General Committee Meeting, 18 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 Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray 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
Frank Wilkie 00:50.131
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 in attendance at this time of day, a 2019 month old adult may experience a record new life before many Council meetings. The subject property 28 Saturday night 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, we report that this is an unsuitable development site has significant and seemingly unsolvable limitations based on crucial Council assumptions. The report adopts these assumptions in place of the bushfire report completed by Adrian Hansen, a bushfire and biodiversity expert with decades experience and a volunteer firefighter to boot. I will speak as briefly as I am able this afternoon, as I do appreciate your time and pressure. Firstly, I wish to speak to how, despite the top-line conclusions of the report submitted, I consider it remains a reasonable decision to open Council to a report subject to conditions and application for subdivision of this law. Then I will speak briefly as to why I consider Council should grant such an approval. There are two paramount objections Council planning hold against the Tewantin subdivision this side. The first being performance outcome four, the reconfiguration of the lot code. This is said to be a growth management provision which was expanded in the 2020 town plan to now include Noosa parkland estate. PO4 represents the creation of any new lots within the estate. The second being the bushfire related VAR rating applicable to the site and the resulting effects of such a VAR rating would have on building envelopes once other planning provisions are complied with. The decision to expand performance outcome 4 in the 2020 plan was well before COVID and 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 may have been appealing to the previous Council. I enjoy snagging apart from the surface of it 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 amenity and character throughout the old-town plan. 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 larger in size than at least ten 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-based blocks, you cannot get to this lot without viewing within the estate lots that are smaller than what is proposed, nor 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 great a variety of lot sizes and construction types within the estate and the street. Saturday drive already contains multiple two-storey homes and of varied types of construction without having a consistent theme. Merely maintaining the minimum 600 square metre lot size zone for this part of the estate will 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 if 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 for its return indicated planning was not supported under the PO4 planning provision in large part due to flooding concerns. 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 the sequoia road remains open even in the 500 year flood extent and this was noted, sorry, as this was noted the focus of opposition returned to character. Essentially PO4 appears to have been expanded by 2020 plans of broadbush. Tool for the restriction of housing supply in selected areas. While the purpose of the revision is now said 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. Turning to bushfire. When this application was lodged, an information request was first issued for reports regarding stormwater drainage and driveway function which was complied with and returned to Council. Initial objections were concerned with character and lot shape only. Once those issues had been addressed bushfire concerns raised for the first time in the further advice issued in January 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, sorry the inclusions are totally accepted without objection. However, the January further advice included atop those requirements an insistence that the bushfire analysis must be calculated using a 1200 degree celsius flame temperature in place of the Australian standard 1090. Rejection of Australian standard AS3 AS3959 is not 959 is not to my knowledge provided by the statewide bushfire resilient communities documentation and is instead a standard put forward in instances like this. 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 or the country. Even at this best practice heat point, 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 built bushfire report in this regard is planning having now in the most recent report introduced a basis of assessment which appears to assume that constant heat immediately above the normal boundary these all is mature forested the same intensity as the old growth state forest to its north this appears to be on the basis that 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 event the State will not permit any third party to maintain the firebreak and access right bounding the majority of the existing parkland's estate presumably the assessment then assumes the firebreak will still be abandoned long enough to regrow into old growth logging forest as it sits behind it putting this would put the entire use of parkland's estate at unprecedented increased risk is this is the critical assumption of my department in recommending the application be rejected the State does not appear to have given any advice to this effect in application however QPWS is said to have expressed the view that third parties should not be relied upon in reference to a different application when it is not concerned with a particularly long-standing and crucial fly break and access track in effect this assumption means assessing the 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 amused to apply the maximum bushfire rating to every property in the Shire which borders any road, park, estate asset, trustee asset or otherwise. Indeed if this assumption is adopted the standard, every neighbouring lot boundary would require assessment at current timing on the basis the neighbour may in the future abandon their property allowing the forest to grow in place of their vegetation as it has in the past. Last 40 years. There are already improvements on other lots all the way along the main firebreak 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 flawed. It simply makes an 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 the Shire. That now said, we remain completely open to working with council's 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 and mitigate the proposed equivalent envelopes. Indeed, we offer to do that now and would ask that Council vote to approve subjective conditions requiring the best way and alternative for such mitigation to be implemented. This is how I submit Council can reasonably an approval of subjective I will now speak briefly as to why we can 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 in the State government to be seen to be taking big and 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 the time of 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 walking proximity to parks and arterial bus routes, it is connected to all town services. And the 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 and building a larger single house permissible upon the block for the use of one family. 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. An opportunity for subdivision in such an area which creates 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 head on towards a demographic cliff where million of our residents will require care and proportion to those who can live within a competitive distance to provide and other services required. Staffing businesses for the long term is likely going to become more and difficult due to the lack of available housing stock of the kind it is proposed to create here. These the estate is a hybrid working and gains of stock here bring benefits to the community which will not be replicated by the addition of luxury units or high density offerings elsewhere. In addition to the general 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 hard in our progress on the addition of housing stock. The application for full Council counselling is one of the lowest impact additions with 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 three. As we're 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 self-determination in planning under the current framework, I think it can be safely predicted that the added dwelling 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 food and water. 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 the Noosa Parklands Estate. We are willing to give up what is an excessive surplus surface of backyard in order to fund replacement of our alien under-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, planning and seeking conditions with us to facilitate a subdivision in a way that best meeting out its bushfire concerns. 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, if anyone would like to do that. To do it thank you Mr. Noosa, for your excellent submission. If possible, could you email that to us so we can consider it prior to, in case we want to review the application. Thank you. Very much. Okay, next item is referred from the committee. First up is an application for another change to development approval. Integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course contracts, adding holes to include group farm stay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure. The 59 cabriolet caparaba, preferred from referred from the Planning & Environment Committee dated 12 September. I think it was due to the significance of the matter and more information required. Tom, you have a conflict of interest, would you like to be clear? I've got just something to start with. Tom Wegener 13:16.143
Yes, I am Councillor Tom Wegener from the meeting that I have a declarable 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? It's been a minute. The permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. As the president of the community group Permaculture Noosa centre, 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 in 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 and whether I can remain participate in this decision. Frank Wilkie 14:10.642
Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Any questions for Councillor Wegener? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 14:15.989
Can you just clarify the statement you made that you requested the permaculture report. You requested from applicants or? Tom Wegener 14:23.528
No, I requested 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, Councillors. That was what I was trying to clarify. Frank Wilkie 14:38.582
So only through asking for this report was your potential permaculture review? Exactly. Okay. 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. As you read that it sounds like he requested the applicant provided it. So what change are you suggesting? Brian Stockwell 15:04.819
Upon request to staff for the permaculture report. But which injured. Was it? Two staff, not one. Two- staff. Joe Jurisevic 15:21.520
Yeah. Brian Stockwell 15:27.841
For the permaculture report? Yeah, which was mentioned in the applicant's submission. I don't think you need the next bit, but. It was. I learned that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. Frank Wilkie 15:48.298
Okay. So, which was not required to be included in the report to Council? Yeah. It was revealed the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall. Brian Stockwell 16:02.180
Yeah. If the cancer wouldn't be as happy with that one, I think that is clear. Joe Jurisevic 16:11.040
Just to clarify, so. Brian Stockwell 16:13.242
That, with permaculture. Joe Jurisevic 16:16.242
Yeah. Say I, just a question with regard to Tom kendall's credentials as a local permaculture expert and your the role as president nursery of community permaculture nursery group, I'm assuming that Tom is a member of that Permaculture Noosa? No, he's not a member of the club. So there's no association with your role in Permaculture Noosa and Mr. Mr. Kendall as a permaculture expert? Yeah. Thank you, that's all right, okay. You. Brian Stockwell 16:46.200
I'm happy to move that we cancel Wegener it, we move that. Participates and votes on this matter. Joe Jurisevic 16:53.517
I'll second. Brian Stockwell 16:54.417
Because Council that Mr. Mr. Kendall is not is a close. A associate, I'll put associate, which is the legal term. Worry about personal, it's a close associate. Sorry, just delete the word personal. Don't delete the word personal. Yeah, that's what the legislation talks about. And that. Reasonable personal opinion, definitely. A reasonable person would trust a final decision is made in the public interest. Frank Wilkie 17:23.772
Second, Councillor Jurisevic. Can I- Councillor Stockwell just speak to Brian Stockwell 17:28.160
No just, 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 media doesn't actually trigger the statutory need to declare. A one that's being done out of an abundance of caution, as another councillor's fond of saying. Frank Wilkie 17:49.194
Any other Councillors to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 17:51.096
Yeah, I just have a question. Yes, so just to clarify then, Councillor Wegener, was that you raised this because of public perception? Tom Wegener 18:01.227
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. There must be some, you know, intertwined connection, which there's not. And it's, and I, looking into the report, I tried. Due diligence and, you know, we all look and ask for further reports to come. Yeah. So, just at the reception, I just want to put it on the table and say, the original associate. Joe Jurisevic 18:28.706
Thank you. Sorry, possibly a question for staff in this regard. With to what the permaculture report that was mentioned in the applicant's submission revealed, what the nature of the report was. It about the-- Nadine Gordon 18:43.334
It was about the proposed use and how the site could be used for agriculture using permaculture practices. Joe Jurisevic 18:51.641
Is there a reason why that report wasn't attached to the report so that councils could have been aware Nadine Gordon 18:56.670
It was not detailed so it was you know, this is a design. Know, this is the design layout, this is where we're going to plant, this is the type of plants we will use. Joe Jurisevic 19:07.663
So the nature of activity, how the permaculture would be undertaken on the site. Nadine Gordon 19:11.128
I didn't see it would add too much more in terms of the planning recommendations. Thank you. 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 at Kabi road in Cootharaba. This current application we've got a dealing with, I said, is another change. We're proposing a group farm stay accommodation and supporting facilities on the site. The proposal is approval to have up to 299 people on the site and is mainly catered 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, who 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 food is produced and displayed and eaten on site. Three villages 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 that mine building includes is a sitting or restaurant area with full kitchen for over 300 people, plus office reception facilities as well, and next to it is a fully covered basketball court. 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 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. Just noting, as I said before, the main building is 2,300. 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 to, fully complementary to the agricultural uses and we consider that this use of accommodation is probably more predominant than agriculture. It is inconsistent with the character. It is 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 to be built on campus. 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 quite 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 23:07.829
Thank you. We 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 metre area for development I'll ask I asked for a breakdown which you've provided, thank you, and which brought the correction of the total area. Given that the villages total 4,000 square metres and the communal area totals 2,000 and the amenities 140 square metres out 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? Nadine Gordon 23:51.969
Because the accommodation components excluded from the State referral. So it's only on the central facilities area. Joe Jurisevic 24:00.459
So accommodation doesn't get included in that calculation? Thank you for that. Further to that. Clarifying 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 proposed to be developed within that area? Nadine Gordon 24:28.347
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 parts? The other part actually is outside. So the block to the north, 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 effluent disposal area. That's actually outside the outcome. But the three villages, so the central facilities plus the three villages will all be in agricultural land conservation areas and there 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. Is also located within the agricultural land. Joe Jurisevic 25:28.968
I assume all the access roads and all the rest of it as well? All the access roads are in the alka as well. So the only portion of development that isn't in the alka is the effluent disposal area which is on the adjoining lot that isn't covered by that. Alright, thank you. More questions. 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 25:54.954
So 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 wouldn't. Same trigger. Okay. It's the same trigger which Nadine Gordon 26:15.557
Is the number of people in that floor area that we were talking about. Amelia Lorentson 26:19.802
And there's a little bit of discussion in the application about the existing use rights. Yes. 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, lydine. Nadine Gordon 26:41.631
Existing use rights are probably great. We talk about applicator approvals lapsing, so an approval runs with the land. We talk about an approval lapsing when it can be abandoned. So you have to able to demonstrate that a use has been abandoned. In this instance, the golf course has been maintained. The facilities, that restaurant is still there. So it would be very very hard for us to argue that the use has actually been abandoned. They could come back at any stage and recommence that use with minimal changes to the existing facilities. Richard MacGillivray 27:21.790
There are situations, Council, where uses can cease for a period and sometimes referred to as mothball and where they may hold an abeyance. 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 their of 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 are some signs that it has been maintained as a facility and therefore those rights continue. Nadine Gordon 28:04.176
There's some interesting case law that you can read about it. There was one about a service station that was shut down basically but all of the facilities were retained. The houses 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 what richard's 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 intent that it will continue to be operated. Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 28:51.359
Oh yeah, in your input, and I apologise for my voice, might not make it through, it's nothing contagious, it's too much cheering at a successful grand final for the Noosa lions premier league and other teams. Not pointing hard at the birthday yesterday. The application was made based on an undefined use. In your report you identified similarities to things like short however, when I read the definition of a resort complex. I can't see how it's not. So the definition of a resort complex means the use of the 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 it be defined as a result complex and does that make an implication on the level of assessment? Nadine Gordon 29:50.755
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 whereas in this instance the use predominant is school camps so you're getting one operator or several you know there might be a school who's coming and they're going to basically utilise the three camps the three villages the whole site rather than having individual people coming like toppers to the resort and I would say some of the recreation facilities too. Brian Stockwell 30:29.883
But there's nothing within what I've read that restricts it to either school, just as a group, of any size. Nadine Gordon 30:37.704
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. Brian Stockwell 30:55.363
One and of the benefits of education is there's nothing within the undefined land use. There's nothing that appears in the undefined land use education, that links Nadine Gordon 31:04.378
No, it's in there, I suppose, their proposal, they're advising us that it will be used for school groups, predominantly for school groups with a education component associated with that. Frank Wilkie 31:17.913
Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic? Joe Jurisevic 31:17.913
Following on from that, if it were to be approved at any stage, that is that something could be conditioned as to who the users could be? Can it be confined to school groups only as an educational Nadine Gordon 31:33.063
Facility? Joe Jurisevic 31:33.643
That would be a hard condition. So there's no scope to really define who could use the facility. Richard MacGillivray 31:39.585
I mean, we've been seeking that from the applicant early on, and that's been raised as a concern around the scope of the exact user group. Obviously, a condition could be looked at around that. However, it potentially could be subject to contest, given that's not what they've been applied for. Joe Jurisevic 31:57.703
That's what I'm seeking, whether it's contestable after that. Frank Wilkie 32:01.490
Following on with that, so this application is if and it could be used for convention. Nadine Gordon 32:09.075
Yes, I believe so, yes. Unless we, again, try and condition it. When asked about the. Remembering that there are four sort of substantial areas. There's the central facility building, which can sit, as I said, over 330.330 people. At tables. With a large kitchen and reception. A large kitchen and there are offices. Then there are. So it could seat possibly more than 300 tables, wasn't it? That's what I. That was on their seating plan, I counted, yes. 330. Then there are the three villages. Each village has its own dining area and kitchen area. So there's a lot of duplication of facilities. So, you know, 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 the potential that they could be used for some form of functions or conferences out there, yes. Council member? Tom Wegener 33:03.702
Looking at the plan again, we're looking at the plans. It just seems to be 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 not a trojan horse to put in a continued. A using it as a goal as a golf course with, you know, the five star. Is that right, like? Nadine Gordon 33:35.016
That's what they had proposed. Each of those little cabins had its own toilet. At the moment. They show they're showing an indicative light 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 34:01.245
Nadine, so if 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? Nadine Gordon 34:24.342
Okay. Again, it was a brief list. I don't mean that is a final list in terms of this area. 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 our existing schools do go outside the Shire to existing camps. So I don't see that there is a need for this type of facility to service our community's requirements. Joe Jurisevic 35:08.092
Thank you, any other answers? Yeah, in the report there no mention of 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 bushfire hazard plan that the applicant provided? We'll get will to have a little chat about that if you'd like. So- Please. Trent Grauf 35:32.512
The site is considered a vulnerable use and I guess under the SPP requirements the assessment benchmark 3 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 in the site. Planning can appropriately mitigate risk. The applicant has determined that they met this requirement by achieving a separation distance of less than 10 kilowatts per square metre for the users of the site. The so in an emergency, the idea is that you'll locate the users of the property within that less than 10 kilowatts per square metre of radiant heat which would be in the centre of the site essentially. A from an officer level, I guess look I'd need at is that an acceptable level or is it a of tolerable level. 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. The tolerable or our risk is low enough to allow the exposure to a natural hazard continue but high require new treatments or actions to reduce that risk. Communities can to require new treatments or actions to reduce generally live within this level of risk but as much as reasonably, practically should be done to reduce this risk. An intolerable level of risk is one while following an of the likelihood and consequences is so high that it requires actions to avoid or 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 exit points. Two both exiting south via Kabi road and Cootharaba Road before being able to evacuate towards Tewantin or Pomona and where evacuation is not possible. Shelter in place in this 10-kilometre 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 exposed to flame attack, ember attack, radiant heat exposure, wind, smoke attack. Council would view this as an incurable risk. Joe Jurisevic 38:20.316
You mentioned two egresses from the property in the report that only talks about one. Can we just clarify that on that? Unidentified Speaker 38:27.475
Yep, so the original report referred to one evacuation point. Yep. And a secondary evacuation report is then provided to Council, which now proposes a second exit point, is also through highbush fire. They both exit basically south through the highbush fire area. Joe Jurisevic 38:47.146
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, in from a building code perspective, would something like sprinklers and all 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. That? Unidentified Speaker 39:14.259
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. Joe Jurisevic 39:28.442
And again, that goes correct. Under building code? 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. Nadine Gordon 39:43.539
Also, I think, the number of people on site as well. Yeah. Thank you. Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 39:51.018
Hello. Just another question. The applicant's town planner has communicated that the applicant's happy to discuss scale and material and would that change the decision? And how, know, how smaller how much smaller does this have to be to get a tick? Nadine Gordon 40:14.961
I find that a very hard question. Answer. Amelia Lorentson 40:16.410
It is, and I'm struggling with it also. Nadine just. Nadine Gordon 40:20.856
So on Facebook, I think we are proposing, 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 one, we're second talking about scale and I know karen's mentioned about scale involved. 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 read the planning scheme, I don't see that this is what the planning scheme was looking for. Talking about smaller 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 if 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 41:24.956
And I guess Council just to add to these comments it's always difficult, I guess, putting, staff putting back feedback on what is the appropriate scale, and our role is to assist the applicant's proposals as they put it forward. Certainly staff from an early stage pre-lodgement have been very clear around their concerns around the scale of this operation, and usually based on that feedback we'll be thinking that they modify that to reduce it to a point where it's considered acceptable as part of our 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 Frank Wilkie 42:05.460
Context I'd just like to ask another question in the report you mentioned the impact on road and is it the development of traffic points to a six-fold increase in traffic on the fever road during weekdays? Yes, that's correct. From 57 to 356 during weekdays? Yes, an independent traffic consultant have a that's going on by the Council have view? Nadine Gordon 42:41.918
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 traffic consultant's perspective. Joe Jurisevic 42:53.712
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 previous development application 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. About half of what's proposed here. Nadine Gordon 43:18.656
Sorry 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. Joe Jurisevic 43:32.990
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 with regard to that. So the other element is you gave a response with regard to the question raised previously and I just confirmed terms of bulk the rural zone code details a range of outcomes running to built form and small-scale accommodation development 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 an area exceeding 65 square metres. So 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 as I, is that how I read that? Yes, that's how, it does read, yes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 44:32.602
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 44:33.663
I'd like to move to staff recommendation with one small change and that change is down on item D for memories. Unidentified Speaker 45:08.951
3A, is that the one you're looking at? 3A, is it? That's close to D. Joe Jurisevic 45:12.965
Very, very close. Frank Wilkie 45:18.124
Now I can start to demonstrate the overwhelming now. Brian Stockwell 45:21.401
Overwhelming, yes, by inserting the word 'planning' after the word 'overwhelming' don't know what he's planning to do. Frank Wilkie 45:41.702
Okay, do we have a seconder for that please? Seconder is Councillor Lorentson. Brian Stockwell 45:50.740
So, Vicky, if you could bring up, you put on voices pretty flippant, I have. Done a wonderful presentation, that's fine. Frank Wilkie 46:01.738
You do say so myself. Brian Stockwell 46:05.852
So the first thing is, the concept of having a paddock-to-plate school-based education facility in a rural area is a good one. That if it was the and right scale designed well in the right place, that we would support it. But one of the first things that I teach, and 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 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 government planning schemes. And what is that state interest that affects this? Is out of the current state planning policies. It says avoiding development that will have irreversible impact on or adjacent to agricultural land class A. B. Maintaining or enhancing land conditions and the five physical resources 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. Okay and it mentions agricultural tourism. That's the core principle about this one is we have nearly two acres of across the 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 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. That 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 have realise that protecting good quality agricultural land is fundamental. 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 outcome agricultural for land. One of my previous jobs over the role of identifying, going through all the court cases on good quality agricultural 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 interest was, it's a very well-established principle that you do not alienate state agricultural land to the extent for dining facilities, for land sale kitchens, okay, it talks about, you know, in the report we talk about, it's clearly more prominent, like this is from, in the 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 is permanent alienation. There's one thing that isn't identified, we're talking about incompatible land uses, the predominant driver is about recreation, you know, agriculture is a component and it's the part they are looking at if permaculture is a good concept, no argument with it, but 7,200 square metres of changing the waterway for recreational purposes, once again inconsistent with the appropriate treatment, now they're suggesting that might have some rehabilitation benefit. 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've mentioned that, in my opinion, the closest definition under the State is we're talking about a 300 person resort in a rural area. Unidentified Speaker 50:18.678
Simple thing. We're really unusual. Next, please. That's the resort. I'm clicking on here and it's not changing. Next time again unusual in this particular spot. Thanks, Vicki. Next slide. We've got really good quality soils mapping. Brian Stockwell 50:40.585
We've had a land resource assessment. The State only does this in think have got agricultural potential. So not, 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 that goes 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, overlaid on the development. You can of see the development site is mapped. Within class A1 or class A2 agricultural land. Okay if you see through the map. It should have been a slideshow, it shouldn't have been. Go once again and probably you'll 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. It's up. Ah, got out of order. Okay. Keep clicking until that goes away. There we go. Another click? Yeah. This is the overarching strategic framework. It talks about we do want economies diverse and resilient and we do want agricultural pathways. It talks about aligning with the Noosa point of distance, Noosa brand, implementing natural environment sustainability and it talks about low impact nature based tourism and rural tourism are supported. And if we go on, that's reflected in the tables of assessment. Next please. And you can see the sort of scale that these are all the sort of uses that were mentioned in the report. You can see the code assessment 25 tens of 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 is seeking approval for $299 and across the whole area less than $5,000 a metre squared. It's a much larger scale than what we're envisaged. And next slide please. We talked about the South East Queensland plan being inconsistent. Now there's some important words there. Opportunities to further grow and diversify original food which is seen are direct marketing, valuating 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 the sub-regions, hinterland areas. And this is in the northern 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. These activities will be encouraged, which we should, where they can be managed to preserve the agricultural land resource conservation has. A very good character. 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 regional plan. I wrote most of them and raoul improved on them. So that's what we said we wanted and that's what the regional plan 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 54:14.864
Thank and now the council's wish to speak. Tom Wegener 54:19.226
I want to speak to this, Council, wait a minute. We can start, 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 clear wording of the planning scheme unless there is an overwhelming public interest. 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 for we have example when we look at the Environment Strategy the Environment Strategy 2019 through the lens a different lens through a different strategy we say by 2030 80 of all grazing land achieve best practice management for agriculture where are we right now 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 we will double the amount of regenerative cattle 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 do need to grow it at the last kalula food trail where they go around to the different farms how many crop farmers were there in Noosa on the trail zero there was one east wall farm which had a token regenerative farm we have a situation here where we don't eat what grows here during lunch during the summertime we iceberg lettuce carrots broccoli cauliflower none of them are from here and not from anywhere near here where there's plenty of wonderful greens we could put on our plate but we don't that we don't grow and that is a 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 that the plan states work with agriculture organisations and agencies to support and educate landholders on regenerative agriculture methods and promote local and 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 stated 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 we have a very different view of this application in page 65 it said the amount of silt or mud coming down was one thousand one hundred and two 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 twenty eight thousand sixty nine cubic metres of silt washing off of our primed farmland into the river clogging up our river. Page 26 states. This is up again of the river plan the massive decline of our lovely little creatures which live in the bottom of the river is due to the amount of sediment in the river and on our watch in the last twenty years thirty to sixty five percent those of creatures that live in the benthic layer aren't there anymore and what does that do to probably silt coming off of our agriculture lands the curdle the current cattle farming is an extractive industry is one where the externalities are not incorporated. Or did does not incorporate externalities into this little bit of what is it does not incorporate into government thing makes that there's nothing can does not incorporate externalities into the business which is they have cattle 60 head of cattle on a hundred acres property pretty that's normal eat out there they grass down improperly they're not moving around so that the eat that the farmer sells the cattle we get the mud our river silts up so we are subsidising our cattle industry here in new south with our practices we need to start this regenerative concept it is so utterly important for us when it on page 63 it states that the river plan develop a landholder extension program to act to educate rural landholders on substantial 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 were plaid and against all odds one of our favourite yes Brian Stockwell 59:46.478
We're looking at a development application for farmstay accommodation we're getting a sermon on regenerative agriculture I don't think it's relevant to the application because we're not refusing or approving agriculture. Tom Wegener 01:00:04.849
What's your response to that? We are looking at an overwhelming need. There is no overwhelming need and I'm demonstrating that there is an overwhelming need. Brian Stockwell 01:00:12.799
For agriculture I agree with you. But we're dealing with an accommodation application. Frank Wilkie 01:00:21.113
So is your point that this application would develop these sorts of areas that you're championing? Tom Wegener 01:00:27.285
It is. This application 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. In all, thank you. It is interesting. What is? So we have rachel's farm. So Rachel ward hasn't had a farm. Cattle are dying. She's worrying about climate change. She says, what can I do? Well, it's soil. The best way to sequester carbon is to put it in your soil layer. That's where it belongs. And in hunter farm, she changed to regenerative farming and she came here to talk about it. She came to Noosa. She played the twice. She asked her questions, and she said. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:13.358
Through the Chair, point of order. Tom Wegener 01:01:15.300
Sorry Through the Chair. Okay. Are you talking about another development now, Tom? Frank Wilkie 01:01:21.368
Okay, let's look at. Let's talk about this one. Tom Wegener 01:01:23.150
Let's talk about. Okay, we're looking at it through the Waste Strategy and zero emissions. 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? We're burning the biochar. We're looking at that. Getting that as what was once a waste product, bringing it back, putting it on our land, sequestering carbon. So currently our topsoil is being washed, away from our I would like to would a like to raise a point of order. Karen Finzel 01:02:02.469
I don't believe the speaker is speaking to the Frank Wilkie 01:02:17.806
You you've have been given a lot of latitude. Can you keep your comments now to the application that is before us and the recommendation that is before us? Tom Wegener 01:02:27.319
I spoke to Andrew from CYC and said why does it need to be so big? He said it's the only way to make this economically viable. 300 kids he said isn't actually that big when it comes to this sort of development. There are 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? He said well teachers if you're going to 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 could be eating that they might not fit that but you got this over there, but when these work, we're working towards that. This is what's called a BHAG, a big, hairy, audacious goal. And we need 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 in right 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. Frank Wilkie 01:04:07.879
Thank you Councillor Wegener. I have a question. Karen Finzel 01:04:11.366
Yes Through the Chair to Councillor Tom. Are you aware they're running cattle on this property? Tom Wegener 01:04:18.275
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. In the plan, and I think it's in the plan but it's also in the permaculture 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. Won't you see that on eastwell farms on the regenerative. You won't see brown but you'll get it now. It's already turning brown. The cows are eating the food all the way down. When it rains again, our river is full of water and full of mud. Can I ask you a question? Amelia Lorentson 01:04:57.902
Yes, thank you. 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 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 scale. 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 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 and strong a enough reason to be able to the refusal. Thank you Councillor Lorentson, just ask. Tom Wegener 01:06:31.374
We look at the 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 is feels very wet and that's about the last place that it burns would actually 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 lands that will not burn around the property. Trent Grauf 01:06:58.910
Was that consent? 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, Laura. I'll speak to it. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:07:14.661
Yeah, thank you. I support staff recommendations. 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 I stay over. So, there are many within driving distance of this area. 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 recommendation based on those three factors. Frank Wilkie 01:07:47.535
Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic. Joe Jurisevic 01:07:50.961
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 of the 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 once again, we've got the 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, Brian pointed out, the land is being 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 it 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 them. 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 something that challenges bushfire management in LA. A location putting like that put that many people into that 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 region. I just can't support this development application as it currently stands before us, but I 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 01:10:13.648
Councillor Joe. Any other Councillors wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? I will. At a risk of oversimplifying, the reason why I support staff recommendation, because this is a resort scale accommodation development on land aside for food security production. And as time goes on, with the challenges of changing climate and development, our access to arable land and securing our local food production is going to become increasingly critical. So 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 education. 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 on neighbours out there. This would see a six volt increase in traffic on the feeder load and I don't think people who bought in based on the information they gleaned from the Noosa planning scheme were expecting to see a six volt increase. In traffic out there, the and there's Noosa planning scheme, in a sense, is a contract we have with our community that sets reasonable expectations about what people can expect to see appear I'll on a property next door. Be open to assessing another application which had the proportions, the ratios of accommodation as opposed to land under permaculture reversed. There's 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? 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 no person is going to agree with that more than myself. Brian Stockwell 01:13:10.667
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 apple farmers kids. Custard in sunnybank. She taught the strawberry growers kids in rochdale. She taught the chicken farmers kids in woodbridge. Welcome. Thank you. They're now mass 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 future 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, Unidentified Speaker 01:14:38.873
Some of what he said was incorrect. Not all alternative mechanisms of grazing or agriculture relate to downstream settlement movement. In fact, there's lots of science for other forms of agriculture other than what's going to be considered regenerative that has Brian Stockwell 01:14:56.811
Little or no impact on water quality. Many of the producers in our Shire do adopt a lot, a range of the best management practices. 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, 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 is you look after your best assets first. And that's what we're doing by saying, "No, this has gone too far." Frank Wilkie 01:15:47.069
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? Come back for an extended session? Good idea. Yes. Thank you. Yes? Okay. We'll adjourn the meeting for five minutes please. Thanks. You. Guys. Thank you. We've got everyone. Can we have the camera live again? We're ready to go. Ready? 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. Derrick. Welcome. Derek, can you give us overview of where we're at with the results. Amy Kimber 01:17:06.383
Thanks very much Frank. Good afternoon everyone. So it's really exciting I think to be at this point. A huge amount of work that's gone into prepare preparing these this catchment plan and it's been going on for many years. Frank Wilkie 01:17:21.134
Oh sorry, Brian has a conflict. Brian Stockwell 01:17:23.537
Oh yes, I have more than one. The Council has always declared a conflict, consistent with my previous written declaration in regards to Noosa District Landcare, 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 remain in the room, but respect your decision. Frank Wilkie 01:17:56.066
Is that, I guess that's incumbent on all, there's a list of people who have consulted at the back of it. So, Councillors, if you're. We're all checked. No. We've got a few links. No, can I. It's a long, very long list. Unidentified Speaker 01:18:12.007
On page. One hundred. Noosa District Landcare and. Page 7,146. It's having a significant role. NICA. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:22.667
NICA's on the list. Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation, Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, Noosa District Landcare group, the Biosphere Reserve Foundation, Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee, Healthy Land and Water department, DAF, MSQ, South East Queensland Council of Mayors, the nature conservancy, USC, NBFA, boating industry, environmental services, etc Frank Wilkie 01:19:03.234
East Queensland Council of Mayors, advisory committee, constitute of, don't know if there's anyone on that, do I, Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 01:19:13.550
Yes or no? Yes, I've, declared it on as my written declaration, so it's up to you. Frank Wilkie 01:19:18.898
Okay, look, I'll, move that the note the declarable Council conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell, in between Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this note that the Council believes a reasonable person would not consider this, would, that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the, public Joe Jurisevic 01:19:58.807
It's catching Brian, you're getting, you're starting to affect other people's friends. Frank Wilkie 01:20:05.626
Lady, truss. Councillor Wegener? "Just do it." Any questions for Councillor Stockwell? Amelia Lorentson 01:20:21.351
Can I throw a question? Yes. My question is given recent OIA findings, would your long associate, 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 the CEO. Larry Sengstock 01:20:48.765
Ultimately you are, revisiting it now. He's putting up exactly what this is all about. He's covering up his conflict of interest, it's just that he's not reading it in total, but it's still a conflict of interest in your department. Brian Stockwell 01:21:03.523
It hasn't changed from being a declarable conflict to a prescribed conflict. Karen Finzel 01:21:10.507
I just have a question Through 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 01:21:21.995
So, from memory, under the act, I only have to go back to the 2016 election. I did earn 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 of $500 or more. Think it was around that $500 moment, but it was before the time. Frank Wilkie 01:21:53.715
Before 2016. Actually. That's it. And if I remember rightly, when this district land care has been, your association with land has been mentioned before, you've declared it on the stage. Consistent with that, I'd move this to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell did not vote. Councillor Stockwell you have a second. Declare incredible confidence. Brian Stockwell 01:22:21.352
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 long-standing relationship with MRCCC as a previous government employee and a long-term collaborator since 1994. 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 this role I played, in this role I played. Along with the sylvainian development of the crips and the ice captain's team. Although I have an incredible conflict of interest, I do not believe a regional person could have a perception of what I have. Unidentified Speaker 01:22:57.711
Considering the community nature of this relationship, I choose to remain in the meeting room and have a respected decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Joe Jurisevic 01:23:08.031
I'll I'm going move to the Councillor O 'Donnell of to declare a conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and 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 personal trust the final decision to make the public interest. Frank Wilkie 01:23:25.528
I'll second it. Joe Jurisevic 01:23:28.533
Again as we've done in the past I believe this is fairly consistent with the approach that we've had in past conflict by Councillor Stockwell, uh, and the, nature of the ratio of being predominantly, um, community-based in, uh, Frank Wilkie 01:23:47.239
Okay. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to give us a favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the matter. Sorry for that. It's okay. Anybody else? Amy Kimber 01:24:02.838
Okay. Thank you. So over the years, we've had many improvements in managing and coordinating river-related issues, 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 the table. In 2016, we had the community jury considering changes to the river. And then we also had, more or less, the 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 of went around in circles a little bit, and I think that the committee felt co that having MSQ as-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. 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, landcare, MRCCC, NICA, green age conservancy, a local commercial Fisher. So there's been a lot going on behind the scenes and that has all been documented and incorporated into the plan in of our updated plan, we've really tried to draw on consultations, scientific research and the many partnerships we already have underway. I think we've been going over this ground for a long time. I think given the amount of consultation that's been undertaken, we do have a good picture of river 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 a plan finalised because without it we can't access state and commonwealth funding. We really need a Roadmap to guide our investment moving forward. There are two major opportunities through South East Queensland passport amends. Resilient Rivers opportunity as well as the commonwealth department of climate change, energy and the environment waters, urban rivers and catchments program. So there's been advice received 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 is using a risk assessment process intentionally. 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 for better integration river management across government agencies under a trust agreement 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 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 in our head document to get as a signature document 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 to build shared ownership and attract investment. Have we peer review undertaking independent experts, and what we've done is divided the plan up into six management areas to try to prioritise management focuses in each of those areas. So I think that's a long view. An own view of what we've tried to achieve, but I don't think I can take any more a questions. Joe Jurisevic 01:29:24.862
Of questions. I'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 Doonella. The runoff from the industrial area west of Noosa-Eumundi Road drains into Lake Doonella as I understand it. But I can only see Lake Weyba mentioned as having runoff from the industrial area. Is 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 01:30:01.402
Councillor Joe, we're talking about the report that reviewed the runoff into Eenie Creek. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:06.361
So the other side doesn't. Brian Stockwell 01:30:09.512
If you look at project Avenue venture that's talks about into Lake Weyba. So that was where we had river water quality in Eenie Creek just after the first stormwater outlet from the industrial estate. So it does flow both ways now. That's right. That's what I'm saying. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:26.283
It flows both ways. We only mention it flowing into Lake Weyba. We don't mention it flowing into lake Nellie. I think that's a correction that could easily be addressed. Brian Stockwell 01:30:33.166
I just think in that, where it's mentioned, I think you're talking about that study. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:36.527
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. That's one of the minor editors. That's a minor edit. The other here with regard to water quality, thank you. To water quality. Thank you. Mentioning zero litre entering the river under 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. 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 know that we're capable of making sure that every of litre going into the river system is under our control, I.e. someone in a boat throwing something out of the boat. This is a question, Councillor. The question's coming, Councillor Wilkie. 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, what, you know, the areas that we will manage litter entering the river from, as opposed to litter in general entering the river system, because we couldn't stop anything blowing into the river either. Frank Wilkie 01:31:56.990
It's just a question, that's an aspiration, isn't it? Kim Rawlings 01:31:59.394
Yeah, so. Not a capability. That's right. So I think there's two aspects to it. I think there is an aspirational element to it. Zero litter in our river and there'll be. And, you know, that flows through to education campaigns, to our recreation. I thought I was heading to your next, thank you. Know, so I think there's an aspirational element that should be maintained in the river. But I think in terms of detail, we can clarify that what also can be controlled at the Council level. But I think there's two aspects. Joe Jurisevic 01:32:27.290
And that was my second part of my question was, yes, I mean, aspirationally, education is a fundamental part of that, making 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. But I think that the language 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. that can be 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. Absolutely. Amy Kimber 01:33:07.070
And I think 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 01:33:25.841
It also means if we're controlling the elements that we can control, we can then focus on the other areas where litter is coming from and education is a key part of that. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:33:35.751
Thank you. For the. 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 community contact me with concerns about regulation and balance to 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? Thank yeah, thank you. Kim Rawlings 01:34:16.915
So the river plan has an implementation action that says consider the mechanism of a 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 zone-- marine parks act also has what's called a conservation zone. OK. So there was some misunderstanding. Were we talking about a marine park conservation zone, which is a far more strict and limiting legislative head of power. That's not what we're talking about. Okay, thank you for that. It's, and you can see the confusion. One's called conservation park, one's conservation zone. Easily confused. So what we are looking at is the, under the nature conservation act, the conservation park that we have there are examples of conservation parks around Queensland that have, provide the local government with a level of, a greater level of management. And authority over those areas 'cause we would operate as a trustee. A management 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 used. Users, rep users, interested parties. So there's 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. That would 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 such things like encroachments or you know anchoring and mooring or derelict vessels or you know things like that. This would give us a seat at the table via the management plan. This mechanism we specifically looked at because it does allow coexistence of commercial use. So it specifically says the principles of the conservation. Amy Kimber 01:36:29.247
Yes so providing explicit recognition that all current regulations special area. Regulations and management principles are retained and that existing commercial fishing can continue in the arbitrary fishing sustainability. I just wanted to add to what Kim was saying there as well. 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 tradition it is to have government responsibilities, so we definitely want to avoid that perception and I think this model that we're looking at 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 of years and it goes to show how much work involved in each of these relationships and we really need a mechanism around how we continue that engagement with the board. Frank Wilkie 01:37:32.670
Yes Ma'am, you're not receiving an email suggesting that there might be some confusion and thinking that the council's going to take over management of those sections of the river. That's not the case. It's, as you say, a seat at the table with the agencies that are responsible for that. Exactly right. Amy Kimber 01:37:50.078
They've all got very different focuses and I guess the areas that they see as their responsibility and it's quite different. It's about getting that holistic approach. Know, Maritime Safety Queensland of years and it obviously goes to very. Show how much work he's involved in. We've been doing it with MSQ for the past Kim Rawlings 01:38:15.748
Couple of years and it goes to show how much work it gives a good sense of what can occur in management in a conservation so parks manage to conserve 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 education, 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. Frank Wilkie 01:39:00.819
So it's a good mechanism to balance all of these things and you said it's clear in the report that it's going to be applied to the fish habitat areas. Yes. Could you explain how far they extend, where they exist currently, so what areas are they looking at? Kim Rawlings 01:39:19.572
Yeah, you might need to help me out. It's about, I think, 80 or 90 percent. Unidentified Speaker 01:39:25.218
Yeah, it's quite a. Yeah, it's going to define what's not. Kim Rawlings 01:39:27.421
Yeah, what's excluded? Is the area from probably about here down to. The river now. Yeah, so all the foreshore areas where the commercial. Recreation Noosaville Foreshore area, that is excluded. There is a fish habitat around the centre part of the river, but the foreshore areas are excluded. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's probably the most, otherwise most of the rivers covered by fish habitat area already. Frank Wilkie 01:39:57.657
Yeah. Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:59.860
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 getting is involved does that mean that if we deem something not sustainable e.g. commercial fishing then we can override the Department of Environment service Department of Agriculture and Fisheries so so can we there no Kim Rawlings 01:40:46.433
Okay so no right what it does is say we've got a seat at the table at the local level so if there are concerns that is the Council of god about activities that are happening in that space, then we would have those conversations in the department but the head of power for sustainable commercial fishing sustainable fisheries is with DAF absolutely and that would absolutely change 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 Amelia Lorentson 01:41:40.573
But Kim, again, excuse me, are we saying that state aren't doing or 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? Kim Rawlings 01:41:55.755
We're not stepping in to manage commercial fisheries. That's not what this is about. Saying there's a large portion of Noosa River that is. 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. Jurisdiction is this? Again, what head of power is this? Whether it's about derogatory votes or whether it's about pollution. This give us a seat at that table and there would be a management plan that's where we could actually have more say in how those things are managed. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:39.090
So the NSERAC committee that folded in March this year, so two years, 14 members, really good cross-section diversity representation of all this water users, plan and in particular the conservation park, was that discussed and more importantly endorsed by the committee? Kim Rawlings 01:42:59.734
No, it wasn't discussed or endorsed by the committee. That wasn't the remit of that committee. No. Clare Stewart 01:43:09.231
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 overarching group responsible. Kim Rawlings 01:43:22.140
That's right. Responsible on certain issues. There's a different number of different agencies responsible for different things. Clare Stewart 01:43:29.999
So I'm just wondering the conservation park, how would that, I know you said we have a seat at the table but with state to get 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 differ from where we are now? Amy Kimber 01:43:47.298
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 that will enable. Clare Stewart 01:44:02.472
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 Committee. We're still beholden to state. 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. Kim Rawlings 01:44:15.613
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 would. This vests more in Council in terms of having the management plan in place where 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 01:44:47.140
So the conservation park, if Council was to engage or go down this track, when that's being set up does that go to community consultation? Kim Rawlings 01:44:59.872
It would be an engagement process, absolutely, to develop a management plan, yes. With all the people noted? With all the stakeholders, whoever's got an interest in that space and the management plan will be developed collaboratively with engagement, yes. Frank Wilkie 01:45:17.655
Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Finzel? Brian Stockwell 01:45:19.283
It's going to have to be a long question to the background. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but historically I've sat as a state government representative of both the DNR and the department of primary and interest securities, unless you're going to play in working groups. They've always been aligned on the goodwill of state government to implement what was largely seen as a Council plan, even though the initial one was launched by the minister. That goodwill waxes and wanes with individual staff members in individual departments over time. And when have committed you 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 just a Council head of power, but also gives the State government the management plan which they respond to. So, for example, we talk about fisheries from a recreational or a commercial, most of the fisheries modelling is done on a regional level. What the conservation park may give us is a head of power 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 that ability to set in place A more structured formal governance mechanism. To those long-standing aims of the Noosa River Plan, is that correct? Kim Rawlings 01:46:56.182
Yes, it does give us a more formal mechanism beyond Cooroy. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:00.760
So, clarify what Councillor, okay, just as a clarification, maybe Brian or Kim, so are local, we saying that under this management, that we can use our own local scientist 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. Brian Stockwell 01:47:27.496
I'm saying that, using example of fisheries, most of the fisheries management is based on regional assessment of stock, but they wouldn't probably have the a Noosa the Noosa river, for example. This one, we might want 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:54.400
So we can then, as a Council, deem, say, fishing as. Unsustainable and override state. No, it still can't override. Brian Stockwell 01:48:06.162
It's just about giving a more formal structure, governance structure in place to get to the point where the State government regulation reflects the aspirations of the community as expressed in the river plan. Kim Rawlings 01:48:18.015
Plan also talks about sustainable fisheries. The driver behind the conservation plan is not commercial fishing. The river plan also talks about commercial sustainable commercial fisheries and you know Council continued Council over the years has our approach to influence sustainable fisheries has been advocacy through this the fishing reform process and there's been significant reform offices of fisheries in across the State and you know about local fishes that local commercial fishes have felt that before you there's know been a tightening and quotas and everything to commercial fishery over many years so that would still stick with the State government to determine what's sustainable what quotas are licenses all of those things that us. Amelia Lorentson 01:49:12.880
Will not sit and in terms recreational of fishing Fisher persons and what would be the impact Kim Rawlings 01:49:20.606
Well at the moment it's not regulated record fishing but still Joe Jurisevic 01:49:23.787
We catch limited things it Kim Rawlings 01:49:29.525
Still a state know issue you know at some stage we have talked about doing a recreation fishing strategy but you know it it's not something that we're currently looking at doing I Amy Kimber 01:49:41.557
Think one of the actions as well is to develop a dedicated monitoring and evaluation research program to support this because don't have a very good sense of the baseline with some of these matters at the moment so wreck fishing we don't have good understanding 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 time Karen Finzel 01:50:07.215
Thank you Mr Chair given there's a lot of conversation around governance formal structures and conversations around this moving forward given our investment in transparency to our community and promising to be outward facing Council engendering trust given the history over the river I'm interested in when we're looking at governance and agencies and you know everyone on the table playing in the space who 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 just they're short staffed I understand that they're regulated by the number of hours it's given through the recruitment process and you know contracts employment so they're limited 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 we're going to deliver good governance and 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 know speed limits in 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 or Amy Kimber 01:51:44.146
It's still amazing you've been having workshops with MSQ to work out what this might look like moving sort of tossed it back into the court that Council could play a bigger role in some of the compliance activities but I think it really sits with the State government agency agencies. And we need to advocate and they have enough resources to do it. So yeah question Karen Finzel 01:52:17.082
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? Amy Kimber 01:52:26.553
So at the moment only commitment we have suggested is that our local laws offices could play a greater role in terms of being shipping inspectors so we're still in the process of working out what Council support might look like but the head of power sits with the State government department. Kim Rawlings 01:52:47.611
Yeah Joe Jurisevic 01:52:48.195
So it is only supporting roles like you know Kim Rawlings 01:52:50.907
You know the conversation we had about TUR North Shore and how councils like the law officers would have a supporting role but ultimately not the authority so that's what's being talked about like the laws potentially having a supporting role. We've also talked about the river ranger program and as you know kalbi corporation. Kabi Kabi corporation has been seeking land and sea ranger funding for Noosa River catchment and they would like to you know they're successful like to have a presence on the Noosa River around education cultural values. Those sorts of things so 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 things like that. Sits within MSQ, not with us. Joe Jurisevic 01:53:42.794
From the educational perspective things like fishing line bins and things like that and getting the community to utilise and understand what they're there for, where they're located and actually utilising them, ensuring they're empty. Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:53:56.846
Just coming back to the conservation park I'm just of noting some 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. It says significant parts of the catchments, fresh waters and estuary are designated high ecological value under the environmental protection water act. The management intent for these waters is to maintain them as underdeveloped. Now if the idea is to protect those fish habitats 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? Kim Rawlings 01:54:51.427
It's not that the areas are unusable. You can see that our areas are very highly. So there are layers. Undeveloped. There are layers and 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. For us 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 in the river and you would all know, you've all experienced being part of the NSWRAC and trying to get action on certain things is very, it's been very challenging around this, mechanism gives us a greater opportunity to have a greater say in what happens in the Noosa River catchment. So does it give us an additional head of power? Is that exactly, is that what you're saying? It does give us a legislative head of power. Clare Stewart 01:55:57.987
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? Kim Rawlings 01:56:08.416
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 we don't we can't override 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 of objectives that we are wanting to achieve for our river and have been wanting to achieve now for just under 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 the some of those things. Joe Jurisevic 01:56:53.097
Would an example of that be rehabilitation of seagrass, and Main Roads? Kim Rawlings 01:56:57.439
All of those sorts of things. Managing erosion. Management, but isn't that what we're Clare Stewart 01:57:02.808
Doing with the keep it in Kin Kin project we're doing in the oyster reefs. I mean, 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 that the seat at the but the legislation is clear that it's state government, will override anyone at the table anyway, and is it necessary when we have protection measures already in place? Amy Kimber 01:57:33.053
So the actioning in the plan is actually to consider this. 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 he's seen as one option that could be a good governance model for us. Kim Rawlings 01:57:51.342
It's put to you for consideration. So we, 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. Now put to use for consideration. Frank Wilkie 01:58:10.311
The Council thinks I was going to have a question. Karen Finzel 01:58:13.234
Thank you Mr Chair. So I do acknowledge that we do need a call of action. 20 years to keep something on the table and kicking the ball down the road is like incredulous to me. And I do acknowledge there a big lot of people engaged. But yeah for good you know, good governance, we do need to make some serious decisions in terms of good fiscal management in terms of transparency 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 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 that the question is then this would have to go to budget to consider Through the Chair and how is 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 are we 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 body of 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 of the actions in this plan yeah and will that include budget conversations about requirements Kim Rawlings 01:59:48.374
Yeah absolutely like the plan very clearly says at the moment the Council are investing over $350,000 in revamped actions yeah and projects and studies know and you're you already investing a substantial amount in the river yeah the plan very clearly says any future implementation actions are subject to budget consideration absolutely so that they all come back through Council as it does annually around anything we invest in our waterways for your consideration. That's true. Of the, like 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 briefly, 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, have the ability to attract that funding. Not having a clear capital and actual plan is one of the impending reasons for that. We know of two funding streams already available that require a capital and actual plan to be in place to attract that funding. So we will be working really diligently and 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 achieve a whole lot of these implementation actions. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:20.477
Only do you have questions 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 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 seem to be like in the conservation or environmental group um was there a bit of diversity um in that selection Amy Kimber 02:02:12.510
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 where do we really need to focus our efforts was not intended to be a community consultation review processes we deliberately selected scientists and people that work in that space. In like in catchment management. Clare Stewart 02:02:41.803
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 the scientific research persons. Interest. Amy Kimber 02:02:56.066
Interest yes 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 that Karen Finzel 02:03:24.477
They have yeah I just have a question where does Noosa Shire sit in the Noosa River catchment how do we in geographically where do we fit in that Mary River catchment area Amy Kimber 02:03:38.995
So one the Shire is the Mary River catchment and the other two thirds is the Noosa River catchment the whole of the catchment is in the Shire Unidentified Speaker 02:03:49.994
The whole of the Noosa River catchment the bit Joe Jurisevic 02:03:52.978
Of north is it come on Karen Finzel 02:03:56.792
Is that why we've had trouble attracting funding? From a higher level Joe Jurisevic 02:04:01.350
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 it's not just a river plan now river catchment plant incorporating of those inflows and things where Council has remit to actually undertake erosion control management and all of those sort of things that we haven't had a plan for in the past. I mean, I just want to test it with the normal machine. It. Amelia Lorentson 02:04:31.000
Yeah I will test this and I as I'm doing this I'm on DAF's site reading the Queensland sustainable fisheries strategy 2017-2027 and I'm looking at it going what's 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, meant to circumvent what we're. No, I don't know how much clearer I can say it. Unidentified Speaker 02:05:09.643
Yeah please. Kim Rawlings 02:05:10.905
Sustainable fisheries is regulated by the State 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. So our plan does not circumvent that. Correct. Clare Stewart 02:05:32.775
Okay. Just needed you get regular updates from them with regard to. I've got a question while you're ready to go because I've got a question you're still looking at. Just on 22 page 22. Of the agenda, 22 of the report. I think that's right. It might be the other way around. Page 94 of the agenda. We talk here about the Kabi Kabi. It's critical that the indigenous cultural, environmental and conservation heritage, this will be achieved by ensuring Kabi Kabi are key partners. Absolutely, they should be. What has their 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? Amy Kimber 02:06:13.691
That predates my time. But I that Jane Madden was liaising with them when she was developing the 2019 draft. 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 too well and so we've now moved to distributed more engagement approach. That seems to be working better we had a dedicated workshop with them on this river plan they also shared in confidence with us their health country plan which sets out their aspiration. So yeah, so it's very much an important priority for us to ensure they are properly engaged. Thank you. Tom, Tom Wegener 02:07:02.432
Do you have a question? Just the following one. Does Kabi Kabi or the native title cover the river, cover the water areas as well? Yes. Land? Frank Wilkie 02:07:11.921
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 02:07:23.035
I'd like to move a procedural motion defer this matter the board of directors. I'd like move a to the next round of meetings to allow Councillors and other stakeholders an Councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity to consider the details opportunity to consider the details and implications of a draft Noosa River and implications Noosa River catchment plan and provide catchment plan and provide feedback. Do so because I've spoken to two members from in surak and members from the Noosa boating fishing alliance all who have raised some concerns about the draft raised some concerns about 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 in surak was 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 endorsement of the draft plan as you know we've all witnessed just now there are lots of issues implied unknown implications, confusion. Concerns so so the deferrals not only to allow feedback from the NSERAC but it's also to allow Councillors and what I'd be requesting is a further workshop for all the Councillors again to understand the is first time 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 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 we can just dispel spell confirm whatever just the unknowns 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. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Jurisevic any questions? Joe Jurisevic 02:10:23.653
With regard to this document 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? Amy Kimber 02:10:35.904
We've had two rounds of public consultation that occurred for the 2019 draft. We've had three Councillor workshops, one of which was squarely focused on the MSQ stuff, but nonetheless. We've had, as you can see, all those different groups being consulted in the development of this version of the plan. It has been laborious. There's been a lot that has and gone on. Joe Jurisevic 02:11:02.740
As you said earlier there's ongoing communications with the rating Kim Rawlings 02:11:06.545
That's correct, that's the intention. With all stakeholders. There's a lot of implementation. Joe Jurisevic 02:11:14.474
That was the one that Councillor specifically mentioned, that's why I mentioned that. Brian Stockwell 02:11:18.478
Councillor Stockwell. Yeah, I'll be supporting the deferral motion. We've had six years of consultation leading up to this point. 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 undertake. Stakeholder analysis to determine a proper way forward in terms of community engagement. Unidentified Speaker 02:11:47.074
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. Workshop to 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 to the Noosa River should be and I 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 vision as we were this time last term of putting it off. We were in a position to be able to top it in Brian Stockwell 02:13:02.181
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. From the community. 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 02:13:30.060
I Clare Stewart 02:13:32.502
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 details. 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. 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 month. So kib you're what you've told us, and I don't even want to look at you because I could get a lady this way, 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. 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 have, you know, we can provide that information to our community, the information we've heard at the table today. And we can, the main thing, we 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. And 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 that was very clear when I sat as an observer on NSERAC, and it was a bipartisan agreement, was the liveaboards, the effluent coming from the liveaboards, was the moorings, was the anchorage, was getting rid of those eyesores in our river. You can't do that in the Maroochy 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. 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. Number one. So it's documented. And noted. And I understand MSQ are working in that space, which is great. And that's been achieved through the hard work of Amy and the NSERAC. MSQ, Larry, you Chair that. And this plan, as I said, is a good one. But I just think one month, it won't hurt. In fact, I think it will actually give full support and full crew. Credence to a plan that is very good. Frank Wilkie 02:16:44.807
Thank you, MSQ. Joe Jurisevic 02:16:46.170
Chair, 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. Amy Kimber 02:17:04.749
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. I'll hop to all those other stakeholders. Then who's responsible? Joe Jurisevic 02:17:21.953
Who's responsible for administering? State agencies? Yes. That's clear. Kim Rawlings 02:17:30.542
But Joe, as you know, to get the action that we've got has taken a lot of work from this Council. Joe Jurisevic 02:17:36.568
I get it, I get it just that doesn't change 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 addressed and continue to be by those state agencies. Amy Kimber 02:17:56.704
That's correct, and at the operational level, I have fortnightly catch-ups with the MSQ officer to make sure that we're ticking things over locally as well. Amelia Lorentson 02:18:07.675
So, can I ask a question? Just follow up. Far away, with Joe. One of the action claims planes I think what I read in the report was to continue to work with MSQ to regulate the management of anchoring, mooring and liveaboards in the Noosa River and the status was subject to future budget consideration. 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 done and dusted. Amy Kimber 02:18:49.322
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. Kim Rawlings 02:19:07.272
And I think we'll have to continue to keep working with them, to keep the presence here. Investment I think we're just going to have to keep up with that. Amelia Lorentson 02:19:15.661
Thank you. Yeah, I agree. Because the pressure is working. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Joe Jurisevic 02:19:23.131
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 large over many, years with to derelicts. So I'm happy that those issues are addressed quite clearly and articulated quite well within this model. Frank Wilkie 02:19:44.960
And I note in the staff recommendation that 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 I suggest it's a dynamic relationship. That we're going to be having with the community. Kim Rawlings 02:20:10.022
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 and I'm pretty comfortable with the plan. It says that in a number of ways. It says it 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. This just provides us a road map and a head of power to actually move into implementation. Frank Wilkie 02:21:01.610
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'll take a lot of time to develop. And it's very difficult to get across all the detail. There's so many pages. But is opportunity between now and the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday night for Councillors that have any. Outstanding questions to sit down with staff. If think it's merited, we can have a briefing session submitted along with that on June 22nd where we talk through the key actions. 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. It will be endorsed at 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. And if we're waiting for all 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 get consensus on something like this. There are 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 recommendations suggest 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, the pros and cons and dispel the uncertainties. Think this is a I great invitation to a conversation with the key stakeholders. This is a great piece of work. I think 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 stakeholders and any Councillors that do have outstanding questions to seek the time one-on 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 the end of this term, so for that reason I won't be supporting this motion to defer for an you very much. Was an because honour. I don't know where that might lead. Will it lead to another, because it's, will there be more dissension that it leads to further dilemmas. So I'll be glad to hear from you. Tom Wegener 02:24:15.140
Can I I'll cancel later guess what I'm interested in silts going into the river. I've heard I hope you enjoyed the plan, you know, actually addressed that and even brought the dirt roller situation up. So if you didn't turn. Sorry, point of order? Karen Finzel 02:24:35.558
Yeah, I'm calling a point of order. What before us now, the speaker is not speaking to the motion. Is we're discussing whether or not we're going to allow an extension of time to give community members further conversation. Frank Wilkie 02:24:50.109
That's a very good point of order. Can you speak to the motion to defer? Tom Wegener 02:24:58.009
I think there is an urgency to get this plan over the lines because I think that we need to get hammering down dirt roads, changing our aspects of dealing with those. Sorts 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 to be my primary focus been and waiting we've on this for a to see it get implemented ASAP because I think it needs to happen, we need to get moving on this. Frank Wilkie 02:25:32.717
Thank you Councillor Wegener. Amy Kimber 02:25:35.354
I'd just like to add something as well, there's been a lot of work happening internally 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 as well 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 02:26:00.186
Castle. Question. No, can I close or not? Sorry I'm thinking about you, get a vote. Joe Jurisevic 02:26:16.061
Not going to support this, an opportunity to consider the day 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 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 from all the stakeholders over a 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 engagement. It's been through act is now. Frank Wilkie 02:27:10.931
I have a question of staff. Out of respect for some of the concerns that your Council has had about not have being as familiar being asked to move, is it possible to have a scheduled briefing time between now and Thursday where we all can attend and have our questions asked? Unidentified Speaker 02:27:31.529
I think this is up to you. If can please always do it, then we'll be happy to do it. Joe Jurisevic 02:27:37.584
Otherwise, another month will give you a bit more time. Frank Wilkie 02:27:43.947
Cassie, Councillor please Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:27:44.830
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 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 leadership 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 because 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 give to our community a better voice and understanding around what's gone on the river given the historical sometimes not positive outcomes that have gone on through this Council and previous councils with 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 only four weeks alleviate the concerns that have been raised to 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 narrative and conversation rather than further down the track when we are 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 but be reactive further down the track so I support this and I thank for bringing this to the table today. Frank Wilkie 02:30:06.225
Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 02:30:09.788
I will I'm going to close by actually quoting a former NSERAC committee member they said public policy must be transparent consultative and allow to have a say that's what this motion is about, it's about us honouring our commitment to transparency to consultative purposes and to genuine community engagement that's what is all 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 we've missed something we need to keep an open mind and we need to allow every player an opportunity to have their say doesn't mean we're going to agree to it doesn't mean I'm not going to approve the plan I love the plan my concern is that we've waited so 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 02:32:23.239
It is a point of order that there's a no it's not clarification there's mention of a marine park and that's not intended. Amelia Lorentson 02:32:30.532
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 questions answered and our concerns settled and they have been settled I think we owe that to conservation? Community as well so I hope that someone will reconsider their decision and allow this motion to go through Frank Wilkie 02:32:59.421
Well spoken Councillor Lorentson I think the motion goes in favour I'll reconsider Councillor Stewart, Lorentson, Jurisevic and Finzel Amy Kimber 02:33:09.873
Thank you Mr Chair against Councillors Frank Wilkie 02:33:13.878
Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie the motion carried and Tewantin has been deferred for a moment next item is the Financial Performance Report thank you thank you. Trent Grauf 02:34:09.981
Good afternoon Councillors. The agenda referred to you presents the August 2023 final decision for Council. The numbers presented in the report are the revised budget for review one. You please will carry on presenting the matters through the first two months of the year. You'll notice in the report that the net budget position of Council is 1.3 billion operating expectations. This is a mix of what we call $4.7 million of general or unrestricted operating funds with a further $0.6 of constraints. Constrained funds through levies, waste, or 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 and grants upside is offsetting grants revenue, sorry, rates revenue and fees in the budget. In more detail, we'll 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 ratepayers have queried and reviewed their UCV valuation the Department of Resources. With and the take a look at the potential rebate. As I've said, as I mentioned, more interest revenue which is only $4k above budget due to the additional interest revenue we're getting from holding cash funds for prior return of the loan. Also to note, sales are up in terms of holiday parks and community facilities fees. Noting those fees are: often off offset, and 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 over the budget due to vacant positions but you also know this is partially upset by an increase in casualty in private time as Council staff work to accommodate that vacancy. Materials and services are generally on the budget. Is some modern movements between business areas in terms of timing of their spending at this early stage of the financial year. In terms of capital, works support and they're supporting grants and external funding of an ambitious $52 million capital program is largely tracking in on the budget at this early stage. But you will receive your quarterly capital work to be covered through the first quarter of the course next month. To close off, in terms of cash, Council has just issued its annual rates. August position is the peak in the cash cycle for Council. It's $141 million sitting in cash. To note, the majority of that is working capital for the next six months. Between now and then we'll reissue the rates in January. And also a significant amount of restricted cash. For example, QRA funding for recovery and other disaster recovery grants. We do a quarterly deep dive in our restricted cash, so we provide that through the Federal reports. And that is the executive summary for the August- Thanks, Pete. Joe Jurisevic 02:37:45.482
Yeah, it went over being the general rate, 193k below year-to-date budget. 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? Trent Grauf 02:38:13.528
So the accommodation of the impact of some of the calculations from the pool take-up, but also there's been an increase in some of those as well. It's not the key driver, but I thought of the transparency will include the fact that it is a combination of Joe Jurisevic 02:38:27.263
The so we didn't actually get the figure, right? We've recalculated? Okay. And the other element there with regard to those land revaluations, 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 alters as a result of a request of the State. Trent Grauf 02:38:52.399
I do believe it's a lag, but I'll take that on notice, Councillor. Joe Jurisevic 02:38:56.083
I'm just trying to ascertain, yeah, if there's a lag in payment of those rates as a result of that roof deferral for land. Trent Grauf 02:39:02.230
I'll take it if you can, that would be, just trying to understand how that works in the process. The important part is, as you know, that it's well within the powers of ratepayers as those valuations come out every year or of biannually that they can uh review those with the partner resources and then we recalculate the rates accordingly based on advice yeah I'm just Joe Jurisevic 02:39:23.702
I'm just wondering whether that a puts a hold on them paying their rates or until that revaluation has occurred, that's all. Clare Stewart 02:39:30.998
Trent, any other questions or answers? Yeah. 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. Trent Grauf 02:39:50.173
That is position so it's not of the best practice approach we break out what is our free cash or unrestricted cash for our everyday operations in our working capital versus that cash which is restricted. The reason why it's sitting so high is the comment 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 well 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 is a significant amount of that cash that is restricted. When you consider just the unrestricted component, which is your day-to operating, it's well within that three to six month gap. Joe Jurisevic 02:40:44.553
The counterbalance of that is that there's a higher balance in the bank account and interest earning on that higher balance until that money is expended on it. Kim Rawlings 02:40:52.969
Thanks, Trevor. Frank Wilkie 02:40:54.633
Any other questions to start? I'm pretty good with half of that. Joe Jurisevic 02:41:03.533
Thank you for the ongoing work of the finance staff. We can see clearly in our financial performance summary that we're on track or above budget in all elements and the sound financial position speaks for itself. Thank you for all the efforts in keeping us in check. Frank Wilkie 02:41:28.494
Next item is the year in review. What a big year it's been, hasn't it, Larry? Goodness me, I feel tired just reading it. Just think of cactus island every time I hear that. Unknown 02:41:38.755
I'm let's see what we've got okay. Larry Sengstock 02:41:43.987
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. Runs from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. I would say 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, 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. Communications, 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 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 the, 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. Five themes of the Corporate Plan are additional Noosa community, Noosa economy, and long-term planning and excellence as a Council. So that's the way the report is geared, it 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, self and it's the operational-racial organisation which is our across the operational plan for the organisation, which 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 feedback 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, if there's other things in here that you think need to be certainly brought to the surface and applied to the surface, then I'm more than happy to take that. Um I'll take you through those top ten, if I can indulge your time for a moment. The first one being the rebuilding of our flood impacted communities. As we've seen, 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 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, you know, it's a massive piece of work. We need to consider our overall budget as an organisation but our infrastructure budget is, you know, 50 million dollars thereabouts. So to have an $100 million overlaid on top of our capital works is massive. The Corporate Plan now is 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 the our journey, which a vertical gas, so I would 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 capital works this year, $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 the 12 month period. So it rolls over into the current financial year. So that's been a massive piece of work. And again, just ongoing. You go downstairs to our infrastructure team and it's just a constant wheel that's rolling and trying to get through all the work that's there. Our new Council brand, which we see around the place. Some of our venues have now taken up that branding. And I personally think it's a great brand. It's a great thing. Change for us. It just refreshes exactly what we do and what we stand for. And I think you'll see more of that 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 a line. 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 quite dynamic, I think, and useful. 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. /or aren't able to keep their head above water at times. So 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 it's at. A real credit to everybody involved. We've also implemented our SPARC values, so our supportive, passionate, accountable, respectful and committed values, which we've now rolled out and Scott Waters was 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 group a plan, gives us a path forward, gives us something to hang everything on as we get these challenges. We're now facing. Currently facing 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 should run out of time. There's beaks going off, beewire. I've still got them over the weekend, but everything is okay up there, but that's just an indication of what we're potentially across Queensland, not just us, but across we've many areas, but got hundred and seventy-eight 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 our do a lot of the work that we've been 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 is job is to help and support If there's a fire, it's QPERS and the local authorities that take 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 for a great us to be able be and able 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, exercise, the work that we're doing with our community factories, rolling that out, and just continuing to look at new ways and better ways to deal with the climate change that potentially is coming our way, or everybody's way, so we need to put ourselves in this possible position to do that, and I think that we're achieving that within the means that we have. There clear the tent. Are 10. As I say, there's a multitude more, but is just a quick highlight of everything that's going on. If anybody's got any questions, then I'm more than happy. Moving I keep forward. 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 be able to get on with it, and it seems that we are. If you look at the amount of work that's happened 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. Unidentified Speaker 02:51:37.455
I was going to say, I was happy to move it. Frank Wilkie 02:51:40.074
Mayor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Clare Stewart 02:51:43.375
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 the 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 more 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 sale 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 J 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 they all have 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, irrigation, same sports strategy development team to have delivered or working on five different planning projects with an approximate value of 480,000. This includes the regen feasibility and the Noosa District Sports Complex LMP. Korra sports complex redevelopment and fencing project and non-Powered water sport project and commencement of Noosa Leisure Centre needs assessment project. 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 Peregian digital hub, thanks to Chris Boden, the team down there with the new AI Lab, 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. Who've 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 roundtable's continued. We've had planning scheme amendments sent to the State government. Our short stay team established. To administer a 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. Frank Wilkie 02:54:42.645
Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:54:43.826
Another Councillor is Mr. Smith-Jones. Yeah my like 110. Mr. Mayor or 210 or 310. Like the Mayor over there re-reading it again over the weekend. Yeah I was exhausted. Never ending and the mayor's probably mentioned a few that'll get a mention again next year because they don't culminate until the this financial year. Anybody doubts the diversity and the complexity of work the Council undertakes it's like no other business that you can 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 are involved that in achieving the outcomes for the last financial year. Thank you very much to all of you. Frank Wilkie 02:55:42.285
Thank you, Jim. Karen Finzel 02:55:43.899
Anyone else wish to speak? Karen? I'll go on, yeah. I'd just like to reiterate everything that's been done at the table. We 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 Cooroora trail upgrade, which was great to see that opened and, you know, getting a lot of users. I think we're here in about five or six hundred a week going through there, which is fantastic, giving us that connectivity between the towns and the hinterland. And also, what I'd like to see too is the activation of community with health and wellbeing. The programs we've got out there to engage, you know, all levels of our community and interests is. 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 02:56:32.537
Yes, yeah, since he put out the challenge about his top ten, I had a look at it. Where'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 liveability survey. Elements of the natural environment, number one. Protection of the natural environment, two. Conditions of public open space, number three. Landscape and public open space, number four. They're missing from the top ten and excessively needs to 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. Amelia Lorentson 02:57:37.471
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 and we do it really well. I think most corporations' biggest asset is definitely its 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 WAIST staff and I walked away really quite proud so in terms of you know our values: supportive, passionate, accountable, respectable and committed we 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 02:58:42.447
First I've Brian got out 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 actually really reforming the way we think about things and one of the another highlight of the year was actually with that when Clare said when kairon was in the room with the way his team was in here and kairon had these big ideas what we need to do and you know how he stuck down and Clare said, "Well, you know, we you need that's your job that's what you need to do it that was that's yours kind of a nimble Council is that you with them we were actually able to change that give kairon could put him into a place where he could actually make a difference but put our aspirations to get the rubber on road so yeah and but not obviously everybody works so hard I'm so proud of staff them. Driving around also I look at the roundabouts and the incredible land and how well it's managed just it's beautiful you drive into Noosa you know it. Thank you, thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:59:54.492
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 daily basis. Some major projects as the Mayor listed them all. Thank you Larry and please pass on thanks to the executive team, the managers and all the line staff as well. Have done this kind of support. Thank you. Mayor Stewart, do you want to say something? Clare Stewart 03:00:17.436
Yeah, I will. 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 and 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. Put the motion those in favour? Frank Wilkie 03:00:42.153
That's unanimous. Now that brings us to the end of our open session items. We've got some commercial and confidence matters that need to be discussed. So take, yeah, a quick suggestion there. We'll take Joe Jurisevic 03:01:23.226
I'll move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 245 3G 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. To remove discussing 8, promotion, yes. Frank Wilkie 03:01:47.517
Can we have a seconder for that, please? Discussing more than one. Yeah. A seconder for Amelia. All in favour? That's unanimous. We are in. I do want to take a five-minute break. You can take five minutes off the break. Thanks. Amelia Lorentson 03:02:01.816
Just wait. Food. How much more food can I eat? Joe Jurisevic 03:02:05.011
You should have made the five-minute break commercial complex. Frank Wilkie 03:02:07.952
Sorry. One is three. How are we doing with this three? Individual. One at a time. All separate? Yes. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Let me know when the water's in. 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. So 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. All in favour? Carried was that your nails? Was your nails? Yeah. You know what I'm telling you? A report by Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator. Uh, a contractual agreement, moved by murph by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic, all in favour? It was carried. That brings us to the end of today's agenda. Unidentified Speaker 03:04:06.923
Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you. Well done. Chair. Thank you, thank you. Thanks, Linda. Thanks, Vicky. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
