General Committee Meeting, 17 July 2023
Date: Monday, 17 July 2023 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 03:58:57
Synopsis: Hotel refused over Noosa Plan, urban boundary and odour risks, STA approved with pet/light limits, Mechanic deferred pending acoustic report, Burgess Creek transparency improved, Financials strong.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Deputy Mayor Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Joe Jurisevic Amelia Lorentson Clare Stewart Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment And Sustainable Development Kim Rawlings Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell moved, and Council unanimously recommended refusal of the Noosa Springs Resort Complex MCU21/0110, citing inconsistency with Noosa Plan 2020 (strategic framework, biodiversity overlays, Recreation & Open Space Zone, and local plan codes), overdevelopment, vegetation clearing, acoustic gaps, reverse amenity to STP, lack of “overriding community benefit,” and urban boundary breach (Item 5.1; 01:12:04–01:32:00). Patrick Murphy confirmed officers had recommended conditional approval based on odour “ground-truthing” to the 2.5 OU line and mitigation (mechanical ventilation, carbon filtration), but Council resolved to deviate due to policy and environmental conflicts (Item 5.1; 05:14–11:40, 29:14–30:04). Home-based mechanic at 39 Eucalypt Way deferred to Ordinary Meeting to seek an acoustic report; staff warned approvals run with land and require enforceable amenity protections (Item 5.2; 01:43:03–02:05:32). Short-term accommodation at 2A Woongar St, Boreen Point approved with conditions; additional conditions adopted for pet control and lighting spill (Item 5.3; 02:06:11–02:36:45). Domestic dogs allowed only if permanently confined to buildings/fenced enclosures; domestic cats allowed only if permanently confined indoors, reflecting high environmental sensitivity (Item 5.3; 02:09:19–02:16:09; 02:16:09–02:24:08). Lighting condition added: external light spill not to exceed 8 lux at 1.5m outside the Rural Residential boundary to protect fauna; staff noted this aligns with emerging amenity controls (Item 5.3; 02:24:08–02:36:45). Proposed bushfire maintenance plan condition was defeated; staff to refine approach via asset protection zones/local laws instead (Item 5.3; 02:36:50–02:49:58). Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Program – Burgess Creek: Council noted continued liaison with Unitywater, progress toward a catchment plan (scoping only this year), and expansion of monitoring sites; acknowledged the notices of motion have been actioned (Item 5.4; 02:53:18–03:32:59). Environment Strategy Year 3 Update deferred to the Ordinary Meeting due to multiple COI declarations and breadth of linked groups; ensures full participation following proper COI handling (Item 5.5; 03:40:20–03:50:23). Interim FY2022/23 Financials noted: strong operating position, capex 82% delivered, and high cash reserves explained by advance grants/levies; audit final at November meeting (Item 6.1; 03:51:32–03:58:34). Contentious / Transparency Matters Noosa Springs hotel debate hinged on odour risk from STP versus strict adherence to the urban boundary and biodiversity protections; Council favoured certainty and scheme integrity over technical mitigations (Item 5.1; 25:41–31:35; 01:31:27–01:32:00). Unitywater’s concerns on reverse amenity (Murrumba Downs example) were weighed; peer reviewer said Noosa STP is modern and complaints must be substantiated, but Council prioritised risk posture and community expectations (Item 5.1; 20:43–27:23; 39:40–44:55). Burgess Creek transparency strengthened: Council secured REMP data access (under confidentiality deed) and public presentation; officers flagged future public-facing dashboards for recreational health (Item 5.4; 03:05:52–03:21:29). Environment Strategy item deferred to avoid procedural risk given multiple COIs and references to specific groups (Item 5.5; 03:43:54–03:50:23). Legal / Risk Hotel refusal grounded in Noosa Plan 2020 conflicts (strategic, biodiversity, ROS zone) and SEQRP integration; protects litigation posture in parallel urban-boundary appeal contexts (Item 5.1; 59:26–01:01:00; Committee Recommendation A1–A7, B1–B5). Reverse amenity to STP cited under State Planning Policy “emissions and hazardous activities” with potential to trigger costly upgrades; refusal mitigates regulatory and financial exposure (Item 5.1; A3; 20:43–27:23). Acoustic risk unresolved for hotel loading dock; Council included as a refusal ground due to inadequately assessed plant/equipment noise (Item 5.1; A2; 53:02–55:56). Home-based mechanic: staff cautioned that conditioning without an acoustic report is unenforceable and precedent-setting; approval runs with the land, heightening long-term compliance risk (Item 5.2; 01:43:46–01:46:41; 01:48:44–01:52:19). STA lighting/pet controls in Boreen Point adopted to avoid fauna harm and neighbour nuisance, aligning with environmental overlays and amenity provisions (Item 5.3; 02:24:08–02:36:45). Conflicts of Interest Clare Stewart and Karen Finzel left for Noosa Springs hotel (Altum/JFP links; petition); Brian Stockwell declared but was permitted to remain; all per LGA 2009 Ch 5B (Item 5.1; 01:28–05:05). Brian Stockwell left Burgess Creek item due to presidency of Noosa Lions FC and land/water management at Girraween; Amelia Lorentson declared familial/association interests but permitted to participate (Item 5.4; 02:53:18–03:05:11). Frank Wilkie , Brian Stockwell , and Amelia Lorentson declared COIs for the Environment Strategy update (Eastern Beaches links/donations); Council resolved they could participate, then deferred item to Ordinary (Item 5.5; 03:40:20–03:50:23). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Urban Boundary Council reaffirmed principle not to facilitate applications that drive scheme amendments; clear delineation of urban boundary and ROS protections were decisive (Item 5.1; B1–B3; 01:24:16–01:27:49). Officers’ “ground-truthing” via 2.5 OU odour contour was rejected in favour of mapped zone/overlay primacy and biodiversity avoidance (Item 5.1; 05:14–12:20; B2–B3). SEQRP read “as a whole” did not compel approval; Noosa Plan 2020 considered the appropriate vehicle to manage timing/sequencing and environmental constraints (Item 5.1; A4–A5; 01:12:04–01:20:16). Short-Term Accommodation (Boreen Point) STA within Rural Residential portion approved; occupancy limited to 8; strict pet confinement and lighting spill limits added to protect koala habitat and nocturnal fauna (Item 5.3; 02:06:11–02:36:45). Proposed bushfire vegetation maintenance condition failed; officers to refine via asset protection zones/local law compliance rather than broad site-wide clearing (Item 5.3; 02:36:50–02:49:58). Environmental Concerns & Burgess Creek Council and Unitywater to continue monthly coordination; Council gained data access (under deed) and is scoping an Integrated Catchment Management Plan pending future budget (Item 5.4; 03:05:52–03:13:58). USC flow monitoring underway; REMP indicated STP effluent often dilutes poorer upstream water quality; next steps include potential public health dashboard and expanded stormwater monitoring (Item 5.4; 03:05:52–03:17:27; 03:30:19–03:31:14). Community concern themes: weeds, acid sulphate soils, overflow risks from SPS, need for flow quantification; Council supports evidence-led transparency and advocacy to DES (Item 5.4; 03:21:29–03:27:29; 03:27:29–03:32:59).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 17 July 2023 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair) Karen Finzel, Joe Jurisevic, Amelia Lorentson, Clare Stewart, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Deputy Mayor Cr Frank Wilkie Councillor Cr Karen Finzel Councillor Cr Joe Jurisevic Councillor Cr Amelia Lorentson Councillor Cr Clare Stewart Councillor Cr Brian Stockwell Councillor Cr Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment and Sustainable Development Kim Rawlings Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf APOLOGIES Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 12 June 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - BAR, FOOD, AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, RESORT COMPLEX AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 11 JULY 2023 - ITEM 5.1) GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stewart provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as, unbeknownst to me at the time, my mother signed a petition against the development for the proposed Noosa Springs Hotel. Subsequently to finding this out, I have since removed myself from all workshops and discussion on this application. My parents also live in Noosa Springs. I also understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel Development. Leigh McCready, who is associated with Altum, is a friend. As a result of my conflicts of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Stewart left the meeting. 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 I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel Development. Leigh McCready, who is associated with Altum, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Finzel left the meeting. 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 as I have come to understand that JFP Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel Development. Leigh McCready is associated with Altum Property Group. On 24 February 2020 I sought a review by the Independent Council Election Observer (ICEO) as to the public claims of the Future Noosa Team in regard to Ms Leigh McCready. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and my queries at that time were 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 in the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Stockwell participates on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and Cr Stockwell’s queries at that time were in the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding MCU21/0110 development permit for material change of use for resort complex (106 rooms), food and drink outlet, bar and outdoor sport and recreation at Links Drive, Noosa Heads and A. Refuse the Application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate, in circumstances where: a. Part of the proposed land use is a resort complex, in circumstances where part of the subject land is outside of the urban growth boundary in Noosa Plan 2020; b. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for Resort Complex, which is an inconsistent use in the Recreation and Open Space zone; c. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land, at the expense of the natural values of the land and involves a reduction of land in the Recreation and Open Space zone; d. The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the subject land, at the expense of its environmental values, as it proposed that an area of existing open space be developed; e. It results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important area and an environmentally sensitive area; f. The built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable. In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of Noosa Plan 2020: i. Strategic Framework – 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.2(g), 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.4(b)(p); ii. Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code – 8.2.2.2(2)(a), (b) and (c), Table 8.2.23 PO1, PO3, PO5 and PO12; iii. Recreation and Open Space Zone Code – 6.6.1.2(2)(a)(c)(f)(g) and(s), Table 6.6.13 PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO15, PO16, PO17, PO18, PO19 and PO38; iv. Noosa Heads Local Plan Code – 7.2.5.2(2)(b)(e), Table 7.2.5.3 PO5, PO26 and PO27 2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will not involve unacceptable acoustic amenity impacts, as: a. the acoustic impacts of plant, equipment and services associated with the proposed development have not been adequately assessed; b. if it is the case there are indeed acoustic impacts, no measures have been proposed to ameliorate those impacts. 3. The proposed development conflicts with the State Planning Policy, State interest emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing Sewage Treatment Plant and risks inhibiting the sewage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to potential reverse amenity impacts. 4. When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (SEQRP) does not lend support to the proposed use of the land, as: a. the SEQRP sets a long term, 50-year vision, establishing aspirations for this region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequencing of residential developments occurring within the Urban Footprint is a finer grained detail, the GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 planning for which is implemented through local government planning schemes; b. the designation of land as being within the Urban Footprint does not imply that all that land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes; and c. when assessed against Noosa Plan 2020, the proposed development is not suitable for urban development. 5. Noosa Plan 2020 appropriately integrates and advances the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017, as set out in section 2.2 of the planning scheme. 6. The proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop outside of the urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity proposed and where inconsistent with the local landscape character. Nor has any overriding community benefit been demonstrated, which would justify approval despite its conflict with the planning scheme. 7. Many valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters that the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect because of the change to the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. B. Note that Council resolves to deviate from the staff recommendation on the following grounds: 1. Council is of the view that there is a clear delineation of zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan 2020 maps. Further, that: a. Council is of the opinion that the demarcation of the split zone over the lot took into account a range of factors, over and above the acceptable line of odour nuisance. During the development of the Noosa Plan 2020, as would be the case in any future potential scheme amendment, avoidance of areas mapped in the Biodiversity Overlay and protection of vegetated and noise buffers to adjacent residences were/would be important factors when determining the appropriate development footprint; b. There is a long-standing position of Council that it doesn't facilitate development applications that drive the need to amend the Planning Scheme. 2. The proposal represents an excessive use of Recreation and Open Space Zone land for an inconsistent use, and does not adequately achieve the Desired Outcomes for the zone, including those listed below: Development does not adversely impact on the Shire’s environmental values or reduce the quality of recreational experiences provided by land or waterways within this zone; Adverse impacts on ecologically important areas, including natural habitats, bushland, wetlands and waterways are avoided or minimised; Impacts are managed with landscape buffering and appropriate design, siting and operation of facilities and infrastructure: 3. The proposal does not adequately manage impacts within areas under the Biodiversity Overlay and, amongst other things, does not meet Performance Outcome 3 with respect to the following requirements: Development is designed and sited to manage adverse impacts on ecologically important areas by: a. minimising the total footprint within which all activities, buildings, structures driveways and other works are contained; GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 b. locating development in existing cleared areas or areas of low ecological value over other areas to the greatest extent possible; and c. incorporating siting and design measures to protect and retain ecological values and ecosystem processes within or adjacent to the development site. 4. A large number of valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters and Council is satisfied the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect as a result of the change to the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. 5. A valid submission from Unitywater identifies potential risks and flow on costs associated with the proposed development of additional sensitive receptors within the Recreation and Open Space Zone in proximity to the Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant. Carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2.04pm The meeting resumed at 2.13pm 5.2. MCU22/0120 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – HOME-BASED BUSINESS (MECHANIC) AT 39 EUCALYPT WAY, COOTHARABA (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 11 JULY 2023 - ITEM 5.5) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0120 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Home-based business (Mechanic), situated at 39 Eucalypt Way, Cootharaba and defer the matter to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 July 2023 to allow further discussion with the applicant regarding the provision of an acoustic report. For: Crs Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener, Stewart and Wilkie Against: Cr Finzel Carried. 5.3. MCU23/0019 - SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 2A WOONGAR STREET, BOREEN POINT (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 11 JULY 2023 - ITEM 5.6) Motion Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. MCU23/0019 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation situated at 2a Woongar Street, Boreen Point and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions as outlined in Attachment 1. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Condition 11 be added to read (with the numbering reordered as applicable): 11. Domestic dogs are permitted on the property provided that they are permanently confined within buildings and/or fenced enclosures. Carried unanimously. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That the Condition 12 be added to read (with the numbering reordered as applicable): 12. Domestic cats are permitted on the property provided that they are permanently confined within buildings. For: Crs Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie, Wegener and Stewart Against: Crs Jurisevic and Finzel Carried. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Condition 13 be added be added to read (with the numbering reordered as applicable): Lighting Amenity 13. Any illumination resulting from direct, reflected or other incidental external lighting emanating from the site must not exceed 8 lux when measured at any point 1.5 metres outside the boundary of the Rural Residential zoned portion of the land. Carried unanimously. Amendment No. 4 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Condition 27 and Advisory note be added to read (with the numbering reordered as applicable): 27. A Bushfire Hazard Maintenance Plan providing recommendations for onsite vegetation maintenance must be prepared by a suitably qualified person*. Any maintenance requirements recommended in the Plan must be carried out on site in accordance with the recommendations. In this regard, the Maintenance Plan must relate to the maintenance of on-site vegetation, for example removing fallen branches / leaf litter from the site, maintaining cleared access tracks, cleaning out building gutters etc. Advisory Note For the purpose of preparing a Bushfire Hazard Maintenance Plan, a qualified person is considered to be an ecologist with a minimum of 3 years current experience in the field of bushfire assessment and management. In this regard, this relates to the maintenance on fallen branches / leaf litter etc. Lost unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. MCU23/0019 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation situated at 2a Woongar Street, Boreen Point and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions as outlined in Attachment 1 to the Minutes - Final Conditions. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 5.4. INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM - BURGESS CREEK (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 11 JULY 2023 - ITEM 5.8) 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 the fact that as President of the Noosa Lions Football Club (NLFC) I have land and water management responsibilities for approximately 4.5 ha of the Girraween Sports Complex. This involves the application of mainly organic, slow release and calcium-based fertilisers and herbicide over what is a sizeable holding in terms of the catchment. The club also uses groundwater for irrigation and has used surface water and recycled water in the past. The downstream impact of sports fields are potential risk factors for the quality of surface waters in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role with NLFC and the fact that the club is not likely to gain or lose from the proposed monitoring program, I choose to leave the meeting. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my brother Gabriel Cerasani lives approximately 3 kilometres from Burgess Creek. Also, until recently, my brother was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association who have made submissions regarding issues with Burgess Creek, including raising a petition on the matter. Considering recent advice given to Councillors by the Office of Independent assessor, that is, to exercise an 'abundance of caution', I believe it is prudent to declare a conflict of interest. It is important to note, that I have taken myself off the CHAP and the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan because of my brother’s involvement on the EPBA. An Integrated Catchment Management Plan for Burgess Creek is not part of the CHAP nor part of CHAP solutions. It is part of a broader, Noosa Catchment strategy of waterways. What I have been requesting since June 2022, is an analysis and review of environmental monitoring and impacts for the Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant releases into Burgess Creek and the catchment. Matters regarding Water Quality Issues affecting Burgess Creek catchment, and environmental impacts of Wastewater Treatment Plant outflows into the Burgess Creek catchment. Burgess Creek catchment covers roughly 545 hectares, it drains from the back of residential GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 developments in Noosa Head, through bushland and community facilities near Eenie Creek Road, and then through a Council-managed Bushland Reserve and National Park. It affects and impacts thousands and thousands of people in the Shire. The disposal of liquid waste into our waterways, including freshwater, oceans and rivers creates social and environmental problems for the whole of Noosa Shire. This issue is a significant issue for the whole community. Water quality has political, environmental, and legal implications for the whole of shire of council. Many of these implications include risks to Council infrastructure such as stormwater, open spaces and roads. In October 2022: I moved a Council resolution at the LGAQ Conference: Regions becoming more Resource Independent through efficient use and re-use of Wastewater. I called on the LGAQ to advocate to the State Government of Qld to undertake a state-wide analysis of recycled water reuse that values the protection of local ecosystems and provides suitable data to assist councils and water authorities and retailers in producing business cases for water reuse. Supported (almost unanimously). In June 2023, I moved another Council resolution at the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) calling on the Australian Government to formulate a National Policy on Ocean Sewerage Outfalls that aims at: No new ocean and estuarine sewerage outfalls to be built/developed along the Australian coastline, and Dedicated funding to be provided to support local regional governments and wastewater providers with existing ocean and estuarine outfalls, to develop new methods/technologies and make every effort to recycle 100% of all treated wastewater generated within their localities and avoid the need to discharge in the ocean. It was carried unopposed by 357 Councils in Australia. Both motions were supported unanimously by this Council. I have also put forward a motion for Council approval for this year’s LGAQ Conference in Gladstone calling for LGAQ to advocate to the State for a State Policy on Ocean Sewerage Outfalls because we need to develop a standard, wastewater diversion targets and wastewater recycling and reuse targets that can be replicated across all the States in Australia. I believe that my intention cannot be questioned. The outcome I am seeking to achieve is: Cleaner oceans Cleaner wastewater Reducing the impact of liquid waste on the environment and communities Transitioning towards a circular economy for liquid waste Environmental best practices For the whole of Noosa Shire. An Integrated Catchment Management Plan for the Burgess Creek Catchment that will form part of a broader, Noosa Catchment Strategy of waterways will help us plan to achieve this outcome. For nearly two years this issue has become one of my passion projects. I have knowledge and expertise that I bring to this table and integrity. Although I have a declarable COI, I believe I could consider the matter impartially and in the public interest. I 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. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Lorentson and determine that Cr Lorentson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Lorentson can remain impartial in this matter and that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest providing necessary and vital input. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 Cr Lorentson did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Environment Officer – Rivers & Coast to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 and: A. Note staff will continue liaising with Unitywater regarding the Burgess Creek STP data and aspects of Burgess Creek management; B. Continue scoping and development of a Burgess Creek Integrated Catchment Management Plan in partnership with Unitywater and key stakeholders; C. Note the continued development of Council’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Program including potential expansion to include additional monitoring sites; and D. That this report responds to previous Council Notice of Motions. Carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 4.05pm. The meeting resumed at 4.12pm. Cr Stockwell returned to the meeting. 5.5. NOOSA ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY - YEAR THREE (2021/2022) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ANNUAL UPDATED (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 11 JULY 2023 - ITEM 6.2) In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wilkie provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as in early 2020, I received an electoral donation of $750 from Peregian resident Susan Francis. Susan Francis is the partner of Peregian resident Barry Cotterell. Mr Cotterell is the president of the Peregian Beach Community Association (PBCA). The Environment Strategy Update mentions the progress of the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The PBCA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and legal advice has indicated the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan is not Ordinary Council business because it relates to a specific geographical area and that links to groups who have made submission to it ought to be declared. Although I nor the PBCA, which is a volunteer community group, stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report, I make this declaration out of "an abundance of caution" and commitment to transparency. 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. Cr Stewart assumed the Chair due to conflict of interest declaration made by Cr Wilkie. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilkie and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Wilkie participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Wilkie does not stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Wilkie resumed the Chair. 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 as in early 2020, I received an electoral donation of $500 from Peregian resident Susan Francis. Susan Francis is the partner of Peregian resident Barry Cotterell. Mr Cotterell is the president of the Peregian Beach Community Association (PBCA). The Environment Strategy Update mentions the progress of the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The PBCA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and legal advice has indicated the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan is not Ordinary Council business because it relates to a specific geographical area and that links to groups who have made submission to it ought to be declared. Although I nor the PBCA, which is a volunteer community group, stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report, I make this declaration out of "an abundance of caution" and commitment to transparency. 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. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest 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 that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Crs Stockwell, Lorentson, Finzel and Wilkie did not vote on the above motion. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter because my brother Gabriel Cerasani, who until recently, was on the Executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association who have made submissions to the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan. The report references the Plan as part of the Noosa Environment Strategy. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe my brother nor I stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. 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. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2023 Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That the matter be deferred to the Ordinary meeting. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JUNE 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 July 2023 outlining the interim 2022/23 full year financial performance against budget, including key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:06.041
Welcome everybody. I declare the meeting open. I begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we're gathered here today, which is the Kabi Kabi People. Pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Have all Councillors in attendance. We have no apologies, but I would like to apologise for the Council broadcasting at the wrong time for this meeting, which was incorrectly advertised as being a 10 o'clock start. It is 12.30 and that's been fixed so it should be no confusion in the future, so I apologise for that. Now we have someone to confirm the Minutes of the last month's General Committee Meeting with the Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Mayor Clare. All in favour? That's carried. We have no presentations, we have no deputations, we have items referred from the committees, and the first one is an MCU 21-0-11 application for Material Change of Use, bar food and drink outlet, outdoor school and recreation, resort complex at Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads, which was referred from the training and committee. Environment committee meeting from last week due to the significance of the issue, and we have our manager of planning, Patrick. Yeah, and we do have some conflicts of interest to. Declare as well. Thank you. Mayor Stewart. Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:29.612
Of Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration for meeting of a declarable conflict of interest. I, Councillor Stewart, before this meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as unbeknownst to me at the time, my mother signed a petition against the development for the proposed Noosa Springs hotel. Subsequently to finding this out, I have since removed myself from all workshops and discussion on this application. My parents also live in Noosa's springs. I also understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are a developer of park ridge in Noosa Springs, made a submission against Noosa Springs hotel development. Leigh McCready, who is an associate of Alton, is a friend. As a result of my conflicts of interest, I will now leave the meeting room. While this night is considered and voted on. Thank you, Mr Chair. Karen Finzel 02:18.663
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest on this matter. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in the matter, as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants, on behalf of Leigh McCready, who is associated with altum, on behalf of property group, who are the developers of park ridge, New York. Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs hotel development. Leigh McCready, who is associated with altum, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted upon. Thank you, Catherine. Your welcome. Brian Stockwell 03:15.366
I also invite. Wish to inform the meeting that I've declared comparable conflict of interest in this matter as I've come to understand that JFP Consultants on behalf of the Altum Property Group, part of the developers of park ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs hotel development. Leigh McCready is associated with the Altum Property Group. Altum the 24th of February. 2020, I saw a review of the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the Future Noosa Team in regard to Ms Leigh McCready. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and my queries at the time were in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however I respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain in the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Joe Jurisevic 04:00.683
I move that the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by the Councillor Stockwell in the public interest that the Councillor Stockwell participates on this Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and not a statutory process and the Councillor stockwell's periods of time for the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice. You have a seconder for that? I have a second. By Councillor Lorentson. I do so on the basis that is consistent with the position that we have taken on this matter and this declaration in the past through all Council matters associated with. Council stock rolls. Councillor stockwell's declaration on this matter. Frank Wilkie 04:38.995
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the motion. Welcome staff. We have our new Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray, head of planning, Patrick Murphy and their team. Sorry. Paul Kang. K-A-N-G. Yes. Thank you. Bill Lowe, senior environment officer. Will Lowe, senior environment officer. Thank you. Would you care to give us an overview of Patrick Murphy 05:12.526
What we've had before? Certainly. Yeah. Thank you. I'll give an overview and as Councillor Wilkie's referred to, we have Paul Kang who is our odour and acoustic expert and obviously will's a senior environment officer who will be able to take some questions a little bit later. It's probably just pertinent to start with the zoning map for the site. This is a zoning map under the current scheme and it shows the site to be split zoned. The orange area being the Tourism Accommodation Zone and then the sort of the light green or blue area to be the Recreation and Open Space Zone. So that's the Noosa Plan 2020. Under the previous regulation of the planning scheme the whole site was zoned open space and recreation. Also of note is that the urban boundary under the planning scheme sort of snaps back to the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Under the previous version of the scheme the urban boundary was around the perimeter of the site so there's been some changes from the previous scheme. To this scheme. The introduced the Tourism Accommodation Zone it really recognised how Noosa Springs had been developed with previous approvals that were seeking for some tourist accommodation use. Used to occur on the site having been developed but those approvals didn't limit the occupation of the premises those new premises within park ridge to short-term residents only they short-term and permanent occupants and have primarily been taken up as permanent occupants and again hence a need identified to provide some tourist accommodation within the Noosa Springs precinct neuris hence the zoning change. And I think we can also be mindful of the quantum of five-star offerings within Noosa being quite limited so it's seen that this site would be a good opportunity to develop in such way. A and also noting that we do have events like the Olympics sort of not too far in the distant future so that need for a high accommodation is quite significant also of note is the odour line which is also detailed on the plan which is something that I'm sure that we'll talk to in a bit more detail and that is the 2.5 odour unit line and in terms of the I suppose the zoning that was created under the 2020 scheme was designed to provide a buffer between the sewage treatment plant and the Tourism Accommodation Zone without any robust methodology being undertaken at that time and wasn't you know where that delineation should occur so the assessment of this application has used the 2.0.5 odour unit line as a ground truthing exercise to determine where it was a probe where it has been appropriate to site this building and the associated uses so there's been this application has been in hand for nearly two years and there's been some discussions with applicants prior to the application being launched. Lodged and that sort of ground truthing concept is something that's been consistently applied in those conversations and the assessment of the application the site does have biodiversity overlay mapping within it initially it was proposed to cite tennis courts generally in this area here that is an area that's identified as koala habitat subsequently the applicant made amendments to the layout to move the tennis courts the existing car park to preserve that vegetation there is a loss of vegetation within the biodiversity overlay across the top of the site across the top of the Resort Drive which has been assessed by our environment officer as being reasonable to be removed it's also noted that offsets have been proposed by the applicant when it was proposed to cite the tennis courts in the koala habitat area it was there was going to be a financial offset as required by but the applicant also proposed to offset with a hundred and twenty koala trees and 25 glossy feed trees they're still proposing to do that although they're not removing the koala habitat so that's proposed to provide those offsets on the golf course into it's locations in terms it's considered of the built form that the appearance of the building is consistent with development of the original Noosa Springs development and certainly with the resort facilities that exist on site associated with the golf course and the spa which the resort is to use in combination with the accommodation use there are some very variations to the height allowances and setback and site cover and plot ratio being that the building does exceed the 12 metre height limit in the Tourism Accommodation Zone and the 8 metre height limit in the Recreation and Open Space Zone. On those intrusions are not considered to be significant in terms of their impact on the surrounding area and they are a consequence of the topography of the site and the large scale, large form of the buildings. There are, in terms of the site cover and plot ratio, the development proposes, I'm sorry, that the proposal seeks development in the Recreation and Open Space Zone and accordingly doesn't comply with the site cover and plot ratio requirements. However, it does comply with the total amount of plot ratio and site cover that is permitted within the tourist and accommodation zone. So yeah, and that's including the existing buildings that are on the site as well. Also, just to note that an there's been a number of reports provided with the application in terms of odour reports, acoustic reports, traffic and car parking reports, bushfire reports, water quality and water and quantity reports, which have been reviewed by the relevant external consultants and also by staff and deemed to be appropriate. Also, I just, and I just, and to conclude, as per the report, despite the conflicts with the planning scheme in terms of the zoning and noting the ground tracing that's occurred with the, odour impacts officers are recommending that the application be supported subject to conditions. Frank Wilkie 11:41.075
Thank you Patrick. Questions? Joe Jurisevic 11:47.006
Development of significance Council have often sought the of advice of other architects and local architects. Have we had any input from other, because I know one architect in particular has given us some input on this development, but have we had any of our local architects do any consideration of this development? Patrick Murphy 12:06.553
No, due no to its, you know, there hasn't been a review by any architects, it was something that was discussed, but we were comfortable with the appearance of the building in terms of its consistency with the built form within Noosa Springs and its location. Joe Jurisevic 12:25.439
The change to the urban mapping from the previous state of Canberra to this point in time. Is there any background as to why that change in this planning scheme? Given the nature of the potential for the development of this committee. Patrick Murphy 12:47.926
I would have to I would have probably clarify that for you Joe. Joe Jurisevic 12:52.614
The Director at the time is actually in the room and she might be able to change her mind. Kim Rawlings, you're welcome. Kim Rawlings 12:58.983
Thank you, Through the Chair. Councillor Jurisevic, yes you might recall that there was always anticipated to be short-term accommodation resort delivered at the Noosa Springs community in the wider community as part of the park ridge development. That didn't occur as a result of approvals at the time. During the development of the Noosa Plan 2020 that need was still considered something that was required so there was some consideration of where else on the site that might work and the identification of this area adjacent to the existing facilities kind of covering the car park site was looked at. So it was about still achieving a tourist facility in that vicinity. It's one of two last sites that can potentially deliver tourist accommodation and at the higher end five-star type accommodation. Joe Jurisevic 13:58.673
The existing footprint is where what is essentially mapped as opposed to what was previously mapped in the urban mapping from what Patrick said, area. Encompassing the whole of that, land parcel. Kim Rawlings 14:12.315
Is that correct? Can you say that again, Joe? Joe Jurisevic 14:15.317
What is mapped currently in the orange on the map is what is in the Noosa Plan. Yep. What Patrick said, or if I misunderstood, is what was in the previous scheme was the entire land parcel that was included in the urban map. That's what I just heard. So just to clarify that correct. Patrick Murphy 14:31.910
Just to clarify, I'm what I'm saying that the whole site was zoned open space recreation under the previous scheme and now we have split zoning. But also there was an urban boundary which went around the whole site. That's right. And now that's been brought back to the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Unidentified Speaker 14:48.686
So why was that change in the planning scheme? Feelings there? Kim Rawlings 14:52.079
Look, it was just, it was snapped back to the Tourism Accommodation Zone at the time. Frank Wilkie 14:57.996
Was that as a precaution because of the odour? We didn't have the odour modelling at the time. Kim Rawlings 15:02.704
Yeah, so the was done on information at the time. We definitely didn't have the level of odour investigations that we've got now to sort of substantiate where that boundary should actually be. And as you know, when we do have split zonings, you know, often there's truthing process that goes on. It happens often with the environmental conservation zone where, you know, the zone will have a particular boundary, but it's not until you get in and do detailed site investigations that actually could shift based on, you know, the detailed information. So that's what's happening here. Frank Wilkie 15:40.030
I think that's the right set of questions. Yeah, Tom and then me. Tom Wegener 15:43.615
Yeah. Considering the power issue, plot ratio, I just heard you say that the existing building does not exceed plot ratio when including the older Noosa Springs building. Is that-- did I hear that right? Patrick Murphy 15:56.234
Yeah. So the-- I think it's approximately 15,000 square metres of GFA that's permitted as a result of the total area of tourist accommodation zoning. The total amount of GFA associated with this new building and the existing buildings on the site do not exceed that. Tom Wegener 16:17.008
Would the GFA, if the new building is approved and it's found that the old Noosa Springs isn't going to satisfy the demand from the hotel, would they be in violation of the planning scheme if they wanted to double the size? And make current Noosa Springs fit size-wise and be able to facilitate the people from the hotel in Noosa Springs, if Noosa Springs grows. They have a GFA problem in the future? Patrick Murphy 16:53.224
So just to reiterate, so that area, Tourism Accommodation Zone, there's 15,000 square metres of GFA permitted. What is proposed with the new building and the existing building is only 10,000. So they're 5,000 square metres under the GFA they're that permitted to develop in this part of the site. So if they were to seek to remove those buildings and to develop additional GFA, it's really GFA it's reasonable that they would be able to go up 15,000 not and I suppose some of the things I'm saying in the report are that if Council were agreeable to allowing the footprint of the building as it is detailed on these proposed plans there may be a need or there would be a need to amend the planning scheme the mapping so that there could be a rectification of the urban boundary and the zoning in the future and that might mean shifting recreation and open space zoning in other parts of the site city. As well. As thank you. Frank Wilkie 17:55.878
Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 17:57.862
In terms of the odour complaints, the unity board has raised challenged and raised concerns about review and recommendations that have been made by council's consulting odour expert and I want to note they that the Katestone modelling was done in 2016 and did not take into account changes in population and the their development of the city. Of this area in the last six years including park ridge and the eleusin. They, in the report, in the order said, look, if on legal advice, they could transfer the responsibility onto the developer, then they would probably sit a little bit more comfortably in this space with risk. Can we clarify, there was in the report noted that transfer response of responsibilities not legally, not capable of legally transferring the responsibilities across, is that right? Unidentified Speaker 19:05.154
That is correct. We sorted, we were Patrick Murphy 19:07.797
Having discussions with the applicant as to whether they'd be agreeable to entering into such an agreement and also sought legal advice as to whether that would be enforceable, lawful document. And the advice that we received was no, it's not something that you could do really to take away someone's right to object. So there would be problems. It just wouldn't be suitable. Amelia Lorentson 19:30.264
So I will refer back to, I think it was condition 13, that all guests must be advised of the potential for odour from the sewage treatment plan to be noticeable. Again, a concern raised by Unitywater is that people might mistaken were from some mistaken odours that could be caused by bats or by Main Roads, etc. And their concern is, again, is complaints made and it's proven to be an environmental nuisance. There may be a situation where there are expensive modifications made to the STP, so the risk then is not only to the Unitywater, does Council ratepayers also carry financial risk or burden? That happens, and again, I referred to the deputation where the Unitywater spoke about Murrumba Downs and the cost of upgrading or putting those older installations to the tune of $38 million. Can you confirm or clarify more? Is that cost borne by the ratepayers down in more than May? Patrick Murphy 20:43.898
It's probably a good opportunity just to talk about that assessment of the risk. If you don't mind Paul could just share your thoughts on that. Okay so a couple of things. Paul Kang 20:54.947
Councillor Lorentson mentioned 2016. So the coachland report that was submitted with the development allocation was dated 2020, so the year 2020. I think the 2016 might have related to some earlier odour sampling that was conducted, not when the report was prepared. So my is so my role in this has been to, on behalf of Council, to assess the technical assessments that have been provided. I've also met with Patrick and Unitywater on a number of occasions to understand their concerns. So firstly just with Murrumba Downs, we'll just work backwards. I was listening to the deputation last week, so I heard what Rhett said. In terms of Murrumba Downs, my research shows that particular plant is a lot larger than the Noosa Springs plant, probably about 60% larger at the current point in time. The Murrumba Downs plant is the nearest infrastructure of Murrumba Downs is 80 metres from the nearest residential boundary, so it is a lot closer. The major odour producing infrastructure, the uncovered infrastructure is a bit over 200 metres away from the closest house, so it is closer in proximity. In terms of looking at the aerial photography, in terms of the odour control measures that are in place at Murrumba Downs as compared to Noosa Springs. So Noosa Springs, when it was updated in 1997, my understanding was, significant odour controls were put in place. Covering of the primary treatment units, installation of a biofilter that sucks the odour from those odour producing units and discharges to atmosphere. The inlet works is enclosed. There are other measures. Oh, sorry, and the primary clarifiers are covered. The Murrumba Downs plant has those, but on a much larger scale because it's a larger plant and possibly a couple of other measures which I'm not exactly. What they are. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Noosa plant is quite modern in terms of it's a high degree of odour control. So Council at the time had some forethought in what they did. It would appear, and so there is a good degree of odour control on the plant. Now as series treatment plants grow, as the catchment grows, of course the plant will need to be augmented at some point in time. I'm not sure of what those details are. The assessment has been conducted on the current size of the plant. So I think the point you were making 2016, they were the odour emission rates that were measured in 2016. The modelling that's been done is based on the current physical size of the plant. So there's been no future forecasting undertaken. Unitywater have made, I believe, a statement that you know in the future where the plant will need to be upgraded they'll probably have to include additional odour control measures as the plant grows and that's not unusual even if we ignore the development that's on the table today because the plant is quite close proximity to existing residential. So I think in terms of that the existing residential to the west eye measures about 300 metres from the nearest sewage treatment plant source. The existing park ridge residential to the south is about 365 metres away. The existing tennis courts are about 265 metres away. The proposed accommodation building that the building that we're talking about here is approximately 265 metres away at its nearest point. The outdoor recreation areas which is the open space zone is within approximately 225 metres. So 300 metres now to the nearest residential bringing back to the short stay accommodation development 265 metres. So we're talking about 35 metres closer. Just to quickly wrap up, I've been, my role was to review the technical assessment that's been prepared. So I've been through the Katestone report, we issued an information report. Request. They responded with further detail, they gave us their models, we've reviewed the modelling that's been done, and I'm comfortable from a technical point of view, the assessment demonstrates that the 2.5 odour unit contour is outside of the line or the resident. The accommodation building is not within that 2.5 odour unit contour. 2.5 odour units being regarded in development assessment by the Planning & Environment Court is the pass /fail line, shall we say. So it's the speed limit. So if it's been. Appropriately demonstrated, out. The hotel is outside of the 2.5 odour unit contour, which is what I'm saying has been done here, there's no technical reason why that development can't exist, and people will experience appropriate amenity. Frank Wilkie 25:42.565
Does that mean. There's to this resort will still experience on occasion some odour? Paul Kang 25:52.775
Yes, I'm not saying that they won't experience odour. The one point I forgot to make is that with respect to the outdoor areas which are with some of which are within the 2 of.58 contour. That 2.5 odour unit contour is based upon the highest 24-hour average, sorry one hour average over the entire year. One of the information request items that we went back to them with and they've provided further information is that 2.5 OD is only exceeded in those outdoor recreation areas within the contour in the nighttime period sort of between 2:00am. And 4:00am. So one of the conditions that patrick's put in the package is limiting the hours of use of those outdoor areas to 6:00am. To 10:00pm. So people shouldn't be there when higher odour events occur and they occur intermittently so the 2.5 odour units is a 99.5th percentile exceedance so 44 hours a year you're going to get 2.5 odour units or higher most of the time it's far less than that so people may detect it I've detected odour driving in the Noosa Springs I'm happy to say that the criteria is set on the basis that the majority of the population is not annoyed by it we can't have an absolute if we had absolute criteria we wouldn't to have backtrack development so to answer your question yes people may at times smell something from the sewage treatment plant they won't necessarily know what it is so I can't say that they won't but the technical assessment shows that it should be an acceptable level if they're out well even if you're outside of the 2.5 odour unit line less than 2.5 yes you can still smell odour so in terms of very small proportion that yeah so so just to give you the numbers and sorry I'm an engineer so I deal in numbers so one odour unit is the level at which you can just detect an odour now it's logarithmic so 2.5 is double it's two and a half times that, but because of the long rhythmic, means the logarithmic it means you can smell it but that's not good that does the 2.5 isn't all the time that's just on 44 hours a year it's going to be 2.5 and generally in the early morning period when the atmosphere is most stable colder temperature inversion conditions. Frank Wilkie 28:13.956
Some in your view what would need to be done to the nursing wastewater treatment plant in order for there to be Paul Kang 28:20.755
I think it is an impossible I think it's an impossible dream certainly in europe there are plants that are fully enclosed but you're much harder you're much higher population densities the trouble is that the trouble the fact is that modern-day sewage treatment plants rely on being in the open atmosphere for air exchange biological action that's how they work so here with the primary treatment systems are covered the secondary tanks aren't the clarifiers are so really you can't fully enclose it so you're never going to not have some odour. Frank Wilkie 28:58.764
So you're satisfied that with the buildings being enclosed and limited hours for the use of the outdoor areas that the applicant has managed the impacts of any odour sufficiently to a standard that satisfies yourself? Paul Kang 29:14.237
Yes so I don't know about any other but they've managed the impact of odour Ida to an acceptable level are the conditions require that the hotel be mechanically ventilated. The conditions require that there be activated carbon filters on the supply air to the building. The conditions also require that the fresh air inlets be located on the building as far away from the sewage treatment plant as possible. So that's all to minimise and really with activated carbon filters to prevent odour within the building itself. Frank Wilkie 29:41.919
And Patrick, in an ideal situation, now you've got this information about where the odour control lies, if there were to be planning scheme changes, would the Tourism Accommodation Zone be extended to be extended to have that 2.4 contour line be eastward of that 2.5? Patrick Murphy 30:04.803
Well that's probably a question for our strategic area and for your Councillors, but yeah that's right. Ideally it would be within the area that's below the 2.5 units, noting that part of the Tourism Accommodation Zone is already outside. And can I just add one thing? I think it's relevant that parkridge, the approval or the assessment of parkridge and the oasis precinct, which is the precinct which Paul referred to where there's a house within approximately 300 metres. To the west. Both of those applications were supported by OTA odour reports and the methodology used was the same and the criterion that they both sought to rely on for where their development should be cited was the 2.5 odour unit line. So at that time 2005 was the parkridge application, 2007 was the OASIS application and again both those applications supported by reports, supported by Council on the basis of compliance. Complying with the 2.5 odour unit line. And at that time, it was noted in the reports that when these plan of development was first done pre the upgrade to the treatment plan, that a 600 metre buffer was required. But subsequent. To the improvements to the plan and the demonstration of the compliance of 2.5 odour units through the reports, that those developments were considered reasonable. Frank Wilkie 31:35.595
Just one final question, if I may, Joe. The residents who took part in the deputation said that they do experience odour. They have complained, but can you confirm whether Council has received any complaints? We've read in the report that neither unity nor Noosa Springs has received any complaints, but they maintain that they have complained and they can experience of that they it. Patrick Murphy 32:01.590
Yeah, it. So I've had a look at our electronic records and can't find any records of complaint. The report submitted with the application notes that there was an RTI request made to Unitywater and to Council of any complaints. There were no complaints that were identified in those record checks. The reports associated with the previous applications do talk about pre the upgrade and it was only like a few complaints yeah a few complaints so and we've asked we've specifically asked Unitywater in meetings as well have they received complaints and they said that they haven't. Joe Jurisevic 32:42.256
Sorry, John. No, that's thank you you've gone down the rabbit hole I was going down. The one specific thing I asked Patrick to reiterate from Unitywater is have they had any complaints because we were categorically told on at the meeting the other day from one of the residents that they have complained to Unitywater so I'll find this disparity between yes there is complaints being lodged and no complaints have been received to be an anomaly. But I don't understand how a complaint could be made yet no complaints are registered. The fact that pre-1997 I don't think much of this development was there pre-1997 so it can't have come from these residents and it must be resident elsewhere. Very healthy so you've got no further information with regard to any complaints from Unitywater? No complaints have been lodged is there a response? Paul Kang 33:32.979
That's correct and sorry just to add also DES Department of Environment and Science we contacted the regulator over Unitywater and at the time the report was written they had received Joe Jurisevic 33:44.557
No complaints either. I wouldn't expect that the general public would go to DES. They would go to either Council or the source of the problem which is the sewage treatment plant if in fact that is the source of the problem. That's one. Two. Three. Four. Five. We talk about the developed receptors within but there are other receptors within closer than the 2.5 odour modelling line. Recreational activities such as the heroin sporting complex. And the Men's Shed is adjacent to the sewage treatment plant. Have there been any complaints from those receptors with regard to their proximity to the sewage? Patrick Murphy 34:27.080
I'm looking against the property from which the odour would emanate and there's no complaints logged on that property and to your point about the Men's Shed, Unitywater have just facilitated a development approval for a Women's Shed on their site as well which is in again in much closer proximity to the treatment plant. Unidentified Speaker 34:46.112
It seems in contrast to what Unitywater have been presenting here. Joe Jurisevic 34:48.852
Well that's just an observation, we're not asking for a response on that. You mentioned the character and capacity of the plant. Now I know we've got a presentation with Unitywater on that and the numbers were something like a hundred thousand properties that they're supposed to be able to get or up to a thousand. Off the top of my head. Do we have any information with regard to the current carrying capacity of the plant as it currently stands versus its ability to handle the influx of visitors during peak periods? And what uh and how that impacts on its capacity all Paul Kang 35:25.165
All I know is that the plant is licensed under its license from DES is to up to a hundred thousand they're licensed up to what their actual capacity is at the moment I'm not sure. Joe Jurisevic 35:35.485
I understand that the presbyterian Unitywater that I recall was well under that. Back yes and that the future need for upgrades of that plant since that last upgrade is sometime in the future but again our capacity to exceed that hundred thousand is a question that I've got with regard to how or when that may occur given that we have a national population capacity of current living around about 65,000 properties. Patrick Murphy 36:07.860
That's true and noting that there is another treatment plant out at Cooroy. Joe Jurisevic 36:12.166
Which caters for the other which the other element thank you um you mentioned activation you mentioned activated carbon filters. I'll ask two questions with regard to that. What are the properties and the benefits of activated carbon filters on an air conditioning system? Paul Kang 36:27.204
Sure, so activated carbon like most air conditioning systems have a dust filter on them. An activated carbon filter is just another cartridge that slides in and out. So activated carbon is an odour filter so it is commonly used on a more commercial aspect on cooking exhausts from restaurants. I won't name certain ones but there are fast foods around that chargrill they use activated carbon filters so they're very effective at reducing odours. Joe Jurisevic 36:59.900
Other you mentioned the other developments around and Park Ridge being the most recent. With an odour report, were any of their air conditioning systems required to have activated carbon filters installed? Paul Kang 37:12.915
How much is it now? No, I don't believe. Joe Jurisevic 37:14.616
Well, my recollection is no. Being the next nearest and having an odour report. Their. They only work on the air conditioning system. Have the units got the capacity to open windows and doors in the direction of Unidentified Speaker 37:31.596
The STP. STP? I think the answer to that's yes. Patrick Murphy 37:38.764
Well, yeah. So I suppose the interface of the building with the contour line is that there's two of the five pods that interface. I'd have to just refresh the elevation plan. I'm assuming they have sliding doors, balconies. Certainly within the site, around this area, well away from the 2.5 unit line, they do. I'd have to just refresh myself with the elevation plan to see how that is on that eastern facing. Joe Jurisevic 38:10.380
They've got air conditioning or not, they could have open windows and open doors if that was the last of my questions. Thank you, Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 38:29.120
So, if there be a complaint, then you water would be forced to make these expensive modifications. My question, Paul, is, I know we're sort of debating, has there been a complaint? Says, she etc. But I sit here as, you know, someone that's looking at risk, and I understand there's been some modelling. Surely the question has got to be if it's got the potential to result in odour complaints, then you must consider that risk and then consider the ramifications or the implications of that, which is, again, there's a cost, and that cost is worn by our ratepayers. So the potential to result in odour complaints is real, and the report that our expert on page 26 or 27, that's actually not disputed. And I understand there are mitigation measures, but I want to throw at you the potential of odour complaints. Is there potential other odour complaints? Paul Kang 39:39.279
You're- Are you happy for me to answer this one? Please, sure. So there is a potential for a complaint. There's no hard and fast rule about the grounds of someone making a complaint. The point I will make, though, is whether it's a substantiated complaint. We're all going to--- And as to whether the regulator finds that the complaint has validity that requires the operator to do something in response. So a large part of my practice is working for developers, abattoirs, composters, people who make odour. And quite often I spend a lot of quite spent time with DES in terms of complaints and those sorts of issues. So it's about assessing if something needs to be done. And a lot of time it doesn't. So some people are sensitive, they'll lodge a complaint. But it's got to be a valid complaint, reasonable complaint. And it doesn't take just one complaint to require Unitywater to do something, it generally will be based upon how many complaints and what their investigations show. Another thing that Rhett said the other day was that DES did not take account of the 2.5 odour unit contour. Well that's a little incorrect. They do. If there's a complaint they'll send an officer out to investigate and for them to experience is it unacceptable odour in their opinion. Then if they deem it is then there'll be action taken against odour unit in water for them to investigate the complaint and to assess it. And that's generally done by taking odour samples, doing odour modelling and looking at where the 2.5 odour unit contour sits. So it's not a fact that one complaint can cause an issue it's if there are a lot of complaints and if they're substantiated. The one thing to consider I suppose in this case, and so I'm not disputing that people may complain, but people living there may complain now. The data we have, Patrick and I have, is that there are no formal complaints on record bad idea this is right about odour from Noosa Springs, from the sewage plant, sorry. So if there is a complaint and it's investigated, whether you know you ought to have to do anything or spend any money depends upon if it is a problem. The is being conducted today shows that there should not be an exceedance of the 2.5 odour unit 99.5th contour criterion on the basis of what's there now. Things always you know um but I think change, things can happen. Think we're talking about risk, we're talking about 300 metres to the nearest residence now, 265 metres for this building, we're talking about short stay accommodation rather than permanent accommodation, and the difference being short stay accommodation, just in my opinion, if someone had a problem with odour staying here, they would more complain to the hotel than go to the regulator about it because they'd say I wasn't happy staying here. So I think there's less of a so risk to Unitywater from a short stay accommodation development than permanent residential. Amelia Lorentson 42:48.206
So again, on the point of order, if you want, Councillor Wilkie, real versus perceived. If I go into a hotel and I read, you know, August must be advised the potential for odour on the sewage treatment plant, to me every smell that I have I'm going to associate with the sewage treatment plant. So I get that there's going to be an investigation and any vexatious complaints are not going to be considered. But the risk is reputational risk and that's probably where I'm sitting. I get your. A is that a ground, is that a planning ground? Reputational risk. Is that something that should be considered given the risk of grant? Paul Kang 43:42.602
Okay. So firstly, condition 13, I think, was put in place to, I won't say cover all bases, but it's a bit like having empty buyer beware. In my opinion, it's not a condition that has to be in a package if we're approving this. You don't have to tell people that they're near a sewage treatment plant and they may smell it. I listened to rhett's presentation the other day and agree that in the context he put it, you're putting people on notice? You know, you don't have to do that. Would be more something that would be akin to if it was a permanent residential. So residents come in, cabin empty, buyer beware, just letting you know you're living near a sewage treatment plant, you're in the flight path of an airport or whatever. Condition 13, I don't think, in my opinion anyway, needs to be in the conditions package and I don't think there's any loss if it's not in there, in terms of protecting Unitywater with respect to operation of this development. Joe Jurisevic 44:46.865
Receptive area, please beware, it might as well be a fine print on the doctor's side to go in the room or. Paul Kang 44:56.182
But whether it's there or the conditions there or not, I don't think really makes any difference to the outcome. Joe Jurisevic 45:00.243
So is there anything to indicate how that has to be, that information is provided to the guest? Well, it says that you've got a, note for them, so provided it's on, a notification on the website or on a piece of paper they sign to. Take most of the room well, it would that meet those criteria. Patrick Murphy 45:26.540
That criteria. But we probably agree with what Rhett was saying, that it's not something that is needed in terms of the inflow. Inflame, I suppose, or draw people's attention to what could potentially be a notice. Why is it being put in as a condition? Because it had come through the original narrative and the original review of the proposal, and at that time it was supported, but it hadn't had the alternate view from Unitywater at that point in time. So I on the lines have a question along a similar line. Frank Wilkie 46:00.475
Why is it proposed as an argument in mitigation that because it'll be short-term visitors staying here, that reputational risk for the experience at odour is less of an issue than if it were permanent visitors? Paul Kang 46:16.184
Okay, I'm not sure I quite said that then if I did. Frank Wilkie 46:18.708
I didn't mean to. That's what I get from reading the documents. Paul Kang 46:21.953
Right, okay. So I'm probably not the person to ask about reputational risk, but in terms of risk I did say before that in terms of a complaint being made to the regulator, because that's what I heard Unitywater talking about and being quite concerned about the other day, I think there's less of a chance and a validated complaint being made to the regulator by a short-term accommodation guest as compared to a permanent resident. Joe Jurisevic 46:48.862
Correct, Paul Kang 46:54.412
So that was just the point I was making there. In terms of reputational thing, from my point of view as I started saying earlier in terms of the criterion, the 2.588 of criterion, if the odour levels are at or below that, people shouldn't take offence to it. Trying to put it into simple terms, staying in this hotel at 2.580 units shouldn't be at a level that you regard is bad for Noosa. That it's a high level of odour. It's something that you might smell on occasion. Odour is something that travels across the body. In puffs, so you get little puffs of it at times. It's not something like noise from an air conditioning unit that's there all the time. It tends to come and go. And the one thing that hasn't been taken into account in this assessment is the very very significant band of vegetation that extends along the ridge between the site and the sewage treatment plant. So vegetation helps to increase dispersion, increase surface roughness, so there's less potential for the odour to be at a higher concentration. That hasn't been factored in. It was something that was considered in the 2005 and 2007 approvals for park ridge, considered, didn't factor into the decision because I was involved in those peer reviews at the time as well. But it's just another factor in this case. Also, the last thing I'll say, sorry, is that I heard Rhett talk about the ridgeline and the effect of topography. In this case, Noosa Springs resort is well elevated above the sewage treatment plant. Generally, you find that the worst case odour conditions when you've got low wind speeds, temperature inversions, and odour tends to flow as katabatic drainage, it more goes down valleys and gullies, it doesn't flow up a hill under those sort of low wind speed conditions. And it's low wind speed, less dispersion. During the day, when you get sunlight, you're mixing in the air, the odour, even though the plant's at a higher the day because people are awake and using it, the atmospheric conditions tend to mix the odour up, so you get less transport. So at night, the fact that it's elevated, the site is elevated above the sewage treatment plant is a good thing, rather than being at a lower elevation. Frank Wilkie 49:06.143
Paul, I was wondering when you were going to mention katabatic drainage in your talk. Sorry? Let's expand a bit on what it is. It the odour travels to the lowest? Paul Kang 49:16.603
Yes. So it's like when there's not a lot of wind. Very calm conditions. So air movement is more temperature driven. So it goes from hotter temperatures to colder temperatures. So the lower you go down, the cooler the temperatures. And sorry, the other way around. Sorry, hot and cold. So air tends to flow under katabatic conditions, you've got a temperature inversion, so you've got warm air above, cold air below, and air just tends to, like water, tends to follow the easiest path, so it flows down valley drainage is the easiest way to call it, rather than katabatic drainage. So this happens all the time. It's a well- it's a well understood fact, to me anyway, but it is an important consideration here, so being elevated above, and I suppose in the reverse is that quite often like a big power station, for example, has a big stack that's nice and tall, reason it's nice and tall is to get that pollutant the atmosphere and dispersing away. This is a bit of the reverse. We've got the receptor up here, but we've got the plant down here. It doesn't have big stacks. It has biofilters, but that's treated. The rest are all surface, the big tanks, big surface emitters. So there's not a great temperature flux to push that up into the atmosphere. So it tends to rise up because there is a slight temperature difference. And then it's at the vagrancies of the local meteorology and topography. Joe Jurisevic 50:41.213
So yeah, you mentioned vegetation being a buffer. For odour. Yes. And the question is not directed to you as a result of that, but we've talked, Patrick, within these applications and lots of planning being mentioned in the last week, is there an opportunity for additional planning in the buffer zone between the SDC and the development to facilitate odomania? Unidentified Speaker 51:07.268
Well, I might just. I think we've got a question. The time. Can have all that on top of your head if it comes to mind. Is that something that might Unidentified Speaker 51:14.745
Be able to be considered? Patrick Murphy 51:16.688
I think that what would need to be considered Joe Jurisevic 51:18.840
Was bushfire. Up your bushfire issues and all the rest of it. And the type of vegetation that you would have there, but I know we're doing another offset planting within proximity of this area. Is there a facilitation here that could barrier? Vary up more or less. Will Lowe 51:36.501
Yep, Sir. So as part of the application through the landscaping portion of the application there is that was improvements to the northern and eastern areas with non-flammable vegetation has a similar RA. The um, I believe there's a conditioner so that's been incorporated to include that revegetation within the road reserve. Unidentified Speaker 52:01.380
I'm happy that question has been taken on note because it was a question without water going from what I heard there. So just a thought bubble that's just come up Paul Kang 52:10.124
So can I just jump in sorry one of the recommendations of the Katestone odour report that was prepared by the developer back in 2020 and maintained was planning of dense vegetation to the south of Resort Drive so on their site including plants with fine foliage through the lower stories to the canopy so that was about also providing some more of their own odour buffer. So vegetating, for example, can I borrow your plan, Patrick? Yes, so that's one of their recommendations. Within that road reserve area there? Well, within their site to the south of resort road, so in here. I'm just pointing generally. Joe Jurisevic 52:43.123
The place it currently sits doesn't really facilitate. Plan as a lot of planting between where the last of the resort units are. Correct, just in this part here. But there may be options on the other side of resort road? Paul Kang 52:57.900
I don't know. Sorry, there's a landscaping plan that's probably a little better. Frank Wilkie 53:04.699
Patrick, or one of the other concerns raised by residents was noise generated by traffic going to the loading dock, vehicles reversing. They have concerns about the vehicles reversing alarm. That's right. Patrick Murphy 53:20.935
Affecting laws, amenity, court, nobles and the public. How is that going to be managed? Fortunately, Paul is also an acoustic expert who's looked at this aspect of the development. We certainly recognise that the loading dock area has the potential to have some noise emanating from it to dwelling within 25 metres of the loading dock, so we have recommended a further acoustic report to address that and mitigation measures, you know, to recommend mitigation. That would need to be implemented. That road is already being used by trucks to service the existing resort facilities. It's envisaged that the frequency of the trucks probably be similar. The size of the trucks will probably be larger to accommodate servicing, you know, the larger, demand. Paul Kang 54:16.078
I suppose the efficiency, I'll use that word, was raised by me. Looking at the noise report that was submitted, that there was no specific assessment of the loading dock area. One of the things I said, we can limit the hours. Quite commonly with loading docks and refuse collection, you limit the hours, 7am to 6pm. One of the things with this development is that in terms of getting from the loading dock up to the resort up here, there's a fairly steep driveway, you couldn't get trucks and things up there. I think they were proposing to use golf buggy style things. To transfer things from one on the internal road, not the public road. What I also said is that patrick's conditions require an updated acoustic report that would assess the loading dock. I think with some strategically placed learning doc, acoustic barriers or screens in that around the loading dock area, that the amenity of the park ridge residents can be suitably protected, given that a resort shouldn't really generate that higher volume of traffic. You know, there'll be laundry, there'll be food deliveries, those sorts of things. But it's not like a supermarket where you get lots of vans and trucks. But equally, if this was a supermarket, typically 7am to 6pm deliveries and some form of noise barrier screening. So that's the missing at the moment, but that's why the condition is proposed to do that. And I'm comfortable that Park Ridge residents can be protected. They already get noise from traffic on the internal road now, existing trucks, things going beep at times, other trucks coming to deliver furniture and whatever else. I think where this is located, it can be suitably conditioned and controlled. Joe Jurisevic 55:56.831
Yeah, that's a point that's been raised by residents of park ridge in recent times with myself, with regard to the traffic on resort drives that are used now, and obviously the residential traffic going in and out of park ridges part is of part of that, but also the heavier vehicles, the trucks and that, are delivering there, but also the parking on the road. Are they things that we can condition the resort to manage with regard to not, because some of they are already vehicles those complaints have suggested that are visiting the resort complex and parking on Resort Drive. Is there any opportunity there to limit or manage. Are they lawfully parked, those. They're parked on the road. Is a road, but if we've got heavy vehicles going down there, it's a fairly narrow road as far as I see Resort Drive. Is that something that we can condition to manage, either the facilitation of non-parking on at least one side of the road or safer pedestrian um I could say for access and crossing and sight lines well yeah Patrick Murphy 57:03.974
Well, I'd like to explore the no parking yellow line for you, but the crossing is quite complicated. It's more than just painting lines on the ground is my understanding. Joe Jurisevic 57:16.673
Here's the resort that will facilitate public access and we've got the residents of park ridge living across the road. I would assume they're going to come across and utilise the facilities of the resort that already exist, but any increase in that in regard to exists with and the like they'd be welcome there I would assume from what I understand they would be so um Patrick Murphy 57:42.044
Well the crossing would be something that would become Council asset so um the cost to maintain that and the standard of that would be something that we'd need to look at and come back Joe Jurisevic 57:53.142
To you there'd be a reasonable cost uh impost on the developer to deliver as part of the building Patrick Murphy 57:59.869
Uh I'd have to buy I'm not sure I can see a nexus between the use of the site and the need for the pedestrian costing so I think it would be a stretch to require that condition. Paul Kang 58:10.165
But in terms of the service and delivery vehicles the condition requiring service and deliveries occur on site no of course sorry in terms of the service and delivery vehicles there can be a condition imposed that requires that to occur on site Joe Jurisevic 58:25.856
Vehicles parking on both sides of the road has currently occurred and we've got delivery trucks going down that road it's a fairly narrow road one would think we need to better manage the access of delivery vehicles into this particularly if they're going to use larger delivery vehicles than they currently use by the increasing use. Paul Kang 58:39.280
Yeah and I've seen development approvals and others say you know try and say that the trucks will not park on the street they'll park on the site you know they should be parking Joe Jurisevic 58:49.068
On the resort site. Partly the trucks but access for the trucks is that other vehicles aren't parked on the street so the trucks have safe access. And not, you know, a garbage truck having to go down there, for example, with vehicles parked on both sides of the road, it's a very narrow road, have we got sufficient access down there? I mean, whose facilitation would it require? Council's? Because the Council ran with the current standards. That's right. Or can the impost be placed on the developer to. Patrick Murphy 59:14.032
Well, if it's a matter of painting a yellow it's certainly something that Council could do if it was agreeable to doing so, and then that would need to be enforced by our local law staff. Joe Jurisevic 59:22.280
On the residential side, you'd allow parking. On the other side, the resort side, you may not, for example. Frank Wilkie 59:26.083
Yeah. Excuse me, Patrick. In an ideal world, all this result resort would be in. Within the Noosaville planning scheme's urban boundary. Could you explain the process by which that is intended to be remedied, and are there any potential risk factors in the current world? Or pending court cases for the Noosaville Council to approve a development application on land that sits outside of the urban okay. Patrick Murphy 59:59.430
So yeah, I suppose in an ideal world we would be dealing with an application where, you know, the footprint. Was the same as the zoning, notwithstanding, as I said, the approach here has been about ground-truthing the suitability of the buildings in terms of the odour line, there would be an opportunity for Council to amend its urban boundary. To reflect another an updated footprint, should Council wish to approve it. In terms of risk, there is a legal matter at the moment which involves development outside the urban boundary and it's certainly one of the grounds of the appeal. I have spoken to our lawyers about this particular situation on this site in context of that appeal and they said as long as there was a valid reason to approve this development such as. Then and that was clearly articulated then that would be okay. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:01.595
I think that's a good question. In terms of bushfire and evacuation risk, does the development. Compromise the safety of people, of the residents from the bushfires and has the development taken into consideration the impact on adjoining or nearby residential communities and the capacity of our emergency services? To evacuate people in cases of fire and I've got some numbers in front of me about you know 700 properties, 1,200 population is estimated at 1,200. As a precinct has consideration been given about the impact on the precinct getting in and out and evacuating people? Person, the people. Patrick Murphy 01:01:51.773
So just, we'll answer will the answer the question but this was an application that was supported by a bushfire management plan which was reviewed by an external consultant and you know some reiterations of that plan and also by will who has experience in bushfire management so will I wouldn't mind if you could. Will Lowe 01:02:09.975
So there's probably two key points in this discussion regarding bushfire and that's bushfire on the site itself and evacuating residents and partakers of the site and then the greater local area of Noosa Springs so in relation to Noosa Springs there is a procedure in place to provide alternate alternative care. Evacuation routes. From the estate if required. One of these routes will take vehicles straight out onto ender creek road while the other will take traffic by the Girraween Sports Complex and at home to Amy creek red. Correct. So both these routes will only be implemented under the direction of Queensland police services or QFES. So that forms the basis of the evacuation of Noosa Springs which would include the development site in an emergency. The site itself the application materials included a bushfire hazard assessment prepared in accordance with the Noosa planning scheme policy A for natural hazards and the bushfire resilient communities technical reference guide from the State planning policy. So the bushfire bush rock resilient community is technically resilient communities technical reference guide provides advice regarding the assembling and the evacuation of sites like this. A safe assembly or evacuation area may be a suitable alternative to an evacuation route where the site is in an isolated location so if there was a bushfire emergency to stay on site that is a suitable alternative is to evacuate the site through a route that doesn't pass through the bushfire prone area. So in this instance the evacuation plan has the direction from the east to the west through the site away from any potential bushfire hazard and at this stage safe assembly and evacuation area has been provided in the existing country club. Additional conditions have been provided as well regarding the evacuation to take that to one step further which is to also provide an off-site evacuation location which would be within the golf course which would be wholly outside of any bushfire crime. Prone area. Frank Wilkie 01:04:34.680
And this, that's all well and good in the short-term. Joe Jurisevic 01:04:41.750
And then a prolonged he said, I played people can't sit on the golf course any period of time. Evacuation would have to occur at some stage, potentially, if the incident was ongoing. And that would be under the direction of Queensland fire emergency services. We see the capacity here to review the current evacuation procedures. Mesa entire Noosa Springs estate with regard to that emergency gate, making a more permanent picture, some sort of permanent, rather than a gate that needs to be opened in the event of an emergency, something that facilitates greater movement into and out of the estate to as a whole, with a more permanent egress from the estate, so that we don't have just one road in and one road out. Patrick Murphy 01:05:35.326
So that gate you're talking about at the moment, that goes out to. Eenie Creek to Eenie Creek Road. Yeah, I know the gate you're talking I don't of but I mean but that's considerable work that would need to be undertaken to do that. Would it be reasonable for this development to be required to do it as part of this? I'm not sure that it. I wouldn't think it would be. I mean, we've got to acknowledge that Council has zoned this land as tourist accommodation. There is an expectation that there's going to be a resort in Noosa Springs as a result of the zoning. There's been no requirement in the scheme to require an upgrade to Noosa Springs as part of emergency access associated with this development. Joe Jurisevic 01:06:22.406
So if that were to occur, it may be something that needs to be brought up in a different forum and actually. Considered as capital works for a Council. Unidentified Speaker 01:06:28.347
That's correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:29.347
So I'm just all heading down those paths. Yep. Amelia. So you've the residence got residents, hotel guest, luncheon attendees, staff, Park Ridge, cafe, gym, pool visitors, golf spa users, visitors. Have we got any we details in on how many vehicles potentially may be involved in an evacuation? Because I've met with the residents at Noosa Springs and bushfires of 2019. Alive and well, it's like yesterday. So where are the details? Do we have an idea, numbers of vehicles, what happens scenarios, what happens if one breaks down on Noosa Drive, what happens, you in know, gatehouse of Noosa Springs have provided some numbers, vehicle movements, and I've got all those. I don't know what it is on a daily basis, but the numbers are really quite high. Over the last 12 months, non-resident traffic entering the estate was over 35,000 guests and 46,000 guests trades and construction vehicles. And they've got the, you know, this is just going through records. Last year, the gatehouse, 81,000 residential vehicle movements plus over 100 162,000 non-residential movements. So if I was a resident, oh sorry, so my question, how many vehicles potentially are involved in an evacuation? Will Lowe 01:08:06.323
So I don't have the information. As far as for the entire Noosa Springs and we don't have that information for the site. However, the bushfire resilient communities document, that is the guiding principle, yep, is produced by Queensland fire and emergency services and they outline the minimum requirements as far as providing a safe assembly and evacuation. So the bushfire assessment in this instance has followed as I've already done, provided that information in accordance with that document which is produced by QFES. Unidentified Speaker 01:08:37.884
Would be supported and assisted by QFES yes, I would imagine. Absolutely, yeah. Areas being evacuated. Frank Wilkie 01:08:43.519
Bye. So my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the evacuation plan is not by vehicle, it's by foot to the golf course, the expanse of the golf course. Patrick Murphy 01:08:54.315
It's to the resort building first and then to the golf course as a secondary evacuation if needed. And maybe just to clarify maybe. Amelia's question, you're asking about how many cars. The traffic analysis has predicted that the peak demand for parking on this site and that would be so at midday when the other facilities such as the golf course and the all being used that peak demand is 255 Amelia Lorentson 01:09:23.201
Car spaces. And when was the analysis done Patrick? Patrick Murphy 01:09:28.783
That was based on well there was an analysis done as part of this application but that was but also based on a demand from 2017 noting that around the time of the application preceding the time of the application we were in COVID so it was very problematic for them to get current data at terms of the use of the site because of the restrictions that were in place. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:52.343
So 2017 there were 255 vehicles is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:09:57.490
No what it's saying is that yeah it's it was based on the existing development. Based of 160 cars based on a 2017 survey and then within the additional demand reviewed, you know, of this. Application associated with the new resort. Joe Jurisevic 01:10:18.216
As far as the new element of the resort goes, I've level, attended functions at the current facility and the car park which is reasonably substantial has been very very difficult to find a car parking space. Many additional car parks does this resort development increase the car parking by and if the entire development were to be created today as the parking needs that were there when the resort was the resort element and the golf course element created might made the current parking standards Unidentified Speaker 01:10:54.291
So um I mean has Patrick Murphy 01:10:57.016
The parking as a whole been considered it has this or only the additional no the whole so the demand as a whole meets Unidentified Speaker 01:11:03.726
The numbers required for the resort plus all the resources Patrick Murphy 01:11:09.034
Yeah so the parking has been reviewed by our external consultant who represents us in court and he's determined that the parking associated with the new resort and the existing facilities is sufficient at 250 255 car spaces that's 160 now well that was the demand I mean if you look at the approved the proposed plans there's to be some basement car parking provided in the building and then there's a second I'd have to get back to you on the specific 106 rooms there's Brian Stockwell 01:12:04.543
I'm going I'd like to move motion please. I'd like to move the Council to note the report by the acting development system manager and take out the word acting by the development assessment manager for the planning environment course meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding NCU21/0110, development permit for Material Change of Use for resort complex 106 rooms, food and drink outlet. Bar and outdoor sports and recreational and things. At Links Drive, Noosa Heads and A refused the application for the following reasons. One, the proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate in circumstances where A part of the proposed land use is a resort complex in circumstances where part as of the subject land is outside the urban growth boundary of the Noosa Plan 2020. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for resort complex which is an inconsistent use in the Recreation and Open Space Zone. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land at the expense of the natural values of the land. It involves reduction of land in the Recreation and Open Space Zone. The proposed development could result in the overdevelopment of the subject land at the expense of environmental values. C. I've I already read one line wrong. Yeah, right. As it proposed that an area of existing open space be developed, it results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important and environmentally sensitive area if the built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable. In these two a b c table eight point two three performance outcomes 1, 3 and 5 and 12. C, F, G and S, 6. Table 6.613 performance outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 38. Noosa Heads local plan code 7.245.22B, E. Table 7.2.5.3P, performance outcome 5, 26 and 27.2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not involve unacceptable acoustic and media impacts as A, the acoustic impacts of the planned equipment and services associated with the proposed development have not been adequately assessed. B, if it is the case that there are indeed acoustic impacts, no measures have been proposed to ameliorate those impacts. 3. The proposed development conflicts with the State planning policy, state interest, emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing sewerage treatment plant and risks inhibiting the sewerage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to potential reverse amenity impacts. 4. When four, when red 4. When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 does not lend support to proposed use of the land as: a the SEQ regional plan sets a long-term 50-year vision establishing aspirations for this region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequence of residential developments occurring within the urban footprint is a finer-grained detail, the planning of which is implemented through local government planning schemes. The designation of the land as being within the urban footprint does not imply that land with that designation development. Can be developed for urban purposes and see, when assessed against the Noosa Plan 2020, proposed development is not suitable for urban development. Noosa Plan 2020 appropriately integrates and advances the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 as set out in section 2. Of the planning scheme. Six to propose out in section 2. Of the has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop outside the urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity proposed, and we are inconsistent with the local landscape character. Nor has any overriding community benefit been demonstrated which would justify approval despite its conflict with the planning scheme. Many valid planning grants have been raised by submitters. The proposal represents an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect because the change of tourism accommodation zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. B, note that, oh, I need that first one, yeah, note that Council resolves to deviate from the staff recommendation on the following grounds: one, Council is of the view that there is a clear delineation of the zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan maps. Further, that A, Council is of the opinion that demarcation of the split zone over the lot took into account a range of factors over and above the acceptable line of over nuisance during the development of the Noosa Plan 2020, as would be the case in any future potential scheme amendments, avoidance of areas mapped in the biodiversity overlay and protection of vegetation and noise buffers to adjacent residents were and would be important factors when determining the appropriate development footprint. There is a long-standing position of Council that it doesn't facilitate development applications that drive the need to amend the 2. The proposal represents excessive use of Recreation and Open Space Zone land for an inconsistent use and does not adequately achieve the desired outcomes for the zone, including those listed below. A. Development does not adversely impact on the shire's environmental values or reduce the quality of recreational experiences provided by land or waterways within the zone. Second dot point. Adverse impacts on ecologically important areas, including habitats, bushlands, wetlands and waterways, are avoided or minimised. 3. Impacts are managed with landscape buffering and appropriate design, siting and operation of facilities and infrastructure. 4. The proposal does not adequately manage impacts within areas under the biodiversity overlay and, amongst other things, do not meet performance outcomes 3 with respect to the following requirement. Is designed and sited to manage adverse impacts on ecologically important areas by: A. Minimising the total footprint within which all activities, buildings, structures, driveways and all other works are contained. B. Locating development in existing cleared areas or of low ecological value over other areas to the greatest extent possible. C. Incorporating siting and design measures to protect and retain ecological values. Ecosystem processes within or adjacent to the development site. 4. A large number of valid planning grants have been raised by submitters and Councillors satisfied the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect as a change to the tourism accommodation zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. 5. A valid submission for Unitywater. Identified potential identifies potential risk and flow-on costs associated with the proposed development of additional sensitive receptors within the Recreation and Open Space Zone in its proximity to the necessary treatment plan. Frank Wilkie 01:19:24.410
Councillor Stockwell, we have a seconder please. Seconder, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell will report. Brian Stockwell 01:19:29.650
There's probably not much more being said because a lot of it's in the motion, but if I can ask Cathy to bring up figure Deans I wonder 15 from the planning officer's report. Going to deal with a couple of issues that haven't had a lot of their time as yet. Figure 15 identifies areas of biodiversity significance. I'll talk when it comes up. I've had a look at WildNet and on WildNet there's about six or seven green dots on this particular development site. These green dots indicate sightings of endangered, bold or near threatened fauna or Flora. This is a known koala habitat and while there is on that. It's in the attachment? No, it's in the report. It's a known koala habitat. Part of the site down to the north of it is listed as a matter of state environment. And significance, and that covers the site which is mapped as a remnant ecosystem 1225. That remnant ecosystem has species of it which are known koala and the koala I'm probably just about ready for the map now. By the way, unfortunately we don't get paid. To present any more stuff. I think this is it. There's no page number. Yeah, you're getting close. Good morning. 15 next week. Who's the one more. Oh, no. I don't know who you are, Ken. You're she's one page away. Unidentified Speaker 01:21:24.640
Next one. There it is. Here we go. 15. It's on. Yeah. Cancel is. Unidentified Speaker 01:21:43.661
Sorry. You can probably get it, Tewantin. Brian Stockwell 01:21:45.203
Yeah. Okay. So you can see the stippling of the dots. That's the remnant vegetation. But you also see the green around the outside of Resort Drive. That is the biodiversity overlay. Now noticed in, how I understand how the planning officers got to the point where they recommended this with a lot of discretion. My argument here is that if we were consistent with previous approaches to planning in Noosa. This, my motion is the appropriate way to go. I can't recall any development since coming back in 2016 that we've recommended approval that requires a clearing of significant amount of vegetation. The biodiversity overlay. That in itself would be enough to refuse the development in my consideration. I can remember developments where we have successfully defended appeals where clearing of vegetation under the biodiversity overlay in the under the biodiversity has occurred. I can recall that I do get the occasional complaint from people in the rural area that they're not even allowed to build carports underneath the biodiversity overlay or sheds. So that's a significant issue that I don't think sufficient weight been placed on in the assessment process. If we are going to be true to the values of Noosa as expressed in the Noosa Plan and many other documents, we take care of those areas that are mapped under the biodiversity overlay. Now, they're not, that is, that, the without stiffening isn't remnant vegetation. There might be some remnant trees in there from an expert I've had a look at over the weekend. It's regrowth and it's very close to the point where it would be, once again, to a height and to a standard that could be mapped as remnant vegetation. So that and just having vegetation does trigger the definition of ecologically important area as remnant or non-remnant vegetation is defined. So that, to me, is a really important part that I think hasn't had enough weight placed on it in the coming up the staff recommendations. The next part is, and we've seen the map several times, we did map part of this lot for tourism accommodation and it was for a hotel. There's no argument with that and there is a need for a hotel. We identified this was. That Noosa is well served by units but underserved by hotel complexes of a reasonable standard. And yes, the zoning map isn't by meets and bounds. But it is fairly clear the area that Council thought should be developed for tourist accommodation. And those areas exclude any of the biodiversity and it is a by the best but they're also, the other role that vegetation plays is both a visual and acoustic buffer to the neighbouring developments. By the current development going into the open space zone, it not only goes under the biodiversity overlay, it also moves the potential impacts and amenity impacts much closer to the residents of park ridge. That wasn't perceived and no resident had the opportunity to object to it in the Noosa Plan because the development, the tourism zone was much further away from it, or a number of them. So then we have the concern and I it I think you expressed in one of your questions. We have a significant development for hotel purposes in a recreation open space zone. It's an inconsistent list. Once and again, once again, I can't recall any approvals since the de-amalgamation that would have considered that. It is a really significant deviation from practice. Now, I can understand the argument now that we've got more detailed noise modelling that we could perhaps amend the tourism accommodation zone to take some parts that are affected by the modelling and adjust. It perhaps to where the existing cleared area on the tennis courts are. But we can't do that ad hoc. It's always, you know, it's much longer in Noosa Council that we've always. Tried to avoid developments that pre-empt a change to a planning scheme. And to me that's a really strong principle also that have involved. I'm not going to say much more about odour because we now know a lot. I'm going to just reflect one other thing that the Unitywater spokesman said that I think is really important. He said if the shoe was on the other foot and the hotel development was there and we wanted to put a sewage treatment plant 250 metres away, would you approve it? And obviously we wouldn't. So, I. Understand the science and the modelling and I understand that the footprint has been designed to come within what is modelled as an acceptable standard, at the closest racist point is at a point in the open space zone, under the biodiversity lay, that this Council has never considered to be suitable for a tourism development. So the Council has never made the decision that would suggest we have to expose either unity board or our community to those additional risks. For me, the grounds of varying from staff recommendations are strong and the grounds for refusal, I believe, are valid. Thank you, Councillor. Unidentified Speaker 01:27:50.344
Councillors, any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Question with regard to the First Point in Councillor stockwell's motion, that part Joe Jurisevic 01:27:59.880
Part of the proposed land use in the resort complex 6 is where the subject land is outside of the urban growth boundary in the Noosa Plan 2020. Do we have we any approvals that have occurred outside of the growth of the urban boundary in the planning scheme previously? Patrick Murphy 01:28:19.660
There's lots of approvals that have been issued outside the urban boundary because our rural residential areas, our rural areas are all within outside the urban boundaries and they've had a I've I. Approvals for a range of uses from dwellings to short stay accommodation. There would be. I'd have to, you know, to drill down further into tom's approval. It's not, a line where. I not of this sort of scale. Wouldn't think so, no. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:50.274
Mayor. Patrick, will our lawyers have an opportunity or your self planners have an opportunity to review and revise the amendment that's, the motion that's Patrick Murphy 01:29:03.701
In front of us? Yeah, if councils are seeking to refuse the application, we would have these grounds seek to have the grounds reviewed by our lawyers prior to the Ordinary Meeting. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:14.674
I'm happy to speak. I support the motion to refuse the proposed hotel development before us. The refusal is not a no to a hotel development. It's just a no to this hotel proposal. It's a no to a development that is not mindful of community expectations and values. It's a no to a development that represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. To it's a no development that may potentially exacerbate existing bushfire and evacuation risk. It's a no to a development that has the potential to expose ratepayers, Noosa Council and Unitywater to financial and reputational risk. And it's a no to development that is in conflict with our Noosa Plan. I simply believe that a smaller and more suitable hotel can be built on land currently zoned for the purpose, and I really encourage that the applicant resubmit his plans. Frank Wilkie 01:30:18.942
Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Have the Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Joe Jurisevic 01:30:25.198
Yeah, I've got it. Brian has raised some very interesting points. I need a little bit more time to absorb some of it. Although I understand the planning nature and areas it's come from, and given that we still have to get some legal advice on regards to the points raised, I'm happy to support it with an open mind. Tom Wegener 01:31:00.543
Yeah, no, I'll just say that it's inconsistent with the plain reading of the town plan, and my policy is I don't support plans, support things that are inconsistent with the plain reading of the plan unless there's an overwhelming public support, and I don't think that the standard of overwhelming public support has been satisfied. Frank Wilkie 01:31:27.648
The principal objection for me is that the bulk of this development sits outside the urban boundary, and if we were to approve this in its current form, we could be seeing that this Council is moving away from one of the key principles of upholding its planning scheme. I'm always mindful of a ruling from a judge who ruled in favour of a council's defence of a planning scheme appeal. He said that a council's consistent upholding of the planning scheme principles is one of the reasons why he found in the Council in that particular court case. I'm concerned that if we start approving developments of this scale outside the urban boundary, it may weaken our stance in current and future legal cases. I would hope this is seen as a starting point. Is seen as a starting point for future talks on how the benefits, the well-established benefits of a five-star resort in this location, away from more heavy congestion. Sites and Noosa Heads can be achieved while minimising legal and amenity risk. So I that. Support the motion. Councillor Stockwell, where used you wish to close? I did. It to boat. The vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. And that will bear the status of a recommendation that will go to the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday night. And if the decision, whatever decision is carried at the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday night becomes a decision of the local, decision our a final decision of the local government. Thank you. Paul. I'll run away. What where do we go? That way? Did you need to go to my office? I've got everything here. Where's your phone? I've got it right here. Thanks. Got it right here. Thank you. We lift Mayor Stewart and Councillor Finzel back in the room, please? Unidentified Speaker 01:33:43.231
They've maintained a really good job in that area. Yeah, they've been cool, haven't they? He's good. Patrick Murphy 01:33:50.131
Here there we go. So we're going to adhere to the planning scheme. Can you just choke that night in? I was going to say, it doesn't comply with the planning scheme. It hasn't been demonstrated that it complies. Unidentified Speaker 01:34:01.447
Yeah, right. But according evidence suggests that it will impact on america. I was just like, I should write that down. Frank Wilkie 01:34:15.951
Hey, Mayor Stewart and Councillor Finzel, we've Patrick Murphy 01:34:19.082
Been going Frank Wilkie 01:34:20.687
Did I just say that five minutes ago? Patrick Murphy 01:34:23.147
I think I'm going to say it. Patrick Murphy 01:43:04.528
We won't say that we're going to oppose approval of development, we'll just say we've got concerns. Sara Wilson 01:43:09.387
We have discussed some options in that regard, so it is an option to condition, but it would be difficult to enforce some of those conditions. Thank you. Could you give an example of what some of those conditions might entail? It would be acoustic measures to the shed that the use has been carried out in, potentially around the compressor and any kind of noise making. The concerns regarding the door roller doors open, we could condition to have those closed, but then in terms of ventilation and things like that, if you're working with cars, how that would work. So that's our sort of concerns regarding the compliance or the enforcement of those conditions. Patrick Murphy 01:43:47.464
We're also mindful of trying to condition something in line with how they say they're currently operating. We've got to remember that when we're issuing an approval, we're issuing something in perpetuity. This property will change hands over the course of time, and it's possible in five, ten years, two years, that someone might come in there and use machinery that it wasn't, or equipment it wasn't envisaged. We're trying to condition in terms of how he's operating now, and we could really miss the mark in terms of trying to condition this around how he's currently operating or what we consider suitable. We really reiterate that it's appropriate and in line this planning scheme requires for an acoustic report to be provided to clearly articulate the noise that will be emanating from the property and the mitigation measures that are proposed and that will very that'll be something that it'll definitive as to what's to be required and enforceable. Frank Wilkie 01:44:46.845
So you're saying you may be prepared to approve with conditions once you get this acoustic report? Patrick Murphy 01:44:53.046
And that's been our position the whole way along. We've been open-minded to this application. But we've sought an acoustic report and it just has not been forthcoming. And we think it's real important that it is provided and it's important because it'll set some form of precedent for similar types of uses and we will have a lot of pushback from consultants and property owners if Council starts agreeing to these types of uses without providing an acoustic report and just putting on conditions. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:26.114
Ever exempted other home-based businesses? Have we ever given that exemption and no acoustic report? Patrick Murphy 01:45:32.735
Well you'll be familiar with the meat processing plant. That was, we had the opportunity because that was constructed and he had pneumatically sealed that premise and he was able to, we were, people, I was able to go out there, I understand councils were able to go out there and he was able to use that equipment and it was clearly demonstrated that it did not result in a noise. I've been out to this site and I've stood at the boundary and I've, heard noise. Contrary to what the scheme's asking. Joe Jurisevic 01:46:02.960
Near by there's a trailer manufacturing facility on a property a short distance away. That one required to have a noise report? Patrick Murphy 01:46:18.362
I would have to go back and clarify that for you Joe. I know that I know the one you're talking about it was something that came to Council a number of years ago. Unidentified Speaker 01:46:27.013
I can't recall whether it had a noise reporter on it. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:46:31.585
Yes thank you Through the Chair. Do we have an opportunity to condition the provision of the acoustic would put so within 30 Unidentified Speaker 01:46:42.498
I think it Patrick Murphy 01:46:45.141
Would take longer I think for them to provide an acoustic report it would probably take a number of months and then importantly it would be the recommendations of the acoustic report that would need to be implemented also timeframe within a time frame. Would be critical. Karen Finzel 01:47:00.884
Do you have more questions? Thank you, Through the Chair. So is there an opportunity that we can put a halt on this with the provision that it's conditioned to provide that acoustic report? A reasonable time and with the staff to be able to then make the recommendation based on the report? Patrick Murphy 01:47:19.087
It's a code-assessable application so we are bound by time frames. It is, I mean that would be reliant upon the applicant extending out the decision making period and being agreeable to providing an acoustic report, which up until now they've not been agreeable to do. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:47:35.073
Thank you. Chair, what's the process, Patrick, if this is a refusal but there is always, as you said, you're open to a review with the attachment or the insertion of an acoustic report if that was to be provided. What is the actual process then for the applicant to go through? If this is refused on the basis there is no acoustic report, what is the next step then for Patrick Murphy 01:47:54.107
That? They can only appeal the decision. They can't make to a decision. So if we approve an application with conditions and the applicant is not supportive of those conditions they can make representations within their appeal period and they suspend their appeal period they make representations and we decide it. So it's sort of like a second bite at it but with a refusal you do not get that opportunity. They have to appeal it straight to the court. Clare Stewart 01:48:20.520
We could approve it up with the condition of the acoustic report and if they say we're not doing it, we're not providing it, then that just like, there could be a ripples, effectively lapses or is it? Patrick Murphy 01:48:31.141
It could be manageable to come up with some conditions around the provision of an acoustic report within a time frame. And then looking at what that meant for the life of the approval, whether that's something that we could tie in as well. Richard MacGillivray 01:48:45.297
The other option, Councillors, that we could look at is a condition, a very strong one, I guess, that requires no audible noise from the use beyond the boundaries of the site, which is similar to what the scheme is actually envisaging. That will put the obligation back on the operator to put the necessary measures in place within their facility to ensure there's no always be on noise beyond the boundaries of that site. So, obviously, without the acoustic report, that really gives us the ability to Hone in on where those treatments need to be in place, but given the team have had multiple attempts at trying to seek that report be provided to Council so we can then suitably assess and condition those impacts, another option is to Resolve where result we that they comply essentially with the acceptable outcome, which is to ensure there's no audible noise from that use beyond that. Joe Jurisevic 01:49:37.236
Q&A there's is sufficient costs associated with any development application. What are we looking at in addition for an acoustic report? Do we have any of report? Richard MacGillivray 01:49:48.237
That can be anywhere near $5,000 potentially for an acoustic basic acoustic report and upwards from there so a bit of money involved in getting that and then there's obviously any treatment required for that. Often sheds are quite difficult to treat given you know the scale and size and the noise can reverberate obviously it's better to go to the point source of the actual noise emitting equipment and trying to treat that and manage that compressors and putting those in acoustic sealant treatments can be often the most effective but as Patrick pointed out noting the approval will remain with the land forever future owners may take up that we just want to have certainty that we can enforce those conditions that we apply to that particular that use so that we don't have long-term compliance or it acts with uses and also providing certainty to the landowners around how they must operate their particular development. Frank Wilkie 01:50:45.156
Have time to put your hand up? Along with that. Tom Wegener 01:50:49.008
Oh, do you want to go? Joe Jurisevic 01:50:53.047
So you mentioned that we could condition it with no noise beyond the boundaries, or with an acoustic report that would have the appropriate measures. In perpetuity, that acoustic report would have noise limit levels outside of the boundary and specific acoustic mitigating able mitigating measures to be undertaken? Richard MacGillivray 01:51:13.967
Potentially, yeah. And preferably we want that now before we assess and decide, because often what we would do is condition that report and any recommendations in there that we deem to be appropriate. Patrick Murphy 01:51:24.459
Yeah. And I think it's also the financial implications that are not a planning matter. They're not to be--and it's valid, I think, to say that if an approval on this site for a mechanics business would actually benefit the value of the land, particularly over time. Tom Wegener 01:51:46.822
When we say no noise beyond the boundaries, is this an unreasonable expectation on any business? I mean, to me, this seems to have a chilling effect on people doing any businesses out there, including rural businesses. I mean, tractors, you can hear a tractor out there. When you wean a cow, my god, they make a racket for days. There's lots of noise. Rural properties are noisy places. Will this have an effect on other properties and their ability or desire or gumption to do things on their own properties? Richard MacGillivray 01:52:19.683
Yeah, look, and it's not certainly intending to try and prohibit people from running businesses. I guess in this instance, we have-- the team have been seeking to obtain an acoustic report so we can potentially deal and address that noise. Without that, we're essentially-- the team are flying blind in terms of how they condition and ensure that there's no adverse impacts from that operation on the general public. Another point that's relevant is also the type of noise that's generated, noting the zone. Zoning of the land. Mechanic business is not generally a noise that you'd like to hear in those particular zones so whereas you know I there's farm tractors and lawn mowers and you know animals and livestock obviously noise that's more familiar on those zones so I think this is just about making sure that we protect the intent of the scheme in terms of the types of noise in particular zones. I think the team are comfortable that they can support the use subject to getting sufficient measures in place to mitigate those. Noise and those impacts. Frank Wilkie 01:53:16.669
So because you're dealing with an impact, an industrial type impact in a rural time zone. Which is a different type different types of noise. Yeah. Sorry, Karen. Karen Finzel 01:53:24.513
Yes, thank you Through the Chair. Business only operates for a period of two or three years and then this gets re-locked Unidentified Speaker 01:53:38.424
Up? Patrick Murphy 01:53:38.845
I think with that situation, you're sometimes asking someone to commit financially or commit their business to a site, but there's no guarantee for them whether that's fair? I don't know if that's totally fair. And also, the other converse argument would be that if you allow it for three years, you're sort of potentially hamstrung in three years' time. When they want to extend it. It's probably not the best way to go. Brian Stockwell 01:54:12.759
Yeah, so, I heard what you're saying about the prison setting aspect of achieving in considering the A bad thing. To me, it's about the scale and impact of home-based business. Now, he's a mechanic, and I don't know what the. Specific application said. He mainly just doing gearboxes, which is not a heap of noise. So, one way to do that is actually say, well, this is a, we consider this to be an acceptable way ahead if it's three days a week and this is these hours. So, it's limiting the scale, limiting the potential impact, and therefore that doesn't set a precedent for a full-fledged do you agree with that statement? Tom Wegener 01:55:11.103
No. Patrick Murphy 01:55:16.821
I don't first. Think it's reasonable for a rural type area, a rural area to be inundated with mechanical noise three days a week Richard MacGillivray 01:55:27.112
This and again this is where yet yeah the specifics of the approval are not really well demonstrated and what equipment he's using and I know you can put hours around it but the type and frequency of noise during the operation is what could be the cause so I guess that's we're looking at an either /or option here a conservative condition which we could put on them if they're not willing to submit if they're interested in obtaining approval which puts a very onerous requirement on them not to emit noise or they can provide us with a technical report that we can evaluate. Amelia Lorentson 01:56:01.334
There are six dwellings surrounding the property and all the properties are less than four hectares, in fact around two hectares. Two questions, I think I asked this question at the planning environment meeting, have there been other complaints, not followed? Formal? So the question is, have you been to the other dwellings and listened to whether the noise goes beyond the boundary? And are there any families or newborns or young families that are living within that vicinity? Because to me, I am concerned of adverse community impacts, night workers and mothers with newborns. I think that noise issue really to be addressed. Patrick Murphy 01:56:51.256
Yeah, we certainly agree that the noise issue needs to be addressed. We did have a complaint which was the stimulus for the initial investigation and triggered the application in the first place. I did contact a number of property owners within proximity of the site. Someone who wasn't the person that made the original complaint expressed to me concern with a mechanics business being approved in the area and that they had heard the noise and that they did not want to hear noise associated with the business, that they wanted to have a, you know, live in a quiet environment. In terms of the specifics of who's living in each household, I don't know exactly that, but it's fair to say that over time that these houses will have a mixture of people that will live in them and that they there will certainly be young families potentially in there now or certainly in the future, so a very relevant point for amenity. Amelia Lorentson 01:57:46.411
My other question is what's the cost of an application? So just a rough idea. Patrick Murphy 01:57:55.800
It could be two to five thousand dollars along those lines. Just off the top of my head for something like this. Amelia Lorentson 01:58:02.272
So to resubmit an application is burdensome for the applicant. So the concept of stopping the clock, you're saying that's not an option in this application? Patrick Murphy 01:58:14.571
Well certainly the applicant has got that discretion to stop the clock and we'd certainly be supportive of them doing that to allow them to provide an acoustic report. Amelia Lorentson 01:58:24.999
Can we seek, ask that question of the applicant before making a decision? Is that possible Patrick? Patrick Murphy 01:58:31.858
Yeah, we can certainly seek it from them. It would, if we were, if it was council's position that they would refuse the application unless the stop was clocked and the stop, the clock was stopped. That would give us more leverage. There would be no reason really for them to do it otherwise. But if they, thought they were getting a refusal and this was a pathway to get an approval, then I think that would be more enticing for them. Sara Wilson 01:58:55.936
And just add. To when the application was decided that it would be coming to Council for a decision, I did contact the consultant at that point and explain that we were looking to refuse it and that the next extension was to allow it to come to Council. So they were given, I guess, the opportunity at that point to potentially stop the clock and provide information, but they chose to bring it to Council. Could you say that again because Karen just speak up a bit? Sorry. So the latest extension to the application, I did speak to the consultant and say we would extend one more time to take it to Council for refusal. So they were given advice probably four weeks ago to say okay well it's going to go to Council recommending refusal. They didn't choose to stop the clock or provide the information at that time so they were aware that this was the I guess the opportunity to do that if they were looking to towards an approval by providing that report at that point. Frank Wilkie 01:59:50.378
So if we were to defer the decision to the Thursday night on the provisor that you once who's going to call it, would that be acceptable to you? Joe Jurisevic 02:00:04.847
Yep, sure. My question is in regard to what an acoustic consultant does. An acoustic consultant comes in and actually looks at the nature of the business and what potential noise they could create or function of the business. They've got a compressor, needs this. They've got a mechanical hoist, they need this. They've got car exhausts. With a car operating they need this. Around those sort of parameters or is it just generally mechanical facility a site Richard MacGillivray 02:00:33.696
Inspection needs. I would assume it's inspection would be the best way to target exactly what the operation involves, correct, and doesn't overkill in terms of providing any more than it needs to apart from just how to get the. That would probably limit the. Correct. And we wouldn't necessarily require modelling and the like, it would be more around targeting the particular noise generating. Tom Wegener 02:00:58.267
So we're just talking about. Acoustics here, but I'm not sure the hazardous waste regulations here, but I know in the states that every bit of oil, radiator fluid and so forth that comes onto the property has to be accounted for as it goes off the property and there's very strict regulations. Do you look at that side of the business when you're looking at an approval? Patrick Murphy 02:01:23.463
Yeah, we certainly would. That did form part of the complaint as well, that there were some noxious smells associated with things that were being burnt off on the site, so our environmental health team did attend the site and have discussions with the operator around that. He had his reasons for why that occurred, but we certainly would be looking for some robust conditions around regulating any waste on the site. Thank you. I'm sorry. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:58.417
I'm going to happy just to that this gets deferred for a decision at the Ordinary Meeting so that planners have an opportunity to ask the applicant if he can provide an acoustic report. Frank Wilkie 02:02:13.110
Thank you. We have a seconder for that. A seconder for Joe Jurisevic. Another discussion with the applicant regarding the provision of an acoustic report. Councillor Lorentson, Amelia Lorentson 02:02:40.101
Do you suspect a motion? Just to reiterate what's already been said that the concern is that approval is in perpetuity and that we need to be assured and the residents need to be assured that we a comply with our planning scheme that you know acceptable outcome number 9.4 I think it is that you know there are no adverse impact amenity impacts for neighbouring properties and I also think that we is. I the other side of this is that if we can condition it with no noise going beyond a boundary that's actually more onerous for a small business than complying application. So understanding really clearly that small businesses there are financial implications and financial costs that you know small businesses we would love to remove the small businesses but reapplying if this gets refused and to reapply and then get an acoustic report it might actually cost more in the long run. So I think that this is sort of just a win-. I just hope that's there. Hope that the applicant will seriously consider just submitting an acoustic report so that we comply with the Noosa plan. And what's required. Thanks. Mrs Russell. Tom Wegener 02:04:07.801
I find this to be perplexing because you have a business but he also it's also a hobby and so he plenty he can do his hobby there I would suspect undeterred because you can't do hobbies on your property but if then if there's a business come into the rules for businesses and I think there's a question of the process which I perplexed by again is people will one complaint actually stop this person from doing their business and have the domino effect when one complaint hasn't actually been thoroughly substantiated. And yeah, the concept of no noise beyond the boundary is another one that's very difficult for me. So I look forward to Thursday night you'll to hear hear more about it. More discussion. Karen Finzel 02:04:59.722
I'd just like to say I agree with you Tom around the complexities around process. Given the applicant clearly had the opportunity on more than one occasion to comply with the request to for noise mitigation paperwork to protect the intent and also to you know alleviate the noise pressures on the neighbourhood and it's unfortunate it took a complaint to trigger that. I'm not in support of this. Unidentified Speaker 02:05:29.086
I to think about it. Can't wait until then. I just want to say that. Frank Wilkie 02:05:30.914
Yeah. Any other Councillors wish speak yeah, the Council should stick to the motion. You Amelia? We wish to close the meeting. Put it to the vote. That's those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener, Stewart, Wilkie. We're going to see what we'll keep. Councillor Finzel. Motions carried. Next item is the 5.3 short-term accommodation at 2A woongar street at 4am. Referred from the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting. Should to the significance of the issue and more information. Okay. Please give some overview at the time. Sara Wilson 02:06:10.859
No worries. So an application for short-term accommodation for the use of an existing dwelling on site. The applicant has requested the use of five bedrooms and ten people on site at any the use would be entirely within the existing dwelling. The subject site is a split zone so the house is within a rural residential zone and then the remainder of the site is environmental management and conservation. We're recommending approval for this one with some specific conditions predominantly relating to amenity and code of conduct requirements to be in line with council's local law the existing house has been it's being used by family members at the moment but they also are looking to actually use it in the times that they're not holidaying on the property themselves Patrick Murphy 02:06:59.842
And just in terms of the conditions while tara said they're seeking for ten people to be on site we're conditioning to it to be maximum of eight Sara Wilson 02:07:20.560
It's five bedrooms they were yeah they were requesting ten people on site we've conditioned eight. Frank Wilkie 02:07:28.333
Questions, Councillors? It's consistent with the zoning. HDI is in consistent use SDI is in consistent at that use at that time. Someone care to move the recommendation? Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:07:39.630
Do you want me to start up and then we'll do the amendments? Unidentified Speaker 02:07:42.691
We've got our amendments. All the amendments. I'll move it. I'll move the staff recommendation. Okay, I'll second it. Oh, sorry Tom. I'm sorry, Tony. Tom Wegener 02:07:52.308
No, no, it needs to be seconded and then I'll make a amendment. Brian Stockwell 02:07:56.130
No, you were going to move it with your amendments. Oh, sorry. It's alright, I'll just, give me a Unidentified Speaker 02:08:00.773
Minute, I'll have to just change it. Joe Jurisevic 02:08:06.082
System. I thought Tom was going to do it. As far as we can do I'll. I'm speaking to it, I understand the staff have approved it with a number of conditions, and I believe councils may have a raft of other conditions they want to apply, so we'll see when this goes. Councillor Amelia Millie is seconded. Tom Wegener 02:08:22.656
No, it can't, really can't be secondary. Seconded. Who's seconded? I did. Oh, great. I'm sorry, just to get the ball rolling. Right, Tom. I'd like to make an amendment. You ready? I'd okay, let me move that. Council note the report by the developer, Mayor whitson. Brian Stockwell 02:08:50.700
I don't think that's right now, because it might be moved. Ah yes, sorry. Frank Wilkie 02:09:11.603
Item 11 is a condition, is it? Unidentified Speaker 02:09:14.138
Sorry, it's a new condition, very Tom Wegener 02:09:15.218
Good. One. I don't understand. Okay, that condition 11 be added to read with the numbering reordered as applicable. 11, domestic dogs are permitted on the property provided they are permanently confined within buildings and or fence enclosures. Frank Wilkie 02:09:45.226
I'll second that. By Brian Stockwell. Tom. Tom Wegener 02:09:52.926
It is wise. Pretty much self-explanatory. Joe Jurisevic 02:09:56.037
Sorry, can I just clarify this? Of order, Mr Chair, my reading of the conditions are that there are well beyond 27 conditions currently applied. The addition of condition 11 should be a condition 28. Brian Stockwell 02:10:10.154
No, it's adding in as 11 with them all renumbered. And with the numbering reordered as applicable. Joe Jurisevic 02:10:16.437
Oh, okay, sorry. That's okay. I'll take that back. Because 11 is our contact person. Okay, 11 then, okay. You're right about that. In the appropriate every a minute. Area of the under amending. Sorry, my apologies. Tom Wegener 02:10:33.493
I understand that staff contacted the owner of the property, the applicant, and they are envisioning dogs being allowed on the property along with people, short-term accommodation people, and dogs are a part of the family now, and many people come with dogs, and it's such a large property with very, very sensitive environmental values around the property that it's to people. Beholden upon ourselves to make sure that the dogs are accommodated, similar to the family members. There's so many rooms, there's so many people. They're going to bring dogs, they need a place for the dogs to stay. It would be unruly for people with dogs to show up there and not have actually a place for the dog to stay. And dogs are very different from most other pets. You don't need a cat enclosure, you don't need a parrot enclosure, because dogs are different. At our open beaches we have off-leash dog areas and on-leash dog areas. We don't have off-leash cat areas, dog cat areas, on-leash cat areas, birds. They're unique. They're a part of our families. It's our society now where we bring our dogs with us when we travel, when we go out to dinner, when we go to the beach. Wherever we go we bring our dogs, including the short-term accommodation. So I feel as though this is just a very important addition to our rural properties. Joe Jurisevic 02:11:51.306
I'm sorry, question. Councillor Wegener, would you be averse to the addition of some wording there with regard to, because if the dogs are permitted on the property but permanently confined to buildings or fenced enclosures, it means they can only be in a building or a fenced enclosure. They can't be in and out of the car. I would suggest that we need to say and/or on leash at unleash all times. Something to that effect, I don't see how you can confine a pit to a building or a fenced enclosure without allowing access between those elements Amelia Lorentson 02:12:26.928
Can I throw something in? This is a question to the planners. Hang I'll on, I think we'll deal with this. Frank Wilkie 02:12:35.698
You don't relate to that. Thank you. Does that seem. Unidentified Speaker 02:12:40.391
I'm just concerned that doesn't allow for movement. Unidentified Speaker 02:12:44.297
No, that's right, from the vehicle to the building. Tom Wegener 02:12:47.883
We don't condition that. People can walk. You can't walk your dog around there. Unidentified Speaker 02:12:54.971
So that region says permanently confined within buildings and/or fenced enclosures. So I just thought that just became overly prescriptive and/or on a leash at all times. Tom Wegener 02:13:05.887
But if you include the and/or on a leash at all times, then you may not have a fenced enclosure, because they'll just say, "Oh, we're just going to be on a leash all the time." Well, they'll have to walk it around the property that way so it's all on yeah I don't. Think so. I hear what you're saying, Joe. I don't think so. All right. So Amelia had a question. Amelia Lorentson 02:13:23.648
I was thinking. So I'm thinking of our local laws. So I think the wording in our local laws is something to the effect that dogs controlled. So maybe to sort of in between both of you that they've remained currently within confined areas or against enclosures and are under. And avoid my local laws at all. And yeah, there's a reference to they've got to be under control. Richard MacGillivray 02:13:51.304
My take on that is that the condition and Council would reasonably allow the animals to be put into the building to get there in the first place. So I don't think there's an issue around a non-compliance. I think the way that the condition would be interpreted is that that's a reasonable expectation. Just worried about being allowed to walk the dog on leash on the property. Yeah, correct. And I think the way that would be enforced would be appropriately understood as what the intended resolution position is. I think it's sufficient. Cancel cell phone. Brian Stockwell 02:14:18.039
If we did want to address it in a way that would be other than really ingress and egress. Frank Wilkie 02:14:34.029
To speak to the amendment, I've told all of you, and Councillor Stewart. Brian Stockwell 02:14:37.729
I think the justification for including this condition is specific to the lot as we discussed in planning and environment meeting. It is a really nice lot on the edge of lake Cootharaba with high environmental value in an area which is known to have things like koalas, which dogs do chase. And I think part of the justification is to ensure there's good environmental a maintenance part of the lake tourist facility. Joe Jurisevic 02:15:07.737
Yeah, can I speak to the amendment? I'm still concerned about the wording 'confined' as opposed to something else. Just something about the wording makes me read it in the imprisoning of the pet within the Frank Wilkie 02:15:23.148
In. Within the facility. That's. I'm sorry, it's just my interpretation of it, but. I've got a question for Councillor Jurisevic. Yes? Would you be involved with that? I'm not a current member, but yes. Okay, our Council is supposed to. I'll support the amendment, given that the lot is quite a large one, heavily forested, zoned environment for management and conservation. There's bound to be animals through there, can't have dogs chasing wallabies or kangaroos or koalas through that lot, so I think it's a very astute amendment, most of all. Tom do you wish to close? No thank you. Okay put the amendment to the vote. That is unanimous, the amendment becomes part of the motion. Do we have any more amendments? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia? Amelia Lorentson 02:16:09.981
Aye. Um, hi. I'm moving an amendment that the condition 12 be added to read 12. Domestic cats are permitted on the property provided that they are permanently confined within buildings. Frank Wilkie 02:16:27.149
Councillor Amelia? Okay. We have a seconder for that. Councillor Stewart? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:16:36.571
I'd like to go over what we just spoke about. We know that this is an environmentally sensitive and beautiful 10 hectares or 10 hectare property. Note, I went through all the submissions and pulled out some really good content out of all the submissions and I actually started looking at pets. I'm a cat lover, I'm a dog lover, so this is nothing against cats, nothing personal, but really quite interesting. Cats have caused more environmental damage in Australia than in any other continent in the world and the damage that in terms of risk to wildlife like parrots, birds, reptiles, frogs, I just think it's just responsible that we have this condition given the sensitivity of the relocation no, Karen Finzel 02:17:29.760
I just have a question. Thank you, Councillor Through the Chair and the CEO, do we have a policy in Council where we register cats? Frank Wilkie 02:17:37.531
No. No, I don't believe so. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:17:44.620
Can I ask a question of staff? We're getting facilities into specifics now. We're talking about dogs and now we've got cats. We're going to have to do domestic pigs next. Can this be all encompassed in pets as one motion rather than going into individual animals? Richard MacGillivray 02:18:04.846
Potentially, yes. The difference being, I guess, with the dogs, the ability to fence off areas outside of the sensitive area. Okay, could be in an enclosure could be potentially. A cat run, for example, could be more of a problem. Yeah, it does get tricky when we're starting to get into the minutiae of particular animals and how to contain them and avoid impact and the operation of that for the people they're running that operation as well. So I guess it's just being clear around the intent of the conditions we're requiring and whether we use the term pets are confined to the building so that they're not able Unidentified Speaker 02:18:47.988
To roam freely. People could bring their bird, people could bring most other pets and we have had people with their pet peeve Tom Wegener 02:18:56.203
Or whatever. Frank Wilkie 02:19:01.190
I would, just to talk Tom Wegener 02:19:03.076
To me, with cats, have grown up with cats. I'm from california, I grew up with a cat. And first, if you have a cat and you bring it to the property and the cat isn't enclosed, you no longer have a cat. It's gone. It will never come back again. Just like a parrot, if you bring a parrot, if a parrot flies away, it's never going to come back. The other thing about cats is when they're inside, they can stink. They're kind of gnarly. They can make quite a mess of things. It is. Should we leave that to the, that sort of thing to the owner, to the property owner versus us? Maybe this condition is going too far to condition. Conditioning I Amelia Lorentson 02:19:52.411
Responding to quite a few submissions that were made on this application that neighbouring properties that are potentially impacted by MES-TA. An STA and given that our Noosa Plan supports this application to me is where I see is we've got the opportunity in terms of conditions to reduce the impact and if someone who lives alongside people in Boreen Point have raised the issue of cats I think it's responsible to if we can condition that in the application we can't stop the application but we can reduce the impacts by imposing such conditions Tom so that's where I sit I understand what you're saying, but I just think we've got an obligation to listen to what the neighbouring properties what their concerns are. Brian Stockwell 02:20:52.302
Thanks. Do I have a. Can I just. Thank you. Anyone heard my last comment? I'm not a cat lover. And it's for the reasons outlined. Cats, whether they were feral or domestic, create quite a strong destructive force. In our environment, particularly with small reptiles, birds, etc. Now the frequency of people taking cats on holidays with them is probably fairly low. Now, but if we're trying to give staff an indication that when we have applications in sensitive environment areas that we want to see conditions that control domestic pets in a way that gives nature best chance of not being impacted then I think it's quite reasonable not to be speciesist and keep it to dogs. I think if there's a potential impact it's good to control it and while it may never come into any need I think it's reasonable just to have both dogs and cats covered particularly it's probably a reasonable point that if the local objectors have raised this as a concern then having an appropriate condition does respond to those submissions. A way that seeks to retain the natural values of the site. Frank Wilkie 02:22:14.741
I hope so. Also support the amendment. Cats are fluffy, they're cute, they purr, but they're also vicious killers. They kill millions of Australian native birds, reptiles and marsupials every day. I think with a lot like this, 10 hectares of environment managed and conservation. Land, I think it's very, again, another very astute please I fully support it. Joe Jurisevic 02:22:45.843
Well, on those grounds, you wouldn't permit a cow on your property. Um these I'm not going to support this on the grounds that I think we can all be encompassed in one amendment and make it domestic pets. I'm committed to cover all and I'll be moving an amendment following this. I'd be suggesting, I'll move the original, I'd be suggesting to my fellow Councillors that we look at encompassing the pets under one condition as opposed to individual conditions for every type of pet. Because what you'll do here is you'll open the opportunity up for other pets to no restrictions. Have no restrictions. Frank Wilkie 02:23:26.480
That may be just as damaging to the environment. Like an elephant, if it's a domestic elephant, absolutely. Unidentified Speaker 02:23:33.764
You couldn't know. When you stopped. Horses, you know, and the like, so. Frank Wilkie 02:23:39.051
Thank you, Councillor. Who's suspected-- anybody else wish to speak to the amendment on cats? No? Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? No. Okay, I put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stewart, Councillor Wilkie. Cats gates, Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Finzel. That's carried. So that doesn't do any reason for you. Okay. Now, any more amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:24:09.194
I have another amendment that conditions 13 be added to read. 13. Any elimination resulting from direct, reflected or other incidental external lighting emanating from the site it must not exceed eight lux. When measured at any point 1.5 metres outside the boundary of the rural residential zone portion of the land. To Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Again, another response to a submitter, and something I think we should consider on all applications, and I had this discussion with one of the planners last week about this, dark nights, and again. Just looked into it, and quite interesting. Basically, it just says that, you know, at night time, turn your lights off. There are nocturnal animals that sleep during the day and are active at night, and switching your lights on, you actually start disturbing their nocturnal ecology, so we know about it in turtles, just along coastlines, why we don't have bright lights that, you know, stop the little baby turtles from knowing where to walk in and out. The same applies to any sort of precinct or any development in those cities. There's a push where the lighting's got to go down instead of up, and this whole concept of dark would love workshopped perhaps in Council because I just think, you know, Different by Nature, this should be almost mandatory, I think. So for that reason and in response to a submitter, I would like to put forward this condition. Frank Wilkie 02:26:01.496
I've got some questions on this. I noticed it's an interesting addition, the under amenity condition 8 mentions the operation must not detrimentally affect the residential amenity, so that implies neighbours, including but not limited to noise, overlooking light spill or odour enjoyed by odour, course. And uses. So light mustn't come, suggesting light mustn't spill out from the boundaries of the property. Cathy, can we have a look at the map of the property? Okay. So the condition talks about there not being an eight, more than eight blocks of light spill. That one? No, the other one, please. The lot itself. Outside the resident, rural residential zone, which I understand is this it's portion this of the lot here, so in order for that condition to be monitored or enforced, you need people coming inside the boundary of the property, walking around the bush with a. Some sort of a monitor to see whether 8 lux or more is emitting from this use here. If it pertained to the external boundary of the property, you can understand it. But then again, you've got the problem of needing people with monitors going on private properties. What I'm. I understand the intent. I think it might be covered in the conditions already, because if this property owner starts to experience light spill, we're going to complain to Council, take action. But, sorry, I'll put this in the question. If we were to approve this amendment, would it mean. Would you have people creeping through the bush on private property with lux monitors in their hands? Is that a desirable outcome? Sara Wilson 02:28:04.234
So I might start with this one. So I guess there's two different conditions there. So one is about the amenity of the adjoining property. Yes. Council laurenston's was more about impacts on the environmental management area, so wildlife. So that condition, it should be more so around the actual lighting that's on the house once it's, you know, I don't if. I don't know whether we would go out and check that ourselves, but the applicant should be ensuring that they're complying with the conditions in terms of the external lighting on the building, not creating that light spill into the environmental management zone. So it's more about the wildlife than the adjoining properties. So two separate conditions. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 02:28:42.311
Councillor, do you think that what you said about people trying to police it. Comes back to the whole premise of all of this, isn't it? I mean, who's getting on their chicken that isn't getting a cat outside, or a dog outside? I mean, this is all good in theory, but it could very much be a toothless tiger, because the enforcement may not necessarily, or people may not necessarily adhere to the requests, which is somewhat. Frank Wilkie 02:29:08.202
I guess, in answer to your question, I guess you could say that neither say whether could see a cat's roaming around, or a dog's roaming around. All I'll alright, I take the. Thank you for answering my question. It pertains more to spill of light from the house itself into Amelia Lorentson 02:29:24.093
The bush immediately surrounding into bush and into surrounding Woods. Can I also add, people also light up the national park, so actually put lights in the national park. And, you know, if you're going to short-term accommodate a place, it's really quite pretty to have the national park lit up. To motion again so sorry tara, that was also part of the intention, so there's just a clear indication, and is that. Sorry, question. So, is that also the intent of the condition that. Prevent the applicant from illuminating the national park? Sara Wilson 02:30:06.537
Yeah, so also the environmental management zone on the property. Yeah, yeah, correct. So it's basically just to reduce any light spill that the actual building is creating with to sort of contain it within that rural red zone. Frank Wilkie 02:30:24.708
So Sara Wilson 02:30:27.941
So it's up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the conditions of the approval. It might be a compliance issue if they, you know, if we received reports that it's lit up like a Christmas tree, I guess. We would go out and check those conditions and check they're complying with them but we wouldn't go and check it unless we've received that complaint is my understanding. Joe Jurisevic 02:30:48.447
So I'm going to ask a silly question. I'm an electrician. What does eight lux being measured at 1.5 metres outside the boundary of the rural residential zone in Portia do the land look like? Unidentified Speaker 02:30:59.339
I'm not a lighting expert so I wouldn't be able to answer that question. Patrick Murphy 02:31:04.018
It eight candles? It's candela. Unidentified Speaker 02:31:08.401
Lux is a bit different from candela. So without. To the average and ordinary person, this would have to require some means of. Yeah, testing. Of facilitation. So is this. I guess my question is, this an overly, overest requirement on over us a property. I understand the intent, and the intent is well thought out and well intentioned, but I'm just trying to work out how this may be enforced, measured in. The first place, what does eight lights look like to the average person, so that the average person would know, okay, is it, try to say, don't have spotlights, so you can't light, don't have security lights, do they go exceed beyond eight what does this and does this not limit? The only reason I can't support is because I don't really understand what the level of 8 lux looks like at the 1.5 metre point of the boundary and how it would be enforced and how the owner understand it without getting some professional lighting person in to take the test and security lights around the property are quite a reasonable expectation one would think. Patrick Murphy 02:32:21.263
Well it might be more to get rid of the ambiguity or the unknown element of it if Councillors were agreeable to, well would you say there'd be no lights built within the environmental, you know, beyond the rules at rural residential zone portion of land. There's something small really understood. Brian Stockwell 02:32:41.155
I have a further question? I'm guessing this is based on a standard condition for turtles? Sara Wilson 02:32:47.637
It's a standard amenity condition that we've got for our dwelling houses, so not specific to turtles. We've got more thorough ones. And Councillors, have you bought a torch recently? Brian Stockwell 02:32:57.415
No. I know my bike like 300 lumens. Okay, so, yeah, what's it like? So, yeah, one lumen per. So, it's dull. It's really dull. It's very dull light. Yeah, it's light. Yeah. It's just, yeah, yeah. So, it's just, I think it's an interesting point. And for the same reason I agree, it's sort of just the concept that we do conditions that protect the environmental values as well as the mentee and that's one thing I think I don't have a need to amendment I think we just change the second to a mentee and environment because it's not you know mentees the anthropocentric experience of the development that you know what we're doing here is actually towards improving the environmental outcomes so measure and similar to Councillor Lorentson and I think it is something in similar situations if we've got developments that have high quality ecosystems surrounding them that we look at controlling the lakes but not just with turtles and as far as monitoring there's lots of people who are on boats at night it's very close to the lake there's people who can walk along the foreshore and that's where you get your complaints from if they can walk past as you say, if they can walk them and they can see lit up like a Christmas light, Christmas tree. I think it's just and it's an easy one to comply with because the applicant just has to look at his light fittings and get someone to Frank Wilkie 02:34:30.544
Say yeah that'll be fine could you say that point again tari saying this conditions apply to standard of residential buildings Sara Wilson 02:34:36.374
Yeah we have it as a this one's been altered a little bit to be specific to this site but we do have a standard lighting amenity condition that we've been putting on some dwelling houses we're finding that we're getting them really lit the moment and it's causing some issues so we've got standard turtle lighting which is separate to this one Frank Wilkie 02:34:54.163
Of the turtle lighting it's pretty thorough I and is it about as I mentioned eight lux I'm I wouldn't be able to we've it does okay I'll speak to the amendment if this is a condition that's applied already to are influence that might have impact on may environmental amenity I'm happy to support it. I understand it better now, so thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:35:20.249
It's all right. Can- No, I just, looking it up, the feed says the, to give an example of what different lunch levels look like in practice, here's some examples. Moonlight on a clear night, one nights. Is legs. Office lighting's around a five that's the comparison, indoor and outdoor, indoor situations. And the illuminance is exactly one lifespan illuminance power of one lumen, uniformly illuminates an area of one square metre, but it's used, they metre to go around and the lux metre is fairly easy to obtain, so it wouldn't be too hard to test Unidentified Speaker 02:35:50.877
I probably use your phone these days to test it as well Frank Wilkie 02:35:55.771
A minute or Amelia Lorentson 02:35:58.613
I will say something, there weren't a lot of submissions made on this property but the ones that were actually from the adjoining owners and the environment's really important to them so again we can't stop the application but we have an obligation and responsibility to address their concerns in terms of conditions so thank you for supporting this I'm assuming everyone's going to support this but I read a lot about what this community values and it's loud and clear the environment so yeah that's your Frank Wilkie 02:36:44.591
Numbers do we have any more amendments sorry yes okay um okay Amelia Lorentson 02:36:53.493
That condition 27 and advisory note be added to read to 23 27 a bushfire hazard maintenance plan providing recommendations for on-site vegetation maintenance must be prepared by suitably qualified person any maintenance record requirements any maintenance requirements recommended in the plan must be carried out on site in accordance with the recommendations in this regard the maintenance plan relate to the maintenance of on-site vegetation for example removing fallen branches, leaf litter from the site, maintaining clear access tracks, cleaning out of building gutters. Advisory notes for the bush purpose of preparing a bushfire hazard maintenance plan a qualified person is considered to be an ecologist with a minimum of three years current experience in the field of bushfire assessment and management. In this regard this relates to the maintenance on the branches, leaf and litter. I have a seconder for that please? I have a seconder for that please? This came up quite a bit again in the submissions. Most against the STO, but were actually some that were in favour of the SDR but all made a reference to management. The conditions already include a no a bushfire management plan and this causes I think 23 to 27. There's a prohibition, no-fire prohibition. But what I've read from the submissions is that the residents are just not assured that it's going to be enforced because the property is not visible from all the other properties. There is a chance that there might be fire pits or campfires that go unnoticed. So this, I think, addresses a lot of the concerns raised in a lot of the submitters. Residents are just not notes that, you know, it's potentially a high risk, it's a high hazard risk because there's, it needs to be maintained quite regularly. So I with planning and tara put together this condition for me, which isn't too onerous, but sort of addresses the gap in the both Shire management causes, and again, addresses real concerns by the adjoining property owners. Frank Wilkie 02:39:35.873
Okay question for Council um this Council has a lot reserves where branches are allowed to fall to the ground. Yep. Are you suggesting that this. Bushfire management plan would require the property owner to manage the 10 hectare lot in a way by removing fallen branches from the ground, picking up leaf litter, in a way that. Noosa Council doesn't. Require itself to do for its natural areas? Amelia Lorentson 02:40:09.707
No, mine was more a maintenance issue, just that it's not left in disrepair. Of a 10 hectare lot? Or just the rural residential portion? I might throw that to tara, but I was thinking in terms of just the buffer zone, so where the fire breaks, so that the property and the neighbouring properties are not at risk. And again, concerns. Not and again just raised by adjoining property owners. Sara Wilson 02:40:43.559
I'll ask what's reasonable. Yeah, sure. So we'll probably have to just confirm with our environment officer, who's a little bit more aware of the bushfire requirements, but there was a number of submissions from adjoining property owners or property owners within Boreen Point that mentioned that the site hadn't necessarily been maintained to a high enough standard in terms of leaf litter and fallen branches and things like that, they were concerned that it was creating a higher hazard in terms of bushfire, so. In the rural residential lot? For the whole of the site, Oh, so. In terms of environmental management? Yes, correct, yeah. So, the access runs along those boundaries, sorry, along those adjoining properties on the southern boundary and then hooks up around, so the condition that we've included is basically maintenance of the access to ensure that kept clear and then picking up the leaf litter and whatnot. So whether we look at restricting that to the rural res zone might be the best option. And then the access as well. Frank Wilkie 02:41:41.281
Jane, that's ask question a based on what you asked there. Joe Jurisevic 02:41:45.043
Given that the property is 10 hectares. What is the responsibility of the owner to manage a property of that size for bushfire? Patrick Murphy 02:41:58.662
It's not a it's sorry it's just not a planning matter. That would be a local law matter. But to go to the point, it might be reasonable to make amendment to this condition to reflect an asset protection zone around the property to be determined and then that to be maintained. Might be an area 20 metres around the property, 25 metres around the property and that there's some Richard MacGillivray 02:42:24.131
Maintenance of that debris, Unidentified Speaker 02:42:26.997
Clearing of gutters. Richard MacGillivray 02:42:30.698
Of a I think that would be more appropriate as well because obviously the falling debris, branches, trees falling over, that provides habitat for a lot of ecological creatures and critters. Know creatures and in that environment so I think it needs to be targeted to bushfire maintenance and around the asset protection zone and obviously maintenance and access for fire access. Unidentified Speaker 02:42:52.591
I'm guessing that's why the Council has referred to an ecologist to come up with plan, in but in terms of local law and our own environmental management of a lot like that, can I request some further information in that regard as to what the duty of care of an owner currently is in that regard, Joe Jurisevic 02:43:10.363
Particularly if the law is stopped the owner, I don't know, if the owner has read out to your property in any way, shape or form. That's right, Kim Rawlings 02:43:18.346
Local law number three deals with this issue about appropriate maintenance of your property. Correct. A weed, pest, perspective, overgrown, bushfire hazard. Joe Jurisevic 02:43:30.246
I'd like to look at it and say knowing what that is, having that information provided to us so we can have a report. Richard MacGillivray 02:43:35.628
Yeah, absolutely. So a big pile of, you know, vegetation right beside your neighbour that's their building. You know, obviously we pose a risk from a burden, but also Unidentified Speaker 02:43:44.065
That information provided to us on the meeting and we're happy to provide that in relation to this. Yeah, just Karen Finzel 02:43:52.621
Following on right on from that, then that raises the question of wonder then how would that affect like insurance? Unidentified Speaker 02:44:00.307
Like how does that affect the use of the property and insurance or if you're having that out as for guests? Well, yeah, but I'm sure that would impact, I'm sure that's going to impact some. Patrick Murphy 02:44:12.001
Why by not maintaining it or Karen Finzel 02:44:13.858
Well, if we condition, what is it, a maintenance, what did you say it was, a maintenance, yeah, under local laws 3, then what's the impact for insurance around Unidentified Speaker 02:44:30.300
It would be up to the insurance company. Richard MacGillivray 02:44:35.528
Be up to the insurance company of how they would evaluate that Unidentified Speaker 02:44:38.287
Risk on that they'd be looking at the property, has this tree, is this forested and we're looking at the insurance, how does that, correct? Unidentified Speaker 02:44:46.818
The question with that is, if we've commissioned for this or that or the previous properties that have been approved, what is the retrospective? Patrick Murphy 02:44:54.926
Well, we can't apply anything retrospectively, obviously. That's right, so then you say, well, this is putting us under duress compared to other properties people. That you have. Yeah, well, this one we recognise that there is a bushfire risk within close proximity of the dwelling, and that's why there was a number of conditions put on about having the appropriate infrastructure on site to assist with firefighting. This condition certainly takes it to another level. Richard MacGillivray 02:45:18.914
I'm happy to come back with some further advice around the duty of care because obviously this is a short-term use but there's also the residential component which the landowner has the rights to occupy and live as a dwelling. They will have a duty of care to maintain their site in accordance with the local law. Joe Jurisevic 02:45:37.234
This is a short stay accommodation element. Where it's not the usual resident in situ that their awareness around the risk here is something we need to fully understand and so do they. So how we manage that going forward is an interesting question. Frank Wilkie 02:46:05.984
Question for staff. If the intent is to have a buffer zone suitably managed to mitigate fire risk. Could we have a condition that reflects that more clearly? I don't know what this entails. Big titles. Okay. We'll start the one. Other draft something that specifies more clearly what's intended by this and what areas could be affected. Yep. Because the way that reads, it could be the whole 10 hectare lot. You hear- Mm-hmm. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:42.218
I support the idea in principle. I'm happy with that. I don't want to make this burdensome for the applicant. That's not the intent. Was really just to address issues raised in the submissions and it's basically um and it's fire risk maintenance and I'll read just to give you an example one application which was really quite thorough and reasonable. So she makes reference some residents have regularly mowed individual segments but vermin and unwanted wildlife are encouraged onto residential properties if some sections are mowed moat and owners interested. Owners are not in a position to attend this. There's some dead trees and shrubs on this flat area so it's really quite reasonable. She's not requiring high maintenance but she's just noting that there's a high risk and that it needs to be some high risk maintenance, some attention to the property. It just doesn't lapse so I'm happy you know for a really watered-down version of this. The intent is not to you know set a precedence for other similar applications and I do think the conditions already in the I application think they're really good. So maybe just an advisory note in terms of fire risk maintenance. That would be great. Thank you. Can I just talk about, Brian Stockwell 02:48:05.590
Yeah, I'm having a go along with getting more information. I wouldn't have supported this just because you have to look at what the increased risk is. And that one would, I believe, be unreasonable and may also result in perverse outcomes in terms of. Perverse the other things we're trying to protect. Having a quick look, the whole site is under medium bushfire hazard and the houses on Woongar Street that face it are the next level down. I think the suggestion. I think the suggestion was you're looking at using the access drive which goes between the higher, you know, the more vegetated area and those houses is the place to have a fire drive and so it's probably just a load reduction between the fire, between the driveway and their boundaries is really all you we need and what you an need next. Expert to tell you to reduce load there, I don't think you do, I think you just need a requirement to undertake fuel, fire fuel load reduction on a regular basis because a lot of it's already, I can see it's not as dense vegetation as a mown section or a grass section so I think that's what we do. Great. Frank Wilkie 02:49:15.917
I'm going to speak against the event for a similar reason but it's not as clear as it could be and if we let this one fail we have the opportunity to work with staff to make something that's more specific to the urge that needs to be effectively managed before Thursday night. Now the Councillors will speak to the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 02:49:46.561
No, I'll vote against it and look forward to hopefully an advisory note as opposed to a condition in terms of my maintenance. Frank Wilkie 02:49:58.563
Thank you. Put the amendment notice into favour. That was a case. It's unanimously a case. The amendment's lost. Are there any more amendments? Okay, we go back to the original motion, which was some time ago, now which is moved with amendments relating to dogs, cats, light. The dogs, cats and light. And in terms of that, only Councillor Jurisevic has spoken. Amelia Lorentson 02:50:33.336
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia. I'm just going to just add one, two sentences because I'm talking I was looking for this. Just a little bit about the environmental significance of the block. The area of land at 2A longer street is of important environmental significance. The property's been identified as prime habitat for the koala, which is listed as endangered by the Queensland government under the nature conservation act 1992 by the Australian government under the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999. Property is also zoned as a high-risk endangered, vulnerable or near-threatened native plants. Just wanted and then it goes on domestic pets collecting firewoods in quick spot. Thank you. Did I use the clock? Used to play. Brian Stockwell 02:51:27.096
Go on. None of us have talked about the aberration land use prohibit. Is that the aberration land use prohibit? They normally have great debates about why we shouldn't approve some space. I'll be waiting for so, it is in the residential. The current scheme does allow for a short stay. Boreen Point lake of tarawa is an interesting area in and I think that I think. Council originally got letters from the sailing club saying we're losing potential to hold our regattas because people can't find a place to stay. So, there is demand. It is a pouring but having an Boreen Point. You can't do much, having an occasional holiday there and having low key infrastructure, if this is done well, it can actually be a really good thing. A Boreen Point in terms of having a. Small to moderate size of a facility. It's bigger than the other houses in town. And I think it is an addition in terms of what is on offer out there and providing it's managed well. It should maintain the environment around it. So that's why I support Frank Wilkie 02:52:56.883
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:53:24.059
Michelangelo football club, I have land and water management responsibility for approximately 4.5 hectares of Girraween Sports Complex. This involves the application of mainly organic soil release and calcium. In terms of the catchment. The club also uses groundwater for irrigation and has used surface water and recycled water in the past. The downstream impacts of sports fields are a potential risk factors for the quality of surface waters in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role within NLFC and the fact the club is program. I choose to remain in the room even though I was kicked out on Monday or Tuesday. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain or participate in the decision. Let me see. No, I'm going to go the other way, Cathy. I was going to vote you out anyway that's okay I'm going to go that um room Frank Wilkie 02:54:55.319
Thank you, Mr. Larson. Amelia Lorentson 02:54:56.614
Thank you. I Councillor Lorentson informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my brother Gabriel Cerasani lives approximately three kilometres from Burgess Creek also until recently my brother was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association who have made submissions regarding issues with Burgess Creek including raising petition on the matter considering recent advice given to Councillors by the office of independent assessor that is to exercise an abundance of caution I believe it is it prudent is to declare a compromise. A conflict of interest it's important to note that I've taken myself off the chap in the eastern beaches foreshore management plan because of my brother's involvement on the epva an integrated catchment management plan for Burgess Creek is not part of the chat nor part of chat solution it is part of a broader Noosa catchment strategy of waterways what I've been requesting since June 2022 is an analysis and review of environmental monitoring and impacts for the Noosa sewage treatment plant releases into Burgess Creek and the catchment matters regarding water quality issues affecting Burgess Creek catchment and environmental impacts of wastewater treatment plant outflows into the Burgess Creek catchment catch Burgess Creek catchment covers roughly catchment covers roughly 545 hectares it drains from the back of residential developments in Noosa head through bushland and community facilities near Eenie Creek road and then through a Council managed bushland and national park it affects and impacts thousands and of people in the Shire the disposal of liquid waste into our waterways including fresh water oceans and rivers creates social and environmental problems for the whole of Noosa Shire this issue is a significant issue for the whole Unitywater quality has political environmental and legal implications for the whole of Shire Council many of these implications include risk to Council infrastructure stormwater open spaces and roads in October 2022 I moved to Council resolution at the LGAQ conference for regions becoming more resource independent through efficient use and reuse of wastewater I called on the LGAQ to advocate to the State government of Queensland to undertake a statewide analysis of recycled water reuse that values the protection of local ecosystems and provides suitable data to assist councils and water authorities and retailers in producing business cases for water reuse it was supported almost unanimously in June 2023 I moved another Council resolution at the Australian Local Government Association calling on the Australian government to formulate a national policy on ocean sewage outfalls that aims at no new ocean and estuarine outfalls should be built or developed along the Australian coastline and dedicated funding should be provided to support local regional governments and wastewater providers with existing ocean outfalls to develop new methods and technologies and make every effort to recycle 100 of all treated wastewater% of all the their localities and to avoid the need to discharge in the ocean. It was carried on a post by 357 councils in Australia. Both motions were supported unanimously by this Council. I've also put forward a motion for Council approval for this year's LGA conference in Gladstone, calling for the LGAQ to advocate to the State for a state policy on ocean sewage outfalls because we need to develop a standard wastewater diversion targets and wastewater recycling and reuse targets that can be replicated across all the states in Australia. I believe that my intention cannot be questioned. The outcome I'm seeking to achieve is cleaner oceans, cleaner wastewater, the impact of liquid waste on the environment and our community. Transitioning towards a circular economy for liquid waste and environmental best practices for the whole of Noosa Shire. An integrated catchment management plan for the Burgess Creek catchment that will form part of a broader Noosa catchment strategy of water waste will help us plan to achieve this outcome. For nearly two years, this issue has become one of my passion projects. I have knowledge and expertise that I bring to this table and integrity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe I could consider the matter impartially and in the public interest. I 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. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 02:59:52.095
I Council and note that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine that Councillor Lorentson that stay and Councillor Lorentson participates and votes in this matter because Council believes that Council that what's that Kath? You've got to tell me why you think she should stay. I believe that she can remain impartial in regard to this matter. And it is in the public interest for her to remain in the meeting room and I also believe a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest and that is to ensure that Councillor Lorentson will remain, participates in the meeting and provides the necessary and vital input that she can. Frank Wilkie 03:00:37.728
I have a question for the CEO. This is probably the longest conflict of interest declaration I've seen in my life. The important thing about a conflict of interest declaration is that it declares what the conflict is, the links between the. Councillor and the parties involved, and in this case it's non-ordinary business because Burgess Creek is a specific geographical area. That be correct? Yes. All right. Given the advice we got about the eastern beaches wilshire management plan, that's non-ordinary business because it pertains to a specific geographical area. It's akin to that, well you see it's akin to that. Do you see how you need to be this long? Larry Sengstock 03:01:34.929
Not necessarily but I can understand Councillor Lorentson's passion in this project and her desire to explain why she should remain in the room and give Councillors an opportunity to digest her reasoning. Joe Jurisevic 03:01:54.989
As simple as that. We little go back a bit? I was trying to take it all in while we were going through it. I was trying to work out whether you were going for the old emotion again. I was trying to go back to what the conflict was. Unidentified Speaker 03:02:13.475
I think the conflict is Yeah yeah. That I've highlighted, that her brother. Frank Wilkie 03:02:17.574
I I'll second it. Um, Clare? Clare Stewart 03:02:22.189
I mean, Councillor Lorentson, she's corrected. Thank you for providing that information. Yeah, it is good to put it all on the table. But Councillor Lorentson has been working really hard in this space for over a period of two years, has taken a number of motions to various conferences, both state and national. And I believe that she can make a decision impartially and in the best interests of the Noosa community. I understand everyone is concerned with conflicts of interest, particularly at this point in time and now with an election looming. I think Councillor Lorentson has been overly prudent, which is a good thing, as Councillor Stockwell has. So but I do believe at the end of the day, she can make an impartial decision in the best interests of the community Frank Wilkie 03:03:17.385
I'll speak in favour of the motion as well. Important thing is that the declaration is made. It was the east, the Eastern Beaches Protection Association that first raised Burgess Creek as a matter of interest, as a source of, planning was a source of major erosion on the eastern beaches during the chat process. This, and the Council has correctly declared links to the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. The important thing is that is being declared. I'm happy for Robinson Councillor Lorentson to sign stay in the rooms. Here. She has done a lot of work in this regard and a lot of work which has helped us better understand the dynamics of the Burgess Creek system. It is a specific geographical area affecting certain residents. It has greater have interest than others, but the important thing is that the conflict and the link is declared, so for that reason I'm happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room. Joe Jurisevic 03:04:19.335
I'll speak to it. I'm happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room. Councillor Lorentson has been focused on one particular element of Burgess Creek, the catchment as a whole. It's a far greater picture to bring into being and it's far more involved than just the element of the discharge from the water travel equipment. I think that in that regard, in that manner, I think there's a lot more to the integrated catchment plan than just that one focus. So I'm quite happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room and be aware of all the other elements of the Burgess Creek catchment that many of us have been alluded to. Alluding over a number of years. Frank Wilkie 03:04:57.279
Do the Councillors wish to speak to the motion? We'll just close, Councillor Stewart. Put it to the back. That is unanimous. That's and Councillor Lorentson will give the vote. She's able to stay in the room. Now, Councillor Lorentson, would you like to Amelia Lorentson 03:05:10.954
Move a motion? Can I move a motion? And it has three extra words added to the original motion, so. That Council note the report by the environment officer of rivers and coasts to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11th July 2023 and a note will continue liaising with Unitywater regarding the Burgess Creek STP data. Frank Wilkie 03:05:39.889
Well, I've given you a bum steer there, Councillor. We'll let the staff give their overview. Of the motion. Sophie 03:05:46.757
So this report today provides a summary of the actions that Council have taken to address two notified motions from June and December. Year around the Noosa wastewater treatment plant. So the actions that have been taken are the formation of Burgess Creek working group, which is an internal working group with infrastructure, environmental services, environmental health, and the climate change. So the purpose of and so the purpose of that group is to better understand the Burgess Creek catchment and monitor the catchment. So the parts of that PID will be stormwater management and flows, water quality and then other environmental factors that might have been impacted by not just the wastewater treatment plant but other contaminant sources in the catchment. We've also established an interagency working group with Unitywater so that involves monthly meetings with Unitywater so their communications team their operations team as well where we can provide updates to other and matters relevant to water quality in Burgess Creek and through that group we've established a confidentiality deed with Unitywater which means we now have access to their water quality data through their rim and as you know Unitywater recently presented their data to Councillors last month as well the other aspect of the actions is a partnership with UniSC so they've got a flow metre installed under the David Low Way bridge which is to sort of determine the move. Of the mouth and the impacts behind movement and the erosion issues at Burgess Creek this report also addresses the Council resolution for the development of a citizen science monitoring program specifically around monitoring runoff STPs of ST in the area as well and with this report we hope to close off both the notices of motions except for water discharge volumes in the Burgess Creek catchment because this would require further investigation and modelling Amelia Lorentson 03:08:21.058
Oh okay I'd like to move the motion please that Council note the report by the environment officer, rivers and coastal Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 and A, note staff will continue liaising with Unitywater regarding the Burgess Creek STP and data and aspects of Burgess Creek B, management. Continue scoping and development a Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan in partnership with Unitywater and key stakeholders. And C, note the continued development of council's integrated water quality monitoring program, including potential experiments. Expansion including potential to include additional monitoring sites. And D, that this report responds to previous Council notice of motions. We have a seconder please. Seconder Councillor Stewart, Councillor Lorentson. I just want to just add I included key stakeholders and I know that speaking with staff that was always the intention that various stakeholders would always be consulted also I want to throw a question before I speak to the motion my understanding also is that we will be creating a patrol a Project Control Group and is that correct? What is the process of actually finding people in the PCG? Does that go out to or Expression of Interest and it will be similar for instance to our Destination Management Plan? Unidentified Speaker 03:10:02.981
So I guess in the first instance just wanted to flag that the funding that we have for the integrated catchment management plan is actually in the next financial year. And while we're, I guess, preparing our response by doing the monitoring in addition to continuing to work with Unitywater, that there's a process, I guess, to plan that whole pit, I guess, moving forward. In terms of key stakeholders, I'm curious to know who exactly you mean by that, because obviously we've been doing quite a lot of community engagement, not just on this, but with the eastern beaches management plan as well and ongoing liaison with the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, so a lot of. Kim, have you got an answer there? Yeah, just to clarify, Councillor Lorentson, the integrated catchment management plan was not funded this year in the budget, Kim Rawlings 03:11:01.411
So we are not moving into the space you're talking about. It wasn't funded, not yet, exactly. So what this says is that staff will continue to maintain that relationship with Unitywater and continue to, within capacity, scope the project. We said this does not mean that we'll be performing a PCG or be consulting with key stakeholders or any of that. We are doing within capacity because it wasn't budgeted for, so we weren't given the resources to do this project. So I just want to be really clear about managing expectations when you add something like and key stakeholders. The project wasn't funded, it's not in our list of deliverables this year. We will continue to maintain that relationship and scope and understand the issues to prepare for a business case for year. Unidentified Speaker 03:11:54.097
It's funding and I think it's important to add as well we've come a huge distance in terms of our relationship with Unitywater so getting them to and you know congratulations to you for really championing this whole process but we've come a really long way so we want to continue that collaborative working relationship with Unitywater and I agree you know the community eventually needs to be involved if we move forward with this but like Kim said until we have the budget and the project management resource to make this happen we can only do what we can do I think within our existing team so it was the addition of an key stakeholders is that well I just depends on when it's Frank Wilkie 03:12:46.636
Expected so you're doing the scoping work with Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan in partnership with Unitywater currently so not key stakeholders Kim Rawlings 03:12:58.650
We are still talking with the Eastern Beaches Protection Association it's I think it's fine but it's just important to manage expectations that this doesn't mean there's a PCG and we've started the project we won't be doing that until it's funded and resourced but Frank Wilkie 03:13:18.061
You're if liaising with key stakeholders already that's fine Joe Jurisevic 03:13:22.482
And if you're talking with the environmental groups we should be part of continued scoping and development and updating on what's occurring or what may be needed to be included from their Amelia Lorentson 03:13:35.214
Perspective and that was the intent of the edition that it just and I know that you had spoken with other environmental groups that it just wasn't included in the recommendation and I really wanted to make that clear that it's Council, unity, border and collaboration with community and I think we're heading in the right, on the right track. Unidentified Speaker 03:13:58.367
Yeah, there's a very high level of expectation around community consultation and we appreciate that and I've been talking with Carolyn osbourne about getting a dedicated sort of community plan around the eastern beaches in general because we can't, I guess, have round tables for every single issue. It's probably about, you know, how do we get best bang for our buck in terms of our communication with the different groups. Frank Wilkie 03:14:28.022
Can I tell us a little Amelia Lorentson 03:14:28.710
Bit about the floor? Oh, just won't talk too much. I really just want to acknowledge the staff and thank the staff for putting words into action and for putting our community in place of high value on natural environment and sustainability first. So I really want to acknowledge that. Although the report doesn't review things like the permit condition and water bottlenecks and analysis of the contaminants from other potential sources within the catchment, I believe that this information and other concerns raised by the community will be captured in the scoping and development of this is Burgess Creek catchment plan. I've learned over the last 18 months is that in order to achieve best environmental practices and outcomes for the Burgess Creek catchment, we need to work collaboratively with stakeholders, including Unitywater and DES. We need also to do our own housekeeping and we need data. To improve management of the environment to know what other researchers and councils have found and how they have found it and data to improve transparency and accountability within the community. More importantly I've learned that we must welcome the data for the value it adds to the decision-making process. Mantra I've used I think for the last two years you can't fix a problem unless you know what the problem is and you can't manage what you measure. This is how we make good policy decisions with data. This is how we make informed decisions about sustainable use of the environment. Again, I'd like to thank the staff for all their hard work and for council's commitment. Investment in and investment in our environment and sustainability. We're part of the problem and we are now part of the solution. Frank Wilkie 03:16:21.972
Councillor Lorentson, Councillors, any questions, staff, comments? Tom Wegener 03:16:28.711
Just a question, what's next? So after this, it sounds like there was something else. So what is the outcome from the report? What's next? For Burgess Creek or other creeks, or enie creek, which is an epic. Unidentified Speaker 03:16:47.000
So I guess we continue that relationship with Unitywater and we've actually had our last monthly meeting with them last week and talked about the Cooroy treatment plant and perhaps arranging a tour for staff at that site. So it's really, I think, to continue building our understanding. And knowledge of what are all the operations around the Shire that Unitywater are involved with. How do we, we've got $10,000 in this financial year to expand the program to look at stormwater as well. So we've got our next workshop with the NRM groups that are part of that program next Monday. So really just to keep building on what we're already doing. Tom Wegener 03:17:28.373
Because the report is amazing and the findings are really eye-opening, aren't they? Weren't what we expected, or at least not what I expected, quite the opposite actually. Amelia Lorentson 03:17:40.840
Quick, and just chat. I don't know, it's form. A question? So in terms of the $400,000 funding to implement a Burgess Creek integrated management plan, the formation of the of Burgess a creek working group. When can we expect to see the working group again? The working group's established. And Sophie outlined that in her opening. Yeah. So the $400,000 and the $266,800 should be approved. That's allocated to Burgess Creek for surveys to inform a catchment action plan. So that's still pending on approval. So that's the part we're still waiting on. And it wasn't funded in this budget? It wasn't funded, but the opportunity may be in VR2. Kim Rawlings 03:18:32.300
We don't tend to re-litigate new initiatives in VR2. That will be up to Council whether or not that's something the councils want to re-look at. Councillors from an officer perspective, the decision on the budget and the allocation of the new initiatives has occurred, so we're now working, our work program is based on what you've endorsed in the Council budget. We won't be bringing forward to VR2 new initiatives that weren't funded in the budget to re-litigate them. That will be a Council decision. Amelia Lorentson 03:18:59.392
Terms of the partnership project for the University of the Sunshine Coast, I've got a copy of that report and they're, I think, still waiting for funding or there's some issue holding everything up. But they're investigating erosion and flow. Will there be an opportunity when that report comes out? Because there's a lot of maps in there and that was something that I had asked for, will that report come to Council or will it be at the meeting and get a fantastic report? Unidentified Speaker 03:19:29.514
So it's a one-year project and so that will be concluded in September next about that, I think. Year. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:36.776
Yeah. Fantastic. That'll feed into the begis creek working group? Unidentified Speaker 03:19:42.970
Yes, and the scoping of the integrated catchment management plan. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:47.505
And my last question is, I think request at the planning environment meeting for a copy of the submission that Council made in terms of the water quality objectives. There's a draft that's out. Kim Rawlings 03:20:02.187
Yes. Has that been circulated? Sorry? The officer level submission that we'd put into that process? Yes, I sent it around earlier today. Amelia Lorentson 03:20:12.037
Oh, okay. Sorry, it was a bit late. That's okay, so that's available. It is, yep. So I haven't had an opportunity to look at it. Can I ask just one question? Could you explain the process of consultation with that? So how did the draft, how did we make that submission? Did it come from officer level? Yes, it did. Or was it mandatory that community were consulted? It came from officer level and it was a bit of a tricky one because Unitywater initially were not happy that we were putting in a submission as part of that. Unidentified Speaker 03:20:42.882
They felt that our role as part of their project steering group that they have for water matters was our opportunity to provide input. We did sort of negotiate with them that, well, no, we do want to put in a public record. What our position on this is. So yeah there was a bit of back and forth on that. And it was done at officer level because of timing, Councillor Lorentson. Kim Rawlings 03:21:09.645
So often there are short time frames around providing submissions to different state policies or processes. So it's not unusual for us to do an technique. Technical submission. You know, when we can get it to Council for it to be endorsed, we will, but when we can't because of time frames, we'll still put something in at an officer level. Amelia Lorentson 03:21:29.979
So how I've sort of understood that is, at the moment, there is no water quality objectives for Burgess Creek under Unidentified Speaker 03:21:38.255
There are, yes. And in fact, they amended them because of the fact it's got an STP on it. So we're continuing to work with DES to try to understand whether the water quality objectives are appropriate, not just for the coastal. Creeks, but right across the Shire, because you'll see in the reports that we've sent through that we're getting fs on quite a number of them. That, yeah. So that really needs further discussion with our NRM groups around that to understand that, because, you know, obviously we don't want to um be, you know, ratcheting down the benchmark but, you know, similarly we need to actually know if there's a problem if we're doing this annual reporting and continually getting fs. So, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 03:22:31.187
Just one more question. In terms of a confidentiality agreement we signed which was for five years, I've got two questions. Why did we sign a confidentiality agreement and will the information after the five year lapse be made available to the public or does that remain confidential? Unidentified Speaker 03:22:52.417
Signed you the agreement because Unitywater asked us to and it was the only way we felt we could get access to the data. But I think we're slowly getting there. The fact that they provided the receiving environmental monitoring program report and it's now on the public record. Think is a good step in the right direction and certainly I think as part of this program more broadly we would like to see a public dashboard eventually at the very least for recreational health Kim Rawlings 03:23:20.402
Because we have a duty as Council to inform the public if it's safe or not to swim. So so the reason we signed we to agreed to a confidentiality agreement is like Amy said is also that the data the raw data needs interpretation so you know you were presented with data and you saw how complex it was and how it needed interpretation and we had water there interpreting that for us. Unitywater there interpreting that for us so to just release raw data into the community without that sort of interpretation you know is cause for confusion so that's why they were happy to provide the raw data but said it has to be given interpretation the REMP provides the interpretation REMP reports are publicly available and have been for a long time that's not a new thing their REMP reports have always been publicly available they're available through their website and they're available through DES they're now available publicly through Council so those reports have always been available publicly and they yeah so if you go onto the website you can get the last number of years of REMP data yeah and that provides that interpretation of the data so you know that's why it's not so much about they're not there being something to hide it's more about that raw data requires interpretation because it's complex and so that was it was more it about managing that process Amelia Lorentson 03:24:47.613
On page 217 of the report it references a KBR and consultants 2004 and I've got bits and pieces of that report which through archives Noosa Today 2003-2004 and it was actually quite a good report and I would imagine an expensive report but it looked at the implications of Burgess Creek water quality and looked at it detailed review of all the land uses that made some really really great recommendations and in 2004-2003 they were recommending you know these deep ocean pipelines I was wondering has that ever been reviewed or updated would be great if they were talking about recycling reuse in 2003-2004 I would love to know what the recommendations would be today whether you know sewerage into power and energy going down that route. Kim Rawlings 03:25:52.081
I'm not sure whether Unitywater have updated or reviewed that report that would need to be a question we would need to put with to them one if they have yeah because and two if they've got any intention to if they haven't Amelia Lorentson 03:26:05.488
Yeah that would be great KBR consultants done oh no lastly I just want to note on page 55 of the rent the recommendations um really good and I think if you add the recommendations to the report and this is what I mean with collaborations I think again they're on the right track and I just want to note some of the recommendations on page 269 um so um expand so the Burgess Creek monitoring program to include monitoring of the weeds within the creek and banks of Burgess Creek so there was a lot of issues around the infestation of weed or introduction of weed species and acidification of testing of soil so for them to acknowledge that and that's one of their actions review which sewage pumping stations may potentially impact water quality should they overflow considering incorporating flow monitoring data and quantitative methods for flow reading in the receiving environment there's just some really good stuff that they've identified as a result of the receiving environment monitoring program and it's really interesting and good reading. Karen Finzel 03:27:30.551
Fantastic. It's a question to Councillor Lorentson with regards to the addition of the case study columns given the response from the colleagues, staff regarding the questions around that, are you intending them to leave that on there or Amelia Lorentson 03:27:44.963
Remove it? I'll keep it on there. So key stakeholders, I think a lot of them have already been included but the report just read that it was scoping the and development was only going to be between Council and Unitywater and in fact they're already key stakeholders that have already been engaged as part of the scoping and development of the plan. So I think it's critical that's included. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 03:28:09.902
The president I'll ask a question on those it be fair to say that to undertake the scoping and development of monitoring stations and all the rest of it, environmental groups would be involved in that and they've been engaged in the process and they would it's be key stakeholders going forward? This process. I'm happy to keep key stakeholders in there on that basis. I'll speak to her if I may, but I appreciate Councillor Lorentson's focus on the sewage treatment plan elements of Burgess Creek. If you look at figure 1, Burgess Creek is far one, more outcourt. Outfall of the sewage treatment plan. Those of us that have been here for a little while and have been working behind the scenes, we start off on other elements of Burgess Creek with regard to some of the other things that are mentioned here, because we've got the leachates- and residential run-offs and biobasins, the lack of biobasins and maintenance of biobasins and some of the upgrades that are required as well in our facilitators and we've known about some of the other elements of the wide-ranging area that needs to be looked at when you look at birders creek as a whole. And I took staff out today and had a bit of a look and we found a constant flowing stream through there. So are other elements that are unknown about birders creek that we've still got a lot of work and research to do. There's some questions that have been raised over time. So I look forward to seeing this come to fruition. The monitoring of care. And the monitoring occurring here. I think there's a lot that we can learn and a lot that we can better manage in one rather significant waterway that flows through some sensitive environmental land and how we can possibly in the future implement some changes and some improvements to the health quality world. And quality of the waterway. Amen. Thank you. Tom Wegener 03:30:04.315
I would just like to say how pleased I am that Burgess Creek is a creek and not a storm drain because that's what the rest of the world would have it as a storm drain but it's still a creek because we're Noosa. Different by Nature. Frank Wilkie 03:30:19.059
Yeah, thank you Karen. I also think it's very useful that the Council and Unitywater have decided to take a whole catchment approach to this issue because what that's revealed is that the STP is actually the lease of our concerns there and we've come to learn and appreciate that the water quality flowing from the STP is superior to some of the other sources and actually dilutes pollutants that are coming from say stormwater, landfills, night soil, it's flowing through there. So this amount of work that you've been doing has been extremely insightful, it's enormous and it's really appreciated. Thank you. I really wish to Amelia Lorentson 03:31:09.641
I've learnt in all this is there's community. A lot we can do as a Council to help improve water quality and I think that's got to be something that we've got to progress with. Quality improvements. Just without, you know, stormwater runoff, pesticides that are used on storm fields, ageing stormwater infrastructure, etc. And then the part and the lobbying part, that is so important. The environmental act is 1994 and as much as Unitywater compliant, they are compliant to something that was written 30 years ago. You know, so there's an advocacy part that we need to still push and promote legislative changes in our environmental protection acts you know, brings them up to current standards and stricter, you know, stricter standards. I read what's happening up at the great barrier reef and think god, why is that area more pristine than our beautiful beaches? And it shouldn't be. It just shouldn't be. We need to place just high value. On our beaches in more quality. So yeah, lots we can do outside, you know. Lots we can do to help with cleaner oceans, cleaner wastewater. We've got to just keep asking the questions because we can do better. And the moment we stop, you know, we fall behind. Would the motion be in favour? Frank Wilkie 03:33:00.505
You, Sophie. The next item is the Noosa Environment Strategy year 3 implementation plan. You can go back in and find out more about that. Could we have a copy of that? Tom Wegener 03:40:09.410
Actually watch what you missed Brian it was fine as you were there. Unidentified Speaker 03:40:12.668
Check those notes, if you want us to mention those, you have to watch that. The T-shirt is $100, eh? Frank Wilkie 03:40:21.585
Welcome back everyone. We're up to item 5. Which is the Noosa Environment Strategy year 3 implementation plan update, I have a conflict of interest. My Councillor, Councillor Wilkie informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as in early 2020 I received an electoral donation of $750 from Peregian resident Susan Francis. Is the partner of Peregian resident Barry Cotterell. Mr Cotterell is the president of the bridging venture media community association. Environment Strategy update. Mentions the progress of the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management plan. The UBCA has provided feedback on the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management plan. The office of the independent assessor and legal advices indicated the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management plan is not ordinary. Cancer business us. Because it relates to a specific geographical area and that links to groups who have made submissions to it ought to be declared. Although I know the PBCA, which is a volunteer community group, stand to gain personally and materially through noting this report on the board of Environment Strategy, I make this declaration out of abundant. An abundance of caution and commitment to transparency. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and therefore choose to remain in the meeting room. Actually, I want to leave that out, that I choose to remain in the meeting room. I just want to say. That's out of standard wording. Okay. However, I respect the decision of the meeting room and therefore I can remain in Unidentified Speaker 03:41:47.206
Let's just call the vote. You just landed something on the ground. It I'm going to have to, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 03:41:52.926
Isn't, someone needs to vote. Unidentified Speaker 03:41:55.271
I'll move that it's in the public interest of Councillor Wilkie to vote this place in Noosa in this matter, because Councillor Wilkie does not stand against personal immaturity through making this report, and therefore a reasonable person would trust the decision. Sorry, I don't know why that came to my mind. Made in the public interest. Tom Wegener 03:42:11.621
I'll second it. Joe Jurisevic 03:42:13.881
I'll do so because on the basis to be consistent with the position that we've held to this point in time on this declaration, and also that I see the. Link to the. Level of conflict to be quite. A distance, you know. Unidentified Speaker 03:42:34.822
Any questions? On the whole issue? Oh, we need to do a new Chair. Yeah, no, I'm assuming the Chair. Oh, you missed a part? That's what peter's asking, too. So, any questions for Councillor Wilkie? Does anyone else like to speak to this? We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Aye. Now, I have a question, Kath. On the basis that Councillor Wilkie has declared conflict of interest in this matter Clare Stewart 03:43:03.172
For the same reasons, does anyone else around the table. Yeah, I believe I. And I believe then that we may have. Councillor Stockwell said cancelled stockpile settings already. Yes. So we might go to that side again, which will be Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Wegener and myself. So we'll put the matter to vote. All in favour? That's unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilkie did not vote. Amelia Lorentson 03:43:28.841
Anyone else? Clare Stewart 03:43:34.055
Okay, all right. Tom Wegener 03:43:36.415
You can't change it. Frank Wilkie 03:43:37.455
I can't Unidentified Speaker 03:43:37.940
Do it. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:43:55.460
The I wish to declare exactly the same what Councillor Wilkie just declared, which is to change the donation figure of 500, and as it's in front of you, I believe it's okay to say take it as read. Frank Wilkie 03:44:08.339
Sorry. So moved. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Joe Jurisevic 03:44:12.126
For all the reasons alluded to in the previous matter where Councillor Wilkie was the. Sorry, but say that uh but to stay in the Council public Council night Council made that a terrible contribution by Councillor Stockwell and determines in the public interest that he participates and votes on this matter. Council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to gain personal maturity through noting this report and therefore a reasonable person would trust the financial suit is made in the public interest. OK, any others wish to speak to the motion? Frank Wilkie 03:44:45.574
Approved to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Stewart, Wegener and griswold. Krzysiek. That's carried. Note that Councillor Wilkie, Lawrence and Stockwell and Finzel did not vote. Any other conflicts? Amelia Lorentson 03:45:02.510
You'll just have to wait a moment because you haven't told me about things. Can I just have a quick look at the wording beforehand? Of one of the other ones? Just in reference to. Is that used in writing? Okay. East of the beaches. Sorry. So, I, Councillor Lorentson, form a meeting that I'm a declarable competent in this matter because my was on the executive of the eastern beaches protection act. Association. Excuse me. Association who have made submissions regarding the eastern beaches foreshore management plan. Unidentified Speaker 03:46:25.548
Shit, what did he say? I don't know. Unidentified Speaker 03:46:30.852
Do not believe beaches foreshore management plan you need to say it as the report. Frank Wilkie 03:46:41.165
Provides a status update on that plan. Just to link it to this report. Amelia Lorentson 03:46:45.662
Ms LIVINGSTONE it's mentioned in the eastern beaches rural management plan. As the report references the eastern beaches rural management plan as part of the Noosa Environment Strategy. I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias. Because my brother nor I stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. Therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting however I will respect the decision of the meeting or whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Because do you want to just read over it again? I, Councillor Lorentson, am calling the meeting a declarable conflict of interest in that it is my brother gave the Chair of signing. Is that spelled correctly? Can you add Kabi comma who until recently. Was on the executive of eastern futures. I've got to make submissions to these. Eastern futures foreshore management plan four stop. New sentence as a report. References the plan as part of the new system. Thank you. The report references the plans part of the new system. Thank you. Oh, you have today? Tom Wegener 03:49:01.329
Oh, I knew it. Does anyone want to? I'll check. I probably should mention it, but the word Permaculture Noosa is mentioned as a recipient of one of the grants way down the list there. Are we voting on amelia's name? No, I don't have amelia's name. Yeah, okay. Unidentified Speaker 03:49:14.821
Oh, sorry about that. I mean, Tom, you said Amelia. And tell me if I don't know any of it. Tom Wegener 03:49:18.404
Yeah. Yeah, just yeah, forget I said it. That. Brian Stockwell 03:49:23.052
I'm moving to a procedural motion. The is that the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting. Unidentified Speaker 03:49:27.604
Yeah. Y 'all okay. Frank Wilkie 03:49:34.743
Procedural motion that the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting. Yes, I'll second it. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Stockwell. Can I just stop rolling? Brian Stockwell 03:49:47.059
It just, it's the only sensible way to proceed if it's likely that Councillor Wegener may have a similar level of confidence in making all the previous motions invalid. I think that was that. Joe Jurisevic 03:49:58.877
All right. I think, Councillors need to go and double-check, read the report and see that they. Unidentified Speaker 03:50:04.923
Um, who seconded that? Mayor Stewart. Frank Wilkie 03:50:09.316
Okay, put it to the vote. All in favour? That's, um. I'm oh, sorry, Councillor. Brian Stockwell 03:50:15.516
Proceed. It's a procedural motion. That's unanimous, the procedural motion. Frank Wilkie 03:50:21.503
All those? Unidentified Speaker 03:50:24.167
Just to note as well, it does include a summary of the environmental grants, so either classic free Noosa and a few of the others, so there may be a bit of a conflicts. Frank Wilkie 03:50:33.467
Noosa as mentioned? Unidentified Speaker 03:50:34.366
Yeah, and Plastic Free Noosa as well, so yeah, just so Frank Wilkie 03:50:37.706
Yeah. We'll see you Thursday night, Camille. No worries. Now there's a level of caucus, I guess. Just help me. Financial-- performance report. Kayden's getting a full understanding of the--- Pauline, your report mentions the Leisure Centre, and I don't know someone who passed that's Unidentified Speaker 03:51:07.177
Okay. I want you to use the facility. Unidentified Speaker 03:51:09.917
It's late in the day. Tom Wegener 03:51:18.759
Guys, it's just--- That's all right, get in your seats, I'm sorry. Frank Wilkie 03:51:25.879
Pauline, welcome, have a welcome train. Please give us an overview of the financial performance for the last month. Pauline 03:51:33.239
Good afternoon, Councillors. The Financial Performance Report for June 2023 shows the interim position at the year end. However, financial adjustments are still in progress, which may have a material impact on the final position. These adjustments include provisions, calculations, revenue recognition-- calculation and accrual adjustments, so there may be a movement-- there will be a movement when we do the final reports. A further final report will be provided in respect to the 2022-23 financial performance at the November 2023 meeting, once the independent audit has been completed and the financial statements are released. Firstly, I'd like to advise the table on page 190.197 should indicate that the operating expenses are below budget and not above budget. So, there's light on that page. Thank you, Brian. You. So, operating revenue has outperformed forecast by $3.6 million, which is predominantly driven by interest revenue of $1.2 million and grants of $1.2 million. Grants relate to the advance payment of the 2024 financial assistance grant. And in previous years, we have only received a 50% or 75% prepayment. Operating expenditure is $6.2 million under budget, with employee cost-making at $1 million, and materials and services are $5.3 million under budget. $2.5 million. Of that relates to restricted projects that are funded by special levies and separate charges, so they'll be held in reserve for future use and for specific programs. Remainder the of underspend to civil operations, community facilities, holiday parks, sorry, they're over, sorry, and strategic planning, infrastructure, waste development assessment and environmental services are all underspend. Tourism and economic development expenditure remains on track. A summary of consultancy fees has also been included as requested at the May General Committee Meeting which shows expenditure by Council over time on consultancy. These summaries only include operational consultancy and that's been incurred on capital projects. It should be noted when reading these graphs that generally consultancy spend relates to specialised services and the quantum is dependent on the nature and size of projects that are being undertaken by Council. Overall council's interim operating at 2021 June is $9.8 million above budget. Capital revenue is above budget $5 million due to some the further advance payments of QRA disaster projects funding. Council has expended 82% of its budget which equates to $46.6 million which is the largest capital program that we've delivered. Council's cash holdings at the end of June were $115 million with $15 million of these still invested in higher return term deposits. As mentioned previously council's cash holdings are higher than we would normally expect at this time of year and this is predominantly due to the advance payment of the QRA disaster program which is held in reserve for these works once they're underway. Council is also holding $10 million in relation to the advance payment of four years worth of waste levy and $2 million as I mentioned for the prepayment of the 2024 financial assistance grant. In accordance with statement council's financial staff sustainability policy we also hold a minimum of three months cash cover which is about $25 million as well as cash reserves to fund the operations of Council through July until the first rate runs of 2024 and that's $7.3 million. Three also providers $10 million in project funding for capital works that will be delivered in financial year 2024 as well as 9 million of projects that will be pushed out at Budget Review 2. In addition to this Council also holds funds for restricted purchases such as reserves for natural disaster, waste management operations, developer contributions and unspent levies and this is in accordance with the council's management of restricted cash policy. Overall council's financial position ended the financial year in a strong position and it continues to meet its financial sustainability targets. Frank Wilkie 03:55:40.774
What would be the free cash at the end of the year? Pauline 03:55:42.970
We're still sitting at five million. Once we do finalised adjustments there may be a slight increase in what our cash holdings are but we'll wait until we get to that point. Frank Wilkie 03:55:50.849
That was the five you mentioned during the budget deliberations. Unidentified Speaker 03:55:57.724
Out in the last week or two, is that right? Rates went out, yes, yesterday. Just yesterday, okay. So we should be looking at that seven million coming in, if you don't mind the pace and time, we should be looking at a further increase of that seven million, is that correct? So we're holding seven million to fund the operations through to July because of the due date of rates which might be into August. Won't we case. And we just hold that cash. But we'll obviously see a big up kick in our cash holdings once we get that revenue in August. And 18th of August is when they have to get the 5% discount. So so hopefully we'll see a lot. Of people take advantage of that too. Amelia Lorentson 03:56:32.761
Correct. Amelia? Well in terms of employee costs, 41.4 million of the annual budget of 42.4 million has been expended. So total employee costs 42.4 million. As a percentage of total operating expenses. Operating expenditure which is 122 million, I've worked out that it's about 34 percent wages or about 34 percent of total operating costs. How does that compare with similar councils of similar sizes? 34 percent? Pauline 03:57:08.085
When you do a you comparison across councils in Queensland, it can range from 30 percent to 40 percent, so we're not out of the realm of employee costs in that respect. Unidentified Speaker 03:57:19.562
Well, that too. I guess just to add to that, what the biggest driver or the biggest variance between councils about their assets employed, the depreciation on their balance sheet, and whether they've borrowed and what their borrowing extent is. But you tend to find that materials and employee costs as a percentage of total revenue remains relatively in that 30% to 40%. Amelia Lorentson 03:57:40.973
Percent so consultancy sits outside of that, even though it's human? Unidentified Speaker 03:57:46.086
Correct, because it's generally employed for specialised items. It's work that Council doesn't normally do. So consultancy does not include labour hire where we might get extra resources in to supplement vacancies. That sits within the employee cost line. Joe Jurisevic 03:58:06.559
We're Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Mayor Stewart. I look to see if I'm finding a position where Council finds itself in. Again. So, in and acknowledge the fine work of our finance team and all of our staff. Mr. CEO, if I can pass on the answer. For the efforts, it reflects really, really well through the financial situation. Frank Wilkie 03:58:29.662
I'm sure it's sweet to know. Anybody else wish to speak? Lighten those and tie that. Motion goes in favour. Carried unanimously. There are no more. There's no confidential session. That's it for today. I declare the meeting closed. And thank you, Councillors, for your patience and discipline. And thank you, Larry and your team. Noosa. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
