Ordinary Meeting - September 2023
Date: Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 5:00PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:05:35
Synopsis: River plan deferred for further consultation, Community unrest over Cooloola project and Pomona placemaking, Major planning refusals incl. Tewantin hospital, Audit and legal compliance updates noted.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Clare Stewart Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Joe Jurisevic Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer, Larry Sengstock Director Community Services, Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment, Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services, Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray Apologies (Did Not Attend)
The Meeting Was Chaired By Deputy Mayor Frank Wilkie Due To The Mayor Attending AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie: Council approved Mayor Clare Stewart to attend remotely under s254K Local Government Regulation; unanimous. (00:01) (Attendance & Apologies) Frank Wilkie: Two petitions received—road access and safety at Mary River Rd, Cooroy; and fire hazard reduction/tree removal at Cooroibah—both referred to CEO; unanimous. (00:51–03:49) (Items 4.1–4.2) Deputation: Keep Cooloola Cool criticised State’s Cooloola Great Walk Ecotourism Project for poor consultation and conflict with national park “cardinal principle”; sought Council advocacy and public forum. (04:26–20:52) (Deputations 7.1) Deputation: Pomona Placemaking Study consultation alleged as inadequate, inequitable and vulnerable to outside influence; requested suspension, town hall, and identity checks on submissions. (21:06–36:08) (Deputations 7.2) Brian Stockwell: Moved to adopt the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan (NR-CMP) with CEO-authorised minor edits and targeted stakeholder consultation on Action 1.1 (Conservation Park over Fish Habitat Areas); lost 3–4. (41:06–52:30) (Item 6.1) Amelia Lorentson: Successfully moved to defer NR-CMP to next meeting cycle to allow councillors/stakeholders to review details and implications; carried 4–3. (01:52:54–01:56:23) (Item 6.1) Planning: Refused subdivision (1 into 2) at 28 Satinay Dr, Tewantin for inconsistency with Reconfiguring a Lot Code and Bushfire Hazard Overlay (deficient building envelope; undue bushfire risk). (Item 5.2, P&E 12 Sep) Planning: Refused MCU for day surgery/hospital at 47 Goodchap St, Tewantin due to conflicts with Strategic Framework, Local Plan Codes, Low Density Residential Zone, Community Activities Code, parking and water quality non-compliance; housing need prioritised for site. (Item 5.4, P&E 12 Sep) Planning: Cootharaba “integrated permaculture/golf” change to include group farm stay (max 299 beds): applicant stopped decision period; Council noted. (02:02:32–02:04:00) (Item 5.1, General 18 Sep) Contracts: Awarded CN00344 Concrete Crushing to Rosenlund Contractors (2-year term + 3x12m extensions at Council’s discretion). (Services & Organisation 7.1) Contracts: Awarded CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space & Public Amenities to four suppliers (2 years + options). (General 7.1) Appeal: Agreed to settle P&E Court Appeal D14/2023 (20 units, Church St, Pomona) generally per conditions; inserted property note on bushfire management. (General 7.2) Audit & Risk: Noted payroll internal audit, external audit briefing, risk/BCP update, internal audit actions, ICT cyber update (no incidents), insurance, and fraud/corruption/PID updates. (Audit & Risk 22 Aug; 8.1) Contentious / Transparency Matters Mitch Robson/Greg Wood: Alleged State-led Cooloola project lacked informed community consent; requested Council leadership, review of 2019 submission, and public forum/site visits. (04:26–20:52) (Deputations 7.1) Nick Cook: Claimed Pomona placemaking engagement windows were too short, online-heavy, and inequitable (e.g., “behind a paywall” at Noosa Show); called for suspension and town hall. (21:06–36:08) (Deputations 7.2) NR-CMP: Dispute over urgency and stakeholder awareness of proposed Conservation Park; concerns about “blindsiding” NSERAC members prompted deferral. (01:16:23–01:56:23) (Item 6.1) Process tension: Chair and staff emphasised that plan actions already mandate further consultation; critics sought pre-adoption feedback window for legal/operational clarity. (01:22:01–01:28:39) (Item 6.1) Public assurance: Councillors Jurisevic, Stewart, Finzel cited prior commitment to allow next-cycle feedback; opposed adopting plan now. (01:40:31–01:49:17) (Item 6.1) Legal / Risk Remote attendance: Approval under s254K Local Government Regulation recorded and unanimous—process compliance clear. (00:01) (Attendance & Apologies) Conflicts regime: Declarable COIs managed per Chapter 5B Local Government Act 2009 with non-participation on COI resolutions; consistent with statute. (Item 6.1; General 5.1; P&E 6.1) Planning Act: Statutory refusals referenced s63(5) Planning Act 2016; detailed conflicts with planning instruments provide defensible refusal grounds if appealed. (P&E Items 5.2 & 5.4) NR-CMP funding posture: Staff asserted endorsed Catchment Action Plan improves eligibility for Resilient Rivers and other programs; timing debate noted, but officers committed to submit regional strategy input regardless. (48:13–01:06:36) (Item 6.1) Appeal settlement: Pomona 20 units—settlement “generally in accordance” with draft conditions; bushfire note mitigates future risk to persons/property. (General 7.2) Cyber/Fraud: No ICT incidents reported; ongoing fraud/corruption/PID oversight noted via confidential updates—indicates active risk governance. (Audit & Risk 8.1) Conflicts of Interest Brian Stockwell: Declarable COIs re Noosa Landcare (member) and MRCCC (historic collaborator/rep); allowed to participate/vote on NR-CMP; did not vote on COI motions. (39:07–40:56) (Item 6.1) Karen Finzel: Declarable COI re donor-applicant in delegated decisions report; permitted to remain as report for noting only; did not vote on COI motion. (01:58:50–01:59:40) (P&E 6.1) Tom Wegener: Declarable COI re author of applicant’s permaculture report; permitted to participate; did not vote on COI motion. (02:01:21–02:02:32) (General 5.1) Environmental Concerns & River Governance NR-CMP substance: ~80 actions targeting pollution, wetlands/riparian protection, sediment reduction, anchoring/mooring/liveaboards, and potential Conservation Park overlaying existing Fish Habitat Areas. (41:38–48:08) (Item 6.1) Conservation Park intent: Staff clarified it would not transfer State fisheries approvals; aims for trustee co-management, compliance support, monitoring, and education; requires DES/QPWS agreement and management plan. (01:14:04–01:16:11) (Item 6.1) Stakeholder dynamics: NSERAC focus historically on anchoring/mooring and sediment; a dedicated river-plan session had low turnout; broader stakeholders notified when agenda published. (01:20:08–01:26:49; 01:38:02–01:38:40) (Item 6.1) Flying-fox SoMI: Council endorsed SoMI; will review subsidy program, implement comms plan, and seek budget for effective delivery. (Item 5.1, P&E 12 Sep) Community Transparency & Consultation Pomona Placemaking: Claims of inadequate notification, limited hard-copy access, and inequitable meetings; requests for identity checks to deter external influence; staff/councillors cited multiple pop-ups and workshops. (21:06–38:33) (Deputations 7.2) NR-CMP deferral rationale: Majority cited public trust and desire for clarity on legal/operational implications before endorsement; minority warned against “paralysis by analysis.” (01:16:23–01:56:23) (Item 6.1) Mary River Rd petition: Road safety/access impacts from adjacent development flagged by residents; referred for CEO action. (00:51–03:01) (Item 4.1) Fire hazard petition: Request for hazard reduction and tree removal on nature strip at Cooroibah; referred to CEO. (03:01–03:49) (Item 4.2) Planning Scheme & Development Outcomes Tewantin subdivision refusal: Inconsistent with character and amenity; inadequate building envelope; increased bushfire risk and burden on disaster services. (Item 5.2, P&E 12 Sep) Goodchap St hospital refusal: Expansion into low-density zone conflicted with strategic outcomes, parking shortfall, water quality risks to Lake Doonella, and no demonstrated planning need; housing supply protected. (Item 5.4, P&E 12 Sep) Cootharaba farm-stay change: Significant scale (up to 299 beds); applicant paused assessment; further engagement foreshadowed. (02:02:32–02:04:00) (General 5.1)
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 21 September 2023 5:00 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Crs Clare Stewart (Chair), Karen Finzel, Joe Jurisevic, Amelia Lorentson, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Councillor Clare Stewart (attending via Microsoft Teams) Councillor Frank Wilkie (Acting Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Brian Stockwell Councillor Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer, Larry Sengstock Director Community Services, Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services, Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil The meeting was chaired by Deputy Mayor, Cr Frank Wilkie due to the Mayor attending via Microsoft Teams. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentston That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Cr Stewart is approved to attend the Ordinary Meeting dated 21 September 2023 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2.1. ORDINARY MEETING 17 AUGUST 2023 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 17 August 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 3. MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. 4. PETITIONS 4.1. PETITION: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ACCESS DUE TO DEVELOPMENT AT 201 MARY RIVER ROAD, COOROY (MCU21/0194.01) Refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That the petition with 148 signatories submitted by Joyce Carolyn Brumley, requesting that Council consider the access issues at her property due to the development at 201 Mary River Road, Cooroy (MCU21/0194.01) be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Carried unanimously. 4.2. PETITION: REQUEST COUNCIL UNDERTAKE MAJOR FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION AND THE REMOVAL OF THE LARGE TREES Refer to Attachment 2 to the Minutes. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the petition with 24 signatories submitted by Howard Sandison, on behalf of the owners and residents of Pines Ave and Morning Glory Ave, Cooroibah, requesting that Council consider undertaking major fire hazard reduction and the removal of large trees on the naturestrip be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action Carried unanimously. 5. NOTIFIED MOTIONS Nil. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 7.1. MITCH ROBSON TOPIC - KEEP COOLOOLA COOL - COOLOOLA GREAT WALK ECOTOURISM PROJECT (CGWEP) 7.2. NICK COOKE TOPIC - POMONA PLACEMAKING STUDY 8. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS Item 6.1 from General Committee Meeting was brought forward. The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Stockwell – refer to Attachment 3 6.1. NOOSA RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my long standing connection with Noosa District Landcare as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Noosa District Landcare is identified as being consulted in the report. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and l therefore choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a long-standing relationship with MRCCC as a previous government employee and a longterm collaborator since 1994. I have in the past had a small consultant contract below the limit for a Prescribed Conflict and prior to the declarable time frame. I was up until the last AGM Council's representative on the committee and in this role I played a role in facilitating and developing the group's revised catchment strategy. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Stockwell does not stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report, and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Principal Environment Officer - River Strategy & Engagement to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 regarding the updated Noosa River Catchment Management Plan and; A. Adopt the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan for ongoing implementation, noting some implementation actions will involve further stakeholder engagement and are subject to future budget considerations; and B. Authorise the CEO to make minor changes and edits to the plan prior to finalising, designing and publishing the plan. C. Request the CEO consult with relevant stakeholder groups as part of staff's consideration of Action 1.1 relating to a Conservation Park covering Fish Habitat Areas. For: Crs Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie Against: Crs Lorentson, Jurisevic, Finzel and Stewart Lost. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That item 6.1 Noosa River Catchment Management Plan be deferred to the next round of meetings to allow Councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity to consider the details and implications of the draft Noosa River Catchment Plan and provide feedback. For: Crs Lorentson, Jurisevic, Finzel and Stewart Against: Crs Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie Carried. Cr Stockwell and Stewart left the meeting. 8.1. AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE REPORT- 22 AUGUST 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Tom Wegener Audit & Risk Committee Chair (External) Timothy Cronin Audit & Risk Committee Member (External) Ian Rushworth NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS/OFFICERS Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Executive Officer, Internal Audit & Corporate Performance Debra Iezzi (all Items except 12 & 13) Governance Manager, Diana Stewart Financial Services Manager (Acting) Pauline Coles (all Items except 12 & 13) Michael Claydon, QAO (all Items except 12 & 13) Thomas Cook, KPMG (all Items except 12 & 13) Jillian Richards, KMPG (all Items except 12 & 13) John Zabala, CROWE (Item 5) Jonci Wolff, Governance Advisor (all Items except 12 & 13) Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf (Item 9) Nathan Davidson, ICT Operations Officer (Item 9) APOLOGIES Nil COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5. INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - PAYROLL That Council note the report by the Governance Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 22 August 2023 presenting the internal audit report on payroll processes. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 6. 2023 AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE BRIEFING PAPER That Council note the report by the KPMG and QAO to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 22 August 2023 providing an update on the External Audit. 7. RISK MANAGEMENT & BCP UPDATE That Council note the report by the Governance Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 22 August 2023 providing an update on risk management matters. 8. INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIONS UPDATE That Council note the report by the Executive Officer to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 22 August 2023 regarding an update on Internal Audit Matters. 9. ICT CYBER RISK UPDATE That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 22 August 2023 noting there has been no cyber incidents. 12. CONFIDENTIAL & PROTECTED - INSURANCE MANAGEMENT UPDATE That Council note the report by the Governance Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 22 August 2023 providing an update on insurance matters. 13. CONFIDENTIAL & PROTECTED - FRAUD, CORRUPTION & PID UPDATE That Council note the confidential report by the Governance Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 22 August 2023 providing an annual update on fraud, corruption, and PID related matters. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the report of the Audit & Risk Committee dated 22 August 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 8.2. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Tom Wegener (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Amelia Lorentson ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 Councillor Frank Wilkie EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director - Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings (via Microsoft Teams) Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Councillor Clare Stewart COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. FLYING FOX STATEMENT OF MANAGEMENT INTENT That Council note the report by the Fauna Management Project Officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Noosa Council's Flying-fox Statement of Management Intent (SoMI) and: A. Approve the Flying Fox Statement of Management Intent (SoMI) for the purpose of implementation, B. Note that following endorsement of the SoMI, Environmental Services will undertake a priority review of the Flying-fox Subsidy Program considering community feedback and seek future Council endorsement of any recommended changes to the Flying-fox Subsidy Program as required; C. Develop and implement an internal and external communications plan for flying-fox influxes to ensure clear information is provided to relevant stakeholders during these events; D. Note that additional resources are required as outlined in this report to fully and effectively deliver the requirements of the SoMI and flying-fox management in the Noosa Shire and that consideration of these be referred to the budget consideration process. 5.2. RAL22/0027 - APPLICATION FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT (1 INTO 2 LOTS) AT 28 SATINAY DRIVE, TEWANTIN That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. RAL22/0027 for a Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot – 1 into 2 lots, situated at 28 Satinay Dr Tewantin Qld 4565 and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1)(a), (b) and (c), (2)(a), (b) and (e)(i), Acceptable Outcome AO7.3 and Performance Outcomes PO4 and PO7, of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as: a. The development application is for subdivision in an area identified as being not suitable for subdivision. b. The lot size and subdivision layout in not consistent with the established character and amenity of Noosa Parklands Estate. c. The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate to accommodate a dwelling house and associated structures and services, and therefore is not fit its intended use. 2. The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1) and (2)(a), (b) and (e), Acceptable Outcomes AO1, AO7, AO8.3 and ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 Performance Outcomes PO1 and PO7 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as: a. The methodology for determining the building envelopes assumes that Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Council will maintain the firebreak between the existing lot and adjoining National Park and Council Reserve. Preservation of the separation from hazardous vegetation should not be dependent on third parties. b. The proposed reconfiguration does not minimise the risk to people and property from bushfire hazard. c. The proposed layout will unduly burden disaster management services. d. The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. 5.3. - 131998.981211.5 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, COOTHARABA That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.3 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. 5.4. MCU22/0131 - APPLICATION FOR A HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICE (DAY SURGERY AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES) AT 47 GOODCHAP STREET, TEWANTIN That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0131 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Health care service & Hospital, situated at 47 Goodchap St Tewantin and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal conflicts with Section 3.3.2, strategic outcomes (k), (n) and Section 3.3.3, strategic outcome (a) of the Strategic Framework as: a. The proposal expands health care services further along Goodchap Street beyond the Noosa Hospital site and into a residential area. b. The proposal is located on land zoned for housing, removes a lot that is well suited for residential development and is needed to cater for future housing. 2. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (o), (p) & (q) of the Tewantin Local Plan Area Code and overall outcomes (h), (n) and acceptable outcome AO16.3 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code as: a. The proposal expands health services into an area zoned for low density housing and on a large, well located site with significant opportunities to create further housing. b. The land is not committed or planned for community purposes. c. The proposal does not maximise or make more efficient use of the Noosa Hospital site and is not located on land identified for the growth of health and medical services. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 3. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a), (c), (g), (j) and performance outcomes PO1, PO2 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code as: a. The proposal is not residential being identified as a community activity under the Noosa Plan and is of a scale and design that is incompatible with and will impact adversely on nearby residents’ amenity. b. The proposal offers no integration or internal connection with the Noosa hospital. c. The proposal is not small scale and will service the wider community and not just local residents. 4. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and performance and acceptable outcomes PO1, PO3, AO3, PO5, A)5, PO8 of the Community Activities Code as: a. The proposal is not integrated with the hospital or co-located on the Noosa Hospital site. b. The proposal is of a type, scale and intensity that is not consistent with surrounding development and character of the area and zone, includes substantial infrastructure to the site’s frontage and will remove mature native trees that significantly contribute to the streetscape. c. The proposal is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by adjoining and nearby residents with insufficient buffering proposed for residents. 5. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a), (b) and PO6 of the Driveways and Parking Code as insufficient car parking has been provided to accommodate the number and type of vehicles likely to be generated by the development. 6. The proposal does not comply with performance and acceptable outcome PO6, AO6.1 of the Water Quality and Drainage Code as the site discharges into Lake Doonella which is of high ecological value and it has not been demonstrated the development will not cause an increase in gross pollutants, total suspended solids, total phosphorous or total nitrogen compared to a predevelopment scenario as required. 7. There is no Planning need for the site to be developed for the proposed community activity given there are other approved medical and health centres that are yet to establish and other areas where the use could locate consistent with the scheme’s zoning pattern. 8. The site ought to be retained for housing, with lots of this potential rare in Noosa Shire. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY JULY 2023 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Finzel provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on 5 March 2020, Mr Peter Butt who is an applicant listed in the ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 delegated report (applicant no.1) donated $1666.66 to my 2020 Election Campaign where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as 'Future Noosa' (which is no longer an entity). Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the decision has already been made under delegated authority and the report is for noting only. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Finzel and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Finzel participates and votes on this matter because the decision has already been made under delegated authority and the report is for noting only. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel did not vote on this motion. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Manager, Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the report of the Planning & Environment Committee dated 12 September 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 8.3. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Tom Wegener Councillor Karen Finzel ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Acting Director Infrastructure Services, Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Councillor Clare Stewart COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACT NO. CN00344 - PROVISION OF CONCRETE CRUSHING SERVICES That Council note the report by the Waste Coordinator to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 12 September, 2023 and: A. Award Contract No. CN00344 Provision of Concrete Crushing Services to Rosenlund Contractors Pty Ltd for an initial term of up to two (2) years, commencing 25 September 2023 and expiring 24 September 2025 with an option to extend for three (3) further periods of up to twelve (12) months each. The option to extend will be at Council’s own discretion and subject to the Contractor’s ability to meet the requirements under the Contract. B. Authorise the CEO to negotiate the final contract with Rosenlund Contractors Pty Ltd. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the report of the Services and Organisation Committee meeting dated 12 September 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 8.4. GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT - 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Frank Wilkie (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Brian Stockwell Councillor Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 APOLOGIES Nil. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. 131998.981211.5 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, COOTHARABA (Referred from Planning and Environment Committee dated 12 September 2023 - Item 5.3). In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Tom Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Tom Wegener inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest, upon request to staff for the permaculture report which was mentioned in the applicant's submission, it was revealed that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. As the president of the community group Permaculture Noosa, I have learned from Tom Kendall and visited his permaculture property. However, he is not a personal friend and I do not socialise with him outside of our common interest of Permaculture. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wegener and determine Cr Wegener can participate and vote on this matter because Council believes that as Mr Kendall is not a close associate and that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Wegener did not vote on the above motion. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. 131998.981211.5 for an Other Change to Development Approval (12637DA) - Integrated Permaculture Designed Organic Orchard and Golf Course Complex (18 holes) to include Group Farm Stay Accommodation (undefined use) and associated supporting infrastructure (maximum 299 beds), situated at 59 Kabi Rd Cootharaba and note that the Applicant has stopped the current period. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 6.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2023 That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 outlining August 2023 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. 6.3. YEAR IN REVIEW - 2022/23 That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 providing a review of Council’s progress in the 2022/23 financial year towards achieving the five key focus areas set out in Council’s Corporate Plan and thank Council staff for their efforts in the last twelve months to progress so many significant projects and providing outstanding service to our community. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACT NO. CN00209 - CLEANING OF OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC AMENITIES That Council note the report by the Parks & Gardens Coordinator – to the General Committee 18 September 2023 and A. Award Contract No. CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities to the contractors nominated in the Parks & Gardens Coordinator report to the General Committee 18 September 2023. B. Award Contract No. CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities for an initial term of up to two (2) years, commencing 23 October 2023 and expiring 22 October 2025 with an option to extend for three (3) further periods of up to twelve (12) months each. The option to extend will be at Council’s own discretion and subject to the Contractor’s ability to meet the requirements under the Contract. C. Authorise the CEO to negotiate the final contract with the four (4) suppliers as listed. 7.2. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D14 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (20 UNITS) - MCU22/0031 & OPERATIONAL WORKS CLEARING OF VEGETATION - OPW22/0062 AT 11C CHURCH STREET, POMONA That Council note the report by the Manager Development & Regulation to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 regarding regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D14 0f 2023 and: A. Agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 conditions outlined in Attachment B. Include the following property note on the lots: 1. To ensure the safety of people and property on this property is maintained, all buildings and structures must be sited and/or constructed in accordance with the bushfire management conditions of Council Approval MCU22/0031 and associated Operational Work approvals. 7.3. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - 2122Q125 – CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGMENT SERVICES FOR 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Meeting Dated 18 September, and endorse the CEO to execute all documents and undertake all things necessary to: A. Give effect to the novation of contract 2122Q125 from Erscon Pty Ltd to NorthLane Pty Ltd; and; B. Increase the value of contract 2122Q125 by $1,236,055.20 (GST exc.) from $2,100,000.00 (GST exc.) to $3,336,055.20 (GST exc.), and the period until 31 July 2024. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the report of the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution Carried unanimously. 9. ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS Nil. 10. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 11. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil. 12. NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 26 October 2023 at 5.00pm. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 2023 13. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 7.06pm
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:01.980
Okay, welcome everybody to the Ordinary Meeting for Thursday the 21st of September. I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi People, pay respect to elders past, present and emerging. Note not at all. That councillors and Mayor Clare has requested to attend this meeting via Microsoft Teams. To allow this, I would like to move that in accordance with section 254K of the Local Government Regulation. Councillor Stewart is approved to attend the Ordinary Meeting dated 21st September 2023 via Microsoft Teams. May I have a seconder please? Happy to second that. Any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. Welcome Mayor clear. Thank you, thank you Mr Chair. As Mayor clear is attending via Microsoft Teams, I'm chairing tonight in her place. Can I please have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 17th of August 2023.17th abbotty- Twenty-second of a certain dose. Stockwell, senator, Councillor Finzel, all in favour? Thank you. There are no... Yes. There are no Mayoral minutes. I have a petition to present on behalf of 148 signatories submitted by Joyce Carolyn Brumley. I'll read out the substance of her petition. She writes, I'm the property owner of 191 Mary River Road, Cooroy 4563. I share access to my property with 201 Mary River Road and 10 worley court via worley court. Access in and out of my property has been restricted for over two years now and attempts to ensure my free access have been unsuccessful. The restriction is due to uncontrolled parking by customers of a busy roadside stall, Food & Drink Outlet located at 201 Mary River Road. The numbers of cars parked along the road verge road shoulder into my property blind spots, rural fire brigade, as well as cars pulling into the roadside stall, while other cars travel by at 8 o 'clock kilometres an hour pose a daily risk. This risk especially applies to my school aged children who must cross the road five times a week to catch the school bus at the rural fire station. Free access to a home is a basic human right. My children also have rights road. Unfortunately some of the drivers turning into the businesses do not keep a proper lookout. In Queensland there is a law that drivers must give way to pedestrians crossing the road to which their vehicles are turning. This right applies whether or not there are stop signs, give way signs or traffic lights. As such we the undersigned humbly and respectfully petition council to act upon the problems mentioned. We hope that this humble petition meets your kind consideration. I'd like to move that this petition be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine the appropriate action. I second the cast of this one. Gressley. I believe Councillor Finzel has a second petition? As a vote, that's unanimous. Thank you. Karen Finzel 03:05.051
Okay. I present this petition today with 24 signatories submitted by Howard Sandison on behalf of...can we move that little thing? Of the owners and residents of pines avenue and morning glory avenue Cooroibah requesting that council consider undertaking major fire hazard reduction and the removal of large trees on the nature strip to be received and referred to the chief officer to determine the appropriate action. Amelia Lorentson 03:45.056
I'll put you second. Frank Wilkie 03:49.336
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour, let's carry the unanimous thank you, Mr. Seymour. There are no notified motions. We have two deputations tonight. The first deputation is from Mr. Mitch Robson, Mr. Matthew nofty and Mr. Greg wood. Mr. Robson, would you like to come nofty is going to come up first, if that's all right. Yes. We have 15 minutes allocated for your deputation. You have the floor. Thank you. You're entitled. Matthew 04:24.490
Meet you. Hello. My name is Matthew nofty. I'm from kipkula makool, and the three of us are here to speak with you in regards to the Cooloola great walk ecotourism proposal. You may be asking yourself, what does the proposal have to do with Noosa Council? We are more than aware that this project is being delivered by the State government, but over the years that this project has been developed, Noosa Council has been given opportunities to provide feedback and can still give feedback. This is evident through Noosa council's 2019 submission and then also as Noosa Council has been listed as a key stakeholder in the State government's 2020 consultation activities document. Noosa news on. Council's also met with cavan, the selected tenderer, yet for some reason Noosa Council has not met with the Noosa community, the people that they represent. In regards to the proposal, I believe that we have all been misled, led down the garden path. Park. The main structural problem with Cooloola great walk ecotourism proposal is that it failed miserably in its community consultation. This has led to less than mediocre outcomes and has resulted in major transparency issues. If the State government had genuinely included the community in its decision process from day one, this proposal could have provided great environmental outcomes for the park and genuine opportunities for Kabi people. Many people live in Noosa because of the natural environment and we are incredibly lucky to be surrounded by such pristine and accessible natural landscapes. Us yes, these are only available now because of the tireless work by certain community members that stood up for parks protection. Every year urban development slowly erodes our green space but luckily we have national parks to act as a buffer zone. After years campaigning the most common response we get from people who hear about the proposal for the first time is how can they do this it is a national park. National parks are a place for nature to thrive. They are places that are free from commercial pressures and infrastructure development. Degrading developments. Well after speaking with many of your fellow constituents that is what they believe but unfortunately they are mistaken that is what national parks should be and we believe that you can help to better as currently the legislation that is supposed to protect national parks is obviously simply and plainly not good enough. This proposal has been presented as being necessary to address current degradation within the national park. We lowered the bar down so far that in order to fix degradation within the park, we first have to agree to degrading the park. This proposal has also been presented as being to the First Nations people. You don't have to look very far to realise that this is simply not true. These hollow misrepresentations by the State government don't only cover up the real issue, they distract us away from the simple fact that developments and unnecessary commercial pressures have no place in national parks. I that moves the drawn into these false narratives and are possibly circulating incorrect historical information that has been used to justify the great war proposal. Therefore, I would again like to perform a request that the Noosa Council CEO please meet with us to discuss these possible historical inconsistencies. I would like to finish with a rhetorical question. When did it become acceptable for government departments to marginalise people for wanting to protect the environmental values of a national park? Shutting people out of proposals and decision-making processes that will clearly impact them is not the kind of governance we should be accepting in the 21st century. It only radicalises people as it forces them to jump up and down, make noise to be heard. It's such a waste of energy. Leads to transparency issues which opens the door to corruption. We can do better, the community needs conversations and consultation. This is the only way to achieve successful outcomes for the environment and the people who live here. Mitch would now like to speak with you about the precise nature of the problem we are all facing. Sincerely thank you for your time. Mitch Robson 08:30.240
You. Hi, I'm Mitch. I grew up in Noosa. I was living in Tasmania when I first heard about this development plan that's being voiced upon Cooloola national park, which is a really important place for me. I was speaking to some friends of mine. They told me about it. I couldn't believe that it was actually possible that a national park could be, you know, set aside development basically in private leases and so on. So as I started getting involved in the campaign, I came back up here and I learned more about it. And frankly, it's a sickeningly corrupt idea. One of the shocking elements of the development plan is the stealth and distortion which are being employed to cover up the plan's real form and impact. Sorry, I'm not much of a public speaker, so bear with me. I've since been assisting the community effort to promote the reality of the plan and that has been, you know, formally projected around the plan. As I do this, I'm stunned by how few people know anything about this plan. We talk to people all the time. We canvass people at markets, at the area, Tewantin, other places. You know, 95% of people do not know that this is happening and they don't want it to occur when they do find out. So the basic fact with the great walk development plan is that it secures private site leasing within Cooloola for development of commercial tourist accommodation at you know, industrial scale. Five different sites right up the guts of the park, including sacred sites for Kabi Kabi People. Strip bare of its PR terms like eco-cabin and all that kind of nonsense, this is private property development inside a local national park, full stop. That basic fact and the impacts are evidently flowed directly from it, are what upsets everyone when they do hear about this proposal. A clear view of the project shows that it is in direct and fatal conflict with the cardinal principle of national park management in the State. The cardinal principle is to preserve the natural and cultural values of national parks. The development's priority is to create a commercially profitable operation by exploiting those natural and cultural values instead of preserving them. Construction upon lease sites within the park will necessarily displace and degrade those key natural and cultural values. This impact is magnified by the choice of development sites that maximise product value and do not minimise impact. As I mentioned, sacred sites, lake coorna, Double Island Point, the last undeveloped headland in South East Queensland, three other ones up in the middle of the park, including Noosa River. The development's priority is basically to create a commercially profitable operation. That's what it's about. And it exploits those key areas. And this equation sits in fundamental and dire conflict with the carbon principle, as I mentioned. Those market-driven... Conflict actions include opening up of intact closed canopy forests in mature coastal areas, leading to increased sunlight, site desiccation, pathogens, weed ingress, and disturbed environment general. The gutting of in site that you vegetation assemblages, including varomia, which I might just add is obviously the emblem of the Noosa Council, and the Cooloola Sedge Frog. Now, you know, these species have intrinsic value, and they deserve to have a home that is free from the commercial pressures which have destroyed and ravaged the rest of the country. That's what a national park is. That's what a protected area is. The other problems with this this issue is that there are reckless and even deceitful placements of these luxury units under large trees that have been tagged for retention but are thereby doomed to canopy grooming and the removal of know the other to mitigate litigation basically in future the degrading of the experience of existing great walk users Matt and I went into the park a couple of weeks ago and we checked out some of the sites there are a lot liaisons. Of lies and spin this proposal one of them is that it won't affect the existing amenity of the great walk because it won't be visible from the track we have video evidence of it being definitely visible from the track so that's just one experience one example out of so this conflicted many. Situation situation diminishes and effectively destroys a cardinal principle in Cooloola and by extension potentially other national parks in Queensland this loss of core principle will constitute a massive change to the purpose and function of Cooloola itself and again potentially Lula all of our national parks. It is being progressed under a cover of a number of demonstrably false, misleading and highly divisive narratives. For example one of the things about this development plan is the ILUA that is in place. Now there are many projects across Australia that should not go go ahead in which many people agree that they should not go ahead like the adani Carmichael mine. It has an ILUA in place. Native title can be used to divide aboriginal communities which generally happens and it can impact and advance issues that are bad for the environment but I get put forward under the cover of the ILUA. So that's what's happening here and that's why people are upset about it and we're seeking civic leadership on this issue. Thank you. Greg Wood 14:25.200
thank you. I'm Greg wood. I'm a long-term resident of Rainbow Beach. I'm all the way down here representing concerns of large numbers of recent residents about the long-term future of national park. Now these concerns are validated within hundreds of submissions of objection put forward by them to this proposal that are documented in our records. It's also constituted a or substantiated in the results of a recent poll by Sandy Bolton, where an overwhelming majority responded in opposition, rejecting any commercial accommodation development. Not commercial operations, commercial accommodation development within kooloola national park. It is just objectionable to most people. So we know that. Now, I'm now, what should not be controversial? It shouldn't be controversial that Noosa residents this way. What should be controversial? Feel is that this program is progressing intentionally without the informed participation and consent of this local community, and that is happening. It's been going for a number of years, and as we find out from our routine involvement with people, an incredibly large number of people, a proportion of people, the majority of people, by a vast number, have never heard about it. And those that have, have some rather confused ideas about some quite simple and very vital aspects, because the information is not clear. Around simple matters, the information is not clear, and it's obscure. The fact is the Noosa community was at the forefront of creating Cooloola. The park wouldn't exist without the efforts of this community in the past that worked to preserve the internationally significant natural and cultural values of that Cooloola landscape. Effort to create a national park was envisaged to protect those values with the cardinal principle. That's what it was. We want a national park because we want the cardinal principle. Those people fought for is the cardinal principle and what has now been quietly taken away is the cardinal principle and it just seems okay if we want to do that it should be a matter of consent and open informed consent not by subterfuge which is what most people get upset about apart from the fact of it happening when they understand what is happening so you know those people that created this didn't envisage Cooloola being a platform for upmarket tourism accommodation within the surrounding sea of thickening urban development you know these places are a respite not an extension of the norm and we're seeing this invasion of a commercial function which once it gets in there has a relentless and understandable need to expand profit and we're seeing already with the site choices intrusion upon nature for the of product development and and that's the kind of thing we don't want in there. It's a new cane tie for the park. So our community action has sought to address this omission of community involvement and understanding and awareness and look we're just simply here to ask council's consideration of assisting with that core democratic simple function, just the basic function of democratic involvement of people on an informed and what do you call it, complicated view of a the facts. Now council has taken an interest and a role in this current development by submission that was approved in the General Committee of 12 of August 19. To now notably this formal input was based on a report by the council's Manager Economic Development and Destination Management and it was also based on no available site specific information or project detail at that time. So you know it was what it was. Review now it would seem that a review of that original submission is warranted having full regard to the full extent of information now available as well as the critical deficiency in that specification so far down the track. There's so many things that an infrastructure manager for any kind of project will go where's that detail? I haven't got it yet. But they must have it, that's where you start. No, they make it up as they go along and that's the problem. And also the extent of community concern arising from the project which would we believe extend beyond the realm of just the economic so just that the original submission had concern that only disturbed site areas would be used as development sites. Well, the plan details indicate that's been completely breached, absolutely completely breached. Okay, Greg, one minute. One minute, yeah, thank you. So I also note council's Destination Management Plan Discussion Paper where in council states its governance roles to include community leadership, educator, advocate, advocator, lobbying and advocacy to other levels of government. We are simply asking council to act in those ways. Just for the limited, I mean, you're great if you took a position, but you don't need to. We just ask for those leadership and education and advocacy roles in the construct of helping guide an equitable and involved public conversation around this topic. To that extent we've got a few questions and we'll give you a hard copy of all of this. We'd wish to endorse a public forum scoped to ventilate an accurate account of the project function as critical details in the attended issues of community concern, review its standing submission to the great walk. Managers, meet in a suitable delegation with community representatives to consider a way forward on the above points, an appropriate concentrated meeting to consider items published by council that appear to be wrong in fact and possibly injurious to parties disaffected by that error, Matthew mentioned that in his statement, and also the opportunity to undertake some site community representatives to see first hand what these issues on the ground are that are completely wrapped in rhetoric and euphemism within the boilerplate that's coming out of the government. Frank Wilkie 20:34.161
So that's it. Thank you, Greg. Thank you, Mitch. Thank you for my slight overrun. Greg Wood 20:38.821
Thank you, Matthew. It's all right. You'll be sending us a copy of those. I'll give you some hard copies now, because everyone likes to take something home. We've only got five. But, you know, but we'll send a digital copy through as well. Frank Wilkie 20:52.602
Thank you, Glenn. Thank you, Mitch. Thank you, Matthew. Next we have a deputation from Mr Nick Cooke. Yeah. Yeah. Mr cook, the floor is yours for 15 minutes. Thank you. Nick Cooke 21:06.425
So, good evening. My name is Nick and I'm here tonight to speak as a concerned for my resident place. Promoter about the placemaking study that has been thrust upon Pomona. I followed the study pretty closely. I've engaged in the process. I've engaged with the staff responsible for running it and unfortunately I've identified several issues with the consultation itself. This is very problematic considering this is one of the biggest town planning exercise Pomona has faced in years and to have inadequate consultation is a red flag. The report to council from the placemaking committee back in February stated the placemaking must monitor evaluate and report on the implementation and progress of the Placemaking Program and here we are six weeks in and I don't feel like that's happening I haven't seen it happening at least I haven't seen it happening from staff or council. So I'm here today to address those issues bring them to your attention particularly these issues around communication, consultation, notification, transaction notification. Transparency and scrutiny of the actual process itself. I have a so lot of I'm time going to just go across some of the main ones I've identified. Particularly the communication and notification. The communication with residents so far has largely been inadequate. The communication with residents so far has largely been inadequate. So many people in Pomona really don't know what's going on. It seems to be two Pomona. You've got the people who have no idea the placemaking is even happening and then the other camp where they know it's happening but they can't tell you what it's about, they can't articulate it, they don't know what's going on and it's creating angst in the community. If you ask most residents in you'll find they'll say we don't want Pomona to change, we want it to stay the same. And to have a project like this come forward with very vague descriptions and not really clear and concise information, it adds to that angst. So, the other issue is the fact that there hasn't, or appears there hasn't been any consultation with the community to actually select Pomona as the pilot town. I see that it seems to be it was decided in the council meeting. So, the other issue is the fact that there hasn't, or appears there and that if you ask the people of Pomona, do you want to be studied as the guinea pig for Noosa? They would say no. And so I think that needs to be considered you place. Making study has been in the works for years from the research I've done, and in fact, the committee report stated that it was included in the 2019 2020 budget. And there was also a placemaking workshop in 2022. So that's been in the works for years. But when it was released to the community for community consultation, we got approximately one week's notice. And those consultation events were crammed into two days, Friday and Saturday. Council have obviously recognised those problems. And they've extended the consultation to the 8th of October, originally the 24th. But this is reactive and and placemaking should never be reactive, it should be comprehensive at the beginning and it shouldn't be six weeks in already have these issues. And these issues only identified by residents themselves. Some of them like for example, on Friday, there was a Friday three o 'clock on a Friday. And had no location online. So no one even knew where to turn up to that was quietly changed on the website after I made complaints. There was nothing online of where to get a hard copy survey that was again quietly changed on the website after the fact. Since then have added another sketching workshop, another walk shop through the town and two pop-ups, one at the market and one at the Noosa show which was problematic in itself because it's essentially behind a paywall where you have to pay to enter the show to engage in the consultation which doesn't constitute equitable access. Again it's reactive. To add these things after concerns have been raised that should have been raised at the beginning should have been identified at the beginning. One of the other issues a lot of residents are saying is that it's concerning that most of the consultation information is online only mostly online. It should have really been sent to residents by post day one. You know, because this excluding people in Pomona that don't have internet access. And people, you know, they know that Pomona is an age population, the liveability survey showed a large section are over 65. In fact, two thirds of Pomona are over 45 years old, and a large section are over 65. And so it's not inclusive, it's not, it removes their ability to engage. They don't even know about it, which I'm finding and speaking to people. Also, the consultation documents are not freely available to all. For example, this Pomona place plans walkshop booklet. It's actually quite a good consultation booklet. It's 16 pages long and it goes through Pomona street by street. Yet this isn't made available to everyone. You only get access to this. If go the workshop and if you actually register, which places are limited, so even if it did have good turnout, which it didn't, the one I went to only had five community members there. Only a small section have access. That should be online and everyone should be encouraged you can't and there's only a couple of weeks left for the consultation. The other issue is this testing of new governance structures. Pomona has been selected to pilot this new governance structure that there's not much information out there. It's also not included in any of the consultation information. It's not discussed at the consultations in discussions with the consultants, I found out that it would be a committee that would be representing Pomona, and it would be more than a reference group, and it would be actioning projects on the ground, which sounds great, but there's questions around it, how it will be selected, will council be selecting them, will there be conflicts of interests, will there be registers, will there be checks and balances on that? Questionable. And will it will it still be subject to counsel council determinations and you know not subvert the democratically elected councillors. The other issue which I would say is probably one of the major ones is who is responding to this consultation and how can council actually determine who's responding there's no mechanism in place to determine the identity or location of the respondents this is concerning when because it opens up the consultation to outside and it is unwarranted when Pomona is under the microscope with the South East Queensland regional plan basically Queensland might focus on Pomona has been earmarked for development so you've got external influences that want to get into Pomona you've got town planning, construction companies, developers. One example of the outside influence is the QUT student study. This has been happening in Pomona for years I think about nine years and the students come in and they reimagine the town and places and buildings. It's great for the students. But this year I don't think it's going to be great for the people of Pomona because it hasn't been a subject to community consultation and it is it's well at the last was it the sketching workshop Lorentson said that should be working with who was it the Brian O'Connor from the Pomona chamber of commerce to work to get these students projects inserted into the placemaking study it's absolutely concerning and it shouldn't happen because again it was not the result of the community consultation the QUT students works were actually they didn't have a limitation on what they could do it was open to whatever they did like some of the students could you could do it a zipline into Pomona you could have a big theme park it was designed for an academic exercise not necessarily for implementation in Pomona so I think that needs to stop if there's any plans in there to incorporate that's that's an example of the outside influence. Frank Wilkie 28:47.861
You can attempt to comment so that it doesn't personally target any individual in this room. Nick Cooke 28:53.521
Okay that was the rationale for raising it. Yeah okay. Because I've always been told it's an academic exercise. There's no right of reply, it's an unfair form. Okay well in general no councillors should be working to include any of these works into the placemaking study without consultation with the people. Well at all actually because the actual study itself was not a result of community consultation. The other problem with the outside influence is the day after this QUT study, the students coming to town, a company called built environment collective posted the Pomona community board online. Sorry Nick, I think the was that in dispute point Councillor lies that was the case. That's an incorrect statement. Okay, so i'll retract the statement and i'll clarify that. Built environment collective, yep, so they're a town planning company, done lots of big projects across Australia and they put this post in community board asking the community what they wanted and people in Pomona, not unsurprisingly, objected to it, asked, "What are you doing? What's your interest in Pomona? " And they said the placemaking study had quite peaked out interest, so another example of an outside company from Brisbane, that has an interest in this placemaking study and without any mechanism to determine the location or identity of respondents, it's basically open to be driven in the direction of economic interests. So that's another example of an so quickly moving on, the other issue is identifying and communicating with key stakeholders. There's been a bit of a lack of transparency around this. There hasn't been a list of key stakeholders released to the people to know who his council is liaising with. The other thing is that I don't know if community groups have been adequately identified. For example, safe news of hinterland, which you know that I'm a committee member of, we have over 600 members in relation to the impacts of the Kin Kin quarry, yet we weren't stakeholder. Ironically, the quarry situation is a result of bad town planning, and I would have thought that we would have been included originally without even having to be asked, but we are included now, after demanding it. Problem is, we're not being offered the same consultation as other community groups, for example, the Pomona district chamber of commerce, who had a private consultation with council and cred consulting, the consultancy company doing this, and after asking in emails, I I seem to get the staff to agree to this, which is inequitable access to this consultation to afford one group special privileges and not others is inappropriate, and I'm going to be putting that in writing as a proper complaint. I've already written complaints to the staff involved but it hasn't really been taken seriously so far. What I've learnt about this is that it seems that some community groups are more overly represented than others asked with private meetings and also the fact that this placemaking study was a result of lobbying from a certain group. I don't know how much time I've got but I might skip this part and go straight to the last part which is four minutes okay a lot of community concerns about Pomona becoming a smart city or a-minute city 15 sitting. This is not out of the question. When the placemaking information online states that the pilot location for this placemaking study must align with the council plan strategies and resources and it cites the Corporate Plan and if you go to the Corporate Plan it specifically mentions smart city and smart biosphere town planning aspects too for innovation to transform the way we move around engage in the community so if you type in placemaking and 15 minute cities and smart cities you get tons and tons of results and it's it's clear that they are related these concepts are related and I think what needs to happen is there needs to be more transparency from council is Pomona going to have these smart city town planning concepts involved with this study or at all which also then flows on to the rest of the community because Pomona is the pilot and what we learn from this study will be applied to the rest of the Shire next is believe Kin Kin and Tewantin so that's something that council needs to address and be really upfront with the people uh is it going to be a smart city what is smart city as defined in the town plan and will it be applied to this lastly to finish the recommendations from all of this that I've followed I think in light of all these concerns the placemaking study needs to be suspended immediately we need to go back to the drawing board review the whole processes the concerns I've raised and improve the adequacy of explanation to the community the notification and the consultation itself I think one of the best ways to do this is a town hall meeting to clearly explain the placemaking study in unsimple terms in very simple terms and field questions from the community this should hopefully address angst that is around the community of Pomona I think we need to implement mechanisms to confirm respondents identity and location that's for all submissions that includes say in this workshop which has no way to put your name on it that's in the survey any even the stickers in in the consultations at the pop-ups also I think council needs to undertake a liveability survey for Pomona itself. The liveability survey was done in 2021 November right before the mandates right in the peak of the pandemic. We had 1,600 respondents in a town of what 60,000 people and we're drawing the base values to inform the survey from that and I think there needs to be one specific to Pomona especially when Pomona is the guinea pig. We need to you properly engage the key stakeholders as previously mentioned and provide equitable access to consultations. You need to review the dependents and the influence of specific not-for-profits that seem to have a disproportionate say in this whole study. Make a list of key public. Review the staff that are involved with this placemaking study and the way they have addressed your complaints to date which has not been adequate. You need to post a placemaking pack out to the residents. It needs to include all the info, all the surveys, all this booklet here that doesn't seem to be available so that people who don't have computers or internet can easily engage. And finally, I think councillors need to be more involved in the active scrutinising of this study, especially because it's a pilot and we're sort of learning as we move forward. We can't just rely on council staff. We're going to need every Councillor keep an eye on this and make sure like we're six weeks in and these issues are pretty concerning. The placemaking study can be real positive for Pomona but only if it's done correctly, if due process is followed, if everyone has equitable access and if the consultation is adequate. So the real point of this consultation for deputation is to call for suspension and review and immediate action to remedy the issues I've presented today Thank you. For your Frank Wilkie 36:08.956
Personal perspective on that process Thank you. For your personal perspective on a lot of issues there anything you wanted to respond to Larry Sengstock 36:18.875
Yes this is a deputation but just the council I respect the fact that this is a personal opinion from Mr cook and and he's got to be right to say that but I think that particularly to single out a Councillor and make a point of that is not fair. There is no right of reply and I think that that's something that has retracted but I think it's still something that should be made and addressed as I am right now. In terms of this was Pomona was selected through a council process as you know it's been through this room and before that selection so it has been a process. In terms of the activities that are going on out there in terms to elicit responses from the community there's been the Friday social sizzle on the 25th of August. There's come to a pop-up event on Friday the 25th, Saturday the 26th at different times. Friday the 8th, Friday the 22nd, Saturday the 23rd. From other markets, different places, different times to try to make sure that we do get a good cross-section of the community and we can only do what we can do in terms of getting the community to come along to these events and make them available to them. Walkshops Saturday the 26th and Friday the 27th. 22nd of September. Again in different places at the Pomona district community house and Joe Bazzo Park. The Pomona urban sketching workshop. Frank Wilkie 37:52.735
Is this in line with an education? Larry Sengstock 37:55.275
This is on speaking to my council if you don't mind Mr cook. This is doc. Not an interaction. Frank Wilkie 38:01.702
What have we done in terms of public consultation out there? Larry Sengstock 38:06.202
And then Saturday the 26th of August and Saturday the two different times of the 26th of August for that. And then on Saturday the 23rd of August there's a to come. So there's more consultation happening. And then there's also a separate workshop of all community organisations as Mr cook alluded to the end of October with the date to be confirmed. So there's quite a lot of activity that's been going on. I just wanted to make that point. Mr cook if you email us your deputation we'll get a formal reply. Frank Wilkie 38:38.706
Thank you all right alright. We're now up to item eight, consideration of committee reports. As Mayor Clare will need to leave this meeting by 6:30 tonight, she'd like to be present for the following report. We're going to bring forward item 6.1 which is the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan from the General Committee report. It will be dealt with as the first item on tonight's agenda. Councillor Stockwell competent interest to declare? I have. Brian Stockwell 39:07.442
Of course. Thank you very much. Declareable conflict, as provided in my written declaration, though I won't be beginning as I've been through this chamber many times before, I do request that I remain in the meeting room to participate in the decision. Thank you. Councillor Joe? Joe Jurisevic 39:23.464
I'll move that council note the declareable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine Councillor Stockwell participates. In this matter because Councillor luce is a reasonable person who trusts the final decision is made in the public interest. Do you have a second to that please? I second that. Councillor Wegener, Councillor Joe? I do so on the basis of this being a consistent position the councillors had with regard to this conflict in the past. Any other discussion? Frank Wilkie 39:54.087
Put it to the vote. That in favour? Brian Stockwell 39:56.367
That's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Another conflict of interest? Yes; I have a conflict of interest in this matter in my long standing relationship with coordinator committee which once again is within the written declaration that I read out on Monday and have read out similar ones previously so I won't read it again. I will request that I remain room to in the meeting participate in the decision. Joe Jurisevic 40:26.782
I'll once again move that council notes the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on the matter because council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to gain personally and materially through noting this report and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public. Thank you. Do we have a seconder for that please? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Jo. I'm on. Once again I do so on the basis of being consistent with decisions made in the past on this declaration of a conflict of give why can't I stop her? Interest by Councillor Stockwell. Frank Wilkie 40:56.452
Any yeah, hello. Other any comments other from councillors? The vote goes in favour. That's unanimous and Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Brian Stockwell 41:04.643
I would like to move a motion. Yes, Councillor Stockwell. And it is a staff recommendation from the report to the general committee with an C. Additional item and i'll it. Read out that additional item C. Request that the CEO consult with relevant stakeholders group as part of staff's consideration of action 1.1 relating to a conservation park covering fish habitat areas. Frank Wilkie 41:31.811
I'll second that. I think it's important Brian Stockwell 41:39.251
Important to understand where we're at and if I could have that. So in 2017 the council resolved to do a catchment management plan as a whole of catchment and to consult the community on it. In 2000 and in July, 20th of July. To August in 2018 there was a first round of consultation. You see one of the results of that consultation which highlights the priority of the community of the time. You see the high level of importance placed on managing pollution and litter running into the river, protecting wetlands, riparian areas and coastal areas and the third one there is about reducing sediment from upstream entering the river. Can we go to the next one, thank you. You also then had a second round of consultation between December 2019 and a month later. In 2020 this term of council we actually moved to establish the Noosa River advisory group and in the initial motion which was moved by Councillor Stewart similar to when I moved in the committee before and it identified that the purpose of that group was to be more broadly involved in the finalisation and the implementation of the Noosa River Plan and next one thanks. So we also said March 22 after a report from that Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee we also then had a motion that said that asking for a further report giving advice and recommendations of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee in regards to the relevant issues and proposals in the draft Noosa River Plan. So we've had a number of opportunities over a number of years for the community engagement. I do however have to think that it's important if there's something in that where we've come to and where staff have got to, to give the opportunity for those stakeholders to be involved in the further development of the proposals. The one that appears to have got some groups interested that they they'd like to get their head around is the next one thanks is the proposal that I mentioned in the resolution so the areas of fish habitat now this is an excerpt of the map of the lower area you can see that fish habitat areas don't cover the whole river in fact a lot of the area that's most use are not in fish habitat areas you can see the areas where the stakeholder advisory group spent a lot of time with council staff and MSQ to look at the better management in terms of boating in terms of mooring in terms of liveaboards is in the area outside the fish habitat whereas the proposal in action 1.1 is about those fish habitat areas and if I can it's really to note that these are protected areas if you look here from the State government they're part of the global marine protected area initiative okay they are about high productivity estuarine and coastal fishery habitats that are cleared and mapped and therefore protecting fish such as mangroves salt marshes seagrass sandbars mud banks rocky outcrops but allow legally legal commercial recreation indigenous fishing okay they also had some restrictive elements in terms of development around so what's different between a fish habitat and what we're proposing in the conservation park in the original draft in 2018 there was proposals about what are the options for council to get more involved in the management of the river and in the interim time we've looked at lots we've looked at something like the Gold Coast water waste management authority and discounted we looked at things like creating a Noosa River improvement trust under the but it's sort of not a great fit we've looked at other options like marine park zoning or marine zoning under the MSQ legislation they all just don't quite fit so this is quite the proposal which is only going to be considered is really quite an elegant solution because it says in those areas that are already protected I go to the next slide we want to be involved in that and that's what it says that the 1.1 is the action but there's a descriptor here it talks about a conservation prep park represents various opportunities in terms of compliance support to state agencies attracting funding and investment for wetland and riparian management, scientific monitoring and biodiversity interventions. Council potentially having more responsibility in saving the management of the river and providing an education awareness piece to drive greater community ownership of focus on biodiversity. And protection of species habitat within and adjacent to the conservation park. It's really important, but the only real add on other than the part that it gives council a seat at the table is in terms of it talks about providing opportunities for educational recreational activities in a way that's consistent, it's really just a layer that will give us a head of power to start doing some of the things that we'd like to do. And it's really just a it needs more understanding. Of the community, hence why I put in C, that as part of that consideration that we do do a round of consultation with stakeholders with an interest in that. I think it's important to do that properly and at the right time. Don't I think the next month is the right time. I think when we're actually considering it is more important to do it. I don't think trying to squash it into the next month is where we should be at. On the other hand, on Monday we have to do a council submission on the South East Queensland waterways river investment initiative which will lead into the Resilient Rivers that's up to $40 approach. Million dollars. Funding across South East Queensland and what's required to access that fund? We need to have an endorsed catchment action plan. So that is why I believe it's really important both to respect the committee and stakeholders have an interest in learning more, doing that at the appropriate time, but making sure we've given staff the go-ahead that those actions that relate to works that can start now is there and is agreed upon. I think it's really important... Important to note that what's in the proposal is very consistent with what has occurred over the last six years since we moved it in terms of where the community puts priorities, and I think that the addition of C will address some of the concerns that were talked about at the General Committee. Frank Wilkie 48:09.465
Councillor Stockwell, would the Councillor speak to the motion? I have some questions. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 48:14.145
My first question is how much funding is potentially at risk by us not having a river plan, and when are the deadlines for funding? Frank Wilkie 48:25.036
Good question. Kim Rawlings, are you able to assist with that, please? Kim Rawlings 48:35.956
Through the Chair, there's various programs of funding, so there's a Resilient Rivers funding that is part of the central program, and that's 40 million dollars. That's over the next number of years. One of the requirements will be to have a catchment action plan in place. That program's not underway yet, but it is something that I don't have in terms of timing. We are just still being consulted on the strategy to input into that process. There are other funding programs available, so the QCoast2100 program, the disaster response funding, the urban rivers program through the climate council. There's a raft of funding available that we could be attracting that we need clear strategic plans around our priorities that are based on risk assessment and scientific information to be able to access those. They all at I don't have those time frames at hand. What I did share with you on Monday at General Committee Meeting is we do not, I wish I had the figures with me, but we do know catchments, like Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee have attracted significant funding well beyond what we have because they've had strong robust catchment management plans in place for that catchment for many years. That we need. Been able to leverage or access because we haven't had a clear catchment action plan in place. Amelia Lorentson 50:18.000
So does council need a formal river plan endorsed? Because my understanding that this is a live document and that we're continually going to be working on it. We're still, you know, the amendment is to request the CH to consult with relevant stakeholder groups as part of staff's consideration of action one. So we're still going to be consulting with stakeholders. It's not a complete formula. It's not a complete. Plan. Kim Rawlings 50:46.885
Absolutely. Like any of our plans, like our Environment Strategy or Housing Strategy, REL, you know, any plans we do. They're not complete the day you endorse them. They're actually, that's actually just the start. They actually don't, you know, there's a, this is a five year plan with a range of actions that need to be consulted on and absolutely, but what it does is it gives us a solid robust framework and Roadmap about what are the priorities, what are the things we're going to address, what outcomes we're wanting to achieve, whether it's a brown river plan, housing, whatever, that's what a good plan does. And a good plan... As you know, positions you well to attract funding when you've got clear indication of what your strategic priorities are and outcomes you're achieving. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 51:36.956
So the original motion that we moved at the General Committee, which defer the matter for the next round of meeting. So one month, does that jeopardise these funding deadlines? Kim Rawlings 51:50.502
Not necessarily. There's nothing that's due tomorrow or next week. Other than what I would say is we should have a catchment action plan in place for the Noosa River. It's taken many years to get to this point and we're so close and there are a range of opportunities, not just funding that we're not able to implement, but the sooner we can have that in place, the better. Clare Stewart 52:18.562
Excuse me, Councillor Wilkie. Yes, Mayor Stewart. Councillor Wilkie, I just want to clarify, I've just been on the text message to Scott Smith, the CEO of the Council of Mayors. I'm getting some clarification in regards to Councillor Lorentson's question. The question I posed was, do we have to have catchment a action plan to receive funding through Resilient Rivers? The answer was no, you don't. We would do a catchment action plan as part of our program so it doesn't have to be done by you before. So that's just been confirmed by the Council of Mayors, so funding isn't at risk. Brian Stockwell 52:55.373
Just a point of order on Standing Orders. The actions taken by the Mayor are actually contrary to Standing Orders. Frank Wilkie 53:02.293
I think it's relevant to the question... The discussion. And Kim Rawlings, you've got a response to that? Kim Rawlings 53:09.612
Yeah, that's not my understanding. So we're of the understanding that there needs to be catchment action plans in place to access the funding to deliver on yeah. Works. So that's pretty clear in the draft investment strategy. It's pretty clear on the website. So, yeah, that's not... Sorry, that's not staff's understanding. Yes, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 53:34.250
Thank you. I have a question Through the Chair to Councillor Stockwell. In your little speech just then, you raised this thing about the timeframe related to funding. Can you please clarify Brian Stockwell 53:45.696
Where you got this information from? The advice was we need to make a submission on the investment strategy by Monday. And when did you find Karen Finzel 53:53.856
Out, Councillor Stockwell? From the Director of... My question to you, Councillor Stockwell, is at what point did this come to your attention? When I answered this afternoon. So this afternoon, just prior to this meeting? Frank Wilkie 54:06.896
Yes. I have a question Through the Chair. Yes, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 54:11.949
To the staff, how long have they known that this deadline was in place? Because I have not heard about it prior to Councillor Stockwell making a comment. Kim Rawlings 54:21.207
We've been working on, as a collective, through the South East Queensland Council of Mayors offices around a whole range of regional issues. So there's been a number of the development the South East Queensland waterways investment strategy for the last number of months. We as offices were provided with a copy of the draft strategy, maybe one week ago with a request to provide some feedback and a submission on that actually by yesterday but we've said we've just got a lot on at the moment could we have till Monday so it's only just to happen Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 55:05.595
Through the Chair I have a question then to the councillors. Given we put forward a recommendation that was supported four to three and the vote the other day at our previous meeting um... Given that this information has only come to light how are you going to how are we going to discuss how we're going to move forward on this in terms of this is new brand new information that has come to the table now I wasn't aware of it before Councillor Stockwell had privy prior to this I'm wondering why it wasn't sent or did I get it on an email and I've missed and how we're going to proceed forward yeah just to be clear without are in a Kim Rawlings 55:54.783
Around providing imported process import as one of the councils into a South East Queensland overall strategy that is setting up a framework to determine and how the Resilient Rivers funding will be allocated so as part of that process as our understanding that catchment management plan needs to be developed that is not our submission into that strategy is not contingent on tonight's decision we that's a separate process we're providing input into that overarching strategy and we're also developing a catchment action plan what we presented to you on Monday that's in the council report is that having a catchment action plan clearly demonstrates that we'll be better positioned to access funding and there's a raft of funding that is available so let's not overly confuse those two those two tasks that are happening at the moment Frank Wilkie 56:55.305
And as Chair I should answer your question Councillor, things are on terms of process so the all the recommendations that passed as motions at the monday's General Committee Meeting only had the status of recommendations for tonight's meeting and every Councillor is your democratic right to pose an alternate motion or a new motion for each and every item on the agenda for tonight and in terms of how new information becomes apparent well for instance we've had since June 22nd this year when some of these new additions to the plan were brought to our attention in the council workshop to go up to council to staff seek information since Monday we've had three days to seek and ask questions of staff to find out information that pertinent to us as yeah is yeah it's up to the councillors to ask the questions of staff if they find them relevant Karen Finzel 57:58.157
Thank you Mr Chair for the clarification a question Through the Chair to the councillors what other councillors prior to this meeting this evening were aware of the deadline of this what's that called Through the Chair that's deadline for this application sorry yeah what is this deadline yes okay Through the Chair to Councillor Stockwell what is the name of um I don't know what is it called this deadline thing what's it called Kim Rawlings 58:30.577
It's called the South East Queensland waterways investment strategy have I got that right yeah um and um Councillor Stockwell asked me a question following what I said on Monday about funding opportunities and what's currently available and I provided some information verbally in response to his question no gave some information at the General Committee Meeting on Monday Councillor Finzel at this standing right here about funding opportunities and I made the reference to the Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee having a strong plan in place and using them as a comparison when they had a catchment plan in place to attract attract funding and there are a number of current opportunities around funding Councillor stockwell's asked me today can I tell them what they are I've told him what they are and I'm now to share that with you following questions here at the table okay thank you Joe Jurisevic 59:27.887
So just with regard to the deadline element that council Stockwell alluded to and that's what chance where council Finzel I think he's going to um what is contingent on monday's deadline for you to deliver on the strategic element of that with regard to the the river catchment management Kim Rawlings 59:44.714
Like I've said previously it's a it's a it's a separate process but what so it's irrespective of what's decided or not decided tonight what is contingent be still providing input into that solution thank you um separate processes they're linked only by the fact that it's our understanding because the documents say you need a catchment action plan in place that does a prioritisation process and a risk assessment ultimately to attract this funding. There's a link from that perspective but in terms of that's one SPEAKER_12 01:00:21.227
Does it was one one doesn't wonder one isn't conditional on the other thank you Karen Finzel 01:00:28.487
Thank you Through the Chair I'm just interested in knowing at what point did the staff know this deadline was tomorrow is it tomorrow Kim Rawlings 01:00:38.137
As just previously answered that we were advised last week to provide comments on the strategy by yesterday what point did the staff we've requested to have till Monday because of workload this week they've agreed to give us until Monday. Frank Wilkie 01:00:59.651
The councillors wish to speak to the motion, the substance of the motion before us. Clare Stewart 01:01:06.531
May the councillors wish to be able to do that. Different to needing to get our own in straight away. Would that be where the differentiation lies, so it's not as, the deadline's not as prudent? No, I'm Clare. Kim Rawlings 01:01:43.807
I'll need not sure Claire to have a look and i'll you know maybe give Scott a call yeah, Clare Stewart 01:01:48.116
Because I don't mean to be argumentary, but this is, you know, I just, this is what I'm getting. It might be different on the website. I've said to him, well, your website doesn't seem to say that. That's what I'm hearing. So I'm just not sure if it is as urgent as what we think, you know, or whether there is some flexibility there based on that information. But maybe that's something that we can take on notice for clarification. Kim Rawlings 01:02:11.440
I just wanted to add that there areas are east Queensland Council of Mayors that already have caps in place, and that's where the funding is starting to flow. So, the earlier that we can be prepared with this, it not just sets us up for a Resilient Rivers funding, it sets us up for other funding. So the point of making Frank Wilkie 01:02:39.432
Officer kimber's so, the point you're making, officer kimber, is that the sooner we have an endorsed Noosa management plan, the river catchment sooner you can prepare these submissions. Kim Rawlings 01:02:49.823
That's correct, for a whole raft of initiatives. Karen Finzel 01:02:52.603
Thank you, Through the Chair. One of the consequences, if we don't get this on time, given that we would like to further discuss going out to community for their say to support open transparency engagement, what are the consequences? That's correct, for a whole raft of initiatives. Of this deadline, say if we miss it because we go back to community to engage with them a little further to clarify what they needed? Kim Rawlings 01:03:22.896
So we're not going to miss this deadline because we're going submission on the strategy as officers into the process. We've been at workshops, we've been given opportunity and now we've been given a draft. So we're not going to miss the Monday deadline around that process. The difference is we providing that response without an endorsed plan from council. So it will be subject to officer impressions about what the priorities should be. And we'll be saying that if you know the consequence will be we'll be saying that we've draft got a plan that it's still subject to consideration by council and community and that you know once and if that's endorsed you know then we probably seek another opportunity to have provide further submission once that's endorsed Joe Jurisevic 01:04:14.198
Further question, based on what I've heard from the Mayor, mayor's response from Scott Smith is that the first course of action to be undertaken for funding would be to create a river does that catchment plan? Sound like that is what the response was reiterating? Kim Rawlings 01:04:34.600
Yeah, that's correct. And I just want to say Through the Chair to the Mayor that we can provide the reference which actually states that a cap is required as part of Resilient Rivers Initiative. Admittedly, it's not on their website. It's actually on the wetlands info website, but it talks about quite a structured process that councils need to go through in order to develop a cap. And luckily, because we've been doing this for so long, we're at the point where we can just to add to that, there are some catchments, other than ours, in the south east, they don't have catchment action plans. So some do, as Amy mentioned, and they've been able to input into the strategy because they've got catchment action plans. Are in development, like us, and some don't. So there are different, you know, we are all in different places. I guess our point is saying the sooner we've got a plan in place, the better positioned we are. Clare Stewart 01:05:37.267
Joe, just to clarify, from the text message I've got, and look, there's always the element of misunderstanding, unless it's, you know, verbatim, but the text message from Scott would, he said, these are his words, we would do a catchment action plan as part of our program so it doesn't have to be done by you before. Now, that may, it may be beneficial for do before, I'm not sure, but it doesn't have to be done. That was the words of him. He may not be au fait with the specifics, but I'm just reiterating what the information, that's the information that I've been provided with just for your clarification. Joe Jurisevic 01:06:14.508
Thank you, Mayor. My interpretation of what was there, though, is that the catchment action management plan is the first course of action to be undertaken. Clare Stewart 01:06:24.089
And his answer to that is that they would do it as part of their program, so we necessarily didn't have to have it done by us beforehand. This is just a text message, and I'm just reiterating what I'm reading, being read out from what I read out before. Okay. Frank Wilkie 01:06:37.360
Thank you. Councillors, we have a motion before us. Tom Wegener 01:06:42.820
Tom. I'd like to speak to it. Yes, speak to the motion. Thank you. I support the motion. The community has asked us, no, demanded that we take action. We cannot kick the can down the road on this one. The deadline was years ago, a long, long time ago. I was going to read something from Ruth thurston's report about how much life the river had in it 100 years ago. But the actual point that Ruth thurston wrote in her report was we have to consider a time frame of reference. Of what it was like then. And what is like now and where we where we can go but she says the problem is that we forget generation generationally forget what it was like now when it when I moved here in 1998 you could go down and put a little net out and get some primes. Bronze that stopped around 1999 2000 with the big floods I believe and my daughter who's 21 years old would not have a living memory of catching problems in the river so that we have a generation now that doesn't have a memory a reference point to that so the talking about missing they're a month. It's it's emergency we have got to act now let's not kick the can down the road let's listen to the residents finalise this get it done tonight get the funding happening stop the silt from getting in the river we need to start moving we cannot delay any longer we can cancel it now Amelia Lorentson 01:08:28.312
I have some questions just a couple questions in regard to consultation community consultation support mentioned today through Councillor Stockwell was the 20 years of consultation including the 2004 river plan B. Anchoring and mooring strategy in 2008 river community jury in 2016 the rounds of consultation as part of a 2019 river plan and the formation of the insurrect during between 2021 and 2023 my question is at what when what point did we raise the at what when what point did we raise the discussion around conservation park and how discussion around conservation park and how many people in the community have been many people in the community have been consulted about the conservation park Kim Rawlings 01:09:20.027
It's a it's interesting because over many years the issue of management of the river and what mechanisms it's might be suitable for management of the river have been looked at through various various models and various times through those different groups you know to the from and what mechanisms might know council have no involvement in the river it's a state responsibility to know there's been there's no action there's no investment council must it's an important lifeblood for this Shire council should have management you know and some jurisdiction in the river and it's been the whole spectrum to be Frank Councillor Lorentson different models have been looked at so marine parks being looked at regional management governance models have been looked at river trusts have been looked at foreshore reserves have been looked at over the time it's only been in the last couple of months myself and the property officer was looking at the idea of reserves and what a reserve space because we have reserves all around the Shire watch what how that could maybe be applied to so council has got some jurisdiction in the river over some aspects so it's it's only a fairly new concept it hasn't been widely consulted through that process that's why in the plan it says consider consider this as a mechanism and explore it with stakeholders to see whether it's something that might suitable we as officers from our assessment have said and looked at and gone it provides it's the best mechanism we've found so far that provides the balance of of both conservation preservation a seat at the table and some jurisdiction for council and coexistence and enabling equally in the principles commercial operations and commercial fishing. So it's we thought it was a not a nice balanced mechanism that actually is worth exploring and that's why we said consider and do a proper and engaged process through the plan. Tom Wegener 01:11:44.001
It seems to me that we exactly what you said the the car it's going to be a conversation about the conservation park and yes it isn't it redundant they had to see here to say that we're going to have a consultation about having a consultation about the conservation park have consultation I mean to me c is not really required because it's already consulted we're having we we're proposing a consultation about the consultation about the conservation park so what I would say is a Kim Rawlings 01:12:16.249
Very clearly says adopt the plan for ongoing implementation noting that implementation action plans will require further stakeholder engagement so that that action consider the implementation or the exploring the option for a conservation park would need would be done in consultation there's about 60 actions in the plan thank you each of them identifies partners so if I don't think there's one of them that doesn't require some level of collaboration engagement stakeholder I believe state agency across council community groups with commercial operators so the whole really is founded on a collaborative governance model and the plan talks very much about collaborative governance and ongoing stakeholder engagement so it's a fundamental tenet that runs through all of the actions not just this one I'm not sure I directly answered whether C was redundant but maybe Tom Wegener 01:13:23.002
I think in generally you did yeah Frank Wilkie 01:13:27.493
When you brought the feedback from the consultation on the river plan to a council workshop in June this year and you Drew our attention particularly to the conservation part there's some pretty robust discussion the council has interrogated you about what it actually means there's since been a question from a really interested stakeholder believing that this would give the council sole believing that this would give council the sole power over the current fish habitat areas could you just clarify really that's the case Kim Rawlings 01:14:04.824
Correct we had a workshop about it and we specifically spent some time and went over this twice and there was lots of you know questioning of it this the conservation park wouldn't to establish a conservation park needs agreement from Department of Environment science qpws first and foremost that that would be something they would be happy to establish a trustee arrangement with council to get to that point we would need to develop a management plan that is collaborative and representative of all issues and sets up a set of principles and management structures about how the conservation park would be established we have indicated the plan indicates that it's not the intention nor our understanding nor our advice professional advice that the remit for approvals regulation of things like fisheries would then come to council that would not happen we would continue to sit with the State and is ministered under the head of how the fisheries so that's that's our current understanding of how the framework would work obviously in terms of its management objectives that that's to be explored when if we get a chance to consider it through the process. Frank Wilkie 01:15:39.429
And so with the current wording of the motion before us it would be staff would meet with these interested stakeholders who are interested in the conservation park have all the questions answered get feedback about that before moving to the point where we consider it. Yes yeah so it's consultation before even considering implementing this this plan doesn't say implement the conservation park it says consider it and further consultation with the stakeholders is a key aspect of that process. Kim Rawlings 01:16:10.660
I think it's actually a requirement of it to actually go through that process and that's our absolute intention thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:23.760
I'll speak to it. I'm not going to support the amendment in front of us. To me I think the issue we have in front of us is an issue of public trust and compromising public trust. I feel and then there's you know there's there's broad support for the Noosa River Plan, broad support in council, broad support in community and there's possibly broad support for a conservation park but the fact is that the community don't know about it. And to introduce it right now, we run the risk of compromising public trust and you know council Wegener had a quote, I'm going to throw a quote in as well, which I think is really apt. "Leadership is not a license to do less, leadership is a responsibility to do more" and I ask today that we do more and allow the deferral of the matter so that you know either to the or possibly to a special meeting we don't need to wait four weeks we may be able to have a special meeting in two weeks but what that does is allow stakeholders the NSERAC we had 14 members there who represented 14 community groups and I received an email where eight of those members and without naming them i'll just throw some quotes said no it blindsided me never knew about the Noosa River conservation park I'm disappointed that you know as a member of NSERAC you know not been involved didn't have never seen this draft before me absolutely the first I've heard of it were never given any indication than anything other so I can keep rattling on but the the issue is they're not they're not eight people they're eight groups of people and some of these groups represent thousands of recreational community members my kids you know my kids fish my friends fish so I just think that we need to allow every player to say in this policy if we want it to succeed so for that reason I'm not going to support this and hope that everyone would just run with the 4-3 decision from the General Committee which helps build public trust. And reinforces you know what we keep saying as a council that you know public policy should be transparent consultative and should allow every player to I've got a question Brian Stockwell 01:19:35.743
To the Director. Mentioned in my open address that one of the reasons council set up the advisory committee was to get a broad review of the Noosa River Plan my recollection is over a couple acting environment managers endeavour to consult with the group on issues other than the ones focused on MSQ can you give me a councillor's a bit of an update about how we endeavoured to involve an ESRAC in the wider river discussions and what results of that endeavours were Kim Rawlings 01:20:07.870
Yes Through the Chair I guess that there were a few staff changeovers which made things a little bit difficult and I think a bit stilted yeah I can't here. Hear sorry can you hear me now Clare Stewart 01:20:21.381
Sorry I need sorry just completed gift Thank you. Kim Rawlings 01:20:25.701
So there were I guess a whole range of issues brought to the committee which have fed into this plan there were issues relating Frying Pan Track for example which ultimately through our eastern beaches plan led to an encroachments policy this group has had a huge impact I think on councils policies along the way throughout the development of the plan and other plans and issues relating to Frying Pan Track for example which ultimately through our eastern beaches plan led to an terms of specific consideration around the river plan there was a dedicated subcommittee meeting that was held to discuss the river plan unfortunately we only had about half of the members come to that meeting and it sort of it wasn't I didn't bear much fruit the plan other plans in terms of specific consideration around the river plan there was a dedicated subcommittee meeting that and I think that the feeling amongst the group was that they were very aligned on the issue of anchoring and mooring and given that we had MSQ as the co-Chair at the table that was the issue we really need to drive towards along with anchoring and mooring also sedimentation I think they were the really highlighted issues that they wanted to see addressed in the river plan which is why we've given them so much profile Frank Wilkie 01:21:35.309
The alternative motion was on was that raised Monday mentioned just by Councillor Walsh and what would it require in terms of staff resourcing to conduct public consultation over a month and how long may that delay the plan? Kim Rawlings 01:22:00.240
Implications to staff resourcing. Yeah so Through the Chair um it well it's was not a planned program in our current plan of consultation so we don't have resources allocated to it. There will need to be some reshuffling and reprioritisation and I guess it depends on the extent of consultation and what that looks like. If it's receiving information from and responding to questions, that's one thing. If it's actually doing a community consultation process, then I would suggest we don't have the resources or the budget to do that. Counselling. Councillor Wilkie, we would have to have another conversation with council about how that should be resourced and funded. If it's just responding to questions, then you know that can be managed. So it really is going to on what the expectations are about what happens in that next month. Joe Jurisevic 01:23:01.611
Go ahead. That was along the lines of where I was going with that. As far as resourcing goes. The expectation of councils at that meeting. What was the understanding of staff with regards to what 30 days would enable you or one month would enable you to do with regard to feedback from the community on the plan. Kim Rawlings 01:23:27.313
I'm not sure that's a question for staff because the motion was put forward by a Councillor in terms of what their expectations were. Joe Jurisevic 01:23:35.114
I'm trying to look at what the minutes are and what the minutes actually said in that regard. SPEAKER_09_b 01:23:39.400
It wasn't Joe Jurisevic 01:23:41.220
Specific, so you didn't have any expectations in that regard. Clare Stewart 01:23:44.260
Councillor Stewart, have you got your hand up? Yes, thank you. Amy, just a question. Based on the fact that I had similar correspondence from Ms. Councillor Lorentson that eight out of eight NSERAC people who had been contacted hadn't had any input to the river plan, I guess, and I'm just wanting clarification from you, the main focus, wasn't it, the main concern was you said around the liveaboards, the moorings and the anchorage, wasn't it, for that group, that was the focus? Kim Rawlings 01:24:17.002
Through the Chair, yes, but there were other issues that were brought to the group and commented on, including water quality objectives. A Through the Chair, whole range of issues that they had input to, but in terms of understanding what the key issues that they wanted to address during their term, anchoring liverboards and mooring and liveaboards was number one, followed by sediment. And I just want to respond to that was said earlier, because I do really value the relationship that we developed with the river committee members. I think highly of them all for giving up their time over two long years, which was quite a painful process. Think at times. And in terms of why we didn't bring the conservation park concept to them, it's because it's very, very new, and the committee had completed its term in March. So we did attempt to engage with partner our organisers. About it, but because the committee had concluded its term, that's why they weren't specifically consultant on this. And to add to that, Clare, the agenda for that, the NSWRAP committee was very much driven by the members too. So the terms of reference and the scope of the NSWRAP was much broader, but as we got into the process, it was really clear that there were some topics that they all were aligned on. Then the other more broader topics around the more broad jet river plan topics, only some of them were interested in, so they weren't getting the same sort of momentum as the issues that they were all aligned on, which ended up kind of driving the has agenda. Because they were important issues and the fact that we had a lot of people interested in getting momentum on it, we went with that momentum and they had great impact. Frank Wilkie 01:26:10.323
Is it true that NSREC is not the only source of feedback for this plan? Weren't the definitive authority Kim Rawlings 01:26:17.258
On the direction this plan might take. No, no, no, they weren't and you can see the long list. It's not going to cross everything. No, they absolutely can't. Clearly they were very important stakeholders because they are representative of most of the issues in the catchment, but there's been a lot of individual meetings with community members, Bushcare groups, environment groups, all the State agencies, the boating alliance. Who weren't on the instructions. There's a raft of people. Frank Wilkie 01:26:49.876
And just to park back to the motion that was proposed on Monday, passed on Monday, about going out to public consultation before the plan is ready. Given that there's public consultation is part and parcel of the plan, once it's ratified, would that have been asking you to undertake a process of consultation about a process that engages... That involves consultation. Consultation before we consult. Consultation about what we're going to consult on. Would that have been what you would have had to have done? Um, I think Councillor Wegener asked a similar question. Kim Rawlings 01:27:38.630
Um, yes, my understanding was that monday's... Decision, motion on the table was asking for another four weeks to consult on the plan, primarily on the concept of the conservation park from what, you know, what dominated the conversation, because that's the newer element of the... Joe Jurisevic 01:28:01.600
Sorry, Mr Chair, can I just clarify? I've got the motion in front of me. And my understanding is it wasn't consultation. That is my understanding. And the reason I state that is because what I... To was that item 6.1, the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan, be deferred to the next round of meetings to allow councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity to consider the details and implications of the draft Noosa River Catchment Management Plan and provide feedback. It wasn't a forum. It was an opportunity for feedback to council. Frank Wilkie 01:28:36.266
We've had a form of conversation. Sorry, I'm capitalising. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:39.926
Because I moved the motion, that is correct, Councillor Joe Jurisevic. So the questions that I've been getting, and I'm asking myself and Kim, you've probably been getting the same questions, are questions like what are the legal implications? So I think it was more the detail. Wanted time to read the detail and provide a submission to council about just their concerns and issues that they needed clarity on. I'll speak to the motion. Clare Stewart 01:29:14.800
Look, i'll speak to the will you speak if I can, i'll ask a question after that Frank Wilkie 01:29:20.999
If you like. I'm going to support the motion because the alternate is really, after all these years and all the consultation that's gone on, it's untenable. About delaying the process to allow stakeholders to provide, get across the detail and provide their feedback, and that's been talked of in terms of consultation. Yes, the wording doesn't say consultation, but it's part of our discussion, we've been saying consultation, and that's consultation by another name. It's an absurdity to consent to delay a plan have more consultation before you implement a plan that has consultation intrinsic to it before something like a conservation park is even considered to be implemented. It is paralysis by analysis. It's an absurdity. It's a yes minister situation. Consultation before we have the consultation. It's too much consultation. It requires... Requires a decision to be made. And I think because, as councillors have said, the main point of concern is the conservation park. But the plan says... Consider implementing a consultation park. And the consultation is... Sorry, a conservation park... A consultation is intrinsic to happen before that park is even considered to be implemented. Councillors, we were... Had our we were, had our attention brought to a conservation, the concept of a conservation park in June, a meeting in June 22nd. We've had, there was good discussion around the table at that meeting. It's not a surprise. We've had three months to ask questions of staff. The draft we've had in our hands since a week ago... There's been plenty of time for councillors to catch up with staff and have their questions answered. I've received an email from the boating and fishing alliance as well. They're really concerned that this will give council... Have sole responsibility for our conservation park. It gives, as we know... As says in the page 37 of the Noosa River Plan... Excuse me, he's speaking to the motion. Oh, sorry. The conservation park establishing fish habitat areas in Noosa River under the nature conservation act will provide the necessary statutory head of power for integrated river management, will provide for council to work in close alignment with state government under a trustee agreement, joint management plan and multi-agency coordination group. As the staff have said, it will give council... A seat at the table, not be a passive observer. Otherwise, what we're looking at is a wish list. This will give council an opportunity to ensure a lot of these actions actually take place. And we can't just be focused on this one aspect, which is quite timid, to consider. The introduction of a conservation park. It's not bold, it's not implement, it's not action a conservation park, it's consider. And there will be consultation that will have to take place before that. The alternate motion is tiptoeing away from that, saying we need to have consultation before we implement a process that will involve consultation before we even consider. It's a bit timid, so I can't support it. We've had plenty of time to get our heads around this. It is one of 80 actions. It's not even an action. It's considering an action. It's an absurdity to want more consultation and feedback about that. And yes, there are... No one can be across everything. The NSERAC did a fantastic job in narrowing their focus down to anchoring and mooring, which has been a grievance, a thorn in the side of the community about this river for two decades. They've done excellent work in getting some leverage with MSQ to finally take action on this very important issue. So there's a lot to like about this plan. I just don't think any more further delays at the final hour are justified. The motion we have before us, the last line, there's two, part A and part C, have further consultation with relevant stakeholders. Part C makes it specific about those that may be concerned about a conservation park. Will get that feedback before we consider implementing a conservation park. And that feedback will be integral to the direction we take regarding a conservation park. The motion on Monday is basically part C, the conservation park will get that feedback before but that happens before we even implement something. So I just think to go the alternative motion is paralysis by analysis, so the plan as it pertains to the conservation park is very tame. I appreciate that everyone around this table wants to do a great job and implement good decision making on behalf of this community, but I think this motion more than covers it. It's over-consulting. There's plenty of wiggle room for those, there's plenty of opportunity within the process that will fall out of this motion before us for those that have concerns about the conservation part to have their say and their say will be respected. Please councillors I implore you support this motion so Noosa Council can finally have an endorsed Noosa management river catchment plan and get up to speed. We're back to where we should be. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:35:38.580
I have a question Through the Chair. Yes just contacted you regarding other details in the Noosa River Plan outside the conservation park and you know I've got other issues outside the conservation park such as construction of a pontoon so is there other other details that you're concerned about Kim Rawlings 01:36:10.650
Yeah, we have had some other issues, most of which have been raised..ie there's a voting alliance of raised issues, that there's issues gathered. The PWCs and, so they've also been raised in the last week. Like I said, most of them we've known about. Conservation park, it's the new concept, it's the new piece of the river plan that's probably been the main issue. Frank Wilkie 01:36:44.338
Mr Stewart, you've been very patient, thank you. Clare Stewart 01:36:49.318
Amy, just a question for you, just on, I know you mentioned the Noosa Boating & Fishing Alliance by premier they had no knowledge of the conservation part if we were to and I'm just coming back to the question about NSERAC shouldn't be the only ones engaged, but if we were to send this plan out to all the stakeholders that you've mentioned in the back of the report including Noosa boating fishing alliance, all the conservation groups, the Noosa River stakeholder advisory, I know it's defunct now but the previous members representing a lot of the users and thousands of people, if we were to send out the draft river plan to them via email, sorry the river plan and ask for feedback within a couple of weeks, how is that, is an impost on staff if it's if it's that one email going out and I understand there'll be a collation of information coming back but how would that look if you were to within this time frame do that so every stakeholder or person of interest that's been cited in here has an opportunity to actually read the finer detail of the river plan? Kim Rawlings 01:38:02.148
Just in response to that question we have emailed the river plan out to all of those stakeholders that was emailed out last Friday as soon as the river plan was made public, the agenda was made public, Amy said about emailing to everybody. So all the advisory committee, all the stakeholders, all the State agencies, all the partner organisations. So that first action being done councillors has been Councillor Stewart? Clare Stewart 01:38:27.346
So the fee, I guess, I'm guessing, Kim, and the response to that is this is the first we've seen of it. So if we gave them the time to enable their feedback on it, what would that impost be to staff? Kim Rawlings 01:38:40.202
So the first action has been done. So there's no impost there. We could just do a follow-up email to say you received the plan last Friday. You've got until this date to provide feedback. And then the resource implication would obviously depend on the amount of feedback that came back, Councillor Stewart. So in terms of getting the plan out and sending an email to all those, that's an easy process and can be done very easily. Like it'll just depend on whether we get 200 responses, five responses. So that's a little bit hard to predict. But yeah, I mean, based on who's contacted us, we've probably had half a dozen maybe contacts. So if that was the number, then that would be manageable. Um, yeah. If that... We can use who's been in contact with us this week as a sort of indication of who might provide a written response, then that would be a manageable process. Through the Chair, just very quickly. I guess the issue is with each of the actions, we're going to consult on them anyway. So for example, with the PWC changes that have been requested, that would require a change to the Noosa River marine zone, which is not a small process. Each of these actions that are going to be requested, I guess, are going to be consulted anyway. Joe Jurisevic 01:40:09.715
That's my understanding within the 80 odd actions within the plan. Take that one as an example, there is an action in there that addresses that very matter. Is that correct? Yeah. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:40:24.405
Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion please before Councillor Stockwell closes? Joe Jurisevic 01:40:31.065
Yeah I will. Councillor Stockwell, I don't believe I'm saying this but I won't be supporting the motion before it. Only because on Monday I gave the community assurance through the request by Councillor Lorentson and her motion to allow another 30 days for that feedback. I have no issues with what's before us and I want to make that clear. I have no problems with the plan before us because what's clearly understood is that every one of these actions goes out for proper and due process. So I commend the staff for their time and effort in a well-documented, a well-articulated document. Although, as I've discovered, there are still things that haven't been covered. And one of the reasons that I support allowing that 30 days is because even I have discovered something in reading this that's missing. And that is I don't a lot of mentioning of anchoring. Anchoring and mooring was the thing that we just talked about NSERAC being involved in, mooring specifically mentioned, but there's very little mention of anchoring. So I think there's scope here to still tweak this and improve it in the next 30 days to make sure that we cover those elements. And I do so on the basis of page 7, our regional government partners. I'll read you the paragraph that I think is relevant to make sure that this goes forward. With everybody's understanding and cooperation and collaboration. That's for catchment management to be effective. There needs to be a concerted and coordinated approach, genuine commitment from all stakeholders and a willingness to invest. We can get that as best as we can. I'm happy. That's it. I don't have any issues with the plan, but as I said, I gave a commitment last Monday and I intend to honour that commitment to allow that 30 days for any more, or that period before the next meeting and a period to give staff time to collate. Understand that information and that's the way that read. It wasn't an open consultation process, it was merely an opportunity for feedback because we might have missed something and there might be somebody's eye that catches something along the lines of very little mention of anchoring that may just come out of that. Frank Wilkie 01:42:59.577
How is that going to be put to council if it people are requesting things to be cut out of this plan it's taken years to collect how is this feedback going to be presented to council and will that have to be thrashed out in a public forum what's in what's out Kim Rawlings 01:43:19.559
I would suggest that like with any submissions and any information officers would assess that and form a position on it we would then put that to council we would possibly do a workshop with council as we do when we get feedback and consultation and say here's the findings this is our analysis this is the officer recommendation and these are the recommended changes we suggest to the report we would then put that report to council and for your consideration or no changes on what the-Oh, depending yeah. Karen Finzel 01:43:53.382
Great, thank you. Thank you. Yeah okay thank you everyone for the discussion around the table as always it's been robust I thank the staff and I appreciate the amount of work that's gone on I won't be supporting this tonight you know I gave my word by supporting that amendment the other day I feel that it has taken a long time I don't think there can ever be too much opportunities for our community to have a say given this has been so long in the making I that surely we can afford our community 30 days if there's something that's been missed or they would like another say for outward facing engagement with our community transparency and openness I think we to our community to give them 30 days the extent of the community concerned by the people that contacted us after this came out is relevant and is worthy of consideration purposeful leadership is about flexibility it is about acknowledging where there's been things that could have been done better in the past and as we look forward to the future and visioning a future where every voice matters where every concern is brought to the table and given a voice yeah I understand the process we've been told there was a deadline there's this deadline get there's a deadline but I have been voted here by my community on the proviso that I was outward-facing and there was transparency and I would be their voice. If I don't give them representation representation at this point at this time based on my values which inform my leadership and that I have to be able to sleep at night I'm standing by my word to give my community an opportunity if they have concerns to be listened to if it's 30 days given 30 days I think that's reasonable I think we have a commitment to our community to work hard at a engendering trust with a community who at some points of time has been satisfied around process and things that have happened. We even heard people come tonight and take the time and the effort to bring deputations before us around communication and engagement with the community I'm not prepared to disregard people's concerns and efforts it is about bringing our community with us through the journey and valuing their at table thank you sorry Clare Stewart 01:47:04.324
I'm Frank Wilkie 01:47:07.224
So I missed you stewart's my apologies Clare Stewart 01:47:09.144
Thank you I gone but long forgotten hey will not be supporting this either from the information that we've all received when eight of eight out people say haven't had a chance or input or they were blindsided by the plan, it raises concerns. I acknowledge that there has been a tremendous amount of work done and the plan is a good one, but there are aspects that need addressing. There are aspects that we need from our community. We need community input. As Joe said, we need their willingness to invest. That can only be done through continued consultation. This has not been an easy task for many, many years. This has been an issue. Councillor Stockwell highlighted the timelines. So an extra or additional 30 days for community buy-in, for community support, for their willingness to get on board is not much to ask. Now the words we do use are consider. We say those words in a lot of our strategies. We did it in our Housing Strategy, but we still put it out for a consultation. We still are. For feedback on those words, such as consider, when there wasn't a definite, we still mentioned those words and where the communities buy in, or their thoughts on the matter. We need to do the same when it comes to words like consider a conservation park. There is only 30 days we are asking for in Councillor Lorentson's original amendment on Monday. I, like Councillor Jurisevic, has said and Councillor Finzel, gave my word to the community that I would honour that commitment to that 30 days. I won't be deviating today. It's good governance, it creates confidence. And it's the right thing to do. So I won't be supporting Councillor stockwell's motion. Larry Sengstock 01:49:15.936
Thank you, Ms gillan. Sorry, Mr cianna-Councillor. Just to clarify, sorry, we are talking, people are using the term... Thank you, Ms Stewart. Councillor, sorry, Mr city council. Just to clarify, sorry, meeting. Okay, so just to clarify that for those people listening, thinking they've got 30 days, 30 days of feedback. We'll have to establish a time for that. So we've got time to collate that feedback. So just to clarify that, please. Joe Jurisevic 01:49:40.338
And the clarification that can occur through the email. Response from staff to the stakeholders? Absolutely. Thank you. Thanks for stopping. Sorry, the process being 30 days. Brian Stockwell 01:49:50.797
We've heard a lot about what we owe the community. Good quality consultation and meaningful engagement. Frank Wilkie 01:50:00.697
That's we've what had over the last six years on and off. There has been big gaps. Brian Stockwell 01:50:07.596
Suggestion to get to the next round of meetings is not good quality consultation. Be very mindful, appearing to do the right thing is not doing the right thing. We've had huge input on the river over many years and the values are really well known and this plan that our professional staff have recommended reflect the vast majority of the Noosa community. Getting alternative views from some people over the next couple of weeks to get into the next is not good community consultation. It's a period. To do the right thing. What this motion says is we'll consult on each issue in a meaningful way, not in tell us what you think. Because tell us what you think is actually contrary to our policy on community engagement. It be right seemed to doing the thing. There's no person who's put more time in trying to get good committee engaged in this Noosa River Plan than me over the last six years. I've probably spent hundreds of hours talking to staff, doing submissions, trying to get this to this point. Frank Wilkie 01:51:25.726
And I know the consultation hasn't been perfect and nothing ever is. Brian Stockwell 01:51:31.086
The decision that this really boils down to tonight is do we believe that in the Noosa Biosphere and the Noosa River that we should be and present the areas conserving the river's cultural and natural resources and their values and should we provide for the permanent conservation of the river's natural resources to the greatest possible extent should we be providing opportunities for the river educational and recreational activities in a way that is consistent with areas natural and cultural use of resources and values and should we be ensuring that commercial use of the river is ecologically sustainable because don't be confused about what this is about it's about challenging that as the principle because that's what the conservation park principles are so when you vote think about whether that's what we should be going to community with and saying we want you to consider it is what we think is right for the river Frank Wilkie 01:52:29.667
Put the motion those in favour that's councillors Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie against Councillor Jurisevic, Jurisevic, Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson. The motion's lost. We have another motion here, someone care to move that? Councillor Lorentson? I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Stewart, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 01:52:54.706
That 6.1 Noosa River Catchment Management Plan be deferred to the next round of meetings to allow councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity to consider the details and implications of the draft Noosa River Catchment Management Plan and provide feedback. Thank you, you've got the floor. I think we've said what needs to be said. I won't go over what I said at the General Committee. Frank Wilkie 01:53:22.709
Thank you. Any other councillors speak to this motion? Tom Wegener 01:53:26.129
Councillor Wegener? I think the language is ad it's senseless as Brian said. It gives an opportunity to consider the details and Willy-nilly send information back that we will have to consider. It's not systematic, it's not process, it's not things think it's gonna, it just backfired tremendously upon us and we will be looking at the council that kicked stuff down the road. Didn't get it done, couldn't have the competency to actually get something done like this. Amelia Lorentson 01:54:08.042
Mr Wegener, any councillors wish to speak to now i'll put Mr Wegener: I will close just in response to what Councillor Wegener just said. Over the last 20 years there has been a lot of community consultation. We've had a lot of consultation. We've gone through it. The 2004 river plan, 2008 anchoring and law and strategy. The river community jury in 2016. Two rounds of community consultation as part of the updated 2019 Noosa River Plan. And an NSERAC between 2021 and 2023. Over the last 20 years, the notion of conservation park was raised two months ago. The NSERAC, which represent 14 of all, most of the water users of the Noosa River. Eight of those sporting members said they knew nothing about a conservation park, nor about some of the other matters in the Noosa River Plan. Plain. Again, broad objectives of the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan are supported, and possibly the, not possibly, I'm sure that the conservation park will also be supported. The issue is the devil in the detail, and what this motion is request transparency, understanding the implications, the legal implications of the issues and actions in the river plan. What are the reasons for a conservation park? What are the legal applications? What are the outcomes council seeks to achieve? Clarity, articulating, coming clean what are the objectives? Again, I raise the issue of public trust and public policy. It must be transparent, consultative and allow all players to have a say. This is not kicking the can down the road. It's about just doing the right thing by our community. Frank Wilkie 01:56:23.463
We'll put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Jurisevic, Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. The motion is carried. And now up to item 8.1, Audit & Risk Committee. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:56:44.643
Yes, thank you. I have to leave. Thank you. Call commitments. I beg your pardon. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Frank Wilkie 01:56:51.761
Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, you've got to go too. Yes. No problem. Item 8.1, Councillor Stockwell is leaving the meeting as well. Board and risk report. Item 5, internal audit payroll. Item 6, 2023 Audit and Risk Committee briefing paper. Item 7, risk management BCP update. Item 8, internal audit actions update. Item 9, ICT Cyber Risk update. Item 12 is confidential matter about insurance management item 13 is confidential matter regarding fraud, corruption and PID update and I have a move and a seconder that the report of the Audit and Risk Committee dated 22nd of August 2023 be received. Thank you. Moved Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's unanimous. We now move on to the Planning & Environment Committee report. Flying fox state with a management intent 5.2. Applications for reconfiguring a lot 1 into 2 lots at 28 sandow drive, Tewantin which was referred to the general committee. Item 5.4. Application for a hospital and health care service day surgery and associated facilities 47 Goodchap Street, Tewantin. Item 6.1. Planning applications decided by delegated authority. Councillor Finzel. Finsale for the COI for the delegated authority items. Karen Finzel 01:58:30.261
You. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as on March 5, 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who was an applicant listed on the delegated report, applicant number one, donated $1,666.66 to my 2020 election campaign, where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the decision has already been made under delegated authority and the report is for noting only. Therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room however I will decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Frank Wilkie 01:59:13.087
I move that Councillor Finzel, that we note the report declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Finzel determines the public interest of Councillor reminds me-- Councillor Finzel remains and in votes on this matter because the decision has already been made under delegated authority and the report is for noting only. I'll second that. Thank you Councillor Jurisevic. Any further discussion? Joe Jurisevic 01:59:34.130
Only the fact that as the report is for noting only there is no decision making process involved. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:59:40.270
I'll put it to the vote. Those in unanimous and Councillor Finzel did not vote. Can we have a mover and a seconder for the General Committee? Can we have a mover and a seconder for the General Committee? Can we have a mover and so the General Committee recommendation is carried. That's Councillor Lorentson seconded Councillor Finzel. That's in favour? That's carried unanimously. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of the Planning & Environment Committee recommendation, except we're dealt with by a separate resolution? So moved. Councillor Jurisevic seconded. Councillor Finzel in favour? Opposed? Thank you. We're not at the 5.1 yet. No. Okay, just making sure. We're now up to item 8.3 services and organisations report which was a confidential matter regarding a not contract for the provision of concrete crushing services. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of the services and that's organisation committee recommendations Councillor Jurisevic, seconder Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's unanimous. We're now up to item 8.4 the General Committee Meeting report application for other change development approval integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course complex 18 holes to include group farmstay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at Kabi Road, Cootharaba, um, Councillor Wegener, oh this one, oh, we a motion though. Larry Sengstock 02:01:14.519
It's still a conflict, council is going to deal with the conflict, yeah, got to deal with the conflict first I, question there Tom Wegener 02:01:22.599
Councillor Tom Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest upon request to staff for permaculture upon a to staff request to for the permaculture report which was mentioned in the applicant's submission, it was revealed that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. As the president of the community group Permaculture Noosa, I've learned Tom Kendall and visited his permaculture property. However, he is not a personal friend and I do not socialize with him outside of our common interest of permaculture. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you for listening. Oh. I'll move that Joe Jurisevic 02:02:12.063
Council move the scribble in front. The council note the declarable contribution of interest by Councillor Wegener to determine if Councillor Wegener can participate and vote on this matter 'cause council believes that as Mr. Kendall is not a associate and that close of Councillor Wegener and that a reasonable person would trust the final decision he's made in the public interest. Frank Wilkie 02:02:32.886
We have a seconder to that please. Joe Jurisevic 02:02:36.366
Seconder, Councillor Lorentson. I do so on the basis of consistency with previous decisions on this matter. Frank Wilkie 02:02:40.946
Any other councillors? Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Wegener did not vote. Now we have a motion that the council note the report by the acting coordinator planning assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting regarding application for another change to approval. Integrated permaculture design organic orchard and golf course complex can include group farm stay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure situated 59 Kabi Road, Cootharaba and note that the applicant has stopped the current period. Okay so we have a move for that please. I'll move Councillor Jo, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? Joe Jurisevic 02:03:24.048
Just clarified question to staff in this regard just for those people that aren't familiar with what what occurs when an applicant puts in a stop motion. Can you just inform the community of what what the current actions are? Yes thank you. Through the Chair, the applicant has opted SPEAKER_09_b 02:03:40.643
To stop. What that means essentially is it stops the decision-making period so when able to make a decision at this point in time they've requested a three-month deferral on the ability to make a and there will be further engagement with the applicant during this period and we'll bring back a further report potentially in the future. Frank Wilkie 02:03:59.499
Thank you. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. 7.3 confidential not for public release contract variation for project management services for 2022 flood recovery and reconstruction. That's unanimous. 7.3 can I have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of the General Committee recommendations, except it's dealt with separately. Joe Jurisevic 02:04:25.434
I'm sorry. Sorry, there were two motions after the first one. You've only mentioned one on the left. Frank Wilkie 02:04:33.134
First one, 7.1, contract for cleaning of open space and public amenities, confidential Planning & Environment Court appeal, application for multiple dwelling units. Can I and also the contract variation for project management services for 2022 but recovery and reconstruction have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of the General Committee recommendations. Happy to move. Councillor Lorentson has seconded, Councillor Wegener all in favour? That is unanimous. There are no reports direct to the Ordinary Meeting. Are no new confidential items. We have no submissions or public question time. That brings us to the end of the agenda. The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at council chambers at 9 pelican street. On Thursday 26th of October at 5pm. The meeting will be closed at 7:06pm. And I thank everyone for their attendance and patience. Thank you Mr Chair, thank you Mr CEO. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
