical completion in October 2018. This
timeframe for construction was stipulated by Council for of the following reasons:
Preferred period in consultation with the Cooroy Chamber of Commerce;
Commencement occurs after the Cooroy Fusion Festival;
Reduced risk of flooding disturbance by constructing during the drier months; and
Follows timeframes for Energex relocations.
4. Construction Management and Inspections
Under the construct delivery model, Ark will be appointed as Principal Contractor and Council will
maintain the overall Project Management role (supported by an externally appointed
superintendent) to administer the contract and progressively inspect the works ensuring the
project objectives are met.
5. Program
The delivery process involves the following key steps:
Awarding of contract by Council;
Contractor obtaining required environmental approvals and ordering of construction
materials;
Council providing communications to affected community;
Contractor taking possession of site after Energex complete underground relocation of
power cables scheduled to be completed late June;
Preparing site, activating detour and full road closure;
Temporary relocating other services and starting with demolishing existing bridge and
construction or the new bridge;
Commissioning, handover and deactivating detour.
Page 6 of 74
Section 7
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Previous Council Consideration
Nil
Finance & Risk
Council has provisionally allocated a total of $1,327,200 for the project, comprising $354,200 in
the current 2017/18 financial year and a further $973,000 identified in the draft 5 year capital
program. Included within the project budget is $663,429 grant funding received from the Federal
Government Bridge Renewal Program Round 3. Funding was also received for the replacement
of the Old Noosa Road and Orealla Road bridges.
The allocated funding for the replacement of the Mary River Road Bridge is currently insufficient
to complete the project as per the table below:
Item Cost (excl. GST)
Costs to Date (April 2017) $59,726
Tendered Contract Value $1,495,399
Consultant, superintendent and staff costs $60,473
Qleave and other permits $10,000
Relocation of services (Energex, Unitywater) $335,000
Subtotal $1,960,598
Contingency (10%) On tendered value $149,540
Total Project Cost $2,110,138
The current project cost estimate is significantly higher ($783k) than current allocated funding
due to following reasons:
Timing of previous budget and grant submission based on early estimates;
Energex Services costs increased from $60,000 to $280,000;
Other relocation services are costing more than expected;
Market factors for bridge projects has increased the tender value.
It is expected that the total costs allocated in Council’s 5 year capital program for the
replacement of the three bridges will be able to absorb the increase in the Mary River Road
project, as savings will be achieved in the other two bridge replacement projects.
Overall funding received for the three bridges is currently being discussed with Federal and State
Government representatives with the aim of smoothing project costs within the total grant funding
pool received, given changes in the cost mix between the bridges since the original grants
applications were submitted.
Risks & Opportunities
FINANCE RISKS MITIGATION
Power, communications, water and Undertake review of service authority proposals aiming to
sewer service relocations cost more influence most cost effective solution.
than current forecast.
Project scope increases. This is to be mitigated through Project Control Group and Capital
Works Executive management and limitation of client requested
scope variations.
Community requests for scope Council acceptance of scope as awarded with intention of not
changes once construction increasing scope.
commences and project becomes
publically visible.
Geotechnical conditions give rise Previous geotechnical investigations and an agreed lump sum for
for contractor claiming variation the contract has mitigated much of this risk.
costs. The contract allows depth cost adjustments and tender provided a
fixed rate for pile extension.
Page 7 of 74
Section 8
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
FINANCE RISKS MITIGATION
Contractor claims for variations This has been mitigated through the lump sum procurement
based on changes required for method with further mitigation through post tender clarifications
design. tying the contractor firmly into the agreed scope of works.
Contractor claims for variations due This has been mitigated through post tender clarifications
later possession of site due delayed providing contractor with most actual programme to ty the
relocation of power lines by contractor firmly into the agreed scope of works
Energex and moreover tender
being awarded later than expected
by contractor.
Clashes with underground services This risk is mitigated by thorough investigation in the previous
give rise for contractor claiming design phase. Relocation plans are designed in close cooperation
variation costs. with service providers.
Preferred contractor is aware of the works involved.
Contingency amount being Risk is mitigated through appointment of experienced contractor
insufficient and contract supervision of experienced Superintendent.
PROGRAM RISKS MITIGATION
There is the potential that the Construction during the typically dry season aims to mitigate this.
project is delayed due to wet
weather
Resource risk Ark Construction Group PTY have nominated a capable team
undertaking construction.
Structure construction takes longer The contractor is well resourced and has the available recourses
than allowed for. to deliver this project successfully in conjunction with current
works on hand.
SAFETY RISKS MITIGATION
Proximity of High Voltage Electricity Energex will relocate the nearby power lines underground prior to
cables. contractor start construction. Noting this process has incurred
significant costs over and above original estimates by Energex.
Construction using machinery and The contractor is certified to AS 4801 (Occupational Health &
hoisting involved, possible Safety Management Systems) and demonstrated their capability
occurring of various safety issues. in WH&S very well in its tender bid.
In addition the contractor is very experienced having completed
10 bridge projects within the past 5 years.
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM RISKS MITIGATION
There is risk that the works impact Council has incorporated environmental requirements as part of
on the environment because of the the contract. The contractor must also engage a Spotter Catcher
construction works within the and develop their own Environmental Management plan (EMP) to
Cooroy Creek further minimize risks.
The superintendent and Council staff will closely monitor the
construction phase to ensure impacts are minimised.
SCOPE AND QUALITY RISKS MITIGATION
Risk of not meeting project To be managed through Council staff reviews supported by
objectives specialist consultants.
PUBLIC DISRUPTION AND MITIGATION
COUNCIL REPUTATION RISKS
Traffic disruption due total road During construction a short detour is available via Emerald St and
closure at the site location. Garnet ST / Sportsground Parade.
Pedestrians can walk through the Apex Park and along the
Cooroy sporting complex. The detour will be sufficient marked
using signs.
Council will provide communications to the community leading up
to and during the project.
Noise from plant and equipment This will be minimised where ever possible and where possible
may be a cause of disruption to working during normal working hours.
local residents.
Page 8 of 74
Section 9
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
PUBLIC DISRUPTION AND MITIGATION
COUNCIL REPUTATION RISKS
Vibration during piling. The piling will be done in a short timeframe as possible. The
nearby residents, business and library are to be informed by
letterbox drops. Moreover, before piling starts, dilapidation
surveys are to be executed.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Consultation took place with the Project Reference Group.
Internal Consultation
Corporate Services consulted on procurement processes and budget.
Infrastructure Services consulted on tender submissions and value engineering options.
Environment and Sustainable Development consulted on environmental matters.
Executive Services consulted on Workplace Health and Safety matters and coordination of media
post contract award.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development x Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries x Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
x Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services x Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture x Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning x Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 9 of 74
Section 10
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 10 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Att 1 - Mary River Road Bridge
reaentmen Replacement Tender Assessment
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation
ee
ee | alten |
(Conforming Tenders Only) (excl of GST)
T [PiMCwilContractorsPIVItd CT $9,219,450)
2 ArkConstructionGroupPTyitd | $2,495,399]
3
eps. ee oe ee NON
; (Hall ContractingPtyltd | $2,066,209]
6: ea see ok a ee es]
7 (Panis eee Ae I ee 0 5
Pp cae es Oe (| a
9 [ere eck PRETO te te ere ee Fad)
30. [Eiceveeen mae gg ea ae ea ag ES RE |
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
fine] momen [om [cee | om |e | [| [Se] — [el = [ee] = [Se - [Se] - Eel = |
score x
ti ghti sting 4
ansnyancowcns | me «| m | ar | w | mm | w | rom | ss | om | | ss | io | om | o | om | o | om | © | om | o | om |
fonnctpeincncny | |» | a |» | se | ss | an | » | om | w [om | o [om | 0 | om | o | om | o | om | o | om |
lmsieaoos STL wm | ooo | m | rm | @ | oo | m | rm | om | oo | o | om | o | om | o | om] » | om | o | om |
omy SSSC~wCSme iL | oo | om | rm | os | oes [ms [om | m [roo [om | 0 | om | o | om] © | om | o | om |
hemasey STL wm [| em | @ | os | @ | om | m | om [| [os [oo [om | o | om | o | om] o | om | o | om |
fnwoomenasmnnnny | | » | 0 | as | an | as | am | as [am [ms [am | o [om | 0 | om | 0 | om | o | om | o | om |
Konvttentoinnicrom | | © | 2 | = | om | w | om | [om | = [om | o [om | © | om | o | om | » | om o | om |
fearwieaiors Tm |e Tm | mem |e [ome [ome wae
a a
Total Fees (Pc) 45% $1,219,450 $1,495,399 $1,572,633 $1,591,546 $2,066,209
[Average Fees (Pav) S.svcsssercrserseersneees $1,589,047
Price Score 123 106 101 100 70
Normalised Price Score (Pn) 100 86 82 81 57
Weighted Price Score (Pw) 45.00 38.66 36.89 36.45 25.55
a [we [we [wm [| [| T|
4
| _______Assesment Panel Member2 ‘| Workplace Health and Safety Advisor, Executive Services | a a
and weightings of this evaluation j,
[Assesment Panel Member3 _____—_|_Principal Environ. Officer, Environ. & Sustainable Devel. | [Contract Administrator's signature: | ___—Project Coordinator, Infrastructure Services|
| Assesment PanelMembera «| _—_—~Project Manager, Infrastructure Services|
Page 10 of 74Section 11
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018 Attachment 2
Page 11 of 74
i¥NO109 NI GALNINd 38 OL SONIMVUO TV WEE MEAMEM AG LKOLHOVIOL SUV GRP ZOOS QU NEOVOM UE NEC om0e ‘ABeqg pu AanY KARL 2208 GOLESI
sy ts] |
©9
o | | Seb) bop Cham UL shel Beedle
= at a ef] alti. i i | any Gig eelis
w 8 So
o | |e? ui eau fe ec dde gy Qens
| (EO il Geld eal UE Esl
5 | [Pun beg Bin UCT Ec)
@ g a yt zu (9 sa] 18 in 6
= (ya 5 i é || Polgl ddl y aye Hh
<x 58 ee i : lait y ifettat | By" a
Sy (il SLR PE eH PA HEL gt
a f ; w |: yy ttyl | Es 2
| | | Willill?é ti
&
\ \ “ ¢ Y Mr 9
Q7 ON “E Eay >” og »yhSf gs
\ * § i ky YY 4 eo 3
\ fe 2 , f 6 eo 7 < L i <4 i 3
\ vit “” A jv fr a
. Y f / 7 ? p S y Z Ay é z
09 bone ak ~ xf KAY aol.
- & Ss : , Y fy f x
S Moth VAY L- 7
= i Lath XSL A Fal| ®
z POND AG SY / aes or =
-B ‘ A / tf “pv ep)
= a i bel VL fy + ff A Pee ey)||
2 - — — wns — — News Xe Hp Up df aatnm 7 LK Y/Y = a o
# S XN St Vil BOS
KM Moog / eh 4 fp ~S, 8
ef RNG fF ee? Za 8
LEROY LE gi)
TE ON ith psf bhEs
_ J Se, \ y Lf} A. ‘ ae 1+ z o ©
i * TLR ‘ieee 3 ae8 ' hese
ay ny fhe © SU HEE :-— 7 g2ie
5 Vong RM Hee ~ —€ ~ 9 fi
i EE ff Scone «OZ Ze
A | ff RR —_§ 0328
yi” 00Ro¥ cree White (-—**-—_—_-_—-— 6 Z286
ee ibe sw CBee Z2053
rey. SHR. ps! 4 ~ El org
QD I Yee | Siae a]lels 3 ze
ME pet on 4 alle] eal Hes
hy | SOT IS “| |= |+ 15 bg
— Fa nT) [Peet ON 3 5 &
ge es Alt) WON \ 2 a
< Ne [UNAPP Pade sea. > HBBEE
i { } + Se Bf | if Z| & jz 5 2 *
Se OSE ROT Beat Eis 3 T,
mh Ped iat eae aE >|
\ pl yihyls > OE iy z i =|*| « = |S ¥
g Bb gh PUR | ae Redan (itary : ‘| hE
g || e ee Nea GGT) ti
z Tae Em OF, 4, MN iy (Be i i : SE
ella fey SY a
a : Ee | pp (fl | a #
W OTs td PBs HE Se lealaaelsesleectas THE
Ww he ‘oe. Lh) Agee ale o2|224| 28s] e25| sa
S Pt le! Ton BE |s3/s98/488/#28/ 48 TE
wi / ) ~ : \z. 1 f &! Zz =)22|/S22/S22/f22/2=
o> J a || Sloelege | Sar/28elN@selas
|| Sect
~SSag G8 , - A/SS/ESE/ESE/FSE/E5
S ~~ \ f “Yel | | 4 ie or pea : wa|lawe|4er| ess] se
S ek AN, i APS ° 2|52/S2a|ace|2?olas
6 Vaiss (PPE p> [ ee[eee [eee learn |
o AVDA Hep da e=t- Tele [= ;
2 \Woiy Ses ' \ 5 1 1 1 71 7 2212 3098 5 3 0 r
4 1 1 1 72 0 155 3077 2094 100 -1
5 1 1 1 72 1 155 3077 31 63 2 :
5 1 1 1 72 2 515 3083 144 69 6 eet
5 1 1 1 72 3 966 3080 195 97 30 AEE
5 1 1 1 72 4 2115 3087 134 74 51 me
4 1 1 1 73 0 161 3129 2088 77 -1
5 1 1 1 73 1 161 3140 15 60 61 Ww
5 1 1 1 73 2 508 3150 72 37 0 Wii
5 1 1 1 73 3 620 3144 67 43 0 ote
5 1 1 1 73 4 729 3144 80 35 5 tod
5 1 1 1 73 5 884 3143 115 44 4 HE
5 1 1 1 73 6 1048 3129 31 74 0 re
5 1 1 1 73 7 1108 3142 13 64 0 f
5 1 1 1 73 8 1148 3140 13 66 26 i
5 1 1 1 73 9 2115 3164 134 23 0 CCC]
4 1 1 1 74 0 157 3112 2092 148 -1
5 1 1 1 74 1 157 3171 36 72 2 ci
5 1 1 1 74 2 498 3112 169 114 16 iM
5 1 1 1 74 3 687 3177 57 48 30 ‘|
5 1 1 1 74 4 781 3172 28 54 0 4
5 1 1 1 74 5 898 3166 121 59 64 WHE
5 1 1 1 74 6 1129 3165 13 41 60 d
5 1 1 1 74 7 2082 3173 116 87 16 Ds
5 1 1 1 74 8 2205 3173 44 87 60 |
4 1 1 1 75 0 155 3239 35 31 -1
5 1 1 1 75 1 155 3239 35 31 41 OSSection 12
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
8 1718T068 - OLD NOOSA ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - TENDER AWARD
Author Project coordinator, Dennis Luinstra
Infrastructure Services Department
Index ECM\ Projects (T1)\ Old Noosa Road Bridge Replacement - CAP.WORK –
500814
ECM\ Subject\ Funding/Grants Donations\Roads (State & Federal Funding
Schems/Programs)
ECM\ Subject\ Contracting\ Road Construction
Attachments 1. Old Noosa Road Bridge Replacement Tender Assessment
2. Preliminary design drawing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides a recommendation for the appointment of the preferred contractor for the
design and construction of the Old Noosa Road Bridge Cooran replacement project.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Project Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated
14 May 2018 and award tender 1718T068 for the Design and Construction of the Old Noosa
Road Bridge replacement situated in Cooran to Casa Engineering for the lump sum price of
$1,232,486 (excluding GST).
REPORT
The project is for the replacement of the Old Noosa Bridge situated on Old Noosa Road at
Cooran. The project includes the design of the new bridge, demolition of the existing timber load
limited bridge and replacement with a concrete bridge. The new bridge will comprise a bridge
with a single lane deck width of 4.9 metres between traffic barriers, has a length of 35 metres and
a target design life of 100 years.
The contract is of a design and construct nature, with the design process scheduled to
commence in May 2018 with completion in August 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for
commencement in August 2018 with completion in December 2018 weather permitting.
1. Tender Process
Due to the value of the works being greater than $200,000, Council called a public tender for the
works through the LG Tender Box system in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009
and Council’s Procurement Policy. An open invitation to tender was released via LG Tender Box
on 7 February 2018 with advertising in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 3 February 2018. The tender
closed on 14 March 2018. Five (5) conforming tenders were received.
2. Tender Assessment
The tender evaluation panel undertook an assessment of the tender submissions from the
following respondents (listed in alphabetical order);
Casa Engineering
CPM Group
Moggill constructions
PJM Civil Contractors
Timber Restoration Systems
Page 12 of 74
Section 13
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria, with scores reflecting the tenderers’
ability to demonstrate how they meet the relevant criteria;
Capability and resourcing
Contract experience and capacity including preliminary design
Timeline and methodology
Quality
Health and safety
Environment and sustainability
Contribution to local economy
Price.
Post tender box close, clarifications were undertaken with a number of tenderers.
The tender evaluation team finalised tender evaluations and considers the Casa Engineering
tender using a concrete bridge, to be the most advantageous to Council and presenting the best
value for money. Casa Engineering’s tender submission is favourable on the following basis:
They were able to demonstrate previous experience with successful construction of six
similar projects in the past 5 years;
They showed demonstration of a well thought methodology and bridge design, high quality
and high level of Work Health and Safety process and procedures;
Their proposed concrete design meets the contract specifications;
The proposed reinforced concrete bridge can achieve 100 years of life and gives Council
the lowest whole of life cost comparing to the other tenderers;
They demonstrated that they have the necessary resources to meet Council’s contractual
timeframes for practical completion.
The tender evaluation team considers this total tender submission to be the most advantageous
to Council and presents the best total score of combined price and non-price elements along with
the lowest whole of life cost.
3. Programme & Next Steps
Pending Council approval, Casa Engineering propose to design and construct the project
(including wet weather allowances) within 33 weeks, targeting practical completion by the end of
December 2018. This timeframe for construction was stipulated to reduce risk of flooding
disturbance associated with the summer period.
4. Construction Management and Inspections
Under the design & construct model, Casa Engineering will be appointed as Principal Contractor
and Council will maintain the overall Project Management role (supported by an externally
appointed superintendent) to administer the contract, together with Council assessing the final
design and progressively inspecting the works to ensure the project objectives are met.
5. Program
The design and delivery process involves the following key steps:
Awarding of contract
Contractor performing structural analysis and designing final bridge design
Council approval of final design
Council providing communications to affected community
Contractor obtaining required environmental approvals and ordering of construction
materials
Contractor taking possession of site
Preparing site, activating detour and full road closure
Temporary relocating Telstra services, demolishing existing bridge and construction of the
new bridge
Commissioning, handover and disestablishing detour.
Page 13 of 74
Section 14
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Previous Council Consideration
Nil
Finance & Risk
Council has provisionally allocated a total of $1,750,000 for the project, comprising $130,200 in
the current 2017/18 financial year and $1,619,800 in the draft 5 year capital program.
The allocated funding for the replacement of the Old Noosa Road Bridge is sufficient to complete
the project as per the table below:
Item Cost (excl. GST)
Costs to Date (April 2017) $48,052
Tendered Contract Value $1,232,486
Consultant, superintendent and staff costs $95,000
Qleave, permits $10,000
Relocation of services (Telstra) $10,000
Subtotal $1,395,538
Contingency (10% on tendered contract value) $123,248
Total project cost $1,518,786
Included within the project budget is $875,000 grant funding received from the Federal
Government Bridge Renewal Program Round 3. Funding was also received for the replacement
of the Mary River Road and Orealla Road bridge replacements.
Overall funding received for the three bridges is currently being discussed with Federal and State
Government representatives with the aim of smoothing project costs within the total grant funding
pool received, given changes in the cost mix between the bridges since the original grants
applications were submitted.
Risks & Opportunities
FINANCE RISKS MITIGATION
Project scope increases. This is to be mitigated through Project Control Group and
Capital Works Executive management and limitation of client
requested scope variations.
Community requests for scope Council acceptance of scope as awarded with intention of not
changes once construction increasing scope.
commences and project becomes
publically visible.
Geotechnical conditions give rise for A thorough Geotechnical investigation has been completed by
contractor claiming variation costs. Council and the report provided as part of the tender
documentation. As such the risk of variation to the piling
activity has been reduced as much as possible.
Contractor claims for variations based This has been mitigated through the lump sum procurement
on changes required for design. method with further mitigation through post tender
clarifications tying the contractor firmly into the agreed scope
of works.
Page 14 of 74
Section 15
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
FINANCE RISKS MITIGATION
Clashes with Telstra services give rise Contractor is aware of Telstra services attached to bridge.
for contractor claiming variation costs. Relocation plans will be designed in the design phase in close
cooperation with service providers.
Contingency amount being insufficient. Risk is mitigated through appointment of experienced
contractor and contract supervision of experienced
Superintendent.
PROGRAM RISKS MITIGATION
There is the potential that the project is Construction during the typically dry season aims to mitigate
delayed due to wet weather. this. Expected wet weather days are included in the tenderers
timeline.
Resource risk. Casa Engineering have nominated a capable team to
undertake construction.
Structure construction takes longer The contractor is well resourced and has the available
than allowed for. recourses to deliver this project successfully in conjunction
with current works on hand. The use of precast materials such
as concrete piles and deck units reduce the risk of
construction delays.
SAFETY RISKS MITIGATION
Height of existing bridge to be Casa Engineering has extensive experience at working at
demolished and construction of new heights and would be appointed as the Principal Contractor
bridge. responsible for all Workplace Health and Safety of the site.
Prior to construction commencing a safety in design report,
work place health and safety and traffic management plans
will be required to be submitted to Council for review.
Regular audits on contractor compliance with these approved
plans will be undertaken by Council and WH&S teams
throughout construction.
Construction using machinery and The contractor is certified to AS 4801 (Occupational Health &
hoisting involved. Safety Management Systems) and the contractor
demonstrated their capability in WH&S very well in its tender
bid. In addition the contractor is very experienced having
successfully completed several similar type bridge projects
within the past 5 years.
Page 15 of 74
Section 16
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM RISKS MITIGATION
There is risk that the works impact on Council has incorporated environmental requirements as part
the environment because of the of the contract. The contractor has to arrange the necessary
construction works within the Six Mile permits as well to develop their own Environmental
Creek. Management plan (EMP) including species management plan
for management of Tusked Frogs and Giant Barred Frogs to
further minimise risks.
The contractor is responsible for the cost of all management
and monitoring options within the approved plan. If trees do
have to be removed, contractor must prepare an arboriculture
impact assessment report and implement offset planting
pursuant to Councils Tree Management Policy.
The superintendent and Council staff will closely monitor the
design and construction phase to ensure impacts are
minimised.
SCOPE AND QUALITY RISKS MITIGATION
Risk of not meeting project objectives. To be managed through Council staff reviews supported by
specialist consultants.
PUBLIC DISRUPTION AND MITIGATION
COUNCIL REPUTATION RISKS
Traffic disruption due total road closure During construction there a two detours available.
at the site location.
1. For vehicles lower than 3.3m (due the height limited
railway bridge at Traveston), a 7.7km detour is available
via the Greenridge Pinbarren Rd, Traveston Rd, Howe Rd
and Old Noosa Rd.
2. For vehicles higher than 3.3m, a 43.5km detour is
available via Greenridge Pinbarren Rd, Traveston Rd,
Bruce Hwy, Hall Rd, Noosa Rd and Old Noosa Rd.
Both detours will be sufficiently marked using signs. Council
will provide communications to affected community leading up
to and during the project.
Noise from plant and equipment may This will be minimised whereever possible and where possible
be a cause of disruption to local by working during normal working hours.
residents.
Vibration during piling. The piling will be done in as short a timeframe as possible.
The nearby residents are to be informed by letterbox drops.
Moreover, before piling starts, dilapidation surveys are to be
executed.
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Corporate Services consulted on procurement processes and budget.
Infrastructure Services consulted on tender submissions and value engineering options.
Environment and Sustainable Development consulted on environmental matters.
Executive Services consulted on Workplace Health and Safety matters and coordination of
media post contract award.
Page 16 of 74
Section 17
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development X Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries X Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
X Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services X Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture X Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning X Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 17 of 74
Section 18
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 18 of 74
q)
m
z
re 1
>
— _sseweeenel Fl] -
PEELE) TERE a1] || eel] AB S
3 a} i \elleteas EVE/EIE] |2lg|s : ela | |e 2
: bl fT lgij@g $2 ble |e|2 3 leg |lel£|s =
ae Tele eo A VglHl [ S){/ ARRTEER||E 12
é mee | iellg io del lal’ = al || is El Rlealelele =
g seule (gi/22 © |elle P 3 EEF FS 4
S 2/7 |e ? i ey) |S i Z - de E =
é geal [2 LEE, : é a
2D ees 3 i 3 : ; = rH
i oie ig ? 3 sie =
& |% a
a i 2 : Nile m
2 Z & 8 TE
ik =
| 2|2 =
if et delete tells lel rl Ife 5
eh) | [E/E ee iG. ial| | | 5
ale & w | wle GES EEEEl@ 8|| |*|8
FE S 3 eis ae 3 5 m
fil aif ele s S
Hilt 5] [|=] =|= [a ‘ >
; . g 3 g
aE Fee & 3 .
5 & ° z
i a !
a ;
MUTI ||... ebdleleleleleleleleleleh3 :
en ET stele] als] (e FT ;
P =
i =e] {fe lee| e “|
e fi « 8 ; ;
3 g & & . 3 r :
iz 5/5] [ee] [ea
oO z 8 3
a ebUlalaletellelelel=|# et
| 2
ae ; a AGE
5 1 1 1 44 5 1497 1713 29 68 17 r
4 1 1 1 45 0 552 1736 949 86 -1
5 1 1 1 45 1 552 1786 87 36 11 a
5 1 1 1 45 2 998 1779 3 2 17 ue
5 1 1 1 45 3 1092 1732 72 107 0 fel
5 1 1 1 45 4 1190 1732 54 107 0 le]
5 1 1 1 45 5 1286 1736 182 81 0 [ile]
5 1 1 1 45 6 1377 1732 19 107 0 e
5 1 1 1 45 7 1395 1732 90 107 24 hath
4 1 1 1 46 0 552 1822 83 38 -1
5 1 1 1 46 1 552 1823 16 37 10 2]
5 1 1 1 46 2 603 1822 32 27 77 33
4 1 1 1 47 0 549 1819 919 82 -1
5 1 1 1 47 1 549 1849 90 33 53 ali
5 1 1 1 47 2 1117 1820 32 81 35 =
5 1 1 1 47 3 1148 1819 320 82 0 [-[[-[>|=|-
5 1 1 1 47 4 1404 1815 45 106 16 Fe
4 1 1 1 48 0 553 1880 86 31 -1
5 1 1 1 48 1 553 1883 13 28 2 eo)
5 1 1 1 48 2 603 1880 36 28 34 8
4 1 1 1 49 0 159 1895 1368 49 -1
5 1 1 1 49 1 159 1918 34 26 0 u
5 1 1 1 49 2 552 1912 12 22 20 S|
5 1 1 1 49 3 626 1909 10 26 32 §
5 1 1 1 49 4 816 1900 13 8 3 “
5 1 1 1 49 5 858 1900 13 8 3 *
5 1 1 1 49 6 942 1895 15 18 0 .
5 1 1 1 49 7 1514 1897 13 8 25 r
4 1 1 1 50 0 149 1902 1319 94 -1
5 1 1 1 50 1 149 1947 35 49 35 8
5 1 1 1 50 2 1117 1898 85 106 43 ss]
5 1 1 1 50 3 1202 1898 53 106 23 el
5 1 1 1 50 4 1272 1898 89 106 7 [ale
5 1 1 1 50 5 1378 1898 89 106 0 epat
4 1 1 1 51 0 2292 1937 33 15 -1
5 1 1 1 51 1 2299 1933 7 27 0 —_
4 1 1 1 52 0 158 1961 2167 125 -1
5 1 1 1 52 1 158 2000 31 56 0 .
5 1 1 1 52 2 1118 1981 49 105 0 =|
5 1 1 1 52 3 1166 1981 77 105 0 =|*|
5 1 1 1 52 4 2292 1961 33 23 0 :
4 1 1 1 53 0 158 2001 2168 86 -1
5 1 1 1 53 1 158 2064 35 23 83 ©
5 1 1 1 53 2 1515 2062 12 8 36 7
5 1 1 1 53 3 2292 2001 34 33 57 5
4 1 1 1 54 0 158 2021 2168 167 -1
5 1 1 1 54 1 158 2103 35 80 23 :
5 1 1 1 54 2 556 2097 80 86 48 i
5 1 1 1 54 3 1114 2021 112 167 50 ill
5 1 1 1 54 4 2292 2038 34 61 40 :
4 1 1 1 55 0 2292 2113 34 23 -1
5 1 1 1 55 1 2292 2113 34 23 58 NO
4 1 1 1 56 0 159 2139 2167 112 -1
5 1 1 1 56 1 159 2184 31 23 29 3
5 1 1 1 56 2 1140 2146 71 105 0 |=]
5 1 1 1 56 3 1210 2146 106 105 0 =]-f>
5 1 1 1 56 4 1315 2146 153 105 0 [fee
5 1 1 1 56 5 2291 2139 35 23 24 3
4 1 1 1 57 0 550 2166 1774 64 -1
5 1 1 1 57 1 550 2221 7 4 61 5
5 1 1 1 57 2 657 2217 3 13 92 \
5 1 1 1 57 3 2300 2166 24 15 57 0
4 1 1 1 58 0 1515 2190 811 46 -1
5 1 1 1 58 1 1515 2227 12 9 5 )
5 1 1 1 58 2 2291 2190 35 23 0 :
4 1 1 1 59 0 1119 2228 952 106 -1
5 1 1 1 59 1 1119 2228 85 106 26 se]
5 1 1 1 59 2 1221 2233 53 80 42 |e
5 1 1 1 59 3 1274 2228 62 106 0 |e]
5 1 1 1 59 4 1335 2228 37 106 0 s]
5 1 1 1 59 5 1371 2228 80 106 15 eal
5 1 1 1 59 6 2011 2267 60 20 27 a2
4 1 1 1 60 0 2005 2287 65 37 -1
5 1 1 1 60 1 2005 2287 65 37 40 $F
4 1 1 1 61 0 1119 2311 939 106 -1
5 1 1 1 61 1 1119 2311 155 106 0 +[-[-[-
5 1 1 1 61 2 1274 2311 89 106 0 lI
5 1 1 1 61 3 1362 2311 45 106 0 |-
5 1 1 1 61 4 2011 2324 47 54 3 Be
4 1 1 1 62 0 2048 2358 23 21 -1
5 1 1 1 62 1 2055 2354 9 34 49 oO
4 1 1 1 63 0 1511 2375 560 35 -1
5 1 1 1 63 1 1511 2375 17 35 13 to
5 1 1 1 63 2 2011 2380 60 24 88 3a
4 1 1 1 64 0 2011 2406 59 42 -1
5 1 1 1 64 1 2011 2406 59 42 73 $z
4 1 1 1 65 0 2011 2436 54 48 -1
5 1 1 1 65 1 2011 2436 54 48 9 +
4 1 1 1 66 0 1119 2476 350 106 -1
5 1 1 1 66 1 1119 2476 155 106 0 +|-[-[-
5 1 1 1 66 2 1274 2476 195 106 0 fff
5 1 1 1 66 3 2011 2475 22 49 0 ei
4 1 1 1 67 0 1119 2559 346 105 -1
5 1 1 1 67 1 1119 2559 93 105 37 se]
5 1 1 1 67 2 1211 2559 36 105 25 e]
5 1 1 1 67 3 1263 2563 54 80 38 |e
5 1 1 1 67 4 1316 2559 88 105 2 fale
5 1 1 1 67 5 1403 2559 62 105 0 pal
5 1 1 1 67 6 2011 2562 60 50 48 fg
4 1 1 1 68 0 332 2613 1739 97 -1
5 1 1 1 68 1 332 2652 14 58 3 .
5 1 1 1 68 2 2013 2613 58 32 56 2
4 1 1 1 69 0 332 2646 1731 83 -1
5 1 1 1 69 1 332 2712 14 17 3 e
5 1 1 1 69 2 2011 2646 52 39 0 a°
4 1 1 1 70 0 2011 2686 18 17 -1
5 1 1 1 70 1 2014 2682 8 29 58 oO
4 1 1 1 71 0 2011 2704 22 25 -1
5 1 1 1 71 1 2011 2704 22 25 83 3
3| = Bey 3 :Section 19
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018 Attachment 2
Page 19 of 74
e uae (e| |i a4
NI Theai =
@ Se) /sitic| |e| at
E 24] | seta 2) [ty] | =
cS 2:|| (p5222 (=| | tial | ©
Oo S3)|_|tgegy (2 1 fa) | 5
£ i g w lee le Geof ||e| |
<x 6 i © | felasdeel (S See Wal | © vfs
aE z Ba} %
é ee. § 33 5 Su |
i ae & 3 5s 5 o| 2),
i EY ia : 2|2 i
é 2 < a5 2 S
% zz (S 2| = LE
oT lL. — 3 (1
=U 4 Go
a Zz 7
Cals | % —_A s N
| % By N
| Ck ¥ Ny | Beprormusmitéd |
Hy \ _ y N Zz Dealt EE
© - © 1 > eee eer = = a= A = Hi Bs t
rr S \ LN a| Oasis Re
a ihe N Gye} fect be |e
ro] eh) za \y sl N ne 27 | ©
= oe 7 NO — a ist ile
< 2 [] e N BS el ley wt r
= : tt N a Ell
t | 2 QE D
= ne | aN : Hl]
3 jl | ah
My r
ro Ny
mary 0
HH | oe N 2
| [| | a4 :
iJ i | r
Fo |\ 2
| 8 i 2 8
In, to :
& -
lo] ‘| | 3
rll g | Es gs :
© ii} 3 UT TA
6] Mel & / Core
UR
ii a{dp) =
< | i : fee ,
eH | N
. a
8 € L. | _ -. iy Y GD |
2 OD === Ss as VE —— a
g | \ Gp | a:
| ll #£ i al sii “Gi _ wee LT
Oot a | Z|
© : hi) fF zo 38 Vo a; CTT
z | g 32 NTH 3 S84 (OMIT
e bt z 48 N Z| UT TTA
uu | : NH == | PTT
= eo UE ‘NCD |
Ww o-— 38 ae NH
Ww é é y CID 4 1 1 1 63 0 155 2805 1358 92 -1
5 1 1 1 63 1 155 2822 34 56 33 E
5 1 1 1 63 2 405 2826 14 33 6 z
5 1 1 1 63 3 524 2828 30 69 1 el
5 1 1 1 63 4 584 2805 15 47 0 :
5 1 1 1 63 5 1428 2822 85 34 18 tH
4 1 1 1 64 0 155 2853 1281 39 -1
5 1 1 1 64 1 155 2881 33 7 33 E
5 1 1 1 64 2 406 2853 190 39 10 co:
5 1 1 1 64 3 1278 2854 158 29 50 LA
4 1 1 1 65 0 155 2872 1712 76 -1
5 1 1 1 65 1 155 2893 34 33 96 =
5 1 1 1 65 2 1322 2872 66 76 8 ey
5 1 1 1 65 3 1391 2876 48 66 83 |
5 1 1 1 65 4 1763 2891 104 13 67 =
4 1 1 1 66 0 155 2931 1638 72 -1
5 1 1 1 66 1 155 2931 34 33 87 5
5 1 1 1 66 2 1789 2937 4 66 95 |
4 1 1 1 67 0 151 2965 1646 63 -1
5 1 1 1 67 1 151 2965 32 63 12 Oo
5 1 1 1 67 2 1783 3007 14 8 62 =
4 1 1 1 68 0 155 3056 2100 84 -1
5 1 1 1 68 1 155 3077 34 62 22 o
5 1 1 1 68 2 1457 3080 34 46 67 a
5 1 1 1 68 3 1548 3082 34 48 7 ie
5 1 1 1 68 4 1786 3056 21 84 4 ae
5 1 1 1 68 5 2090 3076 165 42 9 rer
4 1 1 1 69 0 159 3121 2096 53 -1
5 1 1 1 69 1 159 3125 13 49 61 uw
5 1 1 1 69 2 1457 3125 35 30 46 $2
5 1 1 1 69 3 2090 3121 165 31 32 HTT
4 1 1 1 70 0 155 3151 2100 56 -1
5 1 1 1 70 1 155 3151 29 56 33 z=
5 1 1 1 70 2 2109 3155 89 31 10 LTT
5 1 1 1 70 3 2201 3155 54 31 43 Ta
4 1 1 1 71 0 155 3208 34 26 -1
5 1 1 1 71 1 155 3208 34 26 42 ii
4 1 1 1 72 0 155 3239 35 31 -1
5 1 1 1 72 1 155 3239 35 31 41 OSSection 20
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
9 CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CARPARKING
Author Planning Scheme Project Manager, Raul Weychardt
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Transport Policy/infrastructure Charges Instruments & Policy
Attachments 1. Council Policy – Contributions in Lieu of the Provision of Onsite Car
Parking
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A draft policy for ‘Contributions in Lieu of the Provision of Onsite Car Parking’ has been prepared
for consideration by the Council. This is a Council policy, which is distinct from a planning
scheme policy under the Noosa Plan 2006.
The draft policy has been modelled on the former Planning Scheme Policy 13 - Contributions in
Lieu of the Provision of Off-street Parking (PSP13). Amendments in planning legislation
prevented the continuing use of a Planning Scheme Policy in deliberations about contributions
being accepted for the non-provision of car parking spaces on a development site.
While the proposed corporate policy does not form part of the planning scheme material, it
facilitates, where appropriate, alternative and preferred development outcomes and can operate
in parallel with assessment of a development application. It is intended the policy will define the
circumstances where Council may accept from an applicant a monetary contribution, the amount
applicable and how or where a contribution might be used. Importantly, the application of the
policy is by agreement of both Council and the applicant. An infrastructure agreement will be
entered into by the parties to facilitate the process.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Planning Scheme Project Manager to the General Committee
Meeting dated 14 May 2018 and
A. Adopt the ‘Contributions in Lieu of the Provision of Onsite Car Parking’ Policy as provided
at Attachment 1, and pursuant to section 97(1) of the Local Government Act 2009, fix for
the 2017/18 financial year, the costs recovery fees for Car parking Contributions under the
‘Contributions in Lieu of Provisions of Onsite Car Parking Policy’ as provided at Appendix 1
of the Policy; and
B. Authorise the Manager Development Assessment to implement the policy in parallel with
the assessment of development applications under the planning scheme in force for Noosa
Shire.
REPORT
1. Purpose
The purpose of the report is to enable Council to consider the proposed Contributions in Lieu of
the Provision of Onsite Car Parking’ policy, which provides for a mechanism for Council to enable
applicants via the development assessment process to make a monetary contribution by way of
an infrastructure agreement in lieu of providing onsite car parking in appropriate circumstances.
2. Background
Under the Noosa Plan 2006, the Driveway and Carparking Code stipulates the minimum vehicle
parking requirements for development. The amount of car parking required to be provided onsite
Page 20 of 74
Section 21
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
is dependent upon the type and the scale of the development being proposed. For many years,
from at least 1991 to September 2013 a policy was in place to guide Council and the
development sector on the circumstances where Council will agree to a monetary contribution in
lieu of a development making provision for the required onsite car parking.
The most recent policy was Planning Scheme Policy 13 “Contributions in Lieu of the Provision of
off-street parking” (PSP13). PSP 13 was only applied where development was located on
property within a Business Centre, Visitor Mixed Use, Neighbourhood Centre, or Village Mix zone
under the Noosa Plan.
In accordance with PSP13, a condition was imposed on a development approval to
accommodate the contribution in lieu of the car parking being provided. However, as a result of
amendments made to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, on 1 July 2011 Council was no longer
permitted to impose a condition that requires a monetary contribution for non-trunk infrastructure.
An alternative approach has been implemented since then, by applying PSP13 by way of a
separate Infrastructure Agreement between Council and the applicant. Under this approach, an
applicant signs an agreement before the application is decided and signed by the Council once a
resolution has been obtained approving the development and for a contribution to be made in lieu
of onsite car parking.
In May 2013, the State required the removal of PSP13 from the Noosa Plan as a result of the
introduction of the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) and its subsequent conflict with the State
Regulatory Provision (adopted charges) 2012 and section 347(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009. Consequently, there is currently no policy in place to guide the development sector or
staff about the acceptance or appropriateness of a contribution in lieu of onsite parking.
The State considers that contributions for onsite car parking obligations are outside the concept
of the infrastructure charging system under planning legislation (the former Sustainable Planning
Act 2009 and the current Planning Act 2016.) That system is based on overall networks of trunk
infrastructure and developers pay an amount attributable to the scale of their development’s
effect on the various types of trunk infrastructure.
On site car parking is not trunk infrastructure and is therefore not eligible for an infrastructure
charge and the State acted in 2013 to require cessation of onsite car parking contributions being
administered by Planning Scheme Policies. However the concept of a developer not providing
parking and instead making a contribution to Council to enhance local public parking is a well-
established practice that is beneficial to the development sector and the community through
improved public facilities available to all.
Therefore, the issue is being addressed by this corporate policy to effect an alternate
implementation mechanism outside the planning system. Similarly, Moreton, Sunshine Coast and
Gympie Regional Councils, for example, have maintained car parking contributions in their list of
development charges.
The lack of a policy has been a constraint on development outcomes in key centres such as
Hastings Street and Noosa Junction where there is limited opportunity to provide additional car
parking on smaller sites. Since 2013 there has been no published guidance about the
circumstances where Council will accept a contribution or the quantum of contributions in lieu of
each onsite car parking space. Noosa Junction business community representatives and two
local planning consultants have expressed support for a policy to be in effect.
3. Application of the Policy
The policy is intended to primarily apply to centres. Cooran, Kin Kin, Pomona, Cooroy, Tewantin,
Noosaville, Noosa Heads (Noosa Junction and Hastings Street), Sunshine Beach and Peregian
Beach centres are specifically mentioned and mapped in the policy. Maps are included in the
policy as Appendix 2. The policy can be applied to other development sites if the particular
circumstances warrant it and the developer/applicant is agreeable. Also the contribution may be
applicable for some of the car parking spaces and not necessarily all.
Page 21 of 74
Section 22
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
The mapped areas in Appendix 2 include land in the Visitor Mixed Use Zone, Business Centre
Zone, Neighbourhood Centre Zone, Village Mix Zone and Community Services Zone. The maps
also include some land near central areas that are within the Semi-Attached Housing Zone and
Detached House Zone, where either limited business uses are allowed or currently exist.
Examples of this include land fronting David Low Way at Peregian Beach and fronting Sunshine
Beach Road at Noosa Junction.
The application of the policy is to be at the discretion of the Council. Should an applicant want to
contribute in lieu of providing onsite parking, the applicant is required to engage with staff in the
early stages of the assessment process. Further, the applicant is required to provide reasons
why a contribution should be accepted for the proposed development.
It is intended under the policy that under appropriate circumstances Council may accept a
monetary contribution in lieu of providing onsite parking, for either all or some of the required
parking, this will take the form of a voluntary infrastructure agreement between the parties. This
infrastructure agreement will operate in unison with a development approval that is issued over
the land. The form of the Infrastructure Agreement is prepared by a lawyer acting on Council’s
behalf but the costs are met by the applicant.
Both the development approval and infrastructure agreement rest with the land and bind
successors in title. An infrastructure agreement would need to be signed by an applicant before
the matter is presented for Council’s consideration and would be signed by the Council after it
has resolved to approve the development and the use of an infrastructure agreement. A copy of
the infrastructure agreement would be provided with the decision notice that is issued for the
development proposal.
4. Circumstances where contributions may be allowed
The policy provides for several circumstances where a contribution might be acceptable. It is not
intended that a proposed development must necessarily meet all criteria provided.
These include:-
The development site being located in a central area,
A site being constrained by having limited access,
A small site area resulting in a lack of onsite manoeuvrability, and
Areas identified as being preferred active street frontages with limited vehicle crossovers.
A good example is the existing commercial and retail development surrounding the open space
area in the Peregian Beach Village Centre. These properties are unable to provide onsite car
parking if redeveloped or expanded and it would not be desirable for vehicles to intrude across
these footpath frontages.
The policy also acknowledges that in some circumstances it might be desirable to allow a
contribution to be made despite development not being located in a central area. In such cases
the Council could allow a contribution to be made where the applicant has demonstrated there is
a significant need for a proposed development, which is in the public interest. Further, the
development is centrally located close to public transport and a lack of onsite parking will not
cause adverse traffic impacts off site.
5. Rate of Contribution and Usage
The rate of contribution has been determined having regard to the likely improvements which
could be made to public parking, transport and alternative transport infrastructure initiatives,
including improved cycleways and pedestrian footpaths. The proposed rate of contribution for
each of the areas is provided in Table 1, below.
Page 22 of 74
Section 23
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
CENTRAL AREA RATE PER SPACE Purpose of Contribution
(current at 18 May
2018)
Kin Kin $3,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Cooran $3,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Pomona $3,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Cooroy $10,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Tewantin $12,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Noosaville $15,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Noosa Heads – Hastings St $24,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
On road parking or transport initiatives
Noosa Heads – Noosa Junction $24,000 (or potentially decked parking)
Peregian Beach $12,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Sunshine Beach $12,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
The rates will be presented to Council each year for a decision. The most common
recommended change will likely be annual indexation in accordance with rises in the Consumer
Price Index – All Groups. Adopted charges take effect on 1 July each year and apply for the
financial year. However there may be occasions when for other reasons, a different amount
(higher or lower) may be warranted rather than simple indexation.
Staff propose that contributions that would ordinarily be payable in the Kin Kin, Cooran and
Pomona localities be waived in principle and for the time being to promote business activity and
job creation. The decision to waive the contributions would be made by Council.
The rates above are based on providing surface parking and/or implementing other transport
initiatives that would facilitate public access to centres by means other than a private car. Under
this policy, it is not envisaged that Council would be seeking to purchase additional land for car
parking in proximity to any of the central areas. This exclusion is due to the lack of readily
available land and the exceedingly high cost of acquisition of developed properties for the
purpose of conversion to car parking. Should this situation change, the policy and rates would
need to be reviewed.
The intention under the policy is to provide additional car parking where practical within the road
reserve or on land for which the Council is trustee, but without a loss of significant amounts of
open space. In developing this policy, staff have identified some potential locations for additional
surface parking. The funds could also be applied to the construction of a deck over an existing
car park such as at Noosa Junction.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes 26 June 2014, Item 1, Page 30
That Council note the report by the Senior Strategic Planner to the General Committee Meeting
dated 23 June 2014 and request Strategic Land Use Planning to prepare a detailed report
addressing the feasibility of accepting contributions in lieu of the provision of off-street parking
within each locality and, in the interim, not generally accept monetary contributions in lieu of the
provision of off-street parking.
Finance
The policy facilitates a transfer of obligations to cater for public access to commercial centres
from developers to Council in circumstances where this is considered to be in the community’s
interest. The expenditure of the funds will provide long term improvements to public
infrastructure.
Page 23 of 74
Section 24
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Risks & Opportunities
There are no risks identified with this proposed policy. The application of this policy is at the
discretion of Council. Reintroducing this form of policy is seen as an important opportunity to
provide a formal mechanism for facilitating developer contributions in lieu of the provision of
onsite car parking. For smaller sites in centres this is a particularly important alternative
development outcome.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Noosa Junction business community representatives and two local planning consultants have
been engaged about the need for the policy. The response was clearly in support plus the
contribution system ought to be part of a holistic approach to transport particularly for those
centres where access and parking can be problematic at peak times.
Internal Consultation
This project was supported by a working group of staff from Strategic Land Use Planning,
Development Assessment and Infrastructure Planning.
Advice was sought from Governance staff about the development of a corporate policy pursuant
to Council’s Policy Framework Guidelines July 2014.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
X Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development X Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service X Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
X Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning X Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 24 of 74
Section 25
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 25 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
| yy NOOSA Council Policy
@ | COUNCIL CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF
THE PROVISION OF ONSITE
Corporate Plan Reference: Corporate Plan Theme 3 - The Noosa Economy
Priority 5 - Provide support to businesses to foster their
establishment and growth.
Endorsed by Council: <Insert Date of Ordinary Meeting >
Policy Author: Strategic Land Use Planning
POLICY BACKGROUND
The purpose of this policy is to:
1. Outline the circumstances under which a monetary contribution might be made for
development in lieu of providing onsite parking and the amount of such charges;
2. Define how contributions are to be obtained and expended, and
3. Encourage and promote alternative transport usage, rather than place continuing reliance on
the use of private cars.
This is a Council Policy that is separate to the planning assessment process under the Noosa Plan
and the Planning Act 2016. The application of the policy is at the discretion of the Council.
The Policy acknowledges that while the Noosa Plan requires onsite car parking to be provided for
development certain circumstances may warrant allowing a contribution to be made as an alternative
to providing the car parking on site. The policy provides the circumstances under which a contribution
might be made by an applicant including nominated locations and relevant criteria.
The Council may allow a contribution to be made in lieu of some or all car parking required by
development under the Noosa Plan. The applicable contribution amount, how and where a
contribution might be spent are set out in the Policy. A contribution can only be made by way of an
infrastructure agreement between an applicant and the Council.
Under this policy the term ‘applicant’ means the person in whom the benefit of the application vests.
COUNCIL POLICY
A. Accepting Contributions in lieu of Providing Car Parking Spaces on site
Council may accept monetary contributions in lieu of onsite parking despite the requirements of the
Noosa Plan and having regard to the following:-
1. The premises are significantly constrained in terms of having restricted access, a small site
area with limited onsite manoeuvrability, located near a road intersection or otherwise
encumbered and unable to be readily amalgamated with adjoining land;
2. It is not practical or desirable from a town planning perspective to provide the required amount
of car parking onsite due to the nature and type of development adjoining the land;
3. It is in the community’s interest to provide for alternative car parking arrangements because of
traffic and or pedestrian safety concerns that might be caused by the development;
4. The provision of onsite car parking and access is not practical or desirable from a character
perspective, being within a central area and where additional footpath crossovers would
adversely impact upon the streetscape or result in the loss of significant road side vegetation;
Page 1
Page 25 of 74Section 26
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 26 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
COUNCIL POLICY - CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CAR PARKING
5. — The locality would benefit more from improved public transport, pedestrian or cycle facilities
compared to the provision of additional car parking onsite; and
6. |The development complies with the Noosa Plan or the Council has determined that there are
reasons why the development should be approved despite any conflict with the assessment
benchmarks, in accordance with section 63(5)(e) of the Planning Act 2016.
This policy applies to those areas shown shaded in Maps 1 to 10 (refer Appendix 2), applying to the
following areas:
° Kin Kin
° Cooran
° Pomona
° Cooroy
° Tewantin
° Noosaville
° Noosa Heads - Noosa Junction
° Noosa Heads - Hastings Street
e Sunshine Beach
e Peregian Beach
An applicant interested in contributing in lieu of providing onsite car parking under the Policy is to
engage with the Council in the early stages of the development assessment.
B. Contributions may be accepted in Other Areas
In some circumstances Council may allow for a contribution to be made in lieu of providing onsite
car parking for development not included in a central area shown on Maps 1 — 10 (Appendix 2).
Council may agree to a contribution under this policy under the following circumstances:-
1. The applicant has demonstrated that there is a significant community need for the proposed
development;
2. | The proposed development is centrally located within an urban area and located close to public
or active transport infrastructure;
3: A lack of onsite car parking will not cause adverse undesirable traffic impacts off site; and
4. The development complies with the Noosa Plan or the Council has determined that there are
reasons the application should be approved despite not complying with any of the assessment
benchmarks in accordance with section 63(5)(e) of the Planning Act 2016.
C. Requirement for an Infrastructure Agreement
Should the Council determine that it is appropriate for an applicant to contribute in lieu of providing
onsite car parking, an infrastructure agreement shall be entered into by the parties. Under the
Planning Act 2016, an infrastructure agreement is separate to a development approval, both of which
reside with the land.
The infrastructure agreement entered into is to be in a form acceptable to Council. The infrastructure
agreement is to be signed by the applicant prior to a decision being made about the application. If
the Council resolves to enter into an infrastructure agreement, the Council will sign the infrastructure
agreement after the decision has been made to approve the development. A copy of the
infrastructure agreement will be provided with the decision notice that issues for the development in
accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2016. Any costs incurred by Council in
preparing and executing the Infrastructure Agreement shall be met by the applicant.
D. No effect on Infrastructure Charges or other Works
The payment of a monetary contribution under an infrastructure agreement in lieu of the provision of
onsite car parking shall have no effect on infrastructure charges that might be payable under the
relevant Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution. Further, any contribution made under this policy
Page 2
Page 26 of 74Section 27
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 27 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
COUNCIL POLICY - CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CAR PARKING
has no effect on any external works that might be reasonably required by the Council for
development under the Noosa Plan.
E. Rate of Contribution
Contributions in lieu of the provision of onsite car parking will be in accordance with the rates
provided in Appendix 1.
The applicable rate will be adjusted annually having effect from 1 July each year. When the applicant
makes payment the amount shall be based on the applicable rate in Appendix 1 at that time.
Contributions in lieu of onsite car parking under Appendix 1 for the areas of Kin Kin, Cooran and
Pomona may be waived under this Policy by Council if it is demonstrated to be in the community’s
interest to assist business activity and job creation in these rural centres.
F. Use of Contributions
Contributions obtained in lieu of the provision of onsite car parking for development will be expended
in the locality of the development. This does not necessarily mean that any additional parking will be
provided in the immediate vicinity of any development for which a contribution has been made.
Contributions received under the Policy may be used for, but are not necessarily limited to, any of
the following:
1. The provision of car parking within a road reserve or on land for which the Council is trustee;
2. Alteration and rationalisation of existing public car parking to improve efficiency and utilisation;
3: Improvements to the configuration of existing infrastructure and facilities to improve traffic,
pedestrian and cycle capacity or safety;
4. Theconstruction of additional pedestrian and cycle facilities in a locality to encourage transport
means that are an alternative to private cars; and
5. | The construction of public transport infrastructure to improve efficiency and encourage the use
of public transport.
To be clear, contributions received are not intended to be used to acquire land to provide additional
parking.
The provision of additional car parking and transport infrastructure where desirable and practicable,
is to occur without significant loss of public open space.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Manager Development Assessment is responsible for the implementation of the policy in parallel
with the development assessment process.
Whether or not an applicant is able to contribute in lieu of the provision of some or all car parking
required for development under the Noosa Plan is to be determined by Council resolution.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The Local Government Act 2009
Version control
Version Reason/ Trigger Change (Y/N) Endorsed/ Reviewed by Date
Page 3
Page 27 of 74Section 28
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 28 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
COUNCIL POLICY - CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CAR PARKING
Appendix 1 — Contribution Rates
The following table indicates the applicable rates for the relevant central areas.
CENTRAL AREA RATE PER SPACE Purpose of Contribution
(current at 18 May
2018)
$3,000* On road parking or transport initiatives
$3,000* On road parking or transport initiatives
$3,000* On road parking or transport initiatives
$10,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
$12,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
$15,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Noosa Heads — Hastings On road parking or transport initiatives
Street $24,000 or potentially decked parking
Noosa Heads — Noosa On road parking or transport initiatives
Junction $24,000 or potentially decked parking
$12,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
Sunshine Beach $12,000 On road parking or transport initiatives
* These amounts can be waived for these central areas upon application to Council.
Page 4
Page 28 of 74Section 29
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 29 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
COUNCIL POLICY - CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CAR PARKING
Appendix 2 — Central Area Maps
; } : 1 sinjkints pots) GucundsGlubpivouse) &ikioshs 4
~ _ i j Main parks ; 7 y
j ‘ Mell cent = Dt eNotel’ i /
Map 1 Kin Kin
Se XK >
Se ao \ |
} SSS \ \ , I
| i } \ \ |
f | | | SA \ \ 1 an
TTX NC
a aret ¢ ‘ TAA \ 3
: - i. GE cs N x \\ base!
/ or \ \ ak aa
i x > A i \ ye \ N of Streetitapi OME Eutots)
Map 2 Cooran .
Page 5
Page 29 of 74Section 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 30 of 74
mn
=a
m
a
= PR Ay ee aes! ee fa = serStreet Tre 18 >
& pe ee Lee Ppp <> i SC [ a
SOP se BLL -A/ : ‘ & 2 OQ
+ ees er] (ai Ey f oi: s 3 2 oO
i Oke ira Ios : S| Pie a v =
0 FARR eae cto | \ ° : ; x 3°
S alae hy SHE seer Sng lay 4 TB g c =
6 Bane deslen Pee Bale iets iy 5 a | 8 3 + cS =
< GBP a= Cee eS Ee ae z g je es < qj
ONE a a +
eis ae = EFT BRE } age =] ical Shurch:ane. 2 Church-sr Q
ee ey eel fee ae = g Sreet——_, |8 mm
7 ‘imi oe Warne eer fOr =" f Ao , F He 3 - ae z m
RE tact re | a Le Vie g tel rect Se Rectony: 2 2
} Lyi rig Da el Saat i — } f = re | jet big Re, ] a =
TF SOAP wos See ose a RS pe ve, eee 2 5 Ctory-Stregt— 2 3 m
anf 4. bd i ee SPs Tr Er eoea 3] aS com WV, ei 2 2 5 m
Pl awit 7 oe : E Saeed =) ‘a * iH \ woe 2 & a |
Pela Lf) Te sore My oo] ope Sey 4 - waniesey Reilway-p 2 =
Ye] oy [Sy i oe a “aN a 4 mm Se J00.5-eK10sey—<—+ ——— S55 Y Sar ade rc oO
y Aenea ic oF 2 We ee a — PC c >
: P Se WA tf: iQ . am i e Se fy a Se —S Z m
eo cae pe Fi @ oe % Uf, B =—— m Zz
ae Oe DO Os 2 ly / ig 3
Qe c! = oe : y Lf pf 3 S
EN a = . a ane 73 oie —___— a f/-/ jg '* 4 Q >
‘ Se. » SS . 1 g
ar, ee oe * Wish g a
Was Heo TL ACHR ey. if 4 3
y r ; ace —— “ iced 28at” ip if j J { °
} Ps) ae |The Le Ae 1 dle tb ab aut 3: 2 i} / a ie °
fae es | ee oe ee % a ft. Wak
a (Serres ao Pe tt tua %. si jf Aa va } 2
Faia) Heateea ate <4 a pe ae ee ican DB Nuenyt’, \ | Poy, a
pis rye rs i z r —_ ded | all“ 2 ri os ; \ \ i =
i, Soe irae EE es Si eel |} 4 a
5 1 1 1 40 11 2928 1429 132 38 0 Slo
4 1 1 1 41 0 910 1438 2150 75 -1
5 1 1 1 41 1 910 1466 49 27 35 a
5 1 1 1 41 2 991 1456 46 52 38 ot
5 1 1 1 41 3 1054 1479 42 17 27 py
5 1 1 1 41 4 1161 1465 129 30 14 ea
5 1 1 1 41 5 1534 1438 57 75 29 ro
5 1 1 1 41 6 1725 1479 3 15 20 eo
5 1 1 1 41 7 2133 1472 9 23 17 7;
5 1 1 1 41 8 2179 1466 22 43 0 /
5 1 1 1 41 9 2206 1472 7 18 0 ia
5 1 1 1 41 10 2365 1470 20 23 7 ‘\
5 1 1 1 41 11 2506 1474 6 16 12 iN
5 1 1 1 41 12 2976 1463 84 22 11 ‘|B
4 1 1 1 42 0 863 1471 2197 76 -1
5 1 1 1 42 1 863 1502 14 3 33 Le
5 1 1 1 42 2 982 1494 4 7 22 eg
5 1 1 1 42 3 1136 1483 20 64 16 |
5 1 1 1 42 4 1173 1488 51 22 4 Lt
5 1 1 1 42 5 1221 1480 39 39 11 lata
5 1 1 1 42 6 1286 1484 9 27 3 Se
5 1 1 1 42 7 1329 1471 63 44 38 aad)
5 1 1 1 42 8 1426 1483 54 35 0 m3
5 1 1 1 42 9 1497 1498 32 17 0 0N
5 1 1 1 42 10 1594 1493 4 3 34 =|
5 1 1 1 42 11 1638 1501 28 18 32 Nee
5 1 1 1 42 12 1736 1492 53 26 30 ir)
5 1 1 1 42 13 1835 1479 17 37 0 F
5 1 1 1 42 14 2131 1498 5 10 42 ?
5 1 1 1 42 15 2201 1494 7 17 68 i
5 1 1 1 42 16 2384 1492 10 20 0 \.
5 1 1 1 42 17 2515 1493 14 15 0 y
5 1 1 1 42 18 3040 1486 20 18 92 a
4 1 1 1 43 0 896 1513 2164 52 -1
5 1 1 1 43 1 896 1540 51 13 6 ae
5 1 1 1 43 2 977 1517 114 37 10 Ene
5 1 1 1 43 3 1166 1546 44 1 9 a
5 1 1 1 43 4 1360 1513 118 43 9 ee
5 1 1 1 43 5 1518 1540 35 25 14 at
5 1 1 1 43 6 1609 1525 48 28 23 pate
5 1 1 1 43 7 1678 1513 155 35 0 msteig—
5 1 1 1 43 8 1986 1517 129 48 23 “Pine-Street
5 1 1 1 43 9 2191 1523 9 32 33 i
5 1 1 1 43 10 2390 1535 8 15 0 Xv
5 1 1 1 43 11 2525 1524 16 26 0 _
5 1 1 1 43 12 3040 1513 20 35 90 >
4 1 1 1 44 0 873 1539 2187 71 -1
5 1 1 1 44 1 873 1565 68 34 14 Ny
5 1 1 1 44 2 955 1555 44 36 49 ha
5 1 1 1 44 3 1003 1539 25 57 58 el
5 1 1 1 44 4 1081 1544 57 62 73 AGE
5 1 1 1 44 5 1169 1546 119 45 13 ue,
5 1 1 1 44 6 1309 1548 144 62 0 Thee
5 1 1 1 44 7 1495 1556 95 49 50 RY
5 1 1 1 44 8 1607 1552 99 41 29 Nc
5 1 1 1 44 9 2115 1561 2 3 45 7.
5 1 1 1 44 10 2183 1558 9 29 34 |i
5 1 1 1 44 11 2403 1557 21 36 60 \
5 1 1 1 44 12 2535 1544 12 28 10 i
5 1 1 1 44 13 3040 1549 20 44 60 2
4 1 1 1 45 0 864 1577 2196 105 -1
5 1 1 1 45 1 864 1579 15 57 34 Vi
5 1 1 1 45 2 899 1579 21 41 11 y,
5 1 1 1 45 3 913 1579 53 62 27 ip
5 1 1 1 45 4 997 1577 29 35 22 rey
5 1 1 1 45 5 1049 1598 74 70 16 sta
5 1 1 1 45 6 1125 1579 53 103 22 i
5 1 1 1 45 7 1177 1579 104 103 0 paae
5 1 1 1 45 8 1290 1582 24 41 18 et
5 1 1 1 45 9 1335 1588 27 58 32 7
5 1 1 1 45 10 1373 1600 23 28 19 co
5 1 1 1 45 11 1448 1594 10 15 30 Pe
5 1 1 1 45 12 1569 1595 46 42 37 gp,
5 1 1 1 45 13 1634 1577 80 89 56 Ce
5 1 1 1 45 14 1726 1585 126 57 33 te.
5 1 1 1 45 15 2172 1591 13 39 27 {
5 1 1 1 45 16 2411 1591 26 39 33 +
5 1 1 1 45 17 3040 1595 20 38 91 2
4 1 1 1 46 0 884 1620 1555 39 -1
5 1 1 1 46 1 884 1632 23 21 32 4
5 1 1 1 46 2 1010 1637 9 2 34 Th
5 1 1 1 46 3 1073 1639 26 6 52 4
5 1 1 1 46 4 1159 1630 20 29 56 i.
5 1 1 1 46 5 1272 1630 27 29 36 By
5 1 1 1 46 6 1345 1637 16 19 14 ys!
5 1 1 1 46 7 1439 1627 7 22 0 i
5 1 1 1 46 8 1513 1627 7 3 29 =
5 1 1 1 46 9 1575 1628 54 24 33 ILO
5 1 1 1 46 10 1672 1627 49 29 29 So
5 1 1 1 46 11 1782 1628 38 28 34 ae.
5 1 1 1 46 12 1834 1620 15 38 21 me
5 1 1 1 46 13 2167 1634 6 14 31 /
5 1 1 1 46 14 2425 1629 14 7 52 8
4 1 1 1 47 0 854 1612 1789 105 -1
5 1 1 1 47 1 854 1671 12 7 33 =
5 1 1 1 47 2 882 1653 10 23 33 8
5 1 1 1 47 3 902 1637 101 66 49 as
5 1 1 1 47 4 1021 1612 95 95 28 AAG
5 1 1 1 47 5 1159 1662 61 17 6 as
5 1 1 1 47 6 1235 1655 32 36 44 ec
5 1 1 1 47 7 1302 1613 108 80 0 aPaP
5 1 1 1 47 8 1409 1613 47 80 3 AP
5 1 1 1 47 9 1486 1632 74 52 26 Ee,
5 1 1 1 47 10 1530 1633 42 84 27 5
5 1 1 1 47 11 1572 1641 185 72 33 aN
5 1 1 1 47 12 1990 1671 12 7 24 2
5 1 1 1 47 13 2150 1655 18 36 26 f
5 1 1 1 47 14 2429 1638 31 44 0 %
5 1 1 1 47 15 2630 1676 13 18 34 5
4 1 1 1 48 0 922 1668 1700 70 -1
5 1 1 1 48 1 922 1695 79 43 0 Bale
5 1 1 1 48 2 1024 1710 1 3 33 Coa
5 1 1 1 48 3 1139 1713 81 7 20 OT
5 1 1 1 48 4 1284 1680 61 52 13 Wiel
5 1 1 1 48 5 1370 1680 36 52 43 cel
5 1 1 1 48 6 1469 1707 34 12 53 an
5 1 1 1 48 7 1524 1689 56 34 32 Cy
5 1 1 1 48 8 1598 1680 56 47 46 the
5 1 1 1 48 9 1668 1697 22 27 0 e
5 1 1 1 48 10 1756 1681 20 38 17 Sy
5 1 1 1 48 11 1796 1712 21 14 24 oe
5 1 1 1 48 12 2031 1709 11 13 40 4
5 1 1 1 48 13 2132 1696 16 27 2 if
5 1 1 1 48 14 2441 1668 35 70 92 \
5 1 1 1 48 15 2556 1680 66 47 34 ate
4 1 1 1 49 0 854 1709 1684 73 -1
5 1 1 1 49 1 854 1726 12 17 0 ~
5 1 1 1 49 2 893 1722 51 34 29 oe
5 1 1 1 49 3 1003 1743 52 14 25 a
5 1 1 1 49 4 1093 1722 39 11 17 —
5 1 1 1 49 5 1248 1710 122 72 20 alata
5 1 1 1 49 6 1383 1716 27 53 36 re
5 1 1 1 49 7 1420 1725 12 19 0 r
5 1 1 1 49 8 1470 1733 27 23 31 >
5 1 1 1 49 9 1538 1709 80 59 47 Ce.
5 1 1 1 49 10 1649 1717 60 39 19 i.
5 1 1 1 49 11 1752 1714 61 55 60 A
5 1 1 1 49 12 1822 1733 24 23 38 ae
5 1 1 1 49 13 1990 1726 12 17 95 8
5 1 1 1 49 14 2024 1722 10 37 8 eS
5 1 1 1 49 15 2104 1725 28 28 27 oh
5 1 1 1 49 16 2466 1721 72 35 8 \poe”
4 1 1 1 50 0 862 1735 1639 67 -1
5 1 1 1 50 1 862 1785 3 4 41 |
5 1 1 1 50 2 884 1758 94 44 15 Sane
5 1 1 1 50 3 1251 1735 81 43 0 LET
5 1 1 1 50 4 1372 1771 32 8 0 EK
5 1 1 1 50 5 1433 1756 97 39 41 EGE
5 1 1 1 50 6 1571 1749 65 45 0 INI
5 1 1 1 50 7 1656 1755 184 39 0 ESS
5 1 1 1 50 8 2023 1756 68 36 4 a7
5 1 1 1 50 9 2496 1782 5 10 17 .
4 1 1 1 51 0 854 1789 1656 51 -1
5 1 1 1 51 1 854 1792 12 17 92 8
5 1 1 1 51 2 882 1789 52 51 7 Te!
5 1 1 1 51 3 1460 1793 48 31 14 FS
5 1 1 1 51 4 1514 1794 102 9 29 Anes
5 1 1 1 51 5 1697 1785 47 40 37 eae
5 1 1 1 51 6 1807 1790 23 45 0 .
5 1 1 1 51 7 1990 1792 12 17 91 8
5 1 1 1 51 8 2016 1790 31 38 74 x
5 1 1 1 51 9 2508 1813 2 2 30 he
4 1 1 1 52 0 872 1810 1629 39 -1
5 1 1 1 52 1 872 1810 29 39 28 be
5 1 1 1 52 2 1530 1817 24 26 25 7
5 1 1 1 52 3 1578 1826 62 13 18 SIERRAS
5 1 1 1 52 4 1658 1826 69 15 28 TEER
5 1 1 1 52 5 1786 1841 4 4 24 ~
5 1 1 1 52 6 2257 1827 17 10 28 ze
5 1 1 1 52 7 2496 1820 5 10 79 \
4 1 1 1 53 0 854 1822 1977 76 -1
5 1 1 1 53 1 854 1845 12 25 77 a
5 1 1 1 53 2 907 1830 25 50 23 eo}
5 1 1 1 53 3 1010 1860 6 3 18 f
5 1 1 1 53 4 1219 1860 22 5 24 wo
5 1 1 1 53 5 1330 1863 43 8 4 wes
5 1 1 1 53 6 1490 1822 81 54 14 OM
5 1 1 1 53 7 1577 1828 210 70 1 Se
5 1 1 1 53 8 1848 1856 2 3 7 ’
5 1 1 1 53 9 1990 1845 12 25 26 a
5 1 1 1 53 10 2022 1828 22 47 3 «
5 1 1 1 53 11 2272 1858 3 2 18 ‘
5 1 1 1 53 12 2510 1855 19 19 0 \
5 1 1 1 53 13 2718 1839 28 47 41 op
5 1 1 1 53 14 2748 1843 83 33 14 awn
4 1 1 1 54 0 914 1859 1791 52 -1
5 1 1 1 54 1 914 1869 47 38 51 we
5 1 1 1 54 2 1217 1891 4 3 10 .
5 1 1 1 54 3 1228 1863 29 40 15 MS
5 1 1 1 54 4 1344 1875 65 22 5 Lene
5 1 1 1 54 5 1456 1896 10 8 35 5
5 1 1 1 54 6 1520 1859 40 48 10 Sw
5 1 1 1 54 7 1560 1859 36 48 33 Se
5 1 1 1 54 8 1612 1896 3 1 0 ,
5 1 1 1 54 9 1620 1869 84 42 23 Bae
5 1 1 1 54 10 1714 1869 53 42 31 SN
5 1 1 1 54 11 2025 1875 19 30 70 2
5 1 1 1 54 12 2317 1901 3 3 0 .
5 1 1 1 54 13 2518 1880 4 9 0 ‘
5 1 1 1 54 14 2689 1864 16 42 87 pe
4 1 1 1 55 0 854 1899 1668 41 -1
5 1 1 1 55 1 854 1908 12 25 30 3!
5 1 1 1 55 2 887 1904 79 33 32 eed
5 1 1 1 55 3 1526 1910 12 14 24 |
5 1 1 1 55 4 1805 1899 35 38 59 78
5 1 1 1 55 5 1990 1906 54 27 29 ie
5 1 1 1 55 6 2349 1922 17 18 50 4:
5 1 1 1 55 7 2482 1923 40 8 42 ey
4 1 1 1 56 0 519 1925 1865 41 -1
5 1 1 1 56 1 519 1925 11 41 50 U0
5 1 1 1 56 2 855 1936 43 13 10 Pa:
5 1 1 1 56 3 1432 1943 5 4 20 .
5 1 1 1 56 4 1536 1935 1 9 40 I
5 1 1 1 56 5 1823 1942 2 2 25 y
5 1 1 1 56 6 1991 1939 9 10 84 a
5 1 1 1 56 7 2020 1934 15 18 25 #
5 1 1 1 56 8 2137 1939 2 4 55 c
5 1 1 1 56 9 2298 1927 86 26 12 aot
4 1 1 1 57 0 158 1954 3194 51 -1
5 1 1 1 57 1 158 1954 34 51 0 »
5 1 1 1 57 2 503 1964 27 38 0 é
5 1 1 1 57 3 3319 1973 33 15 0 —
4 1 1 1 58 0 149 1996 3203 36 -1
5 1 1 1 58 1 149 2009 35 23 57 ©
5 1 1 1 58 2 510 2005 20 19 70 ©
5 1 1 1 58 3 3319 1996 33 23 61 +
4 1 1 1 59 0 158 2035 3195 34 -1
5 1 1 1 59 1 158 2036 26 23 21 ©
5 1 1 1 59 2 510 2035 27 19 56 ®
5 1 1 1 59 3 3319 2036 34 33 96 =
4 1 1 1 60 0 158 2074 34 23 -1
5 1 1 1 60 1 158 2074 34 23 47 o
4 1 1 1 61 0 158 2073 3195 61 -1
5 1 1 1 61 1 158 2100 34 23 59 3
5 1 1 1 61 2 3319 2073 34 61 11 %
4 1 1 1 62 0 158 2138 3194 59 -1
5 1 1 1 62 1 158 2138 35 43 15 S
5 1 1 1 62 2 3318 2149 34 48 65 8
4 1 1 1 63 0 159 2194 3193 23 -1
5 1 1 1 63 1 159 2194 33 23 61 N
5 1 1 1 63 2 3319 2202 33 15 31 —_
4 1 1 1 64 0 159 2220 3193 28 -1
5 1 1 1 64 1 159 2220 33 23 64 >
5 1 1 1 64 2 3318 2225 34 23 21 ©Section 31
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 31 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
COUNCIL POLICY - CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CAR PARKING
Seat op = Sate i i j
Toolar-Sregi aol it f
ER | ie hh, Teak Lg
im ERLE ey LTT I
>i aed f Bkesley.S oy | fe 18
LL? i Bd | | ee =o a
8) Ping ik) ST i \\
BL! | Des | 1s Doni-kang | K 3 \ \ = -
| fi 7 |} IS) i “oonella Stes S & Hi DOS
LT Rial | TN os l \ , ‘
1 aL ES N@ee tj | Pe yy K
at x i i]s s
\ SUT Ol
SQ + 3 ™~
SH] \
ee» \
aN
is \
.
ae i
1% > BBO Onensteetitan conireitors
SEP s a So 60750300 m
Map 5 Tewantin
Spr IN) (Fa pe _ ye
Bei ee BA
Os to Poo eg ee
| Pf te ea ee ean eS
i te — ie eo Hy EET SE 8 | elbaea hl ag Y/
pac 0 eee =e Boobie Lott I yp il ao] fee ey Hl Pc
5 meee ccm fe feo (7 cy army hi fs f
als a &F PEGE baal | Lien
fee tt al vs BE toe | TT | i aden — ek CYL) bn \-Z
feel Sy ees eh = 2 eT pane ean eas eet SF
ity [ae tan Ae eet BS | A hae
(OR Psatliey jie ma 3 Real te RT oe Os]
i Noles eb eri SC) hel] BUY & Po Ae
8G RAL eel om eT LL oe tm FO a}
hy Pay — 1] le) ee a TT \
(OL SWiessersee | cm 2 Bt eee | rae ce ol Mary; eed A
a Po il fe, rn Re) Yorn eey i
Ea ee |) ed OP Teh N i.
== Gsonipoaya— FB | ey (sj it ie WS
NC Th 4 ea 3 SSG hee maf ew OS, SSN ie 7 Sy
Sant / 13) T “ry P80N: Road eo (yw ~~ y xe aN x aN
SEM PE teate | eh Me PM EN Oe
a me eas LETT) Stal ai mel CRs te OO
x Ta WS. Yea et gL) ff TNA TE O<5 Sool
SH DSR. TL Pay . | ©0pen ycontrbutors:
Bx See TS Nail LTRS Mh) a an
Map 6 Noosaville
Page 7
Page 31 of 74Section 32
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 32 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
COUNCIL POLICY - CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION OF ONSITE CAR PARKING
SS pe
——» > > A NS
ce . . Yi SRaX
Ge CHIC —>.—__ ay 6 ee
: Ly A %. t ai) “Hh SS hin 1m if- } =
; idle UM SS LE Loy Les ff TT A
ss ~~ + BERS Seg Sipetinateee oy ff ttt ED |
———N eae fee he SS EPL a
a Se TES VERE ep ee 7
oe Sa CE CX Ki BOF kJ tt TASS e
; ers Sih LHS el LF Bs! LOOT (—
BSS Sr OX \ maine = \ : NC]
Ss aN aN “a e 7 “ = ce = aan ee Hi H \ |
ZW \4 oh FF BG (%
CN 7 re f_ | Fees *
eR A, SoS gull Lie ax
Y \. y/ AL | i
= \ ‘ane 4 ‘ As) pox me 50 0700150 -200m
Map 7 Noosa Heads — Hastings Street
WAL WES i TY EE OSES NS >
} NEES WO eee st}
/ f i TTT x Ets | 5 =a ST Yemand aviv BUNT | | Hy oo e!
I Pate Sac BE ONE NSU BS ee
L i6-—Ln ie Gy a, Sten ‘ CZ ALES 7
A : js— te : \ / : 2 S ‘ x ? St ry
ie Ng gh ncaa.
i= & E 1H A NN 5. GO Sy Z ry Tr | HE
SLE Pe NN Sa ZERIT
Taf Ne Ea MSE | 8
& y Jn 4 SD. 22 Waseda: i TL
jk} ff Ak me, Red |e
+ st on Of . ' QO 2 No if Le
Shi pe at a ye a
! SAS a me ee
A py f a 5 Be ernie US a= Ao = S nshine Beact:Road———
if (CoN xr e€ eel
oth \— a F pa R= 1g one ——
Uff NK Mare eset, Si
of t Le iam nye j | f g@ |
AL Sor 7 S44 4 Pel | Lf tl ) 2038098000 m
7 ~ AGL ow C9 er sel! \— aT fi ®OpenstreetMap contrbutors
Map 8 Noosa Heads — Noosa Junction
Page 8
Page 32 of 74Section 33
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 33 of 74
@)
m
a
m
>
. -P Mag Be f / NA NO A, \ Xe” 9
a 8 s SS fp KA AKX r
om 5 om WA / x SNS s wv Be % 2 oO
om S yf Ne OR ~ iP Oo
‘ ne # ke i \Y “oN 9 =
7 ii a / Cy XL ON AE =
g ~Le] a OE Uo, SOS 8 =
Q — 5 oe \X vf» : S|
» So =) oO \ MA Dy, & A we _ ge \\ Q
_,. = w VSR RX OH 18 m
2 2 ae : i LPS LLL NS rn
» 7 _ z eS Wie SNE OF 2
Q G - s YN . CALEY, / / a =
-s . ba - < ‘S ty Nc, “Ngee a Sot af yt c
tr \ qs Se VK mS \ ok if 4 he yt 2 m
: } . ~ 4 FO x got iM 2
: | _ _ Wo A & * \ << V4 / AX 2 o & =
fe el [? \ KC A WR SZA”SSKS [ki 9
Speco.) WP Bfo EF AM SS \ SEO! IE >
wis. ASS = as S ye Face: \ >. ~~ ot Zi x o
> Svs Sp sua \\, ee O * WON ON of ae S a Q@
Pi By os x2 ra > a F os Se %, a we \ % Yo o% = m
; aes a 3h CREAN I Z
i so ig = sf Gv Z we at
F iS | ial mH a ws \ i ns a CY YX < >
. ff 7 Ne s A “7 Lip an * ty ye 3°
et i . / ee Ke yp |B
: : A eg ‘ at VA, V4 2
Kingfisher 6 a, % 4 A ¢. \ Sp 8
ht oisher Drive ry) % \\ 8) :
rive Kinofi % a —- °
uv aoe IN > ) a
i ian ae : ie ye $
af Ko QS oe COB
, ita ‘ O ye Ee >
{ & 2 ~ ane — << =
nn — ARK
‘$ ~~ \ [8
oo
i an Avs \\
oe as
°) 9 a \ go Ye \ \ so
14 : \ HA mo . XO
al : ve J
\4 ; } AN Qe \ A ,
e A RW“ AA Oo"
HH | LB/.DW™WX EK ‘I
ms i J Ib / 7x N\ SS y WN
S a a
© ® >
is ~ >
3 %
$ 8
N —_
> ©Section 34
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
10 1718T126 NOOSA AQUATIC CENTRE CAFE LEASE - TENDER ACCEPTANCE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Noosa Aquatic Centre Coordinator, Stephen James
Community Services Department
Index ECM/ 72.02 Noosa Aquatic Centre
Attachments 1. Tender Evaluation Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Noosa Aquatic Centre (NAC) Coordinator to the General
Committee meeting dated 14 May 2018 and:
A. Agree to enter into a commercial lease of the NAC café (agreement 1718T126) with
White-Lille Pty Ltd for an initial term of two (2) years, commencing 1 July 2018; and
B. Authorise the CEO to award up to three (3) subsequent lease options of twelve (12)
months each at Council’s own discretion and subject to the Contractor’s demonstrated
ability to meet the requirements of the lease agreement.
REPORT
The Noosa Aquatic Centre café has operated under a lease agreement since April 2009, with the
current lessee operating the café since July 2012.
The current lease agreement is set to expire 30 June 2018.
1. Tender Process
An Invitation to Tender for the operation of the café and new lease agreement was publicly
advertised in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 31 March 2018 and the Noosa News on 3 April 2018.
At tender box close on 24 April 2018, four (4) submissions were received, none of which were
from the incumbent lessee.
2. Tender Assessment
The evaluation panel carried out an assessment of the four (4) conforming tender submissions
from (in alphabetical order):
1) East Coast Rentals Pty Ltd t/as The Pool Cafe
2) Sunset Organics
3) The Bailey Kitchen
4) White-Lille Pty Ltd t/as Chalet and Co.
The tenders were evaluated using the following price and non-price criteria:
Capability and Resourcing
Contract Experience and Capacity
Methodology
Quality
Health & Safety
Environment and Sustainability
Contribution to Local Economy
Price
Page 34 of 74
Section 35
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
While White-Lille Pty Ltd offers Council the second highest financial return of all submissions,
their response demonstrates an excellent ability to meet the requirement of the lease agreement
and provides evidence of their ability to operate an existing local hospitality business. White-Lillie
Pty Ltd also demonstrate a strong track record in the industry.
White-Lille Pty Ltd is recommended as the preferred contractor for lease agreement 1718T126.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil
Finance
The lease agreement will provide a commercial financial return to Council for the life of the
contract.
Risks & Opportunities
A formal lease agreement will be entered into following Council approval. As part of that lease
agreement, Council will retain a bank guarantee for an amount equal to three (3) monthly rent
instalments ($13,750 incl. GST) in order to mitigate financial risk.
The risk of not awarding lease agreement 1718T126 is that the NAC will be left without a café
operator beyond 30 June 2018, forcing Council to either accept this situation or alternatively, to
operate the café using NAC staff.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Community Facilities, Procurement & Fleet, Asset Management
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer X Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer x Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
x Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries x Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development X Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services x Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 35 of 74
Section 36
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 36 of 74
Final Evaluation Attach ment 1
NOOSA SHIRECOUNCIL — Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation
NAME OF TENDERER PRICE
(Conforming Tenders Only) (excl of GST)
T
2
3
4
Sf
6
Tf
Sd
Ss a
YO fd
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
'TCA Serivces (Upload to incorrect Tender) |
Cf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant
Weighting (%) score x score x score x score x score x score x score x score X score X Score score x
Pom | om [osfusfs [rw fasfoo[oxfus? | — | | | | | | | | |_|
weightis weightin; ightin weight inj weighti weight inj weightia weightin; weighti weightin;
foie | = [> [oe [~[ww[ soo] wf] |. | - || .|}- || _
pe ee Pee pepe pe ff
vious ansinbity |e Te | aes | mo | oo | {om | mm foe ot tt
Tena Sov a ee a ee ss
Total Fees (Pe) 30% $55,000 $41,600 $60,000 $45,000
Average Fees (Pav) $........s:ssesereesseee $50,400
Price Score 108 79 116 88
Normalised Price Score (Pn) 93 68 100 76
Weighted Price Score (Pw)
ee The Contract Adm inistrator confirms the above scores
Contract Administrator & Assesment Panel Member 1 and weightings of this evaluation
Assesment Panel Member 2
Assesment Panel Member 3 Manager Asset Plannin Contract Administrator's signature:
Assesment Panel Member 4 po
Assesment Panel Member 5 poSection 37
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
11 NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE LAND USE MASTER PLAN - FINAL CONSULTATION
OUTCOMES AND AMENDED PLAN
Author Property Advisor, Denis Wallace
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/Subject/46.28 Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan
Attachments 1. Final Consultation Summary Report
2. Final Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan (26 Page
attachment provided separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council adopted the Draft Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan (Foreshore Plan) in
December 2017 and proceeded to a final round of community consultation in January and
February 2018.
The Foreshore Plan’s drafting and consultation process has been extensive and allowed Council
and the community to thoroughly reflect on issues affecting the foreshore. The level of
community interest and feedback has been high throughout the project and sentiments
expressed by respondents confirm they treasure the foreshore and that its public open spaces
should be protected. In response, the Foreshore Plan adopts the vision: the Noosaville foreshore
is a peaceful, relaxing public open space for people to enjoy the river.
The report highlights the outcomes and recommended amendments arising from the recent
community consultation. Many issues have remained consistent throughout the project, with only
a few creating significant division. The final Foreshore Plan seeks to strike a balance on some
contentious issues but principally seeks to protect the foreshore’s public open spaces for the
enjoyment and passive recreation for all in the community.
The report presents the final Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan for adoption so that it
may guide future use of the foreshore. A range of further recommendations will address certain
project findings and allow Council to progress related infrastructure matters.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the General Committee Meeting dated 14
May 2018 and:
A. Adopt the Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan dated May 2018, as provided at
Attachment 2 to the report;
B. Authorise the CEO to write to the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy to
seek endorsement of the adopted Foreshore Plan as a Land Management Plan for the
foreshore reserves in accordance with the provisions of the Land Act 1994;
C. Request the CEO write to the Department of Transport and Main Roads to advise the
adopted Foreshore Plan does not support creation of a new boat ramp and trailer carpark
in Chaplin Park but that Council wishes to assist the Department to identify opportunities
for new or improved recreational boating facilities elsewhere along Noosa River;
D. Agree to include provisions in Noosa’s new draft planning scheme allowing a single small-
scale retail food and drink outlet (kiosk) within commercial jetty leases, as detailed in the
adopted Foreshore Plan;
E. Propose to create a new dog off-leash area in the western portion of Chaplin Park, initially
as a 12 month trial, as described in the adopted Foreshore Plan and request the CEO
progress the necessary amendments to Noosa’s Subordinate Local Law 2 (Animal
Management) in accordance with Council’s Local Law Making Process, which prescribes
further public consultation;
Page 37 of 74
Section 38
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
F. Agree to undertake ongoing compliance inspections in relation to commercial use of the
recreation reserves to ensure uses are lawful and accord with the adopted Foreshore Plan;
G. Agree to consider a future feasibility study for the establishment of a multi-use water sports
facility based at the Noosa Yacht and Rowing Club;
H. Agree to further investigate opportunity and need for new infrastructure identified in the
Foreshore Plan, specifically:
A multi-use roofed structure for a range of events within the eastern portion of
Chaplin Park;
Pathway and recreational infrastructure within Chaplin Park to facilitate improved
public access and passive recreational use; and
Additional public toilets between the existing amenities in the vicinity of Lions and Ely
Parks;
I. Advise Noosa Waterfront Restaurant its request for ongoing use of reserve land for
commercial functions is not supported, however, wedding ceremonies will continue to be
allowed; and
J. Request the CEO write to key interest groups and businesses to advise of the finalisation
of the Foreshore Plan and thanking them for their involvement.
REPORT
1. Background
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the latest round of public consultation for the
Draft Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan and seek adoption of the final Foreshore Plan.
Council embarked on the Foreshore Plan project in 2016 in response to increasing recreational,
community and commercial use demands along the Gympie Terrace foreshore (see study area in
Figure 1 below). The Foreshore Plan is intended to provide a tool to help manage land uses
within the foreshore recreation reserves, which are State land for which Council is trustee. The
Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) indicates the Foreshore Plan’s
drafting and community consultation has been undertaken appropriately and it expects it will be
endorsed as a compliant Land Management Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Act 1994.
Figure 1 – Foreshore Plan Area
Page 38 of 74
Section 39
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Consultants Place Design Group were engaged in February 2017 to oversee the project and
prepare the Foreshore Plan. Of particular note to both the consultant and project staff has been
the high level of community interest and engagement throughout.
Project information has been maintained on Council’s Your Say Noosa webpage. A document
library is accessible at https://yoursay.noosa.qld.gov.au/noosa-river-foreshore-management-
plan/documents and includes:
The initial public survey;
Initial Consultation Summary Report;
Draft Foreshore Plan; and
Final Consultation Report.
A report to Council in December 2017 outlined the previous drafting and public consultation
phases of the project (see Services & Organisation Committee agenda Item 1, page 3). Further
relevant Council considerations are listed in the final section of this report.
2. Project Timeline
Following the engagement of Place Design Group the key project phases were:
February - March 2017 Project Audit, Scoping and Design
April - May 2017 Initial Public Consultation
June - November 2017 Options Analysis and Draft Foreshore Plan Preparation
December 2017 Council Adoption of Draft Master Plan
January - February 2018 Consultation on Draft Foreshore Plan
March - April 2018 Review of Submissions and Final Master Plan Preparation
3. Foreshore Plan Structure
The structure and format of the Foreshore Plan is proposed to remain unchanged from the draft
document, being:
An overarching “land use vision” for the foreshore is identified and supported by further
“land use principles”.
The foreshore is divided into 6 precincts.
A table of allowed land uses is identified for each precinct and details the nature and
frequency expected for each use.
Precinct maps show an indicative area supported for land use activities (i.e. permit area
extent).
The overarching vision for the foreshore reflects the strongest community sentiments from the
initial consultation, it reads:
The Noosaville foreshore is a peaceful, relaxing public open space for people to enjoy the river.
The supporting land use principles proposed are:
1. The foreshore is a public space, available for the community and visitors to enjoy.
2. Land use within the foreshore ensures the celebration and preservation of its natural values
and qualities.
3. The foreshore offers a diverse range of low-impact activities and recreational opportunities
for locals and visitors promoting social interaction and engagement.
4. Open space recreation areas within the foreshore are retained and enhanced.
5. Commercial businesses along the foreshore do not encroach onto public land and remain
wholly within commercial jetty leases or freehold lot boundaries.
6. Future infrastructure planning increases green open spaces rather than reduces them.
The land use principles will help guide future decisions about uses on the foreshore.
Page 39 of 74
Section 40
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
4. Final Community Consultation on the Draft Foreshore Plan
Following adoption of the Draft Foreshore Plan at Council’s December Ordinary Meeting, the final
round of community consultation was undertaken from 22 January to 22 February 2018 and
included:
Promotion through local newspapers, radio, social media, Council’s website and other
channels;
Email submissions via Council’s Your Say Noosa web page; and
A full day face-to-face drop in session at Noosaville library.
Figure 2 – Draft Foreshore Plan
Figure 3 – Noosaville Library Consultation Session
Page 40 of 74
Section 41
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
The consultation again received strong traction with the Noosa community garnering 247 written
submissions, including 4 petitions. Submissions were received from a number of community and
industry groups, including:
Noosa Integrated Catchment Association;
Tourism Noosa;
Noosa Wedding Organisation;
Noosa Outrigger Canoe Club;
Noosaville Business Association
Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association;
Noosa Parks Association;
Peregian Beach Community Association; and
Noosa Community Biosphere Association.
The 4 petitions received were:
‘Save Our Greenspace’ with 37 signatures - objecting to future activation and possible
infrastructure in Chaplin Park.
‘Noosa Shire Council: Gain approval to use neighbouring parkland to enable wedding
events to occur’ with 2,600+ signatures – requesting Council facilitate the Noosa Waterfront
Restaurant’s ongoing use of adjacent reserve land.
‘Save Noosaville Foreshore – Stop Waterfront Grab’ with 1,100+ signatures – objecting to
any further commercial expansion along the Noosaville Foreshore, including Noosa
Waterfront Restaurants request to use adjacent reserve land.
Submission from The Noosa Wedding Organisation with 7 signatures - support for allowing
the Noosa Waterfront Restaurant to use the parkland adjacent to the restaurant for
wedding receptions.
Further details of each are provided in the Final Consultation Summary Report in Attachment 1.
5. Final Consultation Outcomes
Place Design Group indicate the key themes and issues have remained broadly consistent
throughout both phases of community consultation. Some elements of the Draft Foreshore Plan
drew strong feedback and warrant more review and/or amendment to the final Foreshore Plan.
The key themes arising from the final consultation are identified in the summary report in
Attachment 1 and are further discussed below.
Chaplin Park Dog Off-Leash Area
The Draft Foreshore Plan proposed a new fenced dog off-leash area of approximately 1,000m2 in
Chaplin Park, just southwest of the Mill Street Slipway. Provision of an off-leash area responded
to clear demand from dog owners and acknowledged the available space within the park, with an
off-leash area infeasible elsewhere along the balance of the foreshore to the east.
The issue saw strong feedback, both for and against, and raised concerns with the fenced off-
leash area’s positioning, size, infrastructure requirements and utility. In response to the
feedback, the off-leash area is now proposed to be:
Relocated to the westernmost portion of Chaplin Park, delineated by a vegetated drainage
line; and
Unfenced, with an increased area of roughly 4,500m2 and allowing access to the riverbank.
The unfenced area will require minimal infrastructure (signage, doggy bag dispensers and refuse
bins) to be established. The area will require amendment of Council’s local law and provision of
some nominal operational funding.
The success of a new off-leash area will rely heavily on the behaviour and cooperation of dog
owners that use it. Since there is potential for unforeseen outcomes or impacts, it is proposed
that the off-leash area is initially established as a 12 month trial and then subject to review.
Page 41 of 74
Section 42
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Chaplin Park Activation
Residents overlooking or near Chaplin Park strongly objected to the Draft Foreshore Plan’s
suggestion for increased activation and additional infrastructure in the park. Valid concerns were
raised, particularly in relation to the park’s susceptibility to flooding, frequent saturation due to
rain and potential infrastructure impacts on residents’ amenity and the Park’s existing character
and natural attributes. The final foreshore plan still seeks to acknowledge that Chaplin Park
provides opportunity to accommodate greater passive recreation and community use but adopts
the following changes:
Indicative future pathways have been relocated (noting that the Foreshore Plan is not an
infrastructure plan and does not pre-empt or commit Council to deliver any infrastructure);
and
Chaplin Park’s characteristics and constraints are described in greater detail via sub-
precincts in Section 4.1.4 to help guide future land use.
Consolidated Multi-Use Precinct at Noosa Yacht Club
The Draft Plan did not support the Noosa Outrigger Club’s requests to allow it to obtain a formal
lease and build a new clubhouse within Chaplin Park because it would mean the loss of valued
public open space and conflict with the Foreshore Plan’s land use principles. Instead, it
introduced the concept of a consolidated non-motorised watersports precinct based around the
Noosa Yacht and Rowing Club (NYRC). The intent of the new precinct is to investigate mutually
beneficial opportunities to co-locate storage and club facilities.
Prior to the release of the Draft Foreshore Plan, both the Outrigger Club and the NYRC indicated
guarded optimism toward the potential benefits of the precinct approach. However, strong
reservations and objections were received from members of both clubs in the latest consultation,
expressing concerns with:
The Outrigger Club being forced to relocate to inadequate premises;
Outrigger boats being unlikely to be suitably accommodated and launched at the precinct;
and
The complexity of the needs of the clubs and doubts about the precinct’s viability.
It is important the Foreshore Plan allays fears by conveying that the Outrigger Club will not be
forced to relocate and the status quo may remain under the current annual permit arrangement.
Other concerns about the precinct challenges and constraints were previously identified and
reported. Whilst these concerns are acknowledged, they pre-empt the scoping and feasibility
study, which is the precinct approach’s critical first step.
To more clearly communicate the intent of the new precinct Section 4.2.3 – Guiding Principles
has been added, stating:
Council will continue to investigate practical long-term solutions that consolidate clubs in a multi-
use precinct. The precinct's guiding principles are:
1. The Outrigger Club’s current presence within Chaplin Park can continue via annual
permits.
2. Creation of a new lease or construction of club buildings at the Chaplin Park permit area is
not supported.
3. Consolidation of non-motorised watersports clubs within a new precinct is preferred.
Council will liaise with the clubs to investigate co-location opportunities and constraints and
develop a precinct feasibility study.
4. New lease area requests will only be considered once a precinct plan has been adopted.
As previously reported, a fully realised multi-sports precinct has the potential to be a major
project requiring significant resources, collaboration and funding. It is recommended Council
agrees to consider a future feasibility study to initiate the project and allow further consideration.
Page 42 of 74
Section 43
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Noosa Waterfront Restaurant Use of Reserve Land
Noosa Waterfront Restaurant (NWR) has continued to seek ongoing commercial use of 102m 2 of
recreation reserve land adjacent to its premises to conduct functions. Submissions were received
to both rounds of community consultation and a number of previous formal Council
considerations relate to the issue.
Petitions both supporting and objecting to NWR’s use of the reserve land were received in the
latest consultation but no significant new issues or grounds for support were raised.
As previously reported, the applicable State policy is DNRME’s Secondary use of Trust land
under the Land Act (Ref. PUX/901/209SLM/2013/493 dated 2 May 2017 and accessible at
https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/%3Fa%3D109113:policy_registry/secondary-use-of-trust-land.pdf ),
which states:
One of the principles under the object of the Land Act is that "if land is needed for community
purposes, the land [is retained] for the community in a way that protects and facilitates the
community purpose".
Approval should not be given for a trustee lease or trustee permit which:
is an inappropriate use for the purpose and qualities of the trust land; or
is not in the public interest; or
is substantially exclusive and/or commercial in nature.
In regard to exclusivity and commerciality the policy states:
A "stand-alone commercial enterprise", for the purpose of the policy, is one which obtains the
majority of its business from customers who are not necessarily reserve users e.g. passing trade
on a highway adjoining a reserve. Use of community purpose trust land by a stand-alone
commercial enterprise that makes a profit for the benefit of the owner or shares the profits with
private shareholders is inconsistent with the purposes of the community purpose trust land and
will not be allowed.
To guide decisions about secondary use of trust land the policy states the following five (5)
criteria can be used:
Strategic value - the proposed use should be appropriate to the strategic value of the land's
capabilities;
Consistency with primary use (if applicable) - the proposed use should be consistent with the
designated purpose of the trust land and should also facilitate or enhance, not diminish, the
purpose of the trust land;
Commerciality - the strength of the commercial motive behind the proposed use and whether it
will have a negative effect on the public interest, needs consideration;
Exclusivity - refers to secondary occupation which excludes use by the wider community; and
Incremental progression and forward planning - the proposed use may contribute to an
incremental chain of events that lead to a final outcome quite different from that initially intended.
NWR’s commercial use of the land does not align with any of the criteria and raises significant
conflicts with the primary reserve purpose, commerciality, exclusivity and incremental
consequences criteria.
Council officers maintain the following advice:
Formal tenure and a development approval for a material change of use are required to
allow the ongoing function centre use;
Providing NWR, or any other commercial business, tenure over the recreation reserve land
is not supported because:
Page 43 of 74
Section 44
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
o Community feedback was broadly opposed to commercial business expansion onto
the foreshore;
o An application to DNRME seeking consent for the commercial use would be
inconsistent with the foreshore's reserve for recreation status and DNRME policy; and
o Allowing commercial tenure over the foreshore would set a precedent and may lead
to unintended consequences. Other commercial jetty leaseholders on the foreshore
could seek similar tenure, which if successful would further decrease the community’s
access to the foreshore’s public open space.
Council continues to receive requests to “find a way” to allow NWR to conduct its commercial
functions but officers strongly caution against any approach that does not address all parties’
statutory obligations.
The Foreshore Plan allows for wedding ceremonies to be conducted on the foreshore, as Council
has always done, and provides strong support for the wedding sector in this way.
6. Amendments to Final Foreshore Plan
The following amendments have been made to the Foreshore Plan included in Attachment 2,
which is now proposed for adoption:
The Chaplin Park dog off-leash area has been relocated to the western most portion of the
park and is unfenced. The area is recommended to initially be trialled for 12 months;
The Chaplin Park pathway network has been repositioned and further wording included
within the precinct plan to better describe the park’s character and constraints; and
Further guiding principles have been added to outline the intent of the multi-use precinct
based around the Noosa Yacht and Rowing Club.
Other minor text amendments have been made to reflect the completion of the final round of
consultation and to convert the document from draft to final status.
7. Infrastructure Issues
Various infrastructure issues arising from the Foreshore Plan project were previously reported
with the draft. The table below updates and summarises Council’s key infrastructure
considerations and provides a preliminary estimates of costs:
Item Infrastructure Issue Description Initial Cost Ongoing
Estimate Costs?
1 New dog off-leash area in Minor infrastructure required - such $3k Yes
Chaplin Park as signage, bag dispensers and
refuse bins.
2 New roofed structure near Design and construct new multi-use $200k Yes
Chaplin Park foreshore roofed shelter for ceremonies and
gatherings available for booking.
3 Multi-use water sports Significant master planning and $50k Yes
precinct at Noosa Yacht & infrastructure project to cater for (feasibility
Rowing Club needs of multiple sporting clubs and study)
redevelop the area adjacent the
existing Yacht Club building. Initial
phase requires a feasibility study.
4 Public toilets Investigate opportunity to provide TBC TBC
additional public toilets between (requires
existing toilets at Lions Park to the investigation)
west and Ely Park 900m to the east.
An action to address each issue is included in the recommendation of this report.
Page 44 of 74
Section 45
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
8. Implementation
This report’s recommendation outlines the initial implementation steps associated with the
foreshore plan project, which include:
Adoption of the Foreshore Plan to allow it to guide future land use decisions (such as
tenure requests, permit applications, development applications, temporary event
applications, and the like);
A formal request to DNRME that the Foreshore Plan be recognised as a Land
Management Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Land Act 1994;
Advice to DTMR that a new boat ramp and trailer carpark in Chaplin Park is not supported;
Inclusion of new provisions in Noosa’s draft new planning scheme to allow a kiosk at each
commercial jetty;
Initiation of the Local Law amendment process for a proposed dog off-leash area within
Chaplin Park;
Consideration of a future feasibility study for the establishment of a multi-use water sports
facility based at the Noosa Yacht and Rowing Club; and
Internal Council review of infrastructure needs and opportunities relating to:
o A multi-use roofed structure for a range of events within the eastern portion of
Chaplin Park;
o Pathway and recreational infrastructure within Chaplin Park to facilitate improved
public access and passive recreational use; and
o Additional public toilets between the existing amenities near Lions Park and Ely Park;
These actions will finalise the Foreshore Plan preparation and commence future steps to deliver
its visions. The plan is intended to operate for a 10 year horizon to 2028 but may be reviewed
from time to time, with any reviews subject to formal Council consideration.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 16 March 2017, Item 2, Page 11
NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE – COMMERCIAL JETTY LEASES & ENCROACHMENTS ONTO
COMMUNITY LAND
That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the Services & Organisation Committee
meeting dated 7 March 2017 and authorise the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to:
A. Write to the Queensland Government (DNRM) confirming Council’s support of their
proposed compliance action to ensure its lease holders remain within approved lease
areas;
B. Write to commercial jetty leaseholders along Gympie Terrace advising them to cease
encroachments onto reserve land;
C. Seek to develop a Memorandum of Understanding between DNRM and Council to
establish:
1. a regular compliance inspection program of commercial river leases identified in
Figure 1 of the report; and
2. a process by which the parties consult prior to consenting to any new sub-leases or
uses.
D. Note that matters arising from conflicts with the planning scheme by commercial jetty
leaseholders are currently on hold while Council waits for advice from DNRM with regards
to their intended actions, in particular in respect of the leases being for “marine facilities
purposes”.
Page 45 of 74
Section 46
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Ordinary Meeting, 20 April 2017, Item 4, Page 10
NOOSA WATERFRONT RESTAURANT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EVENTS IN
ADJACENT RECREATION PARK RESERVE
That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the Services & Organisation Committee
meeting dated 11 April 2017 and:
A. Agree to issue Temporary Event Permits to the Noosa Waterfront Restaurant for existing
event bookings to 21 July 2017.
B. Advise Noosa Waterfront Restaurant that, should it seek ongoing access to the reserve
land for commercial purposes, it should make a submission to the upcoming Noosaville
Foreshore Land Use Master Plan project.
C. Further consider longer-term tenure associated with the Noosa Waterfront Restaurant’s
use of the reserve land where it is recommended in the final adopted Noosaville Foreshore
Land Use Master Plan.
Ordinary Meeting, 18 May 2017, Item 2, Page 2
PETITION: REQUEST THAT COUNCIL GRANT THE NOOSA WATERFRONT RESTAURANT A
PERMIT TO USE NEIGHBOURING PARKLAND TO ENABLE WEDDING EVENTS TO OCCUR
That the petition tabled by Cr Jackson requesting that Council negotiate and advocate with all
government stakeholders to allow the Noosa Waterfront Restaurant to use neighbouring
parklands next to their business for wedding events until 30 November 2017 be received and
referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action.
Ordinary Meeting, 21 December 2017, Item 2, Page 10
DRAFT NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE LAND USE MASTER PLAN
That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the Services & Organisation Committee
Meeting dated 12 December 2017 and agree to adopt the Draft Noosaville Foreshore Land Use
Master Plan and proceed to further community consultation, as detailed in the report.
Ordinary Meeting, 19 April 2018, Item 1, Page 2
PETITION: REQUEST FOR NOOSA WATERFRONT RESTAURANT & BAR TO BE ABLE TO
USE PARKLAND AREA BESIDE RESTAURANT FOR WEDDING CEREMONIES AND
RELATED ACTIVITIES
That the petition tabled by Cr Jackson requesting that Council approve the use of a small area of
land adjacent to Noosa Waterfront Restaurant & Bar for wedding ceremonies and related
activities, review its proposed restrictions on the use of this land so as to enable its occasional
use, and negotiate with State agencies to reach a resolution enabling the use of the area as
requested be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate
action.
Finance
Finance implications of infrastructure issues raised by the Foreshore Plan are noted in section 7
of the report.
Costs arising from compliance monitoring of commercial uses (by local laws officers) and minor
infrastructure requirements for the establishment of a new dog off-leash area are to be absorbed
within current operational budgets.
Page 46 of 74
Section 47
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Risks & Opportunities
The Foreshore Plan project aims to address risks and community expectations associated with
Council’s management of the foreshore. The project drew wide community interest and adoption
of the Foreshore Plan provides opportunity to deliver improved outcomes in an environment of
increased community awareness of foreshore issues. The primary risks are associated with the
need for ongoing diligence by Council officers and compliance activities to meet the Foreshore
Plan’s intent. The Foreshore Plan has also raised some significant infrastructure issues, which
require further Council action and investigation.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
The Foreshore Plan was prepared by Place Design Group and involved broad consultation
with the Noosa community
Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
Department of Traffic and Main Roads
Internal Consultation
Director Corporate Services
Director Community Services
Planning Scheme Project Manager
Development Assessment Manager
Manager Local Laws
Manager Property
Community Development Manager
Principal Strategic Planner
Development Planner
Project Officer, Infrastructure Planning Design and Delivery
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer X Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer x Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
x Local Laws x Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development X Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
x Strategic Land Use Planning x Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 47 of 74
Section 48
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 1
Page 48 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 1
place
design
group.
Place Design Group Pty Ltd
131 Roberton Street
Fortitude Valley, QLD 4006 Australia
Phone +61 7 3852 3922
[email protected]
placedesigngroup. com
Noosaville
Foreshore
Land Use
Master Plan
Final Consultation
Summary
29 March 2018
Page 48 of 74Section 49
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 49 of 74
q)
m
z
m
~ oS 7S = >
5 — -
g © 2
e | 2 IS RR] S KF 8S oO Oo
Z ® 8 Nyy 3 Sry 2 OD =
g > |} 3 2 g
: 3 s O =
a : 2 Alolv] = ojo : sh
5 a felsisi < Wists -
: 1 2 Weise} 2 ISB). 2 m
8 : 6 2 ye |S a. =||> : oO m
L : 2 a2?) & ali : i)
é | 2 RRE & Riel = =
2 : ° 2 Hol: a ayy: O m
z : 7 alla ||: > ata: m
q : 5" ile |i: 2 Slo: DS =
Z : > @ [5 |: 2 oie : ot =
3 = KSEE) & Welsh: n” z
1 eo BRET 2 FBP. 9
$ 3 i.) a H a > ye $
5 : 2 fori: | 3 tye: >
: 2} oS PRET & ERY: @
g : ® : HS |: oO i iE : m
: = > flo |: Sa ok : za
: 2 : HS] a i i : oO
: Q > WS HE : : :
: o : Hel: : iE : >
: “wv > << de : :OooE :
: zu : |}o |: i i ik :
: 2 : Holi: : i i :
: 3 > lea | : OE :
: : 2 WS |: : i iE :
: : : 3]; i oie :
: : : lay: : : od :
: : 2 |i |i: : i i :
: : 2 Ho: : oi :
: : : WD |r : DoE :
: : YO]: i oi :
= © allollal| ao allalL wo
0 =
2 B
© 200
® oh =
> 50% >
° “= <
= 8
N —_
> ©Section 50
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 50 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
1 Context
The Noosa Shire Council (Council) engaged Place Design Group to prepare the Noosaville Foreshore Land
Use Master Plan (Draft Foreshore Master Plan) inclusive of acommunity engagement and consultation
program.
The first round of community consultation was undertaken in April and May 2017 which included an
intensive four-day engagement program, to gather the views and visions of the Noosa community.
The engagement program included two community pop-up events with an attendance of approximately
300 people, stakeholder and councilor workshops, and an online survey which ran for a month on Council's
website with over 1,200 survey responses. The engagement was highly publicised and well attended both in
person and online. This public consultation provided excellent feedback on the community's ideas and
vision for future land uses on the Noosaville Foreshore. For further details of the first round of community
consultation, refer to the Initial Consultation Summary.
The Draft Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan was presented to Council in December 2017. Council
resolved to adopt the Draft Plan in January 2018 and proceeded with further community consultation from
22" of January to the 22" of February.
This led to a second more streamlined consultation process to acquire feedback on the Draft Noosaville
Foreshore Land Use Master Plan. This round of community engagement included an in person drop-in
session with Council's consultants on the 8"" of February 2018, as well as online feedback via written
submissions, submitted to Council's online portal.
place
design
3 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 50 of 74Section 51
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 51 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
1.1. Summary of Responses
A face to face drop in session was held on the 8"" of February at the Noosa Library to allow community
members and key stakeholders to discuss the Draft Foreshore Master Plan. Over thirty members of the
community visited Council and their consultants throughout the day to discuss the Draft Foreshore Master
Plan, offering feedback on key issues of concern.
A total of 247 written submissions were received via Council's ‘Your Say Noosa’ online portal throughout the
four-week period. Of these, four (4) petitions were received;
1. Petition to ‘Save Our Greenspace’ with 37 signatures
2. Petition to ‘Noosa Shire Council: Gain approval to use neighbouring parkland to enable wedding events
to occur’ with 2,597 signatures
3. Petition to ‘Save Noosaville Foreshore — Stop Waterfront Grab’ with 1,082 signatures
4. Submission from The Noosa Wedding Organisation with 7 signatures
All of the written submissions have been considered to inform the final Noosaville Foreshore Land Use
Master Plan.
1.2 Overall Key Themes
Prevailing themes were identified from submissions received on the Draft Foreshore Master Plan. Many
submissions supported specific elements of the Draft Plan and these were noted. The main issues of
contention raised in the submissions can be categorised into the following issues:
- Noosa Outriggers/ Noosa Yacht & Rowing Club re-location
- Commercial encroachment onto public space
— Noosa Waterfront Restaurant lease
- Off-leash dog area in Chaplin Park
- Chaplin Park Activation
- Markets
- Infrastructure
Details of these issues have been summarised in Section 2.3.
place
design
4 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 51 of 74Section 52
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 52 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
2.1 Petitions
247 written submissions were received through Council's online submission portal over a four-week period.
Four (4) petitions were received in conjunction with written submissions. Further details of these petitions
have been outlined below.
1. ‘Save Our Greenspace’ with 37 signatures
A petition with 37 signatures was lodged as part of a written submission, objecting to the recommendation
within the Draft Foreshore Master Plan for future activation and possible infrastructure in Chaplin Park.
The petition requested the preservation of Chaplin Park as parkland designated for passive recreation. Key
concerns raised in the petition included:
- Detailing the purpose of the original dedication of land to Council;
- Pollution from dogs if a dog park is to be implemented;
- Impacts on flooding in the area;
- Threat to existing wildlife and biosphere;
- Consideration to Native Title, and
- Ongoing issues with car parking on Hilton Terrace and Gympie Terrace.
The petition acknowledges Chaplin Park as being the last portion of parkland on the foreshore that provides
for passive recreation, and requests that it remains unchanged.
2. ‘Noosa Shire Council: Gain approval to use neighbouring parkland to enable wedding events to
occur’ with 2,600+ signatures
The petition was in opposition to the Draft Foreshore Master Plan's recommendation opposing the Noosa
Waterfront's request for ongoing commercial use of adjacent parkland to conduct commercial functions
and that no new commercial leases would be granted on the foreshore.
The Draft Foreshore Master Plan does not support exclusive commercial use of any area of the foreshore
reserves but does support the continuation of wedding ceremonies to occur, with single issue wedding
ceremony permits.
The petition requests Noosa Shire Council review the proposed restrictions on this area of parkland, to allow
the Waterfront Restaurant to use the grassed area serve drinks and food.
The petition also requests Noosa Shire Council negotiate with relevant State agencies to reach a resolution
to establish a commercial lease enabling long term use of the area, for the uses described above.
The petition was published online at www.change.org and acquired over 2,600 signatures.
3. ‘Save Noosaville Foreshore — Stop Waterfront Grab’ with 1,100+ signatures
Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc (NSSRA) and Noosa Park Association created an online
petition in conjunction with their written submission, which acquired 1,138 signatures.
The petition opposes any further commercial expansion along the Noosaville Foreshore, ensuring that the
parkland remains accessible to the public. The petition supports the recommendations outlined in the Draft
Foreshore Master Plan to restrict the granting of any new commercial leases. The petition requests Council
to ensure compliance is enforced to ‘maintain a level playing field for businesses’ ensuring there is no
inappropriate development and use,
The petition recommends the Foreshore Master Plan continues to allow wedding ceremonies in designated
place
design
5 Final Consultaton Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 52 of 74Section 53
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 53 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
zones. The key focus of the petition is to ensure community access and use of the foreshore parks is not
compromised by expanding commercial enterprises.
The petition was published online at www.change.org and acquired 1,138 signatures.
4. Submission from The Noosa Wedding Organisation with 7 signatures
The submission reinforced support for an undercover structure suitable for wedding ceremonies (wedding
chapel) that could also be used for community and individual events. Additionally, the submission
supported the public jetty proposal as a beneficial asset to the tourism industry, encouraging water-based
transport options within the area.
The submission also gave support for allowing the Noosa Waterfront Restaurant to use the parkland
adjacent to the restaurant for wedding receptions.
2.2 Community Groups and Representative Organisations
Numerous community groups and representative organisations lodged submissions on behalf of their
various organisations. These have been listed below and further summarised in Section 2.3.
- Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc
- Noosa Waterfront Restaurant
— Tourism Noosa
- Noosa Wedding Organisation
- Noosa Outrigger Canoe Club
- Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc.
- Noosa Parks Association
- Peregian Beach Community Association Inc.
- Noosa Community Biosphere Association Inc.
- NC Oliver Group of Companies
2.3 Key Issues and Responses
The community and stakeholder feedback has been categorised based on key issues or points of feedback
raised from the Draft Foreshore Master Plan.
Feedback and Issues Raised Response
Noosa Outriggers and Noosa Yacht & Rowing Club Re-location
Concerns about logistics and safety of launching and | The Draft Foreshore Master Plan does not
storing outriggers largest canoes near the Noosa prescribe the outriggers canoes to be moved
Yacht and Rowing Club (NYRC). from their current location. Council
acknowledges the constrains with storing and
launching these canoes.
Council does not support construction of a club
house building in the current permit location and
seeks to investigate opportunities to consolidate
clubs in a multi-use facility, with guiding
principles of this strategy to be included in the
Final Foreshore Master Plan.
Commercial Lease Extents
place
design
6 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 53 of 74Section 54
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 54 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Feedback and Issues Raised Response
Concern about commercial jetty operators A kiosk is now a defined term in the Draft
encroaching on public space and expanding outside Foreshore Master Plan. A single kiosk is
of their commercial lease areas. permissible for each commercial lease, where it
is asmall-scale ancillary component of marine
facilities uses within the lease.
All commercial activities must remain within
lease areas and ongoing commercial use (via
lease or similar) is not supported anywhere on
the foreshore reserves
Mixed views for allowing Noosa Waterfront The parkland adjacent to the Noosa Waterfront
Restaurant commercial lease rights on parkland Restaurant is to remain recreational public space,
adjacent to the Restaurant. consistent with the Draft Foreshore Master Plan.
Council will not support any new commercial
leases on the foreshore.
Wedding ceremony permits (not including
wedding receptions and functions) are supported
via single use permits, with no annual limits and
will continue to be permitted in allocated areas
within the foreshore.
Support for the limitation on fitness operators within Fitness operations will continue to be supported
the foreshore. on the foreshore, with reduced number of
permits based on each precinct and its
respective precinct vision and land use intent.
Council will undertake ongoing compliance to
ensure that non-permitted operators are not
utilising the foreshore.
Off-Leash Dog Park
Support for the addition of an allocated off-leash dog | As per the Draft Foreshore Master Plan, Council
park. will continue to support an off-leash dog park
within Chaplin Park.
Concerns over the placement of an off-leash dog park = The nominal placement of this off-leash area has
within the Noosaville Foreshore. been repositioned to be accommodated on the
western side of Chaplin Park, boarded by the
drainage line.
It is suggested that this off-leash area will not be
fenced, however designated with appropriate
signage.
Foreshore Activation
Opposition against activation within Chaplin Park. Council recognises Chaplin Park as an
underutilised park on the foreshore that does not
share the same level of amenity as other parts of
the foreshore.
Council aims to explore opportunities to better
utilise the large area of land Chaplin Park for
greater levels of low-impact activity and to ease
pressures on other areas of the foreshore.
Council supports a designated off-leash dog area,
and a public structure available for weddings
within Chaplin Park.
place
design
7 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 54 of 74Section 55
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 55 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Feedback and Issues Raised Response
Concern permitting reoccurring markets on the Due to potential impact of markets on the
foreshore would impact on amenity and degrade the foreshore and its limited capacity to
natural environment. accommodate this activity. Markets are not
considered an appropriate regular activity in the
foreshore and better suited to less active areas
within the community.
Council is supportive of one-off markets and
events to be held in the foreshore.
Concern of increased activation of the foreshore Council acknowledges the concern
parks causing further congestion and car parking Car parking is not in the scope of works for the
problems. Foreshore Land Use Master Plan but will be
considered in conjunction with transport
planning.
Infrastructure
Support for more infrastructure such as picnic tables | Council acknowledges the support for more
and public toilets within the foreshore. infrastructure within the Foreshore. The provision
of infrastructure is not part of the scope of works
for the Foreshore Land Use Master Plan, however
Council will consider this in future infrastructure
planning.
Opposition to a new boat ramp being placed in the An additional boat ramp within the foreshore is
Noosaville Foreshore. not supported as part of the Draft Foreshore
Master Plan.
Council will discuss options for new or improved
facilities elsewhere within Noosa Shire with the
Department of Transport and Main Roads and
will assist the Department in the feasibility
assessment and design of those facilities.
Support for the land use principles in the Draft Master | Noted.
Plan.
place
design
8 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 55 of 74Section 56
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 56 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
A summary of the key recommendations for the Final Foreshore Master Plan resulting from the final stage
of community consultation are detailed below.
Noosa Outriggers Canoe Club (NOCC)
The Foreshore Master Plan will provide additional detail clarifying that it does not prescribe a forced re-
location of the Noosa Outriggers. The Foreshore Master Plan aims to provide guidance around future
decision making regarding the ongoing use of the foreshore area.
Council acknowledges the difficult logistics of launching and storing outrigger canoes. It is recommended
that the canoes can continue to be stored in their current location, but Council will seek to investigate
practical long-term solutions that consolidate clubs in a multi-use precinct. The precinct's guiding principles
are proposed as:
1. The Outrigger Club's current presence within Chaplin Park can continue via annual permits.
2. Creation of a new lease or construction of club buildings at the Chaplin Park permit area is not
supported.
3. Consolidation of non-motorised watersports clubs within a new precinct is preferred. Council will liaise
with the clubs to investigate co-location opportunities and constraints and develop a precinct feasibility
study.
4. New lease area requests will only be considered once a precinct plan has been adopted.
Commercial Encroachment
It is recommended that the Final Foreshore Master Plan continues to reinforce the definition of a kiosk, to
provide a clear and measurable mechanism for future compliance efforts in relation to commercial leases
within the foreshore.
The Foreshore Master Plan will continue to be clear in requiring commercial activities to remain wholly
within commercial lease areas or commercial premises to ensure the foreshore remains recreation space
accessible to the community.
It is recommended that the Foreshore Master Plan maintains the position that no new commercial leases
will be supported within the foreshore. This includes the portion of parkland adjacent to the Noosa
Waterfront Restaurant. The Foreshore Master Plan will continue to support wedding ceremonies,
prescribing single use wedding ceremony permits in allocated areas within the foreshore. Wedding
ceremony permits will not have an annual limit.
Chaplin Park
The Foreshore Master Plan will initiate investigations into providing further activation in Chaplin Park,
including improving public facilities such as pathways and seating.
The Foreshore Master Plan seeks to better utilise the large area of land in Chaplin Park for greater levels of
low-impact activity and to ease pressures on other areas of the foreshore that experience high levels of use.
The Foreshore Master Plan will continue to support a designated off-leash dog area, and a new undercover
structure available for public use within the park.
Off-leash Dog Park
It is considered that there is sufficient space within Chaplin Park to provide for a designated off-leash dog
place
design
9 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 56 of 74Section 57
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 57 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
area.
The Foreshore Master Plan will now recommend the proposed off-leash area be unfenced and repositioned
from the indicative location in the Draft Foreshore Master Plan. It is recommended the off-leash area be
located on the western side of Chaplin Park, bordered by the drainage line. The area will be clearly
designated through appropriate signage. The placement of the off-leash area on the western part of the
park allows for a clear separation of land uses.
The Foreshore Master Plan will recommend a one-year trial of the off-leash area, with regular monitoring to
ensure the area can be suitably managed and any impacts are acceptable.
place
design
10 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 57 of 74Section 58
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 58 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Annexure 1
Verbatim responses received within the written submissions have been listed below and categorised into
the overall key themes as per the Draft Foreshore Master Plan. These comments have been further
synthesised into the feedback and responses table in Section 2.3 of the report.
Support Oppose
Noosa Outriggers and Noosa Yacht & Rowing Club Re-location
- Support for co-location of outriggers based | - Against moving the NOCC due to storage and
on communication and consultation that launching of the canoes (x32)
consider the logistics of the sport of — NYRC doesn't have enough space to store canoes
outriggers and there is no beach access (x3)
— Supports using the NYRC car park to store | ~ Outriggers need their own storage facilities (x5)
extra canoes but maintain the ability to — Oppose any expansion of Noosa Outrigger club
also store canoes at Chaplin Park facilities
- Support investigation of area behind NYRC | - Nota practical solution for the NOCC because they
building (currently used for parking and cannot obtain beach access
boat storage) available for multi-use water - Chaplin Park is the best area for storing and
sports launching the canoes as they are very long and
- Support colocation of clubs at Yacht club heavy. Several disabled people as paddlers who
precinct need an easily accessible area
- Yes to Yacht and Rowing club - Current storage for the outrigger club is an
- Support the idea of moving the NOCC but excellent and unobtrusive use of an open space
is concerned about lack of storage and - Noto Noosa outriggers club
parking - Outriggers club need the area in Chaplin park to
— Supports the use of the area behind the store their boats
NYRC as parking and boat storage — Chaplain park is the best place to store canoes
- Supports the relocation of Outriggers - The proposal to relocate the NOCC to behind the
- There needs to be consideration to how FaCEY SIGS wil aA eC,
NYRC sailors launch their boats and - NOCC need direct access to the water as the boats
. : are big and heavy and the Yacht Club area is not a
protection of sailing fraternity :
suitable area.
~The sailing boats are highly valued within = _ several members are disabled and require easy
Noosa access to the water
- Tewantin fire station could be used as a - Against the used of the Yacht Club due to parking
relocation area (x2) and storage issues
- Outriggers should get more Council - Need to maintain immediate access to the beach
assistance as the boats are heavy and many members are
- The current shortage of storage facilities disabled or elderly.
and amenities has caused difficulties - Oppose the relocate to the carpark behind the
- Underused fire service building on Hilton Yacht Club
terrace would be good to storecanoes and | - NYRC must remain in its existing footprint
there is direct access over the unmade — Against moving NOCC at all
road to a sandy beach. - NOCC should stay where it is unless the new
location has is better for storage, accessibility to
the water and parking.
- Concerned about the logistics of storage and
launching of canoes as well as parking.
- Yacht club is not a suitable area
- Canoes should remain on Chaplin park unless the
Yacht club will allow for beach launching access.
- NOCC needs to stay in Chaplin park for easier
place
design
11 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 58 of 74Section 59
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 59 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Support Oppose
storage and launching of the canoes
- Against NOCC being given waterfront access along
the foreshore.
- NOCC and NYRC should stay as they are
- NOCC requires a satisfactory beachfront to store
and launch their canoes
- NOCC should have a dedicated area just west of
the park
- Opposed to the relocation due to issues it would
cause the members who have disabilities.
- Wants to maintain NOCC using Chaplin Park
- Against any expansion of the NOCC
- NOCC should build storage in the trees nearby the
creek
- Canoes are easily damaged and bitumen surface
will increase the chances of damages. Grass
minimises this risk.
- NOCC will require wheelchair access to the water
as several members of the NOCC are disabled
Commercial Lease Extents
- In support for small business in the area - Against the encroachment of businesses on to
- Noosa small business should be not public land (x49)
restricted in any way - Commercial ventures to be scaled back and
- Wantno change at all, the area is perfect regularly monitored by council officers
as it is with businesses - Opposed to any further coffee shop licenses given
- Does not feel the need to be concerned — competition to business on Gympie Terrace who
with public space pay large amount of rent/license fees
- Supports coffee kiosks as long as they - Businesses on the foreshore park their vehicles
maintain their surroundings permanently in public car places for
- Supports current coffee kiosks but doesn't tourists/visitors
think there should be more - Opposed to any new developments along the river
- Supports coffee kiosks on jetties - Favour limited use of foreshore for charity
- Likes the current use of Coffee kiosks on fundraising events
jetties but adding more may impact - Compliance is not strong enough
negatively - Oppose Waterfront Restaurant having land
- Yes to coffee kiosks on jetties adjoining for commercial purposes — public land
- In support of the coffee stops should not be used as an extension of their
- YES to coffee kiosks business
- Rather seating be increased to 15 people - Support of ensuring public space remains
rather than 10 recreational and is protected from exclusive
- Supports increasing the seating commercial leases
- Against limited seating -— Donot support any grant of lease over public land
- Fine how it is but against any further - Stronger focus on compliance
expansion - More monitoring and compliance of current
regulations outside regular hours
- Noexpansion of commercial activity beyond
current lease arrangements
- Against giving exclusivity to commercial interests
- River is used to teach children how to swim and
commercial activity is ruining that
- Allcommercial business should be enforced to
place
design
12 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 59 of 74Section 60
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 60 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Support Oppose
stay within the boundaries of their lease or property
- Strongly against commercial takeover of public
foreshore land.
- Against tourist expansion
- Boat hire businesses need to make sure they do
not take over the whole beach parking their boats
- Maintain foreshore for the public
- Noosaville Foreshore to be kept open and for public
use
- Against allowing businesses to encroach on to
public land
- Against the encroachment of commercial activity
as it reduces the space where people can swim
- Would like to see commercial activities confined to
within their lease area.
- Against businesses illegally using public space and
leases need to be reviewed
- Constrain the broader footprint of the operations of
these facilities
- Organise coffee shops to reduce area they take up
-— The foreshore coffee shops have their lease
contributions increase with money going towards
upkeep of parks
- Noosaville Foreshore to be kept open and for
general public use
- More monitoring and compliance of current
regulations outside regular hours
- Support Master Plan recommendations in relation
to kiosks and coffee sales
- Noton public land
- Against coffee kiosks on jetties
- Against coffee kiosks as having coffee in a real cup
is better for the environment.
- Need to be stronger enforcement of Local Laws
(particularly holiday periods) and over-use of
signage
— Support of use of parkland area outside of | - Against the restaurant using the public space (x6)
Waterfront Restaurant (x25) — Oppose Noosa Waterfront Restaurant receiving
- Not against Waterfront Restaurant using tenure over recreation reserve land
the outdoor grass area for occasional — Opposes lease being extended for Waterfront
wedding receptions, provided they Restaurant
maintain the grass - Against Waterfront Restaurant using the land as
- In support of Noosa Waterfront Restaurant people tend to avoid that area as they think that it
obtaining ownership over the public land is private land
- Petition of 2,595+ for private lease area - Waterfront Restaurant should not have exclusive
(change.org) use of the public space
- Against Noosa Waterfront Restaurant receiving
tenure over recreation land
- Restricted use of public land due to lack of parking
- Against leases being extended for Waterfront
Restaurant
place
design
13 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 60 of 74Section 61
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 61 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Support Oppose
- The area in front of the Waterfront Restaurant
should clearly demonstrate it is not the
Restaurants through picnic tables, or fitness
equipment etc.
- Installation of picnic tables would be a good way to
invite people to use this part of the park
Off-Leash Dog Park
- Insupport of a dog off-leash area (x14) - Against fenced off-leash dog park (x12)
- If one has to be built it should be at the - Not enough “dog free” areas
rear of the ‘commercial lease area’ - Not supporting a fenced dog park
- Support for off-leash dog area - Opposed to wedding venue or off leash dog park at
- Support for off-leash dog area and would Chaplain Park
like it to expand to Chaplain park and — Oppose a fenced dog off leash area
beach and for dogs to have access to the - Pollution from proposed dog park — contamination
water (support for restricted time if of river and existing wildlife (Heron/Plover)
required) - Oppose a fenced dog off leash area
- Chaplin park to be an off-leash dog area - Prefer Chaplin park/Gympie terrace to be used for
- Dog park should go to the western area as other amenities rather than an off-leash dog area.
the current suggest area is too small. - Against off-leash dog park as they may harm birds.
- Fencing the dog area is not necessary as - Off-leash dog area not suitable
other dog areas do not have fences - There are alternative areas for walking dogs and
- Dogs should have access to the water for dog control needs to be a priority
swimming - Dog off-leash area could cause noise pollution of
- Current dog off leash area too small and barking. People don't pick up after their dogs so
often gets flooded waste will end up in the river.
- Dogs should have access to the water - Against anymore increased dog activity
— Proposal for dog leash area to be - Dogs need to be leashed for safety and hygiene
redesignated to land adjacent to Chaplin reasons
Park and Chaplin Park to be kept for - Against dog areas due to possible noise pollution
special use of children's activities etc and people not picking up their dogs waste
- Wouldn't prioritise the dog off-leash area - Against a fenced dog area at Chaplin Park
but understands why it is needed - Dog park would result in loss of natural populations
- Chaplain park would be ideal for an off- - Other open spaces off the foreshore should be
leash dog park but it would need to be considered for a dog park — issues with dog
managed regarding cleaning of waste and effluent being dragged downstream
strict rules - Proposed alternative location for fenced off leash
- For the dog off-leash area at Chaplin park area — Wallace Park Precinct — with adequate
- Off-leash dog park should be near the river parking, waste management infrastructure etc.
- Small suggested off-leash dog park be for § - More “no dogs allowed” signs along the rest of the
small dogs and a second larger one for beach as dogs are currently using these areas.
bigger dogs - Wants more control on dogs being put on leashes
— Supports the encouragement of more dog
friendly areas
- Supports more dog friendly areas
- Yes but users should pay for it.
- In support of a fenced off dog area
- Dog off leash area could be between
certain hours in the morning and evening
- Dog off-leash area could go near the Yacht
Club
- Outriggers current area would be more
place
design
14 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 61 of 74Section 62
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 62 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Support Oppose
suitable for off-leash dog park
Foreshore Activation
- Chaplin park to be used as a stand-alone - Concerned any development at Chaplin Park would
Art Gallery reduce the value of their nearby house at Hilton
— Supports improvement and further Terrace (x3)
development of underutilised Chaplin Park | - Residents amenity will be compromised due to the
proposed active recreation, with footpaths laid and
artificial lighting needed — inevitable destruction of
the only remaining passive foreshore area
- Chaplin park to not be used for commercial uses as
mass human traffic would damage the grass
- For implementing the markets at Chaplin - Against the addition markets (x5)
park as it is underused. - Opposed to recurring markets being permitted on
- Supports markets if they are first class and the foreshore
not selling junk - Opposed to reoccurring markets
- Would like a monthly trial for markets — Oppose markets on the foreshore
- Markets are a good idea but concerned - Oppose markets — adequately provided elsewhere
with the lack of parking - Object to night time markets
- Markets are a good idea - Noto the twilight markets
- Yes to markets - Against any events including markets in Lions Park,
-— Would be great in mostly unused park the Apex Park or Quota Park
areas - Against markets as they will degrade the land no
- Support to maintain Chaplain park as a matter how careful people are and parking is
large family picnic space already too difficult.
- Against markets as stalls would block river views
and increase the amount of traffic
- Markets are not needed and could threaten
markets in other places
Infrastructure
- Need a dedicated unisex disabled toilet in - Against a boat ramp (x6)
the Yacht/ Rowing Club precinct, and - Minimise infrastructure in parklands
Massoud Pelican beach end - Against more boat ramps
- Want more focus on increasing bicycle - Plenty of boat ramps as the river is used up its
infrastructure capacity
- More public toilets for holidays such as - Against expansion of the existing boat ramp
Australia day - Noto an extra boat ramp
- Need more shelter sheds - Opposes any additional boat ramps -— river is
- More picnic tables already overcrowded
- Signage to encourage people to not stop - Against an extra boat ramp as it encourages more
on pathways parking issues
— The ‘car park's adjacent to tourist shops be | - Not sure why an extra boat ramp is needed
designated as 10min parking — not all day, | - Opposed to fitness groups
and these cars move back to the car parks | - Reduction of fitness operators is supported
provided on the road side of the area - Noto fitness operators
- Site should remain a consideration for a - Supports the plans in relation to fitness operators
new boat ramp - Against giving fitness operators permits as the
— Supports an extra boat ramp area is too crowded
- In favour of a small unisex toilet in the - Nopermits for fitness operators, the area is already
open space between the road and Catalina too busy.
Jetty - Fitness operators is an issue that is getting out of
-— Supports the boat ramp hand
place
design
15 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 62 of 74Section 63
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 63 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Support Oppose
- Support a plaque or recognition on the - Support Master Plan recommendation in relation
foreshore to acknowledge Bob Abbot limiting fitness operators
- More bike paths - In favour of a finite number of permits for fitness
- Lack of parking operators
- Push bikes should have a separate - Yes fora fee for fitness operators
pathway to pedestrians - New workout equipment is too restricting - old
- Complete the renovations of the jetty and workout equipment was better and allowed for
make it transition better for cyclists elderly people
- Develop an off-road cycling path on Hilton | - Against a wedding chapel (x9)
esplanade to the bridge - Opposed to wedding venue or off leash dog park at
- Redevelop cycleway to the bus stop Chaplain Park
- Wants to encourage the royal mail to build | - Oppose provision of a wedding chapel or similar
a hotel structure in Chaplin Park — will result in late night
- Link the cycleway to more trails unwanted behaviour that will impact the adjoining
— Proper use of recycle bins needed neighbours
— Need more toilets - The wedding business is already catered for and no
- Need more “doggie bags” for dog walkers further public land should be allocated for those
- More lighting in parks purposes
- More shelters over the BBQ areas - Opposed to public land being used for weddings
- Allow fitness operators but keep them - Oppose construction of a new wedding chapel
small - Nopermanent wedding chapel
- Noissue with fitness operators - Noto Chaplin park wedding chapel
- Okwith fitness operators - Noto weddings
- Noissues with fitness operators using the | - No increase of any business infrastructure
space subject to regulations including wedding chapels in the foreshore
— YES to fitness operators - Chaplin park is flood prone — proposed chapel
- Reimplement easy to use gym equipment would create dam effect ensuring stagnant water
- Maybe allocate Chaplin Park for Fitness and inevitable insect activity causing health hazard
Operators - Oppose Chaplin Park use to change from Passive
- Impose a fee on fitness operators to help recreation to Active recreation
pay for infrastructure - Donot believe a new wedding chapel is needed
- For the Chaplin park wedding chapel if it - The slipway in Massouds park is an eyesore
could be fitted in but a dog off-leash parkis | - A Bocce court for public use
more important - Far end of Chaplin Park could become a wetland to
- In support of a Chapel large enough for encourage birds along with a timber boardwalk.
100 seats at Chaplin Park - Chaplin Park should be rehabilitated to original
- Supports a chapel at Chaplin park within wetland state
reasonable time slots - Vegetation between 110 hilton terrace and river
- Supports a wedding chapel at Chaplin Park bank should be preserved as many bird species
- Supports the idea of Chaplin park being nest there
used for wedding events
- For the use of Chaplin parks for weddings
but is concerned an off-leash dog park will
be a conflict
- Yes to achapel
- For achapel if it could be fitted in
- Support for a section of the ‘slipway’ to be
beautified for use of weddings etc
— If there is to be a covered structure that
can be booked for weddings it should be
able to be booked for other events
- _ Desirable to construct a small inexpensive
place
design
16 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 63 of 74Section 64
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Page 64 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Support Oppose
rotunda for wedding ceremonies
- Enlarging of the covered pagoda instead of
a wedding chapel in Chaplin Park
- Construction of a permanent Bali Hut for
mixed use purpose
- Desire to keep ‘private jetties’ but open
them up to the public and remove
imposing gates and keep off signs
Miscellaneous
-— Support of Master Plan (x5)
— Support of the land use principles in Master Plan (x4)
- Request for Council to conduct a Traffic Survey to assess the impact permitted events have on
adjacent residential streets — include traffic/parking management
- Need to balance residential amenity with the impact of events
- Residents have little protection from permit conditions or parking restrictions
- Limit parking time along Gympie Terrace to 5 hours
- Native title of the Gubbi Gubbi people should be considered
- Want to reintroduce live-aboard vessels
- Need safe swimming beach between O Boats and T Boats
- Bathing reserve with protection from boats and fishermen
- Danger of being ‘hooked’/ safety concern with fishing activities
- There is a very old BBQ stand near the foreshore and is usually used by smokers as a large ashtray or
collected rubbish set alight
- Weddings should have access to the whole foreshore with limited permits per year
- Car parking is an issue — new activities will add to problem
- Increased organised activities and events result in traffic overflow
- Move hire boats being cleaned/repaired etc to the slipway area up the river of Chaplin Park allowing
the public, especially children to access riverbank for swimming/fishing
- Volume of music needs to be controlled
- More trees to be planted
- The Noosaville Foreshore is overcrowded
- For the use of a Yacht club to a similar standard from the one on Weyba Road
place
design
17 Final Consultation Summary — Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan group.
Page 64 of 74Section 65
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
12 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - APRIL 2018
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Financial Services, Trent Grauf
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 22.09 – Monthly Financial Performance Report
Attachments 1. Statement of Income and Expenditure (Profit & Loss and Capital)
2. Statement of Financial Position
3. Statement of Cash Flows
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overall year to date financial performance to April 2018 remains on track against budget, with
operating revenue slightly above budget and operating expenditure marginally below budget.
Capital expenditure is tracking below budget. Budget figures incorporate adjustments adopted as
part of Budget Review 3 (BR3) during April 2018.
YTD Financial Performance Summary
Budget Actual Variance Variance Status
$m $m $m %
Operating Revenue $89.2 $90.4 $1.2 1.3% On Track
Operating Expense $74.7 $73.6 $1.1 1.5% On Track
Operating Position $14.5 $16.8 $2.3 16.3%
Capital Revenue $4.7 $4.5 $0.2 (4.3%) On Track
Capital Expenditure $25.3 $19.1 $6.3 24.8% Under Budget
(Constructed Assets)
Financial statements including Statement of Operating Profit & Loss, Summary of Capital
Financial Performance, Statement of Financial Position (balance sheet), and Statement of Cash
Flows are included as attachments for information of Council.
Figure 1: Actual Performance Compared to 2017/18 Budget
$100
YTD Budget ($m)
$90
YTD Actual ($m)
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$-
Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure
Page 65 of 74
Section 66
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Committee
Meeting dated 14 May 2018 outlining April year to date financial performance against budget.
REPORT
Operating Revenue (YTD Benchmark 83.3%)
Council has received 97% ($90.4 million) of its operating revenue budget ($93.2 million).
Commentary on each revenue category is provided below.
Category Summary Comments
Rates and Levies $64.0 million (100%) of the Overall, rates and levies earned are in
annual budget of $64.0 line with budget expectations
million has been earned
Fees and Charges $5.4 million (100%) of the Development related fees $226k above
$5.4 million annual budget YTD budget (103% or $1.3m of $1.3m
has been earned budget earned)
Local laws fees $167k above YTD
budget (112% or $1.1m of $981k budget
earned)
Community land use applications and
permits $67k above YTD budget (107%
or $390k of $364k budget earned)
Lions Park Holiday Parking revenue
$19k above YTD budget (131% or $79k
of the $60k budget earned)
Asset Management $14k permit revenue
received (no budget)
Public health licences and infringements
$22k above YTD budget (104% or $340k
of $328k budget earned)
Sale of Goods and $7.7 million (87%) of the $8.8 Noosa Aquatic Centre $54k above YTD
Services million budget has been budget (90% or $1.6m of $1.7m budget
received earned)
The J $48k above YTD budget (98% or
$342k of the $353k budget earned)
Noosa Leisure Centre $20k above YTD
budget (88% or $465k of the $527k
budget earned)
Landfill disposal charges $77k above
YTD budget (87% or $2.3m of the $2.7m
budget earned)
Community facilities income $53k above
YTD budget ($83k or $728k of $880k
budget earned)
Interest Received $3.7 million (81%) of the $4.6 Investment revenue $31k above YTD
million annual budget has budget (87% or $1.4m of $1.5m budget
been earned earned)
Interest on overdue rates $30k above
YTD budget (91% or $383k of $450k
budget earned)
Page 66 of 74
Section 67
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Category Summary Comments
Dividend and Tax On track Nil
Other Revenue $2.4 million (94%) of the $2.5 Lease management income $31k above
million budget has been YTD budget (85% or $889k of $1.0
earned million budget earned)
The J revenue $66k above YTD budget
(141% or $171k of $121k budget
earned)
Development Assessment $19k sundry
recoveries (no budget)
Civil operations internal recoveries $93k
above YTD budget (115% or $363k of
$315k budget earned)
Waste management internal recoveries
$57k above YTD budget (116% or $399k
of $345k budget earned)
Operating Grants, Operational grants of $4.5 Overall, operating grants are in line with
Subsidies million (93%) of the $4.8 budget expectations
million budget has been
received
Figure 2: Operating Revenue Position by Type (Excluding Rates)
$9.0
YTD Budget ($m)
$8.0
YTD Actual ($m)
$7.0
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$0.0
Charges
Income
Other
Grants
Goods &
Dividend
Services
Sales of
Rental
Interest
Fees &
& Tax
Operating Expenditure (YTD Benchmark 83.3%)
Actual operating expenditure is currently 79% ($73.6 million) of full year budget ($93.2 million).
Detailed commentary for each expenditure category is provided below.
Category Summary Comments
Employee Costs $24.0 million (79%) of the Underspend in salaries and wages
annual budget of $30.4 ($1.4m) offset by additional spend on
million has been expended casual staff ($458k) sick leave ($384k)
and external labour hire ($309k)
YTD overspend of $25k for overtime
paid (92% or $470k of $513k budget
expended)
Staff training underspend of $107k (56%
or $159k of $286k budget expended)
Page 67 of 74
Section 68
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Category Summary Comments
Materials and Services $32.0 million (77%) of the Environmental Services $124k below
$41.7 million annual budget YTD budget (64% or $701k of $939k
has been expended. budget spent)
ICT maintenance, licences and
telecommunication charges $126k below
YTD budget (73% or $2.4m or $3.3m
budget spent)
Fleet and Plant $94k below YTD budget
(79% or $1.9m of $2.4m budget spent)
Community Development $66k below
YTD budget (78% or $1.0m of $1.3m
budget spent)
Libraries and Galleries below $63k YTD
budget (74% or $1.3m of $1.7m budget
spent)
Caravan Park contract services $61k
above YTD budget (89% or $1.1m of
$1.3m budget spent) – offset by
increased holiday parks revenue
Development appeal costs $177k above
YTD budget (104% or $853k of $816k
budget spent)
Finance Costs On track Nil
Depreciation On track however road and Interim and final year reporting will
bridge asset revaluations include revaluation impacts on
may have impacts depreciation
Other Expenses On track Nil
Figure 3: Operating Expenditure Position by Type
$35
YTD Budget ($m)
$30
YTD Actual ($m)
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
Finance Costs
Materials
Depreciation
Employees
Other
Capital Revenue
YTD capital revenue of $4.5 million received comprises cash contributions from developers
($1.5m), contributed assets from developers ($1.0m) and capital grants ($2.0m). Note that the
timing of capital grant receipts are generally dependent on the timing of associated capital
expenditure, and that the timing of the receipt of developer contributions (both cash and
contributed) is unpredictable.
Page 68 of 74
Section 69
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Figure 4: Capital Revenue by Type
$3.0
YTD Budget ($m)
$2.5 YTD Actual ($m)
$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
Contributed assets
Cash contributions
Grants / subsidies
Capital Program
Actual capital expenditure (excluding commitments) is $19.1 million (YTD budget $25.3 million).
Detailed discussion of progress in the delivery of the capital works program is provided through a
separate report by the Asset Planning Manager.
Figure 5: Capital Program Delivery Performance
$25.0
YTD Budget ($m)
YTD Actual ($m)
$20.0
$15.0
$10.0
$5.0
$0.0
Capital works Other capital
Cash Management and Investment Performance
Total cash on hand at the end of April was $80 million. Included in this balance, are funds held in
trust and for restricted purposes (e.g. unexpended levy and grant funds) and monies committed
for funding capital projects during the year. The cash balance will progressively reduce towards
budget level over the remainder of the financial year as operational and capital expenditure
outstrips expected revenue.
The pie charts following present the mix of cash held at April 2018 by agency (graph on the left)
and by credit risk rating (graph on the right).
Page 69 of 74
Section 70
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Figure 6: Closing Cash Held by Agency and Credit Rating
Bendigo A3
5% (Bendigo)
NAB 5%
10% A1 +
CBA (CBA + NAB +
8% Wpac)
19%
A1 +
QTC (QTC)
76% 76%
The following chart monitors the year-to-date trend on total cash and the agencies invested.
During April, $2 million in commercial term deposits matured. These funds were reinvested into
short-term QTC cash deposits as it will be utilised to fulfil working cash requirements during May
and June.
Figure 7: Year to Date Trend of Cash Invested by Agency
100,000,000.00
90,000,000.00
80,000,000.00
70,000,000.00
60,000,000.00
50,000,000.00
40,000,000.00
30,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
-
Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18
QTC Bendigo Westpac NAB Suncorp CBA
Actual interest revenue for January was $155k with a weighted average yield of 2.4%, which
reflects a positive return compared to the industry benchmark (Bloomberg AusBond Bank Bill
Index) of 1.7%.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Page 70 of 74
Section 71
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Finance
As above.
Risks & Opportunities
Council’s risk register includes a number of risks that could impact on ongoing financial
sustainability. Effective budget management and reporting is an important risk mitigation tool.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
All areas of Council are consulted as part of the regular monitoring of budget performance.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Chief Executive Officer x Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
x Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development x Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 71 of 74
Section 72
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 1
Page 72 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 1
Noosa Council
Statement of Income and Expenditure
For the Year Ended 30 June 2018
As at 30 April 2018
Current Current
Budget Budget Actual Variance Annual
2018 YTD YTD YTD Budget
($'000) ($000) ($'000) ($000) %
Profit and Loss Statement
Revenue
Recurrent Revenue
Rates, levies and charges 63,988 63,988 63,990 3 100%
Fees and charges 5,441 4,791 5,418 628 100%
Dividend income 1,860 1,673 1,673 (0) 90%
Interest received 4,588 3,651 3,713 62 81%
Tax equivalents 1,200 1,009 1,009 - 84%
Sale of Goods and major services 8,733 7,457 7,670 213 88%
Sale of contract and recoverable works 33 11 12 1 36%
Rental & lease income 1,322 1,136 1,173 38 89%
Other income 1,210 1,051 1,209 159 100%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 4,832 4,394 4,487 93 93%
93,206 89,160 90,356 1,196 97%
Expenses
Recurrent Expenses
Employee benefits 30,408 24,348 24,001 (347) 19%
Materials and services 41,669 32,783 31,990 (793) 77%
Finance costs 2,414 2,005 1,997 (8) 83%
Depreciation and amortisation 18,577 15,481 15,470 (11) 83%
Other expenses 136 122 129 7 95%
93,204 74,739 73,587 (1,152) 79%
Operating Result 2 14,421 16,768 2,348
Summary of Capital Revenue and Expenditure
Capital Revenue
Capital contributions and donations 3,867 1,992 2,524 532 65%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 4,375 2,691 2,021 (670) 46%
Other capital revenue - - - -
Total Capital Revenue 8,242 4,683 4,545 (138)
Capital Expenditure
Contributed assets 2,000 436 1,012 576 51%
Constructed assets 30,939 25,347 19,060 (6,288) 62%
Other capital expenses - - 258 258
Total Capital Expenditure 32,939 25,783 20,329 (5,454)
Page 72 of 74Section 73
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 2
Page 73 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 2
Noosa Council
Statement of Financial Position
For the Year Ended 30 June 2018
As at 30 April 2018
Current Actual Actual
Budget YTD Full Year
2018 2018 2017
($'000) ($'000) ($'000)
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents 48.418 76,098 65,463
Trade and other receivables 8,381 8,310 7,101
Inventories 156 324 330
Other current assets 468 1,869 2,796
57,424 86,602 75,690
Non Current Assets held for sale x : :
Total Current Assets 57,424 86,602 75,690
Non Current Assets
Trade and other receivables 49,218 49,218 49,218
Other non current Assets - - -
Investments 69,141 60,978 60,978
Investment property 4,150 4,405 4,405
Property, plant and equipment 935,214 915,024 913,152
Intangible assets 3,837 4,584 3,497
Total Non Current Assets 1,061,560 1,034,208 1,031,249
Total Assets 1,118,984 1,120,810 1,106,939
Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables 4,501 9,788 11,819
Borrowings 3,040 341 3,745
Provisions 4,394 2,471 4,076
Other 548 465 645
Total Current Liabilities 12,483 13,065 20,285
Non Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables - - -
Borrowings 35,005 34,291 34,291
Provisions 9,305 9,879 9,843
Total Non Current Liabilities 44,310 44,169 44,133
Total Liabilities 56,793 57,234 64,418
Net Community Assets 1,062,191 1,063,575 1,042,521
Community Equity
Asset Revaluation Surplus 46,961 26,892 26,892
Retained Surplus / (Defeciency) - - -
Shire Capital 1,015,230 1,015,629 1,000,677
Current Year Net Earnings : 21,055 14,951
Total Community Equity 1,062,191 1,063,575 1,042,521
Page 73 of 74Section 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 3
Page 74 of 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 MAY 2018
Attachment 3
Noosa Council
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended 30 June 2018
As at 30 April 2018 Actual Actual
YTD Full Year
2018 2017
($'000) ($'000)
Cash flows from operating activities
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Receipts from Customers 81,456 81,498
Payments to Suppliers and Employees (63,410) (67,789)
18,046 13,709
Receipts:
Investment and Interest Revenue Received 3,713 4,831
Rental Income 1,173 1,337
Non Capital Grants and Contributions 4,487 6,287
Income Tax Equivalent Received 1,009 1,456
Income from Equity Investments 1,673 1,568
Payments:
Borrowing Costs - -
Interest Expense (236) (122)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Operating Activities 29,865 29,066
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Receipts:
Proceeds of Sale of Property, Plant and Equipment 101 259
Grants, Subsidies, Contributions and Donations 4,545 6,314
Payments:
Payments of Property, Plant and Equipment (17,162) (19,317)
Payments for Intangible Assets (1,482) (1,176)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Investing Activities (13,998) (13,920)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Receipts:
Proceeds from Borrowings - 2,697
Payments:
Repayment of Borrowings (5,164) (4,966)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Financing Activities (5,164) (2,269)
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents held 10,703 12,877
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 68,835 55,958
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the end of the reporting period 79,537 68,835
Page 74 of 74