Original source · versioned page text
2019-09-16 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, 16 September 2019
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Jess Glasgow, Ingrid Jackson,
Joe Jurisevic, Frank Pardon, Brian Stockwell, Tony Wellington
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
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 29 sections
Section 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
DEPUTATIONS -
ITEMS REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 2
1. UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 1, Page 3)
2. OPW17/0150.01 MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR
OPERATIONAL WORKS PRESCRIBED TIDAL WORKS - EXTENSION TO EXISTING
JETTY AT 180 GYMPIE TERRACE NOOSAVILLE
Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 2, Page 9)
3. MCU19/0081 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR 16
ANCILLARY DWELLING UNITS AT 64 GATEWAY DRIVE NOOSAVILLE
Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 3, Page 25)
4. OPW19/0046 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO 1802 OF 2019
REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS FOR SIGNAGE AT 1/100
RENE ST, NOOSAVILLE
Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 4, Page 35)
5. MCU18/0204 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO 2352 OF 2019 -
REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR OFFICE,
RESTAURANT & SHOP AT 6 HERON ST, PEREGIAN BEACH
Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 5, Page 60)
6. ENVIRONMENT GRANTS POLICY
Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 6, Page 62)
ITEMS REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE 2
7. COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE - JANUARY TO MARCH 2020
(Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 1, Page 3)
8. SOCIAL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 2018-19
(Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 2, Page 6)
9. NOOSA SPIT SHORELINE EROSION UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2019
(Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 3, Page 19)
10. WASTE MANAGEMENT - 2018-19 ANNUAL REPORT
(Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 4, Page 23)
11. JULY 2019 RATE LEVY OVERVIEW
(Services & Organisation Committee Agenda, 10 September 2019, Item 5, Page 36)
Page 2 of 30
Section 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
ITEM PAGE
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 4
12 MCU16 0153 01 - MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR
MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES & REC16/0041 FOR
RECONFIGURE OF A LOT AT 215 DAVID LOW WAY PEREGIAN BEACH 4
13 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - AUGUST 2019 19
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 3 of 30
Section 4
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
12 MCU16 0153 01 - MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL
CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES & REC16/0041 FOR RECONFIGURE OF A LOT AT
215 DAVID LOW WAY PEREGIAN BEACH
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/MCU16/0153.01
Attachments 1. Current Staging Plan
2. Proposed Staging Plan
3. Written response from Co-Respondent
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Thomco No 2087 Pty Ltd
Proposal Pre-request Response Notice - Change to Existing Approval
Properly Made Date 29 August 2019
Decision Due Date 26 September 2019
Number of Submissions 415 to original application
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 215 David Low Way Peregian Beach Qld 4573
RP Description Lot 1 SP 286680
Land Area 2.312 hectares
Existing Use of Land Supermarket/speciality shops and vacant land
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Eastern Beaches
Zone Open Space Recreation Zone
Semi-Attached Housing
Overlays Natural Hazards Overlay – Bushfire hazard
Natural Hazards Overlay – High and Low Potential Acid Sulfate Soils
Assessment Type Minor Change to Approval
Page 4 of 30
Section 5
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the General Committee Meeting
dated 16 September 2019 regarding Application No. MCU16/0153.01 and REC16/0041 for a Pre-
Request Response to Change Conditions of the Development Approval for 215 David Low Way,
Peregian Beach and:
A. Advise the applicant that Council does not support the proposed changes to condition 2, 3,
6, 37 and 66 and the deletion of condition 17 as:
1. The proposed change does not constitute a minor change under the Planning Act
2016 as the changes would result in a substantially different development, as they
would potentially:
(i) change the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; and
(ii) remove (through its later and uncertain provision) a component that is integral
to the operation and development of the site.
2. The proposal is not consistent with the Environmental Outcomes of the Noosa Plan
as the changes do not provide certainty that a range of visitor accommodation types
will be provided.
3. The proposal is not consistent with the Eastern Beaches Locality Code as it would
create no certainty about the delivery of the motel and would not optimise the site’s
utilisation for short term visitor accommodation. There is relatively little commercial
short term accommodation in Peregian Beach and the motel provides a reasonable
alternative to the low cost accommodation intended for the site.
4. The proposal is not consistent with the draft Noosa Plan as the proposed staging
does not provide certainty that a diversity of visitor accommodation types and
affordability will be provided in Peregian Beach.
5. There are other opportunities to mitigate the potential construction impacts on the
motel as opposed to delaying the development of the motel.
6. The funding requirements for the development are not a relevant consideration for
planning matters and the proposed change to conditions.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks a ‘pre-request response’ from Council to change a development approval
at 215 David Low Way Peregian Beach to allow the approved motel to be constructed last.
It is submitted by the applicant that….
The basis behind the change to the staging is a result of construction constraints around
delivering the Motel building in Stage 1. Should the Motel be constructed within Stage 1
there will be considerable construction impacts associated with the construction of current
Stage 2 in the furthest part of the site. This is due to access constraints and sequencing of
site works, which will result in adverse impacts on the Motel. These construction impacts
will negatively affect the operation and visitor attendance of the Motel and will undermine
the viability of the project.
Further to the construction impacts, the developments funding requirements dictate that the
construction of the Accommodation Dwelling Units (19 x 3 + bedroom + 1 managers unit)
must be done within Stage 1. The requirements for construction funding cannot be met if
the Motel Building (10 x 2 bedroom + 22 x 1 bedroom) is constructed in Stage 1, as
currently approved. It is noted that the applicant is committed to provide short term
Page 5 of 30
Section 6
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
accommodation for the Peregian area as part of Stage 1, however without appropriate
funding, construction cannot commence in any form.
In addition to the construction and funding constraints outlined above, both the Visitor
Accommodation Type 4 Dwelling Units, as well as the Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Motel
Building, deliver the same land use outcome, being ‘Visitor Accommodation Type 4
Conventional’, which is defined under the planning scheme as follows:
“Two or more dwelling units or accommodation units, for the purpose of providing short-
term visitor accommodation. The use may include common recreation or dining facilities
and includes an ancillary dwelling unit for onsite manager. The use includes a guesthouse,
visitor hostel, motel, resort and serviced rooms, but does not include Visitor
accommodation Type 1 Home hosted or Type 3 Rural as separately defined”.
It is noted that the above definition does not provide a distinction between a ‘Dwelling Unit’
and ‘Motel Building’ and therefore both components of the development provide the same
Short-term Visitor Accommodation in accordance with the definition. Due to the absence of
distinction between a ‘Dwelling Unit’ and ‘Motel Building’, there is no impact to Council or
the community in the delivery of the ‘Dwelling Units’ within Stage 1.
Further, consideration has also been given to the ‘New Noosa Plan’, with express purpose
to identify any land use restrictions on the site that would require the delivery of ‘Motel Style
Accommodation’. Under the New Noosa Plan, the site is located within the Tourism
Accommodation Zone. The purpose of the Tourism Accommodation Zone is to provide for
Short-term Accommodation, as well as Community Uses and Small-Scale Facilities and
Infrastructure to support Short-term Accommodation and Tourist Attractions.
In reviewing the Tourism Accommodation Zone Code as well as the Coastal Communities
Local Plan Code, there are no requirements to deliver ‘Motel Style Accommodation’, with
both the zone and local plan seeking the delivery of Short-term Accommodation (similar to
that associated with the development). It is noted that under the definition of Short-term
Accommodation (New Noosa Plan) there is no distinction between ‘Dwelling Unit’ style
Accommodation and ‘Motel Building’ style accommodation.
In accordance with the above, the alteration of the developments staging to deliver the 19
Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Dwelling Units and Managers Unit within Stage 1, will
ensure the viability and delivery of the development, whilst mitigating amenity and
operational impacts that are present with the current development staging.
The applicant has identified that the proposed change will require amendments to conditions 2, 3,
6, 37, 66 and the deletion of Condition 17.
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
A report on this application for 26 dwelling units for permanent residency, 20 visitor dwelling units
and 12 permanent/visitor dwelling units at 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach was originally
considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 19 October 2017.
At the Ordinary Meeting Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposal development is in conflict with the tourism objectives of the planning
scheme as set out in the:
(i) Desired Environmental Outcomes; and
(ii) Overall Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality Code,
of the Noosa Plan.
2. The proposed development is an inconsistent use in the Open Space Recreation
Zone.
Page 6 of 30
Section 7
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
3. The proposed development is for a scale and form of buildings which is incompatible
with the informal beachside character of the Eastern Beaches Locality and is contrary
to the Overall Outcomes of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code. Furthermore, the
proposal is for multiple housing, a form of development which under the Planning
scheme is limited to Sunshine Beach.
4. The proposed development ignores the Council’s long-held planning strategy
whereby the site is to be retained for low-cost visitor accommodation.
5. The proposal presents an unacceptable development outcome with respect to
adjoining properties in Rufous Street.
6. The development provides for an inadequate number of car parking spaces.
7. The application has not demonstrated sufficient planning or community need to justify
setting aside the clear conflicts with the Noosa Plan.
8. The proposed works are contrary to the Natural Hazards Overlay Code as the risk
from bushfire has not adequately been addressed and the layout may compromise
the safety of people and property in the event of a bushfire.
9. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the development will not
adversely impact upon the specialised habitat for threatened species through
discharge of stormwater through the wetland areas of the National Park.
10. The application for the proposed works has not demonstrated compliance with State
Planning Policy July 2017 Part E Biodiversity as impacts on matters of state
significance have not been adequately addressed.
11. A number of properly made submissions have been received raising valid grounds of
objection.
The applicant subsequently appealed the decision stating that the application should be
approved subject to reasonable and relevant conditions and that the respondent (Council) should
pay their costs of the appeal. At the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting on 12
December 2017 it was resolved to defend the appeal.
At the Ordinary Meeting on 18 October 2018, Council considered a Mayoral Minute regarding a
planning appeal in respect of a mixed use residential development at 215 David Low Way,
Peregian Beach. The Mayoral Minute advised of the trial proceedings and the applicant’s
proposed settlement offer to the submitter and Council principally agreeing to change the
development to 32 motel units and 20 visitor units consistent with the Noosa Plan’s strategic
intent for the site to support the tourism industry and provide for a range of visitor
accommodation choices in Noosa.
The settlement removed the previously proposed accommodation for permanent residents from
the site with amended plans effecting a redesign, reducing the overall number of units on site and
the development footprint to better fit with the low density character of Peregian Beach and
improve landscaping opportunities, setbacks and the development’s interface with surrounding
properties. Through the appeal, amended bushfire management, stormwater management and
acoustic measures were also addressed.
On the basis of these changes Council resolved to settle the appeal with a further report to be
presented to a future Council meeting for Council’s consideration, detailing a full set of conditions
for the proposed development and seeking Council’s agreement to finalise the appeal.
A set of conditions were provided to the appellant for their review and the appellant provided a
revised set of plans to meet the settlement agreement conditions. The conditions were drafted to
generally reflect and support the agreed development and ensure it would be undertaken in a
manner that would address the issues raised during the appeal and achieve an outcome for the
site consistent with the Noosa Plan requirements.
Page 7 of 30
Section 8
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
At the Special Meeting on 5 June 2019 it was resolved to finalise the settlement of the appeal
generally in accordance with the conditions recommended. Condition 6 of the approval states:
6. The approved units must be used for short term visitors only. The approved units
must not be occupied by persons for continuous occupation in excess of 90 days for
each calendar year. A register of occupation must be kept by the body corporate and
made available to Council upon request. The requirements of this condition must be
included in the Community Management Statement for any body corporate for the
subject site. If the development is to be staged the motel must be built in the
first stage. (bold added).
The agreed conditions specifically included the requirement that if the development were to be
staged that the motel building must be constructed in Stage 1. This ensured that the motel
accommodation would be realised and was reflective of the staging proposed by the applicant at
the time. It is important to note that the applicant may construct both the dwelling units and the
motel building concurrently.
2.2. Site Description
The site is situated on the western side of David Low Way and the current title on which the
development is proposed is approximately 2.312 hectares in area.
A commercial development is sited within the south-eastern corner of the site which currently
accommodates an IGA supermarket and a number of smaller retail outlets.
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
North Peregian Beach Hotel, Rufous Street kindergarten, Rufous Street and reserve
South Noosa National Park and Sandpiper Court
East Peregian Beach Hotel, IGA (within same allotment) and David Low Way
West Noosa National Park
3. STAUTORY PROCESS
The applicant has requested a pre-request response to make a minor change to a development
approval under s78 of the Planning Act 2016. As the original approval was issued by the
Planning and Environment Court and properly made submissions were received, the court is the
assessment manager for subsequent ‘minor change’ applications. Council is an ‘affected entity’
and the court is required to seek comment from Council when considering a minor change
application. However, an applicant may seek a pre-request from an affected entity prior to
lodging the minor change application with the court.
Part of the criteria to determine whether an application is a minor change is to determine whether
the change would result in a substantially different development.
A change may be considered to result in a substantially different development if the proposed
change:
(a) involves a new use; or
(b) results in the application applying to a new parcel of land; or
(c) dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance; or
(d) changes the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; or
(e) removes a component that is integral to the operation of the development; or
(f) significantly impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as increasing
traffic to the site; or
(g) introduces new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts; or
(h) removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a negative
impact of the development; or
(i) impacts on infrastructure provisions.
Page 8 of 30
Section 9
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
The proposed change has been reviewed by the consulting planning expert who Council
engaged for the appeal. The planning expert provided the following comments:
The proposed change to the staging would result in the removal of the motel building from Stage
1. Deferring the motel (visitor accommodation) to a later stage does not create certainty about
the timing of its delivery following Stage 1 and may affect the ability of the proposed development
to operate as intended. It is noted that in the Economic Need Joint Expert Report (JER) Justin
Ganly stated that the "proposed motel which will have a particular focus on its conferencing
facilities to help assist with viability" (p30). The Economic Need JER also noted:
there is relatively little commercial accommodation provided within Peregian Beach
(paragraph 112);
It is evident that the seven properties – which would generally be regarded as small resorts
or motels – are generally dated and small (paragraph 115); and
there is some need for motel-style accommodation and related conference facilities,
particularly given the site owner’s expertise with similar facilities elsewhere on the
Sunshine Coast (paragraph 177).
Deferring the motel to a later stage with no certainty about the timing of its delivery following
Stage 1, may result in the removal of the component of the development which is integral to the
operation of the development.
... On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal to change the
condition to delete the requirement that the motel building be constructed in the first stage has
the potential to at least arguably result in ‘substantially different’ development, as it would:
potentially change the ability of the proposed development to operate as intended; and
potentially remove (through its later and uncertain provision) a component that is integral to
the operation of the development.
Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed change may not be a minor change but rather
represent an "other change" under the Planning Act 2016.
The comments of the planning expert are supported and it is considered that the application as
proposed results in a substantially different development and therefore does not constitute a
minor change. The proposed changes would therefore require a new application to be lodged
with Council and be publically notified for comment from the community.
4. ASSESSMENT
It is the applicant’s position that dwelling units and motel building provide the same land use
outcome as the planning scheme definition of “Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional” as
the definition does not differentiate between the two accommodation types. Whilst this is correct
the following provisions within the planning scheme are also relevant to the assessment of this
application.
Desired Environmental Outcomes
k) TOURISM
A tourism industry is developed and sustained by—
iv. offering visitors a range of experiences and accommodation types;
xi. retaining a range of visitor accommodation choices including camping grounds,
caravan parks, backpacker hostels, hotels, motels, resorts, B&Bs, guesthouses and
serviced apartments;
Overall Outcomes of Eastern Beaches Locality Code
i. Emphasis is placed on the protection and retention of low cost accommodation
consistent with maintaining a diversity of accommodation types for visitors to the
locality;
Page 9 of 30
Section 10
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions of the Open Space Recreation Zone
O75 The caravan park at Peregian Beach is protected and retained to provide for low cost
Visitor accommodation needs; AND
O76 Visitor accommodation Type 4 is provided only where it is integrated as part of the existing
caravan park use.
The locality code places emphasis on the protection and retention of low cost visitor
accommodation and also provides a specific density for the purpose of a visitor hostel for the
subject site.
The proposed change to the staging of the development conflicts with the above outcomes as it
does not ensure the motel will ever proceed, being the lower cost of the proposed visitor
accommodation. There is also a demonstrated need for the motel accommodation, but no
significant need for additional holiday homes with a number of houses in Peregian Beach let for
short term accommodation.
Council’s consulting planning expert advises:
Deferring the motel to a later stage would create no certainty about the timing of its delivery
following Stage 1 and would not optimise the site's utilisation for visitor accommodation.
This is not considered desirable as it would potentially affect the ability of the proposed
development to operate as intended. As noted in the Economic Need JER there is
relatively little commercial accommodation provided in the Peregian Beach area (paragraph
112) and that of the properties located in this area, the small resorts or motels are generally
dated and small (paragraph 115).
The application also identifies that the change to the staging is required due to construction
impacts and funding requirements. Funding requirements is not a valid planning ground to justify
variation of the original approval with the Planning Act specifically stating for impact assessable
applications the assessment must be carried out against the planning scheme, matters
prescribed by regulation and “may be carried out against any other relevant matter, other than a
person’s personal circumstances, financial or otherwise”. With regards to the construction
impacts it is noted that if the dwelling units and motel building were constructed concurrently the
construction impacts identified by the applicant would be mitigated. The potential construction
impacts on the motel may also be mitigated by amending the layout of the development.
It is noted that the applicant recently agreed to the proposed conditions and that the Court Order
was issued on 21 June 2019, approximately 2 months prior to this application being lodged. It is
also relevant to note that the applicant proposed this current staging.
5. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The Draft Noosa Plan which was released for public notification earlier this year includes the site
in the Coastal Communities Locality, with the site being zoned Tourist Accommodation and Local
Centre Zone. The approved development is located within the Tourist Accommodation Zone.
The Purpose and Overall Outcomes and Performance Outcomes of the Coastal Communities
Local Plan Code (7.2.6.2 and 7.2.6.3) includes:
(m) Sites identified for tourist accommodation are retained and developed for that use to
maintain a diversity and choice of housing and visitor accommodation and
affordability in the local plan area. Development for visitor accommodation may also
locate in residential zones around Sunshine Beach shops and generally east of David Low
Way where identified on the Short Stay Area Map (included in Schedule 2).
Visitor Facilities
P014 Development provides a diversity of types and styles of visitor accommodation to
cater for a range of visitor experiences in close proximity to key tourist areas.
Page 10 of 30
Section 11
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
The proposed change to the staging of the development is inconsistent with the Purpose and
Overall Outcomes and Performance Outcomes of the Coastal Communities Local Plan Code as
the proposed staging does not provide certainty that a diversity of visitor accommodation type
and affordability in the local plan area will be achieved.
The purpose of the Tourist accommodation zone is to provide for short-term accommodation and
community uses, and small-scale services, facilities and infrastructure, to support short-term
accommodation and tourist attractions (s 6.3.4.2). Specific to the subject site Performance
Outcome PO8 seeks:
Lot 77 SP231615, 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach provides for a diversity of short-
term accommodation types, including low-cost visitor accommodation, to cater for a range
of visitor accommodation experiences.
The proposed change to the staging of the development is not consistent with this Performance
Outcome as it removes the low-cost visitor accommodation component from the first stage of the
development and fails to provide certainty that this accommodation type will be developed.
6. NOTIFICATION
It is acknowledged that there is no requirement under the Planning Act 2016 for a Co-
Respondent to be notified of a proposed minor change to a court issued development approval.
However, in this instance the Co-Respondent was advised of the proposed change for courtesy
reasons given their significant involvement in the appeal.
The Co-Respondent has provided a written response which does not support the proposed
change on a number of grounds including:
It is not a minor change;
The construction issues were not raised in the court appeal; and
The proposed staging of the development does not provide certainty that the motel units
will be constructed and that the applicant may seek to change the development approval to
remove the motel component.
A copy of the Co-Respondents written response is included as Attachment 1.
7. CONSULTATION
7.1. Referral Agencies
The application was not required to be referred to any Referral Agencies:
7.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council specialists:
Environment Officer - Ecology
Development Engineer
8. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The application seeks a pre-request response to a proposed change to an existing Development
Approval.
The proposed changes are considered to result in a ‘substantially different development’ and
therefore are not a minor change. Accordingly, a new application should be lodged with Council
and will require public notification. Furthermore the proposed changes are not consistent with the
Desired Environmental Outcomes and Overall Outcomes of Eastern Beaches Locality Code as
they fail to provide certainty as to the delivery of a range of visitor accommodation choices
including low cost visitor accommodation. The proposed change is similarly inconsistent with the
draft scheme. It is therefore recommended that the pre-request response not be supported.
Page 11 of 30
Section 12
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development 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 x Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 12 of 30
Section 13
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 1
:
:
Hs
|
} | \ s
— ——e |
| 4
H. DL
= g
nt aad a
ti =
iff! =
ul eo
Page 13 of 30Section 14
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 2
Page 14 of 30
Gq)
aT ' m
\
j a
\ >
eee ee ee rm
ae ear yey oe yo Denotes Road Pavement and 8
\ |_| Footpath to be Constructed as part =
\ |_| of Stage 1 =
S|
\ Yy WY =
\ 7 jj ®
\ GY Yj 5
\ Uj Yj m
\ Gy yy =<
\ GYyjyywy—Z QE/ pf#rp 2
\ Vy, yyy
\ YY YMCWWTJ=W@— FTW ee
\ Yy YY j ELDL port 14 f
\ Wy Y ie tf @Gge
’ Y Yj 4 roid
Yyy YY | iia eer |
\ _ J )
\ Yy Yy maa ee ee
\ Wy Yj
. LL _
Y, Yi a
\ YY Uj YH “ys DY. | wn
aw yy | 0
v Annotated by ADAMS + SPARKES \L é CHL u 5
a Version 01, Revision 1, Date 22 August 2019 7 > a
=
© & w
> MO: © 3 | &
RED008 scanlon
° group iit 4 16.04.19 REVIEW ISSUE @ 8
3 5 13Section 15
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Page 15 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
= Peregian Beach Community Association Inc.
} : ' y KY [email protected] - PBCAlorg - P.0.Box 312, Peregian Beach Qld. 4573
9 September 2019
The CEO,
Noosa Shire Council,
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565
ATT: Ms Kerri Coyle
[email protected]
Dear Ms Coyle,
Thomco (No 2087) Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council and PBCAI
P & E Appeal No 4066 of 2017
Pre-Request Response
This letter relates to a request by Thomco to vary an Order by the Planning and
Environment Court made by Consent as recently as 21 June 2019.
BACKGROUND:
The Thomco proposal for the site, now approved, obviously is guided by the aim of
maximising the rate of return and not by resident/visitor amenity. The amenity would
have been improved by fewer dwellings and a smaller Motel, as suggested by
Council and PBCAI, but resisted by Thomco.
Thomco’s priority has always been to build the dwellings for sale, preferably as
permanent accommodation, and the change to visitor accommodation was simply a
means to that end.
The fact that the dwellings are for short-term visitor accommodation is not being
clearly advertised, which may mislead purchasers seeking permanent
accommodation; and the dwelling density and high prices may also be deterring
persons who are contemplating residing here from purchasing.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOOSA PLAN:
As you are aware, the Noosa Plan required this land to remain for visitor
accommodation after the closure of the caravan park. The December 2016
application, which resulted in this appeal, was predominantly for permanent
accommodation in both the dwellings and the Motel. The land was also required to
provide low cost accommodation, but that was lost during the DA process.
The December 2016 application was for a Motel consisting of partly permanent and
partly visitor accommodation, which was to be built as Stage 2. The majority of the
land was proposed to be used for 26 dwellings for permanent accommodation.
Page 15 of 30Section 16
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Page 16 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
At the first mediation, which occurred in early 2017, PBCAI suggested that the Motel
should be built with priority and Thomco agreed for it to be built as Stage 1.
Subsequently, during the preparation of the evidence for the hearing of this matter,
Thomco agreed that all of the Motel would be for visitor accommodation which
removed another reason for the rejection of Thomco’s development application.
Thomco then used the fact that all of the Motel units were available for visitor
accommodation to submit that the dwellings, now reduced to 20, should be approved
for permanent accommodation.
Thomco only agreed on day 8 of the hearing to abandon its application for
permanent accommodation in the dwellings, which resulted in this matter settling.
Even after that settlement, Thomco again changed it plans before the settlement was
made an Order by the Court on 21 June 2019.
Thomco ever since the first application involving this land in 2007 has had a history
of constantly changing its plans, even after mediated agreements have been made
as Orders of the Court and of not complying with those agreements or Orders.
You will be aware that the dedication of the western portion of this land for
environmental purposes, agreed to in 2010 and made an Order of the Court and
subsequently a condition of the IGA approval, was not implemented by Thomco until
2018, and only after Council intervened.
THE STAGING ISSUE:
The Motel for short-term visitor accommodation was not opposed by PBCAI.
The Council, PBCAI and the community wants to ensure that the Motel is actually
built, despite its architectural and other limitations.
The Court Order made by Consent, requires the Motel to be built as Stage 1 to be
given priority, but the Order would allow the Motel and the dwellings to be built
simultaneously. There is no requirement in the Order or the Conditions that the
development has to be staged. That is a matter for Thomco. The requirement that
the Motel is to be built as Stage 1 only arises if Thomco chooses to stage the
development.
It is stated in the documents submitted by Thomco to support its pre-request
response that it considers there to be no difference between short-term visitor
accommodation provided in the Motel building and that provided in the Visitor
Accommodation Type 4 Dwellings. This is reinforced by the reference to the Tourism
Accommodation Zone Code in the new Noosa Plan and the statement that “there are
no requirements to deliver “Motel Style Accommodation’...”
PBCAI does not agree and is concerned, based on this statement, that Thomco is
wanting to resile from the June 2019 approval it obtained for this development which
requires it to build a Motel for short-term visitor accommodation. This statement
would suggest a possible future application, based on there being “no requirements
to deliver “Motel Style Accommodation” seeking to build more dwellings on the Motel
site.
2
Page 16 of 30Section 17
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Page 17 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
PBCAI submits that there is a considerable difference between the short-term visitor
accommodation provided in a Motel and that provided by the dwellings which have
been approved for this development.
Firstly, the Motel units are one and two bedroom units. The dwellings are 3 and 4
bedroom dwellings and some are even being advertised as 5 bedroom dwellings.
Secondly, the price for a Motel unit would vary considerably from that for one of
these 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings. The dwellings are advertised for sale from
$750,000 to $1,025,000. (Kamala from $750,000, Marram from $750,000, Wallum
from $915,000, Lily from $925,000 and Saltbush from $1,025,000) which would
suggest investors may require a rate of return much higher than a Motel unit price.
Thirdly, Motel units are available by the night whereas 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings
usually have a minimum number of nights, frequently exceeding 7. They frequently
require payment in advance and also payment of a security deposit.
THE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The so called “Construction Impacts” of the dwellings on the operation of the Motel, if
completed in Stage 1, have not changed since Thomco agreed to the Motel being
given priority in mid 2017. Giving the Motel priority removed one reason for the
rejection of Thomco’s development application, as it gave certainty to the provision
of short-term visitor accommodation.
Thomco obviously did not want to raise any significance of the construction impacts
while it sought to have the rejection of its development application overturned by the
appeal.
Thomco was prepared to settle the appeal as recently as 21 June 2019 without any
reference to these newly raised “Construction Impacts’.
NOT A MINOR CHANGE UNDER SECTION 78
PBCAI submits that this approval requires Thomco to build the Motel with priority
(Stage 1) because of Council’s and the community's need for the short-term visitor
accommodation provided by a Motel.
For Thomco to propose to vary this recent approval to firstly build the 20 by 3, 4 and
5 bedroom dwellings is a considerable change, not a “minor change’, from what was
approved.
PBCAI submits that the proposal to build the 20 by 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings
first, without any guarantee that the short-term visitor accommodation provided by
the Motel will be built requires public notification. Without the Motel, and the short-
term visitor accommodation this is a substantially different development. It is almost
the small lot housing development Thomco initially sought.
For Thomco to propose to build the 20 by 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings first, without
providing any guarantee that it intends to build the Motel is disingenuous when it is
3
Page 17 of 30Section 18
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Page 18 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
intimating in this request that there is no requirement for it to deliver “Motel Style
Accommodation’.
PBCAI submits that if Council proposes to support this request, it, at very least,
should require Thomco to lodge a $1,000,000 Security Bond as an irrevocable
guarantee that the Motel will be commenced by 1 September 2020 and completed
by 1 September 2021. If Thomco is not prepared to provide this Security Bond it will
provide evidence that, once again, Thomco has no intention of complying with a
Court Consent Order.
PBCAI requests that Council advise Thomco that it will not support this pre-request
response for the above reasons.
Yours Sincerely,
yee
Barry Cotterell,
President, PBCAI
4
Page 18 of 30Section 19
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
13 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - AUGUST 2019
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Financial Services, Trent Grauf
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 22.09 – Monthly Financial Performance Report
Attachments 1. Statement of Income and Expenditure (Profit & Loss and Capital)
2. Statement of Financial Position
3. Statement of Cash Flows
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Performance against current budget for the month of August 2019 aligns with YTD budget at this
early stage of the financial year. The current budget now includes the recent budget review 1
adjustments for operational and capital items.
YTD Financial Performance Summary
Budget Actual Variance Variance Status
$m $m $m %
Operating Revenue $39.2 $39.8 $0.5 1.3% On Track
Operating Expense $16.7 $15.7 $1.0 6.0% On Track
Operating Position $22.5 $24.0 $1.5 6.7%
Capital Revenue $1.2 $1.2 $0.0 0.5% On Track
Capital Expenditure* $2.6 $1.7 $0.9 34.6% Below Budget
* Reflects constructed assets and intangibles only (excludes contributed)
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
$45
YTD Budget ($m)
$40
YTD Actual ($m)
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$-
Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure
Page 19 of 30
Section 20
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Performance against key measures of financial sustainability have been calculated for the month
of August 2019. These indicators, as supported by various industry bodies including QTC and
QAO, enable users of financial data to assess a council’s success in managing its budget, cash
and debt as well as effective asset management. The table below contains a snapshot 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% 0.0% 60.3% On Track
Net Financial Liabilities Ratio <60% -7.0% -41.1% Above Target
Cash Cover Ratio 3 months 5.5 months 11.6 months Above Target
Asset Sustainability Ratio > 90% 129% 8% On Track
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Committee
Meeting dated 16 September 2019 outlining August 2019 year to date financial performance
against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key
financial sustainability indicators.
REPORT
Operating Revenue (YTD Benchmark 16.7%)
Council has received 40% ($39.8 million) of its operating revenue budget ($99.9 million).
Commentary on each revenue category is provided below.
Category Summary Comments
Rates and Levies $34.6 million (50%) of the Waste utility charges $124k above YTD budget
annual budget of $68.7 (51% or $6.5 million of $12.7 million budget
million has been earned earned)
Fees and $1.9 million (29%) of the $6.7 Local laws fees $63k above YTD budget (46%
Charges million annual budget has or $646k of $1.4 million budget earned)
been earned Plumbing application fees $51k above YTD
budget (28% or $274k of $971k budget
earned)
Community land use permits $30k above YTD
budget (26% or $108k of $410k budget
earned)
Development related fees $21k above YTD
budget (18% or $286k of $1.6 million budget
earned)
Sale of Goods $1.4 million (14%) of the Holiday park revenue $19k above YTD budget
and Services $10.1 million budget has (14% or $441k of $3.1 million budget earned)
been received
Interest $284k (7%) of the $4.0 Interest on overdue rates and charges $33k
Received million annual budget has above YTD budget (18% or $73k of $400k
been earned budget earned)
Investment revenue $43k above YTD budget
(6% or $211k of $1.0 million budget earned)
Recent downward movements in interest rates
will likely impact on Council’s interest revenue
on cash invested, and will need to be
monitored
Page 20 of 30
Section 21
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Category Summary Comments
Unitywater On track Nil
Dividend and
Tax
Other Revenue $78k (9%) of the $880k Water Bottle filling station contribution from
budget has been earned MOU with Unitywater $11k (not budgeted)
Civil operations internal recoveries for plant
hire $195k (no budget) – offset by internal
charges
Operating $1.1 million (21%) of the $5.1 Reduction in annual grant funding for Noosa
Grants, million budget has been Community Support ($400k) will be offset by
Subsidies received reduction in operating costs – to be addressed
at budget review 2 (BR2).
50% or $1.1 million of the financial assistance
grant was again prepaid in June 2019 and may
impact on Council’s 2019/20 final operating
position if the prepayment approach is
discontinued by the Australian government.
All other operating grants are in line with
budget expectations at this stage.
Figure 2: Operating Revenue Position by Type (Excluding Rates)
$2.5
YTD Budget ($m)
YTD Actual ($m)
$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
Charges
Income
Other
Goods &
Grants
Dividend
Services
Sales of
Rental
Interest
Fees &
& Tax
Operating Expenditure (YTD Benchmark 16.7%)
Actual operating expenditure is currently 16% ($15.7 million) of full year budget ($99.8 million).
Detailed commentary for each expenditure category is provided below.
Category Summary Comments
Employee Costs $5.1 million (14%) of the Under expenditure for permanent staff salaries
annual budget of $33.9 and wages ($581k) partially offset by additional
million has been expended spend on casual staff and external labour hire
($176k)
Staff training $3k below YTD budget (1% or
$6k of $337k budget expended), with a further
$3k committed for future spend
Page 21 of 30
Section 22
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Category Summary Comments
Materials and $7.4 million (16%) of the Community Development $251k below YTD
Services $45.5 million annual budget budget (36% or $359k of $1.0 million budget
has been expended. spent) – timing of approved grants payments
Parks & Gardens operations and maintenance
programs $83k below YTD budget (11% or
$462k of $4.3 million budget spent)
Waste Management contract costs for landfill
and waste collection $62k below YTD budget
(15% or $1.3 million of $8.4 million budget
spent
Fleet fuel and maintenance costs $67k below
YTD budget (16% or $258k of $1.6 million
budget spent)
Cooroy Butter Factory $59k below YTD budget
(3% or $5k of $148k budget spent) – timing of
operating contribution
Noosa Community Support $49k below YTD
budget (19% or $116k of $354k budget spent)
– savings reflective of reduced grant revenue
Development assessment legal appeals costs
$84k above YTD budget (25% or $259k of $1.1
million budget spent)
Finance Costs On track Nil
Depreciation On track Nil
Other Expenses On track Nil
Figure 3: Operating Expenditure Position by Type
$9.0
YTD Budget ($m)
$8.0
YTD Actual ($m)
$7.0
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$0.0
Finance Costs
Materials
Depreciation
Employees
Other
Capital Revenue
YTD capital revenue of $1.2 million received comprises cash contributions from developers
($270k) and capital grants ($945k). 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 22 of 30
Section 23
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Figure 4: Capital Revenue by Type
$1.0
YTD Budget ($m)
$0.9
YTD Actual ($m)
$0.8
$0.7
$0.6
$0.5
$0.4
$0.3
$0.2
$0.1
$0.0
Contributions
Subsidies
Contributed
Grants /
Assets
Cash
Capital Program
Actual capital expenditure (excluding commitments) is $1.7 million (YTD budget $2.6 million).
The budget includes budget review 1 carryovers from 2018/19; which was adopted by Council in
August. 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
$2.5
YTD Budget ($m)
YTD Actual ($m)
$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
Capital works Other capital
Cash Management and Investment Performance
Total cash on hand at the end of August was $75 million following receipt of rates funds following
the discount period close. Included in this balance are funds held in trust and for restricted
purposes (e.g. unexpended levy and grant funds), the prepaid financial assistance grant and
unspent monies committed for funding capital projects which are underway and will continue in
the 2019/20 financial year.
The following pie charts present the mix of cash held at August 2019 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 23 of 30
Section 24
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Figure 6: Closing Cash Held by Agency and Credit Rating
Bendigo A3
(Bendigo)
Suncorp 5% A1
NAB 3% (Suncorp) 5%
5% 3%
A1 +
CBA (CBA + NAB +
8% Wpac)…
A1 +
QTC (QTC)
79% 79%
The following chart monitors the year-to-date trend on total cash and the agencies invested.
During August, total cash increased due to the payment of July rates and levies. To ensure
optimal return in line with Council’s Investment of Surplus Funds Policy, $22 million was
reinvested with QTC.
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
-
Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19
Bendigo TD Westpac TD NAB TD Suncorp TD CBA TD QTC CBA Operating
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.
Page 24 of 30
Section 25
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
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: 60.3%
Comment: The high ratio reflects the
levying of rates in July and gradual
degrade as expenditure occurs during
August to December 2019
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: 11.6 months
Comment: Council is at the top of the
cash cycle following rates and levies
payments received in August, and is
forecast to remain well above target
for the financial year whilst remaining
financially flexible to accommodate
unforeseen events
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: Slightly under budget
Comment: The capital program has
only just commenced. It is expected
that the ratio will progressively
increase each month as expenditure
on renewals occurs.
Page 25 of 30
Section 26
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Category Comments
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: - 41.1% YTD
Comment: Council has low debt
levels and strong cash holdings. The
cash received from July rates issue
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 (August = 1.0%)
Result: 1.6%
Comment: Regardless of the steady
decline in long term bond rates (due to
international market factors), Council’s
investment return still remains above
target
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: 10.1%
Comment: At the first high point in the
cycle following issue of the July rates,
and will stabilise from September to
December as arrears are collected.
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.
Page 26 of 30
Section 27
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
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 27 of 30
Section 28
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 1
Page 28 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 1
Noosa Council
Statement of Income and Expenditure
For the Year Ended 30 June 2020
As at 31 August 2019
Current Current
Budget Budget Actual Variance Annual
2020 YTD YTD YTD Budget
($'000) ($'000) ($'000) ($'000) %
Profit and Loss Statement
Revenue
Recurrent Revenue
Rates, levies and charges 68,702 34,381 34,563 181 50%
Fees and charges 6,652 1,741 1,909 167 29%
Dividend income 1,600 - - - 0%
Interest received 4,010 208 284 75 7%
Tax equivalents 1,450 177 177 - 12%
Sale of Goods and major services 10,127 1,371 1,393 22 14%
Sale of contract and recoverable works 23 - 0 0 1%
Rental & lease income 1,296 205 212 7 16%
Other income 880 150 130 (21) 15%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 5,130 1,013 1,098 85 21%
99,869 39,247 39,764 517 40%
Expenses
Recurrent Expenses
Employee benefits 33,867 5,120 4,893 (227) 14%
Materials and services 45,544 8,201 7,435 (765) 16%
Finance costs 1,528 255 257 3 17%
Depreciation and amortisation 18,713 3,119 3,119 - 17%
Other expenses 188 54 45 (9) 24%
99,841 16,748 15,749 (999) 16%
Operating Result 29 22,499 24,015 1,516
Summary of Capital Revenue and Expenditure
Capital Revenue
Capital contributions and donations 4,134 273 270 (3) 7%
Capital grants and subsidies 5,954 945 945 - 16%
Other capital revenue - - - - 0%
Total Capital Revenue 10,088 1,218 1,215 (3)
Capital Expenditure
Contributed assets 2,000 - - - 0%
Constructed assets 30,880 2,641 1,727 (914) 6%
Other capital expenses - - 6 6 0%
Total Capital Expenditure 32,880 2,641 1,733 (908)
Page 28 of 30Section 29
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 2
Page 29 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 2
Noosa Council
Statement of Financial Position
For the Year Ended 30 June 2020
As at 31 August 2019
Current Actual Actual
Budget YTD Full Year
2020 2020 2019
($'000) ($'000) ($'000)
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents 38,144 75,549 55,981
Trade and other receivables 9,174 11,794 6,565
Inventories 330 196 219
Other current assets 501 4,312 4,887
48,148 91,851 67,651
Non Current Assets held for sale - - -
Total Current Assets 48,148 91,851 67,651
Non Current Assets
Trade and other receivables 49,218 49,718 49,218
Other non current Assets - - -
Investments 78,377 60,978 60,978
Investment property 4,167 3,300 4,167
Property, plant and equipment 923,966 884,435 876,478
Intangible assets 7,581 5,987 5,923
Total Non Current Assets 1,063,309 1,004,418 996,764
Total Assets 1,111,457 1,096,268 1,064,414
Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables 4,964 11,125 8,125
Borrowings 2,508 3,337 632
Provisions 4,061 2,973 4,831
Other 675 2,825 2,581
Total Current Liabilities 12,209 20,260 16,169
Non Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables - - -
Borrowings 18,108 19,051 23,600
Provisions 10,929 11,523 11,486
Total Non Current Liabilities 29,036 30,574 35,086
Total Liabilities 41,245 50,834 51,255
Net Community Assets 1,070,212 1,045,435 1,013,160
Community Equity
Asset Revaluation Surplus 75,746 50,809 41,740
Retained Surplus / (Defeciency) - - -
Shire Capital 994 466 969,402 956,885
Current Year Net Earnings - 25,224 14,535
Total Community Equity 1,070,212 1,045,435 1,013,160
Page 29 of 30Section 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 3
Page 30 of 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Attachment 3
Noosa Council
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended 30 June 2020
As at 31 August 2019
Current Actual Actual
Budget YTD Full Year
2020 2020 2019
($'000) ($000) ($000)
Cash flows from operating activities
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Receipts from Customers 84,812 37,093 88,381
Payments to Suppliers and Employees (78,407) (16,724) (73,702)
6,405 20,369 14,679
Receipts:
Investment and Interest Revenue Received 4,010 284 4,892
Rental Income 1,292 212 1,252
Non Capital Grants and Contributions 5,113 1,098 5,447
Income Tax Equivalent Received 1,200 177 1,450
Income from Equity Investments 1,850 - 1,600
Payments:
Borrowing Costs - - -
Interest Expense (1,194) (32) (1,763)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Operating Activities 18,676 22,107 27,557
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Receipts:
Proceeds of Sale of Property, Plant and Equipment 10 - 375
Grants, Subsidies, Contributions and Donations 6,712 1,215 8,696
Payments:
Payments of Property, Plant and Equipment (26,999) (1,507) (28,359)
Payments for Intangible Assets (1,400) (177) (1,191)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Investing Activities (21,677) (469) (20,480)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Receipts:
Proceeds from Borrowings - - -
Payments:
Repayment of Borrowings (2,352) (2,069) (15,289)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Financing Activities (2,352) (2,069) (15,289)
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents held (5,352) 19,569 (8,212)
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 43,496 55,981 64,193
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the end of the reporting period 38,144 75,549 55,981
Page 30 of 30