Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - 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 00:00.540
Welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting, the 11th of July, 2023. 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 with the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "A smooth sea never made a good sailor." And we have our new director of development and regulation Richard MacGillivray in the room today for the first time. Can I have a mover and seconder for the confirmations in the mid-eight minutes of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held last month? I shall. I'll second. Anyone vote on that one? Brian Stockwell 01:14.468
All in favour? And Mr Mr Chair, would you like to accept the apologies of the Mayor and acknowledge the other councillors in service? Did you do that? I blame age. Tom Wegener 01:28.922
Our first agenda item... Oh, yeah. There are 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 the first Councillor Finzel In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 I declare a conflict of interest in this matter. Karen Finzel 02:05.757
I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter and has 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 it was associated with Altum was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with future Noosa which is no longer an entity as conflict a result my of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and so while the while the deputations are heard thank you Brian Stockwell 03:10.231
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 saw the review by the Independent Council Election Observer. As the public claimed the future of this team in regards 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 03:59.260
Thank You Ryan that 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 I can't move move it a second, can I? But I can't move that Brian stay in the room. We've gone through this conflict many, many, many times and Brian has stayed in the room each time when we believed that he could make a... Do I need to say Do I need to say that we can make a fair... Yeah. That council knows that the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell to determine that council knows that there is no declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that it is the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception... person could not have a perception of bias because the I-C-E-O review was an advisory service, not a statutory process. And Councillor Stockwell's queries at that time were of the public interest and neither he nor Ms 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. Joe Jurisevic 05:13.358
Mr Chair, I'll just clarify, the language doesn't, at this 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. Thank you. So how do you want to change that? It was corrected in the declaration, it needs to be corrected in your resolution. Just so it replicates what's in the what's in the the declaration with regard to. SPEAKER_01 05:47.900
And you want to take stuff out about the decision? Joe Jurisevic 05:50.060
Yeah there's no decision no decision process there Kat so it should only be about being able to being able to stay in in the room while the deputations being presented. Tom Wegener 06:09.780
I understand from the CEO that I have the right to vote, and was it allowed? SPEAKER_01 06:19.980
In accordance with the Act, you've got the ability as a single councillor to make this decision. Tom Wegener 06:26.220
So I decide to let Ryan stay in the room. We're ready for the deputations then, and can we first please have Mr. John Cochrane. Now there's a question of whether you'd like to be on camera. That's fine. You're on camera's fine? Okay. Okay, so please take the lectern. We have a 15-minute time limit. I've been instructed to make sure... Look, I can do this. Frank Wilkie 07:19.640
If we could just... It 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. Okay, make sure that it's all working better, Cathy. Okay. John, please proceed. Thank you.
[John Cochrane: 07:20] 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 1,500 residents who will be negatively affected by the proposal, and the Noosa-wide who will potentially be affected by the likely need for upgrade of the nearby sewage treatment plant and the consequent increases in charges. We both live Petrovic. We both live in Noosa Springs and represent some of the 450 residents who have made submissions against this proposal, the 1,500 residents who will be negatively affected by the proposal, and the Noosa-wide 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 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 evacuation and management. The divergence from the strategic objectives of Noosa Council in terms of broadening the economic base of Noosa Shire and reducing the reliance on low paid employment in the tourism sector. It's lack It's lack of a positive response to climate change in terms of the proposals high capital carbon content and its reliance on highly carbon intensive recurrent systems. It's lack of any passive systems to reduce carbon emissions. It's high use of potable water is required by over-scale pools, its poor solar orientation and control systems, and 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 of the total of the hotel is proposed to be built on 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 6.6.1.2 in that the proposal is inconsistent with the purpose and 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 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. structure. The proposal is 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 food and drink outlets are not ancillary to any Activity. The food and beverage areas exceed the 150 square metre control. The ground floor includes a potential function area exceeding the 300 square metre control. The buildings and structures exceed the eight metre height control. The buildings exceed the gross floor area control in AO 17.1 and 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 existing tourist accommodation zone land on the site and that the proposal supports existing Noosa Spring Resort facilities. 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. 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 and cold storage areas. The potential impact this facility is not addressed. The applicant has asserted that there is no intention to use the ground floor area of 500 square metres and its attendant kitchen and cool room facilities for function 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 The applicant has provided a letter suggesting that this facility 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 which the planning reports support the proposal are flawed. The rationale for overturning the properly made zoning overlay is flawed. The potential of the proposal to litigate unity water is not adequately weighted. The technical analysis of impacts is limited in scope and lacks rigour. Some examples of this lack of rigour are in the acoustic analysis, the failure to 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 consider 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 Unity Water. The most effective mitigation will be maintained, it will be the maintenance of the existing exclusion zone. Further advice from Unity Water includes any attempt to indemnify Unity Water 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 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 forced upgrades of the STP, higher probability... 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 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. now hand over to Kim. Kim Petrovic 14:49.140
I will speak to you today on behalf of our community and the concerns that we currently have with the MCU. Our community is made up of residents from Park Ridge, Fairways, Oasis, Noosa Springs and Elysium. There are a total of 670 dwellings in the affected residential enclave. While residents love in this residential enclave 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 Parkridge 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 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 movements. If we can do it, why can't Council ask for traffic counting be undertaken on Lynx 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 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. Lynx Drive is within a high potential bushfire intensity zone. Evacuation will be compounded in the event of a bushfire. Residents have 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 Lorentson in July 21, nothing has occurred. 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. The odour from the sewage plant is already overpowering in some residential precincts and can be expected to worsen when the existing... when the existing system cannot cope with the additional effluent from the hotel. Complaints from Oasis residents to Unity Water have not improved the situation over the past five years. Golfers report they are exposed to the to the same smells on the 15th hole. The impact of the sewage treatment plant will inevitably increase complaints to Unity Water and will lead to a very expensive modifications to be made to the facility which will ultimately be a cost borne by Noosa rate payers through their water bills. Our residents are worried about further increases in an inflationary period as we have now. The increasing burden of utility costs are already hurting some is a clear disconnect with the luxury brand that the developer is putting forward and the 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 due to the level of intoxication and general unruly behaviour. reported to the hotel nothing is done. In a recent incident our security guard at Noosa Springs approached a trespasser who came through the golf course and moved on to 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. This increasing... 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 is felt by our community. The residents are opposed to the proposed development because we feel it will negatively impact on our mental well-being. We do not feel safe and positive about our future lives. 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 developer and to refuse the application. Clicker, yeah that's left and right I think. Frank Wilkie 20:21.996
Just quickly move on to the slides there. The logo on the top left hand corner is a representation of sustainability. A balance between social, environmental and economic 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 developers view, on the right hand side what we... Designated there, the neighbours view. SPEAKER_04 21:04.020
Sorry. Left. Frank Wilkie 21:05.540
Left. Left. Left. SPEAKER_04 21:07.140
To move it. Is it not Frank Wilkie 21:13.320
Sorry. 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 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's built on 65% of the floor areas based on land zoned open space recreation. The green area is the open space recreation zone. The red area is the... Thirty seconds. We better 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 of exceedance. Next slide, please. 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. We have our next deputation, Rhett Duncan from Unity Water. Would you like to be on camera? Would you like to specifically not be on camera? On camera is fine, thank you. And you have no power plant? No. Okay. Rhett Duncan 23:12.120
Good morning. Unity Water is the water and wastewater service provider for the Noosa region. My name is Rhett 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 1970s the STP was fully upgraded in 1997 and transferred to unity water 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 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 southwest 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 southwest of the STP site in order to maximise the distance from these sensitive receptors and the 1997 STP was designed with consideration to this 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 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 knowingly 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 still seeks to protect STPs 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 two things. Firstly Uniwater 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 plant to minimise odour, there are limitations 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 the catchment volumes are increasing, meaning that while we are within licence limits, the plant is treating more 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 community is afforded some shelter from the ridgeline running north-south between these properties and the STP. The development shifts development north along the ridgeline reducing this available protection. Unity Water 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. Unity Water 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. could result in action against Unity Water that may lead to prosecution and costly plant modifications and for reference Unity Water installed odour control equipment at the Murrumba Downs treatment plant in 2010 as a result of encroachment and the cost of that was 38 million dollars 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 of the potential odour from the sewage treatment plant. Actively drawing attention to a potential odour source will drive guests' perception of odour and trigger an automatic assumption that any perceived odour relates to the STP. Unity Water upgrades STPs as catchments grow to ensure ongoing, compliant sewage treatment. Upgrades at Upgrades at the treatment plant will change the odour contours used in the modelling. A future DA application by Unity Water will need to consider sensitive receptors only 200 metres from the STP as a Again, I refer back to the Marumba Downs treatment plant example where odour control equipment cost $38 million in 2010. So, in closing, while we 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 Unity Water that cannot be transferred and could unnecessarily cost Unity Water customers tens of millions of dollars and limit our ability to meet future growth in the region. It is our 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 Unity Water 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. So Unity 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 200 metres from existing luxury accommodation with significant outdoor facilities? Thank you. Tom Wegener 31:28.202
Thank you. very much, Rhett. And our third deputation is for Ellen Guan. And our third Do you mind being on camera or do you need to be moved off camera? Ellen Guan 31:42.547
It's fine. Fine with the camera. Tom Wegener 31:44.667
And do you have a powerpoint? No, I don't have a powerpoint. The architect will have a powerpoint to do the presentation after me. Okay. Yeah. So where's the powerpoint? So where's the powerpoint? Do you have the powerpoint here? Okay. I just want to make sure that it's all covered before Patrick Murphy 32:09.140
We can-- Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Tom Wegener 32:14.220
Please begin. SPEAKER_04 32:16.260
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 recover. recoup 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? 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 complete resort destination, an exceptional platform that can uplift and inspire as many people as possible. This intention serves as our motivation and brings a profound sense of fulfilment. Currently, I would say the key words that define our vision of Noosa Springs are community and wellness. The hotel will be a community-based local business. It goes beyond traditional hotels by actively involving and engaging the local community in its operations. developments. We 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 international five-star hotel operator. Currently, we have 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 hospitality industry, it is truly a blessing for us to have such a stable and experienced local team to support this proposed project. Our staff is enthusiastic about this opportunity and of course the proposed hotel will create more 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 the well-being of the community. We would like to minimise the 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 between 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. 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 enhancements allows us to introduce a range of programs that include meditation, wellness retreat and packages, dynamic healthy dining options, and sleep enhancing. We deeply 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. It provides an invaluable foundation for a resort destination we believe. Our goal is to contribute positively to Noosa 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 UNID Water and the other submitters. The wastewater treatment plant completed in 1997 made a substantial difference to to order control and the buffer zone was not required in the subsequent planning instruments. In early 2018 our early design of the hotel project shows part of the building located within the 2.5 odour contour. We had discussions meetings with Unity Water representatives at that time. Unity Water advised us that if the buildings were completely outside the 2.5 odour contour it would be okay. Then we made a substantial redesign which placed all the buildings outside the 2.5 council which complies with the appropriate guidelines and it was assumed satisfied you need water concern. Noosa Springs has been operating for almost 25 years and although has never been an issue we have never received any complaint from members or visitors you need water 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 odour contour and Park Ridge is not much further away. The hotel where they The hotel will therefore not worsen the risk to unit water, 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, nature of hotel guests occupying the room for a short time is very different from residential use. GH and 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 Unity Water 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 24/7. 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 that 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 extensive research and planning conducted by specialist consultants and our team. We respect and value the contribution made by submitters in 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 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 to this community. Frank Wilkie 41:12.763
You please start the presentation?
[Jurgen Weigel: 41:13] My name is Jurgen Weigel, I'm Associate Director at Marchesi Partners, the architects for the proposed hotel. Marchesi Partners are located in Brisbane, but we are an international operation and eight offices worldwide. Please go to the next slide. We have substantial experience in the hotel 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 in on the Gold Coast. I also lived for four years on the Sunshine Coast and believe that I understand Sunshine Coast very well. Next slide please. The original designer for the proposed hotel is Shane Thompson. He's known for Elements of Byron and Byron Bay, a hotel which was successfully integrated into 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 higher level of sustainability, I 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. So 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 place the concrete place 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 follow the topography. Next one, please. So here you can see the diagrams left and side showing the different zonings. And on the right hand side, the the 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 limit, while a few roof edges might project over. 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 few from Resort Drive. And from Resort Drive, the building would appear as a one to two storey structure. Next one please. And the few 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, 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 solar protection, external views in daylight, which is apparent how the rooms have been designed and laid out, the orientation of the rooms, but also the lobby. We have solar panels integrated and we promote have solar panels integrated and we promote mixed mood ventilation, which actually then results in reduced energy usage and 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 are located on a hill and the gently, the buildings gently step up to the hill. But we also were really interested in the materiality, terracotta, stone, the landscaping in between. And we think that is something you clearly here in Noosa Springs as an existing design philosophy. Next one. The pool is the centre of our hotel. and so So we are a fair bit away from the beach. So we have to create our own amenity on the side. So this is truly the feature. The pool is about 1,265 square metres. 20% of it is just water feature with 300 deep water. The rest is about 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 Cochere and then Do you want 30 seconds? Joe Jurisevic 46:50.697
I'd just quickly like to say in the last few minutes, I think that the council being the town planner for the application, The the council council just just needs needs to to be 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. 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 while in 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 while Brian Stockwell 47:18.939
I understand the submitters concerns and also your new orders concerns, those technical reports have been assessed and the consultants on both sides are in agreement. Tom Wegener 47:33.560
Okay, we'd like to thank our deputations that are coming here today, and everybody in the gallery. We will be... Brian Stockwell 47:58.308
She can't be in here. Joe Jurisevic 47:59.868
The declarations made, Brian, with regard to submissions, I'd like to do them again. Yeah, but under the Act, if all you're doing is referring... don't need to make a declaration. It's probably easier to do it with her outside the room. I'm happy to move that we refer this matter to the General Committee. Tom Wegener 48:23.714
To the significance of the issue. Okay, I'll second that. All in favour? Is that Kathy Ketchup? Yeah. Unknown 48:40.140
I don't know what's happening, but I'm going to do that. Brian Stockwell 48:44.900
Yeah, no worries, that's it. We're not going to be put on that date. SPEAKER_01 48:49.340
Yeah. Yeah, that's weird. Tom Wegener 49:05.360
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 meeting, and we do that because we want all the councillors around the room at the table in the full in the full meeting, as of now, three councillors 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. SPEAKER_01 49:56.220
Thank you very much. Tom Wegener 50:06.460
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. SPEAKER_01 50:59.616
So this one is a redevelopment of portions of the existing Auscare 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, well Linda's been given the hard copies of the infrastructure program, so essentially the changes are predominantly as a response to COVID, so they're removing all the existing dual rooms and replacing them with single rooms. So 24 dual rooms going to 48 single rooms. So there will be... additional story on one of the wings, a slight increase to footprint on the building, and then some internal changes in terms of community spaces and things like that. Tom Wegener 51:50.244
But there's also some landscaping to be done? SPEAKER_01 51:53.364
Yes, so there will be some minor changes to the landscaping as well. Tom Wegener 51:58.364
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 painted right up to the... windows, basically, right down to the balconies. Are they considering that the guests in their final days really might want to be a part of nature as best they can, and have the trees there? Are they considering So, I guess the greater concern is the bushfire management. SPEAKER_01 52:38.524
So, in terms of what needs to be removed for bushfire management purposes, I guess that's probably the priority. Tom Wegener 52:46.924
They need to have a car be able to drive up and down, right? SPEAKER_01 52:50.724
On council land, it will be an access trail for fire. Frank Wilkie 52:59.700
I have a question. Just to picture what's happening there, this is creating a fire access trail around a facility that doesn't exist currently? SPEAKER_01 53:09.000
So it has been done. The work's been carried out. So there was an approval issued by our environment management team, I believe, to do that access work already. 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. Will it be hard standard? I believe that will be figured out through the upwards, the actual... Tom Wegener 53:35.237
Right, so it's on the top of the bank, 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 53:43.117
Yeah, given that, like I said, I've asked a question by email and I'll let the 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 would 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 Now if a new building was being built today of this nature what would be the requirement for stormwater runoff filtration? Would a biobasin be part of that sort of procedure? SPEAKER_01 54:23.965
Uh, I'd have to have to check with the engineers, but I believe so. Joe Jurisevic 54:26.309
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 biobasins and the like? SPEAKER_01 54:42.193
Yes, so it has been addressed through 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 op works. Joe Jurisevic 54:55.113
So there will be an opportunity to request a biobase at all? 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. So there's no capacity to capacity to upgrade stormwater even though there's been capacity to upgrade fire management and actually take introduce clearing within the council reserve. SPEAKER_01 55:20.586
So the stormwater is being upgraded they're providing additional channels it's just that it's not being upgraded. Not up to current standards. It would be up to the current standards, it's just potentially not a biobasin. Joe Jurisevic 55:27.746
It would be up to standards? SPEAKER_01 55:31.038
So it hasn't been determined that a biobasin is needed. There is an opportunity now Joe, absolutely, to do it. That's what I'm looking at. But to the assessment, it hasn't been determined that a biobasin is the required treatment. Whatever the appropriate treatment for a development of this size would be under current building conditions could be reassessed and re-evaluated. Yes. That's all that. Tom Wegener 55:56.580
Any other questions? I'm happy to move the staff recommendation and this one's been requested to be added to general notice. SPEAKER_01 56:06.000
No, I'm happy to second it. Tom Wegener 56:11.000
Um, yeah, Councillor Stockwell has moved this staff recommendation. Chair Fittipaldi has seconded it. All in favour? All in favour? Oh, sorry, can we speak to it? We're invited, it's okay. SPEAKER_01 56:34.060
Okay. Is that carried? It's carried, yes. It's carried. Tom Wegener 56:36.880
Unanimous. Thank you. We're up to report number three, application for building works for a dwelling house at Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Jada. Jada, please walk us SPEAKER_01 57:24.420
Through. Yeah, absolutely. So this is an application for building works for a new dwelling house out at Seaview Terrace. The application was originally presented to council at the general committee meeting in October last year and was originally recommended was originally recommended for approval subject to conditions. It was presented to council for issues including geotechnical and coastal hazard processes, site cover, building height, the enclosure of rooftop terrace and building... 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. The applicant stopped the decision-making period before it could period before it could be discussed at the ordinary meeting, just to provide further plans to rectify the issues that were looking for 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 has raised a number of issues, including that of site cover, pipe, side setbacks, and the built amount of garage and bin storage, and as such, a proposal is now recommended for... Thank you. Tom Wegener 59:03.400
Any questions? SPEAKER_01 59:05.880
Yeah, thank Yeah, thank you, thank 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 make the conditions have been overlooking and now we've got all these other conditions about site cover and height and all of that. Was that not included in the first? Patrick Murphy 59:29.232
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 their overlooking. There was some question as to the effectiveness. So the applicant stopped the call and went away to demonstrate how overlooking could be mitigated with the inclusion of the rooftop terrace. is they've created an additional bulk in 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 the associated treatments to the side also 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 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 But notwithstanding, this has been a fresh look at the application. There were some elements of it that were, you know, that great Jaden has raised that were supported in. the previous applications, particularly around the height, there was a minor height exceedance in the middle of the rooftop terrace. But in the current proposal that I'll attribute it to, as I said, the rooftop terrace has significantly increased. SPEAKER_01 01:01:31.007
And is there opportunity to go back to negotiate another outcome? Patrick Murphy 01:01:37.547
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 sort the price to make a decision on it. happy to move the recommendation. Tom Wegener 01:01:58.450
Okay, I'll second it and I'll move to it. Brian Stockwell 01:02:01.170
So when this came up originally I had concerns, not just about the rooftop terrace 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 of refusal. grounds of 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 the surrounding residents for a similar scale and bulk of 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 believe part of the grounds for refusal of this one as well. We have to be sure when we're building in these high profile locations that what's there reflects both the environment, the streetscape, but also doesn't unduly itself on the existing sidelines within the coastal overlay, scenic amenity overlay. It is one of the key areas of scenic amenity for people who visit Beach is to look back then 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 with the sea coast environment. Tom Wegener 01:03:28.340
Any further questions, comments? I have a When it comes to bulk, you have the built form, and then you might have umbrellas on the rooftop terrace, and you may have trees rolling up on the floor. How do you see that? Is there a gradient in what actually counts as bulk? Patrick Murphy 01:03:48.357
There would be elements of a building that are not, say, included in building height, such as a chimney or the like. In terms of someone putting an umbrella on the roof, it wouldn't form part of the building. 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. We have to look at now that rooftop terrace is going to be used. Where it's sited on the building and the associated quality attributed to screening mechanisms and the like, but also how it's sited in terms of not having to overlooking. 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 different times as well, so generally it's the physical part of the team we'll be looking at in terms of what those impacts are going to be there on a permanent basis. Tom Wegener 01:04:51.663
Any further questions? Brian would you like to close? Brian Stockwell 01:04:54.323
No, I can't disagree with anything that's been said. Tom Wegener 01:05:28.480
We have Nadine Borden to walk us through the report. SPEAKER_01 01:05:33.000
Good morning everyone. This is an application to subdivide an existing 1400 or so high density residential lot at the end of Picture Point present into two residential lots. The proposed lots are 1723 square metres in area with the they're significantly less than the requirements under the planning scheme, which is a minimum of 1200 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. Dwellings, not houses. There are concerns about the subdivision not complying with the planning scheme requirements and its ability to fulfil the high density residential design requirements. Brian Stockwell 01:06:36.922
It's more a matter of interest than anything else, but was there any justification for the highly irregular shape of lot 50? Not really justification, like is it to try and get legal protection over views or something like that? It looks like they've done a 50/50 split. Yeah, that's what I'm presuming. It was just how do we get people there over any formal planning grounds. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Tom Wegener 01:07:04.914
No other questions? I'll move the poll to Oakley. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:10.587
Just wanted to raise the size and character of the surrounding lots and also the nature of the precincts. So I've been visiting the site yesterday and one side of the road is clearly high density residential and the other side there are really small lots and on the small on the small lots, there's three full dwellings. So can I understand what consideration and what weight was put on, and I'm referencing the relevant purpose and overall outcome provisions in the code, acceptable outcome 1.5.12, the number A. overall outcomes sought for reconfiguring a lot code development that provides for lots that are of size and have dimensions that are appropriate for their intended use and are consistent with the sizes. SPEAKER_01 01:08:08.973
Sure. Unfortunately, one page number didn't work. But if you look at figure 10, even though it says landslide hazard over on that, that's incorrect. But figure 10, that was an analysis of the surrounding lots and their sizes. And again, that gives you an indication that 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 development. So there is a mix. 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're concerned about the potential for them to be used for residential identity units. So it's an interesting comparison. There is a mix there. We acknowledge that. The preference would be for larger lots, which will enable a better form of unit development on the site. house, or otherwise we'd be looking at minimum three years. And can that be conditioned? No, that's not known. Well, yes, it can be conditioned. Thank you. 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? On the smaller lots? Yes. Based on the constraints of the site, the applicant gave a massing diagram. Even with those massing diagrams, they require some setback relaxation strategy. So that was what they provided in terms of the concept. The site also slopes quite steeply at the back, it's 50%. And that triangulation at the back makes it very difficult for the development. So there'll be geo-technical considerations. Patrick Murphy 01:10:48.787
End up creating lots that are narrower as well as what is intended so you're going to have two lots side by side there's going to be a requirement for the setback from side boundaries so you really are limiting the extent of development that can occur on each lot then each each lot would need to be serviced by a driveway, so you're really sort of transforming the street appearance as well, impacting the potential of car parking in the street, capacity for street trees, so it's more desirable that this lot be left as it is and that it be developed for multiple grounds. Tom Wegener 01:11:31.700
It just seems to be a very bad precedence to go against our own speed. Brian Stockwell 01:11:45.291
I think there's some important principles here. This is a very This is a very high value, high humanity site, probably exceptional views. There's very few of those zoned high density residential. It's really important that we keep the mix of zones right. that, you know, approving this subdivision is more 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. And 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 cetera, in this development application that it would have a suboptimal outcome in terms of providing housing choice. So I agree with the recommendation and the motion. Okay, should we put it to a vote? Sure. Second. Hey, I need to report 5.5 development permit for material change of use, home-based business, mechanic, and 39 Eucalypt Way to Cootharaba. We have Tara. SPEAKER_01 01:13:10.962
So this one did come in as a result of compliance action. So we received a complaint regarding an unlawful home-based business that's been carried out on site. So the applicant lodged an application in response to receiving the show cause notice. As part of the Patrick and one of our local businesses 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 to provide that, so we haven't been able to gain enough evidence to say that it will create those impacts, so in which case we're recommending refusal. Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:13:54.800
You guys visited the site yesterday. Further questions? SPEAKER_01 01:14:01.800
Do I have questions around that? Yeah, I do. Is there any way that moving forward we could speak with the applicant and provide opportunity for it to be conditioned to operate? Patrick Murphy 01:14:16.218
We have been trying to get the applicant to provide suitable information for us to make a decision on 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 on and the operator continuing to operate without an approval with our concerns around noise. Um, we think it's appropriate that an acoustic report be submitted and it be demonstrated how this use can operate on the land without causing many impacts to the surrounding area. I think it would be be fraught with danger to issue an approval without such information 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. Provide an acoustic report and I think that's somewhat concerning that they haven't come to agreement on that at this stage. SPEAKER_01 01:15:29.952
So is the acoustic report the only mechanism? only mechanism that you have to condition the operation of the business? Patrick Murphy 01:15:40.461
Because we're concerned about noise, so once you allow the business to operate, if you allow it to operate only a few days a week or limit the number of cars or whatnot, you've still got the issue of noise which you haven't demonstrated as being appropriately mitigated. Brian Stockwell 01:16:03.020
I think it's worth trying again. I'll speak to this before I move it. It is relatively a rural residential area. You know the level of noise associated with normal rural residential activity with mowing, brush cutting, etc. The normal operation 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 and he was and and he was trying to work out the problem and it was creating a noise nuisance. There appeared to be when the council's met on site a degree of acceptance of the need of the potential to to modify. I understand you know it is only a number of days a week that they're proposing to use it and my what What 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 the mention maybe is only nine to five. Installing acoustic barriers around the compressor which is likely to be the main noise source. Any other noise making machinery likely to affect the outside event. Adopting work practices above 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... 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 acoustic report. My gut is it'd be better to spend that money on actually doing the acoustic attenuation measures, which are pretty measures, which are pretty obvious in terms of, you know, there's a hoist that goes up and down that the level of DBs coming out of that won't affect across the boundary of the compressor when it's going. Anyone knows that? Come on. being on how many times, 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 sub approvals subject to conditions that would reduce the potential impact of the use, including limiting the use to three days a week, 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 I'll second that. Karen Finzel 01:19:08.706
Excuse me Brian, do you think limiting the use to three days, we could add the hours of operation. I'm happy to add that, 9 to 3 or something. Brian Stockwell 01:19:18.306
Well, I think we talked about 9 o 'clock as being reasonable at that time and whether it's 4 or 5. I think it's up to, I think if you'd like it in there, limiting the use of three days a week and Frank Wilkie 01:19:40.900
Mr. Chairman. Yes. Before it goes too far, I have a fundamental problem with the process we're heading at the moment. Because to date, the powers of this committee has only been to refer 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 01:20:08.381
That's a very good point. Brian Stockwell 01:20:09.782
I'll have a different view. I'll have a different view. 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 Karen Finzel 01:20:35.296
I have a different opinion too. I think that we should explore, given the current financial implications and hardships people have out in community right now, I think that we should be looking at every 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 moving forward. Tom Wegener 01:21:07.371
Joe, did you have something to say? Joe Jurisevic 01:21:09.231
I concur with what Brian said. I think we've done something similar to this in the past. On a number of 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 information being sourced to see if an alternative decision can be reached at a future meeting. I hope that couldn't be more wrong. What we're asking is more information... Brian Stockwell 01:21:43.783
Point of order. Point of order. As an observer, I think Councillor Wilkie is going beyond the bounds of what is acceptable for the committee. Frank Wilkie 01:21:51.583
You're making decisions on behalf of this council that... Point of order has been raised. So I believe the observer can ask questions if you make a comment, but I'm trying to trying to debate the point is, I believe, outside the Standing Orders. It's about process. SPEAKER_01 01:22:08.133
Excuse me, I have a question for the Chair and the CEO. Brian Stockwell 01:22:12.673
Sorry, with the point of order, I've moved it, it doesn't need to be seconded. SPEAKER_01 01:22:17.853
I'll second it. No, I second it, it doesn't need to be seconded. That's the point of order. order, that's the point of order. Now's not the time to make these decisions. You've got to decide as the Chair. Tom Wegener 01:22:27.719
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 debating it, he's just bringing more information. Frank Wilkie 01:22:36.399
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 to ordinary or to the general committee. 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 it's inequitable because this committee has the inside running in terms of directing this council, without full complement of councillors around the table, towards 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 the process, it needs to been at the General Committee, then we can request the CEO, which is a commitment of resources of this council, join the board to serve an outcome. And I think this is beyond the powers of this committee to do that. Tom Wegener 01:23:50.782
So this is sort of what Brian is asking is to move to General. to General for further consideration but full stop, that's where it should end. Brian Stockwell 01:24:01.956
So I'll have the turn of view. This is a properly constituted committee of the Noosa Council where we're emboldened by the standing orders to make decisions. Those 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 accepted processes that have been instituted to make this. 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 I could ask 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 the committee to determine whether they think it's worthwhile for you in this course of action. to determine whether Thank you. SPEAKER_01 01:24:54.620
Mr Yelich with your advice. Larry Sengstock 01:24:56.500
Thank you Chair. The difference is that this is now putting in the recommendation. What we would have done before was ask for a 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. is four dot points as opposed to there may be other dot points and other questions that the other councillors may wish to ask does go to Councillor Wilkie's point of limiting it and essentially directing the fact that at directing. 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 over this next week before it goes to general and then to ordinary. SPEAKER_01 01:25:49.513
But this is really just, you know, quite formalising it in terms of putting it into the recommendation. If you're prepared to do that, if you're willing to do that as a group, then that's your call. Brian Stockwell 01:26:00.293
And I'm happy to add the potential impact..the potential impact of the use, including such matters as... So just giving a little... 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 accept approval subject conditions without giving an indication of the nature of those conditions that may satisfy councillors as to overcoming the concerns of amenity. Tom Wegener 01:26:30.936
I think it's important think it's important that we do give some guidance okay so we're not telling staff to do a particular thing we're making a suggestion here. SPEAKER_01 01:26:40.845
We're making a recommendation that staff... Karen Finzel 01:26:52.434
Well, the debate is between us, isn't it? 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 in such a way that it's questioned back to staff and then we 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. SPEAKER_01 01:27:39.818
I haven't got the facts on that so I'm to support the idea that we put the questions back to staff informally rather than committee the recommendation and then we can debate that at the next meeting. Kim Rawlings 01:27:53.192
Okay. Just to add to that, I think where the current record recommendation says to determine if they agree to 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. Brian Stockwell 01:28:27.756
Can you suggest an amendment to the words that you think would be consistent then? I think if we decide to request a CEO to liaise with the applicant regarding a range of matters to reduce the potential impact and report back to the general committee including such matters as can you suggest a Except a quibble is maybe pre-empted. Yes, that's right. Unknown 01:28:53.642
I think that's where- I'm happy to change. SPEAKER_01 01:28:58.022
And now they know what- Delete that Kath, keep going. Range of matters. matters. That would- their stop, yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:29:09.779
And then would we potentially impact- reduce potential impact, full stop, and then you're wiping out everything else? SPEAKER_01 01:29:16.639
You could say such as. Such as. No, no. Okay. I think it's fine. Brian Stockwell 01:29:26.877
Take out matters. Take out. I just put impact such as. After impact, just put such as. SPEAKER_01 01:29:35.710
I'm happy with that change if the seconder is happy and okay through the chair I do have an issue with the fact that I voted against the initial recommendation with the wording so then the process has been then but it looks like so it's up to that it's up to the majority of the committee to decide whether they're happy with the change. Can I ask a question, please, before I put the mic on? Amelia Lorentson 01:30:07.633
Just in terms of acceptable outcome 9.3, home-based business does not produce noise which exceeds the background noise level plus 5 dBA at site boundaries. SPEAKER_01 01:30:09.043
Adjusting Amelia Lorentson 01:30:23.193
Is there an alternate way to get an acoustic report that can satisfy... 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 home-based business is situated on a property that's less than four hectares and there's a requirement that it's got to be impact assessed, is there another way that SPEAKER_01 01:30:54.841
We can... We can be sure that it meets that requirement. That concerns me quite a bit. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:02.701
So question to you, Patrick, can we go out there and do our own sound acoustic measurements? 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 10 to 15 years down the track who 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 reward and mitigate the noise coming out of the building by attenuating... SPEAKER_01 01:31:43.386
The staff have also been out on 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. Patrick Murphy 01:31:59.766
And I will add in terms of the acoustic requirements particularly with a shared 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 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 that we may inherit if we don't quite get it right now. another question? If an approval was given with conditions, can the approval be for a limited period rather than in perpetuity? Amelia Lorentson 01:33:04.311
Can we approve it for 12 months subject to no complaints? We have issued approvals in the past, that's right. SPEAKER_01 01:33:23.560
So it's with the chair? Yes. I have a question for the CEO. In the recommendation, do you have to be pulled out to request the CEO to engage with the applicant regarding the Yes. So the idea is to go to the CEO and then go to the officers. That's just the process. Okay. Well, I'm just double checking with the process, given it was raised by... Yes. Tom Wegener 01:33:56.696
Councillor Frank, do you have any further comments? Frank Wilkie 01:34:00.356
No. I thank you for hearing that concern and I respect the direction the discussion has. discussion has gone and changed to the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 01:34:15.412
Yes. So, one more question. There are six dwellings within 200 metres of the property. Again, smooth plot sizes. I know we've had one complaint with the adjoining neighbour. Have we had any indication of the other dwellings? Patrick Murphy 01:34:37.952
So it is a code assessment application, so there was no notification required. And as 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. of this business operating because of the noise and the noise. SPEAKER_01 01:35:02.400
And it's code-accessible, it's code-accessible if low-impact industry, such as an account or a workshop, is situated on property no less than four hectares. Amelia Lorentson 01:35:15.320
So given this is... less than four hectares, is it different, is this it? No, so in the rural zone, it's very accessible to account with. In the rural residential zone, that's where it triggers to impact, you know, basically block size. Unknown 01:35:28.160
So these aren't the main plans, but the middle-based block size has got a design that doesn't trigger residential. Tom Wegener 01:35:40.160
Okay, shall we vote? Any other questions? We'd like to close, Brian. Brian Stockwell 01:35:45.600
I accept that the council will be genuine concerns and that the removal of that potential forecasting of an approval was probably something that I hadn't thought of. I do think it's important that we do just test these orders. Sometimes applicants 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 the second way. Tom Wegener 01:36:16.643
Put it to a vote. All in favour? Pass unanimously. Thank you very much, Tara. SPEAKER_01 01:36:24.123
Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:36:25.823
You're still there. On to the next report, 5.6. Short-term accommodation at 2A Woongar Street, Boreen Point. Tara, will you please walk us through the application? SPEAKER_01 01:36:38.275
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 use it sporadically throughout the year, so we've decided that they would look at turning it into short-term accommodation to make up for a little bit of money. So the site's quite large, it's a split zoning. The dwelling house itself is located within the residential zoning and then the rest of it is environmental management and conservation. There's no works proposed, it will just all be within the existing dwelling. Five bedrooms, they've proposed ten 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 did receive submissions from the community in regards to the application so they've been addressing 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 recommendation to immediately address impacts. Tom Wegener 01:37:53.065
Know, I was going to talk about dogs, but before we get there, would anybody else like, yeah, any questions? SPEAKER_01 01:37:59.085
I've recommended that this gets moved to. Yes, yes. Tom Wegener 01:38:06.953
As you know, I brought up the thought of dogs, and it just seems to me, with a 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. And I would think that'd be assumed. And it's in a very, very environmentally sensitive zone, especially to koalas and shorebirds. What put What put out that we should make further conditions for either no dogs allowed, or we should have an area set up, a properly set up area fence for dogs in. the old regulations, as Nadine and I found out, that when it comes to quality habitat, important quality habitat, they recommend a closed area with a 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 they must not be allowed to roam. Thank you. 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 we have to... And we have to think about dogs because it just seems that dogs are a part of the family now. They're actually family members. It's just the way it is. They come everywhere. They're at restaurants. They're on the parks. It's just the way. We need to address it. SPEAKER_01 01:39:33.315
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, preventing them completely, but we can condition... Okay. Tom Wegener 01:39:50.615
So it would either be... The impact of cats on the environment and native animals as well, would you include cats? I would 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 with birds, but dogs are different. Brian Stockwell 01:40:22.186
I know you've got the paper with you. To me it is an environment with a sense of society. 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 that 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. Patrick Murphy 01:41:08.473
We can have a look at that in terms of the proposed use but acknowledging that there is zoning and and overlays of the land, they do provide a level of protection as well. It's more about that management, the activity stuff. Yeah, there could be some signage, for example, making us aware about the significance and some information to make them aware around, you know, what the importance of that area would be. That would be an adverse cost on the community use that's proposed, so that could be one good idea of creating some awareness. Tom Wegener 01:41:45.700
Okay, so I would like to I'd like to move that the planning and environment committee agenda number 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. SPEAKER_01 01:42:11.640
Second. Tom Wegener 01:42:14.919
Can't resist. And I don't need to speak to it. Anybody else? Okay, we're up to report number seven. Liner change to existing approval for the purpose of providing a cafe for guests of the community use, well-being, type 2, social, on land at 468 McKinnon Drive, Cooroibah. Cooroibah. And we have Georgina Schramm. Comfort. Oh, I do. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the World Government Act of 2009, And I'll catch you later. Although I have a considerable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person should have any perception or bias 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 will remain and participate in the decision. Brian Stockwell 01:44:07.640
I vote that Councillor Finzel take over the chair of the committee. Thank you. Do you have a seconder? SPEAKER_01 01:44:17.960
I have a seconder. Brian Stockwell 01:44:20.120
Yeah. And then I'm happy to move that Council notes the clearable 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 personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that a final decision is made in the public interest. SPEAKER_01 01:45:05.020
So you can stay in the room and now you can come to the chair. Tom Wegener 01:45:09.607
Okay, very good. Any questions? Oh, do we get another one? We haven't got, we didn't get another one. I'm sorry, that's it. Okay. Georgina, let's hear it. SPEAKER_01 01:45:24.107
Good morning, so the application in front of us today relates to parcel land along McKinnon Drive. There's been existing approval there currently for community use that we know use that we know as Sunshine Butterfly. 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. whether that's students, clients and staff, the extension is remaining ancillary to the community use. So in this instance the application is being recommended for approval subject to conditions. you. Questions? I'm happy to move. Is there a staff recommendation? I'm happy to second. Brian Stockwell 01:46:14.165
So this is a really important social enterprise in our community that provides a range of really beneficial... 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'll just be a add-on to the range of services that they do provide to their clients. Tom Wegener 01:46:44.620
Any questions from Councillor Lorentson? We'll put it to, we'd like to close. Which place would we have now? Brian Stockwell 01:47:21.480
And I have a declaration. Tom Wegener 01:47:23.260
Oh, you've got a declaration. Do we need to come up with anything? Okay. So here we have five questions. Complicated water quality monitoring program at Burgess Creek. I have a declaration. Brian Stockwell 01:47:48.065
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 Vereen Sports Complex. This involves the 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 of of service 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. SPEAKER_01 01:48:40.420
I'm happy to move, though. Moves at East State? Yeah, I'm happy to move at East State. Tom Wegener 01:48:46.840
Of course, I'll second that. I do have a question. So you don't have any business affiliations with selling the slow-release at Kelsey-Bridge Fertilizers? No. Not at any pecuniary interest? Brian Stockwell 01:49:00.400
Just being on the-- being on the executive committee, we decide how to do the maintenance expenditure on the fields, what fertilizers we use, et cetera. And at the end of the day, as an executive member, I have the responsibility for doing that in a sustainable fashion. SPEAKER_01 01:49:18.889
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 01:49:28.722
When we used the recycled water, we had a close association with the then managing company at the plant, which has recently gone. We no longer, we exclusively use groundwater now. Tom Wegener 01:49:45.835
What a web of a world we live in where you need to do a conflict of interest because you're on the administration of this community group, sporting group complex. Yeah. Oh, yeah, we don't, Amelia has asked you this question, but we haven't heard about the report yet. SPEAKER_01 01:50:26.480
Yeah, we don't have to bring it. Oh, okay, yeah, you're right. But you just voted on it. Tom Wegener 01:50:33.540
Oh, right, yeah. But you can read it. 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 interest. SPEAKER_01 01:51:42.334
To um we had a council workshop on the 1st of June where unity water came and presented um we had a council workshop on the 1st of June where unity water came and presented um the receiving environmental monitoring program um the receiving environmental monitoring program work um i regret there wasn't really a lot of work um i regret there wasn't really a lot of time to get into the detail of time to get into the detail of what those results were showing but um they have what those results were showing but um they have now agreed to share the report which is now agreed to share the report which is attached to this council agenda 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 we're hoping that that work will really flow into the Burgess Creek infrared catchment management plan and a key 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 Creek could be looked at as one of two priority creeks. under 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 Council has put forward its recommendations and management options that were proposed as part of that and I'm going to share that out. 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 area of catchment for all is on today. So we'll be heading out to a range of sites this afternoon and kicked off at 7:45. This morning, and we're really excited that the next workshop will bring our next situation analysis report, which quality results can run across the Shire. So the last report was prepared by but I'm not sure you can see it if you're in 2020.2021. So it's been about two years and it will be really important to be able to compare what has happened over those 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. you. Tom Wegener 01:54:18.780
Question. On page of the report, of the community water report 25 of 46. There was a substantial spike in the concentration of fecal chloroform in 2021. Was that because of a flood? A rain event in May? I don't remember the reason. A rain event in May. SPEAKER_01 01:54:48.634
I don't know the answer to that, I'm sorry, but we can take another listen. Did you say page 25? Yes, of the, you can see that, page 25. Brian Stockwell 01:55:03.328
So that's the blue line in site B8. Site B8 they describe as a femoral stream. It's probably really important to understand that that site's probably just a drainage depression within a wetland. 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. 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 will be useful information to capture urban stormwater during events and that V8 will be useful in terms of the quality of flow during events but after that the whole ecosystem process will be different so it won't be a good comparison. Yeah so it's a second highest one it's above 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 that's now constantly flowing but the water course the DNR determined is down at actually below the football field. Tom Wegener 01:56:41.422
We do have funding 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 Creeks, like Cranks Creek and Eany Creek are reporting F ratings, so we need to get a much better understanding of what's happening with small water discharge across the Shire and some of the areas where we know it's an issue. The cost overall has been, as mentioned in the report, about $400,000 for this project, and you would never say no to money being spent on this, but there are, like you just said, there's other catchments, like Eany Creek and all over the place, but does this give us a really deep understanding of a micro-catchment? Because it means that we're fortunate we have micro-catchments where Gympie or other places aren't dumping into our catchment. We're completely responsible for our own, that helped in pollution in our own catchments. SPEAKER_01 01:57:44.041
Yeah, I think there has, I think that the feedback we've received from our interim groups is that it is receiving, I guess, . 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 that's what's been, I guess, included in the 24/5 outlook. I think the extra cost might have been to involve project management in that because it's a big job to pull. job to pull something like that together. So, you know, it may be that there are cost savings that could be made. Tom Wegener 01:58:28.985
And it also, oh, go ahead. With Unity Water and the discharge from the STP there actually is a positive effect on the quality of the water in general because it dilutes the amount of chemicals. It's coming down the river fluctuating. SPEAKER_01 01:58:49.924
Certainly with the results showing that at B3, which is the STP outfall, that's the best quality water in the So yes, it appears that 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 01:59:10.442
Together that really probably is counter so I'm glad that it's out there to the to the residents. Karen Finzel 01:59:19.360
Thank you for your report. I mean water security it should be top priority and any investment in that to secure sustainable outcomes for sewer water for our population is to be commended. In relation to you said the water matters report didn't come to us due to time constraints so a question. 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? SPEAKER_01 01:59:49.547
I don't know the answer to that one, I'm sorry. very happy to submit it, if it's not too late. We've got a copy of the staff submission to the Water Matters consultation to take one. No, just for general. You just circulate it to councillors. Oh, circulate. Yeah, that'd be great. Yeah, thank you. Joe Jurisevic 02:00:13.819
Looking at the history of Burgess Creek, a potential source of impact on Burgess Creek catchment on Figure 1 on page 2, 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 Wyber Creek because of the 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 of those stormwater inflows goes and what level of detention or bio-basin or any other mechanisms that are on those exist currently in the system. Has that been At this point in time? SPEAKER_01 02:01:00.038
Not to my knowledge. Is that something is that something that we intend to undertake as part of this so that we fully understand all of the inflows? That was I think something that was proposed that's one-third of the PID that was proposed that we look at the stormwater influence and try to better understand what impact they're having on the catchment. Joe Jurisevic 02:01:19.344
That would be good because I said that seeing runoff from golf course on that I'm going, is it? 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 a mapping exercise to be undertaken, I think that would be a good exercise to undertake to fully understand and map those biobasins. Noosa joked there's only a detention basin that's got a biobasin form there in the form of reeds and things like that, so it's a different sort of biobasins. SPEAKER_01 02:01:51.846
Yeah, I think there's a lot of opportunity to implement water sensitive urban design, you know, I think. Joe Jurisevic 02:01:59.226
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 if need be. SPEAKER_01 02:02:07.886
Absolutely, I was shown one example of a rain garden that's in this adjunction and to my knowledge that's the only one we have. one we have around our urban area so that would be a relatively simple thing to implement. Joe Jurisevic 02:02:22.685
We have three schools, two lots of sporting fields as well that one would assume get fertilised on a regular basis as well. They need to consider where their water flows go into that catchment as SPEAKER_01 02:02:36.325
Well. I did notice that B3 is correct, not 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 Girraween Sports Complex and so what do we need to do there? to investigate. Joe Jurisevic 02:02:53.851
Exactly. And understanding of that bigger fully gives us the opportunity to then monitor where these impacts are coming from and potentially, potentially directly. Thank you. I'm going to have to wrap it up. So I'd like to... Brian Stockwell 02:03:05.316
Just before we wrap it up, in your question, I've had a look at that graph again. It's probably very narrow in my description. I'd just like to say that it appears that event with high-inch cocci is across most of the streams coming off urban areas. So B1 was high, it was the other high-inch hiding there, B2, which is behind the schools. And in fact, the lowest In fact, Alois was coming out of the series 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. that high intercopy ended at four or five sites. SPEAKER_01 02:03:44.298
We can get some further detail on that in general. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we made this sort of generalised significance. Yes, yes. So have we done that? That's it, that's it. That's a recommendation. Oh, okay. Or someone requested it. Oh, Amelia requested it. Would you like to move that? Yeah, I'd like to move it. Tom Wegener 02:04:04.580
I'm happy to second it. Would you like to speak to that? SPEAKER_01 02:04:08.640
I just think that due to the significance of it and waiting think it's prudent that we have all councils around the town due to the significance of the matter. Tom Wegener 02:04:24.018
It's a colossal report and it really took a long time to digest. And with the new computer system I lost my notes because I forgot to save them so I'm just so frustrated. Okay, let's vote on this and refer to the general. All in favour? I see none of them. And now it's been two hours and ten minutes. SPEAKER_04 02:13:25.665
Anyone that's important to you, back. Tom Wegener 02:13:38.745
Okay, two reports for noting by the committee. Number one, planning applications decided by delegated authority. We'll have Kim, Kim Rowlings, walk us through the reports. SPEAKER_01 02:13:56.565
So councillors, this is our standard report that we provide to you, that provides a list. Tom Wegener 02:14:02.565
Do we have any conflicts of interest? Usually we're loaded with conflicts of interest. I couldn't find any. No, we have today, thank goodness. SPEAKER_01 02:14:10.365
Yes, so this standard report we provide to you on a regular basis. Brian Stockwell 02:14:16.700
Query. I've got a conflict of interest query. The applicant is the landowner, but it does mention Suncoast Building Approvals in the line under proposal. I've got a conflict of interest in Suncoast Building Approvals. Does that constitute a conflict? It's submitted in the name of someone else, but they're involved. SPEAKER_01 02:14:43.945
Brian, only you can do that. It's your decision, but maybe in the past you've... Brian Stockwell 02:14:49.965
I've declared when Suncoast Building Approvals have been the applicant. I'm saying because they're not the applicant there is no conflict. SPEAKER_01 02:15:06.000
Any questions? Yes, so just a question with regards to the delegations on, I can't read the page, but anyway, item number 15. There was a delegation for a material change of use at 67 Eucalypt of Waikitharawa. So we've just discussed that with terms to the SBAs. Can you just tell me a little bit about that specifically? or actually can't I'll have to take that one on notice and send Patrick off. So it's application MCU23-0005. Tom Wegener 02:16:02.840
I just had a question. We had a matter come before us as a full report for an approval for a short-term accommodation at a quarrying 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 and why one would be approved under delegated authority. SPEAKER_01 02:16:34.787
Possible reasons. Kim Rawlings 02:16:35.349
Reasons: 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, more complicated, as to why you will note that some of the short-term accommodation applications that are code accessible complies with the code under the current provisions we are doing under delegation. Unless there's a complicated matter or an issue you can consider, so my suggestion is it's because of the split zoning, like here today, but I can follow up on that one. just want to reply to Frank. In front on the picture there's a house and then it shows another little house next to the house, which it seemed to say that that's the STA, so maybe it might be a home hosted. could well be too, Councillor Wegener. But yeah, it would usually be if there was a complicating factor, or out of the ordinary factor. So I'll confirm that. Tom Wegener 02:17:41.162
Councillor Lorentson. SPEAKER_01 02:17:42.442
Just in reference to Councillor Finzel, you could weigh Araba, it's a different property. It's a different property. Oh Thank you. for the clarification. Thank you, that saves us a lot of time. Thank you. Tom Wegener 02:18:02.737
Any other questions? Oh no. Do you want to move it? SPEAKER_01 02:18:11.533
I'm happy to move it. Brian Stockwell 02:18:14.233
I'll second it. Tom Wegener 02:18:34.680
We have 6.2, use the environment strategy, year 3, implementation plan. This is a colossal report. It is a big report. SPEAKER_01 02:18:50.080
I cannot believe how much is happening. Good morning. This is the 2021-22 summary report which maps progress against the environment strategy and the 42 key actions. It had been delayed due to changes in COVID. So, basically, it's highlighting that, you know, most of the actions are on track at the moment. There were seven that identified as needing attention. But we are also preparing the year four 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 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 that was that was commenced and 29% of that was complete of the Shire at the end of '21 / '22 financial year. We've also consolidated water quality monitoring data in the SWIFT database and there was also 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 Roundtable, so there's obviously been ongoing engagement with different NRM groups, but that hasn't been formalised in a Roundtable 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 efficiency and renewable energy generation standards as well, and then there's the identification of potential opportunities for carbon sequestration. 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 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 financial year. Tom Wegener 02:21:50.380
There's so much to it. Everybody has different interests, you know, around this table. And, of course, mine is the sills, washing down the keep and expanding that. And that's several of the different projects that's mentioned. Any other questions or comments? Karen Finzel 02:22:15.000
I'd just like to comment, thank you for the summary. It's really good to track what we're up to. 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, you know, reports, the data and applications and funding too. 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 So how do you feel that you're tracking along with with where we're heading yeah I think I think we're definitely progressing well I guess there needs to be a review of the implementation plan and it's something that I can put out Making sure those targets that we're working towards are achievable and that we can actually influence the outcomes and where we can't is there a real way that we could measure that success or should we be focusing on you know core So I guess that review would be good. What can council actually deliver on and what can we maybe be able to take and look at the stage or for the government to try and you know for example sustainable fishing you know can we get more 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. SPEAKER_01 02:23:53.131
Yeah, reduce that duplication process. Yeah, so you see the the partnerships and relationship building with the community are really a vital a vital part in reaching those outcomes. Definitely, yeah, and obviously the collaborative agreement we're working on with QVW works is a key part of that, it is, particularly around of the 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, as a third of the opportunities, I think. Yeah. Yeah, we're getting in place our foundations in order, I guess, at the moment, and doing assessments of where we're at, and then, yeah, we can look at that, but yeah, I don't know. Rebecca's probably better, so. Yeah, I think the environment strategy presents such a broad program across all those, well, many, so 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. really want to continue to showcase the good work that our own partners are doing in this 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 provides us 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 to just stop and acknowledge that. So it's really great for our staff and 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. That sounds good. So in relation to the round table progressing and that's a key focus, how are we stepping towards a timeline to deliver that. Kim Rawlings 02:25:56.429
We have it scheduled 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 this year and to see where we can consolidate some of those partnerships and then also think about how do we 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 We had some successful NRM-style roundtables in the past that were great that councillors chaired and some of our community groups inputted into that was just really useful that you might not otherwise have been aware of what activities were the Shire and beyond, but just highlight where we can all feed in and add values that it would be really useful to start those up again in September. That's great, fantastic, that great collaborative approach to share all our knowledge and reach the targets and outcomes. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:27:13.094
Thank you. I'll move the motion then I'll talk to it. Yeah, move that motion. I do think it's a very important and significant issue that we... Oh, will I second that? Yeah, I'll talk to it rather than ask questions. You know, like there 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, you know, really good news hidden in here in terms of, you know, in 21/22 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 one's probably been pushed back a few times now and it's ones where we do have to focus, you know, like if we're going 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 drawdown capacity to take the peak off the emissions impact. But yeah, the other good 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'd 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. Tom Wegener 02:29:16.240
One of the projects that's... Thank you, Brian. I'll speak for this. I just, you know, 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 benefit layer, and the rivers... There'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 occurring in our community towards sustainability. ability. Camilla, you probably haven't heard me hammer on about this, but I'm the only one, but I think that an educational opportunity for Noosa in a giant way, especially as a biosphere, in other words, between two other biospheres to lead, lead by example, but to actually document and tell the story better is through the potential of an institute. 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. 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 step in starting to get to this very lofty goal. then the second thing I'd like to say is, you know, with our press, our outward face, and all these are such good-natured stories, and the residents, you know, like this stuff, and I would love to see, can our own team, our own press team, focus on this stuff a bit more. I mean, I have that time it's, I have that time for that, that call of, you know, Nathan to say, Nathan, this is a good story, and he'd write it well, and he had to hear about it, so it's a matter of maybe better talking to them, and maybe our, maybe Kim Rowlings, our strategist genius over there, could, you know, push these stories. SPEAKER_01 02:31:21.799
We've got a few things planned in that publicity space. Any other questions? Tom Wegener 02:31:27.214
Any other questions? SPEAKER_01 02:31:29.614
Just in regards to the environmental values of all of the objectives, we've really achieved that. I know that you made a submission. Has that come to completion? Is there a draft review? Yeah, so we're regularly following up with the department on that one, and we haven't got the 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 we know some more, but we haven't heard anything further from them, no. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:32:13.061
That certainly has implications for our last item in the Great Water Management Bill. SPEAKER_01 02:32:17.049
That's right, yeah. That's right, yes. Tom Wegener 02:32:20.148
Okay, should we bring it to a vote? All in favour? SPEAKER_01 02:32:26.369
We're moving it to Tom Wegener 02:32:27.728
The... Oh, yeah. We voted to move it down due to the consent. consider that, yes. thank you, thank you. SPEAKER_01 02:32:37.404
I have a declaration before we go into closing. Tom Wegener 02:32:41.264
I don't know what's going on. Okay, so would you like me to kick off? Yes, we'll agree. We're not in 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 02:33:13.720
Yes, I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as in my sole trade of consultancy, Watershed Australia, with the Koala Action and Gympie Region Association in June 2023. The $28,000 agreement currently runs to the end of the calendar year. As part of the contract, I'm 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 I commence the contract. As the subject land abuts the Gympie Regional Council area, and as it 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 project or proposal involved in KAGR or myself in a consultant capacity and the likened question, nor is it likely that I 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. SPEAKER_01 02:34:18.520
Oh, that's a tricky one, isn't it? Tom Wegener 02:34:24.540
Do you have any other questions? Questions? SPEAKER_01 02:34:41.140
I'm not quite sure what question to ask. I feel it's a, I don't know, it's, it's a really close. Yeah, yeah, does anyone else have a question before we go on? Councillor Finzel, can I help by throwing some questions to the table? Yes. Yes, and just to sort of, because you said this is a company that should please don't refer to any of the... Oh no, these are just questions to councillors. Yes, I didn't want to prepare for this, so I... Would a councillor's unique skills, knowledge or expertise help the non-conflicted councillors to make the best decision in the public interest? That's a question of consideration. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:25.857
Do the non Do the non-conflicted councillors require more information from the council? How would inclusion of the council and the deliberation of the decision affect public trust? And my favourite question. 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? SPEAKER_01 02:36:09.640
So I guess that's where my question actually would be directed, especially around 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 when managing public perception. Brian Stockwell 02:36:34.407
Sure, yeah, because this is a separate acquisition irrespective of what may or may 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 maybe benefited me to stay in the room is because I have got good knowledge around these areas. And therefore may contribute to the discussion and deliberations on why it may be appropriate or not to acquire the particular block in question. So it is a balance between those two things. To me there is no personal gain or benefit. Certainly in my mind my consultancy won't make any difference the way I would consider this particular block. Tom Wegener 02:37:29.600
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 bug test. Brian Stockwell 02:37:35.580
That's your, that's a decision you do have to make. Yeah. SPEAKER_01 02:37:39.860
I don't. Well, that's why I sort of, I've raised... Karen Finzel 02:37:45.177
I've raised it because I, in terms of the reasonable man Brian Stockwell 02:37:49.477
And the... I think if there's questions, the appropriate thing is that I'll step out of this one. SPEAKER_01 02:37:53.777
Yeah. Yeah. If in doubt, I think, yeah. I'll step out. There you go. You've already made the decision to leave. Tom Wegener 02:37:59.977
They have to vote. Oh, okay. I'll move that, Councillor Stockwell must leave the room and not participate in the consideration and vote on this matter because... How do you put it into words that doesn't pass the pub test? SPEAKER_01 02:38:32.464
As a person, may not trust the final decision that's made in the public interest. Yeah, especially when it comes to confidentiality. Tom Wegener 02:38:41.264
Not trust, but yeah, may not trust. SPEAKER_01 02:38:44.424
Do you want to hear the fact that it's confidential? Tom Wegener 02:38:49.164
Yeah, especially if we react towards the fact that it's because it's confidential. Or maybe that doesn't... it's just part of the perception. SPEAKER_01 02:38:59.472
Part of, yeah, I think it's part of the perception. Tom Wegener 02:39:01.592
Yeah, you know, perception going into a confidential meeting. SPEAKER_01 02:39:07.652
So where are you going to ask that? That would be better. Too bad it's being considered. Yeah, yeah. I think you said the public interested. Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah. Karen, are you seconding that? Yeah, I'll second that. Tom Wegener 02:39:59.040
Yeah, you need to vote. Vote for it. All in favour? SPEAKER_01 02:40:06.020
Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Tom Wegener 02:40:09.140
Yeah, I believe that we go into confidential session. Okay, so you're voting that time? Yeah. SPEAKER_01 02:40:20.540
I'll second that. Tom Wegener 02:40:21.680
Can I see three more seconds? All in favour? Seeing none. We're back on. We're in the committee room. We're gonna vote. We are back into the confidential session. Is there voting for me? SPEAKER_01 02:54:17.952
Moving the committee recommendation? Moving the recommendation? Tom Wegener 02:54:21.672
Okay. Oh, yes. I'll move the committee recommendation. No, I don't think. Do I have to? No. It's in the report. It's in the report. It's just moving the committee recommendation. SPEAKER_01 02:54:36.733
Okay. I'm having a second. Thank you. Tom Wegener 02:54:40.233
All in favour? Any opposed? I call the meeting to a close.: 30. SPEAKER_01 02:55:01.020
Can I find that for that? Go ahead. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
