General Committee Meeting - October 2023
Date: Monday, 23 October 2023 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:42:30
Synopsis: Bunnings Trade height deferred pending justification and checks, ZEN 3-yr partnership approved, Finances ahead but cash tight, STA 515 deferred for compliance, Noosa Waters fees endorsed.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Clare Stewart Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings (Via Microsoft Teams) Director Development And Regulation Richard MacGillivray Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie secured approval for remote attendance for Crs Finzel and Stockwell under Local Government Regulation s254K; carried unanimously (00:01) (Item 1). Amelia Lorentson moved to authorise execution of a 3‑year Partnership Agreement with Zero Emissions Noosa (ZEN) Inc., with authority for minor changes and funding to be set annually; carried unanimously (08:50) (Item 5.1). Frank Wilkie moved a motion to approve “Bunnings Trade” MCU22/0051 with a strict 10m height cap via Condition 13; Council instead deferred the item for further information on the 12m request; carried unanimously (31:53, 56:14) (Item 5.2). Clare Stewart moved to defer a “minor change” application for STA at 515 Cooroy Noosa Rd to November to allow applicant review; carried unanimously (59:26) (Item 6.1). Amelia Lorentson moved endorsement of new Noosa Waters lock & weir access device fees: $90 for access fob; $191 for wireless remote; carried unanimously (post-recusal) (01:11:24) (Item 6.2). Trent Grauf presented the Sept 2023 Financial Performance Report; operating revenue ahead by $1.6m, expenditure under by $0.3m, and inclusion of key sustainability indicators; noted likely BR2 surplus (01:12:37) (Item 6.3). Trent Grauf detailed cash holdings of ~$135m with ~$58m externally restricted and ~$29m committed to capital works; only ~$2m truly free cash above three‑month cover after constraints (01:18:55, 01:20:24, 01:22:10) (Item 6.3). Clare Stewart highlighted organisation-wide delivery pressures, record capital program, and tourism levy unwind into general rates with differential charges maintained for non‑residential ratepayers (01:28:18, 01:24:45) (Item 6.3). Larry Sengstock confirmed staff vacancies remain challenging (including ICT Manager), with turnover stabilising but specialist recruitment difficult; majority of staff live outside Noosa Shire (01:31:56, 01:34:02) (Item 6.3). Council staff confirmed active legal matters may fluctuate (development appeals), cyber security costs are elevated due to market threats, and legal/software lines largely timing or risk‑driven (01:28:52–01:31:33) (Item 6.3). Contentious / Transparency Matters Karen Finzel questioned visual bulk/amenity of the Bunnings Trade 12m height on Gateway Dr “gateway” approach; staff pointed to industrial context and screening, but acknowledged significant retaining and visibility issues (16:39–23:24) (Item 5.2). Brian Stockwell disputed staff comparisons, asserting the proposal is up to ~1.7m higher than the adjoining Vision Ct building at key points; sought precise RL verification prior to decision (20:37, 45:23) (Item 5.2). Amelia Lorentson sought clear, non-generic justification from the applicant for 12m, including logistics and operational impacts if reduced to 10m; this drove the deferral (55:36–56:59) (Item 5.2). Amelia Lorentson raised that Noosa Waters residents aren’t all members of the Residents Association; staff confirmed consultation was via the Association and the upgrade is opt‑in for remotes, raising outreach considerations (01:09:41–01:10:54) (Item 6.2). Council noted the STA at 515 Cooroy Noosa Rd advertised beyond approved limits and without a local law approval; compliance actions flagged if council doesn’t agree to increased numbers (01:03:08–01:05:56) (Item 6.1). Legal / Risk Council sought to align the Bunnings Trade approval with Planning Scheme 10m industrial height to mitigate streetscape dominance and bulk on Gateway Dr; reliance on Planning Act 2016 s63(5) report noted (31:53–34:10) (Item 5.2). Staff advised Bunnings signage on the parent site is constrained by an existing court order; new lot subdivision could bring signage under current local law limits (15:50) (Item 5.2). Patrick Murphy outlined enforcement posture for STA local law breaches: infringement options and potential approval suspension/cancellation if non‑compliance persists (01:03:54–01:05:00) (Item 6.1). Trent Grauf flagged cyber security risk mitigation via contracted expertise during ICT leadership vacancy; elevated software/maintenance spend reflects threat environment (01:30:12–01:31:06) (Item 6.3). Council referenced whole‑of‑life costing requirements in the Financial Sustainability Policy to avoid unfunded OPEX/depreciation burdens from grant‑funded assets (01:37:20–01:38:48) (Item 6.3). Conflicts of Interest Clare Stewart declared a declarable conflict as a Noosa Waters resident contributing the levy and using the lock/weir; left the room per Local Government Act 2009 Ch 5B before the fees decision; motion then carried unanimously (01:07:05–01:11:24) (Item 6.2). Short-Term Accommodation / Local Law Compliance Council staff determined the proposed increase from 8 to 16 guests at 515 Cooroy Noosa Rd is not a “minor change” under the DA Rules due to increased known impacts; recommended refusal, but deferred at applicant’s request (59:26–01:02:24) (Item 6.1). Amelia Lorentson highlighted concurrent non‑compliance risks: online advertising above approval and no STA local law approval; staff committed to compliance pathways independent of the DA outcome (01:03:08–01:05:56) (Item 6.1). Planning Scheme and Industrial Height Limits Frank Wilkie argued 10m height maintains intended industrial character and mitigates street dominance; contrasted existing 12m Bunnings set far back with landscaping versus proposed building closer to Gateway Dr (31:53–34:10) (Item 5.2). Karen Finzel explored conditioning to remove roof pitch to reduce bulk; staff advised pitch removal yields ~1m reduction but may not achieve 10m without broader redesign (26:27–27:07, 46:23–46:51) (Item 5.2). Staff acknowledged significant cut/retaining on northern boundary and that initial frontage vegetation must be cleared; landscaping and bio‑basin replanting to soften views over time (22:27–24:39) (Item 5.2). Council deferred final decision to obtain precise RL comparisons with adjoining 11–13 Vision Ct and detailed rationale from the applicant for 12m operational needs (45:23–46:51, 56:14) (Item 5.2). Environmental Concerns and Climate Initiatives Kim Rawlings confirmed the ZEN partnership covers reporting, IP, indemnity, dispute resolution, and insurance; minor changes include a conflict of interest clause before execution (02:40–06:07) (Item 5.1). Councillors credited ZEN’s EV Expo and community battery roadmap work; volunteers contribute ~79,000 hours (~$350k pa) to emissions reduction aligned with Council strategies (08:50–10:12) (Item 5.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 23 October 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 23 OCTOBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Clare Stewart (Chair) Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Brian Stockwell (via Microsoft Teams) EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings (via Microsoft Teams) Director Development and Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Cr Tom Wegener Cr Joe Jurisevic Council Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Crs Finzel and Stockwell are approved to attend the Meeting dated 23/10/2023 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 18 September 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 23 OCTOBER 2023 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. ZERO EMISSIONS NOOSA (ZEN) INC. GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENT (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 10 OCTOBER 2023 - ITEM 5.1). Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Carbon Reduction Project Officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2023 regarding Zero Emissions Noosa (ZEN)Inc and: A. Authorise the Director Strategy and Environment to execute the Partnership Agreement 2023-2026 provided at Attachment 1 to the Report; B. Authorise the Director Strategy and Environment to make minor changes to the Partnership Agreement 2023-2026 prior to execution; C. Note the annual funding contribution will be determined at annual budget considerations. Carried unanimously. 5.2. MCU22/0051 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE HARDWARE & TRADE SUPPLIES AT 178 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 10 OCTOBER 2023 - ITEM 5.2). The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Refer to Attachment 1 Motion Moved: Cr Wilkie Seconded: Cr Stewart That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10th October 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0051 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Hardware and trade supplies situated at 178 Eumundi Noosa Road Noosaville and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1 with Condition 13, Building Height to read: The maximum height of the development must not exceed 10 metres above the ground level, including the exposed portion of the external façade of the building where excavation is undertaken B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 23 OCTOBER 2023 Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That the item be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 26 October for more information regarding the reasons as to why the applicant requires 12 metre height. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. MCU22/0209.01 - MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 515 COOROY NOOSA ROAD, TINBEERWAH Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 23 October 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0209.01 to make a minor change to an existing approval for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use – Short-Term Accommodation situated at 515 Cooroy Noosa Rd, Tinbeerwah and defer to the November 2023 round of Council meetings to allow the application an opportunity to review the assessment report. Carried unanimously. 6.2. NOOSA WATERS LOCK & WEIR - NEW FEES AND CHARGES FOR ACCESS DEVICES In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stewart provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to Noosa Waters Lock & Weir – New Fees and Charges for Access Devices, as I am a resident of Noosa Waters, contribute to the levy and regularly utilise the Noosa Waters lock and weir system. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Stewart left the meeting. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 23 OCTOBER 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Graduate Engineer to the General Committee meeting dated 23 October 2023 and endorse changes to the 2023/2024 fees and charges register for Noosa Waters Access Cards to: A. Noosa Waters Access Card to be changed to Noosa Waters Access Fob with a fee of $90.00 B. Noosa Waters Access Wireless Remote with a fee of $191.00 Carried unanimously. Cr Stewart returned to the meeting. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. 6.3. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 23 October 2023 outlining September 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. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 2:14 PM
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.000
All right welcome everybody to the general committee meeting of the 23rd of October. I declare the meeting open. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we're meeting and that is the Kabi people and pay our respects to elders past, present and emerging. We have apologies from Councillor Joe Jurisevic and Councillor Tom Wegener. We have in attendance Mayor Stewart, Councillor Amelia Lorentson, myself and we have two Councillors online in Councillor Karen Finzel, Councillor Brian Stockwell. We need a resolution. I'll move it. The resolution moved by Councillor Stewart and seconded by Councillor Lorentson. The motion is that in accordance with section 2 5 4 K of the Local Government Regulation, Councillors Finzel and Stockwell are approved to attend the meeting dated today via Microsoft Teams. Any discussion? No. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. We have presentation. No deputations. Items referred from the committees include the first one is Zero Emissions Noosa ZEN Inc. Grant funding agreement, which was referred from the Planning & Environment Committee dated 10th of October 2023 by Councillor Joe Jurisevic, who is not here. Tarisovic, but and Bec, would you care to talk us through the report, please? Oh, sorry. Thank you. I've just reminded, we have, we meeting. Need we to confirm the Minutes from last month's General Committee could you move that? By Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Stewart. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Karen, I'll need to see whether you've got your hand up or not. Could you go to camera, please? There's a technical issue with the camera. I'm happy to say yes. Thank you. Or your hand, the symbol would be fine. Thank you. It's on the screen, Mr Chair. Thank you, Karen. That's carried now we've come to the Zero Emissions Noosa fund emissions Noosa grant funding agreement, and we have Kim Rawlings, our Director Strategy and Environment online, and also Bec. Oh, we're Annie Nolan present. So who's going to talk to the resort, the report? Resort. The Annie Nolan 02:36.027
Thank you. Afternoon everybody. The report you have in front of you is regarding the partnership agreement with zero emissions new seating. And outlines it basically outlines a three-year partnership with Noosa, sorry, zero emissions Noosa. Noosa, and goes through the funding requirements, the reporting, requirements, intellectual property, obligations of each party, indemnity, termination of the agreement, dispute resolution, general provisions and insurances. So just for as a bit of background, ZEN Inc.. Has been our preeminent community group in helping the community to reduce emissions right from 2016 when. They first started. They're a very, very professional group. They use a. Science-based approach to actually undertake the projects that they deliver. To the overall Noosa community to help reduce emissions. Their strategy is very much looking at two major emission sources in the community, which are stationary energy, or electricity, and transport energy as well. And to that, to address those two emission sources, they have developed a number of programs with Council support through our climate change response grant program, as well as actually looking for other funding through other grants such as the recent Department of Environment state government department on sustainability to actually put together an overarching Roadmap of where community batteries could potentially go right throughout Noosa Shire. In terms of the emissions and mission reductions that they do they run the very very popular and very successful EV expo on a yearly basis that has brought significant benefits to the Noosa community. Now just wanted to quickly run through some statistics here, in that they um, I have a number of links to our Corporate Plan and they have through their volunteer hours they believe that they add at least three hundred fifty thousand dollars to the community to this community on an annual basis through all their various activities. So this report is actually asking that we authorise the Director Strategy & Environment to execute the partner agreement and to authorise her to also make minor changes to the partnership agreement. And we actually note the annual funding contribution to be determined on as part of the yearly budget process. And as for this year the funding has actually been allocated in this year's budget room for this. At the planning and environment meeting it was noted that the report should also consider conflict of interest clause and so what we are suggesting that a simple version of what could be included in this agreement is that in connection with any actual potential or perceived conflict of interest in relation to activities undertaken this agreement ZEN Inc must disclose existence of that interest and disclose all material facts to Council and that we believe will cover it. Frank Wilkie 06:17.291
Just to clarify that would be covered by part B of the recommendation that you would be authorising the Director Strategy & Environment to make minor changes to the partnership agreement prior to execution. That's correct. Thank you. Questions, Councillors? Amelia Lorentson 06:32.876
I have a question. First of all, thank you for that inclusion. I thought it was important to add. In terms of funding, there are other volunteer questions. Organisations that I believe would also benefit from this sort of funding partnerships. Is that part of council's consideration? I know that we're reviewing our there's a lot of volunteer organisations that really run a risk of burnout. So has that been discussed at Council level? Annie Nolan 07:10.567
This isn't part of this report and we have to defer that question. I'm not aware of that, but I would defer to Kim or Rebecca to answer that question. I'm happy to make comments Through the Chair if that's appropriate. Frank Wilkie 07:28.063
Kim. Thank you. Kim Rawlings 07:29.123
Kim Rawlings here, Councillor Lorentson. Yeah, absolutely, there are a lot of volunteer organisations and we know many of our volunteer organisations are under pressure in terms of recruitment for membership and in the volunteer hours they do. This model is something that we have started to look at more. We have a partnership arrangement with the Noosa Biosphere Foundation and now a ZEN Inc organisation. It is a model that we will continue to look at around assisting organisations who are very much aligned with the outcomes are that Council trying to achieve through various strategies anyway. We also have our alliance grants that exist through our community grants program and the alliance and the environment grants program. The community and the alliance grants are very much around multi-year opportunities to help sort of capacity of organisations. So there are a couple of avenues. But that exists and one that we will continue to explore. Frank Wilkie 08:35.805
Thank you, Ken. Thank you. Any other Councillors on the line have any questions? Someone care to move the motion? Amelia Lorentson 08:44.485
Move Councillor just to say really just a big shout out and a big thank you to the ZEN Inc. Volunteers. And just reiterating what you said before, Annie, they've donated 79,000 hours of in-kind time, which works out to a total value of $350,000. That's huge. And their efforts and achievements do get noticed at Council and community level. So Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Stewart. Clare Stewart 09:27.676
You, I agree, I think this you know, this is- an organisation that does a lot for our community. The success of the electric vehicle expo, it just gets bigger and better and They were instrumental in community battery, which is a $500,000 grant to our community. And as Annie has said, this is all already in the budget. Pipeline. It's already been accounted for. So it's no additional expenditure that we're having to outlay at the moment. So I agree. I think the volunteers do a huge, amount of heavy lifting for our community and very very grateful and happy to support. Frank Wilkie 10:11.527
Thank you, Councillor Councillor Stewart. Are there Councillors on the line wish to speak to the motion? No, thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Councillor Finzel. Stockwell. I'd just like to add to the comments made by Councillor Stewart and Lorentson. The work of ZEN Inc. Is very professional and very high standard. They have a lot of people with a high level of acumen. Their work that they do are actually helping both businesses, enrich the business and the residential community by mainly conversion to solar. Which means that money that was otherwise being exported outside the Shire to energy providers is staying in the pockets of the businesses and residences, enriching the local community. Economy. So for the small investment, it's money well spent. Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? No, thank you. Okay, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you Annie. Next item 5.2 is application for Material Change of Use, hardware and trade supplies at 178 Eumundi Road, Noosaville. That's referred from the Planning & Environment Committee, and we have Director of compliance and regulation Richard MacGillivray, manager of planning Patrick Murphy, and also head planner Nadine Gordon. Teens team's all here. This due to the significance of the matter and there's some disagreement with the recommendation. So Nadine could you give us an overview please. Nadine Gordon 11:50.096
I'm sorry, can you say it one more time? Okay, good afternoon everyone. This is an application for Material Change of Use for a hardware and trade centre supplies at 178 inland new Noosa Road. It's the very northern portion of the Bunnings site, which is currently vegetated. So it's not facing Eumundi Noosa Road. It's actually down on Gateway Drive, opposite or near the place, which I've forgotten what it's called. This is a proposed. Proposal for a new-- resident hero, that's correct, yes. So it's an application for two-storey building on the site. It has a total floor area of 1,087 square metres across two levels. The proposal is for timber and trade supplies predominantly for professional builders and trade. The applicant has indicated that it's a different target market than the existing Bunnings warehouse. So Bunnings warehouse is the existing one. This is called Bunnings trade. So there are two different entities operating this as such. There is some duplication of items to minimise that sort of crossing to the two buildings but basically there will be a different external appearance and branding. There is a single elevator on site, so it's not as retail-friendly as the existing Bunnings Warehouse. It has a different website, and it focuses on high-quality items such as more expensive power tools, et cetera. The applicant has indicated, and if you want me to just quickly, so Bunnings warehouse currently has a range of things such as tools and hardware, garden supplies, whereas Bunnings trade will be focused on product ranges for the construction industry, commercial standard power tools and equipment, insulation, timber. And it includes sections that can only be accessed by trade customers who hold a power plant account. So the existing trade section is to be retained in the existing Bunnings warehouse. The original Bunnings warehouse was approved by Sunshine Coast Council under report approval there. It was approved previously as retail business type 4 showroom, 6 hardware, and 7 garden and lifestyle centre. This existing proposal is for a new building on that vacant area. The scheme indicates a maximum height of 10 metres, this building is over that 10 metres at 12 metres. Approximately the front third of the building will be and then the back of it as the site slopes up and is its filled will to provide the ramps that will then comply under the tent around the 8 metres. We understand that the applicant has indicated that the height is needed for the trade activities, which includes access from trades with trailers and higher vehicles, plus they also need it for the high levels of pilot storage. There's also a significant cross-fall, so, and it is an industrial site, so there is extensive effort proposed. It is slightly lower than the surrounding and if we note the site directly to the north on Vision Court, it was approved for an industrial development on a approximately two metre high, plus retaining area, with an existing building that's over seven metres. So this new building is consistent or slightly lower than the height of that Vision Court building to the north. The setback of this proposed Bunnings building is also slightly behind as well. I also note that previously we talked about signage and there were concerns about the existing Bunnings being over our signage requirements. The signage was approved for the existing Bunnings site under a court order. There is a maximum area of signage required so this building is in terms of its really can't have any more signage in accordance with that approval unless they change that court order. Alternatively if they subdivide the site which there is a reconfiguration of a lot of approval to subdivide this portion off they could apply for new signage under our existing local law which would limit the amount of signage. Is a condition recommended for approval for muted colour scheme, that's condition 7, included in that and basically staff are recommending approval of the application. Frank Wilkie 16:37.712
Thank you. I can't see the Councillors online. Thank you. Question? Karen? Yes, Karen Finzel 16:48.272
Thank you Mr Chair, thank you for your feedback Nadine. I just have a question about the height of the existing Bunnings building. Is that 12 metres? Nadine Gordon 16:56.839
No, I don't believe so. How do you know the height of that? I think it would be 10 Karen, I don't believe it's over height. Frank Wilkie 17:09.799
Sorry Nadine, in the report it says existing Bunnings store 12 metres from actual ground level. Okay, alright. Sorry I didn't hear that Mr Chair. Karen, in answer to your question, 12 metres from natural ground level. Is that the existing building Mr Chair? One you were asking about? Yes, the existing Bunnings is Nadine Gordon 17:37.006
And 9.5 from finish level. Karen Finzel 17:41.193
And where is the fall of the ground level on the existing building? Is that towards the back of the block or the front? That would be the. It would have a similar fall, Karen, yes. It would be falling from the eastern side down to the Gateway Drive side. So it would fall east down to west. I do have concerns about the bulk on a gateway coming into Noosa with two buildings on that site side by Can you talk to me a bit about how we're going to address that, please? Nadine Gordon 18:25.436
Email first? No, not the email, the streetscape views. I'll just send a couple of streetscape views. This one would probably be. Just the. Sorry. That's right, that'd be great. So this is just google streetscape this morning, but it gives a good indication. So Karen, this is actually just in front of the existing access into Bunnings. So you can look down. Oops. That's right. Where those two arrows, right hand arrows are, that's the second access into the site. This is well down from Eumundi-Noosa Road and the roundabout.vegetation is on the right, in front of that van, that vegetation will be cleared and the building will be going. You can just see a lift behind of the existing buildings of Vision Court. So this isn't really readily visible. From. Eumundi-Noosa Road. Do you want to go to my next one? That's further down. That's the existing. Again, this is google street view. You can see the retaining wall on the right-hand side, so there is now a seven-metre height. High industrial building on that one. And then, yes, we've got resident hero, which is the next industrial building down the road. I think my next one is probably. Oh, that's just a shot of that as well, showing you the scale. And this is what's opposite the site. And that's probably. Oh, you could go down. So you can see that this is the elevation. Northern And about the front third of that building will be over the 12 metres. And then it all slopes up and you can see the back of the site will be pretty much consistent with height. Frank Wilkie 20:25.144
Okay, Brian, do you have a question? Brian Stockwell 20:37.235
Think I heard said that this building would be not higher than the one to the north. But if I look at tigger 6, it appears to be at least a metre higher. Can you clarify that please to the starting stocking point? At top part of tigger figure 6, Nadine Gordon 20:56.401
Page 14. The pitch is slightly higher, but it's pretty much consistent with that, the character and amenity of the area and that existing building. But they can take out the pitch and make it a flat building and it would comply. Sorry, it would be lower, sorry Brian. Clare Stewart 21:18.420
Communicator, the big concern to me is we've highlighted the height of that retaining Brian Stockwell 21:28.120
This development to have its driveway along the boundary we'd have a similar height of retaining wall plus a blank seven metre high wall height and that would be the dominant view when you drive down the to me I have difficulty seeing that meeting. Frank Wilkie 21:45.440
Could you move to a question please? Brian Sorry I didn't hear that. Please? Is there a question here? Brian Stockwell 22:00.746
So is that correct then? Is there going to be for the northern driveway a two and a half at least metre a blank wall of seven metres without Clare Stewart 22:17.720
Is there any scope to landscape it? Can we go back to that street view? Nadine Gordon 22:26.960
The one just roll up, keep going up. I think that one. So, Brian, there will be a.in front so a lot of that existing vegetation needs to be retained, there will be building itself is set back six to nine metres, so we have the ability from.to provide landscaping and street trees within the frontage, which would be.which provide some screening when you're coming down Gateway Drive. I agree that would be a significant cut in. Significant cut and retaining structures on the northern boundary of the site to the existing building they are that cut will and that building will be set back against at least six metres from the road so there is opportunity to provide some landscaping from this viewpoint within the frontage of the site Brian Stockwell 23:24.057
I can have a further Nadine Gordon 23:36.900
In that area where it was going to and they'd replant a few trees in front of the bio basin is that correct that's yes now they'd be quite a few years before any vegetation could possibly screen it Amelia Lorentson 23:53.040
Yes I haven't sorry Nadine I have in front of me just a response to information request and there's a picture of a tiered landscape buffer so it's three tiered and they have addressed I think the landscaping quite Nadine Gordon 24:09.907
Well we have explored whether they could retain the existing vegetation in front of the premises so that when they move over to the new path that's required to be constructed and other accesses, it's not possible to keep that existing vegetation at the front so therefore we'll be requiring some of the landscaping plan and obviously the street trees for the planting of the resource, planting and biobasing as well. This he's is also where it's going to happen. Pointing out that when you look down in that street that resident hero building is quite visible, stark. This building is actually going to be about six metres from the plant boundary. I still think that resident hero is going to be the dominant building when you're actually into that street. And as you go further the stark industrial buildings are probably the dominant beach that you get, consistent with what you expect in an industrial environment. Frank Wilkie 25:10.538
How high is the hero resident here a building? Nadine Gordon 25:14.339
I would assume it's around probably the 10. Also noting that again we're talking about the built form and the associated earthworks with it. I mean this is a sloping site. It is zone industry. Generally we flatten sites to allow industry to occur. So they are doing a significant cut on the site. We will have the driveways tapering on either side. If they reduce the height they will still have this retaining. Wall and the existing building will still be visible. Frank Wilkie 25:49.990
Would like to test a motion please. Karen Finzel 25:52.090
Sorry I have a question. I just didn't hear the end of that comment. Oh yes, Sir, we'll get the sorry Karen. Nadine Gordon 26:00.633
So if they reduce the height to comply, if they take the two metres out, that wall will still be there. They proposing that accessway and driveway along that so the height won't change that presentation. Karen Finzel 26:16.647
In reference to your previous comment, can the height be reduced if we remove the pitch? It comes down by about half metre, Karen. Okay, and how do we condition that? We can condition it to require amended plans. Yes, thank you. I'd like to test the motion. Well, I think that helps us bring in line with the planning scheme, given it is inconsistent. With the height and the bulk as per page 39 of the report. So I would like to see that conditioned to bring down that height. I think it's important that we. Karen, we're doing questions at the moment. Yes, okay. Well, I'm just asking how do we put the condition. On? Do we need to move an amendment now? Frank Wilkie 27:07.183
Well, I'm proposing I move a motion as a starting point, which addresses the height issue. So, I'll. I'd like to move a motion that was provided earlier, please. Thank you very much. Thank you. That's the whole motion. Yeah, is that right? No, the motion I provided was, the motion as provided by staff with the addition in red, I'm not moving an amendment I'm moving a motion this is the first proposal. Karen Finzel 28:26.200
Can I just ask a question Through the Chair please? Yes Karen. Given I was talking about an amendment and you've put this motion on the table. Is this the right order to go through, a motion before you approved the application up? Absolutely. Frank Wilkie 28:50.833
Because before you can provide an amendment you need a motion to start with and I'm starting with a motion which you're free to amend. Frank Wilkie 29:59.600
Okay, that, we're getting there, except, um. Instead of saying, with condition 13, building height to be amended to read, just say, read. So the motion is that Council note the report by the acting coordinator, planning, to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2023 regarding application number MCU220051 5.1, for a development permit for Material Change of Use, hardware and trade supplies situated at 178 Eumundi Road, Noosaville and approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment 1 with condition 13 building height to read maximum height of the development must not exceed 10 metres above the ground level including the exposed portion of the external facade of the building for excavation is undertaken and be note the report is provided in accordance with section 635 of the Planning Act 2016 2008.2000. We have a seconder for that please. Karen Finzel 31:11.064
Through the Chair just before we proceed, before that gets seconded can we amend that to also address the areas where it doesn't comply to our Transport Strategy with regards to bicycle spaces end-of-trip facilities? Frank Wilkie 31:29.872
That's not the in answer to your question, no. The appropriate time would be for the motion which is now seconded to be, I'll speak to it. Then if you wish to amend this motion you can add the changes you'd like to see, Councillor Finzel, as an amendment. That would be the correct process. Karen Finzel 31:50.452
Sorry, I didn't hear anyone second the motion. Frank Wilkie 31:53.172
That's alright, it's been seconded by Councillor Stewart. The reason I've moved this is because the planning scheme stipulates 10 of this metres in this area. In the this surrounding zone. The surrounding buildings are 10 metres, with the exception the existing Bunnings building, which is 12 metres in height. That was approved under planning scheme appeal under the Sunshine Coast Council. But the difference is that the existing Bunnings store, its impact on the streetscape is lessened because it's so far back from the street. It is a long, way And there is significant landscaping. The intention of the planning scheme and the height limit is to make sure that there's not an overly domineering impact on the streetscape of a building facade. Have an over-height building so close to the street would have a negative impact on the street amenity. It's over height, there's not as much potential for landscaping to mitigate the streetscape, 10 metres. Is the height of the surrounding buildings such as resident hero. Officeworks, eleven 11 to 13 Vision Court and the Gateway Drive frontage buildings on the opposite side at all 10 metres or less in height. This just makes it consistent with what's there already. We can't do much about the 12 metre high existing Bunnings building because it was approved under the Sunshine Coast Council who did resist the 12 metre height but that was mitigated by it being so far back from the streetscape. I think it's important that we do what we can to mitigate the impact on the streetscape of an oversized building. There's no real, in my opinion, valid reason for allowing an obviously over-height building in this location when all the others are 10 metres. That's the reason for the motion for your consideration. Councillor Stewart. Stockwell, you've got your I'm sorry. Up. SPEAKER_07 34:19.740
I think you may have misinterpreted height of the existing building. The actual wording is 12 metres from natural ground level and nine and a half metres from finished ground level. Staff have confirmed that when we look at the Bunnings building, we see a metre building rather than a 12 metre building and that is two and a half metres lower than the height in this particular application. Amelia Lorentson 34:46.034
I have a question. Frank Wilkie 34:50.534
Sorry, Karen has her hand up as well. She's been waiting patiently. Councillor councillor Finzel? Finzel, you're on mute. Karen Finzel 35:05.367
Thank you. Just a clarification from Councillor Stockwell Through the Chair. Can he clarify, was his comment in relation to existing Bunnings. Brian Stockwell 35:22.474
Bunnings building or the existing Bunnings building is 12 metres from natural ground level, but only 9.5 from the finished ground level. Clare Stewart 35:28.674
So the appearance is 9.5 metres. Brian Stockwell 35:41.000
The front of the existing building. Karen Finzel 35:44.340
Thank you for the clarification and I guess that's where we can condition to remove the pitch so we can bring that down another metre. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 35:53.320
Councillor Lorentson. Question to Nadine. So I just probably need just some clarification because I'm looking at a streetscape elevation that's provided in the report. I'm also looking at just the performance outcome number eight of a medium impact industry zone so the building height of the development is two stories and it's also and please correct me this is my understanding it's consistent with neighbouring development 11 Vision Court and when I'm looking at the streetscape apple the application or the building height will be consistent with the existing adjoining development in Vision Court so there will be no difference. Am I reading this right? That was staff's interpretation of the performance outcome so it would recommend an approval on the basis that there's no difference. Thank you, okay. Frank Wilkie 37:01.773
Councillor to staff, can you explain why you tried to negotiate 10 metres from with the applicant? Nadine Gordon 37:08.962
No, height in Noosa is a very controversial matter. We generally stick very closely to our heights and we're challenged with it every day. We go to court regularly over height. So we did try and negotiate with the applicant, especially after our initial discussions at the planning environment meeting. I did ask the applicant whether they would consider amending even thought if they could amend the frontage that maybe that might alleviate some of the councillor's concerns. So my staff recommendation was that I supported the proposal but I have noted that several of the Councillors were concerned so I felt that yes it was a consistent approach. In terms of what was next door. We also had the landscaping next door so there is on the existing Bunnings site that existing building is set right back so we end up with this building which has some landscaping in the front so I felt it was a screened and appropriate to the street but I did try and negotiate on the basis of trying to get a better outcome for the site. Frank Wilkie 38:19.016
Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 38:20.496
Thank you Nadine. Just a question if the two metres is brought metres. What are impacts? Do you know I guess it may not be a question for you about the impacts that would have on the business in the sense of what it could because I know in some of the media they've been quoted as saying help people. Providing a wider range of timber and trade products for customers and improve the overall offer to the local community. So I guess my question is if we do reduce it by two metres is our community suffering in the fact that they you know won't they can't actually provide the services that Nadine Gordon 38:58.140
I've been making as a assumptions. They've indicated they'd be quite strong in saying that for the stacking heights, pallets, that's their current business plan. So we don't know if they could make it work for the building at 10 metres. I have also, we did talk about whether things could be lowered, further excavation and levels and so we have investigated that. Yeah I did that they did indicate that you know they're minimally there are minimum requirements again at grade with vehicles with trucks but also vehicles with trailers getting them through. So we start mucking about with levels, everything should change Council Stockwell you've got your hand up. Clare Stewart 39:48.500
Question the performance outcome on building 5, is that related to a code specific industrial zone? Brian Stockwell 39:58.060
Are you given the building 5 performance outcome, it's POA? Yes I believe so, I don't know it's a zone code, yes it is Thank you. Frank Wilkie 40:11.963
Okay anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 40:15.983
Just coming back to your last point Through the Chair to the staff, during this process was an architectural planner or design advocacy panel asked for their opinion around the architectural design and also secondly given that you feel the removal of the pitch impacts the business, how do you support that? Nadine Gordon 40:46.482
I reduction in the height, Karen, so I can't comment on that. In terms of the architect getting somebody from the panel, the development wasn't considered to be of such a sufficient scale to warrant getting a architect involved in reviewing it. SPEAKER_01 41:03.110
I would not recall any time it was at an architect reviewing an industrial building. Amelia Lorentson 41:12.997
So Nadine, again, just purposes of clarity. You said before that you were trying to seek better outcomes with negotiating the 12 metre height. In terms of bulk and scale, and again I go to existing developments, is it. The report indicates that you're actually quite satisfied that it was in keeping with an industrial zone and the bulk and scale of other industrial buildings within the precinct and that the height was consistent and on a streetscape level was consistent with the property on vision. So again I'm that's correct okay so that was your professional advice and report. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 42:09.700
Councillor Stockwell you've got a question? Brian Stockwell 42:13.660
No I'll speak to the motion. I'll support it. The performance outcome, the building height performance outcome is quite clear. The which is the height so therefore it has to meet from A to F. There are some key areas where I have a different point of view. Will dominate, usually the street and surrounding spaces. I don't believe it responds to the property of the site and minimises cut and fill where on a sloping site. I think we've got conditions there that will achieve a better articulation. I'm particularly concerned that it is absolutely 1.7 metres higher than the development to the north. I'm looking at their revised architectural plans and the RL is 22.83 of this building is 22.20. I'm going to zoom it out again, sorry. 22.5, which means E is a 21.3. It's got a line through it but I believe the top of the venture drive thing reads at 20.83 and this building reads 22.525. So there's an substantial increase in height. Therefore I don't believe it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I don't think it needs it. I think reducing it to 10 metres is something that we perhaps might not the big issue for me is that with an extra 1.7 the fact that the front of the building will give an appearance of 12 metres for some time until we get lots of trees growing in front. But more importantly that northern driveway will be. Ugly vista. The diagram shows a tree there but that tree is actually behind driveway will have a retaining wall similar to what we saw for the neighbouring block and then it'll have a seven metre high blank wall. There's no any of that so to me the overall design doesn't meet the performance outcome. The motion as it sits will help address that. Amelia Lorentson 44:52.810
Can I Through the Chair please request and possibly proceed your motion. That's an important point for me whether the existing adjoining property is. Or isn't going to be consistent with the proposal in front of us. Can I ask for clarification, is Councillor Stockwell correct in saying that it's going to be 1.7 metres below the proposal? I'll need to clarify that. I'll have to pull the plans and make sure in terms. Before I respond to really clarify that. Can we get that by Thursday night when we revisit it? Yeah, I'd like that information before arrive to any decision, please. Thank you. I think just on that, SPEAKER_01 45:39.145
Councillor Lorentson, because there's a pitch to the building, the highest point, you know, you're talking about small hybrid part of building where it's actually at its highest, Patrick Murphy 45:48.769
Where the buildings are sort of adjacent to each other, they are generally consistent. I think the Bunnings building is slightly higher, but as the roof pitch goes up over a set of, you know, a reasonable distance, that increase in height gets exacerbated. Amelia Lorentson 46:03.266
Okay, so it is higher. Karen Finzel 46:07.826
Okay. So then, with regards to the pitch, if, for example, Patrick, it's conditioned to remove the pitch, what will be the reduction in that where you said it's exacerbated? Well, at the corner. Will that help with the bulk and the visual amenity? Patrick Murphy 46:28.622
Northern corner of the building, I think the RL is 21.325 and at its maximum height it's 22.525, so there's 1.2 metres height difference, so there could be a reduction, I would suggest, of approximately a metre that could be achieved. Removing By the pitch, yes. Karen Finzel 46:51.351
Well, I support removal of the pitch because then if that brings us to closest compliance to the planning scheme and helps address what Councillor Stockwell has raised in terms of bulk and amenity, yeah, I would support that. Patrick Murphy 47:09.580
Which I think would bring us closer to 11 metres, I mean that's not so far. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 47:20.584
Which is not the motion in front of us. Before us, okay. Frank Wilkie 47:26.744
Councillor Finzel, are you wishing, that was a question wasn't it, or to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 47:32.648
Well I'm to support the motion in its current format because I would like to further down the track propose that we condition the building to remove the pitch to address the bulk. Frank Wilkie 47:47.969
Is this you speaking to the motion now Karen? Karen Finzel 47:51.309
Yes, I'm speaking to the motion. I won't support the motion for the reasons I've just stated in terms of bulk, visual amenity. And the height to try and get greater compliance to the planning scheme, including hopefully that can address perhaps some articulation with the roof form and with variation to current plan to the pitch, perhaps if we have a flat roof that might address the compliance under articulation materials and finishes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 48:29.130
I suggest you move an amendment to part A that would be perhaps along the lines of condition 13, building height to. Well, actually, I can't put words in your mouth. Karen Finzel 48:48.559
It would be an amendment. If we could reduce the building height through conditioning removal of the pitch, I'm not sure how to word it because I'm not a planner. Sort of along the way of what Patrick said about the height, I think if we could lose that one metre and condition that by amending with very different roof room. Form and we can reach closer to compliance, if someone could help me with the wording, I'd really appreciate it. Frank Wilkie 49:18.716
So, Councillor Finzel, so perhaps the amendment could read the maximum height of the development must not exceed 11 metres above the ground level, including the. Exposed portion of the external facade of the building where excavation is undertaken. This to be achieved by lowering the pitch of the roof. Yes, Karen Finzel 49:39.284
Thank you. Patrick, can I invite your feedback around the technical way that's written to achieve the compliance? Is that okay in your opinion? We could just word it in a way that we require them to remove the pitch from their current design, so instead of it being a pitched roof, it results in a flat roof. 10, If we can get to 10, so we've got compliance with the planning. That's what I'm proposing. Yeah, that's what's proposed. Clare Stewart 50:16.161
I'm proposing, Karen. Thank you, I just can't read what's in front of me, sorry. Frank Wilkie 50:20.481
Oh, you can't read the screen? It's really small, yeah. Okay, Well, that's essentially what's being proposed. If you're wanting it reduced to 10 metres by lowering the pitch of the roof, but if I understood correctly, the staff was saying if you took the pitch out, it would only reduce it down to 11 metres. Yes, that's correct. It would still be over, Karen, if they removed, the pitch of the roof, lowered the pitch. Karen Finzel 50:49.307
So how do we, what do we need to do to get to compliance? Well, this is the motion. That's the motion, before you, which is to, that the maximum height of the development. Must not exceed 10 metres, will achieve compliance with the planning scheme. Right. Oh, yes, that's correct. Thank you. Mr Chair. Okay. Frank Wilkie 51:08.651
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 51:14.508
I have another question, Nadine. So again, I'm sort of sitting here, not as an expert and talking to professionals yourselves and Patrick and Richard, who assessed the application over long period of time and arrived at this decision. Recommendation. For a decision here at Council. So my question to you is, I'm guessing that you've already had these conversations with the applicant. Can you run through the response? So I'm sort of running off a little bit. Clare was saying just before, is there an economic or a physical or trade reason why they've put in 12 metres? You referenced, you know, from trailers and it's trade. Complex. I think we're forgetting what this is actually doing. So my question to you is, have you posed that question about reduction and what was the response given by the applicant during your long time in this space of getting this application to Council? Nadine Gordon 52:31.749
Basically their response was that they required the height. So when you look inside too, there's about six metres clear from their top beam, so they've indicated that must be their pallet stacking height and they've indicated to me that what they work with. So again, I'm not an expert in. Bulk hardwares, going on that's what they have indicated that they would like. I don't know if it can come down, affects their business plan. Could we ask that question before thursday's meeting? Yep, they have come back, as I said, every time I've they have pushed back and said no, that this is what they want. Yes. And they've given their reasonings in terms of the streetscape and what's proposed and what's existing. Yeah. Of course, applicants want higher height, but why did you believe 10 metres would give a better outcome? Rather than a, it's quite an industrial building, but we are in an industrial area. So as a planner, I always like to play around and try and get a better outcome at the front. Something that's, I suppose, as has a more aesthetic look. And that's what I would have liked to achieve. Enjoy. But again, it is an industrial area. We've got maybe tilt up slabs, which have very limited articulation to them. So this has got range of materials. It's got different colour schemes. They've put windows in there that they didn't want to put in originally. We're requiring an eave. So I thought there might have been an ability to perhaps reduce it at the front and perhaps a higher level at the back. But whether that functions for them, I don't know. I have another question about the muted tones that you've conditioned. Are they acceptable to those conditions? Comment to me was that they believe that the green and the white to be of a muted tone. Again, we have our signage policy, our signage local law that talks about you can't have corporate colours, so the bunnies green will probably be a future issue for us. But again, they were very, they were sort of quite clear about wanting to use a white colour. Frank Wilkie 55:00.478
Okay. Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Excuse me, Mr Chair. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 55:06.498
Councillor Finzel online is having a hard time to see, so she's asking if we could please send a screenshot of the wording in the motion. Karen Finzel 55:15.098
Okay. Is that. She said. Thank you. The headshot of Councillor Stockwell has been removed off the motion, so thank you. Frank Wilkie 55:24.618
Can you see it now, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 55:27.439
Yes, I can. Thank you. Clare Stewart 55:29.099
Okay. So, Mr Chair, do we have a procedural motion? I don't understand. So we're debating this one first and then we're going to. Amelia Lorentson 55:35.759
No. No, I was wanting to make a procedural motion just to allow the applicant who has spent some considerable time. With planners if I could just get some information before thursday's meeting before I arrive at least at a decision. That's about the height? Up next door and. Also, no, just why the metres, he was insistent on the 12 metres. What were the reasons? I really wanted to understand that. Frank Wilkie 56:14.479
Councillors, we have a procedural motion to defer the matter to Thursday so that more information can be provided regarding the height of surrounding buildings in relation to what's proposed. Is that correct, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 56:31.959
Yes. Why 12 metres? Is it the logistic? Is it because the machinery? I just want to understand what are the implications of going back down to 10 metres? Clare Stewart 56:45.639
Yes. SPEAKER_01_b 56:56.519
For more information about the product. Frank Wilkie 56:59.160
More information about height the product. Of the surrounding buildings and the reasons for the 12 metre height. The reasons why applicant wants the 12 metres height. SPEAKER_01_b 57:11.455
You'll I'm from the side profile so essentially the first half third of the buildings come down about 2 metres and then there will be a transition stage so potentially you may end up with a staggered building. So one slightly lower front and then it drops, it goes up. Frank Wilkie 57:35.051
No, no, no, just more information. Yes, so that will be circulated via by email prior to that. Thank you Director. Thank you, thank you very much. Do we have a seconder for the procedural motion please? Karen Finzel 57:50.678
Excuse me, can I just put a question to the staff? Yes. Thank you Mr Chair. On page 41 of 75, it says the buildings in the area range in highest fires and it said that Vision Court 11 to 13 was conditioned to 10 metres. That's also got the retaining wall underneath it, Karen. I'd like to just clarify the height of that retaining wall with the building on top of it. Okay, thank you. That's what I was seeking, thank you. We have a seconder for the procedural motion please. Clare Stewart 58:24.212
I can't second it can I? No. Frank Wilkie 58:28.372
It'll have to be either Councillor Stockwell or Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stockwell or Finzel. Are you prepared to second the procedural motion please? Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Yes, thank you Mr Chair. Alright, we'll put the procedural motion to a vote. Those in favour? I can't see. Yes. I that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Staff. Clare Stewart 59:20.046
Sara. Frank Wilkie 59:23.444
Welcome Sara. No, this is the STA deferral. Minor change to development permit for a Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation at 515 Cooroy Noosa Road, Tinbeerwah. Wanting to increase the occupancy. From 8 to 16 people, I believe, the applicant has asked for the matter to be deferred. Is that correct? But if you can talk us through it, that would be great. Yes, the deferral would be the application. Perhaps the application, because it's maybe the first time people in the gallery may have of it or people listening heard it. Sara 59:58.266
So the MCU for Material Change of Use for Short-term Accommodation approved last year for this property. So the original application was for five bedrooms and ten guests on that's site at any one time. Through the assessment process, there to bring it down to eight guests, which was staff Council standard conditioning regarding STAs in these areas. So that was approved with the five bedrooms and the eight guests. So the applicant has now lodged to do a minor change to increase the number of bedrooms from five to six and people on site from eight to 16. So I'm I've of recommended refusal for the application. Through the assessment process it was determined that the change doesn't actually constitute minor change so the development assessment rules include what constitutes It's where the development isn't considered to be substantially different. In terms of this particular development we believe that impacts of the development have increased with this application process. So we've determined that it's not actually a minor change, it should come in as an elder change as part of this process. Additionally, in terms of the scale of the development, it's not considered it's small scale context of the area, the locality that it's seen as predominantly rural and residential development in that area. So you're looking at Karen Finzel 01:01:26.421
Your stock standard driving houses in that location. So we consider that 16 people on site at any one time, potentially 16 vehicles Clare Stewart 01:01:35.668
Isn't consistent with what you would get in those areas in terms of pay family and buying houses. It's just the clarification, it's only for our records. Page 46 says the original application was considered by Councillor the Ordinary Meeting on the 20th of April 2020. And then on next page you've got 20 April 2023. So the original would have been 2023, sorry? Amelia Lorentson 01:02:02.171
Yes, so that should be 2023. Can I do another pick up? I think it's actually the 27th 2023, not the 20th of April. Just for clarity. So I went looking for it is the reason why, yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:02:19.934
Anyway, there's the applicant has made a request. Good point. That's right. Karen Finzel 01:02:23.073
Thank you. So the applicant's consultant has requested to defer until next round. So last week I was thinking that this wasn't going to make it to the general committee. So we've spoken to Russell Green from IG Strategic and said we'll go to the no gamble round. The meantime it made meeting. So russell's got some concerns he doesn't have a chance to review the report and to get to his client about. Can we seconder have for the move? We a mover and a seconder for the motion? Lorentson. Sorry Karen, just a bit slow off the mark. Any discussion? Amelia Lorentson 01:03:06.756
A quick question. Thank you Karen. Councillor Lorentson has a question. Just There's additional comments on the report on page that the property's been advertised online, that it doesn't contrary treat the conditions of the approval. It's also not been issued an approval under the local law and it's now subject to short stay letty local or team for further investigation. General question: what are the consequences or implications of not complying with our Short Stay Local Law. SPEAKER_01_b 01:03:54.384
The team would investigate the matter. It's sort of tied in with to some degree with this application because councils are very able to increase in the amount of numbers. 16 then it would be reasonable to put out the approval order to put in the change application to the local law to increase the numbers. If council's not agreeable then there would need to be some compliance action taken. My understanding is that the local even been issued in this state. So that's the First Point of view. We need to get an approval on the local law, an application for approval made and that application should be received from where Council goes with this application. Again, if Council doesn't agree to request it, we'd be seeking an application for the April. If they don't comply with that, request, then we can take some influence and action under the local law, which aims is from issuing infringement and we can also move forward with a request, you know, to put forward that the application be suspended or cancelled or other options that are available to us. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:05.629
So I'm confused. So we're considering a an application that hasn't complied with our local law and that's okay. It's not okay. Bridge. They're in breach. Bridge. Of the local law, yeah. And does that take SPEAKER_01_b 01:05:23.867
Necessary steps in terms of the local law element? So as it stands they have an approval or plate. I guess what patrick's highlighted in the report is that they're advertising for more than what they have approval for. So that requires investigation. So there's two elements to it. Needs investigation and that'll happen separately. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:50.148
So the process is run differently, not concurrently. Yep. Okay. Good question. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 01:05:57.648
Any further discussion or questions on the motion to defer? All in favour? Yes. Councillor Finzel. Thank you. That's carried unanimously. You're welcome. Thank you, Sara. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Richard. Next item, 6.2, Noosa Waters lock and weir, new Fees and Charges for access devices. And we have Liam Tracy and. Mr chairman. Sorry. Michael Balestra. Oh, excuse me. Mr chairman. Yes, Councillor Stockwell. I'm out. Hang on. I'm going to have to leave the meeting. I am fading fast, so I can't you there, but if you just want to acknowledge that I left the meeting at this point in time, please. I just want to check. We'll have a quorum. Councillor Stewart will be out for conflict of interest. So it's myself, Amelia and Karen, which is. Yes? If we have you, Brian, we don't have a quorum. Okay, well, I'll just. Can you hang in there? Okay, I'll stay in the night. I might be absent just for a few minutes. Okay, thank you. We'll note that you're unwell. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:07:05.981
I'd better declare. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I've declared a conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Noosa Waters Lock & Weir new Fees and Charges for access as I am a resident of Noosa Waters and contribute to the levy and regularly utilise system. As a result of my conflict of interest, I'll now leave the meeting room where the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:07:25.686
Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Okay, Liam and Michael, would you like to come to the table and talk us through this report, please? Hello, Liam. Hi. What are we looking at here with these new devices? Liam Tracy 01:07:46.360
So, as part of the upgrade, we had an opportunity to upgrade the access system for the lock and weir. So, this new system will allow residents the option of purchasing a wireless access remote, which will bring it in line with other locks on the Coast. So, we brought this upgrade in talks with Noosa Waters Residents Association and basically the current system only allows card access. So, with the upgrade you'll still have access to manoeuvre through the lock with a card, which will be in the shape of a pod now. But residents will also have the option of purchasing a wireless remote where they'll be able to not go up to the car beaters, they'll just drive through and action the lock with the wireless remote. So, we're just proposing to include this council's Fees and Charges targets. Frank Wilkie 01:08:42.797
This is all part of the upgrade to the Noosa Waters lock and weir system. How's that going? SPEAKER_07_b 01:08:46.657
Yeah, it's going well. Currently on program. The gates have been removed, the old actuators and motors. And new gates will be installed next week and we're on track for opening on November 13th, as previously outlined. Frank Wilkie 01:09:04.777
Thank you. Any questions, Councillors, for staff? This is Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:09.817
Hey, Liam. Thank you for the report. In terms of, so as an old Noosa water resident, you know, most residents have a boat and need access in and out of the lock and weir. I note in the report that the residents were consulted by the Noosa Waters Residents Association. So my question to you is, are all residents members of the association? SPEAKER_07_b 01:09:41.858
I'm not actually too sure about that, but I know that they did meet with them and discuss that and that's how this issue was brought up with meeting with residents, so. SPEAKER_02_b 01:09:54.576
Okay, can I ask a, yeah, thank you. SPEAKER_01_b 01:09:58.336
My understanding is that we're not, but we do operate through the association as the sort of the central point for us. Again, this is about an opt-in exercise, so they still have the fob or card, you know, a fob if it wasn't a card, SPEAKER_02_b 01:10:12.254
And that's included in their, current fees, they already have that, it's just a spot changer. If they've already got one, continue on as. If they want a second one, it would cost them $90. To go to the remote, $191. Fantastic. I'm thinking some of them might not be able to get in and out if they don't know about it. SPEAKER_07_b 01:10:35.300
It's outlined in you, but it's as per current department guidelines for it. And you do need to have two boat registered access devices. So you can have a combination of FOB or wireless, but a second registered vessel. SPEAKER_02_b 01:10:55.046
Thank you very much. Frank Wilkie 01:10:57.346
I can't see online councillors. Do you have any questions for staff? Karen Finzel 01:11:02.211
I have no questions. I'd like to thank Liam for the report. It's comprehensive and I think it's probably well overdue and I'm sure the residents are really excited to get up to speed and have this upgraded to match other, what's in other areas. So thank you. Great. Would someone care to move the motion? Frank Wilkie 01:11:24.169
Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? No. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. Councillor Stockwell, thank you for hanging in there. Please recover, get well. We've got a quorum now for the financial reports now that Councillor Stewart has returned. Thank you. Councillor Finzel, you have a question? Sorry, that was my hand raised for the motion before. Us, I have removed it. All thank right, Okay. Thank you, Liam. Thank you, Michael. Well done. Thank you, guys. Next is the Financial Performance Report and we have Acting Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf, to talk us through it in the absence of Pauline. Mr Trent, please go ahead and talk us through it. Good afternoon, Councillors. Trent Grauf 01:12:29.820
Presenting to you this afternoon the financial report for September 2023, which marks one quarter through the financial year. Performance for September is positive. Operating revenues are outperforming the forecast and operating spending is slightly under forecast at this one quarter mark in the financial year. As you break that down further. Operating revenue is $1.6 million above budget and that's a mix of $978,000 due to interest revenue. We'll unpack more shortly. $700,000 from goods and services which is a mix of base disposal fees as well as revenue from all health care. Of our parts of $738,000 and from our other community facilities such as the NAC, The J and the Leisure Centre. Noting that those facilities do have offsetting additional costs associated with maintenance and operating. This there's is an additional term. $2,000 for operational grants. Again, noting that they will have an expenditure requirement. Associated with inflation in the financial year. In terms of Fees and Charges, that's slightly below budget of $239,000. It's due to parking fees, timing of fees through our. As well as regulatory from building and plumbing assessment. In terms of operating expenditure, we have $299,000 underspent year to date. That's a combination of employee costs, which are $491,000 on budget, and insurers and services, which is $169,000 over budget. That leaves us with a net operating position, as at September, of $1.9 million of our budget, forecast estimates. Now, noting that our BR1 budget, adopted is deficit position, what we will do is. Impose for BR2 is this additional upside will bring Council back into a surplus position for the BR2 budget as it is not devoted in accordance with the year. In terms of containment or constraint of those cash funds and surpluses, 1. Million of the surplus is unconstrained from our general revenue. There is 0.7 million related to business operations such as holiday parks and waste and there is 200,000 from ladies. Now if we look through some of the details in the report, tourism and economic development levy remains on budget year-to-date. As with previous schools quarters, we also have two deep dives in the report. One is our legal cost summary, which shows a deep dive that legal costs are currently low budget. Again, early in the financial year and it may fluctuate depending on the progress of legal matters such as. And the other deep dive is in relation to cash components. Capital revenue is above budget due to significant grants in advance. Me, what's your name? Bridges renewal, now glastonbury bushfire, QRA disaster funding and all those funds are sitting constrained in our cash reserves I'm sure they're spent later in the year now in regards to our cash holdings, we currently have $135 million in cash reserves. Now noting that of that funding, $58 million is in. Terms of unspent grants, levies, disaster recovery, and landfill rehabilitation. This training line commuted over the next year, under SAC and capital works, and they're required to hold $28 million to meet our three-month cash cover requirements. And there is $18 million in what we call working capital, which is the fund for the rest of the Council operations during the year. That leaves a forecast of $2 million for long-term unrestricted available cash, which is lower than our previous quarter report $4 of.5 the 5 million, mil and that due to our forecast of our operating circles for the last financial year being slightly lower. Our base budget where we adopted a slight draw on capital works for new and upgraded works and coming into BR2 anticipated plus variations for capital works for projects such as our VHS and the cent provision. And at this stage, we close. Council's promotion, all those in favour? Clare Stewart 01:17:24.872
Thank you, Trent. Always very comprehensive. Could you elaborate a bit on the 1. General operating surplus, please? Trent Grauf 01:17:32.826
Sure. As you will see in the report, whilst we have the total Council operating there are elements of our operations that are the cash if we do have a surplus or unspent, that cash is constrained. So, for example, if we don't spend all of our levies in the financial year, that cash gets set aside if we generate surplus from of course, our no waste activities, the intent is under our reserves and cash policy, those funds get set aside to invest in increased diversion and recovery activities by our waste business and what that does leave is what we call a general business, which is general operations for. Businesses. Areas such as environment operations, civil works, finance in my area, HR, those sort of libraries and galleries, all those core areas of expenditure. The chance of general revenue, is it's our average. General rate, our interest revenue and our Fees and Charges, and that nets off to $1 million there. Clare Stewart 01:18:38.389
And the $58 million held in restricted cash? Can you talk to that too? $58 million seems like a lot of money. Just an explanation. Trent Grauf 01:18:49.255
Sure. I'm going to take a break, guys. Glasses back on. That helps me say it again. So we have a, we restrict our cash under our reserves and restricted cash policy. We have external restricted cash do is there are certain cash elements of that $58 million that are required under the Local Government Act. And so that's unspent levy money from prior years. It's developer contributions for----or any trunk infrastructure charges to developers, unspent grants and subsidies because we need to ensure that those grants are received and used for the purpose required. That external restricted cash is nearly $38 eight million. Then in terms of internal cash and the council's decision on what it would restrict, there's $3.6 million of a disaster, natural contingency fund. There's $3 million of plant replacement, we have timing on our plants and our fleet replacement, we've got quite a lead time for securing particularly equipment like packers and excavators, so that's something happened from prior year. $10 million in waste, which is primarily for rehabilitation of the landfill cell, which is occurring this year and next year. There's some significant site rehabilitation on the current cell. Some other minor restricted cash, which is $20 million for smaller parts of work, such as environmental offsets, etc. Clare Stewart 01:20:24.499
And Trent, we're still pretty high in our cash expense cover. We're supposed to have all three months, and we've actually got 14.6, and we've been consecutively high for a number of months. So we're carrying more cash, or we're carrying fair amount of cash. Does that come back into the reasons that we have to for at all? The expenses that we're still going to incur? Trent Grauf 01:20:47.411
So the cash cover is currently for ambulances. In total, if you look at the ratios. Before you take out the externally restricted which is the legislative requirements of the cash for those unspent grants, it comes back to 10 months cash dollar. Internally restricted for that disaster rehabilitation etc and we're only down to marginally over three months. If you consider that there's 28 million which is our three months cash dollar, which is the requirements that if you had a disaster or a major sustainability matter that keeps Council operating for three months and legislative requirements, we only had two million dollars over and above that, just free cash. So we're probably where we should be. Clare Stewart 01:21:35.561
Thank you. Trent Grauf 01:21:37.181
I do understand that base seems like a lot. When you consider the amount of grants in advance, we're about to kick off major works as we commence some of the disaster rehabilitation. Around the Shire, particularly around black Black Mountain. Yep. And some of the other grant funds including our waste levy funds that we've received from the clients. We're holding that for three to five years before we wind that. So there's a lot of cash that is contained and not free cash. Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:22:03.620
No, no. I have a few more, going but I was to let put them late. Everyone else crack and I'll come back. SPEAKER_02_b 01:22:08.096
Sure. Councillor Lorentson. So in terms of, I'll just continue where clare's left, unrestricted free cash, $2 million, is that enough? I've been in Council four now and I think it started at about nine. Should we be worried? Trent Grauf 01:22:29.000
Okay, so this year's part top of the budget process, prices we, our cash cover and our consideration of cash requirements, which is quite heavily, we actually start with our liquidity requirements and we start the discussion through the budget process to set our requirements. It sets the target for how much we should be spending on capital works and also ensures that when we have our reviews for what works get included and what that cash availability is the threshold to ensure we have enough cash. The challenge for us as an organisation, as a small Council, is those capital works do have more free cash to side and it's generating a larger surplus. It means higher rate rise. So it's important through the budget process, as we do each year, we find the right balance between charging a sustainable rate rise and getting free cash for capital works. The importance is that balance of ensuring that our priorities for new upgraded. Works are appropriate to just clarify, if you meet have the any needs questions, of the please feel free organisation. To ask them in Q&A and just to close with that, every second year is part of that funding requirement. If we want to borrow loans through our Queensland treasury funding authority, they only are in take the sake a of credit in the morning or the evening or last night. I believe, every review since we've been delegated, we've remained sound like a neutral network. So there's no decline in our sustainability. SPEAKER_02_b 01:23:56.264
As an organisation, if any, but remain at a very small level of thank you, and that's what I was hoping you were going to say. In terms of the tourism and economic development investment summary, so. Is funded through the general rate, but who actually pays? Everyone? Or can you give some clarity? A question that's always asked before it was really clearly articulated. You had a levy and it was the tourist operators that paid towards the levy. Trent Grauf 01:24:31.590
Yes, now so if you wind that to the mine, the that's the mine, of tourism economic levy, what we did was at the time when that levy was unwound and we moved it into general rate, a piece of work we did at the same time was to adjust what we call our rate in the dollar or our category rate charges for non so it was just transitory but obviously commercial, industrial, extractive, all non-residential property owners that were otherwise paying the Tourism and Economic Development Levy, their rate in the dollar charge was increased so essentially the general rate was increased to match. That is one of the reasons why there is a relativity or pricing difference in our rates and charges between what is a residential property and non-residential property. Now we don't, because it's general rate, we don't constrain the difference and any unspent funds at the end of the year. Talked about the train funds. The differential in the rate still exists between residential and non-residential and one of the reasons is that levy that we moved across into the general rate three years ago. SPEAKER_02_b 01:25:44.551
Oh I'm still a little bit confused Trent, sorry. So everyone pays. Is that what you're saying? Trent Grauf 01:25:52.697
It is part of the general rate but the rating structure, the way we charge for different properties, there is a higher charge for commercial for non-residential embedded is the funding indirectly, even though it's fund, the reason there is a difference in price is because of that. So it's absorbing that levy through the rates. Okay, got it. Is still generally allocated. Yep. Frank Wilkie 01:26:29.728
But in terms of the pricing structure, there is a higher pricing structure to affect Okay thank you. Okay, just to go back to a question that was asked earlier, how much free cash did we begin this term with and now we've got two million? Can't say exactly how much. We have a lot of emergent works and-- cost flow. Trent Grauf 01:26:45.146
- That There's a couple of elements in there. One is obviously during the election term, we have paid off. We paid off early in $10 million of debt. That's right. Was in year two. Three, we then went through a process of actually refinancing our debt. The interest rates were the lowest. We re-financed refinanced what was previously held at six, seven interest rates, and we refixed it at 3.2%. Which is fixed for 20 years, so it's obviously set us up for some very sound sustainability in the future. Frank Wilkie 01:27:22.044
The second time we paid off a large amount? Trent Grauf 01:27:27.180
Rest now, of the world, we've had, you know, obviously, over the last four months, we've had, in you 12, 18 months, not just us, but the entire building sector. Has experienced significant supply chain and price increase pressures, and that has been some of the key drivers behind that marginal erosion of the remaining free cash. Yeah. Now, as opposed to the organisations whose capital is less effective, entry of the capital budget review evaluates price increase pressures with delivery pressures, and where the project should proceed will be the way to ensure that, overall, you don't continue to absorb price increases if there are cost pressures on materials such as steel or concrete timber. We'll reassess the scope and timing of other works around to ensure that we keep that financial sustainability buffer of our cash. Clare Stewart 01:28:18.637
We've also delivered the largest ever capital infrastructure projects the history of Noosa Council I in think its we've term. Got a couple more questions. Thank you. On page 75, I'm looking at the top three where we've incurred additional expenditures. When I say that the most significant increase is Trent. So contributions, donations, sponsorship. And prizes. Legal expenses and software and maintenance. Can you just talk me through those because when I just went down that list that was where it caught my eye. Okay. Starting with the contributions, donations, sponsorships and prizes. Trent Grauf 01:29:07.016
So in terms of contributions, that can be primarily related to our grant programs. So obviously we had a grant program on the agenda this morning. The variation you'll find in relation to the grant programs will be timely, but I'll confirm that and come back to you. Our grant programs are set each year, so when we allocate a certain amount of funding for a particular grant program, whether that's SEND or whether community grants or our environment grants, that amount is fixed. So if we've got a variance there, that would be a timely assumption on whether we're repeating and giving that money back to the community groups. So that hopefully should just The second one was in relation to software and maintenance. That is there's a couple of matters there. One is Council is currently as a vacant position in the role of our ICT manager, who we are about to convince commence another round of robust recruitment. As tomorrow morning, so fingers crossed. I'm looking forward to this process commencing, but to ensure that the security and the particular cyber security of our network and our systems remains robust, one doesn't need to look too far from any news article on any given day to see these cyber incidents. We've supplemented that gap in senior IT technical expertise with consultants. We have, through our contracts in place, through our consultancies, we have firms that we already have in the books who have been supporting and supplementing the expertise SPT step gap. By using those consultants over the last few months. Clare Stewart 01:30:45.697
Coming back to that was one of the major themes of local government conference was cyber security and the fact that all councils across Queensland are just being absolutely inundated with cyber security threats. It's an emerging issue, it's a real problem across all of Queensland. The third one is legal. Trent Grauf 01:31:01.815
As we mentioned in the forecasting that we do a lot of work internally, you'll see the even though we're marginally above year to date, the budget was still not forecasting a full year position, anticipating legal expenses being over budget and we'll continue to monitor that. If at such point, particularly through the second quarter review, and it's looking high, we'll bring a further. Go into that and address that through a budget review if needed. SPEAKER_02_b 01:31:31.242
Cool, thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:31:33.062
Trent, I have a question about expenditure for permanent staff salaries and wages underspent $916,000 due to position vacancies partially offset by. On cash casual staff. But maybe it's a question for you Mr Chair, how many staff are we down? Can you quantify that? Larry Sengstock 01:31:56.812
Actually it's really difficult question to answer on daily basis but I don't have the exact numbers with me in front. We're keeping costs down. Get one back on the treadmill to the generator. But we are experiencing like every business, like every Council, a reasonable turnover. We've reduced our turnover of staff in recent times, so we're happy with that. But nevertheless, just as Trent said, you know, we're still looking for a manager for ICT, which is. We've been out to the market once, twice, so far. So we're looking at a different method. We're out in the market for a manager of feed and seek, people and culture, as well at the moment. So while those positions, and they're usually high-level. In organisations. So whilst they're not being built, then that's where the savings or the difference in the money is. And then we're looking to supplement that with consultants or contractors where we can to make sure that we keep our coverage, keep the business ticking over. So it's just unfortunately it's just hard to do business people move on. We've done a lot of work over the last 12, 18 months to stem the flow, and we think we're on the right path there, but it's still happening. It's just part of the business, nature of the work. Frank Wilkie 01:33:20.919
During the last year, our former CEO quantified about at 100 staff, startups. 100 vacancies you're trying to fill. Is it, have we improved on that situation since then? Larry Sengstock 01:33:33.059
My understanding is we've improved, but again, when you say 100 staff, there's casual staff, there's all sorts of staff in that. It's not 100 out of 500 staff or 450 staff. That's not the, you know, it's that's not quite that simple. But in terms of further staff, yes, there are some gaps, and there's constant gaps that we're looking to fill. But again, it's having the right, you know, getting the right people back to fill those positions as well. Difficult, it's just a hard market. Frank Wilkie 01:34:02.816
And how many staff are able to live in Noosa Shire? What percentage of our staff live outside of the Shire? I think the majority out now. I think it's the same percentage. We're close to that, close to half the number of staff. Karen, do you have any questions? Yes, Karen, your you've got hand up. Yes, Karen Finzel 01:34:21.590
Thank you. Firstly, thank you for the report and your comprehensive responses, Trent, today to the questions. We have, the Councillors, have just returned from the LGAQ annual conference. There was a panel discussion which was quite rigorous around cost shifting at the conference. Which was really interesting and how those costs often come back to local Council can you tell me a little bit about what processes we have in place or risk mitigation to try and minimise the impacts of cost shifting around yeah thank you Trent Grauf 01:35:05.521
I think the key for us as an organisation is the way we budget and the approach we take and this has been subject to previously years independent QAO the Queensland Audit Office review when we start the budget process what Noosa Council has which a lot of councils don't have at this point is a robust service level catalogue so our starting point for any of the doers of an organisation when we start the budget process is to look at everything we do whether that's the opening hours the facility, the library, to the amount of hectares of bushland that we're maintaining to fire reserves and trail clearing around that through all of our activities and obviously within each of those there's a risk of service level increase or service level creep and sometimes that's necessary to ensure recyclers sustainable service delivery. Other times it can be cost shifting between other agencies or other tiers of government. That then helps us inform any requests through the which we start very early in the piece in December at an officer level to quantify that increase and ensure there's a budget BID for that and we've got the cost implications clear on the table because that comes it to prioritise any service level increase or cost shift comes at the expense of either a rate increase or priority of funds elsewhere so we bring that through the budget process each year. Does that help Karen? Yes Karen Finzel 01:36:42.752
Thanks Trent. Just going on from that some of the discussion was around say for example if we get funding from a project for infrastructure Bill for example across from several you know different buckets of money where do we then constrain cash or I don't know look at how we then cost and manage the life of the infrastructure where does the money do we have to pull that then from our own budget or is there a way that we can try and get that through the budget or get that constraint. Constrained Trent Grauf 01:37:21.027
I can answer that as well, Councillor. Can't look you you'll find a financial sustainability policy which is part of the process behind the budget it talks about whole of life costing and what we require for all of our major projects as part of the feasibility stage and then beyond that once we have detailed design is a whole of life cost exercise so that we know before we make the decision on a major piece of infrastructure with the England playground might be a good example of that or a recent one that's been constructed or the prism beach community house or a number of larger ones that were constructed over the last few years before we get to commencing the construction before we make the final decision to proceed with the project we have we've already identified what the cost is of operating and maintaining that depreciation or what the asset degradation is that we need to put aside so that we have enough money in 10, 20, 30 years to rehabilitate and replace the components of the asset so the moment this decision is made we embed that in the budget 10 year financial plan so we're aware of it particularly for large scale ones because the cost increase could be isn't $10,000 here $10,000 there it could be triple $300,000 which could be up to a half percent pay rise so we embed that early so that it's informed the commitment for the cost increase is there and transparent through the feasibility that's what it's going to cost to run long term. Karen Finzel 01:38:48.810
Thanks Trent that's a great response thank you with clarity it's good thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:38:54.230
Anyone care to move the motion? I will. Councillor Stewart? Happy to move it. Seconded by Councillor of finances. Finlayson. Thank you. Councillor Stewart? Clare Stewart 01:39:04.086
Thanks Trent, always very comprehensive and really good to explain about that the cash holdings are and what's restricted because people would see these huge numbers you know but there is background to that where there is restricted cash required to have, there's also have internally. There's also a lot of upcoming emergent works that we need so we're probably running the money about that two million and coming back to what we should be in regard to our cash expense cover which I always look at. Again our target is more than three months we've got 14.6 but you're saying when you bring that back together. It is at about a bit over the three months so about five six months so we're in a good position there. We have a lot on and you know this is you know we sat a little bit at risk on the weekend, on Friday. Feels like the weekend. And there is a huge amount that you guys take on your shoulders so I want to thank you and Pauline on the finance team because there is so many aspects of this business there's the holiday and parks and the waste I also hope. Think we need to shout out because I believe they're at point seven they're hundred thousand dollars increase in their revenue over the last little bit which was noted so I think that's also fantastic I know Kyron and Robin have been working really hard in that space the revenue generation which is great to see thank you for answering my questions that I had and always appreciate the report Frank Wilkie 01:40:30.259
Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Wilkinson. SPEAKER_02_b 01:40:32.959
I just want to acknowledge yourself Pauline and your team Trent. Who treat. We don't speak or express our gratitude enough monster job you guys have got enough or and it's a big business every time I come to an Ordinary Meeting it's the word I'm overwhelmed by this organisation does you know billion dollars worth of assets which and over plus 100 million dollars per annum I think our staff around the 500 mark thank you and can you just team our gratitude thank you. Councillor Finzel. Yes Karen Finzel 01:41:22.480
Thank you Mr Chair no further comments just following on from Councillor Lorentson just our thanks back to the staff we value and appreciate the work they do and if you could just express that to everyone. That would be fantastic thank you Frank Wilkie 01:41:38.448
One of the other things that became clear during the local government conference was that over half councils in Queensland 46 run deficit budgets and struggle to meet their costs we're not in that position we have sound financial position thanks mainly because of the practices you've put in place and yes your predecessors Trent so thank you very much. No. I put the motion those in favour. That is unanimous. Oh hey we've got Karen yes Clare Stewart 01:42:10.360
Thank you. Karen thank you Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:42:15.403
There's no confidential session. Declare the meeting closed. Thank you Councillors. Thank you Mr CEO. Thank you Trent. SPEAKER_02_b 01:42:23.103
Thank you Linda and Vicky. Thank you everyone. Clare Stewart 01:42:28.723
Thank you Karen. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
