General Committee Meeting - September 2023
Date: Monday, 18 September 2023 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 03:04:15
Synopsis: Farm-stay at 59 Kabi Rd refused citing scale and bushfire risk, River Catchment Plan deferred for governance clarity, Finances strong, Contracts approved, Court appeal settled.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Joe Jurisevic Amelia Lorentson Clare Stewart Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell: Council refused the “group farm stay accommodation” change for 59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba, citing conflict with SEQ Regional Plan and Noosa Plan 2020 rural/agricultural protections, scale, traffic and bushfire evacuation deficiencies (19:32–45:49; Item 5.1). Staff (Planning): Proposal involved 3 accommodation villages and central facility seating 330+, up to 299 guests; most works on mapped Agricultural Land Conservation Area (ALCA), exceeding rural scale benchmarks (19:32–24:27; Item 5.1). Council: Deferred Noosa River Catchment Management Plan for one meeting cycle to enable further councillor/stakeholder review, particularly around a proposed Conservation Park governance mechanism (1:16:42–2:33:12; Item 6.1). Finance: Noted YTD August 2023 financials; operating surplus tracking above budget; cash high due to rates cycle and restricted grants; added sustainability indicators to reports (2:34:09–2:41:03; Item 6.2). Executive: Year in Review 2022/23 noted major delivery across corporate plan themes including flood recovery, capital program, branding, housing strategy and fire management (2:41:34–3:01:14; Item 6.3). Council (Confidential outcome): Awarded CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities for 2 years with 3x12-month options; authorised CEO to finalise terms (3:02:48–3:03:40; Item 7.1). Council (Confidential outcome): Agreed to settle Planning & Environment Court Appeal D14/2023 for 20 multiple dwellings at 11C Church St, Pomona, per proposed conditions; included bushfire safety property note (3:02:48–3:03:40; Item 7.2). Council (Confidential outcome): Approved novation of contract 2122Q125 to NorthLane Pty Ltd and increased value by $1,236,055.20 to $3,336,055.20 (GST exc.) to 31 July 2024 for 2022 flood recovery project management (3:03:41–3:03:41; Item 7.3). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Led deferral of River Catchment Plan to clarify Conservation Park intent, governance, compliance duties, and to brief former advisory members and boating/fishing stakeholders; carried 4–3 (2:07:22–2:33:12; Item 6.1). Clare Stewart: Supported deferral, citing need for broader communication on implications and prioritising liveaboards/effluent and moorings issues with MSQ (2:13:28–2:17:56; Item 6.1). Karen Finzel: Questioned compliance resourcing if Council assumes supporting roles on river; sought fiscal transparency before committing (1:50:09–1:53:42; 1:58:12–2:01:21; Item 6.1). Tom Wegener: Advocacy for regenerative agriculture within farm-stay item drew points of order for relevance; underscored tension between policy objectives and application merits (59:45–1:04:07; Item 5.1). Community Deputation: Daniel Moisander criticised Council’s bushfire assessment assumptions for a separate two-lot subdivision (RAL22/0027), highlighting standards and evacuation considerations (00:49–12:20; Deputation 4.1). Legal / Risk Council: Farm-stay refusal grounded in SEQRP 2017, Noosa Plan 2020 Rural Zone and Visitor Accommodation Codes, ALCA mapping, and Bushfire Hazard Overlay; recorded per Planning Act 2016 s63(5) (19:32–45:49; Item 5.1). Officers: Bushfire risk for vulnerable use required tolerable/acceptable risk under State Planning Policy; reliance on shelter-in-place with dual egress still traversing high bushfire hazard considered intolerable (35:32–39:49; Item 5.1). Council: Meeting closed under Local Government Regulation 2012 s254J(3)(g) for commercial-in-confidence matters (3:01:22–3:02:00; Confidential Session). Settled Appeal: Court matter D14/2023 resolved via conditions; property note mandates siting/building to bushfire management conditions of MCU22/0031 and related OPW approvals (3:02:48–3:03:40; Item 7.2). Governance Proposal: River Conservation Park concept under Nature Conservation Act to give Council a formal management role as trustee without overriding State heads of power (1:44:15–1:48:20; Item 6.1). Conflicts of Interest Tom Wegener: Declared declarable COI due to interactions with author of a permaculture report (Tom Kendall) and presidency of Permaculture Noosa; Council allowed participation and vote given no close association (13:15–19:16; Item 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Declared two declarable COIs for Noosa District Landcare (member) and MRCCC (historic collaborator/contract); Council allowed participation and vote, noting public interest and no material gain (1:17:26–1:23:48; Item 6.1). Environmental Concerns & River Governance Officers: Catchment Plan targets funding eligibility (Resilient Rivers; Urban Rivers program), monitoring, and a technical advisory panel; embeds collaborative agency roles (1:24:05–1:29:25; Item 6.1). Kim Rawlings/Amy Kimber: Conservation Park would formalise joint management and Council’s “seat at the table,” while State retains fisheries, permits, and compliance heads of power; public engagement required for any management plan (1:39:19–1:45:04; Item 6.1). Joe Jurisevic: Requested precision on industrial runoff to both Lake Wyba and Lake Doonella and practicality of “zero litter” target; officers to clarify control scope and maintain aspirational goals (1:29:25–1:33:25; Item 6.1). Councillors: Reiterated priority issues of liveaboards, moorings, anchoring, and effluent; MSQ remains primary regulator with Council advocacy/support roles (2:15:53–2:19:38; Item 6.1). New Development Applications & Planning Scheme Alignment Officers: Farm-stay GFA and building sizes far exceed Rural Zone small-scale benchmarks (e.g., lodges 250 m², cabins 65 m², non-rural buildings ≤500 m²), with traffic rising from 57 to 356 daily trips (23:09–43:18; Item 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Emphasised longstanding State interest protecting A/B-class agricultural land; mapped site as A1/A2 soils; warned against permanent alienation via large communal facilities and buffers (45:49–54:14; Item 5.1). Councillors Lorentson/Stewart/Jurisevic: Supported refusal: lack of overwhelming planning need, excessive scale akin to resort/convention use, unacceptable bushfire evacuation risk for children (34:02–35:10; 1:07:14–1:10:13; Item 5.1). Finance & Procurement Finance: Noted $141m cash at cycle peak with significant restricted balances (QRA, levies); minor rates revenue timing/valuation impacts; interest revenue up with higher cash (2:34:09–2:39:23; Item 6.2). Council: Awarded multi-supplier cleaning contract CN00209 (initial 2 years from 23 Oct 2023, options up to 3 years); CEO authorised to finalise (7.1 minutes; 3:02:48–3:03:40). Council: Novated flood recovery PM contract to NorthLane; increased total to $3.336m (GST exc.) through 31 Jul 2024 (7.3 minutes; 3:03:41–3:03:41).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 18 September 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 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Frank Wilkie (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Brian Stockwell Councillor Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 14 August 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.1. DANIEL MOISANDER TOPIC: RAL22/0027 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. 131998.981211.5 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 COOTHARABA (REFERRED FROM PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 - ITEM 5.3). In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Tom Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Tom Wegener inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest, upon request to staff for the permaculture report which was mentioned in the applicant's submission, it was revealed that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. As the president of the community group Permaculture Noosa, I have learned from Tom Kendall and visited his permaculture property. However, he is not a personal friend and I do not socialise with him outside of our common interest of Permaculture. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wegener and determine Cr Wegener can participate and vote on this matter because Council believes that as Mr Kendall is not a close associate and that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Wegener did not vote on the above motion. The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Stockwell – refer to Attachment 1 to the minutes. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. 131998.981211.5 for an Other Change to Development Approval (12637DA) - Integrated Permaculture Designed Organic Orchard and Golf Course Complex (18 holes) to include Group Farm Stay Accommodation (undefined use) and associated supporting infrastructure (maximum 299 beds), situated at 59 Kabi Rd Cootharaba and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not further the SEQ Regional Plan 2017 strategy to intensify or diversify on-farm agricultural activities as the proposed permaculture and food production is not of a significant scale, largely intended for farm stay guests, will alienate agricultural land and compromise the rural production of the land. 2. The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Framework of the Noosa Plan 2020 as the proposed farm stay activity: GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 a) Will permanently alienate land that is mapped as agricultural land conservation area and will not result in a direct expansion of the site’s agricultural activities. b) Will be more than complementary to the agricultural use of the land, as it will be the proposal’s primary use. c) Is not small scale or fit for its setting comprising 3 villages and a large common communal area with access via a small local rural road that currently has little traffic movement. 3. The proposal is contrary to Overall Outcomes 2(c), (h), (i) & (p), Performance & Acceptable Outcomes PO2, AO2.2, AO2.3, PO4 and PO5 of the Rural Zone Code of the Noosa Plan 2020 as: a) The applicant has failed to demonstrate there is an overwhelming Planning need for the proposal to be located on land identified for Agricultural Land Conservation and the proposal will further alienate land from rural production in the future. b) The scale of the farm stay activity is not small scale, and the traffic anticipated to be generated would detract from the rural amenity enjoyed by nearby residents. 4. The proposal is contrary to Performance Outcome PO3 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it is of a scale that is not compatible with the zoning intent and preferred character for the local area. 5. The proposal does not meet PO6 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as it has not been demonstrated that an efficient and safe evacuation route is available to residents and that emergency vehicles can access the site. 6. The proposal is of a significantly different scale and character to the approved golf course and permaculture orchard and has a more permanent nature. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. NOOSA RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my long standing connection with Noosa District Landcare as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Noosa District Landcare is identified as being consulted in the report. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I believe I can make an impartial decision GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 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 Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a long-standing relationship with MRCCC as a previous government employee and a longterm collaborator since 1994. I have in the past had a small consultant contract below the limit for a Prescribed Conflict and prior to the declarable time frame. I was up until the last AGM Council's representative on the committee and in this role I played a role in facilitating and developing the group's revised catchment strategy. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Stockwell does not stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report, and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That item 6.1 Noosa River Catchment Management Plan be deferred to the next round of meetings to allow Councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity to consider the details and implications of the draft Noosa River Catchment Plan and provide feedback. For: Crs Stewart, Lorentson, Finzel and Jurisevic Against: Crs Stockwell, Wilkie and Wegener Carried. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 6.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 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 18 September 2023 outlining August 2023 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 6.3. YEAR IN REVIEW - 2022/23 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 providing a review of Council’s progress in the 2022/23 financial year towards achieving the five key focus areas set out in Council’s Corporate Plan and thank Council staff for their efforts in the last twelve months to progress so many significant projects and providing outstanding service to our community. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J(3) (g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing commercial matters involving the local government for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government for: Report 7.1 - CONTRACT NO. CN00209 - CLEANING OF OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC AMENITIES Report 7.2 - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D14 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (20 UNITS) - MCU22/0031 & OPERATIONAL WORKS CLEARING OF VEGETATION - OPW22/0062 AT 11C CHURCH STREET, POMONA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 Report 7.3 - 2122Q125 – CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGMENT SERVICES FOR 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That the meeting be opened to the public. Carried unanimously. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACT NO. CN00209 - CLEANING OF OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC AMENITIES Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Parks & Gardens Coordinator – to the General Committee 18 September 2023 and A. Award Contract No. CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities to the contractors nominated in the Parks & Gardens Coordinator report to the General Committee 18 September 2023. B. Award Contract No. CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities for an initial term of up to two (2) years, commencing 23 October 2023 and expiring 22 October 2025 with an option to extend for three (3) further periods of up to twelve (12) months each. The option to extend will be at Council’s own discretion and subject to the Contractor’s ability to meet the requirements under the Contract. C. Authorise the CEO to negotiate the final contract with the four (4) suppliers as listed. Carried unanimously. 7.2. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D14 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (20 UNITS) - MCU22/0031 & OPERATIONAL WORKS CLEARING OF VEGETATION - OPW22/0062 AT 11C CHURCH STREET, POMONA Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 That Council note the report by the Manager Development & Regulation to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 regarding regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D14 0f 2023 and: A. Agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1. B. Include the following property note on the lots: 1. To ensure the safety of people and property on this property is maintained, all buildings and structures must be sited and/or constructed in accordance with the bushfire management conditions of Council Approval MCU22/0031 and associated Operational Work approvals. Carried unanimously. 7.3. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - 2122Q125 – CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGMENT SERVICES FOR 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Meeting Dated 18 September, and endorse the CEO to execute all documents and undertake all things necessary to: A. Give effect to the novation of contract 2122Q125 from Erscon Pty Ltd to NorthLane Pty Ltd; and; B. Increase the value of contract 2122Q125 by $1,236,055.20 (GST exc.) from $2,100,000.00 (GST exc.) to $3,336,055.20 (GST exc.), and the period until 31 July 2024. Carried unanimously 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 4.40pm
Meeting Transcript
Daniel Moisander 00:49.370
I'm pleased to say I'm not speaking on behalf of an absentee multi-millionaire developer this afternoon. The owner of the subject property is my wife, Tegan, who has lived and worked as a primary school teacher in the Shire for just on 10 years. I provide her apologies today whether she, if she were to were to attend at this time of day, with our 19-month-old daughter, she may experience a record new life at the forum and council meeting. The subject property, 28 Saturday Drive, is our home. I hope I can offer some relevant context to the application and to the planning report before you. at a summary level. significant and seemingly unsolvable limitations based on crucial counselling assumptions. The report adopts these assumptions in place of the bushfire report completed by Adrian Hansen, a bushfire and biodiversity expert with decades of experience and a volunteer firefighter to boot. I will speak as briefly as I am able this afternoon as I do As I do appreciate your timeless pressure, firstly I wish to speak to how, despite the top-line conclusions of the report submitted, I consider it remains a reasonable decision of the Council to approve, subject to conditions, an application for subdivision of this law. Then I will speak briefly as to why I consider Council City Council should grant such an approval. There are two paramount objections Council planning hold against the two-lot subdivision on this site. The first being Performance Outcome 4, the reconfiguration of a lot code. This is said to be a growth management provision which was expanded in the 2020 Town Plan to now include... At that time, the current pressures on housing stock throughout the south-east Queensland had not materialised to the current extent. I can sympathise why a provision serving as a blanket limit on the addition of housing throughout the estate may have been appealing to the previous council. I enjoy snagging apart from the service stock as much as the next resident. But if the aim of the provision was to preserve amenity and character of the estate, the provision appears redundant as there was already other existing and long-standing references to throughout the old town plan, which could have served that purpose. In fact, due to the subject lot being larger than the large majority of lots in the estate and 2.4 times larger than the minimum lot size zoning, a subdivision of just two lots would yield lots in size than at least 10 existing sites already within Noosa Parklands. Many, if not most, of the other cul-de-sacs in the estate already contain smaller lots at the end of the cul-de-sac or a density of driveways catering to battle-sized blocks. You cannot get You cannot get to this lot without viewing within the estate lots that are smaller than what is proposed. When will you know the proposed development has occurred unless you travel to the end of Saturday Drive to view it? To its benefit, there is already a great variety of lot sizes and construction types within the estate and the street. Saturday Drive already contains multiple two-storey homes and homes of varied types of construction without any consistent theme. they merely maintain in 600 square metre lot size zone for this part of the estate to prevent any slippery slope with consequential changes to the character and the name of the street as lots smaller than 1200 square metres are unable to follow suit. The lot has just one privately owned neighbour we see six cars pass our driveway it has been a busy day. There is capacity to support more with negligible impact on character. When this application was first submitted the information requested of its return indicated planning was not supported under the PO4 planning provision in large part due This was surprising as the lot sits 14 square metres, sorry, 14 metres above sea level and more than 90 metres from the nearest 500 year extreme flood exit from the lot via Griffith Avenue to Noosa Cooroy Road remains open even in a 500 year flood extent and this was noted, sorry, as this was noted the focus of opposition returned to character. Essentially PO4 Essentially PO4 appears to have been expanded by 2020 plan as a broad brush tool for the restriction of housing supply in selected areas. While the purpose of the revision is now set as being one of character preservation in regards to park lands, character purpose would not be offended by a two lot Subdivision of this law. Turn to bushfires. When this application was lodged, an information request was first issued for reports regarding stormwater drainage and driveway function, which was complied with in return to Council. Initial objections were concerned with lot shape only. Only once those issues had been addressed, bushfire concerns were raised for the first time in the further advice issued in January of this year. The further advice required particular inputs into the bushfire assessment model, most of which contained within the statewide Bushfire Resilient Communities 2019 document. The inclusions provided for that document the inclusions provided from that document are totally accepted without objection. However, the January further advice included atop those requirements an insistence that bushfire analysis must be calculated using a 1200 degree Celsius flame temperature in place of the Australian Standard 1009. Rejection of Australian Standard AS3959 is not to my knowledge provided by the statewide Bushfire Resilient Communities documentation and is instead a. Nevertheless, I acknowledge there are mature trees in the area and a high flame heat assessment may provide superior building outcomes over and above those which may be accepted in similar circumstances in other parts of the State and Even at this best practice flame heat assessment level it is possible to design a two lot subdivision outcome for this site which provides for compliant building envelopes. Where the planning report diverges from the expert bushfire report in this regard is planning out now in the most recent Introduce the basis of assessment which appears to assume the passing heat immediately above the northern boundary is all mature forest at the same intensity as the old growth state forest to its north. This appears to be on the basis that the the State may elect to simply stop performing its functions as it has performed to my knowledge throughout the existence of this state since the 1980s. It further assumes that in that event the State will not permit any third party to maintain the firebreak and access running. The State does not appear to have given any advice to this effect in regards to this particular application. However, QPWS is said to have expressed a view that third parties should not be relied upon in reference to a different application upon which it is not concerned in particular in understanding our In effect, this assumption means assessing the property against vegetation and risk that does not exist on the basis that it could come to exist if the State government abandons its current duties. This level of assumption could be used to apply bushfire rating to every property in the Shire which borders any road, park, estate asset, trustee asset or otherwise. Indeed, if this assumption is the adopted standard, every neighbouring lot boundary would require assessment at current timing on the basis the neighbour may in the future abandon abandon their property allowing a forest to grow in place of their vegetation as it has in the past 40 years. There are already improvements on other lots all the way along the main fire break at the northern boundary of the estate in similar areas to where building was proposed. And I would submit the expert report submitted is not simply makes an expert expert analysis at the highly elevated flame that you requested based on the reality of the estate as it exists. If it cannot be committed to do so, an assessment must fundamentally change for every future development in Shire. That now said, we remain completely open to working with Council's planners to seek acceptable alternatives and if this envelope calculation had been raised to us prior to the report being put to Council, we would happily have removed our design to relocate the driveway to the opposite side of the lot and thereby move the proposed housing further from the fire risk of mitigating the proposed equivalent envelopes. Indeed, we offer to do that now and would ask that Council vote to approve subject to conditions requiring the best way and alternative for such mitigation to be implemented. This is how I submit Council can reasonably an equitable subject to conditions. I will now speak briefly as to why we consider Council should support this application. We are all keenly aware of the change in housing pressures in our over recent years and a consequence of that change is the change of political rule of the State government to be seen to Government to be seen to be taking big and prompt action to address supply issues. I cannot pretend one too much subdivision will materially resolve these concerns. However, as the Noosa Housing Action Plan stated in A5.2.1, the Shire should aim to meet the SEQ development targets as they were at that action plan by adding new housing capacity in defined urban boundaries with associated efficiencies in infrastructure and service provision. This location is a wonderful place to live. With warm proximity to parks and arterial bus routes, it is connected to...town services and a fire hydrant is already installed at the street frontage. Prevailing wisdom expressed to us by experienced real estate agents is more money will be made by simply hoarding a larger piece of land in perpetuity than building a larger single house permissible upon the The fact that we are a young working family who are outgrowing the 40 year old structure on the site, parts of which are approaching end of life, means we are the exception to the normal owner of such a lot. We are willing to put forward this land for division and the future accommodation of two families. opportunity for subdivision in such an area which predates resulting lots larger than others in the estate is a new form from Council's perspective in my opinion, given the supply issues the Shire is facing. Our community's paradise problem may mean that we are hurtling towards a demographic cliff where too many of our residents will require care in proportion to those who can live within a competitive distance to provide and other services required. the long term is likely going to become more and more difficult due to the lack of available housing stock of the kind it is proposed to create here. These statuses are high with working families and gains of stock here bring benefits to the community which will not be replicated by the addition of or high density offerings elsewhere. In addition, depending on the outcome of the State election and the position taken by the next state government in relation to the new SEQ regional plan, the State is going to be pushing harder to make progress on the addition of housing stock. The application before The application before council is one of the lowest impact conditions and a stock conceivable and undercuts our future negotiations with the State if we are, even at this level, still operating from a position of can we find a way not to accrue this rather than is there a viable alternative way to accrue it. As we were all reminded during COVID, we are a nation of a federation of powerful state governments. If the State decides to override our relative our relative self-determination in planning under the current framework, I think it can be safely predicted that the added value of the Noosa office application we have offset will not come at as low an impact on the Shire and is highly likely to involve some destruction of existing foot-level floor. I fear allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good could lead us to receive minor. Tegan and I love living in this community and in Noosa Parklands Estate. We are willing to give up an excessive surplus of backyard in order to fund replacement of our alienable dwelling with a new home to be built to modern resilience and energy efficiency standards. I ask only the council to send us down the path to achieve this by acquiring a plan and seek Thank you all for your time. Clifford Brainwatt, our surveyor, has prepared a draft plan for relocation of the driveway in response to the new development stadium in Fairport. Frank Wilkie 12:20.785
Brainwatt: Thank you, Mr Moisander for your submission. If possible, could you email that to us so we can consider it prior to, in case we want to review it. Yeah, absolutely. Clifford Brainwatt: Thank you, thank you very much. Okay, next item is items referred from the committee. First up is an application for another change to development approval. approval. Integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course complex adding holes to include group farm stay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure, 59 Kabi Road, Cootharaba. Referred from the Planning and Environment Committee, David. September. I think it was due to the significance of the matter and more information required. Tom, do you have a conflict of interest you'd like to agree? Tom Wegener 13:15.545
Yes, I, Councillor Tom Wegener, have a incredible conflict of interest as I requested from the permaculture report, which was, I requested the permaculture report, which was mentioned in the application submission, which was not required to be included in the report to Council. Do you want me to read that again? Frank Wilkie 13:36.379
It's been, it's been a minute. Yeah, okay. Tom Wegener 13:38.359
The permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. As the president of the community group Permaculture Noosa, I have learned from Tom Kendall and visited his permaculture property. However, he is not a personal friend and I do not socialize with him outside of our common interest in permaculture. I believe I can make 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 participate in this decision. Frank Wilkie 14:10.169
Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Any questions for Councillor Wegener? Can you just clarify in the statement you made that you requested the permaculture report, you requested it from the applicants or- Tom Wegener 14:23.438
No, I requested it from staff. I requested the permaculture report from staff and it was not mentioned. It was mentioned in the applicant submission, but it was not included in our report to us, to us councillors. Joe Jurisevic 14:37.208
That was what I was trying to clarify. So only through asking for this report will your potential deferral conflict revere. Exactly. Does that make sense councillor Stockwell? Joe did you have a question? I think that needs to be clarified though because it wouldn't make sense after reading it. It sounds, as you read that it sounds like he requested the applicant provided it. Frank Wilkie 15:00.800
So what change are you suggesting? Brian Stockwell 15:04.140
Upon request to staff for the permaculture report. Richard MacGillivray 15:18.540
Which was entered. Joe Jurisevic 15:19.540
To staff, not from staff? To staff, yeah. Frank Wilkie 15:26.700
To staff, for the permaculture report? Yeah, for the permaculture report. bullet. was mentioned in the applicant's submission. I don't think you need the next bit, but I learned that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture head. Okay, so get rid of which was not required to be included in the report to council? Yep. It was revealed the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall. Brian Stockwell 16:04.800
If the council wouldn't be as happy with that one, I think that is clear. Just to clarify so... That, that would be permaculture. Joe Jurisevic 16:20.000
Can I, just a question with regard to Tom Kendall's credentials as a local permaculture expert and your role as president of the Noosa community permaculture I'm assuming that Tom is a member of that permaculture Noosa? Tom Wegener 16:33.655
No, he's not a member of the club. Joe Jurisevic 16:35.035
So there's no association with your role in permaculture Noosa and Mr Kendall as a permaculture expert? No. Thank That's right. Okay. Brian Stockwell 16:45.677
I'm happy to move that Councillor Wegener participates and votes on this matter. I'll second. Because Councillor leaves that Mr Kendall is not a close associate, or associate, which is the legal term. worry about personal, it's close associate. Sorry, just delete the word personal. That's what the legislation talks about. And that a reasonable person would trust a final decision is made in the public interest. Frank Wilkie 17:26.265
Does Stockwell just speak to that? No, just that I think by declaring we're now aware of what the link is. It's good practice, but the fact that Mr. Kendall isn't a close associate of the meeting doesn't actually trigger the statutory... statutory need to declare. I would say it's one that's being done out of an abundance of caution, as another councillor's fond of saying. Any other councillors want to speak to the motion? Yeah, I just have a question through the chat. Karen Finzel 17:52.761
Yes, so just to clarify then, Councillor Wegener, you raised this because of public perception? Tom Wegener 18:00.677
Yeah, the possibility of public perception that, oh my gosh, the word permaculture is in, you know, Tom's about that and Tom Kendall's about that. must be some, you know, intertwined connection, which there's not, and it's... and I... looking into the report, I try to do due diligence and, you know, we all look in and ask for further reports to come. Yeah. But yeah, just... at the reception, if you want to put it on the table and say, there is no associate. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 18:29.342
Sorry, possibly a question for staff in this regard. With regard to what the permaculture report that was mentioned in the applicant's submission revealed, what the nature of the report was. Was it about the... SPEAKER_00 18:44.150
It was about the proposed use, how the site could be used for agriculture using permaculture practices. Joe Jurisevic 18:51.190
Is there a reason why that report wasn't attached to the report, so that councils could have been aware of it? was more detailed, so it was saying, you know, these are the types of, you know, this is the design layout, this is where we're going to plant, this is the It was about the SPEAKER_00 19:04.771
Where we're going to plant. This is the type of plants we will use. So the nature of activity, how the permaculture would be undertaken on the site. I didn't see it would add too much more in terms of the planning. Planning recommendations. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 19:16.231
Right, do you wish to close, Councillor Stockwell? To the vote, those in favour? That's unanimous. And Councillor Wegener is going to vote on the above motion. Nadine. Hello. Hello. Could you give us an overview, please? SPEAKER_00 19:32.244
Okay, good afternoon, everyone. This is an application for another change to an existing approval. In 1999, Council approved an integrated permaculture design, organic orchard and golf course on the side out of Kabi Road in Cootharaba. This current application we've got we're dealing with, as I said, is another change. This current application... We'd be happy to be proposing a group farm stay accommodation and supporting facilities on the site. The proposal is up, it proposes approval to have up to 299 people. And it's mainly to cater for school camps during the school term and then weekend groups and out of school term other groups which might be sporting groups, religious groups, we're not really sure exactly what those groups will be. As part of the proposal and to address the agricultural uses and designation over the site, the applicant proposes that this is a farm-to-plate type of visitor accommodation where students will be seeing how is produced and displayed and eaten on site. Three villages are proposed and having a total of 7,405 square metres. Sorry, my report refers to 8,300. My maths wasn't great on that. There are three villages with the main building having a gross floor area of 2,300 feet square metres. That main building includes a sitting or restaurant area with full kitchen for over 300 people, plus office reception facilities as well, and next to it is a three-colour basketball court. The scheme talks The scheme talks about, this is in the rural zone, and it's affected by the rural zone code, plus it also has an agricultural land conservation area designation, or ALCA, as we call it. The scheme talks about, in terms of character and amenity, it talks about a maximum of 2,000 square metres for short-term or visitor accommodation in this zone, with a maximum building size of 250. For the main building, it's 2,300. Just noting as In assessing the proposal, we found that the application does not further the SEQ objectives, which are intensifying agricultural activities rather than reducing them. It permanently alienates agricultural land and is not complementary. It is not complementary to, fully complementary to the agricultural uses. We consider that this use of accommodation is probably more predominant than agriculture. It is inconsistent with the character envisaged by the scheme, which is for smaller scale buildings. It's not small scale. There's no overwhelming need for the provision of this educational establishment for the residents of Noosa Shire. And there's no overwhelming need for this type of facility. We've got concerns with the traffic impacts because on the weekends when it's not being used for school accommodation and traffic, there will be significant impacts on that road. significantly, which is detrimental to this area. And we've also got bushfire concerns in terms of evacuation from the site because it will have to go through a high intensity bushfire. So therefore the application has been recommended by staff for use of. Questions councillors? Joe Jurisevic 23:09.400
Yeah, thanks for that. I want to clarify one of the points that was mentioned in the report about the need to refer to the State with regard to the 5,000 square area for development. I asked for a breakdown, which you provided, thank you, and which brought the correction of the total area. Given that the villages total 4 square metres and the communal area totals 2,000 square metres and amenities 140 square metres out of that 7,505, to me that calculates over 5,000 square metres. Why does that not trigger the need to refer to the State of being over 5,000 square metres? SPEAKER_00 23:51.875
Because the accommodation components excluded from the site referral, so it's only on the central facilities area. Joe Jurisevic 24:00.147
So accommodation doesn't... Doesn't get included in that calculation. Doesn't get included in that calculation. Thank you for clarifying that. Further to that, the ALCA, with regards to uses that will be in the mapped area and /or additional uses that may not be, can you confirm... what uses will be actually are proposed to be developed within that mapped area? SPEAKER_00 24:27.690
So the agricultural land conservation area extends basically over all of the cleared area of lot 394. That's where the existing golf course is. Yep. So all the cleared areas, including the golf course... Does that include the other part, land parcel? The other part, actually is outside, so the block to the north. Uh-huh. Sorry, there's a portion of that. I'm just having a look at my map now. There's a portion of that area that isn't included in the outcome, and that's what we're talking about, the ethical disposal area. OK. So that's actually outside the outcome. All right. But the three villages... So the central facilities plus the three villages will all be in agricultural land conservation areas, and there are are also two fields that are proposed in the eastern portion of the site that are also located in the Alka area. There is also an existing caretaker's house that isn't actually indicated on the plans and that's also indicated, is also located within the agricultural land. I assume all the access roads and all the rest of it as well? All the access roads are in the Alka as well. Joe Jurisevic 25:33.160
The only, the only portion of development that isn't in the Alka is the effluent disposal area which is on the adjoining, the adjoining lot that isn't covered by that. Alright, thank you. Two, two, one, two. There was another question, sorry. I'll see if anybody else has got one and I'll go back to my notes and just see if I can find the third question. Amelia Lorentson 25:55.980
So there was no there was no requirement for state agency referral under this application. If the application was submitted as an MCU, would that have triggered the need for a state referral? No, it's the same trigger. It's the same trigger, which is the number of people and that floor area that we were talking about. And there's a little bit of discussion in the application about the existing use rights. Can you clarify how the decision was made that the development approval had not lapsed in 2011. So I've gone through the papers and it just seemed very great to me. existing use rights are probably great when we talk about approvals lapsing runs with the land. We talk about an approval lapsing when it can be abandoned so you have to be able to demonstrate that a use has been abandoned. SPEAKER_00 26:57.798
In this instance the golf course has been so an been maintained. The facilities, that restaurant is still there. So it would be very hard for us to argue that the use has actually been abandoned. They could come back at any stage and we would commence that use with minimal changes to the existing facilities. Richard MacGillivray 27:21.021
There are situations, councillor, where uses can cease for a period and sometimes to as mothball and where they may hold an advance. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have extended the use rights, but it does come down to a fact and degree in a lot of situations and can be quite a great area in terms of has that continuity. Has that continuity of that use continued and has it been abandoned? So it's quite a complex test to get to. I guess in this case staff are satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that a use has not been abandoned given the fact that there is some signs that it has been maintained as a facility and therefore those rights continue. SPEAKER_00 28:03.060
And there's some interesting case law that you can read about it. There was one about a service station that was shut shut down basically, but all of the facilities were left to retain. The houses were were there, the tanks were there, the shop was still there and that was left unoccupied for years and there was a court case about that and they were able to come back because it hadn't been abandoned. It was the intent that the site was getting sold. So exactly Richard's name. So it just held on the basis that somebody else was going to come and use it. So in this instance we believe that the use hasn't been abandoned. It's shown in the intent that it will continue to be operated. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 28:50.791
Oh yeah, in your report, and I apologise for my voice, might not make it through. It's nothing contagious, it's from too much cheering at a successful grand final for the Noosa Lions Premier and other teams. Joe Jurisevic 29:03.318
Not pointing out the birthday yesterday. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 29:06.858
The application was based on it was an undefined use. In your report, you identified similarities to things like short stay accommodation, made space for use, etc. However, when I read the definition of a resort complex, can't see how it's not. So the definition of a resort complex means the use of premises for tourist and visitor accommodation that includes integrated leisure facilities, including bars, meeting rooms, if they've got furniture facilities, they're not saying they've got furniture, they've got restrooms, they've got sporting and they've got fitness facilities. Staff accommodation they've got. So my question is, why wouldn't why wouldn't it be defined as a resort complex? And does that make an implication on the level of assessment? SPEAKER_00 29:50.301
Again, just remember this was another change, so it was a change to an existing approval. It was publicly notified, which is the main difference between a code and an impact assessable application. In terms of the land use, when I look at the definition of a resort, I really think unrelated people. Brian Stockwell 30:30.176
There's nothing within what I've read that restricts it to either school just as a group, the group can be of any size. SPEAKER_00 30:37.096
I do agree with you and I think I've got some concerns in terms of when the school term finishes and we did ask for them to clarify when the school groups aren't using it, who is it open to and it was a brief response in terms of it will be open to other groups. And one of the benefits is of education there's nothing within the undefined land use, there's nothing that appears in the undefined land use that links it to education is that correct? No, it's in their, I suppose, their proposal. They're advising us that it will be used for school groups, predominantly for school groups with a education confinement associated with that. Joe Jurisevic 31:17.451
Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Following on from that, if it were to be approved at any stage, is that something could be conditioned as to users could be? Can it be confined to school groups only as an educational facility? SPEAKER_00 31:33.342
I think that would be a hard condition. Yeah. So there's no scope to really define who could use the facility? Richard MacGillivray 31:39.902
I mean, we've been seeking that from the applicant early on. And that's the ways that we've turned around the scope of the exact user group. a condition could be looked at around that. However, it potentially could be subject to contest given what they've been applied for Joe Jurisevic 31:57.358
That's what I'm seeking, whether it's contestable after that. Frank Wilkie 32:00.658
Just following on with that, so this application, if approved, it could be used as a convention? SPEAKER_00 32:08.678
Yes, I believe so, yes. Unless we, again, try and condition it. When asked about the about the-- Remembering that there are four, there are four sort of substantial areas. There's the central facility building, which can seat, as I said, over 330 people. And tables. And tables. With a large kitchen and reception-- a large kitchen and there are offices. So it could seat possibly more than 300 tables? That was on their seating plan, I counted. Yes, over 330. Then there are the three villages. Each village has its own dining area and kitchen area. So there's a So there's a lot of duplication of facilities. So yes, I'm not quite sure of how these buildings will be used when they're not being used for school groups. And yes, I see that there is a potential-- be used for some form of functions or conferences out there, yes. Council Member. Tom Wegener 33:03.228
Looking at-- there was a plan we had. We're looking at the plans. They're small rooms with four buttons. And it just catering for exactly what they say they're going to use it for, which is school kids. And then, of course, the basketball court taking up a lot of GFA also seems to indicate school kids. So the evidence is there that there's not a Trojan horse to put in a-- you know, continue using it as a golf course with, you know, the five star. Joe Jurisevic 33:31.008
Is that right? SPEAKER_00 33:34.368
No, that's what I meant No, that's what they had proposed. Each of those little cabins has its own toilet. At the moment they're showing an indicative layout of four of, you know, two bunk beds which could have four people in them. Could they be easily converted? Yes, I think they could be easily converted to a double bed. Amelia Lorentson 34:02.722
So we're planning to deviate from the Noosa Plan. There's a requirement under section 63 that we have to establish a planning need. Can you elaborate? You've provided councillors with a list of all the other available school camps and education facilities. Can you just talk to us about that? Okay. SPEAKER_00 34:24.858
Again, it was a brief list. I don't mean that don't mean that that is a final list in terms of this area. The applicant hasn't demonstrated that there is a planning need for this type of facility in the area. Sorry, in my opinion, I don't believe they have demonstrated that. There are a number of existing camps in the area that our existing school groups use. There's facilities on the North Shore and also... Joe Jurisevic 35:10.588
In the report there was no mention of a bushfire hazard assessment or management plan for the site but my understanding is the applicant has since provided one. Were there any concerns raised in the the bushfire hazard plan that the applicant provided? SPEAKER_00 35:28.968
We'll get Will to have a little chat about that if you like. Please. SPEAKER_12 35:32.568
So the site is considered a vulnerable use and I guess under the SPP requirements the assessment benchmark query requires that developments mitigate the risk to people and property to an acceptable and tolerable level of risk. This is done three ways you know they need to demonstrate there's an overriding need in the public interest within your expanded service. There's no other suitable alternative locations within the required service catchment and the siting site and planning can appropriately mitigate risk. The applicant has determined that they've met this requirement by achieving a separation distance of less than 10 kilowatts per square metre for the users of the site. So in an emergency, the idea is that you'll locate the users of the property within that less kilowatts per square metre of radiant heat which would be in the centre of the site essentially. From an officer level, I guess I'd need to look at is that an acceptable level of risk, a tolerable level of risk, or an intolerable level of risk. And there's three definitions for these. An acceptable level of risk is sufficiently low to require no new treatments. A tolerable or a a risk is low enough to allow the exposure to a natural hazard to continue, but high enough to require new treatments or actions to reduce that risk. Communities can generally live within this level of risk, but as much as reasonably practically should be done should be done to reduce this risk. An intolerable level of risk is one following an understanding of the likelihood and consequences is so high that it requires actions to avoid. reduce risk. Individuals in society will not accept this risk and measures are to be put in place to reduce risk to at least a tolerable level. In an emergency the current proposal depends on what two exit points, both exiting south via Kabi Road and Cootharaba Road before being able to evacuate towards Tewantin or Pulmarina and where evacuation is not possible to shelter in place in area. Given that the proposal may potentially put large numbers of school aged children in a situation where they can't be evacuated in an emergency, these guests would have to refuse on the property in case of a wildfire emergency may be may be exposed to flame attack, ember attack, radiant heat exposure, wind, smoke attack, council would view this as an incurable risk. Joe Jurisevic 38:19.828
You've mentioned two egresses from the property in the report that only talks about one. Can we just clarify that on that one? SPEAKER_12 38:27.408
Yep, so the original report referred to one evacuation point and a a secondary secondary evacuation report is going to be provided to council, which now proposes a second exit point, which is also through Highbush Fire. Joe Jurisevic 38:43.191
They both exit basically south through the Now, I'm not sure whether you're the right person to ask this question, I will, but with regard to having that many people on a property if they were to remain in place from building code perspective, would something like sprinklers or that be required in a property of this nature, given what it's being intended to use for? I mean, a school or a school facility or a boarding facility, I would imagine that sort of thing would be a requirement. SPEAKER_12 39:13.814
It's difficult to put a solution to a risk like this, given the use. The individual buildings would be required to achieve a BAL rating, which is different to a radiant heat clutch rating, so that would be undertaken by a certifier. And under again, that building code? Correct. Okay, so that would be reliant on building code. So they have to meet certain building code regulations if these were to be accepted and go ahead in a rural setting with a dam for water supply, one would imagine. SPEAKER_00 39:43.622
I think the number of children, the number of people outside as well. Joe Jurisevic 39:49.622
Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 39:50.822
Just another question. The applicant's town planner has communicated that the applicant's happy to discuss scale materials. Would that change the decision? And how, you know, how much smaller does this have to be to get a tick? SPEAKER_00 40:14.321
I find that a very hard question to answer. It is. Amelia Lorentson 40:16.921
And I'm struggling with it also, Nadine. SPEAKER_00 40:20.221
So on Facebook, I think we are proposing, we're We're proposing permanent structures, quite large structures such as the basketball court within, on valuable agricultural land. So we're reducing our amount of agricultural land available. Again, it's a limited resource. So whatever we approve on this site, we'll reduce that resource. So there's that one aspect for me. The second one, we're talking we're talking about scale and I know Karen's mentioned about scale and bulk, when you look at the whole site, yes this is a small percentage of all three sites, the built form, but I'm not, when I I read the planning scheme, I don't see that this is what the planning scheme was looking for. It's talking about small scale, smaller buildings being scattered amongst the environment. And I don't see that this is really meeting that. So what I think might be appropriate, I don't know. It's functional viable and I don't know if that's, you know, and I don't have a number in my head actually. Richard MacGillivray 41:24.399
And I guess, Councillor, just to add to Medina's comments, it's always difficult, I guess, putting, staff putting back feedback on what is the appropriate scale. Our role is to assist the applicant's proposals as they put it forward. Certainly staff from an early stage, from pre-lodging. They've been very clear around their concerns around the scale of this operation. And usually based on that feedback we would be thinking that they modify that to reduce it to a point where it's considered acceptable as part of our assessment. assessment, we're obviously presenting what's been brought by the applicant today, so sorry I can't answer that question accurately, but just to give you some context. Frank Wilkie 42:05.810
I'd just like to ask another question. In the report you mentioned the impact on road, and is it the development applicants points to a 6/5 increase in traffic on the Fever Road? Yes, that's correct. From 57 to 356? Yes, that's correct. Yes. Would an independent public consultant have a different view? SPEAKER_00 42:41.509
Quite possibly. We do find our traffic consultants often have a different opinion to some of the consultants, but in this instance we have just taken the applicant's consultant's perspective. Joe Jurisevic 42:52.989
Thank you. Two questions. I'll follow on from that question with regard to traffic management or traffic, what was the allowable traffic under the development application in compared to what currently operates on that? My understanding is it's significantly more than 57, so as a golf course it had approval up to 180 or 200 cars, so about half of Sorry, SPEAKER_00 43:18.712
I didn't bring that email. Yes, what I sent previously. At its peak, when it was approved, it did have up to about 180, I believe. Again, that was based on, I suppose, conservative maximum figures. I'm just going under its current approval. It had approval for up to 180 vehicle movements a day. That's right, but we are going up to almost 400 vehicles. That's right, just for comparison's sake, it's with regard to that. So the other one, you gave a response with regard to the question raised previously, and I just confirmed this. In terms of bulk, the rural Zane Coe details a range of outcomes, running to built form and small scale The acceptable outcomes detail that individual buildings not used for rural activities do not exceed 500 square metres gross. Is that correct? And further, the Noosa Plan details that small scale accommodation is to take the form of small separate buildings with a lodge not exceeding 250 square metres and no individual cabins or cottages have any area exceeding 65 square metres. just in relation to that last part, so individual cabins or lodges 65 square metres but in total no more than 500 metres gross. Is that how I read that? Yes, that's how it does read, yes. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 44:33.327
I'd like to move to staff recommendation with one small change and that change is down on item D for memories. Richard MacGillivray 44:50.960
Oh, no, there's one on D. Keep going down. I think it's the third down. SPEAKER_00 45:08.740
3A, is that the one you're looking at? Joe Jurisevic 45:10.340
3A, is it? That's close to D. very close. Brian Stockwell 45:21.240
Overwhelming, yes, by inserting the word 'planning' after the word 'overwhelming'. Richard MacGillivray 45:25.720
Overwhelming, yes, by Frank Wilkie 45:41.200
Okay, do we have a seconder for that please? Seconder is Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 45:49.820
Yeah, Vicky, if you could bring up... You put on voices pretty fluky. I have done a wonderful presentation of trying to do so myself. The concept of having a paddock-to-plate school-based education facility in the rural area is a good one. It is one that if it was the right scale and designed well in the right place, that we would... It's 40. But one of the first things that I teach, when I teach anyone about agriculture, is one of the most important principles is that we're not making any more good quality agricultural land. That's why the State planning policy on protection of good quality agricultural land was the first one gazetted in Queensland in 1992. It is the longest established state interest in local local government planning schemes. And what is that state interest that affects this? This is out of the current state planning policies. It says avoiding development that will have irreversible impact on or adjacent to agricultural land to agricultural land class A or B, maintaining or enhancing land conditions and the fire physical resource underpinning that. And D, it does say facilitating opportunities for coexistence with development that is complementary to agricultural uses that do not reduce agricultural productivity. activity, okay, and then agricultural tourism. That's the core principle about this one, is we have nearly two acres of gross floor area for short term accommodation that can be used for both school children and the general public of some groups. That's not the only area that is alienated. It's also getting to those sites, but it's also, if we have sensitive land uses, then the buffer around them is also alienating from the intensive agriculture. So it's really essential to me. is number one grounds for refusal is it offends the longest standing state interest in local government planning schemes in the State. Because while we've never had a famine in Australia, the countries that realised that protecting good quality agricultural land is fundamental to the sustainability of their community. So next please. I did talk about this before. We're talking about a sports hall with basketball. There is no way that a court would approve a basketball court on good quality agricultural land. One of my previous One of my previous jobs, I had the State role of identifying and going through all the court cases on Good Collegiate and Cultural Land up until 20 years ago when I left that job. And while in the early days there was some doubt about how strong the State's It's a very well established principle that you do not alienate state agricultural land in the extent for dining facilities, for land sale kitchens, okay. talks about, you know, in the report we talk about it's it's clearly more prominent, like this is from the end report, it's clearly more permanent. There's one area there that has, you know, some of the buildings are built on concrete slabs, they are, that is permanent alienation. There's one thing that isn't identified, we're talking about incompatible land uses, the predominant I haven't seen the detail but certainly in my years of waterway restoration widening it to the point that it's a canoe course would not be considered to be rehabilitation so we're in a yeah I'll mention that I haven't seen in my opinion the closest definition under the State is we're talking about a 300 person resort in a rural area simple thing we're really unusual next please that's So that's the result. I'm clicking on here and it's not changing anything. Next time again, unusual in this particular spot. Frank Wilkie, next slide. We've got really good quality soils mapping. We've had a land resource assessment. the State only does this in areas they think have got agricultural potential. So I don't know if there's anywhere else in our Shire that's got such good soils. There's no smaller part done. That just shows the soil. I'll go to the next one. But from that soils map, you get your ag land classes. And you can see that there, the dark green is the highest quality ag land, class A1. The lighter green is A2, and the orange is B. If you go to the next slide. Now, that's overlaid on the development. You can see the whole of the development site is mapped within class A1 or class A2 agricultural land. Okay, you can see through the map, it should have been a slideshow, it shouldn't have. Go once again, it probably will take off. Hit next again. Oh, there you go. See, that's what it was overlying. That's the development concept. We can move on. strategic framework. It talks about we do want a economy that's diverse and resilient, and we do want agricultural pathways. It talks about aligning with the Noosa point of Noosa brand, implementing natural and environmental sustainability, and it talks about low impact nature-based tourism and rural tourism that are supported. And if we go on, if we go on, that's reflected in the tables of assessment. Next please. And you can see the sort of scale that was envisaged. These are all the sort of uses that were mentioned in the report. You can see the code assessment, 25 tents or caravans, for a tourist park, for an education establishment, involving no more than 20 students. For nature-based, it talks about 20 guests. So, this one's seeking approval for 299, and across the area, less than 5,000 square metres. It's a much larger scale than what we're envisaged. And next slide, please. We talked about Queensland plan being inconsistent. Now, there's some important words there. Opportunities to further grow and diversify regional food, which is seen as direct marketing, evaluating options, adaption of traditional industries to new players, artisanal food protection, local farmers markets. These are all the things that the permaculture movement leaps into. You know, high-value dairy products, grass-fed, free-range, subtropical fruit. It talks about sub-regions, hinterland areas, and this is in the north part where we are. The sub-regions, hinterland areas support the growth of creative and boutique industries. Rural diversification includes value-adding, nature-based tourism as well as clean industries. activities will be encouraged, which we should, where they can be managed to preserve the agricultural land resource conservation has been threatened. That's what this development does not do. Now, one of the reasons I bring this up is those words are very familiar to Noosa because they are taken straight out of the Noosa Council submission to the regional plan. I wrote most of them and Ralph improved on them. So that's what we said we wanted and that's what the regional planning reflects and when we talk about scale that we may accept in the future then they really need to do a better job in identifying how they can get an educational establishment without offending the really core principles of planning Frank Wilkie 54:14.720
And now the councillors wish to speak. Tom Wegener 54:18.700
I want to speak to this. Okay I understand the staff's recommendation and I understand that they're looking through the lenses of the planning scheme and they say there's no overwhelming need and I agree when I say I will not vote against the clear wording of the planning scheme unless there is an overwhelming public interest and in this And in this case, I think there is a whopping overriding public interest. And I want us to look at this application through all the other strategies and plans that we have. For example, when we look at the environment strategy 2019 through the lens, a different lens, through a different strategy, we say by 2030, 80% of all grazing land achieved best practice management for agriculture. Where are Far as I know, and I've spent a lot of time last four years really trying to understand Noosa agriculture, there's a grand total of one east wall farms properly doing regenerative cattle farming. So if we approve this application application, we will double the amount of regenerative Cadillac operations in Noosa to two. When we look at the climate change response plan, again, a different set of eyes, we're looking at we know that we need to produce our own food, we need to grow it. At the trail, where they go around to the different farms, how many crop farmers were there in Noosa on the trail? Zero. There was one, Eastwell Farms, which had a token regenerative farm. have a situation here where we don't eat what grows here. During lunch, during the summertime, we eat iceberg lettuce, carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, none of them are from here, not from anywhere There's plenty of wonderful greens we can put on our plate, but we don't grow them. And that is a very, very big problem. When we look at it, this application through the corporate plan, which is the big daddy plan of ours, the plan states, work with agriculture organizations and agencies to support and educate landholders on regenerative agriculture methods and promote local sustainable food production. That's right in the corporate plan. That went out to public consultation. Lots of people said, "Yep, that's right." And we know we need to live up to that. And the question about how the corporate plan is, how is it going to filter out to other plans? How are other plans going to use that lens to perceive what to do next? And we looked at the last business round table meeting of the economic development, and they "We will scope the preparation of a food and agribusiness industry development plan." So that is how our economic policy is looking at the corporate plan, and the corporate plan is filtering through. So we're going down this agriculture route. When we look at the Noosa River catchment management plan, which we will soon be celebrating, we have a very view of this application. In page 65, it says the amount of silt or mud coming down was 1,102 kilograms per hectare, which is an ungodly amount of silt coming off of the property. This is in just the Kin Kin area alone. This is 28,069 cubic metres of silt washing off The massive decline in our lovely little lives in the bottom of the river is due to the amount of sediment in the river and on our watch in the last 20 years, 30 to 65% of those creatures that live in the benthic layer are gone, aren't there anymore. And what does that do to? Coming off, coming off of our, our, our agricultural lands. Probably silver. The current cattle farming is an extractive industry. An extractive industry is one where the is one where the externalities are not incorporated, does not incorporate externalities into the business, which is they have cattle, 60 head of cattle on 100 acres of property. That's normal out there. They eat the grass down improperly. They're not moving around so that the farmer sells the cattle. We get the mud. river silts up. So we are subsidizing our cattle industry here in Noosa with our practices. We need to start this regenerative concept. It is so utterly important for us. Page 63 states that River Plants develop a landholder extension program to educate rural landholders on sustainable land management. So we need to educate them on sustainable land management. And what does that look like? Well, Rachel Ward, the famous actress from the Thorn Birds, Don Mendo, we're glad, and Against All Odds, one of our favourite. Brian Stockwell 59:45.742
We're looking at a development application for farm stay accommodation. We're getting a sermon on regenerative agriculture. I don't think it's think it's relevant to the application because we're not refusing or approving agriculture. Frank Wilkie 01:00:04.479
What's your response to that? Tom Wegener 01:00:06.039
We are looking at an overwhelming need. There is no overwhelming need, and I'm demonstrating that there is an overwhelming need. For agriculture, I agree with you. But we're dealing with an accommodation application. Frank Wilkie 01:00:20.535
So it's your point that this application would develop these sorts of areas that you're championing? Tom Wegener 01:00:27.075
It is. This application for this development is thoroughly supported by many other plans that we have, including our own corporate plan. That's the link that I'm making between agriculture and this. All allowed. Thank you. It is interesting. What is? It's very easy. So we have Rachel's farm. had a farm. Cattle are dying. She's worrying about climate change. She says, what can I do? Well, it's in the soil. The best way to sequester carbon is to put it in your soil layer. That's where it belongs. And on her farm, she changed to regenerative farming. And she came here to talk about it. She came to Noosa. She played the movie twice. She answered questions. And she said-- Through the chair, point of order. Sorry, through the chair. Frank Wilkie 01:01:17.991
OK. Are you talking about another development now, Tom? Tom Wegener 01:01:21.011
OK, let's look at-- Let's talk about this one. Let's talk about-- OK, we're looking at it through the waste strategy and zero emissions. How do we-- How do we, this development can teach us about zero emissions. How to sequester carbon. With the waste strategy, we are looking towards getting our double grind and our, what do you call it? burning, the biochar. We are looking at that, bringing, getting that as our, it was once a waste product, bringing it back, putting it on our land, sequestering carbon. Can you say that again? Of course they do. So currently, our topsoil is being washed, washed away. Yes, yes. SPEAKER_04 01:02:00.421
I would like to raise a Frank Wilkie 01:02:02.182
Point of order. Yes, Councillor Finzel. SPEAKER_04 01:02:03.242
Yeah, I don't believe the speaker is speaking to the nation before us. Brian Stockwell 01:02:09.361
Okay. Yeah. Tom, can you, can you keep your comments, you've been given a lot of latitude, can you keep your comments now to the application I spoke to Andrew from CYC and said, why does it need to be so big? And he said, it's the only way to make this economic. economically viable. 300 kids, he said, isn't actually that big when it comes to this sort of development. There are much, much bigger kid camps out there. It's not a big one. He says, it's just the right size. And I said, well, why does it have to be so fancy? And he said, well, teachers. If you're going to have a place like this with lots of kids coming, it's actually got to be really nice for the teachers, because the teachers have to want to go there. And by making a facility like this, you'll have teachers to say, yeah, I want to bring my kids there. the basketball court and the canoeing? Because they're kids. You need something else, like not every kid is all that excited about getting their hands dirty, learning about the circular economy, growing things, learning about nutritious plants that they can be They might not fit for that, but you got this over there. But at least we're working towards that. This is what's called a BHAG, a Big Hairy Audacious Goal. And we need to, maybe we need to move to move forward with this because we are actually in a terrible place with agricultural land. And maybe this application is the giant crowbar we need to dislodge the old paradigm that we are living now and we desperately need to escape from. We are going backwards on our river as we'll see in the river plan. We're going backwards on sustainable agriculture. We're going backwards on teaching our kids about the circular economy, about eating what's right. We're going backwards on our climate change response plan. We're going backwards on so many of the things that we value here in Noosa and perhaps this application is a step forward. forward. Frank Wilkie 01:04:07.457
Thank you Councillor Wegener. I have a question. Yes through the chair to Councillor Tom. Are you aware they're running cattle on this property? Tom Wegener 01:04:17.837
They are and they're currently running cattle but not in a regenerative meeting meaning that they've got a big paddock with a handful of cattle on it. They in the in the plan and I think it's in the plan but it's also in the permaculture plan they move the plan, they move the cattle every four days. So every paddock has a lot of time, has what, 30-something days to regenerate before the cattle comes onto it next. You drive around Noosa, you are starting to see brown. You won't see that on Eastwell Farms, on the regenerative. You won't see brown, but you look at it now, it's already turning brown. The cows have eaten the food all the way down. When it rains again, our river's full of Can I ask you a question, Councillor Finzel? Frank Wilkie 01:04:57.888
Yes, thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:59.788
I'll speak to this. I support the staff recommendation to refuse the application. The scale of this project, a 299 person accommodation facility is excessive and conflicts with the Noosa Plan. Contrary Contrary to what I've heard at the table, the proposal does not further, and I'm referencing the recommendation on page 42, it doesn't further the SEQ regional plan 2017 that says to intensify or diversify on-farm agricultural activities because the proposed permaculture and food production is not of a significant scale. The farm stay is of a significant And there are two other major reasons why I'm supporting the application. The applicant hasn't proven or demonstrated this overwhelming planning need. We don't need another school camp. And the issue on bushfire, there is no way that is no way that I can sleep well at night knowing there might be 299 kids placed in a precarious position. We're in a bushfire season and that is a paramount concern. a strong enough reason to be added to the refusal. Tom Wegener 01:06:32.662
Buildings, all three, are in the middle of the property. And if you can take into consideration that when you have the syntropic and permaculture gardens surrounding them that it feels very wet and that's about the last place that the burns would actually add. add to the safety of the concept of staying on property in case of the worst case scenario where they can't get away, that you actually have got land that will not burn around the property. SPEAKER_12 01:06:59.340
Was that considered? Yeah, I guess there's a lot of different variables with bushfires. Smoke and ember attack is also another issue that we consider to be a significant issue for the type of occupants. Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:07:14.576
You. Ask to support staff recommendation. I think it's excessive inside. I think we have a plethora of school camps. In fact, I know because I'm continually driving my children to them. I'm picking them up at night when my line won't stay over. So there are many within driving distance of this area. So I don't So I don't think there has been an overwhelming planning need shown. The real concern I have too is in regard to bushfire, especially when the secondary exit point was in a high bushfire area. That is of major concern to me and I support staff recommendations. you Mayor Stewart. Joe Jurisevic 01:07:48.878
Councillor Jurisevic. I agree with everything that's been said around the table. Tom, I take all of your points on board. It's one of the reasons I sat, spent most weekend trying to get my head around this, because I see the value in what's being proposed here, even Councillor Stockwell acknowledged that in one of his first comments. There's merit in what's being proposed here. Once again, thank great idea in the wrong location to deliver this. The concept of education of sustainable agricultural practices involving and having activities for children are great. Nobody argues that they're great outcomes, particularly with what we're hearing on the news with regard to youth out of control. Here we've got an activity centre that will keep kids occupied, but also educate them in the need for sustainable food and agricultural practices for the future. What a great concept. as Brian pointed out, the land has been earmarked as some of the best agricultural land, and taking that element of that, and the Noosa Plan also alludes to, it's not the right location to actually implement permanent structures and the like that should be utilised for ongoing and increasing agricultural practices. So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place in some elements of this, but there are clearly elements on the size, the scale and the location and the land use that challenge that. Nobody's saying it's a bad proposal, it's just a good proposal in an inappropriate location according to the land availability, the land usage and according to the plan. And the size and scale of the activities clearly is something that challenges bushfire management. Bushfire management in a location like that putting that many people into in that sort of sort of area is also a challenge. So I can't disprove anything that's been said around the table and I thank you for your passion Tom with regard to wanting to see more sustainable agricultural practices and like in the in the region. I just can't support this development application as it currently stands before us but I do credit do credit the applicant with bringing forward some challenging thinking with regards to what's needed for the future of not only this region but the entire country. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:10:13.110
Councillor Jurisevic. Any other councillors wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? I will. At a risk of oversimplifying, the reason why I support staff recommendation is because this is a resort scale accommodation development on lands set aside for food security and food production. And as time goes on with the challenges of a changing climate and development, our access to arable land and securing our local food production is going to become increasingly critical. So to put to put permanent structures of a resort scale accommodation development on some of our best agricultural land will deny us food security going into the future. I also don't believe there's an overwhelming pain in me because as has been pointed out there are 16 other youth educational facilities camps in our region. So it's not as if we need to override the planning scheme and the South East Queensland Regional Plan's intent for this site to provide another school camp. The other factor is the impact is the impact on neighbours out there. This would see a six-fold increase in traffic on the feeder road and I don't think people who bought in based on the information they'd gained from the Noosa planning scheme were expecting to see a six-fold increase in traffic out there and the Noosa planning scheme in a sense is a contract had with our community. It sets expectations, reasonable expectations about what people can expect to see appear on a property next door. I'll be open to assessing another application which had the proportions, the ratios of accommodation as opposed to land under That is much more land under permaculture reversed. That is much more land under permaculture and a lot lighter footprint in terms of accommodation provided out there. I think it possibly is the right location but the size and scale is wrong and for those reasons I'm supporting the staff recommendation. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Brian Stockwell 01:12:50.687
I do close. I didn't hear any arguments against the motion. What I heard was a passionate concept of the need being one for more sustainable agriculture and there's no person who's going to agree with that more than myself. I was the president of an organic growing group in the 1970s, one of the first permaculture conveners on the coast in the early 80s and went on doing PhDs in this area. The concept at a planning stage is protecting the most valuable resource we have for the resilience of future communities. After shelter, on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, food is next. And we consistently underestimate how important it is to protect our best quality agricultural land. When I grew up my mother was a travelling piano teacher and she taught the custard apple farmers kids in Sunnybank. She taught the strawberry growers kids in Rochdale. she told the farmers kids in Woodridge. In our massive urban areas. Why in 1922 did the State bring it in? Because they realised that the incremental death by a thousand cuts of agricultural land threatens the sustainability of our community. That's what the primary issue at heart of this is. While I appreciate Councillor Wegener's passion for the current regenerative form of agriculture. Some of what he said was incorrect. Not all alternative mechanisms of grazing or agriculture relate to downstream sediment movement. In fact there's lots of science for other forms of science for other forms of agriculture other than what's going to be considered regenerative that have little or no impact on water quality and many of the producers in our Shire do adopt a lot a range of the best management practice many farmers have spent thousands of dollars putting riparian vegetation along the creeks okay i think that's important to say that We know a lot about what creates the sediment in the Noosa River. Some of it will be off broad scale grates, a lot of it will be from mass movement, floods, stream bank erosion. So the key point here is that if we're going to educate people, we're going to have a transformational change in our food, the place to start look after your best assets first. And that's what we're doing by saying no, this has gone too far. Frank Wilkie 01:15:46.373
And Councillor Stockwell, put the motion to the vote. All in favour? That's Councillor Stewart, Lorentson, Jurisevic, Finzel, Stockwell and Wilkie. Against? Councillor Wegener? The motion's carried. Councillors, we have another item ahead of us which may take a bit of time. Would you like to take a five minute break now? We'll come back for an extended session. Yes, thank you. Yes? Okay, we'll adjourn the meeting for five minutes please. Thanks. Thank Richard MacGillivray 01:16:41.760
Welcome back everybody. We're up to item 6.1 which is the adoption of the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan. And to give us a bit of an overview, we have Amy Kimber, and we have Kim Rawlings, and we have Ben. Ben Derrick, welcome. Can you give us a bit of an overview of where we're at with the development? Thanks very much, Frank, and good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon. So it's really exciting, I think, to be at this point. A huge amount of work has gone into preparing this catchment plan, and it's been going on for decades, for centuries. Oh, sorry, Brian has a conflict. Oh, here we are. Brian Stockwell 01:17:26.041
I have more than one. Council has always declared a conflict, consistent with my previous written declaration in regards to Noosa District Stand Care, who are acknowledged in a number of locations as being consulted on this plan. I, as in previous times, think I can stay in the room and make an impartial decision in the public interest, and I will choose to remain in the room, but respect your decision. Frank Wilkie 01:17:55.560
Is that, I guess that's incumbent on all, there's a list of people who have consulted at the back of the campaign. So, councillors, have you all checked? We've got a list. No, can I? We've got a long, very long list. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:11.357
On page 100, page 7,146, it's having a significant role. NICA. NICA's Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation, Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, Noosa and District Landcare Group, the Biosphere Reserve Foundation, Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory. Committee, Mary River, Catchment Coordinating Committee, Healthy Land and Water Department, DES, DAF, MSQ, South East Queensland Council of Mayors, The Nature Conservancy. Nature Conservancy, USC, NBFA, Boating Industry, Environmental Services, etc. Frank Wilkie 01:19:00.322
Knowing anyone on the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee, can we constitute a tango meeting on that? Right, Councillor Stockwell, your call. Clare Stewart 01:19:13.587
Or Brian Stockwell 01:19:14.827
No? Yes, I've declared an alignment with my written declaration so it's up to you. I move that the council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell in between that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this note that the council believes that a reasonable person cannot consider this. Believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Joe Jurisevic 01:19:42.100
Do you want to take it out? Would not consider this a conflict of interest? Brian Stockwell 01:19:45.800
So it's just that a section needs to be believed. Yeah. Would not consider. Frank Wilkie 01:19:50.640
Believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Joe Jurisevic 01:19:58.500
Catch him Brian. You're getting him. He's starting to affect other people's friends. Would trust. Frank Wilkie 01:20:10.171
Second. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. Any questions for Councillor Stockwell? Can I throw a question? Yes. My question is given recent OIA findings, would your long association, and I'm referencing Councillor Wilkie, his long association with the PBCA, should we be revisiting this conflict of interest just in light of that decision? A question to Larry Sengstock 01:20:48.425
Ultimately, you are revisiting it now. That's exactly what this is all about. You're giving up this conflict of interest. It's just that it's not reading it in total. But it's still a conflict of interest in your department. It hasn't changed from being a declarable conflict to a prescribed one. Richard MacGillivray 01:21:07.093
Okay. It's still declarable. Yes. Okay. Karen Finzel 01:21:10.033
I just have a question. Yes, the Chair, I understand it's not prescribed, but have you earned money in your association with these groups that have been mentioned? Brian Stockwell 01:21:20.652
So, from memory, um, under the Act, I only have to go back to the 2016 election. I did earn a small amount with Landcare doing a half-day workshop for them, which I think was still less than, or just, I can't recall, but it was a small amount still within the declarable if it was taken to be a gift, if you had a donation you had a donation of $500 or more, I think it was around that $500 mark, but it was before the time, before 2016 actually. Frank Wilkie 01:21:57.779
And if I remember rightly, when this and the district land care has been, your association with land has been mentioned before, you've declared it on the stage as well. So consistent with that, I've moved this. Put to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell did not vote. Councillor Stockwell, you have a second declarable conflict of interest. Brian Stockwell 01:22:21.080
Yeah, I'll read this one just because I don't do it that often. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a long-standing relationship with MRCC as a previous company employee and a long-term collaborator since 1994. I have in the past had I have in the past had a small contract below the limit of it for a prescribed conflict and prior to the declarable timeframe. I was up until the last AGM council represented on the committee and in this role I played... in this role I played... Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a regional person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. What seems to remind And have I respected the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision? Joe Jurisevic 01:23:07.680
I move that council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell determine that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on the matter because the council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to gain personal materials through noting this report and therefore reasonable trust the final decision was made in the public interest. I'll second it. Again, as we've done in the past, I believe this is fairly consistent with the approach that we've had in past mentions of this conflict by Councillor Stockwell and the nature of the relationship being predominantly community-based. Frank Wilkie 01:23:48.539
Okay, further questions or comments, please take a vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous, Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the matter. Sorry for that. It's okay. Anybody else? Okay. SPEAKER_04 01:24:05.565
Thank you. So over the years we've had many improvements in managing and coordinating river-related issues including... including speed limit changes, ecological restoration, marine zone regulations, improved environmental monitoring and enhanced river-based infrastructure for boat access. We've had various... types of governance models. So, you know, at the beginning in 2004 when Council had its first plan, we had a coordinated group of government agencies around In 2016 we had the community jury considering changes to the river and then we also had, more or less, the Mr River stakeholder advisory committee which concluded its term in March this year. Now we did have a subcommittee meeting of the NSERAC about the vision and plan for the river moving forward. It sort forward, it sort of went around in circles a little bit and I think that the committee felt that having MSQ as a co-chair for the committee really meant that we needed to focus on MSQ matters so I think there was a fair bit of frustration that over two years it really only focused on anchoring and mooring but that was that was the situation that we were dealing with. More recently we've had very targeted stakeholder engagement. We had a dedicated workshop with Kabi Kabi, spoken with a whole branch of state government contacts, council of mayors, healthy land and water, land care, MRCC, NICA, the Nature Conservancy, a local commercial fisher. So there's been a on behind the scenes and that has all been documented and incorporated into the plan. In terms of our updated plan, we've really tried to draw on consultations, scientific research and the many partnerships we already have underway. So I think we've been we've been going over this ground for a long time. I think given the amount of constipation that's been undertaken, we do have a good picture of group and management issues and concerns and we've really tried to take that feedback on board in terms of this updated plan. It's really important that we get our plan finalised because it we can't access state and Commonwealth funding. We really need a road map to guide our investment moving forward. There are two major opportunities through South East Queensland Passport Nance, Resilient Rivers opportunity, as well as the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change energy and... the Environment and Waters, Urban Rivers and Catchments program. So they've been... they've been advised to receive that funding will become available later this year for that. The plan provides an overview of the key threats and pressures for the Noosa catchment and we've identified prioritised management actions. But the next part The intention is that this will be monitored annually, both in terms of the ecological condition of the catchment, but how we're going to actually implement the new plan itself. And one of the ideas that we've been thinking about in terms of the future governance is whether we have a small technical advisory panel that can help guide that ongoing monitoring and risk assessment. The plan includes an action to consider the establishment of a conservation park under the Nature Conservation Act across fish habitat areas. This would provide a statutory head of power. better integration of river management across government agencies under a trust degree and a joint management plan with Department of Environment and Science. In the very, very early stages of considering that, we have received legal advice that indicates... indicates it is possible. Completion of this plan is listed as a signature project in the 2023-28 corporate plan, so we do have a mandate mandate in our head document to get on with it. And really without it, as I said, it's a framework to protect and improve the catchment, better monitor conditions and trends, and collaborate. Share ownership and attract investment. We have peer review undertaken by four independent experts. And what we've done is divided the plan up into six management areas to try to So I think that's an overview of what we've tried to achieve, but I'll be able to take any questions. Joe Jurisevic 01:29:25.725
We've got a couple of questions with minor changes that I believe are necessary to the document to clarify a couple of things. The first one being that I note in regards to Lake Donella, the runoff from the industrial area west of Noosa-Yamundi Road drains into Lake Donella as I understand it, but I can only see Lake Wyber mentioned as having runoff from the industrial area. Is that something that can that something that can be reviewed before the final document is released to the public to correct that element of where industrial area runoff falls into? Brian Stockwell 01:30:00.597
Councillor Joe, we're talking about the report that reviewed the runoff into Eany Creek. But the other side doesn't. If you look at Project Avenue That report talks about into Lake Wyber. So that was where we had river-river water quality in Eany Creek just after the first stormwater outlet from the industrial first stage. So it does flow both ways now. That's right. That's what I'm saying. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:25.464
That's what I'm saying. It flows both ways. We only mention it flowing into Lake Wyber. We don't mention it flowing into Lake Nellie. I think that's a correction that could easily be addressed. Brian Stockwell 01:30:31.984
Okay, I just think in that where it's mentioned, I think you're talking about that study. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:35.788
I realise that, but as far as an understanding of the concept of the river and what the impact of the industrial area potentially is, I think it should be mentioned that the industrial water flows both ways. Frank Wilkie 01:30:46.606
That's one of the minor editors. That's a minor edit. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:49.806
The other element here with regard to water quality. Thank you. Mentioning zero litre entering the river under desired... desired actions on page 110. But my concern is that what we've said there is that... And I'll go back and actually quote it. Wrong page, that one. I think we're just being a little... Under water quality point C, by 2030, zero litre enters the Noosa River system. I don't don't know that we're capable of making sure that every element of litter going into the river system is under our control, i.e. someone in a boat throwing something out of the boat. we clarify within that element of what areas council can control waste entering the river from, i.e. whether it's coming through a stormwater system, the areas that we will manage litter entering. river from, as opposed to litter in general entering the river system, because we couldn't stop anything blowing into the river either. Karen Finzel 01:32:03.814
An aspirational element to it, around zero litter in our river, and that flows through to education campaigns, to our recreation. So I think there's an aspirational element that should be maintained in the river, but I think in terms of detail... terms of detail, we can clarify that what also can be controlled at the council level. But I think there's two aspects that need to be... And that was my second part of my question was, yes, I mean, aspirationally, education is a fundamental part people understand their role and relationship with the river is you come to enjoy, don't destroy. That sort of mindset, Brandy's words, which I think everybody should live by when enjoying the environment. there that zero litter enters the Noosa River system is just a bit too nonspecific with regards to what we can manage and what we intend to facilitate through education in other words. But I think that... just a little bit... I think it's a bit of a bridge. If that can be expanded, I think it'll be an improvement. SPEAKER_04 01:33:06.553
Absolutely. And I think that with a lot of these initiatives, what we see is that they evolve over time as well. We're only at the beginning point of scoping some of these things out. So I think it will become clearer exactly what we're trying to achieve with each initiative as we get to work on the particular projects. Joe Jurisevic 01:33:25.751
It also means if we're controlling the elements that we can control, we can then focus on the other areas where litter's coming from and education is a key part of that. Karen Finzel 01:33:35.333
Thank you. for the overview. That was good. I've just got a question then around comments you made around statutory head of power under the Department of Environment and Science. And also in the report about a conservation park. Now I've had community contact me with concerns about regulation and balance to the the, you know, all users and everyone having opportunity for inclusivity and use of the river. Can you just talk to me a bit about how that's going to happen with this idea of governance? Yeah, thank you. So the river plan has an implementation action that says consider the mechanism of the conservation park under the Nature Conservation Act for the fish habitat areas in the river. There has been some confusion and I've been contacted also, Councillor Finzel, about that act and that head of power because the Marine Parks Act also has what's called a conservation zone, so there was some misunderstanding that we were talking about a marine park conservation zone. is a far more strict and limiting legislative head of power. That's not what we're talking about. And you can see the confusion. One's called a conservation park, one's called a conservation zone. what we are looking at is under the Nature Conservation Act, the conservation park that we have. Easily confused. There are examples of conservation parks around Queensland that provide the local government with a greater level of management and authority over those areas because we would operate as a trustee. plan would need to be developed for the conservation park and that would need to be done in collaboration with obviously the Department of Environment but with stakeholders of the river so commercial users, rec users, interested parties so there's a there's a quite a bit of work to be done to get to that point so at the moment we're just saying let's consider it as a mechanism a mechanism that will give council some more at the moment we don't have any jurisdiction really in the river that's been an issue over many years to try and deal with In the principles of the conservation, have you got it there? Yes, so providing explicit recognition that all current regulations and management principles are retained and that existing commercial fishing can continue in the arbiter of fishing's sustainability. I just wanted to add to what Kim was saying there as well. I just wanted to add We learned from the 2019 draft plan review that the community and others, I think state government agencies, were not too happy with the idea of council taking over. What a traditional state government responsibility. So we definitely want to avoid that perception and I think this model... this model, what we're looking at is really about setting up an arrangement so we can continue to liaise with state government agencies in a more, I guess, structured way. We've been doing it with MSQ for the past couple It goes to show how much work is involved in each of these relationships and we really need a mechanism around how we continue that engagement with the board. Frank Wilkie 01:37:32.829
Excuse me Amy, I received an email suggesting that there might be some confusion about thinking that the council is going to take over management of those sections of the river. No, that's not the intention. That's not the case exactly. It's, as you say, a seat at the table with the agencies that are responsible for that. That's exactly right. SPEAKER_04 01:37:49.749
They've all got very different focuses and I guess... areas that they see as their responsibility and it's quite different because it's about getting that holistic approach, you know, Maritime Safety Queensland are obviously very concerned with safety whereas DES is more concerned about ecological conditions so we're trying to get that arrangement in place with each of them. Sorry, before we go to Frank, just to... Karen Finzel 01:38:18.873
The next question. So the Nature Conservation Act specifically outlines management principles for conservation parks. It might be worth just... Yeah, it gives a good sense of what can occur in management in a conservation park. So conservation parks manage to conserve and preserve the... and preserve the area's cultural and natural resources and their values, provide for permanent conservation of the area's natural condition to the greatest possible extent, provide opportunities for educational and recreational activities in a way consistent with the area's... values, and ensure that any commercial use of the area's natural resources, including fishing and grazing, is sustainable. So, you know, it's a good mechanism to balance all of these things. Frank Wilkie 01:39:05.235
And you said it's clear in the book. clear in the report that it's going to be applied to the fish habitat areas. Richard MacGillivray 01:39:13.812
Yes. Frank Wilkie 01:39:14.373
Could you explain how far they extend, where they exist currently, so what areas are there in reality? SPEAKER_04 01:39:19.493
Yeah, you might need to help me out. It's about, I think, 80 or Yeah, it's quite a... It's easy to define what's not. Brian Stockwell 01:39:26.898
Yeah, what's excluded? Karen Finzel 01:39:28.218
What's excluded is the area from probably about here down to... Yeah, so all the foreshore areas where the are excluded. Yeah, that's right. yeah, that's probably the most, otherwise most of the rivers covered by fish habitat area already. Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:57.382
So, just again, just getting my head around all this. Conservation parks. At the moment, we've got DAF and DES and all these state agencies that determine what recreational activities are sustainable and what are harmful. Is the fact that now council is getting involved, does that mean that we deem something not sustainable, e.g. commercial fishing, then we can override Department of Environment Service, Department of Agriculture. fisheries so so can we there no okay so if there are concerns that this the Council of God about activities that are happening in that space space, then then we we would have those conversations in the State departments. But the head of power for sustainable fisheries is with DAF, absolutely, and that would absolutely not change. They regulate, they license, they set quotas, they determine what's sustainable, and they're looking at that all the time, annually, about what's sustainable. That remit would not shift to council. That would stay with the State. And the same with permits for approvals in the fish habitat area. That would stay with fisheries. So those heads of power wouldn't change, but it just gives us a seat at the table from a management perspective. At the moment, we don't have one. But can I again, excuse me, are we saying that state aren't doing all aren't capable of doing their job? Why aren't we just leaving it to them to do their job? Why are we stepping in? Have they failed? Karen Finzel 01:41:55.343
We're not stepping in to manage commercial fisheries. That's not what this is about. This is about saying there's a large portion of Noosa River that warrants conservation. And that council should have a seat at the table to deal with some of the issues. We don't at the moment. And things that come into council, which often do, they bounce around about whose jurisdiction is this? Again, what head of power is this? Whether it's about derelict boats or whether it's about pollution. This will give us a seat at that us a seat at that table and there would be a management plan that's where we could actually have a shared goal, more say in how those things are managed. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:38.827
So the NSERAC committee that folded in March this year, so two years, 14 members, really good cross-section diversity representation of all water users, was this plan and in particular the conservation park, was that discussed and more importantly endorsed by the committee? Karen Finzel 01:42:59.179
No, it wasn't discussed or endorsed by the committee. That wasn't the remit of that committee. No. What was it? Clare Stewart 01:43:08.853
Can I ask a question? The conservation park, if that gives us a seat at the table and gives us a voice, I mean we're still beholden though to Big Brother aren't we? We're still, the State is still the overarching group. Karen Finzel 01:43:21.913
That's right. responsible. On certain issues. Clare Stewart 01:43:26.427
There's a different number of different agencies responsible for different things. Karen Finzel 01:43:29.847
So I'm just wondering the conservation park how would that, I know you said we have a seat at the table but you know we you worked with state to give the permits for the oysters that was obviously required state approvals so how would a conservation park and sitting at the table how would that before Clare Stewart 01:43:43.294
I guess it's a formalised arrangement, whereas at the moment it's sort of just through our advocacy efforts that we've managed to, for example, work with MSQ. So it puts, I think, a form of governance around it. I guess my point is we had a seat at the table with the MSQ. We're co-chairs for the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group. We're still beholden to They're still the ones who make the final decision. So whether or not we advocate, whether or not we've got a seat at the table. Karen Finzel 01:44:15.268
This goes beyond a seat at the table. So we've had a seat at the table with MSQ, but ultimately they're the arbiter of the issues and they'll determine the way forward. Yes, we've had import. This vests more in council in terms of having the management plan in place. What do you think? there'd be shared objectives or goals and action for what needs to happen or what should happen in the conservation plan. That would be developed by council and signed up by other agencies. Clare Stewart 01:44:46.842
So the conservation park, if council was to engage or go down this track, when that's been set up, does that go to community consultation? Karen Finzel 01:44:59.495
It would be an engagement process, absolutely, to develop a management plan, yes. Clare Stewart 01:45:04.315
With all the people who are noted? With all the stakeholders, yeah, whoever's got an interest in that space. And the management plan would be developed collaboratively with engagement, yes. Councillor Frank Wilkie 01:45:17.535
Stockwell and Councillor Finzel? Brian Stockwell 01:45:19.015
Yeah, it's going to have to be a long question to give you the background. So, That goodwill waxes and wanes with individual staff members in individual departments over time. And when you have committed people on those state government, you do get action. But there are some actions that have been there since the very first river plan that haven't been progressed because they haven't had the militant goodwill. Is my understanding right that the conservation park and its management plan then becomes not then becomes not just a council head of power but also gives the State government the management plan which they have to respond to. So for example, we talk about fisheries from a recreational or commercial, most of the of the fisheries modelling is done on a regional level. What the conservation park may give us the head of power to say no we want to do a local fish assessment to work out local fishing rules that reflect the objectives of the conservation park. So it does give us it does give us that ability to set in place a more structured formal governance mechanism to achieve those long-standing aims of the Noosa River Plan, is that correct? Karen Finzel 01:46:56.819
It gives us a more formal making sense. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:59.488
So clarify what, okay, just as a clarification, maybe Brian or Kim, so are we saying that local, that under this management that we can use our own scientists as opposed to state scientists or commonwealth scientists and they can determine what's sustainable, what's harmful. Is that what I've sort of understood? You're referencing local. I'm saying that using example of fisheries, most of the fisheries management is based on regional assessment of stock. They wouldn't probably have a mullet stock in the Noosa River for example. This one we might to do our own set of commercial and recreational fish species and say actually this is probably the local management regime. It just gives you that head of power where you can get all the State government to say to meet these objectives we do a bit more analysis. So we can then as a council deem say fishing as unsustainable and override. No it still can't override. It's just about giving a more formal governance structure in place to get to the point where the State government regulation reflects the aspirations of the The River Plan also talks about sustainable fisheries. Karen Finzel 01:48:20.343
The driver behind the conservation plan is not commercial fishery. The River Plan also talks about commercial sustainable fisheries. and you know Council over the years has our approach to influence sustainable fisheries has been advocacy through this through the fishing reform process and there's there's been significant reform of fisheries across the State and our local fisheries our local commercial fisheries have felt that reform you know there's been a tightening tightening and tightening quotas and everything so that that would still stick with the State government to determine what's sustainable what quotas are licenses all of those things that will not sit with us and in terms of recreational fisher persons what would be the Well impact at at the the moment moment it's not regulated, rec fishing, there are catch limits, but it is still a state issue. At some stage we have talked about doing a recreation fishing strategy. But, you know, it's not something that we're completely looking at doing. SPEAKER_04 01:49:40.901
I think one of the actions as well is to develop a dedicated monitoring and evaluation research program to support this. Because I think we don't have a very good sense of the baseline. There's some of these matters at the moment. So, wreck fishing, we don't have a good understanding of what impact that's having. So, yeah, having that dedicated monitoring program, I think, in place will help us be able to monitor things better over Finzel's been very passionate. Karen Finzel 01:50:09.476
Thank you, Mr Chair. Given there's a lot of conversation around governance, formal structures and conversations about this moving forward, given our investment in transparency to our community and promising is going to be, like, in terms of whatever comes out of this, who is going to then be the people that regulate and, for example, give out fines for breaches of whatever across all of the many things? At the moment, we've got MSQ, for example, they're short staffed. I understand that they're regulated by the number of hours that's given through their recruitment process and, you know, contracts of employment. So they're limited to the number of hours that they can be on the river policing it. Moving forward, these are really vital questions about it's all good to, like, talk about governance. How are we going to deliver good governance and what's the what's the plan around how this is going to be regulated and also the administration of that moving forward so that it is clearly communicated back to our community. Like, for example, if someone's, you know, exceeding, I don't speed limits in your zone and your management plan for your conservation park, who's policing that? Is there a point where your local council is going to be regulating and handing out fines? Mine's all still in the skin. You've been having workshops with MSQ to work out what this might look like moving forward though and they've sort of tossed it back into the court that council could play a bigger role in some of the compliance activities but but I I think think it really sits with the State government agency and we need to advocate and they have enough resources to do it. So, yeah, question, thank you, back through the chair. So then when we talk about compliance and they've called on local council that we have a role to play in that, what do you envisage that role is around compliance? So at the moment, the only commitment we have suggested is... that our local laws offices could play a greater role in terms of, I think, shipping inspectors. So we're still in the process of working out what council support might look like, but... head of power sits with the State Government Department. Only a supporting role. Only a supporting role. Like, you know, the conversation we had about Tewa, Noosa, and how councils like the law offices would have a supporting role, but ultimately not the So, that's what's being talked about. Like, the law's potentially having a supporting role, but we've also talked about the River Ranger program, and as you know, Kabi Kabi Corporation been seeking land and sea Ranger funding for Noosa River catchment, and they would like to, you know, if they're successful, like to have a presence on the Noosa River around education, cultural values, those sorts of things. So there's, there's the intention is that we have a stronger presence, probably mainly around education, compliance and support, supporting the agencies, but the heads of power to find the speeding and That sits within NSQ, not with us. Joe Jurisevic 01:53:42.306
So from the educational perspective, things like fishing line bins and things like that and getting the community to utilise, understand what they're there for, where they're located and actually utilising them, ensuring they're empty. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:53:55.871
Councillor Stewart: Thank you. Just coming back to the conservation park, I'm just noting some of the Queensland legislation that's noted in this report and it says, this is page 91 of the report, it's 19 of the report, 91 of our agenda. says significant parts of the catchments, fresh waters and estuary are designated high ecological value under the Environmental Protection Water Policy 2009 Act. The management intent for these waters is to maintain them as underdeveloped. Now, if the idea was the idea was to protect those fish habitat areas that are already status quo, doesn't that legislation right there protect it? And what are we over-regulating by then having the conservation park deemed? I mean, is it necessary if we've got legislation that already, state legislation that is our big brother, that already actually deems these areas protected and unusable? Karen Finzel 01:54:51.043
It's not that the areas are unusable. You can see that our areas are very highly, highly... Well, sorry. So there are layers... Undeveloped. There are layers and layers of legislation and there are also... a range of agencies involved in management of the river. So yes, there are multiple layers. It's fish habitat area. There's limitations of what you can do in a fish habitat area. The challenge for us is we currently is we currently, Council don't currently have a seat at that table in terms of any legislative power, so issues, and I can tell you from experience of being in this organisation for many years about trying to get clear direction on issues in the room, and you would all know, you've all experienced being part of the NSTRAC and trying to get action on certain things is very, it's been very challenging around this. This mechanism gives us a greater opportunity to have a greater say in what happens in the Noosa River catchment. Clare Stewart 01:55:50.132
So does it give us an additional head of power? Is that exactly, is that what you're saying? It will give it, it does give us a legislative head of power. So that means that we then as a council or councillors can determine, have more say of what can and can't transpire in the river irrespective of what the State deems. Karen Finzel 01:56:07.718
Now if you're alluding to whether we can say or not commercial fishing is appropriate or not, that's not what this is about. It's not, we don't, we can't override state legislation. State legislation sits there, but they have the remit. So this is not about overriding state legislation at all. But it is about saying there are a range objectives that we are wanting to achieve for our river and have been wanting to achieve now for just under 20 plus, you know, 20 plus years and have struggled to get some of them in place. This puts us in a much better position by having some legislative power around achieving some of those things. Joe Jurisevic 01:56:53.013
Would an example of that be rehabilitation of seagrass, seagrass and mangroves? Karen Finzel 01:56:57.133
All of those sorts of things, managing erosion. But isn't that what we're doing with the Keepit and Kin Kin projects and all the projects we're doing in the oyster reefs? We've got kilometres worth of reefs. Isn't that already what we're doing? I'm just wondering why the adoption of this has to include a conservation park when it seems to me that I understand it at the seat of the table. But the legislation the legislation is clear that it's state government. State government will override anyone at the table anyway. And is it necessary when we have protection measures already in place? SPEAKER_04 01:57:33.305
So the action in the plan is actually to consider this. haven't we haven't gone right down the rabbit warren in terms of understanding all the ins and outs of what this might look like but you see as one option that could be a good governance model for us. It's put to you for consideration. As officers we think it's a good mechanism. We think it's a good balancing mechanism. We've taken into account all the feedback over many years around trying to get outcomes in our river and so we think this is a good mechanism. It's now put to you for consideration. Frank Wilkie 01:58:08.955
Sorry Jo, Councillor Finzel has got another question. Karen Finzel 01:58:12.461
Thank you Mr Chair. So I do acknowledge that we do need a call of action. Twenty years to keep something on the table and kicking the ball down the road is like incredulous to me and I do acknowledge there is a big lot of people engaged but yeah for you know good governance we do need to make some serious decisions. In terms of good fiscal management, in terms of transparency and engendering and engendering trust in our community given our history and what's gone on in the river before my time here and during, I think we've really got to look at when you say we're not going down the rabbit hole but we need some transparency around what does that mean just today when you raise that around local laws having you know a role in compliance like the question is then this would have to go to budget to consider through the through the chair and how is how do you see that and what's going to be the impact on our staffing that's already we're at capacity as an organisation how we're going to acknowledge that and bring that to budget and how many years down the track we've seen how long it's taken with STA putting officers in that for compliance writing you know all that there's to me a lot a large volume and work do you think one of the reasons we need the this management plan when you talk about securing funding is that funding going to be used for what purpose? For implementation of the actions in this plan. And will that include budget conversations around requirements? Yeah absolutely. Like the plan very clearly says at the moment the council are investing over $350,000 in river actions and projects and studies and you know you're already investing a substantial amount in the river. The plan says any future implementation actions are subject to budget consideration. Absolutely. So they'd all come back through council as it does annually around anything we invest in our waterways for your consideration. One of the Amy mentioned at the beginning, we need a catchment action plan in place to start to attract funding from state and federal agencies for our catchment. If we compare, and I don't have the figures here but I know we've looked at them previously, if we compare the amount of investment that other surrounding catchment like Mary Catchment for instance get because they've had strong catchment management plans in place for some time, it's substantially different. We don't, we don't have the ability to attract that funding. Not having a clear catchment management plan is one of the big pieces to that. We know of two funding streams already available that require a catchment management plan to be in place to attract So we will be working really diligently and working on something at the moment in terms of the investment strategy for south east Queensland and the New Zealand rivers to try and attract that external funding to help us Amelia Lorentson 02:01:21.865
I've got a few, but I'll start with this one. The peer review, a note on page 149, that the draft catchment management plan was provided to Alluvium Consultancy, the Nature Conservancy Nature Conservancy, Marine Restoration and Oceans Project Coordinator, a local ecologist and former NR Stakeholder Advisory Committee member and Noosa District Landcare for the purposes of peer review. My question is, the former NR Stakeholder Advisory Committee member, was that a rep from either the Recreational... fishers or commercial fishing group because the rest seemed to be like in the conservation or environmental group. Was there a bit of diversity in that selection? SPEAKER_04 02:02:12.521
So the intention of the peer review is very much to do a scientific review of the plan and in terms of the threats and community values which... really need to focus our efforts. It was not intended to be a community consultation review process. Clare Stewart 02:02:33.020
We deliberately selected scientists and people that worked in that where did I guess the concern with that though, Amy, is part of this plan talks about jetties and pontoons, public and private. It talks about public safety. I mean, these are all things that are beyond a scientific research person. Yeah, so as you know, we have those dedicated workshops on the recreational boating facilities study, which MSQ commissioned, and we're continuing the engagement with MSQ with regards to that. We have been meeting with the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance to talk about some of these matters. So the intention is, moving forward, absolutely we will continue to engage with the community on the specific areas of interest that they have. Frank Wilkie 02:03:24.504
Karen, do you have another question? Karen Finzel 02:03:26.364
Yeah, I just have a question. Where does Noosa Shire sit in the Noosa River catchment? Where do we, geographically, where do we fit in that Mary River catchment area? SPEAKER_04 02:03:38.804
So one third of the Shire is the Mary River catchment and the other two thirds is the Noosa River catchment. Okay, thank you. And the whole of the catchment is in the Shire. whole of it is in the Shire. The bit up north is it? The bit up north is it? Is that why we've had trouble attracting funding from a higher level? Because we haven't had a plan. Oh, because we haven't had a plan. Joe Jurisevic 02:04:04.650
And that's, just to clarify, that's the difference in the river plan that we've had in the past and what we've developed here. and what we've developed here, it's not just a river plant, it's now a river catchment plant, incorporating all of those inflows and things where Council has remit to actually undertake erosion control management and all of those sort we haven't had a plan for in the past. Amanda, do you want to test it, if you don't mind? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:30.510
Yeah, I will test this. And as I'm doing this, I'm on DAF's site, on this site reading the Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027 and I'm looking at it going what's wrong with it is this plan so nothing wrong so it does this plan circumvent that like I'm just full of questions at the moment Kim so it's not because that looks great to me and I've read the management plan too so this is aligned Aligned, meant to circumvent, where... No, I don't know how much clearer I can say it. Yeah, please. Sustainable Fisheries is regulated by the State. Okay. Under the Sustainable Fisheries Act and the Sustainable Fisheries Strategy, they've had a review and reform agenda for a number of years to move to what's deemed sustainable fisheries. And they're looking at it all the time. looking at it all the time. Yep, they've got--- So this, our plan does not circumvent that. Correct, okay. Clare Stewart 02:05:32.923
Just needed clarity. You can get regular updates from them with regard to--- Okay, I've got a question while you're ready to go, 'cause I've got a question I'm still looking at. Just on page 22, 94 of the agenda, 22 of the report. I think that's right, it might be the other way around. Page 94 of the agenda, yeah. We talk here about the Kabi Kabi, it's critical that the Indigenous historical, cultural, environmental and conservation heritage, this will be achieved by ensuring Kabi Kabi are your key partners. Absolutely, they should be. What has their involvement involvement been in the past and what's their advice going forward? What involvement have they had in the past and what's their advice going forward? SPEAKER_04 02:06:13.739
That predates my time, but I understand Jane Madden was liaising was liaising with them when she was developing the 2019 draft. I think we've had a particular model of engagement in place with the Kabi Kabi for the past two years, I think it is, but unfortunately that hasn't been working. working too well and so we've now moved to more of a distributed engagement approach and that seems to be working better. We had a dedicated workshop with them on this river plan, they also shared in confidence. shared in confidence with us their healthy country plan, which sets out their aspirations. So, yeah, it's very much an important priority for us to ensure they're properly engaged. Thank you. Tom Wegener 02:07:02.390
Tom, do you have a question? Just the following one. Kabi Kabi, or the native title, cover the river, cover the water areas as well? Yes. Frank Wilkie 02:07:11.475
Can we have a second for Amelia's motion first to test it? I'm having a second for debate. Seconded by Councillor Finzel for purpose of debate. Amelia Lorentson 02:07:22.140
Okay, I'd like to move a procedural motion to defer this matter to the next round of meetings to allow councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity consider the details and implications of a draft Noosa River catchment plan and provide feedback. And I do so because I've spoken to two members from NSERAC members from NSERAC and members from the Noosa Boating Fishing Alliance, all who have raised some concerns about the draft and today a lot of my questions have been answered but deferring it to the next round of meeting allows them that same opportunity. Oh, excuse me, allows them that same opportunity. I acknowledge NSERAC was wound up earlier this year but I think out of respect to the representatives of the committee and to their wealth of knowledge there were 40 members who essentially represented every water user Noosa River water user so I think it would be just the right thing to do to invite them for feedback and ideally endorse essentially, and ideally endorsement of the draft of the draft plan. As you know we've all witnessed just now there are lots of issues. Implied unknown implications, confusion, concerns. So the deferrals not only to allow feedback from the NSERAC but it's also to allow councillors and what requesting is a further workshop for all the councillors again to understand the details. This is the first time the draft has come to our attention. The full draft and I've got you know as everyone can see a thousand and I and I look at detail and I need to be certain that a that all river stakeholders maintain equitable access to the river and that all the key players partake in this draft it's important and it is certainly exciting it's a plan that needs to be endorsed but I just think we've waited so long can we just allow another month so that can dispel confirm whatever just just the unknowance or what I call the confusion so I'll leave it to the table but my request is defer the motion for the next round of meetings to allow all players and councillors to have a say and understand again the details and implications of what's been put before us. Frank Wilkie 02:10:20.991
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Jay, any questions? Joe Jurisevic 02:10:23.351
With regard to this document, what What is the level of community engagement that we've had to date to get to this point of having something ready for council to endorse? SPEAKER_04 02:10:35.120
We've had two rounds of public consultation that occurred for the 2019 draft. We've had three council workshops, one of which was squarely focused on the NSQ stuff, but nonetheless we've had, as you can see, all those different groups being consulted. being consulted in the development of this version of the plan. It has been laborious. There's been a lot that has gone on. Joe Jurisevic 02:11:02.490
And as you said earlier, there's ongoing communications with the Boating and Fishing Alliance? SPEAKER_04 02:11:07.410
That's correct. That's the intention. With all stakeholders. There's a lot of implementation. That was the one that Councillor specifically mentioned. That's why I mentioned that. Yeah, I'll be supporting the deferral motion. Brian Stockwell 02:11:23.837
We've had six years of consultations leading up to this point. The motion in January 2017 to review it and put the Noosa room plan into a whole catchment management framework, as generally outlined by the staff report at the time, and to Councillor Stockwell. Stakeholder analysis to determine a proper way forward in terms of community engagement. We have had multiple forms of community engagement. We should, as councils, have really clearly understood what the issues facing the river is. And what our aspirations for the river are. We have currently got a report that has been workshopped and I'm quite clear where it's all come from because we've had the chance to workshop the key elements of this draft. To suggest a small group that no longer exists should have a final say over what has been thousands of hours of community consultation to me is an affront to the others. It's time for political leadership. I certainly have a clear idea of what the outcome for the Noosa River should be and I believe believe the plan that has been put before us is a professional plan that respects the input and views of the broad range of the community and is based on achieving best practice going forward. I don't believe we should be in the same position as we were this time last term of putting it off. We were in a position to be able to top it in late 2019, early 2020 and we decided we'd put it off and avoid doing it before the election. We need to do it now. I don't need any more I'm quite aware of what the different points of view are. I'm quite aware of what the science is and I'm quite aware of what the overwhelming majority of the community want for the Noosa River and I believe this plan will help us achieve it. Frank Wilkie 02:13:28.168
Councillor Stockwell. I do support the deferral for one month. Councillor Stockwell we weren't here in 2017, we weren't here in 2019, we weren't part of that draft river plan in 2019. This is the first time as of this weekend I have seen this plan in full in all the detail. I understand you know I understand that there have been groups engaged and it is a great plan. There are fantastic things to this plan and you should be commended on, sorry, I'm saying something positive, you should be commended on, the staff should be commended on all their hard work. But if I have questions and Councillor Lorentson has questions and we're fielding questions, one month, we're not asking Councillor Stockwell to defer this to March, to April, we're asking for one What Kim's told us at this table makes sense. It puts our minds at ease. It puts any concerns raised to bed. However, that needs to be dispelled and not everyone in the community watches this meeting, we know that. That needs to That needs to be able to be achieved or expelled to the community at large. I feel that we've waited this long. What is one month? And we can have it back. We can provide that information to our community, the information we've heard at the table today. The main thing, we need all buy need all buy-in from all the community. That's what this is about. It's about our community, about the best interests of our community. It's about to be completely transparent to our community. They should be across all the facts and the justification and the reasoning. as I said, it all makes sense. It's a great plan. But it needs to be communicated, I believe, in more detail with the broader members of our community who do have those concerns. I think the number one problem, the number one concern, was very clear when I sat as an observer on Insurac, and it was a bipartisan agreement, was the liveaboards. The effluent coming from the liveaboards was the moorings. anchorage. It was getting rid of those eyesores in our river. You can't do that in the Mooroochee River. You can't just go and park your boat. You can do it in the Noosa River. That's the number one thing that we should be focusing on. The effluent coming from that is a disgrace. Clare Stewart 02:15:53.708
The effluent coming on? It affects our safety of our people swimming. It affects our environment. That is what we should be focused on. Now that's noticed here at 30, 3.3, item 30, 31 and 32. That should be front. That should be number one. So it's documented and it's noted and I understand MSQ are working. in that space which is great you know and that's that's been achieved through the hard work of Amy and and the NSERAC and MSQ. Larry you chair that. And this plan as I said is a good one but I just think one month it doesn't it won't hurt. In fact I think it'll actually give full full support and full credence to a plan that is very good. Joe Jurisevic 02:16:46.946
Just to clarify a couple of things said there. Who was responsible for all of those elements that were mentioned by Councillor Stewart with regard to river boards, moorings, dumping in the river and all of those components? SPEAKER_04 02:17:03.368
Within the plan you mean? Yeah. So the plan has been developed using the 2019 draft, the public consultation period, the input from river committee members to all those other stakeholders. And who's responsible? Who's responsible for administering? Joe Jurisevic 02:17:24.308
State agencies? Yes. That's clear. But Joe, as you know, to get the action that we've got has taken a lot of work from this council. I get it. I get it. That doesn't change though, does it? Those elements still go down. Our role, as is articulated in this, is to continue to advocate and continue to get a better relationship to try and ensure that those matters are matters are addressed and continue to be addressed by those state agencies? SPEAKER_04 02:17:56.533
That's correct, at the operational level they have catch-ups with the MSQ officer to make sure that we're ticking things over locally as well. Amelia Lorentson 02:18:07.718
Can I ask a question? Just follow up with Joe. One of the action plans I think in what I read in the report was to continue to work with MSQ to regulate the management of anchoring, mooring and liverboards. the Noosa River and the status was subject to future budget consideration. So is that contrary to what I understood? The Noosa River Advisory Committee had already done that and now it's up to MSQ to implement the plan. So why are we continuing to work and why is their budget sort of allocated for that? I thought that was So they're still working through the machinery of government process and have asked us to have another workshop with them soon, I don't know when. So we've had one already, as I mentioned, to look at what role does Council need to play in supporting them to implement these reforms and I think we'll have to continue to keep working with them. To keep the presence here, to keep the investment here. I think we're just going to have to keep at that. Yeah, I agree, because the pressure is working. Yeah, absolutely. Joe Jurisevic 02:19:19.639
Councillor Lorentson alluded to where my next question was going and that is the actions within this plan are to continue to work and negotiate with those state agencies for implementation of better actions or further actions with regard to the concerns that have been raised by NSERAC and the community at over many many years with regard to derelicts. Frank Wilkie 02:19:38.950
So I'm happy I'm happy that those those issues are addressed quite clearly and articulated quite well within this one and I noticed in the staff recommendation that there's the implementation will involve more stakeholder engagement. As an involving partnership with key stakeholders and that will involve explanation of what certain action may mean, and also minor edits. So it suggests it's a dynamic relation. This is a road map. It has to be a collaborative effort. We've got a swag of state agencies, we've got jurisdiction here, we've got a multitude of users, so anything that we go to implement is going to have to be a co-design, collaborative approach. I'm pretty comfortable pretty comfortable that the plan says that in a number of ways. It says that right up front, it's a partnership where many people are involved, it says it in the outcome statements, that collaborative governance and stakeholder engagement is a fundamental tenet, and then it lists the partners in every action. So it's very embedded in terms of partnering and engagement. just provides us a roadmap and a head of power to actually move into implementation. I'll speak to this particular motion. I really appreciate where this is coming from because this is a very important document with a lot of detail. It's a very significant piece of work. It will take a lot of time to develop. it's very difficult to get across all the detail. There's so many pages. But there is opportunity between now and the ordinary meeting on Thursday night for councillors that have any outstanding questions to sit down with staff. If staff think it's merited, we can have another briefing session, similar to the one we had on June 22nd, where we talked about the key actions. No questions are No questions are off the table. We've got the final draft before us, we can thrash that up between now and Thursday. But I agree, this is a leadership decision. After so many years, we've had a period of consultation during this term, there's been targeted stakeholder consultation. I agree with what's been said, it is a fantastic document. This round of meetings allow staff to start applying for the funding, and unlike other catchments in South East Queensland, Noosa doesn't have a river catchment plan. It will... And if we're waiting for all... to get buy-in from all members of the community, it's not going to happen because there's so many diverse stakeholders involved. And therein lies the difficulty for decision-makers such as us. You're never going to You're never going to get consensus on something like this. There'll be some things that various stakeholders will like and those won't, and vice versa. So seeking to delay this to get a consensus I think is a bit unrealistic. And I think... the staff recommendation suggests ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders to have the sort of discussions we've had today at this table about the suggested action to consider a conservation park and what that means. The benefits, pros, cons and dispel the uncertainties. I think this is a great invitation to a conversation with the key stakeholders. This is a great piece of work. I'm in favour of showing leadership, backing the process so far, putting it out, endorsing it, letting the staff get on with applying for much needed funding and having those conversations with interested stakeholders and any councillors. And any councillors that do have outstanding questions, to seek the time one-on-one, take hours if you need it, to get the detail you need before it clears overnight. So for those reasons, because we've got a lot of other work we need to endorse before we So for that reason, I won't be supporting this motion to defer. Because I don't know where that might lead. Would it lead to another, because it's, would there be more it's going to be more dissension than it leads to further dilemmas. So I'll be glad to hear from you. Tom Wegener 02:24:16.872
Guess what? I'm interested in Silts I hope we're joined to see that the plan, you know, actually addressed that and brought the Deriverello situation up. I'm calling a point of order what before us now the speaker is not speaking to the motion the motion is we're discussing whether or not we're going to allow an extension of time to give community members further further conversation that's very good point of order can you speak to the motion to defer I think there is an urgency to get this plan over the lines because I think that we need to just we need to get hammering down dirt roads changing our aspects of dealing with those of things need to get in the acts and I'm so happy that the plan addresses those and so as you say there's a lot of different aspects that people are interested in and that happens in my primary focus and we've been waiting We've been waiting on this for a really long time and I'd love to see it get implemented ASAP because I think it needs to happen. It needs to get moving on this. Frank Wilkie 02:25:32.823
Thank you, Councillor Woodman. SPEAKER_04 02:25:34.883
I'd just like to add something as well. There's been a lot of work happening internally on this as well and I really want to acknowledge all the other areas of council that contributed to this because it's about trying to get our own house in order. So by having that plan there, it means all the areas of council committed to the same thing. We're not working at odds with each other. Amelia Lorentson 02:26:02.210
Can I close or not? Sorry, I'm thinking about you. Get a vote. Do you want to go? SPEAKER_04 02:26:12.450
Oh, jeez, happy for you to go, Councillor. Joe Jurisevic 02:26:15.470
Yeah, I'm not going to support this. support this. Mentions of other stakeholders. An opportunity to consider the new housing grant. We've had umpteen opportunities for all stakeholders to have an input into the draft Noosa River Capital Plan. I appreciate that not everyone will Thank will agree with every element of the plan. I don't think we get that with any plan that we undertake, but I, like Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Wilkie, have been through this for a number of years going forward and heard much input stakeholders over a long, long time. And I think I commend staff that the draft plan is here ready for implementation. It means it's been, to be at this point, it's been through stakeholder It's been through the level of council workshops and studies and all the like, and I think the time to act is now. Frank Wilkie 02:27:12.112
Of respect for some of the concerns that your council has had about not being as familiar, is it possible to have a scheduled briefing time between now and Tuesday where we all can attend? and have a few questions and answers. I think this is up to you. If you can clear your diaries to do it, then we're happy to do it. Joe Jurisevic 02:27:39.317
Otherwise, another month would give you a bit more time. Karen Finzel 02:27:43.362
Councillor Finzel. Thank you, through the Chair, thank you everyone for your voices at the table today. I appreciate what's been done and I acknowledge the volume of work that's been undertaken and I do respect that. I understand the volume of engagement over the years, but when we're here today talking about leadership, good decision making, leadership to me is about... me is about being flexible. We've got community. It's not about me understanding deeper the rabbit holes that everyone's had to go through. This is about giving voice to our community that has contacted me when they've seen this report with some concerns. I have not been here for all the iterations and when we talk about purposeful and political acumen, I'm more for anyone for a call to action for something that has gone on for so long. So I support this motion. what it's giving is opportunity for community who we serve and we're outward facing to given good leadership is about acknowledging failure and conflicts in the past that hopefully by giving one month we can actually month we can actually give to our community a better voice and understanding around the what's gone on the river given the historical sometimes not positive outcomes that have gone on through this council and previous councils regards to the river it's passionate it's divisive and we need a lot of technical expertise and engagement so today I support this motion we're asking for four weeks weeks, only four weeks to alleviate the concerns that have been raised through the Mayor, Amelia, myself, and I'm sure you've all received the emails, surely we can afford our community four more weeks to help have a bit of narrative and conversation rather than further down the track when being bombarded, because where is the transparency? How is this happening? How are we administrating this? You heard the questions asked at the table today. I would prefer to be more proactive than have to be reactive further down the track. So I support this and I thank Councillor Amelia for bringing this to the table today. Frank Wilkie 02:30:05.771
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 02:30:09.291
I will. going to close by actually quoting a former NSERAC committee member. They said public policy must be transparent, consultative and allow players to have a say. That's what this deferral motion is about. it's about us honouring our commitment to transparency, to consultative purposes and to genuine community engagement. That's what leadership is to me. Fear of further dissension is... Not a reason not to defer this. Fear of further dissension should be a reason to actually support this motion to defer for one month. Maybe we've missed something. We need to open mind and we need to allow every player an opportunity to have their say. It doesn't mean we're going to agree to it. It doesn't mean I'm not going to approve the plan. I love the plan. My concern is that we've waited so long. What's another four weeks? I just think the risk of not allowing proper time to consult with the members of the community that have approached us is the wrong decision the draft has been out but the members that I've spoken to said it was the first time they had ever heard of a conservation park that had never been raised before and for that reason you know for that reason alone we need to know does the community actually want a legislated marine park? What are the implications for pro-fisherman rec users and those users caught outside conservation? Brian Stockwell 02:32:22.448
Sort of it's a clarity it is point of order that is no it it's not it's clarification there's mention of a marine park and that's not intended oh excuse me conservation excuse me conservation park so again the opportunity we've just been given over the last hour to have a lot of our out. questions answered and our concerns settled and they have been settled I think we owe that to the community as well so I hope that someone will that someone will reconsider their decision and allow this motion to go through. Frank Wilkie 02:32:58.876
Well spoken Councillor Lorentson. I think the motion goes in favour. I'll reconsider. Councillor Stewart, Larson, Jurisevic and Finzel. SPEAKER_04 02:33:09.802
Thank you Mr Chair. Against? Frank Wilkie 02:33:12.022
Councillors Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. The motion is carried and Graham has been deferred for a moment. Next item is the financial performance report. Thank you, staff. Thank you. for your hard work. Thank you, Trent. SPEAKER_12 02:34:09.340
Good afternoon councillors. The agenda referred to you presents the August 2023 final decision of the council. The numbers presented in the report are the revised budget for Public Review 1. Which includes all the carryovers in and the remuneration matters through the first two months of the year. You'll notice in the report that the net audience position of council is 1.3 billion, operating costs above budget expectations. This is a mix of what we call 0.7 million of general or unrestricted operating funds and a further 0.6 of constrained Through levies, waste, commercial business activities. Comprising that one point is very positive. Return 0.9 million of that is revenue above budget. There's a number of movements up and down on that. Overall, we were seeing revenue and sales, grants and upside is offsetting grants revenue, sorry, rates revenue and fees in the budget in more detail. see that federal rates is 193,000 on the budget to date. It's a combination of take a look discount, timing, valuation changes where rate payers have queried and reviewed their UCV valuation. their UCV valuation with the public resources and the take-up of the potential rebate. That is offset, as I mentioned, more interest revenue, which is approximately $4,000 a month budget due to the additional interest revenue we're getting from holding cash funds for fire and chemical weapons. Also to note, sales are up in terms of holiday parks and community facilities fees. Noting those Noting those fees are often offset with corresponding direct costs for commissioning and operating costs for those facilities so you'll see that feature through the operating costs. In terms of expenses, two months through the financial year salaries and wages are tracking slightly out of the budget due to vacant positions but you also know this is partially upset by an increase in casualty in regular time as staff work to accommodate that vacancy. Materials and services are generally in line with the budget with some minor movements between business areas in terms of timing of their spending at this early stage of the financial year. In terms of capital, capital works support and they're supporting grants and external funding of an ambitious $52 million capital program is largely tracking in line with the budget at this early stage which you will receive. stage, you will receive your quarterly capital work to be covered in the first quarter of the course next month. We'll close off. In terms of cash, Council has just issued its biannual rates. So, August position is the peak in the cash cycle for Council. It's $141 million sitting in cash. It's important to note the majority of that is working capital for the next six months. Between now and then, we'll re-issue the rates in January. And also a significant amount of restricted cash, for example, QRA funding for the Black Mac recovery and other disaster recovery grants that we have received in the last one or two years. do a quarterly deep dive in our restricted cash, so we provide that through September reports. And that is the executive summary for the August report, thank you. Thanks, Pete. Joe Jurisevic 02:37:45.548
You went over the general rate, being $193k below year-to That's not something we often see when we're looking at the rates and levies. You mentioned the pensioner discounts, but the pensioner discounts from my recollection were accounted in the budget and shouldn't be impacting on the bottom line of general rate. We had that factored in to our calculation of the general rate return, did we not? SPEAKER_12 02:38:14.843
A combination of the impact of some of the calculations on the full take-up, but also there's been an increase in some of those as well. It's a combination. It's not the key driver, but I thought transparency would include the fact that it is a combination. So we didn't actually get the figure? Right, we've recalculated? Frank Wilkie 02:38:32.242
Okay. Joe Jurisevic 02:38:32.882
And the other element there with regard to those land revaluations, does that defer, do people then defer payment to their rates until that land revaluation occurs? Or are they still required to pay their rates and then receive a discount if their land valuation is, is, alters as a result of a request of the State? SPEAKER_12 02:38:52.242
I do believe it's the Labour Act that I don't know. It's the House or I don't know. I'm just trying trying to ascertain, yeah, why, if there's a lag in payment of those rates as a result of that deferral for land. If you can, that'd be, just trying to understand how that works in the process. The important part is, as you know, that it's well within the... the powers of ratepayers as those valuations come out every year or bi-annually that they can query those with the Department of Resources and then we recalculate the rates accordingly based on advice from... Joe Jurisevic 02:39:23.577
Yeah, I'm just wondering whether that puts a hold on them paying their rates or until that revaluation has occurred, that's all. Clare Stewart 02:39:30.937
Any other I have a question. Trent, thank you. Always a very comprehensive report. The cash expense cover, we're at 15.4 months. That's, I mean, it's always pretty high, but that's a lot higher than it has been. SPEAKER_12 02:39:52.571
In terms of a best practice approach, we break out what is our free cash or our unrestricted cash for our everyday operations in our working capital versus that cash which is restricted. The reason why it's sitting so high, it's a comment on I made earlier about the cash balance with restricted cash grants in advance, when you look at factors such as the prepayment that QRA have come through on a number of the disaster recovery as as prepayment for state waste levies, they are one that over the next five years to residential, domestic and residential waste generators, that's all sitting in restricted cash and the unspent levies, there's a significant amount of that Richard MacGillivray 02:40:43.953
The account balance of that is that there's a higher balance in the bank account and and interest interest earning on that higher balance until that money is expended on it. earning on Thanks, Trent. Frank Wilkie 02:40:54.169
Any other questions to start? I'm pretty good at having that. Care to move the motion? Yeah, I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Mayor Stewart, Joe. Joe Jurisevic 02:41:03.009
Yeah, thank you for the ongoing work of the finance staff. staff. You can see clearly in our financial performance summary that we're on track for above budget in all elements and I think the sound financial position speaks for itself. Thank you for all the efforts in keeping us in check. Any other councillors speak? Thank you, thank you Trane. All those in favour? Thank you Trane. Carried unanimously. Thank you Trane. Next item is the year in review. The year in review. What a big year it's been, hasn't it Larry? Clare Stewart 02:41:34.308
All right, goodness Just think of Cactus Island every time I hear that. Larry Sengstock 02:41:40.639
Okay, I'll give you a quick summary and then I've got three directors here as well so if you've got questions for them. This report really has been put together by the staff and the directors in line with our corporate plan. It runs from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. I would say, well, I find it is a good effort. As you know, our CEO, Scott Waters, was with us for the majority of this period but left in May of this year. May of this year, 2023, so I've been acting in that role since, and so to pull together this report and to pull together the work that's involved in this report is really very much a group effort from the whole of the organisation, led by the executive team, so commendations, I guess, to those people across the whole staff, but certainly to the leadership group as well. As you say, it is a massive amount of work, and for my part it's a privilege to lead the organisation, so I think when you look at it, when you pull it apart like this, you see the amount that actually is happening behind the scenes. A lot of it comes to this table, but a large majority of it doesn't come to this table, so there are many things that are happening. So based on It's based on the previous corporate plan, so it's directed to that corporate plan, and as we know, we've created a new corporate plan during this period, which is a corporate plan that we're now working forward on for the '20 through '24 budget. The five themes of the corporate plan are Noosa environment, Noosa community, Noosa economy and long-term planning and excellence as a council. So that's the way the report is geared and talks to those particular themes of the corporate plan. As I said, it's compiled by the departments based on their branch plans, which is the plans that they work off individually. Then there's the operational plan, which is our organisation across the operational plan for the organisation. then feeds back up into the corporate plan. I've pulled out 10 highlights for the year, but obviously they are just some of them. And so I'm more than happy to take on those as well as to whether they are considered the 10 highlights. This also has to go into our annual report as well. So in terms of the highlights, there's other things in here that you think need to be certainly brought. the surface and higher to the surface and I'm more than happy to take that. I'll take you through those top 10 if I can indulge your time for a moment. The first one being the rebuilding of our quite impacted communities. As we've that's just a massive piece of work that's ongoing. Unfortunately, it's taken us a lot of time to get through some of those pieces because it's just, you know, we weren't the only ones impacted. Getting the right people on the job and making sure that that we do it properly and do it correctly and work with QRA, who are our major funders in this. The budget is somewhere closer to $100 million now and it's a massive piece of work. We need to consider our overall budget as an organisation, but our infrastructure budget is $50 million thereabouts. So to have $100 million overlaid on top of our capital works is massive. The corporate plan now is now in place. That took a massive amount of work to get to that point as well from our staff, right through the staff. But again, we need to give the thanks and support to our directors who have really pulled it together. So it really is Kim and Kerry who were the main drivers in the end of that document. obviously with you as councillors. So that's a 23, it's a five year plan from 23 to 2028. Infrastructure achievements. So we've delivered the largest couple of works this year at $43 million. So again, didn't quite hit the absolute number, there's some that roll over, but again, some of that is also in stuff that we can't deliver in a 12 month period, so it rolls over into the current financial year. year. So that's been massive piece of work, and again, just ongoing. You go downstairs to our infrastructure team, and it's just a constant reel that's rolling, and trying to get through all the work that's there. Our new council brand, which we see around the place, venues have now taken up that branding. And I personally think it's a great brand, and it's a great new change for us. It just refreshes exactly what we do and what we stand for. I think we'll see more of that as it comes out. So again, it's just been a large piece of work that goes on, but I think that's a really key piece for us to throw along. This is where we're now going forward, and it is looking forward. It's a brand that helps us look forward. It's clean, it's fresh, and it's quite dynamic, I think, and useful. Let's claim report. Stable financial management. As we've just heard, if you go to any of these conferences with local government, there are a number of local governments who really do struggle to keep their head above water. And /or aren't able to keep their head above water at times. I think what we've been able to achieve here through a whole lot of change, but we are a reasonably small council in a lot of respects, and to be able to do what we do and deliver what we do and keep ourselves in the financial position we're at is a real credit to everybody involved. We've also implemented our SPARC values, so our supportive and accountable, respectful and committed values which we've now rolled out and Scott Waters was very much the leader of that, pushing that through and of course the staff in endorsing and accepting and living those values and that's very much now starting to show great value to the organisation. Housing strategy, we all know that's a piece of work and we spoke to that on Friday at a meeting or a presentation. The housing strategy is something that we've done to give us, not dissimilar to the river plan, gives us a path forward, gives us something to hang everything on as we we get these challenges that we're now currently facing with the housing issues of affordable housing and the likes in every area of Australia. So I think that's a big piece of work. The strategy is something that's really to accept that and to have that as our baseline to utilise is really important. Fire management, as we know, we've now been through the floods. We're into a... into a fire issue and as while I'm sitting here, there's beaks going off. Beewire, I've still... Yep, yep. I've got them too. We hope that... Joe Jurisevic 02:48:52.935
Got them over the weekend. Larry Sengstock 02:48:55.075
That everything is okay up there, but that's just an indication of what we potentially, you know, across Queensland, not just us, but across many areas. But we've...we've got 178... We've got 178 bushland reserves covering over three and a half, nearly three and a half thousand hectares. We've got a plan in place. We've been able to do a whole lot of planned burns and we've increased, as we've noted in our meeting in recent times, we've actually increased our capacity to do those planned burns. We don't deliver the firefighting exercise. We have people, our job to help and support. If there's a fire, it's Kufus and the local authorities that go over in that area. But we do have the ability, with all of our technology that we're putting in place now, we have the ability to support and do a lot. So that's a huge piece of work and it's keeping our community as safe as we possibly can. The Living Well Noosa is a program which offers the residents free and low cost access to a range of health and wellbeing activities which again is just a great thing. It's a great thing for us to be able to do and again within our financial ability and our service ability so I think again it's a great marker in front of what we're doing. And then the last one in here but it's certainly there's no order of number is our climate change resilience and there's been a huge amount of work not to mention with the CHAP, the zero emissions. The work that we're doing with our community factories and just continuing to look at new ways and better ways to to deal with it. 10. As I say, there's a multitude more, but this is just a quick highlight of everything that's going on. If anybody's got any questions, then I'm more than happy. Moving forward, I keep saying it, and it seems to be getting into the vernacular of the organisation. But we are trying to get on with it. The idea is to support our staff to get on with it, and it seems that we are. If you look at the amount of work that's happening here, clearing the path for our staff to just be able to get on with their jobs is a really important piece, and that's a huge direction that we're trying to move across the organisation as we go forward. Thank you, Thank you, Larry. Questions, Mayor Stewart? Clare Stewart 02:51:37.920
I was going to say, I was happy to move it. Frank Wilkie 02:51:40.120
Mayor Stewart, seconded by the Chancellor of Jerusalem. Thank you, Larry. I had all the 10 written down, but I've also got some others. I won't rehash the 10 that you've gone through, but it just shows that there is... I mean, I was tired. It's late last night, but I was tired reading this, so there is a huge amount of work and staff should be... very much congratulated and please pass on our thanks and appreciation because there is so much to this. And as I say all the time for small council, we certainly continue to back well above our average. So please pass on our appreciation and to all the directors too, to each of their groups. On top of the 10 highlights, these are just a few things I picked out as well. We've got land, 42% of land under conservation, which is more than ever before. We've upgraded our Noosa trail network. We've got a new mobile library service and we've got the two new vending kiosks, making our library services more accessible. We've had the shade cell erected over the 25 metre pool at the knack and the starting blocks upgraded from the 50 metre pool to world aquatics rated equipment. We've had ongoing maintenance and upgrade works at the Jay and the Leisure Centre. We've had over three million in funding secured through six different funding programs for sports strategy and development from our great sports strategy and development team led by Brad, Amanda and Margaret. The Olive Donaldson Pavilion at Tewantin has delivered an upgrade and a pump track at Sundial Park. Our sports strategy and development team are also supporting or have supported community groups and some of 360,000 for community-led projects across the Shire, looking at LED lighting upgrades, field renovations, fencing and irrigation. Our same sports strategy development team have delivered or are working on five different planning projects. an approximate value of $480,000 this includes the Regen Feasibility and the Noosa District Sports Complex LMP, Cooroy Sports Complex redevelopment and fencing project, a non-powered water sport project and commencement of Noosa Leisure Centre needs assessment project. Ah. We've engaged and supported over 1,650 seniors from across the Noosa Shire who accessed one or more of our services. I think that's such a great number. It's a huge amount of people we have serviced. Over 50,000 hours of service have been provided from individual care, home cleaning to in-home support services. Our Pridgian Digital Hub, thanks to Chris Bowden and all the team down there with the new AI state-of-the-art, they're leading the FireTech Connect program down there and it really is world-class. We've adopted the Small Business Friendly Charter. We've had $50,000 secured by the economic development team. worked so hard in grant money to develop an industry and employment action plan for Noosa Shire. We've had the destination management plan draft is out for consultation. The Noosa business roundtables continued. We've had planning scheme amendments sent to the State government. Our short stay established to administer local law and a whopping amount of capital infrastructure projects on page 119 onwards. So really well done. That's again that's just a snapshot. That's what I meant. Go you. Thank you. Any other councillors, Mr Smith? Jones? Joe Jurisevic 02:54:45.476
Yeah, more like 110. Mr CEO, well 210 or 310. Like the Mayor over there, re-reading it again over the weekend. Yeah, I was exhausted. the Mayor's probably mentioned a few that I'll mention again next year because they don't culminate until this financial year. Never ending. Anybody doubts the diversity and the complexity of work? Council undertakes? It's like no other business that you could ever imagine. The length, breadth and scope of commitment to the community here is overwhelming to say the least. And I commend the CEO, the former CEO, the acting CEO, all of the directors, all of the staff that are involved in achieving the outcomes for the last financial year. Thank you very much to all. Frank Wilkie 02:55:41.819
Thank you John. Karen Finzel 02:55:43.459
Anybody else want to speak? Karen? I'll go on, yeah. I'd just like to reiterate everything that's been done in the table. had community tell us they wanted a call to action, so I think this can show where the call to action's been. I'd just like to mention the Karura Trail upgrade, which was great to see that opened and, you know, getting a lot of users. I think we're hearing about 500 or 600 a week going through there, which is fantastic, giving us that connectivity between the towns and the hinterland. also what I like to see too is the activation with community with health and well-being, the programs we've got out there to engage, you know, all levels of our community and interests. It's really great to see that being delivered and being embraced by the community. So a big thank you to everyone that's worked hard in the space. Brian Stockwell 02:56:32.908
Yeah, since he put out the challenge about his top ten, by the look of it... Here we go. Here's the powerpoint. The first thing I got was two of the ten are internally focused. They're both good initiatives. Spark and the brand. So the brand is an artefact about where we're heading, which I think can be, if you're saying it's informing the annual plan, to me that's an entry itself. And I thought well then what's missing? So I went to what the top five community values of the livability survey. Elements of the natural environment, number one. Protect the natural environment, two. Conditions of public open space, number three. and public open space, number four. Very good, very good. They're missing from the top ten with excessively heaps of work there. So when we do look at how we prioritise, let's put it through the lens of the community rather than through the lens of the organisation. Good point. But other than that... Amelia Lorentson 02:57:36.826
I'll keep mine brief. We often get told what we don't do, so it's really refreshing to really understand what we do do, and we do it really well. I think most corporations' biggest asset... biggest asset, definitely it's people. We are only as good or as great as the people that support the work this council does. I was at a meeting this morning with the Noosa Junction Association and they spoke so highly of a recent experience with our waste staff and I walked away really quite proud. so in terms know our values: supportive, passionate, accountable, respectable and committed. We have a team of great people that make this organisation great so thank you to our executives, our staff, acting CEO and current and ex-CEO. I think we've got a lot to be proud of. Tom Wegener 02:58:42.843
Brian mentioned lenses. Second, I think that the spark is really important. I'm so honoured that the crew, that the staff have taken that and we ran with what Scott mentioned and of course, Larry, you've taken that and continue to run with it and I think that that's actually really reforming the way we think about things. And one of the-- another my highlight of the year was actually with that when Clare said when Cairo was in the room with the way his team was in here and Cairo had these big ideas of what we need to do and you know how he stuck down and Clare said well, you know, you need-- That's your job. That's what you need to do. That's what's kind of a nimble council, is that we were actually able to change that, give Cairo, put him into a place where he could actually make a difference, put our aspirations, get the rubber on the road. yeah, obviously everybody works so hard, I'm so proud of staff. Driving around also, I look at the roundabouts and the incredible land and how well it's managed. It's just beautiful. You drive into Noosa, you know it. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:59:52.880
Look, I think it's all been said, the Council provides a service, but it's not just a service, it's hundreds of services on a monthly basis. Some major projects as the Mayor listed them all. please pass on my thanks to the executive team, the managers and all the line staff as well. Thank you, Larry. They're the ones that have done this Council board. Thank you. Clare Stewart 03:00:17.428
Yeah, well, I want to thank you too, Larry, because you came on board when we were uncertain. So I want to thank you for all your support. And for really driving the organisation forward. I know you've got a huge amount of respect among the staff, and you certainly have a huge amount of respect around this table. So I want to thank you as well. Well said, Lee. Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Now that brings us to the end of our open session items for today. We've got some commercial and confidence matters that need to be discussed. So we'll take, yeah, give a suggestion now. We'll take a five from the aisle. We should move to. Oh, that's a good idea. We'll move into confidential session. So move, someone care to move that? I'll make the motion. No question. Council note, the report by the CEO. That's the one, that's a year in review. That's the previous one. We've done that. Richard MacGillivray 03:01:14.453
I'm just going to leave it at that. Oh, I can't. Me too. Joe Jurisevic 03:01:22.740
I'll move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 245J3G of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing commercial matters involving a local government for which... public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government for reports 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. Sorry, you need to remove discussing Frank Wilkie 03:01:42.811
A, just discussing commercial matters. Commercial matters, yes. Can we have Can we have a seconder for that please? We're discussing more than one. Second Amelia, all in favour? That's unanimous. We are in... I do want to take a five-minute break. Amelia Lorentson 03:02:00.922
Thanks. Food. How much more food can I eat? We should have made the five-minute break commercial in confidence. Frank Wilkie 03:02:21.181
One, two, three. Richard MacGillivray 03:02:22.841
How are we doing? Just three? Individual. One at a time. All separate? Frank Wilkie 03:02:48.900
Okay, welcome back everybody. We now have some recommendations before us for approval. Someone can move this one about the contract for parks and gardens. Moved by Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Next item is the decision to settle an appeal before the court. Someone can move this one. Moved by Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Karen Finzel 03:03:40.615
Next item is the decision to settle an appeal before the court. Frank Wilkie 03:03:41.535
Someone can move this one. A note to report by Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator, a contractual agreement, seconded by MOVE, Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Grissom, he called the paper, it was carried. That brings us to the end of today's agenda. Thank you everyone. Thank you Mr Chair. Well done. Thank you. Thanks Linda. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
