Ordinary Meeting, 21 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 00:02.661
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 now that all councils are in attendance. And that 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 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? Amelia Lorentson 00:41.134
Happy to second that. Frank Wilkie 00:44.195
Any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. Welcome, Mayor Clare. Thank you. Mr Chair. As Mayor Clare is attending via 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. So moved. Abbotty, second. Councillor Stewart that Councillor Finzel Stockwell, senator, Councillor Finzel, all in favour? Thank you. There are no. Yes. 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 and 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 80km /h kilometres an hour pose a daily risk. This 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 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 petitioned Noosa 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. Seconded. Karen Finzel 03:05.432
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 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 03:45.821
I'll take your second. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 03:49.726
All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Can you get that out of the water? Sorry. 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 the that's going to come up first. Yes, that's right. We have 15 minutes allocated for your deputation. Entitled. Matthew Nofty 04:26.874
Hello, my name is Matthew novke. I'm from Keep Cooloola Cool and the three of us are here to speak with you in regards to the Cooloola great walk ecotourism proposal. Firstly, 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 listed as a key stakeholder in the State government's 2020 consultation activities document. Noosa Council's lucid with met with the cabin 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 park. Of path. 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 making from day one, this proposal could have provided great environmental outcomes for the park and genuine opportunities for Kabi people. Many live in Noosa because of the natural environment and we are incredibly lucky to be surrounded by such pristine and accessible natural landscapes. Yet these are only available to us 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. Are a place for nature to thrive. They are places that are free from commercial pressures and degrading infrastructure development. Well after speaking with many of your fellow constituents that is what they believe but unfortunately no mistaken national parks should be and we believe that you can help to better them 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. Salt is 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 Noosa Council is also believe being 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 08:32.712
All right, 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 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 this is 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, you know, all that kind of nonsense, this is private property development inside a local national park. Full stop. That basic fact and the impacts that evidently flow 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. 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 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 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 in general. The gutting of site. 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. Protected area is. The other problems with 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 the other know 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 of lies and spin about 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 so that's just one experience example out of many so this conflicted 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 of Cooloola itself, and again, Cooloola function of Cooloola itself and potentially all of our national it is recovery 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 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 you know get covered forget 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 14:28.321
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 Cooloola 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 substantiated in the results of a recent poll by Sandy Bolton, where an overwhelming majority responded in opposition, rejecting any commercial accommodation development. Not operations commercial within koala Cooloola national park. It is just objectionable to most people. So we know that. Now what should not be controversial? It shouldn't be controversial that Noosa residents feel this way. What should be controversial? 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 I've been credibly involvement with people, number of people, proportion of people, the majority of people by a vast number have never heard about it. And those that have, some rather confused ideas about some quite simple and very vital aspects because the information is not clear. Around simple matters and it's obscure. So in fact, the 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 and what has now been quietly taken away 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 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 purposes of product development and that's the kind of thing we don't want in there it's a new kind tied to the park so our community action has sought to address this omission of community involvement and understanding and awareness and 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 a informed and what you call a complicated view of 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. Now notably this formal input was based on a report by the council's Economic Development Manager 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 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 this is where you start no they make it up as they go along and that's a problem and also the extent of community concern arising from the project which would we believe extend beyond the realm of just the Economic Development Manager so just one significant matter is that the original submission had concern that only disturbed side areas would be used as development sites well the plan details indicate that's been completely breached absolutely completely breached one minute yeah thank you so I also note council's Destination Management Plan Discussion Paper or in Council states its governance roles to include community leadership, educator, 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 the greater 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 scope 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 visits with community representatives to see firsthand 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 so that's it Thank you. Mitch thank you for my little side overrun Frank Wilkie 20:38.933
Thank you it's all right um 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 um only got five but you know um but we'll send a digital copy through as well Thank you. Mitch next we have a deputation from Mr Nick Cooke Mr the floor is yours for 15 minutes thank you Nick Cooke 21:04.625
So so good evening my name is Nick and I'm here tonight to speak as a concerned promoter resident about the placemaking been thrust upon Pomona. I followed this 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 red flag the report to Council the 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 from staff or Council Councillors so I'm here today to address those issues bring them to your attention particularly these issues around communication consultation notification transparency and scrutiny of the actual process itself I have a lot of time so I'm 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 so many people in Pomona really don't know what's going on it seems to be two camps in Pomona you've got the people who have no idea the placemaking is even happening and then the other camp where they know what'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 Pomona, you'll find they'll say we don't want Pomona to change we want to stay the same and to have a project like this come forward with you know very vague descriptions and not really clear and concise information it adds to that angst so well 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 seems it to be it was decided in the Council meeting 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 in this you know this place placemaking study has been in the works for years from the research I've done in fact the committee report stated that it was included in the 2019-2020 budget and there was also a place making workshop in 2022 so that's been in the works for years but when it was released to 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 consultation to the 8th of October originally the 24th but this is reactive 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 social at three o'clock on a Friday um 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 uh there was nothing online of where to get a hard copy survey that was again the fact um since then Council have added another sketching workshop another walk shop through the town and two pop-ups one at the market and 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 at the beginning identified 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 is excluding people in Pomona that don't have internet access and people you know they that Pomona is an aged population the liveability survey showed a large section are over 65 in fact two-thirds of Pomona are over 45 years old and so it's not inclusive it's not removes their ability to engage if their 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 workshop booklet it's actually quite good consultation booklet 16 pages long and it goes through Pomona street by yet this isn't made available to everyone you only get access to this if you go to the walk workshop shop 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 out 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 either, not discussed at the consultations but in discussions with the consultants I found out that it would be a committee that would be representing Pomona and it'd be more than a reference group and it would be active actioning projects on the ground which sounds great but there's questions around it. How will it be selected? Will Council be selecting them? Will there be conflicts of interests? Registers? Checks and balances on that? Questionable and will it still be subject to Council determinations you know not subvert the democratically elected Councillors? The other issue which 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 influences and it is unwarranted when it's Pomona is under the microscope with the South East Queensland regional plan basically Queensland might focus on Pomona it's been earmarked for development so you've got external influences that want to get into Pomona you've got town planning construction companies develop one example key 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 town the and places and buildings it's great for the students but year I don't think it's gonna be people 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 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 an example of the outside influence. Frank Wilkie 28:50.459
You can attempt to comment so it doesn't personally target any individual in this room. Nick Cooke 28:54.563
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 well in general no Councillors should be working to include any of these works into the placemaking study without consultation 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 point was that Councillor Wilson just was the case. Okay. Yeah, that's an incorrect statement okay, so I'll retract the statement. Thank you. 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 are, they put this post in this the Pomona community members board asking the community what they wanted, and people in Pomona, you know, 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 interest. Out so so that's another example of an of 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, driven, to be driven in the direction of economic interests. So quickly moving on, 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 is liaising with. The other thing is that I don't know if community groups have been adequately identified. For example, safe news hinterland, which you know that I'm a committee member of. We have over 600 members, you know, in relation to the impacts of the Kin Kin quarry. Yet identified. We weren't identified as the key stakeholder. Ironically, the quarry hostage, the whole 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 being not 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 can't seem to get stuff 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 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 with private meetings and fact that this place 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 15-minute city this is not out minutes sitting is 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 it specifically mentions smart city and smart biosphere town planning aspects too for innovation to transform for 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 of results and 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 Shire next is I believe Kin Kin and Tewantin. Tewantin. Something that Council needs to address and be really upfront with the people 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, it's to finish the recommendations from all of this that I've followed think in light of all these concerns 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 the communication, the 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 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 respondent's identity and location. That's for all submissions. That includes say submissions in this workshop, which has no way to put your name on it. That's in the survey. Even the stickers in the consultations also, at the pop-ups. Also. I think Council needs to undertake a liveability survey for Pomona itself. Liveability survey was done in 2021, November, right before the mandates, right in the peak of the pandemic. You 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 you to properly engage the key stakeholders as previously mentioned, and provide equitable access to consultations. You need to review the dependence and the influence of specific not-for-profits that seem to have a disproportionate say in this whole study. Make a list of key stakeholders 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 access to 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 Councillor to keep an eye an on eye 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, so the real point of this concept consultation, is to call for suspension and review and immediate action to remedy the issues I've presented today. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 36:08.418
Thank you for your personal perspective on that process. Thank you Mr Cooke. Think there's a lot of issues. Is there anything you wanted to respond to? Larry Sengstock 36:19.558
Yes, this is a deputation, but I just think for Councillors, I think just to. I respect the fact that this is a personal opinion from Mr Cooke 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's 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 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, Pomona markets, different places, 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. 20th, August 22nd of September. Again in different places at the Pomona district community house and Joe Bazzo Park. The Pomona urban sketching workshop. Nick Cooke 37:53.333
Is this in line with a deputation? Larry Sengstock 37:55.554
This is, I'm speaking to my Council, if you don't mind Mr Cooke. This is not a direction. Frank Wilkie 38:01.688
I'd like to see have we done in terms of public consultation out Larry Sengstock 38:06.588
There. And then Saturday 26th of August and Saturday the, two different times of for that. And then on Saturday the 23rd of August there's more to come. So there's more consultation happening. And then there's also a separate workshop of all community organisations as Mr Cooke 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 okay Mr Cooke if you email us your deputation we'll get a formal reply Frank Wilkie 38:39.381
Right thank you all right um we're now up to item eight consideration of committee reports as Mayor Clare will need to leave his meeting by 6:30 tonight you'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 to be dealt with as the first item on tonight's agenda Councillor Stockwell you've got competent interest to declare? I have. Brian Stockwell 39:07.499
Of. Declarable conflict as provided in my written declaration that I won't be beginning as it's been through this chamber many times before I do request I remain in the meeting room to take in the decision. Frank Wilkie 39:24.170
Thank you. Councillor Joe? Joe Jurisevic 39:26.994
I'll move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine Councillor Stockwell participates. In this matter because Council is a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Do you have a second to that please? I do so on the basis of this being a consistent position the Councillors had with regard to this conflict in the past. Frank Wilkie 39:52.222
Any other discussion? Put it to the vote that in favour. That's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Brian Stockwell 40:06.753
Me. Thank you very much. In this matter in my long standing relationship with the 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 have a request that I remain in the meeting room to participate in the decision. Joe Jurisevic 40:25.922
Thank you, Councillor jurisdiction. I once again move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on the matter, because Council believes does not stand to gain personally and materially through noting this report, and therefore a reasonable person the final decision is made in the public interest. Thank you. Do we have a seconder for that please? Councillor Wegener, Jo. Once again I do so on the basis of being consistent with decisions made in the past on this declaration of a conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell. Frank Wilkie 40:56.732
Any other comments from Councillors? In favour. That's unanimous. And Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Brian Stockwell 41:05.005
And 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 additional item C. And I'll read out that Request that the CEO consult with relevant stakeholders group as part of staff's consideration of action 1. Relating to a conservation park covering fish habitat areas. I think it's important to understand where we're at and if I could have that oh, the presentation? Yep. 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, 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. Also then had a second round of consultation between December 2019 and a month later. 2020, this term accounts of for 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 then and identified that there the are purpose of that group was to be more broadly involved in the finalisation and the implementation of the Noosa River Plan. 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 further report giving advice and recommendations of the in regard to the relevant issues and proposals in the draft Noosa River Plan. So we've had a number of opportunities over years for the community engagement. I do however think that it's important if there's something in that where we've come to and where staff have got 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'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. Fact, a lot of the area that's most in 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, mooring, liveaboards, is in the area outside the fish habitat. Whereas the proposal in action 1. Is about those fish habitat areas. And if I can. It's really important to know. 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 the map habitat such as man Main Roads, salt marshes, seagrass, sandbars, mud banks, rocky outcrops, but allow legal commercial recreation indigenous fishing, okay. Also had some they have restrictive elements in terms of development around so what's between a fish habitat and what we're proposing in the conservation park. In the original draft in there a 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. Something like the Gold Coast water waste management authority and discounted it. 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 already protected. If I go to the next slide, we want to be involved in that. And that's what it says, 1. Is the action, but there's a descriptor here. It talks about a conservation park, represents various opportunities in terms of. Greater 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 it. 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 way that's consistent. It's really just another layer that will give us a head of power to start doing some of the things that we'd like to do. And it needs more understanding of the community, hence why I put in C, that as part of that consideration that we do a round of consultation with stakeholders with an interest in that. I think that's important to do that properly and at the right time. I don't think the next month is think when we're actually considering it, it's more important to do it. I don't think trying to squash it into 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 issue, which will lead into the Resilient Rivers approach. That's up to $40 million. Of funding across 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 to respect the fact that some 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 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 48:11.549
Have some questions. Amelia Lorentson 48:14.713
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 48:27.340
Kim Rawlings, are you able to assist with that please? Kim Rawlings 48:36.201
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 is not underway yet but it is something 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 resilience, 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 you know clear strategic plans around our priorities that are based on risk assessment and scientific information to be able to access those. They all operate at different in time as Lauren said, I don't have those time frames at hand. What I did share with you on Monday at General Committee Meeting is we do know, I wish I had the figures with me, but 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. But we just haven't been out. To leverage or access because we haven't had a clear catchment action plan in place. Amelia Lorentson 50:18.769
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 um is request the CA to consult with relevant stakeholder groups as part of staff's consideration of action one so so we're still going to be consulting with stakeholders it's not a formally complete plan. Kim Rawlings 50:47.559
Absolutely like any of our plans like our Environment Strategy or Housing Strategy or rail you know any URL plans we do they're not complete the day you endorse them they're actually that's just start actually don't you know there's a this is a five-year plan with a range of actions consulted on and absolutely but what it does is it gives us a solid robust framework and Roadmap about what are the priorities things we're going to address what outcomes we're wanting to achieve whether it's a brown river plan housing whatever that's a good plan does and as you know positions you well to attract funding when you've got clear indication of what your priorities strategic are and outcomes you're achieving. Amelia Lorentson 51:37.779
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 51:51.297
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 Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 52:20.738
Yes, Mayor Stewart. Clare Stewart 52:22.464
Councillor Wilkie, was going 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 I posed was, do we have to have a catchment action 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. Unidentified Speaker 52:53.714
Is there a chance? Brian Stockwell 52:55.817
Just a point of order on Standing Orders. The action taken by the Mayor is actually contrary to Standing Orders. Frank Wilkie 53:02.307
I think it's relevant to the question of discussion and Kim Rawlings you got a response to that? Kim Rawlings 53:10.157
Yeah that not my understanding so we're aware of the understanding that there needs to be catchment action plans in place to access the funding for to deliver on-ground 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 Karen Finzel 53:34.863
Thank you I have a question Through the Chair to Councillor Stockwell in your little speech just then you raised this thing about that took the time frame related to funding can you please clarify Brian Stockwell 53:46.394
Where you got this information the advice was we need to make a submission on the investment strategy by Monday Karen Finzel 53:53.020
And when did you find out from the Director yeah my question to you Councillor Stockwell is at what point did you this come to your attention when I answered this afternoon so this afternoon just prior to this meeting yes thank you I have a question Through the Chair 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 54:21.750
We've been working 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 workshops in the development of waterways investment strategy for the last number of months we as officers were provided with a copy of the draft strategy maybe one week ago with a request just to provide some feedback and a submission on that actually by yesterday but we've said just got a lot on at the moment could we have till Monday so it's only just to happen to Councillor Finzel Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 55:06.399
But Through the Chair I have a question then to Councillors given we put forward a recommendation that was supported four to three and the vote the other day at our previous meeting given is that this information's only come to light um 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 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. Kim Rawlings 55:48.254
Just to be clear without conflating these issues we are in a process around providing imported as one of the councils into a South East Queensland overall strategy that is setting up a framework to determine how the Resilient Rivers funding will be allocated so as part of that process as our understanding that a catchment management plan needs to be developed. That is not, our submission into that strategy is not contingent on tonight's decision. We need to that's a separate process. We're providing input into that overarching strategy and we're also developing catchment action plan. What we presented to you on Monday that's in the Council report is that having 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 tasks that are happening at the moment. Frank Wilkie 56:56.274
As Chair I should answer your question, Councillor. It depends on the terms of process. So the, all the recommendations that were passed as motions at the monday's General Committee Meeting only had the status of recommendations for tonight's meeting. And every Councillor has the 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 well so yeah open processes is yeah it's up to the Councillors to ask the questions of staff if they find them relevant Karen Finzel 57:58.943
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 the deadline for this application sorry yeah what is this deadline yes okay Through the Chair there Councillor Stockwell what is the name of the I don't know what is it called this deadline thing Kim Rawlings 58:30.214
What's it called it's the South East Queensland waterways investment strategy have I got that right? And Councillor Stockwell asked me question following what I said on Monday about funding opportunities and what's currently available and I provided some information verbally response to his question I 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 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 and I'm now going to share that with you following questions. Here at the table, okay, thank you. Joe Jurisevic 59:28.229
So just with regard to the deadline element that Councillor Stockwell alluded to, that's where Councillor Finzel I think he's going to, what is contingent on monday's deadline for you to deliver on the strategic element of that with regard to the river catchment management? Kim Rawlings 59:45.715
Like I said previously, it's a separate process, but what, so it's irrespective of what's decided or not decided tonight, we will restore. Still provide input into that solution. 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 so there's a link from that perspective, but in terms of. That's a separate process. Unidentified Speaker 01:00:23.209
One doesn't condition on the other. Any Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:00:27.190
Questions for the Chair? Councillor Finzel. Thank you Through the Chair. I'm just interested in knowing at what point did the staff know this deadline was tomorrow? Kim Rawlings 01:00:37.997
As just previously answered that, we were advised last week to provide comments on the strategy by yesterday. We've requested to have 'til Monday because of workload this week. They've agreed to give us a 'til Monday. Frank Wilkie 01:01:00.093
Do any of the Councillors wish to speak to the motion, the substance of the motion for us? Can I ask a yes. Clare Stewart 01:01:08.468
Kim, where the misunderstanding could be, would it be that, I understand what you're saying about we need a catchment plan, but would that be something that we would do in conjunction, this is what they seem to be saying as part of the program, with the Council of so it's 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? Kim Rawlings 01:01:40.755
Go on, I'm not sure, Clare, I'll need to a have a look and I'll, you know, maybe give Scott a call or. Clare Stewart 01:01:48.000
Yeah, because I don't mean to be argumentary but this is, you know, I just, you know, 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. 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 we can take on notice for clarification. Kim Rawlings 01:02:13.661
Yes, so Through the Chair, I just wanted to add that there are areas that part of the South 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 river, it other funding. So thanks. Frank Wilkie 01:02:38.079
So the point you're making, officer kimber, is that the sooner we have an endorsed Noosa River Catchment Management Plan, the sooner you can prepare the submissions. That's correct, for a whole raft of. Karen Finzel 01:02:53.503
Yeah, 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 deadline say if we miss it because we go back to community to of this engage with them a little further to clarify what they needed? Kim Rawlings 01:03:23.393
So we're not going to miss this deadline because we're going to provide a submission on the strategy as officers into the process. We've been at workshops, we've been given opportunity and now a draft. The Monday deadline around that process. The difference is we will be 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 it's that we've got a draft plan that. Still that's 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 01:04:14.919
Further question, based on what I've heard from the Mayor, response from Scott Smith is that the first course of action to be undertaken for funding would be to create a river catchment plan. Does that sound like that is what the response was reiterating? Unidentified Speaker 01:04:34.962
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 rivers initiative. Admittedly it's not on their website it's actually on the wetlands info website but it talks about quite 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 develop a cap. Kim Rawlings 01:05:05.610
Just to add to that, there are some catchments other than ours in the southeast they don't have catchment action plans so some do as Amy mentioned and they've had been able to input into the strategy because they've got catchment action plans are in development like us and some don't 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. Frank Wilkie 01:05:36.510
Clare's got a hand up. I'll miss you. Clare Stewart 01:05:38.728
Oh, Joe just to clarify from the text message I've got and look there's always 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 may be us to do that may it be beneficial for do it before I'm not sure but 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 01:06:14.540
Thank you Ma'am 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 01:06:23.348
But yes 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 out from what I read out before okay Frank Wilkie 01:06:37.146
Thank you. Councils we have a motion before us Tom Wegener 01:06:43.251
Tom speak to it yes thank you I support the motion the community has asked us now demanded no, that we take action we cannot kick the can down the road on this one the deadline was years ago a long time ago I was gonna read something from Ruth thurston's report Sir Ruth thurston's about how much life the river had in it a hundred 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 what is like now and where we can go but she says the problem is that we forget generation generationally forget now when it I moved here in 1998 you could go down and put a little net out and get some 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 month, a 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 Amelia Lorentson 01:08:29.074
Have some questions just a couple questions in regard to consultation community and support mentioned today through Councillor Stockwell was the 20 years of consultation including the 2004 river plan the well the 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 point did we raise the discussion around conservation park and how many people in the community have been consulted about the resulted conservation part? Kim Rawlings 01:09:22.387
Yeah, it's that's a it's interesting because over many years the issue of management of the river and what mechanisms might be suitable for have been looked at through various, models and various times through those different groups, you know, to the, from a you know, Council have no involvement in the river, it's a state responsibility to know there's been, no action, there's no investment, Council must, it's an important lifeblood for this Shire, Council should have management, you know, 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 regional management, governance river trusts foreshore reserves over the time. It's only been in the last couple of months myself and the property officer were looking at the idea of reserves and what a reserve space, because we have reserves all around the Shire, what, um, how that could maybe be applied to, so Council has got some jurisdiction in the river over some aspects. 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, this as a mechanism and explore it with stakeholders to see whether it's something that suitable. We as officers from our assessment have said, have looked at it and gone, it provides, it's, the best mechanism we've found so far that provides the balance 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. Tom Wegener 01:11:44.503
It seems to me that we exactly what you said the car it's going to be a conversation about the conservation park and yes it question yes it isn't it redundant they gonna had to see here to say that we're going to have a consultation about having have consultation I mean to C is not really required because it's already consulted we're having proposing a consultation Kim Rawlings 01:12:14.191
So what I would say is A, very clearly says, adopt the plan for ongoing implementation, noting that implementation action plans will require further stakeholder engagement. So, that action, consider the implementation or the exploring the option for a conservation park, would be done in consultation. In the plan. There's about 60 actions. 80 well done. Thank you. Each of them identifies partners. So, I don't think there's one of them that doesn't require some level of collaboration, engagement, stakeholder, either with state agency, across Council, with community groups, with commercial operators. So, the whole plan really is founded on a on collaborative. A 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've directly answered whether C was redundant, but Tom Wegener 01:13:22.060
Maybe. I think, in general, you did, yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:13:27.453
Kim, 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. Power, the sole power over the current fish habitat areas. Could you just clarify whether that's the case? You're Kim Rawlings 01:14:04.524
Correct, we had a workshop about it and we specifically spent some time and went over this twice and there was lots of questioning of it. The conservation park, to establish a conservation park needs agreement from Department of Environment science, QPWS, first and foremost 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 the management structures about how the conservation park would be established. We have indicated the plan indicates that it's absolutely not the intention nor our understanding nor our advice professional 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 act. So that's our current understanding framework would work. Obviously in terms of its management objectives that to be explored when if we get a chance to consider it through the process. Frank Wilkie 01:15:39.883
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. Plan doesn't say implement the conservation park, it says consider it and further consultation with the stakeholders is a key aspect of that Kim Rawlings 01:16:10.133
Process. I think it's actually a requirement of it, you know, to actually go through that process and that's our absolute intention. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:24.223
I'll speak to this couple of I'm not going to support the amendment in front of us. To me I think the issue we have is an issue of public trust and compromising public trust. I feel and then there's you know there's broad support for the Noosa River Plan, broad support in Council, 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 so I'm going to throw a quote in as well which at leadership. I think is really apt. Is not a license to do less, leadership is a responsibility to do more and I ask today that we 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 issue is they're not eight people they're eight groups of people and some of these groups represent that. 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 have a 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 have Brian Stockwell 01:19:35.603
As I 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 couple of the is over a couple acting environment managers endeavour to consult with the group on issues other than the ones focused MSQ. Can you give me, the Councillors, a bit of an update about how we endeavoured to involve ESRAC the wider river plan discussions and what the results of that endeavours were? Unidentified Speaker 01:20:08.311
So, yes, Through the Chair, I guess there were a few staff changeovers which made things a little bit difficult and I think a bit stilted for the community. Yeah, I can't Clare Stewart 01:20:22.461
Sorry, can you hear me now? I need to start just completely completed the Q&A part, thank you. Kim Rawlings 01:20:27.087
So there were, I guess, a whole range of issues brought to the committee which have fed into this plan. There were issues relating to 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 council's policies along the way throughout development of the plan and other plans and in 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, it didn't bear much fruit. 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 also. Anchoring and mooring. Sedimentation. So 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 01:21:39.324
The alternative motion that was raised on Monday was mentioned. Just by Councillor Lorentson. What would it require in terms of staff resourcing to conduct public consultation over a month? And how long may that delay the plan? Implications to staff resourcing. Kim Rawlings 01:22:04.621
Um it well it's 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 externally and responding to questions that's one thing if it's actually doing community consultation process then I would suggest we don't have the resources or the budget or 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 depend on what the expectations are about what happens in that next month Joe Jurisevic 01:23:01.531
Okay I said no that was along the lines of what uh where I was going with that as far as resourcing goes and uh the expectation of councils at that meeting what was the understanding of staff with regards to what 30 days would uh enable you or one month to do with regard to feedback from the community on the plan Kim Rawlings 01:23:27.473
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 are and what the Minutes actually said in that regard. It wasn't specific so you didn't have any expectations Councillor Stewart have you got your hand up? Clare Stewart 01:23:47.476
Yes thank you, thank you Amy just a question um based on the fact that I had similar correspondence from this Council Lorentson that eight out of eight insurrect people who had been contacted hadn't had any input to the river plan um I guess and I'm just wanting clarification from you the main focus wasn't it main concern was, as you said, around the livermore liveaboards the moorings and the anchorage wasn't it for that group that was Kim Rawlings 01:24:17.172
The focus Through the Chair yes but there were other issues that were brought to the group and commented on including water quality objectives we've 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 very very new and the committee had completed its term in March so we engage did attempt to with our partner organisations about it but because the committee had concluded its term that's why they weren't specifically consulted on this and so I just add to that um Clare um but the agenda for that uh the interrupt committee was very much driven by the members too so the terms of reference and the scope of the answer 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 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 is ended up kind of driving the agenda really 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 01:26:10.463
Is it true that NSREC is not the only source of feedback for this plan? Weren't the definitive authority on the direction this plan might take. Kim Rawlings 01:26:20.559
No, no, no, they weren't and you can see the long list. It can't be across everything. No, they absolutely can't. Clearly they were very important stakeholders because they are representative of most of the issues in the catchment, been a lot of individual meetings with community members, Bushcare groups, environment all the State agencies, the boating alliance who weren't on the insurrections. There's a raft of people being boated. Frank Wilkie 01:26:50.563
And just to hark back to the motion that was proposed on Monday, passed on Monday, about going out to public consultation before the plan is ratified. 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 take a process of consultation about a process that engages, that involves consultation? Before we consult. Consultation about what we're going to consult on. What you would have had to have done? Kim Rawlings 01:27:35.110
I I'm going to cancel. Think Councillor Wegener asked a similar question. 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 new the newer element of the. Joe Jurisevic 01:28:01.527
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 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 and provide feedback. It wasn't a forum, it was an opportunity for feedback to Council. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:40.489
Because I moved the motion, that is correct, Councillor Joe gerusevic. So the questions that I've been getting, and I'm asking myself and Kim, you've probably been getting the same questions, are like what are the legal implications? So think it was more the detail. Wanted time to read the detail and provide a submission to Council about just their concerns and the issues that they needed clarity on. I'll speak to the motion. Clare Stewart 01:29:16.861
Can I have a, I think my, can I, will you speak if I can, I'll ask a Frank Wilkie 01:29:20.475
Question after that if you like? Yes, certainly. 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. Yes, it's 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 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 absurdity. Yes minister situation. Consultation before we have the consultation. It's too much consultation. It 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 in the park and then consultation a is, sorry, a conservation park consultation is intrinsic to happen before that park Councillors we were had our attention brought to a constellation 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 be the sole have responsibility for our conservation park it gives as we know says in the page 37 of the Noosa River Plan he's excuse me he's speaking come to the motion oh sorry our conservation house establishing fish habitat areas and 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 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 of which is quite timid to consider the introduction of a conservation park it's not bold it's not implement it's not action consider that have and there'll be consultation that have to take place before that the alternate motion is tiptoeing away from that so now we know to get constant we need to have consultation before we implement a process that will involve 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 18 actions it's not even an action it's considering an action there's an absurdity to want more consultation and feedback about that and yes there they're urgent one can be across everything the NOSRAC did a fantastic job and narrowing their focus down to anchoring and mooring which has been a grievance a thorn in the side of this 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 just don't think any more further delays at the final hour are justified motion the we have before us the last line this is to part I and part C have further consultation with relevant stakeholders part C makes it specific about those that may be concerned about a conservation park we'll get that feedback before we consider implementing and that feedback will be integral to the direction we take regarding a conservation park motion on Monday is basically part C that happens before we even implement something so I just think it's paralysis to go the alternative motion is paralysis by analysis that the motion as it so the plan as it pertains to the conservation park is very tiny. I appreciate time 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 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 Amelia Lorentson 01:35:36.397
Thank you I have a question Through the Chair yes my question is we're focusing a lot upon the conservation park to staff have stakeholders contact you do regarding other details in the Noosa River Plan outside the conservation park and you know I've got other issues such as construction of a pontoon so is there other details that are concerned Kim Rawlings 01:36:09.576
Yeah we have some had other issues raised, most of which have been raised previously that we've known about through the process so that you know there's voting alliance have raised issues that there's issues about the pwc's and so they they've also been raised in the last week um like I said most of them we've known about conservation park it's the new concept piece of the river plan that's probably been the main issue Frank Wilkie 01:36:42.705
Yeah Mayor Stewart you've been very patient thank you Clare Stewart 01:36:46.811
Thank you um Amy just a question for you um just on I know you mentioned the Noosa boating fishing alliance and I know we've all received as have you an email outlining their concerns and say 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 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 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, impossible an impost on staff 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 timeframe, 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 01:38:00.649
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 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 has been done. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:38:27.076
Being Councillor Stewart 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 01:38:40.703
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. It'll just depend on whether we get 200 responses, five 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. Yeah, exactly. That, if you can use a hoot. 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. Anyone else? Through church. The Chair, it's just very quickly. I'm sorry. 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. So each of these actions that are going to be requested, I guess, consulted anyway. Joe Jurisevic 01:40:10.196
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 01:40:25.307
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion please before Councillor Stockwell closes? Joe Jurisevic 01:40:31.616
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 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 producing 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. Is I don't see a lot of mentioning of 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 seven, our regional government partners. I'll read you the paragraph that I think is relevant this goes forward and goes forward with every 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. If we can get that as best as we can, I'm happy. 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. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:42:55.766
Can I speak to that? Feedback is collated. How is that going to be put to Council if people are requesting things to be cut out of this plan? It's taken years to collate. 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? Out? Kim Rawlings 01:43:20.741
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. We get feedback and consultation and say, "Here's the findings, this is our analysis, this is the officer recommendation, and these are recommended changes we suggest to the report." We would then put that report to Council and for your consideration. Or no changes? Depending on what the. Karen Finzel 01:43:51.692
Oh, yeah. Staff." 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 think 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 community to give them 30 days. The extent of the community's concern 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, envisioning 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. Yeah, I 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 at this point at this table 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, give them 30 days. I think that's reasonable. I think we have a commitment to our community to work hard at 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 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 voice at the table. Unidentified Speaker 01:47:02.082
Thank you. Mr Stockwell, Mr price. Clare Stewart 01:47:05.276
I haven't seen it. Sorry, Mayor Stewart, my apologies. Thank you. Gone but long forgotten, hey? I will not be supporting this either. The from the information that- we've all received, when eight out of eight people say they 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. We focusing. Need feedback 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, 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 do it in our Housing Strategy, but we still put it out for a consultation. We still ask for feedback on those words such as "consider" when there wasn't a definite. We still mentioned those words and wanted the communities to 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, said has 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 to do. So I won't be supporting Councillor stockwell's motion. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 01:49:14.119
You, Ms Chair. Councillor, I'm sorry, Mr siyana-Councillor. Just to clarify, sorry. We are talking, people are using the term 30 days. What we've talked okay, that. Those people listening thinking they've got 30 days, especially 30 days of feedback. We'll have to establish a time for that so that we've got time to collate that feedback. So just to clarify that, please. Joe Jurisevic 01:49:40.995
And the clarification that can occur through the email response from staff to the stakeholders. During the process being 30 days. Brian Stockwell 01:49:52.528
We've heard a lot about what we owe the community. Good quality consultation and meaningful engagement. That's what we've had over the last six years on and off there have been big gaps. 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 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 that. 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 is actually contrary to our policy on community engagement. It seemed to be doing the right 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. And I know the consultation hasn't been perfect and nothing ever is. 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 conserving and present the areas 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 way that is consistent with area's natural and cultural resources and values? And should we be ensuring that commercial use of the river is ecologically sustainable? Because don't confused about what this is about. It's 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. Because this is what we think is right for the river. Frank Wilkie 01:52:30.850
Councillor Stockwell, put the motion those in favour. That's Sir Louis Councillors Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie against. Councillor Jurisevic, Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson. The motion's lost. We have another motion here. Someone care to move that? Councillor Lorentson. I'll second. By Councillor Stewart, Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:52:56.087
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. Thank you, you've got the floor. Hi. Think we've said what needs to be said. I won't go over what I said at the General Committee. Frank Wilkie 01:53:22.470
Thank you. Any other Councillors to speak to this motion? Tom Wegener 01:53:28.019
I think the language is ad hoc. Senseless. It's as Brian said. Given an opportunity to consider the details and Willy-nilly send information back that we will have information to consider. It's not systematic. Process. It's not the way things should be. And I going to. Think it's gonna just backfire tremendously upon us and we will be looking at the Council that kicked stuff down the road. Didn't get it done so I just couldn't have the competency to actually get something done like this. Amelia Lorentson 01:54:16.452
Now I'll put no. Do you wish to close? 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 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, notion of conservation park was raised two months ago. The NSERAC which represent 14 of all most of the water users and land 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. Again, the broad objectives catchment plan are supported and possibly the and 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 does 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? Legal applications? Outcomes Council seeks to achieve? Clarity, articulating, come coming clean with 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 01:56:24.020
Thank you. We'll put the motion 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 01:56:44.583
Yes, thank you. I have delays. To leave. Commitments. I beg your pardon. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Yes, Thank you. Everyone. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:56:54.400
Thanks. Okay, you've got to go too. Yes. Watch him. Item 8.1, Councillor Stockwell is leaving the meeting as well. According to and this risk report, item 5, internal audit payroll. 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, confidential matter about insurance management update. Item 13, confidential matter regarding fraud, corruption and PID update. We can have a move and a seconder that the report of the Audit and Risk Committee dated 22nd of August, 2023 to be received. So moved, Chair. Thank you. Moved, Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's unanimous. We now move on to the Planning & Environment Committee report. Flying fox state and the management intent, 5.2. Application for reconfiguring a lot, one into two lots at 28 sandow drive, Tewantin, which was referred to the General Committee. Item 5.4, application for 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. Unidentified Speaker 01:58:16.951
Is that one that you'll read out? Yeah. It's going to be good at least. Amelia Lorentson 01:58:25.032
Page 8 of the report, Cam. Unidentified Speaker 01:58:27.298
Page 8 of the report. Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:58:29.745
I, Councillor Finzel, will inform the meeting. I have declarer. 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 01:59:15.511
I move that Councillor Finzel, that we note the report declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Finzel determines the public interest of Councillor Finzel remains to participate votes 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 01:59:34.491
Only the fact that as the report is for noting only there is no decision making process involved. Frank Wilkie 01:59:39.390
Thank you. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And Councillor Finzel did not vote. Can we have a mover and a seconder for the General Committee. So General Committee recommendation is carried. That's sorry, Councillor Lorentson seconded Councillor Finzel. Yep. That's in favour? That's carried unanimously. Can I adoption of the Planning & Environment Committee recommendation. Except we're dealt with by separate resolution. So moved, Mr Chair. Councillor Jurisevic. Second. Councillor Finzel, in favour? Tom Wegener 02:00:13.292
We're not at the 5.1 yet, no, okay, just making sure. Frank Wilkie 02:00:17.567
Sure we're now up to item eight point three 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 second Councillor Lorentson and all in favour that's unanimous we're now up to item eight point four the General Committee Meeting report application for other change to development approval integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course complex 18 holes to include group farmstay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at 59 Kabi Road, Cootharaba. Cootharaba, um, Councillor Wegener, this is me, oh, this one, oh, we have a motion have martian guy. Though. Tom Wegener 02:01:22.662
I, Councillor Tom Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest upon request to staff for permaculture, upon a 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 socialise with him outside of our common interest of permaculture. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest. Therefore, will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Joe Jurisevic 02:02:11.423
I'll move that 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 close associate of and that cancel oiga, Wegener and that a reasonable person would trust the final decision he's made in the public interest. We have a seconder to that, please. I do so on the basis of consistency with previous decisions on this matter. Frank Wilkie 02:02:40.747
Any other Councillors? No. it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Wegener did not vote. Now we have a motion the Council note the report by the acting coordinator planning assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting regarding application for another change to development 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 moment for that please. I'll move Councillor Joe, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? Joe Jurisevic 02:03:24.444
To clarify, question to staff in this regard. Just for those people that aren't familiar with what occurs when an applicant puts in a stop motion, can you just inform the community of what the current actions are? Yes thank you. Through the Chair, the applicant has Richard MacGillivray 02:03:40.576
Opted to stop the clock. 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 Frank Wilkie 02:04:18.736
Can I have moment a mover and a seconder for the adoption of the General Committee recommendations, except it was dealt with separately. That was the middle. Joe Jurisevic 02:04:28.621
Sorry, there were two motions after the first one. You've only mentioned one on the left. Frank Wilkie 02:04:33.294
The first one, 7.1, contract for cleaning of open space and public amenities, confidential Planning & Environment Court appeal, application for multiple dwelling units. Clearing of vegetation at 11 C church street, Pomona. And also the contract variation for project management services for 2022 for recovery and reconstruction. We have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of the General Committee recommendations. Ms livingstone happy to move. By Councillor Lorentson, seconded by 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. Brings us to the end of the agenda. The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council chambers at 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin on Thursday 26th of October at 5pm. The meeting closed at 7:06pm. And I thank everyone for their attendance and patience. Thank you Mr Chair, thank you Unidentified Speaker 02:05:33.956
Mr CEO. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
