Planning & Environment Committee Meeting, 8 August 2023
Date: Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:52:17
Synopsis: MCU22/0039 refusal recommended for conflicts and constraints, Eastern Beaches plan strengthened, Shire-wide encroachments policy and visitor education, Delegation retained with reporting, Carpenters Road mapping issues flagged.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Tom Wegener Clare Stewart Brian Stockwell Non-Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Frank Wilkie Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment And Sustainable Development Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Kim Rawlings: Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan aligns with Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan; focus on managing foreshore as natural areas while improving public access (00:00–00:39) (Item 5.1). Ben: Consultation summary: 3 roundtables + focused sessions; 204 survey responses; 92 written submissions; feedback prompted clearer scope, stronger linkages between objectives and actions, and more on-ground weed control (00:39–03:58) (Item 5.1). Ben: Major change: encroachments policy removed from Eastern Beaches plan and made shire-wide across all council-managed land (03:58–04:18) (Item 5.1). Clare Stewart: Pushed early actions on education/signage with Tourism Noosa; officers prioritising templates, consistent messaging, and community co-ownership of signs (11:43–15:18) (Item 5.1). Tom Wegener: Sought inclusion of visitor audience in comms; officers confirmed Tourism Noosa partnership and high visitor environmental interest (15:41–17:47) (Item 5.1). Committee: 5.1 referred to General Committee due to significance (18:35–18:46) (Item 5.1). Nadine: MCU22/0039 (32 dwellings relocatable home park, 55 & 70 Carpenters Rd, Cooroy) recommended for refusal: significant conflict with Noosa Plan 2020, outside urban boundary, poor connectivity, bushfire/vegetation constraints, and reverse amenity near industrial land; many submissions were pro forma and from outside shire (19:24–22:11, 24:57–27:37) (Item 5.2). Brian Stockwell: Clarified “Carpenters Road” is not a dedicated road; official address relates to Mary Valley/River Rd; implications for state environmental significance, access standards, and mapping accuracy to be rectified before General (22:11–24:21) (Item 5.2). Committee: 5.2 referred to General for significance and further information (27:43–28:12) (Item 5.2). Lynne: Economic Development Grants Policy: simplify to single tier; open all year; $1k–$5k grants; officer panel assessment under delegation; shift from strategic to tactical activations; doubled applications and fully expended $40k budget in last FY (31:10–36:31) (Item 5.3). Committee: Debate on governance vs efficiency; retain CEO delegation with annual public reporting; item moved to General (36:31–39:26, 43:31–49:02) (Item 5.3). Patrick Murphy: Delegated Authority report Q&A: code assessment trigger near agricultural land explained; Sunshine Beach 3-lot subdivision is code assessable and eligible for deemed approval; report noted by committee (50:25–51:35) (Item 6.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Brian Stockwell: Sought to limit discussion to agenda scope; point of order on Small Business Friendly Charter; Chair allowed broader questioning, noting committee informality (40:07–41:41) (Item 5.3). Committee: For Eastern Beaches plan, submissions questioned “misdirected priorities” and encroachment emphasis; officers made scope/objectives clearer and separated encroachment policy shire-wide (00:39–04:18) (Item 5.1). Committee: Noted many pro forma submissions and out-of-shire inputs on MCU22/0039, potentially skewing perceived local support (21:30–22:11) (Item 5.2). Governance: Grants decisions under officer delegation raised transparency concerns; mitigated by annual public reporting requirement (36:31–38:10) (Item 5.3). Record integrity: “Carpenters Road” naming/mapping inconsistency flagged for correction to avoid procedural ambiguity in access and environmental constraints (22:11–24:21) (Item 5.2). Legal / Risk Conflicts process: Declarable COIs handled under Local Government Act 2009 Ch 5B with motions determining participation; prescribed COI saw councillor leave room, aligning with statutory requirements (04:19–09:38; 49:02–49:45) (Items 5.1, 5.3, 6.1). MCU22/0039: Refusal recommended on planning merits: outside Noosa Plan urban boundary, poor connectivity, bushfire/vegetation constraints, reverse amenity; minutes and transcript anchor the refusal to scheme consistency and basic planning principles (19:24–27:37) (Item 5.2). Access designation risk: Clarification that “Carpenters Road” is not a dedicated road bears on compliance with access standards and state environmental overlays; mapping updates requested to reduce appeal/assessment vulnerability (22:11–24:21) (Item 5.2). Encroachments policy: Shift to shire-wide application increases compliance/enforcement scope across council-managed lands; risk profile expands beyond Eastern Beaches, necessitating clear tenure frameworks elsewhere (03:58–11:00) (Item 5.1). Grants governance: Officer delegation for small grants maintains efficiency; annual reporting preserves transparency and mitigates perceived bias risks (37:29–38:10) (Item 5.3). Conflicts of Interest Brian Stockwell: Declarable COI on Eastern Beaches item due to $500 2020 electoral donation linked to PBCA; Council resolved he could participate and vote; he abstained on the COI motion (04:19–09:38) (Item 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Declarable COI on Economic Development Grants due to membership connection with Noosa District Landcare; Council resolved he could participate and vote; he abstained on the COI motion (28:52–29:34) (Item 5.3). Brian Stockwell: Prescribed COI on Delegated Authority report due to dealings with Suncoast Building Approvals; he left the room for that item (49:02–49:45) (Item 6.1). Environmental Concerns Officers: Eastern Beaches plan strengthens references to environmental values and climate change; adds condition mapping, restoration targets, and ecological restoration plans to drive on-ground outcomes (02:57–03:58) (Item 5.1). Committee: Prioritised dune protection education, community stewardship, and visitor-focused messaging via Tourism Noosa; templates to ensure consistent, locally-nuanced signage (11:43–15:18) (Item 5.1). MCU22/0039: Site constraints include bushfire hazard and vegetation removal concerns; poor walkability/connectivity raises sustainability/amenity risks (19:24–27:37) (Item 5.2). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Development Nadine: Cooroy proposal conflicts with Noosa Plan 2020 despite SEQ urban footprint inclusion; scheme’s urban boundary and proximity/serviceability tests not met (19:24–22:11) (Item 5.2). Clare Stewart: Differentiated Lake Macdonald (in urban footprint, identified in housing strategy) from Carpenters Rd (rural residential, opposite industrial, reverse amenity risk) (24:57–27:37) (Item 5.2). Patrick Murphy: Sunshine Beach 3-lot reconfiguration is code assessable and eligible for deemed approval, justifying decision under delegation (51:01–51:35) (Item 6.1). Short-Stay Letting & Visitor Management Kim Rawlings: High proportion of foreshore-adjacent properties are short-term lets; visitor education a priority alongside resident comms (13:58–14:38) (Item 5.1). Tom Wegener: Emphasised engaging repeat visitors as biosphere advocates; officers to leverage Tourism Noosa and social media (15:41–17:47) (Item 5.1). Economic Development Grants Program Lynne: Changes target volunteer capacity: simpler criteria, modest amounts, rolling intake, tactical outcomes tied to strategy; examples include precinct activation vs broader capacity-building (31:10–39:10; 44:42–47:06) (Item 5.3). Committee: Retained officer panel/CEO delegation given small grant size and year-round applications; annual reporting ensures transparency (37:10–38:10) (Item 5.3).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 8 August 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 8 AUGUST 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Tom Wegener (Chair) Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Frank Wilkie EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment and Sustainable Development Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Councillor Karen Finzel 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 11 July 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 8 AUGUST 2023 5.1. EASTERN BEACHES FORESHORE RESERVES MANAGEMENT PLAN - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OVERVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGES Cr Frank Wilkie and Cr Amelia Lorentson 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 in early 2020, I received an electoral donation of $500 from Susan Francis. Susan Francis is the partner of Barry Cotterell. Barry Cotterell is the President of the Peregian Beach Community Association (PBCA). The PBCA has made submissions requesting council address illegal encroachments. Neither I nor the PBCA stand to gain personally or materially through the introduction of this shire-wide policy however I make this declaration out of an "abundance of caution” given the possible scope and interpretation of Conflict of Interest rulings. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and l therefore 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 Clare Stewart That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes a reasonable person would not consider this a conflict of interest and trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Brian Stockwell did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Planning and Environment Committee Agenda Item 1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 5.2. MCU22/0039 – APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RELOCATABLE HOME PARK (COMMUNITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 32 DWELLINGS) AT 55 AND 70 CARPENTERS RD, COOROY Cr Amelia Lorentson and Cr Frank Wilkie returned to the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Planning and Environment Committee Agenda Item 2 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue and for further information. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 8 AUGUST 2023 5.3. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS POLICY REVIEW 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 my long standing connection with Noosa District Landcare as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Noosa District Landcare is identified as being consulted in the report. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and l therefore 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 Clare Stewart That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter as Council believes that he will not 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 Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 3 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY JUNE 2023 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr <> provided the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell declare I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as follows: Suncoast Building Approvals is identified as the applicant in number 18 for Development Application EXE23/0016. I contracted Suncoast Building Approvals to undertake Building Certification for my proposed residence in Boreen Point on the 29 November 2021. This process is currently underway. The total fees associated with the completion of the certification and inspection regime is $5,904 which includes Noosa Council Plumbing and Drainage fees. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 8 AUGUST 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.26am.
Meeting Transcript
Ms Coyle 00:00.501
So, we've been on a long journey with this one. We've done several Council workshops and we've talked about this one a lot. So, the eastern beaches foreshore management plan is implementing elements of the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, primarily where we're at managing these foreshore areas as natural areas. So, we've developed a scope and a framework that focused on that alongside making sure that our public accesses worked really well for our community as well, so providing access to our gorgeous beaches, but also improving how that sits in the landscape. So, we've come to. Gone through the consultation process based on this document and we've put together some information around what we did for our consultation process, but also the results that we got and how we adapted the plan after we got that input. So primarily we conducted um three round table three community round tables and a couple of focused round tables. We ran a survey that had, I think it was something like. 204 respondents and the round tables had about 42 actual active participants and we also had 92 written submissions as well. So we got a really deep base of information. Based on a broad range of the population. So I really do feel that we got a great range of information to inform that review. Of some of the main points of the input was a desire to change the scope, focus and objectives of the plan. Some community members felt that all programs and activities and planning for the eastern beaches should all be in one document. We felt that might be a bit unwieldy. Um, just so A desire for consultation earlier in the process of the plan, misdirected priorities, overemphasis and exaggeration of the issues of encroachments, a desire for action on encroachments and actions tied objectives, so making it much clearer how the management actions were achieving the objectives of the plan, and the need for more on-ground works and greater efforts to control weeds. Weight. In response to that the primary changes, and I mean there's been lots of little changes as well, but the primary changes were the scope of the plan has been better described to how it sits in conjunction with say the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, implementation plan, the Coastal Monitoring Plan, the works that are being done by the infrastructure services say around say realigning creek mouths and that kind of thing. Statements about the environmental values and climate change have been better referenced so just showing exactly where we got those points from. Condition mapping, restoration targets, ecological restoration plans and all the on-ground work so this is how all of this strategic stuff gets to on-ground outcomes are better described. In each theme section being better linked to the management outcomes and we did that by including outcomes under each theme that sort of gave more detail to the primary objective that was being implemented that theme and I guess one of the biggest changes is that the encroachments policy has come entirely out of the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan it's now Shire-wide it now covers all Council managed bushland or Council managed land so that's probably the biggest thing from where we started. Brian Stockwell 03:54.202
Mr chairman, please. Yes? Decoration oh. So I have a well-known confidence. Are we doing that one? Declarable confidence. No, did I not tell you about the normal one with eastern beaches and the. Am I on the wrong one? The donation to my campaign. No, you didn't do it. So you can write this down. So you're not making that declaration? Not on this one. I don't believe it's the economic garden plan that's related to it. Unidentified Speaker 04:43.234
Oh, sorry. I thought that was on the distribution. Can you just give me one moment then? Sure, I don't want to get any surprises. It's just a declaration. It's a commitment to the okay, alright, I'll just ask you due to a Brian Stockwell 05:31.921
Donation from Susan. I can get the previous one. You can just get the previous one. Yes. I'll just put some basic wording in there. Received from Susan Francis, who is the partner of. You've made that before, haven't you? Yes, partner of. Barry Cotterell. Thank you. Phineas mahler, who is the president of the Peregian Beach community association, and I declare as per my previous written declaration. You choosing to stay? I'm asking to stay. Are you asking me to stay or leave? Yes, Yeah, stay. Unidentified Speaker 06:36.432
I can try and- I've been trying to find that previous one. That's it? No, that's I've it. Brian Stockwell 06:41.040
More detail you're supposed to say how Unidentified Speaker 06:42.680
Much. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's cheers! Clare Stewart 06:49.160
You were right to go. Are not convinced because. Thank you. Well, Brian Stockwell 06:57.260
I'm going to go to my stagy room. Unidentified Speaker 07:07.540
Do you want me to try and find that before you make a decision? Tom? Paul. Are you happy with that? Tom Wegener 07:14.600
I'm not happy with that. Are you happy with that? Brian Stockwell 07:16.420
Yeah. Okay. As identified last, there is no requirement of the act to read there's it all out. You just have to make sure that you've made a written declaration and that under the outstanding orders that you also make that known at the meeting. So by referring to that declaration. Believe I'm complying with that going until we beat that. Tom Wegener 07:40.605
Well done. Yeah, Larry, are you following this? Ryan has said that he's made this declaration numerous times, which he has. It's been a written declaration numerous times in this meeting, is that for him to do that, to not bring it up on the screen here? Larry Sengstock 07:59.871
I think so. It's a yeah, it's a standing one, so I'm of the opinion that okay. You still need to vote on whether he stays in the room or not. Tom Wegener 08:11.470
Oh, absolutely. Okay. Yeah, okay. Well that I'll move the writing I'll move that Brian stays in the room. Thanks. Clare Stewart 08:17.618
I'll second that. Tom Wegener 08:19.704
And probably need to read that kjellsen loved it incredibly. The declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell. In the public interest that. Councillor Stockwell participates and votes in this matter. Because Council believes that. And therefore a reasonable person would trust that. Oh, that's where you've got to add in what you believe. The wording. You've got to tell me why. You want to understand that. A reasonable person would not consider this a conflict of interest. And trust part of that the final decision is made in the public interest. Unidentified Speaker 09:04.625
You want me thank to you for put the a 'not' before Brian Stockwell 09:05.996
'Consider'? Unidentified Speaker 09:09.003
Who'd consider this 'not' a conflict of Tom Wegener 09:25.370
I to them. Don't need to speak in the motion, do you have any questions? Okay, all in favour? Okay, Councillor Stewart and Wegener. Aye. Councillor Carried unanimously. And Councillor Stockwell didn't vote on that. Okay, all done with that. Ms. Coyle, please continue. Probably, I think someone's doing it. Yeah, I'm sort of. Yeah, I know, And also, Jo has asked us to be referred to the general, but we'll go through the procedure anyway, because we may hear you on the general, and that would just be a bonus, won't it? Ms Coyle 10:09.647
Yes, that's right. I've probably outlined the main push of what we've got here and I guess if there's any questions or any points that you'd like to discuss a bit further, really over Tom Wegener 10:23.644
To you. Any questions? Brian Stockwell 10:28.685
Any questions? The only one that I, and I think we've done it, we took out section 16 that describes the various tenures. That's probably more important for the enforcement in those areas than it is for the actual planning. That your answer? Is that your argument why it was taken out, that it became less important when the encroachment policy Ms Coyle 10:51.160
Was taken out? Yeah, it just felt that it wasn't adding anything to the plan at that point, I guess with the changing focus. Yeah, it's, I feel it's still something that we do need to look at, but it's not necessarily something that just sits in this plan, it's probably something that sits more in the reserve management strategy, so the overarching. Brian Stockwell 11:19.709
Prove I read it, I think you'll find. You found, you spent liveability, spelt liveability in two different ways. Yeah, and it comes up in two different ways. That's because it's an american spell check. Ms Coyle 11:29.384
Depending on which computer I've got it in, Unidentified Speaker 11:31.187
So it's really. We've got, a general. Kim Rawlings 11:37.516
State recommendation C that will allow us to fix those things. Clare Stewart 11:41.410
Yeah, that's right. I've got a few questions, but are we finished? We were down there yesterday with some of our residents talking about the importance of education and potential signage and things like that. And some of them had some great ideas about working with Tourism Noosa as an education sort of process and, you know, almost of interest, you know, in getting children involved with signs. We love our dunes. You know, that says they don't, you know, build cubby houses or whatever in them or tunnels. Is that something that, you know, that's low hanging fruit. Is that something that this will be able to target pretty quickly? Working potentially in conjunction with Tourism Noosa in regard to sort of nice, you know, information, like when you're going on walks and nice signs or, you know, knowledgeable sort of areas? Ms Coyle 12:31.209
Public education without and communication with our community has been identified as a priority. There was a, I think there was a budget item for natural areas putting together a communications package. I'm not 100% sure if that got approved or not, but that's something we're definitely working towards really, really quickly. So making sure that we've got a range of tools to use signage, letter drops, you know, public social media and that kind of thing. That's definitely something that we're working on. We've identified as probably the first cap off right. The rank. Clare Stewart 13:09.040
You know, obviously Noosa, we've got strict signage policies, but some of the ideas put forward, you know, with engagement and ideas were fantastic, you know, with, you know, and getting the, you know, getting people involved. And what entrance were we at yesterday? Entrance in Peregian and entrance with that great, beautiful great, artwork, yeah. So we're talking about the one just on Peregian and park, so the southernmost entrance where we've got a Norfolk Island pine stump that's been carved. And there's something, there's a standalone information sort of piece there. So things like that is, can we, and I know that a lot of it is about education because people, I mean, as if I was a visitor, I wouldn't know that my kids playing in the dunes or cubby houses or tunnels is disrupting the environment. So making our residents, but also our visitors well aware. Ms Coyle 13:59.054
Yeah, we really identify talking to our visitors as a priority because we do have such a high percentage of properties that share. The boundaries that are short-term we are planning on speaking with Tourism Noosa. We've already started that conversation and that's. We're looking at ways to actually get that information to our visitors but also making it part of their day, part of their visits and things like that and seeing how we can actually work in with social media. In particular to get it all happening. This is some great ideas out there. Unidentified Speaker 14:40.304
Yeah, there really is. Can I just make a point? Councillor as well, with the discussion yesterday was around the community having ownership of input into what those signs are. And so very specifically where the community is using those local beach accesses to be able to nuance the signs and the ownership of them to that as well. And so there'll be consistency if we're, you know, if we're implementing signs, there'll be consistency of some of the information that we need to relay. To guests, but also it's community. The social stewardship local of the communities to be able to embody what those signs contain as well, and so that was a really strong Ms Coyle 15:14.378
Point that came through yesterday as we were searching on different spots. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, so we're aiming at having templates that it doesn't matter who's doing the communication. That there's frameworks that provides that consistency that also we're not reinventing the wheel every time we put in, somebody puts in a new sign and that kind of thing. That we've actually got that background already there. Thanks. Tom Wegener 15:41.964
I noticed that in the non-residential owners were taken out of the consultation, talking about the consultation process and they said that short, that this is what's short-term let properties, holiday houses, resort style accommodation and so forth were taken out and it seemed more focused on residents' input and I know that's what we're talking about is the residents that are there that are very important but sometimes I wonder if we're moving too far from excluding the visitors that come here because they actually support the as the biospheres. We know that visitors come here because of the natural environment and I would think that they would be equally as wanting to maintain the natural environment as much as we do as well. It's just kind of a theoretical question but, you know, how much do we look at the Brisbane-ites that come here and holiday here and really consider Noosa a as a part of their own home, although they don't vote and they're not residents, they're not on property, but they still have an incredible affiliation with Noosa. Ms Coyle 16:53.903
I guess, yeah, so the consultation focus was on those property owners rather than the visitors, but the community. Communication focus should still include those visitors, because as you're saying, we do have a lot of repeat people. I guess the other opportunity that we've got is talking to Tourism Noosa, they're saying that something like 85%.% plus of the people who come to visit Noosa consider the environment when they're booking accommodation, all those other bits and pieces. And I guess I see a real opportunity to give them more information about, say, the conservation values of the community, the climate change protection values of portals, for instance, and they can take that back to their community. So it might be that Noosa can have a real opportunity to be. The instrument for boy time. Instrument for the way to change. Tom Wegener 17:47.793
Yeah, that's what I was looking for because the concept of the biosphere, an important element to that is education and making, you know, further enhancing the environment, making change, environment of awareness, education, all that. Ms Coyle 18:02.008
Yeah, and I guess also. I'm also working in a little bit more with, say, the environment education too. Hub and things like that to make sure that we've got some supporting material for their curriculum stuff and that kind of thing so I so, took talk to our local kids as well. Tom Wegener 18:27.610
In the I mean, the eHub, you know, that's obviously probably part of it, under their remit as well. Yeah, that's right. Unidentified Speaker 18:33.411
Okay. Brian Stockwell 18:34.138
Well. I'm do the research happy to refer to the General Committee. I'll second that. Because of the significance of the matter. Clare Stewart 18:39.666
I'll second it, Councillor. Tom Wegener 18:42.049
Okay, we'd like to speak to that, Brian. Yeah. Okay, all in favour? I'm sure they're all in favour. Clare Stewart 18:49.638
Thanks so much. Thank you, Noosa. Thanks, Kim. Thanks, Ben. Tom Wegener 18:59.501
Now we are to 5.2, application for material change, of use relocatable home, park, community and affordable housing with 32 dwellings at 55 to 70 Carpenters Road, Cooroy. And Richard. Thank you very much for coming out. Nadine, will you walk us through this? Nadine Gordon 19:26.118
Yes, I can. Good morning, everyone. This is an application for a Material Change of Use for. A relocatable home park for community and affordable housing located at 55 and 70 Carpenters Road. The proposed dwellings, 32 of them are proposed to be located on 55 Carpenters Road, and they range with a mix of one and two bedroom units, and they're proposed to be used for a range of accommodation for essential key workers, domestic violence, single women, etc. Lot number 70 Carpenters Road is also part of the application, and it's an irregular shape located to the north, and it's been referenced as part of the application as it's the access handle to this site with an easement over it. Proposal has significantly conflicts with the Noosa Plan 2020 and some basic planning principles. It's not well connected to the urban township of Cooroy. Tom Wegener 20:37.665
And then Amelia Lorentson has entered the room. Nadine Gordon 20:41.105
So it has significant conflicts with the Noosa Plan and planning principles and is not well located in terms of the existing services found within the Cooroy township. The site is actually located outside the Noosa Plan urban footprint urban boundaries and whilst it is included in the SEQ Urban Footprint this doesn't mean it's necessarily has been considered for future development and there are implications in terms of future servicing of our infrastructure. The site is currently zoned or residential and we see that there are significant conflicts in terms of character and amenity in terms of existing zoning and surrounding zoning. There are significant concerns about the location of the site and its remoteness and its access to again the walking capacity of residents going down Carpenters Road and back into town. The site has a range of constraints in terms of bushfire, vegetation removal and we've also again as I've mentioned got concerns about some of that access back into town. There were a number quite a large number of submissions lodged with the application many of them are pro forma and in the back of the report you can see a spread of where those submissions came from and many of those submissions were lodged from people outside the Shire. As a result the planning report refusal of the application. Brian Stockwell 22:11.985
Has anyone requested this go to the General Committee? Yes, it's been requested for general. Then I'll just go on to the points of clarification. There was a misnomer throughout the report, council's records and mapping, and there is no such thing as Carpenters Road. The name, is afforded to a block of Council land that not a dedicated roadway, which makes a significant difference in terms of things like the fact that access handle has matters of state and foreign law significance on it, as well as within the rotterdam area buffer. To their credit, you'll see in the advice from the engineering section that they call it Carpenters Road, which is the appropriate way. It's actually the proper street address is 70 Mary Valley Road, Mary River Road. That makes, as I said, a significant difference in terms of not just the vegetation and how, you know, what triggers in terms of control of those matters of state environmental decisions, but also if we look at our reconfiguration. Of a life code, we have a performance solution there that says no more than three lives over benefit from an access standard. So I just think before, for General Committee, we might need a little bit of a clarification and get that on the record as well. Nadine Gordon 23:49.983
I have asked property about the naming of Carpenters Road. That's what was in our system, Carpenters Road, I note that. Comment was that it was named after the original, the people who originally subdivided the site and that's been the naming protocol that has been used on it. I suppose that's what's been on our system. Controls on vegetation clearing, things like that? Absolutely, and we've indicated in there that will Brian Stockwell 24:25.077
Be vegetation. I'm not saying the substance of the assessment is wrong, I think just for clarity and purpose and if it does go to a field it will be important to have that on the record. Nadine Gordon 24:34.137
So sorry what would you like me to clarify Brian Stockwell 24:36.171
Just that it is official address and the fact that it's not Richard MacGillivray 24:39.532
Actually a road. We'll do some further investigations and that is obviously a bit of history too and I take your point that you're right, it is freehold land, it's not actually a road as generally defined and we need to sort of unpack that a little bit further and understand the background to that and make the necessary changes to our mapping and so on and so forth from there. Clare Stewart 24:58.426
I've got a couple of questions. Have you finished Brian? Brian Stockwell 25:01.267
That was the only clarification I think I needed. Clare Stewart 25:03.587
Nadine, there are some compelling arguments 5 put forward by the submitter as to why this should be approved, the applicant. And we have undergone a draft Housing Strategy that's been ratified by that's being old Council and we're acutely aware that we are in a housing crisis. Can you tell me, because this will be these questions that they are, you know, the questions are compelling and the report is very extensive as to why it's recommended for refusal. Can you elaborate a little bit further on some of the reasons put forward and the justification of why we're not approving this and then looking at Lake MacDonald and the development we're potentially looking at then and some of the differences of that why that is being why that is deemed accepted potentially acceptable and something like this isn't? Nadine Gordon 26:03.593
I suppose the first one is the zoning of the Lake MacDonald site so it is in the urban footprint, this is outside the urban footprint this is in that's in a residential area this is in a rural residential area my understanding to the connectivity is you can go over the top of it the Lake MacDonald site was also identified as Housing Strategy as well whereas this site wasn't and it was specifically referenced I think in our Housing Strategy that relocatable home parks I think they're supposed to be included in the community zone if I remember there is a thing I think here you're yeah and it does talk about in our Housing Strategy as well about maintaining yeah the real residential land it wasn't saying that the real residential land should be converted for smaller housing as well so that's actually in the strategy as for Housing Strategy talks about location of proximity as well this doesn't meet those requirements this site is also in very close proximity, in depth. It's opposite industrial land whereas the Lake MacDonald site isn't so there's potential for reverse amenity impacts on this site so I just really briefly there's some of the ones that automatically come out for people to know or be aware of the differences there is quite a difference and you know this isn't just this is there are justifications isn't there are for it and reasoning behind it. Unidentified Speaker 27:36.345
Reasoning yes the decision yes thank you Unidentified Speaker 27:39.751
Thanks Tom Tom Wegener 27:41.954
Really at the break any questions I'll just like a move to general for proper debate yes Brian Stockwell 27:47.083
Thank you yeah that's good okay I'm happy to move it to general because of the significance of the matter. Oh no, for further information. Joe asked for the significance of the issue. Tom Wegener 28:11.941
Are you ready to speak to that? All in favour? We'll move to general. Thank you very much. Clare Stewart 28:19.093
Thanks Patrick, thank you Nadine. Thanks Richard. Okay Tom Wegener 28:28.006
We're up to 5.3 in the economic development and grant policy review. Unidentified Speaker 28:32.754
Okay we're thank you. Brian Stockwell 28:53.713
Declare in accordance with previous record. Written notification that I have a conflict of interest on this matter due to my long-standing connection with Noosa District Landcare as outlined above and that Noosa District Landcare is being here as identified as being consulted in report. People. To do you need consults? A group of people, okay, fine. It, this is the policy here, it. That's been my standard declaration. I seek to remain in the room. Clare Stewart 29:34.597
No, I was just wondering why Councillor Stockwell was declaring on this that these Noosa District Landcare were engaged in the consulting, that's why. Unidentified Speaker 29:46.340
Yeah, yeah, they were just, they were for feedback, yes. As was in a couple of other organisations. Tom Wegener 29:53.988
Okay, well, I'm going to move that. Yeah, use your time, then. Yeah, it's going to stop well. Councillor Councillor in the global interest of Councillor Stockwell to that determined that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates in votes on this matter because Council believes that he does not have a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. I don't have a personal relationship, will not personally benefit. Personally or in relation to this matter. And therefore, a reasonable person to trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Clare Stewart 30:37.396
I'll second that. Tom Wegener 30:39.289
I'll cancel the vote. Thank you. Seconded by Councillor I'll second if I cancels the vote. Any questions? Mr. Bryan, vote on it. All in favour, unanimous. Thanks. Councillor Stockwell did not vote. We have Lin and Vicky to walk us through this, thank you very much. Unidentified Speaker 31:10.440
Any questions? So you remember, Councillors, that we brought this to you late last any questions? Year where we were actually conducting a review as part of our business. Planning on why we weren't getting the uptake on our grant program. It's a small grant program comparative to our community grant program so our program has $40,000 which is about 13% of the community grant the community grant program. That said there was no less rigor rigour in how we reviewed and however we were never really fully expended in the previous years and we wanted to really talk about why that was. We so engaged we a consultant to do the work independent of any of our officers who were involved in the reviews and the issues that came back were not surprisingly was the application deemed quite arduous. We were looking for strategic intent and a lot of these voluntary organisations really weren't in that space and so they were trying to make the case fit and then it would all get too hard. The fact that we don't have a long list of people that we spoke to is reflective of just how little input there was to the grant program. So we went to those who had either applied for a grant or who had considered and applied then discounted applying for a grant and we really went for qualitative information from them around just what could we do to improve the grant program. We consolidated all of that and brought it to you as Councillors around late last year and then we went back and wrote what we thought would be the changes that would make the difference. We also took the opportunity to try a couple of them out just like road test them to see if and we've more than doubled the applications into the grant program and fully expended the grant in the last financial year. So we feel that what we're proposing to you is going to get the desired outcome. So the review identified that the process of application was too arduous for voluntary organisations who just don't have the time to expand. The strategic projects that we were hoping for deliver the programs, again, too arduous, especially considering the amounts available for grants. So aside from one larger grant, most of them were in the $2,000 to $5,000 sort of space. And we weren't really flexible in the needs of who were applying. So we've looked at that, and we are suggesting a few changes. One is that we reduce the minimum grant amount of $1,000. And a maximum $5,000. So that, you know, first of all points in the direction of the amount of rigour that we are expecting in terms of the application. So we simplified the process from, or we're suggesting a simplification from three different levels to one. We will remain open throughout the year, and once it's fully expended, and unlike the community grants program, you know, we will have them coming through throughout the year at various times. All applications will continue to be assessed by a panel of Council officers. We're also looking for, you know, more rigour around how we do that, but it removes a potential conflict of interest and adds rigour and fairness. I think the biggest one in terms of having the volunteers having to think about how they're going to apply is the strategic criteria we've moved into more tactical activations. Still being able to have a pathway and a connection into a strategy but at the tactical end rather than the strategic end and that's where we think we've made quite a difference. So these are the changes that we've written into the policy. We've made a few small changes to the policy and we can talk about three with you if you need to have those highlighted. But essentially everything that we're doing is consistent with our commitment to the Small Business Friendly Charter and again we think we've proven that we're on to a better placed criteria for our small businesses given the fact that we were able to expend our grant for the first time, fully expend it and we more than doubled the number of applications and we've actually even had some thank been-yous which has been wow Brian Stockwell 36:32.141
There's a couple of questions. One of the government's and I know we did talk about it when we workshopped it and I don't know where we got to but I thought there may have been a view that like other grants for government's purposes all decisions on grants should be made by Councillors. I can't think of anywhere else where there is that situation where staff actually directly give out grants but yeah I'm wondering whether you think you may have recollection of no we that wasn't yeah I just I had I just recall the conversation around it. Unidentified Speaker 37:11.734
We did discuss that Councillor, our recommendation was that the size of the grant and the complexity of we're open for the whole year would mean quite a process to bring each one for a small amount to you for consideration um. Unidentified Speaker 37:30.448
So most of our grants are $2,000 the last few grants have been $2,000 Brian so the process of bringing a $2,000 grant application to Council on a one-off basis a one-off basis up the other Kim Rawlings 37:43.643
The grant program has been running for about three years and majority of the grants have been done under delegation there's a threshold for when it comes to Council so I think in the three years I think we've Council the others have all been done Brian Stockwell 38:03.322
Under delegation to the CEO. Does the policy outline the reporting requirements about how it does get into the public domain? Kim Rawlings 38:08.650
Yes it's an annual report Brian Stockwell 38:10.694
Yes and then my second one is if we do have not-for-profit larger entities say your Noosa education and training lines your food and agribusiness network Your Say it's under the groups are the digital hub ecosystem that do want to do something strategic does this mean there's no Avenue for them to get Council funding because it's Unidentified Speaker 38:40.116
Not through that particular well they could so long as it's $5,000 you know I'm Brian Stockwell 38:49.016
We've got a local economic strategy. Has a that has a very particular direction of this part of what we do in building the capability capacity and networking of business more generally is what these grants but then does that mean we don't have a bucket of money set aside for more strategic initiatives? No, we do. That would be part of our normal business planning where we set out you know, we're wanting to do in any given year and we work alongside. It's part of the budget process rather than anything that happens during the year. Clare Stewart 39:26.521
I've got a question, it's more of a comment. You for doing this work I think it's great and I think the take-up is fantastic and I think having an undelegated authority one of the big negatives was it was too arduous so we don't want to create more red tape and a more arduous process for amounts of money that can be and able to be decided under delegated authority so I think that's I think the process as it is now is good yeah I'm happy to move the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 39:58.403
First in terms of the Small Business Friendly Charter, how are we going, how have we reduced red tape Unidentified Speaker 40:05.238
For small businesses? Brian Stockwell 40:10.541
Them in, yeah. This is what we're doing with the grains. Can I request the chief make a ruling on that please? Excuse me, on some point of order, a person in the gallery can't talk, so I move to point of order, but that's not in line with what the item on the agenda is being discussed. The agenda being discussed is a great policy, it's not a small business friendly challenge. It, no, well, um, Lynne mentioned the small business. Oh, it was definitely mentioned in part. That's right. Because then actually a statement about how the council's going is actually out of order because that would require a different conversation. People that's we're dealing with the policy and the grant system. We're not dealing with what council's done more broadly around small business. I just think it's important to keep some semblance of normality into the Standing Orders and to me that was taking us on a red herring. Tom Wegener 41:21.998
Okay, well thank you Brian. I think that there's an informality that comes to the committee meetings and I don't, I see what you're saying, but I actually want to hear the question. And it may lead, it may go nowhere, but I would, like to hear it. Yeah, I'd like to, I'd like Councillor Amelia to continue. Amelia Lorentson 41:41.435
Thank you very much Councillor Wegener. On page 295 of the report, there's half a page on the small business friendly. And that the grants are help supporting the commitments and obligations of that charter, which we signed earlier this year. And my question goes to that. This is a really good step towards us adhering to those adhering commitments and my question is, how are they going? Is it being yes, so Councillor, Unidentified Speaker 42:19.499
Yes, this was our first attempt towards that. So, you know, that's at the forefront of what we're trying to do with this whole program. In the widest wider of the Small Business Friendly Charter, we have a report that we're drafting to bring to you to let you see what we're doing in that space. But it's a long game. You know, we're talking to different parts of the organisation and trying commitment sort of forefront and vicky's been doing a great job with customer service as a starting point, lower hanging fruit, but we all as a whole of Council have a role to play in that and that's part of what our plan this year was to come up with a plan for you. So yes we're making small movements. Amelia Lorentson 43:10.030
And on the road just for your information there is really positive strides in councils interaction with small business so good job. Thank you. I have- Can for 30 seconds? This referred to general please? I think it's worse. It's already been moved by Councillor Stewart. We'll move it, yeah. Brian Stockwell 43:31.729
Recommendations are in your place. So it goes to they've got do general plan. No, Councillor Stewart already moved. The- I'll move to-- recommendation. But there was no seconder yet. Oh okay, so I'll take your. Okay that's fine, doesn't bother me. You seconded it. I thought I was seconding the one to go to general. Clare Stewart 43:49.210
But I'd like to say, I just want to say something to Lynne. Go for it. That's not. I haven't gone to my questions yet. Yeah, I just want to say, Lynne, you know, your work, your after-hours work is significant and noticeable. We were at a breakfast together last Friday morning at 6:45 or something, ungodly hour. But it's really noticed and appreciated by, as Councillor Lorentson said, by our business community. So I want to thank you and Vicky too. Thank you both for that engagement because you really do. A lot of people talk the but you guys walk the and it is really greatly valued and appreciated the collaboration between you guys and our business community so thank you. Thank you very much. Tom Wegener 44:29.126
We hear you're at the Tourism Noosa early morning breakfast I remember as well. Yes. Another early morning one. You must be getting sick of bacon and eggs. Thank jitain. Then could you talk me through the difference between tactical and sort and strategic? Unidentified Speaker 44:41.450
Of- Okay, strategic, if you look at our Noosa smart buyers fair strategy, there's some big, buckets like bold leadership and enabling and empowerment, those types of things. And the best illustration that I can give you of that is that the Noosa Chamber Noosa came in with their own business plan that completely reflected what we were doing in that strategic space. They wanted to be enabled, they wanted to be empowered to act as eyes and ears for us at the coalface. So that's why we went with the bigger amount last year, last financial year with them. But at the other end of the scale we have the Sunshine business association who their only industry is their hospitality industry and they wanted to try and competitive with other parts of Noosa to try and get more visitors to come to them for a dining experience but there's street lights I could only afford to do up one part and so they put in a tactical application to say that we've funded this amount would you consider that because there are still business outcomes for us it's just we don't have the expansive sector of all the other parts so we said yes to that following you know we went through quite a rigorous testing out some of our thoughts but we felt that given that is their only business sector that they've got right there that this would be a good use of the money on that tactic which was make the trees look really pretty to try and be competitive as opposed to we're going to put on a whole range of workshops and grow membership and you know which is very very longer term Tom Wegener 46:44.104
Yes the tactical is putting making the trees with natural lights Unidentified Speaker 46:46.928
And decoration yeah yeah you know decorations yes now you know let me that by saying we wouldn't want that to be the only things that they're putting in and maybe you know for another part of Noosa Shire we wouldn't have come down in the same way but this is their only business sector that they have that part so. Tom Wegener 47:07.355
Do you think that the economic boom which ironically sat inside of or next to the COVID situation I mean it's really been a challenging time this for this and you think that may have had an effect on the people not or businesses not applying for the economic grants in the past those factors Unidentified Speaker 47:27.283
I'm relatively new in the seat what I would say I have found is that businesses when they're under pressure will come to us when they're not when things are okay they're out doing the do and we can see that in our newsletters and our social media engagement when we talk anecdotally to two businesses they're basically saying just get out and know that we'll come to you if we need you so it could be reflective of that what our grant program is for associations and things like that who feel that they're okay at the moment. Unidentified Speaker 48:04.511
We've low applications since inception of the program. Tom Wegener 48:09.954
It's interesting but what my research found when I was at university was that you times when times are hard that's what innovation happens when times are good that's what innovation doesn't happen and the status quo just maintains itself just exactly what you just said and we've been in a despite COVID a boom time in my opinion for a long time and but that's not going to last forever and also like I'll select it thank you because I think that making tighter friendships with the business community especially with small businesses because the vast majority of our businesses are small businesses and any positive communication we can have with the small businesses is good. Unidentified Speaker 48:46.468
Thank you for this report. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 48:53.532
I'll move that it doesn't have to be based on the community of Maddox. Clare Stewart 48:57.618
I'll second it. In favour? Thank you, ladies. Thank you for your hard work. Unidentified Speaker 49:07.599
Thank you. Tom Wegener 49:10.375
And now we are coming to the next, which is our delegated authority. And 6.1, applications decided by delegated authorities, authority. Brian Stockwell 49:24.074
And I have a. Conflict of interest, to declare. Be clear, as per my written declaration, which is on the screen, and I choose to leave the meeting room. And the conflict is a result of the Suncoast Building Approvals currently undertaking, uh, privatization of my dwelling. That. Councillor Stockwell has left the room. Clare Stewart 49:45.850
I'm, happy to move to delegated authorities. This, yeah, this. I just have one question. I love, you know, Tom Wegener 49:54.473
You know how much I love the committee meetings. Clare Stewart 49:56.782
Yeah, right I won't rain on your parade then, Councillor Tom. Tom Wegener 50:06.732
And on number 16, building works assessable against the planning scheme code. So that's Suncoast Building Approvals additions to a dwelling house within 200 metres of agricultural land. What does that mean, building works against the planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 50:25.644
It means the building works which was additions to the dwelling were required to be assessed against the planning scheme and the reason for that trigger in this instance was the fact that those works were occurring within 200 metres of agricultural land. Tom Wegener 50:39.718
Right, so it wasn't that it was inconsistent with the planning scheme, it just had to be measured against the planning scheme. That's correct. Okay. I wanted to. One of the three lots on 73 southern cross parade, Sunshine Beach, that seems like it would be coming to Council, seeing the one lot and the three lots at Sunshine Beach? Richard MacGillivray 51:21.647
No, that's a kind of application that can be decided under delegated authority. Notably, it is a code-assessable application and therefore it has the capacity to go to deemed approval. Tom Wegener 51:37.066
Those are the only two that jumped out at me. Okay. Councillor Stewart has. Clare Stewart 51:43.546
I don't have any questions. Tom Wegener 51:45.388
Has moved and I'll second the recommendation. I don't need to talk to a Councillor. All in favour? We'll have do it again. Thank you. Thanks Richard, thanks Patrick. You're welcome, Councillors. Okay, well that brings us to the end. There's no sessions. We'll have a little confidential session, and that's it. I'd like to note the meeting is closed at 10:26. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
