General Committee - June 2024
Date: Monday, 17 June 2024 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 04:32:14
Synopsis: Short-Term Accommodation in rural areas refused, Childcare at Noosa Centre refused over 10 m buffer, Shark control policy endorsed, Grants and budget approved, Yurol–Ringtail transfer noted.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell: Chaired full-attendance General Committee; confirmed prior minutes; managed deputations and complex amendments (00:00; Minutes §1–2). Council: Refused STA at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd (MCU23/0101) on Strategic Intent 3.2.6 and Rural/Visitor code grounds; removed Rural Activities Code grounds via amendments; carried unanimously (17:47–57:22; Minutes 5.1). Council: Refused STA at 428 Cootharaba Rd (MCU24/0003) on similar grounds; carried 6–1 with Cr Stockwell against (01:00:43–01:07:30; Minutes 5.2). Amelia Lorentson: Sought to progress approval conditions for Noosa Business Centre childcare (MCU22/0094); motion lost 2–5 (01:09:30–01:14:23; Minutes 5.3). Council: Refused the childcare application citing binding 10m Hofmann Dr landscaped buffer from RAL18/0023, Noosaville Local Plan, Major Centre Zone, Sustainable Design, and parking/bike non-compliances; directed compliance action on frontage landscaping (01:38:37–01:41:06; Minutes 5.3). Council: Deferred Noosa Springs Resort/Clubhouse expansion (MCU21/0110) at applicant’s request to extend decision period for design/community engagement (01:58:24–02:02:53; Minutes 5.4). Council: Endorsed Yurol–Ringtail project transition completion; noted +2,400 ha to Tewantin NP; commended partners (02:03:52–02:25:38; Minutes 6.1). Council: Adopted policy supporting DAF Shark Control Program with transition to lower bycatch alternatives; support SharkSmart, trials; note stranding response and canal signage work (02:35:59–03:03:04; Minutes 6.2). Council: Noted 2024–25 fees/charges and May YTD financials; flagged key sustainability indicators; discussion on swim access affordability for children (03:09:58–03:19:02; 03:20:44–03:28:22; Minutes 6.3–6.4). Council: Approved RADF grants $36,700; Community Project Grants (programs $42,085; infrastructure $30,000; equipment $36,647.18; events $23,200); total round $131,932.18, subject to budget (03:28:52–04:12:22; Minutes 6.5–6.10). Council: Approved Environment Grants $13,293 and Climate Response Grants $50,000 (oversubscribed; partials/deferrals applied) (04:12:53–04:20:14; Minutes 6.11). Council: Extended by one year Alliance Grants for Sports Field Maintenance and Halls/Community Centres to synchronise cycles (04:26:42–04:29:08; Minutes 6.12). Council: Awarded confidential ROPS for Dry Hire (RP00637) and Wet Hire (RP00436); CEO authorised to administer/extend and add suppliers (04:29:55–04:32:07; Minutes 7.1–7.2). Contentious / Transparency Matters STA Kin Kin: Staff recommended approval under current scheme; councillors relied on Strategic Intent, amenity, and adopted Housing Strategy as “other relevant matter” to refuse; amendments trimmed non-relevant Rural Activities Code (23:37–50:34; Minutes 5.1). STA policy tension: Debate on CODI principle vs. discretionary “other relevant matters” (Planning Act ss45, 63); acknowledged advertised amendments but did not give them determinative weight (29:51–44:21; Minutes 5.1). Childcare buffer: Applicant argued 2003 Infrastructure Agreement immunity and 10m not required; staff cited legal advice buffer is enforceable, not “infrastructure,” and core to Noosa style; refusal followed (01:16:55–01:19:51; 01:28:18–01:31:13; Minutes 5.3). Shark nets: Community division noted; Council set a policy to advocate science-based alternatives while recognising State control; clarified no immediate net relocation and budget impacts for strandings (02:36:22–02:53:27; Minutes 6.2). Fees/charges: Councillors pressed for child swim affordability and consultancy cost transparency; officers to workshop and deep-dive consultancy ROI (03:12:58–03:28:15; Minutes 6.3–6.4). Legal / Risk Planning Act (ss45, 63): For impact assessable STA, Council weighed “other relevant matters,” incl. adopted Housing Strategy addressing housing need; CODI limits weight of unmade amendments (29:51–33:16; 40:59–44:21; Minutes 5.1). Noosa Plan 2020: STA refusals rested on Strategic Intent 3.2.6, Rural Zone Overall Outcomes, Visitor Accommodation Code (PO1–2, PO25); minutes record detailed grounds (Minutes 5.1–5.2). Infrastructure Agreement vs conditions: Legal advice: 10m Hofmann Dr landscape buffer is enforceable development condition (not “infrastructure”) and remains a valid refusal ground; reduces litigation exposure (01:18:54–01:19:51; Minutes 5.3). Contracting probity: ROPS decisions taken in closed under LGR 2012 s254J(3)(g); delegated CEO powers to negotiate, extend, and refresh suppliers (Minutes 7.1–7.2). Marine strandings liability: Identified operational vulnerability without equipment; risk of prolonged carcass presence raising public safety/PR risks; budget note to resource response (02:51:13–02:56:43; Minutes 6.2). Conflicts of Interest Karen Finzel: Declarable COI (Altum/JFP submission; Leigh & Rob McCready association) on Noosa Springs; Council resolved she may participate and vote (01:58:24–01:59:36; Minutes 5.4). Karen Finzel: Declarable COI (Peregian SLSC; McCreadys); Council allowed participation; wording updated to reflect Leigh McCready presidency (03:44:05–03:54:34; Minutes 6.6). Jessica Phillips: Declarable COI (former Cooroy Gymnastics president; family founders) for Equipment grants; permitted to participate (03:59:10–04:05:35; Minutes 6.8). Tom Wegener: Declarable COI (member, Noosa International Surfilm Festival) for Events grants; left room; decision unanimous (04:08:16–04:10:01; Minutes 6.9). Brian Stockwell: Prescribed COI (President, Noosa Lions FC) for Alliance Grants; left room; Acting Chair appointed; decision unanimous (04:26:12–04:29:08; Minutes 6.12). Short-Term Accommodation in Rural Zones Frank Wilkie: Emphasised shift since 2020 scheme and 2022 Housing Strategy; supported refusals anticipating pending amendments limiting whole-house rural STA (34:57–37:23; Minutes 5.1–5.2). Amelia Lorentson: Cited community sentiment and housing crisis as basis for refusal under Planning Act discretion (54:44–56:10; Minutes 5.1). Staff (Patrick Murphy/Richard MacGillivray): Noted current scheme treats rural STA as consistent use; amendments not yet determinative; housing strategy not embedded, but may be “relevant matter” (23:37–33:16; 41:31–43:12; Minutes 5.1). Noosa Business Centre Childcare & Planning Scheme Integrity Nadine (Planning): Outlined refusal due to non-provision of 10m Hofmann Dr buffer (from RAL18/0023), inconsistency with Noosaville Local Plan, Major Centre Zone outcomes, Sustainable Design Code, and parking/bike layout (01:08:17–01:16:55; Minutes 5.3). Georgina Madsen (Applicant): Argued 10m not needed; offered 10m built-form setback with 4m landscaped bed and bioretention as feature; cited Infrastructure Agreement “immunity” (01:41–11:18; Minutes 4.1/5.3). Council: Prioritised “Noosa style” vegetated streetscape and precedent effect across three Hofmann-fronting lots; suggested childcare could locate in Village Mixed Use where consistent (01:14:23–01:20:31; 01:31:13–01:32:31; Minutes 5.3). Environmental Projects & Shark Management Brett de Chastel: Confirmed final tranche to NP tabled in Parliament; trust arrangement safeguarded $3.5m with interest to koala projects; partners’ role lauded (02:04:50–02:18:01; Minutes 6.1). David (Env. Services): Shark policy clarifies support for DAF; Council to advocate/educate, resource strandings, consider canal signage; acknowledged limits on relocating nets pre-review (02:36:22–02:48:17; Minutes 6.2). Field risk: Whale carcass case had multiple sharks; underscored need for equipment/training to mitigate public safety risks (02:56:57–02:57:54; Minutes 6.2). Grants, Finance & Procurement Highlights Finance: YTD op rev +$2.4m (interest +$1.8m); op exp −$1.6m; net +$4m vs budget; warned 24/25 FAG prepayment timing may affect result (03:20:44–03:23:21; Minutes 6.4). Consultancy spend: Councillors requested a deep-dive/ROI and supplier transparency; officers to workshop (03:25:01–03:28:15; Minutes 6.4). Procurement: Extensive ROPS panels approved for Dry/Wet Hire with multi-year extension options to 2030; local/regional supplier representation noted (04:30:52–04:32:07; Minutes 7.1–7.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 17 June 2024 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 13 May 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.1. APPLICANT: GEORGINA MADSEN PRESENTERS: GEORGINA MADSEN & DAMIAN HALL TOPIC: MCU22/0094 - NOOSA BUSINESS CENTRE SANCTUARY CHILDCARE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 4.2. APPLICANT: KIM PETROVIC PRESENTERS: JOHN COCHRANE & KIM PETROVIC TOPIC: MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Item deferred. 4.3. APPLICANT: ELLEN GUAN (GH AUSTRALIA) PRESENTERS: PHILLIP STARKEY (GH AUSTRALIA), NOEL ROBINSON (NRA COLLABORATIVE PTY LTD) & SHANE ADAMSON (ADAMSON TOWN PLANNING PTY LTD) TOPIC: PROPOSED NOOSA SPRINGS 'BOUTIQUE HOTEL" DEVELOPMENT Item deferred. 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. MCU23/0101 APPLICATION FOR SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 561 GYMPIE KIN KIN ROAD, KIN KIN Motion Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU23/0101 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation situated at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons. 1. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 (Agriculture and Rural Based Activities) of the Strategic Intent because: a. It does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and would compromise productivity. b. Short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment and diversification. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of Rural Activity Code as: a. It is not a rural activity operated in a sustainable manner which conserves the productive characteristics of rural land or protects the amenity of surrounding premises. b. Short-term accommodation is not an innovative and sustainable agricultural enterprise. c. Short-term accommodation does not support local production of food and beverage products. 3. The proposal does not comply with Performance Outcomes PO3 and PO4 of the Rural Activities Code as it is not consistent with the zone, locality GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 and character of the area in which the site is located and guests will adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. 4. The proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with: a. Existing and future rural uses and activities; and the character and environmental features of the zone; and b. Visitor accommodation which complements rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of rural land. 5. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(j) and Performance Outcome PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as it not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of adjoining properties. 6. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(g) and Performance Outcome PO1 and PO2 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as: a. It will impact on the ability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits. b. It will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. c. It will detract from the character and amenity of the local area. 7. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of a likely increase in noise to adjoining properties. 8. The use is inconsistent with the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 - Keep Noosa Home item 7.7: Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on site and not at the expense of housing. Whole-house short term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owners principal-place of residence. Amendment No 1. Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item 3 in the above refusal motion be removed. Crs Wilkie, Finzel, Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson and For: Stockwell Against: Cr Wegener Carried. Amendment No 2. Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item 2 in the above refusal motion be removed. For: Crs Wilkie, Finzel, Phillips, Lorentson and Stockwell Against: Crs Wegener and Wilson Carried. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU23/0101 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation situated at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd, Kin Kin and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons. 1. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 (Agriculture and Rural Based Activities) of the Strategic Intent because: a. It does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and would compromise productivity. b. Short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment and diversification. 2.The proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with: a. Existing and future rural uses and activities; and the character and environmental features of the zone; and b. Visitor accommodation which complements rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of rural land. 3. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(j) and Performance Outcome PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as it not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of adjoining properties. 4. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(g) and Performance Outcome PO1 and PO2 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as: a. It will impact on the ability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits. b. It will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. c. It will detract from the character and amenity of the local area. 5. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of a likely increase in noise to adjoining properties. 6.The use is inconsistent with the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 - Keep Noosa Home item 7.7: Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on site and not at the expense of housing. Wholehouse short term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owners principal-place of residence. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 5.2. MCU24/0003 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 428 COOTHARABA ROAD COOTHARABA Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU24/0003 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use Short-term accommodation situated at 428 Cootharaba Rd Cootharaba Qld 4565 and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons 1. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 (Agriculture and Rural Based Activities) of the Strategic Intent because: a. It does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and would compromise productivity. b. Short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment and diversification. 2. The proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Overall Outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with: a. Existing and future rural uses and activities; and the character and environmental features of the zone; and b. Visitor accommodation which complements rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of rural land. 3. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(j) and Performance Outcome PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as it not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of adjoining properties. 4. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Overall Outcome (2)(g) and Performance Outcome PO1 and PO2 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as: a. It will impact on the ability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits. b. It will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. c. It will detract from the character and amenity of the local area. 5. The use of the premises for Short Term Accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of a likely increase in noise to adjoining properties. 6.The use is inconsistent with the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 - Keep Noosa Home item 7.7: Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on site and not at the expense of housing. Wholehouse short term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owner's principal-place of residence. For: Crs Wilson, Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Lorentson Against: Cr Stockwell Carried. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 5.3 MCU22/0094 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 28 EENIE . CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Coordinator, Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU22/0094 for a Material Change of Use for a Childcare centre, situated at 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville and request a Further Report to the Planning & Environment Committee meeting of 9 July 2024 detailing conditions for approval. For: Crs Phillips and Lorentson Against: Crs Wilkie, Stockwell, Wilson, Finzel and Wegener Lost. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegner That Council note the report by the Coordinator, Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU22/0094 for a Material Change of Use for a Childcare centre, situated at 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is not consistent with condition no. 53 of Development Permit to Reconfigure a Lot (1 lot into 23 lots) RAL18/0023 as the proposal does not include the required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the Strategic Intent and Strategic Outcomes 3.3.1(o), and 3.3.5 (s)(i) (D) of the Noosa Plan 2020 as the proposal fails to incorporate the 10m wide landscaping required to Hofmann Drive to achieve the parklike, vegetated setting envisaged for the centre which is synonymous with the Noosa style. 3. The proposal is not consistent with acceptable and performance outcomes AO5, PO5, AO7.4, PO7 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code a: a. The development does not retain or propose to enhance the required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive which is important to contribute and create the character sought for the Noosa Business Centre. 4. The proposal is not consistent with the overall outcome (3)(f) and (4) acceptable and performance outcomes AO32.4, AO32.5, AO32.6, PO32 and PO33 of the Major Centre Zone as: a. Reducing the width of the landscaped garden beds required to Hofmann Drive, particularly where this approach is continued for the remainder of the lots with frontage to Hofmann Drive, will compromise and impact the ability to achieve a centre which is overall recognisable as having a Noosa style. b. The proposal does not retain, incorporate, or enhance the existing vegetation within the required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive, which is important to enhance the visual amenity and natural landscape character of the Noosa Business Centre. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 c. The proposal disrupts the landscaped streetscape treatment required to Hofmann Drive intended to enhance the amenity and contribute positively to the centre’s character. d. The proposed use is an inconsistent use in the Major Centre Zone Code – Business Park Precinct will not deliver the commercial and employment uses intended for the Precinct such as health and wellbeing, education, research and technology and knowledge-based industries. e. The bio retention basin at the front of the site is located within the required setback area and in front of the proposed carparking area which results in the development being more visible to the road and not located in a park like setting. 5. The proposal is not consistent with overall outcome 2(a), (d) and performance outcome PO8 of the Sustainable Building Design Code as the development does not provide a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7m. 6. The proposed bicycle parking is not consistent with acceptable outcomes AO6.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code as they are located in an area that impedes access around the site. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. C. Request staff to undertake action to ensure the landscaping across the frontage of the site is consistent with development approvals RAL18/0023 and OPW20/0145. For: Crs Wilson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell Against: Crs Lorentson and Phillips Carried. 5.4. FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RESORT COMPLEX AND ANCILLARY BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, AND CLUB (MINOR EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUBHOUSE) AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Finzel provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the Developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel Development. Since then, the matter has changed give Altum Property Group has withdrawn the submission. Leigh McCready, who is associated with Altum, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Leigh & Rob McCready. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Finzel and determine that Cr Finzel participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Finzel does not have a close personal relationship with Leigh & Rob McCready and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the Further Report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU21/0110 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use – Resort Complex and ancillary Bar, Food and Drink Outlet, Outdoor Sport and Recreation and Club (minor extension to existing clubhouse) at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads and defer this matter a future meeting round as the applicant has requested to extend the decision-making period pursuant to section 22 of the Development Assessment Rules. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. YUROL RINGTAIL CONSERVATION PROJECT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Director Strategy & Environment to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 regarding the Yurol Ringtail Environmental Project; B. Note that the Transition Committee established under that project has now completed its role and thank the members of that committee for their stewardship of this important environmental project; and C. Note the final report from the Transition Committee provided at Attachment 1 to the Report, and in particular, note that this project is adding an additional 2,400ha of land to the Tewantin National Park. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 6.2. DAF SHARK CONTROL PROGRAM - RECOMMENDED COUNCIL POLICY POSITION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by Environmental Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024, regarding a recommended Council policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program. B. Adopt the following policy position that: 1. Council continues to support the DAF Shark Control Program (SCP) under the Queensland Shark Management Plan, with the vision of the SCP transitioning to lower by-catch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to the Noosa LGA; and 2. Council to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support SharkSmart educational programs, and alternative bite mitigation trials where appropriate. C. Note Council’s other shark management responsibilities including; 1. Marine animal stranding response, noting this role requires resourcing for equipment, materials and staff training and the use of contractors to enable Council to effectively respond to stranding events; and 2. Consideration of signage investigation relating to dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed canal systems only (Noosa Waters). Carried unanimously. 6.3. 2024-2025 FEES AND CHARGES Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and pursuant to sections 97, 98 and 262(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 2009, for the 2024-25 financial year the costrecovery fees and commercial charges provided as Attachment 1 to the report. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 6.4. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – MAY 2024 Committee Recommendation That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 outlining May 2024 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 6.5. REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND (RADF) - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Arts and Culture Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 regarding applications to the Regional Arts Development Fund Round 21, 2024/25; and B. Approve the recommendations of the Assessment Committee to fund projects to the value of $36,700 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report. Carried unanimously. 6.6. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING – COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) – PROGRAM/PROJECTS In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Finzel provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club Grant application which is before us today. Leigh McCready has recently been elected as the president of this club. Mr Rob McCready sits in a decision-making capacity on the Peregian Beach Surf Lifesaving Club Sub-Committee. Mr McCready is married to Leigh McCready who worked as a volunteer on the 2020 Future Noosa Election Campaign which is no longer an entity. Mr & Mrs McCready are not related parties, nor are they close associates and therefore I do not believe this COI satisfies the requirements the act as I do not stand to gain a benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no greater than the benefit or loss of a significant proportion of persons in the local government area stand to gain or lose. However, in the public interest and full transparency I will declare this interest as I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Finzel and determine that Cr Finzel participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants – Program/Projects provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds to the value of $42,085 being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.7. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - INFRASTRUCTURE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-2025 Community Project Grants Infrastructure provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds to the value of $30,000 being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.8. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - EQUIPMENT In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Phillips provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Phillips, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I was the president of Cooroy Gymnastics until September 2023, GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 and as my parents were foundation members. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I and my parents are no longer involved in any capacity in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Phillips and determine that Cr Phillips participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Councillor Phillips is no longer involved in any capacity in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Phillips did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants – Equipment to the value of $36,647.18 provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.9. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY PROGRAM FUNDING - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - EVENTS In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the funding recommendation to NOOSA International Surfilm Festival. I am a member of the NOOSA International Surfilm Festival Committee. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Wegener left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants – Events to the value of $23,200 provided in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to sufficient funds being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. Cr Wegener returned to the meeting. 6.10. 2024-2025 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND ONE) - OVERVIEW Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024; and B. Approve Round One 2024-25 Community Project Grants, subject to sufficient funds to the value of $131,932.18 being allocated in the adopted 2024/25 Council budget. Carried unanimously. 6.11. ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE GRANTS - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 19), CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 4) Cr Stockwell informed the meeting that: "For the past two terms, I have declared a conflict of interest as a result of my long association with Noosa District Landcare and its unincorporated forebear. However, having now received more detailed legal advice, it is clear that my circumstances do not meet the definition of a declarable conflict of interest because the organisation is neither a close associate nor a related party under the Local Government Act and therefore, I will not be declaring any type of COI for this matter or in relation to that group into the future.” Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 regarding applications for the Environment Project Grants (Round 19) and Climate Change Response Grants (Round 4); B. Approve the recommendations to fund projects totalling the amounts below: i. Environment Project Grants (Attachment 1) - $13,293.00 ii. Climate Change Response Grants (Attachment 2) - $50,000; and GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 C. Authorise the CEO to enter Funding Deeds for the Environment Project grants and Climate Change Response grants with successful organisations, as per the recommended funding amount. Carried unanimously. 6.12. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THREE YEAR ALLIANCE GRANT AGREEMENTS In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the proposed funding allocations to the Noosa Lions Football Club. I am the current President of the Noosa Lions Football Club. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Cr Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting for this item for the purpose of considering the conflict of interest declaration by Cr Stockwell. Carried unanimously. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and approve a one-year extension to the Sports Field Maintenance and Hall/Community Centre Alliance grants with the new completion date being 30 June 2025, subject to sufficient funds being made available in the adopted 2024/25 budget. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J (3) (g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing: GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 7.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00637 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND EQUIPMENT (COMMONLY KNOWN AS DRY HIRE) 7.2 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00436 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND OPERATOR (COMMONLY KNOWN AS WET HIRE) Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00637 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND EQUIPMENT (COMMONLY KNOWN AS DRY HIRE) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Civil Work Maintenance Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and A. Award Contract No. RP00637 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Equipment (commonly known as Dry Hire) for a period of two (2) years commencing on 1 July 2024 to the following suppliers: Ready Industries Pty Ltd (1300TEMPFENCE) ATF Services Pty Ltd (AAA) Abletech Underground Group Pty Ltd Cooloola Mini Hire Pty Ltd (Astro Hire) BDA Infrastructure Pty Ltd Brooks Hire Services Pty Ltd Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited Conplant Pty Ltd Corbet Equipment Hire Pty Ltd Durack Civil Pty Ltd RAM Invest Pty Ltd (Earth Gear) Flexihire Pty Ltd Water Trucks Pty Ltd (H2flow Hire) Hastings Deering (Australia) Limited K2 Plant Hire Pty Ltd Kennards Hire Pty Limited Master Hire Pty Ltd Onsite Rental Group Operations Pty Ltd Porter Hire Pty Ltd Rosmech Sales & Service Pty Ltd GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 RPM Hire Australia Pty Ltd Sherrin Rentals Pty Ltd Shore Hire Pty Ltd The Trustee for Orchard Trust t/as Sniffers Plant Hire Pty Ltd The trustee for the TFH Hire Trust t/as TFH Hire Services Pty Ltd Trafquip Pty Ltd WEZ Group PTY LTD B. Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and do all things necessary to administer the Contract on behalf of Council; C. Subject to satisfactory performance of the suppliers, authorise the CEO to approve the option to extend the contract at the expiry of initial term for a further two (2) terms of up to twenty-four (24) months each ending on 30 June 2030; and D. Authorise the CEO to approve the addition of new suppliers to Contract No. RP00637 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Equipment as a result of an advertised refresh at the expiry of the initial term and term extensions. Carried unanimously. 7.2. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: CONTRACT NO. RP00436 - REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS (ROPS) FOR THE HIRE OF PLANT AND OPERATOR (COMMONLY KNOWN AS WET HIRE) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the report by the Civil Work Maintenance Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 June 2024 and A. Award Contract No. RP00436 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Operator (commonly known as Wet Hire) for a period of two (2) years commencing on 1 July 2024 to the following suppliers: o A.F Dixon & B.S Dixon (BS & AF Dixon) o Abletech Underground Group Pty Ltd o Albert and Herbert Pty Ltd o AMAC Cranes Group Pty Ltd o Amanda Alice Sims t/as Amanda Sims Contracting o Asphalt Innovations Pty Ltd o Aussie Hydro-Vac Services Pty Ltd o Australian Civil Solutions Pty Ltd o B.P Blacket & N.M Blacket t/as Jet Vac Excavations o Base Course Management Queensland Pty Ltd o Bebrok Excavations Pty Ltd o BDA Infrastructure Pty Ltd (Black Diamond) o Capital Asphalt QLD Pty Ltd o Clayton's Towing Service Pty Ltd o Cleanaway Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd o Corbet Equipment Hire Pty Ltd o Crejae Excavations Qld o Durack Civil Pty Ltd GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 JUNE 2024 o Ellis Profiling QLD Pty Ltd o Ensbey Earth Moving ATF The Ensbey Family Trust o EPH Contracts (QLD) PTY LTD o First Nations Civil & Contracting Pty Ltd o Fishys Earthmoving ATF The Fish Family Trust o Fleet Plant Hire Pty Ltd o H2flow Hire (Water Trucks Pty Ltd) o IBS Excavations (Moortop Pty Ltd) o Junction Venture Pty Ltd t/as Cootharaba Earthworx o Luke Allan Burrows o MD Plant Hire Pty Ltd o Pipe Management Australia Pty Ltd o Falcon Earthmoving Pty Ltd t/as Qld Dozer Hire o Roy's Earthmoving and Plant Hire Pty Ltd o Sherrin Rentals Pty Ltd o Sniffers Group o Stabilised Pavements of Australia Pty Ltd o Suttons Cleaning Service Qld Pty Ltd o THD Civil Pty Ltd o The Stabilising Pty Ltd o The Trustee for Kelly Family Trust (Kelly's Earthworks) o The Trustee for Valentine Family Trust t/as Valentine Transport o Wez Group Pty Ltd B. Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and do all things necessary to administer the Contract on behalf of Council. C. Subject to satisfactory performance of the suppliers, authorise the CEO to approve the option to extend the contract at the expiry of initial term for a further two (2) terms of up to twenty-four (24) months each ending on 30 June 2030. D. Authorise the CEO to approve the addition of new suppliers to Contract No. RP00436 – Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers (ROPS) for the Hire of Plant and Operator as a result of an advertised refresh at the expiry of the initial term and term extensions. Carried unanimously. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 5.14pm.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.980
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 that we're here as the 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. I acknowledge that recently they've extended... 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 owners of this country did in their deliberations. deliberations. So, confirmation of minutes. We have the confirmation of last month's General Committee. Do we have a mover for that item? Happy to move. I'll second it. 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 deputation 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. Business Centre. Yes, thank you. Georgina Madsen 01:41.278
Thank you very much for having me along today, apologies, I did plan to be here last week, but circumstances led to that not occurring. So, Stockwell has a long history with the Noosa 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 1 and we obtained the development 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-held aspiration of council and 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 then 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 wanted to talk to you about the child care centre that we've proposed on lot four which has a staff recommendation for refusal and I understand having read the report and the discussions with the council officers obviously we're disappointed that that's 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 Moore from Sanctuary Childcare couldn't be here with us. The childcare's 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 childcare for for people working and living in that broader Noosa Business Centre. Providing a childcare in the village next use, and I know that that was a topic discussed previously. in the county environment meeting. For me, the childcare proposal that we've proposed for lot four delivers it really as a Noosa-style built form, standalone, within a bushland setting and a park-like 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 it. There 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 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. As I mentioned the childcare proposal we've got a 10 metre setback to the built form versus the four metres required under the plan 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 a seat to provide against you know accidental encroachment and then a pedestrian boardwalk 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 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. front ose 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. ose 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 that Stage 1 comprises and the future stages. The development application relates to Stage 1 of the Shire 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 Shire Business Centre on the land as contemplated by Master Plan 2. And future stages of the Shire Business Centre on land other than the land as contemplated by Master Plan 2. And that was just referencing the fact that there were two different landowners at that point in time that owned the parcels that comprised the business centre. Clause 10.2 Clause 10.2 says in temporary stage one 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 successors entitled in respect of stage one and future stages of the Shire Business Centre on the land. And also to give the council correlative certainty as to the contribution to the community that will be made by the applicant. It goes on It goes on in 10.3 to talk about the extent of immunity of future stages to the Shire 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 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 and physical infrastructure provided for in this agreement and the conditions of approval in respect of roads, cycleways, parks, open space, nature conservation, public recreational facilities, land cycle and pedestrian 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 Shire Business Centre. On the land to undertake work, pay contributions by way of conditions imposed on any application on account of management, they to pay infrastructure charges levied in accordance with the Act for works external to the land relating to all of those things. If it was Council's intent to provide a 10 metre buffer to Hofmann Drive, 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. We 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 bioretention, we've turned that into a feature. We've redesigned the centre. We've put 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 Brian Stockwell 11:18.166
So councillors on our agenda we have two further deputations noted as you're aware there will be a the motion with regard to item 4 in section 5 of the committee which means that those two deputations will not proceed so we move now on to item 5 for matters referred to the committee and the first one is The first one is in regard to MCU 23010, application for short-term accommodation at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin. And could we have an overview of this application? Alright, so this application was lodged. It's treated as impact assessment due to the lot size. lot that is only 2.25 hectares. Noosa Plan requires anything under four hectares to treat the impact assessment. So the proposal is for short term accommodation inside an existing dwelling house. The dwelling house is two stories and four bedrooms. The proposal didn't include a number of people on site at any one time, so there is a condition in the recommendation limiting the number to eight. There was one submission received in favour of the proposal. So that was from a neighbour 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 scheme that are relevant to short-term accommodation in rural areas. 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 at the moment and does explain a little bit in 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 inconsistency. Tom Wegener 13:37.455
Thank you. I'd like to move a motion. Brian Stockwell 13:43.475
I'm just waiting for that to go up to the screen so we can read it as you could read it out. Thanks. Tom Wegener 13:47.855
Okay. I'll read it off my paper here. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6. Excuse me, you need to start from the very top. The council note the report by senior development planner to the environment the planning and environment committee meeting dated 11th June 2024 regarding application number MCU23/0101/0101 for a development permit for material change of use short-term accommodation situated at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin and A, refuse the application for the following reasons. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 agriculture and 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. short-term accommodation is 2. The proposal is not consistent with the purpose and overall outcomes of the Rural Activity Code as it is not a rural activity operated in a sustainable manner which conserves the productive characteristics of rural land and protects the amenity of surrounding premises. B. Short-term accommodation is not an innovative and sustainable agricultural enterprise. C. Short-term accommodation does not support local production of food and beverage products. 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 the site is located and guests will adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. the proposal does not comply with the purpose and overall outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with a existing and future rural uses and activities and the character and environment features of the zone and b visitor accommodation which complements the rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of the rural app. five the use of The use of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with the overall outcomes and performance outcomes, PO4, of the rural zone code as it is not compatible with rural activities and will will detract from the rural amenities of adjoining properties. 6. The use of the premises for a short-term accommodation is not consistent with the overall outcomes, 2G, and performance outcomes, PO1 and PO2. The use of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with the overall outcomes, 2G, and performance outcomes, PO1 and P01 and P02 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 The use of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of likely likely increase in noise of adjoining property. And eight, it's not consistent with the Noosa housing strategy 2022. Keep Noosa home, item 7.7. In 7.7 states, ensure that short-term accommodations in the hinterland is complimentary to housing onsite and not at the expense of housing. Whole house short-term rentals should to infrequent letting of owners, principal place of residence. Brian Stockwell 17:47.145
Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Before I ask for a seconder, I think there is one or two typographical issues. In three, can we look at the 'and' after PO4? I believe as verbally stated by Councillor Wegener, that should be an 'of' rather than an Kim Rawlings 18:04.544
'And' so... That one there? Brian Stockwell 18:06.084
Yep, yep. Sorry, the next one. 'And' there, the next one. Kim Rawlings 18:11.204
Sorry. Brian Stockwell 18:12.224
After PO4? Kim Rawlings 18:13.644
Oh yes, 'of', okay, sorry. Brian Stockwell 18:17.186
When we look at the last 'ground for refusal'? 'Ace'? Yeah, I think 'inconsistent' is one word, rather than 'inconsistent'. First word? Oh. 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 me. Oh, the use is inconsistent? No, the use is inconsistent, yes. You just put the before then. The use, yeah, like the previous. Okay, I think that... I'm happy to second it for the focus of debate. Councillor Wilkie. The floor is yours. Tom Wegener 19:09.236
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. intent, because 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, 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 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 property and 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 there's that it's just that's that and then of course we come to our own housing strategy that we all voted on went through complete public consultation and I read I'm gonna read I'll vary the paragraph concerning rural houses ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on-site not at the expensive housing whole house short-term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owner's principal place of residence. And again, this is called the Noosa Housing Strategy: Keep Noosa Home. And the very opening sentence is: Noosa Shire Council is greatly concerned by the housing crisis currently gripping the Shire. This is having a significant social and economic impact on 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 our words, or are we going to follow our actions? And actions speak louder than words, and to approve an STA on this rural property is inconsistent. It is pushing out our residents. It is taking our residents and saying, "Okay, you may leave now. This is a nice property. It's an STA." Yep. And as we said, as one of the former mayors once said, we want to keep the best lands in Noosa for the residents. And the whole short-term accommodation economy pushes people out of the best residents, become the STAs, and we turn into an accommodation economy, not our smart biosphere economy where we want production on local lands, we want local jobs, we want to keep residents in Noosa, not expel them. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 23:05.880
Does anyone else wish to address the resolution? Frank Wilkie 23:09.420
I have some questions of staff. This is an entirely reasonable grounds for 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, this particular application? So we start with the--- And why you've selected these as potential grounds for refusal. Patrick Murphy 23:37.090
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, so-- it wasn't like I've specifically gone to the 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 note, you know, 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 to our 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, when you read those individually, they will seem to conflict with each other. And I think that's borne out through the scheme and things like the tables of assessments and our codes that we have, noting that the use of STA is a consistent 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 that they talk about STA and how and tourism within our hinterland areas so we've got provisions that talk about STA being excluded from medium and low density residential zones. They don't say it must be excluded from from rural land so just you know the way the scheme is constructed you've got to be careful not just focus on a particular sentence or you need to look at the 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 be some diversification of what Where our tourists are housed and moving them away from the coastal areas into our rural areas. I don't believe that the Rural Activity Code is a reasonable code to include within... The purpose of the Rural Activities Code is to ensure that a range of rural activities are established and operated in a sustainable manner. That's the opening sentence. For me, the code talks about genuine rural activities that are to occur within a rural area and how they are to operate. It's not a code that's talking about how estiations be regulated. In terms of, you know, a lot of the other provisions talk about amenity and the environmental impacts and the impacts upon agricultural activities associated with short-term accommodation. I think the report has already gone there. demonstrate that, you know, there is a separation from this property to other properties that will allow for the amenity, you know, softening of any amenity impacts, but also with conditions around how it is to be used, also addressing amenity. addressing amenity impacts. In terms of agricultural pursuits, this is a land parcel that 2.2 hectares, I would be fair to say, would 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 do not have any agriculture activities occurring on them. One property has got a driveway that sort of dissects the site which comes towards this subject 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 amenity and character, as I talked about, but again I don't think there's any change to the character of the area through the issues. Cheers. Brian Stockwell 27:46.840
Does that satisfy your question Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 27:49.680
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? 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 in the strategic intent around... tourism and it talks about... 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... 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. Could you talk about how the housing strategy is referenced and... recognised in the planning scheme amendments? Well yes it's certainly acknowledged that it is and with the proposed... In relation to rural... Yeah and certainly in relation to rural SDAs seeking that... There's not a loss of housing attributed to the use of rural STA in that... Rural STA is supported in circumstances where the existing residence is maintained for a principal place of residence. Brian Stockwell 29:51.787
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? It could be considered a relevant matter. Amelia Lorentson 30:09.127
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 which is a housing crisis. Was that considered as part of the decision? We seem to have placed a lot of weight on the CODI principle and perhaps not enough on this discretionary power conferred under the Planning Act. Richard MacGillivray 30:41.341
Well I was just going to add and so in terms of 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 process, it must be first assessed against the current planning scheme as an effect and obviously this application, we need to decisionally state well before the current scheme amendments were advertised, so if you were in the application process, it must be first assessed against the current planning scheme as an effect and obviously this application, we need to decisionally state well before the current scheme amendments were advertised, so if you were in the 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 11th hour that the goalposts and I'll use the goalposts to have changed where the scheme amendments have shifted those requirements to make it an inconsistent view. So I guess from an administrative point of view the coding principle, the provisions that the applicants... 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 accessible development proposals. They can be considered as part of the decision making, and we're on balance to start with the assistance application against the scheme and put forward the recommendation that they have. Brian Stockwell 32:08.682
Did you have any further questions? Frank Wilkie 32:10.942
No, think about what I've just heard, thank you. Anyone else have a question? Karen Finzel 32:14.962
Yeah, given the planning scheme amendments excluded, excluded rural, was any weight given to the ECDIV 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 ECDIV strategy and or B... was it? And where are we at with that in terms of talking strategies around the planning scheme amendments? Patrick Murphy 32:54.770
No, no weight was given to that document. Richard said, we've considered the plan, primarily considered the planning scheme as current form, noting that this is a consistent use under the current planning scheme. So that's primarily formed the basis of our assessment. Brian Stockwell 33:16.600
I've got a couple, and you have talked about the book, so this particular location is within what you now call the agricultural land conservation area, so it's got an overlay that says this land is suitable for agriculture, that's right? Patrick Murphy 33:34.084
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 33:43.344
Through. So we're here, site assessment could say whether sort, etc. Because I'm old, I think this through the State Planning 192, which specifically excluded consideration of whether the parcel was big enough to be a viable egg in a food box. Is that still the case or is things redone since then? Patrick Murphy 34:03.855
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, not tried, because it wasn't an argument that, you know, because people could just say, well, I'll do a white upon it, so I'll do a stronger farm and so something. Okay. Okay. By being impact assessable, if we were to go down the route that Councillor Wegener's gone, it is a valid consideration to weigh the strategic outcomes for rural and productive purposes versus the strategic outcome for tourism. That is a valid consideration on this particular site. Is that right? Well, the impact assessment allows us to consider the entire scheme. So, yes, that would be the most... Frank Wilkie 34:57.584
I'll speak to the motion. This raises a really interesting question because in 2020, Councillor Wegener and myself, the majority of- What? 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 in 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. Residents. We had the housing strategy 2022 and talked about the impact of STAs and how we need to limit them and we also had the 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. 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 we would like every rural property in the hinterland to have a gamble in terms of the application of the CODI principle or our discretionary powers that we approve it now, but I'm looking favourably on this motion because it is where we intend to go in the future and within a year this could be law. Sorry, the outcome we're seeking could be standard practice out there if 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 37:23.718
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. staff advice said it's not relevant. So I think if we're going to debate a motion, we should debate one that is appropriate. Frank Wilkie 38:01.335
So you need a seconder for the purpose of the debate? I'm after a seconder. I can't do it because I've already seconded the original motion. Amelia Lorentson 38:09.874
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 before us. Would it be more advisable for us to look at the original motion and then request that staff provide the conditions for refusal rather than us working off this draft? Not draft, excuse me, rather than working off these reasons. Patrick Murphy 38:44.575
Well, I prepared a wording on this document based upon the provisions that Council wanted me to. I also prior to that had prepared some which was more limited, but I'll note. 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 39:10.813
And that could be done before Thursday night, even if we debate and pass this as a motion. It might be done. It was only a recommendation. Yep. And then revisit. Revisit on Thursday night? Yep. Can I just have a minute? I just have a question. When? Brian Stockwell 39:25.004
Well, this question, has it been seconded or no? I'm happy to second. Okay, so I So basically, yeah, 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 debate 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? Patrick Murphy 39:58.980
So councillor, Tavish is referring to item 2 as well. Does that also refer to the activities code? Amelia Lorentson 40:08.020
Once again, 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? this has been drafted up today at the request of Councillor Wegener. So if 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 Thursday. So this would send a message for where we're headed. Brian Stockwell 40:59.360
So we've got an option. It's been moved and seconded. If we either can't do away with it, we can make a further modification to include two as well, or we can just vote on it the way we see fit. And amend it again. So this is the motion before us, the amendment before us, we've got to deal with that before we deal with anything else. I just want to ask you a question please, just to Richard, can you please expand on just a comment that you made around changing the goalposts please, for me? Richard MacGillivray 41:31.547
Yes, yes, so the comment was in in light of the time the application, launched the application with council, the scheme that is currently in effect was the scheme that they applied under, which is obviously a consistent use of short term accommodation, so they've progressed. 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. Provisions around seeking to make STA in rural and rural residential properties in consistent use, where it's not the primary place of residence. So up until this scheme was notified, the applicant was of the understanding that it was a consistent use, subject to, in fact, assessment under the planning scheme. So for the applicant, that's what they understood the current planning scheme is. Jessica Phillips 42:33.476
I find it hard, and I work out how to question this, how we can make a decision or debate something with information we have now and the applicants put forward. applicant's put forward what we asked them to originally, which is supported, does that... Richard MacGillivray 42:50.022
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 more and more weight generally gets given towards those scheme amendments, because there's more of an understanding and confidence around those amendments to being embedded as new policy moving forward. Jessica Phillips 43:12.457
So once those amendments are made, sorry, one more question, then the decision would be slightly different now. But again, my query is, we should be making consideration without what's to Brian Stockwell 43:32.579
That's true. If I can just maybe get to your question. From a purely planning scheme perspective, the correct legal advice is we can't place weight on the recently advertised amendments. 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. And that's just that's just for individual councillors to think about. It's nothing that we 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. Jessica Phillips 44:21.134
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 SCA without approval? Brian Stockwell 44:33.416
That's a good question. So does the existing potential non-performing use of the property, are we able to consider that in the assessment of the government application? Kim Rawlings 44:41.596
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 44:53.555
Generally, one of the remedies if we do find properties, no matter what they're used for, on the contrary, one of the remedies can you apply a fee to use, and it's generally accepted practice there. Councillor, Karen. Karen Finzel 45:06.411
Thank you. So just for, in the, looking at fairness and equity, 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 with a 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 around a table so I think what we've got before us here is two things we've got a that has come through prior the goalposts moving with the understanding that it could proceed forward with it you know there's other matters around as raised from Councillor really good question I guess were they aware and to me the debate is around you know the planning scheme amendments and what was 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 under the preceding plan how it sits. Now what was the applicant happy with? Were they happy to move forward under that clear understanding? Kim Rawlings 46:25.349
So can I just clarify so this was actually launched September last year so well in 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 pricing. Richard MacGillivray 46:55.462
And to add to Tara's point, obviously the applicant would have been aware that the housing strategy was nuanced at that point in time, so whilst it's not whilst it's not part of the planning scheme, it was an endorsed council policy. Karen Finzel 47:08.876
So through the Chair just a question, did the applicant have opportunity to withdraw this application prior to the amendments going through public consultation and coming back, or were they not interested? Kim Rawlings 47:21.256
So the application can be withdrawn at any point, there was no advice provided to them Brian Stockwell 47:50.747
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've sought to take out item three, but that's the amendment we're dealing with. Frank Wilkie 48:06.053
Look, I'll support the amendment because it makes the grounds for refusal more pertinent. It takes out irrelevant grounds. Okay. Brian Stockwell 48:15.773
Anyone else wish to talk? I'll call for a vote. Those in favour? Do you notice? No, I didn't. I didn't vote for it. Oh, you didn't. Oh, sorry. You didn't vote for your own. No, I didn't vote for the amendment. So, if you can, I'll read it out now, which is Councillor Finzel, Councillor Finzel, Councillor, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson. Lorentson and then Councillor Stockwell and against was Councillor Wegener. The amendment becomes the motion so I will move a similar amendment to remove the proposed item 2 grounds of refusal item 2. Frank Wilkie 49:21.520
You need a seconder for the purposes of the debate? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 49:25.820
Seconder, Councillor. I will only say it's, obviously I should have been included in the previous one, same reasons. Anyone wish to speak? Tom Wegener 49:35.520
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 the... As a part of, I was going to say the vibe of the thing, but no. I'm just not sure that, why is it taken out when it's in the town plan and it relates to rural properties and this is an STA going onto a rural property. It seems to be perfectly relevant. Brian Stockwell 50:16.220
So if I can pose that as a 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 rural in nature? Patrick Murphy 50:31.720
Applied to those activities that are rural in nature. Brian Stockwell 50:34.920
And a short term accommodation in a rural area isn't considered a rural activity? No. Does that answer your question? that answer your question? Tom Wegener 50:40.464
Yes, that absolutely answers my point because it's not... I know you're debating staff now, Councillor Wegener. You just said... Councillor Wegener? Yes, sir. Brian Stockwell 50:49.424
You have talked to the motion. You didn't pose it as a question. So you've used your allotment of speaking to the amendment. Raise it when it becomes the amendment. the amendment. Can I Can I ask a Yes, absolutely. Amelia Lorentson 50:57.824
Ask a question? Can I ask a question? I'll let Councillor Wegener have the question. Tom Wegener 51:03.524
So an STA is not consistent with rural activities. You just said that. that. You say, because you just, you just, you just made my argument. Because you said that... Councillor Wegener, please, please ask a question. It is a question. Yeah, it is a question. can you reword it so it's not part of the argument? Is an STA a rural activity? Patrick Murphy 51:33.440
No. No, it's not a rural activity. Thank you. It's an accommodation... Amelia Lorentson 51:39.580
Can I ask the same question I've asked about three times? Is the better way to go with this to the motion in front of us, go back to the original, have a discussion about the original, and if the sentiment is to refuse the approval or the recommendation put by staff, then allow council planners to put the reasons for refusal. I feel that we're going the wrong way around. We're talking about process now, we've got an amendment before us. Okay, but that's my that'll help inform the decision. Cancel with me. Brian Stockwell 52:22.246
I will allow one more time. I think we've already addressed, but that would be an alternative way to address this issue. We could do that afterwards. Okay. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 52:33.525
And I would, as said before, we could approve this motion to refuse and staff could refine it by Thursday night as well, but alternatively. Okay. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 52:43.625
Okay. Does anyone wish to does anyone wish to talk to the amendment? So the amendment's just to remove the second ground of refusal which is related to rural activities. I support the amendment because consistent with staff advice it helps make the grounds for refusal more pertinent and defensible. Anyone else wish to speak? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Lorentson and Stockwell. And those against? There's Councillor Wilson and Wegener. The alliterative 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 53:46.844
So we've got the amended, the change motion in front of us, Mr. Chairman? Just need to... Brian Stockwell 53:54.504
That looks right to me, with the renumbering, yes. Okay, I think that's all there in front of us now. Would anyone like to talk to the motion? No? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 54:44.040
I am going to speak to the motion and provided that what's in front of us will get tweaked before we come to the... 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 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 and rely on the discretionary powers conferred under section 63. Point of order, Mr Chairman. Frank Wilkie 56:03.363
Can I just ask the speaker, direct comments for you, not to staff. Oh, excuse me. Because they've done their job. Sorry. Amelia Lorentson 56:10.463
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 need, we need 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. Also. I'm not going to support the application, acknowledging that the applicant can still short-term let his property for 60 days, or a maximum of four days a year, and can house host and potentially have some eco Brian Stockwell 57:22.300
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 about this particular site. And when I... the fact that it is impact accessible triggered by the size of the land being not an acceptable outcome means we 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, rural... and... and primary production. There's one asset of this Shire that you can't create any more of, and that's agricultural land. This site itself, while being small, Constant changing temporary visitors have any likelihood that the reverse amenity effect will have an adverse effect on any potential use of the ag land and to me the answer is probably yes there's another part of this particular lot that also in my mind looking at it if I say this is this is in one of the most rural parts of the Shire it's quite close to our northern boundary it is within an area that is less less rural lifestyle it's large blocks a lot of grazing and to me the there probably is merit in putting more weight on the agricultural outcome versus the short-term outcome and for that reason on this particular application I can support the motion put forward by council as amended. Anyone else wish to speak? Oh Councillor Tom Wegener 59:43.740
Wegener would you like to close? Thank you I'll instead of making a hard argument it sounds like things are going well so there's a 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. Councillor Wegener Brian Stockwell 01:00:00.260
I'll remind you in closing you can only rebut or refer refer to to matters of the debate that have already appeared. Tom Wegener 01:00:07.697
Oh good point okay no nothing to say thank you. 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? You're closed yeah. Okay I'll put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? unanimous. Thank you. So we move on to item 5.2 which is mature change of use to develop an application for a short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Road, Cootharaba. Could we have an overview please? Kim Rawlings 01:00:43.380
So again this is a short-term accommodation in an existing dwelling Style levy is too premature to take into consideration the current planning scheme amendments. There is standard conditions included in the recommendation to possess an amendment to the amendments. Brian Stockwell 01:01:36.913
Thank you. Do we have a motion? Tom Wegener 01:01:41.817
I'd like to make an alternative motion to refuse this and it's the same motion as before. so we can't say we're going to use staying stain with the motion from the last item that you moved or the motion that was passed? Let's go with the motion that was passed. Brian Stockwell 01:01:59.893
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 second it. That's a good idea. Tom Wegener 01:02:08.049
This property is not an agricultural property but it is still in the rural zone and we are looking at rural pursuits ecotourism all those sorts of things where you have residents making a living in in on the land which is the exact which is the exact opposite of having STA residents on the land, and this property actually has neighbours, and neighbours, 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 have strangers coming in and out of a property is no longer your neighbour and we want to maintain a sense of a neighbourhood in our even though it's a rural property there's not a lot of neighbours you still have neighbours and they're there on when you look at the map so this is inconsistent once again with the Noosa housing strategy because are replacing housing with SDAs and it's inconsistent with the same strategic plan because you know it doesn't incorporate any sort of rural activity on it which is essential which is if it if it doesn't have a rural pursuit element of the short-term accommodation then it does not it is not consistent with the town plan. Frank Wilkie 01:03:52.420
I think we're heading in the same direction as we did in the last matter Mr Chairman so I'll be supporting the motion. Brian Stockwell 01:03:59.320
Could I ask for figure one from the Payment Officers report to be brought up please. So I'm actually not supporting it because I don't believe it's ground accurate. There's no way you can have a look at that block with the biodiversity overlaid all over it. The reason the site has riparian corridor. This This is not a site where the highest and best use of agriculture is at all. If you look, there's a connection quite strongly through this site and over to the northeast end of a very large remnant. The site, from a planning sense, is best protected for its natural values. The site does one that, short-term, that any of those blocks surrounding with an agricultural empire even if it was a fairly intense horticulture would have an impact on this site because of the significant natural area buffer. To and Councillor Wegener mentioned we're trying to make ecotourism, well this has come as a short-term accommodation, the experience that people have in it will be one akin to ecotourism, the fact that it hasn't built it into the application, it would need to be more than just providing it as a short-term accommodation. So in this instance, I don't think those grants stack up, I don't 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 and while I still think the best outcome is to retain a house and to have short-term accommodation as an ancillary is, I don't think the best outcome is to retain a house and to have short-term accommodation as an ancillary is. Frank Wilkie 01:06:38.739
Be refused, would the applicants could apply to have a home hosted accommodation here in Cabbies? SPEAKER_05 01:06:46.719
Correct. So some sort of eco-tourism is still possible on the site, consistent with the current planning scheme and also the amendments on the way. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:01.700
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 are we in a housing crisis or not? And if we are, we should be supporting the application in front of us. Motion in front of us. Brian Stockwell 01:07:30.260
Can we speak? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Lorentson. Those against? Okay, the motion has moved, was carried. We move on to item 5.3. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:54.500
I'd like to move and return that motion. Brian Stockwell 01:07:57.560
If we can have the overview of the subject. Oh, wait a minute. Yes, that's right. So we're looking at item 3. This is a moot 2 that came to use, 22.094, developed an application for a child care centre in 2018, pretty great in Mooseville, and we have the... Nadine 01:08:17.245
Good afternoon, everyone. This is an application for material change of use. This is the application that Georgie spoke to earlier this afternoon. This is an application for a child care centre for up to 96 children, 17 staff in a single storey building on Hofmann Drive. As you may know, 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 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 with the planning scheme. the non-provision of the 10 billion landscape setback as required by the reconfiguration application. Brian Stockwell 01:09:20.450
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:30.385
I'd like to move an alternate motion that council note the report by the coordinator planning to the planning and environment committee dated 11th June 2024 regarding application number MCU220094 for material change of use for a childcare centre situated at 28 Enie Creek Road, Noosaville and request staff to bring forward a revised report to the planning and environment committee meeting of 9th of July 2024 detailing conditions for approval. Brian Stockwell 01:10:06.973
We have a seconder for that motion. Councillor. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:13.113
Okay. I'm moving this alternate motion to approve a childcare application based on the 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 need. Establishing the centre will create jobs, support the influx of professionals, particularly with three new medical centres being built nearby. 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 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 in A decision that I asked this question at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting, a decision that's not final and not binding, is not, in my opinion, a valid reason. Reducing this buffer zone to four metres will not compromise the Noosa character, nor will it detract from the Business Centre's visual appeal. The other grounds for refusal, in my opinion, are equally unconvincing. This proposal is not about creating something our community does not want. It's actually the opposite. It's about addressing the pressing needs of our community. The economic and benefits of this child care centre far outweigh the constraints of our current planning act. We face a shortage of workers in the hospitality and retail sectors. Providing accessible child care 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 to accommodate 96 children with the area of open spaces that have to be regulated to ensure a safe and conducive environment. This capacity is essential as 96 is the minimum number of children required to make the centre economically feasible. We heard this again at the Planning and Environment Committee. changes have been made to address this requirement, ensuring the project's viability and sustainability. The planning scheme doesn't consider economic viability of a business, but we as councillors should. We should consider whether a business is economically viable because the long-term sustainability and prosperity of our community depend on the success of its local businesses. Economically viable businesses contribute to the local economy. They provide employment opportunities, they attract further investment and they create a resilient local economy that can better withstand economic fluctuations. Last week we met with our business leaders in our business roundtable 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 is refusing an essential service for our community based, in my opinion, on minor planning provisions does not outweigh these compelling reasons to approve it. I ask I 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 01:14:23.175
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? Nadine 01:14:37.012
Yes, there is the land directly to the north of the village next to you sign and a childcare centre is a consistent risk in that zone. Frank Wilkie 01:14:45.392
So this community would not be denied economic, social, community benefits or a childcare centre if it was wired from the correct zone? Nadine 01:14:52.932
That is correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:54.612
Can I ask, just following up from that, a couple of questions. How long did this application did this application in front of us take from start to finish? Nadine 01:15:03.637
It took a fair Because the applicant, we did advise the applicant along 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 setback. It took a while for a response to the applicant's applicant to respond to the information request. And during that response time, there were considerable discussions with the applicant, again, indicating our concerns with the proposal. So, yeah. And there was a public notification period in there as well. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:44.625
Thank you, Nadine. So, if this proposal is not supported, how long will it be before we see the childcare centre at Noosa Civic? There's land zoned for it, but how long would Before that's actually realised? Nadine 01:15:59.656
I don't know. That would be up to the developer or someone else to... Thank you. So, if this application was supported, how long before we would realistically see this up and running? Again, that's something you'd have to talk to the developer, noting that the approval lasts for six years. They might not do anything for six years. What would it be fair to say that if the applicant was to engage with staff for an application on the Corrections Owners site It's a person I process would take, yeah, it would be an impact assessment application very generally and a consistent design could take anything around six months. Frank Wilkie 01:16:45.152
I also heard at the time, could you could you explain the weight of this report, is it a court ordered outcome with maybe a 10m landscape buffer? Patrick Murphy 01:16:55.974
Put that in context please. 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. There is proviso that the lot area be under 4,000 square metres for it to be co-assessable. This lot is over 4,000 square metres, so in the new scheme it would be a insistent impact-assessable application. I think it's important that transparency for that. And to note on that, there's also a requirement in the draft amendments for a 10-metre landscape. Frank Wilkie 01:18:00.999
If the 10-metre landscape buffer was able to be retained, looking ahead to where the planning scheme is going, that would be a desirable outcome? It certainly would be a desirable outcome. And with the land undeveloped to the north, there is an availability to amend lot boundaries to increase the Brian Stockwell 01:18:39.930
Understanding is that a scheme requirement for a landscape buffer does not trigger the definition of infrastructure like an open space commission would, is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:18:54.152
Yes, so landscaping is not infrastructure. The infrastructure agreement and the position that's been put forward by the applicant about our inability to apply the 10 metre buffer has been reviewed by our lawyers and the advice is that it is a reasonable condition for a range Noosa, Tewantin, Cooroy, Doonan, Kabi Kabi. Jessica Phillips 01:19:51.638
Use zone? Is there a lot large enough to facilitate same size childcare? Patrick Murphy 01:20:05.804
We have an application either currently for a range of uses, generally aligned with the main schemes you take with the site. They haven't incorporated childcare into that current application. They haven't? They haven't. Okay. Well, there'd be four hectares in the area. certainly be, you know, a very large site if they were composing it. Nadine 01:20:31.229
Figure nine of the report shows the, I'm not quite sure what page that's on. Could we go through the nine? That shows the initial application that's been lodged. it's in actually, it's in the report, where you open the, you actually open the, yeah, touch on line work, and you can go down to figure nine. Is that, yeah, just in there, yep. Take a turn at the end of the line. Frank Wilkie 01:21:15.940
Is anyone else's system very slow? Fifty-four. Nadine 01:21:23.880
Fifty-three. Fifty-nine. Frank Wilkie 01:21:36.684
I'm not sure who I'm talking about. Nadine 01:21:49.569
It's just about 3.3.2. All that does is give you, oh no, you've gone into Mr. Scrims. Kim Rawlings 01:22:01.089
So while we're doing that, do we want to put in some pressure? We can come back to that because it's just a drive-in. Is there another question? Just looking at the plans, so much of the area was taken up by the parking spaces, is there any, would you talk through the one share of children's and staff's parking or are there any other alternatives so we could accommodate drop-offs and pick-ups so that we could start off to the lofts of the parking spaces? The car parking is actually below, it's under the planning scheme requirements, consultant, our traffic we have an external traffic consultant and he's reviewed it and he considers that slight reduction in numbers is appropriate or useless proposed. Yes, child care centres have a pitch where they turn over quickly, so this is actually a couple of spaces short, so I don't think this board is going any further. And it does have a number of random spaces, which reduces the amount of area required for car parking, and that would be recognition of that staff using those, and that quick use of the car park's been dropping So, in many circumstances, we wouldn't accept so much term spaces, but with this use, it's been recommended. Amelia Lorentson 01:23:14.572
In terms of number of car parks, it's three, is that correct? They've gone from 27 car parks in a car parks and the recommendation is 30. So, it is minor, yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:23:25.396
Okay, so we have the overall layout there, and the point you were making to that particular diagram? Amelia Lorentson 01:24:15.540
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 Can you talk to that please, Nadine? Nadine 01:24:38.419
I can only interpret what I heard. My understanding is if they put it in the current application, the comment was that it would be in an upstairs situation. If we go, if we can go back to that, this concept we've currently got in, you can, so it's offices up the top, car parking, on 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 on vacant area land. Amelia Lorentson 01:25:10.214
So can I ask, would the centre support more than care 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 people are anticipated to be working and living in this precinct. Nadine 01:25:34.046
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 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 Amelia Lorentson 01:25:55.129
So I've looked at the 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 I haven't gone into that. Nadine 01:26:17.816
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. Consistent in the future. There is a provision for a childcare centre to be established in the Noosa Civic area. So yes, I'm assuming that there is a need for an additional centre in that and there is a provision under the current zoning. And just one more question following up on that. Pressures from, you know, all the conversation with our drafts that South East Queensland regional plan. So there is an expectation that we are going, we will be somehow Somehow, accommodating extra accommodation? Again, was that a factor that was considered as part of the application? Patrick Murphy 01:27:11.323
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. It was in the pre-enrolment meeting that it 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 a visit of mixed-use development but still have a large portion of area that could accommodate have a 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 for the board? Frank Wilkie 01:28:01.901
We had a deputation from the applicant earlier and there was a range of points made. Are there any points of clarification that the campaigning team would like to make regarding what was presented to the councillors? Any points of clarification? Patrick Murphy 01:28:18.948
Had legal advice which supports the inclusion of the provisions in the scheme and the condition that it requires a 10 minute setback. There was a comment made that the purpose that the purpose of the 10-minute setback was to almost like some screening in the interim. It was certainly more than that. It was about the character that we'll try to create when this site was actually developed, that the vegetated outcomes were the dominant form and not the built form. So I'm probably disagreeing with that. Richard MacGillivray 01:28:50.712
And the other comment I would make is obviously... is the first application over three lots, and you'll 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 Jessica Phillips 01:29:21.742
I just 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 what was said at the deputation so I believe the comment was made that the there was to be a childcare centre put on mixed the village-use lot, sorry portion of the site, that it would be upstairs and not in a park-like setting. So this is a, it's a two-storey development. At the moment there's a proposal for a cinema and some sort of indoor entertainment. I'm assuming the comment was to be made that they would put it in an upper level and it wouldn't have a park-like setting. That's my interpretation of what was said, we can seek some clarification if you require on that. Maybe that would be good because it makes sense wouldn't want a child care inside a building. We want our young people out in the sunshine. Nadine 01:30:22.813
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 child care centre in that location. It doesn't necessarily have to go into the built form. Jessica Phillips 01:30:36.133
And is that lot three on Nadine 01:30:45.312
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. Jessica Phillips 01:30:58.312
What size is the lot above that then? it's that's about four it's probably about eight could be that's get total it's a total projection. Frank Wilkie 01:31:13.971
I'll speak to the motion look I cannot support this motion because Noosa has had a great history and reputation for fulfilling that's about 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 need a childcare centre but there is land adjacent to it which is more appropriately zoned and also because in Noosa we place a the natural look and feel and vegetative buffers especially ones that are a result of court order mediation are an integral part of that. I would like to see a childcare centre in the Noosa Civic. Of course we all want the economic, social and community benefits but there is land where that can occur and we can can keep the vegetated buffer. I would be open to any compromise perhaps where the 10 metre vegetated buffer could be retained given that that's where the planning scheme is heading but for the purpose where we are exactly right here and now I can't support this motion that's before us with the information before me. Brian Stockwell 01:32:31.960
Can I? Sorry. Anyone else wish to speak? No? Have you got a question? I have a question yeah. Just a question 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 four 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 01:33:06.580
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 lend the application for a setback and they indicated no they believe they've achieved the park like setting that's required and a good development outcome. Can I speak to the motion? You may. Jessica Phillips 01:33:37.309
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... extra traffic congestion driving from over at this business precinct to the nearest vacancy of childcare facilities is across the other side of the Shire and so as a mum of young 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 01:34:31.480
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 Council's considered this site and 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. We 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 It's 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. that's the key issue. That's the key 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. It is a proposed condition of the draft scheme that this council has out in front of the public at this very moment. To vote against what is currently out for public consultation is putting up the white flag before your robes at full height. for me, I can't support the motion. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:19.560
I'm just going to run through some of the benefits. The childcare intends to service young working families within the immediate area. It will complement 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 new civic centre convenient childcare services. There's a medical centre that's been approved. There's two others that have been approved and that's going The building is architecturally designed and has a built form that complements the strong character of Noosa with significant landscaping of four metres. There are no impacts on the amenity of nearby residential neighborhoods given the distances away and that the building provides screening from outdoor play. The site is clear from any significant environment features and And... just on a simple basis, working mums need it. Young families need it. They need it now. Not in six years, not in ten years. They need it now. So... 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 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 wellbeing. Brian Stockwell 01:38:18.505
I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson and Councillor. Those against? That's Councillor Wilson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell. Do we have an alternate motion? Frank Wilkie 01:38:37.226
I'll move the staff recommendation. We have a seconder for that? Councillor Wegener was a seconder. Councillor 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 vegetative buffers. The vegetative 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 refusal of And also the fact that the childcare centre can be accommodated on land that's very close by. It's not as if, if it's not built here, it won't be built anywhere. Yeah, so I support this motion. Other people wish to speak? Jessica Phillips 01:40:00.120
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 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 financial viability. So if the business needs... 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 01:40:37.892
Mr. Speaker, I have a question actually. In the village mix, as you say, the current heightened stories and... Is that proposed? Is that that zone immediately behind this was one of the areas that's currently being advertised as a potential for an incentive to go to an extra story? Am I right? Tom Wegener 01:41:01.333
Take that on notice? Yeah. Okay, okay. I'm going to make the statement there. I'll talk Brian Stockwell 01:41:06.530
My belief is that this is one of the areas behind here where we are envisaging there may be a bonus for an additional storey for affordable housing. 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 setting or is it one of a large bulky building, so to me it's really important to set the standards up front. I do think there is some wiggle room on this site, like 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. is also an option to be more flexible in the other design. We see at the moment that we've got four metres rather than ten going to lawn. I don't know childcare safety rules, but I But... I do know there's a large movement of exposing young children to nature-based play. Is there a compromise there that the 10 metres could include some element of nature-based play? I do believe that the requirement is 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 that is one that can generate consideration but at this stage I don't think that the just a proposal of a certain size which is proven to be in excess of what that particular lot can sustain within the scheme is a good enough argument to approve it. Anyone else wish to speak? Thank you I'd like to firstly thank all the councillors and what they've put to the table today it's a really challenging 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 rely that will 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 ordered 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. I feel that I have to agree with the recommendation from the staff but then by no means limits my support. of a child care centre now and into the future. Thank you. 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 and Councillor Lorentson. Councillors, we're going to have a five minute break. As we have an issue to resolve before the next item. We're all good. Okay, we've resumed the meeting and we're on item 5-4, which is a further report on MCU 210110, 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 01:58:24.036
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 Alton Property Group, who are the developers of Park Ridge, Noosa Springs, Ridge Noosa Springs made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel development. Since then, the matter has changed, given Alton Property Group has withdrawn the submission. Lee McCready, who is associated with Alton, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election. 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 in the meeting room. However, 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 01:59:19.459
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? Jessica Phillips 01:59:33.746
Okay, so I move that she can stay. Brian Stockwell 01:59:36.866
It's moved. Option A there is a move by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor. Do you wish to talk to the matter? No. 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. The CEO, can you give us an update on this matter please? Or the Director, I'm going to pass over to the Director, he's not directly involved. Thank you councillors. So a further report has been prepared for the general committee. has put forward a request for a deferral 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 in light of the proposed reasons for refusal was 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. Thank you. And there is, should we be agreeable to that, the recommendation is on the screen. Would someone like I'm happy to move it. That council note the further report by the manager development assessment to the planning and 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 recreation and club, minor extension to existing clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads and defer this matter to a future meeting round as the applicant has requested to extend the decision. decision-making period pursuant to section 20 20 first section 22 of the development assessment rules do you wish to talk to the motion yeah I'll say something just really briefly I'm I hope the applicant is genuine in their commitment to work in collaborate collaboratively with the community unity water and the council to address the concerns that were raised as grounds for refusal I also hope that our community unity water 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? Amelia Lorentson 02:02:30.896
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 meets community expectations and values. Brian Stockwell 02:02:53.668
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, our ex-CEO who carried on the role with the Transition Committee, Brett D. Chastel, we have ex-Mayor Noel Clayford, ex-Mayor Tony Wellington and extraordinaire of Landcare, Phil Moran. And we've got a member of the Falls Estate, I'm not quite sure who it is. and I take that for you Thanks councillors. Kim Rawlings 02:03:52.335
I feel very privileged to be at the 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 New South 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. Brett 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, Mark, 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. She's trying to win. Brett de Chastel 02:04:50.898
Hopefully not hard questions. It's funny to be sitting in this chair again after all these years. Yeah, a bit like Kim, I just want to, I guess, acknowledge that this is a milestone in this project. The transition committee has 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 From the 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 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 of those contracts have been honoured. All the time frames have been met, all the payments have been made, all the tenure issues have been worked through. Pretty significant project. We used the transition committee and we've got the final report from the transition committee which has input from all the transition transition committee members to highlight, tell a story really about why the project has been successful, what it's achieved, how the transition committee worked, the problems they're just dealing with trying to solve and also about some of the outcomes. So pretty impressive piece 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 1,300, just over 1,400 hectares, is currently being tabled in Parliament as of this week and will be going into national park probably early August. That's the last step in that process. So we'll end up with an additional 2,400 hectares of national park, which stretches from, 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 Bullring Point from that corner. with many of the environmental acquisitions the Council has made or contributed to over the years, we're trying to preserve existing good passes of land. What this does, if you like, is push back a bit and say, "Look, we've got some forestry areas, and the and the forestry company HQ Plantations were outstanding to deal with, they were really pragmatic as was the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries through the forestry guys there, was how do we recognise that there's some really valuable timber resources that they have planted, both pine and hardwood, how can we take that off and enable them to have their commercial returns on what has been planted, it's like a crop, and then how do we have a processing place to regenerate that 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 who 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, getting value for money in terms of cost of the acquisition but also the ability to build common grounds for people to have really good strong working relationships even though coming from different areas. You had environment groups in the room with harvest companies, plantation companies and three different government departments who don't necessarily always see eye to eye 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 Truth and 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 work that's been done. I just want to draw council's attention to council staff over the years have also made a big contribution. Peter Milne and Dave Burrows, some of our environmental staff who have 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. I hope you can take any hopefully easy questions in terms of the project. So does anyone have questions? Frank Wilkie 02:10:54.689
Greg, can you talk about some of the uses that this land is going to National Park but there are as trails through there can you just speak to some of the current and potential future uses? Yeah, obviously like any National Park will probably build a management plan so we've got one being developed in the north as one for Noosa the National 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 I actually think there's more tracks and trails here primarily because there's a lot of internal access roads or trails and tracks that are already there from the logging roads so you could do something really good with that area and certainly QPFUS have been very open with council previously to look at and we've had the Pomona to Cooran Trail and at the moment they're working on the Pomona to Lake Macdonald Trail and people are working on that at the moment. So yeah, it's a great opportunity to continue to be available to the community for public access for that recreation. Particularly retired CEOs can enjoy Lake Macdonald Trail. That's important. Yes, thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:12:10.120
Other questions? Amelia Lorentson 02:12:11.560
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 understand what specific types of training and employment opportunities are envisaged for the Kabi people through this collaboration? Brett de Chastel 02:12:33.085
Yes, so Council wasn't a party to that agreement. It was a separate agreement done as an Indigenous land use agreement between Greenfleet and Kabi Kabi. They have arrangements under that, I'm generally aware of it, but it's not, it's a commercial arrangement. There's provisions in there that Greenfleet, through their contractor Landcare, who are doing the planning, will undertake cultural awareness training, they'll undertake cultural assessments of the sites before planning is undertaken, and they'll look to employ young Kabi Kabi staff and train them up in terms of land use. of land care activities and those types of things. Brian Stockwell 02:13:16.259
Would someone like to move a motion? I move the motion. Staff recommendation. And seconded by Councillor Finzel. Frank Wilkie 02:13:26.009
Oh look, all I can do is really congratulate and thank the people responsible for bringing this forward-thinking legacy project forward. They are in the room here. I think it's identifying the opportunity and creating the relationships between HQ plantations and state government departments. Mayor Tony for leading us through the initial stages of that. Mayor Noel for being there always. Phil Moran for his work with land care and rehabilitating the site. You Brett for, well everyone, especially for negotiating a complicated web of relationships at a high level between HQ plantations and a multitude of state government departments and Noosa councils. It's rare to see a project of this scope and complexity. The beneficiaries are the broader community, everyone involved is pretty much done on a voluntary basis and it's for the greater good and it's immensely satisfying to have played a small part as councillors, it's come before us before and we've noted the importance and supported it. it, supported 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 02:15:02.640
Can I just speak to just one part of and you know I wasn't involved in the whole process but I note in the report and I made a note of it that there was a risk a risk for both council and NPA that they were paying with something that may not have eventuated and that took a little bit of ingenuity and just sheer guts and again great example of collaboration and calculated risk And understanding that the return was you know high risk but high return. And Brett I'm going to throw this as a question rather than trying to explain. Can you explain what happened in terms of you know the money being held in a trust? I'll leave that for explanation for you. So one of the things was that the essence of the agreement was that State Government, Council and NPA would put up a further money edge to acquire the plantation right from the HQP. HQ Plantations wanted their money up front which was three and a half million dollars, but of course that then needed for us to take a punt to say well how do we know if this land is going to be green in the National Park in the future. And there's a legal provision 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 there was a change of government, the minister changed his mind, the project went off the rails, we would secure our money back if the vein didn't become international park. In other words, we didn't get what we were paying for. We came up with an arrangement where the State may still hold $3.5 million. out funding in a trust account in Brisbane. And that can only get paid out to the State. They can only draw down on that once that final tranche of land in August goes into national park. So that's when they get their... funding. So we've held that secure. If for any reason it goes off the rails and that land doesn't go to the national park, we 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... is interest paying on that amount as well, so that at the conclusion when that money is taken out, any interest will be allocated by the State government to koala-related projects in the Noosa Shire area. We don't know how much that's going to be yet. My envelope of calculations is probably somewhere around $150,000 to $200,000. It will come out as a side benefit from the arrangement. Tom Wegener 02:18:01.620
Well, carrying on from that, well first I want to thank you for this incredible achievement and it's something that we probably will take for granted very quickly but we never should. My question is, the institutional memory and the institutional learnings from what you've done I'm hoping that they're not lost on us and we can continue that sort of brave action you know you're looking at a huge problem and saying what can we do let's let's fix this do you have any advice Advice for us council here how we can maintain and uphold your your standards your ability what is the right word paradigm which you've done. Advice. Brett de Chastel 02:18:57.023
Be brave, be bold. be bold in a nutshell and it's about taking calculated risks. I remember I was a CEO after de-amalgamation we had a series of principles we used around 2014. One of them was be brave but not stupid. 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. can't be risk immune but very sensible about how you take them. Amelia Lorentson 02:19:30.207
Be brave, not stupid. I don't remember that I'll quote you on that bit. I just like to reiterate be brave not stupid. I think it's a real benefit back to our whole of community. At the time 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 impact and it's fantastic to be here today and be part of that and also noting that today is it's been 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's sort of 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 to go forward thank you Brian Stockwell 02:20:52.080
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 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. When we did a a very detailed look at the National Wellbeing Survey in 2016 and 2020 Council we got a lot of our residents participating. The Noosa level of health and well-being 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. And there is no doubt, it's not 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, identify 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 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 wellbeing. And it wouldn't have been possible without very bold decisions in council. But there's some other, quite a few hundred other key players. It was a dollar for dollar for dollar sort of deal in terms of council putting in what Noosa Parks put in and Noosa Parks wouldn't have the extraordinary of money that they put into this if they didn't have hundreds of volunteers working at the info centre down at the Noosa 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 and in fact a lot more koalas in this tract than we thought and also probably getting an idea that maybe some of the current current policy settings real 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. have sufficient planning provisions to cover the regrowth. The only thing I'd like to finish off it is a bit full circle there's someone else sitting in this room the Director of Community Services who in the 1980s was walking down the Ural 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 you know being old enough now over 30 years now, over 30 years later, to see it return to National Park. It's a great achievement, so well done. I will put the motion. Can I just finish? You've moved the motion, so you certainly can. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:24:52.219
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 adjacent to Main Beach that 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. that there's a continuous link between the Noosa Hedge section, Tewantin Forest, Yurol Ringtail and the Cooroy 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. Brian Stockwell 02:25:38.140
Now we'll put the motion. Those in favour? And that's carried, denounced. Well done. Thank you very much. Good to see you all again. Patrick Murphy 02:25:51.920
Well done, boys. Frank Wilkie 02:25:55.480
I would just adjourn briefly to see you out there. you out there. See them out. See you, Yeah, we'll Brian Stockwell 02:26:00.544
Just... See you later. We'll just let the carriage... Will you hold us for a while? Kim Rawlings 02:26:06.224
I won't have to wait. Brian Stockwell 02:26:40.520
So, the next item, item 6.2, is the Draft Alright, thank you. David, do you want to give the overview? Yeah, for sure. I'll give a quick overview of the reports. Obviously, there was a workshop that was held a couple of weeks ago now, so you do have a fair bit of background 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 position on the DAPF shark control program. It's also for council to consider how much we want to be involved in the program, so there is a huge opportunity for council to support DAPF in terms of shark smart awareness programs. We've done a little bit of that work already with the department. I also see council as a key opportunity here to represent the community's views on the DAPF shark control program as well. It should be noted that the DAPF shark control program and the associated Queensland shark management plan has the objectives of moving towards technical technological advances in the shark program to reduce potential bycatch concerns that some community members have with the program. other thing to note too is that council does actually hold some responsibilities in shark risk management outside of the DAPF shark control program as well, and I'll touch upon 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 It's quite common knowledge that that can spark some community concerns regarding the risks of whale entanglement and other species entanglement in the shark fishing gear. In context, we have around 30,000 humpback whales... 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. I answered the same, not Basically, from Bundaberg South to the Tweed where we get the whales passing through there's on 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 the East Australian Current. Today, Council has not held a policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program, but as I mentioned earlier, Environmental Services has actively supported DAF under their Queensland Shark Management Plan in paving the way, I guess, for alternative solutions to lower that bycatch potential of the program. most notably last environmental services and Noosa Biosphere supported a DAF surf smart program which was all about educating ocean users in particular surfers and tourism operators how to be a little bit more shark smart 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 policy position on the shark control program including the identification of all roles and responsibilities of council under the shark control program. B, council B. Council to increase advocacy and support to the State shark control program. And that's obviously with the objectives of moving towards technological advances and 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 technological advancements in the shark control program to again further reduce that by cash potential. Now that could be an expansion of drone trials or as I said, shark smart community awareness programs. At the workshop At the workshop that was held with councillors and the executive team a couple of weeks ago, we had program coordinators from the shark control program come in and give a presentation on the actual shark control methods, how they, what the setup of the equipment is of Noosa and how they're moving towards outcomes under the shark management plan, which is up for review. up for review 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 looks like is actually the Shark Control Program, scientific advisory working group. So that's a panel that sits alongside DAF. recommends these changes to the program as they review the results of the trials they've been undertaking for the past five years. It should be noted that obviously Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, DAF, 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 SHARP Smart 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 views on the Shark Control Program to DAF. It's not something 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 SHARC risk areas that council is responsible for outside of the DAF SHARC 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 also the consideration of dangerous marine animal advisory signage bull sharks in brackets in our council managed canal systems so following on from other councils moves over the last sort of five to ten years since there was some fatal attacks in canals in the Gold Coast which I'm sure everyone aware of there is the opportunity for council to consider doing a advisory signage investigation across our council managed canal systems. 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 on the DAF Shark Control Program. B, adopt the following policy position at: 1. 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 Noosa LGA. 2.2. Council to continue to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support SHARP smart educational programs and alternate bite mitigation trials where appropriate. And then Council should note the other SHARP management responsibilities that I just explained, which include: 1. Marine animal stranding response. Noting the Shire 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. Just before, just to add a minor issue, but in reference to when the report refers to ES, there is an abbreviation in the report, that's Environmental Services. Our team. Our team, just for clarification, and I think there's also a reference in there, thanks for One of the councillors, to IS, which is our Infrastructure Services team, apologies, we did a full expansion of the team's names in there. Frank Wilkie 02:35:59.649
Dave, there's often questions about moving the sharpness during the wild migration season, forgive me if I missed it when we had a presentation from DAF. What are the reasons for them being reluctant to move the sharpness from their current position? Has it chosen a certain minimum distance offshore that they have to abide by? David 02:36:22.501
Yeah, for sure. So there's a few things. I guess there's two factors there. There's 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 any of 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 may be. To minimise the chance of straining. Yeah, 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. 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 pro The equipment is targeting sharks, so it's also, what I understand, set in specific locations where they're more likely to catch bull sharks off the Noosa area. A few issues like that, but there is a list here that I can forward on to you if you want to... Karen Finzel 02:37:41.123
Yes. Thank you. Firstly, I'd like to thank Councillor Lorentson for raising this at the previous meeting so that we could get to this position where we are today. a, and the councillors for supporting that around the table, just a question with regards to this position now gives what council the opportunity to take it out for community engagement or consultation, did I hear that right or? And the council's... David 02:38:05.420
No, not to my understanding. It's simply being able to, I guess, you may be able to put You may be able to put it into better words, Kim, but... Yes, 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 shaft control management program and to take part in the review of the shaft management year, plan, which will 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 shaft 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 DAF do community consultation on the shaft management plan, Dave? Yeah, they definitely do, but I do see the opportunity to add to that where, you know, a lot of the first options for our local community is Council, so we're in a position to, I guess, help communicate those community concerns or, some you know, people some people are in favour of NETS, whatever it might be, to DAF in a formal way. It's a little bit difficult to do that if we don't have a policy position on the program, I think, and that clear information that, you know, who manages it and where Council steps in in terms of supporting or trying to change things in the future. Okay. Brett de Chastel 02:39:39.106
Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:39:40.006
So just following From that then, what would be the process if community want to engage and have their say? How is that going to work? 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 DAF's behalf. So we're the, I guess, the mediator between DAF and the community, which is just another avenue we can get. Kim Rawlings 02:40:11.607
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. Requests that they come and do something here to talk to our community. That would be the most appropriate mechanism. David 02:40:37.520
I think it's important to remember too, as far as I'm concerned, we're all trying to get to the the same goal as well, and 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 community play that part as well and help DAF and Councillor to get to that end result, then, yeah, it's just a great thing as well, isn't it? Karen Finzel 02:41:11.037
Yeah, so just following on that, thank you. So to clarify then, you said Council you know, a focus and a role to play. It's predominantly our role then to like just advocate and support the engagement of, who is it, DAF or whoever's out doing that now. Yeah, for sure. So is that predominantly the is that predominantly the focus that the council wants to take? What are the other responsibilities? David 02:41:36.193
I think there's a few responsibilities. There's the education side of things. So DAF have a shark smart program. Council, there's opportunities there for councils. 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. So there's education side of things. There's obviously community review and feedback and comments which council will facilitate and then the third aspect too is I guess to an extent where appropriate assisting DAF undertake those those trials so drone surveys whatever it might be there's there's a few things that obviously council can't play a role in. Needless to say but there's there's scope there so those three main areas where I see that we could support DAF moving forward in the community. Kim Rawlings 02:42:29.907
Thank you. No worries. Just a quick question who has the authority to authorise the seasonal removal of our nets in Noosa? David 02:42:44.267
That would be That would be the State government, not DAF. It would be the states, I'm not exactly sure what level, but the State would tell DAF whether or not that's appropriate and that'll come out at the review of the shark management plan. I was going to add something but I'll think of it later. Kim Rawlings 02:43:03.960
The department about Cropton 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 Queensland eastern coast, and all of the evaluation of those different technologies and trials will influence, you know, know, any changes that are made as part of the shuffling of the planning scheme. David 02:43:32.492
May I just add to that too? I guess that's right. So the other role that council can play in consultation with DAF directly is if we see potential alternatives. potential alternatives that aren't being explored at the moment we can suggest to DAF or get a response from DAF about whether that's an option for them to explore so for example the relocation of the nets to different areas in Noosa. It's not actually a trial that they're undertaking under the shark management plan. They have given reasons why it may or may 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 just give us a response So as it 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 they Africa so will just what from your response just now they will be actioned and do we leave those three actions with you yeah that'll be up to my managers and directors who they see feasible to do that work but I would imagine that that's it would be environmental services responsible to do that if it was supported so yeah I'll respond just a little bit more detail Councillor Lorentson and if there's good ideas out there that aren't being explored like the cables from South Avery then yes we will put that through to DAPS to explore we won't be exploring the effectiveness of those we will put it to staff to say here's an alternative solution which you might be interested in exploring and they do advise that they are looking at those technologies they've had early findings from them so they are definitely looking at them The early findings were that they were ineffective is what I heard the DAF officer say. That's right. The cables. The ones that are on the seabed. There were some issues with them but they also said they were early findings so we know they are looking at those. But, yeah, we can, you know, Dave has a very good relationship with the team so anything that, you know, any ideas we can definitely put forward to DAF if happy to continue to do that. I mean advocacy and partnering are probably our key roles here. So, yeah, we'll continue to do that. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:10.896
Fantastic. And tagging whales after they've been entangled, can we identify identify that as an action item as well? And I just communicate what the community has sort of raised with me, I communicate that through you guys, is that correct? Yeah, for sure. I see that totally reasonable. Fantastic. Yeah, for sure. And just clarifying that somehow tracking white whales that are released to check on their welfare post-release. Fantastic. Yeah, for sure. Okay, do we have anyone who wants to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson has moved. We have a seconder, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Lorentson. Okay, I'd like to move the recommendation in front of us that Council A, note the report by Environmental Services to the general meeting dated seventeenth of June regarding a recommended Council policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program. And B, adopt the following policy position. That one, Council continues to support 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 two, Council to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively... support shark-smart educational programs and alternative bite mitigation trials where appropriate. simply support shark-smart educational programs and alternative bite mitigation trials where appropriate. Frank Wilkie 02:47:36.954
Is this section C to Council? Amelia Lorentson 02:47:39.794
Oh, B. I can't see C. C, note Council's other shark management responsibilities including: One, marine animal stranding noting this role requires resourcing for equipment, materials and staff training and the use of contractors to enable Council to effectively respond to stranding events. And two, consideration of signage investigation relating to dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed canal systems only. Noosa Waters. Brian Stockwell 02:48:16.480
Yep, Amelia Lorentson 02:48:17.700
I'll speak to the motion in front of us. Firstly, I'm looking forward to the recommendations of the shark control program from the State government that be open for community consultation later this year. Taking a position now allows us to respond effectively to these recommendations and allow our community a channel to express 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 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-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. We need to actively engage in state-led trials and initiatives so we can discover solutions that protect both humans and marine life. And we need to change the focus of this debate. Nets work exactly as they're designed to. They're fishing gear and they catch and kill marine life, but they do so 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 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. 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 lots of reading that I do in this area. If 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 Don't you leave you Brian Stockwell 02:51:13.180
One question which I'd foreshadow for you in that B2 and C1 have planetary implications and there are comments in the finance section the finance section of the report, can you just clarify where we're at, noting that the draft budget is in public until later this month? Kim Rawlings 02:51:34.869
Yep, so our, they've not been recommended operational budget, but we have, one of our key positions that support this work is temporary. So we are seeking for that position to be ongoing as part of the budget process. We are, we currently, because we have a responsibility about, around responding to marine strandings, we have to use some operational budget to respond to those. They're hard to plan for and predict. So. So, you know, that's one of the, you know, there's many aspects of the work we do that needs reactive and responsive, so we have some operational budget to do, and we use contractors at the moment. Same We don't have equipment. ourselves to do that work, so we do outsource that work and rely on some operational funding. But, for instance, if we do the investigation around signage for dangerous marine animals, that will require... OK, thank you. Karen Finzel 02:52:47.356
Councillor... Thank you. Just coming off the back of that, a segue into that, I was going to ask a similar question. Given I did ask for a response, and I may 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 further information on that, given it's in C1? David 02:53:07.173
Sorry, what sort of information were you after, sorry? Well, I didn't hear... Kim Rawlings 02:53:10.893
What we currently do, Karen? What was the process? I can't understand what we currently do, because this is a service we currently do. Yeah, so when I asked about council focus, sorry, I didn't hear a response around that. we, because I asked what was council focus, so is this currently a focus that we do and what does that entail? David 02:53:27.825
For sure, so council is responsible under the Nature Conservation Act for the removal of a deceased animal carcass 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 to contain a 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 as well for councils. There was obviously an incident down at the Sunshine Coast that, well Sunshine Coast cancelled 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 other SCQ councils and we're all looking at how we're going to get better at this process. So to clarify then, we don't actually deliver that service to that degree now that you're seeking, that's a projected vision There's definitely room for improvement and it will take a while, so we just need to keep chipping away at it. If there was a stream tomorrow, we'd be the lead. Yeah, what do we do? We would be required to be the lead for sure. SPEAKER_05 02:55:32.782
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 LGA's. 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 LGA's. And so the risk that sits there is potentially we have 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 get trained, Dave. Yeah, we don't have ropes chains or relics or 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 got last year, but the large ones year, the large ones were a little bit vulnerable and, you know, strandings, we might not get one for another 15 years, then we might get a whole bunch of smaller ones, but it's really unpredictable as to where they're invested. Frank Wilkie 02:56:43.030
When carcasses aren't located, they're usually a great source of food for sharks. Did the contractor have any descriptions of what he was observing when he was towing that carcass out to sea? might be pertinent to this discussion. David 02:56:57.286
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 intercepts was one white shark and around six to eight tigers on that carcass. That carcass was actually towed about three to four hundred miles northeast, but so had to be aborted due to weather conditions and failing line. The next morning it towards Teewah Beach. We actually worked with Central Coast Council, borrowed a tracker, put it on that carcass so we could track it overnight. When the contractor arrived at the carcass the next morning, it was located about one And there were sharks on it again. He saw that offshore and the sharks basically caught him the whole way down. Very interesting story. Thank you. New version of Pied Piper. Frank Wilkie 02:57:54.012
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 Noosa Council's work they're doing in strandings and consideration of signage and other activities to mitigate and reduce the likelihood of shark bite and bycatch. David 02:58:32.254
So obviously there's sort of two separate subjects but they are interrelated so they're just our recommendations I guess for environmental services we're going to look at sharks under the shark control program we also need to consider the other areas that the council hasn't worked on. Tom Wegener 02:58:49.015
I'll say just just thank you for bringing this because it's really nice to clarify to us around the table and to the residents what our obligations are what we can and can't do and so it's good I think it's very helpful. Amelia Lorentson 02:59:01.995
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:59:04.675
My two cents worth is it does give a policy of that now but it say enough when if there's proposals in the next draft that shark management plan will we consider it again like it does by default say we we support alternatives lower bycatch potential you know lower bycatch potential but to me I'm just looking at now going 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 shark management plan next year that says seasonal removal this wouldn't tell the staff what to have right proposal. Kim Rawlings 03:00:02.350
What I would suggest is I think you're right and I think it would be as officers making recommendation it would be pre-emptive of 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 shark management program, we'll be in a much better position to, as a council, to have clearer, stronger, clearer, stronger positions Frank Wilkie 03:00:54.668
Yes. 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? don't think it gives us any clarity. It talks about transition. We support the transition to a lower bycatch potential alternative. I'm sort of half guessing that the next shark management plan might take a few more steps. It doesn't give staff any clearer about whether they should support those or whether we should be, whether, for council wants to put a higher level of priority on safety compared to bycatch than the State. But that's just another report to council when it happens. yeah. Thank you for clarifying. David 03:01:52.234
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. Brian Stockwell 03:02:02.180
Anyone else wish to speak? If not, Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 03:02:06.480
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 Next part, I'm going to just quickly speak on behalf of a group that I sit as an observer. Oh, okay, no, okay, then excuse me through the chair. Okay, we as a community need to ensure that our decisions are driven by fact and not fear, that science guides our debate and that our moral responsibility drives our action. While the State manages the nets and drumlines, we as a community and as a council have the power to manage the debate and I'll leave it at that, thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:03:00.714
I'll put the motion, those in favour? That's unanimous. unanimous. We'll move on to the next item, which is almost as riveting. Fees and charges. Tom Wegener 03:03:14.692
Thanks, David. Thanks, Dan. Amelia Lorentson 03:03:15.912
Thanks, guys. Thank you, David. Frank Wilkie 03:03:20.629
Can we have, like, a two-minute break after this, please? Amelia Lorentson 03:03:26.829
Just after this? Thank you very much. Fees and charges should be due. Okay. We'll have a two-minute break after this. Brian Stockwell 03:09:58.714
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 fees for their clients to have a heads-up of what's happening at the end of this month. So, I'll hand it over to our staff, which is me, who I believe is going to talk about it. Kim Rawlings 03:10:24.724
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 implementing regulatory services, like planning fees and permits, as well as those based Firmments, as well as those based on commercial full-cost pricing principles, including return on assets and storage for the business activity. Things like waste charges and holiday park fees. The proposed 2024-25 schedule provides over 1,000 fees and charges, which will will generate around $26 million in revenue to fund the delivery of council services. Some key points to note for this year's fees and charges. Some fees may not increase due to regulatory market demand. Some fees may increase slightly higher due 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 for the procurement of sites 18 months in advance, and this review will extend those fees and charges to the 26th of January, 2016. 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 year fees will continue to apply. Pricing to recover the true cost of service provision is necessary to ensure that council generates sufficient revenues from its activities in line with financial sustainability policy. It also provides a diversified revenue base and ensures that cost of service is equitably borne by those who benefit from them. The proposed 2024-25 fees and charges will come into effect on the 1st of July 2024 once adopted by council. Brian Stockwell 03:12:31.509
Thank you. Do we have any 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 03:12:40.759
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 03:12:54.652
Anyone else wish to speak? Amelia Lorentson 03:12:58.072
Just one, 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 just did a quick little look, there's 84 drownings in Queensland. 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. a council, or maybe a state initiative, but as a council can we provide any sort of initiative to encourage every kid to learn how to swim? thank you council Lorentson um that 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 rake buyer we provide in terms of of benchmarking benchmarking with other aquatic centres, we are on average with that, so we're not an expensive aquatic centre, and we really think about that in terms of the programming, that's why a lot of our programming... is actually a value add, so you're actually purchasing that in addition to help keep the general entry fee reasonable. But we do run programs, for example, through the schools, which help provide... help provide access to every child to a swimming education. OK, thank you. I haven't answered your question. No. So we provide, like, pension and rebates. I'm wondering if there's something similar or something we can think about... Well, state government provides a subsidised program... Swimming, yeah...which... So that can be used for swimming, it could be used for any number of sports, and we actively encourage that. OK, thank you very much. Thank you. Karen Finzel 03:15:17.676
Just on the back of that, when I said on the Cooroy Complex sporting committee out there, there's talk of vouchers back to clubs, like in terms of soccer or football, for children... For children that need that to pay for their fees, is there something around that around swimming classes? So that's the State-based program. It's called Swimming. It's for a range of different sports. Oh, okay. they can apply for that and they need to meet specific criteria and the State runs that program. Jessica Phillips 03:15:53.173
Okay, thank you. I guess to speak on that as well, the one that doesn't make one that doesn't make me feel good is child swimming lessons. School age children is the less... hang on, the average drowning age is far younger than a school age child where they get to go in school hours. So I think that we should really be considering making sure those younger groups... groups, five and under, have got access to be able to go and have affordable swimming lessons. 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? Kim Rawlings 03:16:38.544
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 put them up every second or third year and that's why in the fees and charges it can look like a significant jump. Amelia Lorentson 03:16:59.550
Can I ask a question to to Trent and Pauline. Is there a possibility next budget review that we can throw that as a councillor initiative to look at maybe subsidised swimming for or families that least can afford it and to ensure that every kid in this in the Noosa Shire has the opportunity to get swimming lessons. SPEAKER_05 03:17:30.925
Through the chair we can we can bring back obviously the first part would be a workshop for all the councils to understand the entire board really on 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 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 03:17:57.150
Appreciate and ask if you could note that. Just clarifying it's $4.10 for a school for the child to access the food. $4.30. Karen Finzel 03:18:12.377
Just on the back of that, a question to the CEO via the chair. Is there opportunity given that has come up today that we can advocate to higher levels of government to look at like more funding to allow the 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... understand your question but once again we tend to veer off into a discussion about the merits of subsidised learn to swim where the matter in front of us is setting the annual fees across the whole organisation. Yes and I appreciate that mr Chair thank you but it was just a yes /no answer could we advocate? Amelia Lorentson 03:18:58.822
I can answer can answer that question. Sorry I've ruled. Brian Stockwell 03:19:02.331
So we've had the motion moved does anyone wish to talk to it? Tom Wegener 03:19:09.751
I've got a question. Personal Personal appearances. Personal appearance on page 15. What is that in relation to? Because they're pretty expensive for a personal experience and of course I want in on this. Richard MacGillivray 03:19:27.296
I can maybe speak to that. Yeah, so under our environmental health team regulate under the Environmental Health Act a range of different personal preparing services so that might be where you get nose rings, earrings. There's some further legislation that's being proposed at the moment where that will include cosmetic injectables, so councillors will be required to undertake licences. assessments for things like Botox and cosmetic fillers, but at the moment yeah that's part of the inspection of those facilities to make sure that they're hygienic and clean and meet the appropriate health standards 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. Brian Stockwell 03:20:20.750
Thank you, okay no further questions at all because you don't want to close Councillor Wilkie. I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay move on to the next item and that is the main 2024 financial performance report and once again all in. again all in. Kim Rawlings 03:20:44.603
Good afternoon again Councillor. So here today May 2024 operating revenues continue to outperform our forecast and operating expenditures are under forecast year to date. Operating revenue is 2.4 million dollars above budget which has been driven by interest income of 1.8 million dollars. Sales of goods and services are 1.6 million dollars and other revenue of $500,000. This has been offset, however, by lower than forecast revenues, fees and charges from development, assessment, building and plumbing, compliance, local laws and some community facilities. Operating expenditure is 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 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 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... 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 has been spent on the QRA funded disaster projects. Thanks to one of the Councils, Council should note that the cash section of the financial report on page 387 references April and that should reference May. The Council's cash holding at the end of May was $113 million with $30 million of these funds invested in term deposits. Council's cash holding continues to be higher than forecast with advance payment of grants and subsidies as well as delay in the delivery of Council's capital program and QRA disaster projects. Council's cash balance will continue to decline as as the operation expenditure goes 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 03:23:21.100
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 we're paying and it's 131% over So we did have a large water leak at Fort Batten Drive which is over $100,000 worth of water which is being rectified as a priority which has contributed to that as well. Okay, so it was an undetected water leak I take it, wasn't it? Yes. Okay, and I thought it was going to be relating to the trade waste disposal from... Amelia Lorentson 03:24:16.950
Have there been any other undetected water leakages that have cost council significant amount of numbers? SPEAKER_05 03:24:27.850
There have been some in prior years as we cast back the last three or And as we've gone through this metre reading, obviously the difference in the volume, we've captured and remedied it, but not to this extent. Brian Stockwell 03:24:42.451
If I take it, it's our problem because they... Kim Rawlings 03:24:51.657
So it wasn't over multiple quarters or anything, it was detected, but they obviously... Other questions? Amelia Lorentson 03:25:01.164
I'm going to ask a question that I think I'm going to continue asking. Consultancy fees. Can we separate consultant 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. there any appetite for council to look into a consultancy register? Again, just to understand what departments, how much... and whether they're local consultants or whether they're consultants from other... like just sort of a deep dive in consultancy fees. It just seems like that amount just keeps getting higher and higher. SPEAKER_05 03:25:52.742
Through the Chair, in terms of reporting, obviously our front page, our P &L if you like, our Profit and Loss Attachment 1, is built on our standard expenditure category, so it will, my recommendation is to remains as employee costs, materials and services, finance cost depreciation, that is your standard reporting structure. But we do obviously then support that with the attachment 4 that has the consultancy breakdown. on materials and services in amongst all the other categories. If you would like a deep dive, and we do do regular deep dives into different elements, you are obviously going to do a legal deep dive on a quarterly basis. can do so, but obviously knowing there are elements of the level of detail in that consultancy, if we delve into the space of which consultants have been engaged for which types of work, that's a contractual and commercial and commercial incompetence matter for those consultants if it's got a public tender, but we can obviously break it down by the business area involved. That would be great. Frank Wilkie 03:27:00.288
And a preferred supplier list. Nadine 03:27:03.008
And a mix of those. Frank Wilkie 03:27:05.408
Because it would be a bit more specific. Specific to the job. Depends on the projects you might be working with. Thank you. That would be great. Yeah, so on page 396 they've got consultancy fees listed as a separate line item. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:19.985
At $1,749,000. 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 But just to understand, is it worth it? Are we getting banged for buck? SPEAKER_05 03:27:40.646
That would be a separate deep dive exercise. Outside of this it could be a piece of work we could undertake. 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 consultancy, whether it was niche expertise, the nature or merger work, or the nature of the requirement to try to put a cost benefit against each of those, but it would be a piece of work. It would take a few months to put it together, but we could take it offline for years or so. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:15.915
Appreciate it. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:28:22.280
Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? If not, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? unanimous. Tom Wegener 03:28:35.960
How are you guys holding up? Good? Amelia Lorentson 03:28:38.700
It's a long day. Brian Stockwell 03:28:40.060
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. Kim Rawlings 03:28:52.919
Good afternoon, councillors. Good afternoon. We've had a long session today, so we're here with the good news part of the day. SPEAKER_05 03:29:07.219
Right, well, councillors, this is a fairly straightforward paper. Many of you have already seen the Regional Arts Development Fund round that we've been processing. year, round 21, the request is to approve recommendations of the Assessment Community Fund projects with a 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 need $168 remaining for carryover. Which is fairly good out of a total budget of $65,018. Brian Stockwell 03:29:43.512
Do you have any questions or do we have a mover? Happy to move. I'll second it. I'll second it and click off the March with Mark Wilkie. Wilkie. That's my brother's name. Would you like to talk to them? Only quickly, I'm allowing this is the good news end of the afternoon. I mean it's a great honour and privilege to work in collaboration with community through our grants program to deliver. back to community what they seek from us in terms of what they'd like to see delivered. So it's really great to be a part of that and hear the report this afternoon and eventually see all these great programs delivered in our community. community. Amelia Lorentson 03:30:28.540
Hi, in terms of the grant funding program, how do we measure the success of the grant funding program in terms of development and community impact? SPEAKER_05 03:30:43.999
Roots Arts 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 complete quite a rigorous assessment of their project and they self assess as well on whether they feel that their project is successful or not. That then feeds back to our acquittal that we do back to Arts Queensland and that will influence the funding. Success for the following year so it's quite a detailed process. Amelia Lorentson 03:31:13.677
And do you ever get self assessments where the artists say they didn't think it was a great idea? Seriously, that's great. SPEAKER_05 03:31:22.857
This is working This is working in a very challenging environment where the dollars are very, very tight on projects. Artists are extremely used to working with tight budgets. A lot of things that we are drawing from previous rounds are artist fees. There are artist fees through organisations like the National Visual Arts Association. While it's all well and good to set those fees, it can often be very difficult to pay those fees. So because of that feedback that we've received, that's going to be an emphasis for our next round to make sure that applicants are addressing the fee shortfalls that they're on paying to their partners and other artists in their program. So that's an example of the good feedback we get from those acquittals. That's It's so also we have artists who resubmit, who come through for other grounds and part of what we look at is what is their progress been like previously so they need to demonstrate through that that they've been able to meet the requirements. Brian Stockwell 03:32:28.985
Fantastic It's not true you can do your final report as an interpretive dance is it? Yeah just on the back of that Paul would you mind just elaborating if you can a little bit about some of that really robust discussion around the RADF committee in terms of delivering funding and programs to community and then finding that balance through the NAVA rates and the struggle between you know trying to build a sector for economic reasons and innovation through arts culture and heritage but that challenge that exists between paying the right amount of money and delivering the programs. SPEAKER_05 03:33:18.665
Definitely. Thank you for your question and through the Chair. It's been 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 through the industry it's quite a symbiotic relationship that galleries have with artists and sometimes that can be abused which was highlighted through the NAMA 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 we're giving you the honour of presenting in our gallery so therefore we're not going to pay you a 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. 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. Thank you. Kim Rawlings 03:34:59.064
And the point of the RADF program is in fact to support artists as professionals so it needs to respect appropriately paid artists. SPEAKER_05 03:35:08.144
So we would prefer to support smaller projects 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. Karen Finzel 03:35:24.166
And just coming in off the back of that stand just a little bit of information about the changes through the radically looking at giving the larger lump sum of money and the smaller opportunities throughout the year to deliver. SPEAKER_05 03:35:39.173
So through the chair we will be putting a proposal to council to change the balance of how we currently manage our program. Currently you can apply for up to seven and a half thousand dollars and we have two rounds a year. We're looking to change to doing one round a year at ten thousand dollars but at the same time have a program running up to two 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 on but 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 grant and we'll be able to get back to them in a very short period of time. Brian Stockwell 03:36:26.860
I'll talk, because I think it's a really interesting discussion. We have a cultural plan that talks about trying to build our creative industries, and we're giving out grants, and if we don't, to me, I started to think about Fair Trade Coffee, about a little in the UK, which is Little Red Barn, which talks about the welfare of animals being looked after. We don't think about the same in terms of the welfare of our creative industries, it's sort of like the standards thing that my daughter, when she chose to do creative writing as a university degree, I said, "Well, couldn't you do a real degree and then come back and actually do that as your hobby? " 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. But, you know, the vast majority, maybe the top five, 10% get a good living, but other than that, most of them, it's probably something that does start from little local grants. Amelia Lorentson 03:37:35.300
Anyone else wish to speak? I have one last question. So do we, once we've given an artist funding, do we then continue that Or support throughout their entire career? So do we understand whether the funding that we gave today, or say five years ago, that that artist is now still being supported? SPEAKER_05 03:38:01.660
Definitely, and we do quite a bit 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, we need to be able to support those artists from their early developmental period through to So you'll see we're currently working on a creative directory where artists will be able to put their work on the table. 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 where we're going to be focusing a lot more on developing our creative industries. Amelia Lorentson 03:38:51.037
That sounds 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 illustrated? I think SPEAKER_05 03:39:05.894
I've given you underestimates the 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 an opportunity for 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 higher professional arts working community to mentor people from our community that are coming up. Karen Finzel 03:39:42.478
Just on that high note. 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 Koran that's going to the Milan fashion show. Do you want to give us a little bit? I think that encapsulates like that vision of where we want to take our local artists. SPEAKER_05 03:39:59.239
Yeah, definitely. So great example of an artist that lives in Koran but is internationally known. internationally known, works in recycled materials as a fashion designer. She's taking her show over to Milan. She's been taken up by some fashion houses in Milan and after going over there and experiencing 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 support somebody to take on that fantastic opportunity. Brian Stockwell 03:40:41.856
Do you wish to close, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 03:40:43.896
I think it's all been said, just, yeah, just carry on. Brian Stockwell 03:40:47.896
I'll put the vote, motion to vote, and that's unanimous. Karen Finzel 03:40:51.576
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:40:52.736
The next item is another grant round, and it is... Oh, I had it It's the community project funding, and we have three, four items in a row, I think, or maybe five, but all, and we have our community services coordinator coming up, and are you going to do the opening, or is the director? Kim Rawlings 03:41:20.157
Cheryl will speak to the report directly in front of you. I'm just going to talk briefly through the chairs where you know there's been a change in order from historically how you would have been presenting the grants. So you will now see that you get the individual subcategories come up to your Subcategories come up to you first and then the final report which actually commits the total funds so previously see having reflected on it the report order would have been very difficult had you actually endorsed the first report and then made a change subsequently that you would have endorsed an amount that potentially could have been incorrect not that this has has happened but technically it's possible to happen and so just strictest technical accuracy this is the better way of actually presenting it so Cheryl will move on previously for our new councillors we present the community project grants in subcategories to handle if any councillor has a conflict of interest and needs to leave the room to ensure that we can have a quorum to address that report we'll do program and projects first. Karen Finzel 03:42:50.235
Yes, I believe is this section six, item six that I would like to declare conflict. Thank you. My councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Perigee Beach Surf Life Saving Club grant application which is before us today for transparency and public perception. Mr. Rob McCready Mr. Rob McCready sits in a decision-making capacity on the Peritchin Beach Surf Life Saving Club Committee. Mr. McCready is married to Lee McCready, who worked as a volunteer on the 2020 Future Noosa election campaign, which is no longer an entity. 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 proportion of persons in the local government area to gain or lose. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe that I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Amelia Lorentson 03:44:05.132
Can I ask a question? And I'm not sure who can answer, but AGM, I think on Sunday, the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club. Would you know, Cheryl, offhand, I know that John Roderick stepped down as the president. Jessica Phillips 03:44:21.940
Sorry, I'm not aware of that outcome. Amelia Lorentson 03:44:25.200
Actually, I've just got information now. Lee McCready was actually nominated as the president of the Surf Life Saving Club, so I think that perhaps needs to be changed. Clint just replied. Brian Stockwell 03:44:42.524
We can have a think about that, but I'm reading Mr Rob McCready is not a related party or a close associate, so really that sentence says I haven't got a declarable conflict of interest, which I agree with. if Liam McCready is now the president, it would be appropriate to acknowledge that, but the motion can still remain the same, if you like. It would just Frank Wilkie 03:45:27.440
Could we just add Mr. Rob McCready and Liam McCready sit in a decision-making capacity? Mr. and Mrs. Karen Finzel 03:45:38.520
Rob and Liam McCready, who are not a related party or close associate? Kim Rawlings 03:45:43.880
Could we put that at the start of that sentence? Karen Finzel 03:45:48.460
Can we include both? Frank Wilkie 03:45:50.380
Or we back to the original one about Lee and McCready because she's most direct perceived conflict. You don't even need to mention Mr. Rob. Well he sits, as we looked that up didn't we, he sits in a subcommittee that is a decision-making committee. Yeah, the partner of a person, of a declarable So if you just had a declaration about Ms. Lee McCready, that's the most direct perceived conflict, you don't even need to mention Mr. Rob. No we do, we do. For the sake of this one, I think you do. Yes, because he was in that position when the application for this grant. Brian Stockwell 03:46:38.052
So can I, I'll have a tie of, I'll read it out. Councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict in this matter in relation to the Bridgend Surf Life Saving Club grant application which is before today for transparency and public participation. We'll stop. Lee McCready. sentence, Lee McCready. New sentence, Lee McCready. Has recently been elected as the president of this club. And then where we're going down, I think with the change to Mr, except for he's not, are not related parties. Yeah, so they keep going with this? Yeah, everything else is there. Mr and Mrs McCready are not related parties, nor are they close associates. Kim Rawlings 03:47:31.720
Parties? Brian Stockwell 03:47:32.640
Nor are they close associates. And I didn't believe this, you know, satisfies the Act requirements is what you're really saying there? Yeah. The requirements of... The Act? Of the Act. Karen Finzel 03:47:54.630
Do we need an actual, what that is? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 03:47:59.110
As I do not stand to gain a benefit of loss, significant portion of gain. However, it's not although, it's however. Kim Rawlings 03:48:07.450
The last sentence. Brian Stockwell 03:48:14.220
I seek to declare this interest... This interest? Yeah. Karen Finzel 03:48:19.600
Interest? Kim Rawlings 03:48:20.340
Well, you say you haven't got a declarable conflict. I seek to declare this interest. Yes, so you're just declaring the interest. Brian Stockwell 03:48:28.320
As? In the public interest. Karen Finzel 03:48:30.880
No, I think it has to be as... Brian Stockwell 03:48:33.660
Because you just said they're You just said they're not a declarable conflict of interest under the Act. That's my problem with the whole declaration. 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 if they're not close associates, nor are they related parties, then it's not a declarable not a, it's not a declarable conflict. Frank Wilkie 03:49:00.541
What about Mr. and Mrs. McCready are not a related, are not a related, not related parties, nor are they our close associates, full stop. Yeah. Karen Finzel 03:49:09.741
I'm sorry, what was this? But it is, okay, perhaps given that this has just come to light to the table about Mrs. Lee McCready being elected to that position, perhaps I just declare how- Oh, you still don't declare that? In the meeting room. Brian Stockwell 03:49:27.034
I just think you, however, in the public interest, I will make this, I'll declare this interest. It's really, you're saying it's what, you think it's below the statutory level, you still don't declare it. Yes. So that's a, you know, public interest. Karen Finzel 03:49:39.134
It's, it's declarable. Yeah. Okay, so--- It is declarable, that's right. And that's why I'm taking it to the vote in the public interest. Kim Rawlings 03:49:54.840
And then after that, however--- Go over here. Brian Stockwell 03:49:58.480
Yeah, however I, no, however in the public interest, I will declare this 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 03:50:11.834
I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club grant application, which is before us today. Full stop. Full stop. Take out transparency and public perception. Oh, maybe I should leave public reception in there for us today. Full stop. Kim Rawlings 03:50:42.180
There you are. Oh, okay. And then Lee, Trent, take out. Karen Finzel 03:50:46.360
Lee 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 Life Saving 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. Kim Rawlings 03:51:21.860
No, no. Richard MacGillivray 03:51:22.940
Subcommittee? Yes, at the time. Karen Finzel 03:51:26.520
Do we need to note that at the time of the application? Brian Stockwell 03:51:30.580
No. I think the main thing is the purpose of declaring conflicts of interest is so that the community is aware of your... aware of your liberal relationship and councillors can determine whether they think it's suitable for you to be in the room. Karen Finzel 03:51:43.444
Okay, so Mr McCready is married to Lee McCready who 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, well they are actually, they are. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:07.903
And therefore I do not believe this... Karen Finzel 03:52:16.063
Therefore, you think... Amelia Lorentson 03:52:16.831
And therefore I do not believe this presents a conflict of interest, full stop. I do not stand to gain a benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no that is no greater than the benefit of the 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 request you remain in the meeting, as I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Frank Wilkie 03:53:00.591
I request you remain in the meeting, as I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Georgina Madsen 03:53:51.403
I'll move that Councillor Finzel participates in votes on this matter. Jessica Phillips 03:54:05.110
Would trust that the financial decision is made in the public interest. Or even the final decision. She's an accountant. Yes. Have you got a seconder? Do you need to talk to her? anyone wish to talk to it? Can we end it now? Just prolong the agony please. Please vote on the matter. It's carried unanimously and Councillor Finzel didn't vote. Frank Wilkie 03:54:34.958
Thank you. Jessica Phillips 03:54:46.106
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 a TAP 1 of this report with a total value of $42,085. Noosa Council's grants program assist in delivering council's strategic goals and objectives. The funding is intended to help community organisations 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 of the ratepayers money. This category is projects and programs as mentioned and they were projects or programs that respond to a specific opportunity or need within the community, ongoing projects 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 and eighty-five dollars. Brian Stockwell 03:55:52.925
Any questions or is someone happy to move it? I'll move it. Move 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? Would anyone like to you. Councillor would. Jessica Phillips 03:56:07.633
I have a question, very quick question to the community see this the itemised of everyone fantastic can I just say community see it in two ways they it's obviously attached to the report as a public document and then we have a section on the website which outlines the program and past recipients. Okay then my second question Then my second question is just for future when the trustee for Ray's foundation I believe you go and speak with them around the application I did did a bit of a deep dive down a complete around this foundation and I would like to know maybe how staff go in communicating with them for future applications just given that seems like a really great program thanks okay before we go if there's no further questions or discussion I put the matter to the vote that was carried in and also we move on to the next item and another grant round and this time we're dealing with infrastructure 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 efficient mining, shade sales, storage facilities, new or upgraded amenities, water harvesting, fit outs of solar systems. Brian Stockwell 03:58:01.360
Happy to move? move. Moved. Moved. Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor? Any discussion? Frank Wilkie 03:58:06.724
Look, it's 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, and they'll be a much appreciated upgrade. sorely in need of an upgrade. Brian Stockwell 03:58:39.563
Course, the open, does that need to be in the report or the recommendation? Kim Rawlings 03:58:44.503
So we have additional conditions which then go into the offer to the... Brian Stockwell 03:58:57.045
Does anyone wish to talk or ask questions? No. Do you want to argue with yourself in closing about... No, I always lose. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Jessica Phillips 03:59:10.585
We move on to the next item which item which is grants involving equipment sorry just before this I just well I don't have a declarable interest but for the community watching online I 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. Can you tell us how long ago just because recency is an issue we need to consider. Yes what year are we 20 okay sorry I finished my presidency in September 2023 last year. David 03:59:55.242
I don't I don't yeah and I didn't have any idea about this app this grant application. grant application, but yes, timing. Through the Chair, is it relevant? I would think it is. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 04:00:09.806
One of the things we have to consider is the recency of your position. And I think, only being less than a year, that it might be worthwhile declaring that. Amelia Lorentson 04:00:19.226
For your benefit, Councillor. 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? No. Just kidding. Brian Stockwell 04:00:36.958
Yeah, it's declareable, yeah. We can vote, we can vote on it. It's at a minimum, declarable. I'm meeting, I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I was the... the president of Cooroy Gymnastics up until 2023. Frank Wilkie 04:01:00.019
September 23rd. Yeah. And then... Kim Rawlings 04:01:06.178
Was the president? Yeah. Yeah. Gymnastics until September 23rd. Brian Stockwell 04:01:17.461
And then the State? Kim Rawlings 04:01:20.681
Just leave that. Sorry, I've got to put a... Brian Stockwell 04:01:37.780
No, no, but we have to go back. You've just wiped out the second part of the motion. SPEAKER_05 04:01:48.460
Oh, okay, yes, this day. Subtitles No, that goes above that motion. Brian Stockwell 04:02:04.240
So take out the word stay and add it to the straight after September 23. That's it? Are you happy with that Councillor? Kim Rawlings 04:02:21.453
Because what reason? Jessica Phillips 04:02:23.613
I am no longer in any capacity involved in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club nor are my kids and I'm not And I'm not a loner, I'm just a loner. I could also be a loner. Brian Stockwell 04:03:03.040
You're happy with that, Councillor? Jessica Phillips 04:03:05.000
As long as I'm just not a loner, I'm just no longer. I'm happy. Brian Stockwell 04:03:08.500
Has anyone got a question or would they like to move a recommendation? I'll move. Karen Finzel 04:03:13.840
I'm happy to second. And that's the stay recommendation? Stay recommendation, definitely. So it's moved, Councillor Wilkie, seconded, Councillor Finzel. Amelia Lorentson 04:03:21.040
Thank you. You're welcome. Can I ask a Can I ask a question, please? Just, Councillor Phillips, how long were you president of the Cooroy? Two years. But my family have been foundation members of the club for its entirety from day one. Frank Wilkie 04:03:39.386
And you're associated still? Jessica Phillips 04:03:42.146
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 won't say if I had to worry about a very long time. Frank Wilkie 04:03:56.566
Well while you're on the roll you might as well mention your parents to the foundation members. Okay. Brian Stockwell 04:04:06.006
No sorry council because you can't do that without the agreement of the whole committee or council. Frank Wilkie 04:04:14.191
Didn't say it's happening I said it was worth putting it in. Brian Stockwell 04:04:18.711
Yeah I know but we can but everyone around the table has to be ready to do it. SPEAKER_05 04:04:25.351
You know what I'm talking about? Yeah. So would you like that included? Jessica Phillips 04:04:33.051
Yes let's include it. And is everyone happy with that to be included? Yep. Yep, it's nice to fight on that one. Brian Stockwell 04:04:41.240
Sorry Vicky, if we go up there, after the September 2023, put a common rather than a full stop, and as my parents were foundation members. Kim Rawlings 04:05:04.140
Capital F? No, okay. Brian Stockwell 04:05:08.680
Be happy with that. Kim Rawlings 04:05:13.380
Foundation members of the club. Frank Wilkie 04:05:16.780
Because I and my parents are no longer involved in any capacity. Yeah, that's a good point. Jessica Phillips 04:05:25.300
And my parents are no longer involved in any capacity. capacity. Yeah. Because I and my parents are. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 04:05:35.706
Yeah. Okay. Yes. That does add to the story. Thank you. It does add to the story. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 04:05:39.446
I'm happy to move. I know it's already been moved. Kim Rawlings 04:05:44.106
Oh, excuse me. Brian Stockwell 04:05:47.653
Okay. So any other questions or comments? No? I'll put the motion and that motion is for Councillor to remain in the room. That's unanimous and Councillor did not vote. Thank I leave, would you like to give an overview? Jessica Phillips 04:06:08.940
The purpose of this report is for the first round of the 2024 Community Project Grants for Equipment as provided in attachment 1 of this report with a total grant value of $36,647.18 cents and equipment is categories for the purchase of equipment that responds to a specific need sorry specific opportunity or need within the community. Brian Stockwell 04:06:35.328
Does anyone Does anyone have any questions or would someone like to move to motion? I move to motion. Councillor Wilkie seconded, Councillor Lorentson 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 growing Christmas tree. The Tall Trees and Koran 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 Alliance 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 better access and accessibility and visibility for primary school children and wheelchairs, and that the Hinkland Arts Group Inc. and the Pomona Railway Gallery will get an upgrade to their office technology to help ensure that we have better access and accessibility and visibility for primary school children and wheelchairs, and that the Hinkland Arts Group Inc. and the Pomona Railway Gallery will get an upgrade to their office technology to help thank you. Anyone else? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That is, you vote yes, that is unanimous. Frank Wilkie 04:07:51.654
The parents will be proud. Brian Stockwell 04:07:55.414
Okay, the next item 9 is in regard to community grants for events. Yes. Am I right? Kim Rawlings 04:08:01.893
Yes. Yes. Brian Stockwell 04:08:04.873
I'm just checking to make sure we don't have any COI here. Tom Wegener 04:08:16.953
In accordance with Chapter 558 of the Local Government Act 2009, looks like on the following don't have to read that. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that 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...conflict of interest. I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Frank Wilkie 04:08:47.828
And may I say what an absolute delight it is to have an absolute clear and definitive conflict of interest. It's wonderful. Brian Stockwell 04:08:56.848
And you're going left, is it? Jessica Phillips 04:09:07.020
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 1, 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 04:09:34.460
Anyone wish to question or move? Amelia Lorentson 04:09:37.020
Happy to move the report, happy to see it. Brian Stockwell 04:09:39.280
We have Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Finzel. Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 04:09:44.120
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 04:10:01.296
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Did you wish to? No? Anyone else? I thought it would have been appropriate to sing. Okay, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Carried unanimously. We'll just wait for Councillor Wilkie to come back in the room because I believe the next item is the overview, is Amelia Lorentson 04:10:39.240
Oh dear. You're enabling him to stop laughing. Brian Stockwell 04:10:48.140
A nice break. Jessica Phillips 04:10:51.200
Carly. Kim Rawlings 04:10:52.320
Cheryl. Brian Stockwell 04:10:53.680
Have I been calling you Carly a lot? You have. Jessica Phillips 04:10:55.760
It's been a swell of a time. 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. are the events category, so $23,200. Equipment, $36,647.18. Infrastructure of $30,000. Project or programs for $42,085. The total amount recommended is $131,932.18. To break down that, we received 19 applications in that round one. And 14 of them are recommended. The 2024-25 overall proposed budget is $324,780.80, and recommended in this round for funding is $131,932.18. Brian Stockwell 04:11:58.978
Moved by Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Wilson. Do we wish to discuss anything? Frank Wilkie 04:12:04.918
No, thank you, staff, for the way you've broken up these grants, the way we handled our conflicts of interest. Thank you. As painful as they were, they were necessary to do. Yes, thank you. Brian Stockwell 04:12:14.098
And the good news is, you'll get the pleasure on Thursday night. Frank Wilkie 04:12:19.838
We'll be better practised by then. That's right. Brian Stockwell 04:12:22.798
Okay. Anyone else wish to speak? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you. 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. Jessica Phillips 04:12:53.240
I'm just organising it, sorry. Brian Stockwell 04:13:02.020
Ben, are you doing the overview? No, we do have any conflicts here? SPEAKER_05 04:13:06.880
No. We've got two streams of funding which are considered 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 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 funding directed to environmental activities through opportunities of community groups and organisations to leverage extra funding and then we've got a range of criteria used to delve into each of those. The climate change grants are 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. We only have one round of grants for our environment and climate change resilience grants so we receive six applications two for environment four environment, four for climate change. The two for environment were undersubscribed. Our funds were $24,382 which is funded from the environment levy. We received grant applications totalling $13,293. These are project grants and so we've got left over from our grants budget budget for the environment, maybe we had $11,000. With our climate change grants we they're funded through general rates and there was a $50,000 budget allocation. We received grants for the total of $89,806 so we're around $39,000 oversubscribed and so when we've made our assessments against the climate change resilience grants we're, through recommendations, able to manage the recommended amount to $50,000 which is why we'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 were provided in the attachments. There was 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, because council's responsible for the resource, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars, so a small 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 to for a considerable amount of time and they were tied for $8,533.50 in the recommendation for the environment. Grants used to fully fund both settings were undersubscribed. Both of them, the assessment panels felt they met the threshold criteria for fully funding, so they matched up well against the criteria. Our climate change grants provided a little bit more challenge because we were oversubscribed in there look I'll say all these all the grant applications were really good and and we're worthy projects some aligned really well with the assessment criteria and others while good ideas might be delayed a little bit so we're recommended zero emissions Noosa for twenty twenty nine thousand dollars for a energy assessment social element to exceeding as well. We didn't consider that when we were making the grant application, but it's definitely an added bonus 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 the solar panels does align really well with... 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... Better plan for natural methods to reduce siltation and landslip. The connection through to climate change is based on increased weather events and management and land use actions that have been undertaken in that area over the last hundred years exacerbating a lot of problems for siltation and landslip and doing study on the underlying geomorphology particularly on upper catchment streams it really gives a good indication as to how you or how a stabilisation 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 We on assessment because there was some great climate adaptation there wasn't any demonstration for carbon offsets sitting within there which is why we scaled that one down and we've nominated a partial that one. There was one project that we 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 this year which will be the first step and so we didn't want to have council resources doubling resources doubling up with an environment grant whose idea will be more relevant next year than what we've done the Pace Foundation work for this year. So for SCEC it was assessed as a great grant because of the We've got with the council program which we've been planning for 18 months at this point in time we've chosen to not recommend funding that but we encourage SCEC to put in an application because it will be very relevant for next year when we've done our waste symposium. Amelia Lorentson 04:20:04.651
So you explained that to the applicant Ben? The reasons why they were not successful? Kim Rawlings 04:20:12.351
We've got to get a council decision first. Brian Stockwell 04:20:14.591
Oh excuse me. Just before we do, staff reminded me. Councilors you'll be aware that the advice we got from the department recently that if we believe we no longer have a conflict of interest we should put on the public record the reasons for that. So you will is a grant proposals from Noosa 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 forebear. However having However, having now received more detailed legal advice, it is clear that my circumstances do not meet the definition of a declarable conflict of interest because the organisation is neither a close associate nor a related party under the Local Government Act and therefore I will not be declaring any type of conflict of interest for this matter or in relation to that group into the future. Okay, so do we have any questions of staff or just someone who wishes to move the recommendations? Got a question? Yeah, I've got some questions on the Zero Emissions Noosa project for 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 are some special conditions there but just a couple of things just to clarify. It's looking 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 04:21:47.394
So the ZENs indicated that they would work with agencies like the Salvation Army and Coast2Bay. and probably our community development area to actually identify the low income households and we would consider that appropriate given those agencies 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 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 households might be able to make. Does Council envisage further ratepayer funding as a consequence of the outcomes from this project? Yeah, so to do what the grant outlines, it's sufficient. It's both sufficient to do the 20 audits and also some low intervention changes. So the budget is appropriate and broken down from that perspective and assessed on that basis. So not at the moment. We don't envisage, you know, further funding, but obviously 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 you want to look at potentially rolling out further. there may be conversation in the future. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 04:23:26.123
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 And how are these grants advertised to the community and potential applicants? SPEAKER_05 04:23:41.217
Yeah, we offer grants once per year at the moment and that's something that with the grants 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 in December. We've got grants, grant rounds coming up and then as part of the community grants forum, we also advertise an evening information session which is held with Jay early February. Amelia Lorentson 04:24:17.755
Which is excellent. Community grants and environment grants are run through the same process, so we get the same sort of publishing. Publishing and notification and advising. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Tom Wegener 04:24:33.057
There's also grant guru. You get the email 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. Grant guru. Grant guru, grant guru Kim Rawlings 04:24:46.977
Yeah. Yeah, it's a platform that Kerri or Sharon Kerri or Sharon might talk to, but it's a platform that actually scrapes all the potential grants available across all levels of government. To move it on, Brian Stockwell 04:24:59.526
I'm happy to move the recommendation. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. I think we've got a good description in written and verbal form and I think they're recommended. Projects are all worthy of the dollars requested. Anyone else wish to comment? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Now the next item is a- we'll invite Kerry and Cheryl. For the one-year extension of three-year alliance grants, however, I need to declare that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the proposed funding allocations to the Noosa Alliance Football Club. I am the current president of the Noosa Alliance Football Club. Oh, 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 vote it on. Kim Rawlings 04:26:12.041
Okay, so the chair has left. We need to appoint another chair. Can I have a nomination, please? I'm happy to do it. I nominate Frank Wilkie 04:26:31.136
Thank you, Mr. CEO. Thank you, Kerri and Cheryl. May we have an overview, please? sure. Jessica Phillips 04:26:42.629
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... 30th of June 2024. In contrast the guest of 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 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 active across all funding programs prior to any new funding agreements to be awarded. This report recommends extending the funding for the sports field maintenance and 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 in early 2025 that the new, so all agreements are synchronised and will be effective from the 1st of July 2025 on the synchronised cycle moving forward. Frank Wilkie 04:27:53.740
That's it, thank you. Oh so I should note that there are the amount of props that are recommended that's in the community halls and centres there are 11. That need to be rolled over to the next year to the total of $104,834.40. And sport field maintenance there's also 11 groups totalling $203,499.26. And just to clarify this is not an exhaustive list of all the groups that are receiving the three-year allowance credits at this. is just ones that will get the one-year extension to synchronise with all the others. Correct. Kim Rawlings 04:28:30.424
It is all of the homes and centres and all of the sport field maintenance. So it excludes signature events, festive season and community organisations, our significant community organisations. Frank Wilkie 04:28:49.230
Councillors? Do we have a mover for the motion? Moved by Councillor Phillips. Seconded by Councillor Wilson to speak to the motion. No, thank you. Councillor Wilson? Jessica Phillips 04:29:02.120
It just seems a sensible solution and inefficiency. Frank Wilkie 04:29:08.260
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 04:29:28.240
Okay, so that is the end of the public, open public meeting. We will reconvene again after the next two items which we held in a confidential session. For those who may be listening online, we will be terminating the webcast and it will be turned back on to adopt To adopt any motion that may be forthcoming from the confidential session. Frank Wilkie 04:29:55.164
Mr Chairman, I'll move that we go into closed session. I'll second. Brian Stockwell 04:29:59.524
It's moved, Councillor Wilkie. Seconded, Councillor. Thank you for the reminder. I presume there's no debate. Those in favour? Oh, we need to vote on that. Councillor, that was unanimous. Okay, welcome We're dealing with item 7.1, and it's a confidential not-for-public-release contract, a register of pre-qualified suppliers for hire of plant and equipment. And if you didn't know, that's commonly known as dry hire. anyone like to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson, I'll second it. Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 04:30:52.340
No, it's confidential for reasons outlined in the report, that there's negotiations relating to a commercial matter involving the local government, for which public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government. Brian Stockwell 04:31:08.220
And it was good to see that there is a majority of majority of those in the list that are level two to Shire and immediate surrounds. Anyone wish to discuss it further? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? And that's unanimous. We move on to 7.2, which is once again an offer publicly. Contract number RP00436, a register of Registrar of Pre-Qualified Suppliers for Hire of Plant with an Operator, known as Wet Hire. Do we have someone who wishes to move the motion? Councillor Wegener. And seconded? Councillor Wilson is first off the block. Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 04:31:54.422
All Brian Stockwell 04:31:55.102
Good. Anyone else? Okay, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. That's carried And the meeting is now closed at 5:14pm. Frank Wilkie 04:32:07.911
I don't know if it's a record. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
