General Committee, 17 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 Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.222
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 minutes, but before we do that it is a tip that we acknowledge. 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. Of minutes. We have the confirmation of last month's General Committee. Do we have a mover for that item? Amelia Lorentson 01:02.147
I'll second it. Brian Stockwell 01:02.988
Moved by Councillor Lorentson and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. I'm presuming there's no discussion. All those in favour? That is unanimous. We have no presentations, although we do have a deputation. The is from Georgie from 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. Georgina Madsen 01:40.279
Yes, thank you. 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 the Noosa of Disney. Business centre, working with Council to develop master plan 2 back in the early 2000s after the 927 strategic plan and master plan 1, and we obtained the development of approval for 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. Held aspiration or of counselling 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 the 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 of that was captured in an infrastructure agreement which was executed in 2003 so today I just wanted to talk to you about the Childcare centre that we've proposed on lot 4 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 where we are and we have worked actually very hard to ensure 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 childcare couldn't be here with us the childcare is intended to provide places much-needed places for the Noosa community but specifically the nexus is with the business centre so to be able to provide child care for people working and living in that broader Noosa Business Centre them a child care in the village mixed use and I know that was a topic discussed previously in the county environment meeting. For me the child care proposal that we've proposed for lot four 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 was 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 that in the application and in the renders that were provided as part of the application. The Hofmann Drive landscape garden beds that were required as part of the 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. 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 you a seat to provide against. Know, 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've redesigned the proposal, it was mentioned 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 we lodged the application, but we did that before the plans were sealed for the subdivision because we knew we needed a bit more space. The other thing that I referenced is the infrastructure agreement 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 total use area and commercial business component. Of not more than 5,000 total use area. Future stages of the business, the Noosa Business Centre on the land as contemplated by master plan 2. And future stages of the Noosa Business Centre on land other than the land as contemplated by master plan 2. 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 and future stages 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 which is about 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 cycle land, and cycle pedestrian 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 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 to provide a 10-metre buffer to Eenie Creek Road and Walter Hay Drive. The intent was to provide development within a park-like setting. Believe and 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 bio-retention. We've turned that into a feature. We've redesigned the centre. We've put we've in a reconfiguration of lot. And I ask you, what is the 10 metres going to give the Noosa community? That four metres of a landscape, lush landscape setback and 10 metres of built form setback doesn't achieve. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 11:16.163
Thank you. So, Councillors, on our agenda we have two further deputations noted. As you're aware, there'll be a procedural motion. With regard to item four in section five of the committee, which means that those two deputations will not proceed. So we move now on to item five for matters referred to the committee. And the. First one is in regard to MCU 23010, application for short-term accommodation at 561 ginty Kin Kin road, Kin Kin. And could we have an overview of this application? Sara Wilson 12:03.060
All alright, 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 4 hectares to treat it for impact assessment. So the proposal is for short-term accommodation inside an existing dwelling house. The dwelling house is two storeys 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 neighbour, 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 pull out the sections of the planning relevant 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 terms of the CODI 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 a primary dwelling an inconsistently submittable. Tom Wegener 13:37.958
Thank you I'd like to move a motion. Brian Stockwell 13:44.054
For that to go up to the screen so we can read it as you could read it out thanks. Unidentified Speaker 13:48.124
Okay I'll read it off my paper here. Tom Wegener 13:51.371
The proposal is not considered consistent with 3.2.6 excuse. Brian Stockwell 13:55.896
Me you need to start from the very top. Tom Wegener 13:58.130
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 slash 0101 for a development permit for material of changes use short-term accommodations situated at 561 Kin Kin road Kim and a refuse the application for the following reasons the proposal not is not consistent with.2 3.2.6 agriculture and rural based activities of the strategic intent because it does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from 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 ceramic premises be short-term accommodation is not an innovative and sustainable agricultural enterprise see short-term accommodation does not support local production of food and beverage products three 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 which is the site located and guests will adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents four 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 rural uses and activities 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 use of 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 PO1 and P02 PO2 of the 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 7 the use of the premises for 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 7.7 in the 7.7 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 17:47.699
Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Before I ask for a seconder, I think there is one or two typographical issues. In three 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. The next one. 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. With it? Oh, the use is inconsistent? Yes. Just put the use, the before then. The use, yeah, like the previous. Frank Wilkie 19:02.597
Okay, I think that I'm happy to second it for the purpose of debate. Brian Stockwell 19:05.800
Councillor Wilkie. Floor is yours. Tom Wegener 19:09.643
Thank you, thank you Brian for your punctuation. There's a lot of codes that I read out there, but the most important part is the very beginning that I read, which is the strategic intent. 'Cause the strategic intent is 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 the strategic plan. That's the way it works. Have you have the hierarchy. And I'm going to read what the strategic intent says in 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. From urban and rural residential development and other incompatible activities that would compromise productivity. Agriculture will need to adapt to a 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, farm 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. 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. And are we going to follow our actions? Words? 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 residence 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 23:06.699
Does anyone else wish to address the resolution? Frank Wilkie 23:09.612
I have some questions of staff. This is an entirely reasonable grounds for a refusal, 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 23:37.152
Well, 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. 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 our strategic intent, it talks about. Has a range of intentions that it talks about. And it does talk about our intention. Strategic intention. Which goes it's about agricultural land and our rural uses. It also talks about industrial land. It also talks about tourism. So there's a lot. 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. 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 the tables of assessment. So it wouldn't be true to say that it was an inconsistent use. I mean, by definition, it is a consistent use. 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's 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. 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, you know, genuine rule. Rural activities that are to occur within a rural area and how they are to operate, and it's not a code that's talking about how estiations be regulated. In terms of, you know, a lot of all 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 there is a separation from this property to other properties that will allow for the amenity, 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 2.2 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 pursuits, it's more of a lifestyle property and that the surrounding premises also not have any agriculture activities occurring on them, one property has got a driveway 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 that agriculture of evokes your amenity. And character, as about, but again, I don't think there's any change to the character of the area through this year's is. Brian Stockwell 27:47.501
That satisfying your question, Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 27:50.244
There was reference to the Noosa Housing Strategy. Oh, that's an extra condition that was added. Can you talk about the relevance of the Noosa Housing Strategy to the Planning Scheme as it currently stands? Patrick Murphy 28:05.012
Well, it's not incorporated 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 the strategic intent 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? There's a number of 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 28:47.106
Could you talk about how the Housing Strategy is referenced and recognised in the Planning Scheme amendments? Patrick Murphy 28:55.092
Well, yes, it it's certainly acknowledged that is, and with the proposed-- in relation to rural STAs. Yeah, and certainly in relation to rural STAs, seeking that there's not a loss of housing attributed to the use of rural STAs, and that rural STA STAs 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 hosting. 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 tara 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 29:45.013
Yeah, could I just have a subsequent on that one? Yeah. So I've thought about that. From a Planning Scheme perspective, we can't code a principal, 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? Could be considered a relevant matter. Amelia Lorentson 30:08.817
So under, that's section 63 of the Planning Act, under that we do have the discretionary power if there's a planning need and other relevant matters. So we've established a planning need 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. Richard MacGillivray 30:41.339
Well, I was just going to add, and so of terms the CODI principle itself, the case law around how the CODI principle 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. That's 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 the 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 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 their 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 32:09.388
Did you have any further questions? Frank Wilkie 32:11.406
No, think about what I've just thank you. Karen Finzel 32:13.169
Did 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 32:55.267
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 the current Planning Scheme. So that's so primarily formed for by. An advice and support assessment. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 33:17.486
I've got a couple. And you have talked about the book. So this particular location is lord, 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 33:35.460
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 33:43.409
So the site assessment could say whether sort etc and because I'm old, I think this, through the State planning 192, which specifically excluded consideration of whether the pasture was big enough to be a viable area for food crops. 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. It used to be a principle that you looked after the agricultural land. It wasn't an argument because people could just say well I'll do did it. What strongly. He wanted. Okay and by being impact assessable if down the route, we were to route that Councillor Wegener's gone, it is a valid consideration the way the strategic act comes for rural and productive purposes versus the strategic act comes for tourism. That is a valid consideration on this particular site. Is that right? Patrick Murphy 34:50.609
Well, the impact assessment allows us to consider the entire scheme. So yes, that would be the best. Have been doing this for a long time. Frank Wilkie 34:57.388
I I'll speak to the motioner. This raises a really interesting question because in 2020 Councillor Wegener and myself Councillor the majority of Councillors around this table voted in favour of the Noosa 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 ought to be 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-term 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 looking favourably on this motion because it is where we intend to go in the future and within a year this could be law. So the outcome we are seeking could be standard practice out there if the 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 37:23.704
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. Building I think so I think if we're going to debate a motion we should debate one that is appropriate. Frank Wilkie 38:01.509
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 38:10.108
Before, I'm happy 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? Um not draft excuse me it rather than working off these. Patrick Murphy 38:44.153
Reasons so you have on this document based upon the uh provisions that Council wanted me to I also prior to that had prepared that had prepared some which 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 39:08.654
Um and that could be done before Thursday night even was if we debate and pass this as a motion it was only a recommendation. A and then revisit or on you Thursday night. Amelia Lorentson 39:21.460
I just have a question. Jessica Phillips 39:22.274
Much. When? Brian Stockwell 39:25.165
Oh, well no? This question hasn't been seconded or not? Amelia Lorentson 39:28.918
I'm happy to second. Brian Stockwell 39:30.099
Okay so I will talk to it then. So basically yeah that what Patrick said before sort of rang a bell with me. We shouldn't have grounds of refusal that doesn't meet a Rural Activities Code because it's not for a rural activity. Just a simple one so when we do debate we a motion that hits the right points rather than having one that may not be relevant in there. That's the only reason I moved it. Else wish to speak to the amendment? Certainly. Patrick Murphy 39:59.266
Sorry Councillor, tavish is referring to item 2 as well. Does that also refer to the activities code? Once. Amelia Lorentson 40:11.036
Once I pose 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 so. Richard MacGillivray 40:32.415
Yeah so we're going this has been drafted up today at the request of Councillor Wegener so if councillors Councillors 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. Frank Wilkie 40:51.636
Thursday so this would send a message for where we're heading on Thursday so. Brian Stockwell 41:00.106
Got we've got an option we have it's been moved and seconded if we either can't with it. Get away with we can make a further modification to include two as well or we can just vote on it the way we see fit. Frank Wilkie 41:12.772
And amend it again okay so this is the motion before us the amendment before us we've got to deal with that before we deal with anything else David, does. Jessica Phillips 41:20.694
Anyone does wish I just want to ask a question please just to Richard can you please expand on just a comment that you made around changing the goal post please for me. Richard MacGillivray 41:31.830
Yes so the comment was in the time the application launched the application with Council the scheme that is currently in effect was the scheme that they applied under and 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 applicants of the understanding that it was a consistent use no subject to impact assessment under the Planning Scheme so for the applicant that's what they understood the goal first word was the scheme is this. Jessica Phillips 42:32.494
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 when the applicants put forward what we asked them to originally which is supported does that. Richard MacGillivray 42:50.557
Yeah and that's I guess why 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 43:13.078
So once those amendments are made sorry one more question then the decision would be slightly different now but again I my query is like we should be making consideration without what's to come in my mind fair enough. Brian Stockwell 43:32.814
Yeah that's true if I can just it maybe gets you how do you question and um from a pure purely Planning Scheme perspective the correct legal advice is 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 44:21.999
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 44:33.728
That's a good question. The existing potential non-performing use of the property, are we able to consider that in the assessment of the government application? Sara Wilson 44:42.068
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. Brian Stockwell 44:54.043
Generally, one of the remedies if we do find properties, no matter what they're used for, on the contrary, one of the remedies is generally. Well, can you apply a fee to use, and it's generally accepted practice there. Ken's, uh, Karen. Karen Finzel 45:05.970
Councillor. Karen. 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 question um 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 for 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. Sara Wilson 46:25.862
So can I just clarify so this was actually launched September last year so well advance 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 46:48.936
Sorry tara did you say that this application had to go to the State government? Sara Wilson 46:52.619
Yeah it's on the State road. Richard MacGillivray 46:54.841
Thank you. 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 and reserved for endorsed Council policies. Karen Finzel 47:08.337
Okay. So through the Chair just a question, did the applicant have the opportunity to withdraw this application prior to the amendments going through public consultation and coming back or. Sara Wilson 47:20.428
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 there was no advice to withdraw the application. Richard MacGillivray 47:35.750
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 47:51.163
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 we took sort to take out item three but that's the amendment we're dealing with. If no one. Frank Wilkie 48:06.583
Look I'll support the amendment. Are you talking to it? I'll support the amendment because it makes the grounds for refusal more pertinent. It takes out irrelevant grounds. Brian Stockwell 48:15.211
Okay. Anyone else wish to talk? I'll call for a vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. No, I didn't vote for it. Karen Finzel 48:25.066
Oh, you didn't. Oh, sorry. You did vote for your own. Brian Stockwell 48:26.968
No I didn't vote for the amendment. So, if you can, I read it out now, which is Councillor Finzel, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell and against was. Wegener. The amendment becomes the motion. I will move a similar amendment to remove the proposed item 2, grounds of refusal item 2. Frank Wilkie 49:22.001
You need a seconder for the purposes of the debate? Brian Stockwell 49:23.944
Yeah. Seconder, Councillor Phillips. I will only say it's obviously I should have included in the previous one for the same reasons. Anyone wish to speak? Tom Wegener 49:34.881
I'm not sure about this like this is it's clearly relevant to the strategic intent and my argument is based on the strategic intent is what limits the 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 I'm not just not sure that why does it why is it taken out 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 50:17.213
So if I can 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. Patrick Murphy 50:33.702
Using a rural night jacket. Brian Stockwell 50:35.341
And a short-term accommodation in a rural area isn't considered a rural activity? No. Does that answer your question? Tom Wegener 50:40.814
Yes that absolutely answers my point because it's not. I know you're debating staff now Councillor Wegener. You've talked to Councillor Wegener? Brian Stockwell 50:47.794
Yes Sir. Motion, you didn't pose it as a question so you've used your allotment of speaking to the amendment. You might raise it when it becomes the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 50:57.685
Can I ask a question? Brian Stockwell 51:00.287
I'm glad Councillor Wegener had a question. Tom Wegener 51:03.930
So an STA is not consistent with rural. Unidentified Speaker 51:09.835
Activities. You just said that you say because you did you just made my argument because you said that we're. Brian Stockwell 51:18.868
Not please yeah it is a question so can you reword it so it's not part of the argument. Tom Wegener 51:30.403
Is an STA a rural activity no it's not a rural activity. Patrick Murphy 51:37.575
Thank you it's an accommodation activity. Amelia Lorentson 51:43.172
Cancel Lawrence's 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 of us, go 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 then allow Council planners to put the reasons for refusal I feel that we're going the wrong way around okay but that's my question and that'll help inform the decision I. Brian Stockwell 52:21.772
Will allow one more time um think we've already addressed but that would be an alternative way to address this issue. Frank Wilkie 52:31.788
As said before we could approve this motion refuse and staff could refine it by Thursday night as well. Brian Stockwell 52:43.710
Okay does anyone wish to talk to the amendment? Is just to remove the second grant of refusal. Which related to rural activities. Frank Wilkie 52:52.977
I support the amendment because consistent with staff advice it helps make the grounds for refusal more pertinent and defensible. Brian Stockwell 53:04.177
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 becomes 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 53:47.137
So we've got the amended, the change motion in front of us, Mr chairman? Brian Stockwell 53:54.982
That looks right to me with the renumbering, yes. Thank you. 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 54:43.914
I am to speak 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 going 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, which allows us to deviate and rely on the discretionary powers conferred under section 63. Frank Wilkie 56:02.214
Of order, Mr chairman. Could I just ask that the speaker direct comments through you, not to staff. Amelia Lorentson 56:07.959
Oh, excuse me. Done their job. Sorry. And I'd like to remind the Councillors we can exercise what's called discretionary powers under section 63 of the Planning Act, because there is a planning need. We housing. We're in a housing crisis. And other relevant matters under section 45 of the Planning Act 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 57:19.100
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 the fact that it is impact assessable triggered by the size of the land being not an acceptable outcome means we then can 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 strategic outcomes for rural land and primary production. There's asset of this Shire that you can't create any more of, and that's agricultural land. This site itself, while being small, is mapped as having agricultural conservation value, but across the road is quite a sizeable portion of land with good quality agricultural land. And 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 my mind looking at it if I say this is in one of the parts rural 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 before by Councillor Wegener as amended. Anyone else wish to speak? Tom Wegener 59:43.263
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 the Pomona market so they bring all the food down. Brian Stockwell 01:00:00.540
I'll remind you in closing you can only rebut or refer to matters of the debate that have already appeared. Good oh good point okay nothing no I 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? 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 to change of use for develop an application for a short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba road, Cootharaba. Could we have an overview please? Sara Wilson 01:00:43.981
So again this is a short-term accommodation in an existing dwelling house. Also triggered due to the lot size being under 4 hectares so hence the impact assessment. So this lot is 3.16 hectares. There's no work proposed. As 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. There is a fair bit of the site is mapped as biodiversity. There is no ag land mapped on this property. 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. Brian Stockwell 01:01:37.553
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 01:01:49.411
We so Councillor, say we're going to use staying with the motion from the last item that you moved or the motion that was passed. Tom Wegener 01:01:58.434
Let's go with the motion that was passed. Brian Stockwell 01:02:00.148
Okay, so we don't need to read that out again. We know what it is. So would you like to talk to the motion? I'll yeah, second it. That's a good idea. Tom Wegener 01:02:08.808
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 on the land. And this property 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. It's no longer a 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, even though it's a rural property. And there's not a lot of neighbours. You still have neighbours. And they're there when you look at the map. This is inconsistent, once again, with the nisahousing strategy, 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, um, essential, which if is, it, doesn't have a rural pursuit element of the short-term accommodation, then it is not consistent with the town plan. Brian Stockwell 01:03:47.563
Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this motion? Frank Wilkie 01:03:53.015
I think we're heading in the same direction as we did last, uh, the last matter, Mr chairman, so I'll, be supporting the motion. Brian Stockwell 01:03:59.575
Okay. Could I ask for figure 1 from the planning officer's report to be brought up, please? Um, it's actually a, uh, sub-optimist. Um. Planning officer, next slide. Yeah, you've got half of them. Yeah, that's it. So, I'm actually not supporting this. I don't believe it's grand or accurate. Um, there's no way you can have a look at that block with the biodiversity overlaid all over it. Uh, the rear of the site has a riparian corridor. Um, this is not a site where the highest and best uses of agriculture at all. Well, just a bit. Uh, if you look, there's a connection quite strongly through this site and over to the northeast end to a very large remnant. Um, the site, from a planning sense, is best protected for its natural values. The site is not one that, uh, short-term, uh, that any of those blocks surrounding, uh, with a agricultural enterprise, but even if it was a fairly intense horticulture, would have an impact on this site, um, because of the significant natural area buffer. Um, to me, a Council, we've been trying to make eco-tourism, well this is kind of a short-term accommodation. The experience people have in it will be one akin to eco-tourism. The fact that it hasn't built it into the application, um, yeah. At the it end of the would need to be more than just providing it as a short-term accommodation. Organisation. Um, so in this instance, I don't think those grounds stack up. I don't think the specific location was mentioned in the overview. It's not like the last application which was on mapped overlay of agricultural land, um, and while I still think the best outcome is to retain a house and to have short-term accommodations and ancillary use, um, I don't 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 the current policies and things like that. Frank Wilkie 01:06:29.679
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 cabins? 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 01:07:02.781
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 we should be supporting the application in front of us. Motion. In front of us. Brian Stockwell 01:07:30.808
Do you wish to speak? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson. Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Lorentson. Those against? Stop. Okay. The motion as moved was carried. We move on to item 5.3. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:53.445
I'd like to move and return that motion. Brian Stockwell 01:07:58.109
If we can have the overview of the stuff. All right, let's do it. Oh, wait I'll a minute. Yes, that's right. We're looking at item 3. This is a move to obtain the use 22.094, develop an application for a Childcare centre in 2018, in Noosaville. And we have Nadine stepping up to the plate to give us an overview. Nadine Gordon 01:08:18.115
Good afternoon, everyone. This is an application for a Material Change of Use. This is the application that Georgie spoke to earlier this afternoon. This is an application for a Childcare centre for up to 96 children, 17 staff in a single storey building on Hofmann Drive. As you may have there is a bit of history to the creation of the subdivision. It was created in 2018 when 23 lots were created as part of a reconfiguration application with the subjects in the field and a negotiated outcome which required a 10-metre landscape buffer to Hofmann Drive. The Noosa Plan indicates that planning the Childcare centre is an inconsistent and impact assessable use in this zone and Council staff have prepared a report that doesn't support the application based on the non-compliance no composite with the Planning Scheme. And there's the non-provision of the 10 billion landscape setback as required by the recommendation application. You. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:30.805
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 MCU220094 MCU 22.0094 for Material Change of Use for a childcare centre situated at 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville and request staff to bring forward a revised report to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting of 9th of July 2024 detailing conditions for approval. Have a seconder for that motion. Councillor Phillips. Okay. I'm moving this alternate motion to approve a childcare 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. It 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. To me by child childcare centres also play a 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 and 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. 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. 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 space. 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. Area of open spaces 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 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 business contribute to the local economy. They provide employment opportunities, they attract further investment and they create a resilient local economy that can better withstand economic fluctuations. Week we met with our business leaders in our Business Round Table and we spoke of diversification. We spoke of our Small Business Friendly Charter and growing our GRP. The development proposal aligns with our commitment to supporting small business, our commitment to diversifying our economy, and our commitment to growing our GRP. And yet more reasons to support this application. Council'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. Ask that we walk the talk and demonstrate our commitment to our community and again approve this essential service in front of us. Frank Wilkie 01:14:23.784
Question to staff. 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 the Childcare centre? Nadine Gordon 01:14:39.001
Yes, there is the land directly to the north as the village makes you sign and a Childcare centre is a consistent risk in that zone. Frank Wilkie 01:14:45.598
So this community will not be denied economic, social, community benefits or a Childcare centre if it was applied from the correct zone? On sign. Nadine Gordon 01:14:53.267
That is correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:55.140
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 Gordon 01:15:04.353
It took a fair while because the applicant, we did advise the applicant along the way that we weren't supportive 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. Took a while for a response to the applicant to respond to the information request and during that response time there were considerable discussions with the applicant again indicating how concerned our concerns with the proposal so yeah and there was a public notification period in there as well. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:44.980
Thank you Nadine. So if this proposal is not supported how long will it be before we see a child at Noosa Civic? There's land zoned for it but how long would that be before that's actually realised? Nadine Gordon 01:16:00.208
I don't know, that would be up to the developer or someone else to. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:04.954
Thank you. So if this application was supported how long before we would realistically see this up again, and that's something. Nadine Gordon 01:16:13.544
You'd have to talk to the developer, noting that the approval lasts for six years. They might not do anything for six years. They might construct it in five years' time. I don't know. Frank Wilkie 01:16:23.584
Would it be fair to say that if the was to for an application on the correct me zone site, it's a process that might take a lot less time and-- Nadine Gordon 01:16:37.129
Process would take-- it would be an impact assessment application very generally, and a consistent zone could take anything around six months. Frank Wilkie 01:16:45.697
I also heard that-- could you explain weight 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 01:16:58.719
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 4,000 square metres, so in the new scheme it would be a consistent impact assessable application. I think it's important that transparency. Nadine Gordon 01:17:53.158
And to note on that, there's also a requirement in the draft amendments for a 10-metre landscape. We've talked about that a little bit. Frank Wilkie 01:18:00.388
So if there was able to be a 10-metre landscape buffer was able to be retained, looking ahead to where the Planning Scheme is going to go, would that be a desirable outcome or a desirable outcome? Patrick Murphy 01:18:14.945
It would be a desirable outcome. And with the land undeveloped to the north, there is an availability to amend lot boundaries to increase the area. Might be used by the. Compared to this one. Brian Stockwell 01:18:30.930
All around this specific issue, because in the deputation we had reference to the infrastructure plan, my understanding is that. A scheme of refinement for a landscaping buffer is. Does not trigger the definition of infrastructure like an open space commission would. Is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:18:54.671
Yes, so that's landscaping be. Is not he's to drop down the infrastructure. Agreement and the position that's been reported by the applicant about its 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 really necessarily. Brian Stockwell 01:19:19.902
No, no, that was my key point, it's not the infrastructure, the local infrastructure plan may not, and previous agreements with respect to that may not be relevant to this application. Patrick Murphy 01:19:33.435
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 01:19:45.875
Sure. Other questions? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. In the zone you say multi. Use zone, is there a lot large enough to facilitate same size childcare? Nadine Gordon 01:19:58.006
It's a large one, the ones in the north, so yes there is. Patrick Murphy 01:20:08.724
For a range of uses, generally a lot of yes. We haven't incorporated a whole case in that current application. Unidentified Speaker 01:20:18.178
They haven't? Okay. Okay. But there'd be room for one, wouldn't there? Patrick Murphy 01:20:24.243
Well, the four hectares in area is certainly, you know, a very large site if they was ready to do what they were composing, yes. Nadine Gordon 01:20:31.689
Figure nine of the report shows the, I'm not quite sure what page that's on, but if you go through the nine, that shows the initial application. That's been lodged. It's in the report. You open the attachment one and you can go down to figure nine. Is that the edges in there? Yep. Attachment three? No, I said attachment three, sorry. Yeah, it's the line. Frank Wilkie 01:21:16.404
Is anyone else's system very slow? Yeah, I think so. Thank you very much. Nadine Gordon 01:21:23.703
Figure three? Figure nine, no. I'm actually too old. Unidentified Speaker 01:21:29.163
Did you say I'm not too old at all. I don't bother at all. Sorry. Frank Wilkie 01:21:36.423
I'm not so old. Nadine Gordon 01:21:47.319
It's 3.3. It's just right. Section, it's just about 3.3.2. All that does is give you, I don't know, you go on into Mr. Springs. Brian Stockwell 01:22:00.894
So while we're doing that, we won't put any more pressure. We can come back to that, because it's just over the door. Is there another question? Nicola Wilson 01:22:07.094
Just looking at the plans, very much of the area was taken up by the parking spaces. Is there any. Would you talk through the, sort of, one share of. Unidentified Speaker 01:22:16.394
Children's and staff's parking, or are there any other alternatives? So we could accommodate drop-off and pickup so that was so much of a lot the to car parking is. Nadine Gordon 01:22:28.506
Actually below 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 that's 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'll be supporting it going any further alone. Patrick Murphy 01:22:53.602
Life, online, and it 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. It's amazing, know circumstances, we wouldn't accept so much term spaces, but with this use, it's been recommended. Amelia Lorentson 01:23:15.179
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. That's right. So, it is minor, yep. Brian Stockwell 01:23:24.906
Yeah okay, so we have. Had the overall layout there, and the point you were making to that particular diagram? Nadine Gordon 01:23:36.195
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 an information request or further advice 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 application over it and is available for development. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:16.280
OK. 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 childcare in the designated area. Can you talk to that please, Nadine? Nadine Gordon 01:24:38.454
Is a different offering to a childcare in the designated area. Can you talk to that please, Nadine? I can only interpret what I heard. My understanding is if they put it in the current application. 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 do it's offices up the top, car parking on this application. Next door, I believe Georgie was talking about there would be a childcare centre that would put it on the upper level, not a vacant area of land. Amelia Lorentson 01:25:10.617
So can I ask, would the centre support more than one childcare centre? And I'm sort of trying to gauge in terms of workers, professional staff, people living, like this is a city. How many people are anticipated to be working and living in this precinct? Nadine Gordon 01:25:34.134
Actually off the top of my head, no I don't know, I'd have to come back to you, but again there is, we're not, we are supportive of a childcare care centre occurring 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 01:25:56.331
So I've tracking application and in terms of needs and competing interests with other childcare centres, it seems that this doesn't conflict or compete with these existing childcare centres. Is there a need for more child care services? Centres? Nadine Gordon 01:26:16.641
I haven't gone into that. As I said, in the other zones it's a consistent use and noting that the draft amendments also flag that this use would be consistent. 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 there is a provision under the current zoning. For a TOC child care-SNN centre to be. To situated in the Village Mixed Use. Amelia Lorentson 01:26:47.776
And just one more question following up on that. Pressures from, you know, all the conversation with our drafts, the 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 01:27:11.479
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. There 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 child. Care centre developed within this area, but as long as it. Accords with the requirements in the scheme. Questions? Frank Wilkie 01:28:02.332
We had a deputation from the applicant earlier and there were 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? Any points of clarification? Patrick Murphy 01:28:17.689
Just to reiterate that we have had legal advice which supports the inclusion of the provisions. In scheme 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 we'll try trying to create this when site was actually 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 01:28:51.479
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 01:29:22.384
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 upstairs. I said I can only give you my interpretation of. Nadine Gordon 01:29:36.041
What was said in the deputation. So I believe the comment was made that there was to be portion a of childcare centre put not on park-like the village mixed this is a, it's a two-storey development. Use at the moment there's a proposal for a cinema and some sort of indoor entertainment. I'm assuming the comment was made that there was to be a the lot. Sorry, portion of the site. That it would be upstairs, 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 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 01:30:13.661
Maybe that would be good because it makes sense that you wouldn't want a child care inside a building. We want, a building. Our young people we want to have a child our care. Young people out in the Sunshine. Nadine Gordon 01:30:22.134
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. Jessica Phillips 01:30:36.527
And that, is that what, the right three on there? Sorry, the mix that you're speaking of. Nadine Gordon 01:30:41.854
No, so I'm talking about, so the current development application that we're in is over here 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? Uh it's oh but it's, that's about four, it's probably about eight. Could be, that's total, that's a total projection. Jessica Phillips 01:31:10.130
Yep, thank you. It could be 6,000, okay. Brian Stockwell 01:31:13.226
Could be okay Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 01:31:15.324
I'll speak I to the motion look I cannot support this motion because Noosa has had a great history and reputation for fulfilling its economic, social, community needs, fulfilling its economic, social and community needs in a responsible and planned and coordinated way in accordance with the Noosa Planning Scheme. Of course we a need childcare 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 vegetated buffers especially ones that are a result of court order mediation are an integral part of that. I would like to see a Childcare centre in the Noosa Civic. We of course we all want the economic, social and community benefits but there is land where that can occur and we can keep the vegetated buffer. I would be open to any compromise, perhaps, where the 10 metre vegetated 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 01:32:33.475
Sorry just anyone else wish to speak? If you've got a question. I have a question. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:41.429
Just a question that Patrick and Nadine have we spoken to the 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 metre buffer zone. Is there opportunity to negotiate that and if so can we throw the question to the applicant before the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday. Nadine Gordon 01:33:07.031
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 the park-like setting that's required and a good development outcome. I come. Jessica Phillips 01:33:33.931
Can I speak to the motion? Brian Stockwell 01:33:36.662
You may. Jessica Phillips 01:33:37.947
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 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 01:34:28.588
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 site put out to the public interview 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 a childcare centre. Need to debate the 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 Eenie Creek Road is 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 one of the built form and that's the key that's ground for refusal and that's the key thing we've got to consider this wasn't just a condition on a reconfiguration of the lot is a proposed condition 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 raged at full height. So for me I. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:15.568
Well, I'll close. Brian Stockwell 01:36:16.908
Anyone else want to speak? Amelia Lorentson 01:36:19.088
Yep, you I'm just going to run through some of the benefits. 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. It will provide 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 convenient child care services. The building is architecturally designed and has a built form that complements the strong character of Noosa with significant landscaping of four metres. On there are no adverse impacts. 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. 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, they need it now. Approving this application is not just about accommodating deviations of the Planning Scheme. I respect the Planning Scheme. Approving this application is 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 01:38:19.128
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? Frank Wilkie 01:38:37.969
I'll move the staff recommendation. Brian Stockwell 01:38:40.223
Do we have a seconder for that? Frank Wilkie 01:38:42.997
Councillor Wegener was a seconder. Wilkie. 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 heard from staff and in the last debate I'm supporting the refusal of this application and also the fact that the childcare centre can be accommodated on land that's very close by. It's not as if it was not built here it won't be built anywhere yeah so I support this motion. Other people wish to speak? Nicola Wilson 01:40:00.139
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 land or viability so 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 they need to find a site that's big enough to achieve that you. Brian Stockwell 01:40:39.418
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 as one of the areas that's currently being advertised as a potential for an incentive to go through an extra story? I haven't. You've taken it on notice? Yeah. Okay, okay, I'm going to make a 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 that we immediately behind here where we are in visiting. There may be a bonus for an additional storey for affordable housing. I might be wrong. But the principle still is that the zone behind may have a much bigger and bulkier building. So when we're looking at the vista from the road, we're not just looking at the vista from what this is, and I agree, the high quality design element of the childcare centre. We're looking at the role of that buffer to give you an overall impression of the site. And is it one of a park-like setting or 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 be flexible in that regard. But there also is 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. Young children to nature-based play. Is there a compromise there that the 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. Visual buffer. 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 the. Just a proposal of a certain size which is proven to be an 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 01:43:09.054
Thank you. I'd like to firstly thank all the Councillors and what they've put to the table today. It's a really it's a really challenging 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 01:44:21.752
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. As we initially an issue resolved. To before the league starts. Okay. Thank you. Break. We're going to. Break. Brian Stockwell 01:57:58.061
We're all good. Okay. We resumed the meeting and we're on item 5-4, which is a further report on MCU 21011.0110, application for a material change for use, resort complex and ancillary bar, food and drink, outdoor sports and recreation and club, minor extension to existing clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads. And I believe we have a conflict of interest declaration to be made. Karen Finzel 01:58:24.606
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 park ridge 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 with Alton, 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 Rob McCready. Therefore, I will choose to remain I will respect the decision of the meeting room on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 01:59:19.152
Do we have any questions of Councillor Finzel? No? Do we have anyone wishing to move? 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. Do you 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? Thank you Councillors. Richard MacGillivray 02:00:11.571
So a further report has been prepared for the General Committee. The applicant has put forward a request for a deferral of the decision 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 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 02:00:46.711
Thank you. And there is, should we be agreeable to that, the recommendation is on the screen. Would someone like to move that or would you like me to move it. Amelia Lorentson 02:00:57.252
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 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 to future meeting round as the applicant has requested to extend the decision-making period pursuant to section 22 of the development assessment rules. Happy to speak with you. And seconded Councillor by Councillor Finzel. Finzel, do you wish to talk to the them? Yeah, motion? 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 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 in 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 ts community expectations and values. Brian Stockwell 02:02:53.973
Thank you I'm not quite sure if you 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. 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. Just a passenger. And I hand over to you, Kim. Kim Rawlings 02:03:51.145
Thanks, Councillors. I feel very privileged to be at your table for this very significant report and this very significant milestone as the report outlines. You know, probably the most significant project, environmental project 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 and holding everyone together. To achieve an incredibly significant 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 to any questions. Brett De Chastel 02:04:49.633
Hopefully not a hopefully not 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 just 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 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 into 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. We use the transition committee, we've got the final report from the transition committee 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 bit, 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 of this area has already been put into national park and the final tranche which is about 1300, just over 1400 hectares is currently being tabled in parliament as of this week and will be going into national park probably early August as the last step in that process. So we'll end up with an additional 2400 hectares of national park which stretches from, I'm going to use this term to describe it to my wife, you know, you're going down McKinnon Drive and you hit the TN section to turn right to go to Boreen Point from that corner all the way to so you've got that 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 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 department the 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. Pine 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 has 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 achieved some great outcomes. I mean already there's been 131,000 plantings in this area, with another 180,000 to come in the next three to four years, and that's been funded through greenfleet. Came to 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 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 the parlour's harvest companies, plantation companies and three different government departments and don't necessarily always see eye to and just fit 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 transit the transition committee's role has 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 who've also made a 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 were pleasantly. Surprised about the amount of natural regrowth that's occurred. So, I'm happy to take any hopefully easy questions in terms of the project. Brian Stockwell 02:10:52.623
So, does anyone have questions? Frank Wilkie 02:10:55.077
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 02:11:07.668
Yeah, obviously, like any national park, there'll probably be a management plan. So, we've got one being developed in the north, there's one for the national park. There'll 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 a lot of tracks and trails through this area, and 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 the logging roads, so you can do something really good with that area. QPWs and have certainly QPFUS have been very open with Council previously to look at and have a promoter to grant trails. I know that at the moment they're working on the promoter to Lake Macdonald trail. People are working on that at the so moment. 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. Kim Rawlings 02:12:06.635
That's important. Brian Stockwell 02:12:10.011
Other questions? Amelia Lorentson 02:12:12.754
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? Brett De Chastel 02:12:32.936
Yes, so the Council isn't a party to that agreement. It's a separate agreement done as an indigenous land use agreement between greencliffe and Kabi Kabi. And ballytunga. They have arrangements under that. I'm generally aware of it, but it's not a commercial arrangement. There's provisions in there that briefly greenfleet. Through their contractor, Landcare, 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 02:13:13.887
You. Any others? Would someone like to move a motion? I move the motion. Okay. Staff recommendation. And seconded by Councillor Finzel. Frank Wilkie 02:13:26.368
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 they're in the room here. I think they're identifying the opportunity and creating the relationships between HQ plantations the State government departments. I'm here, Tony, for leading us through the initial stages of that. Noel mayer, Mayor Noel, for being there always. Phil Moran for his work with Landcare and rehabilitating the site. You, Brett, 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 benefit. It's for the greater good. It's immensely satisfying to have played a small part as Councillors, it's come before us before 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 02:15:02.583
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 they were pain with something 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 terms of you know the money being held in a trust um I'll leave that for explanation for you so one of. Brett De Chastel 02:15:59.547
The things was that this essentially agreement was that state government Council and NPAs were going to have a further lineage to equality. To acquire the plantation right from the hqp um hq 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 in case they change demand the project went off the rails we would secure our money back if the land didn't become international park in 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 they still hold out funding in a trust Brisbane in and a trust account 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 actually 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 the 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. Win--. Wink. Oh. 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 institutional memory and the institutional institutions 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 um action you know you're looking at a huge problem and saying what can we do let's fix this do you have any um advice for us Council here on how we can maintain and uphold your standards your ability what is the right word paradigm what you've done. Brett De Chastel 02:18:55.505
Uh be brave be bold in a nutshell and it's about taking calculated risks um I remember to um it's was see a CEO after dml amalgamation we had a series of principles we used around 2014 one of those 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're taking. Amelia Lorentson 02:19:30.812
Be brave not stupid yeah going to remember that I'll quote you on that bit, it's great. Karen Finzel 02:19:36.106
Just like to reiterate our be brave not stupid I think it's a real benefit back to a whole of 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 is it's today is announced it's announced that the Kabi people 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. So I think that's sort thank of pretty you, amazing everyone. That we're. Brian Stockwell 02:20:52.672
It's actually it is a fairly historic moment in when you read the report you get a sense of the scale and diversity of activity. And many people appreciate living in Noosa. Many people understand the history. Too few people understand that what we enjoy as a lifestyle is underpinned. Largely by the ability of a small group of people with incredible strategic foresight who have the tenacity, the commitment, who have the high level advocacy skills that over the decades have continued to add. To our natural area of state in a protected 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. 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 a number of the key criteria that we scored really well on was the sense of place linked to nature. There and not is just no doubt. It's the just the good looking older people who do mountain biking that will enjoy this, it'll be the bush walkers, the bird watchers. It'll be the 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 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 a biodiversity perspective, it prepares us for migration of species. It's a major achievement from a recreational and enjoyment nature-based activity and health and well-being 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 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 cleared for the pine plantation 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 02:24:53.326
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, Tewantin, forest, euro. You're already and the Cooloola 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 02:25:38.525
Now we'll put the motion. Those in favour? And that's carried, denounced. Well done. Thank you very much. Patrick Murphy 02:25:45.786
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. It's okay until you're off, Kevin. See you, Matt. Thank you. So, the next item, 6.2, is the draft Shark Control Program, reckoning men's Council policies vision. All right, thank you. David 02:26:51.014
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 now, so you do to the Shark 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 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 the DAF Shark Control Program 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 the Council does actually hold some responsibilities in shark risk management outside of the DAP 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 in the of 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 average less than six entanglements per year however we do often observe them off the 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 has 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 the Shark Control Program. Council to increase advocacy and support to the State Shark Control Program and that's obviously the objectives of moving towards yeah technical technological advances and sharp shutting the smarter shark, 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 that was held with Councillors and the executive team a couple of weeks ago we had coordinator and the program coordinators from the Shark Control Program come in and give a presentation on the 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 these trials and looking to what the future likes that like is actually the 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 should nice. 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 to you know 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 the Shark Control Program 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 you know whale carcass 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 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 the 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 the DAF Shark Control Program 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 Noosa LGA. 2. Council to continue to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support SharkSmart educational programs and alternate bite mitigation. Trials where appropriate. And then Council should note the other shark management responsibilities that I just explained which include: 1. Marine animal stranding response. Noting the trial requires resourcing for equipment, materials and staff training and the use of contractors to enable Council to effectively respond to stranding events. 2. Consideration of a signage investigation relating to dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed councils, canal systems only, Noosa Waters effectively. I'll probably leave it there, given the workshop was there and the report is in front of everyone, but more than happy to field any questions. Kim Rawlings 02:35:31.643
Just before, just to add. A minor issue, the reference to when the report refers to ES, there is an in the report, 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. Unidentified Speaker 02:35:53.693
Apologies. Frank Wilkie 02:36:00.013
Dave, there's often questions about moving the sharpness during the whale migration season. Forgive me if I missed it when we had the presentation from daph. Daft, but did they, what are the reasons for them being reluctant to move the.ie from their current position. David 02:36:22.034
Yeah for sure for so few so there's things, I guess there's two factors there. The 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 effective alternative. Regarding the actual relocation of the nets, so either moving them inshore, offshore, to the site, whatever it might be. Frank Wilkie 02:36:45.076
To minimise the chance of strainings. Yep, exactly. So my understanding is that it's obviously not an exact science. The nets are set in specific locations for a number of factors. David 02:36:57.081
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 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 the beach. They're also proud that the 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 add a bit more to that as well. Yeah. So quick. I'll just catch up with you. Karen Finzel 02:37:42.420
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, the and the Councillors for supporting that around the table. 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 or? David 02:38:05.905
No, that's my understanding. It's simply being able to, I guess, you may be able to put it into better words, Kim, but. Kim Rawlings 02:38:14.539
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 shark 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 their current trials, 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. Whether DEPH do community consultation on. David 02:39:02.351
The they management plan, 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 know, some people are in favour of nets, might be, to DAF 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 02:39:38.498
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 02:39:49.871
I think where we would play the role, which we do with other activities, is that when DAF head out to community consultation on these things, that's an opportunity for Council to have that voice position and put that information out there to the community on our, on DAF's behalf. So we're the, I guess, the mediator between DAF and the community, which is just another Avenue. Kim Rawlings 02:40:11.053
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. And request that they come and do something up here to talk to our community. That would be the most appropriate mechanism. David 02:40:37.903
I think sorry. I think it's important to remember too, as far as I'm concerned, we're all trying to get to the same goal as I think 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 play part that as well and help DAF and Council to get to that end result, then yeah, it's just a great thing as well as anything else. Karen Finzel 02:41:11.490
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. Not the 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 02:41:36.538
I think there's a few responsibilities. There's the education side of things. So DAF have a SharkSmart program. There's opportunities there 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 the 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 they just decide maybe 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 thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:42:35.585
Just a quick question who has the authority to authorise the seasonal removal of our nets in Noosa? South. David 02:42:43.354
That would be the State government, not DAF. It would be the State. I'm not exactly sure what level but the State will tell DAF whether or not that's appropriate and that will come out at the review of the shark just management plan. Going it's going to add something but I'll think of it later. Kim Rawlings 02:43:04.419
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, they're happening right up in Queensland, the eastern Coast. And all of the evaluation of those different technologies and trials will influence. Unidentified Speaker 02:43:28.011
You know, any changes that are made as part of the shark management plan next year. David 02:43:32.987
My May heart I just is sad I to that. Guess that's right. So the other role that Council can play in consultation with DAF directly is if we see potential alternatives that aren't being explored at the moment, we can suggest to DAF or get a response from DAP 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 as it may go from there. Amelia Lorentson 02:44:20.158
So there were three action items that was included as part of my notified motion, David, that was one of them. And the second one was about, you know, exploring electronic cables in south africa. So they will, just from your response just now, they will be actioned. And do we leave those three actions with you? David 02:44:43.092
You? Yeah, that'll be up to my managers and directors. Who 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, so. Ben Derrick 02:44:56.198
Yeah, I'll respond in 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 DAS to explore. We won't be exploring the effectiveness of those. We'll put the staff to say here's an alternative solution which you might be interested in exploring. Kim Rawlings 02:45:16.566
And DAS, 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. Frank Wilkie 02:45:24.956
The early findings were that they were ineffective. That's what I heard the DAS officer say. That's right. The cables. The ones that are on the seabed. Kim Rawlings 02:45:36.091
Yeah. Yeah, there were some 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 a very good relationship with the team. So anything 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 the key roles here. So yeah, we'll continue to do that. Fantastic. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:11.524
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 I communicate that through you guys. Is that correct? Yeah, for sure. I see that as totally reasonable. Yeah, for sure. And just clarifying that somehow tracking white whales that are released to check on their welfare post-release. Fantastic. Thank you. Anyone who wants to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson has moved. We have a seconder, Councillor Wilkie. Brian Stockwell 02:46:43.232
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:44.134
Okay, I'd like to move the recommendation in front of us that but that Council pay a note the report by environmental services to the General Committee dated 17th of June regarding a recommended Council policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program and be adopted the following policy position that one continues to support the DAF Shark Control Program SCP 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 Noosa. Lga and to Council to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support SharkSmart educational programs and alternative bite mitigation trials is where appropriate this section C to Council? B. I can't see C. Note Council's other shark management responsibilities including: marine animal stranding response. Noting this role requires resourcing for materials and staff training and the use of contractors to enable Council to effectively respond to stranding events and to 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 that program from the State 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 you channel to express their. Much. 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 and 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 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. State need-led we need trials to actively engage initiatives so we 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 to change the focus of 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 what do we owe the biosphere? This debate concerns more than just safety, it's also about stewardship and it's also about responsibility. Such control 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. Human 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. And I think Councillors that strong should aims as participants in our marine community and also as a biosphere. Brian Stockwell 02:51:12.358
I've just got one question for you, which I'd foreshadow for you, in that. 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 for this one? Unidentified Speaker 02:51:34.929
Yep, so so our, um, they've not been able to comment on operational budget, but we have one of our key positions that support this work is temporary, so we are so we are seeking for that position to be ongoing as part of the budget process. We currently. Kim Rawlings 02:52:04.695
Because we have a responsibility 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, you know, that's one of there's the, you know, 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, so we do outsource that we'll allow some operational 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 02:52:44.541
Okay, thank you. Cancel that. Thank you. Just coming off the back about of that, a segue into that, I 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 give us some. Information on that, given it's in C1? Sorry, what sort of information were you after, sorry? Unidentified Speaker 02:53:09.970
Well, I didn't hear. What we currently do I can't understand what we currently do, because this is a service we currently do. Karen Finzel 02:53:15.889
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? David 02:53:28.340
For sure. So Council is responsible under the nature conservation act for the removal of a deceased animal carcass on a beach. State is responsible for 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 he Kim mentioned that contractors play a key role in that area, you may or not recall we actually had a contractor intercept a humpback whale carcass just off newston national park last year. We had that contractor to tell it 10 nautical miles out into the commonwealth waters. We have permits to do so. The Council does need a level of first response as well, so we need to be able to have appropriately trained staff and resources too. 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 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. 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. Karen Finzel 02:55:11.131
So to clarify then, we don't actually deliver that service to that degree now that you're seeking, that's a projected. 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 the lead. Yeah, what are we doing? Okay. We would be the point. We should be the lead, yeah, for sure. This is a good job. Thank you. Ben Derrick 02:55:34.272
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 to be able to respond adequately to do it ourselves. If there was a 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 to be able to tow something out. Either tow something off inshore and bury it, we can do some small ones like the tiger shark we've got last year but the large ones where were a little bit vulnerable and, you know, strandings, we might not get one for another 15 years and then we might get a whole bunch of smaller ones. But it's really, I'm pretty pleased as they're invested, crystallised. The world. Frank Wilkie 02:56:43.604
When wooden 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 when he was towing that carcass out to sea? That might be. Pertinent to this discussion. David 02:56:57.433
Yeah 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. The tow 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. The contractor arrived to the carcass the next morning, it was located about one kilometre off the beach and there were sharks on it again. He saw that offshore and the sharks basically caught him the whole way up. Very interesting story. Thank you. Yeah, good context. New version of pied Piper. Frank Wilkie 02:57:53.096
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 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 activities to mitigate. And reduce the likelihood bycatch. Of shark bite and. David 02:58:31.366
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. We've got a 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 02:58:48.313
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. We can and can't do and so it's good. I think it's very helpful. Amelia Lorentson 02:59:02.464
Thank you Tom. Brian Stockwell 02:59:05.493
My two cents worth is it does give a policy of that now but doesn't say enough when if there's proposals in the next draft shark management plan or do we consider it again. Like it does by default say where 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 perhaps 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 the right proposal. Kim Rawlings 03:00:04.031
What I would suggest is I think you're right and I think it would be as officers making be, this as officers making this recommendation, it would be pre-emptive on us to 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. Unidentified Speaker 03:00:51.742
Clearer, up, strong down positions. Frank Wilkie 03:00:54.031
Yeah, yeah. Sorry, Councillor. 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 03:01:13.070
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 to bycatch than the State. That's just another report to cancel when it happens. Frank Wilkie 03:01:46.546
Alright, when it happens? Yeah. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. David 03:01:51.448
It's a tricky one. There's no clear right or wrong answer to this and I think that's why we have so much divide in the community, so. Brian Stockwell 03:02:02.867
Else wish to speak? If not, Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 03:02:07.083
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, I'm afraid you can't. Oh, okay. No, okay. Then excuse me through the Chair. 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. The Chair. Brian Stockwell 03:03:01.253
I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We'll move on to the next item, which is almost as riveting: Fees and Charges. Amelia Lorentson 03:03:14.932
Thanks, Dave. Thanks, Dan. Thanks have a good day. Guys, thank you David. Jessica Phillips 03:03:22.572
Two-minute break after this. Please. Just after this. Brian Stockwell 03:03:32.508
It'll take a while. The fee person and charges in should have be a two-minute- Thank you. Karen Finzel 03:09:47.877
My god, at least you're not alone. Brian Stockwell 03:09:49.934
We're good to go. Okay, just give me a second. So, welcome back, Councillors. Our next item is in regard to the 2024-25 Fees and Charges, and this is something we generally do in advance to allow those who are reliant on setting fees for their clients to have a heads up 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. Well, Pauline maybe is he's going to talk tell about you that. Pauline 03:10:23.775
It 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 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 will generate charges. 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 market demand. Some fees may 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 operations is managed appropriately. Twice yearly Council reviews its amended holiday park fees, and this is to allow the port of deployment of sites 18 months in advance. And this review will extend those Fees and Charges to the 26th of January 2006. The Noosa North 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 weeklies 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 a diversified revenue base and ensures that the 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 03:12:32.038
Thank you. Do we have any questions? I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to talk to it? Frank Wilkie 03:12:40.890
No, no, it's only, it's 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. Brian Stockwell 03:12:53.568
Does anyone else wish to anyone speak? Else who wants to speak? Amelia Lorentson 03:12:58.490
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 of swimming 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 as a Council can we provide any sort of an initiative to encourage every kid to learn how to swim. Kerri Contini 03:13:52.945
Thank 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. Um, 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 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, thank you. I haven't answered your question. Amelia Lorentson 03:14:51.016
No. So we provide like pension and rebates. I'm wondering if there's something similar or something we can think about. Kerri Contini 03:14:59.945
Government provides a subsidised. Amelia Lorentson 03:15:03.079
Program. Kerri Contini 03:15:05.868
So that if that can be used for swimming, it could be used for any number of sports and we actively encourage that. Amelia Lorentson 03:15:14.444
Okay, thank you very much. Karen Finzel 03:15:15.658
Thank you. Yeah, you go first, just on the back of that, when I said on the coroli corolli 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 that to towards their fees. Is there something around that swelling classes? Kerri Contini 03:15:39.268
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 03:15:53.659
Okay, thank you. I guess to speak on that as well, the one that doesn't make me feel good is a child's swimming lessons. School age children is the less. School 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 03:16:31.551
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? Kerri Contini 03:16:38.939
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 03:17:00.007
Can I ask a question to Trish? And Pauline, is there a possibility, next budget review, that we can throw that as a Councillor initiative to look at maybe subsidised swimming or for families. That least can afford it and to ensure that every kid in the Noosa Shire has the opportunity to get swimming lessons? Trent Grauf 03:17:31.720
Through the Chair we can bring back obviously the first part would 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 Fees and Charges and what the 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 03:17:56.687
We appreciate and ask if you could note that. Frank Wilkie 03:17:59.004
Just clarifying it's $4.10 for a school for the child to access the food. $4.30? Well, I guess you're safe. There was a quite a few places. Karen Finzel 03:18:08.643
Just thousand feet. Thank you. Just on the back of that, a question to the CEO via the Chair. Is there opportunity, given it 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 and under. 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 03:18:40.295
I understand your question, but once again, we tend to this look at specifically swimming programs and access? 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 03:18:53.640
Yes, and I appreciate that, Mr Chair, thank you, but it was just a yes /no answer. Could we advocate? Amelia Lorentson 03:18:58.936
I can answer that question. Brian Stockwell 03:19:00.987
I've ruled. So, we've had the motion moved, does anyone wish to talk to it? Tom Wegener 03:19:09.075
I've got a question. Personal appearances, personal appearance on page 15, what is that in relation to? Because they're pretty expensive for personal experience, and of course, I want to get on this. Richard MacGillivray 03:19:27.994
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 health services. So that might be where you get nose rings, ear rings. There's 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, that's part of the inspection of those facilities to make sure that they're hygienic and clean and meet the appropriate health standards. Okay. Thank you. That's why the fees are reflecting off 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. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:20:25.001
Okay, no further questions or talk? If you don't want to close, Councillor Wilkie? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay, we move on to the next item and that is the May 2024 Financial Performance Report. And once again, the lead. Pauline 03:20:45.220
Good afternoon again Councillor. So here today May 2024 operating revenues continue to outperform our forecast and operating expenditures are today. Operating revenues $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. This has been offset however this has been how upset by however lower 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 services expenditure is also 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 net operating 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 dollars has been spent on the QRA funded disaster projects. Thanks to one of the Councillors, Councillors should note that the cash section of the financial report on page 387 references April and that should reference May the. Cash holding at the end of May was 113 million dollars with 30 million dollars of these funds invested in term deposits. Cash holding continues to be higher than forecast with advanced 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. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:23:21.482
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. Unidentified Speaker 03:23:40.934
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. Brian Stockwell 03:23:55.473
We just contributed to that as well. Okay, so it was an undetected water leak I take it, wasn't it? Yes, it was. Good. Okay, and I thought it was going to be relating to the trade waste disposal from the. Might kipfer. Be. There it may be some else. Element with a large percentage. Three times that much, yeah. Definitely, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 03:24:18.346
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, no. Trent Grauf 03:24:28.414
There have been some in prior years, as we cast back the last three or four years, and as we've gone through as metre read, obviously the difference in the volume, we've captured but not to this extent. Brian Stockwell 03:24:42.971
If I take it, it's our problem because it's they continue line out to the toilet or something, isn't it? Unidentified Speaker 03:24:49.028
I'll stay in so it wasn't overmolding. Yeah. So it wasn't over multiple quarters or anything, it was detected, but it obviously was quite a lot in that. Amelia Lorentson 03:24:59.512
Other questions? I'm going to ask a question that I think I'm going to continue asking: consultancy fees. Can we separate consultant proceeds fees? 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 what 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. It just seems like that amount just keeps getting higher through and higher. Trent Grauf 03:25:53.391
The Chair, in terms of reporting, obviously our front page, our P &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 is your standard of infrastructure we do obviously with the attachment to the full that has the consultancy breakdown of materials and services in amongst the other categories. If you would like a deep dive and we do regular deep dives into different elements, you are obviously going to 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 space of which consultants have been engaged for which types of work, that's a contractual and commercial-in-confidence matter for those consultants if it's not a public tender, but we can obviously break it down by the business area involved. Yeah, that would and preferred be great. Frank Wilkie 03:27:00.749
Supplier lists. List. To the job. Bit specific. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:09.338
Thank you, that would be great. Frank Wilkie 03:27:13.840
Yeah, so on page 396 they've got consultancy fees listed as a separate line item. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:20.276
At one $1,749,000. Yeah. It's just a lot. I'd just love to understand that a little bit more. And return on investment also, I don't know how that's gauged, but just to understand, is it worth it, are we getting bang for buck. Trent Grauf 03:27:41.060
That would be a separate deep dive exercise. Outside. Of this, it could be a piece of work we could. 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 a look at the types of consultants and see whether it was niche expertise. The nature 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 we can take it offline for you. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:16.102
Appreciate it. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:28:22.741
Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? If not, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Unidentified Speaker 03:28:32.300
Thank you. Tom Wegener 03:28:36.409
Are you guys holding up? We're good? Amelia Lorentson 03:28:39.028
It's a long day. Brian Stockwell 03:28:40.310
I presume you're not staying around for the arts development fund, are you? Our next item is the Regional Arts Development Fund grant recommendations for 2024. Unidentified Speaker 03:28:53.417
Good afternoon, Councillors. We've had. Kerri Contini 03:28:56.151
I've had a long session today, so we're here with the good news part of the day, I believe. Ben Derrick 03:29:07.122
All right. Well, Councillors, this is a fairly straightforward paper. Many if of you you've already have seen original the article. Regional Arts Development Fund round that we've been processing this year, round 21, requested to approve recommendations of the assessment community fund project to the value of $36,700, as outlined in attachment 1. This is the second round of the current funding that we have, and if approved, this will leave $168 remaining for carrier. Carryover, which is fairly good out of a total budget of $65,000. Karen Finzel 03:30:13.298
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. Brian Stockwell 03:30:27.296
Anyone else? Amelia Lorentson 03:30:29.394
I have a question yes Ma'am hi in terms of the grant funding program. How do we measure the success of the grant funding program in terms of artist development and community? Ben Derrick 03:30:44.521
Research development fund is a 50/50 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 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 detailed process. Amelia Lorentson 03:31:14.314
And do you ever get self-assessments where the artists um say they didn't think it was a great idea? Seriously, that's great. Good way. Ben Derrick 03:31:23.614
This is working in a very challenging environment where the dollars are very, very tight on projects. Artists, though, are extremely used to working in 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, 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 those acquittals. Kerri Contini 03:32:10.099
That's so great. It's also that we have artists who resubmit, who 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 03:32:29.128
Fantastic. It's not true you can do your final report as an interpretive dance, is it? Yeah, just. Karen Finzel 03:32:45.636
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 and innovation through arts, culture and heritage, but that challenge that exists between paying the right amount of money and delivering the programs. Ben Derrick 03:33:18.734
Definitely, thank you for the 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 the same. 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 well we're giving you the honour of presenting in our gallery so therefore we're not going to pay 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 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. You that. Kerri Contini 03:34:58.765
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. Ben Derrick 03:35:08.638
So we would prefer to support smaller projects that are paying properly rather than. Larger big bang projects that, of course, the community benefits from, but just keeps that artist rate below the poverty line. Thank you. Karen Finzel 03:35:24.842
And just coming in off the back of that then, just a little bit of information about the changes through the radical. Looking at giving a larger lump sum of money and the smaller opportunities throughout the year to deliver. Ben Derrick 03:35:39.497
For sure. So through the Chair, we will be putting a proposal to Council to change the balance of how we currently manage our. Grant 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 an artist 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, might be able to get back to them in a very short period of time. Karen Finzel 03:36:23.074
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:36:27.144
I'll talk, because I think it's a really interesting discussion. Um we a have a cultural plan that talks about trying to build our creative 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 that the standards thing that yeah my daughter when she chose to 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 you know 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 that you know the vast majority maybe the top five ten percent get a good living but other than that most of them it's probably something that does start from little local grants. Amelia Lorentson 03:37:36.109
Anyone else wish to speak? Oh I have one just 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. Ben Derrick 03:38:00.364
Definitely we do of stats around the artists that live and work in our region 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 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 be will able to put their 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. We're a lot more on developing our creative industries. Amelia Lorentson 03:38:51.458
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. Ben Derrick 03:39:05.111
Definitely. I 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 community that are coming up to us. Kerri Contini 03:39:40.849
Brilliant. Karen Finzel 03:39:43.072
Just on that high note around that Paul, do you want to give a few minutes, it's really exciting, in the round of grants, the artist from Cooran that's going to the Milan fashion show. You want to give us a little bit, I think that encapsulates that vision of where we want to take our local artists. Ben Derrick 03:39:59.372
Yeah, definitely. So, great example of an artist that lives in Cooran but is internationally known. Yeah. Works in recycled materials as a fashion designer. She's taking her show over to Milan. She's being 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, Councillor, of ways in which we can try, just in a small way, through RADF, to support somebody to take on that fantastic opportunity. Brian Stockwell 03:40:42.385
Do you wish to close, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 03:40:44.493
Think it's all been said, just carry on. Brian Stockwell 03:40:47.902
I'll put the motion to vote and that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is another grant round and it is, I haven't opened it because it's closed, but it's community there. 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 guys up coming up and are you going to do the opening or is it the Director? Kerri Contini 03:41:20.547
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 so 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 so you have 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 strictest technical accuracy this is the this is the better way of actually presenting it Cheryl will better way of actually move presenting it so Cheryl on. Will move on previously for our new Councillors we present the community project grants in subcategories to handle if any Councillors have a conflict of interest in it's needs to them. Actually leave the room to ensure that we can have a quorum to address that Ms. So that's so through the Chair. We'll do program and projects first. Brian Stockwell 03:42:50.667
Councillor Finzel? Kendall? Karen Finzel 03:42:51.273
Yes. I believe is this section 6 item 6 that I will want to declare conflict? Thank you. My Councillor Finzel informed 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 decision-making capacity on the Peregian Beach Surf Lifesaving Club 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 I do not stand to gain or 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 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 decision of the meeting and can remain and participate in the decision. Amelia Lorentson 03:44:05.892
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 Roderick stepped down as the president okay 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'm just Clint just replied. Brian Stockwell 03:44:38.151
Thank you so you never think about that but I'm reading Rob is another Rob McCready is not a related party or a class I would now close associate so really that said and says I haven't got a declarable conflict of interest which I agree with but 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 03:45:28.259
We just add Mr. Mr. Rob McCready and Leigh McCready sit in a decision-making capacity Mr. Karen Finzel 03:45:36.290
McCready's are you so Mr. and Mrs. Robin Leigh McCready who are not a related party or close associate at the start of that sentence can we include both. Frank Wilkie 03:45:50.816
Well we could just go back to the original one about Leigh McCready because she's most direct perceived conflict you don't even need to. Karen Finzel 03:45:57.444
Mention Mr. Rob he sits as we look that up didn't we he sits in a like a subcommittee that is a decision-making. Frank Wilkie 03:46:04.171
Committee yeah the partner of a. Brian Stockwell 03:46:07.997
Person of a declarable conflict. Frank Wilkie 03:46:10.778
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, For the sake of this one I think you do. Karen Finzel 03:46:24.057
Yes. Because um 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 03:46:34.951
So can I, I'll have a tie of, I'll read out. It Councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable 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 he's not, are not related parties. Unidentified Speaker 03:47:21.854
So they keep going with this? Yeah, everything else is there. Mr and Mrs McCready. Brian Stockwell 03:47:26.217
Are not related parties, nor are they close associates, nor are they close associates. And I didn't believe this to satisfy the act requirements is what you're really saying there? The requirements of. Act? Of the act. Do we need an actual what that is? Yeah. As I do not stand to gain a benefit of loss, significant portion of gain. However, it's not all those. Who is last this? Sentence. However, seek to declare this interest. Yeah. Interest? Well, you're saying you haven't got a declarable conflict. I seek to declare this interest. Yeah, so you're just declaring the interest. However, it's public interest? Karen Finzel 03:48:30.741
No, I think, it has to be as. Brian Stockwell 03:48:33.866
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 03:48:41.137
I think the wording is perceived. Sorry, a prescribed conflict. It's not a prescribed, but it is a declarable. No, no, no. It's not prescribed. The sentence before. It's not prescribed, it's declarable. It's not prescribed, and it's not. Brian Stockwell 03:48:53.146
And if they're not close associates, nor are they related parties, then it's not a. Amelia Lorentson 03:48:58.897
It's not a. Brian Stockwell 03:48:59.373
Declarable conflict. Frank Wilkie 03:49:00.651
About Mr and Mrs McCree? You're not related. Parties, nor are they close associates. Full stop. I'm sorry, what was this? Karen Finzel 03:49:12.037
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. Brian Stockwell 03:49:27.122
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. Yes. So that's a, you know, proper. Karen Finzel 03:49:39.045
It's declarable okay it is declarable that's right and that's why I'm taking it to the vote in the public interest. Unidentified Speaker 03:49:52.696
I would okay. Say and I'm not then after that, how do you happy with that. Brian Stockwell 03:49:54.834
Okay. And then after that however here yeah however I know how in the public interest I will declare this I interest as I believe I am able to make it that's I think that works are you happy with that Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 03:50:12.599
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 oh us- Oh, maybe I should leave public perception in there before us today, full stop and then leave Trent take out lane 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. Okay, we can put subcommittee there, but we don't know if that actually got voted. Ben Derrick 03:51:21.855
No, no. Subcommittee? Karen Finzel 03:51:25.240
Yes, at the time. Do we need to note that at the time of the application? Brian Stockwell 03:51:30.487
No. I think the main thing is the purpose of 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. Karen Finzel 03:51:43.241
Okay, so Mr McCready is married to Leigh McCready. Worked as a volunteer on the 2020 Future Noosa election campaign, which is no longer an entity. Mr and Mrs McCready are not related parties, nor are they close associates. And I do not believe. Oh, we'll die, 'all. Actually, die, y 'all. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:08.811
And therefore, I do not believe this. Karen Finzel 03:52:14.474
All right, I'm just going to put a and therefore, you think? Amelia Lorentson 03:52:19.594
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 as I believe. 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 I reckon we're about I request to remain I request I remain I request I remain in the request you meeting as I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Brian Stockwell 03:53:19.872
However, I will respect it. But we don't need to edit it. We just need to make sure it's not inactive. We'll fix it by Thursday night. Councillor Finzel, are you happy with that? Karen Finzel 03:53:29.415
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 03:53:44.610
Would anyone like to ask Councillor Finzel or move either of the options in terms of whether she should stay or leave? Nicola Wilson 03:53:51.822
I'll move that Councillor Finzel participates and votes on this matter. Jessica Phillips 03:53:55.486
We'll second it. Brian Stockwell 03:53:57.048
Sorry, you. Jessica Phillips 03:53:57.668
Oh, that's yeah, it. Because Council believes that. Reasonable person. Sorry. Would trust that the financial decision is made in the public interest. Brian Stockwell 03:54:08.461
Or even the final decision. Financial, you see. She's an accountant. Yes. Have we got a seconder? Do you need to talk to it? Does anyone wish to we hand it out? Just put it on the agony, please. Vote on the matter. It's carried unanimously and Councillor Finzel didn't vote. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 03:54:41.224
Good- You're all right now. Afternoon. Kerri Contini 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 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. Jessica Phillips 03:55:24.472
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 may be funded for a maximum of three times. Previous recipients of ongoing projects or programs that 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 03:55:51.630
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. Would anyone like to talk to the motion? Councillor Phillips would. Jessica Phillips 03:56:08.725
I have a question very quick question to the community see this the itemised of everyone fantastic can I just say the community see it in two ways. Kerri Contini 03:56:19.986
They it's obviously attached to the report as a public document and then have a section on the website which outlines the program and past recipients. Jessica Phillips 03:56:30.447
Okay then my second question is just for future when the trustee for ray's foundation I believe you go and then go and speak with them around the 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 with them for future applications just given that it seems like a really great program thanks okay oh. Brian Stockwell 03:57:08.843
Before we go 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 03:57:28.489
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 infrastructure, building or work infrastructure improvement 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 out to solar systems. Brian Stockwell 03:58:01.368
Habitant mover? Moved, 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 Australian rural football club to upgrade the community toilet. Facilities 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 upgrade. Brian Stockwell 03:58:30.654
Try it. 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? Kerri Contini 03:58:44.157
Yes, so we have additional conditions which then go into the. You can have an offer to the. Brian Stockwell 03:58:52.010
Anyone wish to talk or ask questions? No? Do you want to argue with yourself in closing? No, 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 03:59:18.360
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. September 2023. Year. That's still fairly recent. I don't. Yeah, and I didn't have any idea about this grant application, but yes. Timing. Amelia Lorentson 04:00:05.262
Through the Chair, is it relevant? I would think it is. Brian Stockwell 04:00:08.867
Yeah. 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 04:00:19.034
For your benefit, Councillor. Phillips. Jessica Phillips 04:00:21.215
That's why I wanted it. That's why I brought it up. Thank you. Yeah. What's next? So that, do you want me to try and work something? Brian Stockwell 04:00:31.026
No, just kidding! Yes, it's declarable, yes. Amelia Lorentson 04:00:41.345
We can vote, on it. Thank you. It's at a minimum declarable. That's great, yep. Brian Stockwell 04:00:50.815
I'm meeting, I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I was the president of Cooroy gymnastics up until 2023. September 23. Yeah. Unidentified Speaker 04:01:03.071
And then. Was the president? Yeah. Cooroy gymnastics until September 24. Brian Stockwell 04:01:18.458
And then the State? Unidentified Speaker 04:01:20.897
Sorry, just leave that. Got to put a. No, no. Yeah, I've got to put a thing around it. No, resolution. Brian Stockwell 04:01:38.337
No, but we have to. Go back. You just wiped out the second part of the motion. Yeah. All right. Unidentified Speaker 04:01:46.153
Okay. Oh, okay. Yes, the State. We'll get that now. All right. Brian Stockwell 04:01:57.260
So, no, no, yes. That goes above that, the motion. Yeah, it goes here. So, take out the word state. Yeah. And add it to the, straight yep. Up to September 23. That's it. Are you happy with that, Councillor Phillips? Because, what reason? Jessica Phillips 04:02:24.349
I am no longer in any capacity involved in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club. Nor are my kids. And I'm not a loner, I'm just no longer. I could also be a loner. Unidentified Speaker 04:02:46.369
That's it? Is that the name of the day for you? Yes. Vote. Alright, 9-4-2. Yeah, Yup, take that, Alright. And vote. Sorry, no? Brian Stockwell 04:03:03.120
You're happy with that, Councillor Phillips? Jessica Phillips 04:03:05.240
As long as I'm just not a loner, I'm just no longer. Brian Stockwell 04:03:07.840
I'm happy. And has anyone got a question or would they like to move a recommendation? I'll move. Karen Finzel 04:03:14.020
I'm happy to second. Brian Stockwell 04:03:15.020
Thank you. And that's the stay recommendation? Yeah. So it's moved, Councillor Wilkie, seconded, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 04:03:21.240
Yeah. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 04:03:23.260
You're welcome. Can I ask a question, please? Just, Councillor Phillips, how long were you president of the Cooroy? Jessica Phillips 04:03:30.874
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, I want to say, if I had to worry about. A very long time. Frank Wilkie 04:03:55.865
Well, well, while you're on the roll, you might as well mention your parents to the foundation members. Movers. Okay. Brian Stockwell 04:04:07.456
Now, sorry, Councillor, because you can't do that without the agreement of the whole committee or Council. I didn't say it's happening. I said it was worth putting it in. Yeah, I know, but we can, but it has to. Everyone around the table has to agree to it. Oh, because before we move to the second. Oh, right, yeah. You know what I'm talking about yeah yeah so would you like that included you yes everyone happy with that to be included yeah yeah okay um sorry Vicky if we go up there after the September 2023 yeah put it in use a comment rather than a full stop okay and as my parents were foundation members- Can we move have a look out? At- No. Are we happy you with that? Unidentified Speaker 04:05:14.256
Should we call the club? Down dance? Somewhere? Frank Wilkie 04:05:16.811
Ducks- Because I and my parents are no longer involved in any capacity. Brian Stockwell 04:05:21.623
Yeah, that's a good point. Jessica Phillips 04:05:23.543
And because people are still sitting there actively. Yeah. Okay. Yes. That does add to the story. Thank you. It does add to the story. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 04:05:39.498
I'm happy to move that. Brian Stockwell 04:05:41.257
I know it's already been moved. Yeah, we're just. Oh, excuse me. You want to read that out so. 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. Clare, would you like to give an overview? Jessica Phillips 04:06:08.046
For the purpose of this report, Council's facility approved the first round of the 2024 community project grants for equipment, as provided in attachment one of this 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, a specific opportunity or need within the community. Brian Stockwell 04:06:35.540
Does anyone have any questions or would someone like to move to motion? I move to motion. Council will be seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 04:06:44.174
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, a betel trees 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, that 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 accessibility and visibility for primary school children and wheelchairs and that the hinterland arts group inc. And the Pomona railway gallery will get an their office technology to help ensure the efficiency of their operations, which is mainly volunteer run. Brian Stockwell 04:07:39.999
Thank you. Anyone else? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That is, you can vote yes. That is unanimous. The parents will be proud. Okay. The next item nine is in regard to community grants for events. Am I right? Yes. Do you like the bubono or are you trying? Just checking to make sure we don't come in here and see our eyes here. I don't want to see your eyes here. Oh, you got that. Oh, shit. Tom Wegener 04:08:16.809
Cancel Wegener. In accordance with chapter 558 of the Local Government Act, 2009, we'll find on the following, I don't have to read that. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the I 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 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. Frank Wilkie 04:08:47.695
May I say what an absolute delight it is to have an absolute clear and definitive conflict of interest. It's wonderful. Brian Stockwell 04:08:55.395
You're going left, And is it? You're going okay. Is it? Unidentified Speaker 04:09:01.933
Thank you. Jessica Phillips 04:09:06.204
Okay, 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. Brian Stockwell 04:09:35.026
Anyone wish to question or move? Amelia Lorentson 04:09:37.376
Happy to move the report. Brian Stockwell 04:09:38.802
Happy to see you. We have Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Finzel. Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 04:09:44.611
No, just to congratulate the recipients of the community project grants, Noosa Chorale, Noosa international film festival and Noosa Show Society, all recipients of the round 21 community project grants. Brian Stockwell 04:10:01.877
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Did you wish to? No? No, that's fine. Anyone else? I thought it would have been appropriate to sing. The chorale I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Carried unanimously. 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? Jessica Phillips 04:10:21.970
That's correct. Brian Stockwell 04:10:35.102
Wilkie just paddled back in. Amelia Lorentson 04:10:39.793
Oh, dear. You're enabling him. Stop laughing. Yeah, that's right. Enjoy that for me. Brian Stockwell 04:10:47.645
Have a nice break. Jessica Phillips 04:10:53.178
Cheryl. Have I been calling you Colleen a lot? You have. It's okay. It's been a swell of a time. It's late today. It's all gone. 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 for or program. $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 eighty and cents recommended and in this round for funding is $131,932.18. Brian Stockwell 04:11:58.485
Move Councillor Wilkie, seconded Councillor Wilson. Do we wish to discuss anything? Frank Wilkie 04:12:04.985
No, 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. Brian Stockwell 04:12:13.295
Yes, thank you. And the good news is you'll get the pleasure on Thursday night. Frank Wilkie 04:12:20.163
We'll be better practised by then. Okay, anyone yeah else okay anyone else speak? Brian Stockwell 04:12:24.049
Wishes to 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. Is that 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? Ben Derrick 04:13:07.426
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 the environment grants 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 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 two for environment were under subscribed and our funds were twenty four thousand three 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 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 title of nine 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 that able to manage the recommended amount $50 to fifty,000 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 attachment there's one for Wildlife Noosa for line and net reduction program which is an extension of this existing program which is great because it gets volunteers out on the river or we'll say it leverages huge amounts of volunteer in-kind contributions to be able to do a job which if we were going to resource it, was Council's responsibility to resource it, 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. Was Noosa land care which is looking to celebrate and educate landholders in the hinterland for environmental practices and so it's a publication that we used for a considerable amount of time. And there was like 8,500 of these and there was 50 cents in the recommendation. For the environment grants was 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 all against the criteria. Well, I've got the floor. Our climate change grants provided a little bit more challenge because we were oversubscribing 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 a 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 sitting as well. We didn't consider that when we were making the grant application, but it's definitely an added bonus for that one. There were two grant applications, oh sorry, 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 on 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 the last hundred years exacerbating a lot of problems for silication and landslip and doing a study on the underlying geomorphology particularly on upper catchment streams and really gives a good indication as to how you or how stabilisation a project would be determined because quite often it's not the overlying soil it's the underlying geology that will determine what's the best application. We on assessment because there was some great climate adaptation um there wasn't any demonstration for carbon offsets um sitting within there which is 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 pace foundation work for this year so for SCEC it was assessed as a great grant because of the double up that we've got with the Council program which we've been planning for 18 this point in time we've chosen to not recommend funding that but we encourage SCEC to put in an application because it will be very relevant for next year when we've done our waste symposium. Amelia Lorentson 04:20:05.899
So you explained that to the applicant, Ben? The reasons why? They were not successful. We've got to get a Council decision first. Just before we do. Brian Stockwell 04:20:17.722
Staff reminded me, Councillors you'll be aware that the advice we got 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. Landcare and 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 my second 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 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? Yeah, I've got some questions on the zero distressing by exit. Sure. Nicola Wilson 04:21:17.727
Yeah. Zero Emissions Noosa Noosa project for energy assessments and 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 just a couple of 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 04:21:47.882
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 will carry out the energy 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. Households might be able to make. Nicola Wilson 04:22:38.075
One 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. It's both sufficient to do the 20 year audits, and also some low intervention changes. Um so the budget is completely appropriate and broken 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. Amelia Lorentson 04:23:25.619
Thank you. 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? Ben Derrick 04:23:41.491
Yeah, we offer grants once per year at the moment and that's something that 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 04:24:18.049
Which is excellent I tend to community think all grants. Kim Rawlings 04:24:21.153
And environment grants are run through the same process, so you get the same sort of publishing and notification and advising of the community. Amelia Lorentson 04:24:30.596
Fantastic. Okay, okay, thank you very much. Unidentified Speaker 04:24:33.365
There's also grant guru. Tom Wegener 04:24:35.512
They the get the guy that gets the emails 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 04:24:46.494
Yeah. It's a platform that Kerri or Sharon might talk to, but it's a platform that actually scrapes all the potential grants available. Oh, wow. Yeah. So across all levels of government. To move it on, I'm happy to move the recommendation. Brian Stockwell 04:25:01.814
Seconded by Councillor Finzel. I think we've had a good description in written and verbal form, and I think the recommended projects are all worthy. They of the anyone others else requested? Anyone else wish to comment? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Now, the next item is. Thank you. Thank we'll invite Kerri and Cheryl Ben. For a quick word for the one you-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'm the current president of the Noosa Lions Football Club and was. Sorry, 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 later on. Unidentified Speaker 04:26:04.230
Okay. Larry Sengstock 04:26:10.864
So now that the Chair has left, we need to appoint another Chair. Can I have a nomination, please? Unidentified Speaker 04:26:19.983
I'm happy to do it. I nominate Frank. Frank Wilkie 04:26:26.597
Thank you, I'm happy to do it. Let me put it to the vote. That's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Kerri and Cheryl. Kerry and Cheryl. May we have an overview, please? Jessica Phillips 04:26:40.809
Yes, sure. 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 season signature events and community alliance grants were allocated on a different three year schedule from the 1st of July 2022 to the 30th of June 2025. The synchronisation provides administrative improvements for the community organisation and Council. The extension also allows for the community 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 for the sports field of maintenance and the community hall central. The community hall 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 funding application early 2025 so that the new so all agreements are synchronized and will be effective from the 1st of July 2025 on the synchronized cycle moving that's it, thank you. Danny. I should note that there are recommended that's in the community halls and centres there are 11 that need to be rolled over to the next year to total of a hundred and four thousand eight hundred and thirty four thousand forty,000 or cents. 40 and sport field maintenance there's also eleven groups totalling two hundred and three thousand four hundred ninety nine dollars and twenty six cents. Frank Wilkie 04:28:19.789
And just to clarify this is not an exhaustive list of all the groups that are receiving the three-year allowance. This is just ones that will get the one-year extension to synchronize with all the others. Unidentified Speaker 04:28:30.160
Correct. It is all of the halls and centres. All of the store field maintenance so it excludes. Kerri Contini 04:28:37.815
Signature events, festive season and community organisations. Unidentified Speaker 04:28:42.551
Our significant community organisations. Frank Wilkie 04:28:47.614
You. Questions Councillors? Do we have a mover for the move? I'll move it. By Councillor Phillips, seconded by Councillor Wilson, to speak to the motion. No, thank you. Councillor Wilson? It just seems a sensible solution and inefficiency. I'll put the motion all in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Kerri. Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you, Kerri. Thank you. We'll have Councillor Stockwell back in a moment. Brian Stockwell 04:29:28.268
Okay, so that is end of the public captions by GetTranscribed.com confidential session for those who may be listening online. We will be 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. Frank Wilkie 04:29:58.840
I'll second. Brian Stockwell 04:30:00.001
Let's move Councillor Wilkie, seconded Councillor Phillips. Thank you for the reminder. I'm presumed 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 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 Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 04:30:52.817
No it's confidential for reasons outlined in the report that there's negotiations relating to a commercial matter involving the government for which public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government. Brian Stockwell 04:31:06.144
And it was good to see that there is a majority of those in the list that are local to the Shire and immediate surrounds. 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 do we have someone who wishes to move the motion? Councillor Wegener and seconded Councillor Wilson was first off the block. Would you like to talk to the motion Councillor Wegener? All good. Anyone else? Okay, I'll put the motion those in favour. It's carried unanimously and the meeting is now closed at 5:14pm. I don't know if it's a that's a record. Frank Wilkie 04:32:09.528
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 04:32:10.774
But it's closed. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
