Original source · versioned page text
2016-01-11 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, 11 January 2016
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 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 49 sections
Section 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 3
1 COMMUNITY JURY RECOMMENDATIONS ON MANAGING THE NOOSA
RIVER 3
2 COMMUNITY JURY PILOT PROCESS 13
3 SUNRISE NEIGHBOURHOOD SHOPS - SHOPS 1 & 2 PROPOSED LEASE
AGREEMENTS 21
4 NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS - FEES AND CHARGES UPDATE 26
5 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - DECEMBER 2015 30
6 NATURAL AREAS BUSHLAND REGENERATION AND ECOLOGICAL
MAINTENANCE SERVICES 37
7 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR OPERATIONAL WORK PLACING AN
ADVERTISING DEVICE - SIGNAGE AT 78-80 RENE STREET, NOOSAVILLE -
OPW15/0214 40
8 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D171/15 FOR A MATERIAL
CHANGE OF USE FOR CULTIVATION TYPE 2 - INTENSIVE (GREENHOUSE)
& RECONFIGURING A LOT (ACCESS EASEMENT) SITUATED AT 271 & 305
LAKE MACDONALD DRIVE, LAKE MACDONALD (MCU14/0039 & REC15/0012)
45
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 2 of 50
Section 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
1 COMMUNITY JURY RECOMMENDATIONS ON MANAGING THE NOOSA RIVER
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Planning & Environment, Kerri Coyle
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Community Jury
Attachments 1. Noosa River Community Jury Final Report
2. Jury Report - Supporting Document
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nil.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager, Planning & Environment to the General Committee
Meeting dated 11 January 2016 regarding the Noosa River Community Jury Final Report, and
A. Thank the Community Jury members for participating in the Community Jury Process, for
their dedication and time attending meetings, researching material and finalising their Report
and Recommendations to Council;
B. Agree in principle with the Jury recommendation that Noosa Council should take on the
responsibility of managing anchoring, mooring, commercial uses and jetty leases for the
Noosa River;
C. Write to the Department of Transport and Main Roads and Department of Natural Resources
advising them of the Jury’s recommendation for Noosa Council to manage on-river and
foreshore activities, seeking their support to establish an acceptable process for both parties
to transfer management responsibilities for the Noosa River to Council; and
D. Agree in principle to the remaining 12 Jury recommendations and refer them to a Council
workshop to consider the best legislative options, how they may be implemented and how
they may be funded through a user pay system.
REPORT
Background
Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting on 2 July 2015 to adopt the question for the second
Community Jury as:
“How can we manage the Noosa River better? What role should Council play and what resources
should Council apply?”
The Noosa River has particularly high environmental and scenic values, and is a much sought after
recreational, tourism and fisheries resources that makes a substantial contribution to the local
Noosa economy. The community have a strong association with the Noosa River and it is a
significant issue due to ongoing concerns regarding:
Page 3 of 50
Section 4
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Abandoned or derelict vessels;
Pollution and clutter in the river – particularly in the lower estuary which is the busiest section
of the river;
Changes to lease conditions and potential intensification of uses;
Commercial activities occurring outside the jetty lease areas, such as public foreshores and
public boat ramps which also raise issues of concern given the area’s high usage.
All these on-river activities are currently under State Government control with several key pieces
of legislation providing the head of power to the Departments of Transport and Main Roads
(through Maritime Safety Queensland), and foreshore activities (i.e. leases) to the Department of
Natural Resources and Mines. Compliance with these laws and regulations is managed via a
system of complaint and information referrals to other State agencies. These agencies include the
Boat Harbours Team, Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol, and the Queensland Police
Service. This is a complex and often confusing arrangement for the community and a state-wide
management approach may not be the best option to address local issues and ensure the Noosa
River is protected for future generations.
Establishment of a Community Jury
A second Community Jury was established by Council in August 2015 and asked to examine the
question. The Jury commenced its deliberations on 22 August 2015 and met monthly. At the
outset an information pack was provided to the Jury and a presentation provided by officers on
current issues around the Noosa River, current legislation provisions, and potential management
options for the Noosa River. The Jury was advised that the following matters were in scope:
Anchoring, mooring and living on board watercraft in the Noosa River.
Commercial use of the river and commercial Jetty leases occupying the Noosa River
foreshore.
A number of matters were also identified as being out of scope of the topic, including commercial
and recreational fishing, riverbank erosion and riverbank restoration since these matters were
being separately reviewed by State Government and Council.
A report and a series of recommendations were finalised by the Jury on 11 December 2015 with a
further explanatory document provided by Jury members on 18 December 2015. The majority of
the Jury considered that Council should take over the authority and finances from the State
Government for managing the moorings, anchoring, living on board and commercial use of the
river on the basis it would be a user pays system funded through alternative means to rates. The
Jury did not reach a consensus on this, with 18 members in support of Council becoming manager
of the Noosa River and six members not in support.
Those in support of Council becoming manager of the Noosa River viewed that:
The State Government had been unable to effectively manage the river.
Any cost to Council could be offset by user pays revenue.
Bringing management of the river closer to the Noosa community would see it run better.
Those who did not support this view considered that:
Management would be too big an issue for Council.
There may not be enough revenue to cover the costs to Council and that ratepayers should
not have to pay higher rates.
There was significant risk involved.
It is a role that should be undertaken by State Government authorities.
Noosa is a small community and should not have to take on this responsibility.
The river is still one of the best in the country.
Page 4 of 50
Section 5
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
The Jury did reach consensus on 12 recommendations for the Council to consider. A copy of the
Community Jury Verdict and explanatory document are included as Attachments 1 & 2.
To progress management of the Noosa River by Noosa Council, the State government has advised
there are a number of legislative options available and a case will need to be presented to the
Minister requesting amendment where local laws are not suitable. The State has also advised that
they will require a commitment from Council to implement and enforce any new provisions.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting 2 July 2015, Item 1, Page 13
That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Ordinary meeting dated 2 July
2015 regarding the Council’s second Community Jury Project and adopt the question for the
second Community Jury as: “How can we manage the Noosa River better? What role should
Council play and what resources should Council apply?”
Finance & Risk
The Jury’s recommendations require legislative amendments and support for these changes from
State Government. On this basis many of the recommendations will take some time to implement
– with a potential time frame estimated of July 2017.
As part of the Background Information Pack, an estimated budget for Noosa Council to take on the
responsibility as anchoring and mooring manager was provided to the Jury:
Initial setup $260,000
Ongoing $160,000 per annum
Notably, initial set up refers to procurement costs + 1 year operational activities + $30,000 for
removal of derelict vessels. Ongoing refers to ongoing operational costs per annum. It was also
noted that these costs may be offset by the ability to collect revenue, with net costs dependent on
the level of fees set. A further $5,000 was estimated for Council to manage commercial uses and
jetty leases.
The Jury’s recommendations will also need to be considered carefully with regard to the best
legislative options; how they may be implemented and funded through a user pay system.
The most suitable method of considering the recommendation is to refer to them to a Council
workshop where the details required to implement the recommendations can be considered further.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
The background document was posted on Council’s online community engagement tool, Your Say
Noosa, along with a forum consisting of five key questions to assist the jury with commenting in
scope. 88 responses were received and these comments were made available to the Jury to inform
their deliberations and will be provided to Councillors to inform their future workshops.
Two stakeholder briefings were held on Monday August 21, 2015 prior to the first meeting of the
Jury. Both were well attended by approximately 40 Noosa community members. Three ‘pop up’
booths were also manned at the library during the Jury’s deliberations from August to December
2015.
Page 5 of 50
Section 6
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Council officers attended each of the Jury’s meetings and were available for questions from the
Jury.
These Jury also invited a number of guest speakers to attend their meetings and present to the
Jury including: Professor Stuart Bunn, Director Australian Rivers Institute; Paul Grossman,
President Noosa Commercial Boatman’s Association; Helene Gulash representing the Kabi Kabi
community; Tony Haslam from Noosa Integrated Catchment Authority and Commander Allan Hall
from Noosa Coastguard.
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
x Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
x Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance x Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 6 of 50
Section 7
Page 7 of 50
ATTACHMENT 1
Noosa River
Community Jury
Final Report
December 2015
The randomly selected Noosa River Community Jury was charged with providing recommendations on the following
topic:
e How can we manage the Noosa River better?
e What role should Council play and what resources should Council apply?
Issues within the Jury’s scope were:
e Anchoring, mooring and living on board watercraft in the Noosa River.
e Commercial use of the river and commercial Jetty Leases occupying the Noosaville foreshore.
Issues outside the Jury’s scope were:
e Commercial and recreational fishing (this is a separate issue with the State Government currently running a
State-wide review process).
e Riverbank erosion.
e Riverbank restoration.
The 24-member Jury met five times from August-December 2015, and at their final meeting reached the following
conclusion and recommendations.
The Jury considered the proposition that Council should take over the authority and finances from the State
Government for managing the moorings, anchoring, living on board and commercial use of the river on that basis
that it would be a user pays system funded through alternative means to rates.
The Jury did not reach a consensus on this proposition, with 18 members in support the proposition and six
members not in support of the proposition.
Those who supported the proposition viewed that:
e The State Government had been unable to do a good job managing the River.
Page 7 of 50Section 8
Page 8 of 50
e Any cost to Council could be offset by revenue.
e Bringing management of the River closer to Noosa would see it run better.
Those who did not support the proposition viewed that:
e Management would be too big an issue for Council.
e There may not be enough revenue to cover the costs to Council and that ratepayers should not have to pay
higher rates.
e There was significant risk involved.
e lItisarole that should be undertaken by State Government authorities.
e Noosa is asmall community and should not have to take on this responsibility.
e The River is still one of the best in the country.
The Jury agreed to note both sets of views in this report.
The Jury did reach consensus on the following recommendations for Council to implement:
1. Review, update and implement the Noosa River Plan in a new framework and have it ratified with a formal
status to ensure it has authority (recognising that is not currently a legal document). Ensure the Plan is
clearly linked to relevant cultural, social and, transport strategies and plans.
2. Undertake effective monitoring and facilitation of waste removal/disposal, for example through use of
rebates for compliance or outsourcing to a third party on a user pays basis.
3. Establish an effective duty of care (as per Cultural Heritage Act) with respect to sites of cultural heritage and
ensure a specific policy or strategy on cultural matters including effective indigenous engagement on all
aspects of river management.
4. |Implementa role similar to a park ranger (for example a national park model) with authority on the river
around compliance and monitoring.
5. Maintain present river catchment protections.
6. Review fees for moorings and anchoring noting the Jury’s support for Council to levy rates for commercial
jetties.
7. Lead the establishment of a Noosa River Management Coordination Committee to be chaired by an
independent river management specialist to monitor and oversight river management.
8. Pursue legal authority to remove (following appropriate notification and legal requirements) abandoned,
unattended, unauthorised, derelict and unsafe vessels from the river to an impound area, noting that there
would then be an opportunity to auction unclaimed vessels.
9. Review mooring and anchor locations and type of moorings to take account of all relevant cultural and
environmental factors, with new locations to be assessed against these factors on a rolling basis and made
more environmentally friendly.
Page 8 of 50Section 9
Page 9 of 50
10. Pursue options to implement lighting and marker options for boats and beacons to address safety issues,
noting relevant environmental and legal (national and international) parameters which must be considered.
11. Implement stricter management of acceptable commercial uses of river and assume control of commercial
leases/uses on river including all recreational rentals, house boat rentals etc.
12. Determine a cap and locations (based on the Noosa River Plan evidence base) for live-a-boards allowing
them to continue as long as they comply with guidelines, permits and operate on a user pays basis noting
that failure to comply to result in lease being terminated.
Page 9 of 50Section 10
Page 10 of 50
ATTACHMENT 2
Community Jury Report — supporting explanations for recommendations
Compiled by a working group of 3 jurors on December 18, 2015
Each supporting explanation relates to jury discussions about a specific recommendation stated in
the Noosa River Community Jury Final Report, December 2015. Each is numbered according to how
each appears in the report.
1. Review, update and implement the Noosa River Plan in a new framework and have it ratified with a
formal status to ensure it has authority (recognising that is not currently a legal document). Ensure the
Plan is clearly linked to relevant cultural, social and, transport strategies and plans.
e The jury discussed that they wanted the Noosa River Management Plan to be a document that
the community was involved in on an ongoing basis
e The main focus was that the jury wanted the community to continue to have a say on The
Noosa River Plan with a community engagement process like Council currently undertakes
when developing any of its major plans such as the Local Economic Plan, the Social Strategy
etc. And adopted as an official Council document that informs other Council plans and
strategies.
2. Undertake effective monitoring and facilitation of waste removal/disposal, for example through use of
rebates for compliance or outsourcing to a third party on a user pays basis.
e We have had guest speakers present who suggested that illegal dumping from boats occurs on
the river
e One of the jurors confirmed that one of his friends did it (illegal discharge of waste from a vessel
in the river)
e Anecdotal evidence that illegal dumping does take place
e A third party to be employed to carry out the removal of waste from vessels was discussed
e The discussion was that perhaps the current facilities are too hard/inconvenient to use by vessel
owners
e Concerns about revenue- raising prompted a discussion about raising the LOB fees. It was
suggested that a rebate could be awarded to vessel owners if they fully complied with all
regulations - specifically being able to present receipts/log book as evidence of pump —outs.
3. Establish an effective duty of care (as per Cultural Heritage Act) with respect to sites of cultural
heritage and ensure a specific policy or strategy on cultural matters including effective indigenous
engagement on all aspects of river management.
e Guest speakers advised that there is not currently a process in place for consultation with
cultural leaders about cultural heritage sites (Kabi elders) on the river
° The jury felt that these groups should be included in the determination of location of
moorings/anchorings/jetties and other works such as boat ramps and any other developments
that may impact on these sites
4. Implement a role similar to a park ranger (for example a national park model) with authority on the
river around compliance and monitoring.
e The jury saw that such a ranger role had existed in the past but they also discussed how this
role did not have any authority and that is why they wanted a role similar to a park ranger —
someone with authority
Page 10 of 50Section 11
Page 11 of 50
6. Review fees for moorings and anchoring noting the Jury’s support for Council to levy rates for
commercial jetties.
e The jury supports that Council is now able to rate commercial jetties
e The jury thought that there was room for a user-pays system, similar to the commercial jetty rate
payments, for mooring and anchoring. The principle is that people should pay for the value they
receive when anchoring and mooring on the river. Some rate payers felt that they should not
have to pay for something that only the vessel owners received.
° Others thought that everyone received value from the river so that they did not mind that
ratepayers contributed.
e If there are new zones for anchoring or temporary moorings developed, then cultural heritage
groups should be consulted (Kabi elders)
7. Lead the establishment of a Noosa River Management Coordination Committee to be chaired by an
independent river management specialist to monitor and oversight river management.
° The term “management” came from the Noosa River Management Plan.
e The feeling was that this group would operate in an advisory capacity and would be comprised
of a group of stakeholders rather than have any operational/management role
e Stakeholder involvement was a key element of discussions in any future local management of
the river using The Noosa River Management Plan as a guiding document
e We had a lot of discussion about key business people/clubs/social groups etc who should be on
such an advisory committee
e The “independent river management specialist” was discussed in relation to a River Ranger
who would provide reports to the advisory committee in addition to whichever entity he/she was
employed by. The “chaired” is probably an erroneous word and was taken down by the scribe
as their interpretation of what was actually meant. The River Ranger was discussed as
someone who had “powers” like a park ranger and be appropriately qualified. This person would
have the best opportunity to report back the reality of what was really happening on the river.
8. Pursue legal authority to remove (following appropriate notification and legal requirements)
abandoned, unattended, unauthorised, derelict and unsafe vessels from the river to an impound area,
noting that there would then be an opportunity to auction unclaimed vessels.
e The jury was not sure how a vessel was currently deemed abandoned/derelict and what steps
were then taken to remove a vessel
e The jury felt that Council could investigate further how they could ensure that vessels that were
derelict were removed
e There was a lack of understanding as to the legal process of vessel removal
° The discussion about auctioning unclaimed vessels arose because the jury was trying to come
up with ways to defray the high cost of vessel removal
e The impound area was suggested as a gesture of goodwill to vessel owners to give them a
chance to rectify the situation and avoid Council having to pay the removal costs. The actual
impound area location was not discussed and it was thought that only if this was practical and
did not cost too much.
e The impound area was also suggested so that offending vessels were taken out of the public
eye and Council would be seen as solving the problem.
9 Review mooring and anchor locations and type of moorings to take account of all relevant cultural and
environmental factors, with new locations to be assessed against these factors on a rolling basis and
made more environmentally friendly.
e This was discussed as a process of consultation with relevant stakeholders rather than a
scientific survey or high cost exercise for every anchoring and mooring location.
° The intention was a practical process rather than an onerous technical exercise
Page 11 of 50Section 12
Page 12 of 50
10. Pursue options to implement lighting and marker options for boats and beacons to address safety
issues, noting relevant environmental and legal (national and international) parameters which must be
considered
° The concept of illuminated channel markers for improved safety for vessels had been discussed
and it related to The Noosa River becoming a Category 1 river and derelict boats posing a
navigation safety issue.
e The jury thought that even if the state authorities did not act then perhaps Council could develop
lighting for the river that complied with national and international marine laws.
e This came up during discussion of river users and safety for users at night given some vessels
were not lit
e This led to a recommendation that Council consider undertaking this as an initiative
11. Implement stricter management of acceptable commercial uses of river and assume control of
commercial leases/uses on river including all recreational rentals, house boat rentals etc.
° This discussion arose because the jury felt that there should be control of people who had
leases for an “acceptable commercial use” and who were then subletting to other people/
businesses for commercial uses unrelated to the original lease
e The jury thought that there should be clearly defined areas with physical markers to define
physical areas of jetty lease commercial operations. This was to demonstrate where commercial
operations area encroaching on public land, to make it easier to police.
° The jury thought that much stricter of control of where these businesses operate was required.
12. Determine a cap and locations (based on the Noosa River Plan evidence base) for live-a-boards
allowing them to continue as long as they comply with guidelines, permits and operate on a user pays
basis noting that failure to comply to result in lease being terminated.
° The jury thought that many of the current LOBs were not complying with legislation and they
thought that this should be rectified.
° There were jurors who thought that some LOBs contributed to the local economy
° There was discussion about the eyesore nature of the LOBs and that moving them to where
they were less visible and away from busy, prime locations , was a possibility — creation of
specific zones for LOBs.
° The jury were clear that non-compliance with regulations would result in the removal of a permit.
This example may make other LOB owners improve their compliance
Page 12 of 50Section 13
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
2 COMMUNITY JURY PILOT PROCESS
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Community Engagement Manager, Debra Bambrook
Executive Office
Index ECM/ Subject/ Community Jury
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 12 month Community Jury Pilot Project has been successfully completed. Two Juries whose
members are representative of the Noosa Shire community (comprising over 50 community
members) have valued being involved in Council’s decision-making process.
The cost of hosting the two juries was not significant compared to the size and potential costs of
the issues deliberated upon. The experience and information gained by Council, plus the potential
savings to the community gained through more highly informed decision-making, are invaluable.
The two reports prepared by each Jury reflect what two groups of residents from all areas of the
Shire, (including a mix of genders and age groups) can form consensus upon regarding two major
issues that affect everyone in the Shire.
The juries’ reports provide an insight into what residents want, and what they think is reasonable,
when it comes to future organic waste management and future management of the Noosa River.
The Jury process provides Council with an understanding of residents’ concerns and sensitivities,
reasons for resistance to change, what considerations should be included in final decision-making
and what communications should focus upon once decisions have been made.
The Noosa Community Jury trial has highlighted that media interest in the process is strong. Jury
deliberations provide significant opportunities to “bring the community along on the journey”; to
inform, educate and involve residents in complex decisions that face Council and require
widespread community input and support for outcomes to succeed.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Community Engagement Manager to the General Committee
Meeting dated 11 January 2016 and:
A. Note the outcomes of the 12 month Community Jury Trial as set out in that report; and
B. Retain the Community Jury as a tool in Council’s community engagement framework to be
used if and when an appropriate as major issue arises in the future.
Page 13 of 50
Section 14
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
REPORT
1. Background
This report reviews the Noosa Council Community Jury Pilot Project process which consisted of
two consecutive Community Juries held in 2015. The Community Jury pilot was designed to assist
Council with its strategic goal of working in partnership with our community and support the value
of “As one with our community” (as identified in the Noosa Council Corporate Plan 2014-2019).
The first Jury deliberated upon the future management of Noosa’s organic waste and consisted of
six meetings held over six months. A final report including nine key recommendations was
presented to Council in August 2015.
The second Jury was about the future management of the Noosa River and consisted of five
meetings held over five months. A final report including 12 recommendations was presented to
Council in January 2016.
The members for each Jury were selected from the same 230 positive responses to 3,000
invitations sent out to residents who had been randomly selected from the State Electoral roll in
November 2014.
Each jury followed the newDemocracy Foundation (nDF) blueprint and was overseen by nDF at
every meeting. The first Jury’s meetings were overseen by the Executive Director of nDF and the
second Jury’s meetings were overseen by a Program Manager for nDF.
In addition, nDF recruited jurors; worked with the facilitator and Council officers to finalise run
sheets; facilitated all communications with jurors; assisted with obtaining speakers and research
data as the Jury requested and posted data on Your Say Noosa.
Council officers supplied the initial background document for each Jury; recruited the facilitator;
provided comprehensive research data, speaker contacts and other information upon request from
the Jury; arranged catering and the logistics for each meeting; worked with the facilitator and nDF
personnel to finalise run sheets prior to each meeting; attended each meeting; provided set up and
summary updates on Your Say Noosa and compiled media releases after each Jury meeting.
Both juries were facilitated by the same independent facilitator.
The report evaluates the newDemocracy style of Community Jury process as conducted during
the 12 month trial, compares both juries and focuses on lessons learned by Council from its
experience and from stakeholder feedback. In doing so, it attempts to weigh up benefits and costs
of the Community Jury Pilot to determine its future worth as a community engagement tool.
This report will have a more detailed focus on the second Jury which provided a new set of
learnings in addition to those acquired during the first Community Jury. The Council had already
received a report on the first Community Jury process.
2. Community interest, community participation and media coverage.
Media coverage has been considerable for both Juries, reflecting a community interest that has
remained consistently high over the 12 month period. The community has been kept informed
about the process by Council through the media. More of the community has become involved in
the process as Council has become more familiar with the Community Jury process and the use
of Your Say Noosa. There was a higher level of community engagement in the second jury than
the first.
Page 14 of 50
Section 15
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Council provided the community with considerably more information and education about the topic
for the Noosa River Jury than it did for the organic waste Jury because of the necessity to introduce,
inform, educate and explain the Community Jury innovation at the outset. In other words, more
energy was expended in the first jury explaining the process while the second jury had less
emphasis on the jury process and more on the subject matter. This was a natural evolution and to
be expected.
There was not enough information for the community in the first jury process about the topic and
towards the end of the organic waste Jury, Council saw the need to take out a full page informative
advertisement in the Noosa News to explain the magnitude of the issue more clearly.
Local news publications devoted several front page stories to key issues highlighted by the Noosa
River Jury. Over 30 articles have been published so far. This has sparked public interest and a
number of letters to the editor and articles from various community groups. Individuals (including
the local MP) and organisations have appeared in front of the jury. Jurors were interviewed by the
media “humanising” the Jury.
In total to date, 62 articles have been published about the organic waste Jury in the local press.
These have continued well beyond the Jury’s completion. References to the organic waste
Community Jury are still appearing more than 6 months later as Council works to implement
recommendations and maintain a high level of community engagement on the topic.
For both juries Council attempted to involve the community in the process through open invitations
to attend stakeholder briefings and Community Jury sessions and by calling for submissions.
Stakeholder briefings were sparsely attended for the organic waste Jury and significantly attended
for the Noosa River Jury.
Observer levels were low for both juries and dwindled after the first two meetings. This could be
attributed to the rules of the process which prevented observers from participating directly in Jury
sessions, but also to the timing of the mid-week evening sessions.
Council increased the number of methods the community could use to get involved in the process
in the second Jury. Council manned several face-to-face “pop ups” at the libraries and opened the
online “forum” and “stories” tools on Your Say Noosa for the Noosa River Jury.
The Noosa River Jury online forum was popular with 90 comments received and 19 community
submissions were also received.
In comparison, 30 community submissions were received for the organic waste Jury with a
percentage of those simply selling organic waste technologies. The number of non-commercial
submissions received was similar for both juries.
There was greater overall community participation in the second Jury process, due, in part to the
extra opportunities provided, but also due to the nature of the issue.
Councillors were kept better informed with run sheets prior to each meeting and media releases
during the second Jury.
The Healthy Waterways report card awarding the Noosa River with a rating of A- appeared in the
media during the Noosa River Jury’s deliberations. This did influence some juror’s thinking
regarding the need for better management of the Noosa River in the future as evidenced in the
Jury’s report.
Page 15 of 50
Section 16
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
3. Juror feedback
Juror feedback from the first Community Jury about the process was overwhelmingly positive. In
comparison, juror feedback from the second Community Jury about the process was mixed,
although jurors commended Council highly for the Community Jury initiative.
Direct feedback from Noosa River jurors included:
“I found it a good experience and enjoyed the process. I would recommend attending the
Community Jury to anyone. Thanks to Council for the opportunity.”
“I applaud the concept of community involvement in decision making and am sure that the Jury
process is a precursor to a more general application of this in future political decision making.”
“Brain-storming continued too long. Bland re-assurances of good progress were offered when
I and others raised concerns about the lack of meeting structure and lack of a top-down
approach to identifying inter-dependent decision points.”
“Some obvious out-of-scope issues were continually raised, discussed and subject to Jury
presentations when priority in-scope issues had yet to be properly identified and
addressed. Tighter control of priorities was needed before out-of-scope issues were dealt with
in such detail.”
“I have appreciated the opportunity to take part in this Community Jury and have found the
process interesting and instructive.”
“An interesting process indicating the difficulties a Council faces when attempting to put a
process in place to rectify the shortcomings of some State Govt. controls and services at the
local level.”
“Had we been able to request information directly from Council staff present, much of the time
wasted going over and over discussing irrelevant information would have been eliminated.”
“Personally I think the concept of a Community Jury is very progressive as long as it has a
guided format. Although, as you know, I found some aspects of the process frustrating, I am
still very happy to have participated.”
It was clear that five meetings were not sufficient for the second Noosa River Jury to conclude
effectively however the Jury elected to extend the final meeting by one hour rather than return for
a sixth meeting.
Council elected to, and nDF agreed to an additional meeting for a juror working group. This group
was happy with the opportunity provided and produced a supporting document to the Jury’s final
report that reflects the rationale behind the Jury’s set of recommendations.
4. newDemocracy feedback
The Program Manager from newDemocracy Foundation provided the following feedback:
“The members of this Jury explored the issue very deeply, with their deliberations canvassing the
not inconsiderable nuances, issues and intricacies associated with this highly complex issue.
Page 16 of 50
Section 17
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
“Jury members were given free range to consider, weigh up and develop their thoughts on the topic
and together with their fellow jurors, this group worked diligently to prepare the recommendations
which are now presented to the Mayor and Councillors.
“There was no draft solution provided to them; they started from a blank sheet of paper and what
the Jury produced has both breadth and clarity of intent.
“The members of the Jury are to be congratulated for their commitment and focus; and Noosa
Council should now be seen as a national and international leader in sharing decision-making
power with the community.”
5. Independent facilitator feedback
“The Noosa River Jury successfully found areas of priority action that they could agree on. They
also successfully grappled with the question of management- identifying the concerns and risks
from their point of view that meant for some it should stay managed by the existing authorities.
“While this was frustrating for those who saw things differently, it is an indicator of the success of
the process that those who disagreed felt confident enough to still put their views as members of
the community despite some very strongly held views put by others.
“The report provided at the end of the Jury process identifies the areas the group saw as important
for action; however it does not reflect the full process of deliberation undertaken by Jury members.
“An additional session time, ideally a full or half day, would have given the Jury the opportunity as
a whole group to better represent the fullness of their deliberations.”
6. Council officer feedback
The Planning and Environment Manager provided the following feedback on the Noosa River Jury
process:
“The Jury process is very empowering for the community and our Noosa River Jury did very well
to digest a lot of information, have an understanding of the current complex State legislative
arrangements that exist around the Noosa River and work together to form a recommendation for
Council.
“The process could benefit from more structure at the outset such as clearly defined topics and
goals for each meeting to ensure Jury discussions stay in scope and sufficient time is allocated to
work through the Jury’s final recommendations.”
7. How we can improve the Community Jury process
Overall the Community Jury process is considered to be a success. The organic waste Jury
reached a consensus and supplied a report that all Jury members could stand by. The Noosa River
Jury reached consensus on 12 recommendations and achieved a majority decision of 75% on the
overarching question of whether Council should begin the process of applying to the State
Government for greater control of the management of the Noosa River.
The community has been provided with complete access to the process and invited to participate
through attending “pop-ups” and Jury meetings, contributing to Your Say Noosa and reading and
responding to media coverage. However, as evidenced by this report, there are still some areas
where the process can be improved upon. In general terms, these are:
Page 17 of 50
Section 18
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
A more structured approach to meetings including a more focussed agenda with major decision
points clearly identified;
A template for the Jury report would help jurors focus on the decisions required and help juries
conclude effectively within the time allocated;
Ensure that juries run over six meetings rather than five to allow time for effective decision-
making, achieving consensus and report writing using the newDemocracy model
Ensuring that jurors understand that specific questions can be asked of Council officers during
the final two meetings to allow proceedings to move forward when discussions become
gridlocked. Questions could be directed through the facilitator to Council officers to clarify facts
but not seek opinions.
8. Community Jury research grant
Inherent to the partnership with newDemocracy Foundation was a requirement to contribute a one-
off lump sum to an academic research project. nDF’s research committee allocated Noosa
Council’s research contribution in August 2015. Four projects are currently underway and one is
researching Noosa’s Community Jury specifically. The research papers will be available upon
completion in 2016.
9. Future Community Juries
While ultimately a matter for the Council of the day, the two jury trial has demonstrated that a
Community Jury can be an important tool in extending how a Council can engage with its
community on key issues. A community jury is not suitable for every type of community
engagement that a Council needs to undertake. It is best for complex matters that impact across
the community, have a significant resource impact and require some deep analysis over time. In
those circumstances, a community jury is very effective.
As such, the community jury should continue to be an important tool in the overall toolbox of
community engagement tools available to help the Council work with our community.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 27 August 2015, Item 12, Page 7
That Council note the report by the Community Engagement Manager to the Planning &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 18 August 2015 providing an update on the first
Community Jury process.
Finance & Risk
Noosa Council has partnered with newDemocracy for the Community Jury Pilot Project which
came at a financial cost and time imposts, however Council gained in return:
a year of training for Council officers in operating Community juries;
a large amount of new information from expert speakers and community considerations about
organic waste management and river management;
greater insight into how the community is able to be involved with Council decisions relating to
changes in waste services and changes to Noosa River management and consequently better
inform communications;
greater opportunity for Council to make more fully informed decisions about issues that have
significant financial and policy implications for the whole of the Noosa community;
Page 18 of 50
Section 19
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
greater chance of avoiding costly mistakes on future changes to waste management services
and Noosa River management that require significant community acceptance to be
implemented successfully and;
an opportunity for 24-26 everyday citizens who are representative of the Noosa Shire
community to be involved in the process leading to major decisions.
The Community Engagement Manager is confident that Community Engagement Branch could run
Community juries successfully in the future with some minimal support and guidance from nDF.
For any future juries, it is proposed that juror recruitment is outsourced to nDF and an independent
facilitator appointed to ensure the integrity of the process remains intact.
Both Community juries remained within the budget allocated. Two one-off costs were incurred:
a one off fee to newDemocracy of $25,000 for employing their model and their management
support, for a period of 12 months;
$20,000 one off fee for an academic research project.
Other costs incurred amounting to approximately $40,000 per Jury included:
the independent facilitator @ $16,000 per Jury,
catering @ $4,000 per Jury;
payment to jurors @ $10,400 per Jury;
travel and accommodation expenses for nDF personnel to attend each Jury session @ $6,000
per Jury;
transport hire for site visits @ $1,000 per Jury and;
stationery, creative design, equipment hire, printing and miscellaneous items @ $2,000 per
Jury.
Time imposts for Council officers varied between juries, significant for 1-2 key personnel from each
department directly involved. Community Engagement Branch staff spent more time working on
the first Jury, particularly in the early phases, than on the second Jury because staff became more
skilled and experienced with all facets of the Jury process and research requirements differed.
Cross-departmental communications between CE Branch and each department concerned were
considerable but resulted in improved working relationships, the value of which will be more fully
realised when working together on future projects and challenges.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
newDemocracy Foundation – Director, Iain Walker;
Program Manager, Georgina Inwood
Creativma – Director/Facilitator Marcia Dwonczyk
Noosa Community Jury members
Noosa Community
Internal Consultation
Planning and Infrastructure Department – Director, Martin Drydale;
Planning & Environment Manager - Kerri Coyle;
Environment Office (Rivers & Coast) - Jan Maddin
Executive Manager – Debra Iezzi
Mayor Noel Playford
Councillors
Community Engagement Branch staff
Page 19 of 50
Section 20
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
x Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 20 of 50
Section 21
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
3 SUNRISE NEIGHBOURHOOD SHOPS - SHOPS 1 & 2 PROPOSED LEASE
AGREEMENTS
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Property Officer, Michelle Stirling
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 46.01 Lease / Application No: LEAS13/0012 & LEAS15/0003
Attachments 1. Sunrise Shops - Shops 1 & 2 - Aerial Plan & Extract of Shop 1 & 2
Survey Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the by the Property Officer, Property and Facilities to the General
Committee Meeting dated 11 January 2016 and:
A. Approve the new lease agreement to Teewah Power Co. Pty Ltd, trading as Sunrise Beach
Medical Centre for Shop 1, Sunrise Neighbourhood Shopping Centre for 5 years
commencing 1 May 2016 (with a 5 year option);
B. Approve the new lease agreement to Sunrise Healthcare Pty Ltd for Shop 2, Sunrise
Neighbourhood Shopping Centre for 5 years commencing 1 May 2016 (with a 5 year option);
and
C. Apply the exception to the requirement for tendering of these leases under section 236 (1)
(c) (iii) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 as the lease renewals are to existing
tenants.
REPORT
This purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for new lease agreements at the Sunrise
Neighbourhood Shops for two existing lessees which include:
Shop 1 – Medical Centre; and
Shop 2 – Pharmacy.
Both lessees requested consideration be given for a new lease without the requirement for a public
tender process.
The Sunrise Neighbourhood Shopping Centre, at 2 Grasstree Crt, Sunrise Beach, was constructed
on Council freehold land by the Noosa Council in approximately 1996 as Council identified a market
gap in the Sunrise Beach area with respect to local shopping facilities.
The 8 shops in total provide a rentable area of 927m2 and have enjoyed close to 100% occupancy
since construction.
Page 21 of 50
Section 22
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Shop 1 – Medical Centre
The lease with Teewah Power Co. Pty Ltd expires 30 April 2016. The lessee has held the lease
since the centre was constructed in 1996 and has maintained an excellent record. The lessee has
agreed to Council’s offer of a 5 year lease with a 5 year option.
The current rental is $42,925 per annum plus outgoings. Savills Valuations undertook an
independent valuation that suggested a rental of $44,481 per annum plus outgoings (with a market
rental range in the order of +/- 5% to 7.5%). The lessee has requested that the rent remain at the
current rate plus outgoings. The lessee has been advised that annual CPI will apply to the current
rental along with a further market valuation in 2020.
Shop 2 – Pharmacy
The lease with Sunrise Healthcare Pty Ltd expires 30 April 2016. The lessee was assigned the
lease on 23 October 2015. The lessee has agreed to Council’s offer of a 5 year lease with a 5 year
option.
The current rental is $29,600 per annum plus outgoings. Savills Valuations undertook an
independent valuation that suggested a rental of $33,435 per annum plus outgoings (with a market
rental range in the order of +/- 5% to 7.5%). Sunrise Healthcare Pty Ltd contacted Council
regarding the proposed 13% increase, and provided a rental offer of $31,800 per annum plus
outgoings. This lessee’s rental offer figure is considered acceptable. The lessee is aware annual
CPI will apply to the current rental along with a further market valuation in 2020.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 22 October 2015, Item 9, Page 7
That Council note the report by the Property Officer, Property and Facilities to the Planning &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 13 October 2015 and approve the assignment of the
existing contract lease arrangement for Sunrise Neighbourhood Shopping Centre, Shop 2 –
Pharmacy, from KA & RJ Teed to Sunrise Healthcare Pty Ltd on or after 23 October 2015.
Ordinary Meeting, 4 June 2015, Item 10, Page 9
That Council note the report by the Property Officer, Property and Facilities to the Planning &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 26 May 2015; and
1. Approve the new lease agreement to Sunrise Beach Hair Artistry for Shop 3, Sunrise
Neighbourhood Shopping Centre for 3 years commencing 9 June 2015 (with a 3 year option);
2. Approve the new lease agreement to Tom Wilkinson Dental Pty Ltd for Shop 4, Sunrise
Neighbourhood Shopping Centre for 5 years commencing 1 July 2015 (with a 5 year option)
3. Approve the new lease agreement with Meats at Sunrise Pty Ltd for Shop 7, Sunrise
Neighbourhood Shopping Centre for 5 years commencing 8 June 2015 (with a 5 year option);
and
4. Apply the exception to the requirement for tendering of the lease under section 236 (1) (c)
(iii) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 as the renewal is to the existing tenant.
Page 22 of 50
Section 23
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Ordinary Meeting, 1 May 2014, Item 11, Page 9
That Council note the report by the Property Officer, Property and Facilities to the General
Committee Meeting dated 28 April 2014; and
1. Approve the new lease agreement with the Barker Family Trust for Shop 6, Sunrise
Neighbourhood Shopping Centre for 5 years commencing 28 April 2014;
2. Approve the CEO to award a subsequent 5 year extension of the lease subject to the lessee
complying with the terms of the lease; and
3. Apply the exception to the requirement for tendering of the lease under section 236 (1) (c)
(iii) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 as the renewal is to the existing tenant.
Ordinary Meeting, 29 May 2014, Item 8, Page 16
That Council note the report by the Senior Property Officer, Property and Facilities to the Planning
and Organisation Committee Meeting dated 20 May 2014; and
1. Approve the new lease agreement in the new company name of Australian Leisure and
Hospitality Group Pty Limited, for 5 years commencing 2 January 2015;
2. Authorise the Chief Executive Office to award a subsequent 5 year extension of the lease
subject to the lessee complying with the terms of the lease; and
3. Apply the exception to the requirement for tendering of the lease under section 236 (1) (c)
(iii) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 as the renewal is to the existing tenant.
Finance & Risk
Revenue may be foregone if the new leases for Shops 1 and 2 are not approved and a public
tender process is required.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
CBRE Valuers
Ray White Commercial Real Estate Noosa
Internal Consultation
Manager Property & Facilities
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws X Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 23 of 50
Section 24
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
ATTACHMENT1
Page 24 of 50
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
ATTACHMENT1
a n me ea he a a -
&~ \ , , wa 4
. oe a
if al aes
2 Grasstree Ct SUNRISE BEACH o -
If Sa x selected, you can click on the map | La & They a x
te see more information about what's nearby. e Le bs 4 eS: i
s Clear this marker La ay LTT 1
3 er Po
5 . - ” oy | 4 ™
/ “ , : ‘» : Cif a i 24 pes}
+ el
Z 7 - , ie ‘rip aa e PP
ar et 3s
> | J - ,
. — : |
‘ / & n
= ah — ~ | A ‘ i .
/ ,
Page 24 of 50Section 25
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Page 25 of 50
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
QUEENSLAND LAND REGISTRY SCHEDULE FORM 20 Version 2
Land Title Act 1994, Land Act 1994 and Water Act 2000 Page 33 of 33
QUEENSLAND LAND REGISTRY SCHEDULE FORM 20 Version 2
Land Title Act 1994, Land Act 1904 and Water Act 2000 Page 33 of 33
Title Reference 50133930
SCHEDULE B
ann SCHEDULE B | 8
7 RPGOISEs
APORID > 5
Za ‘sii | Hs
a“ ° # 3
; ous. (
jj G
\ Li Ss
Y | DIA ERAN
i Scale £250
RP9O1384
ee * »
en Bl
' ~
8 f
. é f 5 ~
7 |
| S
| A ; 5
is wes
VIN y }
SALLY
Sate Vf |
=p a)
yi “tS
[~ ue. WF
_ - COURT
$7)
GR A s Certificate of Tite References $0339.30
s0Te Thie plon la fer Lecee Purpoeee on meh NOOSA MAPPING
stat ares Sastre Sorensen a aces
a aren ay ae ows aoseqrent regutreton of av forvey plone. MS Ph OF £449 9544 fax OF 5440 OF 4?
aca emmerecaarncae PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES ONLY waetsy — WEYVBA
SE atl LEASE / (Being Part ofihe Ground |cowrr ...._Maroh __
'$ Rae ~ | Floor ef a Building erected) on Lot 8 rere een
ESB] lowanvae Gacuegs on RP9OISEE aiaadliemenmamae
Page 25 of 50Section 26
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
4 NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS - FEES AND CHARGES UPDATE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Property and Facilities Property Officer, Michelle Stirling
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM: Subject /8.03; 8.06; 8.1 Noosa Holiday Parks Admin
Attachments 1. Noosa River – Tourist unpowered non-site location
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Property Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 11
January 2016 and:
A. Set fees and charges for Noosa Holiday Parks to align with the cessation of the July 2017
Queensland school holidays; and
B. Adopt the Proposed General Cost Recovery Fees and Commercial Charges schedule for
Noosa Holiday Parks for the period ending 17 July 2017 as detailed in the table contained
within the report.
REPORT
Currently fees and charges for Noosa Holiday Parks (the Parks) are set until the end of the summer
peak season being 31 January 2017. Council maintains an advance fees and charges schedule
for the Parks to allow for the forward booking of sites by customers. Twice yearly Council reviews
and amends the fees if necessary to maintain a forward booking period commensurate with
industry standards. Accordingly, the purpose of this report is to propose the adoption of holiday
park fees and charges until the end of the June - July 2017 school holiday period.
Proposed Fee Changes
A review has been undertaken of the current fee schedule with a view to simplify and consolidate
the fee structure where available. The following changes are recommended to be made to simplify
the General Cost Recovery Fees and Commercial Charges schedule, specifically:
Fees and charges for weekly stays are deleted as the current weekly rate is simply a
multiplication of 7 times the daily rate.
Amend both the ‘Extra Person- Under 16’ fee and ‘Extra Person – 16 & Over’ fee to a single
flat rate for extra persons over 5 years; and delete references to the current listed Peak and
Shoulder rates as these are identical to the flat rate.
Deleting fees and charges for Shoulder periods for Noosa North Shore Campground & Boreen
Point.
All Council business activities are required to operate on a full cost pricing basis to ensure the
competitive neutrality principle is complied with. Fees have been reviewed and amended to ensure
that cost recovery occurs for the business activity.
Page 26 of 50
Section 27
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Page 27 of 50
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
31 Jan 2017 till 18 July 2017 Fee's & Charges Price Schedule -
Noosa Holiday Parks
DESCRIPTION OFF PEAK SHOULDER
TOURIST POWERED SITES
$ 36.00/$ 31.00] | sd $ +—48.00| $ 35.00
Noosa North Shore $ 36.00/$ 3500]; | | $ 48.00{ $40.00
$ 50.00|%$ 45.00] $ 60.00] $ 5200] $ 70.00| $60.00
TOURIST UNPOWERED CAMP SITES
Boreen Point $ 3000/$ 2500] x| [| $ 41.00[ $30.00
Noosa North Shore $ 30.00}$ 2700; °° °+| | $ 41.00] $33.00
$ 40.00 [$ 37.00|$ 50.00| $ 43.00| $ 60.00/ $50.00
OTHER NOOSA RIVER
Noosa River - tourist unpowered
camp waterfront $ 50.00} %$ 43.00}$ 55.00] S$ 50.00|$ 65.00] $58.00
Noosa River - Tourist Unpowered
Non-site $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00
TOURIST POWERED SITES - LONG RV
$ 50.00|$ 39.00|$ 60.00| $ 47.00|$ 70.00 | $55.00
OTHER CHARGES All Periods
EXTRA PERSONS - OVER 5 years
Boreen Point & Noosa North Shore | $ 13.00 $13.00 over 16yrs, & $10.00 under 16yrs
$ 15.00 $13.00 over 16yrs,& $10.00 under 16
Long Term Sites - Storage Weekly 5 sooo! $2400
Boreen Point & Noosa North Shore | $ 50.00} $ 24.00
Extra Vehicles - nigh $ 500}$ 5.00
Public Use of Amenities - perday | $ 4.00
Group Fee (20+) - per booking $ 12.00|$ 12.00
Late Check Out PS 16.00 $ 16.00
WASHING MACHINECHARGES | =| |
Boreen Point, Noosa River &
Noosa North Shore $ 400}$ 4.00
DRYINGMACHINECHARGES [| | |
Boreen Point & Noosa River $ 200|%$ 2.00
Page 27 of 50Section 28
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Proposed New Fee
The Noosa River Holiday Park has received interest from overnight van stay patrons
(predominately backpackers) to stay at the site at a reduced rate. The Manager of the site has
identified five car spaces adjacent to the boat ramp (see Attachment 1) that would be appropriate
for overnight van stays (typically a backpacker van). On consultation with the Manager of the site
it is proposed that a fee of $30 be included in the General Cost Recovery Fees and Commercial
Charges schedule. This fee is a 25% discount off the ‘Tourist Unpowered Site Rate’, and is
designed to assist with reducing illegal camping within the shire.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 18 December 2014, Item 9, Page 47
That Council note the report by the Property Officer to the Planning & Organisation Committee
Meeting dated 9 December 2014 and:
A. Set fees and charges for Noosa Holiday Parks to align with the cessation of June/July 2016
Queensland school holidays; and
B. Adopt the Proposed General Cost Recovery Fees and Commercial Charges for Noosa
Holiday Parks for the period ending 10 July 2016 as detailed in Attachment 1 to report.
Finance & Risk
Nil.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Noosa River Holiday Park – Manager
Boreen Point Campground – Manager
Noosa North Shore Campground – Manager
Director, Massey Online – Digital Marketing Service for Holiday Parks across Queensland and the
Northern NSW Coast.
Internal Consultation
Director Corporate Services
Property and Facilities Manager
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws X Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 28 of 50
Section 29
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 29 of 50
ATTACHMENT 1
aaa NCO 10 So¥> :
eee Holi
A o
@ A Noosa Council $
All Visitor Parking Harbours & BBQ
and additional Marine Dept Day Picnic Area
SITE LEGEND in Russell Street —
Trailer Parking is
there is NO parking Allocated parking onl
oveilable within the © aera = ¥ =e
Unpowered Holiday Park. kaa
Waterfront Sites Entrance/Exit D nccconicn CAPB/C/DLED
Powered = rT as |
- 7 re
Slab Sites || ae
|| o a6 | 53
a Powered a |, O y| ee
i 2 6 | |\2| amenities |z2/| 44 | 55
Tent Sites 5 == | _—vea eal ES
& ; 7 |= v ;
B 3 _ 3 a A; ;
Unpowered =e] |O| (soem! IS a
| Sites a ame ee
- } 3 ,
@ fs
@ Laundry 1 3 | a -
és, Disabled is = Playgr
Facility 2 Park
’ Fire Ne
Extinguisher Ba
+ <
BH Dump Point -
For all Non-medical
emergencies after 8pm
call 5447 7566 Moos
ads
4 1 1 1 38 0 383 2576 1538 47 -1
5 1 1 1 38 1 383 2578 135 37 96 Phone
5 1 1 1 38 2 533 2576 83 45 29 (07)
5 1 1 1 38 3 632 2578 239 38 29 54497050
5 1 1 1 38 4 935 2578 115 37 81 Email
5 1 1 1 38 5 1067 2577 854 46 91 [email protected]
4 1 1 1 39 0 380 2645 1486 45 -1
5 1 1 1 39 1 380 2646 27 36 96 4
5 1 1 1 39 2 423 2645 148 38 95 Russell
5 1 1 1 39 3 587 2645 51 41 96 St,
5 1 1 1 39 4 655 2645 225 38 95 Noosaville
5 1 1 1 39 5 895 2645 75 43 81 Qld
5 1 1 1 39 6 985 2646 114 37 81 4566
5 1 1 1 39 7 1161 2645 705 45 86 www.noosaholidayparks.com.au
4 1 1 1 40 0 1954 3315 289 44 -1
5 1 1 1 40 1 1954 3315 106 44 96 Page
5 1 1 1 40 2 2074 3315 49 35 96 29
5 1 1 1 40 3 2138 3315 43 35 96 of
5 1 1 1 40 4 2194 3315 49 35 96 50Section 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
5 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - DECEMBER 2015
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Financial Services, Wayne Jensen
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM / Subject / 22.09 – Monthly Financial Performance Report
Attachments 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income
2. Statement of Financial Position
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Year to date financial performance to 31 December 2015 is generally in accordance with budget
forecasts. Budgets will be reviewed utilising the December revenue and expenditure actuals to
determine whether year-end forecasts require change, and to also incorporate recent Council
decisions that impact on the budget.
Financial Performance Summary to 31 December 2015
Current YTD Actual Variance Variance Status
YTD $m $m YTD
Budget %
$m
Recurrent Revenue $44.9 $45.9 $1.0 2.3% On track
Recurrent Expense $42.0 $40.0 $2.0 4.7% On track
Net Capital Revenue $1.7 $3.4 $1.7 102% On track
Capital Expenditure $10.2 $11.4 $1.2 11.7% On track
Financial statements including Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial
Position are included as attachments for information of Council.
Figure 1: Actual Performance Compared to YTD Budget
$50
$45
$40
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$-
YTD Budget ($m) YTD Actual ($m)
Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure
Page 30 of 50
Section 31
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Committee Meeting
dated 11 January 2016 providing the December monthly financial performance report for the
2015/16 financial year.
REPORT
Recurrent Revenue (YTD Benchmark 50%)
Council has received 52% ($45.9 million) of its recurrent revenue budget of $87.5 million as at the
end of December 2015. Commentary on each recurrent revenue type is provided below:
Rates and Levies – $30.2m (50%) of the annual budget of $60.5m has been recorded.
Fees and Charges – Fees and charges earned ($3.6m) totals 76% of the full year forecast.
Favourable variances exist for cemetery operations, parking, and development related fees.
All variances will be monitored to determine whether further adjustments should be made as
part of the December quarter budget review.
Interest Received – Currently 4.6% above forecast levels due to higher cash balances than
originally estimated.
Dividend and Tax – Dividends and the payment of tax equivalent from Unitywater are generally
in line with budget forecasts.
Other Revenue – areas including waste fees are marginally above budget predictions, with sale
of recyclable materials currently below forecasts. All variances will be investigated to determine
whether adjustments should be made as part of the next budget review.
Grants and Subsidies – Overall receipts for operational grants are generally in accordance with
the revised budget forecast with variances due to additional funding received not included in
the original budget.
Figure 2: Recurrent Revenue Position by Type (Excluding Rates)
$6.0
YTD Budget ($m)
$5.0
YTD Actual ($m)
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$0.0
Other
Fees
Grants
Dividend
Tax
Interest
Page 31 of 50
Section 32
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Recurrent Expenditure (YTD Benchmark 50%)
Operating expenditure is currently 46% of the full year budget forecast. Areas of significant
variance will be monitored for possible adjustments as part of the December quarter budget review.
Detailed commentary for significant items appears below.
Employee Costs – Actuals of $12.8m against the YTD budget of $13.1m and equates to 46%
of the full year budget. Though there is a favourable variance in this area, all areas will continue
to be monitored.
Materials and Services – 44% of the full year budget ($17.5m) has been expended compared
to the YTD budget of $19.2m. Variances generally relate to an under-expenditure against
contract services, maintenance and special levies, with some works deferred until after the
holiday period. As with employee costs, all variances are subject to ongoing review.
Finance Costs – generally in accordance with budget.
Depreciation expenses are currently running in accordance with budget forecasts.
Other Expenses – generally in accordance with budget.
Figure 3: Recurrent Expenditure Position by Type
$25
YTD Budget ($m)
$20
YTD Actual ($m)
$15
$10
$5
$0
Materials
Finance Costs
Depreciation
Employees
Other
Capital Revenue
YTD revenue received includes cash contributions from developers ($2.1 million), together with
($1.3 million) received for transport infrastructure capital grant funding. Year-end forecasts will be
considered for possible adjustment as part of the December quarter budget review.
Capital Works Program
Actual capital expenditure (excluding commitments) is $11.4 million against the revised full-year
budget of $32.4 million. Committed expenditure totals a further $10.9 million bringing the total of
actual and committed funds to $22.3 million (68.8% of the total program. Detailed discussion of
progress in the delivery of the capital works program is provided quarterly to the Infrastructure and
Services Committee.
Page 32 of 50
Section 33
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Cash Management and Investment Performance
Council funds are invested in accordance with the adopted Investment Policy. Total cash on hand
as at 31 December 2015 was $56.7 million. The cash balance includes constrained funding carried
forward for capital projects still under construction, plus unspent funds from special rates and
levies.
Council’s investment portfolio is balanced across a number of agencies, as shown in the graph on
the left. The graph on the right shows the current risk profile using industry credit ratings.
Bendigo
7%
A2
7%
A1
Suncorp 18%
A1+
18% QTC (QTC)
Westpac 48% 48%
3%
NAB A1+
11% (Other)
CBA 27%
13%
The actual interest revenue for the month was $136,026 with a weighted average yield of 2.62%
against the industry benchmark (Bloomberg AusBond Bank Bill Index) of 2.27%.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil
Finance & Risk
Monthly financial performance is monitored across all operational areas to ensure Council’s
forecast operating result is achieved.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
All areas of Council are consulted as part of the regular monitoring of budget performance.
Page 33 of 50
Section 34
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Chief Executive Officer x Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
x Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 34 of 50
Section 35
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 35 of 50
ATTACHMENT 1
Noosa Council
Statement of Comprehensive Income
For the Year Ended 30 June 2016
As at 31-Dec-2015
Current Current
Budget Budget Actual Percentage
2016 YTD YTD Annual Budget
$ $ $ %
Revenue
Recurrent Revenue
Rates, levies and charges 60,463,174 30,231,587 30,260,936 50%
Fees and charges 4,738,448 3,236,597 3,600,821 16%
Dividend income 1,925,140 962,570 962,612 50%
Interest received 4,568,059 2,330,931 2,437,569 53%
Tax equivalents 1,088,812 500,581 563,754 52%
Sale of Goods and Major Services 7,408,961 3,925,017 4,055,481 55%
Sale of Contract & Recoverable Works 15,364 7,682 (8,465) -55%
Rental & Lease Income 1,173,953 586,977 616,693 53%
Other income 710,063 383,893 546,846 77%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 5,414,017 2,743,660 2,890,056 53%
87,505,992 44,909,495 45,926,302 52%
Expenses
Recurrent Expenses
Employee benefits 27,646,927 13,132,079 12,844,373 46%
Materials and services 39,401,146 19,163,779 17,484,112 44%
Finance costs 2,686,315 1,330,657 1,327,936 49%
Depreciation and amortisation 16,630,163 8,315,081 8,316,465 50%
Other expenses 105,993 47,692 48,890 46%
86,470,544 41,989,288 40,021,776 46%
Operating Result 1,035,448 2,920,206 5,904,526
Capital Revenue
Capital contributions and donations 1,606,029 1,223,245 2,119,717 132%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 2,791,696 431,170 1,304,346 47%
Other capital revenue - - -
Total Capital Revenue 4,397,725 1,654,415 3,424,063
Page 35 of 50Section 36
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 36 of 50
ATTACHMENT 2
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents 36,759,172 54,120,122 50,891,174
Trade and other receivables 8,072,958 5,424,740 5,794,388
Inventories 104,038 208,611 104,038
Other current assets 657,006 2,053,798 3,097,262
45,593,174 61,807,271 59,886,862
Non Current Assets held for sale - - -
Total Current Assets 45,593,174 61,807,271 59,886,862
Non Current Assets
Trade and other receivables 49,217,517 49,217,517 49,217,517
Other non current Assets - - -
Investments 60,978,225 60,978,425 60,978,225
Investment property 3,831,234 3,831,234 3,831,234
Property, plant and equipment 924,908,040 890,202,469 887,078,579
Intangible assets 2,873,146 2,611,025 2,701,457
Total Non Current Assets 1,041,808,162 1,006,840,670 1,003,807,012
Total Assets 1,087,401,336 1,068,647,942 1,063,693,873
Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables 4,316,797 7,277,953 8,100,894
Borrowings 2,854,619 1,341,844 2,633,065
Provisions 5,013,310 8,817,860 4,114,390
Other 380,497 (5,857,499) 1,082,497
Total Current Liabilities 12,565,223 11,580,159 15,930,845
Non Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables - - -
Borrowings 35,247,498 36,747,480 36,747,480
Provisions 8,210,644 8,194,924 8,194,924
Total Non Current Liabilities 43,458,142 44,942,404 44,942,404
Total Liabilities 56,023,365 56,522,563 60,873,249
Net Community Assets 1,031,377,971 1,012,125,378 1,002,820,624
Community Equity
Asset Revaluation Surplus 36,519,656 14,334,106 14,334,106
Retained Surplus / (Defeciency) - - -
Shire Capital 994,858,315 988,486,518 973,851,849
Current Year Net Earnings - 9,446,901 14,634,670
Total Community Equity 1,031,377,971 1,012,267,526 1,002,820,625
Page 36 of 50Section 37
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
6 NATURAL AREAS BUSHLAND REGENERATION AND ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE
SERVICES
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Parks and Natural Areas Coordinator, Sara Cooke
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 15.07 Environmental Management
ECM/ Subject/ 15.12 Parks and Reserves
ECM/ Subject/ 15.21 Contract Register
ECM/ Subject/ 32.01 Parks
Attachments 1. Tender evaluation spreadsheet
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Parks and Natural Areas Coordinator to the General Committee
Meeting dated 11January 2016 and approve the engagement of the following preferred vendors
for Natural Areas bushland regeneration and ecological maintenance services:
A. For Zone 1 North of Cooroy Noosa Road – Noosa and District Landcare; and
B. For Zone 2 South of Cooroy Noosa Road – Bushland Conservation Management.
REPORT
Noosa Council has management responsibility for approximately 3,000 ha of bushland reserves.
These diverse vegetation communities provide fauna habitat as well as provide important social,
environmental and economic values within the Shire. These reserves and natural areas are
impacted by various land use encroachments, recreational use, and interference with native
vegetation, weed invasion, inappropriate fire regimes, feral animals and environmental
degradation. Ongoing maintenance of these areas is required to ensure environmental and social
values are maintained or enhanced to continue to provide these natural environmental values.
Tenders were sought via an open market Invitation to Tender process, to provide bushland
regeneration and ecological maintenance services in two zones. Zone 1 includes areas roughly
north of the Cooroy Noosa Road and Zone 2 includes areas roughly south of this road.
The services included in this scope of work includes are but not limited to;
Regeneration works to return bushland to a healthy diverse, representative and largely self-
sustaining condition.
Staged removal of weeds including weed trees, vines, cacti, succulents, shrubs, grasses and
aquatic plants from environmental reserves
The use of small machinery including bush cutter and chain saw,
The use of hand tools and chemical or non-chemical weed control techniques.
Page 37 of 50
Section 38
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Zone 1 involves a larger geographical footprint but requires approximately 250 labour days to
implement. Zone 2 involves a smaller area but is more labour intensive and will require
approximately 500 labour days.
An evaluation team assessed the submitted tenders from eight (8) tenderers which included the
assessment of the equivalent services, plant and equipment. This allowed for a fair evaluation of
all tenderers. A copy of the evaluation spreadsheet is provided at Attachment 1.
The evaluation process identified the tenderer with the highest score being Bushland Conservation
Management and the second highest being Noosa and District Landcare. As a result, the two top
tenderers are being recommended as the successful suppliers for the two zones.
The preferred arrangement is that two local companies be engaged (rather than creating any local
monopoly). Not only does this meet Contracting Principals, but will also allow for the ability to work
concurrently and hence more efficiently.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
Provision has been made within the Civil Operations budget in the Natural Areas portion for the
services to be supplied under this arrangement.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
The following branches were consulted during the procurement process.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries x Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service x Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance x Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 38 of 50
Section 39
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 39 of 50
0S 30 6€ ebeg
ee raunjeuBbis s,10jye.qs!uupy e.nUOD (a1qeaydde 41) G34¥DSHD 3DN39N vsao
sBunyBiem aaoge ay} suuyuCs so;eSIURUpY JIEHUOD ey] BOYO SHENUOD PUE S34 y Jequiew joued yuawsessy
Qeaysyom uogeunoyuy Ao;epuEyy, UO “GN J2ss24) JB0WQ ABS PUE YBESH WOM € Jaquiaw jsued juswsessy
J30Q WSlolg SEaty [EIEN Z saquiaw jeued juawsessy
JOJEUIPIOND SESTy [EEN pue SES } Joquiaw jaued juawsessy
S1¥i30 43HLO
ud wou pur soud yo 21005 1
a) INS Sug pews
43 88 8 08 001 638 z8 be (ug) asc0g soug PasyEULON
66 Zi 90 16 rit Zot £8 +3 Budo SOU
eros woommnnnnnnog (ae) S83 SBesany
sols Orr's See's sels Bir ls Qo Ls oor 1s 0081S 01 (9g) $334 EOL
Beue Wd SSH
dnoig azeopue] | pip sey wNoS PH] Ag suognjos =
uogesoges|OI3 uogevasucd =| aeopue] Gunueg sp as leyuawuosAUR quawas oud - g INWd
fo lopti“‘i]:SCSC“‘(‘#$S CG™CUTCCC“‘(t™€CUTDCi‘(éG®S™CUTCt“‘(éOSTLUCUTCCiésGC (§B®:ti“‘sLSOCOC“‘( G:C] s$wCEC‘C‘i*C (UL) aucog jeouypa | pasyeuuoN
PSC TO TO cer czop ee | cz ze CS %09 BOOS JENIUYIS | [EVOL
| eser | Zz Prue | ss | pt | oo | a
| se | st8 | ce | | 8 | ss | | ss | |e |Ramrrmersns irwoumonn
| ce | 8 | v8 | sce | | 8 | | es | | se a ee
7 | + | | se | sce | se | | se | Psa
| sve | | se | | es | | se | | es | | sce | ee
Ea | + | + | | sce por | oe | oe | = | a ee
| aase | Pszewe | oeee | see | a
a ee
fsrarrecn| emmy | mmo [eniecames| SEES |emerenen| cero | ci
quaweGeuey Id ssques
dnoig azespuez | pip seg unos PIT Ag suognjos SPUuepeM
uogQEIOgrRIOD3S UOgEAIISUOD qweopue7 Gurueg /BuewuasAauz SQuewajs soud uON - ¥ INWd
8 Zz 3 ¢ v € z t
= PaJENJEAR ssspuay Jo sequin SYSONIL SNINSOINOD-NON
i
ds
“Burcu 40; BugyBien uans ue uo yoes Buneld ds
- YES o} USnB Usaq Sey |¢ Jo BuDud e “sisiapuay USsNusg Awenbs pur sssuiey ainsus oO) eS
“Sa}Ey 40 ainPayps papNUgns sjasapua| UO Paseq “Ap sNoge| sNOY-g UOSTad-p © UO PaJE;Ng|E> Buu “BN .. PT —SSSTTTTCOC~CSY
es
FreSCEHENDE 20 UE CUBURENS | Fre WiRy 5 SURUT HE wy UO TWUORT 24.0 tuRUED au — /SUEGSSOKS = (paUDUTU-su0) OO4 « C—O TTC
TNOSORUENOS PUL DUMDUTIS YE\Y © 70 S| SUSILD JEU] 20) WOYTT PUGS Sun yO JUGUOD sua — DODD fUsy\ = (/Gues) OB « poorer eC TC“ trs—C~‘“‘CSC#CINOUE) BIEDNUET] URSIG F ESOON| F
DSRUDINE 4 DSUCHUOL 39 Oh STU [BM DUT SIQEAISU 5) CUSqUD FOU 2Op UOYSTILUNS Suy JO BUS WD Su — POO] = (Mes) OS « Oris PID SES YMOS 40 SPURL SANEN| 2
eu simsapoui © S9z06 pus SxeSuGuIUN 5 SARL WU Jj YORE WETS aun fo WURUOD 2uy— J004 = (MUCH) OF « 9
Su Ulry DUR BURDURES MO} & JO F) BSSBIO FOG 205 LOPE HWUQNS ayy JO wSWOD 3 — 3005 AS = (USN) OF + selis.”™~—‘“SCS*sdYSOS~sSSSTCOCCSCtC‘(«*‘t*‘*‘éi TA SOTO sOWMSS spuwieD] S
4EU SWISS PUT USI FOU AO) WG) © — SIQRITSIISUN = (Cuz) O- eleusSDEUEYY UOQENISSUOD PUEIYSNG| 7
ssBuges Sut orgs EU] Gurr]
pesneg wep An oo td rio hn wanes oozes SUE RE UENERSTY] Z
| 70 9x9) USYSONSL 30 SWYN| ON
«= 30rd
| ANSIWHOVLLV crnaonivmeramevenn| —_ aaueneo
| rouonsh | ON ERUIOD|
yeauspeaids UOHeNleAR sinquny peyBbiemSection 40
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
7 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR OPERATIONAL WORK PLACING AN ADVERTISING
DEVICE - SIGNAGE AT 78-80 RENE STREET, NOOSAVILLE - OPW15/0214
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Planning & Environment, Kerri Coyle
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Application/ OPW15/0214
Attachments Nil
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Storage First
Proposal Development Permit for Operational Works Placing an Advertising
Device - Signage
Properly Made Date 12 November 2015
Decision Due Date 19 January 2015
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 78-80 Rene Street, Noosaville
RP Description Lot 279 CP 865180
Land Area 10920m²
Existing Use of Land Industrial Warehouse (Self Storage Facility)
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosaville
Zone Industry
Assessment Type Code
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager, Planning & Environment to the General Committee
Meeting dated 11 January 2016 regarding Application No. OPW15/0214 for a Development Permit
for Operational Works - Signage situated at 78-80 Rene Street, Noosaville and refuse the
application for the following reasons:
1. The application proposes signs in excess of 4m2 sign face area and total signage area on
the premise in excess of 10m2 , which are inconsistent with the Overall Outcomes of The
Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code;
2. The proposal represents excessive signage for a single business that will result in
unnecessary visual clutter and dominate the streetscape.
3. The signage is incompatible with the existing and preferred streetscape character and is
contrary to the Advertising Devices Code.
Page 40 of 50
Section 41
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for a Development Permit for Operational Works for additional wall
signs at the existing commercial premises. The signs comprise two panels at 6.70m in length and
1.50m in width with a combined sign face area of 12m2. Both signs have a font area of 5723mm x
1053mm, equating to 6.0m2, and are to be fixed to an existing building fronting Rene Street.
The site has 5.97m2 of existing signage associated with the approved development on the site.
Cumulatively, the existing and proposed advertising devices will have a total sign face area of
17.97m2. The signs read “Storage First” and “Self Storage” as shown in the applicant’s mock-up
in Figure 1 below. Existing advertising devices on the site are shown in Figures 2 & 3. The
application is before Council because it is recommended for refusal.
Figure 1 - Proposed Signage Mock-Up
Page 41 of 50
Section 42
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Figure 2 - Existing advertising device Figure 3 - Advertising device at entrance
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Site Description
The site has a road frontage of approximately 78 metres to Rene Street, with no secondary road
frontage. The land is predominately flat. An aerial photograph of the site and its surrounds is
shown below in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4 – Aerial Photograph of Site
Page 42 of 50
Section 43
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
2.2. Surrounding Land Uses
A mix of industrial uses is adjacent to the site to the north, east and west within the industry zone.
Nearby uses include mechanical workshops, manufacturing, service industries, warehouses and
some heavy/noxious industries.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The applicable planning scheme for the application is The Noosa Plan (16 September 2013). The
following sections relate to the provisions of the Planning Scheme.
Advertising Devices Code
The application raises planning concerns because it proposes signage in excess of as-of-right
limits allowed under Specific Outcome O2 of the Code, being 4m2 for any single sign and a total of
10m2 for any premise. Specific Outcomes O1 of the Code also seeks to prohibit signage in excess
of the as-of right limits, stating:
O1 The following advertising devices are inconsistent with the overall outcomes sought by this
Code and are not located in the former Noosa Shire—
…
g) Signs with a sign face area exceeding 4m2;
…
j) any combination of signs on one premise with a combined sign face area of more than 10m2.
The applicant submits the following in support of a relaxation of the Code provisions:
The subject site is located within close proximity to another self storage facility with signage that
has been recently approved (refer OPW14/0276), and is considered a similar scale, size and
outcome to the proposed fence signs.
The site has a frontage of 78m to Rene Street and has a total area of 1.092ha. The scale,
proportion and siting of the proposed signage is consistent with the size of the site, neighbouring
development and the commercial character of the locality. The site has the ability to be subdivided
in accordance with the minimum lot requirements for the Industry Zone in Table 14-68 of the
Reconfiguring a Lot Code, which would facilitate signage of 20m2 for the existing frontage area.
The existing and proposed signage is spread across the frontage consistent with what would be
evident if separate lots existed.
In accordance with the overall outcomes of the Code the proposed signage:
Will not detract from the desirable characteristics of the natural and built environment in which
the advertising devices are exhibited, being the Industry Zone;
is designed, sited and integrated so as not to contribute to the proliferation of visual clutter;
will not detract from the visual amenity of the major road network nor from the rural or
residential amenity enjoyed by residents of and visitors to Noosa; and
will be safely constructed and secured and will not create a hazard.
Despite the applicant’s submission the site could be reconfigured into multiple premises, the Code
is clear in applying a 4m2 limit per sign and 10m2 sign face area limit overall for a premise. The
building facing Rene Street does have a long frontage to the street but is low rise and required to
be screened by a 5m landscaped setback by the existing development’s MCU approval.
Page 43 of 50
Section 44
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Whilst the applicant makes reference to the recent appeal for the development at 44-46 Rene
Street (Sharpe Enterprises Pty Ltd vs Noosa Council), the basis for the appellant’s success in
overturning Council’s refusal of additional signage in that case was founded on a constrained
assessment against a different code (the Business Uses Code) and the presence of two large
buildings (premises) fronting Rene Street. As such, the circumstances for this application are
significantly different.
Approval of additional signage beyond code limits is broadly undesirable and conflicts with the
overall outcomes of the Code, as stated in O1 of the Code. The Code’s intent is to apply
prescriptive signage limits to specifically limit the size and proliferation of signs in the Noosa area.
The application is considered to conflict with the outcomes and purpose of the Code.
3.2. Other Planning Considerations – Draft Planning Scheme Amendments
Proposed amendments to the Noosa Plan will result in various changes to the Advertising Devices
Code. The amendments apply a further reduced limit to smaller sites (such as strata titled
developments), where total signage will be limited to the frontage width x 0.75m. The
amendments, however, do not significantly amend the assessment criteria for this application and
maintain the 4m2 and 10m2 limits for a single premise.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1. IDAS Referral Agencies
Not applicable.
4.2. Other Referrals
Not applicable.
5. CONCLUSION
The proposed signage raises planning concerns because it seeks advertising devices in excess of
code limits. The Advertising Devices Code seeks to apply prescriptive sign size and total sign face
area limits for a premise to limit advertising devices within Noosa, avoid visual clutter and ensure
signage is unobtrusive. The Code is clear that signage in excess of these limits conflicts with the
outcomes sought for the Noosa area. The application is therefore considered to conflict with the
provisions of The Noosa Plan and is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:
The application proposes signs in excess of 4m2 sign face area and total signage area on
the premise in excess of 10m2 , which are inconsistent with the Overall Outcomes of The
Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code;
The proposal represents excessive signage for a single business that will result in
unnecessary visual clutter and dominate the streetscape.
The signage is incompatible with the existing and preferred streetscape character and is
contrary to the Advertising Devices Code.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office X Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance X Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 44 of 50
Section 45
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
8 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D171/15 FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE
OF USE FOR CULTIVATION TYPE 2 - INTENSIVE (GREENHOUSE) & RECONFIGURING
A LOT (ACCESS EASEMENT) SITUATED AT 271 & 305 LAKE MACDONALD DRIVE,
LAKE MACDONALD (MCU14/0039 & REC15/0012)
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Jack Lewis
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Application / MCU14/0039 & REC15/0012
Attachments Nil
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Como Glasshouse Pty Ltd C/- Martoo Consulting
Proposal Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Cultivation Type 2 –
Intensive (Greenhouse); and
Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (Access Easement)
Appeal Filed 1 December 2015
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 271 & 305 Lake Macdonald Drive, Lake Macdonald
RP Description Lots 1 & 2 on SP 108094
Land Area Lot 1 - 33.4 ha & Lot 2 - 14.14 ha
Existing Use of Land Turf farm, associated sheds and detached house
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Regional Landscape & Rural Production
Locality Cooroy & Lake Macdonald
Zone Rural
Overlays Biodiversity (Riparian Buffer & Environmental Protection)
Assessment Type Code
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated
11 January 2016, regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D171/15 and agree to defend
the appeal.
Page 45 of 50
Section 46
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
REPORT
A report on the development application for Material Change of Use for Cultivation Type 2 –
Intensive (Greenhouse) & Reconfiguring a Lot (Access Easement) at 271 & 305 Lake Macdonald
Drive, Lake Macdonald was considered at its Ordinary Meeting on 19 November 2015. Council
resolved to approve the application, subject to conditions.
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the applicant has the option to make representations to
the development approval and negotiate changes to the conditions. In this instance, no
representations to the development approval were made and the applicant lodged an appeal with
the Planning and Environment Court on the 1 December 2015.
The appeal seeks the Court amend or delete conditions 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21
of the Development Permit for Material Change of Use, and condition 1 of the Development Permit
for Reconfiguring a Lot. The condition changes mainly relate to flooding and water quality
management, onsite access upgrades, and an increase in the timeframe to remove fill on the site.
A ‘without prejudice’ conference has been set for 21 January 2016 to narrow and resolve the issues
relating to conditions imposed in the decision notice. It is in order for Council to defend the appeal
and the recommendation is worded accordingly.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 19 November 2015, Item 3, Page 56
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 13 October 2015 regarding Application No. MCU14/0039 &
REC15/0012 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Cultivation Type 2 – Intensive
(Greenhouse) & Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (Access Easement) situated at 271
& 305 Lake Macdonald Dr, Lake Macdonald and:
A. Approve the applications in accordance with the following conditions:
Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Cultivation Type 2 – Intensive
(Greenhouse)
PLANNING
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
D-01569-06-B Site Plan drawn by Martoo Consulting 23/06/2015
3. The development must be undertaken and operated in a manner that causes no
detrimental effect upon the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the creation of
excessive noise, lighting nuisance or other emissions.
Building Height
4. The maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 metres above the finished
ground level and the natural ground level.
Page 46 of 50
Section 47
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Performance Bond
5. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $20,000
must be submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this approval,
prior to the issue of a Development Permit for Operational Works. The cash bond or
trading bank guarantee will be returned on performance of the conditions of approval
less any costs incurred by Council in respect of enforcing performance of this permit.
Council reserves the right to call upon the bond or guaranteed sum to effect compliance
with conditions.
6. All grow media, grow bags and plants within the greenhouse shall be raised above the
10% AEP flood level. Any structures supporting the crop (including the building frame)
shall be designed to withstand minimum velocities associated with a 1% AEP Flood.
Certification confirming the heights and strength of the structures must be submitted to
Council from a suitably qualified professional (RPEQ) prior to the issue of an
Operational Works approval. The elevated planting system must be installed prior to
planting the next crop.
7. The use must be undertaken in accordance with the Flood Management Plan R01 v02,
by Water Technology and dated 31/08/2015, subject to the following amendments;
a. A nominated flood warden be on site at all times during operation hours of the
facility;
b. A contingency for a flood refuge area must be defined in the strategy in the event
that persons become trapped on site. The flood refuge area should be suitable
for safe refuge during an extreme flood event.
c. Flood warnings issued by the Bureau of Meteorology and/or Council must be
added as a trigger, in addition to the site's flood gauge.
The amendments must be incorporated into an amended Flood Management Plan
which must be submitted to Council prior to the issue of an Operational Works approval.
Waste
8. The developer must provide waste storage and disposal facilities in accordance with
Planning Scheme Policy 9, Waste Management, including a waste storage area large
enough to accommodate all potential sources of contamination, including hazardous
materials, chemicals, used grow media (including plastics) and waste bins located well
above the 1% AEP flood level.
ENGINEERING
Site Access and Driveways
Lake Macdonald Drive frontage
9. An access driveway to service the existing dwelling must be provided extending from
the formation of Lake Macdonald Drive to the property boundary. The works must be
undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works approval and must include in
particular a driveway crossover generally in accordance with IPWEAQ standard
drawing 056.
10. This access driveway is to be used only for the residential use on the site. This access
may be used for access for the agricultural use on the site (passenger and heavy
vehicles) in an emergency situation when the heavy vehicle access through the
property to the south is not accessible. When used during an emergency situation,
suitable Traffic Control measures must be employed. The type and extent of Traffic
Control measures must be included in the Operational Works application for the
construction of the access driveway.
Page 47 of 50
Section 48
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Access driveway through the adjoining property (271 Lake Macdonald Dr/Lot 2
SP108094)
11. An access driveway to service the agricultural use must be provided extending from
the formation of Lake Macdonald Drive to the greenhouse. The works must be
undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works approval and must include in
particular:
a. an access and internal driveway generally in accordance with the report prepared
by TTM Consulting Pty Ltd dated 2 July 2015 reference 15SCT0024.
b. a driveway constructed with a suitable “all weather” surface that can cater for the
effects of occasional inundation by flood waters.
c. a driveway that does not create any additional flooding of Lot 2 SP108094 or any
adjoining property.
12. Approval of the driveway design from the owner of Lot 2 SP108094 must be submitted
to Council with the Operational Works application.
Car Parking
13. A minimum of 30 car parking spaces must be provided on the site for the agricultural
use. The works must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works approval
and must include in particular:
a. a carparking area constructed with a suitable “all weather” surface that can cater
for the effects of occasional inundation by flood waters.
b. a carparking area that does not create any additional flooding on any adjoining
property.
Stormwater Drainage
14. Stormwater runoff from the development must be disposed of on-site without causing
scour, entraining and transporting sediments in the stormwater or damage to the
subject site or any adjoining property.
15. All roof runoff not reused for site operations must be treated within natural stormwater
quality treatment strategies prior to release from the site.
16. The use must be undertaken in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan
Rev a, by O2 Environmental and dated 07/10/2015, subject to the following
amendments;
a. the infiltration basin must be located outside of the Riparian Buffer Area;
b. The proposed filter media basin must be designed to hold water for no longer
than the time period modelled in the MUSIC model Stormwater Management
Plan Rev a, by O2 Environmental and dated 07/10/2015. Where groundwater
recharge is expected, a Geotechnical Engineer must provide certification to
confirm that the permeability of soils underlying the proposed location for the
media filtration system exceed the proposed permeability of the filter media
treatment system.
c. Include an Operational Phase Water Quality Monitoring Plan, prepared in
accordance with the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 Monitoring
and Sampling Manual. The Operational Phase Water Quality Monitoring Plan
must be sufficient to demonstrate that a flood event does not cause the release
of fertiliser, prescribed water contaminants, or other nutrient laden waters from
the operation of the Greenhouse into surrounding waterways. Monitoring
methods must not put any lives at risk during a flood event.
The amendments must be incorporated into an amended Stormwater Management
Plan and submitted to Council prior to the issue of an Operational Works approval.
Page 48 of 50
Section 49
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
17. Water quality monitoring results must be analysed by a suitably experienced water
quality specialist and identify whether or not nutrient increases within the receiving
waterways were associated with the release of nutrients from the Greenhouse during
a flood event. The analysis must be provided to Noosa Council officers within 30
business days following inundation of the site Greenhouse with flood waters.
18. Where the results of the Operational Phase Water Quality Monitoring demonstrates
there are nutrient increases associated with the release of nutrients from the use during
a flood event, the operator must identify and rectify the cause of the release, and
include appropriate mitigation works to prevent future releases in flood events as far
as practicable. The operator then must demonstrate to Council that appropriate
measures have been incorporated into operations, to prevent a release of nutrients to
the receiving waters in future flood events.
Earthworks and Retaining Walls
19. All earthworks must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works approval,
and contained entirely within the site, unless written permission from the respective
landowner(s) is provided to Council.
20. Bund 1 & 2 indicated on the Site Layout Plan drawn by Water Technology and dated
01/07/2015 must be removed and the existing levels reinstated within 2 weeks of this
approval date.
21. Bund 3 as indicated on Site Layout Plan drawn by Water Technology and dated
01/07/2015 must be relocated a minimum of 5m away from the root zones of the
existing vegetation adjacent the creek. The new bund and area between it and the
waterway shall be revegetated with suitable species and densities in accordance with
Planning Scheme Policy 3 – Landscaping Plants & Guidelines. The earthworks and
landscaping must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works approval
and be lodged within 1 month of the Material Change of Use approval date.
Damage to Services and Assets
22. Any damage caused to existing services and assets as a result of the development
works must be repaired at no cost to the asset owner at the following times:
a. where the damage would cause a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle safety,
immediately; or
b. where otherwise, upon completion of the works associated with the development.
Any repair work which proposes to alter the alignment or level of existing services and
assets must first be referred to the relevant service authority for approval.
Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (Access Easement)
PLANNING
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
D-01569-06-B Site Plan drawn by Martoo Consulting 23/06/2015
Page 49 of 50
Section 50
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JANUARY 2016
Easements
3. An easement for access purposes must be registered against the title of Lot 2
SP108094 in favour of Lot 1 SP108094. The easement must be a minimum of 10m
wide and widened where necessary to wholly include passing bays and any associated
banks or batters.
4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the relevant service provider, any public or third
party infrastructure located on the subject site must be placed within an easement
registered against the title of the property.
5. All easements must be designed in accordance with the planning scheme and granted
at no cost to the Grantee. Where the Grantee is Council or a service authority, the
easement documentation must be in accordance with the Grantee’s standard
easement terms. Draft easement documentation must be submitted to Council for
endorsement.
6. All works must be kept clear of any existing or proposed easements on the subject
land, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Grantee.
B. Give notice to the property owner to remove bunds 1 & 2, and reinstate the areas back to its
original condition to the reasonable satisfaction of Council within 2 weeks of this decision.
Finance & Risk
There will be costs for Council involved in defending the appeal and it is premature to advise on
the appeal prospects at this stage.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
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
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 50 of 50