General Committee Meeting, 23 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 Director Development And Regulation Richard MacGillivray Apologies (Did Not Attend)
Meeting Transcript
Clare Stewart 00:00.205
Good to go. Frank Wilkie 00:01.021
Okay. Alright, 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 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. Clare Stewart 00:42.244
I'll move it. Frank Wilkie 00:44.487
The resolution moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. The motion is that in accordance with section 254 2 I'll of 254k 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 no presentation. We have 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. But Kim and Bec, would you care to talk us through the report, please? Oh, sorry. Thank you. I've just reminded, we have, we need to confirm the Minutes from last month's General Committee how 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? Karen Finzel 01:58.506
There's a technical issue with the camera, I'm happy to say yes. Frank Wilkie 02:04.204
Thank you. Yeah, or your hand, the symbol would be fine. Thank you. It's on the screen, Mr Chair. Thank you, Karen. That's carried unanimously. Now we've come to the Zero Emissions Noosa (ZEN) 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? The resort. Thank you. Annie Nolan 02:41.207
Good afternoon everybody. The report you have in front of you is regarding the partnership agreement with zero emissions and it basically Noosa inc. Outlines and it basically outlines a three a-year. Three-year partnership with Noosa. Sorry, Zero Emissions Noosa, and goes through the funding requirements, the reporting, requirements, intellectual property, obligations of each party, indemnity, termination of. 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 transform. 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 opportunities, 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 transport emissions 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 ZEN Inc., I just wanted to quickly run through some statistics here, in that they have a number of links to our Corporate Plan and they have and through their volunteer hours they believe that they add at least three hundred fifty thousand dollars to their community to this community on an annual basis through all their various activities so this report is actually asking that we authorise the directors Director Strategy and 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 out on as part of the yearly budget process and as for this year um 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 a conflict of interest contract clause of so interest closed 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 in relation to 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 06:17.833
Just to clarify that would be covered by part B of the recommendation that you would be authorising the Director Strategy and Environment to make minor changes to the partnership agreement prior to execution. That's correct. Thank you. Questions, Councillors? Amelia Lorentson 06:33.923
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 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 of community grants. There's a lot of volunteer organisations that really run a risk of burnout. So has that been discussed at Council level? Annie Nolan 07:11.528
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. Okay. I'm happy to make comments. Through thanks, the Chair if that's appropriate. Frank Wilkie 07:28.205
Kim. Thank you. Kim Rawlings 07:30.247
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 partnership arrangement with the 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. Council are 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, sorry, the community and the environment grants. And the alliance grants are very much around multi-year opportunities to help sort of capacity of organisations. Karen Finzel 08:29.614
So there are a couple of avenues. Kim Rawlings 08:32.956
One that exists and one that we will continue to explore. Frank Wilkie 08:36.308
Thank you, Ken. Thank you. Any other Councillors on the line have any questions? Someone care to move the motion? Move Councillor Lorentson. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Stewart? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 08:51.044
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 that's huge. Efforts and achievements do get noticed at Council and community level. So thank you. Frank Wilkie 09:25.785
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 09:27.916
I agree. I think, 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 the success of the community battery, which is a $500,000 grant to our community. And as Annie has said, this all is already in the budget. It's already been accounted for, so there'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 I'm very grateful and happy you. Frank Wilkie 10:05.528
Councillor Stewart. Any Councillors on the line wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 10:11.475
No, thank you Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 10:12.957
Thank you Councillor Finzel, thank you Councillor Stockwell. I'd just like to add to the comments made by Councillor Stewart and lawrenceon. 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 economy. Community. 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. Teas team's all here. Yes. This was referred to 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 11:50.341
I'm sorry, I'm standing in the room. No, it's okay. Okay, afternoon everyone. This is an application for a Material Change of Use for a hardware and trade centre supplies at 178 Eumundi-Noosa Road. It's the very northern portion of the Bunnings site, which is currently vegetated. So it's not facing Noosa-Eumundi Road. It's actually down on Gateway Drive, opposite or near the kitchen place, which I've forgotten what it's called. This is a proposed. Proposal for a new--- Sorry? Hero, that's correct, yes. So it's an application for a two-storey building on the site. It has a total floor area of 1,087 square metres across two levels. The proposal is for 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 higher quality items such as more expensive power tools, etc. The applicant is 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, retail business type 6 hardware, and retail business type 7 garden and lifestyle centre. 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 at 12 metres, and then the back of it as the site it is back filled 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 higher levels of pilot storage. There's also a significant cross-fall, and it is an industrial site, so there is extensive effort proposed. It is slightly lower than the surrounding sites, 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 that Vision Court building as well. I also note that this new building is 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. For a muted colour scheme, that's condition 7, included in that. And basically staff are recommending approval of the application. Frank Wilkie 16:37.973
Thank you. I can't see the Councillors online. Thank you. Question? Karen? Karen Finzel 16:48.135
Yes, thank you Mr Chair, thank you for your feedback Nadine. Just have a question about the height of the existing Bunnings building. Is that 12 metres? No, I don't believe so. How do you know the height of that? Nadine Gordon 17:01.495
I think it would be 10 Karen. I don't believe it's over height. Frank Wilkie 17:10.208
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, in the report it says existing Bunnings store 12 metres from natural ground level. Is that the existing building Mr Chair? Is that the one you were asking about? Yes, the existing Bunnings is 12 metres from natural ground level. Nadine Gordon 17:37.425
And 9.5 from finish level. Karen Finzel 17:40.975
12. And where's the fall of the ground level on the existing building? Is that towards the back of the block or the front? Nadine Gordon 17:48.222
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. Karen Finzel 18:07.721
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? Can could you just have a quick show of those? Nadine Gordon 18:26.341
No, not the email, the streetscape views. I'll just send a couple of streetscape views. This one is called the--- This is, that's right, that'd be great. So this is just that this is just Google streetscape this morning so but it gives a good indication so Karen this is actually in front of the existing access into Bunnings so you can look down oops. Sorry. You can let them. Where those two arrows right-hand arrows are that's the second access into the site well down from Eumundi-Noosa Road and the roundabout. So where the existing 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 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. That's probably, oh you could go down. So you can see, this is the elevation. This is the northern elevation. 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 20:25.710
Okay, Brian, do you have a question? Brian, you're muted. Brian Stockwell 20:36.404
Yes, I think I heard said that this building would be not higher than the one to the north. But if I look at Figure 6, it appears to be at least a metre higher. Can you clarify that please to the starting point? And the top part of Figure 6? Nadine Gordon 20:58.324
Page 14. The pitch is slightly higher, 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. Brian Stockwell 21:18.460
Communicator, the big concern to me is we've highlighted the height of that retaining 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 21:45.825
Could you move to a question please? Brian could you move to a question please? Sorry I didn't hear that. Could you move to a question please? Is there a question here? Brian Stockwell 22:01.448
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 22:18.362
Is there any scope to landscape it we go back to that street view please. Nadine Gordon 22:25.680
One just roll up keep going up I think that one so Brian there will be a. Clare Stewart 22:36.497
In front so a lot of that existing vegetation is to be retained. Nadine Gordon 22:40.592
There will be the building itself is set vegetation is to be retained there will be the building itself is set back six to nine metres so we have the ability from by landscaping and street trees within the frontage which would be which would provide sunscreen when you're coming down Gateway Drive I agree that there is the 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 the opportunity to provide some landscaping from this viewpoint within the frontage of the site I can have a further. In that area where he was going to go and replant a few trees in front introduction of the bio basin is that correct that's correct. Brian Stockwell 23:44.886
Yes now there'd be quite a few years before any vegetation could possibly screen it. Amelia Lorentson 23:53.616
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. Richard MacGillivray 24:10.187
Well we have explored whether they could retain the existing vegetation in the front of the premises so that they don't need all of that to do with the new path that's required to be constructed and other accesses. It's not possible to keep existing vegetation at the front so therefore we'll be requiring some of the landscaping plan and obviously some of the street trees at the front as well as planting and the biobase as well. Unidentified Speaker 24:40.399
These also will serve you for the rest of worth the morning pointing out that when you look down that street that Resident Hero is quite. Patrick Murphy 24:47.044
Visible, quite stark. This building is actually going to be about six metres from the front boundary. I think, I still think that dominant that Resident Hero building when you actually go into that street. And as you go further into that street, the stark industrial buildings are probably going to be the dominant beach that you get, consistent with what you expect in an industrial environment. Frank Wilkie 25:10.962
How high is the Resident Hero building? Nadine Gordon 25:14.942
I would assume it's around probably 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 25:50.501
I'd like to test a motion, please. Karen Finzel 25:52.443
Sorry, I have a question. I just didn't hear the end of that comment. Frank Wilkie 25:57.149
Oh yes, we'll get the end of it. Karen. Nadine Gordon 26:00.218
So if they reduce the height to comply, if they take the two metres out, that wall will still be there. They will still be proposing that accessway and driveway along that boundary. The height won't change that presentation. Karen Finzel 26:17.635
In reference to your previous comment, can the height be reduced if we remove the pitch? Nadine Gordon 26:24.544
It comes down by about half a metre, Karen. Karen Finzel 26:28.105
Okay, and how do we condition that? Nadine Gordon 26:30.933
We can condition it to require amended plans. Karen Finzel 26:34.663
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 27:07.646
Well, I'm proposing I move a motion as a starting point, which addresses the height issue. So, I'd like to move a motion that was provided earlier, please. The whole motion. So this is your now the motion I've provided was the motion as provided by staff with the addition in red I'm not moving an amendment a motion because it's the first proposal. Karen Finzel 28:27.242
Can I just ask a question through the Chair please? Frank Wilkie 28:30.387
Yes Karen. Karen Finzel 28:32.050
Yes, given I was talking about an amendment and you've put this motion on the yes. Table. Is this the right order to go through, given I was talking about a motion before you approved the application up? Frank Wilkie 28:50.435
Absolutely. 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. Thank. Okay, that, we're getting there, except, um. Instead of saying, with condition 13, building height to be amended to read, just say, with condition 13, building height to read. Okay, 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 220051 number for a development permit for a Material Change of Use, hardware and trade supplies situated at 178 Eumundi Road, Noosaville and approved 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 where excavation is undertaken and b note the report is provided in accordance with section 635 of the planning 2016. We have a seconder for that please. Karen Finzel 31:11.790
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 and change ramps? Frank Wilkie 31:31.892
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 31:50.914
Sorry, I didn't hear anyone second the motion. Frank Wilkie 31:53.544
That's alright, it's been seconded by Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Okay, Councillors, the reason I've moved this is because the Planning Scheme stipulates 10 metres in this area, in this zone. The surrounding buildings are 10 metres, with the exception of the existing Bunnings building, which is 12 metres in height. That was approved under a 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 back from the street 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. To 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 there's potential for landscaping to mitigate the impact on the street, streetscape. 10 metres is the height of the surrounding buildings such as Resident Hero. Office work. Office works 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 on 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 and obviously I have a high building in this location when all the others are 10 metres that's the reason for the motion for your consideration. Councillor Stewart. Mr Chair I think Councillor Stockwell has her hand up. Sorry Councillor Stockwell you've got your hand up. Brian Stockwell 34:19.880
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 confirmed that when we look at the Bunnings building we see a nine and a half metre building rather than a 12 metre building and that is two and a half metres lower than the height in this particular application. Frank Wilkie 34:46.782
Can I have a okay. I have a question. Yes. Sorry, Karen has her hand up as well. She's been waiting patiently. Finsale. Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel, you're on mute. Karen Finzel 35:05.913
Thank you. Just a clarification from Councillor Stockwell through the Chair. Can he clarify, was his comment in relation to the existing Bunnings building or the proposed application building? Brian Stockwell 35:20.796
The existing. One that the existing Bunnings building is 12 metres from natural ground level but only 9.5 from the finished ground level. So the appearance is 9.5 metres. Not deep. Existing application would be two and a half metres higher than the front of the existing building. Karen Finzel 35:45.067
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. Councillor Lorentson you. Frank Wilkie 35:54.180
Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 35:54.822
Morrison. 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 the building height of the neighbouring development 11 Vision Court and when I'm looking at the streetscape thank but you. The application or the building height will be consistent with the exist with the existing adjoining development in Vision Court so there will be no difference am I reading this right? Nadine Gordon 36:52.754
That was staff's interpretation of the performance outcome. So we've recommended approval on the basis that it was consistent. Amelia Lorentson 36:59.513
There's no difference. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 37:01.451
Okay. Councillor to staff, can you explain why you tried to negotiate 10 metres from with the applicant? Nadine Gordon 37:09.743
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 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 appropriately screened and appropriate to the street but I did try and negotiate on the basis of trying to get an even better outcome for the site. Frank Wilkie 38:19.868
Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 38:21.049
Thank you Nadine. Just a question. If the two metres brought is down are by the two metres. Impacts? What are the 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 I've been. Nadine Gordon 38:58.170
I'd be making assumptions. Yes. OK. I thought so. Yes. They've indicated. They've been quite strong in saying that for the stacking heights, that's for the pallets, that's to. 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. They did indicate that know, there are minimum requirements, again, at-rate with vehicles, with trucks, but also vehicles with trailers, getting them through. So we start mucking about with levels, everything can change. Frank Wilkie 39:40.364
Councillor Stockwell, you've you got your hand up. Question, the performance outcome on building 5, is that related to a code-specific industrial zone? Brian Stockwell 39:58.696
Are you given the building 5 performance outcome, this PO8? Clare Stewart 40:02.122
Yes, I believe so. Nadine Gordon 40:04.880
I don't know, it's a zone zone code. Yes, it is a zone code. Brian Stockwell 40:10.085
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 40:12.608
Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 40:16.574
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 40:46.664
I have a I haven't recommended 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 an architect involved in reviewing it. Patrick Murphy 41:03.581
I would not recall any time it was at an architect reviewing an industrial building. Karen Finzel 41:10.731
Hi guys, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 41:14.059
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. 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 42:10.208
Councillor Stockwell you've got a question? Brian Stockwell 42:14.312
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 be from A to F. There are some key areas where I have a different point of view. Will dominate, usually dominate 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. 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 and the RL of this building is 22. Sorry, 20. Nadine Gordon 43:19.520
And while I I'm going zoom it out again, sorry, 22.5, which. Unidentified Speaker 43:31.648
These is are 21.3. Brian Stockwell 43:36.398
It's got a line through it, but I believe the top of the Venture Drive thing. Reads at 20.83 and the top of this building reads 22.525. So there's an substantial increase in height. 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 and 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 condition any of that. So to me the overall design doesn't meet the performance outcome. There's no condition requiring any of the motion as it sits will help address that. Amelia Lorentson 44:53.161
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? Nadine Gordon 45:23.886
I'll need to clarify that. I'll have to pull the plans and make sure in turn before I respond to really clarify that. Amelia Lorentson 45:29.165
Can we get that by Thursday night when we revisit it? Yeah, I'd like that information before I arrive to any decision, please. Thank you. I think just on that. Patrick Murphy 45:39.569
Councillor Lorentson, because there's a pitch to the building, the highest point, you know, you're talking about a small hybrid building where it's actually at its highest, 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. Okay, so it is. Amelia Lorentson 46:06.074
Higher. Karen Finzel 46:08.577
Okay. So through the Chair 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? Patrick Murphy 46:24.077
Well, at the corner. Karen Finzel 46:25.018
Will that help with the bulk and the visual amenity? Patrick Murphy 46:28.886
The northern corner of the building, I think RL is 21 points.325 and its maximum height is 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. Frank Wilkie 46:48.866
By removing the pitch? By removing the pitch, yes. Karen Finzel 46:51.915
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. Which I think would bring us closer to 11 metres, I mean, that's not so far. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 47:20.905
Which is not the motion in front of us. Frank Wilkie 47:23.309
Not the motion before us, okay. Councillor Finzel, are you wishing, that was a question, wasn't it? Or are you wishing to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 47:31.105
Well, I'm not going to support the motion in its current format, because I would like to, down the track, propose that we condition the building to remove the pitch. To address the bulk. Frank Wilkie 47:48.713
Is this you speaking to the motion now, Karen? Karen Finzel 47:52.218
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 the current plan. In relation to the pitch, perhaps if we have a flat roof that might address the compliance under articulation materials and finishes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 48:28.533
All right. So, I suggest you move an amendment to part A that would be along the lines of condition 13, building height to. So, Karen. Height to. Well, actually, I can't put words in your mouth. It would be. Karen Finzel 48:50.030
If we could reduce the building height through conditioning removal of the 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 a very different roof form and we can reach closer to compliance. Okay. If someone can help me with the wording. Frank Wilkie 49:17.984
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. Karen Finzel 49:39.205
Yes, 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? Richard MacGillivray 49:49.184
The ground level including the 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. Frank Wilkie 50:01.533
Okay, so the building design. Are you wanting it at 10 or 11? That's the thing. Karen Finzel 50:08.262
10, If we can get to 10, so we've got compliance with the Planning Scheme. Frank Wilkie 50:13.808
That's what I'm proposing. Yeah, that's what's proposed. I'm proposing, Karen. Thank you, I just can't read what's in front of me, sorry. Oh, you can't read the screen? It's really small, yeah. Okay, yeah. 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 50:49.749
So how do we, what do we need to do to get to compliance? Frank Wilkie 50:54.388
Well, this is the motion. That's the motion, that's before you, which is to, that the maximum height of the development. Not must not exceed 10 metres will achieve compliance with the Planning Scheme. Karen Finzel 51:04.031
Right, yes, that's correct. Thank you, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 51:07.292
Okay. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 51:15.449
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 a 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 a bulk 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 52:31.885
Basically their response was that they required the height. So when you look inside to there's about a six, it's over 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, so again I'm going on that's what they have indicated that they would like. I don't know if it can come down, I don't know if it 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 asked, they have pushed back and said no, that this is what want. Yes. And they've given their reasonings in terms of the streetscape and what's proposed and what's existing. Frank Wilkie 53:18.690
Yeah. Of course applicants want a higher height, but why did you believe 10 metres would give a better outcome? Nadine Gordon 53:26.739
In your own words. Yeah, look, again, I think it's an industrial building and I thought there could have been some change to the frontage, which could have made it a little bit more modern 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, has a more aesthetic look. And that's what I was, I would have liked to achieve. 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. Frank Wilkie 54:26.482
I have another question about the muted tones that you've conditioned. Are they acceptable to those conditions? Nadine Gordon 54:32.934
Or are they pushed back against that? Their comment to me was 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 Bunnings green will probably be a future issue for us. But again, they were very. Sort of, quite clear about wanting to use a white colour. Frank Wilkie 55:00.579
Okay. Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Excuse me, Mr Chair. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 55:06.860
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 55:13.502
Okay. Is that. She said. Thank you. The headshot of Councillor Stockwell has been removed off the motion, so thank you. Frank Wilkie 55:25.115
Can you see it now, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 55:27.818
Yes, I can. Thank you. Okay. So, Mr Chair, do we have a procedural motion? Clare Stewart 55:32.269
I don't understand. So we're debating this one first and then we're going to. Amelia Lorentson 55:36.615
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 12 metres. He was insistent on the 12 metres. What were the reasons? I really wanted to understand that. Frank Wilkie 56:15.122
Councillors, we have a procedural motion to defer the matter to Thursday that more information can be provided. More information about height. Of the surrounding buildings. And reasons for the 12 metre height. And the reasons why applicant wants the 12 metres height. To notice on. Richard MacGillivray 57:11.897
So you'll note, Councillor, from the side site profile. So essentially it will be the first half third of the buildings come down about two metres. And then there will be a sort of transition stage. So potentially you may end up with a staggered building. So one slightly lower at the front and one at the end. Frank Wilkie 57:30.671
It drops, it goes up. Yeah, yeah. Do you have one further report? Amelia Lorentson 57:35.286
No, no, no, just more information. Give more information. Just more information, please. Frank Wilkie 57:40.791
So that- will be circulated via email prior to that. Thank you Director. Thank you very much. We have a seconder for the procedural motion please. Karen Finzel 57:50.638
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. Nadine Gordon 58:09.072
That's also got the retaining wall underneath it, Karen. Okay. I'd like to just clarify the height of that retaining wall with the building on top of it. Karen Finzel 58:17.992
Okay. Thank you. That's what I was seeking. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 58:21.312
We have a seconder for the procedural motion please. Clare Stewart 58:24.232
I can't second it can I? No. Frank Wilkie 58:28.392
There'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. It's all right. We'll put the procedural motion to a vote. Those in favour? I can't see. Yes. Councillor Stockwell, I can't, yes, that's carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Staff. We have another planning matter. Thanks, guys. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thanks, Nadine. Thanks, Cindy. Patrick and welcome tara. Am I, I'm thinking about this, am I? No, this is the STA deferral. This is the 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 true, it may be the first time people in the gallery may have heard of it or people listening may have heard of it. Unidentified Speaker 59:58.828
So the MCU for Material Change of Use for short-term renovations approved last year for this property. So the original application was for five bedrooms and ten guests on site at any one time. Through the assessment process there was some negotiation. Applicant 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 increase the number of people on site from eight to 16. So I've recommended refusal for the application. Through the assessment process, it was determined that the change doesn't actually constitute a minor change. So the development assessment rules include what constitutes a minor change. It's where the development isn't considered to be substantially different. In terms of this particular development, we believe that the known 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 scale. The of the development, it's not considered that it's small scale in terms of the context of the area, the locality that it's seen as predominantly rural and residential development in that area, so you're looking at your stock standard driving houses in that location. So we consider that 16 people on site at any one time, potentially 16 vehicles one time isn't consistent with what you would get in those areas in terms of pay family and buying houses. Clare Stewart 01:01:44.309
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 the next page you've got 20 April 2023. So the original would have been 2023, sorry? Yes, so that should be 2023. Can I do another pick up? Amelia Lorentson 01:02:08.131
I think it's actually the 27th of April. Not the 20th of April. Just for clarity. So I went looking for it is the reason why, yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:02:20.269
Anyway, there's the applicant has made a request. Good point. That's right. Thank you yes. Unidentified Speaker 01:02:24.561
So, um, the applicant's consultant has requested to defer until next round. So, um, 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 November round. The meantime, it made it to the General Committee Meeting. So, um, Russell's got some concerns he doesn't have a chance to review the report and to get to his client about. Frank Wilkie 01:02:48.278
Okay. Can we have a mover and a seconder for the motion to move Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. I'll be the second. Sorry, Karen, just a bit slow off the mark. Any discussion? Karen Finzel 01:03:06.508
A quick question. No, Mr Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:09.310
Thank you, Karen. Councillor Lorentson has a question. Just a quick question. There's additional comments on the report on page five. Yes. That 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 leddy local law team for further investigation. General question, what are the consequences or implications of not complying with our short-stay local law? Patrick Murphy 01:03:53.645
Yeah so the Z 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 law approval hasn't been even been issued in this state, so that's the First Point of view, that 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. 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, if they don't, with that request, then we can take some international action under the local law, which aims is from issuing an 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 01:05:05.469
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. They're in breach. Of the local law, yeah. Richard MacGillivray 01:05:23.395
And does that take necessary steps in terms of the local law element? So as it stands they have an approval or a 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 01:05:51.153
So the process is run differently, not concurrently. Yep. Okay. Good question. Unknown 01:05:55.881
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 01:05:58.502
Any further discussion or questions on the motion to defer? All in favour? Councillor Finzel, thank you. That's carried unanimously. Thank you, tara. 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. Brian Stockwell 01:06:29.703
I'm going to have to leave the meeting. I am fading fast, so I can't leave you there. Want to acknowledge that I left the meeting at this point in time, please. Frank Wilkie 01:06:38.981
I just want to check. We'll have a quorum. We'll have-- Councillor Stewart will be out for conflict of interest. Yes. So it's myself. Oh, okay. Myself, Amelia, and Karen, which is-- unless if yes if we don't have you, Brian, we don't have a clear-- 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 on board. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:07:05.933
I've been declared-- 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 I am a resident of Noosa Waters and contribute to the levy and regularly utilise the Noosa Waters Lock & Weir 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 01:07:25.938
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? 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 a club 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 be able to drive through and action the lock with the wireless remote. So, we're just proposing to include this in the Council's Fees and Charges great. This is all part of the upgrade to the Noosa Waters lock and weir system. How's that going? Unidentified Speaker 01:08:46.657
Yeah, it's going well. Currently on program. The gates have been removed, the old actuators and motors. And the new gates will be installed next week and we're on track for opening on November 13th, as previously outlined. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:09:06.380
Any questions, Councillors, for staff? This is Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:10.505
Hey, Liam. Hi. Thank you for the report. In terms of, so, as an old Noosa warden, 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. I'm not actually too sure about that, but I know that they meet with them and discuss that and that's how this issue was brought up with meeting with the residents, so. Okay, can I ask that, yeah, thank you. Larry Sengstock 01:09:58.024
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 an opt-in exercise, so they still have the fob card, you know, fob, if it wasn't a card, 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 it'll cost them $90. If they want to go to the remote, it'll cost $191. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:28.972
I'm thinking some of them might not be able to get in and out if they don't know about it. Perfect. Unidentified Speaker 01:10:35.044
As yeah. Outlined in here, but it's as per the current department guidelines for it, and you do need to have two boat registered to have two access devices, so you can have a combination of FOB or wireless, but to have two access devices, you do need to have a second registered vessel. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:56.603
Thank you very much. Frank Wilkie 01:10:58.004
I can't see online Councillors. Do you have any questions for staff? Karen Finzel 01:11:00.826
As outlined in your book, it's. 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. Frank Wilkie 01:11:22.254
Great, would someone care to move the motion? I'm happy to move it. Councillor Lorentson? Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? Thank you. 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. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Okay. Thank you, Liam. Thank you, Michael. Well done. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Liam. 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, talk us through it. Trent Grauf 01:12:28.325
Good afternoon, Councillors. Presenting to you this afternoon the Financial Performance Report for September 2023, which marks one quarter through the financial year. Financial performance for September is positive. Operating revenues are outperforming forecast and operating expenditure is slightly under forecast at this one quarter mark in the financial year. Now, as we break that down further operating revenue is $1.6 million above budget, and that's a mix of $978,000 due to interest revenue, which 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 of our parks, which is a mix of $78,000, 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. There's an additional term for $2,000 for operational grants, again, noting that they will have an expenditure requirement. Associated with them later in the financial year. In terms of Fees and Charges, they are slightly below budget of $239,000. It's due to parking fees, timing of fees through our initial seniors 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 is,000. That on budget and leaves which is $169,000 over budget. That leaves us with a net operating position as at September of $1.9 million of our budget. Our BR1 adopted budget is a deficit position. Our BR1 what we will do is propose for BR2 is this additional upside will bring Council back into hopefully a surplus position for the BR2 budget as it has got devoted in according to the year. In terms containment of or constraint of cash funds and services, 1.1 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 quote through some of the details in the report, tourism and economic development levy remains on budget year to date. As with previous quarters, as with previous quarters, we two have deep dives in the report. One is our legal cost summary which shows a deep dive that legal costs are currently in the low budget. Again, early in the financial year and it may fluctuate depending on the progress of legal matters such as. Bottom of heels the other deep dive is in relation to cash components which we'll talk about shortly. Capital revenue is above budget due to significant grants in advance. Excuse me. Where's she at? Buses renewal? Poochers renewal. No. Plasma bushfire, QRA disaster funding and all those funds are sitting constrained in our cash reserves until 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 dollars is restricted in terms of unspent grants, levy, disaster recovery and landfill rehabilitation. There's 29 committed over the next year. I understand capital works and they're required to hold 28 million dollars to meet our three-month cash cover requirements. And there is 18 million dollars 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 reported of 5 million, and that is due to our forecast of our operating circles for the last financial year being slightly lower, a base budget where we adopted a slight draw on capital works for new and upgraded works, and coming into VR2 anticipated plus variations for capital works for projects such as our VHS and the. At this stage, we close. Council's promotion, all those in favour? Questions from the Council? Yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:17:24.915
Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:17:25.613
Thank you, Trent. Always comprehensive. Could you elaborate a bit on the 1.1 general operating surplus, please? Trent Grauf 01:17:33.032
Sure. As you will see in the report, whilst we have a total Council operating surplus. 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 our waste activities. 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. Business. Areas such as environment operations, civil works, finance in my area, HR, those sort of libraries and galleries, all those core areas of expenditure. And chance in terms of general revenue, it's our general rate, our interest revenue and our Fees and Charges and that nets off to $1 million. Clare Stewart 01:18:38.922
And the $58 million held in restricted cash? Yeah, can you talk to that 'Cause too because there's $58 million seems like a lot of money. Just an explanation. Trent Grauf 01:18:49.677
Sure, I'm gonna do the break guys. Glasses back on. That helps say me see you it again. So we have, we restrict our cash under our reserves and restricted cash policy. We have external restricted cash and internally. 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. 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 million. Then in terms of internally restricted cash and Council's decision on what it would restrict, there's $3.6 million of a disaster, natural disaster contingency fund. $3.5 million of plant replacement. We're 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 that happened from prior year. There's $10 million. Dollars 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 $10 million for smaller parts of work, such as environmental offsets, etc. Clare Stewart 01:20:25.523
And Trent, we're still pretty high in our cash expense cover. What 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 reasons that we have to for the expenses that we're still going to incur? Trent Grauf 01:20:47.793
So the cash cover is currently for months. In total, if you look at the ratios. If 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. You take out the 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 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 is free cash. So we're probably where we should be, yeah. Thank you. 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 shore, particularly around Black Mountain. Yep. And some of the other grant funds, you know, waste levy funds that we've received from the farms, 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. No, no, no, I a few have a few more. Clare Stewart 01:22:05.082
Was going to let everyone else crack and I'll come back. Frank Wilkie 01:22:08.196
Sure. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:22:11.388
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 years now and I think it started at about nine. Should we be worried? Trent Grauf 01:22:29.277
Councillor, this year as part of the budget process, 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 works get deferred, that you 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 and new works upgraded. Are appropriate to meet the needs of the organisation. 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 take a credit all review. The last, 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. As an organisation, if any, but remain at a very small level of sustainability. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:01.111
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 tourism and economic development 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 01:24:31.752
Yes, so if you wind that to that's kind of like, of the tourism economic levy, what we did was at the time when that levy was unwound and we moved it into general rate, the 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-residential rates. So it was just transitory but obviously commercial, industrial, extractive, all non-residential property owners that were otherwise paying the Tourism and Economic 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 relative pricing difference in our rates and charges between what is a residential property and what is a non-residential property. Now we don't, because it's general rate we don't constrain the difference and we don't constrain any unspent funds at the end of the year. Hold we just it talked about the trade 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:25:45.165
Oh I'm still a little bit confused Trent sorry so so everyone pays. Is that what you're saying? It is part of the general rate but. Trent Grauf 01:25:55.457
The rating structure, the way we charge for different properties, there is a higher charge for commercial for non-residential embedded within that. Is the funding indirectly, even though it's part of the general 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. But in terms of the pricing structure, there is a higher pricing structure to affect that. Frank Wilkie 01:26:28.928
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? We have a lot of emergent works and-- Trent Grauf 01:26:43.786
And cost flow. There's a couple of elements in there. One is obviously during the election term, we have paid off. We paid off early in the election term, $10 million of debt. That's right. That was in year two. Year three, we then went through a process of actually refinancing our debt. The interest rates were the lowest. We 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 01:27:21.620
Was that the second time we paid off a large amount? Trent Grauf 01:27:25.349
Yes. Now obviously over the last 12 months we've had, in 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. Now as opposed to the organisation which was capital less effective and through the capital budget review and value weights price increase pressures with delivery pressures and where the project should proceed it 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 or 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 01:28:18.888
We've also delivered the largest ever capital infrastructure projects in the history of Noosa Council in its term. We've, you know, I've got a couple more questions. Thank you. On page 75, I'm looking at the top three where we've incurred additional expenditures. The top three 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. Starting with the contributions, donations, sponsorships, and prizes. Trent Grauf 01:29:07.477
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. That's quantum void. 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 that's 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 be a timely assumption. The second one that goes in relation to software and subscriptions, software and maintenance, that is in relation to 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. Another round of robust recruitment. As of crossed and looking forward to this process commencing. But to ensure that security and particularly 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 a, 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 gap. By using those consultants over the last few months. Clare Stewart 01:30:45.838
And coming back to that was one of the major themes of the 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 a very, you know, it's an emerging issue. It's a real problem across all of Queensland. The third one's legal. Trent Grauf 01:31:02.197
So as we mentioned, the forecasting, we do a lot of work internally. You'll see the deep dive we put in the report today, where even though we're marginally above. To-date, the budget, we're still not forecasting a full year position, anticipating legal expenses being over budget, and we'll continue to monitor that. If it's at such point, particularly through the second quarter review, and it's looking high, we'll bring a further. Go down into that and address that through a budget review if needed. Clare Stewart 01:31:31.869
Cool, thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:31:33.691
Trent, I have a question about expenditure for permanent staff salaries and wages underspent $916,000 due to position vacancies partially offset by. Spend on casual staff. But maybe it's a question for you Mr Chair, how many staff are we down? Can you quantify that? Larry Sengstock 01:31:57.113
It's actually a really difficult question to answer on a daily basis but I don't have the exact numbers. With me in front. Unidentified Speaker 01:32:05.724
We're keeping costs down. Frank Wilkie 01:32:07.170
Get one back on the treadmill to the generator. Larry Sengstock 01:32:12.330
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, we're still looking for a manager for ICT, which we've been out to the market once, twice, once 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, 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 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, part of the nature of the work. Frank Wilkie 01:33:21.802
During the last year, the former CEO quantified it at about a hundred staff, a hundred vacancies you're trying to fare. Is it, have we improved on that situation since then? Larry Sengstock 01:33:33.339
My understanding is we've improved, but again, when you say a hundred staff, there's casual staff, there's all sorts of staff in that. It's not a hundred out of five hundred staff or four hundred and fifty staff. That's not the. You know, that's not 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. It's difficult. It's just a hard market. Frank Wilkie 01:34:03.260
And how many staff are able to live in Noosa Shire? What percentage of our staff live think the outside ie Karen, do you have any questions? Yes, Karen, you've got your hand up. Karen Finzel 01:34:21.473
Yes, 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 for Dean around? Trent Grauf 01:35:03.134
Yeah, thank you. 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 previous 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 anything we do as 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 the 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 or 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 process 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 clear because that comes on at the table because to prioritise any service level because that comes at 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. Karen Finzel 01:36:39.352
Yes, thanks Trent I'm 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 where of money 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 constrained. Trent Grauf 01:37:21.411
I can answer that as well, Councillor. You you'll find in our 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 facility and what the 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 it's transparent through the feasibility that's what it's going to cost to run long term. Karen Finzel 01:38:49.259
Thanks Trent that's a great response thank you with clarity it's good thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:38:54.425
Anyone care to move the motion? I will. Councillor Stewart? Happy to move it. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Finzel and Councillor Lorentson you. Stewart Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:39:04.004
Thanks, Trent. Always very comprehensive, and really good to explain about that, the cash holdings, and what's restricted, because people would see these huge numbers. But there is background to that, where there is restricted cash that we're required to have. There's also restricted cash that we're required to have internally. There's also a lot of. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:22.537
Upcoming emergent works that we need. So we're probably running the money about that two million. Clare Stewart 01:39:27.342
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 in a little bit of risk on the sorry, 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 and there's a the holiday parks and the waste. I also think we need to shout out because I believe they're at $700,000 increase in their revenue over the last little bit, which was noted. So I think that's also fantastic. I know Kyrone and Robin have been working really hard in that space. Revenue generation, which is great to see. Thank you. You've answered my questions that I had and always appreciate the report. Frank Wilkie 01:40:29.968
Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wilson. Amelia Lorentson 01:40:33.292
I just want to acknowledge yourself, Pauline and your team to Trent. We don't speak in enough or express our gratitude enough monster job you guys have got 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 in over plus 100 million dollars per annum I think our staff around the 500 mark thank you and can you just you know express to your team our gratitude thank you. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:41:22.349
Yes 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 you if you could just express that to everyone. Would be fantastic thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:41:40.113
One of the other things that became clear during the local government conference was that over half the local government councils in Queensland 46 run deficit budgets and struggle to make 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. Councillor Stewart you wish to close. No. I put the motion those in favour. I put that is the unanimous. Motion those in favour. That is unanimous. Clare Stewart 01:42:09.034
Oh hey we've got Karen yes thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:42:11.345
You Karen. Thank you Mr Chair. There's no confidential session. Declare the meeting closed. Thank you Councillors. Thank you Mr CEO. Thank you Trent. Thank you Linda and Vicky. Thank you everyone. Thank you Karen. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
