General Committee - 16 September 2024
Date: Monday, 16 September 2024 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:49:48
Synopsis: Governance reforms: revised Standing Orders, new deputations limits, CEO veto removed, Bakery change refused as non‑minor, Netball clubhouse approved, Short‑term accommodation appeal delegated, Finances ahead.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Brian Stockwell Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Paul Brinkman Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie appointed Acting Chair; remote attendance for Brian Stockwell and Karen Finzel approved under s254K LGR 2012 (00:18–01:59; Minutes 1). Approved minor change to Town Planning Consent for Noosa District Netball Association clubhouse relocation at 31 Butler St, Tewantin with amended and additional conditions (C17–C37) and advisory notes; flood resilience, landscaping and facade articulation conditioned (02:59–13:15; Item 5.1). Refused “minor change” to convert seafood kiosk to a bakery with on-site dining at 185 Weyba Rd, Noosaville; found to be substantially different development and inconsistent with Residential A/Medium Density zoning and parking code (14:20–18:15; Item 5.2). Recommitted to the Local Government DFV Prevention Champions Network; appointed Nicola Wilson plus two staff (Community Development; People & Culture) as representatives (51:32–55:03; Item 5.3). August 2024 YTD finances: operating revenue +$722k, operating expenses –$840k vs budget; cash $123m; interest returns ~5% aiding budget position; capital underspend mainly disaster/waste projects timing (55:57–01:03:35; Item 6.1). Adopted revised Standing Orders and new procedures (Petitions, Deputations, Public Question Time) and Councillor Investigation Policy, with significant amendments carried on Chair’s casting vote where required (01:07:40–02:46:06; Item 6.2). Standing Orders s18 (Notified Motions): CEO veto removed; replaced with non-mandatory guidance encouraging clear, relevant motions aligned to plans and powers (carried on Chair’s casting vote) (01:33:23–01:52:43; Item 6.2A). Deputations Procedure: 15 minutes total per meeting, max 3 deputations, 5 minutes each with possibility of extension by Chair with councillor consent; clarity added after confusion under prior 17.4 (01:57:34–02:16:49; Item 6.2C.1). Deputations on live development/statutory applications before Council prohibited to protect procedural fairness; amendment carried (02:26:07–02:42:35; Item 6.2C.6). Delegated to CEO all matters to resolve P&E Court Appeal 1997/2024 re refusal of STA (MCU23/0101) at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd; carried 5–1 (Against: Nicola Wilson ) (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Robust debate on democratic access: some councillors argued deputation time reduction erodes public voice; others said new settings increase equity by enabling up to three speakers and allow extensions (01:42:49–02:16:49; Item 6.2C.1). CEO power to reject Notices of Motion was replaced with “encouragement” criteria after concerns it shifted authority from elected body to administration (01:33:23–01:52:43; Item 6.2A). Procedural motion by Karen Finzel to defer Standing Orders for further wording/benchmarking lapsed for want of seconder; noted community concern about perceived rights dilution (01:46:28–01:50:15; Item 6.2). Weyba Rd bakery: questions on informal pre-lodgement advice, fees accepted, multiple information requests, and timelines; staff clarified applicant didn’t seek formal written advice or pre-lodgement meeting; minor change test remains decisive (18:15–25:35; Item 5.2). Public clarification: prior Standing Orders text caused confusion on whether 15 minutes applied per speaker or per deputation; new procedure aims to resolve (01:19:19–01:21:23; Item 6.2C). Legal / Risk Minor change test: officers cited Planning Act 2016; converting kiosk (1973 “refreshment service”) to bakery (“service shop”) introduces a new use and likely new impacts (hours, on-site dining, parking), defeating “minor change” (14:20–17:29; Item 5.2). DA Assessment Rules/procedural fairness: prohibiting deputations on live DAs avoids ex parte statements without right of reply that could undercut defensibility and fuel appeals/lobbying risks (02:26:47–02:32:59; Item 6.2C.6). Setbacks/flood: Netball clubhouse approved despite reduced McKinnon Dr setback given wide road reserve and enhanced landscaping; building elevated for flood resilience; CPTED sightlines considered acceptable (04:39–11:27; Item 5.1). Abandonment of existing use: staff noted no fixed time; assessed on factors incl. retained commercial kitchen; not yet abandoned (31:12–33:11; Item 5.2). Confidential session lawful closure under s254J(3)(e) LGR 2012 to discuss legal advice on STA appeal; resolution delegated to CEO for efficiency (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Conflicts of Interest Jessica Phillips declared a declarable COI (close family friend on Tewantin Netball building subcommittee); Council permitted participation and vote; she abstained on the participation motion; substantive item carried unanimously (02:59–04:22; Item 5.1). Nicola Wilson declared a declarable COI (volunteer director, CAYAC DV charity) for DFV Champions Network; Council permitted participation; she abstained on the participation motion; appointment then carried unanimously (49:15–51:14; Item 5.3). Short-term Accommodation (STA) & Litigation P&E Court Appeal 1997/2024 (MCU23/0101) STA at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd: CEO delegated authority to manage resolution; split vote signals policy sensitivity around rural STA (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Closure/reopening to public handled per LGR 2012; indicates live litigation posture and preference for centralised conduct of proceedings (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Community Impact Weyba Rd refusal grounded in inconsistency with 1973 Residential A intent and current Medium Density Zone; bakery more appropriate in centre zone; on-site parking shortfall against Driveways and Parking Code PO6/AO6.1 (14:20–17:29; Item 5.2). Councillors canvassed “abandonment” of historical use and whether new application should be impact assessable with public notification to test amenity impacts (noise, early hours, cycling groups) (17:29–31:12; Item 5.2). Netball clubhouse change tied to 2020 Sports Complex Master Plan road widening; conditions require additional landscaping over 60m frontage and facade articulation to meet Noosa design principles (04:39–10:55; Item 5.1). Community Engagement, Petitions & Question Time New Petition, Deputation, and Public Question Time procedures adopted; petitions to be lodged earlier for validation; question time now a standalone procedure; deputation scripting/background material required and Chair/CEO gatekeeping clarified (01:07:40–01:19:19; Item 6.2B–D). Councillors highlighted multiple channels beyond deputations: consultation processes, meetings, online submissions, Councillor Discussion Forums, and requests for CEO reports (01:16:55–01:37:11; Item 6.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 16 September 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 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Frank Wilkie (Acting Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Community Services Paul Brinkman Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf APOLOGIES Cr Tom Wegener Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Crs Stockwell and Finzel are approved to attend the Meeting dated 16 September 2024 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Cr Frank Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting due to Cr Stockwell attending via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 12 August 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. 51988.2770.02 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A TOWN PLANNING CONSENT FOR INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND EXTENSION OF AN INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT - 31 BUTLER STREET, TEWANTIN (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2024 - ITEM 5.1) 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 Jessica Phillips, declare I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my close family friend, Fran Sadlier, is on the building sub-committee and a long-term member of the Tewantin Netball Courts. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the position she holds is not a decision maker, nor is she an executive committee member: neither I nor my family friend stand to gain a personal or material benefit from the decision over and above what other club members would gain. 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 Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Phillips and determine that Cr Phillips participates and votes on this matter as Council believes that 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 Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2024 regarding Application No. 51988.2770.02 to make a minor change to an existing Town Planning Consent for indoor entertainment and extension of an indoor entertainment situated at Noosa District Sports Complex - 31 Butler St, Tewantin and: A. Approve the change. B. Amend condition 2 and 9 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. C. Include additional conditions 17 to 37 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. D. Include advisory notes 1 to 6 as outlined in Attachment 2 to the Report. E. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. F. Approve the Final Conditions as provided in Attachment 1 to the Minutes - Final Conditions Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 5.2. 51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01 APPPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR A SEAFOOD KIOSK AT 185 WEYBA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2024 - ITEM 5.2) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2024 regarding Application Numbers 51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01 to make a minor change to two (2) development approvals for a takeaway seafood kiosk situated at 185 Weyba Rd, Noosaville and: A. Refuse the change for the following reasons: 1. The proposed changes do not constitute a minor change to the development approvals as defined by the Planning Act 2016, as the changes will result in a substantially different development. 2. The proposed bakery (service shop) is not consistent with the Residential A zoning intent under the 1973 Planning Scheme for Noosa Shire or the Medium Density Residential zone under Noosa Plan 2020 and is more appropriately located in a centre zone. 3. The proposed bakery is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 2(a), (d), (e) & (j) and Performance Outcomes & Acceptable Outcomes PO1, PO5, AO5.1, AO5.2 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code under Noosa Plan 2020 as: a. The proposed bakery is not a residential use and is not compatible with surrounding residential uses. b. The proposed bakery is more appropriately accommodated in a centre zone and the land maintained for dual occupancies, multiple dwellings and the like. c. The proposal is likely to adversely impact on surrounding resident’s amenity. B. The proposal is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 2(a) & (b) and Performance Outcome and Acceptable Outcome PO6 and AO6.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code as the proposal provides insufficient on-site car parking and is likely to generate additional demand for car parking compared to the takeaway seafood kiosk. For: Crs Frank Wilkie, Brian Stockwell, Nicola Wilson and Karen Finzel Against: Crs Amelia Lorentson and Jessica Phillips Carried. 5.3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CHAMPIONS NETWORK (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2024 - ITEM 5.2) GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wilson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I am a volunteer director of a CAYAC Ltd, Maroochydore, a charity that supports victims of domestic violence (amongst other services). While CAYAC is not the subject of the decision being made today to appoint a councillor to an observer role in the Network, I note that matters discussed in the Network’s meetings in future may be relevant to CAYAC’s operations. I share this information for transparency and to support my nomination for the position, having an interest and experience in this area. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because CAYAC is not the subject of today’s decision, and I am able to remain impartial. 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 Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilson and determine that Cr Wilson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Wilson would be able to remain impartial and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Wilson did not vote on the above motion. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2024 and: A. Endorse Noosa Council’s recommitment to the Local Government Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Champions Network; and B. Appoint Cr Nicola Wilson and two staff members (from Community Development and People and Culture teams), as Noosa Council’s representatives to the Network. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024 outlining August 2024 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 6.2. REVISED STANDING ORDERS & OTHER RELATED POLICIES & PROCEDURES Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024 regarding the amendment of Noosa Council's Standing Orders and other relevant policies and procedures and A. Adopt the updated Standing Orders for Council Meetings Policy (provided at Attachment 1) and repeal current Standing Orders Policy (adopted 19 November 2020) subject to the amendment of the updated Standing Orders, Section 18 – Notified Motions to delete the following words: "18.8 The Chief Executive Officer may reject a Notice of Motion which: a) does not relate to the objectives, roles and function of Council as outlined in the annual Operational and Corporate Plan; b) is vague or unclear in intention; c) is identical or substantially similar to a Notified Motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d) is outside the powers of Council; e) relates to an operational service request or relates to a matter that can be handled under delegation; f) is a matter subject to a Council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete." B. Adopt the new Petition Procedure (provided at Attachment 2); C. Adopt the new Deputation Procedure (provided at Attachment 3), subject to the amendment of items 1, 3, and 6, and the deletion of item 5 as follows: 1. Up to 15 minutes in total will be allocated per deputation at each Meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of 5 minutes will be allocated per deputation with a maximum of 3 deputations per meeting are allowed. 3. The applicant must provide Council with the deputation topic and draft script sufficient background material, whereby the CEO, on receiving an application for the deputation, shall notify the Chairperson who, in conjunction with the CEO, shall determine whether the deputation may be heard. The CEO shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing. 5. Four deputations per calendar year by the same applicant /group will be allowed. 56. Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before Council are not permitted. Deputations on Specific GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 development applications or other statutory applications under Council Officers' assessment are not allowed. Deputations will only be permitted on applications reported to Council for determination. D. Adopt the new Public Question Time Procedure (provided at Attachment 4) and thereby repeal current Public Question Time Guideline (adopted on 17 October 2019); and E. Adopt the Councillor Investigation Policy (Attachment 7) and repeal current Councillor Investigation Policy (adopted on 19 November 2020). Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconder: Nil That the matter be deferred to the October meeting round to allow further Councillor discussion to get the wording right on the proposed changes. The motion lapsed for want of a seconder. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Item A be amended to read: A. Adopt the updated Standing Orders for Council Meetings Policy (provided at Attachment 1) and repeal current Standing Orders Policy (adopted 19 November 2020) with the updated Standing Orders, Section 18 – Notified Motions to be amended to read: "18.8 Councillors are encouraged to lodge Notices of Motion which: a) relate to the objectives, roles and function of Council as outlined in the annual Operational and Corporate Plan; b) are clear in intention; c) are not identical or substantially similar to a Notified Motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d) are not outside the powers of Council; e) do not relate to an operational service request or a matter that can be handled under delegation; f) are not matters subject to a Council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete."; For: Crs Frank Wilkie, Brian Stockwell and Nicola Wilson Against: Crs Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips and Karen Finzel The motion was Carried on the casting vote of the Chair. Amendment No.2 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item C, 1 be amended to read: 1. 15 minutes in total will be allocated at each Meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of 5 minutes will be allocated per deputation with an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting chair and by consent of the councillors with a maximum of 3 deputations per meeting allowed. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 For: Crs Frank Wilkie, Brian Stockwell and Karen Finzel Against: Crs Jessica Phillips, Amelia Lorentson and Nicola Wilson The motion was Carried on the casting vote of the Chair. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Item C, 6 (which will become 5) be amended to read: 5. 6 Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications under Council Officers' assessment are not allowed. Deputations will only be permitted on applications reported to Council for determination. Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before Council are not permitted. Crs Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson and Karen For: Finzel Against: Crs Amelia Lorentson and Jessica Phillips Carried. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024 regarding the amendment of Noosa Council's Standing Orders and other relevant policies and procedures and A. Adopt the updated Standing Orders for Council Meetings Policy (provided at Attachment 1) and repeal current Standing Orders Policy (adopted 19 November 2020) with the updated Standing Orders, Section 18 – Notified Motions amended to read: "18.8 Councillors are encouraged to lodge Notices of Motion which: a) relate to the objectives, roles and function of Council as outlined in the annual Operational and Corporate Plan; b) are clear in intention; c) are not identical or substantially similar to a Notified Motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d) are not outside the powers of Council; e) do not relate to an operational service request or a matter that can be handled under delegation; f) are not matters subject to a Council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete."; B. Adopt the new Petition Procedure (provided at Attachment 2); C. Adopt the new Deputation Procedure (provided at Attachment 3) subject to the amendment of items 1, 3, and 6, and the deletion of item 5 as follows: 1. 15 minutes in total will be allocated at each Meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of 5 minutes will be allocated per deputation with an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting chair and by consent of the councillors with a maximum of 3 deputations per meeting allowed. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 3. The applicant must provide Council with the deputation topic and draft script sufficient background material, whereby the CEO, on receiving an application for the deputation, shall notify the Chairperson who, in conjunction with the CEO, shall determine whether the deputation may be heard. The CEO shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing. 5. Four deputations per calendar year by the same applicant /group will be allowed. 5 6. Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before Council are not permitted. D. Adopt the new Public Question Time Procedure (provided at Attachment 4) and thereby repeal current Public Question Time Guideline (adopted on 17 October 2019); and E. Adopt the Councillor Investigation Policy (Attachment 7) and repeal current Councillor Investigation Policy (adopted on 19 November 2020). Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION The meeting adjourned at 3.15pm. The meeting resumed at 3.30pm. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - APPEAL 1997 OF 2024 RELATING TO REFUSAL OF MCU23/0101 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 561 GYMPIE KIN KIN ROAD, KIN KIN 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)(e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing legal advice relating to an appeal for Item 7.1 - Appeal 1997 of 2024 Relating to Refusal of MCU23/0101 Material Change of Use for Short Term Accommodation at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin. Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That in respect of Planning and Environment Court Appeal 1997 of 2024, Council through the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024, delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. For: Crs Wilkie, Stockwell, Finzel, Phillips and Lorentson Against: Cr Wilson Carried. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 3.50pm.
Meeting Transcript
Larry Sengstock 00:18.560
Welcome everybody to the general committee meeting on the of September 2024. I'd firstly like to acknowledge the country that we're on, and the Kabi Kabi people, and acknowledge their elders past, present and future. Our normal chair today, Brian Stockwell, is unwell, he's online. However, he is unable to join us today, so we need to, that's why I'm opening the meeting as the chair, but we need to have a motion for Brian to join the meeting. Yes, and, sorry, Councillor Finzel as well, so we can do both in one motion. I'm happy to second. I'll put that to the vote. Okay. Councillor Stockwell. Yes. Thank you and welcome everyone. Brian Stockwell 01:24.840
Because my voice is not great and it's difficult to do a Chair's role from online, I would like to nominate the Mayor as the Chair of this meeting. Amelia Lorentson 01:35.963
I'm happy to know that Councillor Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting due to Councillor Stockwell attending by Microsoft Teams. Frank Wilkie 02:01.865
We do have an apology from Councillor Wegener. We have a confirmation of minutes from the last general committee meeting please. I'll move to Councillor Lorentson. I'll second it. Councillor, all in favour? That's carried. Yes. Yes, thank you. We just, we can't see... just rely on you calling out councillors Finzel and Stockwell. We have no presentations, no deputations. We have items referred from the committees. The first being an application for a minor change to a town planning consent for indoor entertainment and extension of indoor entertainment. Centre at 31 Butler Street, Tewantin. And this is the Noosa District Netball Clubhouse redevelopment. Jessica Phillips 03:00.124
Just declarable please. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 Councillor provided the following declaration to the meeting. I, Councillor Jessica Phillips declare I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my close family friend, Fran Sadlier, is on the building subcommittee and a long term member of the Tewantin Netball Courts. Netball Courts. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the position she holds is not a decision maker, nor is she an executive member. Neither I nor my family friend stand to gain a personal Although material benefit from the decision over and above what any other club member would gain. 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. Amelia Lorentson 04:02.880
Okay, Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to move that Councillor participates and votes on this matter, as Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Second to that, Councillor Wilson. Who's to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson. Um, no. Okay, all in favour? Frank Wilkie 04:22.809
Yes. Thank you, that's carried unanimously. Right, we have a team here, Director of Regulation, Richard MacGillivray, Patrick Murphy and Tara Morgan. Would you give us a run through of the report please, Tara? Tara Morgan 04:39.749
So the applicant is seeking a minor change to a 1988 Town Planning Consent to remove the netball clubhouse and relocate it to the northern car parking area. So Noosa Shire Council endorsed the Noosa District Sports Complex Master Plan in 2020 which included a recommendation to widen the internal road that runs through from McKinnon Drive. As part of that widening, the existing clubhouse will need to be relocated to make way for that road widening. So the proposed changes are generally consistent with the Noosa Plan 2020 requirements. However, the development does propose a reduced front setback to McKinnon Drive with the planning scheme requiring a 20 metre setback and the proposal being 6.9 metres from McKinnon Drive. And the building is also in excess of the scheme's 15 metre wall length requirement. So the location of the building is in an is in an area of McKinnon Drive that has a particularly wide road reserve, so it's approximately 22 metres from the road edge to the property boundary. So the building will be set back nearly 29 metres from the edge of McKinnon Drive. In addition, the... The applicant has also included information regarding landscaping along that McKinnon Drive boundary, and we have included a condition in the recommendation requiring a minimum of 60 metres of that frontage to include additional landscaping to what's already existing. the 15 metre wall length, the proposed building is a maximum of 28.25 metres wide. in The building is 5.3 metres in height, so it has been raised. It has previously had some flood damage. So the building has been raised to mitigate any issues with flood. The proposal includes open verandas along the western and southern elevations of the building. It is acknowledged that the eastern elevation that faces the internal road only has It only has three areas of openings at the moment. It has a disability access ramp along the southern portion of the building. We have included additional landscaping requirements to screen that building a little bit, both from the internal road and from McKinnon Drive. So these additional... some changes to conditions that were provided last week to councillors as a result of some concerns that were raised in the P &E. So that has been included with the recommendation. I should have learned that. Patrick Murphy 07:13.526
So the recommendation hasn't been amended. The additional conditions were provided to councillors should they wish to choose to put forward an alternate motion with those additional conditions. So Cathy has a copy of those conditions. And essentially condition 18 has been amended to separate it and separate out and make more specific the requirement for the eastern elevation of the building to not be of a single colour to now contain a requirement a mixture of colours and lightweight materials to that elevation. There's also some that have been provided to the landscaping conditions. The plans would be annotated to require two areas to have additional landscape screening. One area is adjacent to part of the eastern elevation building, a portion of the building that's not abutted by car parking, and then there's also an additional area just to the right as you enter the site which is currently vacant. Frank Wilkie 08:33.526
And just to clarify, the reasons for those changes since last week was that council is actually the applicant in this case. This is applying to certain sort of conditions that we really want to extend that. That's correct. Questions, councillors? Amelia Lorentson 08:51.160
I think it's a question and maybe a little bit of commentary also but I'm just noticing that with a lot of our development applications staff and councillors are taking on the responsibility of you know development applications to meet Noosa design principles. I'm wondering a design review panel is planning... I don't know if this is a conversation to take out of this planning meeting. Okay. Frank Wilkie 09:25.442
Yes, Jessica Phillips 09:27.202
I have a question from last week's condition for the extra screening. Will this still meet requirements for massive... meet requirements for massive CPTED report with screening there? SPEAKER_07 09:39.080
Cathy, can I just get you to run up the plan? Let's try it. Patrick Murphy 09:43.400
So just to reiterate, at this point in time, this is not the officer recommendation. We've provided conditions as part of the original report and we've provided these amended conditions to Councillor and as I said, if Councillors choose to move the alternate conditions, they would need to do that. but just to explain the CPTED requirements. Frank Wilkie 10:07.948
Just for those who don't know, could you explain what that acronym means? Tara Morgan 10:12.888
It's Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. So essentially the areas shown up here are where the additional screenings are proposed, so in terms of so in terms of sidelines and things like that we don't think it would raise any issues around you know safety or things like that so I'm not sure if anybody has a different opinion in terms of that but we thought those areas were they're along that boundary they're away from the car park it visible from the road? Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 10:55.060
Just for the benefit of those who didn't listen to the Planning and Environment Committee discussion we had, in terms of the setback, the proposed development is 6.9 metres setback from the McKinnon Drive boundary as opposed to the required 20 metres. Can you go over the reasons how this reduces setback is considered a minor variation in this case and how does this compare with previous development applications such as the Stockwell Kindergarten development? SPEAKER_07 11:27.386
So I guess in terms of this one, it is in an area that has a significantly wider road reserve so at 22 metres from the road boundary generally the setback is looking at the setback from the road so given the width of the road reserve the report provides I guess justification for that reduced setback given that it's approximately 30 metres from the edge of that road. Yes so just in terms of any setback variation or any variation to the scheme that's proposed we'll assess it on its merits at that time and so you need to look at the specifics and the site conditions as to whether it would be reasonable. In terms of the Stockwell development I don't think it'd be appropriate to that at this point in time considering there is an appeal to be put on that matter. Frank Wilkie 12:14.375
Thank you. Right, anyone happy to move the... I'll move. Larry Sengstock 12:35.520
Just to clarify, are we moving with the amendments? Yes. Frank Wilkie 12:52.228
So it's moved by Councillor, seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Can we speak to the motion, Jess? Jess. Jessica Phillips 13:01.397
Thank you for all the detailed report and I'm excited to see our local sporting facilities get new and improved equipment for our young people, Thank you. for all the detailed report and I'm excited to see our local sporting facilities get new and improved equipment for our young people, thank you. Frank Wilkie 13:15.077
Any other questions to speak to the motion? Thank you, staff. The Noosa Netball Association have been waiting a long time for this. It will be a new flood proof clubhouse, 210 square metres, 10 new unisex toilets which have been waiting for a long time, a social room, first aid meeting rooms installed, accessible ramps to the grandstand seating, 68 car parks, a wider road and safer road through the facility itself. It will be a welcome addition to this great community club. Anybody on the line wish to speak? Just wish to close? No, thank you. Put it to the both of us in favour? That's unanimous. Karen? Yes. Thank you, that's unanimous. Next item is application for a minor change to development approvals for a seafood kiosk, 1851. Referred from the Planning and Environment Committee for further consideration. Thank you. SPEAKER_07 14:21.185
So the applicant has lodged a minor change to two existing approvals, seeking to change the use from the existing takeaway seafood kiosk to a bakery. The existing building includes both the commercial component and a dwelling that's attached. The applicant advised that two of the employees, being the bakers, will be residing on site in the dwelling. There's no external changes proposed to the building. However, there are some internal refits and an additional extension to the to the existing commercial use of seven square metres, which would reduce the attached dwelling size. The applicant has stated that they will be able to fire staff on site at any time, with two bakers on site from 4:30 and 5:00am. and two front... staff on site from 6:00am. and 7:30am, with a third front of house staff member during the busy appearance from 6:30am. Originally, initially the applicant is proposing to open Wednesday to Sunday from 6:00:00am. to 5:00pm. and looking to increase to seven days per week if the business commits. The proposal includes two on-site car parts to the rear of the building however it is noted that they would be required for the dwelling that's on site so there's no on-site parking. no on-site parking proposed for staff or customers. The applicant is requesting approval for on-site dining for up to 10 people in the outdoor area that's on the frontage of the site. So the report is recommending refusal for this one as it's considered that the proposal results in substantially different development and as such does not constitute a minor change. So the defines what substantially different development is which includes introducing new uses or impacts or increasing the severity of existing impacts. So the existing approval is for a kiosk which was defined as a refreshment service under the 1973 scheme when this was originally approved whilst the bakery was separately defined as a service shop. So as the uses planning As the uses were separately defined at the time of the approval, the bakery is not interchangeable with the takeaway under the existing approval. The applicant is therefore proposing to introduce a new use on the site. Additionally, the approval specifically prohibited on-site dining, so the proposal to include on-site dining with significantly different operating hours starting from 6am is likely to generate additional noise impacts and increase car parking demand. compared to the existing use on-site so it's noted that the minor change application also doesn't require public notification so by not going out for notification it doesn't afford the community the opportunity to make comment on the proposal. The proposal is therefore considered to be substantially different development and as such does not meet the criteria for a minor change application. The applicant's informed on a number of occasions that council officers do not consider the use to be minor change and it was recommended that the application be withdrawn. The applicant has requested to proceed to decision. So given the proposal does not constitute a minor change, the officer recommendation in the report is to refuse the application. Frank Wilkie 17:29.508
And just to clarify, it decides itself its own residential? Correct. It's surrounded by a meeting residential area and because of these changes from operating hours which Kiosk was opening from 2am, opening from 6am, outside dining for 10 people, it's considered this may have an impact on the residential neighbourhood and therefore the residents deserve it to be, the application And just to Lies as another change, which means that the public application may have an opportunity to have a comment and if the council decided to approve it through that process, conditions could be imposed to minimise impact on the residential neighbourhood. Thank you. Questions, councillors? Amelia Lorentson 18:15.557
Councillor Wilson. I have a few. Do the applicant email or Applicant email or phone council seeking advice prior to submitting the application in 2023. Patrick Murphy 18:28.726
There were some discussions between the planning consultant and member of the planning team. At that time no plans were provided. It was a relatively high level conversation. The officer has advised that they did advise... This is quite a complex matter. There's a lot of interrogation of the approvals and the previous schemes that are required. enable proper assessment, and that was not the nature of those conversations. My understanding is the applicant advised that they would put in a minor change and see how it ran through the process. If I can just add to that point too, the applicant's always got the opportunity to seek formal written advice regarding prior to lodging an application to make sure that they've gone through the correct pathway, or a formal pre-lodgement meeting, which minutes are attached to those meetings. The applicant in this case did not proceed to obtain either of those two options, and as Patrick alluded to, there was just a phone call, which is very informal and hard for a planning officer to make a detailed make a detailed advice or consideration regarding a complex proposal of this nature over a phone call. Amelia Lorentson 19:47.933
Did Council accept fees for the minor change application? When the applicant put the submission in 2023. Correct. After how long did Council notify the applicant that the proposed change could not be considered a minor change? Patrick Murphy 20:10.478
It was, well there was some discussions that took place before February of this year because there was legal, a letter from the applicant's lawyer that came in late January to which a written response was provided in February. Notwithstanding it doesn't change the assessment Richard MacGillivray 20:53.620
As this application did progress, staff did identify that there were issues with the proposal and the fact is it hadn't gone through the correct statutory process, which should have been through another change or a new material change of use to develop an application and made the applicant when they became aware themselves through that process. So unless it's prohibited development, the applicant can lodge an application. We must accept it and then proceed in terms of our work in CIS. Jessica Phillips 21:22.996
I have a question. I have a question. How much does it cost an applicant to put in a minor change application? Patrick Murphy 21:31.753
It would likely be approximately $2,000, between $2,000 and $8,000. Jessica Phillips 21:37.873
And just to follow up then, how much does it cost for a other application? Richard MacGillivray 21:46.538
More. We haven't got the fees, but we can certainly provide the advice back on what the fees would be. They do range based on the scale and nature of the proposal, and there is a fee multiplier for it and that The fees are generally to reflect the cost for Council to provide the assessment of the application. In this circumstance where the application has been afoot for over 12 months, there's been a lot of officer time spent assessing this application and communicating with the applicant, providing Council reports, I'd say that that money has been lost there. Jessica Phillips 22:25.107
So another question then, to follow up from that, what's our obligations around how long it takes us to assess an application for a minor applicant? minor change, Patrick Murphy 22:39.176
We have 20 business days to decide it, but it does not go deemed approved, it's the applicant to move forward. deemed refusal. In terms of another change, it falls back to the statutory process that's required, so it would be, we would have 35 we would have 35 business days to assess it, but you need to exclude from that the time frame for which the applicant responds to the information request and the time it takes for notification to occur. There's also an allowance for an additional 10 business days to consider any submissions. If it was an impact accessible application, the application would not go deemed approved. deemed approved at the end of those 35 business days if it wasn't assessed, again it would be incumbent on the applicant to seek a deemed refusal. It's not uncommon for officers to request an extension of time to assess an application where there's complexities involved. Jessica Phillips 23:46.246
And so did we do that for this case because we were over the 20 days? Richard MacGillivray 23:51.246
Yes, yes. yeah and there is the ability to extend the time frames within agreement with the applicant or they can also choose to elect to stop the clock which essentially ceases any assessment time frames particularly during the decision period where the applicant and the council officer can assess and discuss and negotiate particular issues as well which has Yes Obviously in this particular case. So the application is still within statutory time frames as such but there's an ability for the applicant to either extend or stop the clock while they're seeking advice or looking to make amendments or have further discussion with council officers. Frank Wilkie 24:32.915
I've still done a 20 day statutory time frame. Richard MacGillivray 24:36.875
Yes, 35 business days decision on a, the development application. Amelia Lorentson 24:46.384
Councillor Lorentson. In terms of costs, there's also ancillary costs, so it's not just the application fee. Am I correct to say that there was, council requested an information request followed two more information requests that required the applicant to provide or review designs which they engaged a consultant in providing. Patrick Murphy 25:14.157
That would be true and that's a standard part of the process, so we can give advice and we consider it's not a the applicant can still push forward with the application and it's also incumbent on us to assess all elements of the application before making a decision on it. Jessica Phillips 25:35.102
I have another question. In relation to the exacerbation of impact, how do we get data to say that the seafood kiosk had so much impact and how do we get data to know that this is going to be an exacerbation with a patisserie? Patrick Murphy 25:53.955
We don't have data in that regard. We need to do our own assessment. I think it's important. There's a couple of hurdles that they need to get over in terms of whether it's a minor change or not. And one of those is whether a new use has been introduced. and as Tara has explained, the two uses were separately defined under the scheme at the time in which they were, the approvals were issued. So to go from the seafood kiosk to the bakery is It's a completely different use. So they don't cross that hurdle. So that's one element of a substantially different development which they don't meet. They don't need to not meet any other criteria for it not to be a minor change. We say it doesn't meet that but we also say that there will be new impacts and we had to base that upon our understanding of how the premise was operating and how it was allowed to operate through its conditions. now what it's seeking to introduce. You don't need data when they're not allowed to have people on site and then they're allowed to have people on site. That's a quite black-and-white assessment. Jessica Phillips 27:06.390
And another question just around if it turns into a residential property how would we go or how do they go about demolition of a commercial and the cost involved in rehabilitating that site for residential? Patrick Murphy 27:28.395
It has existing dwelling on the site. In terms of if they wanted to redevelop that site that would incur similar costs to anyone that has a house on their site and wants to demolish and rebuild would be part of the opportunity to develop that land. This decision does not require them to demolish the building. They can continue to operate under the existing approvals that they have. Jessica Phillips 27:56.253
So to clarify what we're saying is you can put a fish and chip shop there because it's always been that but you can't put a patisserie. Richard MacGillivray 28:03.993
That's the legal approval that exists there. There's an approval for the seafood kiosk which has been identified through the report. That's the use that can continue in accordance with that approval. However because the planning scheme and the series of planning schemes prior to the Noosa Plan the zoning for that site to be residential, in this case medium density, that is the intended strategic land use intent for that particular location. Notwithstanding it's acknowledging that there is an approval there for a specific use which can continue to occur but once that comes to an end and has been abandoned through the planning scheme and seeking that it's reverted to residential. Amelia Lorentson 28:50.880
I'm still trying to understand the severity of impacts changing fish and chip shop to a bakery. Under the Noosa Plan 2020, both a kiosk and a bakery are defined as a food and drink premise. So if both uses are defined similarly, then what are the practical differences in their impacts on the community? Richard MacGillivray 29:15.301
Councillor, as mentioned, because when the approval was issued, the approval was specifically for a seafood kiosk, you can't that it's a new use of food and drink out of the current scheme. If they did apply for a food and drink outlet under the current scheme, it would be impact accessible and consistent use, and that would go through a formal public notification process. They haven't done that, they've sought a minor change against an application to various seafood kiosks and obviously that's what's put before us today. They haven't done that. Frank Wilkie 29:52.647
To have recess as a food and drink outlet would involve public notification, so then because it's a residential area, everyone who lives there has an opportunity to stay, including on the change of views which would involve the opening and operating from 6am as opposed to... Richard MacGillivray 30:22.157
The planning schemes, the Noosa planning and prior planning schemes, hasn't sought to recognise a commercial node on this particular location. Whilst it respects there's an approval for the seafood kiosk, there has been a strategic intention For to zone a that commercial use, long term, obviously there are some nearby commercial zoned premises which are used for commercial purposes. This has been sought to be used for residential accommodation. Notwithstanding this historical approval, it can continue as long as it's not abandoned. Frank Wilkie 30:59.260
Any further questions? Nicola Wilson 31:04.120
Given that the property hasn't been used for seafood in some years, at what point would it become abandoned? Richard MacGillivray 31:12.200
Abandoned? Abandonment under the Funding Act is a complex legal term. In terms of when a use has become abandoned, it comes down to a whole range of different factors and there isn't any specific time threshold when a use becomes abandoned. The officers have gone through and obviously had discussions with the applicant around the history and the change of ownership shortly after the recent ownership by the applicant whose lodged this application. They've sought to make this change and whilst it's currently not being used for seafood kiosk, we would evaluate that over time and obviously understand the intention from the applicants of whether there was an intention to reconvince that. to reconvince that and we would monitor that but there isn't a hard and fast rule around timing. Certainly if further time had passed and maybe a year or two and there was still no commencement of that use. and the owners had decided that's not what they want to do and converted just back to residential accommodation then you would consider that the use could be abandoned. Staff have also mentioned that the the commercial kitchen in there hasn't been modified or changed so some of those things are still factors in it so there were adjustments and modifications to remove that infrastructure within the building so the commercial cooking facilities that could be an intention that abandonment has happened because they've made an intentional decision to remove the infrastructure required for that use so there's a range of factors and it's not unfortunately very clear-cut rule around when abandonment does occur. There's instances for different types of uses where they can be mothballed or stored for a number of years and it doesn't necessarily mean abandonment has occurred but at this stage we've formed an opinion that we don't believe any use has been abandoned at this stage Councillor Finzel you had a question? Frank Wilkie 33:11.540
Are you there Councillor Finzel? Are you on mute? Karen Finzel 33:16.160
Yes, my question's been answered, Thank you. Frank Wilkie 33:21.180
If there are no other questions I'll move the recommendation. I'm happy to second. Seconded Councillor Stockwell. Okay, thank you staff for the report, very complex matter. I've no, personally speaking, I've no objection to this site being operated as a patisserie, you know, a great property quality offering, but if to start, if the intention is to start operating from 6am. in the morning and have onsite dining, I know it's, if it was to be approved, it would be extremely popular with cyclists and groups of runners, I'm probably one of them. And I think the big, it's a residential area, the neighbourhood at least deserves the right to have a say to a publicly notified process, to have a say in how they feel about those chain impacts, and so... impacts, and so I'm in favour of this coming through another change process. This is the incorrect process. I do note that the applicant didn't seek written advice, formal written advice, in response to the questions. So, very difficult, complex matter, but I support the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 34:37.809
A question, just a question. In terms of seating outdoors, seating outdoors seating, we can condition the application if it was to be approved to not allow outdoor seating and to even prohibit seating between six and eight or people outside in the balcony area between six and eight. We have that ability to condition the application. Yes or is that correct? You do. You do. Again, we'd still say that the issue of introducing new use is occurring contrary to the definition of the substantially different development, and we would suggest that councillors are aware of the advice sought in relation to the use that's been applied for, which is does it meet the minor change test, and therefore there's risks if we don't follow the correct statutory process there could be adverse ramifications from that if council was to choose to support the current proposal noting it hasn't gone through the correct statutory process. Frank Wilkie 35:49.840
Any other further discussion? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 35:53.600
I'll speak to this. The applicant did seek advice from council officers before lodging their application. It wasn't written, or was it formal? On the 4th of May 2023 the applicant emailed the planning officers and they sought advice on what application was required to be lodged. On the 5th of the applicant emailed planning officers again requesting feedback on the application. On the 11th of May 2023 they were allegedly advised by phone by the council officers that the proposed change was be minor. Although not written advice, although not formal, the applicant did act on this and they submitted a minor change application which council accepted. The applicant fees as requested by council and then the council issued an information request followed by two additional ones. I think it was eight months later, my calculations, that the applicant was told that the change could no longer longer be considered minor. And given that the applicant did rely, right or wrong, on the verbal advice provided by council officers, it seems, in my opinion, unfair to refuse the application under these circumstances. The current view the application should be refused because the proposed change, transforming a fish and chip takeaway into a bakery, allegedly constitutes a substantially different development with concerns over increased impacts. Councillors, the owners are taking over a food premise that has been operating for a long time, over 40 years. What they're doing is modifying the kitchen for a bakery. neighbours are supportive and excited. In fact, this morning we received eight letters of support by all the surrounding and adjoining neighbours. The proposed bakery is, in my opinion, a natural continuation of the existing use, that is food and drink. Compared to the busy and successful seafood kiosk, it's in my opinion unlikely to cause any additional impacts on parking, traffic or noise, and may even result in fewer impacts, given the nature of a bakery's operation. In 1973, the council at the time, the councillors, they all sat around this table as we are doing today, and they approved use, despite conflicts with the planning scheme. Did those councillors make a mistake in affording some flexibility? Did they make a mistake in supporting a small business? Did they make a mistake in providing employment for our residents? Question I ask around this table is, why can't we do the same? Seafood kiosk was approved in 1973 despite conflicts with a planning scheme. It was located in an area zoned residential A, not commercial. This demonstrates that past councils made decisions that weren't strictly in line with the office's recommendations. As a 2024 council, we have the same authority to approve the bakery today. There have been no complaints that I've understood in the last 40 years. We have eight adjoining surrounding neighbours in support. I ask that we follow the example of previous councils, showing flexibility support to this small business. As I see it, we have two options. Approve the application because the applicants relied on the advice given over the phone by council officers. Approve it as prove it as previous councils have done or take this to court at the expense of ratepayers. Can I remind you councillors that in court nobody wins. The owners who have invested in a business that's been idle for 18 months without income and have paid council fees and ancillary cost will lose even more money while ratepayers foot the ratepayers foot the bill to shut down a small local business. Who wins in this scenario? I approve this application because it aligns with current planning definitions and fairness and common sense principle. do not approve the staff recommendation of refusal. Councillors we have more significant planning issues and matters to focus on than whether a fish and chip shop should be allowed to sell patisseries and cakes. Frank Wilkie 40:32.020
Councillor Stockwell you have a question? Yes I've got a question for Councillor Lorentson. Under what part of the Act do you suggest that councillors in Noosa Council have the ability to override ministerial development assessment bills which suggests we can't consider this a minor change? Amelia Lorentson 40:54.156
Councillor Stockwell I think we're entering into a realm of legal debate and legal opinion. My understanding is that council did seek legal advice. I'm actually unsure whether that advice was actually shared with the applicant and I'll raise that at the ordinary meeting this Thursday. The applicant also sought legal advice which was contrary to the opinion given by council. by council, Noosa Council's council. So I won't answer that question. I'm sitting around a table as a community representative, not as a lawyer, even though I am trained legally. Frank Wilkie 41:35.692
Question to the staff. There's quite an extraordinary comment... The staff advised the applicant that this is a minor change. Is there any validity to that? Patrick Murphy 41:48.512
Having spoken to the coordinator of planning and people's parties at the conversation at that time, it's my understanding that it wasn't explicitly stated... it was a minor change application. Richard MacGillivray 41:58.610
There was some debate about what application should be submitted and it was the applicant who said they would submit a minor change and see how it would go. Frank Wilkie 42:08.810
Now the councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor. Can I speak? Jessica Phillips 42:12.748
Did I get in first? Councillor. Thanks. I'm going to speak on social aspects from this because I've lived here long enough to remember the water slide and Pizza Hut on the corner of where some young guys is quite a while. When I look at that street and I've spent my whole life, I look at it from the AFL grounds, famous farmers market, the theatre. Famous restaurants now, a resort. I think it's part of the natural progression of that street to have a local family business. Operate a patisserie from there. 506 staff, I think they said that they could employ with the patisserie baker on site living there. I can't I can't sit here and not support local business and and honestly say that with all the considerations that you put in front of me I've seen that street I know what the community expect from that street and I I think they would be very supportive of seeing a yummy patisserie there. I just um yeah it... It begs to also the question that I've constantly had now around why we watch applicants go through such a lengthy process, take a lot of money from them. The applicants are a young family with young kids and I believe if they have a successful business they will probably put that money straight back into our economy and so therefore Unknown 44:14.128
Say that. have unequivocal staff advice and unequivocal legal advice that this use cannot be approved under the application as submitted. To suggest council laws and for flexibility to override do it in the interest of business is not an argument. Simply put, councillors do not have the legal ability to approve this application. It is fairly black and white. You can rely on some advice from legal advisors and myself after a fair career in planning suggest has not in fact given good advice. It is not that a lawful non-conforming use can be transformed in the way that is being proposed in this application that can be done as a minor change. kiosk, you can't use The wrong thing. It's hard to say. IREs and staff could not give it any force or effect. So there is only one option in this case, and that's to support this motion. Frank Wilkie 46:39.820
Thank you Councillor Stockwell. May the Councillor switch to speak to motion. Finzel, you wish to speak? Karen Finzel 46:54.160
Thank you Mr Chair, I do not wish to speak to the motion. Frank Wilkie 46:58.560
Yes? No. No, okay. Councillor Wilson? No. Okay. I think the important point here is, do residents deserve the right to be informed? And given the opportunity to be publicly notified about if a business next door to them or in their neighbourhood is going to start operating from 6am in the morning and all the impacts that will have. Sure, we'd all love to see a patisserie there, but this is about giving the residents giving the residents the opportunity to have their say and appropriate conditions to be able to be imposed, if it is, to minimise the impasse. We all want to see local business prosper. I think the residents, from any neighbourhood, it's the principle on this occasion, that it ought to be applied everywhere. So, for that reason, I'm supporting this staff recommendation. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Stockwell? Yes. Councillor Finzel? Against? Councillor? Councillor Lorentson? The motion is carried. Next item. Thank you, Patrick. The next item is leveled under the domestic and family violence prevention champions network and to talk about that we have Paul Brinkman. you very much. you give us a rundown on what we're looking at here because we haven't done a domestic event of our prevention champions everywhere here and we're not getting an answer from Mr Chancellor. Larry Sengstock 49:15.762
Yes, yes. Nicola Wilson 49:17.162
I, Councillor Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I am a volunteer director of CAYAC Ltd Maroochydore, a charity that supports victims of domestic violence amongst other services. While CAYAC is not the subject of the decision being made today to appoint a councillor to an observer role in the network, I note that matters discussed in the network's meetings in future may be relevant to CAYAC's operations. I share this information I share this information for transparency and to support my nomination for the position, having an interest and experience in this area. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because... not the subject of today's decision and I am able to remain impartial. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. questions from Councillor Wilson? Amelia Lorentson 50:17.002
I'm happy to move that Councillor Wilson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person trust that the final decision, that Councillor Wilson will be able to remain impartial and that a reasonable person would trust that a final decision is made in the public interest. Nicola Wilson 50:38.379
Second. Amelia Lorentson 50:39.019
Seconded by Councillor. I need to thank Councillor Wilson for being open and transparent. I don't think this was necessary, but I really appreciate and respect you laying that out Frank Wilkie 51:15.917
You've exercised an abundance of caution. An overabundance of caution. Yes. Thank you. very much. Okay. Paul Brinkman. I'll put it to vote. Those in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Paul. Paul Brinkman 51:32.657
Thank you. Good afternoon, councillors. The Queensland Government established the Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Council to support greater community understanding about domestic and family violence and to challenge the values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that trivialise, excuse... The Queensland and perpetuate this abuse. Working at the primary prevention level, the prevention council partners with government, business and community stakeholders to champion local community led action and leadership in creating social change. Through enhanced education enhanced education, understanding and place-based responses, the Prevention Council supports all Queenslanders to play their part in ending domestic and family violence. This report seeks endorsement for three members from Noosa Council. As representatives on the Local Government Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Champions Network, two council staff and one councillor representative. We seek the nomination of that councillor. Jessica Phillips 52:32.559
Please. We received the letter on the 12th of April 2024. There's three meetings this year. We've missed one on the 16th of July. Can you just explain to me come it's taken so long for this to sit with council. Paul Brinkman 52:51.108
I'll have to take that on notice to get back to you. I'm an acting director at the moment so I don't have that information. Frank Wilkie 53:00.277
Prevented council staff from participating in the meeting? Paul Brinkman 53:04.357
Again, I'll have to take that on notice. And has it affected the work of the organisation? This is a position on the network to be able to listen to the network. It's not a voting situation. It's a position on there to show council support of the network. So no, we wouldn't have any changes in regards to the work that the network has done today. Frank Wilkie 53:31.283
I move that we appoint Councillor Nicola Wilson and two staff members from Community Development and People and Culture as first councillors representing the network. I'll second. Second of Councillor. As Councillor Wilson pointed out, she does have experience in this field in a voluntary capacity as a director of a body that already works in this sphere. She has an interest in that, she has some knowledge on it, even though it's only an observer role, I'm sure she'll be able to understand what's going on there and be able to report back and inform the other councillors accordingly. Karen Finzel 54:30.326
I should be well placed to represent as well. I think it's really important that we put as many opportunities before us in a timely manner to be involved in this space. whatever capacity, given the national crisis that's been declared around violence against women, so I do think that people are putting a hand up and I'm looking forward to moving the track with some good input around how we can support the council in that space. Frank Wilkie 55:03.724
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Anyone else wish to speak? According to the vote, those in favour? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Finzel, Councillor, Councillor Lorentson. Yes. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell, Nancy Ananis. Thank you Paul. Thank you very much. Next item is reports direct to the general committee which is the which is the financial performance report. We have Pauline, our financial manager. Pauline Powell's financial services manager. How are you? Good, thank you, Pauline. How are we tracking, Pauline? SPEAKER_12 55:57.900
Okay, good afternoon councillors. Pauline Powell 56:00.100
Financial performance for the month of August is positive with operating revenues outperforming forecast and operating expenditure under budget at this early stage of the new financial year. Budget review one was adopted at the August meeting round and is reflected in the August financial reports that have been presented to you. Operating revenue is $722,000 above budget and this comprises $303,000 relating to interest revenue and $268,000 from the sale of goods and services from holiday parks and council facilities. In addition to $184,000 relating to grant programs that have been received year to date. This has been offset by lower than forecast rates and levies income of $27,000, fees and charges of $33,000 which relate to deep development assessment and building and planning. Operating expenditures: $840,000 underspent with $253,000 relating to employee expenses and $579,000 relating to materials and services. Overall Council's year-to-date operating position at August 2024 is $1.5 million above budget and this will be utilised to offset the forecast deficit adopted at the hour 1. Capital revenue is above budget due to the to the timing of the receipt of QIA disaster funding and local roads and community infrastructure program funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget $10.5 million and that relates to delivery of disaster projects and waste management projects. is currently holding $123 million in cash reserves with $30.5 million invested in higher yearly term deposits. Cash is at its high point in the cycle with receipts from the first rates fund being received in August. This position will degrade through to 30 June 2024 as business as usual operations occur and capital and grant programs are delivered throughout the year. Again, at this early stage of the financial year, Council's financial performance remains on track. Frank Wilkie 58:02.103
Thank you Paul. Any questions, councillors? Nicola Wilson 58:06.643
In our materials and services where we've got a little bit of an underserved underserved at the moment. Do you expect that to be a timing difference and it will catch up later or might we have a realised... At this stage it would appear to be more of a timing difference due to the profiling of budget based on the programs of work that the business areas are doing. We will continue to... Amelia Lorentson 58:34.916
With the delay in the destination management plan, when are we scheduled to review the tourism in Noosa? Pauline Powell 58:44.787
So as far as I'm aware, off the top of my head, the tourism in Noosa agreement is due to be renewed by the end of this financial year, so 30 June 2025. So it was a two year extension on the original one, which ends at the end of this financial year. Amelia Lorentson 59:06.520
Question, in terms of a change of government, what are the potential risk and opportunities associated with the change of government and how might this impact funding, regulation, or policy shifts affecting Council's financial and sustainability operations? Difficult question. We should be stretching through the CEO. Larry Sengstock 59:33.597
At this point in time, it's impossible for us to give an answer to that, because we don't know. In relation, we don't know what the policy is necessarily, but I think we do when we came to sign ourselves. It's funny that we don't know about that. So that's something we've been working on at this point, and we haven't had one for a few years, a couple of years, so. Frank Wilkie 01:00:00.466
The revenue for the holiday parks is consistently above budget. Have we, what's going on there, have we, have we, I am too, I don't know, I just really don't know. Pauline Powell 01:00:14.927
We always budget conservatively based on our previously historic performance. So there is generally some room and that allows for things to emerge through the year. So if we budget and do push targets, that means that emergent issues can't be dealt with. We don't We don't know until obviously the year unravels how that will perform, whether the economy starts to impact some of that revenue. So at this stage it is performing above budget, but that has been historically trained, yes, to be above budget. Frank Wilkie 01:00:43.364
Increase in interest rates have been a benefit to supplementing the rate payer funds in cash, so it returns more rate payer money. What's the forward position is like in that regard? Pauline Powell 01:00:57.161
Well, based on reserve pay, at this stage it's life riskful, but not until probably later next year. So we are kind of maximising our interest revenues, and some of the delay in capital growth is also helping to amplify cash balances. SPEAKER_07 01:01:11.201
So at this we're seeing around 5 Pauline Powell 01:01:13.345
% And above at this stage in terms of investment in our cash, which is higher than we had originally budgeted for, as we expected that it would fall. Karen Finzel 01:01:25.810
Yes, please, Mr Chair. The sales of goods and services, what is the measurement fees is below budget. Can you just talk to us a little bit about what's going on there in that space? Yes, sure. Pauline Powell 01:01:40.670
So I've spoken to the business area. What is the measurement fees? Yes. So in terms of sales and rep sales of goods and services, Councillor? Yes. So in that respect, there's a delay they've had in terms of their timing of their prep and all budget of sales and metal sales. So they were anticipating a larger sale of metal. I think that's just a timing issue at this stage. Karen Finzel 01:02:04.867
Okay, thank you. Is there any shortfall with the sale of the steel? Frank Wilkie 01:02:12.140
Sorry, I didn't quite match that. Could you say that again please, Councillor Finzel? You're breaking up. Can you speak closer to the microphone if possible, please? Sure. Karen Finzel 01:02:21.120
I'm just interested in how that's being addressed with the, or on the feeds, where they might be broken. Pauline Powell 01:02:28.040
Is there a process or a projected how they're going to work in that space to get us up to speed with the projected budget? Sure. So based on the information I have, it's purely a timing delay, so they were expecting it to occur earlier in the year. It hasn't occurred yet, so they're expecting it will occur. They still have the metal to sell, it just hasn't happened yet. yet. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:56.960
The question that hasn't been asked, and it was always asked at every ordinary meeting, what keeps you up at night, Pauline? And in terms of immediate risk, and that's where I raised the issue of a change of government before. Do you want to ask? Jessica Phillips 01:03:14.700
I think Pauline Powell 01:03:18.135
Probably it's delivering the grant funding programs with the constraints and resourcing that we have. We have quite a large capital program. In terms of how we get that done, probably is the biggest thing at the moment. But in terms of cash flow, it's not a concern. We have funded. It's more just a delivery for the organisation. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:35.621
So your question, it doesn't relate to human resourcing, or is it the capacity of the organisation to deliver? Frank Wilkie 01:03:44.081
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 01:03:49.841
In terms of the finance part, we're a little short-handed at the moment, and we'll get out to the market a couple of times. It's very difficult to get properly trained and skilled people in this area, so we have a very good team here to do that, so is anybody watching and listening? No, please. It's very difficult, but we're the reason it's so difficult to find the people that can help. And that goes for organisations as well? Organisation is in particular industries in different areas. We're having trouble or we find it difficult to interact with white people, but in other areas this is the moment. So I think if you ask any questions while I'm asking, I think we're we're a power case on that panel. Well, it's that we're in a position, I think, where it's very simple. Even if it's just in finance, for some reason, it's not very much. It's starting to be a little bit okay. Unfortunately, it falls back onto what we can Can I ask a follow-up question? Jessica Phillips 01:04:59.629
Internal performance, like, what sort of training do we do to even encourage, you know, someone to move up through the organisation if we can't outsource? Larry Sengstock 01:05:14.680
Look to promote in general where possible, absolutely. I think that's one of the main games of being a multi-skilled, multi-disciplined organisation. There are opportunities for people to live across it up in the organisation. What happened with me, I progressed from a previous position to this position. No, I don't think so. This is, yeah, this is still a little bit of strategy defying, and, you know, if you look at the new state of the law, the new state of the law, anything, you know, it's, um... We're looking for, for employees. Um, other councils are, are also struggling. And, um, to, to find people in this project, that would last a moment. We do, we provide, as strange as we can, we identify people we want, we want to bring them through, and then train them through, because that's, that's certainly the best strategy. Jessica Phillips 01:06:05.399
Um, and And then so I guess the general question around like do we have anyone from our staffing in our schools promoting our workplace within our local community? Pauline Powell 01:06:20.721
I'm also about schools, but definitely university. So people in grade 12 and so on. Okay. SPEAKER_07 01:06:29.021
Thanks. Frank Wilkie 01:06:30.981
Any further questions or comments? If so, I'll move the motion please. Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Moved by Councillor Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilson will speak. Nicola Wilson 01:06:43.016
Not much. Just thank you for another thorough report and for all the answers to your questions. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:06:51.128
Thanks for the report. It's always extensive and highly detailed and it's really appreciated how when Councils ask for further information we're always willing to provide an added to the already extensive financial report that we've got a lot of. Got a lot of indicators going on so thank you. It's unanimous. Thank you for that. Thank you. Next item is revised standing orders and other related policies and procedures. I'd like to move an alternate motion. Sorry, thank you. have a look. We'll just get a summary first. Summary first. I'm happy for that. Thank you very much. Larry Sengstock 01:07:41.325
Is going quite with attention and interest, so I'll just keep it up there until we move forward and I know there aren't any questions that have been proposed, so we can talk about this. This report provides an update on the legislative changes introduced by the local government to the Legislation Amendment Act 2023, which went into parliament on Wednesday the 16th of November last year. It includes amendments related to the model meeting procedures, addressing changes to the meeting procedures, councillor contact and investigation processes. The councillor is required to adopt these amendments which are included in this report and in the standing order changes and documented there and it's taken this opportunity to conduct a general review of the standing order's council meetings policy which hasn't been done since 2011. And there's been quite a bit of change over that period if you think back over the years and the way we conduct meetings now with online and the likes. This report seeks to adopt a revised standing order's council meetings policy. Along with the supporting procedures and policies to strengthen governance, transparency and conduct within council meetings. Just to highlight a number of, and I'll just go through them in summary, just the main changes to the standing orders other than the adopted model meeting procedures. Which we are, we all go to day one, all councils do. The first one is petitions. The major change there is that we've taken our, sort of referred to in these standing orders that we've made a specific procedure, standing order procedure. We've done a number of these. The petition to be submitted, the major changes to this, the petition to be submitted a few days prior to the meeting. Previously there was no amendment to the requirement. The reason for that is to allow the staff to make sure... make sure that it's properly formed and properly presented petition prior to it being made on the table at our meeting. And the use of the template provided by Council is encouraged. In terms of the public question time, the major changes are now a standalone procedure replacing the current public question time guideline. In terms of public The major change there, or that we're proposing, and again these are recommendations for debate and decision, these are recommendations from the officers, must be submitted five days, five business days, prior to the ordinary meetings as previously... three days. In terms of notified motions, the motion changed there, and it's staged within the scanning orders, so it's not taken out as a separate piece. The motion changed, any notified motion that commits the council to expenditure in excess of $10,000, inclusive of staff resource and the entire passport for a council report. Where a notified motion is likely to commit the council to significant expenditure, not included in the adopted budget, then the notified motion must only call for referral to and for council's consideration as part of its future year's annual budget process. We're The second piece of that, and I know that it's again gaining our some public interest and I recognise the people in the audience here today, is the piece from section 1848 for a notice of motion where the This has been, through three workshops, has been, this is proposed, and again it's proposed, it's only a recommendation, again for debate and for decision. It's proposed It's proposed because what we're looking to do as a CEO is not to gag, not to hold back, but simply to try to, as an organisation, organising and running this business is to ensure that we continue to... So it's really just good to ensure and allow us to ensure that that happens. Again, this is up for discussion today, but I just wanted to make sure that that's the reasoning. There are a number of councils, this is not something that we've dreamed up. There are a number of councils that actually already operate under these rules. So it's just something, again, it's a recommendation for the council to decide, and it's something that, again, the his offices, we believe that it just gives us some level of control over making sure that we continue on the path that we all agreed at the start of the year in terms of how to operate. Operating model in our three deliverables for that year. The next one is public question time. And the last one is deputations, sorry. So the major changes there are it's now a standalone procedure. The deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before council are not permitted. Topics should be local government matters. Council has an opportunity to respond to deputations during the meeting. Maximum of three deputations per meeting. Maximum of four deputations per calendar year per applicant or group. And a maximum of five minutes per deputation. So they are the changes that are proposed, really great that they are proposed. We'll take questions and we'll end the discussion. Questions, councillors? Amelia Lorentson 01:13:47.064
In terms of notified motions, how many notified motions have been brought forward this term? How many notified motions were brought forward last term and by whom? Larry Sengstock 01:14:02.989
I have the answers. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:05.529
I'll address it in my speech. I didn't mean to catch you out, CEO. It was a very honest question. Any other questions? In terms of benchmarking of standing orders, has there been any benchmarking of our standing orders against other councils of similar size and budget, particularly tier councils? Larry Sengstock 01:14:43.015
Absolutely. We've done that and we've brought that to the table in terms of the workshops that we've had with all councils. and, yes, we have been trying to do it across a range of SPEAKER_12 01:14:55.411
It has been subject to workshop number one and two. Nicola Wilson 01:15:02.031
As part of that benchmarking, what was the general findings about deputations from other councils, of whether they allow them and for how long? Larry Sengstock 01:15:10.965
A number of councils don't actually have the information that we're going to have and it ranges from 3 minutes up to 15 minutes in the model. the procedures. It says, for example, 15 minutes. It doesn't say, it doesn't give any exact... I have a question. Jessica Phillips 01:15:39.193
Just in relation just in relation to deputation, thanks. Why are we looking at a change? What was the driving? From a personal experience and feedback that we've had for 10 years, is a long time, and there has also been some discussion around the the existing interpretation standing orders which say five, three minutes. So is it worth 15 minutes of three times five minutes, or is it worth 15 minutes per interpretation? It's not clear, and we've had discussions around the table on that. it isn't clear, and everybody has their own interpretation of that, so it's really time to bring it to the table, and again, it's over for discussion. Frank Wilkie 01:16:23.202
Mr. CEO, at the community meeting, ordinary meeting, there was some feedback about the capacity for the council to provide answers to the questions and issues raised in the invitations. Is that part of what's going on? Larry Sengstock 01:16:39.941
Well, it's not to get any answers here, not to get any debate, but it is to provide if there's something that needs clarification, then that ability... Jessica Phillips 01:16:55.488
Thank you. Just another question. Apart from a deputation, then a question time, when can community stand in front of councillors? provide how they feel about their community? If we don't have that, what's another... Larry Sengstock 01:17:10.207
No, no, but what's another example? How else can they online give... online give their community a voice? Frank Wilkie 01:17:20.767
You mean in a formal meeting session? Jessica Phillips 01:17:23.147
Yeah. If there's no 15-minute deputation or a change to that, what's another way our community can talk to to councillors in a formal setting where we're all sitting in a room. Frank Wilkie 01:17:35.166
Apart from organising meetings with councillors? Jessica Phillips 01:17:39.266
But another one like we're online? I guess there's guess there's not, I don't think, another time. Is there? Larry Sengstock 01:17:47.285
No, we're not trying to make a reputation for what we're selling. It's the nutrition that's our action. We're not trying to make a reputation for what we're selling. Arguing all that now. I think that's just, that's the vision that we're proposing again, if you want to change that. And it's certainly a right council. Frank Wilkie 01:18:05.813
So is it proposing three deputations instead of one? Except that Amelia Lorentson 01:18:17.060
Regarding deputations, what do the best practice examples provided by the State say about deputation times and limits? SPEAKER_12 01:18:28.323
Best practice guide does not provide an exact advice on that, it just provides an example which is Bess. 50 minutes for deputations but it doesn't really venture into different formats or whether that should be per a deputation or it doesn't provide any advice of the time frame allocated in a council meeting to deputations. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:50.170
In terms of confusion, there was discussion that it was confusing what was uploaded on the website. Our standing orders, Noosa Council standing orders, are they clear or are they also, is it also written confusingly? My understanding the standing orders provided by council are very clear that it's 15 minutes per speaker. Am Larry Sengstock 01:19:19.852
That's the piece that's been part of our discussion. It's not, it's not, each council has had, and officers have a different interpretation of that and that's what we want to Amelia Lorentson 01:19:38.232
Can I ask, can we, can we have the section of our standing orders read? Because, have you got a copy there Nicola? Yeah So the standing orders. Nicola Wilson 01:19:55.260
The relevant parts are 17.2. The CEO on receiving an application for deputation shall not talk to a chairperson. I'm going to skip ahead a bit here. So this is for if it's one person. Where it has been determined the deputation will be heard, a convenient time should be arranged for that purpose and an appropriate time period allowed. Many minutes? So it doesn't actually state. 17.4 starts with for deputations comprising three or more persons. A deputation shall be given adequate opportunity to explain the purpose of the deputation, generally no longer than 15 minutes unless decided otherwise meeting. So that was about 15 minutes is specifically in the paragraph that talks about deputations comprising three or more persons. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:38.531
So that aligns so that aligns with the State definition which is to allow appropriate reasonable time for the community to make their deputation okay. Frank Wilkie 01:20:51.877
Just to go to the question that's 17.4 of course of deputations comprising three or more persons. Only three persons shall be able to be addressed. This is where it also says generally no longer than fifteen minutes. That's why some councillors were confused as to whether that's five minutes per deputation or fifteen minutes per deputation. That's the source. That's the source of the confusion which I hope to clarify today. Through the Chair. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:21:23.781
Thank you. Just to add some clarity around it and certainly... know, we don't have the intent out there in the community to look like we're in any way minimising all the diluting out there, right? You know, there is, you know... is, you know, no way that we're going to be standing for that. So I'm just looking in front of me. I've got the best practice example under the State Development Standing Orders under Deputations 7, 7.2. It actually says in there, I will read the paragraph, the CEO will inform the detectivation of the determination in writing where it has been determined that the detectivation will be heard, a convenient time will be arranged for that purpose, and an appropriate then in brackets, like e.g. 15 minutes. In 7.3, following on from that, for deputations comprising three or more persons, only three persons shall get liberty to address local government meeting... Excuse me. I want councillors at the meeting to permit otherwise by resolution... Excuse me. A deputation should be given adequate opportunity to explain the purpose of the deputation. So I think, you know, what we need to be looking at to do, you know, in terms of trust in our community, to reassure them, you know, we are not minimising... We need to be very careful, excuse me, democracy, which is really concerning, but we need to be very careful, we need to be very carefully considering today. Karen, Frank Wilkie 01:23:29.125
Do you have a question? It's just been raised. Do you want to move to a question? You were providing an answer to an earlier question. I was providing to clarify. People asked, I think I'll clarify the question. The answer to the question was put forth at reading the standing orders. I'm just adding extra information into that because I've read this document. There's practice of standing orders through the State Government to try and help inform this meeting today around how we accept clarity in the wording of the standing orders. So, for the general questions at this point, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:11.976
Do you want to move your motion? I'd like to move my alternate motion, please. Councillor Wilson. Could I please have that on the screen? That council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the general meeting dated 16 September 2024 regarding the amendment of Noosa Council standing orders and other relevant policies and procedures and a. Adopt updated standing orders for council meetings policy provided at attachment one. provided at attachment one and repeal current standing order policy adopted 19 November 2020 subject to the amendment of the updated updated standing orders section 18. Notified motions to delete. following words 18.8 the CEO may reject a notice of motion which a does not relate to the objectives roles and function of council as outlined in the annual operational and corporate plan. B is vague or unclear in intention. C is identical or substantially similar to a notified motion that has been considered by the council and lost in the preceding six months. D is outside the powers of council. E relates to an operational service request or relates to a matter that can be handled under delegation. And F is a matter subject to a council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete. B, adopt the new petition procedure provided at attachment two. C, adopt the new deputation procedure provided at attachment three, subject to the amendments of items one, three and six and the... deletion of item five as follows. One, up to 15 minutes will be allocated per deputation at each meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of three deputations per meeting are allowed. Three, the applicant must provide Council with the deputation topic and sufficient background material whereby the CEO on receiving an application for deputation shall notify the the chairperson who, in conjunction with the CEO, shall determine whether the deputation may be heard. The CEO shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing. Deletion of number five, that for deputations... for deputations per calendar year by the same applicant group will be allowed. Deletion of number six, deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before council are not permitted. And replaced with deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications under council officers' assessment are not allowed. are not allowed. Deputations will only be permitted on applications reported to Council for determination. D. Adopt the new public question time procedures provided in attachment 4 and thereby repeal current public question time guidelines adopted on 17 October 2019. And E. Adopt the councillor investigation policy attachment 7 and repeal council investigation policy as adopted on 19 November 2020. I'll second that. Firstly, i'd like to request that the chair allows me some leniency. My speech is just under six minutes, not five. The alternate motion in front of us seeks to protect the democratic rights of councillors and those of the community. It seeks to uphold the current standing orders notified motions and deputations which comply with the Local Government Act and the principles of democratic representation, community engagement and transparency as mandated by section 4 of the Local Government Act. The proposed changes the Standing Orders specifically concerning deputations and notified motions beg the question what problem are we trying to solve or who are we trying to stop? current system has functioned well for years. For example, I brought your council two significant notified motions on Burgess Creek last year without any issues. Over the past other than myself, only one other councillor, Councillor Stockwell, has moved notified motions. This highlights that the standing orders have upheld a fair and democratic process. During this term of council, so far moved two notified motions, a notified motion requesting the council policy position on shark nets and drumlines, a notified motion requesting an extension to the consultation period of the Noosa Plan amendments, and one notified and one notified motion requesting the trial of rescue tubes on remote beaches to be considered this Thursday at our ordinary meeting. It seems in my opinion more than coincident more than coincidental that now these motions increase we're seeing a push to limit them or me. Am I personally the problem or is it the precedent I'm setting by actively representing community concerns through notified motions? Either way will not allow my democratic rights as a councillor to be eroded. As councillors we are elected to bring forward community concerns and emerging issues and we must fight to retain the right to do so. We cannot and I will not relinquish that responsibility to the CEO nor will I accept the CEO or accept the CEO or administration having the power to veto councillors' motions? The fight is about safeguarding the democratic rights of all councillors and the community we serve. the democratic rights of our community should be heard. The residents of Noosa elect councillors to represent their interests independently in council. The proposed changes to the orders, in my opinion, threaten to silence this independent voice. Currently, the councils can submit notified motions with seven days' notice and the chairperson has already the authority to rule a motion out of order if it falls outside council's jurisdiction. The proposed changes, however, go beyond this and would, one, restrict notified motions to those aligning only with the operational and corporate plans. plans: grant the CEO the authority to refuse the motions deemed not to meet these criteria. Two, grant... Limit councillors' ability to propose new initiatives outside of these plans. This would, in my opinion, stifle innovation and restrict councillors' ability to address emerging community needs. CEO's role is to implement council policies, not to dictate which issues councillors can raise. These changes, in my opinion, contradict the Local Government Act, Section 13 3 gives the CEO authority over operational management, but nowhere in the Act does it restrict a councillor's right to move motions. Section 12 states that councillors must represent the current and future interests of residents. And furthermore, Section 4 of the Local Government Act emphasises democratic representation, transparency and community engagement. Principles Principles that the proposed changes in my opinion were undermined. In regards to deputations, limiting deputations to five minutes and restricting their frequency weakens the public's ability to be heard. cornerstone of democracy is the people's right to speak and participate in decisions affecting their lives. As councillors, we are accountable to our community, not just to administration. Actually, not to the administration. Reducing the time for public deputation is to me an unjustifiable attack on residents democratic rights. As elected representatives, we must protect the democratic right to bring forward notified motions and to ensure that deputations remain transparent and an accessible platform for public participation. This includes This includes allowing applicants of development applications to have their say. Equity must be upheld in all aspects of democracy. That's how democratic processes work. fairness and equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. We are not here to serve the CEO or the administration. We are here to serve the people who elected us. I ask that you the alternative motion that protects the democratic rights of councillors and the democratic rights of the community we serve. Frank Wilkie 01:33:22.457
Question time. from Governments, do these proposed changes in any way breach any aspect of our government act? Larry Sengstock 01:33:30.912
I would ask you to better make a motion no. No. Frank Wilkie 01:33:36.872
Thank you Guy from Governments. I would like to move an amendment. It reads: Adopt the updated Standing Orders to Council meetings policy divided at attachment 1 and appeal current Standing Orders policy with the updated Standing Orders section, 18 notified motions to be amended to read. Councillors are encouraged to lodge notices of motion which: a relate to the objectives, roles and functions of the Council as outlined in the Annual Operation and Corporate Plan; b are clear in intention; c are not identical or substantially similar to a notified motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d are not outside the powers of Council; c do not relate to an operational service. relate to an operational service request or a matter that can be handled under delegation; f are not matters subject to a Council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete. May I have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Wilson, thank you. Look, Councillors, I believe this is entirely consistent with the first motion that we're we're considering, which goes to the heart of the powers that both the memorandum have and the CEO has. There's a general feeling that the proposed changes to notify motions places too much power in the hands of the CEO and takes that away. At the same time, we do want to encourage outcomes, notify motions that are focused, that are focused and relevant and don't waste the actuators' money and staff time. So, this is not a mandatory requirement, but councillors ought to be encouraged to lodge notices and motions that do these things, but we don't need to give the CEO veto power. power over these things in order to achieve them. So, that's the reason for moving this amended motion. It gives some guidance to councillors without without diminishing the power of the mayor and the elected body or imbuing the CEOs, the CEO with sort of perceived to be an unacceptable level of authority over the council of both. That's the reason for moving it. Councillor Wilson, questions? Could I ask a question to the CEO? Yes. What are the What other opportunities do councillors have to present items for discussion or consideration other than a notified motion? Larry Sengstock 01:36:34.975
We also have a council discussion forum which is where councils can bring ideas for reports or for clarification or discussion that they've done at their CES. We have a regular meeting set up at that forum for that. So if it's a basic Nicola Wilson 01:37:00.787
And if there were emerging issues that we're aware of in the community, both councillors and staff would be able to add items to the agenda. Larry Sengstock 01:37:11.727
And it's also up to you to come directly to me for reports and then we can have a discussion and bring it to an alarm. I don't know how to put it in support, so it's an issue. Frank Wilkie 01:37:24.007
So you're saying if councillors have emerging issues, councillors wish to address, they can request a report from the CEO either directly or through the councillor's discussion forum. They don't need to use an alarm. That's the only process. Questions, councillors? Amelia Lorentson 01:37:44.256
I'll speak against the amendment in front of us. Again, I sit here and question why are we attempting to erode or limit our ability to bring a notified motion at the moment that power sits with us. Also, I'd like to reiterate that the current standing orders state that the chair has the ability to to rule a notified motion out of order. He can rule that it's not within the jurisdiction of council. Alternatively, if it does get seconded, then it's again the ability of the councillors to either reject, call it out, say it's ultra ultra virus or not support. So we have that ability already within our standing orders. I think the amendment in front of us again is an erosion of our rights and I for one will not sit here and accept. Frank Wilkie 01:38:43.273
May the councillors wish to speak to the amendment. Karen Finzel 01:38:49.200
Just a clarification I want, 'cause I can't see the screen, has this motion at the beginning been seconded to this motion? Yes. Can you please remind me who was that? Frank Wilkie 01:39:03.960
Nicola, councillor Nicola, sorry, the original... Is it the amendment or the original motion? No, this is the amendment. So the original motion was moved by councillor Amelia, seconded by councillor Jessica Phillips. And then the amendment was moved by myself, seconded by councillor Wilson. And the amendment is asked, substituting words that say councillors are encouraged to lodge notices of motion which relate to the objectives, roles and functions of the council are clear in their intention and, yeah, they're not mandatory. Can you see that or not? Karen Finzel 01:39:42.255
I can't see that, no. Is there any way we can make the screen private? Frank Wilkie 01:39:46.755
She's got the screen. SPEAKER_12 01:39:49.375
The screen's being shared. Frank Wilkie 01:39:50.715
The screen's being shared, Karen. Nicola Wilson 01:39:56.700
We clarify that that's taking out the item above that gives the CEO Frank Wilkie 01:40:03.220
The... Yeah. Yeah, so this is taking out the CEO's ability to veto... Noosa motion on these grounds it's just general guidelines it's become generally general non-mandatory guidelines for councillors for when they're lodging a notified motion that is relevant and focused. The purpose of that. So any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:40:40.457
Yes, I'll finish up soon. Um, yeah, I just wanted to make an agreement on the motion. Frank Wilkie 01:40:50.757
Um, I just wanted Speak closer to the microphone please. Brian Stockwell 01:40:54.193
I apologise. Is that better? Yes. As a person who has been a recidivist of notices of motion, I'm quite happy with what the staff have recommended, but I'm also happy to leave it in our own hands, um, the important the important things with notices of motion is when they're effective, they, they do bring a, a matter more urgently through to the meetings. Uh, what happens when they are misused is, uh, we make decisions without the full and informed, uh, basis of a report, uh, which we know has caused issues in the past. Uh, the, the issue of the Burgess Creek taking staff off, um, planned... activities for many months, such that the corporate plan, uh, performance criteria is in that area were not met, is, is an example. Frank Wilkie 01:41:47.174
Can we go ahead? Karen Finzel 01:41:48.194
Sorry, I didn't hear that. Okay. Sorry, whoever's interrupted can't stop while I can hear. Comment clearly. Thanks for having me on the show. Brian Stockwell 01:41:56.523
Sorry, it's just a reminder to go, the microphones are very sensitive. You can assist us by referring to my talk and that would be really helpful. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Stockwell. Unknown 01:42:11.793
The issue with the Noosa motion is that it doesn't go through all the normal processes that our budget deliberations, for example, go Brian Stockwell 01:42:23.033
Through. So I don't know, I completely understand the desire of staff to ensure that they're not used to, I suppose, a knee-jerk reaction to something. Unknown 01:42:33.803
But this, once again, your amendment is a preferable one. It does take a put the responsibilities back on council, so I'm happy to support it. Frank Wilkie 01:42:44.090
Councillor Stockwell. Question. Councillor. Jessica Phillips 01:42:49.190
So your amendment is not suggesting any changes to the Suggesting we reduce deputation time. You're just taking the section from, just clarify for me, sorry. Frank Wilkie 01:43:05.196
This is only to do with notifying motions. It removes the CEO's power to veto motions based on these these conditions. This turns it into something councils to consider in a non-mandatory way that if you want to lodge a notified motion, consider them being along these lines. But you can still get go ahead, it doesn't limit your capacity to lodge a notified motion at all and it does not give the CEO the power to veto a motion even if they're contrary to these conditions. Jessica Phillips 01:43:38.979
And sorry, just to clarify then in relation to Amelia's, it's going to come back up to this. Frank Wilkie 01:43:47.169
And it doesn't change Amelia's at all. Except for this section A. Yeah, yeah. So it takes, the CEO will still not be able to veto a notice of motion based on these grounds. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:03.449
Can I, through the Chair, can actually, yes question, you said it doesn't change A. It does change A. Frank Wilkie 01:44:10.661
So this is a debate. Okay. Yeah, we've had this, we've had this. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:14.181
Okay. Question. Question through the Chair to the CEO. Can you confirm currently councillors have the ability to rule out a notified motion? Is that correct? Yes. Under the current standing orders? Yes. Okay. So in your opinion is the amendment in front of us redundant? redundant. That ability is? Larry Sengstock 01:44:46.200
I don't think it is. My interpretation of it is that it's just clarifying it prior to giving some parameters around what the notice of motion should include or should not include in terms of how it's going to be prior to coming up to a council meeting which again then will be. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:12.387
So through the CEO I've got all my motions here all over the place. I've had a bit of experience in notifying motion. Can I ask the process that I've been engaging with you prior to actually putting my notified motion out? It actually captures a lot of what's in front of us. That if the intent is not clear whether it's outside jurisdiction there is already a process in place that's been quite effective that doesn't need replacing and it's yeah thank SPEAKER_12 01:45:52.314
I just have a question through the Chair to the CEO. Is there a definitive timeline when we have to have these scanning orders wrapped up? Larry Sengstock 01:46:12.180
Not definitive. We do need to include or accept the changes from the government. There are a lot of changes that are proposing about our changes, but there is no absolute deadline. Karen Finzel 01:46:28.440
So apart from adopting the legislative changes, is there... Larry Sengstock 01:46:40.038
So we could do like put forward a proposal that we ratify the... legislative changes that meet us within that requirement, and then separate the other matters under our standing orders for council meetings to be moved to moved to another meeting time. Karen Finzel 01:47:03.679
I just felt this wording which is really significant and which has caused a lot of angst in the community and with the view of engendering trust and excellence in council and certainly around governance and given that we've My question is, well, perhaps I could proceed more much onto the table that we just move this and defer this until another meeting, the next general meeting in October. Frank Wilkie 01:47:44.560
Okay, so Councillor Finzel has moved a procedural motion to defer the matter to the October meeting. So defer the matter to the October meeting. Point of order, Mr Chair. Yes, what's the point of order? If you read the standing orders, you do need a seconder. We'll just get the motion Okay, well we'll just right first. Defer the matter to the October meeting round to allow further council discussion on the matter. Karen? Karen Finzel 01:48:36.636
Yes, that's part of it. I think we need to be very specific and I can see, I just don't think right now, wording through the bait on these very challenging, you know, and broad matters before us, it's not comfortable with, it appears we're just beating on the spot. We've got two... Well, we've got a councillor who's away. We've got two new councillors. We've got the community that is really being stirred up by this, you know, with this feeling that... that our democratic rights are being diminished, I just feel that we need to get real clarity on the wording that we put in our standing orders. Frank Wilkie 01:49:21.656
Okay, we'll get a seconder for this. Is anyone prepared to second the motion? It looks like it's it's lapsed for one of a seconder Karen, it looks like all councillors are. Karen Finzel 01:49:37.100
Is that for Brinkman that needs a seconder for procedural motion? Frank Wilkie 01:49:41.320
I believe so. Karen Finzel 01:49:48.490
I want to put it on record then that I am fully for democracy, that I've tried to stand up for the people's for the people right in the community that contacted me. And given that there's no actual time frame for when this needs to be done, I'd give them any support even to bring it to the date I might add. SPEAKER_12 01:50:09.739
Alright Karen, point noted. Karen Finzel 01:50:15.019
Thank you Liz. Frank Wilkie 01:50:16.339
Okay, so we go back to the amendments. Okay, so that's what I wanted to say. We'll go back to the amendment, which only myself, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell have spoken to. Karen, do you have any further questions about the amendment? Karen Finzel 01:50:43.260
I have no questions about the amendment, I think, yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:50:50.300
Okay, I'll close. Councillors, this does not in any way erode a councillor's right to lodge a notified motion. It's non-mandatory, it supports the position taken in the original motion that the CEO has to, does not, should not have the right to veto notified motions. It's entirely supportive of that position. It's to provide some guidance to councillors, not councillors about how a notified motion could be put, and remain focused and relevant to the local government. how to be effective. Indeed, as Councillor Lorentson said, this typifies and clarifies for future councils the type of discussions that are had between a CEO and the councillor about a notified This is not about us councillors, it's about practices, good practices, that will be, future councillors will be the beneficiary of. I ask that we, you support this amendment. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Stockwell against. Councillor Lorentson, Councillor. Yes. Councillor Finzel. I'll use my casting vote. It's carried. Thank you. Okay, we go back to the original motion. Karen Finzel 01:52:43.120
Just, excuse me, through the chair. Yeah. Um, just prior to, like, writing in the reason why why that procedural motion in the minutes says that it was for councillor discussion, it actually wasn't actually finished, what wording that I wanted in there. It wasn't just about councillor discussion. Frank Wilkie 01:53:26.515
Okay, well we can amend the minutes to reflect that. So we can allow further discussion to get the wording right on motions. Karen, get the wording right on the proposed changes. Karen Finzel 01:53:45.629
It's in village four that this council is not under dispute and nor are we seem to be diluting the opposite. Frank Wilkie 01:53:55.789
Okay, I think the wording covers that. that. Get the wording right for proposed changes. Okay, now we'll move on. We're back to the original motion to which Councillor Lorentson has spoken. Any other councillors who wish to speak to this motion? We have the full motion. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:54:27.800
Yes, I can't support the motion. There have been significant issues in terms of both lack of clarity in the existing standing orders and in terms of the impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of our meetings. In essence, the standing orders... the standing orders are how we set up our system of meetings to get informed and deliverative decisions. addition of deputations, for the first time in my understanding in 2019, followed 109 years of local democracy without deputations, suggests putting in a Putting in a reasonable time frame to clarify what was always intended in 2019 is no way diminishing democracy and a very small number of people who have been encouraged to make their views known. not, in my opinion, reflect the vast majority of people in Noosa. There are a myriad of ways for people to participate in local government. We have many have many opportunities for community consultation. We have coffee chats. This is one way to get an issue on the public record. It's by no means the only way. The existing standing orders with respect to deputations are unclear. I'm certainly one of those people who never expected an individual to be given 15 minutes to talk, when the discussion before we adopted them was that it was a total of 15 minutes and up to three people. I think what was proposed in this draft after three different intent, having set through a number of deputations, they all raise. I in no way think that giving people the challenge of refining what they're presenting, to be concise in five minutes, as... the option for the Chair to provide an extension if there isn't, is certainly an improvement in terms of our meeting. I think that a range of issues as presented in the draft to address... existing issues that have occurred. I didn't support the extension of time because I've been raising the need to reduce standing orders since Coffman was the CEO. It was very apparent we've had a range of... had a range of inefficiencies and problems associated with the lack of clarity and I believe that this motion actually undoes quite a lot of the review, quite a lot of the consensus that we achieved on major points in those three workshops. Hence, I won't support the substandard motion. Frank Wilkie 01:57:26.388
I'd like to move an amendment. That the deputations will be conducted in accordance with the following procedural document. One fifteen minutes in total will be allocated for each meeting for members of the community to present deputations. Maximum of five will be allocated for a deputation with an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting chair and by consent of the councillors and the maximum of three deputations for the meeting allowed. Can I have a second for that please? Thank you councillor Finzel. Thank you councillors. This clarifies the problem we had before about 15 minutes being allocated and three speakers. Currently one person can speak 15 minutes, one deputation usually for the This allows and increases access and equity of access to three deputations per meeting and upon request to the chair and the councillors there's nothing to say that those deputations can't be 5, 10, maybe even 15 minutes each anyway upon request. It clarifies the wording so this is not about limiting and reducing access it's actually about increasing access to more than one person per deputation to allow at least three if that's required and also if they if they want to have to speak for more than five minutes they can do so. It also responds to feedback we got from the Pomona Ordinary Meeting where the residents said they enjoyed hearing the immediate responses to questions on notice provided by staff. So questions are provided and the staff provide a answer and that's read out. They were saying why wasn't the same done for that very articulate deputation that occurred at that meeting and the deputations that have questions and requests of council The current standing orders does not allow the council to provide an immediate response to those questions or requests that are contained within the deputation. So this amendment contains contains the capacity to allow that response to occur. The current standing orders does not allow the council to provide an immediate response to those questions or requests that are contained within the deputation. So this Longer than five minutes upon request. When I've limited it to five minutes, we're saying, "If you want more time, have more time." Instead of one per 15 minutes, we're saying, "At least, let's have a maximum of three." It's actually increasing the assets. Because we're all on the same page here. We're all for democratic inclusion. We all learned a lot through hearing back from our residents to any argument here that infuses that certain councils are against democratic inclusion, trying to shut down down democracy or block council's capacity for the community... capacity to have a say through notified motions or deputations is misleading the community. This is about actually... about actually increasing equity of access. So I hope you support this amendment. Jessica Phillips 02:01:06.110
I have a question, Mr. Mayor. The wording upon request suggests that... Question? Yeah, question is upon request, in my opinion, the interpretation means that that could then be rejected. A request... Frank Wilkie 02:01:38.421
Well, we have it today in terms of councils being allowed to speak longer than we just allowed. So what wording would you like to see there with an extension of time allowed upon request? Jessica Phillips 02:01:54.550
And that's what, in my opinion, upon request says... Frank Wilkie 02:01:58.290
Well, it doesn't say allowed or refused upon request. It says allowed upon request. Amelia Lorentson 02:02:08.440
Would you prefer definitive, definitely allow time request? Just remove the words upon request, I think is what's been asked. The extension of time allowed upon request. To the meeting. Karen Finzel 02:02:22.121
Can be by resolution. Frank Wilkie 02:02:23.761
The purpose of it is, like, it has to be in response to a request. The resident needs to ask for it, to receive it. Jessica Phillips 02:02:33.821
Why are we asking our community to ask to speak? us. Upon request. Why? For a longer time. As a new councillor, I've enjoyed-- Well, I mean, we can allocate unlimited. time. No, I just, again, went back to my original question about why do we need to change 15 minutes, because in my opinion, as a new councillor, I haven't had an issue with my 15 minutes. Frank Wilkie 02:03:02.264
Existing standards which say up to three deputations, 15 minutes an hour, so does that mean five minutes each, or 15, it's clarifying, that's why we're doing it. Jessica Phillips 02:03:14.804
But then it's reducing someone to five minutes, because 15 minutes to me says we could listen to three 15 minute deputations and that would take 45 minutes. Frank Wilkie 02:03:23.844
It could. But that's, but we've had three people speak to it in a deputation five minutes each previously, so it's clarifying. But anyway, you don't need to support it, you can speak about it. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:36.719
Councillor Lorentson. Just a couple of questions. I'm confused with the amendment in front of us and what you said, Councillor Wilkie. So you mentioned that the amendment the amendment will allow council staff to respond to any questions put forward through a deputation. Is that correct? Yeah. Yes. So how is that captured in the amendment? Frank Wilkie 02:04:08.178
Well, it says adopt the new deputation procedure provided in Attachment 3 with the procedure to be amended to read 15 minutes total. So the deputation procedure as written as provided in Attachment 3 with the conditions contained within that would be adopted but with this change. That 15 minutes in total would be allocated with an extension of time, to allow an extension of time for people to talk longer than five minutes if they wanted to. I think it's important that people, if they want to speak more than five minutes, we're not against that. But it's But it's about saying, rather than one deputation, we can have three for as long as people want to speak. But they have to say, my deputation is 10 minutes, my deputation is 15 minutes, can I do that? Amelia Lorentson 02:05:01.469
So question through the Chair, don't we already afford that opportunity through an individual deputation? So if someone in a group wants to speak more than five minutes, they can just write and request an individual deputation of 15 minutes. Okay, so I'm just processing this. Okay, so they have that option at the moment. So if this doesn't go up, someone who wants to speak over five minutes can ask to present an to present an individual deputation, which allows them 15 minutes to speak. If they want 15 minutes, they request it. Up to 15 minutes to speak, okay. Frank Wilkie 02:05:47.310
And it's saying an extension of time allowed upon request to Chair, and by consent of the councillors. And Alan, I don't think councillors would say that. Karen Finzel 02:05:59.399
Excuse me, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 02:06:02.199
Yes. Oh, a couple of things. Yes. Karen Finzel 02:06:04.719
Sorry to make the Firstly, request a break. We've been at this for two hours, and I think that's reasonable. Secondly, while we're on the break, at some point, I've just looked at a record of motions to be seconded, and there, under receipt for motion 15.2, are exemptions of the rule for needing a second as of the 26th of July, 2024. Can we please have a look at that? Frank Wilkie 02:06:34.422
We'll adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes and we'll, our councillors are okay to adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes? Amelia Lorentson 02:06:46.002
Can I just make a recommendation? That we vote on this amendment before adjourning, given that we're in the middle of discussion. Frank Wilkie 02:07:03.816
I think if Councillor Finzel's question is one of process and her previous procedural motion is valid, because I'm not aware of any changes on the 25th of July, then we couldn't proceed to a vote on this. Brian Stockwell 02:07:20.876
So we do need that question answered. Larry Sengstock 02:07:27.950
It does require a seconder. The procedural motion has the new standing orders have not been accepted. Frank Wilkie 02:07:38.790
So these are the standing orders. We need to adopt the new standing orders to get a seconder calendar. Karen Finzel 02:07:46.132
Okay thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:07:47.752
Okay so we'll continue on with this amendment before we break and any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? I have a question. Nicola I have a question. Nicola Wilson 02:08:06.332
So when somebody is applying applying to make a deputation are we not now saying that they need to provide the script? So has that been taken out? No. They do need to provide the script. Well that's included in the Because at the time of writing that script they would need to know whether they're writing the script for five minutes or for longer and so at that point we'd need all I believe in the discipline of trying to write a well researched and concise speech but I do see that sometimes somebody would need to go over but at what point are they asking for that extension of time? Is it at the point where they're preparing for the meeting or when they're in the meeting? It would be either or. Frank Wilkie 02:08:53.305
If they're right and they've got... Because there are calculators that can, like, 15 minutes... is about 2,000 words. A five-minute speech is 795 words. So there are ways of working out the approximate time to be taken. And if... You know, so you'd be able be able to give us an indicative time when you're applying to have a deputation, and if it happens to be running over time because of, we might speak more slowly during the deputation, you can ask to go away. Amelia Lorentson 02:09:25.605
Through the chair, can I just note, I think there is a mistake, so part of the alternate motion that I've moved forward actually deletes the word providing a script, I think that's too onerous, and so what I've asked is sufficient background material, just wanted to clarify that. Can I ask a question through the chair? Have we ever stopped a from speaking over fifteen minutes? No, so we've always afforded some leniency in terms of a five minute rule. Frank Wilkie 02:10:14.565
And it's normally the chair's looking at you and might say, well, you're 15 inches up. Would you like time to continue? SPEAKER_12 02:10:24.635
Okay. Frank Wilkie 02:10:29.800
Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 02:10:34.140
I think in the discussion there has been some statements that need to be clarified and I'll ask you as the mover. As your amendment suggests consent by council, this can only refer to at the meeting Frank Wilkie 02:11:03.383
Well, I'm hoping it's a catch-all. So, certainly at the meeting itself, certainly at the meeting itself, there's, that's when all councillors are present, but the chair has the right to approve. The application to host a deputation comes to the chair of the meeting ahead of time. So that hasn't changed. But if it goes over in the meeting, we normally include the councillors in seeking consent for the deputation to continue. I was hoping it would be a catch all. Brian Stockwell 02:11:50.940
I'll speak to it. I'm happy to support the amendment. I don't think it relates to prior to the meeting. I don't think, because that would be a change to the deputation procedure. Unknown 02:12:06.720
As someone who's known to have... incurred the wrath of Chairman of Frontier speaking too long, and it might not have been this council, probably was the last and definitely the one before where I've talked over time and been asked to wrap it up. Brian Stockwell 02:12:23.591
I know that I talk a lot better and get my points across a lot clearer if I do keep to time. I think we are actually doing deputations a great service by telling them prepare a five minute speech because as Councillor Wilson talked about, there's a degree of rigour. I think we... Unknown 02:12:44.993
He's mentioned about 700 words. That's only two pages of writing. Brian Stockwell 02:12:51.293
There's There's very few issues that can't be very well described within two pages of writing. Unknown 02:13:00.024
My experience appears to be different to most of the councillors. Brian Stockwell 02:13:04.364
I find that providing 15 minutes means we hear a lot of padding around the key issues. Unknown 02:13:10.244
And frequently... including from professionals who've given us deputations, we can hear the same point repeated three times, two times. It is not providing for good, clear communication, giving people the challenge of refining their points to a five-minute speech, which is a challenge... Brian Stockwell 02:13:30.012
Which is a challenge that we provide ourselves, I think, is a step in the right direction for democracy. Jessica Phillips 02:13:38.172
Thank you. Councillor. I'd like to speak, especially since my previous job was recognised as a national expert. expert communicator, as a police negotiator. Good, clear communication isn't defined by time, it's if the person on the receiving end understands what is being said. I can't support reducing the time our community have to present to us. Amelia Lorentson 02:14:16.760
Can I ask a question? Are we reducing the time allowed for the community to speak in this amendment? Frank Wilkie 02:14:25.919
I will answer by saying if they still want 15 minutes they can upon request. It's about, it's not about reducing the time, it's about allowing more deputations to take place at each meeting. Three instead of one. Allowing more people to participate. That's the purpose. think that's how I'm just going to run it. Okay, anyone else wants to speak to the amendment? I will just to repeat what I've already said. This is an erosion of our community. is an erosion of our community's democratic rights. We should be allowing more opportunity, not less opportunity, for them to partake in decisions that impact and affect their lives. Totally against the amendment in front of us. Karen Finzel 02:15:28.380
Just to clarify, so you're putting the 15 minutes in, it provides greater opportunity for more people to speak? Frank Wilkie 02:15:39.756
Yes, that is correct. Karen Finzel 02:15:42.396
So it's a point of democracy and giving greater diversity and voice to more people. You're saying if we put this opportunity to come and speak, originally it didn't have to be five minutes, it can be expanded upon, provide then greater opportunity for more people on different subjects across the Shire to come and speak? Frank Wilkie 02:16:09.213
That's absolutely correct, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:16:12.642
So, is that a mathematical information? So, is that only at the ordinary meeting? Frank Wilkie 02:16:22.322
No, deputations can occur at the general committee meeting or the ordinary committee meeting. I think just as a general and the ordinary, there's two opportunities at each meeting round. So potentially six people per meeting round as opposed to two. Karen Finzel 02:16:49.343
Thank you. So does that mean a voice at the table for every community? Frank Wilkie 02:16:56.943
Exclude council special meeting. And a special meeting? No. Exclude. Karen Finzel 02:17:03.063
No special meeting, I believe. Frank Wilkie 02:17:06.063
Does that help, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 02:17:08.992
Yes, it does, thank you. I don't think the wording is well worded, which is why I tried to put a break on this, because this is where the evidence is coming from our community, and it's brought a lot of unrest, a lot of support. We're sort of all doing this on the hop, in my opinion. But we do support the idea of supporting democracy by giving greater opportunity for diversity on different subjects, because of how you propose this. So I will support the motion, because I believe it does support the democratic opportunity for people to come and give voice. Amelia Lorentson 02:17:51.073
Can I ask a question through the Chair? My question is to Mayor Wilkie. I'm still confused. What was broken with our existing standard orders and what is the problem we seek to fix? Has this been an issue before? Like have we shut down shut down people from speaking because we've had a list of 10 people putting their hand up for deputations? In answer to your question, no one's been shut down from speaking. We know we've shut down people from speaking. We want to increase the number of people The problem we're trying to solve is the lack of clarity in 17.4 which talks about the deputations comprising three or more persons. Only three persons shall be used. The purpose of the deputation generally no longer than 15 minutes. So it's clarifying how those 15 minutes could be used, should be used, but this amendment allows, acknowledges that some deputations need more than five minutes, and that they can speak for longer than five minutes if they want, but we're having more people have more opportunity to use the deputation time provided at both the ordinary and the general meeting. It's not about shutting down the democracy. Okay, any others who wish to speak? Nicola Wilson 02:19:27.544
I think the problem we were trying to fix here was clarity and I'm not sure that that's... this motion resolves that by having five minutes for an extension and whether it's upon request. So I think we just need to be really clear about is it five minutes, is it 15 and then expect our community members to be able to it is. prepare for... Personally I don't mind listening to a 15-minute presentation but I would like to encourage members of the community to not necessarily use up all that time if they don't actually need it. I think we just had a great example... example from Councillor Lorentson today of how much you can actually fit into a five-minute speech if it's well crafted and when somebody actually rehearses their speech rather than just base it on a word count so that they know if they can deliver it in five minutes. So I think I would speak against this motion because I don't think it actually fixes the problem that we need to be actually really clear how many minutes somebody should prepare for and when we should allow extra time. Having said that, this opportunity to make a deputation is a way of introducing a topic to council. It's not the end of the story and the speaker and the speaker does have an opportunity to provide more information after the meeting and of course ask for meetings with councillors as well but but just on the basis of clarification I think we've we've not reached a resolution. Frank Wilkie 02:20:53.262
How would be changed to satisfy We're out behind with 15 minutes, or 5 minutes, and no latitude to extended need. Is that what you're suggesting? Nicola Wilson 02:21:10.200
Not necessarily latitude, but we're kind of saying if you ask for it, you're going to get more time, so that didn't clarify it. Amelia Lorentson 02:21:19.660
So again, just purposes of clarity, the existing standing orders allows leniency to be afforded to anyone speaking. SPEAKER_07 02:21:34.240
Again, we don't shut, we don't shut, we have never, in my experience in five years, we've never shut someone down after 15 minutes. Absolutely, absolutely not. Thank you. And if a member of a group wants to speak for 15 minutes, they can do so individually by submitting an individual deputation. Yes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:21:55.532
This does not approve that. Nicola Wilson 02:21:58.052
Okay, I'll come back to that. I think the problem we're trying to fix is 17.2 says where an application for deputation is received and appropriate period is allowed. And that's what we haven't defined is what the appropriate time period is. Because the 17.4, she was about three people. Karen Finzel 02:22:21.320
The problem that we can't resolve here, even when you look at the State... Is this a question, Frank Wilkie 02:22:27.820
Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 02:22:29.480
Is this a question then to Councillor Nicola if she would consider then putting some unwording on the C Clapham patient? Because I support the idea that we need really clear and concise information back to our community. This is where the answers come in. Is this a question to you? It's a question to Councillor Nicola if she would like to change the word. Well, okay. Frank Wilkie 02:23:01.588
No. No, she doesn't like it. So we'll test the amendment and let it stand amendment and let it stand before. There's no limit to the amount of amendments that councillors can move on this issue unless you move the original motion. So Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Stockwell, myself, we're free to move amendments to get this wording right on this issue in this meeting. again i'll repeat this is not about shutting democracy down this is about actually increasing access for more people during council's deportation times and seeking to give some clarity and latitude latitude around the time allocated to the speakers that's all we're seeking to do and please see it as a good starting point we can amend this either during this meeting or on Thursday's ordinary meeting if we in need to but i think this the is a right direction and i hope you support it i put it to the vote those in favour council wilkins stockwell yes yes councillor finzel against councillor wilson Lorentson and phillips um i'll use my casting vote to carry that and we can test this all again on Thursday and get the wording that everyone's happy with so we go back now to the original motion which has been amended and so far it's only Councillor Lorentson and councillor stockwell have spoken to it Karen Finzel 02:24:47.960
Excuse me, before we proceed forward, we have about a 15-minute break. Amelia Lorentson 02:24:52.340
Can we just finish this? I think it's only fair for people in the gallery to just finish this report. Frank Wilkie 02:24:59.860
Well, it's not unanimous that we have a break at the moment, Councillor Finzel. Sure, I respect that. So any other councillors wish to speak to this amendment of the motion, the motion now for us? I'll speak to it. Look, this is a very complicated issue. We're all on board in terms of wanting to increase democratic representation and inclusion and clarify any uncertainties in the standing orders. there's obviously there's perhaps more work that needs to be done before we get the wording right but i'm going to support this as it stands so if there's any more work that can be done before Thursday night i suggest councillors have a look at some wording that we can test on Thursday night i'm i think this is a step in the right direction and i'm going to be supporting the motion as it stands Councillor Stockwell, you've got your hands up. You've got a question? Brian Stockwell 02:26:07.640
Councillor Stockwell: I have got a question. I don't know if the appropriate staff in the room can be on notice on Thursday. Unknown 02:26:15.853
Reread it and noticed the applications on specific development applications and other statutory applications under council assessment are not allowed, is being taken out. Councillor Stockwell: Is there staff in the room that can talk to the legal risk or is...something that they can take on notice to give us a definitive advice as to the requirements under law and the risks of having deputations? In answer to your question, we've got the Director of Regulation and Compliance, Richard MacGillivray, here. Brian, he can answer your question. Richard MacGillivray 02:26:47.566
Yes, thank you councillor. Just in relation to development assessment matters, planning at the assessment rules have a clear process for assessing and deciding applications, and the rules are specifically designed to ensure procedural fairness occurs, and by that I mean for impact-assessable development. There is a very clear process for community input into that process. That balances the obligations of the applicant and other relevant parties so that all of the common material, and I say common material being all the material relied on through all of that feedback, both from the applicant's side, the community and any other relevant party that may wish to put a submission and can be fully considered and then presented to council. The risk of, through deputations, is the fact is that fact is that there is no right of reply, so procedural fairness risks do apply in that regard because there is no ability for parties to clarify any inaccurate information. Particularly just prior to an important decision being made by full council. So the advice is that it's not appropriate for deputations on development related matters given there is a formal process that's very clearly outlined through the planning act and the DA assessment rules for the community and for the applicant and for all parties to have their say through the development process. There's also significant risks from appeals, third party appeals and the applicant and community groups having a rights of appeal and if there is information that's not substantiated or accurate that can lead to potentially costly appeals if decisions are made based on misinformation or inaccurate information that cannot be prior to a decision being made. It's also relevant to point out too councillors would need to be aware of the potential for lobbying which could occur leading up to a decision being made as well. Noting the the Act's requirements regarding influencing decisions being made. So it's it's in the interest of all parties that the correct process through the Planning Act and the rules are followed for development related matters so that all parties have a fair ability to put their submissions and thoughts and views on development related matters through the correct statutory process. Frank Wilkie 02:29:21.938
Question? Can I ask you a question Councillor Stockwell? It does, I'll move the amendment. Can I please just ask a question? I'll just give the amendment. No, I'm sorry, I was going to move the amendment, there was a direct negative, I can't do that, so I'll wait until Thursday night. Okay, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:29:45.520
In terms of lobbying, my understanding under the definition that lobbying only applies to registered lobbyists. and registered lobbyists have to be recorded under Council's register. So that risk, it's not there. If they're registered lobbyists, is that correct? My advice is that they don't have to be a registered lobbyist to lobby, so there may be parties that haven't advised and Richard MacGillivray 02:30:18.677
You that they may be lobbying. The provisions under the Act relate to the ability of them seeking to influence a decision. So you might be lobbied by a party without knowing you're actually being lobbied because they're seeking to influence that decision you're making. So I guess what I would say without providing any specific advice for councillors, you just need to be very careful through that process of whether you're being lobbied against. to influence a particular decision. And the first question would be is, is to ask the question of the parties in terms of are they seeking to influence, are they lobbyists as well, because sometimes they might not disclose that with you as well. Amelia Lorentson 02:30:59.172
Can I ask one more question through the chair? So if the, if that was deletion was reinstated and that we don't allow developers or applicants to come to present deputations, my concerns are would that then prohibit residents opposing or supporting the application from making deputations on the application? Richard MacGillivray 02:31:28.081
I mean what I would say is that residents or all the applicants have the ability to provide submissions through the formal application process so that's where the parties can provide their their feedback on particular applications through a formal process and that then can be considered holistically as part of the material that's presented to full council that's that's the normal process that should be followed under the under the Act and if one party has the ability to have a deputation the other one doesn't that may impact on their their rights to an appeal potentially because they might be relying on particular information provided through that Amelia Lorentson 02:32:14.150
So my question is, if we prohibit applicants from making a deputation, if there's a development application seeking determination in council, do we then prohibit residents from making a deputation opposing or or supporting the application that's my question. That's right so my apologies for that Councillor. My advice would be that for all parties that's right so not for one specific group the applicant or community or another party is that we don't have deputations for any of those parties and the correct process to provide feedback is through the informal notification process Frank Wilkie 02:32:59.700
So far, Councillor Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie have spoken to this motion. Anyone else wish to speak before we go to a final vote on this? This will have the status of a recommendation that will go to Thursday's ordinary meeting. Nicola Wilson 02:33:23.420
Sorry, I have a question. Does that make C5 inconsistent with what Richard just advised? Frank Wilkie 02:33:33.800
No, because this is suggesting, oh yes it does, yes it does. And Councillor Stockwell, if I can venture an opinion, because this is a multi-part motion, changing one aspect of it via an amendment would not be negating the whole thrust of the motion. So an amendment would be allowed to be tested if you wish to do so. Brian Stockwell 02:34:06.018
I was too happy to. Yeah, that's that. Then I would just move that, oh sorry. Is it number five that we're talking about here? It will be, basically. Frank Wilkie 02:34:26.160
It will be, Brian. Can you see the screen? I'm just moving too quick. Brian Stockwell 02:34:32.700
Can I get the original motion and I'll tell you what to type, how's that? Frank Wilkie 02:34:38.740
She's printed the original one. Okay. It's always there. It's always Which reads, deputations, that item C, can you read it? Brian Stockwell 02:34:48.008
That item C, the amendments delete number five. Amelia Lorentson 02:34:54.208
Well, okay. And green. Frank Wilkie 02:35:09.660
Okay. All right. Look, I'll... second that for the purpose of debate. Unknown 02:35:23.180
No need to talk about it. I thought the Director outlined the reasons why we would want to vary the notion in this regard quite eloquently. Frank Wilkie 02:35:33.717
Any other councillors? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:40.840
I will speak to this one because it did challenge me a little bit. My concern was that the reality is that we get sent information for and against non-stop on every application. That we as councillors have a duty of care to do due diligence and... Prohibiting a deputation by an applicant then prohibits our community's right to make a deputation for or against me this is an equity issue we can't one hand say you know democratic processes only apply to certain people equity is equity so again I I was challenged on this one but on the principles of equity and fairness I am NOT going to support the amendment Frank Wilkie 02:36:58.480
So this would allow deputations on development applications from the applicants and communities this amendment would mean that understanding orders, there could be deputations from both applicants and community groups, residents, on development applications. development applications which are live before that particular council meeting. SPEAKER_12 02:37:30.109
No, it's the opposite. Brian Stockwell 02:37:32.889
I'm sorry, can I say something? You state the opposite. Unknown 02:37:36.096
The original motion was proposing to take this out. SPEAKER_12 02:37:40.816
My amendment puts... Frank Wilkie 02:37:42.696
So, your amendment would prevent deputations... It goes back to... Amelia Lorentson 02:37:54.443
It goes back to the original. SPEAKER_12 02:37:57.803
Oh, so we want this to go... No, no. Yes. No. Oh. Frank Wilkie 02:38:04.963
So, Brian's amendment prevents The amendment prevents deputations from occurring when there's a live application. From community or from... From community or the developer. Or applicants. It goes back to the original wording. Okay. The original. Yeah. Wording. Yeah. So deputations on specific development applications and other statutory applications of the Board of Councils would not be permitted if you support this amendment. Karen Finzel 02:38:39.832
Okay. So I'm going to take a question. Frank Wilkie 02:38:42.512
Yes, Councillor Finzel. Okay. Karen Finzel 02:38:46.172
So I'm just trying to keep track of the changes. The deputation on this amendment are not permitted. The deputations... So does that align with our policy for councillors that we're... Frank Wilkie 02:39:02.131
Sorry, that was a cough. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Karen Finzel 02:39:09.471
Sorry, I'm just... I just don't know if I'm putting away that. Amelia Lorentson 02:39:18.820
Can I step in and maybe suggest the wording deputations on specific development applications reported to council for determination. Determination. I'm not... Oh, actually, no. No reference. Oh, it is covered here. Can I just add some information? I think where Councillor Finzel was seeking to... ask the question was in relation to the councillor's policy for engagement. Yes, thank you. Richard MacGillivray 02:39:51.795
So that process is still okay. And then once the agenda is released, there is the ability for councillors to seek information, go into site inspection, talk with community residents through that normal residents through that normal process so this doesn't seem to remove any of those abilities for councillors to seek all the information necessary to be informed to make a decision this is just in relation to you know just prior to a decision being made where we have no ability for right of reply or responses which we end up in a bit of a difficult situation and make decisions based on information at that stage so just does that help answer that question councillor? Karen Finzel 02:40:35.533
Yes, thank you. Then I'm just wondering do we need to clarify that those deputations can only come once it's live given our policy restrictions? Frank Wilkie 02:40:46.573
Karen, to answer your question, this only applies to the deputations during meetings. It's not referring to the council's right to meet with applicants once the report is released outside the council. Yes. Karen Finzel 02:41:05.320
Okay. Frank Wilkie 02:41:07.200
Any other councillors have any questions about this? Okay, so I'll put the, Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? I will. Brian Stockwell 02:41:21.860
Councillor Lorentson said she would oppose basing on the equity and fairness. Staff's clear advice was not to do this. would threaten the procedural fairness of the process to the point where either a submitter or an applicant could pursue legal means to take action against Council's decision. Risky. We specifically discussed this when the 2019 changes to the Standing Orders allowed deputations. The CEO at the time said it doesn't need to be mentioned because we would never allow them to happen. It hasn't been allowed to happen. It's not something that I believe should be allowed to happen for all the reasons that the Director outlined. Frank Wilkie 02:42:20.730
Okay, we'll put it to the vote, those in favour? Yes. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Stockwell. Against? Karen Finzel 02:42:34.200
Yes, I'm a Frank Wilkie 02:42:35.580
Yes. I'm for. Councillor Finzel? Thank you. And against? Councillor Lorentson, Councillor. The motions, the amendments. motions, the amendments carried becomes part of the motion. And we now go back to the original motion. And to which only three councillors have spoken. That's Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wilkie. Any other councillors wish to speak in favour of or against this motion or move any further amendments to this You can make changes. Changes can be made at the ordinary meeting before it goes to the final vote. and you can make further amendments today if you wish, Councillor. Fantastic. Okay. Looking forward to it. Karen Finzel 02:43:43.210
Thank you. Looking forward to it. Alright. Frank Wilkie 02:43:46.450
Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to this motion that's before us? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 02:43:56.490
I will close and I'll keep it really brief. And a little bit sad that we today have potentially, and this is not a final decision, but potentially diluted some of our rights as councillors by inclusion or restrictions in terms of parameters. A little bit We set ourselves parameters that already exist. So I'm challenged a little bit with that inclusion. collision. I'm going to close. I found a really good quote. It's ex-president of the US Obama, President Obama. And he says, democracy works, but we got to want it. Not during an election year, but all the days in between. And I think that captured the essence the essence of what's happened today in the discussion that we've had today democracy also means that every voice is heard so i think i'd like to leave that that thought with all the councillors around the table as we deliberate what has been discussed today and then Thursday come to the table with clearer minds and include or exclude anything anything. that's been discussed today. I'm voting clearly in favour of the alternate motion. It upholds our democratic rights of councillors and and again it upholds the democratic rights of the community that we serve. Frank Wilkie 02:45:37.894
Let's put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's councillors Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson, Stockwell. Against? Karen Finzel 02:45:53.300
Yes. Frank Wilkie 02:45:54.480
So are you against or for, Karen? Karen Finzel 02:45:57.840
I'm for. Frank Wilkie 02:45:58.920
Okay, so that's unanimous. Karen Finzel 02:46:00.060
Sorry, what are we voting on? I'm sorry? Frank Wilkie 02:46:01.860
We're voting on the motion. sorry, Karen Finzel 02:46:04.290
I'm watching the time. Yes, it's four. Frank Wilkie 02:46:06.750
Yeah, four. So that's unanimous. That's the last item on the agenda. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. We've got a confidential item now. So thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I'd be happy for your patience and interest here today. We're going to be moving into the completion session. It's a little court matter. So adjourn the meeting in the short term. Yes? Everyone's here? Okay. Welcome back, everybody. We've now moved-- we've been re-opened after a short adjournment. adjourn, we We now now move to a confidential item, which is an appeal relating to a refusal. We'll need to go into closed session for this because it's a discussion of sensitive legal advice relating to an appeal. So I'll move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing legal advice relating to an appeal for item 7.1, appeal 1997.2024 relating to refusal of MCU 230101, material challenging use for short term accommodation 561 Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin. May I have a second for that please? Yes. Councillor Wilson, thank you. in favour? Um, councillors on line, are you in favour? Yes. Councillor Stockwell? Yes. Brian Stockwell 02:47:47.660
Sorry, yes. Frank Wilkie 02:47:48.900
Okay, that's unanimous. Now we go on to the next session. We have a, um, a motion. Okay, I'll move that in respect to Planning and Environment Court Bill 1997 of 2024, Council through the General Committee meeting dated 16 September 2024, delegate to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. I have a seconder to that. to that. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson, thank you. Any discussion? All in favour? Just before you do. Yes, Councillor Stockwell. The way you read it out, sorry I was being tragic, is it delegates or delegate? Well, I said delegate. Councillor delegates. Yes, no, I think that's correct. Brian Stockwell 02:48:52.876
Will you change the motion to reflect what you said? Frank Wilkie 02:48:56.376
Well, council is a single, so it's delegated. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, delegates. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, delegates. All right. Happy now, Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 02:49:11.600
Yeah, sorry, I just tacked in. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:49:14.700
All in favour? Yes. Yes. That's Councillor Lorentson, Phillips, Wilkie, Stockwell, Finzel. Yes. Against? Councillor Wilson. That's carried. That's the last item on the agenda. Thank you everyone for your attendance and contributions today and your patience and your discipline. I declare the meeting closed at 3.50. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
