Original source · versioned page text
2015-06-01 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, 1 June 2015
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Bob Abbot, Sandy Bolton,
Joe Jurisevic, Frank Pardon, Noel Playford, Tony Wellington
“Engagement with our community to protect and enhance our lifestyle”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 43 sections
Section 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
Nil.
ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE -
Nil.
ITEMS REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE -
1 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES,
SERVICE STATION, CONVENIENCE SHOP AND FOOD OUTLET (TRADIES CAFÉ)
AT 139 EUMUNDI NOOSA RD & 30 LIONEL DONOVAN DV, NOOSAVILLE –
MCU14/0102 & OPERATIONAL WORKS APPLICATION FOR SIGNAGE –
OPW15/0051
(Previously distributed in Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, Page 3)
Reason for referral: Significance of issue (Further report provided at Item 1, Page 4)
5 REQUEST TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A
MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A HOME BASED BUSINESS TYPE 3 –
SIGNIFICANT SCALE (QUAD BIKE TOURS) AT 298 TABLELANDS ROAD,
COORAN MCU12/0012.01
(Previously distributed in Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, Page 76)
Reason for referral: Cr Pardon disagrees with the recommendation
6 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION FOR RETAIL BUSINESS TYPE 2 –
SHOP & SALON SITUATED AT 15 NOOSA DR, NOOSA HEADS – MCU14/0053
(Previously distributed in Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, Page 91)
Reason for referral: Cr Wilkie disagrees with the recommendation
7 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION FOR A SELF-CONTAINED RV STOP
SITUATED AT 17 MARY RIVER RD, COOROY – MCU15/0003
(Previously distributed in Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, Page 105)
Reason for referral: Cr Bolton disagrees with the recommendation
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 4
1 FURTHER REPORT - MCU APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES,
SERVICE STATION & CONVENIENCE SHOP & FOOD OUTLET (TRADIES CAFE)
AT 139 EUMUNDI NOOSA RD & 30 LIONEL DONOVAN DV, NOOSAVILLE -
MCU14/0102 & OPERATIONAL WORKS APPLICATION FOR SIGNAGE -
OPW15/0051 4
2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A
LIFEGUARD STORAGE SHED AT NOOSA SPIT RECREATION RESERVE,
CLAUDE BATTON DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS, MCU15/0036 10
Page 2 of 44
Section 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE (cont'd)
3 REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND ROUND 2 GRANT
RECOMMENDATIONS - 2014/2015 22
4 NOOSA AQUATIC CENTRE BOARDWALK CAFE CONTRACT 1415T035 27
5 TENDER FOR REFURBISHMENT OF NOOSA COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY 31
6 QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORPORATION (QTC) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
REVIEW 36
7 NOOSA NORTH SHORE BEACH CAMPGROUND - PROPOSED OPTION 41
8 NOOSA RIVER HOLIDAY PARK - PROPOSED INTERIM AGREEMENT 43
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 3 of 44
Section 4
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
1 FURTHER REPORT - MCU APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES, SERVICE
STATION & CONVENIENCE SHOP & FOOD OUTLET (TRADIES CAFE) AT 139
EUMUNDI NOOSA RD & 30 LIONEL DONOVAN DV, NOOSAVILLE - MCU14/0102 &
OPERATIONAL WORKS APPLICATION FOR SIGNAGE - OPW15/0051
Author Development Planner, Glen Conforti
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Application / MCU14/0102 & OPW15/0051
Attachments Nil.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting
dated 1 June 2015 and approve the application for a Material Change of Use (MCU14/0102) and
Operational Works (OPW15/0051) for Signage at 139 Eumundi Noosa Rd and 30 Lionel
Donovan Drive, Noosaville, subject to conditions and grounds for approval contained in the
Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda dated 26 May 2015 with amendments to the
Material Change of Use conditions 68, 84 and 91 to read as follows:
Operational
68. A Safety Management Plan must be developed and implemented for the operation and
maintenance of the UPSS that includes both tanks and piping. The plan must include
systems and procedures for preventing and monitoring for spills and leaks, and the
appropriate response plan to these events. The management system must incorporate the
following components:
a. objectives and targets to comply with all relevant legislation
b. hazard identification and risk assessment
c. details of the UPSS design and installation details (tank sizes, contents, location of all
relevant infrastructure)
d. list of industry standards complied with for the design, installation and operation of
the system
e. plans of the system and site
f. leak prevention measures
g. loss monitoring procedures
h. system maintenance procedures
i. emergency spillage response plan
j. loss investigation and notification procedures
k. record keeping
l. training requirements and records
m. information on ownership and occupation of both the site and the UPSS, including
specific contractual/franchise arrangements, defined responsibilities and relevant
contact details
Page 4 of 44
Section 5
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
n. procedures for the immediate rectification and remediation of any detected
contamination
The safety management plan must be fully documented and made available onsite at
the service station. The plan must be submitted to council prior to use of the service
station. All testing and monitoring results must be documented accordingly and
provided to Council upon request.
Leak detection for fuel tanks
84. All reasonable and practicable measures must be taken to prevent loss of containment
from the UPSS. An approved leak detection system must be installed and operated at
sufficient frequency, sensitivity and reliability to provide a high level of confidence that a
release of a petroleum product will be detected in sufficient time for a response to be
implemented before an unacceptable risk is posed to human health, property or the
environment. As a minimum standard, all UPSSs are required to be monitored using a
system that:
a. can detect a leak from any portion of the UPSS
b. uses equipment that has been installed, calibrated and commissioned in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions
c. is capable of detecting a leak at a rate of 0.76 litres per hour or more, with at least
95% accuracy and a probability of false detection of 0.05 or less (USEPA)
d. has been certified by an independent third party consistent with the current USEPA
protocols and system of verification
e. reports with a frequency of not less than monthly and provided to Council upon
request
f. is operated by a suitably trained person.
91. The ground water in the monitoring wells must be tested for petroleum contamination
immediately after either:
a. the discovery whether by routine test or otherwise that ground water may be
contaminated by petroleum originating from the property
b. the discovery whether pursuant to the loss monitoring procedure for the system or
otherwise that the system has a leak.
REVIEWED REPORT
1. BACKGROUND
A report on this application was considered by the Planning and Organisation Committee on 26
May 2015 as item 1, page 3 and was subsequently referred to the General Committee Meeting.
During the course of discussions at the Planning and Organisation Committee meeting,
Councillors raised the following concerns:
Recommended conditions of approval do not require results of ground water testing to be
provided to Council, with the requirement to undertake ground water testing within 30 days of
identifying contamination considered not sufficiently responsive;
Clarification as to whether a zebra crossing to Walter Hay Drive is warranted given some
school children may choose to access the proposed convenience store or tradies café; and
Clarification of the background expenditure pool for the take away food establishments in the
industrial estate.
This report also provides additional information to Council on the submissions in support of the
development.
Page 5 of 44
Section 6
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
1.1 Monitoring of Leakages from Service Station
Condition 84 requires the Service Station operator to undertake monthly leak detection tests by a
suitably qualified person. Condition 87, amongst other parameters, requires integrity testing when
a leak is detected and the condition requires the results to be provided to Council upon request. It
is considered the monthly leak detection testing and integrity testing are sufficient to ensure any
contamination is detected as soon as practicable. However, some changes to the following
conditions are recommended.
Condition 68
To ensure rectification and/or remediation works are carried out within a reasonable time frame
and Council has the ability to request the Safety Management Plan, the recommended change to
Condition 68 is outlined below in red:
68. A Safety Management Plan must be developed and implemented for the operation and
maintenance of the UPSS that includes both tanks and piping. The plan must include
systems and procedures for preventing and monitoring for spills and leaks, and the
appropriate response plan to these events. The management system must incorporate the
following components:
a. objectives and targets to comply with all relevant legislation
b. hazard identification and risk assessment
c. details of the UPSS design and installation details (tank sizes, contents, location of all
relevant infrastructure)
d. list of industry standards complied with for the design, installation and operation of
the system
e. plans of the system and site
f. leak prevention measures
g. loss monitoring procedures
h. system maintenance procedures
i. emergency spillage response plan
j. loss investigation and notification procedures
k. record keeping
l. training requirements and records
m. information on ownership and occupation of both the site and the UPSS, including
specific contractual/franchise arrangements, defined responsibilities and relevant
contact details
n. procedures for the immediate rectification and remediation of any detected
contamination
The safety management plan must be fully documented and made available onsite at the service
station. The plan must be submitted to council prior to use of the service station. All testing and
monitoring results must be documented accordingly and provided to Council upon request.
Page 6 of 44
Section 7
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Condition 84
A change to Condition 84 is also recommended to ensure Council has the ability to request
monitoring results of the leak detection testing.
84. All reasonable and practicable measures must be taken to prevent loss of containment
from the UPSS. An approved leak detection system must be installed and operated at
sufficient frequency, sensitivity and reliability to provide a high level of confidence that a
release of a petroleum product will be detected in sufficient time for a response to be
implemented before an unacceptable risk is posed to human health, property or the
environment. As a minimum standard, all UPSSs are required to be monitored using a
system that:
a. can detect a leak from any portion of the UPSS
b. uses equipment that has been installed, calibrated and commissioned in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions
c. is capable of detecting a leak at a rate of 0.76 litres per hour or more, with at least
95% accuracy and a probability of false detection of 0.05 or less (USEPA)
d. has been certified by an independent third party consistent with the current USEPA
protocols and system of verification
e. reports with a frequency of not less than monthly and provided to Council upon
request
f. is operated by a suitably trained person
It is considered the timing of ground water monitoring should be immediate after contamination is
detected. Therefore a recommended change to Condition 91 is outlined below in red:
91. The ground water in the monitoring wells must be tested for petroleum contamination within
30 days immediately after either:
a. the discovery whether by routine test or otherwise that ground water may be
contaminated by petroleum originating from the property
b. the discovery whether pursuant to the loss monitoring procedure for the system or
otherwise that the system has a leak.
1.2 Pedestrian Crossing
Currently there is an unmarked pedestrian crossing facility in Walter Hay Drive located near the
Eumundi Noosa Road roundabout. This crossing facility sufficiently caters for current pedestrian
movement in the area. While there may be some additional pedestrian movement across Walter
Hay Drive attributable to the proposed development, this is likely to be only a minor increase and
would not reasonably warrant the installation of a zebra crossing.
Page 7 of 44
Section 8
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
1.3 Economic Need
As part of the applicant’s economic report a table was included outlining the average expenditure
on takeaway food per capita for 2012 based on the Household Expenditure Survey by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics. The applicant’s Table 3 is shown below:
Notwithstanding the inclusion of this table, the applicant in examining the likely expenditure
available used $1,440 per year expenditure for 4,600 workers in the Noosaville Industrial estate.
The applicant justified this by using a figure of $7.82 per purchase X 4 days X 46 weeks X 4,600
workers. Economic Associates (Council’s consultant) advises that it is better to use the
Household Expenditure provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as identified in the
applicant’s Table 3 as while there is room either side of an average, nearly double the average is
difficult to support. On this basis and using the retail density turnover estimated, only a smaller
floor area for the tradies café is supportable (no more than 90m2 gross floor area and 35m2
outdoor dining). A condition of approval is currently recommended to limit the size of the tradies
café to not exceed this maximum.
Notably, mobile food and coffee vans were not considered as part of the Economic needs
assessment by the applicant. Economic Associates advises that as there is no permanent
infrastructure associated with these vans, a ‘here today gone tomorrow’ view is taken and they
are not reasonably considered as part of an economic need assessment.
1.4 Submissions in support of the application
It is noted the report presented to the Planning and Organisation Committee did not clarify the
basis of the 13 submissions supporting the development. In summary the supportive submissions
generally outlined the ‘tradies café’ would:
improve the options for lunch in the area;
be a safe option for workers in the auto park - not requiring to cross the Eumundi Noosa Rd;
easy and conveniently located for auto park workers – currently some employees use a
vehicle to go to the Noosa Civic; and
support for the worker expenditure pool that has been provided by the applicant - providing
examples of their expenditure on lunches.
A submitter suggested that a convenience shop is essential in a sustainable contemporary
service station business and is well located for convenience items.
2. CONCLUSION
It is concluded that some changes would improve the recommended conditions for the service
station in regard to timing, reporting and rectification works. However, no zebra crossing is
considered warranted in this instance. Council’s Economic Consultant does not agree with the
expenditure pool suggested by the applicant, but does agree that a need for a smaller scale
‘tradies café’ has been demonstrated.
Page 8 of 44
Section 9
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services X Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health x DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities x Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 9 of 44
Section 10
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A
LIFEGUARD STORAGE SHED AT NOOSA SPIT RECREATION RESERVE, CLAUDE
BATTON DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS, MCU15/0036
Author Coordinator Planning, Denis Wallace
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index MCU15/0036
Attachments 1. Proposal Plans
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Noosa Council
Proposal Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for an Emergency
Service – Type 2 “Shed” (Lifeguard Storage)
Properly Made Date 29 April 2015
Decision Due Date 26 June 2015
Number of Submissions Nil
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address Noosa Spit Recreational Reserve
Claude Batton Drive, Noosa Heads
RP Description Lot 115 MCH839107
Land Area 13.0ha
Existing Use of Land Recreation Reserve and Sand Pumping Station
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Regional Landscape & Rural Production Area
Locality Noosa Heads
Zone Open Space Recreation
Overlays Environmental Protection Vegetation
Riparian Buffer Area
Bushfire Hazard Area
Acid Sulphate Soils Area
Assessment Type Impact
Page 10 of 44
Section 11
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the General Committee Meeting
dated 1 June 2015 regarding Application No. MCU15/0036 for a Development Permit for a
Material Change of Use for an Emergency Service – Type 2 “Shed” (Lifeguard Storage) situated
at Noosa Spit Recreational Reserve, Claude Batton Drive, Noosa Heads and:
A. Approve the application in accordance with the following conditions:
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with
prior to the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the
use continues.
Approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply
with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the
following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
14712-S1 A General Notes and Drawing Index by TOD DEC
Sheet 1 of 6 Consulting Engineers
14712-S2 A General Notes by TOD Consulting Engineers DEC
Sheet 2 of 6
14712-S3 A Footing Plan by TOD Consulting Engineers DEC
Sheet 3 of 6
14712-S4 A Floor Plan by TOD Consulting Engineers DEC
Sheet 4 of 6
14712-S5 A Roof Plan by TOD Consulting Engineers DEC
Sheet 5 of 6
14712-S6 A Elevations by TOD Consulting Engineers DEC
Sheet 6 of 6
Nature and Extent of Approved Use
3. The approved use is for a storage facility and associated washdown area only. The
shed is not to be manned or otherwise used for other purposes.
4. The existing storage facility on neighbouring land (Lot 114 MCH839107) must be
removed and the area made good to return it to public open space within 12 months
of the commencement of the use.
Amenity
5. The shed shall be finished in natural colours that blend with the vegetated setting and
minimise its visibility.
6. Advertising signage must not be placed on the shed.
Page 11 of 44
Section 12
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Landscaping
7. A minimum of 20 x tubestock native dunal species must be planted and established
in the area adjacent the shed on completion of construction. Recommended species
are:
Tree/Shrubs
Casuarina glauca
Casuarina equisetifolia
Cupaniopsis anacardioides
Alectryon coriaceus
Banksia integrifolia
Banksia aemula
Elaeocarpus reticulatus
Hibiscus tiliaceus
Ground covers
Austromyrtus dulcis
Carpobrotus glaucescens
Hibbertia scandens
B. Find the following are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict with the
Planning Scheme:
1. The lifeguard storage shed is appropriately sited beside existing foreshore
infrastructure to provide critical support to the community use of the area’s beach and
marine environment.
2. The use strongly aligns with the planning scheme intent for active recreation within
the Open Space Recreation zone.
3. The use replaces an existing facility on adjacent land, which is to be demolished and
returned to community open space.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for the construction of an Emergency Service Type 2 – Shed for
lifeguard storage purposes adjacent the existing sand pumping compound at the Noosa Spit. The
proposed storage facility will comprise a rectangular colorbond shed of approximately 72m2 in
area and 5m in height with an asphalt apron in front of an entry roller door. The storage shed is
intended to cater for:
Rescue board storage
3 x jet skis
2 x All Terrain Vehicles (ATV)
Proposal plans for the development are included in Attachment 1. The shed is only to be used
for storage purposes, with no lifeguards or lifesavers stationed on the site. Lifeguards will be
ferried to the site and dropped off where they will then distribute the equipment to relevant
patrolled areas. The applicant submits that no additional external parking is required. All vehicles
will be serviced off site and minimal facilities will be provided on site.
Page 12 of 44
Section 13
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
The asphalt apron in front of the entry roller door is to be used for wash down of any equipment
and will drain to the surrounding sand area. The new facility is required to replace the existing
lifeguard storage shed located at the end of Hastings Street near the resort complex known as
“No. 2 Hastings Street”. The applicant indicates the existing storage shed currently is dilapidated
and suffers from its distance from the beach and associated transport issues along public roads.
It is intended that the existing storage shed will be demolished and returned to open space
following completion of the new facility.
Council officers involved in the project advise that Council agreed to undertake the design and
approval process. Surf Lifesaving Queensland has obtained funding to carry out the construction,
which is conditional on completion by September 2015.
The application is before Council because the use conflicts with the zoning provisions under The
Noosa Plan. The report is made to Council’s General Committee to allow a timely decision and
meet funding requirements, with the application only entering its formal decision period after the
scheduled Planning & Infrastructure meeting of 26 May 2015.
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Site Description
The proposed shed location is directly adjacent the existing sand pumping facility and
approximately 30m south of the existing coast guard tower at the Noosa River mouth. The area
was disturbed by construction activity associated with the construction of the sand pump facility
but Council has since undertaken some replanting throughout the area and some regrowth of
Macarangas, Casurinas, and the like, is also present. Two mature casurinas are located within
the footprint of the new shed. Photographs indicating the site location are shown in Figures 1 – 3
below.
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph of Site
Page 13 of 44
Section 14
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Figure 2 – Proposed Shed Location
Figure 3 – Location of Existing Storage Shed beside No.2 Hastings Street
Page 14 of 44
Section 15
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of the
following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development,
including:
State Planning Policies;
the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
State Planning Regulatory Provisions;
any Preliminary Approval Overriding the Planning Scheme for the land; and
the Planning Scheme for the local government area;
The statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the sections that
follow.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The development triggers assessment against the coastal environment and natural hazards
provisions of the State Planning Policy, Part E Interim development assessment requirements.
The proposal is location dependent and does not involve private marine or coastal development
or tidal land reclamation or shipping facilities and can be undertaken in a way that will not
adversely impact on coastal processes, coastal resources, scenic amenity or public access to the
foreshore. The use is therefore considered to meet the relevant provisions of the State Planning
Policy.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan 2009 - 2031
The site is located within the Rural Landscape & Regional Production area of the SEQ Regional
Plan and construction of a minor storage facility is consistent with the regional policies and
regulatory of the SEQ Regional Plan.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The subject site is located in the Noosa Heads Locality and is zoned Open Space Recreation.
The proposed use is identified as an inconsistent use within the zone and is required to follow an
impact assessable application process.
Locality Provisions
The Noosa Heads Locality Code seeks to protect land within the Open Space Recreation zone
so that areas of open space contribute to the desired lifestyle of residents by offering a variety of
passive and active recreational experiences that are conducive to community interaction and
wellbeing. While the lifeguard storage shed is not an open space use, it is considered to closely
align with the Code’s desired overall outcome by providing critical support to the community’s
recreational use of the area’s beaches and marine environment. The applicant acknowledges
the use is inconsistent with the zone provisions and submits:
This application can be supported on a number of grounds ... These grounds include:
The Noosa Plan supports the development of Community Uses on the site;
The development is consistent with the intent of the zone;
The proposed use provides a storage facility that is appropriately located to service beach
users;
The surrounding land uses and roadways to the site and the characteristics of the locality
support the use of the site a lifeguard storage facility; and
The storage facility provides a building form that is desirable for the area and consistent
with Councils design intent.
Page 15 of 44
Section 16
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
The applicant’s grounds are generally supported. The new shed sited alongside the existing sand
pumping facility will provide for the needs of the lifeguard service and will not unduly impact on
the open space character/utility of the site or the visual amenity of the area. Conditions are
recommended to ensure further screening vegetation is planted adjacent to the facility and it is
finished in suitable colours to minimise its visual impact. A condition is also recommended
requiring the existing shed on adjacent land be removed and the area made good as public open
space.
Land Use, Works and Overlay Code Provisions
The following codes which regulate land use and design are most applicable to this application:
Community Uses Code
Engineering Works Codes
Landscaping Code
Biodiversity Overlay Code
The application has been assessed against each of the above applicable codes. The pertinent
issues arising out of the assessment against the codes are discussed below:
Code Discussion
Biodiversity Overlay The shed location is within a mapped riparian buffer area and involves the removal
Code of some mapped environmental protection vegetation. The siting of the shed
behind the existing sand pumping facility is supported, as it does not encroach
further toward the beachside boundary. A condition is recommended requiring new
plantings of suitable dunal species to offset the vegetation removal.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1. IDAS Referral Agencies
The applicant sought a pre-response from the State Assessment & Referral Agency within the
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning in relation to Coastal
Management District Matters. The Agency responded by letter dated 9 April 2015 advising it
considers the works as minor and deems them “excluded work” under the Sustainable Planning
Regulations 2009.
4.2. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009. No submissions were received.
5. CONCLUSION
The proposed lifeguard storage shed is identified as an inconsistent use on the site under the
provisions of The Noosa Plan but does not raise any significant planning concerns. The shed is
appropriately sited to meet the needs of the lifeguard service and provide critical support to the
community use of Noosa’s beaches and marine environment. The facility will replace a similar
shed on adjacent land, which is to be demolished and made good as community open space.
The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions, with grounds to support the
application included in the recommendation.
Page 16 of 44
Section 17
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services X Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health X DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
X Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
X
Executive Office X Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance X Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 17 of 44
Section 18
Page 18 of 44
LIFEGUARD SERVICE STORAGE SHED -
GENERAL NOTES
1. THESE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH: NOOA COUNCE
<THE DRAWINGS AMD THE SPECIFICATION.
2 ALL DHBCREPANCIES SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE ARCHITECTICTRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR
CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING. HOTIFY THE ARCHITECT) STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WN
AREA OF WORKS - SERVICE LOCATIONS WRITING OF ALL VARIATIONS ARISING FROM THE CLARIFICATION OF THE CISCREPANCY.
Ws the reapanebety of ttm Foryrase to 2. THE MURDER & TO OBTAM CONFIRMATION OF REVIGIONSIMSTRUCTIONS THAT MAY CALIBE A
contact Ihe rebrartt eervice suttorties: VARIATION TO THE CONTRACT WORK, ANY COST ARISING FROM A VARIATION MUST Be
y = to eevee tre exact locaton of SUDMETTED BY THE BLELDER IN WITING. TO THE ARCHITECT STRUCTURAL EMcRBeR fon
ess — suivkun tir ipataehinien APPROVAL, BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORKS.
J , “ 4. 00 WOT SCALE DRAMINES,
P vs 6 REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS,
, 6. THE BUILDER SHALL CHECK DIMENSIONS ON SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES,
fi yi 2 THE CONTRACTOR 19 TO CONTACT EMERGEX, TELSTRA. COUNDIL AND OTHER SERVICE
f Z a AUTHORITIES AND LOCATE DXSTING UNGERGROUND SERVICES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
é F a -_ . a £ 7. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES OR METRES UNLESS NOTED CTHERYASE (UM.0 }
= > > >" - - 8 ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ADCORDANCE WITH THE DRAMMINGS, THE
(i 34 ‘, 4 s BEFORE YOU DIG SPRGIRCATION, AND CURRENT RELEVANT AUNTRALIAN STANDAROS, THE BLELDANG COCR OF
oa + AUSTRALIA, OTHER STATUTORY RECLINEMENTS AMD TD THE SATEXPACTION OF THE LOCAL
A ; Se Di. Mis AUTHOHUTY AND THE ENGINEER.
ea Log 0. PRODUCT TRADE NAMES HAVE BEEN USED TO S8TABLBH 4 QUALITY REGLIREWENT, NO
Pg eet SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL SE MADE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROWAL OF THE EMQINEER.
dg Pacer ea 10. THE STRUCTURAL WORKS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO CARRY THE FOLLOWING LIVE LOADS
Toe {AS*17.t} <W% DESIGNER TO DELETE RRELEVANT LOADS:
~ ROOF C25 +Pu
- UGHT VEHICLE CARPARKB 2.5 sPu (13K CONCENTRATED)
a . MEDIUM VEHICLE CARPARK ©. kPa (St CONCENTRATED
: TELECOMMUNICATIONS 11. OBSIGM CARTERIA . WIND (AS11702)
. | SERVICE PROVIDERS SITE WIND SPEED (Vel) = 54 Oris [ULTIMATE WIND SPEEDS
os Toone a TERRAIN CATEGORY - 2
; . | “orrus Telstra TERRAIN HEVGHT MULTIPLIER (Me,ou8)- 1
3 == TOPOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIER (um). 1
OO Raveue Roca Ucrscessom noes Leer SHIELDING MULTIPLIER (Mx) -1
omen crgrntas STHUCTUMAL IMPORTANCE LEVEL (BCA THT 2a} -2
WON-CYCLOREC AREAS - INTERNAL PRESSURE CORFMCIENT BASED OF EFPECTIVELY sean
BULLDOG AND ALL WINDOWS, OOOHS, ROLLE DOGS ETC AME DESIGNED AND CEITIPED sy
SUPPLIER FOR THE ABOVE WIND CRITERGA IN ACOCRDANCE WITH AMES 11702,
12. THE BUILDER SHALL MAINTAIN THE WORKS IM A SAFE. STASLE CONDITION AND ENSURE THAT
ene WO PART {S CVER STRESSED DURING CORETRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR 6 RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS OF ALL STRUTTINGS. PROPPING, TE BACKS.
on EXCAVATION SHARING. PROTECTION WORKS, OR-MATERING, ETC. MEGERRARY TO CARRY OUT
DRAWING INDEX b-} THE WORK, ALL TEMPORARY WORKS SMALL I ORSIGNED STRICTLY IM ACOGRDANCE WIT THEE
a RELEVANT STANDARDS AND LOCAL &f¢-LAWS TO WITHSTAND ALL EXPECTED AND SPECIrED
wes LOAGINGB AB SET OUT LTHE COURS. Bae ne
RA SCRIPTI STRUCTUMAL ENGINEER ACCEPTS NO RES ONSIRITY WORKS UNLESS
DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION WORKE ARE INSPECTED AND ARPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DURING
WING CONSTRUCTION.
_4rta-sor GENERAL NOTES AND DRA INDEX 14, A MIMIMUM OF 2¢ HOURS MOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR ALL ENOINEERING INSPECTIONS
/——wris-soo i GENERALROTES tne
aArtS GE NOTES 16. INFORMATION REGARDING STORMWATER INFILTRATION PITS 16 TOBE PROVIDED TO THE
14712 - $03 | FOOTINGPLAN, ENGINEER FOR THEIR REVIEW AND NECESSARY INCORPORATION INTO THE DESIGN OF BLALDIKG
a) FOUNDATIONS NOTE THAT A GEOTECH®SCAL ENGINEER MAY BE RECRIFED TO BG ENGAGED FOR
verso FLOORPLAN Ps ¢ wera soa ae
14712 Fl | (QO) & S&S... 10. FOR DETAILS OF ALA STORVAWATER DRAINAGE AMO PITS. RIUFER TO HYDRAULIC CONRULTANT
S6r82+ E08 ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN pie AO SS aes cel 17. THE CONTRACTOR 19 RESPONINBLE FOR CETERMIMNG THE LOCATION AND DEPTHS OF ALL
14712 - S06 ELEVATIONS ees ieenin EXISTING PIRES ANO SERVICES BEFORE COMVENCEMENT OF WORK Ot STE.
FOR TS ETAT OF COMETPLETIOA MOR DAT) 16. THE FOUNDATION MA TEMIAL MUST BE GAISAHLE OF WITH TANDENG A HEArOND PeeesEUNE OF
pe eee WOT LEBS THAN Sf0ia THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL 16 TO BE CHECKED @Y A REGISTERED
GECTECHMICAL ENGINEER OR APPROVED EQUWALEMT (THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER) BEFORE
THE POURING OF THE FOUNDATIONS 55 COMMENCED.
1B THE CONTRACTOR IS TO ORGANISE HIS WORKS SO THAT EROSIOM. CEPOSTTION OF SIT, AND >
STORMONATER RUNOFF FROM THE 308 SITE ODES NOT EXCED THE PHE-CONSTRUCTION RATES oe
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices AT ANY POINT AS A RESULT OF Hl ACTIONS.
ru qn Zl THE CONTRACTOR IS TD PROWDE A PULL SET OF AS-CONSTRUCTED DRAWINGS OF THE _—
DEPTHS, LEVELS, CAMENSIONS AND SZES. >
MOTE AL SIGNS neue Ti 24. THE CONTRACTOR I TO PRESENT UP THE JOG FOR ON4AAINTENANCE AND OFF-MAINTEMANCE
"U0 anes seahae . MSPECTIONS WHEN CIRECTED @ THE ENGINEER WiTH ALL PIPES, ROADS AND ALLOTMENTS OQ
® ani ia FREE OF RUBIES OR SILT AND WITH FOOTPATHS AND PARK AREA SLASHED OR MOWAM AND pw
© L_ US TRAFIC CONT, DEES. _J UNDILRGROUMD SCFCACES OPCNED FOR INERECTION =
>)
_ m
° a Ef f 1 =) ~ —o —— _— Ti =
©
° ee NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL TOD a LIFEGUARD SERVICE STORAGE SHED- GENERAL NOTES AND AS SHOWN, AS
aN i | RP ise. NOOSA SPIT DRAWING INDEX saaqtoee te
nz Seco een jt { ’ yn yn» 4b» © 2 w& corning evinces — —— ms 1477251
ecetered einen I I | | — Fa mae rl to ee oom Cee van _ ea
= find beta Hinwin Dansiaion — MEASUREMENT S88 . INCREMENTS ( rem —— ne 1of6 ASection 19
Page 19 of 44
mcaaoons <<] HT pny be 2008, rs 3000 a OO a,
TES SCREWS | , "HOLD DOWN
@ISNCRS | BOLTS EPOXY
Z y PAINTED —— 0 0 $s ss ss ss ss I
SORNER BUF J [ NOTE; LOCATE SHED 1m OFF EXISTING CHAIN WIRE FENCE
DOUBLE — ,
i 1 |r | iS. Cee ee i
a | | Mes ae oN oT eo” oF ,
qo steep fy | aD =k
7 -aery aN |
23 | | | |
§ | ~ § \
g ASPHALT | |
1) — PROPOSED \
FORMATUBE | at |
= |
| @450 2-N12 ‘Ul ] |
—————"—s SHAPPED BOTH |
WAYS | g '
PIER P1 DETAIL | ¢
SECTION | le silo ab ll D3!
1
WE TSORE \ 5 | ’ or J? oO oe I
\/ — M12 GALV
i EXISTING CHAIN WIRE FENCE FOOTING PLAN waren
— (—<—<—_/)—___ /——_—/i—_ 1:50 UMREDUCED AT As PAINTED
*
a
» =
° =
©
: = z
= | REE ee, 2
= ct — toh i | NOOSA SPIT wre roe ae
os —_—_}—_——————————_j 3 o 2 nu» ee 6h Termmding engineers F as ——, e 1471283
5 jose: | =e | =e = om. =e i
aot sy | Heats Daal sista sn batagl ah saais | — ee u— wonzninae i “|eSection 20
Page 20 of 44
— HAND WASHING BASIN
{2 sone = INTERNAL WATER HOSE REAL
= Me fe ~ @90 PYG DOWN PIPE SENSOR LIGHT — | } g
i =! a , _—_— s — = = sy — = = = = ——$—$——— = = = oo = / }-—__2_j _. 4 ——F = = x 7 oe oe a ]
| > WT r 8
-— _ — -_ — —— -_
2 1 J FF OF
g JET SKI 2 8! JET SKI1 8 atv | g |
fe, De | | 6
; = 1 ee + | j
i -———— + PF - 1 | &
| | |
BOARD STORAGE & JET SKI3 8 alv2 8 =
| mae Ja
| 3600
eet
1 4 LE "hd _# : |
2 | _....... \.... ee
woh ~ 890 PVC DOWN PIPE LINE OF ASPHALT PAD “all 3
ba 12000 ME Ad 4000 3
| EE eum FLOOR PLAN ~ gem THICK CFC
= |" UGHTS 1200 LONG 130 UNRREDUCED AT AS 4 iat ganiie
%%S DOUBLE POWER POINT eS
x UGHT owns = M12 piped - 3}
SS —__ tm ASPHALT - M12 GALV BOLTS TREATEDPINE ~ — M12 HD BOLTS
| 125mm CBR 35 @ 1000 CRS nee fe CNY. >
i Mk F e, oO
128mm CBR 15 ~ [ew Jig 4 a { 5
a Ss Senn THICK CFC WALL ee eae 1:20 UNREDUCED AT AD
o —_—_— eee 1:20 UNREDUCED AT AS CORNER ANGLE - =
NOTE: SHEETING 5.5. SCREW TYPICAL mh
S CFC = COMPRESSED FIBRE CEMENT FIXED AT 150mm CRS ; ~ _ _ >
— foe [TOD - = 5
_ ot Hn NOOSA SPIT — ~~ |.
AS _—_};_,—________________} | @ a a a a ee) servesting engtisery Y ew i | 14712-54
+ = aantaiean an om ty) lila acer a veer ce para <a
= find Dale Pewmion Deserta na MEASUREMENT BAR . INCREMENTS IN nen — oe 4 of 6 iASection 21
Page 21 of 44
PERPETUAL cs /~ NOGGING AND
500 ALUMINIUM PERMALITS ROOF ALUMINIUM RIDGE CAP — oerero
cued: Las SHEETING (WAVELINE) | SUIT SHEET
SCREWED ALTERNATE RIBS | / WwiptH
Fo — ah WITH CYCLONE WASHERS.
anne eT ‘
i WUC PRE A ee Eee rg
~ | ls rad —
| i
8 DOOR (SOLID) } 5
crc —- z OPENING 1000 x = —+
; 2400 8.8. HINGES i) 8)
— 1 oY ee ee =
— ELECTRICAL PVC DOWN PIPES
OPERATED | 2000 3000 3000
1. TREATED STUDS @ 450 CRS ;
(9346 MGPIE) Som SIDE ELEVATION MS sires concn
FRONT ELEVATION HORIZONTALLY WITH SS 110 UNREDUCED AT AG WEATHER R
: SCREWS @150 CRS PAINTED __--— HARDIE WRAP BARRIER,
4910 UNREDUCED AT AS a attire on ‘ALL AROUND BUILDING
NOOSA COUNCIL PALLET SS
as 2, CFC = COMPRESSED FIBRE ne £ — SEICON ARTIS
CEMENT i? L —-— FC COVER STRIP
~~ sTuD | o
FC a T _-— 9mm THICK CFC
é, ~ HARDIE WRAP WEATHER BARRIER,
c i ALL AROUND BUILDING
< suo | | orm THICK CFC
— g l — SILICON MASTIC
g, _-— FC COVER STRIP
fe _— GFC SCREW FIXED TO
FC COVER STRIPS ean ea alert 7 ee SS, AT 180 >
TO ACC JOINTS WRAP BARRIER, :
REAR ELEVATION screws @150 cRS HORIZONTALLY AND a =
TAI ~=Ot*«é«WERTIIGALLLY TO ALL STUDS AND NOGGINGS >
U OQ
& CFC COVER STRIP DETAILS I
© 1:5 UREOUCED AT AS =
" — i
———————— | NOOSASHIRECOUNCR | COUNCE my? | LFEGUARD SERVICE STORAGE SHED - HOW!
° = Saf—nf = a = TOD cr ie NOOSA SPIT AS SHO ta —
Lb Fommsead { v * > xe *# 8 @ — cca are . oo Lc 14712-56 a
+ tee t Neto Fabia ical "kita OM. eee
- vc Duis ‘Poco Uae as MEASUMEMENT 88 - INCREMENTS IN net —sae = re Soro 6 of6 ASection 22
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
3 REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND ROUND 2 GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS -
2014/2015
Author Community Development Coordinator, Alison Hamblin
Community Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ RADF 2014/15
Attachments 1. Recommendations for Funding
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) program is jointly funded on a 50:50 basis by the
State Government (Arts Qld) and Noosa Council. Traditionally, two funding rounds are run each
year. This report covers the second RADF grant round for 2014-15 which closed on 31st March,
2015.
Projects recommended for funding are detailed in Attachment 1. There are sufficient funds in the
2014/2015 budget to cover the recommendations in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General
Committee Meeting dated 1 June 2015 and approve the Regional Arts Development Fund
recommendations for Round 2 2014-15, as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report.
REPORT
The Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) supports cultural activity through the professional
development and employment of arts and cultural workers in regional Queensland. RADF is a
partnership between State Government, through Arts Queensland and Noosa Council.
The current RADF Committee is made up of one Councillor, three external professional arts
industry representatives and Council officers in supporting roles.
The Noosa Council budget for 2014/15 provides funds for two RADF funding rounds in
September 2014 and March 2015.
This report covers the second RADF grant round for 2014-15 which closed on 31 March, 2015.
Promotion
Promotion of this RADF grant round included media releases to newspapers, and social media
(Facebook). A series of grant workshops were held by the Cultural Development Officer and
Grants Officer at local libraries and other Council venues. All relevant information and support
documentation was posted on the Council website.
Staff also attended face to face meetings with individual applicants and responded to telephone
enquiries and emails. As pet the Community Grants Policy (2015) all RADF applicants were
required to speak to a Grants Officer to discuss their project and get support through the
application process.
Applications Received
In the March 2015 round, a total of 12 applications were received, requesting $63,796.
Page 22 of 44
Section 23
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Assessment
Applications were assessed and scored in accordance with the following set RADF assessment
criteria:
1. The project will develop the paid artist’s professional life
2. The project will benefit the community, both directly and indirectly
3. The project is well planned and achievable
4. The project will increase the sustainably of quality and diverse creative communities
In accordance with RADF Guidelines, Committee members were required to declare any conflicts
of interest and once declared the Committee member was then not involved in related
deliberations. Annette Hughes declared a material interest in the Datson + Hughes Album
Recording project, Judy Barrass declared her involvement in the Noosa Paper and Book Group
for an art development workshop, and Cr Frank Wilkie declared his membership on the Noosa
Arts Theatre Management Committee.
Assessment was a two stage process. First individual RADF Committee members assessed
applications, and then the whole Committee discussed outcomes, allocated funds to successful
applicants and provided final comments on all submissions.
The RADF Committee recommended eight applications totalling $25,551 for funding. The
projects recommended for funding are excellent in quality and diversity, and will employ quality
artists and arts workers who will engage in valuable arts and cultural activities across the region.
In addition to the RADF Committee’s recommendations, staff are recommending $7,500 be
allocated to the artists of Boreen Point to allow them to create and coordinate arts activities on
the shores of Lake Cootharaba as part of this year’s Floating Land.
Finally as per the RADF Committee’s recommendation, it is proposed that unspent funds from
this financial year be carried over and used to employ specialist presenters from organisations
such as the Flying Arts School and Arts Law to run developmental workshops in the next
financial year to build the skills of our local creative community.
RADF funding notification
Upon Council endorsement of this report, successful applicants will be notified by mail including a
letter of acceptance for signature by the applicant.
Unsuccessful applicants who do not meet the grant criteria or who are not funded due to lack of
available funds will be advised in writing. Feedback is provided by the assessment panel on
areas of the project or application that may be improved.
Previous Council Consideration
RADF Funding has been supported and administered by Noosa Council since 1996 and was
continued by Sunshine Coast Council from 2008 – 2013.
Noosa Council delivered a RADF grant round in March 2014 for projects starting after June 30
2014, 2014
The first of the two RADF grant rounds for 2014/15 closed in September 2014. It allocated
$14,400 to projects
Page 23 of 44
Section 24
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Finance & Risk
Funding of $50,000 is available in the 2014/15 Noosa Council budget for RADF projects.
$14,400 was allocated to projects in the September 2014 round and $35,600 is recommended in
this round.
There are no risk implications.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
RADF Committee – Janet Brimson, Judy Barrass and Annette Hughes
Arts Development Officer, Art Queensland
Internal Consultation
Cr Frank Wilkie – RADF Committee Chairperson
Director Community Services
Libraries and Galleries Manager
Cultural Development Officer – Community Development
Grants Officer, Community Development
Management Accountant
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Community Services Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office X Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 24 of 44
Section 25
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 25 of 44
ATTACHMENT 1
RADF 2014/15 Round 2: March 2015
Total applications received: 12
Total project costs: $311,181
Total amount requested: $63,796
RADF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING
Total applications recommended: 8
Total project costs: $253,081
Total amount requested: $34,826
Total amount recommended (GST exc.): $25,551
Applicant Name Project Name Total Amount Amount
Project Requested | Recommended
Cost (GST exc.)
Datson+Hughes Datson+Hughes Album Recording Project - $5,100
master, manufacture & market album -
promote Greenroom Studio.
Textile Art Group — | Gelli Printing and Journal Workshop - 2 Day
Noosa Arts and mixed media & print making workshop with
Crafts Jo Bruhn
Toni Wills Concept Development of "Piano Forte" an $6,980 $1,600 $1,600
original play about elder abuse involving a
‘dramaturg’ to bring the play to production
standard,
Noosa Arts Theatre | “Side by Side by Sondheim" a musical. $79,468 $9,627 $4,800
Inc Contract a professional singer/musician to
be vocal coach, accompanist, arranger and
musical director to work with amateur
performers.
"X 3" artists: Jan "fluid" - four art installations in place for the $37,968 $7,893
Dunlop, Yanni Van duration of The Noosa Long Weekend at
Zijl and Pam The J and the Noosa Arts Theatre
Walpole
Endeavour ‘Good Vibrations’ - contract professional $5,440 $3,536
Foundation-Wallace | artists to work with local people with
Park Learning & disabilities to produce a multi-media
Lifestyle artwork.
Noosa Paper and "Ideas Development” Workshop, with Ruth $2,930 $1,500
Book Artists Group | Hadlow, to transition technical papermakers
to make a book as a work of art.
Noosa Orchestra Noosa Long Weekend Festival Orchestra $15,445 $4,375 $2,187
combines with Brisbane Symphony
Orchestra, Brisbane Chorale operatic
soloists to form a 100 piece orchestra with
110 choral voice production of Mahler's
commanding Resurrection Symphony.
Page 25 of 44Section 26
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Page 26 of 44
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING
RADF Staff
Committee Recommendation
Recommendation | as per this report
Floating Land 2015 Boreen Point Activities $7,500
Training $4,049 $2,549
** Workshops to up-skill arts community in business skills and grant
writing
**(Funds to be carried over
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING
Total applications not recommended: 4
Total project costs: $58,100
Total amount requested: $28,970
Total amount recommended (GST exc.): $0
Applicant Name Total Amount Amount
Project Requested | Recommended
Cost (GST exc.)
Eyes Wide Open Floating Land Project $8,000 $3,000
Images Create a comprehensive photographic,
produce a video slideshow for finale
Symposium and coffee-table-style book,
Michael Scott "Noosa Scenes” - iconic beauty, history and $21,900 $10,000
charm of the Noosa area recorded in
1950's style travel poster art.
Aleesah Darlison Noosa Treasures by Aleesah Darlison $16,580 $10,000
Pty Ltd
Motoyuki Niwa SHED — Secret Handy-Person’s Education $11,620 $5,970
Department
Page 26 of 44Section 27
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
4 NOOSA AQUATIC CENTRE BOARDWALK CAFE CONTRACT 1415T035
Author Noosa Aquatic Centre Coordinator, Stephen James
Community Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 72.02 Noosa Aquatic Centre NAC
ECM/ Business Function / Noosa Aquatic Centre – NAC/ Lease Boardwalk
Café
Attachments 1. Signed Probity Plan
2. Tender Evaluation Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Noosa Aquatic Centre Coordinator to the General Committee
Meeting dated 1 June 2015 and award Contract 1415T035 to Smiths of Doonan Family Trust for
the lease of the Noosa Aquatic Centre Boardwalk Café for an initial two (2) year period
commencing on 1 July 2015 and expiring on 30 June 2017 with a further one (1) year option for
the annual sum of $60,000 (excluding GST) subject to annual CPI All Groups Brisbane
adjustments.
REPORT
The Noosa Aquatic Centre Boardwalk Café has been operated under lease since April 2009 with
the current lessee operating the cafe since July 2012.
Tenders were publicly advertised in the Noosa News on 10 April 2015 and the Sunshine Coast
Daily on 11 April 2015. At tender box close on 4 May 2015 five (5) individual submissions were
received.
The submissions were evaluated under probity in accordance with the probity plan evaluation
criteria (refer to Attachment 1). Tender responses varied in quality with two submissions
shortlisted and interviewed. A summary of the tender evaluation is provided at Attachment 2.
While Smiths of Doonan Family Trust were not the highest price offer, at interview they
demonstrated the best understanding of the business and a willingness to partner with Council to
grow the business. As a result they received the highest combined price and non-price score and
represent the most advantageous offer to Council.
Smiths of Doonan Family Trust provided a thorough application and provided the evaluation
panel with a sound understanding of the business model. They demonstrated a comprehensive
track record in the industry and have also proposed minor capital investment subject to relevant
approval. Their contribution to the local community and local economy was also of a high
standard.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Page 27 of 44
Section 28
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Finance & Risk
The contract represents minimum revenue of $120,000 to the NAC over the initial contract term,
with a further one year option.
Smiths of Doonan Family Trust have demonstrated that they are able to meet payments.
A bank guarantee for an amount equal to three (3) monthly rent instalments is to be retained by
Council.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Procurement Officer
Noosa Aquatic Centre Coordinator
Property & Facilities Manager
Acting Manager, Community Facilities
Director Community Services
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Community Services Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
x Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office x Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support x Procurement & Fleet
Governance x Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 28 of 44
Section 29
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 29 of 44
— - S ATTACHMENT 1
i Reeves
eS |
CONTRACT TITLE Lease of Noosa Aquatic Centre Boardwalk Café
CONTRACT nO wore
ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST: $400,000 revenue
CONTRACT TYPE: X Public Tender/EO! [_] Request for Quote [_] Supplier Arrangement
EVALUATION PANEL DECLARATION
As an Evaluation Panel member, | declare that | have read, understood, and accept the Probity Requirements
overleaf.
Ng aTURE DATE
CONTRACT SPONSOR(S)
Up to $200,000 Department Director Fox ROGERS 1 | = 7
$200,000-$250,000 CEO PO. Oger 12,
>$250,000 Council © 6/9
Chair (Procurement Coordinator) Sarah HANSEN lodip i? / Ss iy
iz Contract Administrator Stephen JAMES at ps ||
< Technical expert (can be an external —™
2 consultant or community representative -
O |. compar name of external party required SC
-
s Health & Safety representative |
z independent members
& | (Council Officer independent of the Clint IRWIN Ws] /
Contract Administrators branch) an
Other branch members Emma O'NEILL | AA We 5/6/15.
RATIONALE
(recommended range 35-45%) suitable return to Council.
Se Co
Health & Safety 5% Food safety
(5-10% unless approved) Training of employees
BE ‘|Recying ©.
Energy efficiency
Environment and Sustainability 5% Waste disposal
(5-10% unless approved) Packaging
Contribution to Local Economy 15% Local suppliers used where possible.
(15% unless approved) Staff to be employed from local area.
$$
Total 100% |
Revised Novernber 2013
Page 29 of 44Section 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 30 of 44
ATTACHMENT 2
ContractNo; | (1415 TORS
No. PRICE
1 a)
2 a)
3 [BNH Transport Pty Limited tla Dukes Deli
5 | $43,000)
Oe
Fa | al
0 EEE
bh et al
0
Le) (|
i | _7_-@- ~~”___"™”|”vEe”"r”@*"*"_—"—=™—”"”"_—_]
£3 rrr eee al
00S —____“Il_vmTTS
Tae ae SS >“
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS Number of Tenders Evaluated = [ 5]
—EE
Le ,
1 2 3 a 5
mS] 56
elements
OTHER DETAILS
Assesment panel member 1 Sarah Hansen
Assesment panel member 2 Emma O'Neill
Assesment panel member 3 Stephen James
Assesment panel member 4 Clint Irwin The Contract Administrator confirms the above weightings
QBSA LICENCE CHECKED (if applicable) Contract Administrator's signature: a,
Page 30 of 44Section 31
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
5 TENDER FOR REFURBISHMENT OF NOOSA COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY
Author Noosa Community Care Coordinator, Greg Tucker
Community Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 15.02 – Contracting: Community Services
Project and Contract/ NDRCR Noosa Day Respite Centre Refurbishment
Attachments 1. Signed Probity Plan
2. Tender Evaluation Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Noosa Community Care Coordinator to the General
Committee Meeting dated 1 June 2015 and award contract no 1415T019 to Midson Construction
for the amount of $204,307.11 excluding GST for the delivery of construction works related to the
Noosa Community Care refurbishment program.
REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the outcome of the tender for the
Refurbishment of Noosa Community Care Facility.
1. Background
Noosa Community Care (formerly known as Noosa Day Respite Centre) was opened in 1992.
Additional office space was added to the facility in 2005. As the services the centre provided
continued to grow, additional activity space was added in 2008.
The main building is now 23 years old and is now due for a facelift to improve functionality and
accessibility.
2. Tender Process
Council advertised for tenders on 27 March 2015 (Noosa News) and 28 March 2015 (Sunshine
Coast Daily). At tender box close on Thursday 23 April 2015, nine (9) submissions were
received.
Evaluations were carried out by the Evaluation Panel, under probity in accordance with the
probity plan and evaluation criteria (refer to Attachment 1). A summary of the tender evaluation
is provided at Attachment 2.
The submission by Midson Construction received the highest combined score and as such
represent the most advantageous offer to Council.
Midson Construction is a Noosa-based firm who has performed similar works for other aged care
facilities in recent years to a high standard and with no significant issues. At interview they
committed to their original work program and reiterated their capability to successfully deliver the
contract within the specified timeframes.
Page 31 of 44
Section 32
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
3. Implementation
Following the awarding of the contract Midson has indicated that it requires six (6) weeks to
ensure prefabrication works are ready for installation.
The centre will then close in August 2015 to allow installation and other building works to be
completed.
Centre-based care clients will be scheduled for offsite activities during August with the Centre
scheduled to re-open on 1 September 2015.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
This project is included in the 2014-15 capital works program and was estimated at $150,000
(allocated from Noosa Community Care Funding Reserves).
The original estimate was made prior to plans being drawn up. After the architects plans were
finalised a detailed cost estimate was undertaken by Quantity Surveyors Graham Lukins &
Partners which estimated the cost of construction to be $226,317 (including $20,000
contingency).
Midson Construction’s tendered price of $204,307.11 is slightly below the Quantity Surveyor
estimate. On a refurbishment project such as this it is deemed prudent to allow a 10%
construction contingency, resulting in an estimated budget of $225,000.
Design, project management and quantity surveyor fees are estimated at $15,000 of which
$11,134 has been spent to date.
Therefore the total budget required for the project is $250,000 which is $100,000 over the original
budget estimate.
A budget adjustment of $100,000 will be requested through Budget Review 4. This amount will
be funded from Noosa Community Care Funding Reserves.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Graham Lukins & Partners
WD Architects
Internal Consultation
Procurement Officer
Acting Manager, Community Facilities
Asset Planning Coordinator
Director Corporate Services
Financial Services Manager
Page 32 of 44
Section 33
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Community Services x Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
x Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
x Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office x Corporate Services
Community Engagement x Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support x Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 33 of 44
Section 34
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 34 of 44
ATTACHMENT 1
be eel Onone
ay es ee
CONTRACT TITLE NCC Refurbishment
CONTRACT NO: | 14150019 __
ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST: ——_ $180,000
CONTRACT TYPE: (CD Public Tender/EO! J Request for Quote [} Supplier Arrangement |
OO - "EVALUATION PANEL DECLARATION 7 |
As an Evaluation Panel member, | declare that | have read, understood, and accept the Probity Requirements
overleaf. NAME SIGNATURE DATE |
CONTRACT SPONSOR(S) ( eT
$200,000-8250,000 CEO sian Sect) Ragas Yi Gin. te wet ah.
Up te $200,000 Department Director =
>$250,000 Council *
“ Mi _
Chair (Procurement Coordinator) -Alan-{Fox) Rogers (A... —tsamt- 3215
| — | Contract Administrator Greg Tucker teh lS care |
3 RE mS An 2\SI.
; echnical expert (can be an external 33
;o consultant or community representative - ne ae wo ) a \y 2s iS”
& company name of external party required! . soe! APP
= . sare = i
< | Health & Safety representative John McCarron Ff. 37S
= | il eS
= | Independent members .- ee a5
w | (Council Officer independent of the Steve de Jong ot $ 4.2.75 _ |}
Contract Administrator’s branch) 7 a
Didi cian ematinos | Ems O'Neill, Ei im ius
"Nei Biv kk Feds |
SE ee ne n Eee S-255
——
RATIONALE
Se ee WEIGHTING Reasons for criteria and applied weightings
| Price
| (recommended range 35-45%) Value for money
j Ability to complete work lo a high standard, short timeframe to
} Track Record/Experience minimise restricted services/ciosure, can work well with Project
Manager
Methodology to be applied for delivery of proposed program
Methodology for Contract Delivery 10% including key milestone achievements, sufficient key personnel
on and resources for delivery of identified outcomes _ 4
Health & Safety 5% Minimising exposure to risk. public impact, safety of on-site |
(5-10% unless approved) | personnal associated with contract
Environment and Sustainability | 10% Demonstrate environment and sustainable considerations,
(5-10% unless approved) | minimising exposure to risk associated with coniract
gee eee, Demanstrale a meaningiul and measurable contribution to local
Contribution to Local Econamy :
15% business development. local economy benefits and local |
(15% imene approved) i | em nt ceneration =
Other: (detail) |
SS | eet ee eee
Tolal 100% |
Revised November 2013
Page 34 of 44Section 35
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 35 of 44
ATTACHMENT 2
| 14tstota |
No. PRICE
2 —— a
3 | $204,307
5 [Murphy 85214, 7 12)
6 [inpleFive ——‘“(CSCCOC*drCONCCCCG220.327'
9 BBN 826 7,054}
0
|S:
[je ss
(3. «xO
1} eee
6 | ee Sete tl
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS Number of Tenders Evaluated = [9 |
——————— |
aaa
1 2 3 4 5 6 v 8 3
i 49 i 50 j | 5 a 49 J
[sensor [vow [econ [a ee
l E 2
elements
OTHER DETAILS
Assesment panel member 1 Sarah Hansen
Assesment panel member 2 Emma O'Neill
Assesment panel member 3 Chris Duffy
Assesment panel member 4 Greg Tucker The Contract Administrator confirms the above weightings
QBSA LICENCE CHECKED (if applicable) Contract Administrator's signature: ee
Page 35 of 44Section 36
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
6 QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORPORATION (QTC) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
REVIEW
Author Director Corporate Services, Michael Shave
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM / Subject / Financial Management / Accounting | Loans - Queensland
Treasury Corporation
Attachments 1. QTC Rating Scale
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the General Committee
Meeting dated 1 June 2015 detailing the outcomes of the Queensland Treasury Corporation
(QTC) financial sustainability review of Council’s long term financial plan and request the CEO to
make a copy of the QTC report available on Council’s website.
REPORT
The Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning requested Queensland
Treasury Corporation (QTC) to undertake credit reviews for 19 Queensland local governments
during the 2014/15 financial year including the four de-amalgamated Councils. These credit
reviews are undertaken to assess each Council’s capacity to service current and proposed
borrowings (i.e. debt), as well as to assess credit and other risks which may affect a Council’s
financial sustainability into the future.
When QTC undertakes these reviews they use a number of approaches to assess the financial
capacity of a Council, namely:
1. Consideration of qualitative factors (i.e. Council strategy, demographics, economics,
regulation, systems) and quantitative factors (i.e. historical financial results, current year
budget versus actual results, 10 year financial forecasts and assumptions);
2. Identification and assessment of key risks and mitigation strategies; and
3. Consideration of the results of previous credit reviews undertaken.
QTC uses a scale to provide a rating and outlook for a Council once a credit review is completed.
This scale with detailed definitions is provided for information in Attachment 1. Briefly however
the scales used are as follows:
Page 36 of 44
Section 37
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Rating Scale Very strong
Strong
Sound
Moderate
Weak Very weak
Distressed
Outlook Scale Positive or negative
Neutral
Developing
Council has been rated by QTC as Sound with a Positive outlook. The sound rating reflects
Council’s forecast operating surpluses, strong debt servicing capacity, high level of Council
controlled revenue and high levels of forecast liquidity. This rating is considered an excellent
outcome for Council given the short timeframe between de-amalgamation and the undertaking of
the review by QTC.
The most significant factors determined by QTC that are contributing to Council’s sound rating
are:
Forecast operating surpluses over the life of the 10 year financial forecast (positive);
Council is on track to achieve FY2015 budget (positive);
Low level of borrowings with adequate debt servicing capacity (positive);
High levels of forecast liquidity (positive);
High level of council controlled revenue and fiscal flexibility (positive);
Capacity to increase net rates, levies and charges (positive);
Asset management plans (AMP) have not been developed to date (negative);
Council forecasts adequate investment in its asset base (positive); and
Zero-based budgeting (positive).
The positive outlook reflects the potential for a future credit review rating upgrade and is
dependent on Council maintaining its credit metrics, continuing its disciplined approach to cost
control into the future and developing its asset management plans. The lack of finalisation of
asset management plans was identified as the only negative element in the assessment.
When QTC undertook the original financial assessment on behalf of the Local Government
Boundary Commissioner in 2012 prior to de-amalgamation, the proposed new Noosa Council
rating was given a moderate rating with a neutral outlook based on the financial estimates at the
time. The latest upgraded rating is obviously based on data that is more relevant and current,
and the responsible financial management put in place since de-amalgamation.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil
Finance & Risk
Nil
Page 37 of 44
Section 38
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Mayor
Chief Executive Officer
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
X Executive Office X Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 38 of 44
Section 39
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
QTC’s Local Government Credit Rating and Outlook Definitions
Ratings
Very Strong A local government with a very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments in
the short, medium and long-term. It has a record of reporting operating surpluses and
is highly likely to be able to manage major unforeseen financial shocks and any
adverse changes in its business without revenue and/or expense adjustments. Its
capacity to manage core business risks is very strong.
Strong A local government with a strong capacity to meet its financial commitments in the
short, medium and long-term. It generally has a record of operating surpluses and
may occasionally report minor operating deficits. It is able to address its operating
deficits, manage major unforeseen financial shocks and any adverse changes in its
business, with minor revenue and/or expense adjustments. The expense adjustments
are likely to result in only minor changes to the range of and/or quality of services
offered. Its capacity to manage core business risks is strong.
Sound A local government with an adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments in
the short, medium and long-term. While it is likely that it may have a record of minor
to moderate operating deficits, the local government is expected to regularly report
operating surpluses. It is likely able to address its operating deficits, manage major
unforeseen financial shocks and any adverse changes in its business, with minor or
moderate revenue and/or expense adjustments. The expense adjustments are likely
to result in some changes to the range of and/or quality of services offered. Its
capacity to manage core business risks is sound.
Moderate A local government with an adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments in
the short to medium-term and an acceptable capacity in the long-term. While it has
some record of reporting minor to moderate operating deficits, the local government
may also have recently reported a significant operating deficit. It is likely able to
address its operating deficits, manage unforeseen financial shocks and any adverse
changes in its business, with moderate revenue and/or expense adjustments. The
expense adjustments are likely to result in a number of changes to the range of
and/or quality of services offered. Its capacity to manage core business risks is
moderate.
Weak A local government with an acceptable capacity to meet its financial commitments in
the short to medium-term and a limited capacity in the long-term. It has a record of
reporting moderate to significant operating deficits with a recent operating deficit
being significant. It is unlikely to be able to address its operating deficits, manage
unforeseen financial shocks, and any adverse changes in its business, without the
need for significant revenue and/or expense adjustments. The expense adjustments
would result in significant changes to the range of and/or quality of services offered. It
may experience difficulty in managing core business risks.
Page 39 of 44
Section 40
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Very Weak A local government with a limited capacity to meet its financial commitments in the
short and medium-term, and a very limited capacity long-term. It has a record of
reporting significant operating deficits. It is highly unlikely to be able to address its
operating deficits, manage unforeseen financial shocks and any adverse changes in
its business without the need for structural reform and major revenue and/or expense
adjustments. The expense adjustments are likely to result in significant changes to
the range and/or quality of services offered and it may need the assistance from
higher levels of government. It will have difficulty in managing its core business risks.
Distressed A local government with a very limited capacity to meet its short-term financial
commitments and no capacity to meet its medium to long-term financial
commitments. It has a record of reporting significant operating deficits. To be able to
address its operating deficits, meet its medium and long-term obligations, manage
unforeseen financial shocks and any adverse changes in its business, major revenue
and expense adjustments and structural reform will be required. The local
government is unlikely to have the capacity to manage core business risks and may
need assistance from higher levels of government.
Outlooks
A ratings outlook generally focuses on the potential movement in an entity’s rating in the short
term (i.e less than 24 months). Outlooks may be positive, neutral or negative.
Positive As a result of a foreseeable event or circumstance occurring, there is the potential
for enhancement/deterioration in the local government’s capacity to meet its
financial commitments (short and/or long-term) and resultant change in its rating.
However, it does not necessarily indicate that a rating change may be forthcoming.
Neutral There are no known foreseeable events that would have a direct impact on the local
government’s capacity to meet its financial commitments. It may be possible for a
rating upgrade or downgrade to occur from a neutral outlook, if such an event or
circumstance warranted as such.
Developing A developing outlook is where a current situation exists that could have a significant
direct impact on the financial sustainability of the local government, but the impact
of that situation is uncertain.
Page 40 of 44
Section 41
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
7 NOOSA NORTH SHORE BEACH CAMPGROUND - PROPOSED OPTION
Author Property and Facilities Manager, Clint Irwin
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject: 8.04 Noosa North Shore Management
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Property and Facilities Manager to the General Committee
Meeting dated 1 June 2015 and authorise the exercise of the option to extend the current
management agreement for the Noosa North Shore Beach Campground for a further one (1)
year period commencing 1 August 2015.
REPORT
Council operates three holiday parks which offer a wide variety of unique experiences for visitors.
All holiday parks operate under a management agreement with Council with varying terms to suit
the scale of the operation.
The current managers of the Noosa North Shore Beach Campground are Beachfront Caravan
Park Pty Ltd who have been operating the Noosa North Shore Campground since 1 August
2012. Their current term expires on 31 July 2015. Pursuant to the current agreement, the
successful tenderer can be awarded up to two further one (1) year options.
A review of the current management agreement documentation is being undertaken with a view
to clarifying responsibilities and simplifying the overall terms of the agreement. This review is
taking longer than first envisaged and due to staff leave will unlikely to be completed in time to
ensure a new agreement is in place and operational by 31 July 2015.
Accordingly, the purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to extend the current
management agreement by exercising the option for one year to allow Council sufficient time to
complete the review. The incumbent has generally discharged its obligations in relation to the
current agreement to date and is in agreement to extend the contract through the exercise of the
option for one year.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
Undertaking a tender process now and subsequently appointing a new manager prior to a review
of the management model may result in inefficiencies and could impact on the financial return of
the business activity.
Page 41 of 44
Section 42
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Director Corporate Services
Executive Officer
Property Officer
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office X Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
X Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 42 of 44
Section 43
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
8 NOOSA RIVER HOLIDAY PARK - PROPOSED INTERIM AGREEMENT
Author Property and Facilities Manager, Clint Irwin
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject: 8.13 Noosa River Holiday Park
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Property and Facilities Manager to the General Committee
Meeting dated 1 June 2015 and authorise the CEO to enter into an interim management
agreement for the Noosa River Holiday Park with Anvera Pty Ltd trading as Dineen Tourism
Management Park Pty Ltd for 6 months commencing on 1 September 2015.
REPORT
Council operates three holiday parks which offer a wide variety of unique experiences for visitors.
All holiday parks operate under a management agreement with varying terms to suit the scale of
the operation.
The current managers of the Noosa River Holiday Park are Anvera Pty Ltd trading as Dineen
Tourism Management Park Pty Ltd and they have been managing the Noosa River Holiday Park
since 1 September 2010. The management agreement is for a four year term with a one year
option. The option was accepted by the Manager in 2014 and is due to expire 31 August 2015.
A review of the current management agreement documentation is being undertaken with a view
to clarifying responsibilities and simplifying the overall terms of the agreement. This review is
taking longer than first envisaged and due to staff leave will unlikely to be completed in time to
ensure a new agreement is in place and operational by 31 August 2015.
Accordingly, the purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to extend the current
management agreement to allow Council sufficient time to complete the review and to call fresh
tenders. The incumbent has discharged its obligations in relation to the current agreement to
date.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 29 May 2014, Item 7, Page 16
That Council note the report by the Senior Property Officer, Property and Land Management to
the Planning and Organisation Committee dated 20 May 2014 and authorise the exercise of the
option to extend the Contract for a further one (1) year period commencing 1 September 2014,
as per conditions offered in Tender 327401.
Finance & Risk
Undertaking a tender process now and subsequently appointing a new manager prior to a review
of the management model may result in inefficiencies and could impact on the financial return of
the business activity.
Page 43 of 44
Section 44
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1 JUNE 2015
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Director Corporate Services
Executive Officer
Manager Procurement and Fleet
Property Officer
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office X Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
X Executive Support X Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 44 of 44