Original source · versioned page text
2020-10-12 General Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
General Committee
Meeting
Monday, 12 October 2020
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Joe Jurisevic, Amelia
Lorentson, Clare Stewart, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener
“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
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 83 sections
Section 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES 3
2 PRESENTATIONS 3
3 DEPUTATIONS 3
4 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 3
1 MCU20/0027 & RAL20/0004 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS TYPE 2 MEDICAL INVOLVING BUILDING WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH RELOCATION OF A BUILDING IN A HERITAGE CHARACTER AREA &
RECONFIGURING A LOT (4 LOTS INTO 2) AT 45 & 47A MAPLE ST & 9
MYALL ST COOROY 3
2 2020-21 COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY
PROJECT GRANT - EQUIPMENT 3
3 GO NOOSA PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 2020-21 3
4 PARK ROAD TEMPORARY PATHWAY UPGRADE 3
5 REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 4
5 1920T149 MOWING AND WEED CONTROL SERVICES – TENDER
ACCEPTANCE 4
6 51901.3614.01, 51901.3786.02, 51992.479.01, 51994.1249.01, 51994.1048.01
& MCU13/0081.01 – MINOR CHANGE TO MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT
APPROVALS FOR 47 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, ENTERTAINMENT & DINING
- TYPE 1 FOOD & BEVERAGE AND RETAIL BUSINESS - TYPE 1 LOCAL
AND TYPE 2 SHOP & SALON – 71 HASTINGS STREET, NOOSA HEADS 8
7 OUTCOMES OF COMMUNITY BUDGET CONSULTATION 44
8 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2020 64
9 UPDATE ON SUNSHINE COAST AIRPORT FLIGHT PATH ISSUES 77
6 CLOSED SESSION 84
Page 2 of 84
Section 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES
2 PRESENTATIONS
Nil.
3 DEPUTATIONS
Nil.
4 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
1 MCU20/0027 & RAL20/0004 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS TYPE 2 MEDICAL INVOLVING BUILDING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
RELOCATION OF A BUILDING IN A HERITAGE CHARACTER AREA &
RECONFIGURING A LOT (4 LOTS INTO 2) AT 45 & 47A MAPLE ST & 9 MYALL ST
COOROY
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 6 October 2020, Item 2, Page 11)
Reason for referral – Significance of the issue
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE
2 2020-21 COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY PROJECT
GRANT - EQUIPMENT
Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 6 October 2020, Item 5, Page 13)
Reason for referral – No meeting quorum at S&O Committee due to conflict of
interest declarations
3 GO NOOSA PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 2020-21
Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 6 October 2020, Item 6, Page 16)
Reason for referral – Significance of the issue
4 PARK ROAD TEMPORARY PATHWAY UPGRADE
Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 6 October 2020, Item 7, Page 26)
Reason for referral – Significance of the issue
Page 3 of 84
Section 4
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
5 REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
5 1920T149 MOWING AND WEED CONTROL SERVICES – TENDER ACCEPTANCE
Author Civil Operations Manager, Allan Hull
Infrastructure Services Department
Index ECM/ Project and Contract/ 1920T149
Attachments 1. 1920T149 Evaluation Matrix – Separable Portions A & B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Civil Operations Manager to the General Committee
Meeting dated 12 October 2020 and:
A. Award tender 1920T149 Separable Portion A Mowing Services to APG Group Pty
Ltd;
B. Award tender 1920T149 Separable Portion B Weed Control Services to Nature Zone
Landscaping & Property Maintenance Pty Ltd; and
C. Award the contracts for an initial term of two (2) years, with an option to extend for
three (3) terms of up to twelve (12) months each. The options to extend will be at
Council’s own discretion and subject to the contractor’s ability to meet the
requirements under the contract.
REPORT
This report considers the provision of mowing and weed control services managed by the
Parks & Gardens team. Contractors are used to perform all mowing on public land within the
Noosa Shire, as well as weed control adjacent to major roads. The tender was split into two
separable portions as follows:
Separable Portion A - Mowing Services
Separable Portion B - Weed Control Services
These are lump sum contracts for an initial period of two (2) years. There will be the option
extend for a further three (3) terms of up to twelve (12) months at Council’s discretion.
Council received ten (10) conforming tender submissions. After evaluation, it is
recommended that the contracts be awarded to:
Separable Portion A – Mowing Services – APG Group Pty Ltd
Separable Portion B – Weed Control Services – Nature Zone Landscaping & Property
Maintenance Pty Ltd.
1. Tender Process
The invitation of public tenders for 1920T149 Mowing and Weed Control Services was issued
through VendorPanel Public Tenders on Thursday 23 July 2020 and advertised in both
Noosa Today and online with NewsCorp Australia (Noosa News) on Thursday 23 July 2020.
At tender close on Tuesday 18 August 2020, submissions were received from the following
ten (10) conforming respondents listed in alphabetical order:
Page 4 of 84
Section 5
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
1. Amaroo Landscape Group Pty Ltd
2. APG Group Pty Ltd
3. Austspray Environmental Weed Control Pty Ltd
4. GLG Greenlife Group Pty Ltd
5. Mathiou Services Pty Ltd
6. Nature Zone Landscaping & Property Maintenance Pty Ltd
7. Palmwoods Revegetation
8. Prime Group Australia Pty Ltd
9. Southern Cross Facilities Services Pty Ltd
10. The Maintenance Company Pty Ltd
These tenders were assessed and rated by members of the evaluation panel in accordance
with the following procurement probity plan evaluation criteria:
Capability & Resourcing
Contract Experience & Capacity
Methodology
Health & Safety
Contribution to Local Economy
Price
The evaluation methodology considered non-price elements (60% of the score) and a price
component (40% of the score).
For the non-price elements, APG Group Pty Ltd and Nature Zone Landscaping & Property
Maintenance Pty Ltd received the highest scores respectively for each separable portion.
Both companies are owned and operated in the Noosa Shire and contribute to the local
economy and employment.
For the price component, APG Group Pty Ltd and Nature Zone Landscaping & Property
Maintenance Pty Ltd received the third highest scores respectively for each separable
portion. However both pricing submissions were within the allocated 20-21 budgets for both
mowing and weed control.
In the overall evaluation, APG Group Pty Ltd and Nature Zone Landscaping & Property
Maintenance Pty Ltd submissions scored highest for each separable portion due to their
detailed and comprehensive responses to all the criteria and their competitive pricing. They
are therefore recommended as the preferred contractors for each separable portion of
1920T149 Mowing and Weed Control Services.
Finance
Following the finalisation of the evaluation, Council requested a Best and Final Offer (BAFO)
from APG Group Pty Ltd for Separable Portion A. The BAFO process provided clear
guidance including that the tenderer was not to change any aspect of their offer other than
price. Subsequently APG Group Pty Ltd responded with a 2.5% price reduction which
amounts to approximately $30,219 per annum. This BAFO request was undertaken due to it
having no material impact on the outcome of the tender and did not involve any change to
the specification which would oblige Council to provide the same opportunity to other
tenderers.
The Separable Portion B Weed Control Services replaces a previous contract for landscape
maintenance of the major road areas. An assessment was made that horticultural activities
such as pruning would be more effectively undertaken on an as-needs basis with contractors
sourced for Council’s Landscaping Services panel. It is anticipated that this more targeted
approach to the landscape maintenance will result in an overall saving of $40,000.
Page 5 of 84
Section 6
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Risks & Opportunities
Both recommended contractors are incumbents with excellent track records of performance
and safety in delivering the required services at the sites within the contract areas. Their
existing knowledge of the contract sites and specific requirements presents minimal risk to
Council for services in high profile areas which quickly attract complaints if not performed to
high standards.
There is an element of risk with having one supplier undertaking the entire mowing program,
if they encounter financial strain which may happen if any portion of the program gets
adjusted due to dry weather etc. Following evaluation, an independent ‘risk of failure’
evaluation was undertaken on APG Group Pty Ltd through a third party (Illion Australia Pty
Ltd). This evaluation concluded that APG Group Pty Ltd has a very low risk of failure in the
next twelve months.
In relation to Separable Portion B, Nature Zone Landscaping & Property Maintenance Pty
Ltd have offered to undertake the weed control services at night, which is an approach they
have previously undertaken. Undertaking these works at night is highly advantageous,
minimising traffic congestion and complaints on these major roads as works will not occur
during the busy daytime hours.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development X Financial Services
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 X Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development X Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 6 of 84
Section 7
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 7 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
ATTACHMENT 1
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL __ Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation
a
a
INAME OF TENDERER PRICE *
(Conforming Tenders Only) {excl of GST) SEPARABLE PORTION 1
2 Southers Cros: Faves Services Pry Ua az Sovtnern Cross | 352.605 MOWING SERVICES
2
3 [APGGroupPryled OO S5,213,664
4 * Price = Total Annual Cost
5
ze
7
PT
3 a
tT
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_ GL6 Greenlife Group Southern Cross The Maintenance Prime Group Amaroo Landscape | Mathiou Service Pty
ae ff ff
fspabiny securing | tmx |v | ro | os | exe | oes [ces | so | soo | so | so | oo | 2m | se | 500 |
fomctoncsemy | sm | © | os | es|an|os[uo| = [us| s [es |» ||» | |
petty | me | re | | om | es | om | mo | sm | ms | ro | es | sm | 3 | 52 |
pemsestey | mm | le | me i | ew | i | ew] os | ow | @ | om | as | oe |
ns = | = | = | = | = | ae] sas! = |e] = || = | |
See = | es Pie ee es le
OLG Greenla o southe: SS Voi 5 o landsco Mathio ct
Fees (Pe) 40% $900,054 $921,605 $1,213,664 $1,523,572 $2,379,825 $2,422,268 $7,351,522
Average Fees (Pav) $..._._.......-.- $2,387,501
Price Sere Pe me ee Te
ormaced rie Score (Po | Te Teme | fw Ts
Weighted Price Score (Pw)
The Contract Administrator confirms the above scores and
Page 7 of 84Section 8
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
6 51901.3614.01, 51901.3786.02, 51992.479.01, 51994.1249.01, 51994.1048.01 &
MCU13/0081.01 – MINOR CHANGE TO MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
FOR 47 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, ENTERTAINMENT & DINING - TYPE 1 FOOD &
BEVERAGE AND RETAIL BUSINESS - TYPE 1 LOCAL AND TYPE 2 SHOP &
SALON – 71 HASTINGS STREET, NOOSA HEADS
Author Development Planner, Tara Norley
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM / Application / 51901.3614.01
ECM / Application / 51901.3786.02
ECM / Application / 51992.479.01
ECM / Application / 51994.1249.01
ECM / Application / 51994.1048.01
ECM / Application / MCU13/0081.01
Attachments 1. Proposal Plans (provided separately to this agenda)
2. Infrastructure Agreement (provided separately to this agenda)
APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No. 51901.3614.01, 51901.3786.02, 51992.479.01, 51994.1249.01,
51994.1048.01 & MCU13/0081.01
Development Approval 47 Multiple dwellings, Entertainment & Dining - Type 1 Food &
Beverage and Retail Business - Type 1 Local and Type 2 Shop &
Salon
Applicant Body Corporate for Netanya Noosa CTS 17658
Request Received On 3 June 2020
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address Netanya
71 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads Qld 4567
RP Description Lots 0-55 on BUP101500, Lot 7 and Lot 57 on SP266734, and Lot
56 on SP178320
Land Area 3,498m2
Existing Use of Land Mixed use - including retail and entertainment and dining on the
ground floor and 47 residential / visitor accommodation dwellings on
the upper levels.
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosa Heads
Zone Visitor Mixed Use
Overlays Natural Hazards (Acid Sulfate Soils, Flood Hazard)
Assessment Type Minor Change to Development Approval
Page 8 of 84
Section 9
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting
dated 12 October 2020 regarding Application No. 51901.3614.01, 51901.3786.02,
51992.479.01, 51994.1249.01, 51994.1048.01 & MCU13/0081.01 to make a minor change
to existing approvals for a mixed use development commonly known as Netanya and situated
at 71 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads and:
A. Approve the change.
B. Include the following additional conditions on 51901.3614.01, 51901.3786.02,
51992.479.01, 51994.1249.01, 51994.1048.01 and MCU13/0081.01:
Additional conditions – 15 October 2020
Approved Plans
1. Development authorised by this approval must be undertaken generally in
accordance with the Approved Plans. The approved plans are listed in the
following table and may be amended by these conditions and annotations on the
plans.
Plan No. Rev Plan Name – Prepared by Date
19021 E Cover Sheet, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD00.00
19021 E Locality & Register, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD00.01
19021 E New Works - First Floor Site Plan, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD10.01 Architects
19021 E New Works - Second Floor Site Plan, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD10.02 Architects
19021 E New Works - Third Floor Site Plan, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD10.03 Architects
19021 E New Works – Fourth Floor Site Plan, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD10.04 Architects
19021 I New Works – Ground Floor, prepared by Sprout 6/10/2020
SD20.00 Architects
19021 E New Works – First Floor, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD20.01
19021 E New Works – Second Floor, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD20.02 Architects
19021 E New Works – Third Floor, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD20.03
19021 E New Works – Roof Terrace, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD20.04 As annotated by Council
19021 E New Works – Elevations, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD30.00
19021 E New Works – Elevations, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD30.01
19021 E New Works – Sections, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD30.02
19021 D New Works – Section, prepared by Sprout Architects 5/08/2020
SD30.03
19021 E Detailed Area – South-west Tenancies / Refuse Area, 5/08/2020
prepared by Sprout Architects
Page 9 of 84
Section 10
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Plan No. Rev Plan Name – Prepared by Date
SD60.00
19021 E Detailed Area – Forecourt / Café, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD60.01 Architects
19021 E Detailed Area – Forecourt / Café, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD60.02 Architects
19021 E Detailed Area – Covered Seat / Unit Awning, prepared by 5/08/2020
SD60.03 Sprout Architects
19021 E Detailed Area – Pool Terrace / Rear Entry, prepared by 5/08/2020
SD60.04 Sprout Architects
19021 E Detailed Area – Pool Terrace / Rear Entry, prepared by 5/08/2020
SD60.05 Sprout Architects
19021 E Detailed Area – Roof Terrace / Feature Awning, prepared 5/08/2020
SD60.06 by Sprout Architects
As annotated by Council
19021 E Detailed Area – Stair / Lift Extensions, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD60.07 Architects
19021 E Detailed Area – ‘Sails’ Entry / Park Road Frontage, 5/08/2020
SD60.08 prepared by Sprout Architects
19021 E Detailed Area – ‘Sails’ Entry / Park Road Frontage, 5/08/2020
SD60.09 prepared by Sprout Architects
19021 E Landscaping Areas – Existing Conditions, prepared by 5/08/2020
SD80.00 Sprout Architects
19021 E Landscaping Areas – New Works, prepared by Sprout 5/08/2020
SD80.01 Architects
19021 E Site Cover – Existing Conditions / New Works, prepared 5/08/2020
SD80.02 by Sprout Architects
19021 E GFA Areas – Existing Conditions / New Works, prepared 5/08/2020
SD80.03 by Sprout Architects
Performance Bond
2. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of
$25,000 must be submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of
this approval, prior to the issue of a Development Permit for Building Works. The
cash bond or trading bank guarantee will be returned on performance of the
conditions of approval less any costs incurred by Council in respect of enforcing
performance of this permit. Council reserves the right to call upon the bond or
guaranteed sum to effect compliance with conditions.
Nature and Extent of Approved Use
3. The roofed outdoor dining area associated with Lot 7 (The Providore) must
remain unenclosed and is limited to a maximum of 56m2 use area.
4. No structures are approved or permitted within The Parade, on public land.
Roof Terrace Pergolas
5. Pergolas on the roof terraces must be:
a. setback a minimum of 6m from the northern roof terrace edge /
balustrading;
b. a maximum of 9m2 in area; and
c. a maximum of 2.7m in height.
Page 10 of 84
Section 11
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Landscaping
6. The development site must be landscaped. The works must be undertaken in
accordance with an Operational Works approval and the Noosa Plan for that
specific area and must include in particular:
a. a minimum of one of the existing palm trees located on the western side of
the driveway is to be retained;
b. existing established trees located in the landscaped planter in the south
western corner of the site (in front of the Bellissima Boutique) must be
retained;
c. provision of one additional established tree, behind the curved timber seat
within the landscaped planter in the south western corner of the site (in
front of the Bellissima Boutique). Species is to be in accordance with the
Local Planning Scheme Policy Landscaping Plants & Guidelines, l;
d. paving proposed in the existing forecourt in the south east of the site must
blend with the existing surrounding surface finishes;
e. planting proposed on the timber trellis on the north eastern boundary is to
be in accordance with the Local Planning Scheme Policy.
7. Existing vegetation in the road reserve must be retained, unless written
authorisation from Council is granted for the clearing.
8. Trees to be retained must be protected from clearing or construction activities by:
a. clearly marking vegetation to be retained with flagging tape
b. installing protective fencing around the drip line of the vegetation
c. restricting stockpiling, storage and vehicle parking to those areas which are
already cleared
d. using low impact construction techniques around vegetation.
9. All landscape works must be established and maintained in accordance with the
approved design for the life of the development, and in a manner that ensures
healthy, sustained and vigorous plant growth. All plant material must be allowed
to grow to full form and be refurbished when its life expectancy is reached.
10. All landscape works must be maintained generally in accordance with the
approved design for the life of the development.
Damage to infrastructure
11. Any damage to footpaths, street plantings, natural vegetation/trees kerb and
channel, bridges or roadways must be repaired or reinstated to at least pre-
existing conditions.
12. Where damage occurs to any Council asset as a result of the landscaping works,
the damage must be repaired immediately where it creates a hazard that
presents risk to person or property. Non-hazardous damage must be repaired
prior to completion of works.
Car Parking
13. The applicant must comply with the requirements of any Infrastructure
Agreement entered into with the Council with respect to the payment of car
parking contributions in relation to the proposed development. In the event that
the Infrastructure Agreement does not apply a minimum of 42car parking space
must be provided and marked on the site and made available and accessible at
all times while the use is open for business.
Page 11 of 84
Section 12
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
14. A minimum of 39 car parking spaces must be provided on the site in accordance
with approved plans; made available and accessible at all times while the use is
open for business.
15. Onsite carparking must comply with AS/NZS2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities- Part
1: Off-street car parking.
16. All car parking areas and access driveway must be maintained exclusively for
vehicle parking and manoeuvring and kept in a tidy and safe condition at all times.
17. A certification by a suitably qualified person for the upgraded car parking area is
required upon the completion of works and prior to issuing the Certificate of
Classification to confirm compliance with the conditions of this permit.
C. Include the following Advisory Note on 51901.3614.01, 51901.3786.02, 51992.479.01,
51994.1249.01, 51994.1048.01 and MCU13/0081.01:
Infrastructure Charges
1. All developments and/or changes to existing developments may require payment
of “Infrastructure Charges” (as applicable) in accordance with Council’s “Charges
Resolution” made pursuant to the planning legislation and regulations current at
the time of issue.
Advertising Devices
2. Any advertising devices proposed on the site must comply with the provisions of
Council’s Advertising Devices Local Law.
D. Agree to enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with the applicant that provides for
contributions in lieu of three on site car parking space.
E. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve
the application:
1. The proposal complies with the Overall Outcomes of the Noosa Heads Locality
Code as the development will provide for additional outdoor dining and amenities
for entertainment and dining premises, providing interest for visitors and
residents accommodated in the immediate area, and contributing to a vibrant
pedestrian friendly streetscape;
2. The development is consistent with the bulk and scale of buildings within
proximity to the subject site, presenting an improved, high quality built form and
landscaping along both Hastings Street and The Parade.
F. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
G. Note the application was lodged under the Noosa Plan 2006, which was superseded
by the Noosa Plan 2020, which commenced on 31 July 2020. All references to the
‘Noosa Plan’ or ‘the planning scheme’ within the assessment report is in reference to
the now superseded Noosa Plan 2006.
H. Advise the owner of Sails Restaurant that the structures within Beach Parade, on public
land must be removed within 2 years of the date of this approval.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The applicant is seeking to undertake a significant refurbishment of the existing
Netanya development in order to refresh Netanya’s image and to rectify a number of
the building compliance issues with respect to fire and evacuation codes, Disability
Discrimination Act compliance and shade protection. The application is before Council
due to the site’s prominent location and the requirement for an Infrastructure
Page 12 of 84
Section 13
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Agreement to be entered into to facilitate the payment of a contribution in lieu of a
shortfall of three onsite car parking space.
The application has been lodged under the Noosa Plan 2006 and seeks approval to
change multiple existing development approvals, specifically:
Ground Floor
a new outdoor dining area for the Providore tenancy, totalling 56m2 of use area, and
including a new roof structure over the outdoor dining area;
a new awning over the Hastings Street and western side of the Bellissima tenancy,
extending over the ‘service yard’ area on the western elevation of the building;
a new roof over the foyer entry and car set down area adjoining the lobby;
a new entry structure to the rear of the building, distinguishing the entry to the site from
The Parade and Main Beach;
new stairs and substation to the eastern side of the building / “Sails” entry and changes
to the western façade;
new shopfront and roof over 'Rumba Bar' as well as extension of Fire Stair 01;
provision of one new onsite carpark located on the driveway.
Level 1
a new plunge pool to the west and new awning structure above the north facing (beach)
side of Unit U205 terrace;
new amenities and roof structure to the eastern side of the building / “Sails” entry and
changes to the western façade;
Level 3
new cantilevered awnings above the north facing (beach side) balconies of Units U401
to U416;
Level 4 / Roof Terrace
an extension of the existing fire exit stairs from Level 3 to Level 4 / Roof Terrace to
meet fire and evacuation codes;
an extension of the eastern lift from Level 3 to Level 4 / Roof Terrace to meet Disability
Discrimination Act standards;
new covered walkway links to the fire stairs on Level 4 / Roof Terrace;
new pergolas located on Level 4 / Roof Terrace, including one on each of the roof
terraces associated with Units U401 to U416.
Whole development
The proposal also includes ‘cosmetic’ changes to the entirety of the development, including:
new render and paint finish to all external walls;
new aluminium sliding doors to terraces / balconies;
new aluminium windows;
new frameless glass balustrade with aluminium uprights;
updated landscaping (to be assessed through a separate Operational Works
application); and
new tiles to walkways, terraces and balconies.
Page 13 of 84
Section 14
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 1: Locality
Figure 2: Subject Site
Page 14 of 84
Section 15
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 3: Hastings Street frontage (proposed and existing)
Page 15 of 84
Section 16
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 4: Hastings Street frontage (proposed and existing)
Page 16 of 84
Section 17
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 5: Hastings Street frontage (proposed and existing)
Page 17 of 84
Section 18
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 6: The Parade (beach) frontage (proposed and existing)
Page 18 of 84
Section 19
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 7: The Parade (beach) frontage (proposed and existing)
Page 19 of 84
Section 20
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 8: Park Road frontage (proposed and existing)
Page 20 of 84
Section 21
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
2. BACKGROUND
The subject site was originally two lots, with the western portion of the site developed first,
with the two lots later amalgamated and the building extended across the eastern portion of
the site to form the existing Netanya complex.
In December 1979 development approval TPC1008 was issued for 29 Motel Units, 3
Shops and 2 Restaurants (original approval for western portion of building);
In August 1985 development approval TPC1737 for Multiple Dwelling 18 Units, 3
Shops, Gymnasium and Meeting Room was approved under the 1985 Planning
Scheme (original approval for eastern portion of building and amalgamation of the two
lots);
In October 1986 a change to development approval TPC1737 for Multiple Dwelling 18
Units, 3 Shops, Gymnasium and Meeting Room was issued for a change to setbacks
and the provision of pergolas on the roof top recreation areas
In September 1987 a ‘substantially in accordance with existing approvals' for TPC1973
was approved for an extension to the entry foyer;
In February 1988 development approval TPC1994 for Changes of use affecting
restaurant, shops and additional multiple dwelling unit and ancillary facilities was
issued;
In July 1993 development approval TPC2418 for an extension to an existing
Restaurant (outdoor dining area) was issued (alterations to Sails Restaurant, including
erection of a sail over the approved outdoor dining area);
In May 1994 development approval TPC2639 for an extension to an existing
Restaurant (outdoor dining area) was issued (refurbishment to the former Pavilions
Restaurant);
In May 1994 development approval TPC2678 for conversion of part of an existing
restaurant into 3 shops was issued;
On 6 October 1994 Building Unit Plan of Subdivision was approved creating separate
titles for each unit within the building;
In April 1995 development approval TPC2679 for an alterations to an existing
restaurant and outdoor dining area was issued (alterations to Sails Restaurant);
In June 1999 development approval 16987DA for modifications to extend and refurbish
the existing reception area and to change the entry landscape treatment was issued;
In October 2000 an amendment to development approval TPC1737 for the construction
of a storage shed was issued;
In February 2005 an amendment to development approval TPC1994 to convert a gym
to a beauty salon was issued;
In July 2013 development approval MCU13/0081 for a Material Change of Use for
Entertainment & Dining Type 1 Food & Beverage & Retail Business Type 1 Local &
Type 2 Shop & Salon was issued (Alterations to the existing ground floor Providore
tenancy).
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Statutory Process
The applicant has requested to make a minor change to a development approval under
s78 of the Planning Act 2016. An application for a minor change to a development
approval can only be made in circumstances where a change would constitute a ‘minor
change’.
Page 21 of 84
Section 22
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
The proposed change to the development approval requested by the applicant is
determined to constitute a minor change on the grounds that:
the development would not result in substantially different development as the
proposed changes do not alter what the uses allowed under the original approval,
whilst the built form changes are minor in terms of the overall scale and bulk of the
existing development subject to the roof terrace pergolas being modified;
the change does not include prohibited development;
the change would not require the application to be referred to an additional referral
agency or cause a referral agency to have regard to new matters prescribed by
regulation;
where the original application was code assessable, the change would not cause the
application to become impact assessable.
3.2. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan 2006.
The following codes from the Noosa Plan 2006 are applicable to this development:
Noosa Heads Locality Code;
Business Uses Code;
Residential Uses Code;
Landscaping Code; and
Engineering Works Codes.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The proposed changes to Netanya raise a number of issues for consideration against the
planning scheme, including setbacks, site cover, gross floor area, building height and roof
form, and car parking. Each of these issues are addressed separately below.
SETBACKS
Probable Solution S8.1 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code requires buildings and other
structures to be setback1:
a) 2m, average of 4m from the front boundary to Hastings Street for the ground floor and
2nd storey;
b) 7m from the front boundary to Hastings Street above the 2nd storey; and
c) 10m from the front boundary to The Parade (beach).
1setback means the minimum distance from any lot boundary to a building or structure, excluding eaves, roof overhangs and awnings
provided they encroach no more than 600mm into the setback distance.
Page 22 of 84
Section 23
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Hasting Street Setback
The proposal includes the following non-compliances with the setback requirements to the
Hastings Street boundary:
The proposed roofing of the outdoor dining area is setback 0.4m from the Hastings
Street boundary, whilst the outdoor dining seating area under the roofing is setback
1.7m from the boundary (refer to Figures 9 and 10).
Figure 9: Outdoor dining (roof structure) within the Hastings Street boundary setback
Page 23 of 84
Section 24
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 10: Outdoor dining (seating area) within the Hastings Street boundary setback
Upgrades to the existing landscaped planters located on the Hastings Street boundary
(refer to Figure 11).
Page 24 of 84
Section 25
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 11: Landscaped planters within the Hastings Street boundary setback
The proposed setbacks to Hastings Street do not comply with Probable Solution S8.1 of
the Noosa Heads Locality Code, and as such, are required to be assessed against Specific
Outcome O8 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code.
Page 25 of 84
Section 26
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Specific Outcome O8 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code requires that:
Buildings and other structures are appropriately designed and sited to—
a) provide amenity for users of the premises as well as preserve the visual and acoustic
amenity of adjoining and nearby properties;
b) provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses
c) preserve any existing vegetation that will buffer the proposed building;
d) allow for landscaping to be provided between buildings;
e) maintain the visual continuity and pattern of buildings and landscape elements within the
street;
f) protect public safety and property within erosion prone areas by ensuring such areas are
maintained largely free of development; and
g) help protect the natural character and visual amenity of coastal areas and watercourses
Whilst the proposal does not meet the minimum boundary setbacks to Hastings Street under
Probable Solution S8.1, the development complies with Specific Outcome O8 and
maintains the existing setback approved under TPC1008 (original approval for western
portion of building).
The new roofing over the Providore outdoor dining area improves the amenity of users of the
dining area by providing weather protection, without detrimentally impacting on the visual
and acoustic amenity of adjoining and nearby premises. In addition, the proposal includes
changes to the on-site landscaping (to be assessed through a separate subsequent
Operational Works application), including maintaining existing vegetation and providing
improved planting within landscaped planters located on the Hastings Street boundary. The
updated landscaping will preserve much of the existing vegetation on the site, with
improvements to the landscaping ensuring visual continuity along Hastings Street in terms
of landscape elements within the street.
In addition, Overall Outcome m) of the Noosa Heads Locality Codes states:
Hastings Street’s character of low rise buildings, vibrant pedestrian friendly streetscape, mix
of indoor and outdoor activities, diverse dining opportunities, specialty Retail businesses and
pedestrian links to Main Beach is maintained.
As a result, Hastings Street has developed over the years as an area dominated by outdoor
dining activities, with many sites located along Hastings Street offering outdoor dining located
both within the front boundary setback and within the road reserve (approved through
Outdoor Dining Permits issued by Council’s Property branch). Therefore the proposal to
include outdoor dining within the front setback maintains the visual continuity and pattern of
buildings within the street.
It is also noted that an architectural Peer Review was carried out by NRA-CO-LAB (Noel
Robinson) on behalf of Council. The Peer Review included the following comments:
The alterations to the entry of the site have provided good street presence to the
Providore tenancy.
Site entry has been improved from the perspective of pedestrian experience.
The Parade (beach) Setback
The proposal includes the following non-compliances with the setback requirements to The
Parade (beach) boundary and as such, are required to be assessed against Specific
Outcome O8 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code:
Page 26 of 84
Section 27
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
the proposed new entry structure to the rear of the building, distinguishing the entry to
the site from The Parade and Main Beach, is to be setback 0.525m from The Parade
boundary(refer to Figure 12);
Figure 12: Landscaped planters within The Parade boundary setback
the proposed new awning structure above the north facing (beach) side of the Unit U205
terrace is to be setback 1.955m from The Parade boundary (refer to Figure 13);
Page 27 of 84
Section 28
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 13: Landscaped planters within The Parade boundary setback
the proposed plunge pool to the west of Unit U205 terrace is to be setback 6.3m from
The Parade boundary (refer to Figure 14).
Page 28 of 84
Section 29
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 14: Plunge pool within The Parade boundary setback
Specific Outcome O8 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code requires that:
Buildings and other structures are appropriately designed and sited to—
a) provide amenity for users of the premises as well as preserve the visual and acoustic
amenity of adjoining and nearby properties;
b) provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses
c) preserve any existing vegetation that will buffer the proposed building;
d) allow for landscaping to be provided between buildings;
e) maintain the visual continuity and pattern of buildings and landscape elements within
the street;
f) protect public safety and property within erosion prone areas by ensuring such areas
are maintained largely free of development; and
g) help protect the natural character and visual amenity of coastal areas and
watercourses
Whilst the proposal does not meet the minimum boundary setbacks to The Parade under
Probable Solution S8.1, the development complies with Specific Outcome O8. The
proposed new ‘rear entry structure’ is replacing an existing arbour with a lighter weight,
modernised structure and is not increasing the existing encroachment into the setback, whilst
the proposed plunge pool is located to the west of the existing building and will be screened
from The Parade boundary by fencing and landscaping (to be assessed through a separate
subsequent Operational Works application).
It is noted that numerous developments fronting The Parade have structures including
swimming pools, sunshades and stairways within the 10 metre setback, with several having
structures adjacent to the boundary. In this instance, the modifications will maintain the
existing setback for the ‘rear entry structure’, and the pattern of buildings and landscape
elements within the location.
The proposal includes a refurbishment of the entire development, revitalising the dated
façade addressing The Parade and Main Beach, including the updated ‘rear entry structure’,
and as such, the reduced setback is recommended to be supported.
Page 29 of 84
Section 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
SITE COVER
The 1985 approval for TPC1737 (approval for the eastern portion of the building and
amalgamation of the two halves of the development) was assessed under the 1985 Town
Plan, which allowed for a maximum of 45% site cover, whilst the draft Development Control
Plan Scheme specific to the locality at the time had no specific limit for site cover. A provision
in the 1985 scheme stated ‘not withstanding any of the provisions contained within this
Division, the Council may dispense with or modify any or all of the requirements of clauses
1 to 6 (including site cover) if it is considered that such dispensation or modification is
necessitated having regard to
1. The unique size, shape, location or topography of the site or the adjoining area;
2. The existing development in the area;
3. The existing and proposed amenity of the area.
It is unclear from Council’s records what the total site cover approved under TPC1737 is,
however the total current site cover is 60.7%, and as such, site cover in excess of the
provisions of the planning scheme were approved through multiple applications over the
course of the development.
Under the Noosa Plan2006, Noosa Heads Locality Code, Specific Outcome O10 states that
site cover2 for the Visitor Mixed Use Zone does not exceed 45%. The minor change proposal
would result in an increase in site cover from 60.7% to a total of 62.5% (refer to Figure 15).
The areas of increased site cover relate to:
the new roof over the outdoor dining area for the Providore tenancy;
the new awning over the Bellissima tenancy and service yard;
the new roof over the foyer entry and car set down area adjoining the lobby;
new awning structure above the U205 terrace;
new rear entry structure between the building and the beach;
new roof over the ‘Rumba Bar’ tenancy; and
new roof structure over the new stairs to the eastern side of the building / “Sails” entry.
The proposed total site cover exceeds the allowable site cover under the Specific Outcome
O10 of The Noosa Plan.
2site cover means the proportion of a site covered by all buildings and structures shown as a percentage. For enclosed
spaces this includes the area within the outside wall and for unenclosed spaces this includes the area measured along
a line 600mm in from the perimeter of the roof. Site cover includes garages and other roofed outbuildings, but does not
include landscape structures such as in-ground pools and decks.
Page 30 of 84
Section 31
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 15: Site Cover additions
Whilst the proposal exceeds the site cover provision of Specific Outcome 10, the proposed
development meets Specific Outcome O9, which states:
The site cover, gross floor area and plot ratio of buildings and other roofed structures –
a) results in a building scale that is compatible with surrounding development;
b) does not present an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other
areas in the vicinity of the site;
c) maximises the retention of existing vegetation and allows for soft landscaping between
buildings;
d) allows for adequate area at ground level for outdoor recreation, entertainment, clothes
drying and other site facilities; and
e) facilitates onsite stormwater management and vehicular access.
The increase in site cover is largely at the ground level and is predominantly roofed,
unenclosed additions, proposed to provide weather protection to pedestrian and visitors /
patrons of Netanya. As such, the proposed changes to the development are minor in nature
and result in a building scale that is compatible with surrounding development and do not
present an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties or the beach. The proposed additions
allow for adequate areas at ground level for outdoor recreation and entertainment, including
increased amenity for patrons of the Providore.
While exceedance of the site cover limit would not typically be recommended, the
refurbishment of the Netanya development will result in a superior and updated built form
outcome to what is currently existing and will result in greater comfort, activation and visual
interest for pedestrians along Hastings Street, due to the increased weather protection and
outdoor dining located along the frontage. In addition, the proposal maintains and enhances
the existing area of landscaping. Therefore, the proposed site cover is acceptable and
compatible in the context of the subject site, existing development, and historical
development within Hastings Street.
GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA)
The 1985 approval for TPC1737 (approval for the eastern portion of the building and
amalgamation on the two halves of the development) was assessed under the 1985 Town
Plan, which allowed for a maximum GFA of 4,757.28m2.
Page 31 of 84
Section 32
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Specific Outcome O13 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code requires that for the Visitor Mixed
Use Zone the maximum a gross floor area3 is equivalent to the maximum allowable
population in persons multiplied by 40m2, provided that gross floor area does not exceed a
total of 13,600m2. This equates to a maximum GFA for the subject site of 3,917.76m2.
The minor change proposal would result in a total GFA of 4,093.0m2, a total increase in GFA
of 58.0m2, from an existing 4,035.0m2. The increase in GFA relates to:
an additional 28.0m2 GFA to the ground level Providore tenancy for roofed outdoor
dining (refer to Figure 16);
an additional 25.0m2 GFA to Level 1 via the addition of new amenities to be associated
with the existing Sails Restaurant tenancy (refer to Figure 17);
an additional 5m2 (in total) to the refuse disposal areas over Level 1, Level 2 and Level
3 (refer to Figures 17 - 19).
Figure 16: increase in GFA to the Ground level
Figure 17: increase in GFA to Level 1
3
gross floor area (or GFA) means the total floor area of a building measured from the outside of the external walls, plus for roofed unenclosed
areas, any portion of floor area beyond a distance of 3 metres from the external wall. It does not include:
a) the area of spaces used for the parking or manoeuvring of motor vehicles;
b) the area of lift shafts;
c) the area of stairwells on any level other than the ground floor; or
d) floor areas located in a basement.
Page 32 of 84
Section 33
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 18: increase in GFA to Level 2
Figure 19: increase in GFA to Level 3
The proposed total GFA complies with the requirements of the 1985 Town Plan, however
exceeds the allowable GFA under the provisions of The Noosa Plan 2006 by 175.24m2.
Whilst the proposal exceeds the gross floor area provision of Specific Outcome 13, the
proposed development meets Specific Outcome O9, which states:
The site cover, gross floor area and plot ratio of buildings and other roofed structures –
a) results in a building scale that is compatible with surrounding development;
b) does not present an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads or
other areas in the vicinity of the site;
c) maximises the retention of existing vegetation and allows for soft landscaping between
buildings;
d) allows for adequate area at ground level for outdoor recreation, entertainment, clothes
drying and other site facilities; and
e) facilitates onsite stormwater management and vehicular access.
The 28.0m2 GFA increase to the ground level Providore tenancy is a roofed, unenclosed
structure. As such, the roofed area will not present an appearance of bulk to adjacent
properties or Hastings Street. The renovation of the Hastings Street elevation of the Netanya
development will result in greater activation and visual interest from the perspective of the
pedestrian experience along Hastings Street, with the architectural Peer Review carried out
by NRA-CO-LAB (Noel Robinson) stating ‘the alterations to the entry of the site have
provided good street presence to the Providore tenancy’. In addition, the proposal maintains
and enhances the existing area of landscaping, whilst providing additional and improved
landscaping within the subject site. Therefore, the proposed gross floor area is acceptable
and compatible in the context of the subject site and historical development within Hastings
Street.
Page 33 of 84
Section 34
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
The increase in 25.0m2 GFA to Level 1 via the addition of new amenities for the Sails
Restaurant tenancy. The new amenities are required in order for the development to comply
with the Disability Discrimination Act, with the existing amenities poorly located and as such,
the increase in GFA is recommended to be supported. The amenities are to be located on
top of the existing substation and will be adequately screened from the Park Road street front
(refer to Figures 20 - 21).
Figure 20: Existing substation
Figure 21: Proposed renovation and addition of amenities on top of existing substation
Page 34 of 84
Section 35
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
It is noted that an architectural Peer Review was carried out by NRA-CO-LAB (Noel
Robinson) on the proposal plans. The Peer Review included a comment in regards to the
Park Road elevation, that ‘the existing elevation is cluttered’ and ‘the proposal provides a lot
of improvement’.
The additional 5m2 (in total) to the refuse disposal areas over Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3
are located internal to the building and will not be viewable from outside of the building, and
as such do not add any additional bulk to the existing development.
The proposed changes in GFA, equalling a 1.8% (58m2) increase, are minor in nature in the
context of the overall development, and result in a building scale that remains compatible
with surrounding development. The additional GFA does not result in the development
presenting an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in
the vicinity of the site, with the Providore increase including an unenclosed roof area only,
and the Park Road elevation resulting in an improvement on the existing design. In addition,
the additional Providore GFA allows for additional areas for outdoor dining. As such, the
additional GFA is recommended to be supported.
HEIGHT AND ROOF FORM
It is noted that the proposal complies with Probable Solution S7.1 of the Noosa Plan, Noosa
Heads Locality Code in terms of building height in metres, however Specific Outcome O7
of the Noosa Heads Locality Code states:
Buildings and other structures—
a) present a building height consistent with structures on adjoining and surrounding land;
b) do not exceed a maximum building height of
i) For the Visitor Mixed Use Zone -
A) Northern side of Hastings Street -
within 7m of the Hastings St alignment – 2 storeys; or
balance area of site – 4 storeys with a 3 storey presentation to the
beach;
c) do not visually dominate the street or surrounding spaces;
d) preserve the amenity of surrounding land;
e) respect the scale of surrounding vegetation;
f) respond to the topography of the site by minimising cut and fill (eg. stepping down the
site or using a suspended pole construction); and
g) maintain a mature vegetated skyline.
The proposal includes a continuous line of pergolas across the entirety of the roof, with each
pergola proposed to be 10m2 in size, 2.7m in height and setback 1m from the roof edge (refer
to Figure 22).
Page 35 of 84
Section 36
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 22: Pergolas proposed on existing roof terraces
The proposal does not comply with Specific Outcome O7 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code
as the proposal presents as 4 storeys to the beach, with the pergolas being visually dominate
from The Parade, which is not consistent with roof terraces along the northern side of
Hastings Street.
Probable Solution S15.2 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code states buildings and structures
do not include roof top terraces.
Specific Outcome O15 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code states:
Roof forms:
a) contribute positively to the local skyline;
b) complement the character of the locality;
c) use soft and articulated, pitched, skillion or curved roof forms;
d) avoid low pitched (eg. less than 5 degrees) or box profiles/parapets; and
e) do not create opportunities for residents to overlook the private open space areas of
neighbouring properties.
The proposal does not comply with Specific Outcome O15 of the Noosa Heads Locality
Code as while the building already includes roof terraces, the pergolas are not considered to
contribute positively to the skyline, as they will create the appearance of four storeys and
visually dominate from The Parade. The pergolas are further not consistent with other
development along the northern side of Hastings Street and do not respect the character of
the area.
It is acknowledged that a number of developments along the northern side of Hastings Street
include pergolas/roof structures on roof terraces that are viewable from The Parade,
including 5, 23, 37 and 55 Hastings Street. These structures are much smaller in scale and
are setback from the northern edge of the buildings, reducing their prominence and as such,
do not dominate the skyline (refer to Figure 23).
Page 36 of 84
Section 37
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
5 Hastings Street 55 Hastings Street
23 Hastings Street 37 Hastings Street
Figure 23: Existing roof terrace structures on the northern side of Hastings Street
It is noted that in October 1986, an approval was issued for the eastern portion of the building
(including Units U411 to U416) to allow for the provision of pergolas on the roof terrace areas,
setback 6m from the northern roof terrace edge.
The proposed pergolas are therefore not supported in their current form, and it is
recommended the following condition be included:
Roof Terrace Pergolas
Pergolas on the roof terraces of Units U405 to U416 must be:
a. setback a minimum of 6m from the northern roof terrace edge / balustrading;
b. a maximum of 9m2 in area; and
c. a maximum of 2.7m in height.
These requirements are reflective of former planning scheme requirements (prior to the
Noosa Plan 2006) that permitted limited roof terraces but sought to ensure any structures
located on the terrace were not visually prominent and integrated with the roof line.
CARPARKING
The 1985 approval for TPC1737 (approval for the eastern portion of the building and
amalgamation on the two halves of the development) conditioned the provision of 38 onsite
carparks and the payment of a contribution of $65,000.00 for 13 additional carparks that
Page 37 of 84
Section 38
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
could not be provided onsite. Subsequent approvals for new uses and/or additional use area
have also required payment of contributions in lieu of providing carparking on-site.
Carparking requirements for Entertainment and Dining Business - Type 1 Food & Beverages
under The Noosa Plan 2006 and Food and Drink Outlet under Noosa Plan 2020 are both
calculated based on use area4, which excludes kitchen and food storage areas. In terms of
carparking calculations, the proposed change triggers additional carparking for the 56.0m2
increase in use area to the ground level Providore tenancy (refer to Figure 24) and 25.0m 2
increase in use area to Level 1 via the addition of new amenities to be associated with the
existing Sails Restaurant tenancy (refer to Figure 25).
Figure 24: Additional 56m2 use area for The Providore
4
use area means the sum of the area of the premises (exclusive of all walls and columns), including all storeys, used or intended for
use for a particular purpose. The term excludes—
a) the areas (inclusive of all walls and columns) of any lift rooms, motor rooms, air conditioning or other mechanical or electrical plant
or equipment rooms located at any topmost storey;
b) The areas of any staircases or liftwells;
c) The areas of any common foyer or arcade;
d) The areas of any public toilets; and
e) The areas used for the access, parking and associated manoeuvring of motor vehicles
Page 38 of 84
Section 39
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 25: Additional 25m2 use area for Sails (amenities)
Carparking requirements are as follows:
Noosa Plan 2006 Noosa Plan 2020
Entertainment and Dining Business - Food and Drink Outlet at 1 space per 20m 2 of
Type 1 Food & Beverages at 1 space per use area = 4.05 spaces
10m2 of use area = 8.1 spaces
As such, the development is required to provide four additional carparks on site. The proposal
includes only one additional carpark to be located on site, on the existing driveway (refer to
Figure 26). It is acknowledged that due to existing development on site, the subject site is
significantly constrained in terms of limited remaining vacant site area. In addition, it is
considered the locality would benefit from improved public transport, pedestrian or cycle
facilities in conjunction with the provision of an additional car park on site. The applicant has
advised that they are agreeable to enter into an Infrastructure Agreement to make
contributions in lieu of the three car parking spaces that cannot be provided onsite. It is
therefore recommended Council enter into an Infrastructure Agreement for three carparking
spaces, at a rate of $24,000 per space (subject to indexation), as per the Contributions in
Lieu of the Provision of Onsite Car Parking Council policy.
Page 39 of 84
Section 40
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 26: Additional onsite carpark (located on the existing driveway)
UNAPPROVED WORKS ON COUNCIL LAND
Sails Restaurant
Throughout the assessment of the minor change application, it has been established that the
existing structures associated with the Sails Restaurant are located on public land (refer to
Figure 27).
Page 40 of 84
Section 41
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 27: Unapproved structure within Council land
Sails Restaurant received an outdoor dining permit (Permit 56) from Council in 2002 for the
use of a paved 28m2 area of Council land for outdoor dining purposes, which has been
renewed annually since this time. The original dining permit allowed for 5 umbrellas to be
used within the approved area. In 2003, a subsequent approval was issued to install pavers
and stairs within the road reserve for outdoor dining.
In 2003 (estimated), a retractable awning approximately 40m2 in area was erected within
Council land, attached to the existing Sails restaurant. There are no records on Council’s
files granting approval for the installation of the awning. In 2016, Council consented to a ‘like
for like’ replacement of the awning as part of a refurbishment of the sail over the entire
restaurant. At the time of this consent, it was not recognised by Council officers that the
existing structure within Council land was unapproved.
In addition, aerial photography indicates that between 2015 and 2016, an additional
approximately 9m2 ‘storage area’ was added to the east of the existing unapproved structure
within Council land. No approval was granted by Council for the erection of this additional
structure. It has also been noted that from time to time, the grassed area of Council land to
the west of the awning is also used for events.
It is also noted that the current annual outdoor dining permit issued to Sails is calculated
based on a use area of 28m2 only.
These structures encroach onto public land and given the significant refurbishments to
Netanya which involve increased gross floor area and site cover, it is appropriate that this be
addressed at this time.
It is recommended that the owner of Sails Restaurant be advised that the structures within
Council land are unapproved and in excess of the approved outdoor dining area. Due to the
Page 41 of 84
Section 42
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
current economic climate and impacts of Covid, it is recommended that the Sails Restaurant
be given 2 years to address these encroachments on to public land.
Council’s Property Branch have provided the following comments in regards to the above:
The land is road reserve and Council is the road Manager. Roads are managed under the
Land Act 1994 and operational use under Section 66 of The Transport Operations (Road
Use manager) Act 1995. Approvals for use of a road are issued under Local Law No.1
(Subordinate Local Law No.1). Footpath dining is a consistent use on road and Council may
authorise temporary structures over road or portable improvements on a road area in
connection with a business being conducted on adjoining land for restaurant (e.g. footpath
dining) retail or similar.
Outdoor dining permits allow for dining only with the use of dining furniture and umbrellas
within the approved area brought out and removed daily. Fixed structures on road reserve
must be approved through a separate process. Applications are assessed on a case by case
basis and can only be for temporary or portable improvements i.e. easily removed/relocated
in connection with a business being conducted on adjoining land for restaurant (footpath
dining) retail or similar purposes.
The outdoor dining area for Sails restaurant has the ability to be completely enclosed when
the awning is fully out with blinds that can be rolled down. The infrastructure installed would
not lend itself to be classified as temporary or portable and appears to be an extension of the
restaurant rather than outdoor dining space on public land.
BBQ Area
During an upgrade of the boardwalk along The Parade it was also identified that a BBQ and
section of fence constructed by Netanya was on Council land. In 2018 Council agreed to not
have the BBQ removed, however a Property Note was to be added to the property in
Council’s record system stating ‘the BBQ owned and maintained by Netanya in the grassed
area at the beach side of the property is partially located on the adjacent Council reserve,
whilst Council are not instructing the Body Corporate to remove the BBQ, we reserve the
right to do so if required’. Advice provided to Netayna Body Corporate at the time was that
should the BBQ be replaced/upgraded at any stage, the BBQ is to be relocated wholly within
the site, and is not permitted to be replaced on Council reserve. It is considered that the
proposed total refurbishment of the site is an appropriate time to require the removal of the
BBQ and fencing from Council land.
Figure 28: BBQ located on Council land
Page 42 of 84
Section 43
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
4. NOOSA PLAN 2020
The Noosa Plan 2020, which commenced on 31 July 2020, zones the subject site as Tourist
Accommodation. This zone reflects the intent of the Visitor Mixed Use zone under the Noosa
Plan 2006. The new scheme provisions for site cover and gross floor area accord with the
Noosa Plan 2006. It is considered that no changes to the assessment or recommendation
would result under the Noosa Plan 2020.
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
Not applicable
5.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council specialists:
NRA-CO-LAB – Architectural Peer Review by Noel Robinson
5.3. Internal Council Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council specialists:
Ecologist, Development Assessment
Coordinator Engineering, Development Assessment
Property Officer, Property
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The proposed development seeks a minor change to a Development Permit for 47 Multiple
dwellings, Entertainment & Dining - Type 1 Food & Beverage and Retail Business - Type 1
Local and Type 2 Shop & Salon situated at Netanya, 71 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads. The
proposed alterations are to the entire development, and included additional GFA to an
existing café (The Providore) and restaurant (Sails), which are consistent uses within the
Visitor Mixed Use zone.
Despite not complying with Specific Outcomes O10 and O13 in respect to maximum site
cover and gross floor area under The Noosa Plan, Noosa Heads Locality Code, the proposal
complies with Specific Outcome O9 of the Locality Code. The development provides for
additional use area for entertainment and dining businesses in an appropriate location,
improving the amenity of patrons by providing additional weather protection and amenities.
The development is consistent with the bulk and scale of buildings within the locality,
maintaining the visual continuity and pattern of buildings along Hastings Street and The
Parade. The proposal will refurbish the entire Netanya development, revitalising the dated
façade and presenting a high quality and interesting streetscape via an improvement in the
existing built form of the building. Although additional onsite carparking cannot be provided
due to site constraints, the applicant has advised they are agreeable to enter into an
Infrastructure Agreement to make contributions in lieu of car parking. The application is
therefore recommended for approval subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.
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 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
Strategic Land Use Planning x Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 43 of 84
Section 44
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
7 OUTCOMES OF COMMUNITY BUDGET CONSULTATION
Author Director Corporate Services, Michael Shave
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 2020-21 Budget
Attachments 1. Survey responses
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the General Committee
Meeting dated 12 October 2020 and:
A. Note the outcomes of the community budget consultation undertaken between 7–27
September 2020, provided as Attachment 1 to the report;
B. Note that Council will consider the priorities identified in the feedback when undertaking
future 2020-21 budget reviews; and
C. Note the community’s preference for online community budget engagement process
for future budgets and request staff to report back to a future Council meeting with
options.
REPORT
At the Ordinary meeting on 18 June 2020, Council resolved to undertake an engagement
process with the community on:
1. How the allocation of any additional funding should be prioritised if it becomes available
through the financial year;
2. Where services/expenditure should be reduced if further budget reductions are
required;
3. The preferred public consultation model for the 2021/22 budget process.
This consultation was undertaken via YourSay Noosa between 7–27 September 2020. 156
responses were received. The outcomes of the consultation are provided as Attachment 1.
Question 1 - If Council has additional funds available, how should they be spent?
Rank the following in order of preference, 1 being the most preferred.
The graph below provides the average rank of scores for question 1. The ranking indicated
that respondents on average want any additional funding available invested in infrastructure
such as roads, bridges and parks. Respondents on average did not want to see any
additional funds retained and the operating budget deficit reduced.
Page 44 of 84
Section 45
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Question 2 - If Council has less funds available, what services should be reduced?
Rank the following in order of preference, with 1 being the most preferred service to
reduce and 5 being the least preferred.
The graph below provides the average rank of scores for question 2. The ranking indicated
that respondents on average wanted delays in non-urgent capital works if Council’s budget
position worsened. Respondents on average had the least preference for maintaining current
service levels via increasing general rates in the February rates issue.
It is recommended that Council consider the priorities identified by the community via
questions 1-2 when undertaking Budget Review 2 (December 2020) and Budget Review 3
(April 2021).
Question 3 - How do you think the community should be involved in the preparation
of future Council budgets? Rate the options in preferred order.
The graph below provides the average rank of scores for question 3. The ranking indicated
that respondents on average preferred to see an online engagement tool used for community
Page 45 of 84
Section 46
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
involvement in future Council budgets. Respondents on average had the least preference for
no community involvement and leaving Councillors to continue to make budget decisions as
elected community representatives.
Given there are a number of available online budget engagement tools available, it is
recommended that staff review options and report back to a future Council meeting.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 18 June 2020, Item 6, Page 10
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Services &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 and:
A. Following Council’s adoption of the 2020/21 Budget, agree to engage with the
community via Your Say Noosa on:
1. How the allocation of any additional funding should be prioritised if it becomes
available through the financial year; and
2. Where services/expenditure should be reduced if further budget reductions are
required.
B. Agree to engage with the community on their preferred public consultation model for
the 2021/22 budget process; and
C. Request the Chief Executive Officer to provide a report to Council on the outcomes of
both public consultation processes for Council’s consideration before it meets to
consider its scheduled Budget Review 2 in November 2020.
Finance
The likely upfront and ongoing cost of software and staff resources required to deliver an
online budget engagement tool and process will be reported back to Council - provided
Council resolves to request staff to report back to a future Council meeting with options.
Risks & Opportunities
Risks
Reputational – Council has progressed down the path towards consultation on future Council
budgets. Community trust will likely be eroded should this process not result in an outcome
whereby a consultation process is not established and implemented.
Page 46 of 84
Section 47
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Financial – The costs of delivering a budget consultation process are not yet known, and will
need to be considered and funded through a future budget review if a budget engagement
process is implemented for the 2021/22 budget process.
Priorities – Engagement processes with the community can achieve sub optimal outcomes
and priority misalignment should wide engagement not occur as intended.
Opportunities
A budget consultation process is an opportunity to understand the spending priorities of our
community and ensures that effective engagement continues to retain community confidence
in Council processes and decision making.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
The community was engaged via the Your Say Noosa link on Council’s website.
Internal Consultation
Chief Executive Officer
Communications and Community Engagement Manager
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director X Director
Executive Support Community Development X Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
X Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
X 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 47 of 84
Section 48
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 1
Page 48 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 1
Community input on Council Budget 20/21
if Council has additional funds available, how should they be spent?Rank the
following in order of preference, 1 being the ...
OPTIONS AVG. RANK
Roads, Bridges and Road Maintenance 3.56
Parks & Pathways 4.04
Fire breaks & controlled burns 4.19
Environmental and sustainability projects 4.24
Resurne waste kerbside collection 5.02
Community support grants 5.46
Provide a one-off subsidy in the February rates notice 6.10
Business support grants 6.10
Retain the funds and reduce council's current $1.8 million deficit for 6.29
this budget
Mandatory Question (156 response(s))
Page 1
Page 48 of 84Section 49
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 49 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
If Council has less funds available, what services should be reduced?Rank the
following in order of preference, with 1 being the most preferred service to reduce
and 5 being the least preferred.
OPTIONS AVG. RANK
Consider delaying non-urgent capital works or upgrades 2.05
Reduce the operating hours at facilities such as libraries, NAC, Art 2.85
Gallery
Reduce funds to the environmental grants program 2.90
Temporarily reduce roadworks, mowing and street sweeping 3.41
Maintain all service levels and increase general rates in the next rate 3.76
levy (February 2021)
Optional question (156 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Ranking Question
Page 2
Page 49 of 84Section 50
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 50 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
How do you think the community should be involved in the preparation of future
Council budgets?Rate the options below in preferred order.
OPTIONS AVG. RANK
Conduct an online engagement process, seeking feedback on a 1.70
range of budget areas and key projects
Conduct a series of community workshops across the shire 254
Establish a Community Reference Group via an expression of 2.69
interest process
Councillors should continue to make budget decisions as elected 3.08
community representatives
Mandatory Question (156 response(s)
Page 3
Page 50 of 84Section 51
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 51 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
What is one area you would like to see Council focus spending on in future budgets?
vehicles. no plastic etc. Putting the region on the ap for its sustainab a
5/09/2020 | That would be to address the most urgent crisis facing the survival of our planet and all of its
inhabitants.... Climate Change! Therefore measures put in place to reduce our carbon
emissions in any way we can including the introduction of electric buses and charging points for
electric cars and provision for safer laneways for electric bikes and scooters.
5/09/2020 | Appreciation of the countless hours & expertise of bushcare groups who save council
thousands of dollars in skilled smart volunteer work. Eg PBCA, NPA. Vegetation management
expertise.
Council needs to review departments like planning(what do they do, there are no developments
or social housing projects going on, what do they do?) and library (times have changed)
Nature is Noosa’s advantage, look after it & show gratitude to all the free workforce taking care
of it.
Get on with the basics, review the workforce to ensure it is sleek & relevant.
residents, Council run ferry on the river?
7/09/2020 | A balanced approach to Toursm and locals. Tounsm ts a great income generator for local
a business, but it does impact the livability of the area during peak time. Unsure what the answer
is.
roads have no infrastructure for a mega quarry.
7/09/2020 | We need all parts of Noosa Shire to be included in your mowing and road maintenance.
Pioneer Road is suppose to be done every three months and yet again, another year it has
been done once in 9 months. Excuse every time.. Kids walk on this road and elderly people.
You need to fix the road that these quary trucks are using!!! Over 60 a day. You need to control
the time they are starting.. Pretty sure 5.00am is against noise correct? bus stops for the
children would be nice as well on Pioneer Road.. Footpaths for safe walking into town. Pomona
gets left out all the time for upgrades because your focus is always hasting... Please we are
also paying rates out here and fall under noosa shore last time | checked.
7/09/2020 | Upgrading the area between the RSL park, council chambers and the marina. | think the
historical town of Tewantin and the home of the council itself needs to have a beautiful and
more user end green co Dace
7/09/2020 | Allocate money to the Hinterland communities of Kin Kin, Pomona and Cooran to.....
1. Either buy Kin Kin Quarry or demand complete rebuild of the Pomona Kin Kin Road from
Sheppersons Lane (where the quarry is located) to the Old Bruce Highway. The Road has
completely degraded and is not fit for heavy vehicle use.
have not been upgraded fir so long. Provide new interest, more skill opportunities etc
The council generally has it ight. Perhaps some more infrastructure and repair spending in the
orgotten" areas like Cooroibah.
7/09/2020 | repairing and enhancing the steps from Hastings to Upper Hastings St. this should be a prionty
because (a) the current steps are dangerous and somebody will suffer an injury, (b) improving
this access will allow more residents / quests to walk to Hastings St and thereby reduce vehicle
traffic and increase spending on Hastings St, (c) it will align with the recent improvements to the
Park Rd walk way and related steps. thanks
7/09/2020 | It ts important that we continue to fund projects that enhance Noosa’s environmental integrity.
This is the point of difference which attracts people to the area and we also need to ensure the
flora and fauna of the area protected, even if, paradoxically to the first statement in this
sentence, that means less people. No funding should be going to business at all. Business is
private enterprise which rewards risk taking and quality product. Local government has no role
in this.
Page +
Page 51 of 84Section 52
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 52 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
7/09/2020 | 1. Cooroy or Pomona dumps open longer weekend hours (at least one)
2. Curb side rubbish collection
3. Free green dumping
4. More bike paths
8/09/2020 | CUT DOWN LARGE DANGEROUS GUMTREES & LARGE NORFOLK PINES THESE
TREES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE IN TEWANTIN SUBURBAN AREAS & LARGE
GUMTREES SHOULD BE CUT DOWN OPPOSITE POWER TRANSFORMERS FOR
SAFETY REASONS WOULD YOU LIKE A GUMTREE FALLING A ND PUSHING A POWER
TRANSFORMER INTO YOUR HOME
8/09/2020 | *Dealing with the Noosa Catchment and River health.
= *Monitoring closely the treated water being released from the Kin Kin Quarry. Sheppersons
Lane Kin Kin.
Install Solar powered lighting Noosa Springs Drive walking pathways from intersection at from
Leslie drive roundabout to Eenie creek rd overpass
Fenced off dog park. Rego fees are extravagant & we get nothing but a couple of poo bags, |
supply my own. Over 10,000 Registered dog, we need a fenced dog park
—_ beyond Pomona, but we do love a good revenue raiserof fining owners, don't we? Let alone
8/09/2020 | More off leash dog parks. Use Buderim Dog Park as a model. Total lack of off leash areas
Noosa's dog registration fees on comparison to Gympie and Sunshine Coast Councils. Not all
residents live by the beach. Consider your Hinterland Co ity too.
9/09/2020 | Road and park , beach access maintenance, environment, committed to supporting police with
heavy fines for wrongful acts be it animals, public nuisances like perverts at beaches and
schools ... signs up warning offenders.
Stop taking pay rises and not delivering what co ity asks for.
9/09/2020 | councillors wages need to be reacessed and reduced. the funds for these salleries arrive from
people having to go to work. the jobs the people have for a big percetage of the population, will
never equal what councillors get. how can councillors equate this, i have never seen a
councillor darken my door step in the time i have live in this shire. people have to strugle to
work, find work, where their sallaries are decided for them. yet we have no choice what
exhorbitant rates you get as councillors. it really amazes me that a few golden people in our
society, ones whom claim they work for us, are able to select their own salary. and councillors
think that is ok. yet when we make a point it is completely ignored. we have three levels of
government in this country, all have their heads in the trough. we have no choice of how much
Day and conditions councilors get. that is repulsive.
CHARGING US THE TOURISM LEVY
Environment levy for adaptation against climate change and to mitigate the impacts of climate
change in the shire
11/09/2020 | The time has arived where local inhabitants make the decision whether fish are taken out of
the ocean and river systems for unrestrained, unself-regulated, unsustainable, recreational
fishing practices. Research could be funded to see what fish species are left in our waters and
the relationship these species have on the health of the entire ecosystem and other species
dependent on their survival - for example; dolphins, sea eagles, brahmin kites, albatrosses and
migrating terns. In the endless drive for Tourism numbers this beautiful region will increasingly
be overrun by day-tnipping fishermen, and spear-fishermen, from the extended Brisbane region,
and cashed-up amateurs utilising local fishing charter operations. In combination, all viable
species of sea-life are being decimated from local waters, reefs and river systems. Solid
environmental research would undoubtably propose that all of Noosa's Oceanic, Reef and
River systems be classified as No-Take Zones, allowing the aquatic ecosystem to recover its
integrity and function . Articles have indicated that the Noosa River's underwater landscape is
an environmental nightmare of snagged fishing lines and tackle. You may counter that its the
Page 5
Page 52 of 84Section 53
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 53 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
right of anyone to cast a line, kill a wild sea animal and leave a tangle of nylon line and strewn
bait bags when they decamp. However | believe that all recreational activities do not have to
be covered in drawing tourist demographics to the region. In fact declaring a Manne Sanctuary
may have a distinct advantage in the class and wealth of people drawn to the region. Many
locals, and holiday-makers love to take a stroll on the beach, watch the sea birds scouting for
dinner, catch some dolphins at play, watch the sunset, take a surf, take an extreme fitness
angle (which is the growth area) not take out sea life for their own short-term satiation. The
local dolphin family which still ply our waters and the pair of sea eagles at North Sunshine
Beach, and the nesting pair of Brahmin kites at Little Cove do not have the capacity to shimmy
up to the Junction of an afternoon to pick up dinner from Coles. A Marine Sanctuary would
align very nicely with the whole ethos surrounding a world Surfing Reserve and the Noosa
Biosphere projects.
| 11/09/2020 |Community
residents chose to live in the Shire. Retain our regional status and not look to become yet
another big ci
contacted council about foxes and was told (basically) to suck it up +
—_ e. g. build green bridges for koalas,©) as opposed to so-called sustainable
5 1 1 4 1 14 1786 1660 136 44 96 projects that
12/09/2020 | Environmental projects that make sense and that are genuinely beneficial to nature and wildlife,
interfere with nature and are only beneficial to a few humans., €.g. the Noosa trail masterplan at
Pomona/KinKin®
station and NO toilets !!!! The traffic on North Shore is like the Bruce Highway. A big must is for
more toilets ASAP
Retaining our natural environment by purchasing bush land for protection from development.
Invest in social housing for the homeless.
13/09/2020 | Economic and environmental sustainability. Community resilience in these uncertain times is
absolutely vital to building and maintaining happy, healthy communities. To do this we need to
work together to maintain the balance between protecting our environment and lifestyle and
ensuring we have business and economic diversification to support our population. Education,
innovation and collaboration is key.
13/09/2020 | Sustainability- projects and spend that have an environmental, social AND economic return, ie
upgrades (such as conversion to solar) that result in a facility having lower operational and
natives results in much lower maint. Costs if it doesn't have to be constantly mowed, weed
sprayed etc
Road duplication and widening to ease traffic issues. Especially travelling north to south ie.
Beckman’s Road duplication. Think about a plan for Hastings St traffic and parking.
CO i pene ando Joing emo C4 oppor ities. |.e. build g capacity.
13/09/2020 | | would prefer that the kerbside collections be abandoned and a subsidy paid to ratepayers to
hire a contractor to remove their rubbish to the tip. There are details that need to be considered
but | understand that only a small fraction of residents of the Noosa Shire put out rubbish at the
annual kerbside clean up. It could possibly save council money.
Page 6
Page 53 of 84Section 54
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 54 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
SS
13/09/2020 | Road maintenance with relevant training. Residident in Cooroy are two international experts in
course programs viz Centre for Pavement Education
13/09/2020 | On george steet in tewantin children & adults walk on both sides of the footpaths i would like to
see all the huge gumtrees cut down have seen many branches fall & nearly miss people &
children walking to school & home & cars they are a death trap i love trees but gumtrees
should never be in suburbia
13/09/2020 | Review existing Council programs to align them in support of Noosa’s unique positioning on the
Coast . | have observed things going downhill with the green natural assets that have attracted
people to Noosa as a high value niche location for generations. Eg street greenery being
removed and not replaced or road plantings pruned to 1/4 of its size so the bushes never really
recover? Destruction of mangrove fish nursenes. Wail to wall houses under the guise of
retirement estates with no green space. Simple things that change the look and feel of the
place. We'll not do well becoming like the Gold Coast overrun with inappropriate development
either. Support small business and keep big corporate influences out of Council
13/09/2020 | Parking. It is rediculous that there are so many spaces in and around Noosa/Hasting St that
cars could readily park - but can't as they would get a fine. As a long term Noosa local. Do not
tell me to catch a bus to enjoy my back yard. Provide priority parking for locals? Local sticker?
Lots of options. Lots of spaces in the surrounding areas that for some bizarre reason Council
Says No parking. Council envoys the revenue of parking tickets. Very sad.
14/09/2020 | equal spending on ALL parks.....why is all the money spent on areas in Hastings St and
Gympie Tce which are seen by non-rate paying tourists.....yet very little spent on parks that
local ratepayers spend their time (other than just general maintenance, mowing, etc). general
pgrade should be done as is in the tourist areas.
Roads and the environment and safety of the animal population of the shire.
14/09/2020 | If the Tourism and Economic Levy were utilised to cover the maintenance costs of all ceremony
sites in the Noosa Shire, and the permit fees for ceremonies in Noosa were brought in line with
the Sunshine Coast, or less, this will bring great economic benefit to my business, and to all the
wedding industry and tourism businesses in Noosa.
Undercover options/Multipurpose / wedding chapel — A large and beautiful undercover area at
Noosa Woods, Chaplin Park, and the Noosa Botanic Gardens would bring quality weddings to
the Noosa Region
Funding to Tourism Noosa to SUPPORT the wedding and honeymoon industry.
14/09/2020 | SUPPORT FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES
As a small business owner with a wedding industry business, Noosa WEDDING PERMIT FEES
ARE OUTRAGEOUS. These huge fees are discouraging couples from booking and staying in
Noosa. As a provider of Small and intimate weddings, to pay $567 is just a 'No Way’, to stand
on a piece of grass, which is not exclusive - they may have to share with picnicers who pay
nothing to be there. | would like to see the Tourism and Economic Levy utilised towards
maintenance of the x4 Groves, and ALL other ceremony sites. | would like to see FREE
permits on beaches, where no maintenance is required, and a fee to cover the cost of admin, in
the range of $75 for my 6 people to stand for half an hour.
So - TOURISM AND ECONOMIC LEVY towards maintenance of the Groves (3 of which are not
properly maintained anyway)
FUNDING TO TOURISM NOOSA for promotion of weddings (happy if these are biosphere
wedding and honeymoon options)
MULTIPURPOSE BUILDINGS SUITABLE AS A CHAPEL - Noosa Woods, Chaplin Park and
Botanic Gardens would be ideal.
| am receiving more inquiries than ever for elopement and small weddings - Queensland
couples want to come to Noosa for their wedding and honeymoon, and all the money they have
saved up for the destination wedding overseas, will now be spent on themselves. This is an
amazing opportunity to encourage couples to come to Noosa and enjoy our biosphere, and
mary in the most beautiful location in the world. | NEED JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HELP -
REDUCED WEDDING PERMIT FEES
situations, low paid workers.
Supporting Local Business, especially the Wedding Industry that brings a great impact on the
Noosa econo
Page 7
Page 54 of 84Section 55
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 55 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
14/09/2020 | SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESS by...
* If the Tourism and Economic Levy were utilised to cover the maintenance costs of all
ceremony sites in the Noosa Shire, and the permit fees for ceremonies in Noosa were brought
in line with the Sunshine Coast, or less, this will bring great economic benefit to my business,
and to all the wedding industry and tourism businesses in Noosa.
* Undercover options/Multipurpose / wedding chapel — A large and beautiful undercover area at
Noosa Woods, Chaplin Park, and the Noosa Botanic Gardens would bring quality weddings to
the Noosa Region
* Funding to Tourism Noosa or the Noosa Wedding Organisation to SUPPORT the wedding
and honeymoon industry.
14/09/2020 | SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT.
| am a young person in my 20's, just starting out in business offering a photography and
wedding elopement service in Noosa. | grew up in Noosa and went to school here, and would
like to stay working in the area.
| have a lot of inquiries for elopement weddings, with just the couple and a few witnesses, and
they want to get marmied on Casuarina Gardens, but it costs them $567, so they don't book and
they go elsewhere. They would be happy to pay around $75 for the 20 minutes we need to
stand on the grass.
Please spend some of the Tourism and Economic money on covering some of the costs of the
ceremony sites in Noosa.
Money to Wedding Tourism would be good, too
Chapels and wet weather options would be great
southerm areas environmental protection and waste recovery jobs that have been on lists for 10
ears or more
environmental sustainability, climate change adaptation, which include support of objectives of
Noosa Biosphere Reserve
Weddings spots on Hastings Street, The Grove etc should be reduced immediately. Council
and Tourism Noosa should be supporting Noosa Wedding Industry not supporting vendors and
small businesses to go broke.
16/09/2020 | Supporting the wedding industry and the associated tourism.
Building a chapel as a wt weather and alternative option to the groves along Hastings Street
beachfront
17/09/2020 | Maintaining existing facilities and not let Noosa, Tewantin especially loose its charm - A big
saving to council would be no kerb side rubbish collect and giving ratepayers a pass with rate
notice for a tip drop it will also solve many problems
17/09/2020 | An after hours/weekend hotline and action group to monitor and attend party houses in Noosa
that are greatly impacting rate paying residents and their quality of life. Council allows them,
council should be responsible for policing them and minimising the impact they have on
permanent Noosa residents
and visited but also to keep it local and sustainable for the community.
18/09/2020 | | know the bicycle is very important both revenue and tourist wise but our roads still are not
geared for it - | believe Cooroy-Noosa Road is classified main road but Lake MacDonald Rd
needs widening - believe me, I'm not anti bike but anti accident so the roads have to be
addressed - the people of Lake MacDonald were promised a new road by Council when
Collwood Rd was closed due water treatment plant but somehow we are always forgotten- it
would ease traffic in Cooroy and encourage tourism to the Botanical Gardens
Page 8
Page 55 of 84Section 56
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 56 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
who will do the work? Backpackers?
18/09/2020 | Maintaining roads, mowing, street sweeping, parks and so forth should remain the same,
reducing these services has a knock on effect on community pride and lowers the esteem of
the area in general. Libraries too are important community resources for those that need them.
Without these basic amenities, overall community morale suffers. I've seen this happen with
local council austerity measures in England, and it costs more long term.
vandals ... | wonder if there’s some sort of frame that can be put around the lovely sapling-sized
trees that council plants to protect them from idiots who break them off. Also litter is pretty bad
between the junction and Hastings st especially after long weekends.
19/09/2020 | Well it shid be NOW. Not in the Future. The Noosa Council working in with the Police to reduce
the FERAL SPEEDING and DRIVING BEHAVIOUR . The toxic fumes and speeding Sun Buses
especially in Goodchap Street. It is vv DANGEROUS and OUT OF CONTROL and the Noosa
Council had done NOTHING to address the situation for the last THREE YEAR'S.
19/09/2020 | Please support and encourage, not discourage, local wedding businesses and the wedding
(1) by reducing the permit fees for outdoor wedding ceremonies. | would also like to see a
special discounted permit fee during the Covid pandemic to encourage outdoor weddings at
Noosa Council venue sites.
(2) provide undercover options to provide shade in the hot summer months and cover when it
rains. | am a local wedding celebrant and it is truly heartbreaking for couples (and their quests)
when months (sometimes years) of planning for their Big
5 1 1 5 3 10 1510 1443 67 41 79 Day’
5 1 1 5 3 11 1576 1443 110 41 95 results
5 1 1 5 3 12 1685 1443 36 41 96 in
5 1 1 5 3 13 1730 1453 19 21 96 a
5 1 1 5 3 14 1757 1443 127 41 96 scramble
5 1 1 5 3 15 1887 1443 42 41 96 to
5 1 1 5 3 16 1928 1443 72 41 96 find
5 1 1 5 3 17 1999 1443 46 41 96 an
4 1 1 5 4 0 646 1485 467 26 -1
5 1 1 5 4 1 646 1485 467 26 90 altemative
5 1 1 5 4 2 806 1481 96 41 95 venue
5 1 1 5 4 3 905 1481 76 41 94 when
5 1 1 5 4 4 987 1481 31 41 94 it
5 1 1 5 4 5 1024 1481 93 41 95 rains.
3 1 1 6 0 0 644 1525 1433 105 -1
4 1 1 6 1 0 644 1525 1433 33 -1
5 1 1 6 1 1 629 1521 70 41 96 The
5 1 1 6 1 2 698 1521 89 41 95 large
5 1 1 6 1 3 798 1521 126 41 94 majority
5 1 1 6 1 4 925 1521 43 41 96 of
5 1 1 6 1 5 971 1521 42 41 96 my
5 1 1 6 1 6 1015 1521 141 41 96 weddings
5 1 1 6 1 7 1159 1521 76 41 95 have
5 1 1 6 1 8 1237 1521 162 41 95 interstate
5 1 1 6 1 9 1401 1521 63 41 95 and
5 1 1 6 1 10 1463 1521 138 41 96 overseas
5 1 1 6 1 11 1603 1521 189 41 96 participants
5 1 1 6 1 12 1794 1521 63 41 96 who
5 1 1 6 1 13 1856 1521 76 41 96 stay
5 1 1 6 1 14 1934 1521 35 41 96 in
5 1 1 6 1 15 1979 1521 100 41 96 Noosa
4 1 1 6 2 0 644 1563 1364 32 -1
5 1 1 6 2 1 630 1559 61 40 96 for
5 1 1 6 2 2 696 1569 20 20 96 a
5 1 1 6 2 3 723 1563 242 32 96 number
5 1 1 6 2 4 836 1559 48 40 96 of
5 1 1 6 2 5 886 1559 95 40 95 days.
5 1 1 6 2 6 980 1559 87 40 95 Many
5 1 1 6 2 7 1066 1559 111 40 95 guests
5 1 1 6 2 8 1180 1559 57 40 96 who
5 1 1 6 2 9 1240 1559 57 40 96 are
5 1 1 6 2 10 1296 1559 145 40 95 first-time
5 1 1 6 2 11 1443 1559 124 40 95 visitors
5 1 1 6 2 12 1570 1559 41 40 96 to
5 1 1 6 2 13 1610 1559 94 40 96 Noosa
5 1 1 6 2 14 1706 1559 81 40 96 then
5 1 1 6 2 15 1786 1559 84 40 96 come
5 1 1 6 2 16 1870 1559 77 40 96 back
5 1 1 6 2 17 1950 1559 57 40 96 for
4 1 1 6 3 0 645 1604 250 26 -1
5 1 1 6 3 1 634 1600 100 41 95 future
5 1 1 6 3 2 736 1600 159 41 93 vacations.
3 1 1 7 0 0 420 1680 1619 74 -1
4 1 1 7 1 0 646 1685 1393 32 -1
5 1 1 7 1 1 634 1677 173 45 96 Continuing
5 1 1 7 1 2 810 1677 215 45 96 environmental
5 1 1 7 1 3 1028 1677 121 45 96 projects
5 1 1 7 1 4 1152 1677 68 45 94 like
5 1 1 7 1 5 1219 1677 87 45 96 bring
5 1 1 7 1 6 1305 1677 76 45 96 back
5 1 1 7 1 7 1380 1677 57 45 96 the
5 1 1 7 1 8 1437 1677 68 45 95 fish
5 1 1 7 1 9 1508 1677 64 45 95 and
5 1 1 7 1 10 1572 1677 165 45 96 supporting
5 1 1 7 1 11 1740 1677 54 45 96 the
5 1 1 7 1 12 1797 1677 150 45 96 Biosphere
5 1 1 7 1 13 1947 1677 94 45 96 raise
4 1 1 7 2 0 646 1722 409 27 -1
5 1 1 7 2 1 631 1718 53 42 94 all
5 1 1 7 2 2 684 1718 144 42 96 residents
5 1 1 7 2 3 827 1718 134 42 96 standard
5 1 1 7 2 4 960 1718 43 42 93 of
5 1 1 7 2 5 1047 1722 38 22 69 livinc
3 1 1 8 0 0 440 1804 1540 109 -1
4 1 1 8 1 0 440 1804 1493 32 -1
5 1 1 8 1 1 440 1804 170 26 96 22/09/2020
5 1 1 8 1 2 609 1800 28 40 96 |
5 1 1 8 1 3 645 1800 195 40 96 Traineeships
5 1 1 8 1 4 846 1800 150 40 95 supported
5 1 1 8 1 5 999 1800 47 40 96 by
5 1 1 8 1 6 1046 1800 117 40 96 council
5 1 1 8 1 7 1162 1800 58 40 96 for
5 1 1 8 1 8 1219 1800 91 40 96 under
5 1 1 8 1 9 1317 1804 81 26 96 17-21
5 1 1 8 1 10 1402 1800 74 40 96 year
5 1 1 8 1 11 1476 1800 81 40 94 olds,
5 1 1 8 1 12 1562 1800 101 40 96 grants
5 1 1 8 1 13 1666 1800 57 40 96 for
5 1 1 8 1 14 1722 1800 61 40 96 RTO
5 1 1 8 1 15 1786 1800 57 40 96 for
5 1 1 8 1 16 1846 1800 91 40 96 youth
4 1 1 8 2 0 646 1844 1334 33 -1
5 1 1 8 2 1 628 1840 196 41 96 employment
5 1 1 8 2 2 826 1840 42 41 96 or
5 1 1 8 2 3 870 1840 100 41 96 grants
5 1 1 8 2 4 970 1840 55 41 96 for
5 1 1 8 2 5 1024 1840 83 41 95 local
5 1 1 8 2 6 1110 1840 130 41 96 business
5 1 1 8 2 7 1243 1840 41 41 96 to
5 1 1 8 2 8 1287 1840 70 41 96 take
5 1 1 8 2 9 1359 1840 42 41 95 on
5 1 1 8 2 10 1403 1840 87 41 96 youth
5 1 1 8 2 11 1492 1840 56 41 93 for
5 1 1 8 2 12 1547 1840 182 41 89 traneeships
5 1 1 8 2 13 1731 1840 155 41 96 especially
5 1 1 8 2 14 1896 1844 27 27 96 in
5 1 1 8 2 15 1923 1840 55 41 96 the
4 1 1 8 3 0 647 1882 823 31 -1
5 1 1 8 3 1 630 1878 111 39 96 Noosa
5 1 1 8 3 2 740 1882 554 26 76 Hinterland
5 1 1 8 3 3 912 1878 92 39 96 where
5 1 1 8 3 4 1003 1878 86 39 96 there
5 1 1 8 3 5 1088 1878 40 39 96 is
5 1 1 8 3 6 1130 1878 27 39 94 a
5 1 1 8 3 7 1156 1878 76 39 94 lack
5 1 1 8 3 8 1234 1878 40 39 94 of
5 1 1 8 3 9 1330 1891 140 22 94 employment.
3 1 1 9 0 0 420 1917 1576 77 -1
4 1 1 9 1 0 647 1922 1349 33 -1
5 1 1 9 1 1 631 1913 239 46 93 Environmental
5 1 1 9 1 2 869 1913 146 46 91 concems,
5 1 1 9 1 3 1018 1913 120 46 96 helping
5 1 1 9 1 4 1137 1913 62 46 97 the
5 1 1 9 1 5 1198 1913 89 46 96 aging
5 1 1 9 1 6 1294 1913 193 46 96 demographic
5 1 1 9 1 7 1490 1913 66 46 90 feel
5 1 1 9 1 8 1559 1913 66 46 97 part
5 1 1 9 1 9 1628 1913 35 46 97 of
5 1 1 9 1 10 1666 1913 62 46 96 the
5 1 1 9 1 11 1727 1913 170 46 96 community
5 1 1 9 1 12 1900 1913 100 46 96 (move
4 1 1 9 2 0 646 1963 449 26 -1
5 1 1 9 2 1 646 1963 449 26 95 services
5 1 1 9 2 2 771 1959 73 41 96 back
5 1 1 9 2 3 843 1959 52 41 87 off
5 1 1 9 2 4 894 1959 66 41 87 line
5 1 1 9 2 5 959 1959 56 41 96 for
5 1 1 9 2 6 1017 1959 76 41 96 them
3 1 1 10 0 0 440 2004 1632 220 -1
4 1 1 10 1 0 440 2004 1616 32 -1
5 1 1 10 1 1 440 2004 170 26 94 23/09/2020
5 1 1 10 1 2 606 2000 27 40 96 |
5 1 1 10 1 3 647 2004 7 26 91 |
5 1 1 10 1 4 662 2000 84 40 96 would
5 1 1 10 1 5 746 2000 67 40 96 like
5 1 1 10 1 6 816 2000 36 40 96 to
5 1 1 10 1 7 859 2000 114 40 96 request
5 1 1 10 1 8 984 2010 19 20 95 a
5 1 1 10 1 9 1002 2000 138 40 95 footpath
5 1 1 10 1 10 1144 2000 46 40 93 on
5 1 1 10 1 11 1189 2000 184 40 91 Shorehaven
5 1 1 10 1 12 1376 2000 90 40 84 Drive
5 1 1 10 1 13 1466 2000 134 40 95 between
5 1 1 10 1 14 1609 2004 39 26 91 37
5 1 1 10 1 15 1656 2000 181 40 90 Shorehaven
5 1 1 10 1 16 1836 2000 91 40 95 Drive
5 1 1 10 1 17 1932 2000 62 40 95 and
5 1 1 10 1 18 2005 2004 51 26 96 101
4 1 1 10 2 0 646 2041 1395 33 -1
5 1 1 10 2 1 628 2037 199 41 91 Shorehaven
5 1 1 10 2 2 826 2037 100 41 92 Drive.
5 1 1 10 2 3 935 2037 172 41 91 Shorehaven
5 1 1 10 2 4 1110 2037 42 41 96 is
5 1 1 10 2 5 1163 2047 19 21 94 a
5 1 1 10 2 6 1185 2037 72 41 96 busy
5 1 1 10 2 7 1260 2037 114 41 96 street,
5 1 1 10 2 8 1373 2037 66 41 96 with
5 1 1 10 2 9 1441 2037 73 41 96 cars
5 1 1 10 2 10 1513 2037 110 41 96 always
5 1 1 10 2 11 1622 2037 110 41 96 parked
5 1 1 10 2 12 1735 2037 42 41 96 on
5 1 1 10 2 13 1779 2037 56 41 96 the
5 1 1 10 2 14 1848 2037 62 41 96 kerb
5 1 1 10 2 15 1909 2037 59 41 95 and
5 1 1 10 2 16 1967 2037 74 41 77 itis
4 1 1 10 3 0 646 2079 1378 32 -1
5 1 1 10 3 1 638 2075 118 40 95 difficult
5 1 1 10 3 2 755 2075 54 40 96 for
5 1 1 10 3 3 812 2075 41 40 96 my
5 1 1 10 3 4 855 2075 124 40 95 children
5 1 1 10 3 5 982 2075 40 40 95 to
5 1 1 10 3 6 1022 2075 101 40 96 safely
5 1 1 10 3 7 1128 2075 54 40 89 ride
5 1 1 10 3 8 1182 2075 84 40 96 their
5 1 1 10 3 9 1265 2075 81 40 93 bikes
5 1 1 10 3 10 1356 2079 13 26 93 /
5 1 1 10 3 11 1375 2075 131 40 96 scooters
5 1 1 10 3 12 1508 2075 105 40 96 around
5 1 1 10 3 13 1615 2075 67 40 96 this
5 1 1 10 3 14 1685 2075 74 40 96 area
5 1 1 10 3 15 1762 2075 114 40 96 without
5 1 1 10 3 16 1875 2075 108 40 96 having
5 1 1 10 3 17 1982 2075 41 40 96 to
4 1 1 10 4 0 646 2119 440 33 -1
5 1 1 10 4 1 635 2115 89 41 96 cross
5 1 1 10 4 2 727 2115 56 41 96 the
5 1 1 10 4 3 785 2115 76 41 95 road
5 1 1 10 4 4 860 2119 226 33 95 multiple
5 1 1 10 4 5 983 2115 104 41 96 times.
4 1 1 10 5 0 647 2157 1425 26 -1
5 1 1 10 5 1 647 2157 7 26 90 |
5 1 1 10 5 2 660 2153 89 41 96 would
5 1 1 10 5 3 748 2153 70 41 96 also
5 1 1 10 5 4 817 2153 69 41 96 like
5 1 1 10 5 5 889 2153 35 41 96 to
5 1 1 10 5 6 930 2153 59 41 96 see
5 1 1 10 5 7 991 2153 56 41 96 the
5 1 1 10 5 8 1049 2153 121 41 96 Council
5 1 1 10 5 9 1169 2153 59 41 95 tum
5 1 1 10 5 10 1230 2153 42 41 95 on
5 1 1 10 5 11 1275 2153 59 41 96 the
5 1 1 10 5 12 1340 2153 89 41 96 water
5 1 1 10 5 13 1428 2153 117 41 96 feature
5 1 1 10 5 14 1555 2153 35 41 96 in
5 1 1 10 5 15 1592 2153 100 41 96 Noosa
5 1 1 10 5 16 1697 2153 112 41 96 Waters
5 1 1 10 5 17 1816 2153 37 41 96 at
5 1 1 10 5 18 1859 2153 124 41 96 Mermaid
5 1 1 10 5 19 1985 2153 87 41 96 Park.
4 1 1 10 6 0 645 2197 894 27 -1
5 1 1 10 6 1 630 2193 67 42 96 The
5 1 1 10 6 2 697 2193 109 42 96 estate
5 1 1 10 6 3 805 2193 92 42 96 looks
5 1 1 10 6 4 896 2193 60 42 96 run
5 1 1 10 6 5 959 2193 81 42 95 down
5 1 1 10 6 6 1040 2193 74 42 96 with
5 1 1 10 6 7 1113 2193 57 42 96 the
5 1 1 10 6 8 1173 2193 88 42 96 water
5 1 1 10 6 9 1260 2193 116 42 96 feature
5 1 1 10 6 10 1376 2193 98 42 96 turned
5 1 1 10 6 11 1474 2193 63 42 95 off.
3 1 1 11 0 0 420 2233 1677 36 -1
4 1 1 11 1 0 420 2233 1677 36 -1
5 1 1 11 1 1 411 2229 28 53 55 |
5 1 1 11 1 2 438 2229 177 53 54 2309/2020
5 1 1 11 1 3 614 2229 28 53 55 |
5 1 1 11 1 4 641 2229 49 53 24 Ni
3 1 1 12 0 0 440 2401 1616 148 -1
4 1 1 12 1 0 440 2401 1496 32 -1
5 1 1 12 1 1 440 2401 170 26 73 2309/2020
5 1 1 12 1 2 606 2397 27 40 93 |
5 1 1 12 1 3 646 2407 11 11 32 *
5 1 1 12 1 4 656 2397 33 40 65 if
5 1 1 12 1 5 696 2397 54 40 96 the
5 1 1 12 1 6 751 2397 126 40 96 Tourism
5 1 1 12 1 7 876 2397 71 40 95 and
5 1 1 12 1 8 946 2397 154 40 95 Economic
5 1 1 12 1 9 1099 2397 81 40 96 Levy
5 1 1 12 1 10 1179 2397 74 40 96 were
5 1 1 12 1 11 1256 2397 121 40 95 utilised
5 1 1 12 1 12 1379 2397 38 40 96 to
5 1 1 12 1 13 1422 2397 88 40 96 cover
5 1 1 12 1 14 1512 2397 54 40 96 the
5 1 1 12 1 15 1569 2397 194 40 96 maintenance
5 1 1 12 1 16 1762 2397 88 40 96 costs
5 1 1 12 1 17 1849 2397 41 40 96 of
5 1 1 12 1 18 1892 2397 44 40 96 all
4 1 1 12 2 0 646 2441 1410 33 -1
5 1 1 12 2 1 631 2437 155 41 96 ceremony
5 1 1 12 2 2 788 2437 83 41 96 sites
5 1 1 12 2 3 870 2437 40 41 96 in
5 1 1 12 2 4 915 2437 55 41 96 the
5 1 1 12 2 5 973 2437 100 41 95 Noosa
5 1 1 12 2 6 1072 2437 98 41 96 Shire,
5 1 1 12 2 7 1178 2437 59 41 96 and
5 1 1 12 2 8 1239 2437 56 41 96 the
5 1 1 12 2 9 1298 2437 100 41 93 permit
5 1 1 12 2 10 1397 2437 72 41 95 fees
5 1 1 12 2 11 1472 2437 59 41 95 for
5 1 1 12 2 12 1530 2437 172 41 95 ceremonies
5 1 1 12 2 13 1715 2437 34 41 95 in
5 1 1 12 2 14 1749 2437 100 41 95 Noosa
5 1 1 12 2 15 1848 2437 83 41 96 were
5 1 1 12 2 16 1930 2437 130 41 95 brought
4 1 1 12 3 0 646 2479 1391 32 -1
5 1 1 12 3 1 646 2479 20 26 96 in
5 1 1 12 3 2 672 2475 64 40 96 line
5 1 1 12 3 3 735 2475 71 40 96 with
5 1 1 12 3 4 808 2475 61 40 96 the
5 1 1 12 3 5 868 2475 145 40 95 Sunshine
5 1 1 12 3 6 1012 2475 107 40 95 Coast,
5 1 1 12 3 7 1118 2475 38 40 96 or
5 1 1 12 3 8 1155 2475 81 40 96 less,
5 1 1 12 3 9 1235 2475 68 40 96 this
5 1 1 12 3 10 1302 2475 64 40 96 will
5 1 1 12 3 11 1365 2475 81 40 95 bring
5 1 1 12 3 12 1448 2475 91 40 96 great
5 1 1 12 3 13 1538 2475 144 40 95 economic
5 1 1 12 3 14 1682 2475 117 40 96 benefit
5 1 1 12 3 15 1802 2475 40 40 95 to
5 1 1 12 3 16 1842 2475 44 40 97 my
5 1 1 12 3 17 1888 2475 149 40 95 business,
4 1 1 12 4 0 646 2516 975 33 -1
5 1 1 12 4 1 635 2512 59 41 96 and
5 1 1 12 4 2 693 2512 42 41 96 to
5 1 1 12 4 3 734 2512 55 41 88 all
5 1 1 12 4 4 788 2512 56 41 96 the
5 1 1 12 4 5 847 2512 120 41 96 wedding
5 1 1 12 4 6 973 2512 134 41 95 industry
5 1 1 12 4 7 1110 2512 59 41 96 and
5 1 1 12 4 8 1168 2512 124 41 96 tourism
5 1 1 12 4 9 1291 2512 171 41 96 businesses
5 1 1 12 4 10 1465 2512 40 41 95 in
5 1 1 12 4 11 1513 2512 107 41 96 Noosa.
3 1 1 13 0 0 644 2557 1599 802 -1
4 1 1 13 1 0 646 2557 1427 33 -1
5 1 1 13 1 1 646 2563 12 11 91 *
5 1 1 13 1 2 665 2553 172 41 93 Undercover
5 1 1 13 1 3 843 2553 315 41 87 options/Multipurpose
5 1 1 13 1 4 1173 2557 13 26 87 /
5 1 1 13 1 5 1188 2553 128 41 96 wedding
5 1 1 13 1 6 1318 2553 110 41 93 chapel
5 1 1 13 1 7 1437 2573 19 4 90 —
5 1 1 13 1 8 1466 2557 17 26 95 A
5 1 1 13 1 9 1485 2553 90 41 95 large
5 1 1 13 1 10 1578 2553 62 41 96 and
5 1 1 13 1 11 1639 2553 139 41 96 beautiful
5 1 1 13 1 12 1786 2553 168 41 96 undercover
5 1 1 13 1 13 1957 2553 73 41 95 area
5 1 1 13 1 14 2032 2553 41 41 95 at
4 1 1 13 2 0 647 2595 1407 32 -1
5 1 1 13 2 1 629 2591 115 40 95 Noosa
5 1 1 13 2 2 753 2591 115 40 95 Woods,
5 1 1 13 2 3 869 2591 124 40 95 Chaplin
5 1 1 13 2 4 996 2591 86 40 95 Park,
5 1 1 13 2 5 1089 2591 61 40 96 and
5 1 1 13 2 6 1153 2591 60 40 96 the
5 1 1 13 2 7 1213 2591 101 40 96 Noosa
5 1 1 13 2 8 1313 2591 123 40 96 Botanic
5 1 1 13 2 9 1443 2591 127 40 96 Gardens
5 1 1 13 2 10 1573 2591 94 40 96 would
5 1 1 13 2 11 1669 2591 84 40 96 bring
5 1 1 13 2 12 1756 2591 114 40 96 quality
5 1 1 13 2 13 1873 2591 137 40 96 weddings
5 1 1 13 2 14 2013 2591 41 40 96 to
4 1 1 13 3 0 644 2635 273 33 -1
5 1 1 13 3 1 633 2631 61 42 95 the
5 1 1 13 3 2 696 2631 105 42 96 Noosa
5 1 1 13 3 3 801 2631 119 42 96 Region
4 1 1 13 4 0 646 2673 1212 26 -1
5 1 1 13 4 1 646 2679 12 11 92 *
5 1 1 13 4 2 668 2673 84 26 96 Funding
5 1 1 13 4 3 789 2674 40 25 96 to
5 1 1 13 4 4 835 2668 122 42 95 Tourism
5 1 1 13 4 5 964 2668 105 42 96 Noosa
5 1 1 13 4 6 1075 2668 47 42 95 to
5 1 1 13 4 7 1114 2673 221 26 96 SUPPORT
5 1 1 13 4 8 1265 2668 70 42 96 the
5 1 1 13 4 9 1375 2683 43 11 96 wedding
5 1 1 13 4 10 1457 2673 79 26 96 and
5 1 1 13 4 11 1571 2683 126 11 95 honeymoon
5 1 1 13 4 12 1732 2673 126 26 95 industry.
4 1 1 13 5 0 1914 2873 87 29 -1
5 1 1 13 5 1 1914 2873 87 29 89 Page
5 1 1 13 5 2 1977 2869 20 37 88 9
4 1 1 13 6 0 1954 3315 289 44 -1
5 1 1 13 6 1 1954 3315 105 44 95 Page
5 1 1 13 6 2 2074 3316 49 34 95 56
5 1 1 13 6 3 2114 3311 66 52 95 of
5 1 1 13 6 4 2194 3316 49 34 96 84Section 57
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 57 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Parks, roads, and the wedding industry needs support in Noosa.
Weddings bring in a substantial income to businesses here.
More public transport not big buses ,more efficient small one.more andicap parking . payment
for car pe
Long term planning to facilitate the growing population e.g. more public transport/biking
facilitation to reduce car traffic while also protecting the environment
24/09/2020 | Increasing Council's environmental health services with a pro-active program to continue keep
Noosa Covid -19 safe as people in retail shops, restaurants, cafes and public spaces are
getting slack in social distancing and hygiene, including proactively asssisting eatenes, and
establishments with knowedge. We could be the best Council in this!
touches many residents and delivers benefits in so many ways; social & economic.
25/09/2020 | buy more land for preservation
Street lighting
more footpath
All bike lanes linked
Clean up boats on the River
More colorful plants and trees on Council land and Roundabouts and bndges. More Colour,
More powerful BBQ's on Gympie Tce
Parking
Free Fun Busses or Tuk Tuks
Buskers
Musik in the Parks - Covid safe
Tra Spo to the SCU ospita
26/09/2020 | If council is serious about recycling the dump fees should be reduced or all residents whether
they be owners or rentals, given dump vouchers. Kerbside clean up should be a must. Plus the
Recycle bins should be emptied weekly not fortnightly, especially around Christmas time.
let's weed like lantana and tobacco flourish. Disgrace for an ecologically minded council.
26/09/2020 | * Reduce the wedding permit fees
* Direct dollars from Tourism and Economic Levy to cover any costs not recovered from
minimal wedding permit fees, for the maintenance of all ceremony sites in the Noosa Shire. If
permit fees for ceremonies in Noosa were brought in line (or less than) with other Shires across
Queensiand this will bring great economic benefit to our small businesses, and to all the
wedding industry and tourism businesses in Noosa.
* STOP permit fees on our open beaches — no maintenance is required on the beaches.
Maximum number of guests can be a part of the permit. Free beach permits for Sunshine
Beach to Peregian Beach — this would encourage couples to marry outside of the Hastings
Street Precinct, yet keep the dollars supporting our economy.
* Develop and Build Undercover options/Multipurpose / wedding chapel — A large and beautiful
undercover area at Noosa Woods, Chaplin Park, and the Noosa Botanic Gardens would bring
quality weddings to the Noosa Region. These would soon pay for themselves.
* Funding to Tourism Noosa to SUPPORT the wedding and honeymoon industry.
* CONSULTATION with the Noosa Wedding Organisation when decisions impacting the
Wedding Industry in Noosa are being made.
IN SUPPORT
PRE COVID: 1 x wedding to the Noosa region brings an AVERAGE spend of $96,000 to our
Noosa Economy, shared across a number of businesses.
* The average cost of a wedding in Australia today is $36,000
* The average number of guests at a wedding is 60
* As a Destination Wedding location, guests spend a minimum of 1 night in Noosa, and up to a
week. Conservative spend per quest $1000 pp
Page 10
Page 57 of 84Section 58
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 58 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
* $36,000 + quest spend $60,000 = $96,000
HOW GUESTS AND COUPLES ENJOY THEIR DESTINATION WEDDING WEEK:
PRE-WEDDING: ACCOMMODATION; RESTAURANTS, CAFE'S, SPAS, GOLF, TOURS AND
ADVENTURES
WEDDING DAY: FLORISTS; STYLISTS; CELEBRANTS; HAIRDRESSERS; MAKEUP
ARTISTS; PHOTOGRAPHERS, VIDEOGRAPHERS; CAKE MAKERS; CATERERS, MOBILE
BARS; DRESS MAKERS; VENUES; TRANSPORT BY ROAD; TRANSPORT BY WATER;
POST WEDDING: GOLF CLUBS; FISHING CHARTERS; TOURS & ADVENTURES &
BOUTIQUES.
Weddings to Noosa have been in steady decline since the fee increases for Wedding permits
began back in 2014, and funding to Tourism Noosa in support of the Wedding Industry was
redirected to other areas.
Weddings fill the gaps, mid-week, between festivals, and out of school holiday timeframes.
By reducing the fees, we increase the number of weddings — including our many mid-week
destination weddings, and our businesses and economy thrive.
COUNCIL FIGURES SHOW
Wedding Permits issued by council in 2016 436
Wedding Permits issued by council in 2019 353
436 — 353 = 83 Less Pernits Issued
STATISTICS FROM THE QUEENSLAND REGISTRY OF BIRTHS DEATHS AND
MARRIAGES SUBURB BY SUBURB —
show that in 2014 there were 826 weddings across the Noosa Shire, 2016 there were 714
weddings across the Noosa Shire, and in 2019 there were 640 weddings across the Noosa
Shire. These statistics are available by public search.
This amounts to 186 LESS weddings =
186 x $96000 = $17,865,000 per year, less to our economy.
COVID IMPACT
Wedding bookings for 2020 and through 2021 are showing a reduced number of wedding
guests. Our economy and small businesses would be greatly assisted by a reduction of all
wedding permit fees. The non- refundable aspect of wedding permit fees should it rain/ be
windy etc., is extremely off-putting to couples with a small wedding budget — which many now
have.
THIS SUBMISSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE 71 MEMBERSHIP INDIVIDUALS OF THE
NOOSA WEDDING ORGANISATION:
Leah Cohen
Business Owner at Leah Cohen Photography & Super Simple Noosa Elopements
Jacqueline Gray
Owner-operator Noosa Heads Celebrant
Jo-Jo Oechs!
Owner-operator at Naturelle Floral Design
Debbie White
Owner-operator Beauty on the Move Hair and Makeup for brides
Lindy Yewen
Photographer at Lindy Photography
Ange Purchase
Entrepreneur at Photo Finish Makeup
Carly Doran
Owner-operator at Noosa Hairdressers
Lyndy Lou
Owner-operator Classic Cars Sunshine Coast
Page 11
Page 58 of 84Section 59
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 59 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Jaya Mc Intyre
Business Owner and Photographer at Empire Art Photography
Alan Hughes
Owner-operator at Alan Hughes Photography
Vicki Nelis
Owner-operator Silk Hair and Makeup
Kath Tilly
Wedding Celebrant at Kath Tilly Wedding Celebrant
Marion Jonkers
Photographer at Marion Jonkers Photography
Rachel Cutler
Owner/Photographer/Multimedia. at Tawny Photography and Film
Deb Court
Functions Manager at Sunshine Beach Surf Club
Francesca Ellul
Owner - Operator Heart 2 Soul Ceremonies
Lee Burgess
Owner/Photographer at Life and Love Photography
Rachelle Manian
Owner — operator Simply Style Co.
Dave Gleeson
Owner/Photographer at SurfShots Noosa Photography
Philippa Holness
Civil Mariage Celebrant
Melanie McNiven
Owner-operator at Melanie McNiven Portraits
Patrick Herron
Owner-Operator ‘Birti The Bentley’
Tahlia Spencer
Marketing at Bella Casa Noosa
Glenda McCallum
Owner at Noosa VIP Limousines
Mia Daskalu-Johnson
Business Owner at Spoon fed Catering
Lucia Santiago
Founder at The Four Elements
Shannara Goddard
Marketing Communications Manager at Miss Moneypenny’s Noosa
Karen Buckle
Owner-operator Karen Buckle Photography
Chris Lee
Owner-Operator at Noosa Photo Booths
Page 12
Page 59 of 84Section 60
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 60 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Marie Hayes
Pastoral Care / Marriage Celebrant
June Copeman
Marriage Celebrant
Lyn Bayfield
Owner-Operator Eumundi Roses
Alison Mills
Marriage Celebrant
Fran Fox Marriage Celebrant
Marriage Celebrant
Michelle Lucas
Owner-operator Noosa Wedding & Events
Danni Martin
Owner-operator Wedding Planner Elopements Noosa
Nicole Hopkins
Owner-Operator Splash Events — Wedding & Event stylists
Rianna Schuh
Owner-operator Rhianna Schuh Makeup
Abbey Feutnill
Employee — Accom Noosa
Jeanie Hunter
Owner-operator Lipstick Lane (Rene St., Noosaville)
Jackie Hellwig
Functions Manager Noosa Springs Golf & Spa Resort
Cassie McDonald
Functions Manager — Noosa Waterfront Restaurant
Charles Nowak
Owner-Operator Nowak Migration
Melinda Gannon
Owner-operator First Class Functions
Nicole Laufer
Owner-operator Nicole Laufer Photography
Trudy Croad
Owner-operator Lovebird Weddings (Stylists & Planners)
Sharen Hynd
Owner-operator Noosa North Shore Weddings
Benjamin Freudenmann
Owner-operator AOV Films, Noosa.
Jodie Modric
Owner-operator Jodie Modric Photography
Page 13
Page 60 of 84Section 61
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 61 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
David Clark
Owner -operator In The Booth (Photobooth)
Cooper Brady
Owner-operator Cooper Brady Photography
Shannara Goddard
Marketing Manager Miss Moneypennys Noosa
Jacinta Owens
Owner Operator Jacfit (Fitness)
Ashlee Jensen
Owner-operator Jensen & Young film
Brooke Duley
Owner-operator Sandpiper Photography
Sally Dolman
Marketing Manager — Spoon Fed Catering
Jay Flood
Owner-operator Noosa Style Ceremonies
Graeme Passmore
Owner-Operator Graeme Passmore Photography
Kym Sweet
Owner-operator Glamacamp Noosa
Zoe Worth
Owner-operator Worth Photography
Ellie Sparks
Owner-operator Sunshine Weddings (Stylist)
Adam Johnson
Owner-operator Marry Me Adam (Celebrant)
Susanne Wood
On site Manager Sunset Cove Resort Noosaville
Erin Clare
Owner/operator/designer Enn Clare Bridal, Noosa
Katey Thew-Thin
Owner! cake designer and creator - Buttercups Cup Cakes, Cooroy
Mary-Ellen Odijk
Owner-Operator With Style Weddings & Events
Greg Doney
Greg Doney Music
David Stielow
Noosa Ferry & Cruise Company
Glenda McCallum
Noosa VIP Limousines
Jennifer Tumer
Deluxe Kombi Service
Page 14
Page 61 of 84Section 62
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 62 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Tracey & Roger
FJ Indulgence Wedding Cars
27/09/2020 | Introduce more user
5 1 1 2 1 6 962 577 90 41 81 pays to support the budget revenue. E.g. Apart from paid visitor parking
with a ticket issued at boom gate on entry to car parks - first three hours free with a stamp from
a local business on heir ticket - also introduce he need for paid Parking permits for permanent
residents. Any ongoing kerbside parking is queried. All properties need to provide on site
vehicle parking. If not all vehicles can be accommodated within the property, a 3/6/9/12 month
permit is bought from Council and placed on windscreen. This will increase NSC revenue and
assist in reducing congestion in narrow streets such as on Noosa Hill - see Attunga Heights -
and will also reduce the use of enclosed garages being used as habitable space. It won't be
popular with all; however, with a diminishing rate base, all should contribute.
27/09/2020 | council needs to recognise our economy has to diversify. as such ratepayers who are not
related to toursim directly should have the option to direct the levy for tourism directly to
economic development. its nght the ratepayer decides how they best meet their social
obligation to invest in this economy rather than council. Economic development desperately
needs funding.
27/09/2020 | Toilets- abysmal toilet facilities for a supposed tourist hot
5 1 1 4 1 12 1509 1124 89 41 88 spot. Toilets are old, poorly
maintained & seldom cleaned. Also not enough toilets. Mt. Cooroora attracts many, inc. King Of
Mt. No toilets- bush is full of waste. Plumbing is there- water/sewage line. Just needs Council to
act.
27/09/2020 | For the foreseeable future, until there is more clarity about impacts of Covid 19, Council say
thanks, but no thanks to any State Govemment grants or gifts (eg. from developers) that mean
the need for on going expenditure from Council budget to maintain the infrastructure. An
example, is the State Govememnt grant for the kids playground in Cooroy. Graciously, decline
it. The world has changed since NSC was given this grant. Unfortunate timing as in today's
world, ratepayers/Council do not need further maintenance expenses coming from installing
this playground at this time. The Qid state government most likely would welcome the return of
the money for better use elsewhere. During the GFC many developers across the greater
Sunshine Coast region were gifting parks, lakes, retaining walls to SCRC. They shifted the on
going maintenance burden from themselves to Council. From now, NSC needs to say no to
everything that potentially means further unnecassary expenditure. Let's work at maintaining
infrastructure we already have before taken on more expenses. Thanks.
27/09/2020 | Support for the wedding industry , who provide over $65,000,000 of revenue annually to the
Noosa area.
Reducing wedding site fees to be inline with other shires wedding sites. To spend on
maintaining those sites. To build an all weather wedding chapel in Noosa woods. To spend on
Promotion to grow the wedding industry to be the premier wedding destination in Australia. To
make the Noosa Wedding Organisation a stake holder in decisions affecting the wedding
industry .
27/09/2020 | Better equipped playgrounds and parks that refiect age group for that area.Noosa Heads and
Noosa Junction prime examples These areas too expensive for very young families and yet
swings and slides have been upgraded as in A.W.Dan Admiral from a safety view as
over20years old but a drive along Leslie Drive on school moming will see every secondary
school represented! These kids want half basketball courts and skate parks ,not swings and
slides!No more sharing playgrounds with dogs off leash.Too dangerous and stop kids doing
eait outdoor p S its.
27/09/2020 | The Hinterland.
The hinteriand is being impacted by large scale development and population increase. Prepare
for the impact before the problems arse. The hinterland roads are inadequate for the increase
in traffic flow especially the dirt roads. | could go on but | wont bore you.
27/09/2020 | Creating some outdoor pavilions that the community can use on a pay per use basis. They
could be used for weddings, jazz festivals, art exhibitions. Suggested locations Noosa Woods,
Noosa Botanical gardens.
Also like Council to ensure maintenance on the wedding Groves. They are not well maintained
despite the high fees paid by couples to use them for wedding ceremonies.
Page 15
Page 62 of 84Section 63
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Page 63 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
28/09/2020 | Improvements to the Noosa Foreshore. Substantial improvements are needed to bring this
area up to the standard the community and visitors deserve. The Noosaville Foreshore Land
Use Master Plan developed in 2017-18 was a good start and identified some improvements
desired by the community, but there is so much more that could be done. This could be a worid
class area if it was made a focus of Council over the next few years. As well as making it more
attractive for locals and the community, it would also attract some visitor attention away from
Hastings Street, easing some of the traffic and parking issues there. In the short term, areas of
the lawns and grass need replacing, new and better facilities are required (toilets, BBQ shelters
etc), and better lighting needs to be installed.
eee eee
28/09/2020 | Environmental and ecosystem protection so that future locals and tourists keep enjoying the
natural attributes of the area. Free public transport including possible ‘fun’ transport ideas in
that tows tounsts from one end of Hastings St to the spit etc. adding an element of toursty fun
as well as lowering congestion.
Page 16
Page 63 of 84Section 64
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
8 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2020
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
4. Summary of Materials and Services Expenditure
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Year to date (YTD) operating performance against current budget as at 30 September 2020
is positive, with operating revenues performing above forecast due to Council facilities sales
revenue outperforming COVID-19 budget assumptions.
YTD Financial Performance Summary
Budget Actual Variance Variance Status
$m $m $m %
Operating Revenue $39.8 $41.6 $1.8 4.5% On Track
Operating Expense $24.1 $23.7 $0.4 1.6% On Track
Operating Position $15.7 $17.9 $2.2 14.0%
Capital Revenue $3.2 $3.3 $0.0 1.0% On Track
Capital Expenditure $9.2 $7.9 $1.3 14.1% Below Budget
Financial statements including Statement of Income & Expenditure, Statement of Financial
Position (balance sheet), and Statement of Cash Flows are included as attachments for
information for Council.
Figure 1: Actual Performance Compared to Budget
$45
$41.6 YTD Budget ($m)
$39.8
$40 YTD Actual ($m)
$35
$30
$24.1 $23.7
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$-
Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure
Council’s performance against key measures of financial sustainability have been calculated
as at September 2020. These indicators enable the reader to assess Council’s success in
Page 64 of 84
Section 65
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
managing its budget, cash and debt as well as undertaking sustainable asset management.
The table below contains a snapshot of a number of key measures, with full detail included
in the report.
YTD Measures of Financial Sustainability
Target Current Actual YTD
Budget
Operating Surplus Ratio 0-10% -2.3% 43.1% On Track
Net Financial Liabilities Ratio <60% -6.3% -48.7% On Track
Cash Cover Ratio 3 months 6.6 months 11.1 months On Track
Asset Sustainability Ratio > 90% 101.5% 28.5% On Track
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Committee
Meeting dated 12 October 2020 outlining September 2020 year to date financial performance
against budget, including performance against key financial sustainability indicators.
REPORT
Operating Revenue (YTD Benchmark 25.0%)
Council has received 43% ($41.6 million) of its operating revenue budget ($96.6 million).
Commentary on each revenue category is provided below.
Category Summary Comments
Rates and $34.5 million (50%) of the Waste utility charges $376k above YTD
Levies annual budget of $68.4 budget (53% or $6.5 million of $12.3 million
million has been earned budget earned), due to recovery of
commercial collection services previously
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
Fees and $2.1 million (31%) of the Plumbing application fees $65k above YTD
Charges $6.6 million annual budget budget (33% or $332k of $1.0 million
has been earned budget earned)
Building application fees $56k above YTD
budget (32% or $214k of $667k budget
earned)
Sale of Goods $2.5 million (34%) of the Holiday Park sales $481k above YTD
and Services $7.3 million budget has budget (54% or $892k of $1.6 million
been received budget earned) –Parks have reopened
earlier than forecast following COVID-19
pandemic closures. Positive revenue
variances will be partially offset by
additional variable operating costs
Community Facilities (NAC, NLC and The
J) $447k above YTD budget (31% or $457k
of $1.5 million budget earned) – Facilities
have reopened earlier than forecast
following COVID-19 pandemic closures.
Positive revenue variances will also be
partially offset by additional variable
operating costs
Waste management sale of recoverable
materials $30k below YTD budget (27% or
$1.1 million of $4.0 million budget earned)
Page 65 of 84
Section 66
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Category Summary Comments
Interest $196k (23%) of the $870k Interest revenues on cash invested will
Received annual budget has been need ongoing monitoring given potential
earned further interest rate cuts and impacts on
term deposit / cash fund rates
Unitywater On track Nil
Dividend and
Tax
Other Revenue $513k (26%) of the $2.0 Recoupment of Unitywater charges from
million budget has been lessees $26k above YTD budget - offset by
earned additional utility charge expenses
Operating $1.6 million (27%) of the Disaster resilience and recovery grant of
Grants, $5.8 million budget has $152k received for 2019 fire events (not
Subsidies been received budged)
50% ($1.2 million) of the financial
assistance grant was prepaid in May 2020
and may impact on Council’s 2020/21 final
operating position if the prepayment
approach is discontinued by the Australian
government
All operating grants are in line with budget
expectations at this stage
Unitywater On track Unitywater distributions are fixed each year
Distributions so there is little budget variance risk
Unitywater have advised that distributions
will not change due to any COVID-19
impacts on its financial position
Figure 2: Operating Revenue Position by Type (Excluding Rates)
$3.0
$2.5
$2.5 YTD Budget ($m)
$2.0 $2.1
YTD Actual ($m)
$2.0
$1.5 $1.6
$1.5 $1.3
$1.0
$0.5 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3
$0.2 $0.2
$0.1
$0.0
Other
Charges
Income
Grants
Goods &
Unitywater
Services
Sales of
Rental
Interest
Fees &
Share of
Operating Expenditure (YTD Benchmark 25.0%)
Actual operating expenditure is currently 24% ($23.7 million) of full year budget ($98.8
million). Detailed commentary for each expenditure category is provided below.
Page 66 of 84
Section 67
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Category Summary Comments
Employee $7.6 million (22%) of the Under expenditure for permanent staff salaries
Costs annual budget of $34.8 and wages ($757k) partially offset by additional
million has been expended spend on casual staff and external labour hire
($257k)
Materials $10.9 million (25%) of the Fleet operations $103k below YTD budget (23%
and $43.3 million annual budget or $311k of $1.4 million budget spent) – fuel
Services has been expended. costs and timing of plant / vehicle servicing and
reactive maintenance
Commercial properties $75k below YTD budget
(22% or $54k of $245k budget spent) – timing
of maintenance works
Works operations $87k above YTD budget
(18% or $585k of $3.3 million budget spent) –
sealed and gravel road maintenance works
Holiday parks $102k above YTD budget (36%
or $306k of $861k budget spent) – operating
costs from parks reopening earlier than
budgeted following COVID-19 pandemic related
closures - offset by additional revenues.
Finance On track Nil
Costs
Depreciation On track Nil
Other On track Nil
Expenses
Figure 3: Operating Expenditure Position by Type
$12.0 $11.1 $10.9
$10.0 YTD Budget ($m)
$7.9 $7.6 YTD Actual ($m)
$8.0
$6.0
$4.7 $4.7
$4.0
$2.0
$0.3 $0.4 $0.1 $0.1
$0.0
Finance Costs
Materials
Depreciation
Employees
Other
Capital Revenue
YTD capital revenue of $3.3 million received comprises cash contributions from developers
($249k) and capital grants ($3.0 million). Note that the timing of capital grant receipts are
generally dependent on the timing of grant conditions and also capital delivery performance,
and that the timing of the receipt of developer contributions (both cash and contributed) is
unpredictable.
Page 67 of 84
Section 68
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 4: Capital Revenue by Type
$3.5
$3.0 $3.0
$3.0
YTD Budget ($m)
$2.5 YTD Actual ($m)
$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5 $0.2 $0.2
$- $-
$0.0
Contributions
Subsidies
Contributed
Grants /
Assets
Cash
Capital Program
Actual capital expenditure (excluding commitments) is $7.9 million (YTD budget $9.2 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
$8.0
$7.0 $6.7
YTD Budget ($m)
$6.0 $5.5 YTD Actual ($m)
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$1.9 $1.9
$2.0
$1.0 $0.6 $0.5
$0.0
Capital works Other capital Loan redemption
Cash Management and Investment Performance
Total cash on hand at the end of September was $72 million. Included in this balance are
funds held in trust and for restricted purposes (e.g. unexpended levy and grant funds),
prepaid grants including the financial assistance grant and other capital works grants, the
July rates payments as well as any other monies committed for funding capital projects which
are underway and will continue during the financial year.
The following pie charts present the mix of cash held at September 2020 by agency (graph
on the left) and by credit risk rating (graph on the right). All funds have been invested in
accordance with the Investment Policy and in consideration of the principles of ethical
investment, preservation of capital, return on investment and counterparty thresholds.
Page 68 of 84
Section 69
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 6: Closing Cash Held by Agency and Credit Rating
A1 +
CBA
(CBA + NAB +
6%
Wpac)…
A1 +
QTC (QTC)
94% 94%
The following chart monitors the year-to-date trend on total cash and the agencies invested.
The bi-annual issue of rates and levies which occurred in July has increased cash balances
up to the end of September due to the extended 60-day payment terms adopted for the
2020/21 budget.
Figure 7: 12 Month Trend of Cash Invested by Agency
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
-
Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20
Bendigo TD Westpac TD NAB TD Suncorp TD CBA TD QTC CBA Operating
Page 69 of 84
Section 70
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Borrowings
Following the announcement by the State Government that councils have the option to
refinance its debt to take advantage of a low interest rate environment a debt restructure
review has been commissioned with the Queensland Treasury Corporation. Once the review
has been completed a report will be provided to a future Council meeting outlining the
findings and potentially recommending any actions that provides a positive net benefit to
ratepayers.
Measures of Financial Sustainability
The following table incorporates a set of financial sustainability indicators to further assist in
managing Council financial performance. There are no current emerging risks regarding
performance noting the financial year has only just commenced.
Category Comments
Operating Surplus Ratio Intent: Identifies the extent
to which revenues cover
operational expenses, to
ensure community equity is
not degraded
Target: 0 – 10%
Result: 43.1%
Comment: The high ratio
reflects the levying of rates
in July, which is degrading
as expenditure occurs on
operations through to the
next rate run in January
2021
Cash Expense Cover Intent: Indicates how long
Council can continue paying
its day-to-day expenses
from cash at bank without
needing additional cash
flows
Target: > 3 months
Result: 11.1 months
Comment: Whilst current
cash cover remains above
target, business as usual
expenditure and any other
unforseen financial impacts
through to 30 June 2021 will
degrade Council’s cash
holdings.
Page 70 of 84
Section 71
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Category Comments
Asset Sustainability Ratio Intent: Measures the extent
to which assets are being
replaced as their condition
degrades to ensure service
potential is maintained
Target: 90% of depreciation
budget spent on renewals
annually
Result: In line with budget
Comment: The ratio will
progressively increase each
month as expenditure on
renewals occurs.
Net Financial Liabilities Ratio Intent: Outlines the level
that net Council debt can be
serviced by operating
revenues. A ratio below
zero implies that liabilities
are less than cash (and
other current assets) and
there is adequate borrowing
capacity available if needed.
Target: less than 60%
Result: -48.7%
Comment: Council has low
debt levels and strong cash
holdings. The July rates
revenue and prepayment of
the financial assistance
grant also inflates the YTD
actual outcome
Investment Return Intent: Ensure appropriate
return on investment yield
for cash at bank.
Target: 0.25% above
current Bloomberg
commonwealth 10 year
bond rate yield (0.11%)
Result: 0.65%
Comment: Regardless of
the current levels of low long
term bond and interest rates
(due to current economic
conditions), Council’s
investment return still
remains above target
Page 71 of 84
Section 72
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Category Comments
Rates in Arrears Intent: Ensuring that the
amount of unpaid rates
remains sustainable and
does not negatively impact
cash flows
Target: 5% industry
benchmark
Result: 9.6%
Comment: Arrears are at
the high point in the cycle
with July rates becoming
due in September under the
extended 60-day payment
terms. Reminder notices are
being issued in October.
The economic impacts on
arrears from the COVID-19
pandemic ratio will clearer
once reminder notices are
actioned.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
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 X Director
Executive Support Community Development X 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 72 of 84
Section 73
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 1
Page 73 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 1
Profit and Loss Statement
Revenue
Recurrent Revenue
Rates, levies and charges 68,388 34,170 #31 361 50%
Fees and charges 6.640 1,980 2,065 75 31%
Interest received 870 153 196 43 23%
Sale of Goods and major services 7.281 1,500 2.488 968 w%
Sale of contract and recoverable works 23 - 0 0 1%
Rental & lease income 1.197 290 24 14 25%
Other income ral a8 209 112 27%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 5757 1,330 1,562 232 27%
Unitywater Distributions 5,650 253 253 - 4%
96,575 39,782 41,588 1,806 43%
Expenses
Recurrent Expenses
Employee benefits 4.806 7,906 7.610 206 22%
Materials and services 43233 11,083 10.871 223 25%
Finance costs 1538 275 378 (103) 25%
Depreciation 18,963 4.741 4741 - 25%
Other expenses 189 50 72 (29) 42%
98,789 24,065 23,678 387 24%
Operating Result RYT TSS
Summary of Capital Revenue and Expenditure
Capital Funding
Capital cash contributions and infrastructure charges 1,521 240 249 - 16%
Contributed assets 2.000 - - - o%
Capital grants and subsidies 11.340 2,982 3.015 3 27%
Cash / revenue 19,001 5,054 4621 (1,334) 24%
New loan borrowings 3.420 - - - 0%
Other capital revenue - - - - o%
Total CapitalRevenue RAE TBS
Capital Expenditure
Contributed assets 2,000 - - - o%
Capital works - constructed assets 31,106 6,737 5,483 (1,253) 18%
Capital works - other capital 1,762 568 525 (43) wes
Loan redemption 2414 1,881 1,881 0 78%
a Copal Ex odie - - : a 0%
Page 73 of 84Section 74
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 2
Page 74 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 2
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents 43,016 72,276 57,023
Trade and other receivables 9.085 8,792 5,440
Inventories 198 183 181
Contract Assets - 27 27
Other current assets 2,466 3,680 4,732
54,765 84,958 67,403
Non Current Assets held for sale - - -
Total Current Assets 54,765 84,958 67,403
Non Current Assets
Trade and other receivables 49.718 49,593 49,593
Other non current Assets - - -
Investments 83,342 88,040 88,040
Investment property 3,300 3,000 3,000
Property, plant and equipment 948.640 930,437 929,355
Right of Use Assets - 161 161
Intangible assets 7,773 7,809 7,635
Total Non Current Assets 1,092,773 1,079,038 1,077,783
Total Assets 1,147,538 1,163,996 1,145,186
Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables 6,419 11,920 10,642
Contract Liabilities - 1,568 1,568
Borrowings 3,116 1,431 3,023
Lease Liablities - 54 54
Provisions 4,630 2,315 4,630
Other 2,778 1,821 1,561
Total Current Liabilities 16,942 19,109 21,478
Non Current Liabilities
Borrowings 19.637 18,493 18,493
Lease Liabilities - 110 110
Provisions 12,054 15,307 15,307
Total Non Current Liabilities 31,691 33,910 33,910
Total Liabilities 48,633 53,019 55,388
Net Community Assets 1,098,905 1,110,978 1,089,798
Community Equity
Asset Revaluation Surplus 85,293 86,525 86,525
Retained Surplus / (Defeciency) - - -
Shire Capital 1,013,612 996.982 992,284
Current Year Net Eamings - 27,471 10,989
Total Community Equity 1,098,905 1,110,978 1,089,798
Page 74 of 84Section 75
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 3
Page 75 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 3
Cash flows from operating activities
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Receipts from Customers 83,309 38,970 91,168
Payments to Suppliers and Employees (77,358) (21,512) (82,671)
5,951 17,458 8,498
Receipts:
Investment and Interest Revenue Received 3,470 196 3,937
Rental Income 1,199 304 1,003
Non Capital Grants and Contributions 5,752 1,562 5,315
Income Tax Equivalent Received 1,200 253 1,857
Income from Equity Investments 1,850 - 1,396
Payments:
Borrowing Costs - - -
Interest Expense (1,126) (38) (143)
‘Net Cash Inflowi(Outflow) from Operating Activities === 18.296 19,735 21861
Proceeds of Sale of Property, Plant and Equipment - - 284
Grants, Subsidies, Contributions and Donations 12,861 3.264 8.640
Payments:
Payments of Property, Plant and Equipment (31,419) (5,624) (24,208)
Payments for Intangible Assets (1,448) (367) (1,710)
Net Movement in Loans and Advances - 125 125
‘Net Cash Inflowi(Outflow) from Investing Activities =») (20,007) (2.602) (16,869)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Proceeds from Borrowings 3,420 - -
Payments:
Repayment of Borrowings (2,636) (1,881) (3,950)
‘Net Cash Inflowi{Outfiow) from Financing Activities == 784@ 8B) (8.950)
‘Net Increase/(Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalentsheld = (927) 15.253 1,042
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 43,942 57,023 55,981
Page 75 of 84Section 76
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 4
Page 76 of 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Attachment 4
Materials and services
Advertising and Marketing 187 39 25 (14) 13%
Administration Supplies and Consumables 683 172 146 (26) 21%
Audit Expenditure 160 2 - (2) 0%
Communications and IT 678 168 147 (21) 22%
Commission Paid 605 152 257 105 43%
Consultancy Services 928 180 160 (20) 17%
Contract Services 20,798 4,592 4,566 (27) 22%
Contributions, Donations, Sponsorship and Prizes 3,387 1,521 1,476 (44) 44%
Electricity 1,639 406 445 39 27%
Intemal Fleet Costs and External Plant Hire 1,615 463 482 19 30%
Grants Paid to Community Organisations 1,547 511 520 9 34%
Insurance 625 594 573 (20) 92%
Legal Expenses 1,105 264 316 52 29%
Operating Leases and Rentals 256 56 62 6 24%
Software and Maintenance 2,003 487 444 (43) 22%
Subscriptions and Registrations 263 157 181 24 69%
Waste Levy Payments 1,185 269 300 31 25%
Water and Sewerage Charges 1,091 263 194 (69) 18%
All Other Materials and Services 4,538 800 578 (222) 13%
43,293 11,093 10,871 223 25%
Page 76 of 84Section 77
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
9 UPDATE ON SUNSHINE COAST AIRPORT FLIGHT PATH ISSUES
Author Chief Executive Officer, Brett de Chastel
CEO’s Office
Index ECM/ Project/ Sunshine Coast Airport
Attachments 1. Aircraft Noise Ombudsman Report - “Investigation into
Complaints about the Introduction of New Flight Paths in
Sunshine Coast” – April 2020 (Note: Attachment has been provided
separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting
dated 12 October 2020 and
A. Note the update by the Chief Executive Officer in relation to the flight path issue for the
Sunshine Coast airport;
B. Authorise the CEO to make representations to Airservices Australia regarding the
terms of reference for the proposed post-implementation review to ensure that the
process is fair, robust and allows genuine opportunities for the community to influence
the outcome of the post implementation review; and
C. Provide funding of $5,000 to the Flight Path Forum Inc community organisation to
support the commissioning of an independent study to identify alternative flight paths
that can be considered as part of the post-implementation review.
REPORT
This report will cover three key aspects of the Sunshine Coast Airport flight path issue,
namely:
Providing Council with background information on the Sunshine Coast airport flight
path issue;
Providing details about the outcome of the review undertaken by the Aircraft Noise
Ombudsman (ANO); and
Outlining actions that are being taken as a result of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
review, together with suggested next steps for our Council.
1. Background on the Sunshine Coast airport flight path issue
As Council would be aware, there has been considerable community concern in relation to
the proposal by Airservices Australia (ASA) to implement flight paths for the expanded
Sunshine Coast Airport which is impacting on residents in some parts of the Noosa Shire.
This issue has been the subject of a number of previous reports to Council which sets out
the background and details in some detail. Links to previous reports can be found below:
1. Report by the CEO to the Ordinary Meeting on 18 April 2019. This report set out the
history of the various Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s), details about noise
Page 77 of 84
Section 78
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
contours and potential flight paths together with details of hours of operation etc. A
copy of that report can be found here –
https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/downloads/file/601/2019-04-18-ordinary-meeting-
agenda-pdf
The decision of Council in relation to that report on 18 April 2019 can be found below
under the heading of “Previous Council consideration”.
2. Report by the CEO to the Ordinary Meeting on 16 May 2019. This report set out details
of what action had been taken in relation to the April 2019 decision together with details
of concerns relating to the consultation process undertaken by ASA and Sunshine
Coast Council. A copy of that report can be found here –
https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/downloads/file/610/2019-05-16-ordinary-meeting-
agenda-pdf
The decision of Council in relation to that report on 16 May 2019 can be found below
under the heading of “Previous Council consideration”.
At the outset, it is important to note that the flight path issue is a separate issue to the
expansion of the airport. That airport expansion has been finalised and the new runway has
now been commissioned and is operational.
Some of the key issues that have been raised by our community in relation to the flight path
issue include:
extremely poor or no consultation with the communities directly affected by the
proposed flight paths;
lack of information about the potential impacts of proposed flight paths on Noosa
residents including inconsistent advice about noise issues;
confusion regarding the previous EIS’s and what was proposed in terms of flight paths;
confusion regarding proposed hours of operation of the airport with different hours
being identified in EIS’s and flight path consultation processes;
confusion regarding the intensity of flight numbers over different parts of the Shire (e.g.
the coastal flight path); and
lack of an independent EIS for the impact on Lake Weyba, the Noosa National Park
and the coastal dunes within the Castaways Beach and Marcus Beach areas.
Council also previously committed to supporting the statement of intent by Flight Path Forum
Inc. A copy of that statement of intent is below:
Page 78 of 84
Section 79
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Flight Path Forum Inc is an umbrella group representing a significant number of community
organisations within Noosa Shire and the northern part of the Sunshine Coast Council area
where communities have been affected by the proposed flight paths. The CEO has been
liaising with Flight Path Forum Inc on a regular basis in relation to this matter.
Page 79 of 84
Section 80
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
2. Review by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO)
The ANO is a statutory review process put in place to independently review complaints about
the operations of ASA. In recent years, it has prepared a number of quite critical reports
about how ASA have undertaken reviews of flight paths and their consultation practices. Until
the Sunshine Coast airport issue arose, the most recent example of a report that was critical
of ASA related to a review of flight paths at Hobart.
The ANO has the power to independently review complaints made to it about ASA. However,
it is important to note that the ANO cannot change a decision of ASA but can only make
recommendations to the ASA Board, which is common for ombudsman type roles. It is then
up to the ASA Board to determine whether or not it agrees with recommendations made by
the ANO.
There were a large number of complaints made to the ANO by residents regarding the
process used by ASA to develop the current flight paths. As a Council, we also lodged a
formal complaint regarding that process and provided the ANO with a series of submissions
outlining poor consultation processes, inconsistent information and procedural unfairness in
terms of the process used by ASA to develop the flight paths.
The ANO released its report in April 2020 entitled – “Investigation into Complaints about the
Introduction of New Flight Paths in Sunshine Coast”.
The report was quite scathing of ASA’s processes and consultation. Some of the findings of
the ANO included:
ASA targeted consultation to those areas which were not considered under the EIS
process for flight paths5
ASA had prepared a Stakeholder Engagement Plan but the final version of that was
not completed until after the community engagement had commenced6
ASA published notices in 6 papers advising of the proposed consultation with none of
those papers circulating widely in the Noosa area and, as identified by the ANO, meant
that only readers in locations outside the area affected by flight paths were being
notified by newspaper.7
ASA underestimating the level of public interest.
ASA reporting that 24% of submissions received related to noise but in fact, 475 of the
917 submissions (51%) raised noise as a concern8
A Stakeholder Roundtable which was held on 5 July 2019 to enable community input
allowed little time for questions or statements by the community with majority of the
meeting devoted to presentations by Sunshine Coast Council and ASA.
a lack of clarity about who had responsibility for consultation – ASA or Sunshine Coast
Council as the owner of the airport
The key findings from the ANO included the following:
“9.6 This apparent division of responsibilities, produced confusion as the process
continued. Airservices and the Sunshine Coast Council each placed separate public
notices about upcoming consultation activities and complaints show inconsistent
information provided at community consultation sessions by representatives of the two
parties. Airservices did not anticipate the extent of public interest and did take steps to
respond to the changing circumstances. It also considered the feedback received from
5 refer to paragraph 5.8 of ANO report – page 13
6 refer to paragraph 5.5 of ANO report – page 13
7 refer to paragraphs 6.1 – 6.3 of the ANO report - page 15
8 refer to paragraph 7.20 of the ANO report – page 22
Page 80 of 84
Section 81
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
general as well as the target areas. However, Airservices’ decision to only consider
varying its final design from its proposed design where suggested alternatives were
aligned to the EIS concept paths meant that “consultation” with those in the general area
was effectively consultation in name only. The complaints to the ANO demonstrate that
public anger continued to grow through the process and remained after the consultation
period had closed.
9.8 There was never any realistic prospect that residents in the general area, despite the
chance to provide their feedback, had any significant opportunity to influence the
proposed flight paths. This quickly became apparent to them during the process and was
the fundamental basis of the complaints to the ANO”.9 (my emphasis)
The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman made two recommendations to the ASA board, namely:
Recommendation 1
Airservices should develop a framework for third party proposed changes that:
(a) provides robust and dependable governance arrangements to manage its early and
ongoing engagement with third parties
(b) establishes clear lines of accountability and documents these arrangements as they
evolve
(c) ensures an effective consultative process, which includes monitoring the adequacy of
any third party consultations being relied on.
Recommendation 2
Airservices should, as soon as practicable, design an effective post-implementation review
(PIR) process for the Sunshine Coast flight path designs, that does not perpetuate design
constraints requiring alignment with EIS concepts, and which encompasses:
(a) consideration of identified community-suggested alternatives
(b) a community engagement process that provides for genuine opportunities for
community contributions to influence decisions
(c) application of the latest version of Airservices’ National Operating Standard (NOS)
Environmental Management of Changes to Aircraft Operations (AA-NOS-ENV-2.100).
On 25 June 2020, the ASA board announced that it accepted the two recommendations.
The first of the recommendations focuses on arrangements between ASA and its client
airports about roles and responsibilities for future reviews of this nature. This is not something
that will impact upon the current flight paths for Sunshine Coast but, if properly implemented,
could reduce confusion for future reviews undertaken at other airports.
Of more interest is recommendation two which is discussed further below.
3. Proposed post-implementation review and next steps for Council
ASA have committed to undertaking a post-implementation review (PIR) in response to the
ANO recommendations.
The scope and process to be used in the PIR will be the subject of a terms of reference. This
is the key to ensuring that the PIR is undertaken in a fair and proper manner.
9 refer to paragraphs 9.6 and 9.8 of the ANO report – pages 28 and 29
Page 81 of 84
Section 82
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Council has already engaged with ASA to provide details about what needs to be covered
by the terms of reference. Other community groups including Flight Path Forum Inc have
done the same.
On Saturday, 19 September 2020, ASA conducted a community engagement session to
discuss the proposed post-implementation review and in particular, the proposed terms of
reference for that review. The CEO attended that community engagement session on
Council’s behalf. Also present were representatives of community groups from across Noosa
Shire and Sunshine Coast Council representing residents in the areas affected by the flight
paths.
At that meeting: -
ASA acknowledged that it had a “trust deficit” with the community based on its
community engagement processes to date and committed to working more closely with
the community through this post implementation review;
ASA received significant feedback at that meeting about what the terms of reference
should look like and how they should be developed;
ASA took on board a number of principles provided by the community groups and
undertook to draft a community engagement plan as part of the terms of reference
process and to consult with the community on this;
ASA committed to publishing all material from that community engagement meeting
held on 19 September. Details can be found here –
https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/sunshine-coast-airport-airspace-changes-
runway-1331/news_feed/pir-terms-of-reference-community-meeting-19-september-
2020
One of the most critical elements of the post-implementation review will be the opportunity
for community suggested alternative flight paths to be considered. This did not effectively
occur in the original review process.
Flight Path Forum Inc, as the umbrella organisation for most of the affected community
groups in our region, are proposing to commission an independent consultant to develop a
number of potential flight path alternatives which could be considered in this process. The
cost of undertaking that work is just under $20,000.
Our Council has always taken the position that we need to support our community on this
issue to ensure that community input is heard and can have a meaningful impact on the final
flight paths. As such, it is recommended that Council make a contribution towards the cost
of this work to be commissioned by contributing $5,000 towards Flight Path Forum Inc. It is
expected that there will be a range of alternative flight paths that can be considered as part
of that process.
(Note - Since preparing this report to Council, ASA have published a draft terms of reference.
They are currently being reviewed by the CEO who is consulting with Flight Path Forum Inc
and will co-ordinate a submission back to ASA. Feedback on the draft terms of reference are
due by 1 November 2020).
4. Other issues
It is important that Council also recognise several other issues at this time.
Firstly, the airport has been constructed on its new alignment and flights to and from the
airport need to approach and depart from somewhere. In other words, there will be flight
paths. At the end of this post implementation review process, there will be flight paths coming
Page 82 of 84
Section 83
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
to and from the Sunshine Coast Airport and people living underneath those flight paths will
be impacted. The question is - what are the flight paths that have the least impact but are
also safe?
Secondly, during the COVID-19 period, although the airport has been open, there have not
been as many flights as normal. Even so, there have been quite a number of complaints
lodged by Noosa residents with the Sunshine Coast Airport and ASA about noise impacts of
flights. These include complaints from areas where there was no expectation that there would
be flights/noise impacts.
Thirdly, flight path design is a complex issue. Obviously, safety is paramount and must be
taken into account as the primary design element. Nevertheless, there are a range of other
variables which can impact upon flight paths including topography, efficiency of routes
(shortest path), environmental constraints, other regulated airspace etc.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 16 May 2019, Item 1, Page 13
That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16
May 2019 in relation to the proposed flight path changes for the Sunshine Coast Airport and:
A. Note the update from the Chief Executive Officer on actions taken as a result of the
Council decision in April 2019 on this issue; and
B. Support the Statement of Intent proposed by Flight Path Forum Inc. as set out in
Attachment 1 to the report and request the Chief Executive Officer to take the
necessary action to pursue that outcome including making submissions to Airservices
Australia and the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 18 April 2019, Item 1, Page 15
That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18
April 2019 and request the Chief Executive Officer to make a submission in relation to the
proposed changes to flight paths for the Sunshine Coast Airport with such submission:
A. To focus on the establishment of a curfew similar to Gold Coast Airport (enforced by
legislation) to minimise the impact of noise from flights on the amenity of residents in
order to protect and maintain the Noosa lifestyle and environment;
B. To request from Airservices Australia a detailed explanation as to why the intensity of
flight numbers over the coastal flight path versus hinterland flight path has changed;
C. To request Airservices Australia to extend their community consultation process by 1
month to provide more time for Noosa residents to lodge submissions in relation to the
proposal;
D. Request Sunshine Coast Regional Council to conduct an independent EIS for Lake
Weyba, plus Noosa National Park and the coastal dunes within the Castaways and
Marcus Beach area;
E. And request Federal Members Llew O’Brien and Ted O’Brien to support Council’s
position on this matter.
Finance
It is proposed to contribute $5,000 to Flight Path Forum Inc towards the cost of engaging an
independent flight path consultant to develop a number of alternatives to the current flight
path so that those alternatives can be considered by ASA via the post-implementation review
process. This will be funded from the existing budget in the CEO’s office for consulting
services.
Page 83 of 84
Section 84
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 OCTOBER 2020
Risks & Opportunities
The post-implementation review which is being undertaken by ASA is an opportunity to rectify
the poor community engagement processes that occurred during the original consultation on
the flight paths during 2019. It provides the community with an opportunity to be genuinely
involved and to, hopefully, influence the outcome.
The proposal to consider community alternatives to the current flight paths is also an
opportunity to allow broader consideration of alternatives rather than just the proposed flight
paths which were the subject of ASA’s consultation in 2019.
The risk, of course, is that if flight paths are changed, there are likely to be new people
affected by aircraft noise as the flight paths need to go somewhere. The key for Council is to
ensure that the process is fair, robust and gives community members and community
organisations an opportunity to influence the final outcome.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Flight Path Forum Inc
Airservices Australia
Internal Consultation
Cr Wilkie (as Council’s representative on the Sunshine Coast Airport Consultative
Committee)
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X 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 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
6 CLOSED SESSION
Nil.
Page 84 of 84