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 00:05.600
Welcome everybody. I declare the meeting open. I begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we're gathered here today, which is the Kabi Kabi People. Pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Have all Councillors in attendance. We have no apologies, but I would like to apologise for the Council broadcasting at the wrong time for this meeting, which was incorrectly advertised as being a 10 o'clock start. It is 12.30 and that's been fixed so it should be no confusion in the future, so I apologise for that. Now we have someone to confirm the Minutes of the last month's General Committee Meeting with the Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Mayor Clare. All in favour? That's carried. We have no presentations, deputations, 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 environment committee meeting from last week due to the significance of the issue, and we have our manager of planning, Patrick. And we do have some conflicts of interest to. Declare as well. Thank you. Mayor Stewart. Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:27.890
In accordance with Chapter 5B of Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration for meeting of a declarable conflict of interest. I, Councillor Stewart, inform this meeting that I have 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 a developer of park ridge in Noosa Springs, made a submission against Noosa Springs hotel development. Leigh McCready, who is an associate of Alton, is friend. As a result of my conflicts of interest, I will now leave the meeting room. This night is considered and voted on, thank you Karen Finzel 02:17.859
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest on this matter. Wish to inform the meeting that I have in the matter, as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants, on behalf of Leigh McCready, who is associated with altum, property group, who are the developers of park ridge, Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs hotel development. 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, leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted upon. Brian Stockwell 03:14.686
I meeting that I've declared comparable conflict of interest in this matter as I've 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 hotel development. Leigh McCready is associated with the Altum Property Group. On I saw a review of the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the Future Noosa Team in regard to Ms. Leigh McCready. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and my queries at the time were in the public interest. Therefore, will choose to remain I respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain in the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Joe Jurisevic 03:59.959
I move that the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by the Councillor Stockwell in the public interest that participates on this Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and not a statutory process and the Councillor stockwell's periods of time for the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice. We seconder for that? I have a second. By Councillor Lorentson. I do so on the basis that is consistent with the position that we have taken on this matter and this declaration in the past through all Council matters associated with. Stock rolls. Councillor stockwell's declaration on this matter. Any other Councillors wish to speak Frank Wilkie 04:39.950
To the motion? Put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the motion. Welcome staff. Have our new Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray, head of planning, Patrick Murphy and their team. Sorry. Paul king. K-A-N-G. Yes. Thank you. Bill Lowe, senior environment officer. Will Thank you. Would you care to give us an overview Patrick Murphy 05:12.421
Of what we've had before? Certainly. Yeah. Thank you. I'll give an overview and as Councillor Wilkie's referred to, we have Paul king who is our odour and acoustic will's senior environment officer who will be able to take some questions a little bit later. It's probably just pertinent to start with the zoning map for the site. This is a zoning map under the current scheme and it shows the site to be split zoned. The orange area being the Tourism Accommodation Zone and then the sort of the light green or blue area to be the Recreation and Open Space Zone. So that's the Noosa Plan 2020. Under the previous regulation of the planning scheme the whole site was zoned open space and recreation. Also of note is that the urban boundary under the planning scheme sort of snaps back to the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Under the previous version of the scheme the urban boundary was around the perimeter of the site so there's been some changes from the previous scheme. To this introduced it really recognised how Noosa Springs had been developed with previous approvals that were seeking for some tourist accommodation 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 that have primarily been taken up as permanent occupants and again hence need identified to provide some tourist accommodation within the neurus neuris springs precinct hence the zoning change I and I think we can also be mindful of the quantum of five-star offerings within Noosa being quite limited so it's seen that this site would be a good opportunity to develop in such 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 the odour line which is also detailed on the plan which is something that I'm sure that we'll talk to in a bit more detail and that is the 2.5 odour unit line and in terms of the I suppose the zoning that was created under the 2020 scheme was designed to provide a buffer between sewage treatment plant and the Tourism Accommodation Zone without any robust methodology being undertaken at that time and wasn't you know where that delineation should occur so the assessment of this application has used the 2.5 odour unit line as a ground truthing exercise to determine where it was a probe where it has been appropriate to site this building and the associated uses so there's been this application has been in hand for nearly two years and there's been some discussions with applicants prior to the application being lodged and that sort of ground truthing concept is something that's been consistently applied in those conversations and the assessment of the application the site does have biodiversity overlay mapping. Within it initially it was proposed to cite tennis courts generally in this area here that is an area that's identified as koala habitat subsequently the applicant made amendments to the layout to move the tennis courts the existing car park to preserve that vegetation there is a loss of vegetation within the biodiversity overlay across the top of the site Resort Drive which has been assessed by our environment officer as being reasonable to be removed it's also noted that offsets have been proposed by the applicant when it was proposed to cite the tennis courts in the koala habitat area it was there was going to be a financial offset as required by but the applicant also proposed to offset with a hundred and twenty koala trees and 25 glossy feed trees they're still proposing to do that although they're not removing the koala habitat so that's proposed to provide those offsets on the golf course into locations 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 very variations to the height allowances and setback and site cover and plot ratio being that the building does exceed the 12 metre height limit in the Tourism Accommodation Zone and the 8 Recreation and Open Space Zone. Those intrusions are not considered to be significant in terms of their impact on the surrounding area and they are a consequence of the topography of the site and the large scale, form of the buildings. There are, in terms of the site cover and plot ratio, the development proposes. I'm sorry, the proposal seeks development in the Recreation and Open Space Zone and accordingly doesn't comply with requirements. However, it does total amount of plot ratio and site cover that is permitted within the tourist and accommodation zone. So, yeah, and that's including the existing buildings that are on the site as well. Also, just to there's been a number of reports provided with the application in terms of odour reports, acoustic traffic and car parking reports, bushfire water quality and water and quantity reports, which have been reviewed by the relevant external consultants and also by staff and deemed to be appropriate. Also, and I just, and to conclude as per the report, despite the conflicts with the planning scheme in terms of the zoning and noting the ground tracing that's occurred with the, odour impacts officers are recommending that the application be supported subject to conditions. Frank Wilkie 11:40.438
Thank you Patrick. Questions? Joe Jurisevic 11:46.158
Development of significance of Council have often sought the advice other architects and local architects. Have we had any input from other, because I know one architect in particular has given us some input on this development, but of our local architects do any consideration of this development? Patrick Murphy 12:06.391
No, due 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 12:31.481
There any background as that changed in this planning scheme? SPEAKER_08 12:41.060
Given the nature of what Patrick Murphy 12:45.911
I would have to probably clarify that for you, Joe. Joe Jurisevic 12:50.971
The Director at the time was actually in the room and she might be able to change her mind. Kim Rawlings 12:57.171
Kim Rawlings, you're welcome. Thank you, Through the Chair. Councillor Jurisevic, yes, you might recall going to be a to be short-term accommodation resort delivered at the Noosa Springs community in the wider community as part of the park ridge development. That didn't occur as a result of approvals at the time so during the development of the Noosa Plan 2020 that need was still 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 tourist accommodation and at the higher end five-star type accommodation Joe Jurisevic 13:57.532
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 of that land parcel. Is that correct? Can you say that again Joe? What is mapped currently in the orange on the map is what is in the Noosa Plan. Yep. What Patrick said or if I misunderstood is what was in the previous scheme was the entire land parcel that was included in the urban map. That's what I just heard. So just to clarify that correct. Patrick Murphy 14:31.470
Just to clarify what I'm saying is that the whole site was owned open space recreation under the previous game and now we have split zoning but also there was an urban boundary which went around the whole site. That's right and now that's been brought back to the Tourism Accommodation Zone. SPEAKER_08 14:47.860
I'm getting excited. Why was that change in Kim Rawlings 14:51.576
Oh, look, was just it was snapped back to the Tourism Accommodation Zone at the time. Frank Wilkie 14:57.375
Was that as a precaution because of the odour? We didn't have the odour modelling at the time? Kim Rawlings 15:02.396
Yeah so the was done on information at the time we definitely didn't have the level of odour investigations that we've got now to sort of substantiate where that boundary should actually be and as you know when we do have split zonings you know there's ground truthing process that goes on it happens often with the environmental conservation zone where you know we the zone will have a particular boundary but it's not until you get in and do detailed site investigations that actually could shift based on you know the detailed information so that's happening here considering Tom Wegener 15:42.575
The policy I just heard you say that the existing building does not exceed plot ratio when including springs building is that did I hear that right Patrick Murphy 15:55.308
Yeah so the I think it's approximately 15,000 square metres of GFA that's permitted as a result of the total area of tourist accommodation zoning the total amount of GFA associated with this new building and the existing buildings on the site do not exceed that Tom Wegener 16:14.027
What would the GFA if the new building is approved and they 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 you know say be able to facilitate the people from the hotel in Noosa Springs if Noosa Springs grows. They have a GFA problem in the future? Patrick Murphy 16:52.819
So just to reiterate so that area Tourism Accommodation Zone there's 15,000 square metres of GFA permitted. What is proposed with the new building in the existing building is only 10,000 so 5,000 square metres under the GFA that they're permitted to develop in this part of the site so if they were to seek to remove those buildings and to develop additional really GFA it's reasonable that they would be able to go up 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 may be a need or there would to amend the planning scheme the mapping so that there could be a rectification of the urban boundary and the zoning in the future and that might mean shifting recreation and open space zoning in other parts of the city as well thank you Amelia Lorentson 17:55.437
In terms of the odour complaints the unity board has raised challenged and raised concerns about review and recommendations that have been made by council's consulting odour expert and I want to note 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 eleusin. They, in the report, the Unitywater said, look, if on legal advice they could transfer the responsibility onto the developer, then they would probably sit a little bit more comfortably in this space with risk. Can we clarify, there was in the report noted that transfer of responsibility is not legally, not capable of legally transferring the responsibilities across, is that right? That is correct. Patrick Murphy 19:05.622
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 whether that would be enforceable, lawful document. And the advice that we received was no, it's not something that you could do really to take away someone's right to object. So there would be problems. It just wouldn't be suitable. Amelia Lorentson 19:29.383
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 plant to be noticeable. Again, a concern raised by Unitywater is that people might mistaken odours. That could sewage. Be caused by bats or by Main Roads etc and their concern is again is complaints made and it's proven to be an environmental nuisance. There may be a situation where there are extensive modifications made to the STP. So the risk then is not only to the Unitywater. Does Council ratepayers also carry financial risk or burden? That happens. And again, I refer to the deputation where spoke about narumba downs and the cost of upgrading or putting those older installations to the tune of $38 million. Can you confirm or clarify is that cost borne by the ratepayers down in more than May? Patrick Murphy 20:43.375
It's probably a good opportunity just to talk about that assessment of the risk. If you don't mind Paul could just share your thoughts on that. Paul King 20:52.135
Okay so a couple of things. Councillor, you mentioned 2016. The coachland report that was submitted with the development allocation was dated 2020, so the year 2020. I think the 2016 might have related to some earlier odour sampling that was conducted, not when the report was prepared. Thank you for so this has been to, on behalf of Council, to assess the technical assessments that have been provided. I've also met with Patrick and Unitywater on a number of occasions to understand their concerns. So firstly with Marama downs, we'll just work backwards. I was listening to the deputation last week, so I heard what Rhett said. In terms of Murrumba Downs, my research shows that particular plant is a lot larger than the Noosa Springs plant, probably about 60 larger at the current point in time. The Murrumba Downs plant is the nearest infrastructure of Murrumba Downs is 80 metres from the nearest residential boundary, so it is a lot closer. The major odour producing infrastructure, the uncovered infrastructure is a bit over 200 metres away from the closest house, so it is closer in proximity. In terms of looking at the aerial photography, the odour control measures that are in place at Marama downs as compared to Noosa Springs. So Noosa Springs, when it was updated in 1997, country. Understanding was, significant odour controls were put in place. Covering of the primary treatment units, installation of a biofilter that sucks the odour from those odour producing units and discharges to the inlet works is enclosed there and are another are other measures. Oh, sorry, and the primary clarifiers are covered. The Murrumba Downs plant has those, but on a much larger scale because it's a larger plant and possibly a couple of other measures which I'm not exactly. What they are. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Noosa plant is quite modern in terms of it's a high degree of odour control. So Council at the time had some forethought in what they did. It would appear, and so there is a good 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 so I think the point you were making, 2016, they were the odour emission rates that were measured in 2016. The modelling that's been done is based on the current physical size of the plant so there's been no future forecasting undertaken. Unitywater have made, I believe, in the future where the plant will need to be upgraded they'll probably have to include additional odour control measures as the plant grows and that's not unusual even if we ignore the development that's on the table today because the plant is quite close proximity to existing residential. So I think in terms of that the existing residential to the west eye measures about 300 metres from the nearest sewage treatment plant source. The existing park ridge residential to the south is about 365 metres away. The existing tennis courts are about 265 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 metres closer. Just to quickly wrap up, I've been, my role was to review the technical assessment that's been prepared. So I've been through the Katestone report. We issued an information request, they responded with further detail, they gave us their models, we've reviewed the modelling that's been done and I'm comfortable from a technical point of view the assessment demonstrates that the 2.5 odour unit contour is outside of the line or through the resident the accommodation building is not within that 2.5 odour units being regarded and in development assessment by the Planning & Environment Court is the pass /fail line shall we say so it's the speed limit so if the if it's been appropriately demonstrated out the hotel is outside of the 2.5 odour unit contour which is what I'm saying has been done here there's no technical reason why that development can't exist and people will experience appropriate amenity Frank Wilkie 25:43.147
There's a chance that visitors to this resort will still experience on occasion some odour? Paul King 25:52.247
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 within the 2.5 that 2.5 odour unit contour is based upon the highest 24-hour average sorry one hour average over the entire year in one of the information request items that we went back to them with and they've provided further information is that 2.5 od units has only exceeded in those outdoor recreation areas within the contour in the nighttime period sort of between 2am. And 4am. So one of the conditions that patrick's put in the package is limiting the hours of use of those outdoor areas to 6am. To 10pm. So people there when higher odour events occur and they occur intermittently so the 2.5 odour units is a 99.5th percentile exceedance so 44 hours a year you're going to get or higher most of the time it's far less than that so people may detect it I've detected odour driving in the Noosa Springs I'm happy to say that the criteria is set on the basis that the majority of the population is not annoyed by it we can't have an absolute if we had absolute criteria we wouldn't have to vote so to answer your question yes people may at times smell something from the sewage treatment plant they won't necessarily know what it is so I can't say that they won't but that it should be an acceptable level so that's if line if they're out so well even if you're outside of the 2.5 odour unit line less than yes 2.5 you can still smell odour so in terms of that yeah so so just to give you the numbers and sorry I'm an engineer so I deal in numbers so one odour unit is the level at which you can just detect an odour now it's logarithmic so 2.5 two and a half times that bit because as long rhythmic, as me it means you can smell it but that's not good that does the 2.5 isn't all the time that's just on 44 hours a year it's going to be 2.5 and generally in the early morning period when the atmosphere is most stable colder temperature inversion conditions. Frank Wilkie 28:12.936
Some in your view what would need to be done to the nursing wastewater treatment plant in order for there to be Paul King 28:20.755
I think it is an impossible I think it's an impossible dream certainly in europe there are plants that are fully enclosed but you're much higher density population densities the trouble is that the trouble the fact is that modern-day sewage treatment plants rely on being in the open atmosphere for air exchange biological action that's how they work so here with the primary treatment systems are covered the secondary tanks aren't the clarifiers are so really you can't fully enclose it so you're never going to not have some odour. Frank Wilkie 28:58.060
So you're satisfied that with the buildings being enclosed and limited hours for the use of the outdoor areas that the applicant has managed the impacts of any odour sufficiently to a standard that satisfies yourself? Paul King 29:14.081
Yes so I don't know about any other but they've managed impact of odour to an acceptable level. Conditions that the hotel be mechanically ventilated. The conditions require that there be activated carbon filters on the supply air to the building. The conditions also require that the fresh air inlets be located on the building as far away from the sewage treatment plant as possible. So that's all to minimise and really with activated carbon filters to prevent odour within the building itself. Frank Wilkie 29:41.678
Patrick, in an ideal situation, now you've got this information about where the odour control lies, if there were to be planning scheme changes, would the Tourism Accommodation Zone extended to hug that 2.5 Patrick Murphy 30:11.776
Within the area that's below the 2.5-odd units, noting that part of the Tourism Accommodation Zone is already outside. And can I just add to one thing, I think it's relevant that park ridge, the approval or the assessment of park ridge and the oasis precinct, which is the precinct which Paul referred to where there's a house within approximately 300m to the west. Both of those applications were supported by odour reports and the methodology used was the same. And the criterion that they both sought to rely on for where their development should be cited was the 2.5 odour unit line. So at that 2005 was the parkridge application. 2007 was the oasis application. And again, both those applications supported by reports, supported by Council on the basis of complying with the 2.5 odour unit line. And at that time, it was noted in the reports that when these plan of development was first done pre the upgrade to the treatment plan, that a 600 metre buffer was required. But subsequent to the improvements to the plant and the demonstration of the compliance of 2.5 odour units through the reports, that those developments were considered reasonable. Frank Wilkie 31:35.244
And just one final question, if I may, Joe. The residents who took part in the deputation said that they do experience odour. They have complained, but can you confirm whether Council has received any complaints? We've read in the report that neither unity nor Noosa Springs But they maintain that they have complained can experience it. Patrick Murphy 32:01.990
So I've had a look at our electronic records and can't find any records of complaint. The report submitted with the application notes that there was an RTI request made to Unitywater and to Council 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 before '97? Yeah, a few complaints. So, and we've asked, specifically Unitywater in meetings as well have they received complaints, and they said that they haven't. Sorry John? Joe Jurisevic 32:43.066
Thank you, you've gone down the rabbit hole I was going down. The one specific thing I asked Patrick to reiterate from Unitywater is have they had any complaints because we were categorically told on at the meeting the other day from one of the residents that they have complained to Unitywater. So I'll find this disparity between yes there is complaints being lodged and no complaints have been received to be an anomaly. But I don't understand how a complaint could be made yet no complaints are registered. The fact that pre-1997 I don't think much of this development was there pre-1997 so it can't have come from these residents and it must be resident elsewhere. So you've got no further information with regard to any complaints from Unitywater? That no complaints have been lodged is their response? That's correct. And sorry just to add also DES Department of Environment and Science we contacted the regulator over Unitywater and at the report was written they had received no complaints either. I wouldn't expect that the general public would go to DES, they either Council or the source of the problem which is the sewage treatment plant if in fact that is That's one. Two. We talk about the developed receptors within but there are other receptors within closer than the 2.5 odour modelling line. Recreational activities such as the heroin sporting complex. And the Men's Shed is adjacent to the sewage treatment plant. Have there been any complaints from those receptors with regard to their proximity Patrick Murphy 34:26.665
I'm looking against the property from which the odour would emanate and there's no complaints logged on that property. And to your point about the Men's Shed, Unitywater have just facilitated a development approval for Women's Shed on their site as well, which is again in much closer proximity to the treatment plant. SPEAKER_08 34:45.870
That seems in contrast to what Unitywater have been presenting here. Patrick Murphy 34:49.211
Well. Joe Jurisevic 34:50.865
That's just an observation, we're not asking for response on that. You mentioned the character and capacity of the plant. Now I know we've got a presentation with Unitywater on that, and the numbers were something like 100,000 properties that they're supposed to be able to get, or up to 1 off the top of my head. Do we have any information with regard to the current carrying capacity of the plant as it currently stands versus its ability to handle the influx of visitors during peak periods and how that. Impacts on capacity? All I know is that the plant is licensed under its license from DES is to up to 100,000. They're licensed up to what their actual capacity is at the moment, I'm not sure. That they will. And that the future need for upgrades of that plant since that last upgrade is sometime in the future but again our capacity to exceed that hundred thousand is a question that I've got with regard to how or when that may given that we have a national population capacity of current living around about 65,000 properties. Patrick Murphy 36:07.387
That's true and noting that there is another treatment plant out at Cooroy. Other element Joe Jurisevic 36:13.713
Thank you um you mentioned activated carbon filters. I'll ask two questions with regard to that. What are the properties and the benefits of activated carbon filters on an air conditioning system? Paul King 36:27.313
So activated carbon filters just like most air conditioning systems have a dust filter on them. An activated carbon filter is just another cartridge that slides in and out. So activated carbon is an odour filter so it is commonly used on a more commercial aspect on cooking exhausts from restaurants. I won't name far certain ones but there are fast foods around that chargrill they use activated carbon filters so they're very effective at reducing odours. Joe Jurisevic 36:59.900
Other developments around and Park Ridge being the most recent. With an odour report, were any of their air conditioning systems required to have activated carbon filters installed? Not? Don't believe. Well, my recollection is no. - being the next nearest and having an odour report. They only work the air conditioning system. Have the units got the capacity to open windows and doors in the direction of the- STP? Paul King 37:35.416
I think the answer to SPEAKER_08 37:36.476
That is yes. That's a question for Patrick. Patrick Murphy 37:38.436
Well, yeah, so the- I suppose the interface of the building with the contour line is that there's two of the- pods that interface. I'd have to just refresh the elevation plan. SPEAKER_08 37:54.579
I'm assuming they have sliding doors and balconies and Oh, you know, certainly within the site, Patrick Murphy 37:59.959
Around this area, well away from the 2.5 unit line, they do. I'd have to just refresh myself with the elevation plan to see how that is on that eastern facing. Joe Jurisevic 38:10.380
They've got air conditioning or not, they could have open windows and open doors if that was the last of my questions. Thank you, Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 38:24.189
Okay, going back to other complaints. So there be a complaint, then water would be forced to make these expensive modifications? My question, Paul, is, I know we're sort of debating, has there been a complaint? Says, she etc. But I sit here as, you know, someone that's looking at risk, and I understand there's been some modelling, surely the question has got to be if it's got the potential to, result in odour complaints, then you must consider that risk and then consider ramifications or the implications of that, which is, again, there's cost and that cost is worn by our ratepayers. So is real. And the report that our expert on page 26 or 27, that's actually not disputed. And I understand there are mitigation measures, but I want to throw at you the potential of odour complaints. Is there potential odour complaints? Paul King 39:39.279
You're- Are happy for me to answer this one? Please, sure. So there is a potential for a complaint. There's no hard and fast rule about the grounds of someone making a complaint. The point I will make, though, is whether it's a substantiated complaint. We're all going to-- And as to whether the regulator finds that the complaint has validity that requires the operator to do something in response. So a large part of my practice is working for developers, abattoirs, composters, people who make odour. And quite often I spend a lot of time dealing with the DES in terms of complaints and those sorts of issues. So it's about assessing if something needs to be done. And it doesn't. So some people are sensitive, they'll lodge a complaint, but it's got to be a valid complaint, reasonable And it doesn't take just one complaint to require Unitywater to do something. It generally will be based upon how many complaints and what their investigations show. Another thing I'd like to point out thing that Rhett said the other day was that DES did not take account of the 2.5 odour unit contour. Well, that's a little incorrect. They do. If there's a complaint, they'll send an officer out to investigate and for them to experience is it unacceptable odour in their opinion. Then if they deem it is, then there'll be action taken against odour unit in water for them to investigate the complaint and to assess it. And that's generally done by taking odour samples, doing odour modelling and looking at where the 2.5 odour unit contour sits. So it's not a fact that one complaint can cause an issue it's if there are a lot of complaints and if they're substantiated. 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 from the sewage plant, sorry. So if there is a complaint and it's investigated, whether you know you ought to have to do anything or spend any money depends upon if it is a problem. The is being conducted today shows that there should not be an exceedance of the 2.5 odour unit 99.5th contour criterion on the basis of what's there now. Things always change, things can happen, um but I think talking about risk, we're talking about 300 metres to the nearest residence now, 265 metres for this building, we're talking about short stay accommodation rather than permanent accommodation, and the difference being 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 Unitywater from a short stay accommodation development than permanent residential. Amelia Lorentson 42:47.865
So again, on the point of order, if you want, Councillor Wilkie, real versus perceived. Go into a hotel and I read, you know, August must be advised the potential for odour on the sewage treatment plant. To me, every smell that I have, I'm going to associate with So I get that there's going to investigation and any vexatious complaints are not going to be considered, but the risk is reputational risk, and that's probably where I'm sitting. I get your. Just put it into the I'll put in a question. Is that a planning ground? Is that something. Reputational risk. That should be considered, given that it's a ground? Paul King 43:42.073
Okay. So, firstly, condition 13, I think, was put in place to, I won't say cover all bases, but it's a bit like having empty buyer beware. In my opinion, it's not a condition that has to be in a package if we're approving this. You don't have to tell people that they're near a sewage treatment plant and they may smell it. I listened to rhett's presentation the other day and agree that in the context he put it, you're putting people on notice. You know, you don't have to do that. Would be more something akin to if it was a permanent residential, so residents come in, cabin empty, buyer beware, just letting you know you're living near a sewage treatment plant, you're in the flight path of an airport or whatever. Condition 13 I don't think, in my opinion anyway, needs to be in the conditions package and I don't think there's any loss if it's not in there in terms of protecting Unitywater with respect to operation of this development. Joe Jurisevic 44:40.015
It's also been said it's not blazoned in flashing lights and saying you're entering an odour receptive area, please beware, it might as well be a fine print on the doctor's side to go in the room but whether it's there or conditions there or not I don't think really makes any difference to the outcome. So is there anything to indicate how that has to be, that information to that is provided the guest? It says that you've got a note on it, so provided it's a notification on the website or on a piece of paper they sign to. Take the question from the room. Patrick Murphy 45:23.613
Meet that criteria, but we probably agree with what Rhett was saying, that it's not something that is needed in terms of the potential to inflame, I suppose, or draw people's attention to what could potentially be a noticeable. Why is it being put in as a condition? Because it had come through the original narrative and the original review of the proposal, and at that time it was supported, but it hadn't had the alternate view from Unitywater at that point in time. Frank Wilkie 45:54.439
So I have a question along a similar line. Why is it proposed as an argument in mitigation that because it'll short-term visitors staying here, that reputational risk for the experience at odour is less of an issue than if it were permanent visitors? Okay, I'm not sure I quite said that then if I did. I didn't mean to. That's what I get from reading the documents. Paul King 46:21.754
Right, okay. So I'm probably not the person to ask about reputational risk, but in terms of risk I did say before that a complaint being made to the regulator, because that's what I heard Unitywater talking about and being quite concerned about the other day, I think there's less of a chance and a validated by a short-term accommodation guest as compared to a permanent resident. Joe Jurisevic 46:50.472
Correct, Paul King 46:54.412
So that was just the point I was making there. In terms of reputational thing, from my point of view as I started saying earlier in terms of the criterion, the 2.588 of criterion, if the odour levels are at or below that, people shouldn't take offence to it. Trying to put it into simple terms, staying in this hotel at 2.580 units shouldn't be at a level that you regard is bad for Noosa. 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 time. It tends to come and go. And the one thing that hasn't been taken into account this assessment the very significant band of vegetation that extends along the ridge between the site and the sewage treatment plant. So vegetation helps to increase dispersion, surface roughness, so there's less potential for the odour to be at a higher concentration. That hasn't been factored in. It was something that was considered in the 2005 and 2007 approvals for park ridge, considered, didn't factor into the decision because I was involved in those peer reviews at the time as well. But it's just another factor in this case. Also, the last thing I'll say, sorry, is that I heard Rhett talk about the ridgeline and the effect of topography. In this case, Noosa Springs resort is well elevated above the sewage treatment plant. Generally you find that the worst case odour conditions when you've got low wind speeds, temperature inversions, and odour tends to flow as katabatic drainage. It more goes down valleys and gullies. It doesn't flow up a hill under those sort of low wind speed conditions. And it's less dispersion. During the day, when you get sunlight, when you're mixing in the air, the odour, even though the plant's at a higher during the day because people are awake and using it, the atmospheric conditions tend to mix the odour up so you get less transport. So at night, the fact that it's elevated, the site is elevated above the sewage treatment plant is a good thing, rather than being at a lower elevation. Paul, I was wondering when you were going to mention katabatic drainage in your talk. Sorry? Let's expand a bit on what it is. It the odour that travels to the lowest? Yes. So it's like when there's not a lot of wind. Calm conditions. So air movement is more temperature driven. So it goes from hotter temperatures to colder temperatures. So the lower you go down, the cooler the temperatures. And sorry, the other way around. Sorry, hot and cold. So air tends to flow under catabatic conditions. You've got a temperature inversion. So you've got warm air above, cold air below, and air just tends to, like water, tends to follow the easiest path. So it flows down, valley drainage is the easiest way to call it, rather than katabatic drainage. So this happens all the time. It's a well 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 is to get that pollutant atmosphere and dispersing away. This is a bit of the reverse. We've got the receptor up here but plant down here. It doesn't have big stacks. It has biofilters but that's treated. The rest are all surface, the big tanks, surface emitters. So there's not a great temperature flux to push that up into the atmosphere. So it tends to rise up because there is a slight temperature difference and then it's at the vagrancies of the local meteorology and topography. Joe Jurisevic 50:32.279
So yeah, you mentioned vegetation being a buffer for odour. Yes. Is, and the question's not directed to you as a result of that, but we've talked, Patrick, within this application there's lot of planting being mentioned in Noosa. Is there an opportunity for additional planting in the buffer zone between the SDC and the development, if, to facilitate odour management? Patrick Murphy 51:07.120
Well, I might just, I think-- probably have all the-- topics- No, and I--- It comes to mind having-- I think the-- Is that something that might be able to be considered? I think that what would need was bushfire. I don't know whether the land use-- Yeah. Joe Jurisevic 51:21.720
Up in 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 within proximity of this area. Is there a facilitation here that could Bill Lowe 51:36.100
Yep. So as part of the application through the landscaping portion there is improvements to the northern and eastern areas with non-flammable vegetation. It has a similar RA. I believe there's a conditioner, so that's been incorporated to include that revegetation within the road reserve. SPEAKER_08 52:00.998
I'm happy that question has been taken on note. I heard there so just a thought bubble that's just come up so Paul King 52:09.724
Can I just jump in? Sorry, one of the recommendations of the Katestone odour report that was prepared by the developer back in 2020 and maintained was planning of dense vegetation to the south of Resort Drive, so on their site, including plants with fine foliage through the lower stories to the canopy. So that was about also providing some more of their own odour buffer. Vegetating, for example. Can I borrow your plan, Patrick? Yes, so that's one of their recommendations. Within that road reserve area there? Well, within their site to the south of Resort Drive, so in here. I'm just pointing generally. Joe Jurisevic 52:43.045
Plan as it currently sits doesn't really facilitate a between where the last of the resort units are. Correct, just in this part here. But there may be options on the other side of Resort Drive? Paul King 52:57.365
I don't know. Sorry, there's a landscaping plan that's probably a little better. Frank Wilkie 53:04.299
Patrick, one of the other concerns raised by residents was noise generated by traffic under the loading dock, vehicles reversing. They have concerns about the vehicles reversing alarm. Affecting laws, amenity, court, nobles and the public. How is that going to be managed? Patrick Murphy 53:27.372
Fortunately, Paul is also an acoustic expert who's looked at this aspect of the development. We certainly recognise that the loading dock area has the potential to have some noise emanating from it to dwelling within 25 metres of the loading dock. So we have recommended a further acoustic report to address that and mitigation measures, you know, to recommend mitigation. Measures that would need to be implemented. That road is already being used by trucks to service the existing resort facilities. It's envisaged that the frequency of the trucks be similar. The size will probably be larger to accommodate servicing, you know, the larger, demand. Paul King 54:15.104
I suppose the efficiency, I'll use that word, was raised by me. Looking at the noise report that was submitted that there was no specific assessment of the loading dock area. One of the things I said, we can limit the hours. Quite commonly with loading docks and refuse collection, you 7am to 6pm. With this development is that in terms of getting from the loading dock up to the resort up here, there's a fairly steep driveway. You couldn't get trucks and things up there. I think they were proposing to use golf buggy style things. To transfer things 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 traffic. You know, there'll be laundry, there'll be food deliveries, those sorts of things. But it's not like a supermarket where you get lots of vans and trucks. But equally, if this was a supermarket, typically 7am to 6pm deliveries on some point of noise barrier screening. So that's the detail missing at the moment, but that's why the condition is proposed to do that. And I'm comfortable that Park Ridge residents can be protected. They already get noise from traffic on the internal road now, existing trucks, things going beep at times, other trucks coming to deliver furniture and whatever else. I think where this is located, it can be suitably conditioned and controlled. Joe Jurisevic 55:56.550
It'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 ridge. Is part of that. But also the heavier vehicles, the trucks and that, are delivering there, parking on the road. Are they things that we can condition the resort to manage with regard to not, some of those complaints have suggested that they are already vehicles that are visiting the resort complex and parking on the Resort Drive. Is there any opportunity there to limit or manage. Are they lawfully parked, those. They're parked on the road. Is. A road, but if we've got heavy vehicles going down there, and 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 Patrick Murphy 57:03.091
Well yeah I'd like to explore the no parking yellow line for you, but the crossing is quite complicated, it's more than just painting lines on the ground is my understanding. Joe Jurisevic 57:16.012
Here's the resort that will facilitate public access and we've got the residents of park ridge living across the road. I would assume they're going to come across and utilise the facilities of the resort that already exist but any increase in that with regard to restaurants and the like they'd be welcome there I would assume from what I understand they would be Patrick Murphy 57:39.694
So um well the crossing would be something that would become Council asset so um the cost to maintain that and the standard of that we'd need to look at and come back to you Joe Jurisevic 57:53.199
There'd be a reasonable cost uh impost on the developer to deliver as part of the building Patrick Murphy 57:58.859
Uh I'd have to buy I'm not sure I can see a nexus between the use of the site and the need for the pedestrian costing so I think it would be a stretch to require that but Paul King 58:10.664
In terms of the service and delivery vehicles the condition requiring service and deliveries occur on site no of course sorry in terms there can be a condition imposed that requires that to occur on site vehicles parking on both sides of the road has currently occurred and we've got delivery trucks going down that road it's a fairly narrow road one would think we need to better manage the access of delivery vehicles into this particularly if they're going to use larger delivery vehicles than they currently use by the increasing use. Yeah and I've seen development approvals and others say you know try and say that the trucks will not park on the street they'll site you know they should be parking on the resort site. Joe Jurisevic 58:51.275
Partly the trucks but access for the trucks is that other vehicles aren't parked on the street so the trucks have safe access. Not, you know, a garbage truck having to go down there, for example, with vehicles parked on both sides of the road, it's a very narrow road, have we got sufficient access down there? I mean, whose facilitation would it require? Council's? Because the Council ran with the current standards. That's right. Or can the impost be placed on the developer to. Patrick Murphy 59:13.714
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 staff. On the residential side, you'd allow parking. On the other side, the resort side, you may not, for example. Frank Wilkie 59:25.948
Yeah. Excuse me, Patrick. In an ideal world, resort all this result would be in within the Noosaville planning scheme's urban boundary. Could you explain the process by which that is intended to be remedied and are there any potential risk factors? In current or pending court cases for the Noosa Council to approve a development application on land. This is our slide, so you can go on. Patrick Murphy 59:59.112
Okay. So yeah, I suppose in an ideal world we would be dealing with an application where, you know, the footprint was 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. Reflect another an updated footprint, should Council wish to approve it. In terms of risk, there is a legal matter at the moment which involves development outside the urban boundary and it's certainly one of the grounds of the appeal. I have spoken to our lawyers about this particular situation on this site in context of that appeal and they said as long as there was a valid reason to approve this development such as. Need then and that was clearly articulated then that would be okay Amelia Lorentson 01:01:07.340
Risk, does the development the safety of people of the residents from the bushfires and has the development taken into consideration the impact on adjoining or nearby residential communities and the capacity of our emergency services? To evacuate people in cases of fire. And I've got some numbers in front of me about, you know, 700 properties, 1,200. Population's estimated at 1,200. As a precinct, has consideration been given about the impact on the precinct getting in and out and evacuating people? Patrick Murphy 01:01:52.731
So, just will answer the question, but this 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. Bill Lowe 01:02:09.514
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 ender creek road, while the other will take traffic by the Girraween Sports Complex. In the opposite direction. 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. Guide provides advice regarding the assembling the evacuation of sites like this. A safe assembly or evacuation area may be a suitable alternative to an route where the site is in an isolated location, so if there was a bushfire emergency. To stay on site, that is a suitable alternative is to evacuate the site through a route that doesn't pass through the bushfire prone area. So in this instance, the evacuation plan has the direction from the east to the west through site away 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 offsite evacuation location, would be within the golf course, which would be wholly outside of any bushfire crime. Prone area. Unknown 01:04:35.064
That's all well and good in the short-term. Joe Jurisevic 01:04:41.444
And then a prolonged incident. He said, I played people can't sit on the golf course for any period of time. Evacuation would have to occur at some stage, potentially, if the incident was ongoing. And that would be under the direction of Queensland fire emergency services. So is there the capacity here to review the current evacuation procedures? For the entire Noosa Springs estate with regard to that emergency gate that might get a more permanent picture, some sort of permanent, rather than a gate that needs to be opened in the event of an emergency, something that facilitates greater movement into and out of the estate 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 01:05:34.850
So that gate you're talking about at the moment, I'm not, that goes out to John Craig. Creek road. Eenie Creek Road. You see it, it's near moxbury. Yeah, I know the gate you're talking of, but, I mean, that's considerable works that would need to be undertaken to do that. Would it be reasonable for this development to be required to do it as part of this? I'm not sure that it, I wouldn't think it would be. I mean, we've got to acknowledge that Council has zoned this land as tourist accommodation. There is an expectation that there's going to be a resort in Noosa Springs as a result of the zoning. There's been no requirement in the scheme to require an upgrade to Noosa Springs as part of emergency access associated with this development. Joe Jurisevic 01:06:22.002
If that were to occur, it may be something that needs to be brought up in a different considered as capital works for a Council. That's correct. Patrick Murphy 01:06:29.207
So I'm just all heading down those paths. Yep. Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:32.807
So you've got residents, hotel guests, luncheon attendees, staff, Park Ridge, cafe, gym, pool visitors, golf spa users, visitors. Have we got any um details on how many vehicles potentially may be involved in an evacuation? Because I've met with the residents at Noosa Springs, and bushfires of 2019 are alive and well it's like yesterday so so where are the details um do we have an idea numbers of vehicles um what happens scenarios what happens if one breaks down on Noosa and what happens um you know in the gatehouse of Noosa's. 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 State was over 35 000 guests and 46 000 6 trades and construction vehicles um they've got their you know this is just going through records um last year the gatehouse 81 000 residential vehicle movements plus over 160 162 000 non-residential movements so if I was a resident oh sorry so my question how many vehicles potentially are involved in an evacuation Bill Lowe 01:08:05.683
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 is produced by Queensland fire 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 information in accordance with that document which is produced. By QFES. SPEAKER_08 01:08:37.039
Would be supported and assisted by QFES I would imagine? Areas being evacuated? Frank Wilkie 01:08:42.799
So my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the evacuation plan by vehicle, it's by foot to the expanse of the golf course? Patrick Murphy 01:08:53.888
It's to the resort building first and then to golf course as a secondary evacuation if needed. And maybe just to clarify maybe you're asking about how many cars? The traffic analysis has predicted that the peak demand for parking on this site, and that would be so at midday when the other facilities such as the golf course and the resort being used, that peak demand is 255 car spaces. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:23.846
And when was the analysis done, Patrick? Patrick Murphy 01:09:28.146
That was based on, well there was an analysis done as part of this application was also based on a demand from 2017, noting that around the time of the application, preceding we were in COVID, so it was very problematic for them to get current data at terms of the use of the site, because of the restrictions that were in place. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:51.697
So 2017, there were 255 vehicles, is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:09:56.977
No, what it's saying is that, yeah, it was based on the existing development of 160 cars, based on a 2017 survey, and then the additional demand reviewed, you know, as part of this application, associated with the new resort. Joe Jurisevic 01:10:17.498
So as far as the new, element of the resort goes, I've attended functions the current facility, and the car park, which is reasonably substantial, has been very, very difficult to find a car park in this space. Many additional car parks does this resort development increase the car parking by? And if the entire development were to be created today, would the parking needs that were there when resort was the resort element and the golf course created meet the current parking standards? Patrick Murphy 01:10:54.107
So, I mean, has the parking as a whole been considered this or only the additional parking? No, the whole. SPEAKER_08 01:11:02.387
The parking as a whole meets the. Numbers required for the resort plus all the resorts. Patrick Murphy 01:11:08.728
Yeah, so the parking has been reviewed by our external consultant who represents us in court and he's determined that the parking associated with the new resort and the existing is $255,000 car spaces. How much is that over? What currently exists? Oh, it's 160 now. Well, that was the demand. I mean, if you look at the proposed plans, there's be some basement car parking provided in the building, and then there's a second. I'll get where they're. I'll just ask the numbers. I'd have to get back to you on the specifics. Ask the numbers compared to what there. Joe Jurisevic 01:11:45.715
What exists there now, how many more, and what have we got? How many rooms in total? 106 rooms. And at the moment we're talking about 90. Odd car parks, roughly, from those numbers. Frank Wilkie 01:11:58.720
Any further questions, Councillors? Brian Stockwell 01:12:04.213
I'd like to move motion please. I'd like to move the Council to note the report by the acting development system manager and take out the word acting by the development assessment manager for the planning environment course meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding NCU21/0110 development permit for Material Change of Use for resort complex 106 rooms, food and drink and outdoor sports and recreation at Links Drive, Noosa Heads and A refused 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 outside the urban growth boundary of the Noosa Plan 2020.3 the proponent seeks to utilise the land for a resort complex which is an inconsistent use the Recreation and Open Space Zone. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land at the expense of the natural values and involves reduction of land D the proposed development could result in the overdevelopment of the subject environmental values. I've already read one line wrong? Yeah, right. As it proposed that an area of existing open space be developed, it results in the unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important and environmentally sensitive area if the built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable. In these respects inconsistent with the following provisions of the Noosa Plan 2020: strategic plan framework 3.22, 3.25, 3.32g, 3.31b and 3.34b and p. 2 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. Noosa Heads local plan code 7.245.22b, e. Table 7.2.5.3p, performance outcomes 5, 26 and 27.2, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not involve unacceptable acoustic and melody impacts. A, the acoustic impacts of the planned equipment and services associated with the proposed development have not been adequately assessed, B, if it is the case that there are indeed acoustic impacts, no measures have been proposed to ameliorate those impacts, 3, the proposed development conflicts with the funding state planning policy, state interest, emissions and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing sewage treatment plant and risks inhibiting the from functioning safely and effectively due to potential reverse amenity 4. When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 does not lend support to proposed use of the land as: a the SEQ regional plan sets a long-term 50-year vision establishing aspirations for this region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequence of residential developments occurring within the urban footprint is a finer-grained detail, the planning of which is implemented through local government planning schemes. The designation of the land has been does not imply that land with the, within that, designation can be developed for urban purposes and see when assessed against the Noosa Plan 2020 the proposed development is not suitable for urban development. Appropriately integrates and advances the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 as set out in section 2. Of the planning scheme. The proposed 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. No has any overriding community benefit being demonstrated which would justify approval despite its conflict with the planning scheme. Many valid planning grants have been raised by submitters. The proposal represents an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect because the change of tourism accommodation zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. B, note that Council resolves to deviate from the staff recommendation on the following grounds: one, Council is of the view that there is a clear delineation of the zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan maps. Further, that A, opinion that demarcation of the split zone over the lot took into account a range of factors over and above the acceptable line of nuisance. During the development of the nuisance plan in 2020, as would be the case in any future potential scheme amendments, avoidance of areas mapped in the biodiversity overlay and protection of vegetation and noise buffers to adjacent residents were and would be important factors when determining the appropriate development footprint. There is a long-standing position of Council that it doesn't facilitate development applications that drive the need to amend the 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. A, on the first stop 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 are managed with landscape buffering and appropriate design, siting and operation of facilities and infrastructure. The proposal does not adequately manage impacts within areas under the biodiversity overlay and, amongst other things, do not meet performance outcomes 3 with respect to the following requirement. Is designed and sited to manage adverse impacts on ecologically important areas by: 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 ecological value 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. 5. Large number of valid planning grants have been raised by submitters and Councillors satisfied the proposal represents an unacceptable level impact on the amenity of the locality. Further development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect as well as a change to the tourism accommodation zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. Identified identifies potential risk and flow-on costs associated with the proposed development of additional sensitive receptors within the Recreation and Open Space Zone in its proximity to the necessary treatment plan. Councillor Stockwell, we have a seconder please. Councillor Lorentson. Stockwell will report. 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 from the planning officer's report, I wonder 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, bold or near threatened fauna or Flora. This is a known koala habitat and while there is on that. It's in the attachment? No, report. It's Part of the site down to the north of it is listed as a matter of state environment. Significance. And that covers the site which is mapped as a remnant ecosystem 1225. That remnant ecosystem has species of it which are known koala and the species and I'm probably just about ready for the map now. By the way, unfortunately we don't get paid. To present any more stuff. There's no page number. Yeah, you're getting close. Paul King 01:21:09.111
Good morning. 15 one more. Oh, no. She's you're one page away. Cathy 01:21:24.560
Next one. There it is. Here we go. 15. It's on. Yeah. Cancel is. Brian Stockwell 01:21:43.300
Sorry. You can probably get it, Tewantin. Yeah. Okay. So you can see the stippling of the dots. That's the remnant vegetation. But you also see the green around the outside of Resort Drive. That is the biodiversity overlay. Now I noticed in, and how the planning officers got to the point where they recommended this with a lot of discretion. My argument here is that if we were consistent with previous approaches in Noosa. This, my motion is the appropriate way to go. I can't recall any call development since coming back in 2016 that we've recommended approval that requires a clearing of significant amount of vegetation. The biodiversity overlay. That in itself would be enough to refuse the development in my consideration. I can remember developments where we have successfully defended appeals where clearing of vegetation in the under the biodiversity overlay has occurred. I can recall that I do get the occasional complaint from people in the rural area that they're not even allowed to build carports underneath the biodiversity overlay or sheds. So that's a significant issue that don't think sufficient weight been placed on in the assessment process. If we are going to be true to the values of Noosa as expressed in the Noosa Plan and many other documents, we take care of those areas that mapped under the biodiversity overlay. Now they're not that is that the part without stiffening isn't remnant vegetation. There might be some remnant trees in there from an expert I've had a look at over the weekend. It's regrowth and it's very close to the point where it would be once again to height and to a standard that could be mapped as remnant vegetation. So that and just having vegetation does trigger the definition of ecologically important area as remnant or non-remnant vegetation is defined. So that to me is a really important part that I think hasn't had enough weight placed on it in the with the staff recommendation. The next part is, and we've seen the map several times, we did map part of this lot for tourism accommodation and it was for a hotel. There's no argument with that and there is a need for a hotel. We identified that Noosa is well served by units but underserved by hotel complexes of a reasonable standard. And yes, the zoning map isn't by meets and bounds. But it is fairly clear the area that Council thought should be developed for tourist accommodation. And those areas exclude but they're also, other role that vegetation plays is both a visual and acoustic buffer to the neighbouring developments. By the current development going into the open space zone, it not only goes under the biodiversity overlay, it also moves the potential impacts and amenity impacts much closer to the residents of park ridge. That wasn't perceived and no resident had the opportunity to object to it in the Noosa Plan because the development, the tourism zone was much further away from it. Or a number of them. So then we have the concern I think you expressed in one of your questions. We have a significant development for hotel purposes in a recreation open space zone. It's an inconsistent list. And once again, I can't recall any approvals since the de-amalgamation that would have considered that. It is a really significant deviation from practice. Now, I can understand the argument now that we've got more detailed noise modelling that we could perhaps amend the tourism accommodation zone to take some parts that are affected by the modelling and adjust it perhaps to where the existing cleared area on the tennis courts are. But we can't do that ad hoc. It's always, you know, it's much longer in Noosa Council we've. Tried to avoid developments that pre-empt a change to a planning scheme. And to me that's a really strong principle also that have involved. I'm not going to say much more about odour because we now know a lot. I'm going to just reflect one other thing that the Unitywater spokesman said that I think is really important. He said if the shoe was on the other foot and the hotel development was there and we wanted to put a sewage treatment plant 250 metres away, would you approve it? And obviously we wouldn't. So, I. Understand the science and the modelling and I understand that the footprint has been designed to come within what is modelled as an acceptable standard, 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. For me, the grounds of varying from staff recommendations are strong and the grounds for refusal, I believe, are valid. Frank Wilkie 01:27:46.700
Thank you very Councillor. Joe Jurisevic 01:27:48.280
Much. Councillors, any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Question with regard to the First Point in Councillor stockwell's motion, 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 any approvals that have occurred outside of the growth of the urban boundary in the planning scheme previously? Patrick Murphy 01:28:19.158
There's lots of approvals that have been issued outside the urban boundary because our rural residential areas, our rural areas are all within outside the urban boundaries approvals for range of uses from dwellings to short stay accommodation. There would be, I'd have to, you know, to drill down further into tom's approval, but it's not, a line where. But not on this sort of scale? I wouldn't think so, no. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:50.963
Patrick, will our lawyers have an opportunity or your self planners to review and revise the amendment that's, the motion that's in front of us? Yeah, if councils 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. 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 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. That may potentially exacerbate existing bushfire and evacuation risk. That has the potential to expose ratepayers, Noosa Council and Unitywater to financial and reputational risk. 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 01:30:18.298
Council and Unitywater to financial and reputational risk. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:22.358
And it's Brian has raised some very interesting points. Need a little bit more time to absorb some of it. Although I understand the planning nature and areas that he'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 01:30:59.681
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, things that are plan unless there's an overwhelming public support, and I don't think that the standard of has been satisfied. Frank Wilkie 01:31:27.007
The principal objection for me is that the bulk of this development sits outside the urban boundary, and if we were to approve this in its current form, we could be seeing that this Council is moving away from one of the key principles of upholding its planning scheme. I'm always mindful of a ruling from a judge who ruled in favour of a council's defence of a planning scheme appeal. He said that a council's consistent upholding of the planning scheme principles is one of the reasons why he found in the Council in that particular court case. I'm concerned that if we start approving developments of this scale outside the urban boundary, it may weaken our stance in current and future legal cases. I would hope. This is seen as a starting point for future talks on how the benefits, the well-established benefits of a five-star resort in this location, away from more heavy congestion. Sites and Noosa Heads can be achieved while minimising legal and amenity risk. So I support that. The motion. Can I stop where used I did. Indeed. Put it those in favour? That's carried unanimously. And that will bear the status of a recommendation that will go to the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday night. And if the decision, whatever is carried at becomes a decision of the local, a final government. Thank you. Paul. I'll run away. Where that way? Did you need to go to my office? I've got everything here. Where's your phone? I've got it right here. Thanks. Could we lift Mayor Stewart and Councillor Finzel back in the room, please? SPEAKER_02 01:33:42.927
They've maintained a really good job in that area. Yeah, Patrick Murphy 01:33:49.847
There here we go. So we're going to adhere to the planning scheme. Can you just choke that night in? I was going to say, it doesn't comply with the planning scheme. It hasn't been demonstrated that it complies. SPEAKER_05_b 01:34:01.407
Yeah, right. But according evidence suggests that it will impact on america. Amelia Lorentson 01:34:08.367
I was just like, I should write that down. Frank Wilkie 01:34:14.566
Hey, Mayor Stewart and Councillor Finzel, we've been going you want to have a chance again. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 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 SPEAKER_02 01:43:08.705
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 we could you give an example of what might entail? It would be acoustic measures to the shed that the use has been carried out in potentially around the compressor and any kind of noise making. The concerns regarding 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 01:43:45.640
We're also mindful 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 will change hands over the course of time and it's possible in five ten years two that someone might come in there and use machinery that it wasn't or equipment it wasn't envisaged we're trying to condition of how he's operating now and we could really miss the mark in terms of trying to condition this around how he's currently operating or what we consider suitable we really reiterate that it's appropriate and in line this planning scheme requires for a acoustic report to be provided to clearly articulate the noise that will be emanating from the property and the mitigation measures that are proposed very definitive as to what's to be required and enforceable you're saying may be prepared to approve with conditions once you get this acoustic report and that's been our position the whole way along we've been open-minded to this application but we've sought an acoustic report and it just has not been forthcoming and we think it's a real important that it is provided and it's important because it'll set some form of precedent for similar types of uses and we will have a lot of pushback from consultants and property owners. If Council starts agreeing to these types of uses without providing an acoustic report and just putting on conditions. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:25.693
Ever exempted other home-based businesses, have we ever given that exemption, no acoustic report. Patrick Murphy 01:45:32.133
Well you'll be familiar with the meat processing plant that was we had the opportunity because that was constructed and he had pneumatically sealed that premise and he was able to we were I go out there I understand councils were 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 is scheme's asking. Joe Jurisevic 01:46:01.831
Near by there's a trailer manufacturing facility on a property a short distance away. That one required to have a noise report? Patrick Murphy 01:46:17.352
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 01:46:26.973
I can't recall whether it had a noise report on it. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:46:31.173
Yes, thank you, Through the Chair. Do we have an opportunity to condition the provision of the acoustic report say within the days? Patrick Murphy 01:46:41.857
I think 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 time frame. That would be critical. Karen, Karen Finzel 01:47:01.002
You've got more questions? Thank you, Through the Chair. So is there an opportunity that we can put a halt on this with the provision that it's conditioned to provide that acoustic report? Reasonable time and with the staff to be able to then make recommendation based on the report. Patrick Murphy 01:47:18.615
It's a code-assessable application so we are bound by time frames. It is, I mean that would be reliant upon applicant extending out the decision making period and being agreeable to providing an acoustic report, which up until now they've not been agreeable to do. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:47:34.227
Thank you. Chair, what's the process, Patrick, if this is a refusal but there is always, as you said, you're open to a review with the attachment or the insertion of an acoustic report if that was to be provided. What is the actual process then for 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 01:47:54.332
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 they make representations and we decide it. So it's sort of like a second bite at it but with a refusal you do not get that opportunity. They have to appeal it straight to the court. Clare Stewart 01:48:20.038
We could approve it up with the condition of the acoustic report and if they say we're not doing it, we're not providing it, then that just like, there could be a ripples, effectively lapses or is it? Patrick Murphy 01:48:30.458
It could be manageable to come up with some conditions around the provision of an acoustic report within a time frame. Looking at what that meant for the life of the approval, whether that's something we could tie in as Richard MacGillivray 01:48:44.576
Well. The other option, Councillors, that we could look at is a condition, a very strong one, I guess, that requires no audible noise from the use beyond the boundaries of the site, which is similar to what the scheme is actually envisaging. That will put the obligation back on the operator to put the necessary measures in place within their facility to ensure there's no noise boundaries of that site. So, obviously, without the acoustic report, that really gives us the ability to Hone in on where those treatments need to be in place, but given the team have had multiple attempts at trying to seek that report be provided to Council so we can then suitably assess and condition those impacts, another option is 'result' where that they comply essentially with the acceptable outcome, which is to ensure there's no audible noise from that use beyond that. Joe Jurisevic 01:49:38.215
There's sufficient costs associated with any development application. What are we looking at in addition for an acoustic report? Of Richard MacGillivray 01:49:48.019
That can be anywhere near $5,000 potentially for an acoustic basic report and upwards from there so a bit of money involved in getting that and then there's obviously any treatment required for that. Often sheds are quite difficult to treat given you know the scale and size and the noise can reverberate obviously it's better to go to the point source of the actual noise emitting equipment and trying to treat that and manage that compressors and putting those in acoustic sealant treatments can be often the most effective but as Patrick pointed out noting the approval will remain with the land forever future owners may take up that we just want to have certainty that we can enforce those conditions that we apply to that particular use so that we don't have long-term compliance or it acts with uses and also providing certainty to the landowners around how they must operate their particular development. Tom Wegener 01:50:49.127
Oh, do you want to go, Joe? Joe Jurisevic 01:50:50.087
Can I just follow up on what you said- So you mentioned that we could condition it with no noise beyond the boundaries or with an acoustic report that would have the appropriate measures. In perpetuity, that acoustic report would have noise limit levels outside of the boundary and specific acoustic able mitigating measures to be undertaken? Richard MacGillivray 01:51:13.744
Potentially, yeah. And preferably we want that now before we assess and decide because often what we would do is condition that report and any recommendations in there that we deem to be appropriate, yeah. Patrick Murphy 01:51:24.524
And I think it's also the financial implications that are a planning matter, they're not to be, and it's valid 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, can you try to help me? Tom Wegener 01:51:45.626
When we say no noise beyond the boundaries is this an unreasonable reasonable expectation on any business? I mean, to this seems to have a chilling effect on people doing any businesses out there, including rural businesses. I mean, tractors, you can hear a tractor out there. When you wean a cow, my god, they make a racket for days. There's lots of noise. Rural properties are noisy places. Will this have an effect on. Other properties and their ability or desire or gumption to do things on their own properties? Richard MacGillivray 01:52:19.553
Yeah, look, and it's not certainly intending to try and prohibit people from running businesses. I guess in this instance, the team have been seeking to obtain an acoustic report so we can potentially deal and address that noise. Without that, we're essentially the team are flying blind in terms of how they condition and ensure that there's no adverse impacts from that operation on the general public. Another point that's relevant is also the type of noise. Generated, noting the zoning of the land. Mechanic business is not generally a noise. That you'd like to hear in those particular zones. So, whereas, you know, I there's. Farm tractors and lawn mowers and, you know, animals and livestock. Obviously a noise that's more familiar on those zones. So, I think this is just about. Making sure that we protect the intent of the scheme. In terms of the types of noise in particular zones. I think the team are comfortable that they can support the use. Subject to getting sufficient measures in place to mitigate those. Noise and those impacts. Frank Wilkie 01:53:16.248
So because you're dealing with an impact, an industrial type impact in a rural type zone. Noise. Different types of noise. Yeah. Sorry, Karen. Karen Finzel 01:53:24.149
Yes, thank you Through the Chair. Given we've talked about perpetuity for the land, is there an option to condition it business only operates for a period of two or three years and then this gets re-locked up? Patrick Murphy 01:53:38.016
There's. 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 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. Want to extend it, it's probably not the best way to go. Brian Stockwell 01:54:12.539
Yeah, so, I heard what you're saying about the prison setting aspect of achieving this in considering the proposed, to me, it's about scale and impact of home-based business. Now, he's a mechanic, and I don't know what the specific application is. He said, "Mandy, just doing gearboxes." Which is not a heap of noise. So, one way to do that is actually say, well, this is a, we consider this to be an acceptable way ahead if it's three days a week and this at these hours." So, it's limiting the scale, limiting the potential impact, and therefore, that doesn't set a precedent for a full-fledged employee. Could we have a question please, Brian? Do you agree with that statement? Tom Wegener 01:55:10.681
No. Patrick Murphy 01:55:16.861
I don't think it's reasonable for a rural type area, a rural area to be inundated with mechanical noise three days a week. Richard MacGillivray 01:55:27.811
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 it, but the type and frequency of noise during the operation is what could be the cause, so I guess that's we're looking at it either /or option here. A conservative condition which we could put on them if they're not willing to submit, if they're interested in obtaining approval, which puts a very onerous requirement them not to emit noise, or they can provide us with a technical report that we can evaluate. Amelia Lorentson 01:56:01.434
There are six dwellings surrounding the property, and all the properties are less than four hectares, in fact, around two hectares. Questions: I think I asked this question at the planning environment there been other complaints, not formal? Or, no, sorry, the question is have you been to the other dwellings and listened to whether the noise goes beyond the boundary, A, and are there any families or newborns or young families that are living within vicinity? Because to me, I am concerned of adverse community impacts, night workers and mothers with newborns. I think that noise issue really to be addressed. Patrick Murphy 01:56:50.692
Yeah, we certainly agree that the noise issue needs to be addressed. We did have a complaint which was the stimulus for the initial investigation and triggered the application in the first place. I did contact a number of property owners within proximity of the site. Someone who wasn't the person that made the original complaint expressed to me concern with a mechanics business being approved in the area and that they had heard the noise did not want to hear noise associated with the business, that they wanted to have a, you know, live in a quiet environment. In terms of the specifics of who's living in each household, I don't know exactly that, but it's fair to say that over time these houses will have a mixture of people that will live in 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 01:57:45.722
My other question is what's the cost of an application? So just a rough idea. Patrick Murphy 01:57:54.202
It could be two to five thousand dollars 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? Well certainly the applicant has got that discretion to stop the clock and we'd certainly be supportive of them doing that to allow them to provide an acoustic report. Amelia Lorentson 01:58:24.037
Can we seek, ask that question of the applicant before making a decision? Is that possible Patrick? Patrick Murphy 01:58:31.617
Yeah we can certainly seek it from them. If we were, if it was council's position that they would refuse the application unless the stop was clocked and the stop, the clock was stopped. That would give us more leverage. There would be no reason really for them to do it otherwise. But if they, thought they were getting a refusal and this was a pathway to get an approval then I think I that would be more enticing for them. Richard MacGillivray 01:58:56.020
Just to add, when the application was decided that it would be coming to Council for decision I 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 information but they chose to bring it to Council. But could you say that again to his car and just speak up a bit? Sorry, so 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 Council recommending refusal. They didn't choose to stop the clock or provide the information at that time so they were aware that this was the I guess the opportunity to do that if they were looking to towards an approval by providing that report at that point. Frank Wilkie 01:59:50.036
So if we were to defer the decision to the Thursday night on the proviso that you once again approach the applicant. Same provider, would that be acceptable to you? Yep, sure. That's it. Joe Jurisevic 02:00:07.257
Thank you. My question is in regard to what an acoustic consultant does. Comes in and actually looks at the nature of the business and what potential noise they could create or at the function says well they've got a compressor, needs this, mechanical hoist, they need car exhausts, with a car operating around those sort of parameters or is it just generally mechanical facility needs the. Richard MacGillivray 02:00:33.450
I would 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 that would probably limit correct and we wouldn't necessarily require modelling and the like, it would be more around targeting the particular noise generating. Tom Wegener 02:00:58.287
So we're just talking about. Acoustics here but I'm not sure that hazardous waste regulations here but I know in the states that every bit of oil, radiator fluid and so forth that comes out of the property has to be accounted for as it goes off the property and there's very strict regulations. Of the business when you're you know looking at an approval? Patrick Murphy 02:01:23.162
Yeah we certainly would. That did form part of the complaint as well that there were some noxious smells associated with things that were being burnt off on the site so our environmental health team did attend the site and have discussions with 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 02:01:57.697
I'm know that this gets deferred for a decision at the Ordinary Meeting I'm happy just to so that planners have an opportunity to ask the applicant if he can provide an acoustic report. Frank Wilkie 02:02:13.720
We have a seconder for that. Yeah. A seconder to show he's listening. Further discussion of the applicant regarding the provision of an acoustic report. Amelia Lorentson 02:02:39.060
Councillor Lorentson, do you suspect the motion? Just to reiterate what's already been said, that the concern is that approval is in perpetuity and that we need to be assured and the residents that. We, A, comply with our planning scheme, that, you know, acceptable outcome number 9.4, I think it is, there are no adverse impact, amenity 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 an application. So understanding really clearly that small businesses, there are financial implications and financial costs you know, small businesses, we would love to remember. For small reapplying, if this gets refused and to reapply and then get an acoustic report, it might actually cost more in the long run. So I think that this is sort of just a win-. I just hope that the applicant will seriously consider just submitting an acoustic report so that we comply with the Noosa plan in what's required. John? Tom Wegener 02:04:09.120
Yes, I find this to be perplexing because you have a business, but it's also a hobby. And so plunty, he can do his hobby there, I would suspect, undeterred, because you can do hobbies on your property, but as a business. If you come into the rules for businesses. And I think there's a question of due process, which I perplexed by, again, is will one complaint actually stop this person from doing their business and have the actually stops has domino effect when one complaint hasn't actually been thoroughly substantiated. And yeah, the concept of no noise beyond the boundary is another one that's very difficult for me. So I look forward to Thursday night. You'll hear more about it, more discussion. Karen Finzel 02:05:00.496
I'd just like to say I agree with you, Tom, around the complexities around process. Given the applicant clearly had the opportunity on more than one occasion to comply with the request. 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 took a complaint to trigger that. I'm not in support of this I can't wait to see if it's going to end. Just want to say that. Frank Wilkie 02:05:31.259
Yeah. 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. Environment committee meeting. More information. Okay. Please give some overview of the entire. Sara 02:06:10.678
No worries. So an application for short-term accommodation for the use of an existing dwelling on site. The applicant has requested 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 the remainder of the site is environmental management and conservation. We're recommending approval for this one with some specific conditions predominantly relating to amenity and code of conduct requirements to be in line with councils local law the existing house has been it's being used by family members at the moment but they also are looking to actually use it in the times that they're not holidaying on the property themselves Patrick Murphy 02:06:58.228
And just in terms of the conditions while Sara said they're seeking for ten people to be on site we're conditioning to be maximum of eight Richard MacGillivray 02:07:20.039
It's five bedrooms they were yeah they were requesting ten people on site we've conditioned eight. Frank Wilkie 02:07:27.719
Questions, Councillors? It's consistent with the zoning. STA is in consistent use at that time. Someone care to move the recommendation? Brian Stockwell 02:07:39.227
Do you want me to start up and then we'll do the amendments? Joe Jurisevic 02:07:50.408
Second it. Tom Wegener 02:07:50.410
Oh, sorry, Tom. No, no, it needs to be seconded and then I'll make a amendment. No, you were going to move it with your amendments. Karen Finzel 02:07:57.454
Oh, sorry. It's all right. Give me a minute. I'll have to just change it. The new system. As far as I'm speaking to it, I understand the staff have approved it with a number of conditions, and I believe councils may have a raft of other conditions they want to apply, so we'll see when this goes. Like to make an amendment. You ready? Tom Wegener 02:08:45.040
Okay. Can we move that? Council note the report by the developer. Brian Stockwell 02:08:49.200
May I switch it? I don't think that's right now because it might be moved. Ah yes, sorry. Frank Wilkie 02:09:07.878
Okay. Item 11 is a condition of. Joe Jurisevic 02:09:14.300
It's a new condition that you had in mind. Sorry, condition 11. I don't understand. Tom Wegener 02:09:27.700
Okay. That condition 11 be added to read with the numbering reordered as applicable. 11, domestic dogs are permitted on the property provided they are permanently confined within buildings and or fence enclosures. I'll second that. By Brian Stockwell. Tom. It is pretty much self-explanatory. Joe Jurisevic 02:09:55.532
Sorry, can I, just clarify, is, what, water, is it gin? Mr Chair. My reading of the conditions are that there are well beyond 27 conditions currently applied. The addition of condition 11 should be a condition 28. No, it's adding in as 11 with them all renumbered. See if it's the numbering reordered that's applicable. Oh, okay, sorry. That's okay. I'll take that back. Because 11 is our contact person. Okay, 11 in. The appropriate area of the under amending. Sorry, my apologies. Tom Wegener 02:10:33.493
I understand that staff contacted the owner of the property, the applicant, and they are envisioning dogs being allowed on the property along with people, short-term accommodation people, and dogs are a part of the family now, and many people come with dogs, and it's such a large property with very, very sensitive environmental values around the property that it's beholden upon ourselves to make sure that the dogs are accommodated, similar to the family members. There's so many rooms, 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 dog to stay. And dogs are very different from most other pets. You don't need a cat enclosure, parrot because dogs at our open beaches, we have off-leash dog areas and on We don't cat areas, dog cat areas, on-leash cat areas. They're unique, 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, to the beach. Wherever we go, including the short-term accommodation. So I feel as though this is just a very important addition to our rural properties. Joe Jurisevic 02:11:51.405
Joe, question, Councillor Wegener, would you be averse to the addition of some wording there with regard to, because if the dogs are permitted on the property, are permanently confined to buildings or fenced enclosures, it means they can only be in a building or a fenced enclosure. They can't be in and out of the car. I would suggest that we need to say and/or unleash on leash 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 02:12:24.638
Can I throw something in? This is a question to the planners. Well hang on, I think we'll deal with this. Frank Wilkie 02:12:35.698
You don't relate to that. Does that seem. Joe Jurisevic 02:12:39.150
Yeah. I'm just concerned that doesn't allow for movement. No, that's right, from the vehicle to the building. We don't condition that. People can walk. You can't walk your dog around that. There so under. So that region says permanently confined within buildings and/or fenced enclosures, so I just thought that just became overly prescriptive. And/or on a leash at all times. Tom Wegener 02:13:05.506
But if you include the and/or on a leash at all times, then you may not have a fenced enclosure, because they'll just say, "Oh, we're just going to be on a leash all the time." Well, they'll have to walk it around the property that way, so it's all on the. I don't think so. Joe Jurisevic 02:13:19.482
I hear what you're saying Joe. Amelia Lorentson 02:13:21.982
Alright so Amelia had question. I was thinking, so I'm thinking of our local laws, so I think the wording in 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 02:13:50.670
My take on is that condition and Council would reasonably allow the animals to be put into the building to get there in first place. So I don't think there's a an issue around a non-compliance. I think the way that the condition would be interpreted is that a reasonable expectation. Yeah, correct. And would be enforced would be appropriately understood as what the I think it's sufficient. That's SPEAKER_00_b 02:14:17.074
Yeah, if we did want to address it in a way that would be other than really ingress and egress, no, Joe Jurisevic 02:14:26.279
We're going to do it all. That's good. Brian Stockwell 02:14:37.409
I think the justification for including this condition is specific to the lot as we discussed in planning environment meeting. It is a really nice lot on the edge of lake Cootharaba with high environmental value in an area which is known to have things like koalas which dogs do chase. I think part of the justification is to ensure there's good environmental in maintenance out of the lake tourist facility. Joe Jurisevic 02:15:07.093
I speak to the amendment? I'm still concerned about the wording 'confined'. Just something makes me read it in the imprisoning of the penitent. The facility. Unknown 02:15:23.767
That's, I'm sorry, it's just my interpretation of it, but. I'll be quick and cut to Councillor Jurisevic. Would you be involved with that? Frank Wilkie 02:15:32.467
I'm not a current member, yes. Okay. I'll support the amendment, given that the lot is quite a large one, heavily forested, zoned environment for management and conservation. There's bound to be animals through there, can't have dogs chasing wallabies or kangaroos or koalas through that lot, so I think it's a very astute amendment, most of all. Tom do you wish to close? No thank you. Okay put the amendment to the vote. That is unanimous, the amendment becomes part of the motion. Do we have any more amendments? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia? Amelia Lorentson 02:16:09.922
Aye. I'm moving an amendment that the condition 12 be added to read 12. Domestic cats are permitted on the property provided that they are permanently confined within buildings. Frank Wilkie 02:16:26.716
Okay, Councillor Amelia? We have a seconder for that. Councillor Stewart? Lawrence? Amelia Lorentson 02:16:35.856
I'd like to go over what we just spoke about. We know that this is an environmentally beautiful 10 hectares or 10 hectare property. Note, I went through all the submissions and pulled out some really good content out of I actually started looking at CAC. I'm a cat lover, I'm a dog lover, so this is nothing against cats, nothing personal, but really quite interesting. Cats have caused more environmental damage in Australia than in any other continent in the world, and the damage that of risk to wildlife, like parrots, birds, reptiles, frogs, I just think it's just responsible that we have this condition given the sensitivity of the relocation. Thank you, Councillor O'Sullivan. Karen Finzel 02:17:29.540
Councillor O' I just have a question. Through the Chair and the CEO, do we have a policy in Council where we register cats? No. No, I don't believe so. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:17:44.620
Can I ask a question of staff? We're getting into we're talking about dogs, and now we've got cats, we're going to have to do domestic pigs next, and all of those. Can this be all encompassed in pets as one motion rather than going into individual animals? Richard MacGillivray 02:18:04.667
Potentially, the difference being, I guess, with the dogs the ability to fence off areas outside of the sensitive area. An enclosure potentially? Yeah, it does get tricky when we're starting to get into the minutiae of particular animals and how to contain and avoid impact. And the operation of that for the people they're running that operation as well. So I guess it's just being clear around the intent of the conditions we're requiring and whether we use the term pets are confined to the building so that they're not Joe Jurisevic 02:18:50.045
Freely. Tom Wegener 02:18:54.345
People could bring their bird, most other pets and we have had people with their pet peeve or whatever. I would, just to talk to me, with cats, have grown up with cats. I'm from california, I grew up with a cat. And first, if you have you bring it to the property and the cat isn't enclosed, you no longer have a cat. It's gone. Will never come back again. Just like a parrot, if you bring a parrot flies away, it's never going to come back. The other thing about cats is when they're inside, can stink. They're kind of gnarly. They can make quite a mess of things. It is. Should we leave that to the, that sort of thing to the owner, to the property owner versus us? Maybe this condition is going too far to condition. Conditioning. Amelia Lorentson 02:19:49.410
I am responding to quite a few submissions that were made on this application that neighbouring properties that are potentially 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 lives alongside people in Boreen Point have raised the issue of cats I think it's responsible to if we can condition that in the application we can't stop the application but we can reduce the impacts by imposing such conditions Tom so that's where I sit I understand what you're saying I just think we've got an obligation to listen to what the neighbouring properties what their concerns are. Brian Stockwell 02:20:53.300
Going to take my last comment I'm not a cat lover and it's for the reasons cats whether they were feral or domestic create quite a strong destructive force a in our environment, particularly with small reptile birds etc now that the frequency of people taking cats on holidays with them is probably fairly low but if we try this gives careful an indication that when we have applications in sensitive environment areas that we want to see conditions that control domestic pets in a way that gives nature best chance of not being impacted, then 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 them. And while it may never come into any need, reasonable just to have both dogs and cats covered. Particularly, it's probably a reasonable point that if the local objectors have raised this as a concern, then having an appropriate condition does respond to those submissions. And in a way that seeks to retain the natural values of the site. Frank Wilkie 02:22:14.701
I the amendment. Cats are fluffy, they're cute, purr, but they're also vicious killers. They millions of Australian native birds, reptiles and marsupials every day. I think with a lot like this, 10 hectares of environment managed and conservation. Land, I think it's very, again, another very astute condition. I fully support it. Joe Jurisevic 02:22:45.541
Well, on those grounds, you wouldn't permit a cow on your property. Um I'm not going to support this on the grounds that I think we can all be encompassed in one amendment and make it domestic pets. I'm committed to cover all and I'll be moving an amendment following this. I'd be suggesting. I'll move the original. To my fellow Councillors that we look at encompassing the pets under one condition as opposed to individual conditions for every type of pet. Because what you'll do here is you'll open the opportunity up for other pets 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. You couldn't know. When you stopped. Horses, you know, and the like, so. Frank Wilkie 02:23:38.724
Thank you, Councillor. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment on cats? No? Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? No. Okay, I put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson, Stockwell, Councillor Wegener, Stewart, Councillor Wilkie. Cats gates, Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Finzel. That's carried. So that doesn't do the reason for you. Okay. Now, any more amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:24:08.568
I have another amendment that conditions for that condition 13 would be added to read. 13, any elimination resulting from direct, reflected or other incidental external lighting emanating from the site must not exceed eight lux. Measured at any point 1.5 metres outside the boundary of the rural residential zone portion of the land. Do you have a seconder for that please? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Finzel? Larson? Again another response to a submitter and something I think we should consider on all applications and I had this discussion with one of the planners last week about this dark nights and again just looked into it and quite interesting basically it just says that you know at night time turn your lights off. There are nocturnal animals that sleep during the day and are active at night. 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 baby turtles from knowing where to walk in and out. The same applies to any sort of precinct or any development in those cities. There's a push where the lighting's got to go down instead of up and this whole concept of dark would love workshopped perhaps in Council because I just think, you know, Different by Nature, this should be almost mandatory I think. So for that reason and in response to a submitter, I would like to put forward this condition. Frank Wilkie 02:26:00.931
I've got some questions on this. I noticed it's an interesting addition. The under amenity condition 8 mentions the operation must not detrimentally affect the residential amenity, so that implies neighbours, including but not limited to noise, overlooking light spill or odour enjoyed by odour, course. And uses. So light mustn't come, suggesting light mustn't spill out from the boundaries of the property. Cathy, can we have a look at the map residential Okay. So the condition talks about there not being an eight, more than eight blocks of light spill. That one? No, the other one, please. The lot itself. Outside the resident, rural zone, which I understand is this portion of the lot here. So, in order for that condition to be monitored or enforced, you need people coming inside the boundary of the property, walking around some sort of a monitor to see whether 8 lux or more is emitting from this use here. If it pertained to the external you can understand it. But then again, you've got the problem of needing people with monitors going on private properties. What I'm. I understand the intent. I think it might be covered in the conditions already, because if this property owner starts to experience light spill, we're going to complain to Council, take action. But, sorry, I'll put this in the question. If we were to approve this amendment, would it mean. Would you have people creeping through the bush on private property with lux monitors in their hands? Is that a desirable outcome? Richard MacGillivray 02:28:03.842
So I might start with this one. So I guess there's two different conditions there. So one is about the amenity of the adjoining property. Yes. Council laurenston's was more about impacts on the environmental management area, so wildlife. So that condition, it should be more so around the actual lighting that's on the house once it's, you know, I don't 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. Karen Finzel 02:28:42.914
Councilman, do you think that what you said about people trying to police back to the whole premise of all of this, isn't it? 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 adhere to the requests, which is some of Frank Wilkie 02:29:07.663
The. I guess, in answer to your question, could say that neither could see cat's running roaming or a dog's roaming around. Alright, the. Thank you for answering my question. It pertains more to spill of light from the house itself into Amelia Lorentson 02:29:24.295
Immediately surrounding bush. Can I also add, people also light up the national park, so actually put lights in and, you know, if you're going to short-term accommodate a place, it's really quite pretty to have the national park lit up. Yes, we're talking to motion again that was also part of the intention, so there's just a clear indication, and is that. Sorry, question. Is that also the intent of the condition that. Prevent the applicant from illuminating the national park? Yeah, so also the environmental management zone on the property. Yeah, yeah, correct. So it's basically just to reduce any light spill that the actual building is creating with to sort of contain it within that rural red zone. Richard MacGillivray 02:30:24.708
So it's up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the conditions of the approval. It might be a compliance issue if they, you know, if we received reports that it's lit up like a Christmas tree, I guess. We would go out and check those conditions and check they're complying with them but we wouldn't go and check it unless we've received that complaint is my understanding. Joe Jurisevic 02:30:48.346
So I'm going to ask a silly question. I'm an electrician. What does eight lux being measured at 1.5 metres outside the boundary of the rural residential zone in Portia do the land look like? I'm not a lighting expert so I wouldn't be able to answer that question. 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. Yeah, testing. Of facilitation. So is this. I guess my question is, this an overly, um, requirement on a, property? I understand the intent, and the intent is well thought out and well intentioned, but I'm just trying to work out how this may be enforced, measured in. The first place, what does eight lights look like to the average person, so that would know, okay, is it, try to say, don't have spotlights, so you can't light, don't have security lights, do they go exceed beyond eight what does this and does this not limit? The only reason I can't support is because I don't really understand what the level of 8 lux looks like at the 1.5 metre point of the boundary and how it would be enforced and how the owner understand it without getting some professional lighting person in to take the test and security lights around the property are quite a reasonable expectation one would think. Patrick Murphy 02:32:20.527
Well it might be more to get rid of the ambiguity or the unknown element of it if Councillors were agreeable to, well would you say there'd be no lights built within the environmental, you know, beyond the rules at rural residential zone portion of land. Joe Jurisevic 02:32:38.822
There's something small really understood. Brian Stockwell 02:32:41.075
I have a further question? I'm guessing this is based on a standard condition for turtles? It's a standard amenity condition that we've got for our dwelling houses, so not specific to turtles. We've got more thorough ones. And Councillors, have you bought a torch recently? No. I know my bike like 300 lumens. Okay, so, yeah, what's it like? So, yeah, one lumen per. So, it's dull. Really Unknown 02:33:08.529
It's very dull light. Yeah, it's light. SPEAKER_00_b 02:33:10.795
Yeah. It's just, yeah, yeah. So, it's just, think it's an interesting point. Brian Stockwell 02:33:24.541
And for the same reason I agree, it's sort of just the concept that we do conditions that protect the environmental values as well as the that's one thing I think, I don't have an amendment, I think we just change the second to an environment because it's not the experience of the development that, you know, what we're doing here is actually towards improving the environmental outcomes. Measure and similar to Councillor Lorentson and I think it is something in similar situations if we've got developments that have high quality ecosystems surrounding them that we look at controlling the lakes but not just with turtles. And as far as monitoring, there's lots of people who are on boats at night, it's very close to the lake, there's people who can walk along the foreshore and that's where you get your complaints from if they, as you say, if they can walk past it's lit up like a Christmas light, tree, I don't forget that, yeah. I think it's just, and it's an easy one to comply with because the applicant just has to look at his light fittings and get someone to say yeah, that'll be fine. Frank Wilkie 02:34:31.310
Could you say that point again, tari of saying this condition is applied to standard residential buildings Richard MacGillivray 02:34:36.374
Yeah we have it as a, this one's been altered a little bit to be specific to this site, but we do have a standard lighting amenity condition that we've been putting on some dwelling houses. We're finding that we're getting them really lit the moment and it's causing some issues. We've got standard turtle lighting which is separate to this one. And what's the wording of that? Of the turtle lighting? It's pretty thorough. Frank Wilkie 02:34:58.288
And is it about, does it mention I'm I wouldn't. Okay. I'll speak to the amendment. If this is a condition that's applied already to, I don't know, Florence, that may have impact on environmental amenity, I'm happy to support it. I understand it better now, so thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:35:21.889
Just looking it up, it says the, to give you an example, use a lux metre to go around, and is fairly easy to obtain, so it wouldn't be too hard. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:57.611
Um I will say something uh there weren't a lot of submissions made on this problem again, we can't stop the application, but we have an obligation and responsibility to address their concerns in terms of conditions. So thank you for supporting this. I'm assuming everyone's going to support this, but I read a lot about. What this community values. And it's loud and clear, the environment. So, yeah. Thanks. Put to the vote, those Frank Wilkie 02:36:43.911
In favour? That's your numbers. Do we have any more amendments? Sorry. Amelia Lorentson 02:36:48.971
Yes. Okay. Back condition 27, an advisory note be added to read. I'm sorry. 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. 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 the fallen branches, leaf and litter. Have do you a seconder for that please? Seconder, Tom. This came up quite a bit, again, in the submissions. Most against the STO there were actually some that were in favour of the SDR, but all made a reference to bushfire management. The conditions already include no fire, a bushfire management plan, and this causes, I think, 23 to 27. There's a prohibition, no-fire But what I've read from the submissions is that the residents are just not assured that it's going to be enforced because the property is not visible from all the other properties. There is a chance that there might be fire pits or campfires that go unnoticed. So this, I think, addresses a lot of the concerns raised in submitters. Notes that, you know, it's potentially a high risk, it's a high hazard risk because there's, it needs to be maintained quite regularly. So I spoke and Sara put together this condition for me, which isn't too onerous, but sort of addresses the gap in the both Shire management causes, and again, addresses real concerns by the adjoining property owners. Okay, question for Council. Frank Wilkie 02:39:41.713
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 that Council doesn't require itself to do. For its natural areas? Amelia Lorentson 02:40:09.165
No, mine was more a maintenance issue, just that it's not left in disrepair. Of a 10 hectare lot? Or just the rural residential portion? I might throw that to Sara, but I was thinking in terms of just the buffer zone, so where the fire breaks, so that the property and the neighbouring properties are not at risk. And again, concerns by adjoining property owners. I'll ask what's reasonable. Richard MacGillivray 02:40:44.425
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. Mentioned that the site hadn't necessarily been maintained to a high enough standard in terms of leaf litter and fallen branches and things like that they were concerned that it was creating a higher hazard in terms of bushfire so for the whole of the site SPEAKER_02_b 02:41:13.370
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 condition that we've included is basically maintenance of the access to ensure that kept clear and then picking up the leaf litter and whatnot so whether we look at restricting that to the rural res zone might be the best option and then the access as well- Jane, ask a question based on what you that's Joe Jurisevic 02:41:44.448
Given that the property is 10 hectares, what is the responsibility of the owner to manage a property of that size for bushfire? Patrick Murphy 02:41:58.240
It's not a, sorry, it's just not a planning matter that would be a local law matter we have to come yeah and but to go to the point it might be reasonable to make amendment to this condition to reflect an asset protection zone around the property to be determined and then that area to be maintained it might be an area 20 metres around the property 25 and that there's some maintenance of that debris clearing Joe Jurisevic 02:42:27.078
Of gutters Richard MacGillivray 02:42:27.698
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 and critters 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 02:42:52.015
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 law has stopped area. The owner of the property in any way shape or form. That's correct. Kim Rawlings 02:43:18.903
Local law number three deals with this issue about appropriate maintenance of your property. From a way past pest perspective, overgrown bushfire hazards. Joe Jurisevic 02:43:39.075
That's I'd like to look at it and say knowing what that is, having that information provided to us so we can have a report. Yeah, absolutely. So big pile of, you know, vegetation right beside your name that beside their building, you know, obviously would pose a risk from a burden, but also that information provided to us following the meeting and we're happy to review that and have a look at it in relation to this. Karen Finzel 02:43:48.755
Yeah. Just following on from that, then that raises the question of wonder then how would that affect like insurance? How does that affect the use of the property and insurance or if you're having that out as for guests? Well, yeah, but I'm sure that would impact, I'm sure that's going to impact some. By not maintaining it or maintaining if we condition, what is it, a maintenance, what did you say it was, a maintenance, yeah, under local laws 3, then what's impact for insurance around Joe Jurisevic 02:44:29.866
It Richard MacGillivray 02:44:35.206
Be up to the insurance company of how they would evaluate that risk Joe Jurisevic 02:44:39.412
They'd be looking at the property. Has trees, it's forested, and we're insurance. Karen Finzel 02:44:45.192
The question with that is if we've commissioned for this or other previous properties that have been approved, what is the retrospective? Patrick Murphy 02:44:54.472
Well, we can't apply anything retrospectively, obviously. That's right. So then you say, well, this is putting us under duress yeah, well, this one we recognise that there is a bushfire risk within close proximity of the dwelling. And that's why there was a number of conditions put on about having the appropriate infrastructure on site to assist with firefighting. This condition certainly takes it to another level. Richard MacGillivray 02:45:20.256
I'm happy to come back with some further advice around the duty of care, because obviously this is a short-term use, but there's also residential component, which the landowner has the rights to occupy and live as a dwelling. Joe Jurisevic 02:45:32.706
They will have a duty of care to maintain their site in accordance we're looking at a hotel application minimising risk. Short-stage accommodation element where it's not the usual resident in situ. Their awareness around the risk here is something we need to fully understand and so do they. Yeah so how we manage that going forward is an interesting question. Frank Wilkie 02:46:05.403
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? If the intent is to have a buffer zone able to draft something that specifies more clearly what's intended by this and what areas could be affected because the way that reads it could be the whole 10 yeah. Hectare lot. I support the idea in principle. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:44.037
I'm happy with that. I don't want to make this burdensome for the applicant. That's not the intent. Was really just to address issues raised in the submissions and it's basically. Fire risk maintenance. And I'll read just to give you an example one application which was really quite thorough and reasonable. So she makes reference, some residents have regularly mowed individual segments but vermin and unwanted wildlife are encouraged onto residential properties if some sections are mowed and some owners are not in a position to attend this. There's some dead trees and shrubs on this flat area. So it's really quite reasonable. She's not requiring high maintenance but she's just noting that there's a high risk and that it needs to be some high risk maintenance, some attention to the property just doesn't lapse. So I'm happy, you know, for a really watered down version of this. The intent is not to, you know, set a precedence for other similar applications. And I do think the conditions already in the application, I think they're really good. So maybe just an advisory note in terms of bi-risk maintenance. That would be great. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:48:04.938
Yeah, I'm happy to answer go along with getting more information. I wouldn't have supported this. Just because you have to look at what the increased risk is. And that one would, I believe, be unreasonable. And it 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 that face it are the next level down. I think the suggestion was 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 just need a requirement to undertake fuel, fire load reduction on a regular basis because a lot of it's already, 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 02:49:13.357
Agree I'm going to speak against the event for a similar reason but it's not as clear as it could be and if we let this one file the opportunity with this stuff to make something that now the Councillors will speak to the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 02:49:47.720
No, I'll vote against it and look forward to hopefully an advisory note as opposed to a condition my by maintenance. We'll put the amendment notice in favour. Frank Wilkie 02:50:01.840
My job. Oh okay, go to jase. That case. It's unanimously a case. The amendment's lost. Are there any more amendments? Okay, we go back to the original motion, which was some time ago, now which is moved with amendments relating to dogs, cats, light. Dogs, cats and light. And in terms of that, only Councillor Jurisevic has spoken. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 02:50:36.965
I'm just going to just add one, two sentences because I'm talking I was looking for this. Just a little bit about the environmental significance of the block. The area of land at 2A longer street is of important environmental significance. The property's been identified as prime habitat for koala, which is listed as endangered by the Queensland government under the nature conservation act 1992, by the Australian environmental protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999. The property's also signed 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 increase Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:51:26.773
Oh, sorry, Brian. Yeah. Noosa talked about the aberration land use prohibit. They normally have great debates about why we shouldn't approve some space. I'll be waiting for so, it is in the residential. The current scheme does allow for short stay. Boreen Point lake of tarawa I think lake tarawa is an interesting area that, I think, I and I think my other councillors 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, you know, Boreen Point, you can't do much. But having an occasional holiday there and having low key infrastructure, this is done well, it can actually be really good thing, Boreen Point, in terms of having a, you know, small to moderate size of a facility. It's bigger than the other houses in town. And I think it is an addition in terms of what is on offer out there and providing it's managed well. It should maintain the environment around it. So that's why I support Frank Wilkie 02:52:46.707
Jodie, Jody, would you close? Anybody else has anything to say? No, no. motion goes in favour. It's carried unanimously. Thank you. Patrick. Thank you. Richard. Thank you, Tim. Next item is the integrated water quality and monitoring program, Burgess Creek, referred from the Planning & Environment Committee, due to the significance of the issue. Amy and Sophie. I have a declaration. Okay. Brian, you I do. Brian Stockwell 02:53:18.625
I wish to inform the meeting that I have incredible confidence this matter due to New Zealand football club, I have landed more than 4.5 hectares of Girraween Sports Complex. This involves the application of mainly organic soil release and calcium-based fertilisers and herbicide over what is sizeable 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 factor for the quality of surface waters in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role within NLFC and the fact the club is not likely to gain or lose from the proposed monitoring in the room even though I was kicked out on Monday or Tuesday. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain or participate in the decision. No, I'm going to the other way, Cathy. Was going to vote you out anyway. That's okay. SPEAKER_00_b 02:54:23.191
That I'll leave the room to debate. Amelia Lorentson 02:54:52.753
It was. Okay, Councillor Lorentson. Okay. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as my brother Gabriel Cerasani lives approximately three kilometres from Burgess Creek. Also until recently my brother was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association who have made submissions regarding issues with Burgess Creek including raising petition on the matter. Considering recent 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 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'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 nuisance, 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 covers roughly 545 hectares. It drains from the back of residential developments in Noosa Heads through bushland and community facilities near Eenie Creek Road and then through a Council managed bushland. And national park. It affects and impacts thousands and of people in the Shire. The disposal of liquid waste into our waterways including fresh water, oceans and rivers creates social and environmental problems for the whole of Noosa Shire this issue is a significant issue Unitywater quality has political environmental and legal implications Shire Council many of these implications include risk to Council infrastructure stormwater open spaces and roads in October 2022 I moved to Council resolution at the LGAQ conference for regions becoming more resource independent through efficient use and reuse wastewater I called on the LGAQ to advocate to the State government of Queensland to undertake a statewide analysis of recycled water reuse that values the protection of local ecosystems and provides suitable data to assist councils and water authorities and retailers in producing business cases for water reuse it was supported almost unanimously in June 2023 I moved another Council resolution at the Australian Local Government Association calling on the Australian government to formulate a national policy on ocean sewage outfalls that aims at no new ocean and estuarine outfalls should be built or developed along the Australian coastline and dedicated funding should be provided to support local regional governments and wastewater providers with existing ocean outfalls to develop new methods and technologies and make every effort to recycle 100 of all treated wastewater generated within communities. Their localities and to avoid the need to discharge in the ocean. It was carried on a post by 357 councils in Australia. Both motions were supported unanimously by this Council. I've also put forward a motion for Council for this year's LGA conference in Gladstone, calling for the LGAQ to advocate to the State for a state policy on ocean sewage outfalls because we need to develop a standard wastewater diversion targets and wastewater recycling and reuse targets that can be replicated across all the states in Australia. I believe that my intention cannot be questioned. The outcome I'm seeking to achieve is cleaner oceans, wastewater, the impact of liquid waste on the environment and our community. Transitioning towards a circular economy for liquid waste and environmental best practices for the whole of Noosa Shire. Integrated catchment management plan for the Burgess Creek catchment that will form part of a broader Noosa catchment strategy of water waste will help us plan to achieve this outcome. For nearly two years, this issue has become one of my passion projects. I have knowledge and expertise that I bring to this table and integrity. Although have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe I could consider the matter impartially and in the public interest. I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Karen Finzel 02:59:50.289
Councillor Stewart. I Council and note that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine that Councillor Lorentson that stay and Councillor Lorentson participates and votes in this matter because Council believes that Council that what's that Kath? You've got to tell me why you think she should stay. I believe that she can remain impartial in regard to this matter. And it is in the public interest for her to remain in the meeting room and I also believe reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made and that is to ensure that Councillor Lorentson will remain, participates in the meeting and provides the necessary and vital that she can. Frank Wilkie 03:00:36.647
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 is that it declares what the conflict is, the links between the Councillor and the parties involved, and this case it's non-ordinary business because Burgess Creek is a specific geographical area. That be correct? Yes. All right. Given the advice we got about the eastern beaches wilshire management plan, that's it pertains to It's akin to that. See Larry Sengstock 03:01:30.516
You see do you see how wise 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 Joe Jurisevic 03:01:53.689
Make it as simple as that. We I was trying to take it all in while we were going through it. Work out where you were going from the old emotion again. Trying to go back to what the conflict was. I think the conflict is that I've highlighted, that her brother. Frank Wilkie 03:02:17.594
I'll second it. Clare? Clare Stewart 03:02:21.848
Look, I mean, Councillor Lorentson, she's corrected. Um, thank you for providing that information. Um, yeah, it is good to put it all on the table. Um, 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 you know state and national and I don't believe that I believe that she can make a decision impartially and in the best interests of the Noosa community I understand everyone is concerned with conflicts of interest particularly at this point in time and now with an election looming I think Councillor Lorentson has been overly prudent which is a good thing as Councillor Stockwell has so but I 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. Frank Wilkie 03:03:16.980
I'll speak in favour of the motion as well. Important thing is that the declaration is made. It was the east, the beaches protection association that first raised Burgess Creek as a matter of interest, as a source of, claiming it was major erosion on eastern beaches during the chat process. This, and the Council has correctly declared links to the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. The important thing is that is being declared. I'm happy Robinson to sign done a lot of work in this regard and 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 03:04:18.844
I'll speak to it. I'm happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room. Councillor Lorentson has been focused on one particular element of Burgess Creek. The catchment as a whole is a far greater picture to bring into intervening this far more involved. Than just the element of the discharge from the water travel equipment. I think that in that manner, I think there's a lot more to the integrated catchment plan than just that one focus. So I'm quite happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room and be aware of all the other elements of the Burgess Creek catchment that many of us have been alluded to over and again. Do the Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Frank Wilkie 03:05:01.455
Put it to the back. That's That unanimous. And Councillor Lorentson will give the vote. She's able to stay in the room. Now, Councillor Lorentson, would you like to move a motion? Amelia Lorentson 03:05:11.129
Can I move a motion? And it has three extra words added to the original motion, so. That Council note the report by the environment officer of rivers and coasts to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11th July 2023 and a note will continue liaising with Unitywater regarding the Burgess Creek STP data. Frank Wilkie 03:05:38.238
Well, I've given you a bum steer there, Councillor. We'll let the staff give their overview. Of the motion. Joe Jurisevic 03:05:47.832
So this Sophie 03:05:53.552
Today provides a summary of the actions that Council have taken to address two notified motions from June and December. Year around the Noosa wastewater treatment plant. So the actions that have been taken are the formation of Burgess Creek working group which is an internal working group with infrastructure, environmental services, health and the climate 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 sources in catchment. We've also established an interagency working group with Unitywater so that involves monthly meetings their communications team their operations team as well where 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 Unitywater which means we now have access to their water quality data through their rim and as you know Unitywater recently presented their data to Councillors last month as well the other aspect of the actions is partnership with UniSC so they've got a flow metre installed under the David Low Way bridge which is to sort of 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 as well and with this report we hope to close off both the notices of motions except for water discharge volumes in the Burgess Creek catchment because this would require further investigation and modelling Amelia Lorentson 03:08:20.493
Oh okay I'd like to move the motion please that Council note the report by the environment officer, rivers and coastal Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 and A, note staff will continue liaising with Unitywater regarding the Burgess Creek STP data and aspects of management. B, continue scoping and development a Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan in partnership with Unitywater and key stakeholders. And C, note the continued development of council's integrated water monitoring program including potential expansion to include additional monitoring sites. And D, that this report responds to previous Council notice of motions. Councillor Lorentson. I just want to just add I included key stakeholders and I know that speaking with staff that was always the intention that various stakeholders would always be consulted also 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 the process of actually finding people in the PCG? Does that go out to or Expression of Interest and it will be similar for instance to our Destination Management Plan? Amy 03:10:02.379
So I guess in the first instance just wanted to flag that the funding that we have for the integrated catchment management plan is actually in the next financial year. And while we're, I guess, preparing our response by doing the monitoring in addition to continuing to work with Unitywater, that there's a process, I guess, to plan that whole pit, I guess, moving forward. Terms in of key stakeholders, I'm curious to know who exactly you mean by that, because obviously we've been doing quite a lot of community engagement, not just on this, but with the eastern beaches management plan as well and ongoing liaison protection association, so lot of. Kim, have you got an answer there? Yeah, just to clarify, Councillor Lorentson, the integrated catchment management plan was not funded this year in the budget, Kim Rawlings 03:11:00.576
So we are not moving into the space you're talking about. It wasn't funded, not so what this says is that staff will continue to maintain that relationship with Unitywater and continue to, within capacity, scope the project. This is a. 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. 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. Amy 03:11:54.097
It's funding and I think it's important to add as well we've come a huge distance in terms of our relationship with Unitywater so getting them to and you know congratulations to you for really championing this whole process but we've come a really long way so we want to continue that collaborative working relationship with Unitywater and I agree you know the community eventually needs to be involved if we move forward with this but like Kim said until we have the budget and the project management resource to make this happen we can only do what we can do I think within our existing team Frank Wilkie 03:12:36.146
So it was the addition of an key stakeholders is that SPEAKER_09 03:12:41.826
Well I just depends on when it's expected Frank Wilkie 03:12:46.833
So you're doing the scoping work with Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan in partnership with Unitywater currently so not key stakeholders SPEAKER_09 03:12:56.993
We are still talking with the Eastern Beaches Protection Association Kim Rawlings 03:13:04.099
Yeah I think it's fine but it's just important to manage expectations that this doesn't mean there's a PCG and we've started the project we won't be doing that until it's funded and resourced Frank Wilkie 03:13:18.479
Liaising with key stakeholders already that's fine and if Joe Jurisevic 03:13:22.540
You're talking with the environmental groups we should be part of continued scoping and development and updating on what's occurring or what may be needed to be included from their perspective Amelia Lorentson 03:13:35.160
And that was the intent of the edition that it just and I know that you had spoken with other environmental groups that it just wasn't included in the recommendation and I really wanted to make that clear that it's Council, unity, border and collaboration with community and I think we're heading in the right, on the right track. SPEAKER_09 03:13:57.746
Yeah, there's a very high level of expectation around community consultation and we appreciate that and I've been talking with Carolyn osbourne about getting dedicated sort of community plan around the eastern beaches in general because we can't, I guess, have round tables for every single issue. It's probably about, you know, how do we get best bang for our buck in terms of our communication with the different groups. Frank Wilkie 03:14:27.496
Can I tell us a little bit about Amelia Lorentson 03:14:28.936
The floor? Just won't talk too much. I really just want to acknowledge the staff and thank the staff for putting words into action and for putting our community in place of high value on natural environment and sustainability first. So I really want to acknowledge that. Although the report doesn't review things like the permit condition and water bottlenecks and analysis of the contaminants from other potential sources within the catchment, I believe that this information and other concerns raised by the community will be captured in the scoping and development of this Burgess Creek catchment plan. I've learned over the last 18 months is that in order to achieve best environmental practices and outcomes for the Burgess Creek catchment, we need to work collaboratively with stakeholders, including Unitywater and DES. Also to do our own housekeeping and we need data. To improve management of the environment to know what other researchers and councils have found and how they have found it and data to improve 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 think for the last two years you can't fix a problem unless you know what the problem is and you can't manage what you measure. This is how we make good policy decisions with data. Informed decisions about sustainable use of the environment. Again, I'd like to thank the staff for all their hard work and for council's commitment. And investment in our environment and sustainability. We're part of the problem and we are now solution. Frank Wilkie 03:16:21.130
Councillor Lorentson, any questions, staff, comments? Anyone wish to speak? Tom? Tom Wegener 03:16:28.651
Just a question, what's next? So after this, it sounds like there was something else. What is the outcome from the report? What's next? For Burgess Creek or other creeks, or enie creek, which is an epic. Amy 03:16:46.537
So I guess we continue that relationship with Unitywater and we've actually had our last monthly meeting with them last week and talked about the Cooroy treatment plant and perhaps arranging a tour for staff at that site. So it's really, think, to continue building our understanding. And knowledge of what are all the operations around the Shire that Unitywater are involved with. How do we, we've got $10,000 in this financial year to expand the program to look at stormwater as well. So we've got our next workshop with the NRM groups that are part of that program next Monday. So really just to keep building on what we're already doing. Tom Wegener 03:17:27.550
Because the report is amazing and the findings are really eye-opening, aren't they? Weren't what expected, or at least not what I expected, quite the opposite actually. Yeah, so just please, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:17:43.780
A question? So in terms of the $400,000 funding to implement a Burgess Creek integrated management plan, the formation of a Burgess group, when can we expect to see the working group again? Kim Rawlings 03:18:00.558
The working group's established. That's already established. And Sophie outlined that in her opening. Amelia Lorentson 03:18:08.178
So the $400,000 and the $266,800 to 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. We didn't, it wasn't funded in this budget. But the opportunity may be in VR2. Kim Rawlings 03:18:31.663
We don't tend to re-litigate new initiatives in VR2. That will be up to Council whether or not that's something Councillors want to re-look at. But an officer perspective, the decision on the budget and the allocation of the new initiatives has occurred, so we now work, our program is based on what you've endorsed in the Council budget. We won't be bringing forward to VR2 new initiatives that weren't funded in the budget to re-litigate them. That will be a Council decision. Amelia Lorentson 03:18:59.391
In terms partnership project for the University of the Sunshine Coast, I've got a copy of that report and they're, I think, still waiting for funding or there's some issue holding everything up, but they're investigating erosion and flow. Will there be an opportunity when that report 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 SPEAKER_09 03:19:28.034
Fantastic. Absolutely. Yeah, so it's a one-year project and so that will be concluded in September. About that, I think. Next year. And the scoping of the integrated catchment management plan. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:48.767
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 03:20:01.987
Yes. There's has that been circulated? Yes. Sorry? The officer level submission that we'd put into that process? Yes, I sent it around earlier today. Amelia Lorentson 03:20:11.957
Oh, okay. Sorry it was a bit late. That's okay, so that's available. It is, yep. So I haven't had an opportunity to look at it. Can I ask just one question? Could you explain the process of consultation with that? So how did the draft, how did we make that submission? Did it come from officer level or was it mandatory that community were consulted? It came from officer Kim Rawlings 03:20:35.102
Level and it was a bit of a tricky one because Unitywater Margaret Gatt 03:20:37.882
Initially were not happy that we were putting in a submission as part of felt that our role their project. Steering group that they have for water matters was our opportunity to provide input. We did sort of negotiate with them that we'll know do want to put in a public, you know, record. Submission is what our position on this is. So yeah there was a bit of back-and-forth on that. And it was done at officer level because of timing, Councillor Lorentson. Kim Rawlings 03:21:09.114
So often there are short time frames around providing submissions to different state policies or processes so it's not unusual for us to do an technique. Level technical submission. You know, when we can get it to Council for it to be endorsed, we will, but when we can't because of time frames we'll still put something in at an officer level. Amelia Lorentson 03:21:29.421
So how I've sort of understood that is at the moment there is no water quality objectives for Burgess Creek under the existing. Margaret Gatt 03:21:37.922
There are yes. And in fact they amended them because of the fact it's got an STP on it. So we're continuing to work with DES to try to understand whether the water quality objectives are appropriate, not just for the coastal creeks but right across the Shire because you'll see in the reports that we've sent through that we're getting fs on quite a number of them Amy 03:22:00.632
So that yes really needs further discussion with our NRM groups around that to understand that because you know obviously we don't want be you know ratcheting down the benchmark but at you know similarly we need to actually know if there's a problem Margaret Gatt 03:22:18.351
If we're doing this annual reporting and continually getting fs so yeah Amelia Lorentson 03:22:29.044
Sorry, just one more question um in terms of the confidentiality agreement we signed which was for five years um got two questions um why did we sign a confidentiality agreement and will the information after the five-year lapse be made available to the public or does that remain confidential Kim Rawlings 03:22:51.628
Signed the agreement because Unitywater asked us to and it was the only way we felt we could get access to the data but I think we're slowly getting there the fact that they provided the receiving environmental monitoring program report and it's now on the public record think is a good step in the right direction and certainly I think as part of this program more broadly we would like to see a public dashboard eventually at the very least for recreational health because we have a duty as Council to inform the public if it's safe or not to swim so so the reason we agreed to confidentiality agreement is like Amy said is also that the data the raw data needs interpretation so you know you were presented with data and you saw how complex it was and how it needed interpretation and we had Unitywater there interpreting that for us so to just release raw data into the community without that sort of interpretation it you know is cause for confusion so that's why they were happy to the reports are publicly available and have been for a long time that's not a new thing their ramp reports have always been publicly available they're through their website and DES they're now available publicly through Council so those available publicly and they yes so if you go onto the website you can get the last number of years of ramp data yeah that provides interpretation of the data so you know that's why it's not so much about they're not there being something to hide it's more about that raw data requires interpretation because it's complex and so that was it was more about that managing that process Amelia Lorentson 03:24:46.110
On page 217 of the report it references a KVR and consultants 2004 and I've got bits and pieces of that report which through archives Noosa Today 2003-2004 and it was actually quite good report and I would imagine an expensive report but it looked at the implications of Burgess Creek water quality and looked at it detailed review of all the land uses that made some really really great recommendations and in 2004-2003 they were recommending you know these deep ocean pipelines I was wondering has that ever been reviewed or updated would be great if they were talking about recycling reuse in 2003-2004 I would love to know what the recommendations would be today whether you know sewerage into power and energy going down that route. I'm not sure whether Unitywater have updated or reviewed that report that would need to be a question we 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 done oh no lastly I just want to note on page 55 of the rent the recommendations um really good and I think if you add the recommendations to the report and this is what I mean with collaborations I think again they're on 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 banks of Burgess Creek so there was a lot of issues around the infestation of weed or introduction of weed species and acidification of testing of soil so for them to acknowledge that and that's one of their actions review which sewage pumping stations may potentially impact water quality should they overflow considering incorporating flow monitoring data and quantitative methods for flow reading in the receiving environment there's just some really good stuff that they've identified as a result of the receiving environment monitoring program and it's really interesting and good reading. Karen Finzel 03:27:30.146
It's fantastic. A question to Councillor Lorentson with regards to the addition of the case study columns given response from the staff question. Around that, are you intending them to leave that on there or Amelia Lorentson 03:27:44.804
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 scoping and development was only going to be between Council and Unitywater and in fact they're already key stakeholders that have already been engaged as part of the plan. So I think it's critical that's included. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 03:28:09.358
I'll ask a question on that as well 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 going forward in this I'm happy to keep key stakeholders in there on that basis. I'll speak to her if I may, but I appreciate Councillor Lorentson's focus on the sewage treatment plant elements of Burgess Creek. If you look at figure 1, Burgess Creek is far more than the outfall from the sewage treatment those of us that have been here for a little while and have been working behind the scenes, we start off on other elements of Burgess Creek with regard to some of the other things that are mentioned here, because we've got the leachates- and residential run-offs and biobasins, the lack of biobasins and maintenance some of the upgrades that are required as well in our facilitators and we've known about some of the other elements of the wide-ranging area that needs to be looked at when you look at birders creek as a whole. And I took staff out today and had a bit of a look and we found a constant flowing stream through there. So are other elements that are unknown about birders creek that we've still got a lot of work and research to do. There's some questions that have been raised over time. So I look forward to seeing this come to fruition. And the monitoring occurring here. I think there's a lot that we can learn and better manage in one rather significant waterway that flows through some sensitive environmental land and how we can possibly in the future implement some changes and some improvements to the health and quality world. Amen. Thank you. Tom Wegener 03:30:03.574
I would just like to say how pleased I am that Burgess Creek is a creek and not a storm drain because that's what the rest of the world would have it as a storm drain but it's still a creek because we're Noosa. Different by Nature. Frank Wilkie 03:30:18.951
Yeah, thank you Karen. I also think it's very useful that the Council and Unitywater have decided to take a whole catchment approach to this issue because what that's revealed is that the STP is actually the least actually the 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, fields, not night soil 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. Thank you. Um, really, you wish to Amelia Lorentson 03:31:09.580
I've learnt in all this is 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, um, water quality improvements just without, you know, stormwater runoff, pesticides that are used on storm fields, ageing stormwater infrastructure, etc. And then the advocacy part and the lobbying part that is so important the environmental act is 1994 and as much as Unitywater compliant they are compliant to something that was written 30 years ago you know um so so there's got an advocacy part that we need to still push and promote legislative changes in our environmental protection acts um that you know bring them up to current standards um and strangers you know stricter standards I read what's happening up at the great barrier reef and think my god why is that area more pristine and how beautiful beaches and it shouldn't be it just shouldn't be that um we need to place just high value um on our beaches um in more quality so um yeah lots we can do outside um you know to help with cleaner oceans wastewater um but just keep asking the questions because we can do better and the moment we stop um you know we fall behind Frank Wilkie 03:32:58.020
With the most work in favour that's unanimous Sophie thank you the next item is the Noosa Environment Strategy year three implementation plans um you have to go back in and uh yeah, actually watch what you missed Brian yeah okay welcome back everyone we're up to item 5. Which is the Noosa Environment Strategy year three implementation plan update and I have a conflict public interest by Councillor Wilkie informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as in early 2020 I received an electoral donation of $750 from Peregian resident Susan Francis. Is the partner of Peregian resident Barry Cotterell. Mr is the president of the bridging venture media community association. Environment Strategy update mentions the progress of the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management plan. The UBCA has provided feedback on office of the independent assessor and legal advice has indicated is not ordinary Council. Cancer business relates to a specific geographical area and it 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 abundant. An abundance of caution and commitment to transparency. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and therefore choose to remain in the meeting room. Actually, I want to leave that out, that I just want to say. That's our standard wording. Okay. However, I respect the decision of the meeting and can remind you to submit your concession. Was ridiculous. Let's just call it. Joe Jurisevic 03:41:51.144
Yeah. It's just isn't. Someone needs to vote. I'll move that it's in the public interest of the Council that we 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 the decision. Sorry, I don't know why they kept 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 quite a distance. Karen Finzel 03:42:34.431
Any question? Need to do a new Chair. Yeah, no, I'm assuming the Chair. Oh, Council. You're Mr. So, any questions for Council? Anyone else like to speak to this? We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Aye. Now, I have a question, Kath. On the basis that Councillor Wilkie has declared conflict of interest in this matter Clare Stewart 03:43:01.502
For the same reasons, does anyone else around the table. Yeah, I believe I. And I believe Councillor Stockwell said he's already. Very. Yes. So we might go to that side again, which will be Councillor Jurisevic, Wegener and myself. So we'll put the matter to vote. All in favour? That's unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson, Stockwell, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilkie did not vote. Anyone else? Karen Finzel 03:43:34.055
Okay, all right. I'm going to push it back in, and it's all through. It's moment. You're welcome. Brian Stockwell 03:43:55.201
I wish to declare exactly the same what Councillor Wilkie just declared, which is to change the donation figure of 500, and as it's in front of you, I believe it's okay to say take it as read. Joe Jurisevic 03:44:08.239
So moved. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. For all the reasons alluded to in the previous matter where Councillor the. Wilkie was the. Sorry, but to stay in the Council public. Note that a terrible contribution by Councillor Stockwell and determines in the public interest that he participates and votes on this matter. Council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to gain personal maturity through noting this report and therefore a reasonable person would trust the financial suit is made in the public interest. Frank Wilkie 03:44:42.298
Okay, any others wish to speak to the motion? Approved to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried. Now to Councillor Wilkie, Lawrence and Stockwell and things like that. They are Amelia Lorentson 03:45:01.773
Okay, you'll just have to wait a moment because you haven't told me about things. Can I just have a quick look at the wording beforehand? Of one of the other ones? Just in reference to. Is that used to writing? Okay. East of the beaches. So, I, Councillor Lorentson, form a meeting that I'm a declarable competent in this matter because was on the executive of the eastern beaches protection act. Association. Excuse me. Association who have made submissions regarding the eastern beaches foreshore management plan. I do not believe beaches foreshore management plan SPEAKER_09_b 03:46:35.587
You need to say it as the report. And provides a status update on that plan. Just to link it to this report. Amelia Lorentson 03:46:45.801
It's mentioned in the eastern beaches rural management plan. As the report references part of the Noosa Environment Strategy. I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias. Because my brother nor I stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. Therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting however I will respect the decision of the meeting or whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Because do you want to just read over it again? I, Councillor Lorentson, am calling the meeting a declarable conflict of interest in that it is my brother gave the Chair of signing. Is that spelled correctly? Can you add Cathy comma? Who until recently was on the executive of eastern futures. Good night. Submissions eastern futures foreshore management plan four stop. New sentence as. Conflicts. I can't believe this is happening, it. No, just one more policy. Yeah, that's probably. The report references the plans part of the new. Thank you. Male speaker: SPEAKER_01_b 03:48:35.841
We have a-- male speaker: oh, you have today? Tom Wegener 03:49:01.621
Does anyone want to vote? Male speaker: I probably should mention, but the word Permaculture Noosa is mentioned as a recipient of one of the grants way down the list there. Female speaker: are we voting on amelia's name? Female speaker: no, I don't have amelia's name. Male oh, sorry about that. Female I'm a, I mean, Tom you said Amelia. Brian Stockwell 03:49:20.971
Male yeah, yeah, forget, I said that. Male I'm moving to a procedural motion. The is that the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting. Karen Finzel 03:49:27.463
Yeah, I'll second that. I don't think you guys get it. I don't even hear it. Frank Wilkie 03:49:31.503
Okay. Procedural motion that the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting. Brian Stockwell 03:49:40.143
Yes, I'll second it. Councillor Councillor is Stewart. Can it's the only sensible way to proceed if it's likely that Councillor Wegener may have a similar level of confidence in making all the previous motions invalid. Joe Jurisevic 03:49:59.377
Right. I think Councillors need to go and double-check, read the report and see that they. Who's seconded that? Mayor Stewart. Frank Wilkie 03:50:09.196
Okay, put it to the vote. All in favour? That's. I'm sorry, Councillor. Do you receive it? Proceed for a moment. That's unanimous, the procedural motion. All done. SPEAKER_11 03:50:23.876
Just to note as well, it does include a summary of the environmental grants, so either classic free Noosa and a few of the others, so there may be Noosa as mentioned? Frank Wilkie 03:50:36.686
Yeah, and plastic-free Noosa as well so yeah, just so, yeah. All right, thank you. We'll see you Thursday night, Camille. No worries. Now there's a level of caucus I guess. Financial Performance Report. Okay, let's get it going. Caden's getting a full understanding of the. Paul Pauline, your report mentions the Leisure Centre, and I know someone who passed by there. That's okay. Joe Jurisevic 03:51:07.797
I want you to use the facility too. Frank Wilkie 03:51:11.857
It's late Tom Wegener 03:51:12.337
In the day. Guys, I just really appreciate it. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say I'm sorry. Morning. I miss you guys. Frank Wilkie 03:51:26.059
Welcome and Trent. Please give us an overview of the financial performance. Trent Grauf 03:51:32.659
Good afternoon Councillors. The Financial Performance Report for June 2023 shows the interim position at the year end. However, financial adjustments are still in progress which may have a material impact on the final position. These adjustments include provisions, calculations, revenue recognition, calculation and accrual adjustments. So there may be a movement, there will 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. I'd like to advise the table on page 197 should indicate that the operating expenses are below budget and not above budget. So, there's light on that page. Thank you, Brian. You. So, operating revenue has outperformed forecast by $3.6 million, which is predominantly driven by interest revenue of $1.2 million and grants relate to the advance payment of the 2024 financial assistance grant. And in previous years, we have only received a 50% or 75% prepayment. Operating expenditure is $6.2 million under budget, with employee cost-making at $1 million, and materials and services are $5.3 million under budget. $2.5 million. Of that relates to restricted projects that are funded by special levies and separate charges, so they'll be held in reserve for future use and for specific programs. The remainder of underspend relates to civil operations, community facilities, holiday parks, sorry, they're over, sorry, and strategic planning, infrastructure, waste development assessment and environmental services are all underspend. Tourism and economic expenditure remains on track. A summary of consultancy fees has also been included as requested at the May General Committee Meeting which shows expenditure by Council over time on consultancy. These summaries only include operational consultancy and that's been incurred on capital projects. It should be noted when reading these graphs that generally consultancy spend relates to specialised services and the quantum is dependent on the nature and size of projects that are being undertaken by Council. Overall interim operating position at June is $9.8 million above budget. Capital revenue is above budget $5 million due to some the further advance payments of QRA disaster projects funding. Council has expended 82 of its budget which equates to $46.6 million which is the largest capital program that we've delivered. Council's cash holdings at the end of June were $115 million with $15 million of these still invested in higher return term deposits. As mentioned previously council's cash holdings are higher than we would normally expect at this time of year and this is predominantly due to the advance payment of the QRA disaster program which is held in reserve for these works once they're underway. Council is also holding $10 million in relation four years worth of waste levy and $2 million as I mentioned for the prepayment of the 2024 financial assistance grant. In accordance with council's financial sustainability policy we also hold minimum of three months cash cover which is about $25 million as well as cash reserves to fund the operations of Council through July until the first rate runs of 2024 and that's $7.3 million. Three also providers $10 million in project funding for capital works that will be delivered in financial year 2024 as well as 9 million of projects that will be pushed out at Budget Review 2. In addition to this Council also holds funds for restricted purchases such as reserves disaster, waste management operations, developer contributions and unspent levies and this is in accordance with the council's management of restricted cash policy. Overall council's financial position ended the financial year in a strong position and it continues to meet its financial sustainability targets. Frank Wilkie 03:55:40.329
What would be the free cash at the end of the year? SPEAKER_11 03:55:42.469
We're still sitting at five million. Once we do finalised adjustments there may be a slight increase in what our cash holdings are but we'll wait until we get to that point. Frank Wilkie 03:55:51.209
The five you mentioned during the budget deliberations. Karen Finzel 03:55:57.750
Out in the last week or two, is that right? Rates went out, yes, yesterday. Just okay. SPEAKER_11 03:56:02.444
So we should be looking at that seven million coming in, if you don't mind the pace and time, a further increase of that seven million, is that correct? So we're holding seven million to fund the operations through to July because of the due date of rates which might be into August. And we just hold that cash, hear but we'll obviously see a big up kick in our cash holdings once we get that revenue in August. Karen Finzel 03:56:22.140
And 18th of August is when they have to get the 5% discount. So hopefully we'll see a lot of people take advantage of that SPEAKER_01_b 03:56:32.180
Too. Correct. A million. Amelia Lorentson 03:56:36.063
Terms of employee costs, 41.4 million of the annual budget of 42.4 million has been expended. So total employee costs As a percentage of total operating expenditure which is $122 million. I've worked out that it's about 34 wages or of total operating costs. How does that compare with similar councils of similar sizes? SPEAKER_11 03:57:08.040
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 in that respect. SPEAKER_01_b 03:57:18.417
Interesting. Bill Lowe 03:57:18.977
Yeah. I well, guess I just to that too. Add to that, what the biggest driver or the biggest variance between councils are is more about their assets employed, the depreciation on their balance sheet, and whether they've borrowed and what their borrowing extent is. But you tend to find that materials and employee costs as a percentage of total revenue remains relatively in that 30% to Amelia Lorentson 03:57:40.644
40%. So consultancy-- correct, Trent Grauf 03:57:47.131
Because it's generally employed for specialised items. It's work that Council doesn't normally 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 03:58:05.058
Mayoral minute, Councillor Jurisevic, senator Stewart, Chair, I look to see if I'm finding a position for Councillor I'm in. Again. And acknowledge the fine work of our finance team and all of our staff. Mr. CEO, if I can pass on the answer. Thank you very much. For the efforts, it reflects really, really well through the financial situation. Thank you. It's sweet to know. Anybody else wish to speak? Frank Wilkie 03:58:34.608
Motion 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, Larry and your team. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
