General Committee - June 2024
Date: Monday, 17 June 2024 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 04:32:14
Synopsis: Short-Term Accommodation in rural areas refused, Childcare at Noosa Centre refused over 10 m buffer, Shark control policy endorsed, Grants and budget approved, Yurol–Ringtail transfer noted.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell: Chaired full-attendance General Committee; confirmed prior minutes; managed deputations and complex amendments (00:00; Minutes §1–2). Council: Refused STA at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd (MCU23/0101) on Strategic Intent 3.2.6 and Rural/Visitor code grounds; removed Rural Activities Code grounds via amendments; carried unanimously (17:47–57:22; Minutes 5.1). Council: Refused STA at 428 Cootharaba Rd (MCU24/0003) on similar grounds; carried 6–1 with Cr Stockwell against (01:00:43–01:07:30; Minutes 5.2). Amelia Lorentson: Sought to progress approval conditions for Noosa Business Centre childcare (MCU22/0094); motion lost 2–5 (01:09:30–01:14:23; Minutes 5.3). Council: Refused the childcare application citing binding 10m Hofmann Dr landscaped buffer from RAL18/0023, Noosaville Local Plan, Major Centre Zone, Sustainable Design, and parking/bike non-compliances; directed compliance action on frontage landscaping (01:38:37–01:41:06; Minutes 5.3). Council: Deferred Noosa Springs Resort/Clubhouse expansion (MCU21/0110) at applicant’s request to extend decision period for design/community engagement (01:58:24–02:02:53; Minutes 5.4). Council: Endorsed Yurol–Ringtail project transition completion; noted +2,400 ha to Tewantin NP; commended partners (02:03:52–02:25:38; Minutes 6.1). Council: Adopted policy supporting DAF Shark Control Program with transition to lower bycatch alternatives; support SharkSmart, trials; note stranding response and canal signage work (02:35:59–03:03:04; Minutes 6.2). Council: Noted 2024–25 fees/charges and May YTD financials; flagged key sustainability indicators; discussion on swim access affordability for children (03:09:58–03:19:02; 03:20:44–03:28:22; Minutes 6.3–6.4). Council: Approved RADF grants $36,700; Community Project Grants (programs $42,085; infrastructure $30,000; equipment $36,647.18; events $23,200); total round $131,932.18, subject to budget (03:28:52–04:12:22; Minutes 6.5–6.10). Council: Approved Environment Grants $13,293 and Climate Response Grants $50,000 (oversubscribed; partials/deferrals applied) (04:12:53–04:20:14; Minutes 6.11). Council: Extended by one year Alliance Grants for Sports Field Maintenance and Halls/Community Centres to synchronise cycles (04:26:42–04:29:08; Minutes 6.12). Council: Awarded confidential ROPS for Dry Hire (RP00637) and Wet Hire (RP00436); CEO authorised to administer/extend and add suppliers (04:29:55–04:32:07; Minutes 7.1–7.2). Contentious / Transparency Matters STA Kin Kin: Staff recommended approval under current scheme; councillors relied on Strategic Intent, amenity, and adopted Housing Strategy as “other relevant matter” to refuse; amendments trimmed non-relevant Rural Activities Code (23:37–50:34; Minutes 5.1). STA policy tension: Debate on CODI principle vs. discretionary “other relevant matters” (Planning Act ss45, 63); acknowledged advertised amendments but did not give them determinative weight (29:51–44:21; Minutes 5.1). Childcare buffer: Applicant argued 2003 Infrastructure Agreement immunity and 10m not required; staff cited legal advice buffer is enforceable, not “infrastructure,” and core to Noosa style; refusal followed (01:16:55–01:19:51; 01:28:18–01:31:13; Minutes 5.3). Shark nets: Community division noted; Council set a policy to advocate science-based alternatives while recognising State control; clarified no immediate net relocation and budget impacts for strandings (02:36:22–02:53:27; Minutes 6.2). Fees/charges: Councillors pressed for child swim affordability and consultancy cost transparency; officers to workshop and deep-dive consultancy ROI (03:12:58–03:28:15; Minutes 6.3–6.4). Legal / Risk Planning Act (ss45, 63): For impact assessable STA, Council weighed “other relevant matters,” incl. adopted Housing Strategy addressing housing need; CODI limits weight of unmade amendments (29:51–33:16; 40:59–44:21; Minutes 5.1). Noosa Plan 2020: STA refusals rested on Strategic Intent 3.2.6, Rural Zone Overall Outcomes, Visitor Accommodation Code (PO1–2, PO25); minutes record detailed grounds (Minutes 5.1–5.2). Infrastructure Agreement vs conditions: Legal advice: 10m Hofmann Dr landscape buffer is enforceable development condition (not “infrastructure”) and remains a valid refusal ground; reduces litigation exposure (01:18:54–01:19:51; Minutes 5.3). Contracting probity: ROPS decisions taken in closed under LGR 2012 s254J(3)(g); delegated CEO powers to negotiate, extend, and refresh suppliers (Minutes 7.1–7.2). Marine strandings liability: Identified operational vulnerability without equipment; risk of prolonged carcass presence raising public safety/PR risks; budget note to resource response (02:51:13–02:56:43; Minutes 6.2). Conflicts of Interest Karen Finzel: Declarable COI (Altum/JFP submission; Leigh & Rob McCready association) on Noosa Springs; Council resolved she may participate and vote (01:58:24–01:59:36; Minutes 5.4). Karen Finzel: Declarable COI (Peregian SLSC; McCreadys); Council allowed participation; wording updated to reflect Leigh McCready presidency (03:44:05–03:54:34; Minutes 6.6). Jessica Phillips: Declarable COI (former Cooroy Gymnastics president; family founders) for Equipment grants; permitted to participate (03:59:10–04:05:35; Minutes 6.8). Tom Wegener: Declarable COI (member, Noosa International Surfilm Festival) for Events grants; left room; decision unanimous (04:08:16–04:10:01; Minutes 6.9). Brian Stockwell: Prescribed COI (President, Noosa Lions FC) for Alliance Grants; left room; Acting Chair appointed; decision unanimous (04:26:12–04:29:08; Minutes 6.12). Short-Term Accommodation in Rural Zones Frank Wilkie: Emphasised shift since 2020 scheme and 2022 Housing Strategy; supported refusals anticipating pending amendments limiting whole-house rural STA (34:57–37:23; Minutes 5.1–5.2). Amelia Lorentson: Cited community sentiment and housing crisis as basis for refusal under Planning Act discretion (54:44–56:10; Minutes 5.1). Staff (Patrick Murphy/Richard MacGillivray): Noted current scheme treats rural STA as consistent use; amendments not yet determinative; housing strategy not embedded, but may be “relevant matter” (23:37–33:16; 41:31–43:12; Minutes 5.1). Noosa Business Centre Childcare & Planning Scheme Integrity Nadine (Planning): Outlined refusal due to non-provision of 10m Hofmann Dr buffer (from RAL18/0023), inconsistency with Noosaville Local Plan, Major Centre Zone outcomes, Sustainable Design Code, and parking/bike layout (01:08:17–01:16:55; Minutes 5.3). Georgina Madsen (Applicant): Argued 10m not needed; offered 10m built-form setback with 4m landscaped bed and bioretention as feature; cited Infrastructure Agreement “immunity” (01:41–11:18; Minutes 4.1/5.3). Council: Prioritised “Noosa style” vegetated streetscape and precedent effect across three Hofmann-fronting lots; suggested childcare could locate in Village Mixed Use where consistent (01:14:23–01:20:31; 01:31:13–01:32:31; Minutes 5.3). Environmental Projects & Shark Management Brett de Chastel: Confirmed final tranche to NP tabled in Parliament; trust arrangement safeguarded $3.5m with interest to koala projects; partners’ role lauded (02:04:50–02:18:01; Minutes 6.1). David (Env. Services): Shark policy clarifies support for DAF; Council to advocate/educate, resource strandings, consider canal signage; acknowledged limits on relocating nets pre-review (02:36:22–02:48:17; Minutes 6.2). Field risk: Whale carcass case had multiple sharks; underscored need for equipment/training to mitigate public safety risks (02:56:57–02:57:54; Minutes 6.2). Grants, Finance & Procurement Highlights Finance: YTD op rev +$2.4m (interest +$1.8m); op exp −$1.6m; net +$4m vs budget; warned 24/25 FAG prepayment timing may affect result (03:20:44–03:23:21; Minutes 6.4). Consultancy spend: Councillors requested a deep-dive/ROI and supplier transparency; officers to workshop (03:25:01–03:28:15; Minutes 6.4). Procurement: Extensive ROPS panels approved for Dry/Wet Hire with multi-year extension options to 2030; local/regional supplier representation noted (04:30:52–04:32:07; Minutes 7.1–7.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 17 June 2024 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 13 May 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.1. APPLICANT: GEORGINA MADSEN PRESENTERS: GEORGINA MADSEN & DAMIAN HALL TOPIC: MCU22/0094 - NOOSA BUSINESS CENTRE SANCTUARY CHILDCARE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 4.2. APPLICANT: KIM PETROVIC PRESENTERS: JOHN COCHRANE & KIM PETROVIC TOPIC: MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Item deferred. 4.3. APPLICANT: ELLEN GUAN (GH AUSTRALIA) PRESENTERS: PHILLIP STARKEY (GH AUSTRALIA), NOEL ROBINSON (NRA COLLABORATIVE PTY LTD) & SHANE ADAMSON (ADAMSON TOWN PLANNING PTY LTD) TOPIC: PROPOSED NOOSA SPRINGS 'BOUTIQUE HOTEL" DEVELOPMENT Item deferred. 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. MCU23/0101 APPLICATION FOR SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 561 GYMPIE KIN KIN ROAD, KIN KIN Motion Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU23/0101 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation situated at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons. 1. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 (Agriculture and Rural Based Activities) of the Strategic Intent because: a. It does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and would compromise productivity. b. Short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment and diversification. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of Rural Activity Code as: a. It is not a rural activity operated in a sustainable manner which conserves the productive characteristics of rural land or protects the amenity of surrounding premises. b. Short-term accommodation is not an innovative and sustainable agricultural enterprise. c. Short-term accommodation does not support local production of food and beverage products. 3. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcomes PO3 and PO4 of the Rural Activities Code as it is not consistent with the zone, locality GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 and character of the area in which the site is located and guests will adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. 4. The proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with: a. Existing and future rural uses and activities; and the character and environmental features of the zone; and b. Visitor accommodation which complements rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of rural land. 5. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(j) and Performance Outcome PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as it not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of adjoining properties. 6. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(g) and Performance Outcome PO1 and PO2 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as: a. It will impact on the ability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits. b. It will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. c. It will detract from the character and amenity of the local area. 7. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of a likely increase in noise to adjoining properties. 8. The use is inconsistent with the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 - Keep Noosa Home item 7.7: Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on site and not at the expense of housing. Whole-house short term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owners principal-place of residence. Amendment No 1. Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item 3 in the above refusal motion be removed. Crs Wilkie, Finzel, Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson and For: Stockwell Against: Cr Wegener Carried. Amendment No 2. Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item 2 in the above refusal motion be removed. For: Crs Wilkie, Finzel, Phillips, Lorentson and Stockwell Against: Crs Wegener and Wilson Carried. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU23/0101 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation situated at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons. 1. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 (Agriculture and Rural Based Activities) of the Strategic Intent because: a. It does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and would compromise productivity. b. Short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment and diversification. 2.The proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with: a. Existing and future rural uses and activities; and the character and environmental features of the zone; and b. Visitor accommodation which complements rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of rural land. 3. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(j) and Performance Outcome PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as it not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of adjoining properties. 4. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(g) and Performance Outcome PO1 and PO2 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as: a. It will impact on the ability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits. b. It will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. c. It will detract from the character and amenity of the local area. 5. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of a likely increase in noise to adjoining properties. 6.The use is inconsistent with the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 - Keep Noosa Home item 7.7: Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on site and not at the expense of housing. Wholehouse short term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owners principal-place of residence. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 5.2. MCU24/0003 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 428 COOTHARABA ROAD COOTHARABA Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU24/0003 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use Short-term accommodation situated at 428 Cootharaba Rd Cootharaba Qld 4565 and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons 1. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 (Agriculture and Rural Based Activities) of the Strategic Intent because: a. It does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and would compromise productivity. b. Short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment and diversification. 2. The proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with: a. Existing and future rural uses and activities; and the character and environmental features of the zone; and b. Visitor accommodation which complements rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of rural land. 3. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(j) and Performance Outcome PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as it not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of adjoining properties. 4. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(g) and Performance Outcome PO1 and PO2 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as: a. It will impact on the ability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits. b. It will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. c. It will detract from the character and amenity of the local area. 5. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of a likely increase in noise to adjoining properties. 6.The use is inconsistent with the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 - Keep Noosa Home item 7.7: Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on site and not at the expense of housing. Wholehouse short term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owner's principal-place of residence. For: Crs Wilson, Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Lorentson Against: Cr Stockwell Carried. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 5.3 MCU22/0094 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 28 EENIE . CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Coordinator, Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU22/0094 for a Material Change of Use for a Childcare centre, situated at 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville and request a Further Report to the Planning & Environment Committee meeting of 9 July 2024 detailing conditions for approval. For: Crs Phillips and Lorentson Against: Crs Wilkie, Stockwell, Wilson, Finzel and Wegener Lost. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegner That Council note the report by the Coordinator, Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU22/0094 for a Material Change of Use for a Childcare centre, situated at 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is not consistent with condition no. 53 of Development Permit to Reconfigure a Lot (1 lot into 23 lots) RAL18/0023 as the proposal does not include the required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the Strategic Intent and Strategic Outcomes 3.3.1(o), and 3.3.5 (s)(i) (D) of the Noosa Plan 2020 as the proposal fails to incorporate the 10m wide landscaping required to Hofmann Drive to achieve the parklike, vegetated setting envisaged for the centre which is synonymous with the Noosa style. 3. The proposal is not consistent with acceptable and performance outcomes AO5, PO5, AO7.4, PO7 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code a: a. The development does not retain or propose to enhance the required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive which is important to contribute and create the character sought for the Noosa Business Centre. 4. The proposal is not consistent with the overall outcome (3)(f) and (4) acceptable and performance outcomes AO32.4, AO32.5, AO32.6, PO32 and PO33 of the Major Centre Zone as: a. Reducing the width of the landscaped garden beds required to Hofmann Drive, particularly where this approach is continued for the remainder of the lots with frontage to Hofmann Drive, will compromise and impact the ability to achieve a centre which is overall recognisable as having a Noosa style. b. The proposal does not retain, incorporate, or enhance the existing vegetation within the required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive, which is important to enhance the visual amenity and natural landscape character of the Noosa Business Centre. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 c. The proposal disrupts the landscaped streetscape treatment required to Hofmann Drive intended to enhance the amenity and contribute positively to the centre’s character. d. The proposed use is an inconsistent use in the Major Centre Zone Code – Business Park Precinct will not deliver the commercial and employment uses intended for the Precinct such as health and wellbeing, education, research and technology and knowledge-based industries. e. The bio retention basin at the front of the site is located within the required setback area and in front of the proposed carparking area which results in the development being more visible to the road and not located in a park like setting. 5. The proposal is not consistent with overall outcome 2(a), (d) and performance outcome PO8 of the Sustainable Building Design Code as the development does not provide a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7m. 6. The proposed bicycle parking is not consistent with acceptable outcomes AO6.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code as they are located in an area that impedes access around the site. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. C. Request staff to undertake action to ensure the landscaping across the frontage of the site is consistent with development approvals RAL18/0023 and OPW20/0145. For: Crs Wilson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell Against: Crs Lorentson and Phillips Carried. 5.4. FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RESORT COMPLEX AND ANCILLARY BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, AND CLUB (MINOR EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUBHOUSE) AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS 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. Since then, the matter has changed give Altum Property Group has withdrawn the submission. 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. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Leigh & Rob McCready. 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. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Finzel and determine that Cr Finzel participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Finzel does not have a close personal relationship with Leigh & Rob McCready and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the Further Report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU21/0110 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use – Resort Complex and ancillary Bar, Food and Drink Outlet, Outdoor Sport and Recreation and Club (minor extension to existing clubhouse) at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads and defer this matter a future meeting round as the applicant has requested to extend the decision-making period pursuant to section 22 of the Development Assessment Rules. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. YUROL RINGTAIL CONSERVATION PROJECT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Director Strategy & Environment to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 regarding the Yurol Ringtail Environmental Project; B. Note that the Transition Committee established under that project has now completed its role and thank the members of that committee for their stewardship of this important environmental project; and C. Note the final report from the Transition Committee provided at Attachment 1 to the Report, and in particular, note that this project is adding an additional 2,400ha of land to the Tewantin National Park. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 6.2. DAF SHARK CONTROL PROGRAM - RECOMMENDED COUNCIL POLICY POSITION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by Environmental Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024, regarding a recommended Council policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program. B. Adopt the following policy position that: 1. Council continues to support the DAF Shark Control Program (SCP) under the Queensland Shark Management Plan, with the vision of the SCP transitioning to lower by-catch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to the Noosa LGA; and 2. Council to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support SharkSmart educational programs, and alternative bite mitigation trials where appropriate. C. Note Council’s other shark management responsibilities including; 1. Marine animal stranding response, noting this role requires resourcing for equipment, materials and staff training and the use of contractors to enable Council to effectively respond to stranding events; and 2. Consideration of signage investigation relating to dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed canal systems only (Noosa Waters). Carried unanimously. 6.3. 2024-2025 FEES AND CHARGES Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and pursuant to sections 97, 98 and 262(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 2009, for the 2024-25 financial year the costrecovery fees and commercial charges provided as Attachment 1 to the report. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 6.4. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – MAY 2024 Committee Recommendation That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 outlining May 2024 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 6.5. REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND (RADF) - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Arts and Culture Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 regarding applications to the Regional Arts Development Fund Round 21, 2024/25; and B. Approve the recommendations of the Assessment Committee to fund projects to the value of $36,700 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report. Carried unanimously. 6.6. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING – COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) – PROGRAM/PROJECTS 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 in relation to the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club Grant application which is before us today. Leigh McCready has recently been elected as the president of this club. Mr Rob McCready sits in a decision-making capacity on the Peregian Beach Surf Lifesaving Club Sub-Committee. Mr McCready is married to Leigh McCready who worked as a volunteer on the 2020 Future Noosa Election Campaign which is no longer an entity. Mr & Mrs McCready are not related parties, nor are they close associates and therefore I do not believe this COI satisfies the requirements the act as I do not stand to gain a benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no greater than the benefit or loss of a significant proportion of persons in the local government area stand to gain or lose. However, in the public interest and full transparency I will declare this interest as I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. 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. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Finzel and determine that Cr Finzel participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants – Program/Projects provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds to the value of $42,085 being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.7. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - INFRASTRUCTURE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-2025 Community Project Grants Infrastructure provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds to the value of $30,000 being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.8. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - EQUIPMENT In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Phillips provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Phillips, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I was the president of Cooroy Gymnastics until September 2023, GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 and as my parents were foundation members. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I and my parents are no longer involved in any capacity in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club. 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. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Phillips and determine that Cr Phillips participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Councillor Phillips is no longer involved in any capacity in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Phillips did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants – Equipment to the value of $36,647.18 provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.9. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - EVENTS 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 funding recommendation to NOOSA International Surfilm Festival. I am a member of the NOOSA International Surfilm Festival Committee. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Wegener left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants – Events to the value of $23,200 provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. Cr Wegener returned to the meeting. 6.10. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - OVERVIEW Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants, subject to sufficient funds to the value of $131,932.18 being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.11. ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE GRANTS - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 19), CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 4) Cr Stockwell informed the meeting that: "For the past two terms, I have declared a conflict of interest as a result of my long association with Noosa District Landcare and its unincorporated forebear. However, having now received more detailed legal advice, it is clear that my circumstances do not meet the definition of a declarable conflict of interest because the organisation is neither a close associate nor a related party under the Local Government Act and therefore, I will not be declaring any type of COI for this matter or in relation to that group into the future.” Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 regarding applications for the Environment Project Grants (Round 19) and Climate Change Response Grants (Round 4); B. Approve the recommendations to fund projects totalling the amounts below: i. Environment Project Grants (Attachment 1) - $13,293.00 ii. Climate Change Response Grants (Attachment 2) - $50,000; and GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 C. Authorise the CEO to enter Funding Deeds for the Environment Project grants and Climate Change Response grants with successful organisations, as per the recommended funding amount. Carried unanimously. 6.12. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THREE YEAR ALLIANCE GRANT AGREEMENTS In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the proposed funding allocations to the Noosa Lions Football Club. I am the current President of the Noosa Lions Football Club. 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. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Cr Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting for this item for the purpose of considering the conflict of interest declaration by Cr Stockwell. Carried unanimously. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and approve a one-year extension to the Sports Field Maintenance and Hall/Community Centre Alliance grants with the new completion date being 30 June 2025, subject to sufficient funds being made available in the adopted 2024/25 budget. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson 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: GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 7.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00637 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND EQUIPMENT (COMMONLY KNOWN AS DRY HIRE) 7.2 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00436 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND OPERATOR (COMMONLY KNOWN AS WET HIRE) Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00637 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND EQUIPMENT (COMMONLY KNOWN AS DRY HIRE) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Civil Work Maintenance Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and A. Award Contract No. RP00637 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Equipment (commonly known as Dry Hire) for a period of two (2) years commencing on 1 July 2024 to the following suppliers: Ready Industries Pty Ltd (1300TEMPFENCE) ATF Services Pty Ltd (AAA) Abletech Underground Group Pty Ltd Cooloola Mini Hire Pty Ltd (Astro Hire) BDA Infrastructure Pty Ltd Brooks Hire Services Pty Ltd Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited Conplant Pty Ltd Corbet Equipment Hire Pty Ltd Durack Civil Pty Ltd RAM Invest Pty Ltd (Earth Gear) Flexihire Pty Ltd Water Trucks Pty Ltd (H2flow Hire) Hastings Deering (Australia) Limited K2 Plant Hire Pty Ltd Kennards Hire Pty Limited Master Hire Pty Ltd Onsite Rental Group Operations Pty Ltd Porter Hire Pty Ltd Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 RPM Hire Australia Pty Ltd Sherrin Rentals Pty Ltd Shore Hire Pty Ltd The Trustee for Orchard Trust t/as Sniffers Plant Hire Pty Ltd The trustee for the TFH Hire Trust t/as TFH Hire Services Pty Ltd Trafquip Pty Ltd WEZ Group PTY LTD B. Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and do all things necessary to administer the Contract on behalf of Council; C. Subject to satisfactory performance of the suppliers, authorise the CEO to approve the option to extend the contract at the expiry of initial term for a further two (2) terms of up to twenty-four (24) months each ending on 30 June 2030; and D. Authorise the CEO to approve the addition of new suppliers to Contract No. RP00637 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Equipment as a result of an advertised refresh at the expiry of the initial term and term extensions. Carried unanimously. 7.2. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00436 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND OPERATOR (COMMONLY KNOWN AS WET HIRE) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the report by the Civil Work Maintenance Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and A. Award Contract No. RP00436 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Operator (commonly known as Wet Hire) for a period of two (2) years commencing on 1 July 2024 to the following suppliers: o A.F Dixon & B.S Dixon (BS & AF Dixon) o Abletech Underground Group Pty Ltd o Albert and Herbert Pty Ltd o AMAC Cranes Group Pty Ltd o Amanda Alice Sims t/as Amanda Sims Contracting o Asphalt Innovations Pty Ltd o Aussie Hydro-Vac Services Pty Ltd o Australian Civil Solutions Pty Ltd o B.P Blacket & N.M Blacket t/as Jet Vac Excavations o Base Course Management Queensland Pty Ltd o Bebrok Excavations Pty Ltd o BDA Infrastructure Pty Ltd (Black Diamond) o Capital Asphalt QLD Pty Ltd o Clayton's Towing Service Pty Ltd o Cleanaway Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd o Corbet Equipment Hire Pty Ltd o Crejae Excavations Qld o Durack Civil Pty Ltd GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 o Ellis Profiling QLD Pty Ltd o Ensbey Earth Moving ATF The Ensbey Family Trust o EPH Contracts (QLD) PTY LTD o First Nations Civil & Contracting Pty Ltd o Fishys Earthmoving ATF The Fish Family Trust o Fleet Plant Hire Pty Ltd o H2flow Hire (Water Trucks Pty Ltd) o IBS Excavations (Moortop Pty Ltd) o Junction Venture Pty Ltd t/as Cootharaba Earthworx o Luke Allan Burrows o MD Plant Hire Pty Ltd o Pipe Management Australia Pty Ltd o Falcon Earthmoving Pty Ltd t/as Qld Dozer Hire o Roy's Earthmoving and Plant Hire Pty Ltd o Sherrin Rentals Pty Ltd o Sniffers Group o Stabilised Pavements of Australia Pty Ltd o Suttons Cleaning Service Qld Pty Ltd o THD Civil Pty Ltd o The Stabilising Pty Ltd o The Trustee for Kelly Family Trust (Kelly's Earthworks) o The Trustee for Valentine Family Trust t/as Valentine Transport o Wez Group Pty Ltd B. Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and do all things necessary to administer the Contract on behalf of Council. C. Subject to satisfactory performance of the suppliers, authorise the CEO to approve the option to extend the contract at the expiry of initial term for a further two (2) terms of up to twenty-four (24) months each ending on 30 June 2030. D. Authorise the CEO to approve the addition of new suppliers to Contract No. RP00436 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Operator as a result of an advertised refresh at the expiry of the initial term and term extensions. Carried unanimously. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 5.14pm.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.000
Okay, so welcome to the June General Committee Meeting. We welcome all Councillors around the table, staff and those members in the gallery. There is full attendance and no apologies. The next item we will move on to is the confirmation of do minutes, but before we do that, it is that we acknowledge that we're here as the ongoing custodians of this part of the world, Noosa Shire, which for thousands of years was the place where the Kabi Kabi looked after the assets that we now have certain responsibility over. They extended an offer to join with all people in Noosa Shire to make a commitment to that custodianship and when we make our decision today it would be great to think of the long term implications just as the Traditional Custodians of this country did in their deliberations. So confirmation of last month's General Committee. Do we have a mover for that item? Moved by Councillor Lorentson and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. I'm presuming there's no discussion. All those in favour? We have no presentations, although we do have a deputation. The is from Georgie Stockwell developments. Georgie, if you'd like to make your way for the lectern and address Council on the issue which relates to an application which is before Council today, in shorthand, a childcare centre at the Noosa Business Centre. Georgie Stockwell 01:39.969
Yes, Thank you. Very much for having me along today. Apologies, I did plan to be here last week, but circumstances led to that not appearing. So, Stockwell has a long history with business centre, working with Council to develop master plan 2 back in the early 2000s after the 927 strategic to 7 strategic plan and master plan 1, and we obtained the development approval Noosa Civic, including that business precinct and showroom in 2003. And really that was all about the first stage for the business centre to deliver on the long health aspiration. Of counselling the community which was to broaden the economic base of Noosa. At that time, back in 2003 when we did the first stage, we dedicated over 10 hectares of land as Council-owned open space and provided extensive covenants along what is Eenie Creek Road, which existed back then, and now Walter Hay Drive, which was delivered as part of Main Roads and Stockwell and Council funding back in that first stage opening in 2006. All thank of that was captured in an infrastructure agreement, which was executed in 2003. So today just wanted to talk to you about the childcare centre that we've proposed on lot four, which has a staff recommendation for refusal. And I understand having read the report and the discussions with the Council officers, obviously we're disappointed that where we are, but we are And we have worked actually very hard to ensure we've that the proposal delivers on the outcomes sought by the Noosa Council being Noosa style, architecture of Noosa style in a park-like setting. The proposal is for 96 place childcare and we have an operator, unfortunately Damien Horne from sanctuary couldn't be here with us. That child care is intended to provide. Much needed places for the Noosa community but specifically the nexus is with the business centre. So to be able childcare for people working and living. In that broader Noosa Business Centre. Providing a childcare in the village next use. And I know that was a topic discussed previously in the. County environment meeting. For the childcare proposal that we've proposed for lot 4 delivers it really as a Noosa-style built form, standalone, within a bushland setting and a parkway setting along Hofmann Drive. To deliver something in the village mixed use precinct to my mind would be at the upper level and so you're talking about a very different facility that's not to say it can't be done but it's certainly something that would be delivered in a city environment as opposed to a Noosa environment. We notified the proposal and we didn't receive any submissions against it or indeed for date one that came outside the public notification period so our proposal seeks to deliver as I mentioned that childcare in accordance with that park-like setting so what we've done is we have the Noosa Plan requires a four metre minimum built form setback from Hofmann Drive. That's a new planning scheme. We've provided a 10 metre built form setback and we've landscaped heavily the first four metres of that in the proposal and you can see application and in the renders that were provided as part of the application. The Hofmann Drive landscape garden beds that were required subdivision approval they're what's on the ground now. They are predominantly small shrubs with a few larger you know ground cover with some selected saplings and that's compliance with the conditions of the subdivision approval. The landscaping proposed as part of the childcare is very different and really we've as I said we've worked very hard to deliver Noosa the park-like setting whilst being able to maintain land for employment generating uses which is what the business centre is about. Having been a part of the subdivision approval the reason that the 10 metres was provided with land spec garden beds along Hofmann Drive is because that land in there required bulk earthworks to deliver the required topography of the road and the stormwater drainage on the site and so understandably and supported by us we wanted an outcome that didn't leave the site exposed until those lots were developed. As I mentioned the childcare proposal we've got a 10 metre setback to the built form versus the four metres required under the plan and we've got a four metre deep planted garden bed along the majority of the site. We do have a detention basin at the front and we've included or incorporated into that and really made it a feature in the landscape with accidental encroachment and then a pedestrian board walk over to connect from the pathway at the eastern spine of the open space covenant across to the child care. We bring this was proposal, it mentioned was at the planning environment meeting, we've got a subdivision, an ROL, a reconfiguration of lot to realign that proposed boundary by two metres. We already did two metres back before we lodged the application. So we did that, well actually, after but before the plans were sealed for the subdivision because we knew we needed a bit more space. The other thing that I referenced is of green back in 2003 and what that required was essentially for Stockwell to deliver the upfront with the first stage of development, the road and open space infrastructure for the ultimate development. There's a clause 10 in that infrastructure agreement that. Provides immunity for future stages in respect of those elements and that was really and the clause actually captures that the intent was to provide both Council and the landowner that certainty about what the outcome would be given so much of it was done upfront. Clause 10 is the clause under the infrastructure agreement it says the Noosa Business Centre shall be developed in accordance with master plan 2 in stages consistent with the needs of the community. Clause 10.1 talks about what that stage 1 comprises and the future stages. The development application relates to stage 1 of the Noosa Business Centre being a retail centre with 18,300 square metres of total use area, showroom homemaker of 7,000 and commercial business component of more not than 5 Future stages of the business, the Noosa Business Centre on the land as contemplated by master plan 2. And land other than And that was just referencing the fact that they were two different landowners at that point in time, that owned the parcels that comprised the business centre. Clause 10.2 says in temporary stage 1 and future stages, this agreement is intended to give the applicant certainty as to the contributions and/or infrastructure charges that will be payable by it or its successor. Entitled in respect of stage 1 one and future stages successors. Of the Noosa Business Centre on the land and also to give the Council the correlative certainty as to the contribution to the community that will be made by the applicant. It goes on in 10.3 to talk about the extent of immunity of future stages to the Noosa Business Centre on the land from future infrastructure and conditions and charges and that basically provides for in fact I'm going to read it out I've got time subject to clause 10.3b provided that the intensity of development of a future stage does not exceed master plan 2 and subject to the provisions of the clause is 6.2.3 which is about road demand and external road network and 10.4 water and sewer the Council agrees that having regard to the contributions in physical infrastructure provided for in this agreement and the conditions of approval in respect of roads cycleways parks open space nature conservation public recreational facilities land cycle and pedestrian pathways parkways bushland preservation urban drainage water quality or waterway management the applicant and its successors entitled shall not be required in respect of future stages of the Noosa Business Centre. On the land to undertake work pay contributions way of conditions imposed on any application on account of nor to pay infrastructure charges levied in accordance with the act for works external to the land relating to all of those things. If it was council's intent to provide a 10 metre buffer to Hofmann Drive that would have been captured in the infrastructure agreement. The intent was Eenie Creek Road and Walter Hay Drive. Development within a park-like setting. Believe, remain committed to the fact that our proposal does that. We've made accommodations, we've worked with the Council officers to do that. Yes, we acknowledge the bioretention, we've turned that into a feature. We've redesigned the centre. Reconfiguration of lot and I ask you, what is the 10 metres going to give the Noosa community? That 4 metres of a landscape, lush setback and 10 metres of built form setback doesn't achieve. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 11:15.653
Thank you. So, Councillors, on our agenda we have two further deputations noted. As you're aware, there will be a procedural motion regard to item 4, section 5 of the committee, which means that those two deputations will not proceed. So we move now on to item 5, so matters referred to the committee. And the first one is in regard to MCU 23010, application for short-term accommodation at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Road, And could we have an overview of this application first? SPEAKER_05 12:03.280
All right, so this application was lodged. It's treated as impact assessment due to the lot size. So the proposal's on a lot that is only 2.25 hectares. Noosa Plan requires anything under four hectares to trigger for impact assessment. So the proposal is for short-term accommodation inside an existing dwelling house. The dwelling house is two stories and four bedrooms. The proposal didn't include a number of people on site at any one time, so there is a condition in the recommendation limiting the number to eight. There was one submission received in favour of the proposal, so that was from not adjoining, but approximately 370 metres to the north of the current, of the dwelling house. The proposal is recommended for approval. It's, throughout the report, we let sections of the planning scheme that are relevant to short-term accommodation in rural areas. The proposal is small in scale and is consistent with the rural zone code requirements and the visitor accommodation requirements. There's also a section in the scheme that references the current planning scheme amendments that are under public notification at the moment and does explain a little bit in terms of the CODI code. Principle. It's believed that the planning scheme amendments aren't far enough advanced at this point in time to take into consideration the proposed changes which would make short-term accommodation in primary dwelling an inconsistently submittable Tom Wegener 13:37.354
Thank you I'd like to move a motion Brian Stockwell 13:43.314
I'd like to let the gaps on the screen so we can read it as you could read it out thanks Tom Wegener 13:47.214
Okay I'll read it off my paper here the proposal is not considered consistent with 3.2.6 Brian Stockwell 13:54.728
Excuse me you need to start from the very top Tom Wegener 13:57.528
Yep the Council note the report by senior development planner to the environment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11th June 2024 regarding application number mcu23 slash o 0101 for a development permit for material of changes use short-term accommodations situated at 561 Kim P road Kim and a refuse the application for the following reasons the proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 agriculture and rural based activities of the strategic intent because it does not protect agricultural land from encroachment urban and rural residential development it would compromise productivity be short-term accommodation is not ancillary is rural industry which supports production investment and diversification to the proposal is not consistent with the purpose and overall outcomes of the rural activity code as it is a not a rural activity operated in a sustainable manner which conserves the productive characteristics of rural land and protects the amenity of surrounding premises. Short-term accommodation is not an innovative and sustainable agricultural enterprise see does not support local production of food and beverage products. The proposal does not comply with the performance outcome po3 and po4 of the Rural Activities Code as it is not consistent with the zone locality character of the area in site is located and guest will adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents for the proposal does not comply with the purpose and overall outcomes of the rural zone code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and are compatible with a existing and future and the character and environment features of the zone and be visitor accommodation which complements the rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of the rural app five the of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with the overall outcomes and performance outcomes PO4 of the rural zone code as it is not compatible with rural activities and detract from the rural amenities of adjoining properties six the use of the premise for a short-term accommodation is not consistent with the overall outcome 2G and performance outcomes P01 and P02 of Visitor Accommodation Code as a it will impact on the availability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits b it will result in conflicts with nearby land uses c it will detract from the character and amenity of the local area seven the use of the premises for-term and accommodation is not consistent with performance outcome PO 25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of likely increase in noise of adjoining property and 8 it's not consistent with the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 keep Noosa home item 7. In the 7. States ensure that short-term accommodations in the hinterland is complementary to housing on-site and the expense of housing. Whole house short-term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of owners, principal place of residence. Brian Stockwell 17:47.067
Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Before I ask for a seconder, I think there is one or two typographical issues. In three, can we look at the word 'and' after PO4? I believe as verbally stated by Councillor Wegener that should be an 'of' rather than an 'and'. So. Yep. No, sorry, the next one. 'And' there, After PO4? And then when we look at the last ground for refusal? Yeah, I think 'inconsistent' 'in'. Is one word rather than 'inconsistent'. First word. And I asked Councillor Wegener whether the use is inconsistent or the application is inconsistent, whether that was the intent of that clause. 'Inconsistent'. Yeah, so what is inconsistent? You haven't got what's inconsistent, the use is inconsistent, yes. You just put 'the' before 'then'. 'The' use, yeah, like the previous. Frank Wilkie 19:02.221
Okay, I think that. I'm happy to second it for the purpose of debate. Brian Stockwell 19:05.521
Councillor Wilkie. The floor is yours. Tom Wegener 19:09.198
Thank you, thank you Brian for your punctuation. There's a lot of codes that I read out there, but most important part is the very beginning that because I read, which is the strategic intent. Is very important. At the beginning of the town plan and it's what we look at. It is the highest authority and all of the codes that I read have to align themselves with strategic plan. That's the way it works. You have the hierarchy. And I'm going to read what the strategic intent says long form here. It won't take long. Agriculture is an important industry sector for the local and regional economy and employment. Agricultural land is protected from encroachment. Urban and rural residential development and other incompatible activities that would compromise productivity. Agriculture will need to adapt to changing climate and be flexible and innovative in the face of changing conditions over time. This includes ancillary rural industries to support production, investment and diversification. For example on-farm processing, gate sales, cooking schools, and value-adding food production, as well as agritourism, low-impact homestays, rural and nature-based accommodation, retreats, and lifestyle and leisure experiences. This STA application must be clearly linked to rural pursuits like agritourism or low-impact homestays. The STA application before us has no such links. It is simply an urban pursuit dropped on a rural property. As such is inconsistent with the town's strategic plan. So the strategic plan there, if it doesn't link in with the intent for rural areas, well then it's inconsistent. And it's just, that's. And then of course we come to our own Housing Strategy that we all voted on, went through complete public consultation, and I'm going to read it again, I'll vary the paragraph, concerning rural houses. Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing onsite, not at the expense of housing. Whole-house short-term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owner's principal place of residence. And, again, this is called the Noosa Housing Strategy: keep Noosa home. And the very opening sentence is: Noosa Shire Council is greatly concerned by the housing crisis currently gripping the Shire. This is having significant and so having a significant social and economic impact on the community. So we have a use, an application that is inconsistent with the town plant and it's inconsistent with our strategy. And these are our words. Are we gonna follow our and actions speak louder than words. And to approve an STA on this rural property is inconsistent. It is pushing out our residents. It is taking our residents and saying, okay, you may leave now. This is a nice property. It's an STA. Yep. And as we said, as one of the former mayors once said, we want to keep the best lands in Noosa for the residents. And the whole short-term accommodation economy. Pushes people out of the best residents, become the STAs, and we turn into an accommodation economy, not our smart biosphere economy where we want production on local lands. We want local jobs. We want to keep residents in Noosa, not expel them. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 23:05.411
Does anyone else wish to address the resolution? Frank Wilkie 23:09.051
I have some questions of staff. This is an entirely reasonable grounds for a refusal, house for refusals and you've helped Councillor Wegener put it together. Could you talk through each of the dot points here and their application to this particular. Application? So we start with the. And why you've selected these as potential grounds for refusal. Patrick Murphy 23:37.287
They were prepared in consultation with Councillor Wegener, so he provided me with a range of provisions within the scheme that he wanted to incorporate into grounds of refusal. So it. Wasn't like I've specifically gone to aspects of the scheme to. Prepare those grounds. And essentially I've just used the wording in the scheme to. As a ground, so to speak. It's. I do know, you intent, it talks about. It has a range of intentions that And it does talk about our intention. Strategic it's about agricultural land and our rural uses. It also talks about industrial land. Tourism. So there's a lot of. It talks about a whole range of things. So. And there will be times when, you read those individually, they will seem to conflict with each other. And I think that's borne out through the scheme and things like the tables of assessments and our codes that we have, noting that the. Use of STA is a consistent use within So it wouldn't be true to say that it was an inconsistent use. Mean, by definition, it and there are a number of comments within the scheme that talk about STA and how. And tourism within our hinterland areas. So we've got provisions that talk about STA STA being excluded from medium and low density residential zones, they don't say it must be excluded from rural land. So just, you know, the way the scheme is constructed, you've got to be careful not to focus on a particular sentence or. Need to look at the scheme in a broader context. So I think in terms of the intent, again, looking more broadly, you will see there is an intent for there to be STA and that there'd be some diversification of where our tourists are housed and moving them away from the coastal areas into our rural areas. I don't believe that the rural activity code is a reasonable code to include within the grounds. The purpose of the Rural Activities Code is to ensure that a range of rural activities are established and operated in a sustainable manner. That's the opening sentence. For me, the code talks about. Genuine rural activities that are to occur within a rural area and how they are to operate and that it's not a code that's talking about how estiations be regulated. In terms of, you know, a lot of the other provisions talk about amenity and the environmental impacts and the impacts upon agricultural activities associated with short-term accommodation. I think the report has already gone there to demonstrate that. Is a separation from this property to other properties that will allow for the amenity, you know, softening of any amenity impacts, but also with conditions around how it is to be used, also addressing amenity impacts. In terms of agricultural pursuits, this is a land parcel that 2. Hectares, it would be fair to say we have very limited agricultural potential. It appears historically looking at photos that it hasn't been used for agricultural an pursuits, it's more of a lifestyle property and that the surrounding premises also do not have any agriculture activities occurring on them. They're one property has got a driveway drawback. That sort of dissects the comes towards this subject of the site. So again I don't think that the agricultural elements of the grounds of refusal are reasonable. I might have touched on one of the points in it. Agriculture amenity and character. I don't think there's any change to that. Character of the area through this year's. Brian Stockwell 27:46.970
Is that satisfied with your question, Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 27:49.632
There was reference to the Noosa Housing Strategy. Oh that's an extra condition that was added. Can you talk about relevance of Australia to the planning scheme as it currently stands? Well it's not incorporated Patrick Murphy 28:05.764
Into the scheme, it's not referenced in the scheme. The report actually references the tourism strategy and that is actually incorporated into the strategic intent. There's comments in around tourism and it talks about focus is directed towards high quality nature based and rural tourism experiences and balanced visitor experience across Noosa Shire. Statements that are within the scheme that are born from actual tourism strategy but as I said the Housing Strategy is not included or referenced in the scheme. Frank Wilkie 28:45.870
Could you talk about how the Housing Strategy is referenced and recognised in the planning scheme amendments? Patrick Murphy 28:55.573
Well, yes, it's certainly acknowledged that it is, and with relation to rural. Yeah, yes. And certainly in STAs seeking that there's not a lot-- a loss of housing attributed to the use of rural STAs and that rural is supported in circumstances where the existing residence is maintained for a principal place of residence and that accommodation occurs ancillary to that, say in cabins or within the home such as home hosted. So it does move away from where the steam is currently positioned. And puts a lot more restriction around the use of rural properties for short-term accommodation. That certainly is recognised. And as Sara alluded to, we can see that it's too early in the process of the scheme amendments to incorporate that into our decision making. As per the coding principle. Brian Stockwell 29:44.895
Yeah, could I just have a subsequent on that? Yeah. So I've thought about that. Planning scheme perspective, we can't the coding principle, but from the broader development assessment process, once it went from code to impact, we can consider any other relevant matter. There's an adopted position of Council in the Housing Strategy, so that could be considered a relevant matter, couldn't it? Amelia Lorentson 30:07.069
It so under, that's section 63 of the Planning Act 2016, under that we do have the discretionary power if there's a planning need and other relevant matters. So we've established a we've planning established a need which is a housing crisis was that considered as part of the decision? We seem to have placed a lot of weight on the CODI principle and perhaps not enough on this discretionary power conferred under the Planning Act 2016. Richard MacGillivray 30:43.612
Terms of the CODI principle itself, the case law around how applies is quite clear that at the time an application is launched and progresses through the application process, it must be first assessed against the current planning scheme as a effect and obviously this application went into decision at the State well before the current scheme amendments were advertised, so if you were in the applicant's shoes you'd be thinking these are planning rules and guidelines I've followed right through to this very last process and it's only at the eleventh hour that the goalposts and all user goalposts have changed where the scheme amendments have shifted those requirements to make it an inconsistent view. So I guess from an administrative point of view the coding principle will be provisions that the applicants apply for as the scheme as is and that's what they've given way for the team haven't provided any specific weight to that their helps Housing Strategy per se because it's not referenced in the planning scheme yet but I agree with your point around other relevant matters. There's a broader consideration for impact assessable development proposals that can be as part of the decision making. With Ron ballard's staff we persist in this application against the scheme and look forward to the recommendation that they have. Brian Stockwell 32:08.539
Did you have any further questions? Karen Finzel 32:10.979
No, think about what I've just anyone else have a question? Yeah, given the planning scheme amendments excluded rural, was any weight given to the active strategy where under our Corporate Plan, one of our objectives is to support community and industry sectors to deliver key outcomes, and based on what Councillor Wegener has brought to the table today, can you tell us, A, was any weight given to the active strategy, and/or B, was it and where are we at with that in terms of talking strategies. Around the planning scheme amendments. Patrick Murphy 32:54.766
No, no weight was given to that document. As Richard said, we've considered the plan, primarily considered the planning scheme as current form, knowing that this is a consistent use under out of the current planning so that's primarily for an advice and survey assessment. Thank I've got a couple. Brian Stockwell 33:19.062
And you have talked about the book. So this particular location is within-- you can now call the agricultural land conservation area. So it's got an overlay that says this land is suitable for agriculture. That's right? Patrick Murphy 33:34.992
It has the agricultural land overlay applied to it. In terms of its suitability for agriculture, that is something that really needs to be borne out. Brian Stockwell 33:43.212
So the site assessment could say whether and because I'm old, I think this through the State plans in 192, which specifically excluded consideration of whether the pasture was big enough to be a viable agricultural crop, is that still the case, or is things moved on since then? I would have to come back to you on how the strategic team had it formulated with agriculture. It used to be a principle that you looked after the agricultural land and not tried to-- it wasn't an argument that-- because people could just say, well, I'll do a white upon it, so I'll do it strongly found. For them, so something-- OK, and by being impact-assessable, if we were to go down the route that Councillor Wegener's gone, it is a valid consideration to weigh the strategic outcomes for rural and productive purposes versus the strategic outcome for tourism. That on this particular site. That right? Patrick Murphy 34:50.046
Well, the impact assessment allows us to consider the entire scheme. So yes, that would be the best. Frank Wilkie 34:57.166
I'll speak to the motioner. This raises a really interesting question because in 2020 Councillor Wegener and myself, the majority of Councillors around this table voted in favour of the Noosa Plan 2020 planning scheme which made STAs in the rural zone a consistent use and made an inconsistent use the low density residential zone and there are higher order aspects of the planning scheme which saw us start to refuse STA applications in the medium and high density residential zones which are meant to be predominantly for residents. We had the Housing Strategy 2022, CAAT talked about the impact of STAs and how we need to limit them and we also had the STA monitoring report which also informed us of how STAs are impacting on residential amenity and also housing availability and our planning scheme amendments reflect that. They're out for public consultation at the moment. They are suggesting that homes in the rural zones ought to be for residential purposes only and that short-term accommodation ancillary, that being cabins or home-hosted accommodation. So that's the process. Now, I might be getting ahead of myself here, but long-term, this is the direction we're heading in, and long we would like every rural property in the hinterland to be, have a permanent resident, and perhaps have ancillary uses for short-term accommodation. Then this motion before us allows us to do that. It's where we're headed. It may be a bit of a gamble in terms of the application. Of the Cody principle or our discretionary powers that we approve it now, but I'm looking favourably on this motion because it intend to go in the future and within a year this could be law. Sorry, the outcome we're seeking could be standard practice out there if amendments are approved. So I'm looking favourably upon this motion, but I need to hear other arguments before I make up my final mind. Brian Stockwell 37:23.063
I'm going to try just a small amendment to reflect what advice we received just previously and that was to remove item 3 and renumber the rest accordingly. So then item 3 referred to the Rural Activities Code which is relevant to rural activities not to tourism accommodation. So I'm looking for a second. So I'm moving that as an amendment just to remove item 3 because staff advice said it's not relevant. So I think if we're going to debate a motion we should debate one that is appropriate. Frank Wilkie 38:01.327
So you need a seconder for the purpose of the motion? I can't do it because I've already seconded the original motion. Amelia Lorentson 38:09.567
Before, to second, but before I second it, can I ask a question to Patrick? If there is a sentiment amongst all the Councillors that we are going to refuse the application before us, would it be more advisable for look at the original motion and then request that staff provide the conditions for refusal rather than us working off this draft? Patrick Murphy 38:39.227
Um not draft excuse me it rather than working off these reasons so you have on this document based upon the uh provisions that Council wanted me to I also prior to that had prepared is more limited um but I'm not yeah but potentially you know want me to go back and have a look at the scheme where there's other provisions to look at we could do that Frank Wilkie 39:08.461
Um and that could be done before Thursday night even if we debate and pass only a recommendation yeah and then revisit or visit on Thursday night yeah thank you I just have a question Brian Stockwell 39:24.696
Well no this question where it hasn't been seconded or no I'm happy to second okay so I will talk to it and so basically yeah that what uh Patrick said before sort of rang the bell with shouldn't have a grounds grant of refusal review. That doesn't meet a Rural Activities Code because it's not for a rural activity just simple one so when we do debate we a motion that's um hits the right points rather than having one that may not be relevant in there that's only reason I moved it anyone else wish to speak to the amendment Amelia Lorentson 40:10.376
Once the question are we better to just move the original motion and if the sentiment is not to support the recommendation to approve we then seek reasons for approval through the planning officers can I ask that question to you Richard what is your advice on this? Richard MacGillivray 40:31.992
So be drafted up today from Councillors the request of Councillor Wegener so if were to vote on this particular motion it could be the ability for Council officers to refine the grounds in preparation for the meeting on Thursday. Frank Wilkie 40:52.006
So this would send a message for where we're heading, right to Thursday. Brian Stockwell 40:56.687
Thank you very much. So we've got an option we have it's been moved and seconded if either we can't just do away with it, we can make a further modification to include two as well or can just vote on it the way we see fit. Frank Wilkie 41:12.640
And amend it again. So this is the motion before us, the amendment before us, we've got to deal with that before we deal with anything else. Jessica Phillips 41:20.132
David, does anyone wish to speak to it? I'm just going ask a question, please. Just to Richard, can you please expand on just a comment that you made around changing the goalposts, please, for me? Richard MacGillivray 41:31.572
Yes. So the comment was in the time the application, launched the application with Council, the scheme that is currently in effect was they applied under, which is obviously a consistent use of short-term accommodation. So they've progressed through the application on the basis of the scheme as is, and it's not until, I guess, just recently with the new scheme amendments that have gone out for public consultation, where that's, I guess, embedded the Housing Strategy provision. Around seeking to make STA in rural and residential properties in consistent use, where it's not the primary place of residence. So, so up until this scheme was notified. The applicant was of the understanding that it was a consistent use, subject to impact assessment under the planning scheme. So for the applicant, that's what they understood the goal first was, current planning scheme is this Jessica Phillips 42:32.754
I find it hard I work out how to question this, how we can make a decision or debate something with information we have now and the applicants put forward. What we asked them to originally which is supported does that Richard MacGillivray 42:49.329
Yeah and that's I guess what I made reference around the coding principle because it's not until you get further through that process that more and generally gets given towards those scheme amendments because there's more of an understanding and confidence around those amendments to being embedded as new policy moving forward. Jessica Phillips 43:12.283
So once those amendments are made sorry one more question then the decision would be slightly different now but again my query is like we should be making consideration without what's to come in my mind Brian Stockwell 43:39.450
Purely yeah that's true if I can just it maybe gets you how do you question um from a pure planning scheme perspective the we can't place weight on the recently advertised amendments okay however similarly from a planning perspective we can place weight on any other relevant matter and an adopted strategy of Council is a relevant matter so the Housing Strategy outside of the planning scheme amendments does indicate a position of Council so and that's just the individual councils to think about it's not you know it's nothing that you can do but yes in a pure planning sense we can't put weight on the amended planning scheme that's currently being advertised for public. Nicola Wilson 44:21.349
Can we put some weight on the fact that despite that application of the plan as it is this property is still being advertised as STA without approval? Brian Stockwell 44:33.610
That's a good question. Existing potential non-performing use of the property, are we able to consider that in the assessment of the government application? So just to clarify, they have ceased advertising? The property, so I did speak to the consultant on that was raised originally, so they have actually ceased advertising. Generally, one of the remedies if we do find properties, no matter what they're used for, on the contrary, is generally. Well, can you apply a fee to use, and it's generally accepted practice there. Ken's, uh, Councillor. Karen. Karen Finzel 45:06.389
Thank you. So just for, in the, looking at fairness and equity, a question to the staff. When the applicant put this through, were they aware of the changes and how the impacts would be moving forward, given that they've landed where the goalposts have changed, using your wording? Were they aware that there was potential for it to be discussed, like, I think, strategic matters? A table. So I think what we've got before us here is two things. We've got a planning application that has come through prior to the goalposts moving, with the understanding that it could proceed forward. With it, you know, there's other matters around, as raised from Councillor Phillips, really good guess, were they aware, and to me the debate is around, you know, the planning scheme amendments, and what was in included or excluded for whatever reason, and how we're going to move forward, as opposed to a person that has reasonably put forward their application for short-term accommodation under the preceding plan, how it sits. Now, what was the applicant happy with? Were they happy to move forward under that clear understanding? SPEAKER_05 46:25.309
So, can I just clarify, so this was actually launched September last year, so well in of the current consultation process. It was held up a little bit because it did have to go to the State government for a referral, which is why it's taken to this point to actually get to Council. So, it was actually lodged nine months ago. So, I don't believe they've been aware of any of the current scheme changes. Frank Wilkie 46:48.530
Sorry, Sara, did you say that this application had to go to the State government? Yeah, it's on a state road. Okay, thank you. Richard MacGillivray 46:55.530
But, and to add to tara's point, obviously the applicant would have been aware that the Housing Strategy was lost at that point in time. So, whilst it's not part of the planning scheme, was it is an endorsed endorsement Council to policy. Karen Finzel 47:08.817
So, Through the Chair, just a question. Did the applicant have opportunity to withdraw this application prior to the amendments going through public consultation and coming back? SPEAKER_05 47:19.797
Or were they not interested? So, the application can be withdrawn at any point. There was no advice provided to them to withdraw because under the current planning scheme it is a consistent use and the officer recommendation was going to be for approval. So, to withdraw the application. Richard MacGillivray 47:35.405
And also noting just to add, so if the proposal was more than four hectares, it would be a code consistent use. So, it's only become in fact because of the size of the allotment is under four hectares. Brian Stockwell 47:50.705
Because the question tends to be around the application more generally. I'll call for anyone who wishes to talk to the amendment, which was perhaps a little bit limited, that only took sort take out item three, but that's the amendment we're dealing with. If no one. Frank Wilkie 48:06.472
Look I'll support the amendment because. Oh, you're talking to it? Makes the grounds for refusal more pertinent. It takes out irrelevant grounds. Okay. Anyone else wish to talk? I'll call for a vote. Those in favour? Brian Stockwell 48:21.920
That's unanimous. No, I didn't vote for it. Oh, you didn't. Oh, sorry. The amendment. I read it out now, which is Councillor Finzel, Phillips, Councillor Wilkie, Wilson, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell and against was. Councillor Wegener. The amendment becomes the motion. I will move a similar amendment to remove the proposed item 2 grounds of refusal item 2 you need a seconder for the purposes of the debate? Yeah. Seconder Councillor Phillips. I will only say it's obviously should have included in the previous one for the same reasons. Anyone wish to speak? Tom Wegener 49:35.464
I'm not sure about this like this is it's clearly relevant to the strategic intent and my argument is based on is what SPEAKER_02_b 49:47.704
Limits STAs in the hinterland so I don't I see it as though it is a part of I was gonna say the vibe of the thing but no it Tom Wegener 50:03.268
I'm not just not sure that why does it why is it taken out of when it's in the town plan and it relates to rural properties and this is a an STA going on to a rural property it seems to be perfectly relevant Brian Stockwell 50:16.268
So if I I've can been pose that as a question, is the Rural Activities Code something that's applied to all uses within the rural area, or is it a code applied to only activities that are rural in nature? Applied to those activities that used in a rural nature. And a short-term accommodation area isn't considered a rural activity? No. Does that answer your question? Well, yes, that absolutely answers my point, because it's not. Know you're debating staff now, Councillor Wegener. You just said. Councillor, you didn't pose I'll talk it as a question, so you've used your allotment of speaking to the amendment, and I will raise it when it becomes the amendment. Can I ask a question? I'll let Councillor Wegener have a question. SPEAKER_02_b 51:02.436
So, an STA is not consistent with rural activities. You said that. Why? You say. Brian Stockwell 51:16.556
Because you just made my argument because you said that. Gentle wing nuts, please, ask a question. It is a question. Yeah, it is a it's so, can you reword not part of the argument. Tom Wegener 51:29.540
Is an STA a rural activity. Patrick Murphy 51:33.460
No. No, it's not a rural activity. Thank you. It's an accommodation activity. Amelia Lorentson 51:42.764
Councillor Lorentson. Can I ask the same question I've asked about three times. Is the better way to go with this to refuse the notion in front of us, go back to the original, have a discussion about the original, and if the sentiment is to refuse the approval or the recommendation put by staff, allow Council planners to put reasons for refusal. I feel that we're going, the wrong way around. We're talking about process now, we've got an amendment before us. Okay, but that's my question and that'll help inform the decision. Brian Stockwell 52:20.712
Cancel with me. I will allow one more time. Think we've already addressed, but that would be an alternative way to address this issue. We could do that. As I said before, we could approve this motion to refuse and staff could refine it by Thursday night as well, but alternatively. Okay. Does anyone wish to talk to the amendment? So the amendment's just to remove the second granted refusal which related to rural activities. I the support amendment because consistent with staff advice it helps make the grounds for refusal more pertinent and defensible. Anyone else wish to speak? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilkie Phillips. Finzel, Lorentson and Stockwell. And those against? There's Councillor Wilson and Wegener. The illiterate of Councillors. Okay, the amendment that becomes passed now the motion. So Councillors, it's now time to talk to the motion. And the only person, I believe, I didn't make a record, was Councillor Wegener, who has spoken to the motion. Frank Wilkie 53:46.836
So we've got the amended, the change motion in front of us, Mr chairman? Brian Stockwell 53:54.116
That looks right to me with the renumbering, yes. Okay, I think that's all there in front of us now. Would anyone like to talk to the motion? No? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 54:44.140
I am to the motion and provided that what's in front of us will get tweaked before we come to the Ordinary Meeting, I'm happy to support Councillor Wegener's motion. I'm to start with the sentence I've already started using this term and one that I'm going to continue using. Community sentiment is the most valuable indicator of the potential impact of our decisions on the lives of our residents. As Councillors we've got a responsibility to not only listen to our residents but also to adhere to our community's position. Approving more short-term accommodation goes against the community's clear stance on this issue. The housing needs assessment study and the draft amendments to our plan reflect this sentiment as should our decision here today. We cannot, as Councillor Wegener said, amid a housing crisis support this application. We must prioritise affordable long-term housing. I also want to make reference that we can rely, in my opinion, on the Planning Act 2016, which allows us to deviate and rely on the discretionary powers conferred under section 63. Of order, Mr chairman. Frank Wilkie 56:03.334
Could I just ask that the speaker direct comments through you, not to staff. Amelia Lorentson 56:07.674
Oh, excuse me. Sorry. And I'd like to remind the Councillors we can exercise what's called discretionary powers under section 63 of the Planning Act 2016, because there is a planning need. We housing. We're in a housing crisis. And other relevant matters under section 45 and that recognises that community and social benefits outweigh the reasons for recommending approval for this application. Also, and in closing, it serves in the public interest to refuse this application, then approve it. So, I'm not going to support the application acknowledging that the applicant can still short-term lead his property for 60 days or a maximum of four days a year and can house host and potentially have some eco-cabins there. Brian Stockwell 57:18.711
Anyone else like to speak? Well, I'll speak. I'm going to start with saying that the planning logic that is in the staff report is quite supportable. But I've always been uneasy about this particular site. And when I. The fact that it is impact assessable, triggered by the size of the land being not an acceptable outcome, means we then one view the broader planning scheme. And I did allude to it before. In the planning scheme, we have got strategic outcomes for tourism, but we've certainly got other rural land and primary production. There's one asset you can't create any more of, and that's agricultural land. This site itself, while being small, is mapped as being having agricultural conservation value. But across the road, there's quite a sizable portion of land with good quality agricultural land. So, does a change from a resident living in a rural area, perhaps not practicing anything other than having a house cow or a horse, to constant changing temporary visitors have any likelihood? That the reverse amenity effect will have an adverse effect on any potential use of the ag land and to me the answer is probably yes. There's another part of this particular lot that also in my mind looking at it if I say this is in one of the most rural parts of the Shire. It's quite close to our northern boundary. It is within an area that is less rural lifestyle. It's large blocks, a lot of grazing and to me there probably is merit in putting more weight on the agriculture. Agricultural outcome versus the short-term outcome. And for that reason on this particular application I can support the motion put forward by Councillor Wegener as amended. Anyone else wish to speak? Tom Wegener 59:42.700
Oh Councillor Wegener would you like to close? Thank you I'll instead of making a hard argument at the sounds like things are going well so there's a I'll tell the story of the Murray river growers. And during the you know it there at Pomona market so they bring all the food down. Brian Stockwell 01:00:00.112
I'll remind you in closing you can only rebut or refer to matters of the debate that have already appeared. Nothing no, to nothing to say. I'd love to hear that story later. Yeah I'll tell you the story later. As much as I like your story. So you're happy to close? We yeah. Okay I'll put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. So we move on to item 5.2 which is mature change of use to develop an application for short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Road, Could we have an overview please? SPEAKER_05 01:00:43.392
So again this is a short-term accommodation in an existing dwelling house. Also triggered due to the lot size being under four hectares. So hence the impact assessment. So this lot is 3.16 hectares. There's no work proposed. Part of the application. So no new access or any building work to the dwelling. Is two bedroom and they're proposing to have a maximum of four people on site. SPEAKER_03_b 01:01:09.859
There is a fair bit of the site is mapped as biodiversity. There is no ag land mapped on this property. SPEAKER_05 01:01:18.115
The recommendation is for approval. Similarly, in terms of the coding principle, the planning staff believe it's too premature to take into consideration the current planning scheme amendments. There is standard conditions included in the recommendations. Thank Brian Stockwell 01:01:37.752
Thank you. Do we have a motion? Tom Wegener 01:01:41.731
I'd like to make an alternative motion to refuse this and it's the same motion as before. Brian Stockwell 01:01:49.207
So Councillor, we're going to use staying with the motion from the last item that you moved or the motion that was passed. Let's go with Okay, so we don't need to read that out again. We know what it is. So would you like to talk the motion? I'll second that's a good idea. Tom Wegener 01:02:08.043
This property is not an agricultural property, but it is still in the rural zone. And we are looking at creating rural pursuits, ecotourism. Those sorts of things where you have residents making a living on the land, which is the exact opposite of having STA residents And this property he actually has neighbours and the definition of a neighbour or a neighbourhood is neighbours come to your house, come next door or whatever the house is, and if it turns into an STA, it's no longer a neighbour. Neighbourhood. When you have strangers coming in and out of a property. It's no longer your neighbour. And we want to maintain a sense of a neighbourhood in our, even though it's a rural property. There's not a lot of neighbours. You still have neighbours. And they're there when you look at the map. So this is inconsistent once again with the Noosa Housing Strategy SPEAKER_02_b 01:03:13.594
Because you are replacing housing with STAs and it's inconsistent with the same strategic plan because it doesn't incorporate any sort of rural activity on it, which is if it doesn't have a rural pursuit element of the short-term accommodation then it is not consistent with the town plan. Brian Stockwell 01:03:47.774
Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this motion? Frank Wilkie 01:03:52.514
I think we're as did last, the matter Mr chairman, so I'll be supporting the motion. Brian Stockwell 01:03:59.374
Could I ask for figure 1 from the panel officers report to be brought up please. Thank you. It's actually a suboptimal image. Playing off the next one, you've got to have them. So I'm actually not supporting it because I don't believe it's grand or accurate. There's no way you can have a look at that block with the biodiversity overlaid all it. The rear of the site has riparian corridor. Is another site where the highest hikes and best bedding uses used of to aquaculture take place. At all. If you look there's a connection quite strongly through this site and over to the northeast end to a very large remnant. The site from a planning sense is best protected for its natural values. The site is not one that short-term that any of those blocks surrounding with an aquaculture empire but even if it was a fairly intense aquaculture would have an impact on this site because of the significant natural area buffer. To me, at Council, we're going to eventually try and make ecotourism. Well, this is kind of a short-term accommodation. The experience people have in it will be one akin to ecotourism. The fact that it hasn't built it into the application. It would need to be more than just providing it as a short-term organisation. So in this instance, I don't think those grounds stack up. There's a specific location that's mentioned in the overview. Going to have a look at it. It's not like the last application which was on mapped overlay of agricultural land. And while I still think the best outcome is to retain a house and to have short-term accommodations and ancillary use, I don't I think the grounds we put up for the last site will stack up. If this motion was to fall over, I have an alternative approach which was approving it as a temporary development permit for a period of three years at which time we could reconsider based on whether there'd be any impact on policies and things like that. Frank Wilkie 01:06:29.238
We could address that on Thursday night if you wish to. Question to the staff. Under the current planning settings. Should this application be refused, would the applicants could apply to have a home hosted accommodation here in cabbies? Correct. Yeah. So some sort of e-go tourism is still possible on the site consistent with the current planning scheme and also the amendments on the line. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:01.620
I'll speak really briefly to this. I think consistency in decision making is paramount and I think the decision to me for me today is are we in a housing crisis or not and if are the application in front of us. Brian Stockwell 01:07:30.165
Do you know who to speak? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Lorentson. Those against? So, okay. The motion has moved towards carried. We move on to item 5.3. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:54.510
I'd like to move and return that motion. Brian Stockwell 01:07:57.420
If we can have the overview of the document. Wait a minute. Yes, that's right. So we're looking at item 3. This is a move to account for use 22.094, develop an application for Childcare centre in 2018 we have the Deans stepping up to the plate to give us an overview. Nadine 01:08:17.734
Afternoon everyone. This is an application for Material Change of Use. This is the application that Georgie spoke to earlier this afternoon. Childcare centre for up to 96 children, 17 staff in a single storey building on as the non-provision of the 10-metre landscape setback. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:24.504
You very much. I'd like to move an alternate motion that Council note the report by the coordinator planning to the Planning & Environment Committee dated 11th of June 2024 regarding application number mcu22 MCU220094 0094 for Material Change of Use for a Childcare centre situated at 28 Eenie Creek Road Noosaville and re and request staff to bring forward a revised report to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting of 9th of July 2024 detailing conditions for approval we have a second for that Council bills okay I'm moving this alternate motion and to approve a child care application based on recognition of economic community and social benefits associated with the proposed development and I'm going to list my reasons Childcare centre is vital to our community offers essential services and employment opportunities that our residents and workforce desperately need. Establishing the centre will create jobs support the influx of professionals particularly with three new medical centres being built childcare centres also play crucial role in supporting women by enabling them to participate in the workforce. Access to reliable and affordable childcare allows women to go back to work, continue their careers and continue their education. This maximises the talent potential within the workforce, driving economic growth and innovation. Refusing this application because it does not provide the required 10 metre landscape buffer zone, a provision that was settled back in 2020, a decision that I asked this question at the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting, a decision that's not final and not binding, is not, in my opinion, a valid reason. Reducing this buffer zone to four metres will not compromise the Noosa character, nor will it detract from the business centre's visual appeal. The other grounds for refusal, in my opinion, are equally unconvincing. This proposal is not about creating something our community does not want. It's actually the opposite. It's about addressing the pressing needs of our community. The economic and social benefits of this childcare centre far outweigh the constraints of our current Planning Act 2016. We face a shortage of workers in the hospitality and retail sectors. Providing accessible childcare will attract and retain staff in these industries, directly contributing to the growth of the Noosa economy and improving our gross regional product. The proposal is planned to accommodate 96 children with the area of open spaces that have to be regulated to ensure a safe and conducive environment. This capacity is essential as 96 is the minimum number of children required to make the centre economically feasible. We heard this again at the Planning & Environment Committee. Necessary changes have been made to address this requirement ensuring the project's viability and sustainability. The planning scheme doesn't consider economic viability of a business but we as councillors should. We consider whether a business is economically viable because the long-term sustainability and prosperity of our community depend on the success of its local businesses. Economically viable businesses contribute to the local economy and provide employment opportunities. They attract further investment and they create a resilient local economy that can better withstand economic fluctuations. Last week we met with our business leaders in our Business Round Table and we spoke of diversification. Our Small Business Friendly Charter and growing our GRP. The development proposal aligns with our commitment to supporting small business, diversifying our economy and growing our GRP and yet more reasons to support this application. Councillor's refusing an essential service for our community based in my opinion on minor planning provisions does not outweigh these compelling reasons to approve it. I ask that we walk talk and demonstrate our commitment to our community and again approve this essential service in front of us. Question to staff. Frank Wilkie 01:14:26.243
Is it correctly zoned land in the mississippi that will allow this community to benefit from the economic, social, community and environmental benefits and jobs provided by a childcare centre? Yes, there is land directly to the north as the village makes you sign and a childcare centre is a consistent risk in that zone. So this community will not be denied economic, social, community benefits over a childcare centre if it was applied Amelia Lorentson 01:14:54.299
Can I ask, just following up from that, a couple of questions. How long did this application in front of us take from start to finish? Nadine 01:15:03.719
It took a fair while because the applicant a very good job. The we did advise the applicant along the way that we won't support all of it. There was a pre-launchment meeting that was undertaken with Council staff where they were advised that there was a requirement for a 10 metre landscape. It took a while for a response to the applicant to respond to the information request and during that response time there were considerable applicant again could begin indicating our happens. Concerns with the proposal so yeah and there was a public notification period in there as well. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:44.599
Thank you Nadine. So if this proposal is not supported how long will it be before we see a Childcare centre at Noosa Civic? There's land designed for it but how long would that be before that's actually realised? I don't know. I would have to develop that for someone else to. Thank you. So if this application was supported how long before we would realistically see this up and running. Nadine 01:16:13.601
That's something you'd have to talk to the developer, noting that the approval lasts for six years. They might not do anything construct it in five years' time. I don't know. Frank Wilkie 01:16:23.980
Would it be fair to say that if the applicant goes to engage with staff or. On the correct me zone site, it's a process that might take a lot less time and-- process would take-- it would be an impact assessment application very generally, and a consistent zone could take anything around six months. I I've also heard that-- could you explain the weight of the system? Of this report-- is it a court-ordered outcome of maybe a 10-metre landscape buffer? If you could put that in context, please. Patrick Murphy 01:16:58.110
So the reconfiguration, which was lodged in 2018 and then refused by Council and settled on appeal, that condition was applied as part of the settlement agreement between the parties, and the purpose was to create the park-like setting. I think, just to go back a bit, it's important to clarify that under the draft scheme amendments, this site is actually. The childcare centre will be a consistent use on this site, so the scheme will change. There is a. Proviso that the lot area be under 4,000 square metres for it to be code assessable. This lot is over so in the new scheme it would be a consistent impact assessable application. I think it's important that transparency. Nadine 01:17:52.795
To note on that, there's also a requirement in the draft amendments for 10-metre landscape. We've talked about that Frank Wilkie 01:17:59.775
So if there was able to be a 10-metre landscape buffer retained, looking ahead the planning scheme is going, would that be a desirable outcome Patrick Murphy 01:18:13.184
Or a desirable outcome? It would be And with the land undeveloped to the north, there is an availability to amend lot boundaries to increase the area. That might be used by the Brian Stockwell 01:18:28.650
So all of this specific issue, because in the we had reference to the infrastructure plan, my understanding is that a scheme requirement for a landscape buffer does not trigger the definition of infrastructure like an open space commission would, is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:18:54.108
Yes, so landscaping is not infrastructure. The agreement and the position has been reported by the applicant. That is um our inability to apply the 10 metre buffer has been reviewed by our lawyers and the advice is that it is a reasonable condition for a range of factors. I'm not sure I've really necessarily. Brian Stockwell 01:19:19.578
No, no, that was my key point was it's not the infrastructure, they may not, yeah, and previous agreements with respect to be relevant to this application. Patrick Murphy 01:19:32.331
The previous agreement, the previous infrastructure agreement at delta referred to open space, which is the difference between open space and landscape but there's another element, there's many other elements. Jessica Phillips 01:19:44.351
Sure. Other questions? Thank you. In the you to say multi-use zone um is there a lot large enough to facilitate same size child care Nadine 01:19:57.524
These are there's a large one the ones in the north so yes there is Patrick Murphy 01:20:01.304
Thank you it's approximately four hectares in areas um we have an application over currently for a range of users um generally aligned with the pain schemes you take with the site they haven't incorporated a whole case in that current application they haven't okay well the point being the area of mississippi you know a very large size that if they was ready to do what they were composing Nadine 01:20:30.876
Yes figure nine of the report shows the um I'm not sure what page that's on shows the initial application that's been lodged uh it's in actually it's in the report and you can go and see the nine yeah i'm sorry I didn't want it is her Frank Wilkie 01:21:15.900
Is there anyone else's system very slow? Not sure about that. I'm not sure Nadine 01:21:46.807
He's through to one. It's just about 3.2. All that does is give you, oh no you've gone into missed screens. Brian Stockwell 01:22:00.807
So while we're doing that we won't put any more pressure. We can come back to that because it's just a drive-in. SPEAKER_05 01:22:07.870
I'm just looking at the plans, so much of the area was taken up by the parking spaces. Is there any, would you talk through the one share of children's and staff's parking or are there any other alternatives? Nadine 01:22:33.222
We could accommodate drop-off and pickup so that a lot that's parking company is actually below, it's under the planning scheme requirements. Our traffic consultant, we have an external traffic consultant and he's reviewed it and he considers that site reduction in numbers is appropriate for the use as proposed. Yes, childcare centres have a pitch and they turn over quickly. So this is actually a couple of spaces short. So I don't think we're disappointed with this, but it Patrick Murphy 01:22:53.650
Does have a number of random spaces which reduces the amount of area required for car parking and that would be in recognition of that staff using those and that quick use of the car park has been dropping off. So in many circumstances. We wouldn't accept so much in terms of access, but with these choices, we recommend Amelia Lorentson 01:23:14.378
In terms of number of car parks, it's three. Is that correct? They've gone from 27 car parks and the recommendation's 30. So it is minor, yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:23:25.300
Okay, so we have the overall layout there, and point you were making to that particular diagram. Nadine 01:23:33.164
So this is our subject lot here, and these ones are included in the business zone, and this is the lot. To the south, which is the village mix-use zone. So this is the current application we've got in. We have been in discussions talking about this application. We're in information request, or further advice is on this one. This area down here we've got no application over and that's also part of the village mix-use zone. So there is a site that has got no no application over it and is available for development. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:15.740
Okay do we have any other questions? Yep I've got a couple more questions. There was a representation that was made in the deputation in terms of offerings that this Childcare centre in a park-like environment is a different offering to a child care in the designated area can you talk to that please Nadine? Nadine 01:24:38.414
I can only interpret what heard my understanding is if they put it in the current application the comment was that it would be in an upstairs situation if we go if we can go back to that this concept we've currently got in you can dode's offices up the top car parking on this application next door I believe Georgie was talking there would be a centre that would put it on the upper level not a vacant area of land Amelia Lorentson 01:25:10.796
I ask would be centre support more than one childcare centre and I'm sort of trying to gauge in terms of workers ' professions. Staff people living like this is a city how many people are anticipated to be working and living in this precinct? Nadine 01:25:37.050
Again, there is, we're not, are supportive of the childcare centre in the Civic area we've just got some concerns with the design and the layout of this one it's more along those lines so we support a childcare centre in this area in this for the Civic Amelia Lorentson 01:25:55.592
So I've tracking application and in terms of needs and competing interests with other day childcare centres it seems that this doesn't conflict or compete with these existing childcare centres is there a need for more centres? Nadine 01:26:15.038
Care centres? I haven't gone into that. As I said, it's in a in the other zones it's a consistent use and noting that the draft amendments also flag that this use would be consistent in the future there is a provision for a childcare centre to be established in the Noosa Civic area so yes I'm assuming that there is a need for an additional centre and under the current zoning. Amelia Lorentson 01:26:44.099
For a toque centre be situated in the village and just one more question following up on that pressures from you know all the conversation with our drafts that South East Queensland regional plan so there is an expectation that we are going we will be somehow accommodating extra accommodation again was that a factor that was considered as part of the application? Patrick Murphy 01:27:11.282
I think we certainly considered it as a need for the Childcare centre. I think that's reflected through our planning scheme. I think the issue is that the applicant has chosen to put it on the part of the site that the scheme didn't support. Was-election advice in the pre-enrolment meeting that there was going to be an issue with the 10-metre setback, the applicant chose to proceed with this site, noting that there was significant area available for the. Development at that time. That's still available. They're proposing it as a mixed-use development but still have a large portion of area that could accommodate this development. So, you know, to go back to your point, certainly we recognise and would like to see a care centre developed within this area, but as long as it accords with the requirements in the scheme. Questions? Frank Wilkie 01:28:01.749
We had a deputation from the applicant earlier, and there was a range of points made. Are there any points of clarification that the campaign team would like to make regarding what was presented to the Councillors? Patrick Murphy 01:28:16.907
Just to reiterate that we have had legal advice which supports the inclusion of the provisions. The this scheme game and the condition that would require a 10 minute setback. There was a comment made that the purpose of the 10 minute setback was to almost imply some screening in the interim. It was certainly more than that. It was about the character that were trying to create when this site was actually created. Developed that the vegetated outcomes were the dominant form and not the built form. So I'm probably disagreeing with that at the moment. Richard MacGillivray 01:28:50.937
And the other comment I would make is obviously this is the first application over three will see that front onto the road. So any decision made on this application regarding the vegetated buffer is likely to follow a similar suit for those other allotments, noting that once a precedent is set for what that buffer looks like it would be difficult for Council to then require a high standard on those other development sites as well. Jessica Phillips 01:29:22.183
Just a question because I got a little lost when there was a mention of upstairs. So did you mention that there's going to be a child, you're suggesting a childcare care upstairs. I said I can only give you my interpretation of Nadine 01:29:35.933
What was said in the deputation. So I believe the comment was made that there was to be a childcare centre put on the village mixed-use lot. Sorry, portion of the site, that it would be upstairs and not in a park-like setting. So this is a, it's a two-storey development, at the moment there's a proposal for a cinema and some sort of indoor entertainment. I'm assuming the comment was to be made that they would put it in an upper level and it wouldn't have a park-like setting. That's my interpretation of what was said. We can seek some clarification if you require on that. Jessica Phillips 01:30:18.093
A building. We want our young people out in the Sunshine. That's right and that's what we're saying. There is that portion above the three lots that is not at the moment the subject of an application and there could be the provision of a Childcare centre in that location. It doesn't necessarily to go into the built form. And that, is that what, the right three on there? Sorry, mix that you're speaking of. SPEAKER_12_b 01:30:42.664
No, so I'm talking about, so the current development application that we're in is over and there's this area here, which doesn't have any proposal for development on it. We're dealing, this is our subject lot here. What size is the lot above that then? That's about four, it's probably about eight. Could be, that's a total, projection. Jessica Phillips 01:31:11.810
It could be 60 miles and okay. Brian Stockwell 01:31:14.490
Cancel it, we'll it will be. Frank Wilkie 01:31:15.510
I'll speak to the look, I cannot support this motion because Noosa has had a great history and reputation for fulfilling its economic, social, community needs, and community needs in a responsible and planned and coordinated way in accordance with the Noosa planning scheme. Of course, we need a childcare centre, but there is land adjacent to it which is more appropriately zoned. And also, because we place, in Noosa we place a high value on the natural look and feel and vegetative buffers, especially ones that are a result of court order mediation, are an integral part of that. I would like to see a childcare in manusa civic. City. Of course we all want the economic, social and community benefits, but there is land where that can occur and we can keep the vegetative buffer. I would be open to any compromise where the 10 metre vegetative buffer could be retained, given that where the planning scheme is heading. But for the purpose, where we are exactly right here and now, I can't support this motion that's before us. With the information before me. Brian Stockwell 01:32:31.995
Can I read? Sorry, just, anyone else wish to speak? No? Have you got a question, Amelia Lorentson 01:32:38.715
Councillor Lorentson? Patrick and Nadine, have we spoken to applicant and asked if they were, well, firstly, whether Council is negotiable on a 10-metre buffer zone and whether they're negotiable on their 4 Is there opportunity to negotiate that? And if so, can we throw the question to the applicant before the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday? SPEAKER_12_b 01:33:06.266
I have spoken many times to, during the process we were very clear in terms of the requirement for a 10-metre landscape buffer and yes, I spoke to the applicant last week and asked if they would be prepared to amend the application or setback and they indicated no, they believe they've achieved park-like setting that's required and a good development outcome. Can I speak to the motion? You may. Jessica Phillips 01:33:37.211
In support of Councillor Lorentson's motion because I believe I put my community hat on and if we were to ask around what's more important the 10-metre buffer or the extra traffic congestion driving from over at this business precinct to the nearest vacancy of childcare facilities is across the other side of the Shire and so as a mum of young kids and looking at this from that perspective I would like to support that this is a much-needed facility in this area and so I believe that supporting it I'm supporting working parents employed in the area and also enhancing the overall functionality and appeal of the precinct. Brian Stockwell 01:34:28.468
Else? Well I'll speak to it. Councils it is a very unusual situation and while we just had the argument about why not to apply the coding principle to the short-term, this is different. Councils considered this I considered this site and put out to the public its view that it's suitable for a Childcare centre. So we have at the moment a Council position that says the use is suited. So it's not that we need to debate the Childcare centre. Quality of development that has been set out for this site for many years. The fact that the Noosa Business Centre can't be seen from Hofmann Drive, I mean Walter Hay Drive and from any creek ride a result of exactly the same condition. It's about establishing standards to achieve an outcome that, as was said by staff, where the experience when you're driving through here is one of the natural environment, not the built form. That's the key issue, ground for refusal. And thing we've got to consider. This wasn't just a condition on a reconfiguration of the lot. It is a proposed condition of the draft scheme that this Council has out in front of the public at this very moment. To vote against what is currently out for public consultation is putting up the white flag before you've raised it full high. So for me, I well, I'll close. Anyone else want to speak? Yep, you may close. I'm just going to run through some of the benefits. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:26.360
The child care intends to service young working families within the immediate area. It will complement the existing future activities that will be contained in the development. It will contribute to the functionality of the whole business centre. It will provide additional employment opportunities. Employees of the centre and the existing Noosa Civic centre convenient child care services. There's a medical centre that's been approved. There's two others that have been approved and that's going to provide them with well-located and The building is architecturally designed and has a built form that complements the strong character of Noosa with significant landscaping of four metres. Are there are no adverse impacts on the amenity of nearby residential neighbourhoods given the distances away and that the building provides screening from outdoor play. The site is clear from any significant environment features. And just on a simple basis, working mums need it. Young families need it. They need it now, not in six years, not in ten years, approving this application is not just about accommodating deviations of the planning scheme. I respect about recognising the broader impact and benefits that a childcare centre brings to our community now. So I urge everyone to consider these factors and make a decision that aligns with our goals of sustainable development and community well-being Brian Stockwell 01:38:18.447
I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. Those against? That's Councillor Wilson. Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell. Do we have an alternate motion? I'll move the staff recommendation. A seconder for that? Frank Wilkie 01:38:42.850
Councillor Wilkie moves the look, as I said before, the Noosa community is renowned for meeting all its social, economic and community needs in an environmentally responsible way, according to the planning scheme, a planned way that looks to the future, that respects especially court-ordered mediated settlements about vegetated buffers, the vegetated buffer around the largest commercial development in Noosa which is the Noosa Civic site is essential to not negatively impacting on the amenity that we all enjoy and so for the reasons that we've we heard from staff and the last debate I'm supporting the refusal of this application and also the fact that there the childcare centre can be accommodated on very land that's very close by it's not as if it's not built here it might won't be built anyway anywhere yeah so I support this motion other people wish to speak Nicola Wilson 01:39:57.686
Yeah that was a very difficult one I do support having a childcare centre in the area and it's been demonstrated that there's land surrounding this site that could be used to ensure that the site is big enough to support the business I don't believe that we can take into account launch or viability so if the business needs there to be 96 children and I totally understand the reasons of how that's actually allocated across the indoor centre then need to find a site that's big enough to achieve that. Brian Stockwell 01:40:37.035
You. Mr. Speaker, I have a question actually. In the village mix, as you say, the current heightened stories and is that proposed? Am I right is that going to be the behind this was one of the areas that's currently being advertised as potential for an incentive to go to an extra story? I haven't. Okay, I'm going to make the statement then, I'll talk to it. I'll have to go back to you on that. My belief is that this is one of the areas we immediately behind here where we are in envisaged. Visiting there may be a bonus for an additional story for affordable housing. I might be wrong. But the principle still is that the zone behind may have much bigger and bulkier building. So when we're looking at the vista from the road we're not just what this is and I agree the high quality design element of the childcare centre. Role of that buffer to give you an overall impression of the site and is it one of a park like setting or large bulky building. So to me it's really important to set the standards up front. I do think there is some wiggle room on this site. We've been told that the fire retention basin can only go in that site. It's got to drive over your side. So yes, it's logical to flexible in that regard. But there is also an option to be more flexible in the other design. We see at the moment that we've got four metres rather than ten going to lawn. I don't know childcare safety rules, but I do know there's a large movement of exposing children to nature-based play. Is there a compromise there that ten metres could include some element of nature-based play? I do believe that the requirement is about establishing vegetation in that buffer similar to what was there previously to get that vision. Visual so to me it is about standing firm on the quality of development. I have no argument with the need argument. It is one that can generate special consideration but at this stage I don't think that a proposal of a certain size which is proven to be in excess of what that particular lot can sustain within the scheme is a good enough argument to approve it. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:43:08.576
Thank you. I'd like to firstly thank all the Councillors and what they've put to the table today. It's a really challenging process. Decision before us. And all of us support from what I heard around the table, the community use, the benefit to the community, especially families that will rely on childcare centres as one of the options to provide care for children as they participate in employment to support their economic responsibilities. And we also acknowledge the very difficult economic times that we are experiencing. Given the court order- mediation that has taken place and the consistency and in support of the plan and also economically looking after our own public purse to make sure that we are making good decisions economically as well. Feel that I have to agree with the recommendation from the staff but then by no means limits my support of a Childcare centre now and into the future. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:44:21.272
Oh all good? I'll put the motion to a vote. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell and those opposed to the motion is Councillor Phillips and Councillor Lorentson. We're going to have a five-minute break. Have an issue to Resolve before the league starts. Okay. Thank you. Break. Break. Brian Stockwell 01:57:57.600
We're all good. Okay. We resumed the meeting and we're on item 5-4, which is a further report on MCU 210110, application for material change for use, resort complex and ancillary bar, food and drink, outdoor sports and recreation and club, minor extension clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads. And I believe we have a conflict of interest declaration to be made. Karen Finzel 01:58:24.092
As we do. Thank you, Mr Chair. I, Councillor 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 Parkridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs hotel development. Since then, the matter has changed, given Altum Property Group has withdrawn the submission. Leigh McCready, who is associated Elton was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Lee and therefore, I will choose to remain however, I will respect the decision of the meeting room on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you, Mr Chair. Do we have any questions of Councillor Finzel? Brian Stockwell 01:59:27.619
Either of the options which one is to allow Councillor Finzel to stay and participate or to ask her to leave. I move that she can stay. Okay, so it's moved. Option A there is a move by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Phillips. Do you wish to talk to the matter? No. Does anyone else? I put the motion. All those in favour? That's unanimous and Councillor Finzel did not vote. So this matter I'll refer to the CEO. Can you give us an update on this matter please? Or the Director. I'm going to pass over to the Director. Richard MacGillivray 02:00:08.871
Thank you Councillors. So a further report has been prepared for the General Committee. Applicant has put forward a request for a deferral decision of on this particular application. The applicant has committed to undertake some further actions including investigation and consideration of potential further changes to the proposal. In light of the proposed reasons for refusals as put forward in the General Committee report for this proposal of last year and to undertake further community engagement and consultation with other relevant stakeholders as part of this. So they've requested deferral of the decision to a future meeting date. Brian Stockwell 02:00:47.230
Thank you. And is, should we be agreeable to that? The recommendation is on the screen. Would someone like to do that or would you like me to Amelia Lorentson 02:00:56.866
Move it? I'm happy to move it. That Council note the further report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding application MCU 21/0110 for a development permit for a Material Change of Use, resort complex and ancillary bar, Food & Drink Outlet, outdoor sport and recreation and club minor extension to existing clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads and defer this matter to future meeting round as the applicant has requested to extend the decision-making period pursuant to section 22 of the development assessment rules. Seconded by Councillor Finzel, do you wish to talk to them? The motion? Yeah, I'll say something just really briefly. I hope the applicant is genuine in their commitment to working collaboratively with the community, Unitywater and the Council to address the concerns that were raised as grounds for refusal. I also hope that our community, Unitywater, will also genuinely commit to working with the applicant and I hope we can engage in meaningful negotiations to reach a mutually beneficial outcome rather than resorting to court proceedings. Does anyone else wish to talk to them? I presume you don't want to close, Councillor Lorentson? Yeah, I will because I've left out a sentence. I want to actually also say that a new hotel Noosa is desired, and it is needed, but it has to be built so that it does not negatively impact on the lives of our residents and it's meets community expectations and values. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:02:55.489
I'm not quite sure if you have. Were rebutting any of your opening remarks. I'll take a vote on that matter. That's carried unanimously. Okay, our next item is a report directed to the general committee on the Yurol Ringtail conservation project. And I would like to acknowledge some people who have been heavily involved in this project for many years. Michael gloster from the Noosa Parks Association. Now. Ex-CEO who carried on the role with the transition committee, Brett DeChastel. We have ex-Mayor Noel clayford, ex-Mayor Tony wellington and extraordinaire of landcare, Phil Moran. And we've got a member of the force of state, I'm not quite sure what he's. And I hand over to you. Kim Rawlings 02:03:50.725
Thanks Councillors. I feel very privileged to be at your table for this very significant report and milestone as the report outlines. You know, probably the most significant project. Environmental in Noosa for the last 20 years. I'm not going to steal brett's thunder, but I do want to welcome Brett DeChastel to the table. Was the author of the attached report. Brett also former CEO and was instrumental in steering this project through its course, navigating the partnerships holding everyone together to achieve an it. Incredibly significant goal. Outcome and I also would like to acknowledge the very significant people in the room, Noel, Michael, Tony and Phil who all played different but equally significant roles in this incredible project. So Brett will actually summarise the attached report and then open Brett De Chastel 02:04:51.110
Hopefully not a hard questions, it's funny to be sitting in the Chair again after all these years. Yeah, a bit like Kim, I just want to I guess acknowledge this is a milestone in the project. The transition committee has finished after five or six years of operation, but milestones is always good to reflect and I do want to acknowledge, as Kim said, the great work undertaken by Noosa Parks Association in kicking off this project many years ago. From a concept stage and also pulling together all the stakeholders in one room and doing all the homework on that, so we wouldn't have got to where we are today without that input. This project, unlike many Council projects, is a really long term goal. Too often we do projects of in 12 months or two years or three years. This has been going for probably six or seven years now. The MOU was done with the State government back in 2017, just before the State election, which got all the parties on the same page about what they were trying to achieve, and that converted contracts that were drawn up in 2018 and been worked through since that time. So, the good news is that all those contracts have been honoured, all the timeframes have been met, all the payments have been made, all the tenure issues have been worked through, pretty significant. Project, we use the transition committee, we've got the final report from which has input from all the transition committee members to highlight, tell a story really about why project has been successful, what it's achieved, how the transition committee worked, the problems it was dealing with trying to solve and also about some of the outcomes, so pretty impressive piece of work and I think I've said recently, as you can tell I've been around a I've lost a bit of hair over the years but this is probably one of the most significant projects I've worked on in local government and gives me a great sense of personal pride. So the current state of play is that just over a thousand hectares this area has already been park and the final tranche which is about 1,300 just under 1,400 hectares is currently on being tabled in parliament as of this week and we'll be going to national park probably early August that's the last step in that process so we'll end up with an additional 2,400 hectares of national park which stretches from to use this term describe it wife and I'd be going down McKinnon Drive right and here hit the t TN-intersection section and to turn right to go to Boreen Point from that corner big sway right through the middle it's a really significant piece of land. The other good part about this project I guess is that with many of the environmental acquisitions the Council contributed to over the years we're trying to preserve existing good parts of the land. What this does if you like is push back a bit and say look we've got some forestry areas and the forestry company HQ plantations were outstanding to deal with. They were really pragmatic as was the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries through the forestry guys there was how do we recognise that there's some really valuable timber resources that they have planted both pine and hardwood how can we take that off and enable them to have their commercial returns on what has been planted it's like a crop and then how do we have a processing place to regenerate that land over time. Back into national park status so the ability to do that's been a really tricky project with so many different stakeholders but this project has been characterised by a very high level of trust between all the parties really good working relationships established from the transition committee and ultimately you know achieved some great outcomes I mean already there's been a hundred and thirty one thousand plantings in this area with another hundred and eighty thousand to come in the next three to four years and that's been funded through greenfleet who into the project in 2021 together with the Kabi Kabi People looking at how they can get carbon offsets and generate some more funding to be able to put into replanting so it's been a great project and in the report we've prepared it I guess so that other communities and organisations can have a look and say well why was this project successful what was the things that made it successful and it was about the scale the regional scale that regional connectivity getting value for money in terms of cost of the acquisition but also the ability to build common grounds for people to have really good strong working relationships even though coming from different areas you had environment groups in the room with house and plantation companies and three different government departments and don't necessarily always see eye to and just get them together to bring on new partners through the project as well it's been a great result and as I said this report to the Council really highlights this milestone where the transition committee's role is finished with our last meeting to present this report to Council what happens now is the final parcel of land goes to the national park and there's still some planning to happen over the next three or so years funded by greenfleet but the amount of that's been done I just want to draw council's attention to Council staff over the years have also made big contribution Peter Milne and Dave Burrows some of our environmental staff who've tramped every square metre of this land and given a lot of good advice and like all of us pleasantly surprised about the amount of natural regrowth that's occurred. So I hope you'll take any hopefully easy questions in terms of the project. Brian Stockwell 02:10:52.556
Does anyone have questions? Frank Wilkie 02:10:54.396
Greg, can you talk about some of the uses of this land? It's going to national park, but there are trails through there. Can you just speak to some of the current and potential future uses, Brett De Chastel 02:11:06.776
The national uses? Yeah, obviously like any national park there will probably be a management plan. So we've got one being developed in the north, one it's for the national Noosa park, national there will be the need for QPWS to develop a management plan for this area. I'm sure Council are hoping for it at that stage. As you know there's already quite lot of tracks and trails through this area and I actually think there's more opportunities for tracks and trails here probably because there's a lot of internal access roads and trails and tracks that are already there from logging roads so you can do something really good with that area and certainly QPFUS have been very open with Council previously to look at and have it promoted to grant trials. Their and I know at that the at the moment they're working on promoter to lake of Dolan trail, people are working on that at the moment. So yeah it's a great opportunity to continue to be available to the community for public access for that recreation, particularly retired CEOs who enjoy making their own money. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:12:10.251
Other questions? Amelia Lorentson 02:12:11.631
Hey Brett, so I think it was 2021 when the Kabi Kabi People and collaborated with greenfleet and Noosa Landcare. I just want to sort of understand what specific types of training and employment opportunities are envisaged for the Kabi people through this collaboration? SPEAKER_09 02:12:32.895
Yes, so the Council isn't a party to that agreement. It's separate agreement done as an indigenous land use agreement between greenfleet and Kabi Kabi. They have arrangements under that. I'm generally aware of it, but it's not a commercial arrangement visit there's provisions in there that briefly through their contractor, land landcare, care who are doing the planning, will undertake cultural awareness training, they'll undertake cultural assessments of the site before planning is undertaken, and they'll look to employ young Kabi Kabi staff and train them up in terms of landcare activities and those types of things. Brian Stockwell 02:13:12.491
Cool. Thank you. Any others? Would someone like to move a motion? I'll move the motion. Okay. A staff recommendation. And seconded by Councillor Finzel. Frank Wilkie 02:13:25.727
Oh look, all I can do is really congratulate and thank the people that were. Responsible for bringing this forward-thinking legacy project forward. They are in the room here, identifying the opportunity and creating the relationships and state government departments. I'm here, Tony, for leading us through the initial stages of that. Noel, Mayor for being there, always. Phil Moran for his work with land care and rehabilitating the site. You, Brett, well, everyone, especially for negotiating a complicated web of relationships at a high level between HQ plantations and a multitude of state government departments and Noosa councils. It's rare to see a project of this scope and complexity get up. The beneficiaries are the broader community. Everyone involved is pretty much done on a voluntary basis and it's the benefit. Greater good. It's immensely satisfying to have played a small part as Councillors, it's come before us and we've noted the report and supported it, the project and I can only imagine how proud you all feel at bringing this to fruition and again please accept congratulations on thanks on behalf of this Council for everything we've done for this community and future generations Amelia Lorentson 02:15:01.342
Um can I just speak to just one part of and you know I wasn't involved in the whole process um but I note in the report um and I made a note of it that there was a risk um a risk for both Council and npa um that paying that may not have eventuated um and that took a little bit of ingenuity and um just sheer guts um and again great example of collaboration and calculated risk um and understanding the return was you know high risk but high return um and Brett I'm going to throw this as a question rather than trying to explain can you explain um what happened um in terms of you know the money being held in a trust um I'll leave that for explanation for you so one of SPEAKER_09 02:15:59.485
The things was that this essentially agreement was that state government Council and Brett De Chastel 02:16:13.529
Plantations wanted their money up front which is three and a half million dollars but of course that then needed for us to take part to say well how do we know if this land is going to be great in the national park in the future and there's a legal provisions called federating discretion whereby it is impossible to contractually bind a minister of the crown to exercise the discretion at some stage in the future you can't do that so we had to find a way to work through how to give us some protection in case they change government and if they change their mind went the project will off run the rails we would secure our money back if the land didn't become international park other words we didn't get what we were paying for and we came up with an arrangement with the State and they still hold three and a half million dollars out funding in a trust account in division Brisbane. That can only get paid out to the State they can only draw down on that once that final tranche of land in August goes into national park so that's when they get their funding so we've held that secure if for any reason it goes off the rails and that land doesn't go to the national park actually we get that money back. So it was a way of doing that and the really good kicker is that we put a provision in the agreement that the there is interest paying on that as well so that at the conclusion when that money is taken out any interest will be allocated by state government to koala rated projects in the Noosa Shire area. We don't know how much that's going to be yet. My calculations is probably somewhere around $150,000 to $200,000 will come out as a side benefit in the range. SPEAKER_05 02:17:56.560
Win well. Tom Wegener 02:18:01.300
Can't do it like that. Well, carrying on from that, well, first I want to thank you for this incredible achievement, and it's something that we probably will take for granted very quickly, but we never should. My question is, the institutional memory and the institutional learnings from what you've done, I'm hoping that they're not lost on us and we can continue that sort of brave. Action, you know, you're looking at a huge problem and saying, what can we do? Let's fix this. Do you have any advice for us Council here on how we can maintain and uphold your standards, ability, what is the right word, paradigm, which you've done? SPEAKER_09 02:18:56.755
Be brave, be bold, in a nutshell. It's about taking calculated risks. I remember I was a CEO up at demalgamation, amalgamation, we had a series of principles we used around 2014. One of them was be brave but not stupid. So the same thing with this is that you've got to take a risk but don't be silly about it. Calculate a risk, work out how you can ameliorate that risk as much as you can so you can't be risk immune but very sensible about how you take it. Amelia Lorentson 02:19:30.303
Be brave, not stupid. Remember that I'll quote you on that great Karen Finzel 02:19:39.966
I yeah, I'd just like to reiterate be brave, not stupid. I think it's a real benefit back to our whole community. At the time I wasn't involved in politics but a long-term resident in the hinterland and I remember going to the meetings the community consultation because there was some concern about like what did this really mean what was the impact and it's fantastic to be here today and be part of that and also noting that today it's been announced that the Kabi CARBI people piece have been successful and recognised formally by the Federal court as the native title holders of land and water on Queensland's Sunshine Coast so I think that pretty amazing that we're here today talking about the benefits of the project here and then where we sit in parallel in history today so I think that's quite significant thank you for your courage and your boldness to go forward. Thank you, everyone. Brian Stockwell 02:20:51.410
It's actually is fairly historic moment in when you read the report you get a sense of the scale and diversity activity. And many too people few understand appreciate the living in Noosa. Many people understand the history. Of new too few people understand that what we enjoy as a lifestyle is underpinned. Largely by the ability of small group of people with incredible strategic foresight who have the tenacity, the commitment, high level advocacy skills that over the decades have continued to add. Our natural to our natural area of statement state in of a protected protection. Form in a way that makes Noosa Different by Nature. It is true that the people sitting in our audience have spent decades achieving an outcome which we all enjoy. And it's not just all about being green. When we did a very detailed look at the national wellbeing survey in the 2016 and 2020 Council, we got a lot of our residents participating. The Noosa level of health and wellbeing was significantly above the national and the State average. And number of the key criteria that we scored really well on was the sense of place linked to nature. And is no doubt, it's not just the a good looking older people who do mountain biking that will enjoy this, it'll be the bush walkers, the bird watchers. People who just feel at home as they drive past. And to me, in an era, you know, when people think advocacy is about creating nonsense social media storms, they should pull back, look at what they want to achieve and work out how they're going to achieve it in the next 10 years because this one is a very long term agenda. I had have mentioned before when I used to run this a decade ago with university students identifying the key bit of the regional biodiversity corridors missing, about 90 of the students in first year university would identify this particular tract. So it is a major achievement from biodiversity perspective, it prepares us for migration of species. It's recreational and enjoyment nature based activity and health and wellbeing. And it wouldn't have been possible without very bold decisions in Council, but there's some other, quite a few hundred other key players. It was a dollar-for-dollar deal in terms of Council putting in what Noosa parks put in. And Noosa parks wouldn't have the extraordinary amount of money that they put into this if they didn't have hundreds of volunteers working at the info centre down at the national park. So it's all those people who come here to live or were born here who have the commitment to go and give their volunteers hours to generate funds that then builds a better place for the next generation and we have to acknowledge those. It's also a great opportunity for research and we've already seen the use of drone technology to identify koalas. In fact a lot more koalas in this tract than we thought and also probably getting an idea that maybe some of the current policy settings for koalas might not be quite right because there's more often in the regrowth rather than in the remnants so do we have sufficient planning provisions to cover the regrowth. The only thing I'd like to finish up, it is a bit full circle, there's someone else sitting in this room, the Director Community Services who in the 1980s was walking down the Yurol Forest Drive with me in one of our legendary protests. To try and stop this being business. Cleared clean for the pine plantation trees. In the first place. And yeah, being old enough now, over 30 years later, to see it return to the national park is a great achievement, so well done. I will put the motion. Can I just finish? You, move the motion so you certainly can. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:24:51.939
Look, I just want to finish by putting this into, the scale of this project into some perspective for anyone who may be watching. The Noosa Heads section of the national park. To Main Beach, that we know as, most people know as Noosa National Park, is roughly 240 hectares in size. This parcel that we're talking about today is 10 times that size of 2,400 hectares, which means that there's a continuous link between the Noosa Heads section, tawantin Tewantin, forest, euro. Ring tile, and the kuala national park now. It's an amazing achievement. As I said before, it was done in a voluntary capacity. We did it for the broader community and future generations. That's why you are respected elders. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:25:38.043
Now we'll put the motion. Those in favour? And that's carried, denounced. Well done. Thank you very much. SPEAKER_04 02:25:45.442
Good to see you all again. The answer to those two questions. Well done, boys. Frank Wilkie 02:25:55.462
I will just adjourn briefly to see you out there. See you, Matt. Brian Stockwell 02:25:59.942
Yeah, we'll just. See you later. We'll just let the carriage. Thank you. So, the next item, 6.2, is the draft Shark Control Program, recommended by the alright, thank you. David 02:26:51.727
David, do you want to give the overview? Yeah, for sure. I'll give a quick overview of the reports. Obviously, there was a Council workshop that was held a couple of weeks ago yeah now, so you do have a favourite background so the shottencock control program and council's involvement to date and where we see us moving forward with the program as Council. But basically, the objectives of this report is to allow Council to develop a policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program. It's also important for Council to consider how much we want to be involved in the program, so there's a huge opportunity for Council to support that in terms of SharkSmart programs. We've done a little bit of that work already with the department, and I also see Council as a key opportunity here to represent the community's views on the DAF Shark Control Program as well. It should be noted that and the associated Queensland shark management plan has the objectives of moving towards technological advances in the shark program to reduce potential bycatch concerns that community members have with the program. The other thing to note too is that Council does actually hold some responsibilities in shark risk management outside of the DAF Shark Control Program as well and I'll touch on that a little later in the talk. Just to give a little bit of a context of the overall situation here, we're approaching the whale migration season and over the last few years it's quite common knowledge that can spark some community concerns regarding the risks of whale entanglement and other species entanglement fishing gear. In context we have around 30,000 humpback whales that migrate past Noosa each year across the Queensland Shark Control Program which runs from the Tweed all the way up to north Queensland so there's some, I'm not 100% sure, but basically from Bundaberg south to the Tweed where we get the whales passing through there's on average less than six entanglements in total. Per year however we do often observe them off Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast borders and that has a lot to do with the track of the whales in relation to the continental shelf in Noosa Shire and Cooran. Today Council not held a policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program but as I mentioned earlier environmental services has actively supported that under their Queensland shark management plan in paving the way I guess for alternative solutions for you know to lower that bycatch potential of the program. Most notably last year environmental services and Noosa Biosphere supported a DAF SharkSmart program which was all about educating ocean users in particular surfers and tourism operators how to be a little bit more SharkSmart and responsible around our waterways and ocean beaches and that obviously paves the way to you know I guess harness education as a shark control measure. So following on from this information here obviously notice of motion was passed by Council on the 16th of May and that was to achieve the following outcomes a Council to adopt a polyquisition position on the Shark Control Program including the identification of all roles and responsibilities of Council under to increase advocacy and support to the State Shark Control Program and that's obviously with your objectives of moving towards yeah technical technological advances control technologies I guess. It was also noted that Council should look to increase the support to the State in the continuous evaluation of the technical technological advancements in the Shark Control Program to again further reduce that bycatch potential. Now that could be an expansion of drone trials or as I said SharkSmart community awareness programs. At the workshop, it was held with Councillors Councillors and the executive team a couple of weeks ago had program coordinators from the Shark Control Program come in and give a presentation on actual shark control methods how they what the set up of the equipment is of Noosa and how they're moving towards outcomes under the shark management plan is up for review in this year and following to next year we'll look at some of the outcomes that will come from that piece of work they also noted that the lead agency in terms of taking care of all trials and looking to what the future like looks that like looks is like is actually the shark Shark Control Program scientific advisory working group so that's a panel that sits alongside DAF and recommends these changes to the program as they review the results of the trials that have been undertaken for the past five years it nice. Should be noted that obviously Department of Agriculture and Fisheries staff are the lead agency in the Shark Control Program so Council does sit only in the positions of you know supporting areas of the program such as SharkSmart awareness programs and assisting DAF DAPH to carry out some of these trials on equipment and alternative gear to include in the Shark Control Program but we also do play obviously a really important part in representing the community's to DAF. It's not something that we've done in the past because we haven't had the policy position on the program and that's why we're here today I guess. As I noted earlier there are other shark risk areas that Council is responsible for outside of the DAF Shark Control Program. One is I guess our timely and effective response to whale stranding events so it's well documented that whale you know, carcass wild cock strandings or live strandings even on our beaches are almost always associated with large predatory sharks. Council does need to have the ability to respond to those events timely and efficiently to reduce that impact to swimmers potentially. The second area is also the consideration of dangerous marine animal advisory signage bull sharks in brackets in our Council managed canal systems. So following on from other councils moves over the last sort of five to ten years since there was some fatal attacks in canals Coast, which I'm sure everyone is aware of, there is opportunity for councils to consider doing an advisory signage investigation across our Council managed canal systems. So to the recommendations of the report. I'll read them out to detail. That Council, A, note the report by environmental services to the general committee meeting dated 17th of June regarding a recommended Council policy position. The DAF Shark Control Program. B, adopt the following policy position as: one, Council continues to support under the Queensland shark management plan with the vision of shark the shop. Shark Control Program transitioning to lower bycatch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to the Noosa LGA. Two, Council to continue to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support SharkSmart educational programs and alternative bite mitigation trials where appropriate. And then Council should note the other shark management responsibilities that I just explained, which include: one, marine animal stranding response, noting the. Trial requires resourcing for equipment, materials and staff training, and the use of contractors enable Council to effectively respond to stranding events. Two, consideration of a signage investigation. Relating to. Dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed Canal systems only. Noosa Waters effectively. I'll probably leave it there, workshop was there and report is in front of everyone, but more than happy Kim Rawlings 02:35:34.320
A minor issue, but in reference to when the report refers to ES, there is. An abbreviation that's environmental services. Our team. Just for clarification. And I think there's also a reference in there, thanks for pointing that out to one of the Councillors, to IS, which is our infrastructure services team. SPEAKER_05 02:35:53.533
Apologies, didn't he not expect books mention it. Of the team stands in there. Frank Wilkie 02:35:59.643
Dave, there's often questions about moving the sharpness during the whale migration season. Forgive me if I missed it when we had the I have presentation. A from DAF, but what are the reasons for them being reluctant to move the sharpness from their current position? Has it chosen a certain minimum distance offshore that they have to abide by? David 02:36:22.374
Yeah, for sure, so there's a few things. I guess there's two factors there. Total removal of nets, which is not what you're asking for. But the reason that's not done at this present time to my understanding is they obviously haven't undertaken the trials and found a proven for effective an alternative. Regarding the actual relocation of the nets, so either moving them inshore, offshore, to the site, whatever it might be. To minimise the chance of strainings. So my understanding is that it's obviously not an exact science. The nets are set in specific locations. For a number of factors. I have an email here actually from Councillor Amelia that DAF sent through actually responding to that query. There's a few points there, but in summary, they're set to certain water depths, you know, for issues like swimmer safety, so they can't be so close to the shore. They need to be in a certain depth so that breaking waves and storm events don't push them onto beach. They're also pro. That the equipment is targeting sharks. So it's also, what I understand, set in specific locations where they're more likely to catch bull sharks off the Noosa area. A few issues like that, but there is a list here that I can forward on to you if you want thank I'll add a bit more to so clear. I'll just get the. SPEAKER_05 02:37:41.236
Yes. Karen Finzel 02:37:41.696
Thank you. Firstly, I'd like to thank Councillor Lorentson for raising this at the previous meeting so that we could get to this position where we are today, and day, supportive. The around table. Just a question. With regards to this position, now gives what Council the opportunity to take it out for community engagement or consultation? Did I hear that right? David 02:38:05.183
No, that's my understanding. It's simply being able to, I guess, you yes, may you be able put it into better words, Kim, but. Kim Rawlings 02:38:15.319
So no, that's not, it's, what the officer's recommendation is that council's position is to continue to support DAF in the SHARP control management program and to take part in the, review of the Shark Management Plan, which will happen next year, DAF have advised us that they are continuing the current trials, they'll be evaluating their current trials, and once they've done evaluation of they're going to review the management plan. We'll have an opportunity for input to that process at that time, but it's a DAF-run process, it's not a Council-run process, so it's not something we go out to community consultation on. I'm not sure. Yeah, David 02:39:04.113
They definitely do, but I do see the opportunity to add to that where, you know, a lot of the first options for our local community is Council, so we're in a position to, I guess, help communicate those community concerns or, you or, know, you some people are in favour of nets, whatever might it be, to DAF DAR. In a formal way. It's a little bit difficult to do that if we don't have the policy position on the program, I think, and that clear, information that, you know, who manages it and where Council steps in, terms of supporting or trying to change things in the future. Karen Finzel 02:39:38.836
Okay, thank you. So just following on from that then, what would be the process if community want to engage and have their say? How is that going to work? David 02:39:48.536
I think where we would play the role, which we do with other activities, is that when DAF head out consultation on these yeah, things, that's an opportunity deshaun, for can you tell us Council to a little bit have that voice position more about and put that information out there to what's going on community in the and on in on DAF's the community behalf. And what's so we're the, going I guess, the mediator between DAF on in the and the community, and which what's is going just another on Avenue. Kim Rawlings 02:40:10.383
In the yeah, the shark management plan is the Avenue the State leads. So what we, like Dave said, what we would do is when that process starts, we would encourage our community to have a say in that and we could promote that and provide opportunities, you know, and I'm sure DAF will probably do some engagement exercises, you know. Requests that they come and do something up here to talk to our community. That would be the most appropriate mechanism. David 02:40:37.343
Well. And I think thank you. That's it's important to remember too, as far as I'm concerned, we're all trying to get to the same goal as if we can demonstrate to the community that we are in favour of, you know, smarter, more scientifically based outcomes, factoring in all the considerations, you know, that's a good achievement. So if we can help get there and help the community by play that part as well and help DAF and Council to get to that end result, then yeah, it's just a great thing as well, isn't it? Karen Finzel 02:41:11.008
Yeah, so just following on that, thank you. So to clarify then, you said Council had, you know, a focus and a role to play. It's predominantly our role then to like just advocate and support. Engagement of, who is it, DAF or whoever's out doing that now. So is that predominantly the focus that the Council wants to take? Or are there other responsibilities? David 02:41:36.197
I think there's a few responsibilities. There's the education side of things. So DAF have a sharp, smart program. There's opportunities for Council to increase the reach of that program to the Noosa community and that actually helps moving towards those alternative technologies because behaviour change is an alternative shark wire communication technology. There's education side of things. There's obviously community review and feedback and comments which Council will facilitate and then the third aspect too is I guess to an extent where appropriate assisting DAF to undertake those trials so drone surveys whatever it might be there's a few things obviously Council can't play a role in needless to say but there's this scope there so three main areas where I see that we could support DAF moving forward in the community SPEAKER_05 02:42:29.204
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:42:33.801
Just a quick question who has the authority to authorise the seasonal removal of our nets in New South Wales? SPEAKER_08_b 02:42:43.442
State government not DAF it would be the states I'm not exactly sure what level but the State will tell DAF whether or not that's appropriate and that'll that will come out at the review of the shop management plan. Um it's going to add something but I'll think of it later Kim Rawlings 02:43:03.838
The department about cropped and fisheries have advised that they won't be making any changes to any of the current arrangements until they've evaluated completed the evaluation of all the technology trials and that's not just technology trials that are happening in Noosa. Noosa they're happening right up in Queensland, the eastern Coast and all of the evaluation of those different technologies and trials will influence SPEAKER_05 02:43:26.336
You know any changes that are made as part of the shark management plan next year. SPEAKER_08_b 02:43:32.436
May I just add to that too that's right so the other role that Council can play in consultation with DAF directly is if that we see potential alternatives that aren't being explored at the moment we can suggest to DAF or get a response from DAP DAF about whether that's an option for them to explore so for example the relocation of the nets to different areas in Noosa it's not actually a trial that they're undertaking under the shark management plan they have given reasons why it's may or not be appropriate but in terms of actual trials to my knowledge it hasn't occurred so it's not really on the cards within that shark management plan review we can certainly go advocate to the State and say hey we'd like to explore this option or if you will just give us a response basically Amelia Lorentson 02:44:19.478
So there were three action items that was included as part of my motion David that was one of them and second one was about you know exploring electronic cables in south africa they will just what from your response just now they will be actioned and do we leave those three actions with you SPEAKER_08_b 02:44:42.891
Yeah that'll the and they see feasible to do that work but I would imagine that it would be environmental services responsible to do that if it was supported Richard MacGillivray 02:44:55.008
So yeah I'll respond just a little bit more detail Councillor Lorentson and if there's good ideas out there that aren't being explored like the cables from south africa then yes we can put that through to test to explore we won't be exploring the effectiveness of those we'll put it to staff to say here's an alternative solution which you might be interested in exploring. Kim Rawlings 02:45:16.224
And they do advise that they are looking at those technologies they've had early findings from them and they're you so they are definitely looking at them, don't they? Frank Wilkie 02:45:24.071
The early findings were that they were ineffective, is what I heard the DAF officer say. That's right. The cables. The ones SPEAKER_05 02:45:34.171
That are on the seabed? Kim Rawlings 02:45:36.177
Yeah. There issues with them. Yeah. But they also said they were early findings, so they're waiting to see. Yes. So we know they are looking at those. But yeah, we can, you know, keep pursuing it. It's a very good relationship with the team. So any thing that, you know, any ideas, we can definitely put forward to DAPH, and we're happy to continue to do that. I mean, advocacy and partnering are probably our key roles here. So, yeah, we'll Fantastic. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:11.544
And tagging whales after they've been entangled, can we identify that as an action item as well? And I just communicate what the community has sort of raised with me, I communicate through you guys. Is that correct? SPEAKER_08_b 02:46:26.519
Yeah, for sure. I see that totally reasonable. Fantastic. And just clarifying that somehow tracking white whales that are released to check on their welfare post-release. Thanks, everyone. For sure. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:46:37.581
Anyone who wants to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson has moved. We have a seconder, Councillor Wilkie. Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:43.881
Okay, I'd like to move the recommendation in front of us that Council A, note report by environmental services to the General Committee meeting dated 17th of June regarding a recommended Council policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program and B, adopt the following policy position that one, Council continues to support under the Queensland Shark Management Plan with the vision of the Shark Control Program transitioning to lower bycatch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to the LGA and to Council to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support SharkSmart educational programs and alternative bite mitigation trials where appropriate. Is this section C to Council? Oh, B. I can't see Excuse me. C. Note council's other Shark management responsibilities including, one, marine animal stranding response. Noting this role requires resourcing for equipment, and materials staff training. And the use of contractors to enable Council to effectively respond to stranding events. And two, consideration of signage investigation relating to dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed canal systems only. Noosa Waters do you like to say any more? Yep, I'll speak to the motion in front of us. Firstly, I'm looking forward to the recommendations of the Shark Control Program from the State government that will be open for community consultation later this year. Taking a position now allows us to respond effectively to these recommendations and allow our community a channel to express their. Values. And expectations. I want to thank Council staff and the Councillors around the table for the courage to take a position to encourage thoughtful discussions and push the State government for innovative solutions strategies that protect both human life and marine life. Solutions that reflect our commitment to safety and environmental stewardship. Our community may never agree on removing the nets entirely, but there is a growing agreement on finding better and non-lethal alternatives. This represents the middle path, the way forward. We need to push the State government to invest in research, innovation, and evidence-based approaches to shark control. Need to actively engage in state-led trials. And initiatives so we can discover solutions that protect both humans and marine life. And we need to change the focus of this debate. Nets work exactly as they're designed to. They're fishing gear. And they catch and kill marine life. But they do so indiscriminately. It's time that we start our debate and start asking more profound questions. Do we have the ethical right to use such control methods? Does this outdated approach align with our environmental values or our technological capabilities? What do we owe other creatures and the biosphere? This debate concerns more than just safety, it's also about stewardship and responsibility. We need to commit to a path and lead by example, showing that we can both protect people and the environment with intelligence and compassion. Don't you leave you with a quote that I've found in lots and of reading that I do in this area. Ingenuity can find a middle path where both public safety and ecological integrity are maintained, that should be our aim. Marine species deserve their chance at life to fulfil their ecological function, just as we deserve our safety. Very and I think Councillors that should be strong aims as participants in our marine community and also as biosphere. Brian Stockwell 02:51:17.661
B2 and C1 have budgetary implications in there. Are comments in the finance section of the report. Can you just clarify where we're at, noting that the draft budget isn't publicly available this month? SPEAKER_05 02:51:34.361
Yep. So our. They've not been. Not recommended operational budget. But we have. One of our key positions that support this work is temporary, so um, so we are seeking for that position to be ongoing as part of the budget process. We. Currently. Kim Rawlings 02:52:03.645
Because we have a responsibility about. Around responding to marine strandings, we have to use some operational budget to respond to those. They're hard to plan for and predict. So. Sounds better. Know, that's one of the. You know, there's many aspects of the work we do that needs reactive and responsive, so we have some operational budget to do. And we use contractors at the moment. We don't have equipment ourselves to do that work, we do outsource that work and we'll rely allow on some operational information. Funding. But for instance, if we do the investigation around signage for dangerous marine animals, that will require budget allocation sometime in the future. Karen Finzel 02:52:47.240
Cancel thank you just coming off the back of that assembly into that, was going to ask a similar question. Given I did ask for a response, and I might have missed it, around a focus of Council, I didn't hear any feedback around the animal stranding response. Can you please can you give please us some. Further information on that, given it's in C1? Sorry, what sort of information were you after, sorry? Well, I didn't hear. What we currently do I can't understand because this is a service Yeah, so when I asked about Council focus, sorry, I didn't hear a response around that. If we, because I asked what was Council focus. So is this currently a focus that we do and what does that entail? For sure. SPEAKER_08_b 02:53:28.539
So Council is responsible under the nature conservation act for the removal of state is responsible a deceased animal carcass on a beach. That animal until it dies or is euthanized. Council environmental services staff currently attend marine parks training to prepare us to respond to an event whereby if you have a carcass or animal that has to be euthanized by brain parks and ambitions. While Kim mentioned that contractors play a key role in that area, you may or not recall we actually had contractor intercept a humpback whale carcass just off newston national park last year. Had that contract to tell it 10 million miles out into commonwealth waters. We have permits to do so. The Council does need a level of first response as well so need to be able to have appropriately trained staff and resources to container site and effectively respond to managing with our carcass, you know, before we look into the contractors to actually effectively chop it up and remove it because that's the reality of it. So that base level of equipment and site containment and staff stuff expertise is, I think, an area that we do need to grow over time. But yeah, we'll get there, you know. It's sort of a bit of a new space well for councils. There was obviously an incident down at the Sunshine Coast that, well, Sunshine Coast Council had a lot of money because they didn't have all the processes in place, all the equipment there. But yeah, it's not just Noosa Council that's looking at this. Artists. We're involved with all the other SCQ councils and we're all looking at how we're going to get better at this process. So to clarify then, we don't actually deliver that service to that degree now that you're seeking, and that's a projected. Vision or hope or idea that you want to. There's definitely room for improvement and it will take a while so we just need to keep chipping away. If there was a stream tomorrow, we'd be Karen Finzel 02:55:28.601
The lead. Yeah, what are we doing? Okay. Would be the point. Should be the lead, yeah, for sure. SPEAKER_07 02:55:33.972
Yeah, I was going to say there's an area of vulnerability at the moment if we're relying on contractors or the goodwill to be able to borrow equipment off adjacent LGAs. If there was a mass stranding of which Noosa was part of, we wouldn't have the ability respond adequately to do it ourselves. Lot of use from those services that we're currently using for other LGAs and so that the risk that sits there is you know potentially a carcass on the beach rotting where we just can't do anything about it because we don't have the ability to be able to respond internally for it and we've got staff starting to get trained, Dave. Yeah we don't have ropes, chains, hydraulics, that sort of stuff tow something out. Either tow something off inshore and bury it, we can do some small ones like the tiger shark we did last year, the large ones where we're a little bit runny. You know, strandings, we might not get one for another 15 years and then we might get a whole bunch of smaller ones. Invested, crystallized. Frank Wilkie 02:56:43.003
When carcasses aren't located, they're usually a great source of food for sharks. Did the contractor have any descriptions of what he was observing was towing that carcass out to sea? That might be burned into this discussion. SPEAKER_08_b 02:56:57.550
Exactly. So that carcass was located one nautical mile north-east of granite bay. It was shifting in a westerly direction. It was blowing easterly that day. So when the contractor intercepted the carcass there was one white shark and around six to eight tigers on that carcass. Was actually towed about three to four hundred miles northeast but so had to be aborted due to weather conditions and failing line. The next morning it drifted towards Teewah beach. We actually worked with central Coast Council, borrowed a tracker, put it on that carcass so we could track it overnight. When the contractor arrived to the carcass the next morning, it was located about one kilometer off the beach and there were sharks on it again. He saw that offshore and the sharks basically caught him the whole way down. Very interesting story. Thank you. Yeah. A bit of context. New version of pied Piper. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 02:57:52.455
Do we have someone who wants to talk to the motion? I'm happy to speak to this motion. It's great to clarify Noosa Council's position supporting the work that DAF are doing. They're acting very responsibly and innovatively looking at all the new technology technologies that are out there to reduce bycatch and minimise the likelihood of shark bite. And also good to clarify Noosa Council's work they're doing in strandings and consideration of signage and other bycatch. SPEAKER_08_b 02:58:30.905
Yeah I might just add to that. So obviously they're sort of two separate subjects but they are interrelated so they're just our recommendations I guess from environmental services. Got to look at shocks under the shock control program. We also need to consider the other areas that the Council hasn't worked on. Tom Wegener 02:58:47.743
Anyone else? I'll say just thank you for bringing this because it's really nice to clarify to us around the table and to the residents what our obligations are, what we can and can't do. And so it's good. Think it's very helpful. Amelia Lorentson 02:59:01.842
Thank you Tom. Brian Stockwell 02:59:04.702
My two cents worth is it does a policy of that now but doesn't say enough when if there's proposals in the next draft that the shark management plan or do we consider it again like it does by default say we support alternatives lower bycatch potential. But to me I'm just looking at it now going it doesn't have an outcome we seek. And are we saying well because it's not our outcome to plot. To me I think there's enough in there to guide staff. But TEP's not enough to, if they do come back with a Shark Management Plan next year that says seasonal removal, this wouldn't tell the staff what to have right at the time. Kim Rawlings 03:00:01.431
Can I ask you what I would suggest is I think you're right. And I think it would be as officers making this recommendation pre-emptive on us to of suggest anything else, given that trials are still ongoing and there is not outcomes of those. We are definitely not the experts in this space. There is a scientific expert group that evaluates this and we should understand the outcomes of that evaluation before having a. Stronger position on any outcomes. I would suggest that once we know what that is and once they start the SHARP management program, we'll be in a much better position to, as a Council, to have. SPEAKER_05 03:00:49.851
Clearer, stronger positions. Frank Wilkie 03:00:54.250
Yes. Sorry, I have a question for you, Brian. Are you saying that if DAF, as part of the Queensland Shark Management Plan, came back with a proposal to remove shark nets, this is what they're proposing, we wouldn't, have the clarity to support that? Brian Stockwell 03:01:13.850
Oh yeah, I don't think it gives us any clarity. It talks about transition. We support the transition to lower bycatch potential alternatives. Yeah. I'm sort of half guessing that the next shark management plan might take a few more steps, it might help. It doesn't give staff any clearer about whether they should support those or whether we should be, whether, for example, this Council wants to put a higher level of priority on safety compared bycatch than the State. But that's just another report to cancel when it happens. Alright, Yeah. Frank Wilkie 03:01:47.863
Okay. Thank you for clarifying. SPEAKER_08_b 03:01:53.163
There's no clear right or wrong answer to this and I think that's why we have so much divide in the community, Brian Stockwell 03:02:01.902
Anyone else wish to speak? If not, Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 03:02:06.522
I will. I'll make it brief. And I'm going to just close by just repeating those, probably the two main questions that I think we need to continually ask ourselves. Do shark nets truly keep us safe? And are there better options? Next part, I'm going to just quickly speak on behalf of a group that I sit as an observer. Oh, okay, no, then excuse me Through the Chair. Okay. We as a community need to ensure that our decisions are driven by fact and not fear, that science guides our debate, and that our moral responsibility drives our action. While the State manages the nets and drumlines, we as a community and as a Council have the power to manage the debate. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:03:00.732
I'll those in favour? That's unanimous. We'll move on to the next item, which is almost as riveting: Fees and Charges. I'd like a two-minute break after this, please. Just after this. It'll take a while. The fee and charges should be short. Have a two minute rest. Thank you. No, I'm joking. We don't want to do that. Brian Stockwell 03:09:47.614
Least you're not alone. We're good to go. So, welcome back, Councillors. Ken. Our next item is in regard to the 2024-25 Fees and Charges. This is something we generally do in advance to allow those who are reliant on setting the fees for their clients to have a heads up of what's happening at the end of this month. So I'll hand it over to our staff. We'll see you in a bit. Pauline is going to talk about it Pauline 03:10:23.878
So the Local Government Act 2009 empowers Council to generate revenue from Fees and Charges by fixing a fee by way of local law or resolution. Fees and Charges can be set to recover the costs of building regulatory services like planning fees and permits, as well as those based on commercial full-cost pricing principles, including return on assets and support for the business activity. Things like waste charges and low park fees. The proposed 2024-25 schedule provides over 1,000 charges, which will generate around $26 million in revenue. To fund the delivery of Council services. Some key points to note for this year's Fees and Charges. Some fees may not increase due to regulatory and market demand. Increase slightly higher due to routing. Operating margins for each business area have been reviewed to ensure they are maintained, and a reliance on general rates to fund twice yearly Council reviews its amended holiday park fees, and this is to allow the port of deployment of sites 18 months in advance. This review will extend those Fees and Charges to the 26th of January, 2006. Thank you very much. Shore ferry service, it will be transferring, transitioning to a new provider in July 2024 with the new operator to provide new larger capacity ferries, as well as the capacity for online ticket purchases and cash and card payments on board. The Fees and Charges proposed for adoption for the ferry service will apply once the new ferries are operational. But until that point in time, the current 2024 financial year fees will continue to apply. Pricing to recover the true cost of service provision is necessary to ensure that Council generates sufficient revenues from its activities in line with financial sustainability policy. It also provides diversified revenue base and ensures that costs of services provided are equitably borne by those who benefit from them. The proposed 2024-25 Fees and Charges will come into effect on 1st of July 2024 once adopted by Council. Brian Stockwell 03:12:35.610
Moved Thank you. Do we have any questions? I'll move it. By Councillor Wilkie. A seconder? Councillor Lorentson, Wilkie. Do you wish to talk to it? Frank Wilkie 03:12:40.730
No, no, it's only, important that we ratify these Fees and Charges to give businesses that depend on forward modelling to have as much time as possible to set their budgets for the next financial year. Does anyone else wish who wants to speak? Amelia Lorentson 03:12:57.548
Just one question and I'm just trying to find it in the report in terms of swimming fees and I understand you know it's competitive neutrality and we're not making money out of it but just I did a quick little look there's 84 drownings in Queensland this year which was an increase of 25%, 27% increase over the 10-year period. Is there anything you know the cost swimming of is a barrier for kids especially those in families that have cost of living pressures and vulnerable families. As a Council or maybe a state initiative but can we provide any sort of an initiative to encourage every kid to learn how to swim. SPEAKER_05 03:13:53.185
You, Councillor Lorentson. The fees at the aquatic centre are based on a range of factors but try to keep it as reasonable as possible and also help offset the costs generally to the rate payer. We provide in terms of benchmarking with other aquatic centres, we are on average with that so we're not an expensive aquatic centre and we really think about that in terms of the programming. That's why a lot of our programming is actually a value add, so you're actually purchasing that in addition to help keep the general entry fee reasonable but we do run programs for example through the schools which help provide access to every child to a swimming education. Okay, I haven't answered your question. Amelia Lorentson 03:14:50.249
No. So we provide like pension and rebates. I'm wondering if there's something similar or something we can think about. A subsidised program so that if that can be used for swimming it could any number of sports and we actively encourage that. Karen Finzel 03:15:14.465
Thank you very much just on the back of that, when I said on the Cooroy complex sporting committee out there, talk of vouchers back to clubs like in terms of soccer or football for children that like you know need they don't that need that to pay. Is there something around that swimming classes? SPEAKER_05 03:15:38.942
So that's the State based program for a range of different sports. So they can apply for that and they need to meet specific criteria the State runs that program. Jessica Phillips 03:15:53.112
Okay, thank you. I guess to speak on that as well, the one that doesn't make me feel good is child school age. Children is the less, hang on, the average drowning age is far younger than a school age child where they get to go in school hours. So I think that we should really be considering making sure those younger groups. Five and under, have got access to be able to go and have affordable swimming lessons. Brian Stockwell 03:16:30.982
So to sort of support. We're talking about Fees and Charges here. Are we talking about a service we do or don't currently operate? SPEAKER_05 03:16:38.562
We currently operate learn to swim programs, definitely. It's one of our most successful programs for that age bracket. The fees don't go up every year, so we hook them up every second or third year, and that's why in the Fees and Charges it can look like a significant jump. Amelia Lorentson 03:16:59.549
Can I ask a question to Trent and Pauline? Is there a possibility next budget review that we can throw that as a Councillor initiative to look at maybe subsidised swimming for families that least can afford it and to ensure that every kid in this in the Noosa Shire has the opportunity to get swimming lessons? Richard MacGillivray 03:17:30.879
Through- the Chair, we can bring back obviously a the first part would probably be a workshop for all the councils to understand the entire board really of the Fees and Charges and what the different tiers are and the different programs so you've got a complete picture of the broad array of differential is and if there is appetite for all the councils to change that we can do that at any time during the year. And a budget would be the ideal time for us to revise the Fees and Charges. Amelia Lorentson 03:17:56.143
We appreciate and ask if you could note that. Frank Wilkie 03:17:58.703
Just clarifying it's $4.10 for a school group the child to access the food. Do you want me to start? That's all I guess you say. Karen Finzel 03:18:07.123
There's are quite a few questions. Is a thousand things. Just kidding. On the yeah, just on the back of that a question to the CEO via the Chair. Is there opportunity given that has come up today that we can advocate to higher levels of government to look at like more funding to allow our most vulnerable like five I know there's just been a Federal paper put out about protecting you know women and children at a Federal level. Is there a way we can advocate for this to look at specifically swimming programs and access? Brian Stockwell 03:18:40.149
I understand your question but once again we tend to veer off into a discussion about the merits of subsidised learn to swim where the matter in front of us is setting the annual fees across the whole organisation. Karen Finzel 03:18:53.548
Yes and I appreciate that Mr Chair thank you but it was just a yes /no answer could we advocate? Amelia Lorentson 03:18:58.848
I can answer that question sorry I've ruled. Brian Stockwell 03:19:02.566
So we've had the motion moved, does anyone wish to talk to it? Tom Wegener 03:19:09.726
I've got a question. Personal appearances, on page 15, what is that in relation to? Because they're pretty expensive for personal experience and of course I want to in on this Richard MacGillivray 03:19:23.364
I can maybe speak to that yeah so so under our environmental health team regulate under the environmental health act a range of different personal appearance services. So that might be where you get nose rings, earrings. There's some further legislation that's being proposed at the moment where that will include cosmetic injectables. So Councillors will be required to undertake. Licence assessments. For things like botox and cosmetic fillers. But at the moment, yeah, that's part of the inspection of those facilities to make sure that they're hygienic and clean and meet the appropriate health standards. So okay, thank you. That's why the fees are reflecting on the cost of service of those particular facilities because there's quite a bit to it and we've obviously got our qualified staff that are there to inspect and make sure that it's up to scratch and people are safe. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:20:21.140
Thank you okay okay, no further questions at talk? All, because don't want run to a close, class. Councillor Wilkie? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay, move on to the next item and that is the May 2024 2020 Financial Performance Report. And once again, all in. Pauline 03:20:44.811
Again Councillor, so here today May 2024 operating revenues continue to outperform our forecast and operating expenditures are under forecast here date. Operating revenue is $2.4 million above budget which has been driven by interest income of $1.8 million, sales of goods and services of $1.6 million and other revenue of $500,000. However than forecast revenues Fees and Charges from developmental assessment, building and plumbing compliance, local laws and some community facilities. Operating expenditures $1.6 million underspent with $1.5 million of that relating to employee costs as a result of vacancies and the timing of recruitment. Materials and services expenditures not is also yet slightly underspent at $17,000. Overall council's operating position at May 2024 is almost $4 million above budget. However, Council should note that we have not yet received advice from the commonwealth about the financial year 2024-25 financial assistance grant payment which we normally would receive in advance. If that prepayment does not occur prior to the 30th of June this year, this will impact council's position. It won't have a cash flow effect as we've already seen received this year's grant. I'm just flagging that it will have an operational impact. Moving on to capital, so year-to-date excluding disaster projects, Council has spent 58 of its full year capital program which equates to a $26.7 million. It has a further $8.6 million currently committed. Year-to-date, $32.6 million has been spent on the QRA funded disaster projects. Thanks to one of the councils, should note that the cash section of the financial report on page 387 references April and that should reference May. The council's cash holding at the end of May was $113 million with $30 million of these funds invested in term deposits. Council's continues to be higher than forecast with advance payment of grants and subsidies as well as delay in the delivery of council's capital program and QRA disaster projects. Council's cash balance will continue to decline as the operation expenditure differs through to the 30th of June. Overall, council's financial performance continues to be strong with 11 months of the year complete. We are forecasting that Council will end the year with a net operating surplus pending any end of year accounting adjustments. Brian Stockwell 03:23:20.380
Thank you. Questions I'll start off then just because I'm looking at the materials and services expenditure and water and sewage charges which I take is what we were paying and it's 131 over. We did have a large water leak at fort Batten drive which is over 100,000 tonnes worth of water which is being rectified as a priority which has contributed to that as well. Okay, so it was an undetected water leak, I take it? Wasn't. Yes, Sir. Good. Okay, and I thought it was going to be relating to the trade waste disposal from. SPEAKER_12_b 03:24:12.859
There with a large percentage. Yeah, but it's three times that much, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 03:24:17.719
Have there been any other undetected water leakages that have cost Council a significant amount of numbers? Nothing like that. Not that I'm aware of. Not that you're aware of Richard MacGillivray 03:24:27.739
No. There had have been some in prior. Years, as we cast back the last three or four years. And as we've gone through this metre read, obviously the difference in the volume, we've captured and remedied it, but not to this extent. Brian Stockwell 03:24:42.513
If I take it, it's our problem because. They considered a private line out to the toilet or something, is it? SPEAKER_05 03:24:49.348
Past the end of so it wasn't over multiple quarters or anything. I think it was detected, but it obviously. Amelia Lorentson 03:24:58.851
Other questions? I'm going to ask a question that I think continue asking. Consultancy fees. Can we separate consultancy in the report, I know it's sort of encapsulated under material and services, but can we understand a little bit better how much we're spending on consultants? And consultancy register, something that I think I've raised a few times, is there any appetite for Council to look into a consultancy register? Again, just to understand what departments, how much, and whether they're local consultants or whether they're consultants from other, like, just sort of a deep dive in consultancy fees. SPEAKER_07 03:25:48.063
It just seems like that amount just keeps Through the Chair, in terms of reporting, obviously our front page, our &L if you like, our profit and loss attachment one, is built on our standard expenditure categories, so it will be, my recommendation is remains as employee costs. Materials and services, finance across depreciation. That's cost appreciation, that is your sustainable food structure. But we do obviously then support that with the attachment pool that has the consultancy breakdown of materials and services in amongst all if you would like a deep dive, and we do regular deep dives into different elements, where we do a legal deep dive on a quarterly basis and a couple of other matters, we can do so, but obviously knowing there are elements of the level of detail in that consultancy, if we delve into the space of which consultants have been engaged for which types of work, that's a contractual and commercial incompetence matter for those consultants if it's not a public tender, but we can obviously break it down by the business area involved. Yes, that would be great. Frank Wilkie 03:27:00.758
A preferred supplier list. And a mix of those. Specific to the job. Thank you, that would be great. Yeah, so on page 396 they've got consultancy fees listed as a separate line item. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:19.600
At 1.749,000. Nine thousand yeah 9000, it's just a lot. I'd just love to understand that a little bit more. And return on investment also, don't know how that's gauged, but just to understand, is it worth it? Are we getting bang for buck? SPEAKER_07 03:27:40.673
That would be a separate deep dive exercise. Outside of this, it could be a piece of work we could undertake during the first part, using this year's data, for example, and looking and sitting down over the next six months with our commercial team and actually having look at that, types of consultants consultancy, and whether it was niche expertise, takes the nature or merger work, or the nature of the requirement to try to put a cost benefit against each of those. But it would be a piece of work. It would take a few months to put together, but Frank Wilkie 03:28:14.158
We can take it offline for you. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:15.918
Appreciate it. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:28:22.260
Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? If not, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Tom Wegener 03:28:31.880
Thank you. Are you guys holding up? We're good? Amelia Lorentson 03:28:38.645
It's a long day. Brian Stockwell 03:28:40.005
I presume you're not staying around for the arts development fund, are you? Our next item is the regional grant recommendations for 2024. SPEAKER_05 03:28:52.791
Good afternoon, Councillors. Afternoon. We've had a long session today, so we're here with the good news part of the day, I believe. Richard MacGillivray 03:29:07.800
Right. Well, Councillors, this is a fairly straightforward paper. Many of you have already seen the Regional Arts Development Fund round that we've been processing this year, round 21. The question is to approve the recommendations of the assessment community fund projects with value of $36,700 as outlined in attachment one. This is the second round of the current funding that we have and if approved this will leave $168 remaining for carryover. Which is fairly good out of a total budget of $65,018 Brian Stockwell 03:29:39.824
Do you have any questions or do we have a mover? Happy to move. Very would you like to talk to them? Karen Finzel 03:29:55.659
I didn't cancel only quickly, I'm allowing this is the good news end of the afternoon. I mean it's a great honour and privilege to work in collaboration with community through our grants program to deliver. Back to community what they seek from us in terms of what they'd like to see delivered so it's really great to be a part of that and hear the report this afternoon and eventually see all these great programs delivered in our community Amelia Lorentson 03:30:28.121
I have a question. Hi, in terms of the grant funding program, how do we measure the success in terms of artist development and community impact? Shaun Walsh 03:30:43.460
The rural arts development fund is a 50 / split with Arts Queensland. Each of the grant applicants are required to do an acquittal at the end of their grant program in which they complete quite a rigorous assessment of their project and they self-assess as well on whether they feel that their project is successful or not. That then feeds back to our acquittal that we do back to Arts Queensland and that will influence the funding success for the following year. So it's quite a Amelia Lorentson 03:31:14.331
You ever get self-assessments where the artists say they didn't think it was a great idea? Serious, that's great! Richard MacGillivray 03:31:22.591
This is working in a very challenging environment where the dollars are very, very tight on projects. Artists are extremely used to working on with tight budgets. A lot of things that we are drawing from previous rounds are artist fees. There are set artist fees through organisations like the national and visual arts association. While it's all well and good to set those fees, it can often be very difficult to pay those fees. So because of that feedback that we've received, that's going to be an emphasis for our next round to make sure that applicants are addressing the fee shortfalls that they're on paying to their partners and other artists in their program. So that's an example of the good feedback we get from SPEAKER_05 03:32:08.330
Those acquittals. That's so great. It's also that we have artists who resubmit, come through for other grounds, and part of what we look at their progress been like previously? So they need to demonstrate through that they've been able to meet the requirements. Brian Stockwell 03:32:29.002
Fantastic. It's not true you can do your final report as an interpretive dance, is it? Karen Finzel 03:32:42.594
Yeah, just on the back of that, Paul, would you mind just elaborating, if you can, a little bit about some of that really robust discussion around the RADF committee in terms of delivering funding and programs to community and then finding that balance through the NAVA rates and the struggle between, you know, trying to build a sector for economic reasons culture and heritage, but that challenge that exists between paying the right amount of money and delivering the programs. Paul 03:33:18.533
Definitely, thank you for the your question. Through the Chair, it's been over three years that the industry has been grappling with setting industry rates. On the one hand, and I'm speaking from the visual arts point of view, but performing arts and other art forms are often it's very fluid, often in arts projects an amount is put and you have to do something with that amount and the first thing to go are the rates. So through the industry a symbiotic relationship that galleries have with artists and sometimes that can be abused which was highlighted through the NARWA review in where artists have been told well we're giving you marketing so therefore we're not going to pay you a fee because we're benefiting your career by marketing your work or some of the larger galleries saying the honour of presenting in our gallery fee. Thankfully that practice has been stamped on but it's very difficult because that means that more funds need to be found and those major projects can't be done anymore. And it's very much up to artists to step up and say well no I'm not going to participate in this project because you're not offering me what the industry says you're offering. So we're really excited about new, clearer arbor apes coming rates out and it's the same in the performing arts industry and a lot of us are now encouraging artists to actually stand up and say well no this is how much it's going to cost me to do this and it's not negotiable. SPEAKER_05 03:34:57.744
Thank you. And the point of the RADF program is in fact to support artists as professionals so it needs to respect appropriately paid artists. Paul 03:35:08.144
So we would prefer to support smaller projects that are paying properly rather than big bang projects that of course the larger community benefits from but just keeps that artist rate below the poverty line. Thank you. Karen Finzel 03:35:24.160
And just coming in off the back of that then just a little bit of information about the changes through the radically you looking at giving the larger lump sum of money and the smaller opportunities throughout the year to deliver. For sure. Paul 03:35:39.755
So Through the Chair we will be putting a proposal to Council to change the balance of how we currently manage our program. Currently you can apply for up to seven and a half thousand dollars and we have two rounds a year. We're looking to change that to doing one round a year at ten thousand dollars but at the same time having a program running up to two and a half thousand dollars of a quick response grant. So if an opportunity comes up for that they can quickly jump on that they might not have known about many months ago and an extra two and a half thousand dollars will help them actually take on that, they'll be able to put in a quick response, we might get back to them in a very short period of time. Karen Finzel 03:36:22.683
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:36:26.923
I'll talk, because I think it's a really interesting discussion. We have a cultural plan that talks about trying to build our creative creativity. Industries, and we're giving out grants. And if we don't-- to me, I start to think about fair trade coffee, about a little symbol over in the UK, which is a little red barn, which talks about the welfare of animals being looked after. We don't think about the same in terms of the welfare of our creative industries. It's sort of like the standards thing that my daughter when she chose to do creative writing as a university degree, I said, well, couldn't you do a real degree and then come back and actually do that as your hobby? And after nearly finishing a master, came back and said, you're right, I should have done that. But it is part of the whole industry problem is that while we all appreciate the creative industries and our whole community is better for it, our society at the moment doesn't remunerate it to the point where it is. The vast majority, maybe the top five, 10 get a good living, but other than that, most don't. It's probably something that does start from little local grants. Amelia Lorentson 03:37:35.690
Anyone else wish to speak? Oh, I have one last question. So, do we, once we've given an artist funding, do we then continue that dialogue or support throughout their entire career? So, do we understand whether the funding that we gave today, or say five years ago, that artist is now still being supported? SPEAKER_07_b 03:38:05.537
And we definitely, we do quite a bit of stats around the artists that live and work in our region. Interesting. We believe that our community is much healthier having creatives living and working in our community. And in order to stop the brain drain, or the creative drain, out of Noosa, we need to be able to support those artists from their early developmental period through to being able to make a career and put food on the table through their art. So, you'll see we're currently working on a creative directory where artists will be able work on that creative directory in order for us to stimulate more of the commercial aspects of the arts and so that's a definitive change in our attitude over the last year. A lot more on developing our creative industries. That sounds great. I'm imagining something like the open studio book with spectacular representations of the artist's work. So you're thinking something like that, a directory illustration? Illustrated. Definitely, think our community underestimates just how many very high quality artists are that live and work in Noosa that are internationally well-known but they're tucked away in their studios and you don't see them unless there's them to express their skills locally and when we're not presenting their opportunities to do that we don't see them so that's something we're going to be working towards to try and engage more of that community and enable that high professional arts working community. To mentor people from our are coming up for brilliant. Karen Finzel 03:39:42.448
Just on that high note around that Paul do you want to give a few minutes it's really exciting in the grant of the artist from Cooran that's going to the Milan fashion show us a little bit I think that encapsulates like that vision of where we want to take our local artists. SPEAKER_07_b 03:39:59.152
Yeah definitely so great example of an artist who lives in Cooran but is internationally known works in recycled materials as a fashion designer she's taking her show over to Milan she's been taken up by some fashion houses in Milan and after going over there and experiencing that and creating those networks she'll be coming back and running workshops for local artists in the hinterland creative designers to be a part of that as well so yeah fantastic example yeah our Councillor of ways in which we can try just in a small way through RADF to support somebody to take on that fantastic opportunity thank you do you wish to close Councillor Finzel Karen Finzel 03:40:43.871
Think it's all been said just yeah carry on Brian Stockwell 03:40:47.691
And I'll put the vote motion to vote and that's unanimous thank you the next item is another grant round and it opened it because of COVID a community project funding and we have three four items in a row I think or maybe five at all and we have our community services coordinator coming up and are you going to do the opening? Kerri Contini 03:41:19.747
Cheryl will speak to the report directly in front of you. I'm just going to talk briefly Through the Chair to let you know if there's been a change in order from historically how you would have been presented presenting the grants. You will now see that you get the individual subcategories come up to you first and then the final report which actually commits the total funds so previously see having reflected on it the report would have been very difficult had you actually endorsed the first report and then made a change subsequently that you would have actually endorsed an amount that potentially could have been incorrect not that this has happened but technically it's possible to happen and so just in strictest technical accuracy this is the better way of actually presenting it so Cheryl will move on previously for our new Councillors we present the community project grants and subcategories handle if any Council has a conflict of interest and needs in is to leave the room to ensure that we can have a quorum to address that report. So we'll do program and projects first. Brian Stockwell 03:42:50.237
Councillor Finzel? Hensel? Karen Finzel 03:42:51.385
Yes, I believe is this section six, item that will want to declare conflict? Thank you. My Councillor Finzel inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Peregian beach Surf Lifesaving Club grant application, which is before us today for transparency and public perception. Mr. Rob McCready sits in a decision-making capacity on committee. Mrs McCready is married to Leigh McCready, who worked as a volunteer on the 2020 Future Noosa election campaign, which is no longer an entity. Mr. Rob McCready is not a related party nor a close associate, and I do not believe this conflict of interest satisfies the requirements, as stand to gain or benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no greater than the benefit loss of a significant proportion of persons in the local government area to gain or lose. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe that I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter, therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and can remain and participate in the decision. Amelia Lorentson 03:44:05.793
Can I ask a question? And I'm not sure who can answer, but there was an AGM, I think on Sunday, the Peregian Beach Surf Lifesaving Club. Would you know Cheryl offhand um I know that John rodrick Roderick stepped down as the president. Sorry, Chair, I'm not aware of the outcomes. Actually, I've just got information now. Leigh McCready was actually nominated as the president of the Surf Lifesaving Club, so I think that perhaps needs to be changed. I've just, Clint replied. Brian Stockwell 03:44:41.951
So, you never much. Can a have think about that, but I'm reading Mr Rob McCready is not a related party or a close associate, so really that sentence says I haven't got a declarable conflict of interest. Which agree with but if Leigh McCready is now the president you would it be appropriate to acknowledge that but the motion can still remain the same if you like it would just I would think Frank Wilkie 03:45:27.538
Could we just add Mr. Rob McCready and Leigh McCready sit in a decision-making capacity Mr. McCready's are you so Mr. and Mrs. Robin Leigh McCready who are not a related party or close associate yeah at the start of that sentence can we include both or we could just go back McCready because she's most direct perceived conflict you don't even need to mention Karen Finzel 03:45:57.497
Mr. Rob he sits as we looked that up didn't we he sits in a like a subcommittee that is a decision-making committee yeah the partner Brian Stockwell 03:46:06.177
Of a person of a declarable conflict Frank Wilkie 03:46:10.539
Yeah so if you just had a declaration about this Leigh McCready that's the most direct perceived conflict you don't even need to mention Mr. Rob McCready. No we do, we for the sake of this one I think you do. Karen Finzel 03:46:24.351
Because he was in that position when the application for this grant went through so I think we've got to cover both of that here. Brian Stockwell 03:46:37.960
I'll have a tie of, I'll read it out: "Councillor Finzel will inform the meeting that I have a declarable declareable conflict in this matter in relation to the bridgend Surf Lifesaving crop grant application which is before today for transparency and public participation. We'll stop. Leigh McCready, new sentence, Leigh McCready. Has recently been elected as the president of this club. We'll stop. And then where we're going down, I think with the change to Mr. except for is not, are not related parties. Yeah, so they keep going with this. Yeah, everything else is there. Mr and Mrs McCready nor are they close associates. Parties. Yeah, and I didn't believe this to satisfy the act requirements, is what you're really saying there? The requirements of. The act. Do we need an actual, what that is, or what's that? Yeah. As I do not stand to gain a benefit of loss, significant portion of gain. However, it's not although, it's the last sentence. However, seek to declare this interest. Yeah. Well, you're saying haven't got a declarable conflict. I so you're just declaring the interest. In however, it's public interest? No, think, it has to be as. Because you just said they're not a declarable conflict of interest under the act. That's my problem with the whole declaration. Amelia Lorentson 03:48:39.739
I think the wording is perceived. Sorry, a prescribed conflict. It's not a prescribed, but it is a declarable. Brian Stockwell 03:48:47.494
No, no, no. It's not prescribed. The sentence before. It's declarable. Not prescribed, and it's not. And if they're not close associates, nor are they related parties, then it's not a declarable conflict. Frank Wilkie 03:49:00.500
What about Mr and Mrs McRee? McCrory? They're not related parties, nor are they close associates. Full stop. Karen Finzel 03:49:07.789
I'm sorry, but it is okay, perhaps given that this has just come to light to the table about Mrs Leigh McCready being elected to that position, perhaps I just declare how I am the president of the meeting. Brian Stockwell 03:49:26.341
Room I just think you however, in the public interest I will make this, I'll declare this interest. It's really, you're saying it's what, you think it's below the statutory level, you still don't declare it. So that's a, you know. It's, declarable. Karen Finzel 03:49:41.504
It is declarable, that's right. And that's why I'm taking it to the vote in the public interest. SPEAKER_05 03:49:52.595
I would say I'm not happy with that. Brian Stockwell 03:49:54.755
And then after that, however, yeah, no, however, in the public interest, I will declare this as I believe, I am able to make it, that's, I think works. Are you happy with that Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 03:50:11.006
I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. Relation to the Peregian Beach Surf Lifesaving Club grant application which is before us today, full stop, take out transparency and public perception stop, yeah, oh okay, and then leave Trent, take out, Leigh McCready has recently been elected as the president of this club. Has recently been elected as president of this club. Mr Rob McCready sits in a decision-making capacity on the Peregian Beach Surf Lifesaving Club committee. We know that's still a fact. I don't know if that's true, I think it's on the subcommittee. We don't know that now. Mr okay, we can put subcommittee there but we don't know if that actually got voted. No, no. Subcommittee? Yes, at the time. Do we need to note that of the application? No. Brian Stockwell 03:51:30.520
I think the main thing is the purpose declaring conflicts of interest is so that the community is aware of your level of relationship and Councillors can determine whether they think it's suitable for you to be in the room. Kim Rawlings 03:51:43.219
Okay, so Mr McCready is married to Leigh McCready who worked as a volunteer on the 2020 Future Noosa election campaign which is no longer an entity. Karen Finzel 03:51:51.943
Mr and Mrs McCready are not related parties nor are they close associates and I do not believe. Oh, well there you are actually, Amelia Lorentson 03:52:07.449
And therefore I do not believe this. Presents a conflict of interest, full stop. I do not stand to gain a benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no greater than the benefit of a loss of a significant proportion of persons. However, in the public interest and for full transparency, I will declare this matter. I request to remain in the meeting as I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Public interest and for transparency, I request to remain in I request I remain I request you remain in the as because I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter what about okay. However, I will respect. Frank Wilkie 03:53:21.449
Terrifically overwritten. But we don't need to edit it. We just need to make sure it's not we'll fix it by Thursday night. Brian Stockwell 03:53:27.189
Councillor Finzel, are you happy with that? Karen Finzel 03:53:30.474
Think it says I think it satisfies it. It's overwritten if we can edit it for the next meeting. Given we've done it on the hop with some new information coming to light. Thank you everyone for your input. Greatly appreciated. So yeah. Brian Stockwell 03:53:43.795
David, would anyone like to ask Finzel finterfetcher-Frencher? Vote either of the options in terms of whether she should stay or leave. SPEAKER_03_b 03:53:51.380
I'll move that Councillor Finzel participates in votes on this matter. Jessica Phillips 03:53:55.240
We'll second it. Brian Stockwell 03:53:56.620
Sorry. Because Council believes that. Reasonable person would trust that the financial decision is made in the public interest. Or even the final decision. She's an accountant. Have we got a seconder? Do you need to talk to it? Does anyone wish to can we end it now? Just turn on the agony, please vote on the matter. It's carried unanimously and Councillor Finzel didn't vote. SPEAKER_03_b 03:54:35.030
Thank you. SPEAKER_05 03:54:41.224
Good afternoon. Jessica Phillips 03:54:45.124
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and approve the first round of the 2023-24 community project grants for programming projects, providing an attachment to this report. A total value of $42,085. Noosa Council's grants program assists in delivering council's strategic goals and objectives. The funding is intended to help community organisation meet community needs, build community skills and resilience, support community connection, and develop and maintain community infrastructure. The grants program is administered through equity. An equitable and transparent process whereby funds are awarded to projects which best meet the relevant criteria and represent the value of the ratepayers money. This category is projects and programs as mentioned and they were projects or programs that respond to a specific opportunity or need within the community. Ongoing projects or programs be may be funded for from. A maximum of three times. Previous recipients of have been funded by Council must reapply each year. So that is to endorse there is attachment one of the report to the value of $42,085. Brian Stockwell 03:55:51.006
Dollars any questions or is someone happy to move it? Councillor Wegener. I'm going to second it. Would you like to talk to the motion Councillor Wegener? No thank you. Jessica Phillips 03:56:03.986
Would anyone Councillor have a very quick question to the community see this the itemised of everyone fantastic can I just say the community see it in two ways they it's obviously attached to the report as a public document and then we have a section on the website which outlines the program and past recipients. Okay then my second question is just for future when the trustee for ray's foundation I believe you go and then speak with them around application I did a bit of a deep dive down a complete around this foundation and I would like to know maybe how staff go in communicating with them for future applications just given that it seems like a really great program SPEAKER_06_b 03:57:04.003
Thanks okay oh before we go Brian Stockwell 03:57:10.556
If there's no further questions or discussion I put the matter to the vote that was carried unanimously we move on to the next item and this is another grant round and this time we're dealing with infrastructure Jessica Phillips 03:57:27.826
So the purpose of this report is to consider and approve the first round of the 24/25 community project grants for infrastructure as provided in attachment 1 of this report the total grant value of $30,000 building or work infrastructure with the improvement I put projects include new or replacement infrastructural maintenance of existing infrastructure this may include but is not limited to energy for shabining, shade sales, storage facilities, new or upgraded amenities, water harvesting without the to solar systems. Brian Stockwell 03:58:03.088
Councillor. Moved and seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? Frank Wilkie 03:58:06.728
It would be very great to support the grant application of $30,000 for the Noosa new south Australian rural football club to upgrade the community toilet they are the successful recipient because these toilet facilities are not just for the club, they're also used by the general public, especially during the farmers' market days. It would be a much appreciated upgrade. It was sorely in need of an upright. Upgrade. Brian Stockwell 03:58:29.857
Try I just remembered, it's not in the report. We did discuss the potential of having a condition regarding the talks to be opened. Does that need to be in the report or the recommendation? Yes, so we have additional conditions which then go into the. Does anyone wish to talk or ask questions? No? Do you want to argue with yourself in closing? I always lose. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We move on to the next item which is grants involving equipment. Jessica Phillips 03:59:18.074
Thank you. Sorry, just before this, I just, I don't have a declarable interest but for the community watching online, I was the previous president at Cooroy Gymnastics Club. I have no longer any involvement in the club at all. So I just want that very clear. Thanks for putting it on the table, Councillor. Thank you. Can you tell us how long ago? Just because recency is an issue we need to consider. Yes. What year are we? 20? 24. OK, sorry. I finished my presidency. In September 2023, last year. That's still fairly recent. I don't. Yeah, and I didn't have any idea about this grant application, but yes. Amelia Lorentson 04:00:05.242
Timing. Through the Chair, is it relevant? I would think it is. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 04:00:09.721
One of the things we have to consider is the recency of your position. Okay. And I think, only being less than a year, that it might be worthwhile declaring that. Amelia Lorentson 04:00:18.801
For your benefit, Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 04:00:21.135
That's why I wanted it. Brought it up. Thank you. Yeah. What's next? So that, do you want me to try and work something? Brian Stockwell 04:00:30.754
No, just kidding! Yes, Amelia Lorentson 04:00:40.481
We can vote, on it. Thank you. It's at a minimum declarable. That's great, yep. Brian Stockwell 04:00:50.321
I'm meeting, I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I was the president of Cooroy gymnastics up until 2023. Frank Wilkie 04:01:00.031
September 23. Yeah. SPEAKER_05 04:01:03.071
And then. Was president? Yeah. Cooroy gymnastics until September 24. Brian Stockwell 04:01:17.204
And then the State? SPEAKER_05 04:01:20.824
Just like leave that. I've got to put a. No, no. Yeah, I've got to put a thing around it. Brian Stockwell 04:01:38.337
No, no, but we have to. Resolution. Go back. You just wiped out the second part of the motion. SPEAKER_05 04:01:47.970
Okay. Oh, Yes, this guy. SPEAKER_07_b 04:01:57.260
So, no, no, yes. That goes above that, the motion. Yeah, it goes here. SPEAKER_01_b 04:02:05.960
So, take out the word state. Yeah. Yep. And add it to the, straight up to September 23. That's it. Are you happy with that, Councillor Phillips? SPEAKER_05 04:02:21.618
Because, what reason? Jessica Phillips 04:02:24.419
I am no longer in any capacity involved in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club. Nor are my kids. And I'm just no longer. I could also be loner. You're happy with that Councillor Phillips? As long as I'm just not a loner, I'm just no longer. SPEAKER_01_b 04:03:07.540
I'm happy. Has anyone got question or would they like to move a recommendation? I'll move. I'm happy to second. And that's the stay recommendation? Yes. So it's moved Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Thank you. You're welcome. Amelia Lorentson 04:03:25.621
Can I ask a question please? Just Councillor Phillips, how long were you president of the Cooroy? Jessica Phillips 04:03:30.834
Two years. But my family have been foundation members of the club for its entirety from day one. Are you associated still? No. My mum's not alive and my dad is no longer with the club in any capacity and hasn't been for probably 20 years. Old, so if I had to worry about a very long time. Frank Wilkie 04:03:56.725
Well, while you're on the roll, you might as well mention your parents to the foundation members. SPEAKER_01_b 04:04:00.145
Okay. Can't do that without the agreement of the whole committee or Council. I didn't say it's happening. Said it was worth putting it in. Yeah, I know, but we can, but everyone around the table has to agree to it. Before we move to the second. You know what I'm talking about? Yeah. So would you like that included? Yes, let's include it. And is everyone happy with that to be included? Yep. Okay. Sorry, Vicky, if we go up there, after September 2023, if you, yeah, put a comment rather than a full stop. Oh, okay. And as my parents were foundation members. Uh, capital F? No. No, okay. Are we happy with that? SPEAKER_05 04:05:13.568
Should we call the club dance? Frank Wilkie 04:05:17.263
Because I and my parents are no longer involved in any capacity. Yeah, that's a good point. Jessica Phillips 04:05:23.683
And my parents are no longer involved in any capacity. Yeah. Okay. Yes. SPEAKER_01_b 04:05:35.678
That does add to the story. Thank you. It okay. So any other questions or comments? No. I'll put the motion and that motion is for Councillor Phillips to remain in the room. That's unanimous and Councillor Phillips did not vote. Thank you. Would you like to give an overview? Jessica Phillips 04:06:09.827
For the purpose of this report, Councillor sensibility approved the first round of the 2024 community project grants for equipment, as provided in attachment 1 of his report, with a total grant value of $36,647.18. Equipment is categories for the purchase of equipment that responds to a specific need, sorry, specific opportunity or need within the community. SPEAKER_01_b 04:06:36.620
Any Does anyone have questions or would someone like to move to motion? I Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 04:06:44.254
Are you happy? Look, it's great to see that the Cooroy Gymnastics Club will get a new set of $14,000 towards new parallel bars, that the chamber of commerce will be able to improve safety and security of the Cooroy Christmas tree. And Cooran art exhibition will get some equipment and a strategic planning workshop to help ensure success of the events and their long-term viability. The Tewantin Noosa Lions Club will get a new Bain-Marie for club events and help ensure that we have healthy and safe food to eat at future events. That the Noosa Museum at Pomona will have better access and visibility for primary school children and wheelchairs, and that the hinkland arts group inc. And the Pomona railway gallery will get an upgrade to their office technology to help ensure the efficiency of their operations, which is mainly volunteer run. Accessibility SPEAKER_01_b 04:07:39.518
Thank you. Anyone else? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That is, you can vote yes. Is unanimous. The parents will be proud. Okay. The next item nine is in regard to community grants for events. Am I right? SPEAKER_05 04:08:02.068
Would you like a bourbon? Just checking to make sure we don't have any OCR on watching, and I'll see you in the next Tom Wegener 04:08:15.948
Cancel. In accordance with chapter 558 of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Wegener, inform the have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the funding recommendations to Noosa international Surfilm Festival. I am a member of the committee. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room. While the matter is considered Frank Wilkie 04:08:47.950
May I say what an absolute delight it is to have an absolute clear and definitive conflict of interest. It's wonderful. SPEAKER_01_b 04:08:57.993
Okay. SPEAKER_05 04:09:01.933
Thank you. Jessica Phillips 04:09:06.724
So this report is to consider and approve the first round of the 2024-25 community project grants for events as provided in attachment one with a total grant value of $23,200. The events are community-based festivals or events that bring residents together beyond the applicant organisation's membership base, including cultural, sports or community festivals. SPEAKER_01_b 04:09:34.500
Anyone wish to question or move? Amelia Lorentson 04:09:37.020
Happy to move the report, happy to see you. We have Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Finzel, would you like to talk to the motion Councillor Lorentson? No, just to congratulate the recipients of the community project grants Noosa Chorale. International film festival and Noosa Show Society, all recipients of the round 21 community project grants. SPEAKER_01_b 04:10:04.190
No, anyone else? I thought it would have been appropriate to sing. The chorale okay, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Carried unanimously and we'll just wait for Councillor Wegener to come back in the room because I believe the next item is the overview, is that correct? That's Wegener just paddled back in. Oh, dear. You're enabling him. Stop laughing. Yeah, that's right. Enjoy the break. Have a nice break. Jessica Phillips 04:11:05.909
The purpose of this report is to provide, sorry, the four reports have been presented to Council for this round for community grants funding that provide further details for each grant. A breakdown of those are the events category, so $23,200. Equipment, $36,647.18. Infrastructure of $30,000. Project or programs for $42,085. The total amount recommended is $131,932.18. To break down that we received 19 grant 19 applications in that Round 1 and 14 of them are recommended. The 2024-25 overall proposed budget is $324,780.80 and recommended in this round for of funding is $131,932.18. SPEAKER_01_b 04:11:57.625
Thank you move Councillor Wilkie, seconded Councillor Wilson. Do we wish to discuss anything? No, Frank Wilkie 04:12:05.064
Thank you staff for the way you've broken up these grants. We handle our conflicts of interest, as painful as they were, necessary to do. Yes, thank you. And the good news is you'll get the pleasure on Thursday night. SPEAKER_01_b 04:12:19.848
We'll be better practised by okay, anyone else wish speak? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you. Cheryl. Thank you. And for a short break, Cheryl meets Kylie. I'll be back in a minute. And I will welcome Kim and Ben. Right to talk about the environment and climate change grants. I think I'm just organising it, sorry. Ben, are you doing the overview? We do have any conflicts here? SPEAKER_07_b 04:13:09.080
We've got two streams of funding which you can see in the same report. They both come under the environment climate change resilience grants. We've got the environment grants which are assessed against policy which is based on implementing council's key environment strategies plans and the actions within them that are appropriately delivered through grants with increased capacity of local groups through a collaborative approach to environmental management and increased funding directed to environmental activities through opportunities of community groups organisations to leverage extra funding and then we've got a range of criteria used to delve into each of those their change grants assessed differently they're assessed on impacts to mitigate climate change or be able to build resilience to climate change and so we assess them differently we've got two different panels that assess each of the grants this we only have one round of grants for our environment and climate change resilience grants so we receive six applications two for environment four for climate change the were under subscribed. Our we funds $24 hundred eighty two which is funded from the Environment Levy we received grant applications totalling thirteen thousand two hundred and ninety three dollars these are project grants and so we've got left over from our grants budget, from our Environment Levy we had eleven thousand and eighty nine dollars with our climate change grants we they're funded through general rates and there was a fifty thousand dollar budget allocation we received grants for the total of 89,000 people thousand eight hundred and six so we're around thirty nine thousand dollars oversubscribed and so when we've made our assessments against the climate change resilience grants we're through recommendations able to manage the recommended amount to fifty thousand dollars which is why I've made some criteria and provided some commentary around what's getting funded and what's not getting funded so there are two grants for environment that are provided in the attachments there's one for the Wildlife Noosa for line and net reduction program which is an extension of this existing great because it gets volunteers out on the river or we'll say it leverages huge amounts of volunteer in-kind contributions they'll do a job which, if we were going to resource it, is was council's responsibility would cost tens of thousands of dollars so a small amount of project grants received a huge amount of benefit for our entangled wildlife. The second one was Noosa land care, sorry I will say that first grant was for a total of $4,755. The second one for our environment which is looking to celebrate and educate landholders in the hinterland for environmental practices and so it's a publication that we used for be a considerable amount of time, there was like 8,500 7 of these, and there was 50,000 recommendations for the environment grants is to fully fund both things. We undersubscribed both of them. The assessment panels felt that they met the threshold criteria for fully funding so that's matched up the I've got the floor. Our climate change grants provided a little bit more challenge because we were oversubscribed in there. Look, I'll say all the grant applications were really good. And were the projects, some aligned really well with the assessment criteria and others while good ideas might be delayed a little bit. So we've recommended Zero Emissions Noosa for 2020. $29,000 for energy assessments and upgrades on low income and vulnerable households. Fully funded that program. It met all of the criteria that we were using for climate change resilience grants plus, and it wasn't assessed, but it's just got a great social element to as well. We didn't consider that when we were making the grant application, but it's definitely an added bonus for that one. The second grant application that we were fully funding was the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club for additional solar panels on their Lions Club den. And putting solar panels does align really well with climate change gains because part of the criteria is around reducing carbon footprint. There was another grant application from Noosa Landcare which was looking at a geomorphology study for upper pinbaran creek to be able to better plan for natural methods to reduce silication and landslip. The connection through to climate change is based on increased weather events and management and land use actions that have been undertaken in that area over the last 100 years exacerbating a lot of problems for silication and landslip and doing a study on the underlying geomorphology particularly on upper catchment streams really gives a good indication as to how you or how a um stabilisation project would be determined uh because quite often it's not the overlying soil it's the underlying geology will determine what's the best application we on assessment because there was some great climate adaptation there wasn't any demonstration for carbon offsets um sitting in there which is why we scaled that one down and we've nominated a partial funding for that one. There was one project that we uh recommend or that officers have recommended not to fund and that was Sunshine Coast environment Council for marine pollution in brackets polystyrene response coordination and education project this is a really good idea Council is planning on running something similar to this year which would be the first step and so we didn't want to have Council resources doubling up with an environment grant whose idea will be more relevant next year and we've done the base foundation work for um this year so for skeck it's uh was assessed as great grant because of the double after we've got with the Council program which we've been planning for 18 months at this point in time we've chosen to not recommend funding that, but we encourage SCEC to put in an application because it encourage sceptical application because will would be very relevant for next year Amelia Lorentson 04:20:04.444
So you explained that to the applicant being the reason being the reasons why they were not successful. SPEAKER_05 04:20:12.373
We've got to get a Council decision first. SPEAKER_01_b 04:20:14.793
Oh, excuse me. Just before we do, staff reminded me, Councillors, you'll be aware that the advice we got from department recently, that if we believe we no longer have a conflict of interest, we should put on the public reasons, the public record, the reasons for that. So you will note there is a grant proposals from this district. I wish to inform the meeting that for the past two terms, I've declared a conflict of interest as a result of my long association with Noosa District Landcare and its unincorporated forbear. However, having now received more detailed legal advice, it is clear to that my circumstances do not meet the definition of a declarable conflict of interest because the organisation is neither a close associate nor related party under the Local Government Act and therefore I will not be declaring any type of conflict of interest for this matter or in relation to that group into okay, so do we have any questions of staff? Or does someone wish to move the recommendations? Got a question? Nicola Wilson 04:21:14.147
Yeah, I've got some questions on the zero emissions Noosa project for energy upgrades for lower income and vulnerable households, which sounds like a great initiative. Just a couple of questions. I do know there's some special conditions there, but things just to clarify. It's looking at 20. Homes, so how will those homes be identified, or who will determine which homes would be selected to benefit from this program? Kim Rawlings 04:21:38.022
So the exams indicated that they were really agencies like the Salvation Army and Coast2Bay, and probably our community development area, to actually identify the low-income households, and we consider that appropriate, given those agencies. That's great, thank you. Who specifically will carry out the energy assessments or audits, and how will those providers be selected? So the grant application included quotes from several suppliers, so there are professionals who do energy audits. And they audit process, and then the audits will come up with a range of recommendations, and it will be the energy auditors that make the recommendations for what changes might happen. That households might be able to more. Does Council envisage further ratepayer funding as a consequence of the outcomes from this project, or is that $29,000 sufficient to undertake the work? Yeah, so to do what the grant outlines, it's sufficient. Both to do the 20 year audits, and also some low intervention changes. Um so the budget is completely appropriate and broken right. Down from that perspective and assessed on that basis. So not at the moment, we don't envisage further funding, but obviously if the program is successful, it's a great program. So, you know, if it's successful and there's evaluation and there's really great outcomes for low income, then, you know, it's something we want to look at potentially rolling out further. So there may be conversation in the future. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 04:23:26.003
Any other questions? I've got a couple of questions, Ben. In terms of the grants, how often are the grants offered and how are these grants advertised to the community and potential applicants? SPEAKER_07_b 04:23:41.324
Yeah, we offer grants once per year at the moment and that's something with the grants per year that we've got coming up, we're looking at different options that might make it more accessible or even having rapid assessment grants available for the environment, so at the moment it's once per year to answer that question. In terms of advertising, we send out to our database information December. We've got grants, rounds coming up and then as part of the community grants forum we also advertise an evening information session which is held at The J early February. Amelia Lorentson 04:24:17.770
Which is excellent I tend and environment Kim Rawlings 04:24:21.290
Grants are run through the same process, so you get the same sort of publishing and notification and advising of the community. Okay, thank you very much. There's also grant guru. Tom Wegener 04:24:36.600
From the app, I guess, grant guru. I get them. I get it. It's just like, oh my gosh. You know, the grants just get in here. Grants guru. Kim Rawlings 04:24:46.380
Grants guru. Yeah. It's a platform that Kerri or Sharon might talk to, but actually all the potential grants available. It's oh wow. Yeah. I've got a few levels of SPEAKER_01_b 04:24:58.045
Confidence. That's some research. Move it on, I'm happy to Seconder to Councillor Finzel. I think we've got a good description in written and verbal form and I think the recommended projects are all worthy of the dollars requested. Anyone else wish to comment? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. The next item is. Thank you Ben. We'll invite Kerri and Cheryl for one year extension of three year alliance grants. However, I need to declare that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the proposed funding allocations to the Noosa Lions Football Club. I am the current president of and… you can take that out because this one wasn't a grant. And as a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is discussed and vote it on. SPEAKER_05_b 04:26:07.944
Okay, so now that the Chair has left, we need to appoint another Chair. Can I have a nomination please? Tom Wegener 04:26:19.544
I'm happy to do it. I nominate Frank. Frank Wilkie 04:26:26.089
Thank you, I'm happy to do it. Let me put it to the vote. That's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. CEO. Thank you, Kerri Kerry and Cheryl. May we have an overview, please? Yes, sure. Jessica Phillips 04:26:42.647
This reports to extend the alliance grant funding for sports field maintenance and the halls and community centre grants by one year to synchronise with the other alliance funding programs. So initially these grants were approved for three year alliance agreements from the 1st of July 2021 until the 30th of June 2024. In contrast, the guest of season signature events and community alliance grants were allocated on different three year schedule 2022 to 2025. The synchronisation provides administrative improvements for the community organisation and Council. The extension also allows tenure review and the community grants review to be completed and any relevant changes to be implemented and enacted across all funding programs prior to any new funding agreements to be awarded. This report recommends extending the funding of for the sports community and maintenance hall centre central alliance agreements for an additional year from the 1st of July 2024 until the 30th of June 2025. It is proposed to conduct a three-year alliance money application in early 2025 so that the new… so all agreements are synchronised and will be effective from the 1st of July 2025 on the synchronised cycle moving that's it. Thank you. Annie. Oh, sorry. I should note that there are amount of plots that are recommended that's in the community halls and centres. There are 11 that need to be rolled over to the next year. It's a total of 104,834…, 000 or 40 cents and sport field maintenance, there's also 11 groups totalling $203,499.26. Frank Wilkie 04:28:19.442
And just to clarify, this is not an exhaustive list of all the groups that are receiving the three-year allowance, right? This is just ones that will get the one-year extension to synchronise with all the others? Correct. SPEAKER_05_b 04:28:30.562
It is all of the halls and centres and all excludes signature events, festive season and community organisations, our significant community organisations. Frank Wilkie 04:28:47.851
Thank you. Questions, Councillors? Do we have a mover for the… I'll move it. Phillips second, Councillor Wilson to speak to the motion. No, thank you. No, Councillor Wilson. It just seems a sensible solution and inefficiency, so thank you. I'll put the motion all in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Kerri. Thank you, Cheryl. Kerri, you have Councillor Stockwell back in the room, please. SPEAKER_01_b 04:29:28.240
Okay, so that is the end of the public, open meeting. We will reconvene again after the next two items which we held in a confidential session. For those who may be listening online, we be will terminating the webcast and it will be turned back on to adopt any motion that may be forthcoming from the confidential session. Move that we go into closed session. I'll second. It's moved, Councillor Wilkie. Seconded, Councillor Phillips. Thank you for the reminder. I presume there's no debate. Those in favour? Unanimously. Thank you. Oh, we need to vote on that. Councillor Ed, that was unanimous. Okay, welcome back. We're dealing with item 7.1 and it's a confidential not-for-public-release contract, a Register of Prequalified Suppliers for hire of plant and equipment and if you didn't know that's commonly known as dry hire. Would anyone like to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson, I'll second it. Would you like to talk to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 04:30:52.087
No, it's confidential for reasons outlined in the report that there's negotiations relating to a commercial matter involving the for which public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government. SPEAKER_01_b 04:31:08.084
It was good to see that there is a majority of those in the list that are local to the Shire and it's immediate surrounds. Anyone wish to discuss it further? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? And that's unanimous. We move on to 7.2, which is once again the not for public use contract number RP00436, a Register of Prequalified Suppliers for hire of plant with an operator known as wet fire. Do we have someone who wishes to move the motion? Councillor Wegener. And seconded? Councillor Wilson is first off the block. Would you like to talk to Anyone else? Okay, I'll put the motion those in favour. It's carried unanimously and the meeting is now closed at 5.14pm. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
