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 AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell: Council refused the “group farm stay accommodation” change for 59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba, citing conflict with SEQ Regional Plan and Noosa Plan 2020 rural/agricultural protections, scale, traffic and bushfire evacuation deficiencies (19:32–45:49; Item 5.1). Staff (Planning): Proposal involved 3 accommodation villages and central facility seating 330+, up to 299 guests; most works on mapped Agricultural Land Conservation Area (ALCA), exceeding rural scale benchmarks (19:32–24:27; Item 5.1). Council: Deferred Noosa River Catchment Management Plan for one meeting cycle to enable further councillor/stakeholder review, particularly around a proposed Conservation Park governance mechanism (1:16:42–2:33:12; Item 6.1). Finance: Noted YTD August 2023 financials; operating surplus tracking above budget; cash high due to rates cycle and restricted grants; added sustainability indicators to reports (2:34:09–2:41:03; Item 6.2). Executive: Year in Review 2022/23 noted major delivery across corporate plan themes including flood recovery, capital program, branding, housing strategy and fire management (2:41:34–3:01:14; Item 6.3). Council (Confidential outcome): Awarded CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities for 2 years with 3x12-month options; authorised CEO to finalise terms (3:02:48–3:03:40; Item 7.1). Council (Confidential outcome): Agreed to settle Planning & Environment Court Appeal D14/2023 for 20 multiple dwellings at 11C Church St, Pomona, per proposed conditions; included bushfire safety property note (3:02:48–3:03:40; Item 7.2). Council (Confidential outcome): Approved novation of contract 2122Q125 to NorthLane Pty Ltd and increased value by $1,236,055.20 to $3,336,055.20 (GST exc.) to 31 July 2024 for 2022 flood recovery project management (3:03:41–3:03:41; Item 7.3). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Led deferral of River Catchment Plan to clarify Conservation Park intent, governance, compliance duties, and to brief former advisory members and boating/fishing stakeholders; carried 4–3 (2:07:22–2:33:12; Item 6.1). Clare Stewart: Supported deferral, citing need for broader communication on implications and prioritising liveaboards/effluent and moorings issues with MSQ (2:13:28–2:17:56; Item 6.1). Karen Finzel: Questioned compliance resourcing if Council assumes supporting roles on river; sought fiscal transparency before committing (1:50:09–1:53:42; 1:58:12–2:01:21; Item 6.1). Tom Wegener: Advocacy for regenerative agriculture within farm-stay item drew points of order for relevance; underscored tension between policy objectives and application merits (59:45–1:04:07; Item 5.1). Community Deputation: Daniel Moisander criticised Council’s bushfire assessment assumptions for a separate two-lot subdivision (RAL22/0027), highlighting standards and evacuation considerations (00:49–12:20; Deputation 4.1). Legal / Risk Council: Farm-stay refusal grounded in SEQRP 2017, Noosa Plan 2020 Rural Zone and Visitor Accommodation Codes, ALCA mapping, and Bushfire Hazard Overlay; recorded per Planning Act 2016 s63(5) (19:32–45:49; Item 5.1). Officers: Bushfire risk for vulnerable use required tolerable/acceptable risk under State Planning Policy; reliance on shelter-in-place with dual egress still traversing high bushfire hazard considered intolerable (35:32–39:49; Item 5.1). Council: Meeting closed under Local Government Regulation 2012 s254J(3)(g) for commercial-in-confidence matters (3:01:22–3:02:00; Confidential Session). Settled Appeal: Court matter D14/2023 resolved via conditions; property note mandates siting/building to bushfire management conditions of MCU22/0031 and related OPW approvals (3:02:48–3:03:40; Item 7.2). Governance Proposal: River Conservation Park concept under Nature Conservation Act to give Council a formal management role as trustee without overriding State heads of power (1:44:15–1:48:20; Item 6.1). Conflicts of Interest Tom Wegener: Declared declarable COI due to interactions with author of a permaculture report (Tom Kendall) and presidency of Permaculture Noosa; Council allowed participation and vote given no close association (13:15–19:16; Item 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Declared two declarable COIs for Noosa District Landcare (member) and MRCCC (historic collaborator/contract); Council allowed participation and vote, noting public interest and no material gain (1:17:26–1:23:48; Item 6.1). Environmental Concerns & River Governance Officers: Catchment Plan targets funding eligibility (Resilient Rivers; Urban Rivers program), monitoring, and a technical advisory panel; embeds collaborative agency roles (1:24:05–1:29:25; Item 6.1). Kim Rawlings/Amy Kimber: Conservation Park would formalise joint management and Council’s “seat at the table,” while State retains fisheries, permits, and compliance heads of power; public engagement required for any management plan (1:39:19–1:45:04; Item 6.1). Joe Jurisevic: Requested precision on industrial runoff to both Lake Wyba and Lake Doonella and practicality of “zero litter” target; officers to clarify control scope and maintain aspirational goals (1:29:25–1:33:25; Item 6.1). Councillors: Reiterated priority issues of liveaboards, moorings, anchoring, and effluent; MSQ remains primary regulator with Council advocacy/support roles (2:15:53–2:19:38; Item 6.1). New Development Applications & Planning Scheme Alignment Officers: Farm-stay GFA and building sizes far exceed Rural Zone small-scale benchmarks (e.g., lodges 250 m², cabins 65 m², non-rural buildings ≤500 m²), with traffic rising from 57 to 356 daily trips (23:09–43:18; Item 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Emphasised longstanding State interest protecting A/B-class agricultural land; mapped site as A1/A2 soils; warned against permanent alienation via large communal facilities and buffers (45:49–54:14; Item 5.1). Councillors Lorentson/Stewart/Jurisevic: Supported refusal: lack of overwhelming planning need, excessive scale akin to resort/convention use, unacceptable bushfire evacuation risk for children (34:02–35:10; 1:07:14–1:10:13; Item 5.1). Finance & Procurement Finance: Noted $141m cash at cycle peak with significant restricted balances (QRA, levies); minor rates revenue timing/valuation impacts; interest revenue up with higher cash (2:34:09–2:39:23; Item 6.2). Council: Awarded multi-supplier cleaning contract CN00209 (initial 2 years from 23 Oct 2023, options up to 3 years); CEO authorised to finalise (7.1 minutes; 3:02:48–3:03:40). Council: Novated flood recovery PM contract to NorthLane; increased total to $3.336m (GST exc.) through 31 Jul 2024 (7.3 minutes; 3:03:41–3:03:41).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 18 September 2023 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair) Karen Finzel, Joe Jurisevic, Amelia Lorentson, Clare Stewart, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Frank Wilkie (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Brian Stockwell Councillor Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 14 August 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.1. DANIEL MOISANDER TOPIC: RAL22/0027 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. 131998.981211.5 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 COOTHARABA (REFERRED FROM PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 - ITEM 5.3). In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Tom Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Tom Wegener inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest, upon request to staff for the permaculture report which was mentioned in the applicant's submission, it was revealed that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. As the president of the community group Permaculture Noosa, I have learned from Tom Kendall and visited his permaculture property. However, he is not a personal friend and I do not socialise with him outside of our common interest of Permaculture. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wegener and determine Cr Wegener can participate and vote on this matter because Council believes that as Mr Kendall is not a close associate and that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Wegener did not vote on the above motion. The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Stockwell – refer to Attachment 1 to the minutes. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. 131998.981211.5 for an Other Change to Development Approval (12637DA) - Integrated Permaculture Designed Organic Orchard and Golf Course Complex (18 holes) to include Group Farm Stay Accommodation (undefined use) and associated supporting infrastructure (maximum 299 beds), situated at 59 Kabi Rd Cootharaba and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not further the SEQ Regional Plan 2017 strategy to intensify or diversify on-farm agricultural activities as the proposed permaculture and food production is not of a significant scale, largely intended for farm stay guests, will alienate agricultural land and compromise the rural production of the land. 2. The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Framework of the Noosa Plan 2020 as the proposed farm stay activity: GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 a) Will permanently alienate land that is mapped as agricultural land conservation area and will not result in a direct expansion of the site’s agricultural activities. b) Will be more than complementary to the agricultural use of the land, as it will be the proposal’s primary use. c) Is not small scale or fit for its setting comprising 3 villages and a large common communal area with access via a small local rural road that currently has little traffic movement. 3. The proposal is contrary to Overall Outcomes 2(c), (h), (i) & (p), Performance & Acceptable Outcomes PO2, AO2.2, AO2.3, PO4 and PO5 of the Rural Zone Code of the Noosa Plan 2020 as: a) The applicant has failed to demonstrate there is an overwhelming Planning need for the proposal to be located on land identified for Agricultural Land Conservation and the proposal will further alienate land from rural production in the future. b) The scale of the farm stay activity is not small scale, and the traffic anticipated to be generated would detract from the rural amenity enjoyed by nearby residents. 4. The proposal is contrary to Performance Outcome PO3 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it is of a scale that is not compatible with the zoning intent and preferred character for the local area. 5. The proposal does not meet PO6 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as it has not been demonstrated that an efficient and safe evacuation route is available to residents and that emergency vehicles can access the site. 6. The proposal is of a significantly different scale and character to the approved golf course and permaculture orchard and has a more permanent nature. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. NOOSA RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my long standing connection with Noosa District Landcare as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Noosa District Landcare is identified as being consulted in the report. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I believe I can make an impartial decision GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 in the public interest in this matter and l therefore choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a long-standing relationship with MRCCC as a previous government employee and a longterm collaborator since 1994. I have in the past had a small consultant contract below the limit for a Prescribed Conflict and prior to the declarable time frame. I was up until the last AGM Council's representative on the committee and in this role I played a role in facilitating and developing the group's revised catchment strategy. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Stockwell does not stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report, and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That item 6.1 Noosa River Catchment Management Plan be deferred to the next round of meetings to allow Councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity to consider the details and implications of the draft Noosa River Catchment Plan and provide feedback. For: Crs Stewart, Lorentson, Finzel and Jurisevic Against: Crs Stockwell, Wilkie and Wegener Carried. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 6.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 outlining August 2023 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 6.3. YEAR IN REVIEW - 2022/23 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 providing a review of Council’s progress in the 2022/23 financial year towards achieving the five key focus areas set out in Council’s Corporate Plan and thank Council staff for their efforts in the last twelve months to progress so many significant projects and providing outstanding service to our community. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J(3) (g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing commercial matters involving the local government for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government for: Report 7.1 - CONTRACT NO. CN00209 - CLEANING OF OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC AMENITIES Report 7.2 - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D14 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (20 UNITS) - MCU22/0031 & OPERATIONAL WORKS CLEARING OF VEGETATION - OPW22/0062 AT 11C CHURCH STREET, POMONA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 Report 7.3 - 2122Q125 – CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGMENT SERVICES FOR 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That the meeting be opened to the public. Carried unanimously. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACT NO. CN00209 - CLEANING OF OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC AMENITIES Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Parks & Gardens Coordinator – to the General Committee 18 September 2023 and A. Award Contract No. CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities to the contractors nominated in the Parks & Gardens Coordinator report to the General Committee 18 September 2023. B. Award Contract No. CN00209 Cleaning of Open Space and Public Amenities for an initial term of up to two (2) years, commencing 23 October 2023 and expiring 22 October 2025 with an option to extend for three (3) further periods of up to twelve (12) months each. The option to extend will be at Council’s own discretion and subject to the Contractor’s ability to meet the requirements under the Contract. C. Authorise the CEO to negotiate the final contract with the four (4) suppliers as listed. Carried unanimously. 7.2. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D14 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (20 UNITS) - MCU22/0031 & OPERATIONAL WORKS CLEARING OF VEGETATION - OPW22/0062 AT 11C CHURCH STREET, POMONA Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2023 That Council note the report by the Manager Development & Regulation to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 September 2023 regarding regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D14 0f 2023 and: A. Agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1. B. Include the following property note on the lots: 1. To ensure the safety of people and property on this property is maintained, all buildings and structures must be sited and/or constructed in accordance with the bushfire management conditions of Council Approval MCU22/0031 and associated Operational Work approvals. Carried unanimously. 7.3. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - 2122Q125 – CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGMENT SERVICES FOR 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Meeting Dated 18 September, and endorse the CEO to execute all documents and undertake all things necessary to: A. Give effect to the novation of contract 2122Q125 from Erscon Pty Ltd to NorthLane Pty Ltd; and; B. Increase the value of contract 2122Q125 by $1,236,055.20 (GST exc.) from $2,100,000.00 (GST exc.) to $3,336,055.20 (GST exc.), and the period until 31 July 2024. Carried unanimously 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 4.40pm
Meeting Transcript
Unidentified Speaker 00:49.370
I'm pleased to say I'm not speaking on behalf of an absentee multi-millionaire developer this afternoon. The owner of the subject property is my wife, Tegan, who has lived and worked as a primary school teacher in the Shire for just on 10 years. I provide her apologies today whether she, if she were 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. But at a summary level, we report that this is not a suitable 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, 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 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 now include Noosa parkland estate. PO4 represents the creation of any related Val 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 was undoubtedly drafted 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 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 park 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 a great variety of what sizes and construction types in the State and the street Saturday drive already contains multiple two-storey homes and of varied types of construction without having a consistent 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 neighbour. If 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 was not supported under the PO4 planning provision, in large part due to flooding concerns. This was surprising as the lot sits 14 metres above sea level and more than 90 metres from the nearest 500-year extreme flood. Flight. Exit from the lot via Griffith Avenue to Noosa-Cooroy Road remains open even in a 500-year flood extent and this was noted, sorry, as the focus of opposition returned to character. Essentially PO4 appears to have been expanded by 2020 plans of broadbush. Brush 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 for the first time in the further advice issued in January this year. Required particularly inputs into the bushfire assessment model, most of which are contained within the statewide bushfire resilient communities 2019 document. The inclusions provided for that document, sorry the inclusions 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 1099. Rejection AS3 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 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 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 northern boundary is all-mature forest of the same intensity as the old growth gross 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 in that event is. State would 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 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 I suspect in regards to this particular 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 property against vegetation and risk that does not exist on the basis that it could come to exist if the State government abandons its current duties. This level of assumption could be amused to apply the maximum bushfire rating to every property in the Shire which borders any road, park, estate asset, trustee 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. 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 planners to seek acceptable alternatives and if this envelope calculation had been raised to us prior to the report being put to Council, we would happily have removed our design to relocate the driveway to the opposite side of the lot and thereby move proposed housing further from the fire risk and mitigate the proposed equivalent envelopes. Indeed, we offer to do that now and would ask the Council vote to approve required subjective conditions requiring the best way and alternative for such mitigation to be implemented. This is how I submit Council can reasonably recommend I will why we consider Council should support this application. We are all keenly aware of the change in housing pressures in our over recent years and a consequence of that change is the change of political rule in the State government to be seen to be taking big and prompt action to address supply issues. I cannot pretend one too much subdivision will materially Resolve these concerns, however as the Noosa Housing action plan stated in A5.2.1, the Shire should aim to meet the SEQ development targets as they were at 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 upon the block 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. Hours, 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 many 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. Status are ironed with working families and gains back. 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 counselling is one of the lowest impact conditions. Additions with 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 as we 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 parkland estate. We are willing to give up what is an excessive surface surplus of backyard in order to fund replacement of our alien under-dwelling, with a new home to energy efficiency standards. I ask only the Council to send us down the path to achieve this by acquiring, planning and seeking agreeable 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 fayetteville, if anyone would like to do it. Moore Frank Wilkie 12:24.987
Items thank you, Mr. 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 the panning data. And 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? Tom Wegener 13:14.322
I've got just something to start with. Yes, I am Councillor Tom Wegener from the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest as requested from the permaculture report which was I requested 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, I have learned from Tom Kendall and visited his permaculture permittal property. However, he is not encouraged a personal friend I do not socialise associate with him outside our common interests of permaculture. I believe I can make a judgement in the public interest. Therefore, will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the whether I can and participate in this Frank Wilkie 14:10.836
Councillor Wegener. Any questions for Councillor Wegener? Can you just clarify Brian Stockwell 14:16.536
The statement you made that you requested the permaculture report. You requested it from the applicants? Tom Wegener 14:23.067
No, I requested it from staff. I requested the permaculture report from staff and it was not mentioned. It was mentioned in the applicant submission but included in our report to us Councillors. That was what I was trying to clarify. Frank Wilkie 14:38.547
So only through asking for this report was your potential permaculture review? Does that make sense Councillor Stockwell? Joe did you have a question? Brian Stockwell 14:49.741
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. Frank Wilkie 15:00.861
So what change are you suggesting? Brian Stockwell 15:04.241
Upon request to staff for the permaculture report. Which was entered. Which was ever two staff not two staff yeah two report, which was mentioned in applicant's the submission. I don't think you need the next bit but I learned that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. Frank Wilkie 15:48.018
Okay, so which was not required to be included in the report to Council? It was revealed the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall. Brian Stockwell 16:04.840
If the Council wouldn't be as happy with that one, I think that is clear. Joe Jurisevic 16:11.220
Just to clarify Brian Stockwell 16:12.880
So. That, with permaculture. Joe Jurisevic 16:20.002
Can I, just a question with regard to Tom kendall's credentials as a local permaculture expert and your role as president of the nursing community permaculture nursing group. I'm assuming that Tom is a member of that. Permaculture no, he's not the club. So there's no association with your role in Permaculture Noosa and Mr Kendall as a permaculture expert? Brian Stockwell 16:42.884
Thank you, that's all I'm happy to move that Councillor Wegener participates and votes on this matter. I'll second. Because Council believes that Mr Kendall is not a close associate, I'll put associate, which is the legal term. Don't worry about placement. This one. It's the closest I see it. Sorry, just delete the word personal. Yeah, that's what the legislation talks about. And that a reasonable person would trust a final decision is made in the public interest. Frank Wilkie 17:26.600
Mr Stockwell, just speak to Brian Stockwell 17:28.440
That I think by declaring we're now aware of what the link is. It's good practice, but the fact that Mr. Kendall isn't a close associate of the media doesn't actually trigger the statutory need to declare. I would say, it's one that's being done out of an abundance of caution, as another councillor's fond of saying. Frank Wilkie 17:48.908
Any other Councillors to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 17:50.908
Yeah, I just have a question through the shed. Yes, so, just to clarify then, Councillor Wegener, was that you raised this because of public perception? Tom Wegener 18:00.748
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'm looking into the report, I try due diligence, and you know, we all look in and ask for further reports to come, yeah, so, but yeah, just at the perception, I just want to put it on the table and say, the original associate. Joe Jurisevic 18:28.252
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. About general election. Unidentified Speaker 18:44.127
It was about the proposed use, how the site could be used for agriculture using permaculture practices. Joe Jurisevic 18:51.187
Is there a reason why that report wasn't attached to the report so that councils could have been aware of it? Unidentified Speaker 18:57.140
Was not detailed, so it was saying you know, these are types of, you know, this is a design layout, this is where we're going to plant, this is the type of plants we will use. Joe Jurisevic 19:07.555
So the nature of activity, how the permaculture would be undertaken on the site. Nadine 19:11.035
I didn't see it would add too much more in terms of the planning recommendations. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 19:16.435
Right, do you wish to close, Councillor Nadine 19:33.279
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 site out at Kabi road in Cootharaba. This current application, that we're dealing with, as I said, is another change. We'd be happy to be proposing a group farm stay accommodation and supporting facilities on the site. The proposal is up, it proposes approval to have up to 299 people on the site and is mainly to catered for camps during the school term and then weekend groups and out-of-school term other groups, which might be sporting groups, religious We're not really sure exactly what those groups will be, who 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 meet on site. Them three villages are proposed and having a, 000 total of 7,405 square metres. Sorry, my report refers to 8,300. My maths wasn't great on that. There are three villages with the main building having a gross floor area of 2,300 feet square metres. That main building includes a sitting or restaurant area with full kitchen for up to, well for over 300 people plus office reception facilities as well and next to it is a fully covered basketball court. Scheme talks about this is in the rural zone and it's affected by 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 pollinates 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. By envisaged the scheme which a 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 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 accomplished five concerns in terms of evacuation from the site because it will have to go through a high intensity bushfire. So therefore the application has been recommended by staff for use of. Questions Councillors? Joe Jurisevic 23:09.321
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 asked for 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 square to me that calculates over 5,000 square metres. Why does that not trigger the need to refer to the State of being Because accommodation components excluded from the State referral. So it's only on the central facilities area. So accommodation doesn't get included in that calculation? Thank you for clarifying that. Further to that the ALCA with regards to uses that will be in the mapped area and or additional uses that may not be. Can you confirm what uses will be actually proposed to be developed within that mapped Unidentified Speaker 24:27.625
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. So all the cleared areas including the golf course. Joe Jurisevic 24:41.125
Does that include the other part? Nadine 24:42.845
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, 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 will all be in agricultural land conservation areas and there are also two fields 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. That's also indicated, is also located within the agricultural land. Joe Jurisevic 25:29.204
I assume all the access roads and all the rest of it as well? 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. 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 25:54.913
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. Okay. The same trigger, which is the number of people in that floor area that we were talking about. 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, Nadine. Clare Stewart 26:41.388
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 be 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 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 27:21.291
There are situations, 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 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. Clare Stewart 28:04.176
There's some interesting case law that you can read about it. There was one about a service station Nadine 28:09.303
That was shut down basically but all of the facilities were retained. The houses were there. The tanks 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. Exactly what Bridget was saying. 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. Can I ask a stop-off? Brian Stockwell 28:51.575
In your input, and 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 and other teams. Not pointing hard at the birthday yesterday. You application was based on. Was an undefined use. In your report, identified similarities to things like short-stay accommodation, nature-based food, et cetera. However, when I read the definition of a resort complex, I can't see how it's not. So means the use of premises for tourist and visitor accommodation that includes integrated leisure facilities, including bars, meeting rooms, if they've got furniture facilities, they're not saying they've got 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 resort complex? And does that make an implication on the level of assessment? Clare Stewart 29:50.290
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 assessment 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 dominant use is school camps. So we're getting one operator or several, you know, it 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 30:30.611
There's nothing that's in what I've read that restricts it to either school just as a group. Of any size. Unidentified Speaker 30:37.102
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 Clare Stewart 30:44.922
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 30:54.906
So. And one of the benefits is of education there's nothing within the undefined land use. There's nothing that appears in that links it to that correct? Nadine 31:05.338
No, it's in there I suppose their proposal they're advising us that it will be used for school groups predominantly with a education component associated with that. Joe Jurisevic 31:17.398
Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic? Following on from that if it were to be approved at any stage, is that something could be conditioned? As to who the users could be? Can it be confined to school groups only as an educational facility? That would be a hard condition. So there's no scope to really define who could use the facility? Richard MacGillivray 31:39.485
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 31:57.545
That's what I'm seeking, whether it's contestable after that. Frank Wilkie 32:00.106
Yes, just following on with that so this application has been approved and it was built. It could be used as a convention. Nadine 32:09.953
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 seat, as I said, over 330 people. Tables. At with a large kitchen and reception, 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 three villages. Each has its own dining area and kitchen area. So there's a lot of duplication of facilities. So, you know, yes, I'd be, I'm not quite sure of how these buildings will be used for school groups. And yes, I think that there is potential that they could be used for some form of functions or conferences out there, yes. Council member. Tom Wegener 33:04.181
Plans, there are small rooms with floor blocks. It just seems to be catering for exactly what they say they're gonna 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 that put in a continued using it golf course with, you know, the five star. Is that right? Nadine 33:34.728
That's what they had proposed. Each of those little cabins had its own toilet. The moment they're showing an indicative layout of four of, you know, two bunk beds, which could have four people in them. Could they be easily converted? Yes, I think they could to a double bed. Amelia Lorentson 33:59.284
Nadine, oh, sorry, 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 all the other available school camps and education facilities. Can you just talk to us about that? Nadine 34:23.916
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. Thank you, any other answers? Joe Jurisevic 35:09.660
In the report there was 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? Unidentified Speaker 35:29.092
We'll get will to have a little chat about if you'd like. Joe Jurisevic 35:32.212
Please. Will 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. So in an emergency, the idea is that you'll locate property within that of radiant heat which would be in the centre of the site essentially. From an officer level, I guess I'd need to look at is that an acceptable level is it tolerable race. Level of risk or an intolerable 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 generally live within this level of risk but as much as reasonably practically should be done to reduce this risk. And at an enjoyable level, is one following 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 two exit points. 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 radiant heat exposure, wind, smoke attack. Council would view this as an incurable risk. Joe Jurisevic 38:19.694
You mentioned two egresses from the property in the report that only talks about one. Can we just clarify that on that? Will 38:27.354
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, which is also through highbush fire. They both exit basically through the highbush fire area. Joe Jurisevic 38:46.742
Now, I'm not sure whether you're the right person to ask this question, I will, but with regard to having that many people on a property if they were to remain in place, from 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. 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 certified. And again that goes under building correct. Okay, reliant on building code. So they have to meet certain building code regulations if these were to be accepted and go ahead in rural setting with a dam for water supply, one would imagine. Unidentified Speaker 39:43.042
And also I think the number of children, people on site as Joe Jurisevic 39:46.618
Well, yeah, thank you. Unidentified Speaker 39:49.658
Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 39:50.858
Just another question, the applicant's town planner has communicated that the applicant's happy to discuss scale and material. Change the decision and how, you know, how much smaller does this have to be to get a tick? I find that a very hard question. It is, and I'm struggling with it also. Nadine 40:18.990
Nadine just. So on face value, we are proposing, we're permanent structures, quite large structures such as the basketball court, within, on valuable agricultural so we're reducing our amount of agricultural land available, again, it's limited resource, so whatever we approve on this site, we'll reduce that resource. So there's that one aspect for me. The second one, we're 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 was looking for. Talking about smaller scale, buildings being scattered amongst the environment, and really meeting that, so what I think might be appropriate, I don't know if it's functional, viable, and that's. Have a number in my head, actually. Will 41:24.889
I guess Council just to add to medina's I guess, putting staff, 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 context. Frank Wilkie 42:05.813
I'd just like to ask another question. In the report you mentioned the impact on road, cover is it the development of traffic points to a six-fold increase in traffic on the fever road during weekdays? Yes, that's correct. About 57 to 356. Do you want to read that? Pageant consultant who has gone on by the Council have a different view? Unidentified Speaker 42:41.237
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 consultants' practice. Joe Jurisevic 42:52.997
Thank you. Two questions. I'll follow on from that question with regard to traffic management. What was the allowable traffic under the previous development application in compared to what currently operates on that? My understanding is it's significantly more than 57, so as a golf course it had approval up to 180 or 200 cars, so about half of what's proposed here. 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. 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 relating 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 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 how I read that? Yes, that's how it does read, yes. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 44:32.329
Councillor Stockwell. I'd like to move to staff recommendation with one small change and that change is down on item D for memories. Oh, no, there's one on me. Keep going down. I think it's further down. Karen Finzel 44:57.840
It's number 105. Nadine 45:01.460
No, there's just go please. 3A, is that the one you're looking at? Joe Jurisevic 45:10.410
3A, is it? That's close to D. Very, very close. Yeah, I guess I'll have to demonstrate to the other one Brian Stockwell 45:21.260
Overwhelming, yes, by inserting the word planning after the word overwhelming. There's an overwhelming planning need. Frank Wilkie 45:41.120
If we start to demonstrate there is Okay. Do we have a seconder for that, please? Seconder is Councillor Lorentson. Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 45:49.820
Yeah. Vicky, if you could bring up, you put on voices pretty quickly. I have. Done a wonderful presentation. You do say so myself. So the first thing is the concept of having a paddock-to-plate school-based education facility in the rural area is good one. It is one that if it was the right scale and 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 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 that so interesting? 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 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 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 role of identifying, going through all the court cases 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? Linesale you know, in the report we talk about, it's clearly more prominent, like this is from, in the report, 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 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. By getting clothes back. I haven't seen the detail, but certainly in my years of waterway restoration, widening it to the point that it's a canoe course would not be considered to be rehabilitation. So we're in a. Yeah, I'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. 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. Next unusual in this particular spot. Thanks. Next slide. We've got really good quality soils mapping. We've had a land resource assessment. The State only does this in areas they think have got agricultural potential. So 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. What does that show? That just shows the soil that goes to the next one. But from that soils map, you get your agland classes. And you see that there, the dark highest quality ag land class A1. The lighter green is A2 and the orange is B. If you go to the next slide, that's overlaid on the development. You can see the whole of the development site is mapped within class A1 or class A2 and cultural land. Okay, you can see through the map. It should have been a slideshow. It shouldn't have been. Go once again and probably you'll take off. Next again. There you go. That's what it was overlying, that's the development concept. We can move on. For that 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 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 that 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 was envisaged. These are all are sort of uses that were mentioned in the report. 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 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 has seen a direct marketing evaluating options, adaption of traditional industries to do new players, artisanal food production, local farmers markets. These are all the things that the permaculture movement leaps into. High value dairy products, grass-fed, free range, subtropical fruit. It talks about the sub-regions, heat lane areas, and this 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 conservationists, and 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 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 54:15.199
Now the council's wish to speak, I'll I want speak to this. Council, wait a minute. Tom Wegener 54:24.659
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. Wording unless there is an overwhelming public interest. And this case, I think there is a whopping overriding want us to look at this application through all the other strategies and plans that we have. For example, when we look at the Environment Strategy 2019 through the last year. Lens, a different lens, through a different strategy, we say by 2030, 80 of all grazing land achieved best practice management for agriculture. Where are we right now? As far as I know, I've spent a lot of time the last four years really trying to understand Noosa agriculture, there's 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. 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, eastwell farms, which had a token regenerative farm. We have a situation here where we don't eat what grows here. During lunch, the summertime, we eat iceberg lettuce, carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, none of them are from here, not from anywhere near here. There's plenty of wonderful greens we can put on our plate, but we don't grow them. And that is a very, very big problem. When we look at it, this application through the Corporate Plan, which is the big daddy plan of ours. The plan states, "Work with agriculture 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 so that is how our economic policy is looking at the Corporate Plan and is filtering through. So we're going down this agriculture route. When we look at the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan, which we will soon be celebrating. We have a very different view of this application. In page 65, it says the amount of silt or mud coming down was 1,102 kilograms per hectare, which is an ungodly silt coming off the property. This is in just the Kin Kin area alone. This is 28,069 cubic metres of silt washing off of our primed farmland into the river, clogging up our river. Page 26 states, this is again of the river plan, the massive decline of our lovely, well it doesn't state my words, in 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 20 years, 30 to 65%% of those creatures that live in the benthic layer are gone, aren't there anymore. And what does that do to you? Probably silt coming off of our agriculture lands. The current cattle farming is an extractive industry. Is one where the externalities are not incorporated, does not incorporate externalities into the what is of what is it, into government, make sense, business, which is they have cattle, 60 head of cattle on 100 acres of property. That's normal out there. Eat grass down improperly, they're not moving around so that the farmer sells the cattle, we get the mud, our river silts up, so we are subsidising our cattle industry here Noosa with our practices. We need to start with this regenerative concept. It is so utterly important for us. Page 63 states that river plants develop a landholder extension program to educate rural landholders on sustainable land management. So we need to educate them What does that look like? Well, Rachel ward, the famous actress from the thorn birds, Don mendo were glad, and against all odds, one of our favourite. Brian Stockwell 59:44.480
Yes, we're looking at our development application for farm stay accommodation. We're getting a sermon on regenerative agriculture. I don't think it's relevant to the application because we're not. Frank Wilkie 01:00:05.282
Today? Tom Wegener 01:00:05.902
We are looking at an overwhelming need. There is no overwhelming need and I'm demonstrating that there is an overwhelming need. Brian Stockwell 01:00:12.502
For agriculture, I agree with you, but we're dealing with an accommodation Frank Wilkie 01:00:20.488
So is your point that this application would develop these sorts of areas that you're championing? Tom Wegener 01:00:26.869
It is this application or for this development is thoroughly supported by many other plans that we have, including our own Corporate Plan. That's the link that I'm making between agriculture and this. Thank you. It was 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 in the 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 movie twice, she asked answered questions, and she said-- Through the Chair, point of order, sorry, Okay. Are you talking about another development now, Tom? Frank Wilkie 01:01:21.017
Okay, let's look at-- let's talk about this one. Tom Wegener 01:01:23.017
Let's talk about-- okay, we're looking at it through the Waste Strategy and zero emissions. Do we-- this development could 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. I'm sorry, can I do that again? Of course they do. So currently, our topsoil is being washed. Karen Finzel 01:02:02.581
Don't away from our would question. Like to raise a point of order. Believe speaker speaking Frank Wilkie 01:02:26.706
I don't believe the speaker is speaking to the your comments, you've been given a lot of latitude. Can you keep your comments now to the application that is before us and the recommendation Tom Wegener 01:02:26.706
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 have a place like this with lots of kids coming, it's actually got to be really nice for the teachers because the teachers have to want to go there. And by making a facility like this you'll have teachers to say yeah I want to bring my kids there. The basketball court and the canoeing? Because they're kids. You need something else like not every kid is all that excited about getting their hands dirty, learning about the circular economy, growing things, learning about nutritious plants that they could be eating that they might not fit that but you got but at least 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 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. Teaching our kids about the circular economy, about eating what's right. Climate change response so many of the things that we value here in Noosa and perhaps this application is step forward. Thank you Councillor Wegener. I have a question. Karen Finzel 01:04:11.483
Yes Through the Chair to Councillor Tom. Are you aware they're running cattle on this property? Tom Wegener 01:04:17.762
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 but 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. You won't see that on eastwell farms on the regenerative. Brown, but you look at it now, it's already turning brown. The cows are eating the food all the way down. When it rains again, our river's full of water, and a total of mud. Can I ask you a question? Amelia Lorentson 01:04:58.061
Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. 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 And there are two other major reasons why I'm supporting the application. It does, 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 a strong to be added to the refusal. Frank Wilkie 01:06:26.194
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. You have a question Tom Wegener 01:06:29.571
We 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 very wet and that's about so it 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. Will 01:06:59.892
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. Clare Stewart 01:07:12.960
I'll speak to it. Councillor Stewart. 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 bushfires. 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 01:07:47.273
Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Joe Jurisevic 01:07:48.832
Councillor Jurisevic. I agree with everything that's been said around the table. Tom, I take all of your points on board. It's one of the reasons I sat, spent most 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 being proposed here. 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. They're 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 need for sustainable food and agricultural practices for the future. What a great concept, but 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 should be utilised for ongoing and increasing agricultural practices. So, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place in some elements of this, but there are clearly elements on the size, the scale, and the location, and the land use that challenge nobody is saying it's a bad it's just a good proposal in an inappropriate location according to the land availability, the land usage, and plan. And the size and scale of the activities, clearly something LA. That challenges bushfire management in a location like that, putting 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 do credit the I 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 01:10:15.627
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 set 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 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-fold 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 traffic out there, scheme, in a sense, is a contract we have with our community that sets reasonable expectations about what people can expect to see appear on property next door. I'll be open to assessing another application which had the proportions, the ratios of accommodation as opposed to land under permaculture reversed, that is much more and a lot lighter footprint in terms of accommodation think it possibly is the right location but the size and scale is wrong and for those reasons I'm supporting the staff recommendation. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Brian Stockwell 01:12:50.764
Close. I didn't hear any arguments against the motion. What I heard was a passionate concept of the need being one for more sustainable agriculture and there's no person who's going to agree with that more than myself. I was the president of an organic growing group in the 1970s, one of the first permaculture conveners on the Coast in the early 80s and went on doing PhDs in this area. The concept at a planning stage. Is protecting the most valuable resource we have for the resilience of future communities. Maslow's hierarchy of needs food is next and we consistently underestimate how important it is to protect our best quality agricultural land. When I grew up my mother was a travelling piano teacher and she taught the custard apple farmers kids sunnybank. 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 issue at heart of this is. While I appreciate Councillor Wegener's passion for the current regenerative form of agriculture, some of what he said was incorrect. Not all alternative mechanisms of grazing or agriculture relate to downstream sediment movement. In fact, there's lots of science for other forms of agriculture other than what's considered regenerative that has little or no impact on water quality. Many of the producers in our Shire do adopt 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 about what creates the sediment in the Noosa River. Some of it will be off broad-scale grazing. A lot from mass movement, floods, stream bank erosion. So the key point here is that if we're going to educate people, have a transformational change in our food, the place to start is you look after your best assets first. Frank Wilkie 01:15:46.526
And that's what we're doing by saying, "No, this has gone too far." 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 is 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. You. We've got everyone. Can we have the camera live again? 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 Ben. Derrick, welcome. Can you of where we're at with the results. Unidentified Speaker 01:17:05.974
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 preparing this catchment plan and it's been going on for many years. Frank Wilkie 01:17:20.588
Oh sorry, Brian has a conflict. Oh yes, I have more than one. Brian Stockwell 01:17:29.328
The my previous written declaration in regards to Noosa district stand care, who are acknowledged in 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 will remain in the room, but respect your decision. Frank Wilkie 01:17:55.383
Is that, I guess that's incumbent on all, there's a list of people who have consulted at the back of it. So councils are all checked any links? No, can I? It's a long, very list. Unidentified Speaker 01:18:11.349
On page 100, Brian Stockwell 01:18:15.949
Page 7,146. It's having a significant role. NICA? Amelia Lorentson 01:18:22.369
NICA's on the list. Yep. Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation, Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, Noosa and district landcare group, the Biosphere Reserve Foundation, Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee, Healthy Land and Water department, DES, DAF, MSQ. South East Queensland Council of Mayors, the nature conservancy, USC, NBFA, boating industry, environmental services, etc. Frank Wilkie 01:19:00.657
Knowing anyone on the list of liberal stakeholders, advisory committee, constituent, I don't know if there's anyone on that. Right, Councillor Stockwell, your report. Yes, I've declared in line with my written declaration, so it's up to you. Okay, look, I'll move. That the Council notes is a credible conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and in between Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this note as Councillor is a reasonable person who cannot consider this belief that would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Joe Jurisevic 01:19:58.560
It's catching on, you're getting, starting to affect other people. Unidentified Speaker 01:20:13.145
Second. Frank Wilkie 01:20:15.125
Second, Councillor Wegener. Any questions for Councillor Stockwell? Amelia Lorentson 01:20:20.945
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 light of that decision? A question to the CEO. Larry Sengstock 01:20:48.484
Ultimately you are, revisiting it now. He's putting up this 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 01:21:03.601
Hasn't changed from being a declarable conflict to a prescribed conflict, Karen Finzel 01:21:10.381
I'll just a question Through the Chair. I understand it's not presumptive. Prescribed, but have you earned money? In your association with these groups that have been mentioned. Brian Stockwell 01:21:21.694
So, from memory, under the act, I only have to go back to the 2016 election. 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. Before 2016. Actually. That's it. Frank Wilkie 01:21:57.729
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. Brian Stockwell 01:22:20.951
Yeah, I'll read this one 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 time frame. I was up until the last AGM Council represented on the committee and this role I played, in a role in facilitating the development of the crips and vias capital city. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a regional person could have a perception of vias. 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, Joe Jurisevic 01:23:08.142
I'm moving Council out of the room. I'll 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. I'll second it. Again as we've done in the past I believe this is fairly consistent with the approach that we've had in Frank Wilkie 01:23:53.032
Those in favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the matter. Sorry for that. It's okay. Anybody else? Thank you. Amy Kimber 01:24:07.341
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 that having MSQ as a co-Chair for the committee really meant that we needed to focus on MSQ matters, so I think there was a fair bit of frustration that over two years it really only focused I don't know if that's the right 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, 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 terms of our updated plan, we've really tried to draw on consultations, scientific research and the many partnerships we already have underway. So I think we've been 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. 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. 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. Of the ideas that we've been thinking about future governance is whether we have a small technical advisory panel that can help guide that ongoing monitoring and risk assessment. 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 trust agreement and 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 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 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. We have peer review on the typing. 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 of what we've tried to achieve, but I don't think I can take any more questions. Joe Jurisevic 01:29:26.053
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 Is that something that can be reviewed before the final is released to the public to correct that element of where industrial area runoff Councillor Joe, we're talking about the report that reviewed the runoff into Eenie Creek. So the other side doesn't. Brian Stockwell 01:30:08.659
If you look at project Avenue venture drive and That report 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. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:23.948
That's right. What I'm saying. It flows both ways. We only mention it flowing into Lake Weyba. We don't Nellie. I think that's a correction that could easily be addressed. Brian Stockwell 01:30:32.720
I just think in that, where it's mentioned, think that study. Joe Jurisevic 01:30:35.780
I realise that. But as far as an understanding of the concept of the river and what the impact of the industrial area potentially is, I think it should be mentioned that the industrial water flows both ways. That's one of the minor editors. That's a minor edit. Element the other here with regard 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. On the wrong page, that one. I think we're just being a little under water quality, point C. By 2030, zero litre enters the Noosa River system. I don't 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 as opposed to in general entering the river system, because we couldn't stop anything blowing into the river either. Kim Rawlings 01:31:57.550
An aspiration isn't 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. But what also can be controlled at the Council level. But I think there's two aspects I need Joe Jurisevic 01:32:26.780
To say. 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 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. Unidentified Speaker 01:33:06.618
Absolutely 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 01:33:25.840
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 01:33:35.380
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 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? Kim Rawlings 01:34:15.083
Yeah. So the river plan has an implementation action that says consider the mechanism of the conservation park under the nature conservation act for the fish habitat areas in the river. There has been some confusion and I've been contacted also by Councillor Finzel about that act and that head of power because the marine zone, parks act also has what's called conservation zone, so there was some misunderstanding. That we were talking concept 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 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 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 because we would operate as a trustee. A management plan would need to be developed for the conservation park and that done in collaboration with obviously the Department of Environment but with stakeholders of the river. Commercially used. Users, rep 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 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 for coexistence of commercial use. So it specifically says in the principles of the conservation. Have you got it there? Unidentified Speaker 01:36:29.146
So providing explicit recognition that all current regulations and management principles are retained. Principles and that existing commercial efficient can continue that in the arbitrary efficient 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 government responsibility. 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 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 is involved in each of these relationships and we really need a mechanism around how we continue that engagement with the board. Yes Ma'am, you're not receiving any money. Frank Wilkie 01:37:34.024
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. Unidentified Speaker 01:37:49.590
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. Maritime Safety Queensland are obviously very concerned with safety whereas DES is more concerned about ecological conditions so we're trying to get that arrangement in place with each of them. Kim Rawlings 01:38:16.768
Frank, just before we go to the next question. Nature conservation act specifically outlines management principles for conservation parks. It might be worth just. Could you read it? Yeah, it gives a good sense of what can occur in management in a conservation park. So conservation parks manage to the area's cultural and natural resources and their values, provide for permanent conservation of the area's natural condition to the greatest possible extent, provide opportunities for educational activities in way consistent with the area's values, and ensure that any commercial use resources, including fishing and grazing, is sustainable. So, you know, it's a good mechanism to balance all of these things. Frank Wilkie 01:39:04.829
And you said it's clear in the report that it's going to be applied to the fish could you explain how far they extend, where they exist currently, so what areas of the river they're looking at? Unidentified Speaker 01:39:19.519
Yeah, you might need to help me out here. It's about, think, 80 or 90 per cent. Kim Rawlings 01:39:24.037
You yeah, it's need to find what's not. 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 recreational 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 of the rivers covered by fish habitat area already. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:50.827
Yeah. Amelia. So just again, getting my head around all this. Conservation parks. The moment we've got DAF and DES and all these state agencies that determine what recreational activities are sustainable and what are harmful is the fact that now Council is getting involved does that mean that if we deem something not sustainable e.g. commercial fishing then we can override environment service Department of Agriculture and Fisheries so so can we there no okay Kim Rawlings 01:40:47.289
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 we would have those conversations in the State department but the head of power for sustainable commercial fishing sustainable fisheries is with DAF absolutely and that would absolutely change not they regulate 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 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 01:41:40.493
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 are we stepping they failed? Kim Rawlings 01:41:55.290
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 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 pollution. This would 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 01:42:38.782
So the NSERAC committee that folded in March this year, so two years, 14 members, really good cross-section diversity representation of all water users, uses was this plan and in particular the concept conservation park was that discussed and more importantly endorsed by the committee? Kim Rawlings 01:42:59.132
No, it wasn't discussed or endorsed by the committee. That wasn't the remit of that committee. No. Unidentified Speaker 01:43:08.650
Can I ask you a question? The conservation park, if that gives us a seat at the table and voice, I mean we're still beholden though to big brother aren't we? We're still the overarching work that's right. Responsible certain issues. There's a different number of different agencies responsible for different things. 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? I guess it's a Unidentified Speaker 01:43:48.198
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. Unidentified Speaker 01:44:01.978
I guess my point is we had a seat at the table with the MSQ. We're co-chairs for the Noosa River stakeholder a advisory group. Still beholden to state. Who make the final decision, so whether or not we advocate, we've got a seat at the table. Kim Rawlings 01:44:14.684
This goes beyond a seat at the table. So we've had with MSQ, but ultimately they're the arbiter of the issues and they'll determine way forward. Yes, we've had import. Vests this would be up to 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. 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? It would be an engagement process, absolutely, to develop a management plan, yes. With all the people noted? Stakeholders, whoever's got an interest in that space, and the management plan will be developed collaboratively with engagement, yes. Frank Wilkie 01:45:17.213
Councillor Stockwell, then Councillor Finzel? It's going to have to be a long question to the background. Brian Stockwell 01:45:22.890
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 industries and 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 you have committed people and no state government, you do get action, but there are some actions that have been there since very first river plan that haven't been progressed because they haven't had the minute and 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 have respond to. So for example we talk about fisheries from a recreational or commercial most of the fisheries modelling is done on a regional level. What the conservation park may give us the head of power 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 achieve those long-standing aims of the Noosa River Plan, is that correct? Kim Rawlings 01:46:55.659
Yes, it does give us a more formal mechanism beyond Cooroy. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:59.939
So clarify what Councillor, okay, just as a clarification maybe Brian or Kim. So are we saying that local, that under this management that we can use our own local scientist as opposed to state scientists or commonwealth scientists and they can determine what's sustainable, harmful. Is that what I've sort of understood? You're referencing local. Brian Stockwell 01:47:27.481
I'm saying that using example of fisheries, most of the fisheries management is based on regional assessment but like they wouldn't probably have a mullet stock in 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 01:47:54.144
So we can then, as a Council, deem, say, fishing as. Unsustainable and override state. No, it still can't override. Brian Stockwell 01:48:05.655
It's just about giving more formal structure, governance 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 01:48:16.677
Also talks about sustainable fisheries. The driver behind the conservation plan is not commercial fishing. The river plan also talks about commercial sustainable fisheries. And you know Council continued, 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 of fisheries across the State and our local fisheries, our local commercial fisheries have felt that reform. You know there's been a tightening, and quotas everything to commercial fishery over many years. So that would still stick with the State government to determine what's sustainable, quotas are, you sure the licenses, all of those things that will not sit with us. Amelia Lorentson 01:49:14.745
And in terms of recreational Fisher persons what would be the impact? Kim Rawlings 01:49:20.434
Well at the moment it's not regulated, rec fishing. Apart from catch limits I think. Yeah there are catch limits but yeah it is still a state issue you know at some stage we have talked about doing recreation fishing strategy but you know it's not something that we're currently looking at doing. Unidentified Speaker 01:49:40.885
I think one of the actions as well is to develop a dedicated monitoring and evaluation research program to support this. It is I think we don't have a very good sense of the baseline with some of these matters at the moment so rec fishing good understanding of what impact that's having so yeah having that dedicated monitoring program I think in place will help us be able to monitor things better over time. Frank Wilkie 01:50:07.163
Councillor Finzel has been very part of this. Thank you Mr Chair. Karen Finzel 01:50:11.263
Given there's a lot of conversation around governance formal structures and conversations about this moving forward given our investment in transparency to our community and promising 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. Is going to then be 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 of employment so they're limited 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 your zone and your management plan for your conservation park who's policing that is there a point where your local Council is going to be regulating and handing out fines or it's still amazing you've Unidentified Speaker 01:51:48.855
Been having workshops with MSQ to work out what this might look like moving forward though. And it's 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 agencies we need to advocate that they have enough resources to do it. So yeah, question, Karen Finzel 01:52:16.834
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? Unidentified Speaker 01:52:26.691
So at the moment the 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. Comment. Joe Jurisevic 01:52:48.146
A supporting role. Kim Rawlings 01:52:50.466
Like, you know, the conversation we had about TUR North Shore and how councils like the law offices would have a supporting role, but ultimately not the authority. So that's what's being talked about, local laws potentially having a supporting role. We've also talked about the river ranger program, and as you know, Kabi Kabi corporation has been seeking land and sea ranger funding for Noosa River catchment and they would like to, you know, if they're successful, like to have a presence on 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 persuading speeding and things like that, sits with MSQ, not with us. Joe Jurisevic 01:53:42.291
So from the educational perspective, things like fishing line bins and things like that and getting the community to utilise, understand what they're there for, where they're located and actually utilising them, ensuring they're empty. Councillor Stewart. Unidentified Speaker 01:53:55.951
Thank you. Just coming back to the conservation park, I'm just noting some of the Queensland legislation. That's noted in this report. This is page 91 of the report. It's 19 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 policy. 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 already status quo, doesn't that legislation right there protect it what are we over-regulating by then having 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 01:54:51.025
It's not that the areas are unusable. You can see that our areas are very highly. So layers. Undeveloped. And there are also a range of agencies involved Unidentified Speaker 01:55:05.007
In management of the river. So yes, there are multiple rights. It's fish habitat area. There's limitations of what you can do in a for us is we currently, Council don't currently have a seat at that table in terms of any legislative power. Kim Rawlings 01:55:23.868
So issues, and can tell you from experience of being in this organisation for many years about trying to get clear direction. On issues room 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. So that means that we then as a Council or can determine have more say of what can and can't transpire in the river irrespective of what the State deems? If you're alluding to whether Councillors Karen Finzel 01:56:09.904
We can say or not commercial fishing is appropriate or not, that's not what this is about. Kim Rawlings 01:56:16.984
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 uh. Is about saying there are a range of objectives that we are wanting to achieve for our river and have been 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 goals. Those things. Would an example of that be rehabilitation of seagrass, and Main Roads? All of those sorts of things. Managing erosion. Unidentified Speaker 01:57:01.480
Yes, there's another. But isn't that what we're doing with 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 it at the seat of the table, 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? Unidentified Speaker 01:57:34.136
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 01:57:51.722
It's put to you for consideration. So we as officers, we think it's a good mechanism. Balancing 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 01:58:09.851
Judge, the Councillor Finzel I was going to have a question. Karen Finzel 01:58:11.931
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 a big lot of people engaged but yeah for you know, good governance we do need to make some serious decisions. In terms of good fiscal management, 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 a look at when you say we're not going down the rabbit hole but we need some transparency around what does that mean just today when you raise that around local laws having you know a role in compliance like the question is then this would have to go to budget to consider Through the 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 the actions in this plan and will that include budget conversations about requirements Kim Rawlings 01:59:47.728
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 and you know you're already investing 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 previously, we can compare the amount of investment that cover surrounding to catchment, like merry 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 to be in place to attract that funding. So we will be working 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. Had question. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:21.759
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 nature consultancy the 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 was that a rep from either the recreational fishers commercial fishing group risks because the rest seem to be like in the conservation or environmental group um was there a bit of diversity um in that selection Unidentified Speaker 02:02:12.300
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 worked in that space. In like in catchment management. Unidentified Speaker 02:02:41.300
I guess the concern with that though Amy is part of this plan talks about jetties and pontoons public and private it talks about public safety I mean these are all things that are beyond a scientific research persons interest. Unidentified Speaker 02:02:56.147
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 NMSQ 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 community on the specific areas of interest that they have 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 so one the Shire is the and the other two thirds is the whole of the catchment is in the Shire Unidentified Speaker 02:03:50.381
The Noosa River catchment Karen Finzel 02:03:57.446
Had trouble attracting funding? Joe Jurisevic 02:04:00.026
Higher level and 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, it's now a river catchment incorporating all 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. Yeah. I mean, want to test it, but there's not much. Amelia Lorentson 02:04:29.539
Oh, yeah, I will test this and 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 is this plan so nothing wrong with it 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 not read the management plan too so this is meant Kim Rawlings 02:05:09.103
It yet please get over us under the sustainable fisheries act and strategy they've had a review and reform agenda 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, okay. Amelia Lorentson 02:05:32.944
Just needed clarity. You get regular updates from them with regard to. I've got a question while Unidentified Speaker 02:05:35.544
You're ready to go because I've got a question you're still looking at. Just on page 22.94 of the agenda, 22 of the report. I think that's right. It might be the other way around. Page 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 the past and what's their advice going forward? What involvement have they had forward? Unidentified Speaker 02:06:15.430
I understand that it Madden was liaising with them when she was developing the 2019 draft. I think we've had a particular model of engagement in place with the Kabi Kabi for the past two years I think it is but unfortunately that hasn't been working too well and so we've now moved to more of a distributed engagement approach in that sense. 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 very much an important priority for us to ensure they are properly engaged. Thank you. Tom Wegener 02:07:02.584
Tom, 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 02:07:12.401
We have a second for amelia's motion first to test it? I'm having debate. Seconded by Councillor Finzel for purpose of debate. Amelia Lorentson 02:07:21.401
I'd like to move a procedural motion to defer this matter the details and implications of a draft Noosa River catchment plan and provide feedback. And I do I've spoken to two members from NSERAC and members from the Noosa boating fishing alliance, all who have raised some concerns about the draft and today a lot of have been answered but deferring it to the next round of meeting allows them that same opportunity, oh excuse me, I acknowledge NSERAC 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 in 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 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 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. Jay any questions? Joe Jurisevic 02:10:23.341
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? Unidentified Speaker 02:10:35.378
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 gone on. And as you said earlier there's ongoing communications with the rating and fishing alliance that's correct, the intention. With all stakeholders. Joe Jurisevic 02:11:12.621
There's a lot of implementation. That was the one that Councillor specifically mentioned, that's why I mentioned that. Councillor Stockwell. Unidentified Speaker 02:11:18.861
Yeah, I'll be supporting the deferral motion. We've had six years of consultation leading up to this point. Brian Stockwell 02:11:29.575
Motion in January 2017 to review it and put the Noosa room plan into a whole catchment management framework. 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 02:11:46.481
We have had multiple forms of community engagement. We should as. Councils have really clearly understood what the issues facing the river is and what our aspirations for the river are. We have currently got a report that has been workshopped and I'm quite clear where it's all come from because we've had the chance to workshop the key elements of this draft. To suggest a small group that no longer exists should have a final say over what has been thousands of hours of community consultation to me is an affront to the others. It's time for political leadership. I certainly have a clear idea of what the outcome 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 position. In the same as we were this time last term of putting it off. We were in a position to be able to top it in late 2019 early 2020 and we decided we'd put it off and avoid doing it before the election. We need to do it now. I don't need any more. Advice from the community. I'm quite aware of what the different points of view are. Science is and the overwhelming majority of the community want for the Noosa River and I believe this plan will help to achieve it. Unidentified Speaker 02:13:30.060
I do support the deferral for one month. Councillor Stockwell we weren't here in 2017, 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. Sorry, I'm saying something positive. Commended, the staff 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 March, to April. We're asking for one month. So, what you've told us, and I don't even want to look at you because I'm going to 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. 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. You know, we can provide that information to our community that 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 our about the best interest 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, concern that was very clear when I sat as an observer on NSERAC, and it was a bipartisan agreement, was the liveaboards. Effluent coming from the liveaboards was the more. Moorings, was the anchorage, was getting rid of those eyesores in our river. You can't do that in the Maroochy just go and park your boat. 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. Environment. That is what we should be focused on. Now that's noticed here at 30, 3. Item 30, 31 and 32. That should be front. Number one. So it's documented. And it's 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 doesn't, it won't hurt. In fact, I think it will actually give full support and full credence to a plan that is very good. Frank Wilkie 02:16:44.325
Thank you, MSQ. Joe Jurisevic 02:16:45.685
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, Unidentified Speaker 02:17:02.245
Of within the plan you mean? Joe Jurisevic 02:17:06.464
Yeah. So the plan has been developed using the 2019 draft, the public consultation period, the input from river committee members, I hope that all those other stakeholders. Then who's responsible? For administering? State agencies? Yes. That's clear. Kim Rawlings 02:17:30.169
But Joe, as you know, to get the action that we've got has taken a lot of work from Joe Jurisevic 02:17:36.150
I get it. Yeah. Though, does it? Those elements still go down. Our role, as is articulated in this, is to continue to advocate and continue to get a better relationship to try and ensure that those matters are addressed and continue to be addressed by those state agencies. Unidentified Speaker 02:17:56.501
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 02:18:07.081
So, can I ask a question? Just follow up. Far away, with Joe. One of the action claims, 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? Unidentified Speaker 02:18:47.581
I thought that was done 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 02:19:06.870
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 02:19:15.560
Thank you. Yeah, I agree. Because the pressure is working. Yeah, absolutely. Right. Joe Jurisevic 02:19:22.910
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 regard to derelicts. So I'm happy, that those, issues are addressed quite clearly and articulated quite well within this work. Frank Wilkie 02:19:44.699
And I note this in the staff recommendation that there's the implementation will involve more stakeholder engagement. As an involving partnership with key stakeholders, and that will involve explanation of what certain action may mean, and also minor edits. So it suggests it's a dynamic relationship that we're going to be having with the community. Kim Rawlings 02:20:09.761
Is a road map. It has to be a collaborative effort. We've got a swag of state agencies, we've got jurisdiction here, multitude of uses, so anything that we go to implement is going to have to be a co-design, collaborative approach and that, you know, I'm pretty that says that in a number of ways. It says that right up front, partnership, there are many people involved, it says it in the outcome statements, 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 02:20:59.161
I'll speak to this particular motion. I really it. 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 there is opportunity between now and the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday night month 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. Allows 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 buy buying-in from all members of the community, it's not going to happen because there's so many diverse stakeholders involved. And therein lies difficulty for decision makers such as us. You're never going to get consensus on something like this. 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. 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. I think this is a great. Invitation to a conversation with the key stakeholders. Piece of work. I think I'm in favour of showing leadership, backing the process so far, putting 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 doing that in a moment. So I'm not going where that might lead. Will it lead to another, because it's, will there be more dissension that it leads to further dilemmas. Tom Wegener 02:24:10.471
So I'll be cancel later guess what I'm interested silts going into the river. I've heard that today. 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. Karen Finzel 02:24:35.195
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 02:24:50.514
It's a very good point of order. Can you speak to the motion defer? Tom Wegener 02:24:55.515
To I think there is an urgency to get this plan over the lines because I think that we need to just get hammering down dirt roads changing our aspects of dealing with those of things need to get in the acts and I'm so happy that the plan addresses those and so as you say there's a lot of different aspects that people are interested in and that happens in my primary focus and we've been waiting on this for a really long time. To see it get implemented ASAP because I think it needs to happen, get moving on this. Frank Wilkie 02:25:32.371
Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Unidentified Speaker 02:25:34.832
I'd just like to add something as well, there's been a lot of work happening internally on 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 adults odds with each other. Amelia Lorentson 02:25:59.986
Castle, what was the question? No, can I close or not? Sorry I'm thinking about you, get a vote. Joe Jurisevic 02:26:14.726
I'm not going to support this. Mentions of stakeholders, an opportunity to consider the vote housing Bill. 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 at this point, it's been through stakeholder engagement. It's through the level of Council. Workshops and studies and all the like. And I think the time to act is now. I have a question of staff. Frank Wilkie 02:27:12.370
Out of respect for some of the concerns that your Council has had about not thank you very much. 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? Larry Sengstock 02:27:30.967
I think this is up to you. If clean you can please always you can clear your diaries, do it. I'm more than happy to do it. Otherwise, another month will give you a bit more time. Frank Wilkie 02:27:43.724
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:27:44.604
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 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 conflicts 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 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 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 of 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 Councillor Amelia for bringing this to the table today. Frank Wilkie 02:30:05.441
Thank you Councillor Finzel. Larson do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 02:30:09.261
I will I'm going to close by actually quoting former NSERAC committee member they said public policy must be transparent consultative and allow to have a say that's what this deferral the motion is about, it's us honouring our commitment to transparency to consultative purposes and to genuine community engagement that's what leadership is to me fear of further dissension is not a reason defend a reason not to defer this should be a reason to actually support this motion to defer for one month, maybe we've missed something we need to keep an open mind and 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 long what's another four weeks like 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 alone we need to know does the community actually want legislated marine park? What are the implications for pro-fisherman rec users and those users caught outside conservation? 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. Oh excuse me conservation excuse me 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 community conservation? As well so I hope that someone will reconsider their decision and allow this motion to go Frank Wilkie 02:32:58.396
Through I'll reconsider Councillor Stewart, Morrison, Jurisevic and Finzel. Thank you Mr Chair. Against. Councillors Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. The motion is carried. And Tewantin has been deferred for a moment. Next item is the Financial Performance Report. Scott. Amelia Lorentson 02:33:35.620
You. Thank you. For your hard work. Unidentified Speaker 02:33:39.100
Thank 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 emergency 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. Costs above budget expectations. This is a mix of what we call $7 million of general or unrestricted operating funds and a further $0.6 of 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. Okay, I'm going to move this up to there and Overall, we were seeing revenue and sales, grants and upside is offsetting grants revenue, sorry, rates revenue and fees being on the budget. For more detail, we'll say that the Federal rate 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 with the Department of Resources. Losses, and the take-up attempt that will eventually 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: because offset with corresponding direct costs for commissioning and operating costs for those facilities. So you'll see that feature through the operating costs. In terms of expenses, two months through the financial year salaries and wages. Are tracking slightly 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 there's some modern movements between business areas in terms of timing of their spending at this early stage in the financial year. In terms of capital, works support and they're supporting grants and external funding of ambitious $52 million capital program is largely subtracting along the budget which say will coordinate a couple of months later on. 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. The majority of that is working capital for the next six months. Between now and then we will re-issue the rights rates in January. And also a significant amount of restricted cash, for example, QRA funding for recovery and that a disaster recovery grants would be understated. The past last one or two years. You wouldn't want to close out the video coldly. That we do a quarterly deep dive in our restricted cash, and we provide that through Federal reports. And that is the executive summary for the August report. Joe Jurisevic 02:37:42.602
Thanks, pep. You went over the general rate, being 193k below year-to-date budget. That's not bad. Something we often see when we're looking at the rates and levies. You mentioned the pensioner discounts. But 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? So the accommodation of the impact of some of the calculations on 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 the transparency would include the fact that it is a combination of. So we didn't actually get the figure, right? We've recalculated. And the other element there with regard to those land revaluations, does that defer, do people then defer payment to their rates until that land revaluation occurs, or are they still required to pay their rates and then receive a discount if their land valuation is, alters as result of a request of the State? I do believe it's a lag, but I'll take that on notice, Councillor. I'm just trying to ascertain, yeah, why, if there's a lag in payment of those rates as a result of that deferral for land. Unidentified Speaker 02:39:01.891
Yeah, I'll take it if you can. That'd be, just trying to understand how that works in the process. As you know, that it's well within the powers of ratepayers as those valuations come out every year of YA that they can query those with the partner resources and then we recalculate the rates accordingly based on advice from them. Joe Jurisevic 02:39:23.601
Yeah, I'm just wondering whether that puts a hold on them paying their rates or until that revaluation has occurred, that's yeah, any other questions, answers, Trent, Unidentified Speaker 02:39:33.998
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. Unidentified Speaker 02:39:45.958
One of the things we need to do, improvements we can do for that, is our total cash position. Terms of a 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 pre-payment 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 02:40:43.890
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. Thanks, Trevor. Frank Wilkie 02:40:54.207
Any other questions to start? I'm pretty good with half of that. Joe Jurisevic 02:41:02.947
Thank you for the ongoing work of the finance staff. I 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. Any other Councillors stick? Frank Wilkie 02:41:22.513
Thank you, thank you trane. Carried unanimously. Next item is the year in review. Unidentified Speaker 02:41:32.713
What a big year it's been, hey Larry. Goodness me, I feel tired just reading. Think of cactus island every time I hear that. Larry Sengstock 02:41:37.963
I'm okay, I'll give you a quick summary and then I've got three directors here as well so if you've got questions for them. This report really has been put together by the staff and the directors in line with our Corporate Plan. It runs from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. I would say right up front 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. I'm connected in that role since. And so to pull together this report and the work that's involved in this report is really very much a group effort from the whole of the organisation, led by the executive team, so commendations. I guess 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. 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 so there are many things that are happening. So based on the, it's 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 the '20 through '24 the budget. Five themes of Corporate Plan are Noosa environment, community, Noosa economy, and long-term planning and excellence as a Council. So that's the way the report is geared and talks to those particular As I said, it's compiled by the departments based on their branch plans, which is the plans that they work off individually, and it's the operational plan, organisation. Which is our organisation across for the organisation, which then into Corporate Plan. I've pulled out ten highlights for the year, but obviously they are just some of them, and so I'm more than happy to take feedback on those well as to whether they are considered the ten 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 apply then I'm more than happy to take that. I'll take you through those top cocktails. 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 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 directors is a vertical them together, so it really is keen. Kim and Kerry who were the main drivers in the end of that document, obviously with you as Councillors. So that's a 23, it's a five year plan from 23 to 2028. Infrastructure achievements, so we've delivered the largest couple of works this year, $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've got to get on skates to have airline infrastructure. Teams. 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 it's a great brand. New change for us. It just refreshes exactly what we do and what we stand for. And I think you'll see more of that as it comes out. So, again, it's just been a large piece of work that goes on, but I think that's a really key piece for us to. So, for a while, this is where we've been going forward, and it is looking forward. It's a brand that clean, it's fresh, and 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. Um and or ask so um I think we've been able to achieve here through a whole lot of change, but we are, you know, we're a reasonably small Council in a lot of respects, and to be able to do what we do and deliver keep ourselves in the 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 very much the leader of that, pushing that through, and of course the staff in endorsing and accepting and living those values, and that's very much now starting to show great value to the organisation. Housing Strategy, we all know that's a piece of work, and we spoke to that on Friday at a meeting, or a presentation, the Housing Strategy is something that we've done to give us, not dissimilar to group a plan, gives us a path forward, gives us something to hang everyone on, as we get these challenges that we're now facing 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 fire issue and just while I'm sitting here, there's bees going off. Bee wire, I've spilled some. Yep, I've got them too. Got them over weekend. Everything is okay up there, but that's just an indication of what we're potentially, across Queensland, not just us, but across many areas. We've got 178 bushland reserves covering over three and a half, nearly 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 median in recent times. We've actually increased our capacity to do those planned burns. We don't deliver the firefighting exercise. Have people, our 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 range of health and wellbeing activities, which again is just a great thing for us to be able to do. And again, within financial ability and our service ability. So I think, again, it's 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 CHEP, 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 we have. There as I say, there's a multitude more, but this is just a quick highlight of everything that's going on. If anybody's got questions, then I'm more moving forward. I 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 and it seems that we are. If you look at the amount of work that's happened here. The path for our staff to just 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 02:51:37.414
I was going to say, I was happy to move it. Frank Wilkie 02:51:40.074
Mayor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Unidentified Speaker 02:51:42.514
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 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. 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 3 million in funding secured through six different funding programs for sports strategy and development from our great team led by Brad, have Donaldson pavilion at Tewantin has delivered an upgrade and a pump track at Sundial Park. Our are also supporting or have supported community groups and some of 360,000 for community led projects across the Shire looking at LED lighting upgrades, field renovations, fencing and irrigation. Same sports strategy development team have delivered or are working on five different planning projects with an approximate value of $480,000. This includes the region feasibility and the Noosa District Sports Complex LMP, Cooroy 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 and all the team down there with new AI Lab. State-of-the-art. They're leading 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 a short stay team established to administer local law and a whopping amount of capital infrastructure projects on page 119 onwards. So really well done. That's again just snapshot Frank Wilkie 02:54:40.923
Thank you. Another Councillor is Mr Smith-Jones. Joe Jurisevic 02:54:45.443
Yeah more like 110. Mr CEO or 210 or 310. Like the Mayor over there re-reading it again over the weekend. Yeah and it never ended 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 so this is. Anybody doubts the diversity and the complexity of work that 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, staff that are involved in achieving the outcomes for the last financial year. Thank you very much to all of you. Karen Finzel 02:55:43.514
Anyone else wish to speak? Karen? I'll go on, yeah. I'd just like to reiterate everything that's been done in the table. We had community tell us they wanted a call to action so I think this can show where the call to of action has 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 in the hinterland and also what I like to see the activation with community with health and well-being are the programs we've got out there to engage you know all levels of our community and interest 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. Unidentified Speaker 02:56:33.298
Yeah since he put out the challenge about his top 10 the first here's the powerpoint 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 artifact 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 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 two. Conditions of public open space, number three. Landscape and four. They're missing from the top 10 and excessively needs to work so when we prioritise do look at how we prioritise, let's put it through the lens of the community rather than organisation. But other than that, it gives a lot done. Amelia Lorentson 02:57:36.910
I'll keep mine brief. We often get told what we don't do, so it's really refreshing to 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 have a team of great people that make this organisation great so thank you to our executives, staff, Acting CEO and current and ex-CEO I think we've got a lot to be proud of. Brian Stockwell 02:58:40.970
Just quickly first, I've got that after Brian mentioned lenses. Second, I think that the spark is really important. I'm so honoured that the crew, that the staff have taken that and we ran with what Scott mentioned and of course Larry you've taken 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, 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 difference but put our aspirations to get the rubber on the road so yeah 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 02:59:54.011
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. This kind of support. Mayor Stewart, do you want I Unidentified Speaker 03:00:19.496
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 around this table, so I want to thank you as well. Frank Wilkie 03:00:38.485
Put the motion those in favour? 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 we'll take a suggestion good there. Now. Five-minute break. Joe Jurisevic 03:01:22.702
I'll move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 245J3G of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing commercial matters involving a local government for which public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests for reports 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. You need to remove discussing 8, just discussing commercial. Frank Wilkie 03:01:45.850
Yes. Can we have a seconder for that, please? Discussing more than one. Yeah. Seconder for Amelia. All in favour? That's unanimous. We are in. I do want to take a five-minute Amelia Lorentson 03:01:59.550
Break. You can take five minutes off the break. Thanks. Just wait. Food. How much more food can I eat? Joe Jurisevic 03:02:04.910
You should have made the five-minute break commercially complex. Larry Sengstock 03:02:21.201
One is three. Frank Wilkie 03:02:22.881
How are we doing? Just three? Individual. One at a time. All separate? Yep. Thank you. * 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. Moved by Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Next the decision to settle an appeal before the court. Someone can move this one. Unidentified Speaker 03:03:30.860
Moved by Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? It's carried. Was that your nose? Was it your nose? Frank Wilkie 03:03:44.756
You should have put it in your nose. Oh yeah. I'll to report by Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator, a contractual seconded by moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic, all in favour? It was carried. That brings us to the end of today's agenda. Thank you. Mr Chair. Well done. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 03:04:10.952
Thanks Linda. Vicky. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
