General Committee Meeting - 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 00:05.540
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. We 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 there should be no confusion in the future, so our apologies 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... We have items referred from the committees, and the first one is an MCU 210110 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 Planning and Environment Committee meeting from last week due to the significance of the issue. And we have our Manager of Planning, Patrick... Clare Stewart 01:28.072
In accordance with Chapter 5B of Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration for meeting of a clerical conflict of interest. Stewart informed 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 Springs. I also understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are developers of Park Ridge in Noosa Springs, made a submission against Noosa Springs Hotel development. Leigh McCready, who is associated with Alton, is a friend. As a result of my conflicts of interest, I will now leave the meeting room. Amelia Lorentson 02:10.085
While this night is considered and voted on, thank you very much. Karen Finzel 02:17.980
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 in 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 Alton, read the wrong thing. 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 Alton, was involved 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 upon. Brian Stockwell 03:13.660
Mr Stockwell. I also wish to inform the meeting that I have declared comparable conflict of interest in this matter as I have come to understand that JFP Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, part of the developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs... development. Leigh McCready is associated with the Altum Property Group. On 24 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 Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICO review was an advisory service and my queries at the time were in the public interest. Joe Jurisevic 03:51.448
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 I move that the council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates on this matter because the council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the I.C.E.A. review was an advisory service was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and Councillor Stockwell's periods of time were in the public interest, and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose on that advice. Seconder to that? with the position that we have taken on this matter and this declaration in the past through all council matters associated with Councillor Stockwell's declaration on this matter. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Put the motion to Those in favour? That's carried. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the motion. Welcome staff. We have our new Director of Regulation and Compliance Richard MacGillivray, Head of Planning Patrick Murphy and their team. Paul King. King, K-A-N-G. Yes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 05:05.058
You. Will Lowe 05:05.158
Will Lowe, Senior Environment Officer. Frank Wilkie 05:07.578
Will Lowe, Senior Environment Officer. Thank you. Would you care to give us an overview? Certainly. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 05:14.698
I'll give an overview and as Councillor Wilkie's Bill Lowe. To, we have Paul King 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. 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 tourist 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 Also of note is that the urban boundary under the planning scheme sort of snaps back to the tourist 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. The scheme introduced the tourist accommodation zone. It really recognised how Noosa Springs had been developed with previous approvals that were seeking for some tourist 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 could be both 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 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. opportunity to develop in such a way. 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-end 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. That is the 2.5 odour unit. in terms of, I suppose, the zoning, the zoning that was created under the 2020 scheme was designed to provide a buffer between the sewage treatment plant and the and the tourist accommodation zone without any robust methodology being undertaken at that time and wasn't you know known where that delineation should occur so the assessment of this application has has used the the 2.5 odour unit line as a ground truthing exercise to determine where it was appropriate where it has been appropriate to site this building and the associated uses so So there's been this application has been in hand for nearly two years and there's been some discussions with the applicants prior to the application being lodged and that 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 with Mapping within it. Initially, it was proposed to site tennis courts generally in this area here. That is an area that's identified as koala habitat. Subsequently, the made amendments to the layout to move the tennis courts to above 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 our environment officer as being reasonable to be removed. It's also noted that offsets are being proposed by the applicant. When it was proposed to site the tennis courts in the koala habitat area, there was going to be a financial offset as required by the State, but the applicant applicant also proposed to offset with 120 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 locations. In terms of the built form it's considered 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 variations to the height allowances and setback and site cover and plot ratio being the building does exceed the 12 metre height limit in the tourist accommodation zone and the 8 metre height limit in the recreation and open space zone. Those intrusions are not considered to be significant in terms 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 proposed sorry, 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, to note that 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. And just to conclude as per the report, despite the conflicts with the planning scheme in terms of the zoning and noting and noting the ground-treating that's occurred with the with the odour impacts, officers are recommending that the application be supported subject to conditions. Frank Wilkie 11:40.648
Thank you Patrick. Questions, counsellors? Joe Jurisevic 11:46.259
Developments of significance of this thought, council have often sought the advice of other architects, local architects, have we had any input from other, because I know one architect in particular has given us some input on some input on this development. But have we had any of our local architects do any consideration of this development? Patrick Murphy 12:06.409
No, there hasn't been a review by any local 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 12:20.103
The other thing that you just raised there with regard to the urban mapping and the change Background as to why that changed in this planning scheme? Patrick Murphy 12:41.220
Given the nature of the potential for the development of this committee. I would have to probably clarify that for you Joe. The director at the time is actually in the room and she might be able to shed some light. Kim Rawlings, you're welcome. Kim Rawlings 12:58.280
The chair, Councillor Jurisevic, yes you might recall that there was always anticipated to be short-term accommodation resort delivered at the Noosa Springs. Thank you. community and the wider community is part of the Park Ridge development. That didn't occur as a result of approvals at the time. So during the development of the Noosa Plan 2020, that need considered something that was required. So there was 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 about tourist accommodation and at the higher end, five-star type accommodation. Joe Jurisevic 13:58.021
The existing footprint is where what is essentially mapped as opposed to what was previously mapped in the urban mapping from what Patrick said, encompassing the whole. Is that correct? SPEAKER_10 14:12.851
Can you say that again, Joe? Joe Jurisevic 14:14.951
What is mapped currently in the orange on the map is what is in the Noosa Plan. What Patrick said, or if I misunderstood, is what was in the scheme was the entire land parcel then was included in the map. That's what I just heard Ed. I'm just clarifying that that's correct. Patrick Murphy 14:32.061
Just to clarify, what I'm saying is that the whole site was zoned open had 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 tourist accommodation zone. Joe Jurisevic 14:47.899
So why was that change in the planning scheme? Kim Rawlings 14:51.217
Oh look it was just it was snapped back to the tourist accommodation zone at the time Was that as a precaution because of the odour? We didn't have the odour modelling at the time? 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 split zonings, you know, often there's ground 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 that actually could shift, based on, you know, the detailed information. So that's what's happening here. Tom Wegener 15:43.400
Yeah, considering the plot ratio, I just heard you say that the existing building does not exceed plot ratio when including the older Noosa Springs building. Did I hear that right? Patrick Murphy 15:55.711
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 total amount of GFA associated with this new building and the existing buildings on the site do not exceed that. Tom Wegener 16:15.343
What would the GFA if the new building is approved and it's found that the old Noosa Springs isn't gonna satisfy the demand from the hotel? Would they be in violation of that planning scheme if they wanted to double the size and make the current Noosa Springs fit size-wise and be able to facilitate the people from the hotel in Noosa Springs? If Noosa Springs grows, will it have a GFA problem in the future? Patrick Murphy 16:52.664
So just to reiterate, so that area, tourist 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 that they're permitted to develop in this part of develop in this part of the site so if they were to seek to remove those buildings and to develop additional GFA it's reasonable that they would be able to go up to to 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 there may be a need or there would be a need to amend the planning scheme the the mapping so that there could be a rectification of the urban boundary and the zoning in the future and that might mean shifting the the recreation and open space zoning in other parts of the site as well. Thank you. Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 17:57.212
In terms of the ODA complaints, we know the board has raised, challenged and raised concerns about the review and recommendations that have been made by Council's consultants. consulting ODA expert, and I want to note the, they note that the Katestone modelling was done in 2016 and did not take into account changes in population and the development of this area in the last six years, including Park Ridge and the Elysium. 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 you clarify, there was, in the report, noted that that transfer of responsibility is not legally... not capable of legally transferring the responsibilities across, is that right? Patrick Murphy 19:04.771
That is correct. We sorted, we were 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. Amelia Lorentson 19:23.907
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. Patrick Murphy 19:25.251
So there Amelia Lorentson 19:41.847
Again, a concern raised by Unity Water is that people might mistaken odours. That could be caused by bats or by mangroves, et cetera. 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 extensive modifications made to the STP. So the risk of is not only to Unity Water. Does council repays also carry financial risk or burden if that happens? And again, I refer to the deputation where Unity Water spoke about Narumba Downs and the cost cost of upgrading or putting those further installations to the tune of $38 million, can you confirm or clarify, is that cost borne by the rate pays down in Moreham Bay? Patrick Murphy 20:43.500
It's probably a good opportunity just to talk about that assessment of the risk, if you don't mind if Paul could just share your thoughts on that. Paul King 20:52.200
Okay, so a couple of things, Councillor, you mentioned 2016. So the co-standard 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. 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 Unity Water 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 that particular plan that particular plant is a lot larger than the Noosa Springs plant, probably about 60% larger at the current point in time. The Morumba Downs plant is located, the nearest infrastructure of Morumba 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 away from the closest house so it's it is closer in proximity. In terms of looking the aerial photography in terms of the odour control measures that are in place at Morumba 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 The point I'm trying to make is that the Noosa plant is quite modern in terms of its 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 serious 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. I think the point you were making in 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. 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 the plant is already in quite close proximity to existing residential. So I think in terms of that, the existing residential to the west, I measure is about 300 metres from the nearest sewage treatment plant existing Park Ridge residential to the south is about 365 metres away. The existing tennis courts are about 265 metres away. proposed accommodation, 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 So we're talking about 35 metres closer. Just to quickly wrap up, my role was to review the technical assessment that's been prepared. So I've been through the Katestone report, we issued an information 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 There's no technical reason why that development can't exist and people will experience appropriate amenity. Frank Wilkie 25:41.956
Does that mean, Paul, that there's a chance that visitors to this resort will still experience on occasion some odour? Paul King 25:52.256
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, some of which are.5 odour unit 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 odour units is only exceeded in those outdoor recreation areas within the contour in the night time 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. occur and they occur intermittently so the 2.5 odour units is a 99.5th percentile exceedance so 44 hours a year we're going to get 2.5 odour units or higher most of the time it's far less than that so cut than that, so people may detect it. So I've detected odour driving in 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. we had absolute criteria, we wouldn't have 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 won't, but the technical assessment shows that it should be an acceptable level. Frank Wilkie 27:23.217
So that's if they're within the 2.5 line? Paul King 27:29.217
If they're outside, well, even if of the 2.5 odour unit line, less than 2.5, you can still smell odour. So in terms of that, yeah, 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 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 it's logarithmic it means you can smell it, but that's not going to, 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... Frank Wilkie 28:13.543
In your view, what would need to be done to the nursing wastewater treatment plant in order for there to be no odour? Is that an impossible dream? I think it's an impossible dream. Certainly in Europe there are plants that are fully enclosed. But you're much higher population densities. The trouble is that, well not 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 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. So you're satisfied 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 King 29:14.082
Yes, so I don't know about any odour but they've managed the impact of odour to an acceptable level. The conditions require 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 a 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 29:41.273
And Patrick, in an ideal situation, now you've got this information about where the odour contour lies, if there were to be planning scheme changes, would the tourist accommodation zone... be extended to the heart of our 2.4 contour line, eastward of our 2.5 contour line? Patrick Murphy 30:04.472
Well, that's probably a question for our strategic area and for your councillors, but yeah, that's right. Ideally, it would be... it would be within the area that's below the 2.5 odour units, noting that part of the tourist accommodation zone is already outside and can I just just add one thing I think it's relevant that Parkridge the 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 to the west both of those applications were supported by odour reports and the methodology reports and the methodology used was the same and the criterion that they both sought to rely on for where their development should be sited 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 the basis of complying with the 2.5 odour unit line and at that time it was noted in the reports that when the plan of development was first done pre the upgrade to the treatment plan that a 600 metre buffer was required but subsequent the improvements to the plan and the demonstration of the compliance of the 2.5 odour units through the reports that those developments were considered reasonable. Frank Wilkie 31:35.254
And just one final question. The residents, which were part of the said that they do experience ODA and have complained, but can you confirm whether councillors received any complaints? We've read in the report that neither the Unitywater nor Noosa Springs has received any complaints. So they maintain that they have complained and they can experience ODA. Patrick Murphy 32:01.293
So I've had a look at our electronic records and can't find any records of complaint. The reports submitted application notes that there was an RTI request made to Unity Water and to Council seeking records of any complaints. There were no complaints that were identified in those record checks. The reports associated with the previous applications do talk about complaints pre the upgrade and it was only like a few complaints. Before '97? Yeah, a few complaints. We've specifically asked Unity Water in meetings Joe Jurisevic 32:46.316
The one specific thing that I asked Patrick to reiterate from Unity Water is have they had any complaints because we were categorically we were categorically told on at the meeting the other day from one of the residents that they have complained to Unitywater. So I find this disparity between yes there is there is complaints being lodged and no complaints have been received to be an anomaly. I don't understand how a complaint can be made yet no complaints have been 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 so you've got no further information with regard to any complaints from Unity Water that no complaints have been lodged is their response? Paul King 33:32.827
That's correct and sorry just to add also DES Department of Environment and Science we contacted the regulator over Unity Water and wouldn't at the time the report 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, we talk about the developed receptors within, but there are other receptors within closer. the 2.5 odour modelling line recreational activities, such as the Heroene 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 treatment plant? Patrick Murphy 34:26.605
I'm looking against the property from which the odour would emanate. Joe Jurisevic 34:54.427
You mentioned the character and capacity of the plant. Now I know we've got a presentation from 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. That's off the top of my head. Do we 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 and how that impacts on its capacity? Paul King 35:24.399
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 is at the moment I'm not sure. Joe Jurisevic 35:35.614
I understand that they're well, the presentation of uni water that I recall was they were well under that. 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 100,000 is a question that I've got with regard to how or when that may occur given that we have a national population capacity or current Patrick Murphy 36:07.578
That's true, and noting that there is another treatment plan out at Cooroy. Joe Jurisevic 36:11.918
Which caters for the other element. Thank you, I can't handle that. You mentioned activated carbon filters. I'll ask two 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? First. Paul King 36:26.925
Sure. So activated carbon filters, just like most air conditioning systems, have a dust filter on An activated carbon filter is just another cartridge that slides in and out. So activated carbon is an odor 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 odors. Joe Jurisevic 36:52.977
There we go. The other element with regard to the activated carbon filters, you mentioned the other developments around and Park Ridge being the most recent. with an audit report air conditioning systems required to have activated carbon filters installed? Paul King 37:12.792
Is it? No, I don't believe. Joe Jurisevic 37:14.472
Well, my recollection is no. Being the next nearest and having an owner report. They only work on the air conditioning system. Have the units got the capacity to open windows and doors in the direction the the STP. Paul King 37:35.387
I think the answer to that is yes. Well, yeah, so that was the interface of the building with the contour There's two of the of the five pods that interface. I'd have to just refresh the elevation plan. Joe Jurisevic 37:54.635
I was thinking they have sliding doors and balconies and things like that. Oh, you know, certainly within the site, around this from area, 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 wall. No, regardless whether they've got air conditioning or not, they could have open windows and open doors. Assuming, yeah. If that was the last of my questions. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 38:22.170
Going back to other complaints. Frank Wilkie 38:22.462
Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 38:26.950
So if there was to be a complaint, then Unity 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, he says, she says, etc. But I sit 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 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... potential to result in over-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 over-complaints. Is there potential over-complaints? Paul King 39:40.163
You happy for me to answer this one? 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 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, who make odour and quite often I spend a lot of time dealing 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 unity work, unity water Investigate and for them to experience is it an unacceptable odour in their opinion. Then if they deem it is, then there will be action taken against Unitywater for them to investigate the complaint and to assess it. And that's generally done by taking odour 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 about odour from the sewage treatment plant. So if there is a complaint and it's investigated, whether you ought to have to do anything or spend any money depends upon if it is a assessment that's being conducted today shows that there should not be an exceedance of the 2.5 odour unit 99.5th contour criterion, sorry, on the basis of what's there now. Things always change, you know, things can happen. But I think we're talking about risk. We're talking about 300 metres to the nearest residence now to 265 metres for this building. We're talking about short stay accommodation. 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 risk to unity water from a short stay accommodation development than permanent residential. Amelia Lorentson 42:48.020
So, again, tell me, point of order, if you want, Councillor Wilkie, real versus perceived. If I go into a hotel and I read, you know, August must must be advised the potential for odour from 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. you know, get your... Just put it into a question. Put it in a question. that a ground, is that a ground, is that a planning ground? Reputational risk. Is that something that should be considered given that it's a ground? Paul King 43:42.105
Okay, so firstly conditional 13 I think was put in place to I won't say cover all bases but it's so you know 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 this. You don't have to tell people that they're near a serious treatment plan 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 notice. You know, you don't have to do that. 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 unity water. unity water with respect to operation of this development. Joe Jurisevic 44:39.823
It's also, as you said, not blazoned in flashing lights. Correct. Correct. An odor-receptive area, please beware. it might as well be a fine print on the document. Yeah. Paul King 44:55.314
But whether it's there or the conditions there or not, I don't think really makes any difference to the outcome. Joe Jurisevic 44:59.994
So is there anything to indicate how that has to be? A piece of paper that I signed. It would meet that criteria, but we probably agree with what Rhett was saying that if it's not something that is potential needed in to inflame, I suppose, or draw people's attention to what could potentially be a no-disorder. Why is it being put in as a condition? Patrick Murphy 45:43.263
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 Unity Water at that point in time. Frank Wilkie 45:53.756
So I have a question along a similar line. Why is it proposed as an argument in mitigation that because it'll be short-term visitors staying here that the reputation will Paul King 46:16.035
Okay I'm not sure I quite said that then if I did I didn't mean to but right okay so 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 Unity Water talking about and being quite concerned about the other day I think there's less of a chance chance of a complaint and a validated complaint being made to the regulator by a short-term accommodation guest as compared to a permanent resident. Joe Jurisevic 46:48.605
Likely would he stay there for an overnight stay as opposed to being there for seven days a week for 12 days a year? Paul King 46:53.736
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 criteria, if the ODA levels Correct. At or below that, people shouldn't take offence to it. They won't, trying to put it into simple terms, staying in this hotel at 2.5 odour units shouldn't be at a level that you regard is bad levels 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 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. tends to come and go. And the one thing that hasn't been taken into account in this assessment is the very significant band of vegetation that extends along the ridge between the site and the sewage treatment plant. So, vegetation. 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. There 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 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... 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 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 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 series terrific plant is a good thing, rather than a lower elevation. Frank Wilkie 49:05.653
So, Paul, I was wondering when you were going to mention katabatic drainage. Sorry. Let's expand a bit on what it is, is it the odour travels below us? Paul King 49:16.493
Yes, yes. So, the 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. Drainage is the easiest way to call it, rather than katabatic drainage. So this time. 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. The reason it's nice and tall is to get that pollutant up in the atmosphere and dispersing away. This is a 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 bit of the reverse. 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 50:40.565
So yeah you mentioned vegetation being a buffer for odour. Is, and the question is not directed to you as a result of that, but we've talked with Patrick within his application on some of the plantings mentioned on Noosa, is there an opportunity for additional planting in the buffer zone between the STC and the development to facilitate odour management? Patrick Murphy 51:05.972
Well I might just Probably not a question, you can have all the topics that come to mind having heard them. Is that something that might be able to be considered? I think that what would need to be considered was bushfire. Joe Jurisevic 51:21.712
Right, and then your bushfire issues and all the rest of it. That's right. And the type of vegetation that you would have there, but I know we're doing another offset planting in proximity to this area. Is there a facilitation here that could barrier what I'm asking? Will Lowe 51:35.639
As part of the application through the landscaping portion of the application there is that was improvements to the to the northern and eastern areas with non-fundable vegetation has a similar RA. the I believe there's a conditioner so that's been incorporated to include that re-vegetation within the road reserve. Paul King 52:09.285
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 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. Joe Jurisevic 52:36.318
Within that road reserve area there? Paul King 52:37.979
Well, within their site to the south of Resort Road, so in here. I'm just pointing generally. Joe Jurisevic 52:42.993
The place it currently sits doesn't really facilitate a lot of planting between where the last of the resort units are. Correct. Correct. Just in this part here. part here. But they might be also... But there may be options on the other side of the resort, Brian? Paul King 52:57.568
I don't know. Sorry, there's a landscaping plan that's probably a little better. Frank Wilkie 53:02.328
Just a question that arises a little later. Patrick, 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 vehicle reversing alarm affecting laws and entities for vehicles in the public environment. Patrick Murphy 53:25.830
Unfortunately, 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 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 measures that would need to be implemented. That road is already being used by trucks to service the existing resort facilities. That road is already emanating It's envisaged that the frequency of the trucks will probably be similar. The size of the trucks will probably be larger to accommodate. servicing you know the larger the larger demand. Paul King 54:15.239
I suppose the efficiency, I'll use that word, was raised by me in looking at the knowledge report that was submitted that there was no specific assessment of the lighting dock area. of the things I said we can limit the hours. Quite commonly with lighting 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 is 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. 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 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 truck 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 7:00am. to 6:00pm. deliveries and some form of noise barrier screening so that's the detailed that's the detail that's missing at the moment but that's why the condition is it proposed to it 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 55:56.069
Yeah that's the 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 Some of those complaints have suggested that they are already vehicles that are visiting the resort complex and park on resort drive. Is there any opportunity there to limit or manage? Patrick Murphy 56:36.742
Are they lawfully parks? Joe Jurisevic 56:41.441
They're parked on the road, 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 access and crossing and sight lines for residents from? Patrick Murphy 57:03.720
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 57:15.920
He is the result of the likely... 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 with regard to restaurants and the like, they'd be welcome there, I would assume. From what I understand, they would be Patrick Murphy 57:41.058
So... Well, the crossing would be something that would become council So the cost to maintain that and the standard of that would be something that we'd need to look at and come back to you. There'd be an unreasonable cost, impost on the developer to deliver as part of the... I'd have to... 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 King 58:11.338
In terms of the service and terms of the service and delivery vehicles, the condition requiring service and deliveries occur on site. Of course... Sorry, I missed that. Sorry. In terms of the service and delivery vehicles, there can be a condition imposed that requires that to occur on site. Vehicles... If 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. 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 on the resort site. Joe Jurisevic 58:50.199
I'm not worried about, 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 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? Councils, because the council road is currently standing. That's right. Patrick Murphy 59:11.453
Or can the impasse be Well, if it's a matter of painting a yellow line, 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 state. Joe Jurisevic 59:22.068
On the residential side, you'd allow parking. On the other side, the resort side, you may not, for example. Frank Wilkie 59:26.163
Yeah. Excuse me, Patrick. In an ideal world, all this resort would be 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 current or pending court cases for the Noosa Council to approve a development application on land that Patrick Murphy 59:56.792
I suppose in an ideal world we would be dealing with an application where 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 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 need then and that was clearly articulated then that would be Amelia Lorentson 01:01:00.556
Okay. 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 in cases of fire. And I've got some numbers in front of me about, you know, 700 properties, 1,200, the population's estimated at 1,200. As a precinct, has consideration been given to the impact on the precinct getting in and out and evacuating people? Patrick Murphy 01:01:51.793
So just, Will will 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 01:02:08.752
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 evacuation routes from the estate if required. One of these routes will take vehicles straight out onto Eenie Creek Road while the other will take traffic by the Girraween Sports Complex and out onto Eenie Creek Road. 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 Resilient Communities... resilient communities technical reference guide provides advice regarding the assembly 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, you need to 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 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 outside of any bushfire prone area. Joe Jurisevic 01:04:33.970
And this, that's all well and good in the short term. And then a prolonged incident. A people can't sit on the golf course for any period of time, an evacuation would have to occur at some stage, potentially, if the incident was ongoing. Will Lowe 01:04:58.120
And that would be under the direction of Queensland Fire and Emergency Services. Are we seeing the capacity here to review the current evacuation? evacuation procedures for the entire Noosa Springs estate with regard to that emergency gate that might get a more permanent fixture, some sort of permanent, rather than a gate that needs to be opened in the event of an emergency? that facilitates greater movement into and out of the estate 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 01:05:35.371
That gate you're talking about at the moment, I'm not, that goes out to... It goes on to Eenie Creek Road. Eenie Creek Road. Joe Jurisevic 01:05:41.591
You see it, it's near Mugsbury Street. Patrick Murphy 01:05:42.891
Yeah, I know the gate you're talking of, but, I mean, that's considerable works that would need to be undertaken. It, 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 01:06:21.953
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 Council. Patrick Murphy 01:06:28.253
That's correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:30.283
All heading down those paths. Amelia? So you've got residents, hotel guests, function attendees, staff, Park Ridge Cafe, gym fill visitors, golf spa users, visitors. Have we got any 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 And bushfires of 2019 are 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 know, the 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 trades and construction vehicles. And they've got, you know, this through records. Last year, the gatehouse, 81,000 residential vehicle movements plus over 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 01:08:05.338
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, speculation so I don't produced by Queensland Fire and Emergency Services and they outline the minimum requirements as far as providing a safe assembly and evacuation and so the bushfire assessment in this instance has followed that and provided that and provided that information in accordance with that document which is produced by QPES. Joe Jurisevic 01:08:37.017
Would be supported and assisted by QPES I would imagine. Areas being evacuated. Frank Wilkie 01:08:42.917
So my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that evacuation plan is not by vehicle, it's by foot to the expanse of the golf course. Patrick Murphy 01:08:53.891
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, so 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 resort are all being used, that peak demand is 255 car spaces. done as part of this application but that was but also 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 that time in terms of the use of the site. of the restrictions that were in place. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:51.629
So 2017, there were 255 vehicles, is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:09:56.909
No, what it's saying is that, yeah, it was based on the existing existing development of 160 cars based on a 2017 survey and then the additional demand reviewed as part of this application associated with the new resort. Joe Jurisevic 01:10:17.548
So as far as the new element of the resort goes, I've 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. How 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, you'd meet the current parking standards. And if... So, I mean, has the the parking as a whole been considered? It has. Is this only the additional parking? No, the whole. So the parking as a whole means the numbers required for the resort plus all of the resort facilities. Patrick Murphy 01:11:08.918
Yeah, so the parking has been reviewed by our external consultant consultant who who represents represents us in court and he's determined that the parking associated with the new resort and the existing facilities is sufficient at 255 car spaces that's that How much is that over? What company is this? It's 160 now. Well that was the demand I mean if you look at the the approved the proposed plans there's there's going going to to be be some basement car parking provided in the building and then there's a second Joe Jurisevic 01:11:40.844
I'd have to get back to you on the specifics. Patrick Murphy 01:11:44.444
Compared to what there, what is there now, how many walk-ins, how many rooms in 106 rooms. Joe Jurisevic 01:11:50.642
106 Rooms and at the moment we're talking about 90, about 90 odd car parkings, roughly from those numbers. Frank Wilkie 01:11:58.602
Any further questions councillors? Brian Stockwell 01:12:04.723
Like to move motion please. I'd like to move the council to note the report by the acting development assessment 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 use: Resort complex, 106 rooms, food and drink outlet, bar and outdoor sports and recreation at Links Drive, Noosa Heads. A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development of the subway plan is inappropriate... circumstances where: a. Part of the proposed land use is a resort complex, in circumstances where part of the subject land is outside the urban gross boundary of the Noosa Plan 2020; b. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for a resort complex which is in the... 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 reduction of land in the recreation and open space zone. The proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the subject land at the expense of the environmental values, have I read one line wrong? No. 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. The built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable. In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of the Noosa Plan 2021 Strategic Framework 3.22, 3.25, 3.32... 3.32G, 3.31B and 3.34B and P. Two biodiversity waterways and wetlands overlay code 8.2222, A, B and C. Table 8.2.23, performance outcomes 1, 3 and 5 and 12. Recreation and open space zone code 6.612, 2A, C, F and G and S. Table 6.613, performance outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 38. Table Noosa Head's local plan code 7.2.5.22B. 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 melody impacts as of the planned equipment and services associated with those developments 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 with the State planning policies, state interests, emissions and hazard 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 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 implanted through local government planning schemes. The designation of the land as being within the urban footprint does not imply that land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes and see when assessed against against the Noosa Plan 2020, the 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 2.2 of the planning scheme. The proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop outside the urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity proposed, and we're 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 that proposal represents an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what community member could reasonably expect because of the change of the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. 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 the zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan 2020 maps. Further, 2. 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 over-noosance. During the development of the Noosa Plan 2020, would be the case in any future potential scheme amendment, 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 There is a long-standing position of council that it doesn't facilitate development applications that drive the need to amend the planning scheme. 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, because to a point, development is not... dot point, 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, bushland, wetlands and waterways are avoided or minimised. And lastly, impacts on management, landscape buffering and appropriate design, site and operation of facilities and infrastructure. 3. 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 requirements: Development is designed and cited to manage impacts within areas under the Biodiversity Overlay and, amongst other things, do not meet Performance Outcomes 3 with respect to the following requirements: Development is designed and cited to manage impacts within areas under the Biodiversity Overlay and, amongst other things, do not meet Performance Outcomes 3 with respect to the following requirements: Development is designed and cited Three. Cited 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 where areas of low over other areas to the greatest extent possible. 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 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 development change to the tourism accommodation zone when the... when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. And five, 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 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 15. up figure 15 from the planning officer's report, I'm going to deal with a couple of issues that haven't had a lot of their time 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 known sightings of endangered... sightings of endangered, vulnerable or near threatened fauna or flora. This is a known koala habitat and while there is on that... Amelia Lorentson 01:20:14.989
It's in the attachment? Brian Stockwell 01:20:16.609
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 environmental significance. That covers the site which is mapped as a remnant ecosystem 1225. That remnant ecosystem has species of it which are known koala and glossyback cockatoo pea species. I'm probably just about ready for the map now. Unfortunately, we don't get page numbers anymore, so I think it's 15.37? Amelia Lorentson 01:20:59.956
There's no page numbers. Yeah, you're getting close. 13, 14, Joe Jurisevic 01:21:10.357
15, Next page. One more. We're nearly there, Kev. You're one page away. Brian Stockwell 01:21:24.540
Next one, there it is. Here we go, 15. You have it. Sorry. You can probably get it, too. Okay, so you can see that 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, I noticed in, and I could say I understand how the planning officers got to the point where they recommended this with lot of discretion. My argument here is that if we were consistent with previous approaches to planning in Noosa, 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 under the biodiversity overlay. That in 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 has occurred. I can 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 sufficient weight has 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 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 in remnant vegetation so that and just having vegetation does trigger the definition of ecologically area, it's 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 with the staff recommendation. The next part is, and we've seen them at 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 identified that Noosa is well served by units but underserved by hotel complexes of a reasonable standard and yes the zoning map isn't defined by meets and bounds but it is fairly area that council thought should be developed for tourist accommodation and those areas exclude any of the biodiversity overlaid 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. So then we have the concern, I think you expressed in one of your questions, we have a significant development. To where the existing cleared area on the... But we can't do that at Hock. It's always, you know, it's much longer in Noosa Council that we've always tried to avoid developments. Developments that preempt 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 ODA because we now know a lot... I'm going to just reflect one other thing that the Unity Water spokesman said that I think is really important. He said if the shoe was on the, in the words of the effect, if the shoe was on the other foot and the hotel developed 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 but The closest 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. me, the grounds of varying from staff recommendations are strong and the grounds for refusal I believe are valid. Frank Wilkie 01:27:49.920
Councillors, any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I've got a question with regard to the first point in Councillor Stockwell's motion. The 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 Any approvals that have occurred outside of the growth of the urban boundary in the planning scheme previously? Patrick Murphy 01:28:19.178
There's lots of approvals that have been issued outside the urban boundary because our rural areas residential are all within outside the urban boundaries and they had approvals for a range of uses from dwellings to short stay accommodation there would be I'd have to I'd have to you know to drill down further into Tom's it's not it's not a line I wouldn't of scope? think I wouldn't think so, no. Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:52.153
Patrick, will our lawyers have an opportunity or yourself, planners, have an opportunity to review and revise the amendment, the motion that's in front of us? Patrick Murphy 01:29:04.333
Yes, if councillors are seeking to refuse the application, we would certainly have these grounds, seek to have the grounds reviewed by our lawyers prior to the ordinary meeting. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:11.848
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. It's a no to a development that may potentially exacerbate existing bushfire and evacuation risks. It's a no to a development that has the potential to expose ratepayers, Noosa Council and Unity Water to financial and reputational risk. And it's And it's a no to a 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 01:30:18.238
Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Joe Jurisevic 01:30:24.300
Um, yeah I've got, Brian has raised some very interesting points over the course of the meeting. 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 01:30:59.900
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 01:31:27.140
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 it could be seen that this council is moving away from one of the key principles of upholding its planning scheme. I'm always mindful I'm always mindful of a ruling from a judge who ruled in favour of council's defence of a planning scheme appeal. He said that council's consistent upholding of the planning scheme principles is one of the reasons why he found... favour of the council in that particular court case. I'm concerned if we start approving developments of this scale outside the urban boundary, it may weaken our stance in current I would hope this 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 heavily congested sites and Noosa heads, can be achieved while minimising legal and amenity risk. So I support the motion. Councillor Stockwell used to close. I did. Put it to the vote. That is in favour. That is carried unanimously. 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, a final decision of the local government. Thank you, Paul. I'll run away. Where do I go? That way. Did you need to go? we let Mayor Stewart and Councillor Finzel back in the room, please? Richard MacGillivray 01:33:43.026
We tend to do a good job in that area. Yeah, he's good. Patrick Murphy 01:33:49.946
Here we go. So we're going to adhere to the planning scheme. Can you just show up at night? It doesn't comply with the planning scheme. scheme. It hasn't been demonstrated that it can work. Amelia Lorentson 01:34:08.137
I should write that down. Frank Wilkie 01:34:16.637
Mayor Stewart and Councillor Finzel. Patrick Murphy 01:34:18.757
This is what we ended up doing. Did they just say they had five minutes to go? Richard MacGillivray 01:43:03.685
We won't say that we're going to oppose approval of development, we'll just say we've got concerns. 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. Frank Wilkie 01:43:18.325
Could you give an example of what some of those conditions might entail? Richard MacGillivray 01:43:21.225
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. making the concerns regarding having the 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 01:43:46.835
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 and this property 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 suitable. We really reiterate that it's appropriate and in line with what 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 be something that will be very definitive as to what's to be required and enforceable. Frank Wilkie 01:44:46.202
So you're saying you may be prepared to approve with conditions once you get this acoustic report? Patrick Murphy 01:44:52.502
And that's been our position the 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 a real important that 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 report and just putting on conditions. 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 I was able to go out there, I understand councillors 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 01:46:02.446
Nearby there's a trailer manufacturing facility on a property a short distance away. Was that one required to have a noise? Patrick Murphy 01:46:17.495
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. Joe Jurisevic 01:46:26.835
I can't recall whether it had a noise reporter on it. Councillor Finzel. Yes thank you, through the chair. Kim Rawlings 01:46:33.292
Do we have an opportunity to condition the provision of the acoustic report say within 30 days? Patrick Murphy 01:46:41.852
I think it would it 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 within a within a time frame that would be critical. Kim Rawlings 01:47:00.329
Karen you've got more questions? Thank you, through the Chair. So is there opportunity that we can like put a halt on this with the provision that it's conditioned to provide that acoustic report in a reasonable And with the staff to be able to then make the recommendation based on the report? Patrick Murphy 01:47:18.870
It's a code accessible application so we are bound by time frames. 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. Stewart. Kim Rawlings 01:47:34.343
Thank you. Chair, what's the process, Patrick, if this is a refusal but there is always, as you said, you're open to it or you're better with the attachment or the insertion of an acoustic report, if What is the actual process 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 that? Patrick Murphy 01:47:54.356
They can only appeal the decision. They can't make representations 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. Kim Rawlings 01:48:19.869
So we could approve it. we could approve it with the condition of the acoustic report and if they say we're not doing it, we're not providing it, then that just lapses? Patrick Murphy 01:48:29.622
It could be manageable to come up with some conditions around the provision of an an acoustic report within a timeframe. And then looking at what that meant for the life of the approval, whether that's something that we could tie in as Richard MacGillivray 01:48:44.855
Well. The other option, councillors, that we could look at is a condition. 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 necessary measures in place within their facility to ensure there's no 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 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 a result where we condition that they comply essentially with the acceptable outcome, which is to ensure there's no audible noise from that use beyond the boundaries. Given that there's sufficient costs associated with any development application, why want to be looking at in addition for an acoustic report? Do we have any sort of a ballpark... That can be anywhere near $5,000 potentially for an acoustic, basic acoustic report and upwards from there. So there's a bit of money involved in getting that. And then there's obviously any treatment required for that. Often sheds are 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. 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 use so that we don't have long-term compliance. don't have long-term compliance or headaches with uses and also providing certainty to the landowners around how they must operate their particular development along with that oh do you want to go Joe so you mentioned that we could condition it with no noise beyond the boundaries report or that with an acoustic would have the appropriate measures in perpetuity that acoustic report would have noise limit levels outside of the boundary and specific acoustic mitigating measures to be undertaken potentially yeah and you 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 yeah and I think we it's also the the financial implications implications 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 01:51:45.596
When we say no noise beyond the boundaries is this an unreasonable reasonable expectation on any business? I mean to me it just 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 this have an effect on other properties and their ability or desire or gumption to do things on their own properties? Richard MacGillivray 01:52:19.575
Yeah look and it's not certainly intending to try and prohibit people from running businesses. I guess in this instance we have the 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 ensure that there's no adverse impacts from that operation on the general public. Another point another point that's relevant is also the type of noise that's generated noting the zoning of the land a mechanic business is not generally a noise that you'd like to hear in those particular zones so whereas you know I know this farm tractors and lawnmowers and and you know animals and livestock are obviously a noise that's more familiar on those zones so I think this is just about making sure that we protect the 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 01:53:16.366
So because you're dealing with an impact, an industrial type impact in a rural type zone, which is different types of noise. Yes, thank you through the Chair. Given we've talked about perpetuity for the land, is there an option to condition it that the business only operates for a period of two to three years and then this gets relocked up? Amelia Lorentson 01:53:38.016
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 given what we've talked Patrick Murphy 01:53:51.429
Don't know 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 01:54:09.389
Brian, can you...? Yeah, so... I heard what you're saying about the precedent-setting aspect of achieving this. In considering the precedent, the proposed... To me, it's about the scale and impact of home-based business. Now, he's a mechanic, and I don't He said mainly just doing gearboxes, which is not a heap of noise. So, one way to do that is actually say... is a, we consider this to be an acceptable way ahead if it's three days a week at least at these hours. So it's limiting the scale, limiting the potential impact and therefore that doesn't set Do you agree with that statement? Patrick Murphy 01:55:16.317
No. I don't think it's reasonable for a rural type area or rural area to inundated with mechanical noise three days a week. Richard MacGillivray 01:55:27.731
And again this is where 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 around it, but the type and frequency of noise during the operation is what could be the cause, so I guess that's what we're looking at in 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 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 01:56:01.680
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 formal or no, so the question is have you been to the other dwellings and listened to whether whether the noise goes beyond the boundary a and are there any families or newborns or young families that are living within that vicinity because to me I am concerned of adverse amenity impacts night workers mothers with newborns I think that noise issue really needs to be addressed 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 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 not want to hear noise associated with the business, that they wanted to live in a quiet environment. Patrick Murphy 01:57:25.709
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 will live in them and that there will certainly be young families potentially in there now or certainly in the future. So a very relevant point for amenity. Amelia Lorentson 01:57:45.758
My other question is, what's the cost of an application? So just a rough idea. It could be two $2 to, 000 to $5,000 along those lines. Just off the top of my head for something like this. 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 01:58:14.059
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. Can we seek, ask that question of the applicant before making a decision? Is that possible? We can certainly seek it from them. If it was Council's position that they would refuse the application unless the stop was clocked, the clock was stopped, that would give us more leverage. There would be no reason. 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. Richard MacGillivray 01:58:55.474
And just to add, when the application was decided that it would be coming to Council for decision, I did did contact the consultant at that point and explained 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 that information, but they chose to bring it to Council. Frank Wilkie 01:59:18.628
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 that this was the guess the opportunity to do that if they were looking to move towards an approval by providing that report at that point. Joe Jurisevic 02:00:07.603
My question is in regard to what an acoustic consultant comes in and actually looks at the nature of the business and what potential noise they could create or what would be the function of the business say well they've got a compressor, a compressor needs this, they've got a mechanical hoist, they need this, they've got car exhausts where the car are operating, they need this, around those sort of parameters or is it just generally a mechanical facility needs... I I would would assume assume a site 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 there. Correct. Richard MacGillivray 02:00:46.817
And we wouldn't necessarily require modelling and the like. It would be more around targeting the particular noise generating. Amelia Lorentson 02:00:53.937
Tom, just a random question. Tom Wegener 02:00:57.797
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 02:01:23.193
Yeah, we certainly would. That did form part of the complaint 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. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:52.013
Forgot, I'm sorry, I just got a blank. Someone care to move a motion or a written? I'm happy just to know 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. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:02:13.673
We'll have a seconder for that. So the discussion of the applicant regarding the provision of an acoustic report Amelia Lorentson 02:02:40.280
Just to reiterate what's already been said that the concern is that approval is in perpetuity and that we need to be assured assured and the residents need to be assured that we, A, comply with our planning scheme, that 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 the other side of this is that if we condition it with no noise going beyond a boundary, that's actually more onerous for a small business than complying with an application. so understand understanding really clearly that small businesses, there are financial implications and financial costs that, you know, small businesses, we would love to remove for 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 run so I think that this is sort of just a win-win I just hope that the applicant will seriously consider just submitting an acoustic report so that we comply with the Noosa Plan in what's required. 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 that I would suspect undeterred because you can do hobbies on your property but if then if there's a business that if you come into the rules for businesses and I think there's a question of due process which I perplexed by again is what will one complaint actually stop this person from doing their business and have the domino complaint effect when hasn't actually been thoroughly substantiated and yeah the the concept of no noise beyond the boundary is another one that that's very difficult for me so look forward to Thursday night to hear more about more discussion I just wanted to say I agree with you Tom about the complexities around process given the applicant clearly had the opportunity on more than one occasion to comply with the request for the 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 trigger that that I'm I'm not not in in support of this going to them I just want to say that, yeah. Frank Wilkie 02:05:32.508
Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? You wish to close Amelia? No. Put it to the vote, those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener, Stewart, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Finzel. Motions carried. Next item is the 5.3 short term accommodation at 2A Woongar Street, 4A for food for the panning and environment committee Due to the significance of the issue and more information. Okay, please give some overview. No worries. Richard MacGillivray 02:06:11.050
So an application for short term accommodation for the use of an existing dwelling on site. The applicant applicant has requested the use of five bedrooms and ten people on site at any one time. The use would be contained entirely within the existing dwelling. The subject site is a split zone so the house is within a rural residential zone and then of the site is environmental management and conservation. So 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 and just in terms of the conditions while Tara said they're seeking for ten people to be on site we're conditioning it to be maximum of eight. Frank Wilkie 02:07:09.123
What's the size of the lot again? Kim Rawlings 02:07:11.263
It's four hectares, ten hectares I think, yeah it's big, it's ten, yeah it's big. So it's five bedrooms or four bedrooms? Richard MacGillivray 02:07:20.403
It's five bedrooms, they were yeah they were requesting ten people on site we've conditioned eight. Frank Wilkie 02:07:28.423
Questions councillors? It's consistent with the zoning, STA is a consistent use of that zoning. Someone care to move the recommendation? Do you want me to start off and then we'll do the amendments? Joe Jurisevic 02:07:44.388
I'll move it, I'll move it. As far as 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. Frank Wilkie 02:08:20.360
Councillor Millian is seconded? Tom Wegener 02:08:22.340
No, Millian can't be seconded. Joe Jurisevic 02:08:24.680
I did. Frank's seconded, just to get the call going. Right, Tom. Tom Wegener 02:08:30.360
I'd like to make an amendment. Amelia Lorentson 02:08:45.040
Okay. Tom Wegener 02:08:46.400
Can we move that? Council note the report by the developer Brian Stockwell 02:08:49.520
Mayor Woodson? I don't think that's right now, because it might be moved. Frank Wilkie 02:09:11.300
Item 11 is a condition, isn't it? Joe Jurisevic 02:09:14.280
Yes. It's a new condition. Sorry, a condition. Tom Wegener 02:09:19.860
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 fenced enclosures. Frank Wilkie 02:09:44.718
I'll second that. Seconded by Brian Stockwell. Tom. Tom Wegener 02:09:52.258
It is pretty much self-explanatory. Sorry. Joe Jurisevic 02:09:56.376
Can I just clarify this? Point of order, Mr Chair. Yeah. My reading of the conditions are that there are well beyond 11... 27 conditions currently apply. Yeah. The addition of request... of condition 11 should be a condition... Amelia Lorentson 02:10:12.441
With them all renumbered? Brian Stockwell 02:10:13.621
It was a numbering reorder that was applicable. Joe Jurisevic 02:10:16.541
Oh, okay, sorry. Okay, I'll take that back. Because 11 is our contact person. Okay, 11 Sorry, my apologies. Tom Wegener 02:10:31.267
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 and dogs are a part of the family now, and many people come with dogs in such a large property with very, very sensitive environmental values around the property that it's beholden upon ourselves to make sure that the dogs are accommodated. It's 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 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. 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, 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 02:11:51.326
Joe, question. Councillor Wegener, would you be averse to the addition of wording there with regard to, because if the dogs are permitted on the property, are permanently confined to buildings or fenced enclosures, it means you have, 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 So, and, and not unleash, or unleash at all times. Something to that effect, because 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 02:12:26.424
Can I, can I throw something in? Maybe, and this is a question to the planners. Well, hang on, I think we'll, we'll deal with this. Frank Wilkie 02:12:35.064
Does that seem? Joe Jurisevic 02:12:39.144
Yeah. No, that's right. Richard MacGillivray 02:12:44.905
From, from the vehicle to the building. Tom Wegener 02:12:47.325
We don't, we don't, we don't condition that. People can walk around. Joe Jurisevic 02:12:51.895
Your dog around that. So under. So that region says permanently confined within buildings and or fenced in closures. So I just thought that just became overly prescriptive. And, and or unleashed at all times. Tom Wegener 02:13:05.325
But if you have the, if we, if you include the end or unleash 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. We're going to walk around the property that way. I don't, think so. I hear what you're saying. Amelia Lorentson 02:13:22.705
All right, Amelia, you had a question. I was thinking... 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 are 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 02:13:49.985
Oh, my, 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, 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. Joe Jurisevic 02:14:08.568
Yeah, correct, correct. And I think the way that that would be enforced would be appropriately... Do you think that's sufficient? I think it's sufficient. Brian Stockwell 02:14:17.824
Yeah, if we did want to address it the way it would be, other than for ingress and egress. I think the justification for including this condition is specific to the lot, as we discussed. It is a really nice lot on the edge of Lake Tharabas 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 environment and maintenance, part of the tourist facility. Joe Jurisevic 02:15:07.081
Any other councillors to speak to the amendment? I'm still concerned about the wording 'confined'. Just something about the wording makes me read it in the imprisoning of the pet within the facility. Unknown 02:15:23.775
That's just my interpretation of it. I'm going to quickly cut and change the juristic. Would you be a dog by the way? Frank Wilkie 02:15:32.635
I'm not a current dog yet, but yes. Okay, our council is supposed to support the amendment. the amendment given that the lot is quite a large one, heavily forested, zoned environmental 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. My support. Tom, do you wish to close? Tom Wegener 02:15:59.687
No, thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:16:00.807
Okay, put the amendment to the vote. It is vote is unanimous. The amendment becomes part of the motion. Do we have any more amendments? Councillor Millian. Amelia Lorentson 02:16:09.902
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. Okay. Frank Wilkie 02:16:27.298
Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Stewart? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:16:36.018
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. Notes noteworthy. I went through all the submissions and pulled out some really good content out of all the submissions. And I actually started looking at cats. 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 of the world and the damage that in terms 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... Kim Rawlings 02:17:29.372
I just have a question. Yeah, through the Chair and the CEO. Do we have a policy in council where we register cats? Frank Wilkie 02:17:37.172
No. I don't believe so. No. Joe Jurisevic 02:17:44.620
I'm going to ask a question to staff. We're getting 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 02:18:04.540
Potentially yes. The difference guess with the dogs the ability to fence off areas outside of the sensitive area. An enclosure potentially. A cat run for example could be more of a problem. Yeah it does get it does get tricky when we're starting to get in the minutiae of particular animals and how to contain them and avoid impact on the property yeah and the operation of that for the for the people running that operation as well so I guess it's just being clear around the intent of the conditions we are requiring and whether we use the term pets are confined to the building so that they're not not able to roam freely. Joe Jurisevic 02:18:50.402
People could bring their bird, people could bring most other pets and we have had people with their pet pig or whatever. Tom Wegener 02:19:01.023
I would, just to talk to Amelia, with cats, I've grown up with cats, I'm from California, everybody has a cat, and first if you have a cat and and you bring it to the property and the cat isn't enclosed, you no longer have a cat. It's gone. It'll 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 sort of thing to the owner, to the property owner versus You know, maybe this condition is going too far to conditioning. Amelia Lorentson 02:19:50.610
I am responding to quite a few submissions that were made on this application that neighbouring properties that are potentially impacted by 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 if someone who lives alongside and 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 reduce amenity 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 what the neighbouring properties, what their concerns are. Brian Stockwell 02:20:55.559
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 the Particularly with small reptile, birds, etc. Now, the frequency of people taking cats on holidays with them is probably fairly low. But, if we're trying to gives 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 the best chance of best chance of not being impacted, then I think it's quite reasonable not to be specious 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. It's particularly, it's probably a it's probably a reasonable point that if the local objectors had raised this as a concern, then having an appropriate condition does respond to those submissions in a way that seeks to retain the natural values of the site. Frank Wilkie 02:22:14.713
I 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 in conservation. I think it's very, again, another very astute condition, and I fully support it. Joe Jurisevic 02:22:50.535
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 to, or can I? I'll move the original. I'd be suggesting to my fellow councillors that we look at encompassing... 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 be brought into the property that have no restrictions. That may be just as damaging to the environment. Like an elephant. If it's a domestic elephant, absolutely. Horses, you know, and the like, so. you, Councillor Jurisevic. Thank you, councillor. Frank Wilkie 02:23:41.497
Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment on cats? No? Councillor Lorentson wish to close? No? Okay, I'll put the amendment those in favour: Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stewart, Councillor Wilkie, cats against, Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Finzel. That's carried. doesn't do any reason for you. Now, any more amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:24:08.562
I have another amendment that condition 13 be added to read. 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 and boundary of the rural residential zone portion of the land. Do we have a seconder for that, please, in the presence of the debate? Yes. Do we have a seconder for that, please, in the presence of the debate? Yes. Do we have a seconder for that, please, in the presence of the 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, about 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. that by 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 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 lights, I would love workshopped perhaps in council because I just think, you 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 02:26:00.918
I've got some questions on this. I noticed it's an interesting addition. The under amenity condition 8 mentions the operation must not detrimental... detrimental affect the residential amenity. So that implies neighbours, including but not limited to noise, overlooking light spill or odour enjoyed by surrounding residents will cause a nuisance. So light must come... suggesting light mustn't spill out from the boundaries of the property. Kathy, 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. No, the other one please. A to be monitored or enforced, you need people coming inside the boundary of the property, walking around the bush with 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. I understand the intent. I think it might be covered in the conditions already. As property owner starts to experience lights building and a complaint, the 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 Would you have people creeping through the bush on private property with lux monitors in their hands? Is that a desirable outcome? Richard MacGillivray 02:28:03.876
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 Laurencetons 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 know whether 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. Kim Rawlings 02:28:42.945
Councilman, do you think that what you said about people trying to police 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 some... Frank Wilkie 02:29:07.652
I guess in answer to your question, I guess you could see whether, the neighbour could see whether a cat's running around or a dog's running around. Alright, I take the, thank you for answering my question. It pertains more to spill of light from the house itself into... Amelia Lorentson 02:29:23.221
The bush, I mean, the surrounding area. Can I also add, people also light up the National Park, so I actually put lights in the National Park. And, you know, it's... You know, it's, if you're going to short-term accommodate place, it's really quite pretty to have your, the National Park Leader. The Court Council's talking to the motion again. So, Tara, that was also part of the intention, so there's just a clear indication, and is that... So, is that also the intent of the condition, that to prevent the to prevent the applicant from illuminating the national park? Richard MacGillivray 02:30:06.394
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 container within that rural red zone. Frank Wilkie 02:30:20.811
So would a council officer, when the approval is given, go and talk to the applicant to ensure that this is done? Richard MacGillivray 02:30:27.591
So it's up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the 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 wouldn't go and check it unless we've received that complaint is my understanding. Joe Jurisevic 02:30:48.332
Joe, 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 portion of the land look like? Richard MacGillivray 02:30:58.912
I'm not a lighting So I wouldn't be able to answer that question. Joe Jurisevic 02:31:02.357
Without having a light metre. Is it eight candles? It's candela. Lux is a bit different from candela. So without, to the average and ordinary person, this would have to require some means of testing facilitation. So is this, I guess my question is, is this an overly, overest requirement? I understand the intent and the intent is well thought out and well intentioned. I'm just trying to work out how this may be enforced, measured. 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? they exceed me on 8 lux? What does this and does this not limit? The only reason I can't support it 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... how it would be enforced and how the owner would 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 02:32:20.793
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 within the environmental you know beyond the rules that rural residential zone portion of the land. I think there's something small really understood. Brian Stockwell 02:32:40.826
Can I have a further question? I'm guessing this is based on a standard edition of the bills? Richard MacGillivray 02:32:47.238
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. Brian Stockwell 02:32:53.838
MR. Have you bought a torch recently? I know my bike lights 300 lumens. Okay, so what's the lux? So, one lumen per... So, it's dull. It's really dull. It's a very dull light. It's very reflective. I think it's an interesting point, and for the same reason I agree, it sort of just... the concept that we do conditions that protect the environmental values as well as amending, and that's one thing I think, I don't have an amendment, I think we just change the second to amending the environment, because it's not, you It's not meant to be the anthropocentric experience of the development. What we're doing here is actually towards improving the environmental outcomes. So I think it's a good 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 lifestyle Not just for 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 them and they can see it's a Christmas tree and it's an easy one to comply with because the applicant just has to look at his light fittings. Frank Wilkie 02:34:31.145
Could you say that point again Tara you're saying this condition is applied to standard residential buildings? Richard MacGillivray 02:34:36.665
Yeah we have it as a this one's been altered a little bit to be specific to this site but we standard lighting amenity condition that we've been putting on some dwelling houses we're finding that we're getting them really lit up at the moment and it's causing some issues so we've got standard turtle lighting which is separate to this one. Frank Wilkie 02:34:54.136
And what's the wording Of the turtle lighting? Richard MacGillivray 02:34:57.046
It's pretty thorough. Frank Wilkie 02:34:58.266
And is it about, was it mentioned 8 lux? I wouldn't be able to... It does? I'm not sure. Okay. I'll speak to the amendment. If this is a condition that's applied already to dwellings that may have impact on environmental amenity I'm happy to support. I understand it better now, so thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:35:20.954
Can I just, just looking it up, the seat says the, to give you an example of what different lux levels look like in practice, here's some examples. Moonlight with a clear light, 1-2 lux. Office lighting is around a 5 lux, so that's a comparison of indoor and outdoor situations. And the illuminance is exactly 1 lux per luminance power of 1 lumen, uniformly illuminates an area of 1 square metre, but they use the lux metre to go around and the lux metre is fairly easy to obtain, so it wouldn't be too hard. Probably use your phone these days to test it as well, you know, get a reading. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:57.547
I will say something. There weren't a lot of submissions made on this property, but the ones that were were actually from the adjoining owners and the environment's really important to them, so again we can't 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 us. I'm assuming everyone's going to support this but I read a lot about what this community values and And it's loud and clear, the environment. So, yeah, excellent. Put to the vote, Alison Clayton. Frank Wilkie 02:36:45.448
That's your numbers. Do we have any more amendments? Sorry. Yes. Amelia Lorentson 02:36:50.368
Okay. That condition 27, an advisory note be added. To read 27, a bushfire hazard maintenance plan providing recommendations for onsite vegetation maintenance must be prepared by a suitably qualified person. Any maintenance requirements. requirements. Any maintenance requirements recommended in the plan must be carried out onsite in accordance with the recommendations. In this regard, the maintenance plan must relate to the maintenance of onsite vegetation. For example, removing fallen branches, leaf litter from the site, maintaining clear access tracks, cleaning out of building gutters. 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 three years current experience in the field of bushfire assessment and management. In this regard, this relates to the maintenance on fallen branches, leaf and litter. This came up quite a bit again in the submissions. Most against the STA, but there were actually some that were in favour of the STA, but all made a reference to bushfire The conditions already include a bushfire management plan and there's clauses 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's 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 in a lot of the submitters notes that you know it's potentially a high risk, it's a fire It's a bi-hazard risk because it needs to be maintained quite regularly. So I spoke with planning and Tara put together this condition for me which isn't too onerous but sort of addresses the gap in the wolf Shire management causes and again addresses real concerns by the adjoining property owners. Okay question for council. Frank Wilkie 02:39:41.844
Noosa council has a lot of reserves where branches are allowed to fall to the ground. Are you suggesting that this bushfire management plan would require the property owner to manage the 10 hectare lot in a way, removing fallen branches from the ground, picking up leaf litter, in a way In a way that Noosa Council doesn't require itself to do for its natural areas? Amelia Lorentson 02:40:09.178
No, mine was more a maintenance issue, just that it's not left in disrepair. The 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 property and the neighbouring properties are not at risk. And again, concerns just raised by adjoining property owners. I'll ask what's reasonable. Richard MacGillivray 02:40:44.452
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 of leaf leaf litter litter and fallen branches and things like that that they were concerned that it was creating a higher hazard in terms of bushfire so for the whole of the site so 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 the condition condition that that we've included is basically maintenance of the access to ensure that that's 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. then the access as well. Joe Jurisevic 02:41:40.813
Jane, I'll ask a question based on what you asked there. Given that the property is 10 hectares, what is the responsibility? the responsibility of the owner to manage a property of that size for bushfire? Patrick Murphy 02:41:58.486
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. zone around the property to be determined and then that area to be maintained so it might be an area 20 metres around the property 25 metres around the property and that there's some maintenance of that debris clearing of gutters. Richard MacGillivray 02:42:29.197
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, you know, creatures 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. Joe Jurisevic 02:42:52.329
I'm guessing that's why the council has referred to an ecologist to come up with 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? Particularly if the lot has stopped the owner, I don't know, if they're going to revamp their property in any way, shape or form. That's right, that's right. Good to know. Kim Rawlings 02:43:18.819
Local law number three deals with this issue about appropriate maintenance of your property. Correct. perspective, overgrown, bushfire hazards. I'd like to look at it and say, knowing what that is, having that information provided to us so we can have a Richard MacGillivray 02:43:35.532
Good... Yeah, absolutely. So a big pile of, you know, vegetation right beside your neighbour that's beside their building, you know, obviously would pose a risk from a urban... pose a risk from the bourbon but also bushfires. Joe Jurisevic 02:43:43.585
We can have that information provided to us following the meeting and we can review that and have a look at it in relation to this. Karen. Kim Rawlings 02:43:51.885
Just following on from that, then that raises the question of, I wonder then how would that affect like insurance? Like how does that affect the use of the property in the insurance or if 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 02:44:12.291
By not maintaining it or maintain? Kim Rawlings 02:44:14.691
Well, if we condition, what is it, a maintenance, what did you say it was? Yeah, under Local Laws 3, then what's the impact for insurance around that? Richard MacGillivray 02:44:34.400
It would be up to the insurance company of how they would evaluate that risk on that particular property. I'm sure they'd be looking at the fact that the property has this tree, is this forested, and would look at the insurance as well. Kim Rawlings 02:44:46.280
The question with that is if the commission could at least sort out all the previous properties and how they improved. Well we can't apply anything retrospectively, obviously. So then you're saying this is putting us under duress compared to other properties that you have. Patrick Murphy 02:45:03.808
Yeah, well this one we recognise that there is a bush 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 02:45:20.135
I'm 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. We're looking at a hotel application, 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 comprehend and so do they, so how we manage that going forward is an interesting question. 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? Because I'm, I don't know what this entails... we'll soon be able to drive something specify it more clearly what's intended by this and what areas could be affected because the way that reads it could be the whole 10 hectare lot. 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. The intent was really just to address issues raised address issues raised in the submissions and it's basically 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 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 maintenance, some attention to the property that 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 another similar for other similar applications. And I do think the conditions already in the application, I think they're really good. So maybe just an advisory note in terms of by risk maintenance. Yep. Yep. That would be great. Thank you, Mr Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 02:48:05.100
Yeah, I'm happy to go on with getting more information. I wouldn't have supported this. Just because you have to 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 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 are facing the next level down. think the suggestion was you're looking at using the access drive which goes between the more vegetated area and those houses is the place to have a fire trail and so it's probably just a load reduction between the driveway and their boundaries is really all we need and whether you need an expert to tell you to reduce load there, I don't think you do. I think you 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. Frank Wilkie 02:49:16.743
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 areas that need to be effectively managed to fire for Thursday night. Now the councillors will speak to the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 02:49:45.880
No, I'll vote against it and look forward to the, hopefully an advisory note as opposed to a condition in terms of my maintenance. Frank Wilkie 02:49:58.060
Thank you. Put the amendment notice into favour. It's a big job. Those against? That was a case. It's unanimously against, 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 relating to dogs, cats, light. Dogs, cats and light. And in terms of that, only Councillor Jurisevic has spoken. other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 02:50:36.610
I'm just going to just add one, two sentences because I'm talking too much. 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. The property is also zoned as a high-risk area for some endangered, vulnerable, or near-threatened native plants. Just wanted, and then it goes on, domestic pets collecting firewoods increased by a half. Brian Stockwell 02:51:26.651
Oh, sorry, Yeah. None of us have talked about the Aboriding Land Use Prohibit. Is that the Aboriding Land Use Prohibit? The Aboriding Land Use Prohibit. We normally have great debates about why we shouldn't approve some space. So, it is in residential. The current scheme does allow for a short stay. Boreen Point Lake of Tarawa is an interesting area in that... I think probably the 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 Boreen Point. You can't do much. But 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, a bit 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 it. Frank Wilkie 02:52:46.600
Jodie, would you close? The motion goes in favour. It's carried unanimously. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you. Thanks, Richard. Next item is the integrated water quality monitoring program, Burgess Creek, referred from the Planning and Environment Committee due to the significance of the issue. Amy and Sophie. I have a declaration. Okay. Brian, you have a declaration? I do. Brian Stockwell 02:53:18.548
I wish to inform the meeting that I have incredible confidence in this matter due to the fact that as president of the Noosa Lions Football Club, I have landed water management responsibilities for approximately 4.5 hectares of Girraween Sports Complex. This This involves the application of mainly organic soil release and calcium based fertilisers and herbicide over what is sizable halting 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 Potential risk factors for the quality of service orders in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role within NLFC and the fact that the club is not going to gain or lose from the proposed monitoring program, I choose to remain in the room even though I was kicked out on Monday and 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'm going to go that... vote you out anyway. That's okay. I'm going to go that I'll leave the room to the vote. What else comes next? Okay. I was. Frank Wilkie 02:54:54.760
Okay, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:54:56.320
Okay. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my brother Gabriel Cherisani 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 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'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 EPBA. an integrated catchment management plan for Burgess Creek is not part of the chap nor part of CHAP's 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 and 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 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. It affects Park. 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 community. Water quality has political, environmental, political, environmental and legal implications for the whole of Shire Council. environmental. 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 for regions becoming more resource independent through efficient use and reuse of wastewater. 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 sewerage outfalls that aims at no new ocean and estuarine sewerage 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 and technologies and make every effort to recycle 100% of all treated wastewater generated within their localities and to 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've also put forward 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 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, reducing 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 Captioning & Realtime Ltd. www.pcr.co.nz 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 respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Kim Rawlings 02:59:50.423
Councillor Stewart. I, um, councillor note, that councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine that Councillor Lorentson stay and that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes in this matter because councillor believes that, um, councillor, that, what's that Kath? You've got to tell me why you think she should stay. Oh, I believe that she can remain impartial, um, in regard to, um, this matter, um, and it is in the public interest for her to remain in the meeting room and I also believe reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest and that is to ensure that Councillor Ernst will remain, participates in the meeting and provides the necessary and vital input that she can. Frank Wilkie 03:00:36.669
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. Given the advice we got about the eastern beaches, we should imagine that's non-ordinary business. business because it pertains to a specific geographical area. It's akin to that. Well, you see it's akin to that. Do COIs need to be this long? 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 and make a decision as such. Can we go back a little bit more? 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 older motion again. I was trying to get back to what the conflict was. I think the conflict is that her brother. Kim Rawlings 03:02:21.843
Mean, Councillor Lorentson, she's corrected. Thank you for providing that information. 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 don't believe... I believe that she can make a decision impartially and in the best interests of the Noosa community. understand everyone is, you know, concerned with confidence and 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. I do believe, at the end of the day, she can make an impartial decision in the best interests of the community and in the public interest on this matter. Frank Wilkie 03:03:16.928
Goal speed and plan on the motion as well. The important thing is that the declaration is made. It was 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... the Council has correctly declared links to the Eastern Beaches Protection Association... The important thing is that is being declared. I'm happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room. 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, have greater 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 03:04:19.863
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. There's a far greater picture to bring into being and there's far more involved than just the element of the discharge from the water treatment. 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... that many of us have been alluding to over a number of years. Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Frank Wilkie 03:05:01.127
No. Put it to the vote. That's unanimous. And Councillor Lorentson give them a vote. Now, Councillor Miller, would you like to move a motion? Amelia Lorentson 03:05:11.134
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 Coast to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 11th July 2023 and a note staff will continue liaising with regarding the Burgess Creek STP data. SPEAKER_10 03:05:52.183
So this report today provides a summary of the actions that council have taken to address two notified motions from June and December last 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 change team. 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 In the catchment we've also established an interagency working group with unity water so that involves monthly meetings with unity water so their communications team their operations team as well where we we can provide updates to each other and matters relevant to water quality in Burgess Creek and through that group we've established a confidentiality deed with Unity Water which means we now have access to their water quality data through their REM and as you Unity Water 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 determine the movement 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 of STPs in the area And with this report we hope to close off both both the notices of motions except for water discharge volumes in the Burgess Creek catchment because this would require further investigation and modelling. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:08:18.748
Councillor Lorentson, would you like to move the motion? Oh, okay. I'd like to move the motion, please. Council note the report by the Environment Officer, Rivers and Coastal Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 11 July 2023. And A, note staff will continue liaising with Unity Water. 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 Unity Water and key And C, note the continued development of Council's integrated water quality monitoring program including potential expansion to include additional monitoring sites. 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 include key stakeholders, and I know that speaking with staff, that 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? And what is the process of actually finding people in the PCG? Does that go out to your expression of interest? And it will be similar, for instance, to our destination management plan. Kim Rawlings 03:10:02.412
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 And while we're, I guess, preparing our response by doing the monitoring in addition to continuing to work with Unity Water, that there's a process, I 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 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 as well. Kim, have you got an answer Just to clarify, Councillor Lorentson, the Integrated Catchment Management Plan was not funded this year in the budget. So we are not moving into the space you're talking about. Not yet. It wasn't funded. Not yet, exactly. So what this says is that staff will continue to maintain that relationship with Unity Water and continue to, within capacity, scope the project. 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 next year. It's funding. I think it's important to add as well, we've come a huge distance in terms of our relationship with Unity Water. So getting them to, and you know, congratulations to you for really championing this whole process. But I think we've come a really long way. So we want to continue that collaborative working relationship with Unity Water. 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. Frank Wilkie 03:12:37.263
So is the addition of anti-stakeholders, is that Well, a Kim Rawlings 03:12:43.671
I guess it just depends on when it's expected. So you're doing the scoping work with Burgess Creek Integrated Cash Management Plan in partnership with Unity Water, currently? So not We are still talking with the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. Frank Wilkie 03:13:03.515
I think it's I think it's fine but it's just important to manage expectations that that this this doesn't 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. If you're liaising with key stakeholders already, that's fine. Fine. And if you're talking with the environmental groups. Yep. Exactly. 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 perspective. And that was the intent of the addition that it just, and I know that you had spoken environmental with groups other 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. Kim Rawlings 03:13:58.126
Yeah there's a very high level of expectation around community consultation and we appreciate that and I've been talking and I've been talking with Carolyn Osbourne about getting a dedicated sort of community engagement 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. Amelia Lorentson 03:14:29.018
I just won't talk too much and I really just want to acknowledge the staff and thank the staff for putting words into action and for putting our place a 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 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 Burgess Creek catchment plan. I've learnt 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 Unity Water and DES. We need also to do our own housekeeping and we need data. Data to improve management of the environment, to know what other researchers and councils have found and how they have found 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 can't measure. This is how we make good policy decisions with data. This is how we 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 and investment in our environment and sustainability. We're part of the problem, and we are now part of the solution. We're part of the problem. Frank Wilkie 03:16:21.150
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Any questions, staff, comments? Anyone wish to speak? Tom? 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 any creek which is an ethic? Kim Rawlings 03:16:46.446
So I guess we continue that relationship with Unity Water 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 of that staff of that site, it's really, I think, to continue building our understanding and knowledge of what are all the operations around the Shire that Unity Water are involved with. How do we, we've got $10,000 in this financial year to expand 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 03:17:27.545
Because the report is amazing. And the findings are really eye-opening, aren't they? They weren't what we expected, or at least that's what I expected. Quite the opposite, actually. Yeah, so just thank you. So in terms of the $400,000 funding to implement a Burgess Creek integrated management plan, the formation of a Burgess Creek working group... When can we expect to see the working group again? The working group is established Kim Rawlings 03:18:02.849
And Sophie outlined that in her opening. Amelia Lorentson 03:18:08.229
So the $400,000.., 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. It wasn't funded in this budget. It wasn't funded but the opportunity may be in VR2. Kim Rawlings 03:18:31.689
We don't tend to re-litigate new initiatives in VR2. That will be up to council whether or not that's something you the council's want to re-look at but from an officer perspective the decision on the budget and the allocation of the new initiatives has occurred so we're now We didn't, Amelia Lorentson 03:18:46.733
Work program is based on what you've endorsed in the council budget we won't be bringing forward to BR2 new initiatives that weren't funded in the budget to re-litigate them that will be a council decision in terms of the partnership project for the University of Sunshine Coast I've got a copy of that report and they 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? Kim Rawlings 03:19:29.221
So it's a one-year project and so that will be concluded in September about that I think next year. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:37.161
Fantastic and that'll feed into the Burgess Creek. Yes. Working group. Kim Rawlings 03:19:42.361
And the scoping of the integrated catchment management plan. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:46.821
And my last question is I think there was a 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 03:20:01.733
Yes. Yes. alone. Has that been circulated? Sorry? The officer level submission that we'd put into that process? Yes, I sent it around earlier today. Oh, okay. Sorry it was a bit late. That's okay, so that's available. It is, yep. 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. Or was it mandatory that community would consult? It came from officer level and it was a bit of a tricky one because Unity Water initially were not happy that we were putting in a submission as part of that. They felt that our role as part of the 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 do want to put in a public, you know, record of 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. So often they're a short short time frames around providing submissions to different state policies or processes. So it's not unusual for us to do an officer level technical submission. You know, when we can get it to council for it to be endorsed, we will. But endorsed, we will, but when we can't because of timeframes, we'll still put something in at an officer level. Amelia Lorentson 03:21:29.448
So how I've sort of understood that is, at the moment, there is no water quality objectives for Burgess Creek under the existing. There are? 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've seen the reports that we've sent through that we're getting Fs on quite a number of them. So that really needs further discussion. discussion with our NRM groups around that to understand that because you know obviously we don't want to be you know ratcheting down the 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 F's so yeah. Just one more question, in terms of the confidentiality agreement we signed which was for five years, 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 signed the agreement because Unity Water 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 I think is a good step in the right direction and certainly I think is part of this program more broadly we would like to we would like to see a public dashboard eventually, at the very least for recreational health, because we have a duty as council to inform the public if it's safe or not to swim. So the reason we agreed to a confidentiality agreement is... 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 Unity Water there interpreting that for us so... 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. The 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 website and they're available through DES. They're now available publicly through Council. So those reports have always been available publicly. So if you go onto the website you can get the last number of years of REMP data. And that provides interpretation of the data. So, you know, that's why it's not so much about 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 about that managing that process on page 217 of the report it references a KVR and KVR consultants 2004 and I've got bits and pieces of that report which I just found 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 was a 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 it would be great if they were talking about recycling reuse in 2000-2003-2004 I would love to know what the recommendations would be today whether you know sewage into power and energy going down that route I'm not sure whether Unity Water 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 yeah that would be great KBR consultants Lastly I just want to note on page 55 of the rent the recommendations really good and I think if you add the recommendations to 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. So expand the Burgess Creek monitoring program to include monitoring of the weeds within the creek and creek banks of Burgess Creek so there was a lot of issues around the infestation of weed or introduction of weed species and acidification of soils and testing of soils so for them to acknowledge that and that's one of their 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 it'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 Great. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:27:29.470
This is a question to Councillor Lorentson, with regards to the addition of the case study columns, given the response from the staff regarding the question. Are you intending to leave that on there, or 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 the scope of The scope of the development was only going to be between Council and Unity Water, and in fact, there are already key stakeholders that have already been engaged as part of the scope and development of the plan. So, I think it's critical that's included. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 03:28:09.516
I'll ask a question on those. Would 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 be key stakeholders. If you look at Figure 1, Burgess Creek is far more than the outcourt of the city of Treatment Park. 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. Some of the other things that are mentioned here, we've got leachates and residential runoffs and biobasins and lack of biobasins and maintenance of biobasins and some of the upgrades that are required as well in our 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 Burgess Creek as a whole. out today and had a bit of a look and we found a constant flowing stream through there. So there are other elements that are unknown about Burgess 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 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... 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 and quality of the waterway. Tom Wegener 03:30:03.409
I would just like to say how pleased I am that Burgess Creek is a creek and not a storm drain. 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. Amelia Lorentson 03:30:16.695
We're different by nature. Yeah, thank you Karen. Frank Wilkie 03:30:19.855
I also think it's very useful that the Council and Unity Water have decided to take a whole catchment approach to this issue because what that's revealed is that the STP is actually the least 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. Noosa is 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. Kim Rawlings 03:30:57.621
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:31:14.240
There's a lot we can do as a council to help improve water quality and I think that's got to be, you know, something that we've got to progress with, water quality improvements. Just without, you know, stormwater runoff, pesticides that are used on storm fields, ageing stormwater infrastructure, etc. and the advocacy part and the lobbying part, that is so important. The Environmental Act is 1994 and as much as Unity Water 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 and think, my 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 and water quality. So, yeah, lots we can do outside. You know, lots we can do to help with cleaner oceans, cleaner wastewater. But just keep asking the questions because we can do better. And the moment we stop, you know, we Would the motion go in favour? Frank Wilkie 03:32:59.880
That's unanimous. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you. The next item is the Noosa Environment Strategy Year 3 Implementation Plan. Yeah, Brian, back in. Brian, back in. Okay, welcome back everyone. We're up to item 5.5, which is the Noosa Environment Strategy Year 3 Implementation Plan Update. I have a conflict of interest. My Wilkie informed the meeting that I have a terrible 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 Cottrell is the president of the Bridging Venture Community Association. Environment Strategy Update mentions the progress of the Eastern Beaches Port Royal Reserves Management Plan. UBCA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches Port Royal Reserves Management Plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and Legal Advices indicated the Eastern Beaches Port Royal Reserves Management Plan is not ordinary council business because it relates to a specific geographical 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 again personally and materially through noting this report on the Board of Environment Strategy, I make this out of an abundance of caution and a 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 as I... Actually, I want to leave that out, that I choose to remain in the meeting room. I just want to say... That's our standard wording. Okay. However, I respect the decision of the meeting room and I can remain to participate in the decision. Joe Jurisevic 03:41:54.487
I'll move that it's in the public interest of Councillor Wilkie to participate in the motion expanded because Councillor Wilkie does not stand against personal immaturity through making this report and therefore a reasonable person who would trust... Sorry, I don't know why that keeps coming up. I do so 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... Amelia Lorentson 03:42:34.500
Any questions? Oh, we need to do a new chair. Yeah, no, I'm assuming a chair for Councillor Stewart. Kim Rawlings 03:42:38.760
Oh, you're Mr Palm? Councillor Stewart is asking the chair, yeah. So, any questions for Councillor Stewart? I really don't know if I'd like to speak to this. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Now, I have a question, Kath. On the basis that Councillor Stewart has declared a conflict of interest in this matter, for the same reasons, does anyone else around the table? Yeah, I believe so. And I believe that we may have... Councillor Stockwell said, I'm sorry. Yes, 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. Brian Stockwell 03:43:54.320
I wish to declare exactly the same what Councillor Wilkie just declared, which is a change to the donation figure of 500, and as it's in front of you, I believe Joe Jurisevic 03:44:08.220
So moved. Frank Wilkie 03:44:10.960
Seconded Councillor Joe Jurisevic 03:44:11.820
Stewart. For all the reasons alluded to in the previous matter where Councillor Wilkie was Councillor Wilkie was the, you know, to say that to stay in the council public, the council made a terrible contribution to support Councillor Stockwell and determines in the public interest that he participates in votes council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to gain personal maturity through igniting this report and therefore a reasonable person would trust the financial suit is made in the public interest. Okay, any others wish to speak to the motion or to the vote? Those in favour? Councillor Stewart. Wegener and Griswold. That's carried. Note that Councillor Wilkie, Lorentson and Stockwell and Finzel have been voted. Any other conflicts? Amelia Lorentson 03:45:01.996
Okay, you'll just have to wait a moment, because you haven't told me about these. Can I just have a quick look at the wording beforehand? Of one of the other ones? Of one of the other ones, just in reference to... Was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Act Association who have made submissions regarding the Eastern Beaches foreshore management plan. I do not believe Beaches foreshore management plan. Kim Rawlings 03:46:37.680
The report provides a status update on that plan, just to link it to this report. Amelia Lorentson 03:46:47.200
Beaches foreshore management plan. As the report references the Eastern Beaches foreshore 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 of loss in relation to this matter, therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting, however I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Do you want to just read over it again? I, Councillor Lonesome, call the meeting a clerical conflict of interest in that it is now delegated to the Chair of Signing. Is that spelled correctly? Chair of Signing, yep. Can you add Kabi Comma, who until recently, who until recently, was on the... was on the executive of Eastern Preachers, would make submissions to the Eastern Preachers, to the Eastern Preachers foreshore management plan for staff. sentence as, the report references the plans part of the news... oh, okay. No, just one word for us here. The report references the plans part of the news. Thank you. Kim Rawlings 03:49:01.680
Does anyone want to vote? Tom Wegener 03:49:03.520
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. Kim Rawlings 03:49:11.280
Are we voting on Amelia's name? Yes. No, I don't have Amelia's name. Yeah, okay. Oh, sorry about that. No, you told me you voted on Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 03:49:18.156
Yeah. Tom Wegener 03:49:19.256
I'm moving to a procedural motion. Just forget I said that. I'm moving to a procedural motion. The motion be that the matter be deferred to the ordinary meeting. You're saying that? Yeah. I don't think you guys get it. Frank Wilkie 03:49:34.912
Okay. Procedural motion that the matter be deferred to the ordinary meeting. Yes, I'll second it. Second it. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 03:49:46.472
It's the only sensible way to proceed if it's likely that Councillor Wilkie may have Winkler may have a similar level of conflict and didn't make all the previous motions invalid Joe Jurisevic 03:49:58.732
So... All right. I think councillors need to go and double-check, read the report and see that Amelia Lorentson 03:50:04.212
They... Who seconded that? Mayor Stewart. Frank Wilkie 03:50:09.936
Okay, put it to the vote. All in favour? That's... I'm sorry, councillor. Procedural motion. Procedural motion. That's unanimous, the procedural motion. SPEAKER_10 03:50:23.096
All Just to note as well it does include a summary of the environmental grants so I like plastic free Noosa and a few of the others so there may be further conflicts yeah and plastic free Noosa as well. Alright, thank you. We'll see you Thursday night, Camille. Don't worry. Camille is a level of hypocrisy. Financial performance report. Pauline, your report mentions the Leisure Centre and I know someone who passed by there once. That's okay. Joe Jurisevic 03:51:07.809
How much use is the facility taking? It's late in the day. Tom Wegener 03:51:20.709
Thank Frank Wilkie 03:51:25.901
Pauline, welcome. Have welcome Trent. Please give us an overview of their financial performance. SPEAKER_10 03:51:32.761
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, 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. at least. Firstly, I'd like to the table on page 197 should indicate that the operating expenses are below budget and not above budget. it, so there's light on that page. Thank you, Brian. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:25.453
So the colourful table. Thank 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 Grants relate to the advance payment of the 2024 financial assistance grant and in previous years we have only received a 50 or 75 cent 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 will be held in reserve for future use for specific programs. The remainder of underspend relates to civil operations, community facilities, holiday parks 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 not consultancy expenditure 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 position at June is $9.8 million above budget. Capital Capital revenue is above budget $5.5 million due to some further advance payments of QRA disaster projects funding and council has expended 82% of its full year capital 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 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 ten million dollars in relation to the advance payment of four years worth of waste levy and two million as I mentioned for the prepayment of the 2024 financial assistance grant. accordance with 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 seven point three million also providers ten million dollars in project funding for capital works that will be delivered in financial year 2024 as well as nine million of projects that will be pushed out at budget review two two. 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. 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. Kim Rawlings 03:55:56.808
Rates and orders have gone out in the last week or two, is that right? SPEAKER_10 03:55:59.168
Rates went out, yes, yesterday. Just yesterday, okay. So we should be looking at that seven million coming in. If you could give us a little bit of time, we should be looking at a further increase of that So we're holding seven million to fund the operations through to July because of the due date of rates which won't be until August and we just hold that cash but we'll obviously here see a big up kick in our cash holdings once we get that revenue in in August And 18th of August is when they have to get the 5%. Kim Rawlings 03:56:24.854
So hopefully you'll see. So hopefully you'll see a lot of people take advantage of it too. Amelia. Pauline, 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 expenditure, which is 122 million, I've worked out it's about 34%. Wages are about 34% of total operating costs. How does that compare with similar councils of similar sizes? 34%... When you do a comparison and benchmark across councils in Queensland, it can range from 30% to 40%. So we're not out of the realm of employee costs. Will Lowe 03:57:15.517
I guess just to add to that, what the biggest driver or the biggest variance between councils are is more about their assets employed, their appreciation 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 Amelia Lorentson 03:57:40.610
So consultancy sits outside of that, even though it's human. Will Lowe 03:57:40.637
40%. Amelia Lorentson 03:57:41.137
So consulting... SPEAKER_10 03:57:46.390
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 03:58:04.879
How do we do it? We're Councillor Jurisevic, Senator Mayor Stewart, I look to see our financial position with Councillor Plymouth himself in again, and acknowledge the fine work of our finance team and all of our staff, Mr. CEO, for the efforts, it reflects really, really well through the financial situation. If anybody else wish to speak? Frank Wilkie 03:58:34.489
Motion, those 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. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
