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 00:01.480
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 Kabi 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 and myself and we have two councillors on the line in Councillor Karen Finzel, Councillor Brian Stockwell. And we need a resolution. I'll move it. The resolution moved for Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. And the motion is that in accordance with section 254 of the local government regulation, councillors Finzel and Stockwell are approved to attend the meeting dated today. today via Microsoft Teams. Any discussion? Nope. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. We have no presentations, 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 and 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 meeting. SPEAKER_01 01:42.640
Happy to move that. I'll second that. That's moved 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 01:59.880
There's a technical issue with the camera. camera, I'm happy to say yes. Frank Wilkie 02:03.871
Thank you. Or your hand, the hand symbol would be fine. Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:11.091
It's on the screen, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 02:12.751
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 result of the report? Result. Karen Finzel 02:40.341
Good afternoon everybody. The report you have in front of you is regarding the partnership agreement with Zero Emissions Noosa Inc and it basically outlines a three-year partnership with Noosa. Sorry, Zero Emissions Noosa and goes through the funding requirements, the reporting, the reporting requirements, intellectual property, obligations of each party, indemnity. 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 address those two emission sources they have developed 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 grant opportunities such as the recent Department of 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. 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. that, um... They have a number of links to our corporate plan, and they have, through their, um, volunteer hours, they believe that they add at least $350,000 to the community, to this community on an annual basis through all their various activities. So, um, this report is actually asking that we authorise the director of strategy and environment to execute the partner agreement, and, 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 as part of the yearly budget process. 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... consider a 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... Frank Wilkie 06:07.264
Activities undertaken in relation to this agreement, ZEN Inc. must disclose all existence of that interest and disclose all material facts to Council and that we believe will And just to clarify, that would be covered by Part B of the recommendation that you would be authorising the Director of Strategy and Environment to make minor changes to the partnership agreement prior to execution. That's correct. Thank you. Questions, councillors? Amelia Lorentson 06:33.041
I have a question. First of all, thank you for that inclusion. I thought it was important to add. In terms of funding, cover it. Funding their 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 community grant. There's a lot of volunteer organisations that really run a risk of burnout, so has that been discussed at council level? Karen Finzel 07:11.148
This isn't part of this report, and I have to defer that question. I'm not aware of that. Okay, no worries. But I would defer to Kim or Rebecca to answer that question. Okay. I'm happy to make comments. comments through the chair. Frank Wilkie 07:27.637
Thanks, Kim. Thank you. Karen Finzel 07:29.317
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. membership and 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 we have a partnership arrangement with a ZEN Inc. organisation. It is a model that we will continue to look at around assisting organisations who are very much aligned. Who are very much aligned with the outcomes that 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. So there are a couple of avenues. One that exists and one that we will continue to explore. Frank Wilkie 08:35.865
Thank you, Ken. Thank you. Any other councillors on the line have any questions? Does someone care to move the motion? Councillor Lorentson. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Stewart? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 08:50.346
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... got, get noticed at council and community level so Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stewart. Thank you, Clare Stewart 09:27.881
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 bigger and better and better, they were instrumental in the success in the community battery, which is a $500,000 grant to our community. And as Annie has said, this 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, huge amount of heavy lifting for our community and very grateful and happy to support. Frank Wilkie 10:05.043
Thank you Councillor Stewart. Any councillors on the line wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 10:10.936
No thank you Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 10:12.596
Thank you Councillor Finzel, thank you Councillor Stockwell. I'd just like to add to the comments made by Councillor Stewart and Laurence. 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 residents. Enriching the local community and economy. So for the small investment, it's money well spent. Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? No, thank you. Okay, I put the motion. Those in favour? Let's carry on. That's carried unanimously. Thank you Annie. Thanks Danny. 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 and Environment Committee and we have Director Development and Regulation Richard MacGillivray, Manager of Planning Patrick Murphy and also Head Planner Nadine Gordon. This was referred 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 11:52.031
Okay, good afternoon everyone. This is an application for a material change of use for a hardware and trade centre supplies at 1789 Noosa Road. It's the very northern portion of the Bunnings site. is currently vegetated so it's not facing Noosi Mundi Road. It's actually down on Gateway Drive opposite or near the near the kitchen place which I've forgotten what it's called. This is proposal for a new building. Resident Amelia Lorentson 12:25.857
Hero. Nadine Gordon 12:26.737
That's correct yes. So it's an application for a two-story 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 There is a single elevator on site, so it's not as retail friendly as the existing Blooming Square house. It has a different website and it focuses on high quality items such as more expensive power tools, etc. The applicant is indicated, and if you want me to 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 and 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 four showroom, retail business type six hardware and retail business type seven garden and lifestyle centre. It was approved there. 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 at 12 metres and then the back of it as the site slopes up and it's backfilled. The ramps that will then comply around 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 hire hire vehicles plus they also 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 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 two metre high, 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. setback from of this proposed Bunnings building is also slightly behind that vision court building as well. I also note that previously we talked about signage and there were concerns 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 signage, 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 new signage under our existing local law, which would limit the amount of signage. There is a condition recommended for approval for a muted colour scheme, that's condition 7. Included in that, and basically the staff are recommending approval of the application. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:39.025
I can't see the councillors online. Thank you. Question? Karen? Yes, 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 16:56.870
No, I don't believe so. Karen Finzel 16:59.690
Do you know the height of that? Nadine Gordon 17:01.570
I think it would be 10, Karen. I don't believe it's over height. Frank Wilkie 17:09.610
Sorry I'm nadine in the report it says existing store bunnings 12 metres from natural ground level okay all right sorry i didn't hear that Mr Chair karen in answer your question in the report it says existing bunning 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 17:36.992
And 9.5 from finish level? 12. Karen Finzel 17:41.312
And where's the fall ground level on the existing building? Is that towards the back of the block or the front? Nadine Gordon 17:47.725
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 18:07.031
Have concerns about the bulk on a gateway coming into Noosa with two buildings on that site side by side. Can you talk to me a bit about how we're going to address that, please? Nadine Gordon 18:21.271
Could you just have a quick show of those, um, no, not the email, the streetscape views. I've just seen a couple of streetscape views. So this is just Google Streetscape this morning, but it gives a good indication. So Karen, this is actually just in front front of the existing access into Bunnings. So you can look down, 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. 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... behind of the existing buildings of Vision Court. So this isn't really readily visible from Eumundi Noosa Road. Do you want to do my next one? That's further 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. And that's probably... Oh, you can 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. Brian Stockwell 20:37.800
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. Unknown 20:49.340
Can you clarify that please to the starting point? Brian Stockwell 20:54.334
The top part of Tigger 6, page 14. Nadine Gordon 20:59.294
The pitch is slightly higher, but it's pretty much consistent with 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. big concern to me is we've highlighted the height of that retaining 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 street. To me, I have difficulty seeing that meeting. Frank Wilkie 21:45.440
Could you move to a question please? Brian, could you move to a question please? Sorry, I Sorry, I didn't hear that. Could you move to a question please? Is there a question here? Unknown 22:01.192
So, is that correct then? Is there going to be, for the northern driveway, a two and a half, at least, metre retaining wall, plus a blank wall of seven metres without... articulation, and is there any scope to landscape it? Clare Stewart 22:22.230
Go back to that street view? Nadine Gordon 22:27.160
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 is to be retained. There will be, the building itself is set back six to nine metres, so we have we have the ability to provide landscaping and street trees within the frontage, which would provide some screening when you're coming down Gateway Drive. I agree that there will be significant cut and retaining structures on the northern boundary of the site to the existing building. That cut will and that building will be set back again 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. Brian Stockwell 23:24.057
I can have a further... Unknown 23:40.300
In front of the bio-basin, is that correct? yes. Brian Stockwell 23:47.900
No, there'd be quite a few years before any vegetation could possibly screen it. Yes. Amelia Lorentson 23:54.960
I haven't... Sorry, Nadine, I have in front of me just a response to an 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 24:09.751
Well. We have explored whether they could retain the existing vegetation in front of the premises so that to do that with 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 that they submit a landscaping plan and obviously undertake the street trees at the front of the resource, planting in the bio-basin as well. SPEAKER_01 24:39.740
There is also... It is also worth pointing out that when you look down that street that resident hero building is quite visible, quite stark. This building is actually going to be about six metres from the plant boundary. I still think that that resident hero is going to be the dominant building when you're actually into that street and as you go further into that street. And the stark industrial buildings are probably the dominant beach that you get if you're consistent with what you expect in an industrial environment. Frank Wilkie 25:10.508
How high is the resident hero building? Nadine Gordon 25:14.348
I would assume it's around probably Also noting that, again, we're talking about the built form and the associated earthworks with it. This is a sloping site. It is zone industry. Generally, we flatten sites 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 25:50.020
I'd like to test a motion, please. Sorry, Karen Finzel 25:52.660
I have a question. I just didn't hear the end of that comment. Oh yes, we'll get the end of the comment. Sorry, Nadine Gordon 25:59.438
Karen. 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 In reference to your previous comment, can the height be reduced if we remove the pitch? It comes down by about half a metre, Karen. Karen Finzel 26:27.493
Okay, and how do we condition that? Nadine Gordon 26:30.372
We can condition it to require amended plans. Yes, thank you. Frank Wilkie 26:36.453
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 to bring down that height. I think it's important that we... Karen, we're doing questions at the moment. Karen Finzel 26:59.647
Yes, okay. Well, I'm just asking how do we put the condition on? we need to move an amendment now? Frank Wilkie 27:07.117
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. Now 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 because it's the first proposal. Yeah. Karen Finzel 28:26.220
Can I just ask a question through the chair please? Frank Wilkie 28:29.760
Yes Karen. Karen Finzel 28:31.600
Yes, given I was talking about an amendment and you've put this motion on the table. Yes. Is this the right order? right order to go through given I was talking about a motion before you put approve the application up? Frank Wilkie 28:50.196
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. Amen. You can just give us a second, please. Okay, we're getting there except... Instead of saying, with condition 13, building height to be amended to read, just say, with condition 13, building height to read. Okay. Okay, so the motion is that Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 10 October 2023 regarding application number MCU 220051 for a development a development permit for a material change of use, hardware and trade supplies situated at 178 Yamundi Road, Noosaville and A, approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment 1, with condition 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 facade of the building where excavation is undertaken and B note the report provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. We have a seconder for that please. Karen Finzel 31:11.144
Through the chair, just before we proceed, before that gets seconded, can we amend that to also address the area we amend that to also address the areas where it doesn't comply to our transport strategy with regards to bicycle spaces, ended trip facilities and change ramps? Frank Wilkie 31:31.786
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 31:50.416
Sorry, I didn't hear anyone second the motion. That's all right. Frank Wilkie 31:53.896
It's been seconded by Councillor Stewart. Thank you. 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 exception of the existing Bunnings building, which is 12 metres in height. That was approved of under a planning scheme appeal under the Sunshine Coast Council. But the difference is, 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, long way back from the street and there is significant landscaping. The intention of the The intention of the planning scheme and the height limit is to make sure that there's not a 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 not as much potential for landscaping to mitigate the impact on the street, streetscape. 10 metres is the height of the surrounding buildings such as Resident Hero, Officeworks, 11 to 13.11 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 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. 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 I think all the others are 10 metres. That's the reason for the motion, for your consideration. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 34:10.635
Mr Chair, I think Councillor Stockwell has her hand up. Frank Wilkie 34:13.315
Sorry, Councillor Stockwell, you've got your hand up. I think you may have misinterpreted the height of the existing building. Brian Stockwell 34:24.100
The actual wording is 12 metres from natural ground level and nine and a half metres from finished ground level. It's starkly 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. Amelia Lorentson 34:48.380
I have a question. Frank Wilkie 34:50.740
Sorry, Karen has her hand up as well. She's been waiting patiently. Councillor Finzel, you're on mute. Karen Finzel 35:04.420
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 35:21.186
The existing Bunnings building is 12 metres from natural ground level but only 9.5 from the finished ground level. Karen Finzel 35:28.666
So the appearance is 9.5 metres. 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 35:54.160
Councillor Lorentson. Question to Nadine. I just probably need just some clarification because I'm looking at a streetscape elevation So, I just that's provided in the report. I'm also looking at just the performance outcome number eight of the medium impact industry zone so the building height of the development is two stories and it's also 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 but the application or the building height will be consistent with the exist with the existing adjoining development in vision courts so there'll be no no difference difference am i reading this right in that that was staffs interpretation of the forms outcome so if we've recommended approval on the basis that there's no difference thank you okay councillor staff can you explain why you tried to negotiate 10 metres from with the applicant 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 I even thought if they could amend the street, 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... 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 38:19.021
Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 38:20.501
Thank you Nadine. Just a question, if the two is brought down by two metres, what are the 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 by providing a wider range of timber and trade products to customers and improve their 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'd be, I'd be making assumptions. Yeah. Okay. I thought, I thought Nadine Gordon 39:02.040
So. Yes. And they've indicated they'd be quite, quite strong and in saying that... That's for the stacking heights, that's for the pallets, that's to, 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. They did indicate that, you know, there are minimum requirements, again, at raid with vehicles, with trucks, but also vehicles with trailers, getting them through. So we start mucking about with levels. Everything should change. Councillor Frank Wilkie 39:40.809
Stockwell, you've got your hand up. Unknown 39:48.520
Question, the performance outcome on Building 5, is that related to a code-specific industrial zone? Brian Stockwell 39:58.100
Are you given the Building 5 performance outcome? It's POA? Clare Stewart 40:01.740
Yes, I believe so. Nadine Gordon 40:05.000
No, it's a zone code. Yes, it is a zone code. Frank Wilkie 40:11.300
Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 40:15.860
Just coming back to your last point through the Chair to the staff, during this 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. do you support that? Nadine Gordon 40:46.520
I haven't recommended reduction in the height Karen so I can't comment on that. In terms of the architect getting it 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 41:03.100
I would not recall any time it was an architect reviewing an industrial building. Amelia Lorentson 41:10.660
Hi guys, thank So Nadine, again, just purposes of clarity. You said before that you were trying to seek better outcomes with negotiating. Negotiating the 12 metre height. In terms of bulk and scale, and again, I go to existing developments. Is it the reporting? the report indicates that you're actually quite satisfied that it was in keeping with an industrial zone and the Balkan 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 Court so again I'm that's correct okay so that was your professional advice and report. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 42:09.405
Councillor Stockwell you've got questions? Brian Stockwell 42:10.693
No I'll speak to the motion, I'll support it. Unknown 42:17.593
The performance at the building high performance outcomes quite clear the is the height so therefore it has to be all from A to F. There are some key areas where I have a different point of view. 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 we're on a sloping site. Brian Stockwell 42:52.660
I think and well 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. to, sorry, be 20. I'm going to zoom it out again. Sorry. Nadine Gordon 43:26.763
5. SPEAKER_01 43:31.140
Themes of 21.3. Unknown 44:27.640
The diagram shows a tree there, but that tree is actually behind the building. The driveway will have a retaining wall 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 conditions requiring any of that. So to me, the overall design doesn't meet the performance outcome. think the motion at it sits will help address that. Can I, through the chair, please request and possibly proceed your motion? That's an important point for me, whether the existing joint 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? correct in saying that it's going to be 1.7 metres below the proposal? Nadine Gordon 45:23.532
I'll need to clarify that. I'll have to pull the plans and make sure before I respond. We did that by Thursday night. Great. I'd like that information before I arrive to any decision, please. Thank you. SPEAKER_01 45:37.791
I think just on that, Councillor Lorentson, because there's a pitch in the building, the highest point, you're talking about 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 sort of, you know, a reasonable distance, that increase... Okay, sorry, it is higher. Amelia Lorentson 46:08.297
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? SPEAKER_01 46:23.943
All that with the bulk and the visual amenity. Yeah, the northern corner of the building, I think the RL is 21.325 and its maximum height is 22.525. So there's 1.2 metres... metres height difference. So there could be a reduction, I would suggest, of approximately a metre that could be achieved. By removing a pitch? By removing a pitch. Karen Finzel 46:51.070
Yes. Well I support removal of the pitch because then if that brings us to closest compliance to the planning scheme and it helps address what Councillor Stockwell has raised in terms of bulk and amenity yeah I would support that. Amelia Lorentson 47:20.500
Which is not the motion before us Frank Wilkie 47:24.100
Okay Councillor Finzel are you wishing that was a question wasn't it or are you wishing to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 47:32.800
Well I'm not going to support the motion in its current format because I would like to further down Further down the track, propose that we condition the building to remove the pitch to address the bulk. Frank Wilkie 47:47.852
Is this you speaking to the motion now, Karen? 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. team, including how to do 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 all right, so Karen, can I suggest you move an amendment to Part A that would be perhaps along the lines of Condition 13, building height to, building height to, well actually I can't put words in your mouth. It would be an amendment. Yeah, 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. what Patrick said about the height. Sort of along the way. I think if we can 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. So Councillor Finzel, 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 49:38.694
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? SPEAKER_01 49:49.753
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 50:03.011
Okay, so the building design. Karen Finzel 50:05.571
Are you wanting it at 10 or 11? Frank Wilkie 50:07.371
Well, that's the thing. 10, if we can get to 10. So we've got compliance with the planning scheme. That's what I'm proposing. SPEAKER_01 50:14.791
Yeah, that's what's proposed. Karen Finzel 50:16.988
Thank you, I just can't read what's in front of me, sorry. Frank Wilkie 50:20.548
Oh, you can't read the screen? Karen Finzel 50:22.188
It's really small. Okay, yeah. Well, that's essentially what's being proposed. If you're wanting it 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'd only reduce it down to 11 metres. Amelia Lorentson 50:40.162
Yes, that's correct. Frank Wilkie 50:40.642
Yeah, there's still be I Karen, if they removed, if they removed the pitch of the roof, lowered the pitch, So how do we, what do we need to do to get to compliance? Well, this this is the motion. That's the motion the motion that's before you which is to that the maximum height of the development must not exceed 10 metres will achieve compliance with the planning scheme. Karen Finzel 51:04.258
Oh right yes yeah that's correct thank you Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 51:07.098
Okay other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 51:14.500
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. 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 what Clare was saying just before. Is there an economical 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 52:31.729
Basically their response was that they required the height. So when you look inside too there's about six, it's over six metres clear from from what their top been. So they've indicated that that must be indicated that that must be their pallet stacking height and they've indicated to me that that's what they they work with. So again I'm not an expert in in bulk hardwares so again I'm going on that's what they have indicated that they would like. don't know if it can come down I don't know if it affects their their business plan. Amelia Lorentson 53:02.896
Could we ask that question before Thursday's evening? Yep they have come back as I said every time I've asked they have pushed back and said no that this is what they that they want. given their reasonings in terms of the streetscape and what's proposed and what's existing. And that-- Frank Wilkie 53:18.636
Yeah of course applicants want a higher height but why did you believe 10 metres would give a better outcome? suppose again, look again I think it's a commercial, 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 rather than But a, it's we quite an industrial 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 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 this has got a 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... reduce it at the front and perhaps have 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. Yes. Are they acceptable to those conditions? Nadine Gordon 54:33.997
Their 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 boning screen 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. Okay. Frank Wilkie 55:01.020
Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Excuse me, Mr Chair. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 55:06.500
Councillor Finzel online is having a hard time to see, so she's asking if we could please send a screenshot of the wording of the motion. Karen Finzel 55:18.211
Thank you, the headshot of Councillor Stockwell has been removed off the motion, so thank you. Frank Wilkie 55:24.611
Can you see it now Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 55:27.391
Yes I can, thank you. Clare Stewart 55:29.911
So, Mr Chair, do we have a procedure on staff? No. We don't, so we're debating this one first. Yes. And then we're going to--- No. Amelia Lorentson 55:36.863
No. No, I was wanting to--- Information. I was wanting to make a procedural motion, just to allow the applicant who has spent some considerable time with-- time with planners. If I could just get some information before Thursday's meeting before I arrive at least at a decision. Nadine Gordon 55:56.174
That's about the height? Amelia Lorentson 55:57.234
About the height. And also just why the 12 metres, he was insistent on the 12 metres. What were the reasons? I really wanted to understand that. Frank Wilkie 56:14.693
Councilors, we have a procedural motion to defer the matter to Thursday so that more information can be provided regarding the height of surrounding buildings and in relation to what's Is that correct? Yep. Amelia Lorentson 56:32.713
Why 12 metres? Is it a logistic? Is it because the machinery? I just want to understand what are the implications of going back down to 10 metres? Frank Wilkie 56:59.160
More information about height of the surrounding buildings and reasons for the 12 metre height. The reasons why applicant wants the 12 metres height. SPEAKER_01 57:11.420
And you'll know Councillor Lorentson from the site profile. So essentially it will be the first half third of the buildings come down about 2 metres and then there will be a transition stage. So potentially you may be able Frank Wilkie 57:41.000
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 57:50.780
Excuse me, can I just put a question to the staff? Thank you Mr Chair. Yes. On page 41 of 75 it says the buildings in the area range in highest fires and it said that Fusion Court 11 to 13 was conditioned to 10 metres. Nadine Gordon 58:09.076
That's also got the retaining wall underneath it, Karen. Karen Finzel 58:12.756
Okay. 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. Frank Wilkie 58:21.296
We have a seconder for the procedural motion, please. Clare Stewart 58:24.196
I can't second it, can I? No. Frank Wilkie 58:28.436
It'll have to be either Councillor Stockwell Councillor Stockwell or Finzel, are you prepared to second the procedural motion please. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Karen Finzel 58:52.360
Yes, thank you Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 58:55.800
It's alright. Alright, we'll put the procedural motion to a vote. Those in favour? I can't see. I can't see. Yes. Yes. Councillor Stockwell, I can't. Yes, that's carried unanimously. Thank you. staff. Thank you staff. We have another planning matter. Clare Stewart 59:15.372
Thank you Mr Chair. Thanks Nadine. Thanks Cindy. Frank Wilkie 59:20.193
Patrick and welcome Tara. Clare Stewart 59:24.152
Am I onto your map at this time? Frank Wilkie 59:26.177
No this is the STO 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. SPEAKER_01 59:48.677
Tara. Frank Wilkie 59:49.117
No, no, no, deferral is the best we'll be Perhaps the application because it's true maybe the first time people in the gallery may have heard of it or people listening may have heard of it. Karen Finzel 59:58.233
So the NCU for material change and use for short term realisation was 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 the assessment process there was some negotiations with the 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 is 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 sixteen. 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 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 another change as part of this process. Additionally, in terms of the scale 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 in has predominantly rural and rural residential development in that area, so you're looking at your stock standard. Clare Stewart 01:01:26.048
Consider that 16 people on site at any one time, potentially 16 vehicles at any one time, isn't consistent with what you would get in those areas in terms of a family. It's just the clarification, it's only for our records. Page 46 says the original application was considered by council the ordinary meeting on the 20th of April 2020 and the next page you've got 20 April 2023. So the original would have been 2023? Yes, so that should be 2023. Can I do another pick up? I think it's actually the 27th of April 2023, not the 20th of April. Just for clarity. So I went looking for it, is the reason why. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:02:19.900
Anyway, the applicant has made a request. Good point. That's right. Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:02:24.173
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 spoke to Russell Brain from IG Strategic and said we'll go to the no gamble round. the meantime, it made it to the general committee meeting, so Russell's got some concerns he doesn't have a chance to review the report and to get to his client about... Frank Wilkie 01:02:48.285
Can we have a mover and a seconder for the motion? motion to move, Councillor Stewart. Seconder, Councillor Lorentson. I'll be the second. Sorry, Karen, just a bit slow off the mark. Any discussion? Karen Finzel 01:03:06.877
A quick question. No, Mr Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:08.937
Thank you, Karen. Councillor Lorentson has a question. Just a quick question. There's additional comments on the report on page five. That the property's been advertised online, that it doesn't contrary treat the conditions of the approval. Yes. it's also not been issued an approval under the local law and it's now subject to short-stay letting local or team for further investigation general question what question: What are the consequences or implications of not complying with our short-stay local law? Patrick Murphy 01:03:54.966
Yeah so the Z would investigate the matter. It's sort of tied in with, to some some degree, with this application, if the council's agreeable to increasing the amount of numbers to 16, then it would be reasonable to put out the approval order to put in a change application to the local board 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 board approval hasn't even been issued in this state. So that's the first point of view, that we need to get an approval on the local board. An application for approval made, and that application should be receivable where council goes with this application. Again, if council doesn't agree to increase it, we receive an application for the approval. If they don't comply with that, if they don't... with that, if they don't... With that request, then we can take some international action under the local law, which aims at issuing an infringement, and we can also move forward with a request, you know, to put forward that the application for the approval be suspended. SPEAKER_01 01:05:00.451
Or cancelled, or other options that are available to us. So I'm confused, so we're considering 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, and does that take necessary steps in terms of the local law element? approval of what they're doing at the moment? I guess what Patrick's highlighted in the report is that they're advertising for more than what they have approved before, so that requires So the process is run differently not concurrently? Yep. Okay. Good question. Thank you councillor Frank Wilkie 01:05:56.956
Lineson. Any further discussion or questions on the motion to refer? All in favour? Councillor Finzel? Thank you that's carried unanimously. You're welcome. 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, Mr Chairman, Michael Balestra, 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'm going to leave you I just want to check we'll have a quorum, Councillor Stewart will be out for conflict of interest so it's myself, myself, Amelia and Karen which is, if we don't have you Brian we don't have a quorum. Can you hang in there? Brian Stockwell 01:06:59.486
Okay, I'll stay in but I might be absent just for a few minutes. Frank Wilkie 01:07:02.866
Okay, thank you. We'll note that you're unwell. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:07:05.986
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 and clear new fees and charges for access devices as I am a resident of Noosa Waters and contribute the levy and regularly utilise the Noosa Waters lock and clear system. As a result of my conflict of interest I'll now leave the meeting room for the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Councillor Frank Wilkie 01:07:26.298
Stewart. Okay Liam and Michael would you like to come to the table and talk us through this report please. Hello Liam. 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 Loch 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 lots on the coast. So we brought this upgrade 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 fob now, but residents will also presidents will also have the option of purchasing the 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 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? Brian Stockwell 01:08:46.658
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 01:09:05.725
Any questions, councillors, for staff? On this, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:09.865
Hey, Liam. Hi. Thank you for the report. In terms of, so as an old 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? Brian Stockwell 01:09:41.450
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 the residents. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:55.250
My understanding is no they're not, but we do operate through the association as the central point for us. SPEAKER_01 01:10:05.469
Again this is this is an opt-in exercise so they still have the fob or card. That's included in their current fees. It's just a spot changer. If they've already got one, continue on as. If they want a second one, it'll cost them $90. If they want to go to the remote... to the revival. It'll cost them $191. I'm thinking some of them might not be able to get in and out if they don't know about it. Brian Stockwell 01:10:34.900
It's outlined in here but it's as per the current department guidelines for it and you do need to have two both registered to have two access devices so you can have a combination of fob or wireless but to have two. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:54.695
Thank you very much. Frank Wilkie 01:10:57.315
I can't see online counsellors. Do you have any questions for staff? Karen Finzel 01:11:02.215
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 what's in other areas. So thank you. Great. Frank Wilkie 01:11:22.374
Would someone care to move the motion? Karen Finzel 01:11:24.034
Happy to move it. Councillor Lorentson. Happy to move it. 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. Are we right from here on? Yes, 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. Frank Wilkie 01:11:57.416
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Okay. Thank you, Liam. Thank you, Michael. Well done. Thank you, guys. Karen Finzel 01:12:03.056
Thank you, Liam. Frank Wilkie 01:12:04.256
Next is the financial performance report, and we have Director of Corporate Services, Trent Grauf, to talk Mr Trent, please go ahead and talk us through it. Trent Grauf 01:12:37.791
So financial performance for September is positive. Operating revenues are outperforming forecast and operating spending is slightly under forecast at this one quarter mark in the financial year. As we break that down further, operating revenue is $1.6 million of our 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 of $168,000 and from our other our other community facilities such as the NAC, the J and Ledger Centre, noting that those facilities do have offsetting additional costs associated with maintenance or operating. There's an additional term in 2000 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 that are slightly below budget of $239,000. It's due to parking fees, timing of fees through our Noosa seniors as well as regulatory from building and plumbing development 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 the budget and insurance 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 budget is a deficit position, what we will do What we will do is propose for BR2 is this additional upside will bring Council back into a surplus position for the BR2 budget as it has got devoted in according to the year. In terms of containment or constraint of those cash funds and surpluses, $1.1 million of the surplus is unconstrained from our general revenue. you, there $1.7 million related to business operations such as holiday parks and waste, and there is $200,000 from levies. Now, if we work through some of the details in the report, tourism and economic development levy remains on budget year to date. As with previous As with previous quarters, we also have two deep dives from the report. One is our legal cost summary, which shows a deep dive that legal costs are currently in the low budget, but again, early in the financial year and it may fluctuate depending on the progress of legal matters such as development appeals. And the other deep dive is in relation to cash components. The Press: Thank you, Mr. President. Press: Capital revenue is above budget due to some significant grants in advance. The Press: Excuse me, question. The Press: Bridges Renewal, Plasma Bushfire, NQRA Disaster Funding and all those funds are sitting constrained in our cash reserves. 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 is restricted in terms of unspent grants, levies, disaster recovery, and landfill rehabilitation. There's $29 million committed over the next year. I understand how capital works. We'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 council operations during the year. 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 surplus 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 that leaves BR2 anticipated plus variations of capital works for projects such as our VHS and the And at this stage, the close, council's promotion, performance promotion. Questions, councillor? Yeah, I do. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:17:25.488
Thank you, Trent. Always very comprehensive. Could you elaborate a bit on the 1.1 general operating surplus, please? Trent Grauf 01:17:32.246
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. Clare Stewart 01:17:32.928
Sure. Trent Grauf 01:17:48.529
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, the intent is under our reserves and cash policy, those funds get set such as conglomerate operations, civil works, finance, my area, HR, those sort of libraries and galleries, all those core areas of expenditure. In terms of general revenue, it's our general rate, our interest general rate, our interest revenue and fees and charges, and that nets off to one million dollars. Clare Stewart 01:18:38.358
And the 58 million held in restricted cash? Restricted cash? Yeah, can you talk to that too? Because 58 million seems like a lot of money. Yes. Trent Grauf 01:18:55.061
So we restrict our cash under our reserves and restrict our cash policy. We have externally restricted cash and internally. And what we do is there are certain cash elements of that $58 million that are required And so that's that un-spent 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. There's $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's happened from prior year. There's $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 and some other minor restricted cash which is $10 million for smaller parts of work such as environmental offsets. Clare Stewart 01:20:24.855
And Trent, we're still pretty high in our cash expense cover. We're supposed to have over 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, we're carrying fair amount of cash. Does that come back back into the reasons that we have to for the expenses that we're still going to incur? So the cash cover is currently four ambulances a month in total if you look at the ratios. If you take out the externally restricted which is the legislative requirement of the cash for those unspent grants, it comes back to 10 months cash cover. If you take out... 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 cover which is the requirements that if we had a disaster or a major sustainability matter that keeps council matter, that keeps council operating for three months and legislative requirements. We only had two million dollars over and above that, that's just free cash. So we're probably where we should be. Thank you. I do understand that base 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 Mountain. And some of the other grant funds including our 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, I have a few more, but I was going to let everyone else crack and I'll come back. Sure, catalysing. Amelia Lorentson 01:22:10.882
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 01:22:28.817
Councillor, this year as part of the budget process, our cash cover and our consideration of cash requirements features quite heavily. We actually start with our liquidity requirements 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 Can we stop the discussion? Works get included and what works get deferred. That cash availability is the threshold to ensure we have enough cash. The challenge for us as an organisation, a small council, is those capital works do have more free cash to side and it's generating a to side and it's generating a larger surplus. Generating a larger surplus means higher rate rise. So it's important through the budget process as we do each year we find a right balance between charging a sustainable rate rise and free cash for capital works. The importance is that balance of ensuring that our priorities for new and upgrade works are... appropriate to meet the needs of the organisation. And just to close with that, every second year is part of a funding requirement. If people want to borrow loans through our Queensland Treasury Funding Authority, they undertake a credit review. I can't believe every review since we've we've made a sound with a neutral network decline in our sustainability as an organisation if anything but remain in a very small level of sustainability thank you and that's what I was hoping you were going to say in terms of the tourism and economic development summary so tourism and economic development is funded through the general rate but who actually pays every everyone or can you a give some 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 living yes if you want that to the unwind of the tourism economic levy what we did was at the time when that levy was unwound and we moved it into general bay 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 for non-residential rates. So not 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 why it's That is why, it's one of the reasons why there is a relativity or 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 constrain any unspent funds at the end of the year. We just talked about constrained 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 01:25:44.676
Oh, I'm still a little bit confused Trent, sorry. oh I'm still a So everyone pays? Is that what you're saying? Trent Grauf 01:25:52.796
It is part of the general rate, but the rating structure, the way we charge... 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 How much free cash did we begin this term with and now we've got $2 million? We have paid off. We paid off early in the election term, $10 million of debt. That was in year two. In year three we went through a process of actually refinancing our debt. The interest rates were the lowest. We refinanced what was previously held at six to seven interest rates and we refixed it. 3.2% I believe, which has fixed up for 20 years so it's obviously set us up for some very sound sustainability in the future. Was that the second time we paid off a large amount? 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, entry of the capital budget review evaluates. The price increase pressures with delivery pressures and where the project should proceed or get people in to ensure that overall you don't continue to absorb price increases if they're 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 01:28:18.503
We've also delivered the largest ever capital infrastructure projects in the history of Noosa Council in its term. 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 looked down that list, they were the three that caught my eye. Trent Grauf 01:28:52.635
I don't know if this is the right time to take it from you, I don't think. Clare Stewart 01:28:59.360
It's not three. Okay. Starting with the contributions, donations, sponsorships and prizes. Trent Grauf 01:29:06.960
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 that we'll be signing. 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. if we've got a variance there, that would be a timing assumption when we were fitting and giving that money back to the community groups. So that hopefully should just be a timing assumption. The second one that was in relation to software subscriptions, software maintenance, that is in relation 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 commence another round of robust recruitment as of tomorrow morning, so fingers crossed and looking forward to this process commencing. But to ensure the security and particularly cyber security of our network. We've supplemented that back 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 Clare Stewart 01:30:45.177
And coming back to that, that was one of the major themes of the local government conference was cyber security and the fact that all councils across Queensland have just been 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. so as we mentioned the forecasting that we do, a lot of work internally you'll see the deck drive we put in the report today where even even though though we've we're marginally above year to date 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 if it's looking high we'll bring in a further board guide into that and address that through a budget review if needed. Cool, thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:31:33.106
Trent, I have a question about expenditure for permanent staff salaries and wages underspent 916. 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 01:31:56.943
It's actually a really difficult question to answer on a daily basis, but I don't have But I don't have the exact numbers with me. SPEAKER_01 01:32:05.779
We're keeping costs down. Get one back on the treadmill to the generator. But, you know, we are experiencing, like every business, like every council, a turnover. We've reduced our turnover, you know, of staff in recent times, so we're happy with that. But then we're seeing, just as Trent said, you know, we're still looking for an amateur for ICT, which we've been out to the market once, twice, so far. So we're again looking at a different method. We're out in the market for a manager of Fee and Seek, people and culture, as well at the moment, so while those positions, and they're usually high level positions in organisations, so whilst they're not being filled, then that's where we can to make sure that we keep our coverage, keep the business ticking over. So it's just, it's just unfortunate. part of doing business at the moment. 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 01:33:20.685
During the last year quite a bit quantified about 100 staff, 100 vacancies you're trying to fill. Is it, have we improved on that situation since then? Larry Sengstock 01:33:33.081
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 not quite that simple. But in terms of firmness, 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 01:34:02.793
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 of our staff live out of the Shire now. The majority? I think it's the same percentage. We're close to that, close to half the number of staff. Okay, thank you. Karen, do you have Yes, Karen, you've got your hand up. Karen Finzel 01:34:20.887
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? Trent Grauf 01:35:04.770
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 any of the doers in the organisation to start the budget process is to look at everything we do. So our starting point... Whether that's the opening hours of the facility, the library, to the amount of hectares of bush 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 That help Karen? Karen Finzel 01:36:42.020
Yes 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 build for example across from several you know different buckets of money, where do we then construct constrain cash or I don't know look at how we then cost and manage the life of the infrastructure. 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 01:37:20.707
I can answer that as well, Councillor. 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 decision on a major piece of infrastructure, the England playground might be a good example of that, or a recent one that's been constructed, or the Prison 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've already identified what the need to identify 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. Rehabilitate and replace the components of the asset. So the moment that decision is made, we embed that in the budget in our 10-year financial plan so we're aware of it, particularly for large-scale ones because the cost increase isn't $10 Karen Finzel 01:38:48.793
Thanks Trent. That's a great response. Thank you. With clarity. It's good. Thank you. Anyone care to move the motion? I will. Councillor Stewart. Happy to move it. Seconded Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Clare Stewart 01:39:03.913
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, you know, but there is background to that where there is restricted cash that are required to have. There's also restricted cash that are required to have internally. There's also a lot of upcoming and and emergent works that we need. So we're probably running the money about that $2 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 isn't bit over the three months, so about five, six months, so we're in a good position there. We have a lot on, and this is... We sat a little bit at risk on the weekend. Sorry, the weekend. On Friday, it 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 and the finance team because there is so many aspects of this business and... There's 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 for revenue generation, which is great to see. Thank You've answered my questions that I had and always appreciate the report. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:40:30.267
Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:40:32.967
I just want to acknowledge yourself, Pauline, and your team too, Trent. We don't speak 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 it's the word I'm overwhelmed by what this organisation does. you know billion dollars worth of assets which earn 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 01:41:21.840
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 if you could just express that to everyone that would be fantastic. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:41:38.420
One of the other things 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 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 your predecessors, Trent, so thank you very much. very much. Councillor Stewart, would you close? No. I put the motion. Those in favour? That is unanimous. Clare Stewart 01:42:08.891
We haven't got Karen. Yes, Thank you, Karen. Karen Finzel 01:42:13.111
Thank you, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:42:15.611
There's no confidential session. Declare the meeting closed. Thank you, councillors. Thank you, Mr CEO. Thank you, Trent. 2:40. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:23.531
Thanks, Trent. Frank Wilkie 01:42:24.331
Thank you, Linda and Vicky. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:26.631
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:42:26.731
Thank you, everyone. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
