Planning & Environment Committee Meeting, 11 July 2023
Date: Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:55:07
Synopsis: Noosa Springs Hotel controversy sent to General Committee over odour and bushfire risks, Sunshine Beach and Picture Point refusals upheld, Environment Levy purchase approved, conflicts managed.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Tom Wegener Karen Finzel Brian Stockwell Non-Committee Members
Joe Jurisevic Amelia Lorentson Frank Wilkie Executive Officers
Director Strategy And Environment And Sustainable Development, Kim Rawlings Acting Chief Executive Officer, Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Tom Wegener: Chaired Planning & Environment Committee; noted Mayor Stewart’s apology and attendance of Councillors Jurisevic, Lorentson, Wilkie; welcomed new Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray (00:00–01:00; Minutes 1). Karen Finzel: Declared a conflict and left for Noosa Springs Hotel deputations due to campaign volunteer’s association with Altum/JFP submission (02:05–03:00; Minutes 4). Brian Stockwell: Declared a conflict re Altum/JFP and Leigh McCready; permitted to remain for deputations after Chair’s determination in the public interest (03:10–06:26; Minutes 4). John Cochrane / Community submitters: Urged refusal of Noosa Springs Hotel citing extensive Noosa Plan 2020 non‑compliance, amenity, bushfire evacuation, odour, traffic and potential reverse‑amenity impacts on Unitywater STP; argued hotel largely on Open Space Recreation land and height/GFA exceedances (07:20–23:00; Minutes 4.1, 5.1). Rhett Duncan (Unitywater): Opposed hotel at proposed location as too close (~200m) to STP, contrary to 1995 EIS buffers and State Planning Policy; warned of odour complaint risk, inability to transfer obligations, and potential multi‑tens‑of‑millions upgrades (e.g., $38m Murrumba Downs precedent) (23:12–31:28; Minutes 4.2, 5.1). Ellen Guan/applicant team: Supported hotel as community/wellness‑focused, asserted redesign outside 2.5 odour contour and reliance on expert reports; proposed bushfire shelter‑in‑place plan (32:16–47:33; Minutes 4.3, 5.1). Council: Referred Noosa Springs Hotel MCU21/0110 to General Committee due to significance (47:59–49:10; Minutes 5.1). Ozcare (100 Cooyar St): Approved minor change converting dual rooms to single rooms; updated conditions; Infrastructure Agreement for access crossing and Girraween Nature Refuge buffer/track; noted under Planning Act s63(5) (50:06–56:36; Minutes 5.2). Sunshine Beach (60 Seaview Tce): Refused dwelling house works for excessive height, site cover, setbacks, bulk/overshadowing and privacy/overlooking including rooftop terrace bulk; consistency with Low Density Residential Code cited; s63(5) noted (56:36–01:04:51; Minutes 5.3). Picture Point (39–41): Refused 1→2 lot reconfiguration in High Density Residential zone as inconsistent with minimum size/width, irregular shape, likely duplication of access/services/earthworks, undermining multiple dwelling intent; biodiversity corridor transected and bushfire plan deficient (01:05:28–01:11:31; Minutes 5.4). Home-based mechanic (39 Eucalypt Way): Instead of outright refusal, referred to General Committee; CEO to liaise with applicant on conditions to mitigate noise (e.g., limit to 3 days/wk, 9–5, acoustic barriers, practices to meet Environmental Protection Policy noise limits) (01:13:10–01:36:24; Minutes 5.5). Short-term accommodation (2A Woongar St, Boreen Point): Referred to General Committee; seek conditions addressing environmental sensitivity including dog control and activities affecting environmental values (01:36:25–01:42:14; Minutes 5.6). Sunshine Butterflies (468 McKinnon Dr): Approved minor change to add ancillary café for clients/staff; COI managed for Chair; s63(5) noted (01:42:14–01:47:21; Minutes 5.7). Burgess Creek monitoring: Referred to General Committee given significance; discussed data, stormwater mapping gaps, and Unitywater report sharing (01:47:21–02:04:24; Minutes 5.8). Delegations & Environment Strategy: Noted delegated decisions; Environment Strategy Year 3 progress referred to General Committee due to significance (02:13:38–02:18:34; 02:18:34–02:32:37; Minutes 6.1, 6.2). Environment Levy acquisition (Confidential): Approved CEO to negotiate purchase within $400k–$480k, place Nature Refuge, and fund initial/ongoing management from Levy (02:54:17–end; Minutes 7.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Process dispute: Debate on whether committee could direct CEO to seek specific mitigations in 5.5; resolved to frame as liaison for “matters such as” to avoid pre‑empting full Council (01:19:40–01:29:35; Minutes 5.5). Unitywater warning: Asserted approval would conflict with 1995 EIS buffer logic and State Planning Policy; highlighted regulator DES applies general environmental duty, not 2.5 OU contours, raising enforcement risk (23:12–31:28; Minutes 4.2, 5.1). Community amenity: Deputations detailed crime/behaviour incidents around golf course users and fears over single egress in bushfire for hotel area (14:49–20:21; Minutes 4.1). Referrals due to significance: Major items (Noosa Springs Hotel, Burgess Creek, Environment Strategy) escalated to General Committee to include all councillors (47:59–49:10; 01:47:21–02:04:24; 02:18:34–02:32:37; Minutes 5.1, 5.8, 6.2). Confidential land purchase: Managed in accordance with Local Government Regulation s254J(3)(g); Stockwell excluded due to perception concerns (02:37:59–02:40:06; Minutes 7.1). Legal / Risk Noosa Springs Hotel: Potential conflict with State Planning Policy (protecting STPs), reverse amenity risk, and Environmental Protection Act 1994 general environmental duty; DES may pursue odour nuisance despite contour modelling (23:12–31:28; Minutes 4.2, 5.1). Sunshine Beach refusal: Non‑compliance with Low Density Residential Zone Code AOs/POs on height, site cover, setbacks, privacy; overshadowing and view loss risks substantiated (56:36–01:04:51; Minutes 5.3). Picture Point refusal: High Density zone intends multiple dwellings; small/irregular lots risk suboptimal outcomes, increased access/earthworks; biodiversity corridor and bushfire assessment deficiencies increase environmental and safety risks (01:05:28–01:11:31; Minutes 5.4). Home-based mechanic: Noise compliance must meet background +5 dBA at boundaries; absent acoustic report elevates enforcement risk; committee sought practical mitigations while avoiding pre‑judgment (01:13:10–01:31:59; Minutes 5.5). Ozcare change: Infrastructure Agreement conditions access crossing, vegetation buffer maintenance, and track works interfacing with Girraween Nature Refuge; Planning Act s63(5) compliance noted (50:06–56:36; Minutes 5.2). Environment Levy purchase: Delegated authority to negotiate within valuation range and declare Nature Refuge secures statutory conservation status and ongoing funded management (02:54:17–end; Minutes 7.1). Conflicts of Interest Karen Finzel: Left room for Noosa Springs Hotel deputations due to connection via campaign volunteer linked to Altum/JFP submission (02:05–03:00; Minutes 4). Brian Stockwell: Allowed to remain for hotel deputations (public interest), allowed to participate in Burgess Creek item, but required to leave for confidential Environment Levy land purchase due to perception in a confidential matter (03:10–06:26; 01:47:48–01:51:42; 02:37:59–02:40:06; Minutes 4, 5.8, 7.1). Tom Wegener: Disclosed prior donation of surfboard equipment to Sunshine Butterflies; permitted to participate and vote on minor change (01:42:14–01:46:14; Minutes 5.7). Environmental Concerns Burgess Creek: Data show variable water quality; discussion to map stormwater inflows, consider WSUD (rain gardens/biobasins), and share Unitywater REM report; potential funding ~ $266k flagged (01:51:42–02:04:24; Minutes 5.8). Ozcare / Girraween: Fire access track and stormwater upgrades considered; emphasis on bushfire management near Nature Refuge (50:59–55:56; Minutes 5.2). Boreen Point STA: Conditions to manage dogs/cats and guest activities in sensitive foreshore/koala areas proposed for General Committee (01:36:25–01:42:14; Minutes 5.6). Noosa Springs Hotel: Community cited climate/energy intensity, poor solar orientation, potable water use for large pools, and proximity to STP; applicant outlined sustainability features but scale and zoning conflicts remain central (07:20–21:13; 41:13–46:50; Minutes 4.1, 4.3). Sunshine Beach Council officers and councillors: Determined new dwelling’s scale/bulk would dominate streetscape, obstruct views, and create overlooking/amenity impacts; unanimous refusal (56:36–01:04:51; Minutes 5.3). Discussion: Rooftop terrace bulk and privacy screens increased mass; example of nearby precedent concerns reinforced need to align with scenic amenity overlays (59:29–01:03:28; Minutes 5.3). Short-Term Accommodation / STA Boreen Point (2A Woongar St): Existing dwelling to STA; staff trimmed guests to 8; General Committee to consider fauna‑safe conditions (dogs/cats) and guest education/signage (01:36:25–01:42:14; Minutes 5.6). Delegations context: Some STAs proceed under delegation when code‑compliant; the Boreen Point case escalated due to environmental overlays/split zoning (02:16:02–02:17:41; Minutes 6.1). Planning Scheme & Zoning Outcomes High Density intent protected: Picture Point refusal safeguards multiple dwelling capacity and biodiversity corridor, avoiding piecemeal lotting and service duplication (01:05:28–01:11:31; Minutes 5.4). Low Density code enforced: Sunshine Beach refusal underscores strict adherence to AO/POs on height/site cover/setbacks and rooftop privacy/bulk (56:36–01:04:51; Minutes 5.3). Noosa Plan 2020 consistency: Submitters alleged hotel’s reliance on Open Space Recreation land and exceedances of AO 17.1/17.2 and height controls; Council escalated for whole‑of‑Council determination (07:20–21:13; 47:59–49:10; Minutes 4.1, 5.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 11 July 2023 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Tom Wegener (Chair), Karen Finzel, Clare Stewart, Brian Stockwell “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Tom Wegener Cr Karen Finzel Cr Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Joe Jurisevic Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Frank Wilkie EXECUTIVE Director Strategy and Environment and Sustainable Development, Kim Rawlings Acting Chief Executive Officer, Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Cr Clare Stewart 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 6 June 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Finzel provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel Development. Leigh McCready, who is associated with Altum, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the Deputations are heard. Cr Finzel left the meeting. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have come to understand that JFP Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 Springs Hotel Development. Leigh McCready is associated with Altum Property Group. On 24 February 2020 I sought a review by the Independent Council Election Observer (ICEO) as to the public claims of the Future Noosa Team in regard to Ms Leigh McCready. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and my queries at that time were in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and listen to the Deputations. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: N/A That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Stockwell participates on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and Cr Stockwell’s queries at that time were in the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. 4.1. JOHN COCHRANE TOPIC : MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS HOTEL The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes 4.2. RHETT DUNCAN - UNITYWATER TOPIC : MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS HOTEL 4.3. ELLEN GUAN TOPIC: MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS HOTEL The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: refer to Attachment 2 to the Minutes PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - BAR, FOOD, AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, RESORT COMPLEX AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 5.2. 132001.210127.3 - CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL - CHANGING SHARED ROOMS TO SINGLE ROOMS - OZCARE - 100 COOYAR STREET, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. 132001.210127.3 to make a minor change to an existing approval for a Development Permit for a Material Change or Use for Stage 3 – Aged Persons Home (20 Beds) situated at 100 Cooyar Street, Noosa Heads and: A. Approve the change. B. Amend the development description to read as follows: o Development Permit for a Material Change of Use - Residential Care Facility (130 beds) C. Amend conditions 15 and 26 as outlined in Attachment 1 - Proposed amended and additional conditions D. Delete conditions 1, 2, 23, 27 and 28. E. Include additional conditions as outlined in Attachment 1 - Proposed amended additional conditions. F. Agree to enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with Ozcare (the Owner) in respect of construction of access track crossing, maintenance of vegetation buffer one and access track (including crossing) for the Girraween Nature Refuge and the Residential Care Facility. G. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 5.3. DBW21/0216 - APPLICATION FOR BUILDING WORKS FOR A DWELLING HOUSE AT 60 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Graduate Development Planner to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. DBW21/0216 for a Development Permit for Building Works – Dwelling House situated at 60 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO7.1 and corresponding Performance Outcome PO7 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code as it: i. Is proposed to exceed 8 metres in building height from finished ground level; ii. Will visually dominate the surrounding area; and iii. Has the potential to obstruct views and cause overshadowing of dwellings within proximity of the site. 2. The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO8.1 and corresponding Performance Outcome PO8 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code as it: i. Exceeds site cover requirements of 50% for one storey and 30% for the other storey or 40% for both storeys; ii. Is not of a scale that is compatible with surrounding development; iii. Has not included the opportunity for soft landscaping between buildings; and iv. Presents an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties. 3. The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO9.3 and corresponding Performance Outcome PO9 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code as: i. The northern side boundary setback does not comply with minimum side setback requirements; ii. The built to boundary garage and bin structures do not comply with minimum side setback requirements; iii. Will impact on the visual and acoustic amenity of adjoining premises; iv. Has the capacity to cause issues of overlooking of private open space of adjoining premises; and v. Does not provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses. 4. The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO16.3 and corresponding Performance Outcome PO16 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code as the proposed rooftop terrace will have the potential to obstruct views of dwellings within proximity of the site and create issues of overlooking to neighbouring properties. the privacy walls associated with the proposed roof top terrace will also create excessive bulk to neighbouring properties. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 5.4. RAL22/0021 - RECONFIGURE A LOT (1 INTO 2 LOTS) AT 39-41 PICTURE POINT CRESCENT, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. RAL22/0021 for a Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot – 1 into 2 lots, situated at 39-41 Picture Point Crescent Noosa Heads and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is contrary to Overall Outcomes 2(a), (b), (c) & (d), Performance Outcomes PO5, PO6, PO7, and Acceptable Outcome AO5.1, AO5.2, AO7.3, AO7.4, AO7.5, AO7.7 of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as: a. The proposed lots are not consistent with the size and character of surrounding lots and are less than the required minimum lot size and width. b. The proposed lots are irregular in shape, with the proposed lot shape not necessitated by a curve in the road, topographical constraints, or the site’s vegetation, with the lot shape constraining their future development for multiple dwellings. c. The future development of the lots is likely to result in duplication of accessways and services, excessive earthworks and modification to the landform which will impact on the amenity and character of the area. d. The proposed development is not consistent with the Overall Outcome 2(o) of the Noosa Heads Locality Plan Code to accommodate a greater diversity in housing types as the proposed reconfiguring a lot will limit the opportunities for further multiple dwellings in Noosa Heads. 2. The proposed lots are not consistent with the Overall Outcome 2(f) and Performance Outcome PO1 of the High Density Residential Zone Code to accommodate multiple dwellings to the exclusion of dual occupancy and dwelling houses, as the proposed lots are unlikely to be able to accommodate multiple dwellings consistent with the code’s built form requirements. 3. The proposed development is contrary to Overall Outcome 2(c), (d) & (h), Performance Outcome PO2 and Acceptable Outcome AO2 of the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code as the proposed lot boundaries transect a wildlife corridor and no rehabilitation is proposed to improve this ecological linkage. 4. The proposed lots are in part located in a medium bushfire hazard area and the Bushfire Management Plan does not make any assessment of the proposed development or identify any bushfire mitigation measures, based on ecological principles, to minimise the risk to people and property from bushfire hazard. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 5.5. MCU22/0120 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – HOME-BASED BUSINESS (MECHANIC) AT 39 EUCALYPT WAY, COOTHARABA Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.5 be referred to the General Committee and request the CEO to liaise with the applicant regarding a range of matters that would reduce the potential impact such as: Limiting the use to 3 days a week and the hours 9am to 5pm; Installing acoustic barriers around the compressor and any other noise making machinery likely to create a nuisance outside of the property boundaries; Adopting work practices that buffer and direct noise away from neighbouring properties; and Conducting all operations to comply with noise limits set by the relevant Environmental Protection Policy. Carried unanimously. 5.6. MCU23/0019 - SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 2A WOONGAR STREET, BOREEN POINT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.6 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration and request the CEO to provide appropriate conditions considering the environmental sensitivity of the site including the control of dogs and other activities that may impact on environmental values. Carried unanimously. 5.7. MCU16/0090.02 - MINOR CHANGE TO THE EXISTING APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A CAFÉ FOR GUESTS OF THE COMMUNITY USE – WELLBEING – TYPE 2 SOCIAL ON LAND AT 468 MCKINNON DRIVE, COOROIBAH In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Sunshine Butterflies as on 23 October 2020 I provided them with a donation of surfboard making equipment valued at approximately $1200. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not have any other association with that organisation. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Cr Finzel be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting for this item for the purpose of considering the conflict of interest declaration by Cr Wegener. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel assumed the chair. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wegener and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Wegener participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that he does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Wegener did not vote on the above motion. Cr Wegener resumed the Chair. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding Application No. MCU16/0090.02 for a Minor Change to an existing approval for Material Change of Use - Community Use – Wellbeing – Type 2 – Social, situated at 468 McKinnon Drive, Cooroibah and: A. Approve the change. B. Amend conditions 1 & 2 to read as outlined in Attachment 1 – Proposed amended and additional conditions. C. Include 2 additional conditions as outlined in Attachment 1 – Proposed amended and additional conditions. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. Cr Lorentson left the meeting. 5.8. INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM - BURGESS CREEK In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to the fact that as President of the Noosa Lions Football Club (NLFC) I have land and water management responsibilities for approximately 4.5 ha of the Girraween Sports Complex. This involves the application of mainly organic, slow release and calcium-based fertilisers and herbicide over what is a sizeable holding in terms of the catchment. The club also uses groundwater for irrigation and has used surface water and recycled water in the past. The downstream impact of sports fields are potential risk factors for the quality of surface waters in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role with NLFC and the fact that the club is not PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 likely to gain or lose from the proposed monitoring program, I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that neither he nor the Noosa Lions Football Club stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.8 be referred to the General Committee due to significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11.40am. The meeting resumed at 11.50am. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Cr Lorentson returned to the meeting. 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY MAY 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Manager, Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. 6.2. NOOSA ENIVIRONMENT STRATEGY - YEAR THREE (2021/2022) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ANNUAL UPDATED Cr Wilkie left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 6.2 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as in my sole trader consultancy (Watershed Australia), I commenced a contract with the Koala Action Gympie Region Association (KAGR) in June 2023. The $28,000 agreement currently runs to the end of the calendar year. As part of the contract I am assisting the not-for-profit group identify potential programs and projects to enhance koala habitat and the sustainability of the group in the Gympie Region including opportunities to link with other organisations to create inter-regional corridors. As the subject land abuts the Gympie Regional Council area, and as it is part of a mapped koala corridor in the SEQ Bioregion, KAGR may have a future interest in linkages across shire boundaries in this locality. As there is currently no direct link, nor any current specific project or proposal involving KAGR, or myself in a consultant capacity, and the lot in question, nor is it likely that I will benefit directly from its acquisition, I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine Cr Stockwell must leave the meeting and not participate in the consideration and vote on this matter because due to the confidential nature of the matter, I believe that a reasonable person may not trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J (3) (g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing Item 7.1 Environment Levy Proposed Land Purchase. Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JULY 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the Report by the Principal Environment Officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 regarding the proposed purchase of the property and: A. Approve and authorise the CEO to: 1. Proceed with negotiation with the owners or their agent to purchase the property detailed in the Report within the valuation range of $400,000 to $480,000; 2. If agreement can be reached between Council and the owners or their agent, utilise Council's Environment Levy funds to proceed with the purchase of the property detailed in the Report within the valuation range of $400,000 to $480,000; 3. If the property detailed in the Report is purchased by Council, proceed with the placement of a Nature Refuge over the property; and 4. Utilise Council's Environment Levy funds to allow Environmental Services undertake initial management actions on the property including weed and pest management, fire management, and ecological restoration; and 5. Utilise Council's Environment Levy funds to allow Environmental Services to undertake ongoing management actions on the property including weed and pest management, fire management, flora and fauna monitoring. Carried unanimously. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 12.30pm.
Meeting Transcript
Tom Wegener 00:00.900
Welcome to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting the 11th of July 2023, or I declare this meeting open. I'd like to acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi People and I pay my respects to the elders past, present, and emerging. I note that committee members here are Brian Stockwell and Karen Finzel. Regular committee member, Mayor Stewart, is not here today. We also have Councillors Wilkie, Lorentson, and Jurisevic in the room. And I would like to start with the words of Franklin delano Roosevelt, "A smooth sea never made a good sailor." And we have our new Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray in the room today for the first time. Can I move or have a mover and seconder for the confirmations of the meeting minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held last month? I shall. Right, who's next? I'll second Brian Stockwell 01:12.962
Anyone vote on that one? Yep, all in favour? And Mr Chair, would you like to accept the apologies of the Mayor and acknowledge the other Councillors in service? Did you, that? Did you do it? I did. Oh, I did, I blame age. Tom Wegener 01:27.039
We are. Have our first oh, yeah. There yeah. Are there no presentations and we no presentations. And we have three deputations this morning. But before we go to the deputations, we will need to go through our conflict of interest. And we'd like to have first Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:57.958
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I declare a conflict of interest in this matter. I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of this matter and I've come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the developers of park ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs development. Leigh McCready is associated with Altum Property Group. On 24th of February 2020, I sought a review by the end of, oh hang on, sorry, I've skimmed all the lines, I was associated with altam, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room. Brian Stockwell 02:47.283
While the matter is considered and it's not going to be voted on. Karen Finzel 02:52.761
So while the deputations are heard. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:10.604
Yes, I also wish to inform the meeting I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I've come to understand that JFP consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group are the developers of park ridge Noosa Springs made a submission against the Noosa Springs hotel development. Leigh McCready is associated with Altum Property Group. On the 24th of February 2020 I sought a review by the Independent Council Election Observer as the public claims a fugitive. Of the Future Noosa team in regard to Ms Leigh McCready. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service and my queries at the time were in the public interest. I will choose to remain in the meeting room however I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and listen to the deputations. Tom Wegener 03:59.798
Thank you Ryan. Normally we would bring a motion to have for Brian stay in the room but there's only one Councillor, me, who can make the decision and so will, a but I can't move it in seconds if I but I can't move that Brian stay in the room because we've gone through this conflict many, times and Brian has stayed in the room each time when we believed that he could make a. What do I need to say that we can make a fair. Yeah. That Council knows that the declarable conflict of interest by Council Stockwell to determine Council that. An advisory service, not a statutory process, and Councillor stockwell's queries at that time were of public interest, and neither he nor Mrs McCready stood to personally gain or lose from the advice, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mr. Joe Jurisevic 05:14.426
I'll just clarify, the language doesn't, at this point in time, is only relating to the deputation and not being voted on, so the wording in that needs to be corrected. With regard to being voted on, that will come in later on when the matter is actually up for discussion or debate. Yeah thank you that was corrected in the declaration, it needs to be corrected in your resolution. Just so that it replicates what's in the. What's in the declaration with regard to and you want to take stuff out about the decision? Yeah there's no decision process there Kat so it should only be about being able to stay in the room while the deputations being presented Tom Wegener 06:10.523
I understand the CEO that I have the right to yeah uh vote and was it allowed? Larry Sengstock 06:20.105
In accordance with the act you've got the ability as a single Councillor to make this decision. Tom Wegener 06:26.396
Yeah so I just decided to let Ryan stay in the room and give him that room. We're ready for the deputations then and can we first please have Mr. John Cochrane. Yeah now there's a question of whether you'd on camera. That's fine. We have a camera's fine? Okay. Okay so please take the lecture. Thank you. We have a 15 minute time limit. I've been instructed to make sure John Cochrane 07:22.270
Would be a preamble to the slideshow so if we can just hang on to those for the moment oh that's fine we can have the title sheet up thank you. Okay, make sure that it's all working there. Tom Wegener 07:31.460
Cathy? Okay. John, please proceed. John Cochrane 07:34.013
Thank you. Councillors for the opportunity to address this meeting. My name is John Cochrane and my co-presenter is Kim Petrovic. We both live in Noosa Springs and represent some of the 450 residents who have made submissions against this proposal. The 1500 residents be negatively affected by the proposal and the Noosa-wide cohort who will potentially be affected by the likely need for upgrade of the nearby sewage treatment plant and the consequent increases in charges. We ask that Council refuse the application on the following grounds: the wide range of non-compliances with Noosa plan 2020. The wide range of impacts on the community, both local and regional. These include but are not limited to noise, traffic and congestion. The lack of an overarching strategy for bushfire evacuation and management. The divergence from the strategic objectives of the Noosa Council in terms of broadening the economic base of Noosa Shire and reducing the reliance on low paid employment in the tourism sector. Its lack of a positive response to climate change in terms of the proposals high capital carbon cost content and its it's really reliance on highly carbon intensive recurrent systems. Its lack of any passive systems to reduce carbon emissions. Its high use of potable water required by over scale pools. Its poor solar orientation and control systems. Overwhelmingly the negative community response to the proposal evidenced by the number of submissions in opposition, the negative sentiment published in the local newspaper, letters sent to Councillors and the petition submitted to Council in opposition to the proposal. In respect of the Noosa Plan 2020, the application is deficient in the following: 65% of the total of the hotel is proposed to be built on a land zone and open space for recreation, a non-compliance with Noosa Plan 2020. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Noosa Plan clause 6.1.2 in that the proposal is inconsistent with the purpose and overall outcomes of the plan. The proposal is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that it provides minimal community use. The proposal is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that it does not increase the range and diversity of recreational opportunities available. The proposal is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that the proposal is not consistent with the recreation needs of the community and supporting infrastructure. The proposal is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan performance outcomes in that it does not provide equitable access and comfort for all members of the community. The proposal does not comply with the Noosa Plan acceptable outcomes in that, A, food and drink outlets are not ancillary to any community activity. B, the food and beverage areas exceed the 150 square metre control. C, the ground floor includes a potential function area exceeding the 300 square metre control. D, the buildings and structures exceed the eight metre height control. D, the buildings exceed gross floor area control in AO 17.1. And F, the buildings exceed the wall length control in AO 17.2. The proposal's use of recreational land relies on claims that a hotel cannot be built on an existing Tourism Accommodation Zone land on the site and that the proposal supports existing Noosa Springs Resort facilities. We believe that a smaller hotel can be built on the site. We also believe that the proposal will not support the existing operations of Noosa Springs resort. The traffic generation model is derived from an example on the Gold Coast where public transport and recreation facilities are immediately adjacent. We believe that the traffic and parking strategy is flawed. The acoustic report is flawed. It incorrectly locates the loading dock. It underestimates the number of pool users, 50 persons only, for a 1,000 square metre swimming pool. It makes no assessment of live or recorded music. It makes no assessment of function use. The application seeks to construct a facility capable of accommodating 500 persons in a function setting. This facility is supported by extensive kitchen storage areas. The potential impact of this facility is not addressed. The applicant has asserted that there is no intention to use the ground flooring area of 500 square metres and its attendant kitchen and cool room facilities for functional use. However, the application seeks to construct a facility which is well in excess of the normal provision of these services for a 106 room hotel. The applicant has provided a letter suggesting is appropriate for the hotel use. I have provided Councillors with five examples of buildings I have designed indicating that the facility would easily support a function use of up to 500 persons. The potential function use is significant in that the consequential impacts of an additional 500 persons on site is not considered in terms of traffic, parking, noise, congestion, potential nuisance and impact on existing recreational uses. We also believe that the basis on reports support the proposal are flawed. The rationale for overturning the properly made zoning overlay is flawed. The potential of the proposal to litigate Unitywater is not adequately weighted. The technical analysis of impacts is limited lack in scope and lacks rigour. Some examples of this lack of rigour are in acoustic analysis, the failure to consider the proximity of park ridge, the lack of consideration of loading dock nuisance, the lack of consideration of impacts on the existing Noosa Springs resort. We do not believe that the co-ownership of the hotel and golf club is a bar to consideration of impacts on existing golf club users. Specific attention should be paid to the impacts arising from the location of the STP adjacent to the site, as identified by independent third-party advice obtained by Unitywater. The most effective mitigation will be the maintenance of the existing exclusion zone. Further advice from Unitywater includes any attempt to indemnify Unitywater for odour issues will be problematic. The building form of the proposal is most conducive to odour entrapment. All assessments are best case and do not account for blockages, breakdown, rainfall, heatwave, process, upset or loading events. Hence, not only is there no contingency in the STP systems, there is no capacity to absorb statistically guaranteed events. The potential impacts resulting are: higher charges due to consumers due to enforced upgrades of the STP, higher probability of odour nuisance due to increased load, Noosa Springs residents already experience odour depending on prevailing wind, damage to the Noosa brand by negative hotel experience, and a higher probability of nuisance for golf course users and walkers. Much has been made by the applicant on the proposed high quality of the facility and its synchronicity with the Noosa brand. None of this is pertinent to consideration of the proposal. It is a 106 bed tourist class hotel with a potential function room. The holiday accommodation market and the ability to manage odour will determine the user profile. I'll now hand over to Kim. Kim Petrovic 14:45.567
Will speak to you today on behalf of our community and the concerns that we currently have with the MCU. Community is made up of residents from park ridge, fairways, oasis, Noosa Springs and Elysium. There are a total of 600 and 670 dwellings in the affected residential enclave. While residents love living in their well, this residential one-club. Because of the community spirit and peaceful secure environment we believe our ability of life will be our quality of life will be significantly and adversely affected and this has the potential to cause adverse health issues. The MCU was submitted during COVID when the level of activity was considerably low. The traffic survey was conducted in 2017, some six years ago, and it failed to consider that the park ridge residential precinct had not been built and Elysium properties had not been fully completed. Here's a fact. Unlike the developer in Noosa Springs estate, we know that we had 162,000 vehicle movements of non-residents in and out of the estate in a 12 month period in 2022. This figure excludes resident movement. If we can do it, why can't Council ask for traffic counting to be undertaken on Links Drive, Resort Drive and Noosa Springs Drive by the developer? We have since learned that a distillery that opened in Rene Street Noosaville within the last two years had to undertake two periods of traffic counting before permission was granted to its operation. Another factor is the ageing demographic in this location and their ongoing need for emergency service personnel to attend residents to ensure medical emergencies can be dealt with in a timely manner are a major concern within our community. Residents have had some exposures to the delays associated with one road in, one road out. When roadworks in April 2023 caused lengthy delays and frustration. Links Drive is within a high potential bushfire intensity zone. Evacuation will be compounded in the event of a bushfire. Residents have been attempting for the past two years to engage with Council about the bushfire risks in this area. Other than the meeting with the Mayor and Councillor, the developer has indicated that the clubhouse can be the assembly point shelter for their guests but that doesn't guarantee guests will use it as such and they decide to drive out of the area like so many residents. As you know panic sets in when there's a bushfire so trying to egress via one road will be a disaster when it happens and our residents are fearful. Memories of the 2019 fire are fresh in our minds and how close it came to the golf course and residences. Odour from the sewage plant is already overpowering in some residential precincts and can be expected to worsen when the existing system cannot cope with the additional effluent from the hotel. Complaints from oasis residents to Unitywater have not improved the situation over the past five years. Golfers report they are exposed to the same smells on the 15th hole. Impact of the sewage treatment plant will inevitably increase complaints to Unitywater and will lead to very expensive modifications to be made to the facility which will ultimately be a cost borne by Noosa ratepayers through their water bills. Our are about further increases in an inflationary period as we have now. The increasing burden of utility costs are already hurting some residents. There is a clear disconnect with the luxury brand that the developer is putting forward and visitors they are attracting. In the past 18 months, we have seen the emergence of wedding guests and visiting golfers urinating on the golf course, exposing themselves to residents, swearing and shouting. Dropping cigarette butts, trespassing. On private property, driving buggies over residents' lawns, excessive alcohol consumption on and around the golf course, being intoxicated whilst driving golf buggies, throwing empty bottles at each other. To the level of intoxication and general unruly behaviour. When reported to the hotel, nothing is done. In a recent incident, our security incident, our security guard at Noosa Springs approached a trespasser who came through the golf course and moved onto Noosa Springs common property. He was assaulted and the alleged offender now faces criminal charges. This increasing exposure to this clientele base is generating fear that our residents will become a victim of crime with all due to with all due respect to the representatives who are here with GH property holdings this development is about making money and the background of visitors is an irrelevant consideration. For them. The impact of their behaviour is felt by our community. The residents are opposed to the proposed develop because we feel it will negatively impact on our mental wellbeing. We do not feel safe and positive about our future lives, specifically because of the changes we will experience during the development of the hotel and after its completion. For these reasons, we ask you to place community interests above the John Cochrane 20:26.929
The logo at the on the top left hand corner is a representation of sustainability. A balance between social, environmental and economical factors. We believe that the proposal is not balanced, it favours economic over social and environmental factors. To make our point, we've constructed a computer model, a BIM model. The accuracy and validity of the model can be sustained. On the left-hand side, you see the developer's view. On the right-hand side, what we've designated there, the neighbour's view. Unidentified Speaker 21:04.160
Left, to move it not working? John Cochrane 21:09.738
No, appears not to be. I'll just call for the next slide then. Just a little bit about the balance between environment, society and economy. Next slide, please. This shows the general core planning issues, zoning, bulk and scale, impacts, habitat, bushfire and whether it's a well-made application. The model there shows the extreme imbalance in scale and proportion between the proposal and the existing Noosa Springs resort buildings. The heights can be guaranteed as effective. They're taken from the AHD levels within the application and there's some notes there on how the model's been derived. So you can see there's an extreme imbalance of bulk and scale. The hotel is built on% of the floor area is based on land zoned open space recreation. The green area is the open space recreation zone. The red area is the 30 seconds. We've got to shoot. Okay, that's the imbalance of zoning. Can we move? Next slide, please. We dispute the height plane calculations. We've done our own calculations to find a higher level exceedance. Next slide, please. Three great sources of noise and congestion: the pool area, the loading dock, and the existing entry to the hotel. One of the big problems will be the impact on park ridge. That shows the roadway. That's it. Great. Thank you very, very much. Tom Wegener 22:56.661
We have our next deputation, Rhett Duncan from Unitywater. Please take up. Would you like to be on camera? Would you like to specifically not be on camera? Is fine, thank you. And you have no power flight? No. Rhett Duncan 23:10.415
Okay. Good morning. Unitywater is the water and wastewater service provider for the Noosa region. My name is Rhett Duncan. In my role as executive manager, customer delivery, the operation and maintenance of our network is my responsibility. So thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. After ensuring the protection of public health and the natural environment our most important priority is enabling economic development that allows communities to thrive. I'm here today to convey our very clear and very strong position that we do not support this development in its proposed location. To be clear we are not opposed to growth in the new growth at Noosa Springs just the proposed location which is too close to the existing Noosa sewage treatment plant. I'll explain our position and what we're asking this committee and Council to do. Sewage treatment is an essential community service that has been lawfully carried out on the site under Council operation since the mid 1970s. The STP was fully upgraded in 1997 and transferred to Unitywater on the 1st of July 2010. The STP operates under a Department of Environment and sciences environmental approval and to meet all of its licensed conditions. The 1995 environmental impact statement commissioned by Noosa Council notes in section 3.10 buffer area. Substantial buffer precincts exist around the existing and proposed STP. Nearest housing is more than 400 metres to the north of the existing STP northern boundary. The STP will be augmented to the south of the existing facility, increasing the buffer from the centre of the proposed STP augmentation by approximately 300 metres. The proposed Noosa Springs development, 400 metres to the west and south-west of the proposed STP, is protected against noise, odour and visual impacts by the intervening ridgeline. There's some key points to note in that EIS. Council made a conscious decision to shift the plant a further 300 metres to the south, away from sensitive receptors, then 400 metres to the north. Key odour generating sources are located to the south west of the STP site in order to maximise the distance from these sensitive receptors and the 1997 STP was designed with consideration to this 400 metre buffer land to the then proposed Noosa Springs development. This proposed development now sees sensitive receptors located approximately 200 metres from the STP, significantly closer than the 400 metres considered in the design of the current STP. The development encroaches up the ridgeline noted in the 1995 EIS as providing protection and this development knowing places sensitive receptors within the 2.5 odour unit contour line. Council's actions and decisions in the EIS were appropriate and in keeping with the principles outlined in part E of the current state planning policy, which still seeks to protect from encroachment by incompatible development. Therefore, approving the proposed development is not only in conflict with council's own earlier decisions to minimise the potential impact of the nearby land uses, but also in conflict with the intent of the State planning policy. It's true to note there have been few complaints about odour from the post-1997 upgraded STP, and this is a result of two firstly, Unitywater deliberately operating the plant in ways that aim to minimise odour events and therefore impacts on our neighbours. And of course, geography and the buffer zones. So while we operate the plant to minimise odour, there to what we can do. The STP comprises of mechanical equipment that can fail over time or can have power supply interrupted because of weather or electricity network events. We should also note the catchment volumes are increasing, meaning that while we are within licence limits, the plant is treating more seriously. Sewage today than when it was built and the original buffer lands were contemplated. And while it's true the oasis community of permanent residents is located approximately 300 metres to the west of the STP, this some shelter community is afforded from the ridgeline running north-south between these properties and the STP. The Noosa Springs development shifts development north along the ridgeline, reducing this available protection. Unitywater note the proposal that the resort manages odour complaints internally, but we know this is not how it works in practice. The Department of Environment and sciences is the regulator in this space and regardless of any good intent from the proponent, responsibility cannot be transferred. Unitywater note the reference to the 2.5 odour unit limit, however DES do not take this into account when investigating odour complaints and issuing enforcement action. In fact, the application of general environmental duty, environmental harm and nuisance is very open under the. Environmental Protection Act 1994. So this means that odour complaints made to the regulator will be investigated and could result in action against Unitywater that may lead to prosecution and costly plant modifications. And for reference, Unitywater installed odour control equipment at the Murrumba Downs treatment plant in 2010 as a result of urban encroachment and the cost of that was $38 million in 2010. It's also our view that this outcome is more likely to happen as a result of the proposed approval condition 13 that would see all guests being advised of the potential odour from the sewage treatment plant. Actively drawing attention to a potential odour source will drive guest perception of odour and trigger an automatic assumption that any perceived odour relates to the STP Unitywater upgrades STPs as catchments grow to ensure ongoing, compliant sewage treatment. Upgrades at the treatment plant will change the odour contours used in the modelling. A future DA application by Unitywater will need to consider sensitive receptors only 200 metres from the STP as a result of this proposed development. And again, I refer back to the Murrumba Downs treatment plant example where odour control equipment cost $38 million in 2010. So so in closing, while we support development that promotes sustainability, million support development that promotes sustainable economic growth, we do not support this development in its proposed location because it locates new sensitive receptors closer to the existing treatment operations. The proposed development would impose reverse amenity obligations on Unitywater that cannot be transferred and could unnecessarily cost Unitywater customers tens of millions of dollars and limit our ability to meet future growth in the region. It is our view that approving this proposed development would be at odds with the 1995 EIS and the current state planning policies the conditions proposed to be applied in an approval with good intent actually further increase risk to Unitywater and our customers and this risk could be avoided if the proposed development is not approved in its currently proposed location in the first place unity so water are asking this committee and Noosa Council to not approve the development in this location and in thinking about this scenario we can't help but wonder about a reverse situation would a new sewage treatment plant be approved 200 metres from metres existing luxury accommodation with significant outdoor facilities. Tom Wegener 31:29.106
Thank you. Very much red and our deputation is for Ellen guan. Do you mind being on camera? I would like to be moved off camera. It's fine. And you have a powerpoint? No, I don't have a- No, PowerPoint. Don't- Oh, an architect who will have a powerpoint to do the presentation after me. Okay, so it's part of the room. Do you have the powerpoint here? I just want to make sure that it's all covered. Ellen Guan 32:10.894
Okay, okay, take, please begin. Yeah, the whole yeah the hotel industry is highly competitive to efficiently manage various operational functions while maintaining high standards consistently can be complex and challenging it requires significant upfront investment and may take years to recruit the initial investment before generating any profit people might question why do you want to do this and how can you make this hotel stand out what is the unique position of this proposed hotel intention our intention is simple we aim to create the best version of Noosa Springs we have been operating this place for almost 10 years we would like to explore its full potential as a complete resort destination and exceptional platform an that can uplift and inspire as many people as possible this intention serves as our motivation and brings us a profound sense of fulfilment currently I will say the keywords that define our vision of Noosa Springs are community and wellness the hotel will be a based and local business it goes beyond the traditional hotels by actively involving and engaging the local community in its operations and developments will leverage the skills and passion of the existing Noosa Springs team providing them with career opportunities to advance under the guidance of an international five-star hotel operator currently we 125 employees working for Noosa Springs with most of the full-time staff have been with us for a number of years considering the local HR market and accommodation cost for staff in the hospitality industry. It is truly a blessing for us to have such a stable and experienced the local team to support this proposed project. Our staff is enthusiastic about this opportunity and of course the proposed hotel will create more jobs as the team expands, making it one of the largest local employers. We would like to offer activities and experiences that showcase the community's culture, cuisine, arts and crafts, encouraging guests to immerse themselves in the local way of life. We would like to collaborate with local business owners, artists and service providers, contributing to the overall development and well-being of the community. We would like to minimise ecological footprint by using renewable energy sources, implementing an advanced waste management system, etc. Sustainability is one of our focus in the design and future operation. We're also inspired by a sense of community that evolves from consistently considering the benefits of social interaction. The hotel serves as a social hub. It is a setting for connections. While we actively cultivate connections local communities and a group of guests, we would like to foster cross-cultural understanding and create a mutually beneficial relationship between travellers and the community. In terms of wellness, it stands as one of our core values. Noosa Springs spa facility itself is a destination offering a remarkable experience. Leveraging the existing health and fitness facilities together with the natural setting of Noosa Springs provides an ideal foundation for this concept. The integration of the hotel and other enhanced enhancements allows us to introduce a range of programs that include meditation, wellness retreat and packages, dynamic healthy dining options, and sleep enhancing technologies, etc. We appreciate and understand the reasons behind Noosa Council's efforts to safeguard the region's reputation, particularly with regards to preserving its distinctive atmosphere, enhancing the town's aesthetics, and being sympathetic to the environment. That's also why we're so keen to be part of it. Provides an invaluable foundation for a resort destination we believe. Our goal is to contribute positively to noosa's reputation as a leader in design and development within this community. I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to the deputation from Unitywater and the other submitters. The wastewater treatment plant completed in 1997 made a substantial difference to odour control and the buffer zone was not required in the subsequent planning instruments. In early 2018 our design of the hotel project shows part of the building located within the 2.5 odour control. We had discussions and meetings with Unitywater representatives at that time. Unitywater advised us that if the buildings were completely outside the 2.5 order count 2, it would be okay. Then we made a substantial redesign, which placed all the buildings outside the 2.5 count 2, which complies with the appropriate guidelines. And it was assumed satisfied Unitywater concern. Noosa Springs has been operating for almost 25 years and the order has never been an issue. We have never received any complaint from members or visitors. You need water also informs that it has never received any complaints from this area in the past. The oasis residential precinct at Noosa Springs is just outside the 2.5 outer contour and park ridge is not much further away. The hotel will therefore not worsen the risk to Unitywater and those other areas being a sensitive receptor of residential use will be much more of a concern than the proposed hotel. Although the hotel is regarded as a sensitive receptor, the nature of hotel guests occupying the room for a short time is very different from residential use. And GH Council both have used leading specialist consultants in this particular field and they both support the development subject to conditions and that GH will support. In summary, the proposed hotel development will not put Unitywater in a worse position. The possibility of a perceived incident in the future is extremely low to our opinion. Should that occur, it has a grade for a management plan to be prepared and used in the 24/7 hotel operation. Some also claim that the hotel would add traffic onto Noosa Springs road if a bushfire is approaching. Our bushfire consultant has prepared an emergency response plan. Requires guests to remain on site and meet at an assembly point. It will be an important role of the hotel manager to coordinate that plan and by doing so the hotel guests will not use the external road. The first pre-launch meeting we had with Council was in 2016. It has been a very long journey for us. Over the past seven years we have developed numerous versions of the hotel design through extensive research and planning conducted by specialist consultants and our team. We respect and value the contribution made by submitters. The design application process we have made many changes to the hotel design in response to issues raised by submitters. We have confidence in the current design scheme in terms of the viability, efficiency and sustainability. Should we have the opportunity to proceed to the next phase, we warmly welcome input from the community to move let's forward together. And collaborate to deliver the best possible design outcome. We sincerely hope to be granted the opportunity to transform our vision of Noosa Springs into reality. Our team is committed to delivering exceptional guest experience, striving to thrive in this industry. We are confident that we can make a positive and sustainable contribution thank you. To this community. You please start the presentation? Jurgen Weigel 41:21.261
My name Jordan. Is jurgen weigel. I'm associate Director at Marchese Partners, the architects for the proposed hotel. Marchese Partners are located in Brisbane, but we are an international operation and we have eight offices worldwide. Have also, could you please go to the next slide, you have substantial experience in hotel the sector. Over the last few years we have delivered about 20 hotel projects and I personally have delivered five hotel and short-term accommodation projects and currently designing one in townsville and one on the Gold Coast. I also lived for four years on the Sunshine Coast and believe that I understand the Sunshine Coast very well. So, next the slide please the original designer for the proposed hotel he is Shane Thompson. He's known for elements of Byron and bay, a hotel which was successfully integrated into a natural setting and is very well perceived by the locals and the public. Overall, it was our intention to design a high-quality five-star hotel with limited off-site impact and achieving a high level of in higher firms. I also would like to point out that this is the first significant five-star hotel developed in Noosa since 1989. So here on the master plan you can see how the hotel tries to limit the impact on the existing site. See we staying, all buildings stay away from the koala habitat zone, but also we stay truly behind the odour setback line. To limit the concealed areas on site, we placed the tennis courts above the existing car park and also the additional car parks above existing car parks. So just building another level there. Next one please. We use landscaping to limit the impact of the buildings to the surroundings but we also have broken up the hotel in smaller pavilions which gently step up the existing slope and follow the topography. Next one please. So here you can see the diagrams left hand side showing the different zonings and on the right hand side the association the right associated height limitations the yellow shows the eight metre height limitation and the red one is 12 metres so you can see that the majority of the building stays under the height limit while a few roof edges might project over it. Next one please. However the main intent behind what we have been doing was to limit the impact from the outside so this is a view from Resort Drive and from Resort Drive the building would appear as a one to two story structure. Next one please. And the view from the golf course it actually demonstrates that most of the building the new building will stay below the actual tree line but on the right hand side I would like to point out how park ridge Noosa development actually towers above everything. We have introduced and incorporated a number of sustainability design features like water harvesting considering the size of the pool we have and also to limit the impact on the public water supply we think this is an important part of it but we also have maximised the solar protection external views and daylight which is apparent how the rooms have been designed and laid out the rotation of the rooms but also the lobby we have solar panels integrated and we promote mixed which actually then results in reduced energy usage and alternate alternative transport which will reduce the number of individual cars going in and out to the hotel next one please so the design is inspired by a tuscan village so as you see on the image here typically they are located on a hill and the gently the buildings gently step up to the hill but we also interested in the materiality terracotta stone the landscaping in between and we think that is something you clearly can see here in Noosa Springs as an existing design philosophy pool is same pool is the centre of our hotel and so we a fair bit away from the beach so we have to create our own amenity on the side. So this is truly a feature. The pool is about 1,265 square metres. 20% of it is just water feature with 300 deep. 1.5 metres deep, so the volume of water there would be about 1,550 cubic metres. And a pool this size and impact would be expected for a five-star hotel. Next one please. So hotel guests will arrive on the port kosher and then walk 30 seconds Unidentified Speaker 46:49.365
I'd just quickly like to say in the last few minutes been I think that town the Council planner has being the town planner for the application, Unidentified Speaker 46:57.935
The Council just needs to be very conscious of obviously submitters are very concerned about the issues raised. A lot of the issues that have been raised however are not substantiated by any technical reports. The technical reports that have been considered by both the applicant's consultant and the Council consultant and there's agreement with all those reports in terms of the off-site impacts. So I think it's really important that Council understands that Brian Stockwell 47:18.925
While I understand the submitter's concerns and also your new order's concerns, those technical reports have been assessed and the consultants on both sides are in agreement. Thank you. Very much. Tom Wegener 47:34.160
Okay, we'd like to thank our deputations and coming here today and everybody in the gallery. We will be. Can we do it she can't be she can in. Joe Jurisevic 48:00.335
The declaration's made, Brian. With regard to submissions, I'd like to do them again. Brian Stockwell 48:04.694
Yeah, but under the act, if all you're doing is under the referring it, you don't need to make a declaration. Yeah, which I probably need you to easier the room. Okay. I'm happy to move that we refer this matter to the General Committee. Okay. Due to the significant issue. Tom Wegener 48:28.378
Okay. I'll second that. All in favour? Does that Cathy catch up? Is that Cathy ketchup? Yeah. Yep. Was it? I don't know what's happening, but I'm going to do that. Brian Stockwell 48:43.405
Just take your time. You don't have to worry. We don't we've had have to be put on good that stage Unidentified Speaker 48:49.605
Yeah, that's weird. Tom Wegener 49:05.146
Okay, in everybody in the room, so that's all the discussion we're going to have on this issue today. We've referred it to the General Committee and we do that because we want all the Councillors around the room at the table in the full meeting. As now, three councils are not actually in the meeting, they're observers of the meeting, and so they can't debate and they can't really vote on the matter. So that's why we're referring it, because of the significance of the matter. So thank you very much for coming today, we're just going to carry on with the rest of the morning. Okay, let's take a look at that. Okay, take a deep breath everybody, and we'll go to item two. Change to development approval between shared rooms or single rooms in Noosa Shire, 100 Cooyar Street, Noosa Heads. 2 yard okay, I'll be right and we were back. Would you like to welcome Richard MacGillivray? Patrick, would you like to walk us through TARO? Tarot? If you please. Sara Wilson 51:00.002
Sure. So, this one is a redevelopment of portions of the Ozcare, existing Ozcare facility on Cooyar Street. So, it's coming to Council today because there's an infrastructure framework required for some works on Council land, predominantly for bushfire management purposes and some stormwater runoff as well. So um has been given the hard copies of the construction ground essentially the changes are predominantly as a response to COVID, so they're removing all the existing drill rooms and replacing them with single rooms, so 24 drill going to 48 single rooms, so there will be additional story on one of the wings, A slight increase to footprint of the building, and then some internal changes in terms of community spaces and things like that. Tom Wegener 51:50.904
But there's landscaping to be done. Sara Wilson 51:53.322
Yes, so there will be some minor want to this landscape changes to the landscaping as well. Tom Wegener 51:58.881
Does anybody have any questions? I do. Oh, tara. I was there. My friend bill Wallace was staying there until the end. And he was very friendly with the birds that would come down. And the shrubbery and the trees were pinned right up to the windows, basically, and right down to the considering balconies? Do they, are they considering that the guests in their final days really might, you know, want to be a part of nature as best they can and have the trees there? Are they considering that? Sara Wilson 52:35.777
So I guess the greater concern is the bushfire management. So in terms of what needs to be improved for bushfire management purposes, I guess that's probably the priority. Tom Wegener 52:47.426
They need to have a car be able to drive up and down, right? Sara Wilson 52:51.402
On Council land, it will be an access trail. Frank Wilkie 52:59.229
I have a question. Just to picture what's happening there, this is creating a higher access trail around a facility that doesn't exist currently? Sara Wilson 53:09.355
So it has been done. The works have been carried out. So there was an approval issued by our environment management team, I believe. To do that access work already. So the clearance has been carried out already. It will be the actual construction of the track and the stormwater management that will need to be done through further upwards as well. What works, the actual writing. Or I get to handle something? Potentially. Tom Wegener 53:36.842
Right, so it's on the public way, not directly in front of the road. Yeah, of course, because that's where the road is. Joe, do you have a question? Joe Jurisevic 53:43.812
I asked a question by email and the I'll just let Councillors know. I noted there was no mention of a biobase for stormwater runoff in the upgraded plans for the for Ozcare and so I asked what is the current stormwater management in place and should or could a biobase be added to improve stormwater runoff given that there are extensive works being undertaken to upgrade the facility and developments in proximity to the girraween nature reserve. Now if a new building was being built today of this nature what would be the requirement for stormwater runoff filtration? Would a bio-basin be part of that sort of procedure? Have to check with the engineers, but I believe so. And the response here that I've been given, the Council have another opportunity to further question the specific details of the stormwater drainage system during the operational work stage if necessary. Is that the appropriate time to look at stormwater management and bio-basins and the it like? Sara Wilson 54:42.239
Yes, has so it has been addressed through the this application but essentially it's predominantly natural runoff so they are providing an extra drainage channel through the proposal and then that will be the nitty-gritty details will be dealt with through the up works. Joe Jurisevic 54:55.595
So there will be an opportunity to request any follow-up on that? A biobase at all? Sara Wilson 55:00.235
It's unlikely that we would request it because it's a minimal increase in the footprint it would just be that the natural drainage channels that have been provided that's what does the actual filtration. Joe Jurisevic 55:12.208
So there's no capacity to upgrade stormwater even though there's been capacity to upgrade fire management and actually take introduce clear clearing within the Council reserve. Sara Wilson 55:20.850
So the stormwater is being upgraded they're providing additional channels. It's just that it's not being Joe Jurisevic 55:25.277
Upgraded. Not up to current standards. Sara Wilson 55:27.922
It would be up to the current standards just potentially not so it hasn't been determined that a bio-basin is needed. There is an opportunity now Joe, absolutely, to do it. But through the assessment it hasn't been determined that a bio-basin is the required treatment. Joe Jurisevic 55:44.418
Whatever the appropriate treatment for a development of this size would be under current building conditions could be reassessed and re-evaluated. Tom Wegener 56:01.733
I'm happy to move up. To staff recommendation. This one's been requested. Is there a general letter? Karen Finzel 56:05.905
No. I'm happy to second it. Tom Wegener 56:10.897
Um, yeah. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stockwell has moved this staff recommendation. Chair fittipaldi has seconded it. In favour? All in favour? Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to speak to you. We invited. It's okay. Is that Kerry? Yes, it's Kerry. He's unanimous. Thank you. We're up to report number three, application for building works for a dwelling house at Seaview Terrace on Sunshine Beach. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 57:26.043
So this is an application for building works for a new dwelling house out at CCC view the application was originally presented to Council at the General Committee Meeting in October last year and was originally recommended sorry, me. Originally recommended for approval subject to conditions. It was presented to Council for issues including geotechnical and coastal hazard processes, site cover, building fire, the enclosure of rooftop Terrace and on the coastal building line. During the General Committee Meeting there were concerns raised regarding issues of overlooking due to the rooftop Terrace as well as the form and presentation to the street issues sorry, pardon me, the applicant stopped the decision-making period before it could be discussed at the Ordinary Meeting just to provide further plans to rectify the issues of overlooking from the rooftop Terrace and has now come back with those amended plans although the original application was recommended for approval, a further assessment of the proposal has raised a number of issues including that of site cover, pipe, side setbacks. The built amount of garage and bin storage and as such proposals are not recommended for approval Tom Wegener 59:00.051
Thank you. Any questions? Karen Finzel 59:06.759
Yes, thank yeah, you. Thank for you for the overview. I do have some questions then with regards to the discrepancies between the last report and this one. Given that they went away, they looked at it to meet the conditions around overlooking and now we've got all these other conditions about site cover and height Unidentified Speaker 59:26.471
And all of that. Important? Not included in the first? Patrick Murphy 59:29.256
They were looked at in the initial report. At the time that the matter was presented to the previous Council meeting there was conditions as to what would be required to limit the overlooking. There was some question as to the effectiveness of those conditions so the applicant stopped the clock and went away to demonstrate how overlooking could be mitigated with the inclusion of the rooftop Terrace. They've created additional bulk in terms of their resolution to that issue. Previously, Council officers were seeking the rooftop Terrace to be drawn back, pulled back from the perimeter of the building and dissociated treatments to decide also to be pulled back. But this model that they've put forward has actually got a lot more extensive bulk associated with the rooftop Terrace and the mechanisms to prevent overlooking. There's also a rooftop style garden that's also proposed and there's some question really about the suitability of that. Rooftop garden and its potential to be used in the future as part of the rooftop Terrace and that additional measures of the measures proposed wouldn't be suitable in terms of limiting overlooking from there. But notwithstanding this has been a fresh look at the application. There were some elements of it that were you know the rate Jaden has raised that were supported in the previous applications particularly around the height. There was a minor height exceeding in the middle of the rooftop Terrace but in the current proposal that all contributed to the as I said the rooftop Terrace has significantly increased from what was previously put forward. So it's no longer considered recent. Karen Finzel 01:01:14.713
So just to summarise then they went away to find a solution to address the overlooking and in that process now there's other issues. Unidentified Speaker 01:01:23.869
At rates. We consider they've amplified the issues in terms of the building design and involved associated with the rooftop Terrace. Karen Finzel 01:01:32.245
And is there opportunity to go back to negotiate? Unidentified Speaker 01:01:34.535
Another outcome? Patrick Murphy 01:01:37.978
There's been a significant amount of time that's been spent since the previous meeting with giving them the opportunity to address the issues that were raised. This is the proposal that they've put forward and sought the price to make a decision on. Tom Wegener 01:01:58.493
So when Brian Stockwell 01:01:59.413
This came up originally I had concerns, not just about rooftop therapy but also about the street presentation, which I thought was contrary to the scheme as well, which I think is now part of the grounds old refusal which I fully support. We can understand this situation because we've had a new development a few doors up which raised objections from all those around the residents for a similar scale and involvement building in terms of its impact on people on the other side of the street losing views and that's I believe part of the grounds for review. For refusal of this one as well we have to be sure when we're building in these high profile locations that what there reflects both the environment the streetscape but also doesn't that unduly impede impose itself on the existing sidelines within the coastal overlay and scenic amenity overlay. It is one of the key areas of amenity for people who visit Sunshine Beach is to look back and to ensure that the balkan scale of those houses is within the scheme to ensure that we keep our reputation in terms of being able to balance the natural world. Is equal to environment. Tom Wegener 01:03:28.985
Any further questions, comments? I have a question. When it comes to vault, you have the built form and then you might have umbrellas on the roof top Terrace and you may have trees rolling up well. On the roof top Terrace. I'll leave it that, is there a gradient in what actually counts as vault? Patrick Murphy 01:03:49.075
There would be elements of a building that are not, say, included in building height such as the chimney or the like. In terms of someone putting an umbrella on the roof, it wouldn't form part of the built-in different role. So if someone puts forward a proposal, generally they're not going to show you, I think, if there's going to be any umbrellas, and then we have to look at how that rooftop Terrace is going to be used and where it's sited on the building and the associated vault attributed to screening mechanisms and the like, but also, yeah, how. It's sited in terms of not having to go overlooking. Richard MacGillivray 01:04:26.955
And generally looking at the permanent infrastructure, so the actual physical floors, so the walls and the balustrades, that gives the perception of the bulk, whereas trees and vegetation and the roads can be temporary. Instruments that can come down and be moved at different times as well, so generally it's the physical bulk that we'll be looking at in terms of what those impacts are going to be there on a permanent basis. Tom Wegener 01:04:52.349
Any further questions? Brian would you like to close? Brian Stockwell 01:04:54.619
No, I can't disagree with anything that's been said. Put into a vote. Tom Wegener 01:04:59.848
All in favour? Carried. The second recommendation is carried. Thank you. Alright, here we go. We're on to report number four. Reconfiguration of a lot, one to two lots at 39 to 41 Picture Point Crescent. Let me see your hands. We have many important things Nadine Gordon to walk us through the report. Nadine Gordon 01:05:33.429
Good morning everyone. This is an application to an existing 1,400 or so high density residential lot at the end of picture point Crescent into two residential lots. The proposed lots are 723 square metres in area with the requirements. And they're significantly less than the requirements under the planning scheme, which is a minimum of 1,200 square metres. The lots are also less than the minimum width, which under the planning scheme is 25 metres, and they're proposing 15.8 metres. And they're also irregular in shape. So based on the outcomes of the zone, which is also to facilitate the development of multiple dwellings, not houses, there are concerns about subdivision not complying with the planning scheme requirements and its ability to fulfil the high density residential design requirements. Tom Wegener 01:06:34.801
Any questions? Brian Stockwell 01:06:37.548
It's more a of interest. Than anything else, but was there any justification for the highly irregular shape of lot 50? Was there any justification, like is it to try and get legal protection over views or something like that? It looks like they've done a 50 / split over the years. Yeah, that's what I'm presuming. It was just how do we get people there if aren't any formal planning grounds. Nadine Gordon 01:07:00.087
Yes, that's correct. Brian Stockwell 01:07:01.416
Okay. Tom Wegener 01:07:04.211
Another question? To the home of the poet Oakley. Yes. Go ahead. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:09.887
I just want to raise the size and character of the surrounding lots and also the nature of the precincts. I've been visiting the site yesterday and one side of the road is clearly high-risk city town. Other side, there are really small lots. And on the small lots, there's three things balance. So can I understand what consideration or what weight was put on, and I'm referencing the relevant purpose and overall outcome provisions in the code. Set to go out from 1.5.1.2, being number A, being overall outcomes sorted. Outcomes sort of reconfiguring a lot code development requirements for lots that are of size and have dimensions that are appropriate for their intended use and are consistent with the sizes of surrounding lots. Sure. Unfortunately, it one page number didn't work. Nadine Gordon 01:08:13.714
But under. If you look at figure 10, even though it says landslide positive, I don't know if that's incorrect. But figure 10, that was an analysis of the surrounding lots and their sizes. And again, that gives you an sciences education there is a mixture of larger developments, like in the middle there is the Picture Point terraces, I think they're called, right in the centre. That's a larger development. And number 47, again, a larger so there is a mix. We acknowledge that. There are smaller lots. There are larger lots. And yes, there are some lots with units and some with houses. The proposed lots we don't feel will have. We'll a. We're concerned about the potential for them to be used for residential high density modular dwelling units. So it is an interesting comparison. There is a mix there. We acknowledge that. The preference would be for larger lots which will enable. Form of unit development on site. And what's the limit? Three units? Yeah. So duplexes are an inconsistent use. So what we're trying to achieve here, they could build a house Amelia Lorentson 01:09:33.646
Or otherwise we'd be looking at minimum three units. And can that be conditioned? It was something that was not known, so that's. Karen Finzel 01:09:52.706
Yeah, just on the line of that, with the multiple dwellings, you think there's like no opportunity for that to be developed to have seven units? Nadine Gordon 01:10:03.164
On the smaller lots? Yes. Based on the constraints of the site, they gave, the applicant gave a massing diagram. Even with those massing diagrams, they required some setback relaxation straight off. So that was what they provided in terms of the points there. The site also slopes quite steeply at it's the back, a big it's slope. 50%. And that triangulation at the back makes it very difficult for the development to sort of step down and then get appropriate setbacks to the environmental signs at the ground as well. So the configuration just makes it different. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it makes it difficult. There's also a sewer line that has to be relocated. So there are some, and also there'll be geotechnical considerations. Patrick Murphy 01:10:50.164
Lots that are narrower as well as what is intended. So you're going to have lots side by There's going to be a requirement for a setback from side boundaries. So you really are limiting the extent of development that can occur on each lot. Then each lot would need to be serviced by a driveway. So you're really transforming the street appearance as well, impacting potential car parking in the street, capacity for street trees. So it's more desirable that this lot as it is, and that it be developed for multiple grounds. Tom Wegener 01:11:30.888
Stockwell seconded, it just seems to be a very bad precedence to go against our own speed in such a fashion, because a lot of the houses would jump on that level and it would change the whole character of the place. Okay, put it to a vote. Brian Stockwell 01:11:46.076
I think there's some important principles here. This is a very high value, high humanity site, probably exceptional views. There's very few of those high density residential. It's really important that we keep the mix of zones right and that, you know, proving this subdivision is the likely to be more likely enough likely to end up in two houses rather than a series of multiple units, which is, while this won't be affordable accommodation, it's still important to get as many of different curling units with a range of choice at various price points. And it's clear by trying to push the boundaries of all the different requirements for lot size, lot shape, et a of cetera, result. An application that would have a suboptimal outcome in terms of providing housing to us. So I agree with the recommendation and the motion. Tom Wegener 01:12:43.542
We put it to hey, I'm signing up for the report 5. Development permit for Material Change of Use, Homebased business, mechanic, F39 Eucalypt Way to Cootharaba. We have tara to walk us through the report. Sara Wilson 01:13:11.621
Alright, so this one did come in as a result of compliance action, so we received a complaint regarding an unlawful Homebased business that's been carried out on site, so the applicant lodged an application in response to receiving the show cause notice. Part of the application Patrick and one of our law officers did go out on site. The applicant's been asked a number of times to provide an acoustic assessment to confirm that there was no off-site impacts in terms of noise. They declined provide that, so we haven't been able to. Gain enough evidence to say that it wouldn't create those impacts, so in which case I recommend you refuse them. Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:13:55.441
You guys visited the site yesterday. Further questions? Unidentified Speaker 01:14:02.479
Do I have questions around that? Karen Finzel 01:14:04.587
Yeah, I do. Is there way that moving forward we can speak with the applicant and provide opportunity for it to be conditioned to operate? Patrick Murphy 01:14:16.844
We have been trying to get the applicant to provide suitable information for us to make this application for an extended period of time. We were keen to make a decision on this application because we didn't want it just dragging on and the operator continuing to operate without an approval with our concerns around noise. We think it's appropriate that a good report be submitted and it be demonstrated how this use can operate on the land without causing it many impacts to the surrounding area. I think it would be fought with danger to issue an approval without because there'd be some unknowns as to what sort of treatment should occur to the building, what kind of machinery may be suitable to be used, what hours of operation would be suitable, and particularly what kind of attenuation should occur to the building. So we've certainly tried to go down that path with the applicant and to this point they just haven't agreed to do that, they've found it onerous to provide an acoustic report and think that's a lot concerning that they haven't come to agreement on that at this stage. Karen Finzel 01:15:30.810
So is the acoustic report the only that you have to. Mechanism condition the operation of the business there? Patrick Murphy 01:15:40.944
Well we're concerned because we're concerned about noise. So once you allow the business to operate, you allow it to operate in a few days a week or limits a number of cars or whatnot. You've still got the issue of noise which you haven't demonstrated as being appropriately mitigated. Brian Stockwell 01:16:01.049
It I think can't be. I think it's worth trying again. I'll speak to this before I move it. It's owned rural. It is relatively a rural residential area. The level of noise associated with normal rural residential activity with mowing, brush cutting, etc. The normal operation of a mechanics is not going to be any different in terms of the noise signature. It is a commercial operation and the verbal advice yesterday was the complaint was driven by a one-off unusual set of circumstances in terms of the car that was backfiring and he was trying to work out the problem and it oh, was this is crap, creating a noise nuisance. There appeared to be when the councils met on site a degree of acceptance of the need of the potential modify. I understand you know it is only a number of days a week that they're proposing to use it and I'm proposing to move is we go out there and see what they're willing to offer before next week in terms of limiting the use to three days a week. I think you know time of day that they've mentioned maybe it's only nine to five. Installing acoustic barriers around the compressor which is likely to be the main noise source. Nd I'm other noise making machinery likely to affect the outside event. Adopting work practices above the direct noise from neighbouring properties, closing the back door and maybe having some insulation on there and then a condition requiring conducting all operations that comply with the noise limits. I do think it's probably reasonable. To, you circumstances know, in the circumstances where it is only a part-time use, to look at the potential to approve subject conditions in a way that perhaps I understand staff would like to have an report, my gut is it would be better to spend that money on actually doing the acoustic attenuation measures, which are pretty obvious in terms of, you know, there's a hoist that goes up and down that the level of DB is coming out of that way, the when it's in nodes in effect across the boundary the compressor went going, anyone knows have it's come on, depending on how many times and it's probably obvious that needs to be buffered, so my suggestion is that this matter be referred to the General Committee for further consideration and request the CEO liaise with the AP and determine if they are agreeable to accept some approvals subject to conditions that would reduce the potential impact of the use, including limiting the use to three days a installing acoustic barriers around the compressor and any other noise-making machinery likely to create nuisance outside the property boundaries, adopting work practices of buffering and direct noise away from the neighbouring properties, and conduct all operations that comply with noise limits set by the relevant environmental protection policy. I'll second that. Karen Finzel 01:19:09.076
Excuse me Brian, do you think limiting the use to three days, we could add the hours of Brian Stockwell 01:19:14.185
Operation, like say 9:00 to 3:00 or something? No, I'm just recording that. Well, try to think. I we talked about 9:00 as being a reasonable start time and whether it's 4:00 or 5:00. I think it's up to, I think if you'd like it in there, limiting the use to three days a week and an hour's nine o'clock. Frank Wilkie 01:19:41.648
Chairman. Yes. Before it goes too far, I have a fundamental problem with the process where we're heading at the moment. Because to date, the powers of this committee has only been to the Ordinary Meeting or to the general for further consideration. Not commit the organisation to extending resources on a course of action which may not be agreed with by the full Council. Tom Wegener 01:20:08.797
That's a very good point. Brian Stockwell 01:20:10.299
I'll have a different view. Yes. That's it's quite common to request further information to be presented including a report to the General Committee if it's something that these committees have done as a matter of course and this is just asking them to liaise which is something that once again has happened on a number of occasions in the past. It's probably a little bit different in that it's fairly specific. What exactly we liaise on. Karen Finzel 01:20:36.440
Yeah yeah I have a different opinion too. I think that we should explore given the current you know financial implications and hardships people have out in community right now. I think that we should be looking at every opportunity to get information to support small business to be thriving in our communities so I'm happy to support the request for further information from staff to just help make that decision really for them. Joe Jurisevic 01:21:07.854
Gerard did you have something to say? In terms of what Brian said I think we've done something similar to is this in the past on a number of on occasions, this is just being a bit more specific about the nature of the referral and the sort of information being sought to bring to General Committee, not making any commitment of Council in any way shape or form it's just giving an alternative sourced to see if an alternative decision can be reached at a future meeting. Councillor aye. Zayn: that couldn't be more wrong. What you're asking. Brian Stockwell 01:21:43.823
Point of order. As an observer, I think Councillor Wilkie is going beyond the bounds of what is acceptable for the committee. Councillor you're making decisions on behalf of this Council. Point of order has been raised. Can ask questions if you make a comment. To debate the point is, I believe, outside the standing boards. It's about process. Unidentified Speaker 01:22:07.891
Excuse me, I have a question for the Chair and the CEO. Brian Stockwell 01:22:12.997
Yes? Sorry, with a point of order, I've moved it, doesn't need to be seconded. Unidentified Speaker 01:22:18.344
I'll second it. No, Tom already seconded it. No, I seconded it. That's the point of order. Brian Stockwell 01:22:23.571
Now it's up to Tom to make his decision. You've got to decide as the Tom Wegener 01:22:28.136
Chair. I would like to view it, I think that it's important to view it what Frank has to say about this. I don't think he's debated it. Don't debating why he's just bringing more information. Frank Wilkie 01:22:36.176
It's a process question. As I said before, to date, the powers of this committee have been to make a decision that refers the item either straight ordinary or to the General Committee for further consideration where more information can be asked for. It's a contentious point whether this committee is also asked for further information. I don't recall. But if it has, it certainly wouldn't be angling towards a certain outcome which may not be agreed to. So in that case, it's inequitable because this committee has the inside running in terms of directing this without competent that full complement of councils around the table getting an outcome which may not be agreed with. Now, I don't have the opportunity to be at the table to debate that. I may end up agreeing with this, but in terms of process, it needs happen at the General Committee. Then we can request the CEO, which is a commitment of resources of this Council, to aim towards a certain outcome. And I think this is beyond the powers of this committee to do that. Tom Wegener 01:23:51.276
So this is sort of what Brian is asking is to move to general for further consideration, but-- full stop. That's where it should end. Brian Stockwell 01:24:02.668
So I'll have a different view. This is a properly constituted committee of the Noosa Council where we're emboldened by the Standing Orders to make decisions are subsequently referred to either the General Committee or to the ordinary committee. There is no statutory bar on any motion being put before this committee. There are a range of protocols and processes that have been instituted to make this process work right. To suggest that this is beyond the scope of the committee, in my belief, is based on a misunderstanding. I believe the matter and the manner, it's exactly the same thing as an individual Councillor going up to a staff member after the meeting. It's better for it to be something that it's not just one Councillor, it's better for the committee to determine whether they think. It's first of all, but post-election. Worthwhile for you in this course of action. Unidentified Speaker 01:24:55.077
Mr Chair, Larry Sengstock 01:24:58.694
The difference is that this is now putting in the recommendations. What we would have done before is ask for further information but not actually worded it as such in the recommendation. So that's a decision for you as Councillors on this committee as to whether you accept that. The fact that it is four dot points as opposed to there may be other dot points and other questions that other Councillors may wish to ask does go to Councillor Wilkie's point of limiting it and essentially directing it so I'll ultimately answer the decision of this group of this committee as to whether you accept those four dot points to go into the recommendation to get that information, as Councillor Stockwell said, you're quite welcome to get this information over this next week before it goes to general and then to ordinary. This is really just, you know, quite formalising it in terms of putting it into the recommendation. If you intend to do that, if you want to do that as a group, then that's your call. Brian Stockwell 01:26:01.169
And I'm happy to add the potential impact of the use, including such matters as, so just giving a little, like it's, these are just some ways that they might be able to do, but I think if we're going to ask staff if they're happy, if you just ask staff whether they're happy to approval subject conditions without giving an indication of the nature of those conditions that may satisfy Councillors as to overcoming the concerns of amenity, I think it's important that we do give some guidance. Tom Wegener 01:26:35.887
Okay so we're not telling staff to do a particular thing, we're making a suggestion here. We're making a recommendation. Well, Karen Finzel 01:26:53.666
The debate is between us, isn't it? So, I. Take on board what Councillor Wilkie has said with regards to process. I'm not okay with the process. What is right or wrong around that? I'm leaning towards the idea of then we remove the recommendation. And we present it some in such a way that it's questioned back to staff, and then we bring it to the next meeting to actually. With further information, we can debate whether we want to refuse and accept the staff recommendation. So, I'm not going to support Brian stockwell's committee recommendation based on the fact of. Councillor Stockwell has raised a process issue of which I'm uncertain. I haven't got the facts on that. So I'm happy to support the idea that we put the questions back to staff informally rather than committee recommendation, Unidentified Speaker 01:27:50.836
And then we can debate that at the next meeting. Just to add to that, I think where the current recommendation says to determine if the agreement will accept approval subject to conditions is the problematic piece. We have definitely previously from this committee had a request to have further discussions with the applicant around a range of matters. That has been normal practice in this committee and that those matters be brought back to the next meeting. You know, I think. Brian Stockwell 01:28:28.376
Can you suggest an amendment to the words that you think would be consistent then? Unidentified Speaker 01:28:32.653
I think if we decide to request a CEO to liaise with the applicant regarding to a range of matters to reduce the potential impact and report back to the General Committee including such matters as. Yeah, except a quibble is maybe preemptive. Yes. Yep, that's right, I think that's very impressive. Brian Stockwell 01:28:55.559
That's the law keepers. I'm happy to change. Unidentified Speaker 01:28:57.979
Now they talking delete that Kath, keep going. Range of matters, thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:29:06.860
That would, then stop. They yeah and then would we potentially impact, reduce potential impact, full stop, and then you're wiping out everything else? You could say such as. No, I think it's fine. Take out matters. Take out. I just put impact such as. After impact just put such as. Book I'm happy with that change if the seconder is happy. Unidentified Speaker 01:29:40.146
Okay. Through the Chair, I do have an issue with the fact that I voted against the initial recommendation the Karen Finzel 01:29:48.178
The wording, so then the process has been then that it looks like. You haven't voted yet. Brian Stockwell 01:29:59.561
Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 01:30:03.556
Okay. Question please. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:11.687
9.3, Home-based business does not produce noise which exceeds the background noise level plus 5 dBA at site boundaries. Is there an alternate way to get an acoustic report that can satisfy that condition? I understand it's onerous, four and a half thousand dollars has been quoted for an acoustic report but I think that given that the property is less, the Homebased business is situated on a property that's less than four hectares hector's, are the climate a requirement that it's got to be impact assessed. Is there another way that we can be assured I think that it meets that requirement? That concerns me quite a bit. Question to you, Patrick, can we go out there and do our own sound acoustic measurements? Patrick Murphy 01:31:10.473
Well, we would do that, I suppose, after the fact. It's somewhat relying on the operator using machinery that is reflective of the maximum noises that they can make. And also acknowledging that, once you issue an approval, it's in place in perpetuity. So you have some other owners, teams, or things going to use down the track that might come in and seek to use the premise for the same years. Using different equipment that's valid at that point in time. Hence why we go back to what they should do now. Provide an acoustic law and mitigate the noise coming out of the building by attenuating. Unidentified Speaker 01:31:44.633
The staff has also been outside. Site and observed that there is noise heard at the site boundaries. So in order to mitigate that, there needs to be mitigating measures to inform what those measures are. Unidentified Speaker 01:31:58.661
And I will add in terms of the acoustic requirements, particularly with the. Shed, you can get a lot of reverberation. So the type of treatment is really important to make sure it's effective and actually meets the scheme requirements. So I guess that's where we need some detail without making assumptions based on what the noise might be. And given, as Patrick said, there may be future operators may purchase that site in the future in perpetuity and they may set up a similar operation which may have other impacts that we're not foreseeing. So we need to sort of cater to what may happen long term as well at this future moment. So I guess it comes back down to we need some good evidence around how boundaries is going to be mitigated so that we don't have a bit of compliance burden Unidentified Speaker 01:32:46.912
That we may inherit if we don't quite get it right now. Very presidency. Soon to see. Can I ask another question? Amelia Lorentson 01:32:52.938
If an approval was given with conditions, can the approval be for a limited period rather than perpetually? Can we approve it for 12 months subject to no compliance? Are you happy for that to request the CEO to liaise with the applicant regarding the range of matters? Is that? Such as? Yes. So the idea is, through the CEO, then go to the Noosa service. That's just the process. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm just double checking with the process, given it was raised by. When Tom Wegener 01:33:57.622
Councillor Frank, do you have any further comments? Frank Wilkie 01:34:01.027
No, I thank you for hearing that concern and I respect the direction of the discussion. Has gone and changed to the Unidentified Speaker 01:34:13.547
Recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 01:34:16.531
Yes. So one more question. There are six dwellings within 200 metres of the property against smooth-Watt lot solaces. Services. I know we've had one from complaint with the adjoining neighbour. Have we had any indication of the other dwellings where we've had any impacts or any of the impacts we've noticed? Patrick Murphy 01:34:38.966
So it is a code assessment for passions so there was no notification required and as and tara's indicated, it was a complaint that stimulated the application to be made. Through the assessment process I did contact a number of owners in the area and one of them who was a separate person to the person that made the complaint advised me that they weren't supportive of this business operating because of the noise impacts Amelia Lorentson 01:35:04.678
And it's code-assessable, if low impact industries such as an account or a workshop is situated on property no less than four hectares. So given this is than four hectares, this is a different an assessment. So no, so in the rural zone, the it's rural very time, accessible it's to accountants. The assessment of the accountants in the rural residential zone, that's where it triggers to impact, you know, basically block size. Tom Wegener 01:35:28.319
So these aren't the main plans, but the middle-based block size has got a design that doesn't trigger residential. Okay, shall we look? Any other questions? We'd like to close, Brian. Brian Stockwell 01:35:47.046
I accept that the Council had genuine concerns and that the removal of that potential forecasting of an approval was probably something that I hadn't thought of and I do think it's important that we do just test these orders. Sometimes when afton get to the point of knowing that on one hand they've got a refusal and on the other hand they have to spend a bit of money to get an approval, they choose to go I have the second money? Two's wise. Tom Wegener 01:36:16.348
Okay, we'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Pass unanimously. Thank you very much tara. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:24.522
Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:36:26.245
You're still there. His next report, 5.6, short-term accommodation at 2A Woongar Street, Boreen Point. Harold, will you please walk us through the application? Sara Wilson 01:36:38.100
So this is an application for an existing dwelling to be converted into short-term accommodation, so the applicant's provided some history on the site that it's been owned by the family for 40-odd years and siblings have inherited the house. They use it sporadically throughout the years, so we've decided that they would look at turning it into short-term accommodation to up make for up a little bit of money. So the site's quite large, it's a split zoning, the dwelling house itself is located between the residential zoning and then the rest of it is environmental management there's and conservation no works proposed it will just all be within the existing dwelling five bedrooms they've proposed 10 guests on site at any one time we've conditioned eight just to be consistent with previous approvals and not just any kind of humanity impacts we do receive submissions from the community in regards to the application so they've been addressed applications that have in the report predominantly around concerns regarding bushfire and noise so our standard conditions in regards to trailer conduct and management and things like that are included in the recommendations that you may get in the next few weeks. Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:37:53.011
As you know I was going to talk about dogs but before we get there would anybody else like any questions? I was going to mention gets mooched. As you know I brought up the thought of dogs and it just seems to me with the short-term accommodation somebody looks at it on the internet and just goes oh my gosh this is a huge property here I can bring my dogs and they can run freely. In that, I that'd I would think that would be assumed. And it's sound-- in a sensitive very very environmentally zone especially for koalas and shorebirds what put out that we should make further conditions for either no dogs allowed or make sure they have an area up, a properly set up area. Fence for dogs in the old regulations as Nadine and I found that when it comes to koala habitat for koala habitat they recommend a closed area with fencing for dogs for anybody that lives there and also in our own policy our own dog policy agency Council all dogs must be adequately contained on the owner's property and it must not be allowed to roam and so if somebody comes up with a dog they must not be allowed to roam and we have to make sure that they don't roam. And think about dogs because it just seems that dogs are a part of the family they're actually family members it's just the way it is they come everywhere they're in restaurants there on the parks there it's just the way we need to address it. Sara Wilson 01:39:33.734
So I did contact a consultant to see whether they were proposing to allow dogs on the site, I haven't heard back yet but we can depending on whether they're just restricting or preventing them completely but we can condition and trick them into channelling the fence and other toys. Tom Wegener 01:39:51.502
So it will either be no dogs or fencing for dogs. Sir? Joe, yes. Joe Jurisevic 01:40:01.324
The impact of cats on the environment and native animals as well, would you include cats? Tom Wegener 01:40:07.493
I wouldn't include cats. My impression is if you have a cat and you bring it there and you let it off the lead, it's gone. You'll never see the cat again. Probably the same as birds, but dogs are different. Brian Stockwell 01:40:26.789
Of the I'd and for Monday, I'd just like to think about is there any reasonable and relevant conditions that could be imposed that would increase our security of good environmental management in the balance of that block, because it is a remnant, it is right on the foreshore, got a range of values that could be disturbed by guests who are unaware of its importance. To me, there may be other conditions that we could consider as well as the control of domestic animals that may just give us a bit of security that if we're going from residential use to commercial use, so therefore what other protections we can have on that balance. Unidentified Speaker 01:41:09.045
We can have a look at that in terms of the proposed use, acknowledging that there is zoning. And overlays on the land that do provide a level of protection as well. It's more about that management activity stuff. There could be some signage, for example, making hosts aware about the significance and some information to make them aware around, you know, Richard MacGillivray 01:41:29.137
What the influence of that area would be. That would be an adverse cost on the community use that's proposed. So that could be one idea of increasing awareness. Tom Wegener 01:41:46.085
Okay, so I would like to I'd like to move build that up the climbing planning in an and environment committee agenda number six be referred to General Committee for further consideration and request the CEO to provide appropriate conditions considering the environment sensitivity of the site including the control of dogs and other activities that may impact on the environmental values. And I don't need to speak to it. Anybody else have a question, put it to a vote? All in favour? Thank you. Go back to the attention. Okay, we're up to report number seven, minor change to existing approval for the purpose of providing a cafe for guests of the community use, well-being, type two, social, on land at 468 McKinnon Drive, Cooroibah, and we have Georgina sram. Comfort. Oh, I do. In accordance with chapter 5 have the government act 2009. That's the regular provide the policy of the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. I have to wait for the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by such a although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I did not really be a reasonable person to have this reception. Happy with the I'm biased because I do not have any other association with that organisation. Therefore, I would choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I remain and participate in the decision. Are you in the Chair? Brian Stockwell 01:44:10.488
Yeah, I vote that Councillor Finzel take over the Chair of the committee. Do to it. You have a seconder? I thank seconder. That's all about it. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Thank and then I'm happy to move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wegener and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Wegener participates in votes on this matter because Council believes that he does not stand to receive the personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. For that. What's your name? Unidentified Speaker 01:45:05.686
So you can stay in the room and then you can come to the Chair. Tom Wegener 01:45:08.811
Okay, very good. Any questions? Oh, oh, do we get another? We have been cut. We didn't get another. I'm sorry. That's it. Okay. Georgina, let's hear it. Georgina Sram 01:45:24.433
Good morning. So the application in front of us today, I'm elected to pass the land along McKinnon Drive. There's an existing approval there currently for community use that we know as Sunshine Butterflies. So in this instance, they're looking to extend one of the existing buildings on the site for the purpose of providing cafe-style food to those already attending the site. So whether that's students, clients and staff, the extensions remaining auxiliary to the large use being the community use. So in this instance, the application is being recommended for approval subject to conditions. Brian Stockwell 01:46:03.624
Thank you. Questions I'm happy to move to a staff recommendation. I'm happy to second. So this is a really important social enterprise in our community that provides a range of really beneficial services to its clients and this little cafe is just part of that experience of going there. It is internally focused. It won't generate additional traffic. It will just be an add-on to the range. On of services that they do provide to their clients. Tom Wegener 01:46:45.510
Are there any questions from Councillor Lorentson and Wilkie? Okay, we'll put it in. We would like to close now. We will put it to a vote. And I have a declaration. Oh, you've got a declaration. Okay, so here we have five to days for the modern quality monitoring program at Burgess Creek. So I'm a declaration. Brian Stockwell 01:47:44.468
Oh, you don't think that's the largest sector? Thank you. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in the matter due to the fact that as president of the Noosa Lions Football Club, I have land and water management responsibilities for approximately 4.5 hectares of the Girraween Sports Complex. This involves the application of. Mainly organic soil release in calcium-based fertiliser and herbicide over what is a sizeable holding in terms of the catchment. The club also uses groundwater for irrigation and has used surface water and recycled water in the past. The downstream impact of swartzfield are potential risk factors for the quality orders in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role with NLFC and the fact the club is not likely to gain or lose from the proposed monitoring program, I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Unidentified Speaker 01:48:42.484
Moves that he stay? Yeah, I'm happy to move that he stay. Tom Wegener 01:48:47.348
Of course, I'll second that. Don't have any business affiliations with selling this low-release calcium-based fertilisers? No. Not in any pecuniary interest? Brian Stockwell 01:49:00.298
Just this being on the executive committee, we decide how to do the maintenance, the expenditure on the fields, what fertilisers we use, etc. At the end of the day, as an executive member, I have the responsibility for doing that in a sustainable fashion. Unidentified Speaker 01:49:19.260
And as an executive member, do you liaise closely with the community with regards to the release of the water for the irrigation? Brian Stockwell 01:49:27.946
When we use when we used the recycled water, we had a close association with the then managing company at the plant which is gone. We no longer, we now only, we exclusively use groundwater now. Unidentified Speaker 01:49:43.469
Yeah. Tom Wegener 01:49:46.773
What a web of a world we live in where you need to do a conflict intervention. Of interest because you're on the administration of this community sporting group complex. Oh, yeah, we don't know. Amelia has asked to discuss it, but we haven't heard about the report yet. Yeah, we don't have to bring it. Okay, yeah, you're right. You just voted on it. Oh, right here. Rodia. I'll read it out. We voted that Council note the declaration of conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determined that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that neither he nor the Noosa Lions Football Club stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public if interest. You're equal. We've all agreed on that. So Amy, kipper, would you please walk us through this? Unidentified Speaker 01:51:10.825
Yes, absolutely. So hopefully you can see by the report that a lot has been happening in this space and I have to commend Sophie for really pulling together the different NRN groups and we've run a series of workshops now, three in total that were formal, but also more operational matters with David shelpinger. Scheltinger, who was board. After the Queensland water directorate SWIM database which we're trying to integrate all of our data into. We had a Council workshop on the 1st of June where Unitywater came and presented the receiving environmental. Had a Council workshop June where Unitywater came and presented the receiving environmental monitoring program work. I regret there wasn't really a lot of time to get into the detail of what those results were showing but they have now agreed to share the REP report which is attached to this Council agenda. One thing that we didn't get to in that workshop that we were hoping to cover was the work that the infrastructure team has been doing around the high risk erosion working group. So that project has funding in this financial year looking at nine locations but there's still a grant pending for that to go ahead but we're hoping that work will really flow into the Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan and a pin was put up for that at the end of last year and it looks like that has been successful in the budget outlook for 2024/25. So Burgess could creek could be looked at. As one of two priority creeks under irish the high ridge promotion project as well. What we couldn't include in this report, it is just a little bit too late for the agenda deadline, was our submission to the water matters planning process. So so Council has put forward its recommendations management options that were proposed as part of that and we are happy to share that out of session and attach it to the General Committee agenda. In terms of the water quality program itself, or broadly across the Shire, the reason I'm dressed like this is because the Mary River catchment crawl is on today, so we'll be heading out to a range of sites this afternoon. It kicked off at 7:45 this morning. And we're really excited that the next workshop will bring our next situation analysis report, which is the water quality results from right across the Shire, so the last report was prepared by the NICCC every 2021, so it's been about two years and it will be really important to be able to compare what has happened. Over that period. So that's a bit of a summary, the only other thing to add is we're working with Sunshine Coast Council to prepare a Mary River report card as well. Unidentified Speaker 01:54:16.413
You. Tom Wegener 01:54:19.329
Question. On page of the report, of the Unitywater report 25 or 46, there was a substantial spike in the concentration of fecal chloroform in 2021. Fico was that because of a flood, a rain event in May? I don't remember there was a rain event in May. Unidentified Speaker 01:54:49.252
I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry, but we can take my word Tom Wegener 01:54:52.576
In. Did you say page 25? Brian Stockwell 01:54:53.664
Yes, you can see that. Page 25 of 64 of the-- this is May 2021. So that's the blue line in site B8. They describe as femoral stream, a funeral street. It's probably really important to understand that site's probably just a drainage depression within a wetland. So what might have been happening at that point is the femorality of that, it might have gone from being an aerobic watered body to a drying out pool. And that will affect, there's also comments in the report about it having higher chlorophyll levels. Once again, that could be indicative of the ephemeral nature. It's not really a good comparator in terms of the creek. I went back and checked my advice from the department of natural resources a few years ago. They consider the water course finishes below the outlet of-- the stormwater treatment, so upstream is really just a palestrine wetland. It's useful information. The top point would be useful information to capture urban stormwater during events and that V8 will be useful in terms of the quality flow during events, but after that, the whole ecosystem process will be different, so it won't be a good comparator. Yeah, so the second highest yeah, so it's a second-priced one. It's above the outlet, so where the water comes out of the treatment plant, it goes into a wetland, but because it's now constant, it's now constantly flowing, but the water course the DNR determined is down actually below the football field. Tom Wegener 01:56:39.692
That makes sense, yeah. Unidentified Speaker 01:56:41.860
Would you have funding of this too? I guess to expand to what Brian was talking about in terms of stormwater monitoring, so we haven't really been doing that and we know that some of the creeks like cranks creek and Eany Creek are reporting F ratings. We need to get a much better understanding of what's happening with stormwater discharge across the Shire and some of the areas where we know it's an issue. Tom Wegener 01:57:10.262
The cost overall has been, as mentioned in the report, about $400,000 for this project and you would never say no you to money it. On this, but there are, like you just said, there's other catchments like unique creek and all over the place, but does this give us a really deep understanding of a micro-catchment because in Noosa we're fortunate we have micro-catchments where gypsy or other places aren't dumping into our catchment. We're completely responsible. For our own dead. Own that helped in pollution in our own catchments. Unidentified Speaker 01:57:45.185
I think there has, I think the feedback we've received from that interim we our groups is that it is receiving I guess an inaudible amount of attention, however it is a very high profile area and people are concerned. So I think that the PID that was put up was for 266k and that's what's been I guess included in the 24/25 outlook. I think the extra outlook, cost might be. Been to involve project management in that because it's a big job to pull something like that together so you know it may be that there are cost savings that could be made Tom Wegener 01:58:27.550
It also still with a Unitywater and then the discharge from the STP there actually do is a positive effect on the quality of the water in general because it dilutes that the amount of chemicals and things coming down the river fluctuating. Unidentified Speaker 01:58:56.019
STP outfall, that's the best quality water in the catchment so yes it appears that is having a positive effect and further down in the catchment we're seeing the inputs from other areas that need to be investigated. Tom Wegener 01:59:12.214
That really probably is counterintuitive. I'm glad that it's out there to the residents. Karen Finzel 01:59:20.023
Thank you for your report. I mean water security it should be top priority and any investment in that to secure sustainable outcomes for civil water for our population is to be commended. In relation matters the report didn't come to us due to time constraints so a question to the CEO Through the Chair. Is there possibility that we could seek or request that to be available before the general or Ordinary Meeting? Unidentified Speaker 01:59:50.342
Don't know the answer to that one. I'm sorry I didn't get a notice. Very happy to submit it if it's not too late. Karen Finzel 01:59:58.040
See you. Okay, so you've got it. We've got a copy of the staff submission vendor water matters consultation to take one. No, just for general. You just circulate it councillors. To Councillors. Oh, I circulate. Yeah, that'd be great. Yeah, thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:00:14.367
Looking at the history of Burgess Creek, a potential source of impact on Burgess Creek catchment on figure one on page two, leads me to ask a couple of questions. One, you mentioned the runoff from the golf course. I would have thought the runoff from the golf course actually ran into wyver creek because of the ridge line. It was actually going in the opposite direction. Two, have we mapped all of the stormwater inflows into the creek, I.e. from each of the urban areas where each of those stormwater inflows goes and what level of biopsy. Detention or biobase or any other mechanisms that are on those exist currently within the system? Has that been undertaken at this point in time? Not to my knowledge. Is that something that we intend to undertake as part of this so that we fully understand all of the inflows? Unidentified Speaker 02:01:07.996
That was, I think, something that one point. Was proposed. It's that's one third of the PID that was proposed, that we look at stormwater inflows and try to then understand what impact they're having on the catchment. Joe Jurisevic 02:01:19.496
Okay, well that would be good. Because I said that seeing runoff from golf course on that, I'm going, is it? Going in that direction or is it heading in the opposite direction? So that just gave me cause to question as to whether we understand where each of these inflows is. So if that's an effective exercise to be undertaken, I think that would be a good exercise to undertake to fully understand and map those biobasins. There's a joke there's only a detention basin with reeds. It's got a bio-basin form there in the form of reeds and things like that. So it's a different sort of biobasins. Bio-basis. Unidentified Speaker 02:01:53.412
I think there's a lot of opportunity to implement water sensors in urban design. Joe Jurisevic 02:01:58.167
Well, that's the point behind my mapping of this. Understand what exists, what doesn't exist and what may be the opportunities for the future to implement- It'll make you feel good. If need be. Absolutely. Unidentified Speaker 02:02:08.448
Was shown one example of a rain garden that's in this adjunction and to my knowledge that's the only one we have around our urban area so that would be a relatively simple thing to implement. Joe Jurisevic 02:02:23.236
We have three schools, two lots of sporting fields as well that one would assume get fertilised on a regular basis as well. They don't need to consider where their water flow is going to that catchment as well. Unidentified Speaker 02:02:36.731
I did notice that B3, sorry not B3, B6 has the worst water quality in that sanford region and it's right next, I'm not pointing the finger here, but it's right next to heroin sports complex and so what do we need to do there to investigate? Joe Jurisevic 02:02:53.986
Exactly, understanding of that bigger fully gives us the opportunity to then monitor where these impacts are coming from Tom Wegener 02:02:59.146
And potentially, directly. Thank you. I'm going to have to wrap it up. So, I'd like to. Brian Stockwell 02:03:05.280
Just before we wrap it up, in your question, I've had a look at that graph again, though it's probably very narrow in my description, I'd just like to say that it appears that an event with high-end cocci is across most of the streams coming off higher urban areas, so B1 was high, it was the other high-end sliding there, B2 which is behind the schools, and in fact the lowest was coming out of the sewage treatment plant, so it does look like there was a catchment event that was broader than just something happening, so whether it was drying out or whether it was something else, but yeah, it's not just what I was talking about that would explain that high intercopy in about four or five sites. Unidentified Speaker 02:03:44.756
We can get some further detail on that in general. Yeah, I just wanted to make this sort of general. So have we done that? Oh, okay. Someone requested it. Somebody requested or mail me a request. It. Would you like to move that? Yeah, I'd like to move that. Tom Wegener 02:04:04.848
I'm happy to second it. Would you like to speak to that? Karen Finzel 02:04:09.232
I just think that due to the significance of it and waiting on the report also from the water matters and there's some complexities around this, I think it's prudent that we have, you know, all councils around the town. Unidentified Speaker 02:04:21.281
Yeah it was significant to your manner Tom Wegener 02:04:41.207
Which is not the computer. Okay, let's ok, let's vote on this and refer to the general. All in favour? And now we've been two hours and two and a half, two hours and ten minutes. We have a five minute comfort break. Tom Wegener 02:13:25.667
Anyone that's important to you, back? You're the only one do you Sean? Go right now, what do you matter? It's on. Okay, two reports for noting by the committee. Number one, planning applications. Is decided by delegated authority. And we'll have Kim Rawlings, have and walk us through the report. Kim Rawlings 02:13:57.029
So Councillors, this is our standard report that we provide to you, that provides um yes any Tom Wegener 02:14:02.862
With any conflicts of interest, usually we're loaded with any conflicts of interest, I couldn't find any. Brian Stockwell 02:14:16.926
Query, I've got a conflict of interest query. The applicant is the landowner but it does Suncoast Building Approvals in the line under proposal. I've got a conflict of interest in Suncoast Building Approvals, does that constitute a conflict? Is it submitted in the name of someone of else? But they're involved. Unidentified Speaker 02:14:45.123
Bron, answer Brian, only you can do that. It's your decision, but maybe in the past you've. Brian Stockwell 02:14:51.621
I've declared when Suncoast Building Approvals have been the applicant. I'm saying because they're not the applicant, there is no conflict. Any Karen Finzel 02:15:06.263
Questions? Yes, so just a question with regards to the delegations on. I can't read page, but anyway, item number 15. There was a delegation for a Material Change of Use at 67 eucalypt of waikitharabah. So we've just discussed that with the terms to the. STAs. Can you just tell me a little bit about that specifically, or. I actually can't. I'll have to take that one on notice. I'll send Patrick off because he had work to do. OK, yeah, sure, that's fine. I can take that on notice and come back to you. So it's application MCU23-0005. Unidentified Speaker 02:15:53.830
Thanks, Councillor. As well. Thank you. Mr Chair. Tom Wegener 02:15:59.761
Yeah. Can I talk, Wilkie? Yeah, right away. No, again. Frank Wilkie 02:16:03.407
I'm just having a question. We had a matter come before us as a full report for an approval for a short-term accommodation at a Boreen Point, and then item 16, which is MCU 230015, Material Change of Use code, it's approval for a short-term accommodation, and I just wondered why one would come before the Council as a full report Unidentified Speaker 02:16:30.513
And why one would be approved. Under delegated authority. Unidentified Speaker 02:16:34.895
Yeah, again, I might need to take that one. I know it's going to have a look in detail at that one. I suggest it would have been the split zoning that was at the Boreen Point in the conservation issues. Related to this application. Tom Wegener 02:16:48.630
More complicated? Yes. As to why, you will note that some of the short-term accommodation applications that are code-assessable complies with the code under the current provisions we are doing under delegation. Unless a complicated matter or an issue you can consider. So my suggestion is it's because of the split zoning, like here today. Unidentified Speaker 02:17:09.910
But I can follow up on that one. Tom Wegener 02:17:13.343
Thank you. I just want to reply to Frank. In front on the picture there's a house and then it showed another little house next to the house, which it seemed to say that that's the SPA, so maybe it might be a home hosted. Unidentified Speaker 02:17:28.201
It could well be true, almost Councillor Wegener, but yeah, it would usually be if it was a complicating factor or out of the ordinary factor. So I'll confirm that. Councillor Lorentson. Just in reference to Amelia Lorentson 02:17:46.139
Councillor Finzel, you could have waived barabar. It's a different property. Unidentified Speaker 02:17:51.486
Oh, it's a different property. Oh, thank you. For the clarification. Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:17:59.392
That saves us a lot of time. Unidentified Speaker 02:18:02.595
Thank you. Any other questions? No. Oh, no. Okay. Well, do you want to move it? Oh, you can. I'm happy to move it. I'll second take it then. That. Can't change it too much. Tom Wegener 02:18:21.265
Thank you. We have 2. New Environment Strategy, year 3 implementation plan. This is a colossal report. Yes. It is a big report. This is a summary report. We cannot believe how much is happening. So we want to see the report. Unidentified Speaker 02:18:59.185
Good morning. Good morning. So yeah, so this is the 2021-22 summary report which maps progress against the Environment Strategy and the 42 key actions. So it had been delayed obviously due to stuff changes in COVID. So basically it's highlighting that most of the actions are on track at the moment. There were seven that identified as needing attention. But we also we are preparing the full report, which will be presented to Council in September, which will have the combined monitoring results. So it'll be a lot more detailed basically. And as part of that, we're also reviewing the implementation plan. Itself, which will potentially lead to the Environment Strategy review as well, because there's some key gaps we've identified in terms of fire management and also sustainable infrastructure that's not captured under the Environment Strategy at the moment that we want to include. So in terms of significant achievements some of the highlights have been that 5700 bushland operational assessments have been completed in 2021/22. There was also the fine scale regional ecosystem mapping was commenced and 29% of that was complete of the Shire at the end of 2021/22 financial year. We've also consolidated water quality monitoring data in the SWIM database, SWIM database and there an introduction of green waste bins which saw 16,000 times of organic waste which is fantastic. There was also the extension of the solar array which reduced emissions or CO2 emissions by 12% on the previous financial year. Some key areas needing attention were the progression of the environment sustainability round table. So there's obviously been ongoing engagement with different groups but it hasn't been formalised. In a round table as yet so that's been the focus for this financial year. We're also looking at creating work with stakeholders which is amy's area for fishing practices. Amy is looking at advocating the minimum energy and then there's the identification of potential opportunities for carbon sequestration. So that's part of the offset strategy. Which we'll be looking at as well. So I guess that's sort of a key overview of where we're currently at the end of the 20 month E2 financial year and obviously we'll give you a further update in September as we were at the end of this Tom Wegener 02:21:50.939
Um there's a so much to it everybody has different interests you know around this table and of course mine is the water wash it sills washing down the keep it and expanding that and that's several of the different projects that's mentioned. Yes. Working on that. Any other questions or comments? Karen Finzel 02:22:15.240
I I'd just to comment thank you for the summary it's really good to track what we're up to and I'm really interested in like how we're collecting the data and how we use that data to inform our decisions moving forward. I think it's really a robust you know opportunity to be able to align all those. Know reports the data and applications of funding to deliver great outcomes for the community. So yeah I just think it's a really good body of work to inform us and ensure you know that we have responsibility through our fiscal management and our environmental targets and outcomes. So I think I'm really excited to see how we keep bringing all this together and be able to make really good informed decisions around how we meet all the targets. Thank you, and all the staff. So how do you feel that you're tracking along with where we're heading? They're headed. Unidentified Speaker 02:23:06.491
Yeah, I've seen I think. Majestic. We're definitely progressing well. I guess there needs to be a review of the implementation plan and something I can put out with Rebecca as well, making sure those targets that we're working towards are achievable and we can actually influence the outcomes and where we can't is there a better way that we could measure that success or should we be focusing on you know core areas so I guess that review would be good to have people ask you know what can Council actually deliver on and what can we maybe be able to take with the State or Federal government to try and you know for example sustainable fishing you know can we get more consultation with those key groups to use their data to have a measurement of what's happening within our catchments rather than the Council collecting that data reduce that gentrification process. Yeah so you see the partnerships and relationship building with the community are really a vital part in reaching those outcomes. Definitely yeah and obviously the collaborative agreement we're working on with QEWS is a key uh keeping wf since part of that and is um around the conservation land plan, looking at where they're undertaking their strategic acquisitions, how can we you know build on those and also leverage funding through the offsets, state offsets fund, that sort of thing. It affects the opportunities I think. Yeah we're getting in place. We're base, our foundations, in order I guess at the moment and doing assessments of where we're at and if we can build on that. I don't know rebecca's probably better to comment on that. The Environment Strategy presents such a broad program across all those small names. There's sustainable living, climate change, waterways, biodiversity and Council can't do it on its own and so those partnerships you mentioned are really vital for this and we really want to continue to showcase support. The good work that our in own partners doing space. They're doing a lot of the on-ground work, assessments, water quality monitoring, on-ground planting work, helping with invasive weeds that mean that we are making some really good headway on environmental improvements so you know this bit of. With a really good opportunity to take a step back and just acknowledge what we have done over this year knowing that there's plenty more management efforts to do but to just stop and acknowledge that so it's really great staff and the Noosa Council to see that progress but also for us to shine a light on those within the community that are helping us significantly to achieve our program outcomes so in relation to the roundtable progressing and that's key focus how we're stepping towards a timeline to deliver that. Yeah we have a schedule for September for this year and we hope to get our NRM partners together to talk about the range of programs and projects they're working on and to update them on what our forward program looks like for this year and to see where we consolidate can consolidate some of those partnerships. And then also think about how to really spread that information out to the broader community as well because there's several interest groups across the community that want to be updated on what's happening with council's projects so considering how that feeds in as well so there's a little bit of planning around that and we had some successful NRM style round tables in the past that were great that Council has chaired and some of our community groups putting it inputted into that was just really but useful that you might not otherwise have been aware of what activities were happening across the Shire and beyond, but just highlight where we can all feed in and add values. It would be really useful to start those up at the end of September. Yeah, that's great. Fantastic. That great collaborative approach to share our knowledge and reach the child's net. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:27:16.896
I'll move now. To the motion and then I'll talk to it. It's a referral. Yeah, move that motion. I do think it's a very important and significant issue that we. Sorry, community seconder. That. Yeah, I'll talk to it rather than ask questions. While this is the in-between year, like every two years we do a full analysis against the targets, if you go to the end of the report, you've got some really good news hidden in here. In terms of, you know, in '21 / '22 we reduced council's carbon footprint by 12%. Now we've now got 680 kilowatt of solar across Council buildings and I'm sure it must be just about to be increased. The Sunrise Beach shops. But there are also some areas in that one, you know, it does identify that where we're going slow. The red clipboard on one of my favourite ones is identify potential areas of carbon sequestration and we talked about that. Pilot one's probably been pushed back a few times now and it's one where we do have to focus, you know, like if we're going to avoid the significant social, commercial, financial and environmental impact. Of climate change, we have to be in a position very shortly that we've got enough trees and draw down capacity to take the peak off the emissions impact. But yeah, the other good area where we're travelling well is in the waste area. And while this will show what we're doing, you know, you hope in the next one we'll have some more key performance indicators there. So yeah, I welcome this report. It's coming a little bit late, but it does give us a good snapshot of the activities taken and some of the investments made, and as previously mentioned, the great work that occurs in association with our community groups and partners what is that the project that's Tom Wegener 02:29:18.337
Thank you Ryan I'll speak to this I just thank you so much for all of this work. It seems the Environment Strategy straddles a lot of, pretty much all the different departments. I mean, you have waste, you know, is a key part of your Environment Strategy, and climate change response is a key part of it, and the venting layer, and the rivers, and the silt, and the keep it and keep it. It's just such a wide body that's under the big umbrella. One of the number 27 is the advance the idea of a Noosa sustainability institute to establish a coordinated approach to research and activity community occurring in our towards sustainability. Camilla, you probably haven't heard me hammer on about this. I'm not the only one. But I think that an educational opportunity for Noosa in a giant way, especially as a biosphere network between two other biospheres to lead, by example, but to actually document and tell the story better is through the potential of an institute of a community. It could be a university self-funding on itself. I think that you can very quickly get investors into it as a government private body institution. And so so that's something that I think is important. I think it's a long-range goal, and I think if we ever do go for double world heritage status of Noosa, which I think is possible, that would be a really good stepping stone to get to this very lofty goal. And then the second thing I'd like to say is, you know, with our press, our outward face, all these are such good-natured stories, and the residents like this stuff. And I would love to see our own team, our own press team, focus on this stuff a bit more. I mean, it's, I have that time for, I've had that call of, you know, Nathan to say, Nathan, this is a good story. And right, well, yeah, I didn't hear about it, so it's a matter of maybe better talking to them, maybe Kim rowling's our strategist genius over there could, you know, push these stories through. Unidentified Speaker 02:31:22.100
We've got a few things planned in that publicity space. Tom Wegener 02:31:25.477
Any other questions? Objective projecting closed? Or is it? Amelia Lorentson 02:31:32.960
Just in regards to the environmental values of all of the objectives, we've really achieved that. I know that, you know, I the submission been Unidentified Speaker 02:31:45.412
Is there a draft review that's? Yeah, so we're regularly following up with the department on that one, and we haven't got a final set of information to understand how they've landed on their decisions around that. So it has been significantly delayed. So we'll be able to provide an update when more. So you haven't heard anything further from them? No. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:32:12.558
That certainly has implications for our last item in the great water management bill. Unidentified Speaker 02:32:17.506
That's right, yeah. Tom Wegener 02:32:28.425
We've done that. Due to the significance of the matter. Yes, Thank you. I have a declaration before we go. Okay, so would you like me to kick off? Yes, we're not in that of the program. Confidential yet. No, that's right. I need to be clear. Before we go into confidential, Councillor Stockwell has a declaration to make. Brian Stockwell 02:33:13.856
Yes, I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. In this matter as in my sole trader consultancy, watch Australia, commenced it. I commenced the contract. With the koala action Gympie region association in June 2023. Wish to inform you the in 2023. The $28,000 agreement currently runs to the end of the calendar year. As part of the contract, I'm assisting calendar year. Not-for the contract, profit I'm assisting group. The not-for-profit group identify potential programs and projects to enhance koala habitat and the sustainability of the group in the Gympie region, including opportunities to link with other organisations to create inter-regional corridors. As the subject land abuts the Gympie Regional Council area and is part of the Matt koala corridor in the SEQ bayh region, KAGR may have a future interest in linkages across Shire boundaries in this locality. As there is currently no direct link, nor any current specific project or proposal involved in KAGR or myself in a consultant capacity and a lot in question, nor is it likely that I luck the will benefit directly from its acquisition. I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will also respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Unidentified Speaker 02:34:19.540
Oh, yeah, that's a tricky one, isn't it? Tom Wegener 02:34:24.476
Dude, the counts are stuck. Other questions? Unidentified Speaker 02:34:40.321
Thank you. I'm not quite sure what question to ask. I feel it's a, I don't know, it's a really close. Amelia Lorentson 02:34:49.948
You hear me? Yeah. Yeah, does anyone else have a question? Councillor Finzel, can I help by throwing some questions to the. Yes, to the table? Yes. Just, sort of, because you said this is a confidential matter, what we're going to do, so please don't refer to any of the. Oh no, these are just questions to Councillor Finzel. Yes, I didn't, yeah, I didn't, I wasn't prepared for this, so I. We're Councillors. Skills, knowledge or expertise help the non-conflicted Councillors to make the best decision in the public interest? That's a question of consideration. Do the non-conflicted Councillors require more information from the Council? How would inclusion of the Councillor in the deliberation of the decision affect public trust and. Of the mind. Favourite question is a reasonable man test. Would a man in a pub believe that given the declaration in front of you that the Councillor Stockwell would be able to act impartially without bias in this discussion? You. Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:36:09.556
Yeah so I guess that's where my question actually would be directed especially around Unidentified Speaker 02:36:15.485
Councillor Stockwell your ability to remain impartial and how would you address public trust whether that contributes or takes away from and also consideration to the reasonable man test when managing public meaning perception. Brian Stockwell 02:36:34.712
Sure yeah because this is a separate acquisition irrespective of what may or not happen in the future around any proposals that link to my clients I don't think that a reasonable man would have concerns, I think the First Point that Councillor Lorentson mentioned is the reason that may be benefit me to be stay in the room is because I have got good knowledge around these areas and therefore may contribute to the discussion and get the deliberations on why it may be appropriate or not to acquire particular block in question so it is a balance between those two things is to me there is no personal gain or benefit to it certainly in my mind my consultancy won't make any difference the way I would consider this particular block Tom Wegener 02:37:30.142
I considering we're going into a confidential I can't I don't want to say anything but I don't know if this would pass the podcast Brian Stockwell 02:37:35.815
But that's a decision you do have to make yeah Unidentified Speaker 02:37:40.272
I don't well that's why I sort of Karen Finzel 02:37:44.202
I've raised it because I in terms of the reasonable man I think Brian Stockwell 02:37:50.795
If there's questions the approach I think if there's questions the appropriate thing is that I'll step out of this one. Unidentified Speaker 02:37:58.392
There you go. You've already made the decision to leave. They have to vote. Tom Wegener 02:38:01.538
Oh, okay. I'll move that Councillor Stockwell must leave the room and not participate in the consideration and vote on this matter because if I had to put in a word that doesn't pass the podcast, it would be it's a reasonable person, but it doesn't have to be. May not trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Yeah, especially not in a competition. Not trust, but yeah, may not trust. Into the confidential, or maybe that doesn't seem to matter. It's part of the perception. Part of, yeah. I think you have a perception. Then you have a perception going into a confidential meeting. Everything related to confidentiality. So where do you want to go with that? First stop. Yeah. So then, okay. Unidentified Speaker 02:39:18.557
That would that'd be better. That'd be good. Should have been, considered. Yeah. I think you said the public interest. Tom Wegener 02:39:38.830
The second one. Is. Yeah, okay. Yeah, that's, yeah. Okay. We're going to have a little. Unidentified Speaker 02:39:56.586
Karen, are you seconding that? Tom Wegener 02:39:58.079
Yeah, I'll second that. Good, vote for it. All in favour? Okay. Thank you. Thanks for all the time. Yeah, I believe that we go into confidential session. You can call us right now. Right. Yeah. Unidentified Speaker 02:40:20.846
I'll second that. Tom Wegener 02:40:21.844
All in- I'll second the in favour? Seeing none. Okay, one, two, three. Tom Wegener 02:53:57.648
Just wait till it turns I'll tell you when it's ready. We're back on. We're in the committee room. We're gonna vote. We are back into the confidential session. And yeah, I'm gonna come up. Is there a wording for me? Yeah, moving the committee recommendation. Moving the recommendation? Okay, oh, yes, I'll move the committee recommendation. To approval of the. I don't think, do I have to? No, it's in the report. It's just moving the committee recommendation. I'm having a second. All in favour? Any opposed? I call the meeting to a close at 12:30. It's well, thank you, Sir. 12:30, is that it? Unidentified Speaker 02:55:00.380
Cheers. Yes. Can I find that for that? Yes, thank for having me. Really? Yes. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
