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 Acting Director Community Services Paul Brinkman Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf Apologies (Did Not Attend)
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
Unknown 00:00.200
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 00:05.980
You know just because of course Larry Sengstock 00:11.451
It's not like I don't think you have to okay welcome everybody to the uh the General Committee Meeting on the 16th of September 2024 um but first I'd personally like to acknowledge the company that we're on the government and the government people they acknowledge their elders past present and version we um our normal Chair today flying scotland is unwell he's online well he's online to join us today so we need to that's why I'm meeting Chair as the but we need to have a motion for join the meeting yes, I am sorry and Councillor Finzel as well so we can do both in one motion I'm ready I'm happy to second by Councillor Amelia, put that to the right, all in favour, Councillor Finzel, okay Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 01:22.487
Yes, so thank you then welcome everyone, 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 01:36.635
I'm happy to move that Councillor Wilkie be appointed as acting Chairperson of the meeting due to Councillor Stockwell attending via Microsoft Teams. Thank you. Second. Larry Sengstock 01:51.579
Oh, it's moving. Yes. Sorry, it's moving. Okay. Frank Wilkie 01:59.809
Again, welcome everybody. We do have an apology from Councillor Wegener. Have a confirmation of minutes from the last General Committee Meeting, please. Responsible. Moved by Councillor Lorentson. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. Yeah, thank you. We'll we can't see you, so we'll just rely on you calling out Councillor 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 Tewantin. And this is the Noosa District Netball Clubhouse redevelopment. And we have is our first Director. Me. Oh, sorry. Councillor Jess. That's right. Jessica Phillips 03:00.165
Just declarable, please. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Councillor Phillips 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 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 member. Neither I nor my family friend stand to gain a personal or 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 Amelia Lorentson 04:08.990
As Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Frank Wilkie 04:19.350
No. Okay, we'll invite us. Yes. Thank you, that's carried unanimously. Right, we have a team here, Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray, Patrick Murphy and Tara Norwood. Would you give us a run through of the report please, tara? Sara Wilson 04:40.188
So the applicant is seeking a minor change to a 1988 town planning consent to remove the existing network 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 from McKinnon Drive as part of that relocate sorry 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 a point nine 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 a area 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 proposed the 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. In regards to the 15 metre wall length the proposed building is a maximum of 28.25 metres wide. The building is wide. The building 5.3 metres in height so it has been raised it has previously had some flood damage so the building's 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 three areas of openings at the moment it has a disability access ramp along the southern portion the building. Of we have included additional landscaping requirements to screen that building a little bit both from the internal road and from McKinnon Drive. So these are additional some changes to conditions that were provided last week to is a result of some concerns that were raised in the P&E. So that has been included with the recommendation, I believe. Frank Wilkie 07:08.774
I don't know if that was about screening and use and so on, but I don't know if that was an explanation. Patrick Murphy 07:12.945
Okay, 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 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 colours and lightweight materials to that elevation. There's also some changes 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 08:33.127
And just to clarify reasons for those changes since last week was that Council is actually the applicant in this case. And this is applying to certain sort of conditions that we really want to expand on. That's correct. Questions, Councillors or staff? Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 08:52.611
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 councils are taking on the responsibility of, you know, conditioning. Development applications to meet Noosa Design Principles. I'm wondering, a design review panel is planning, so I don't know if this is a conversation to take out of this planning meeting. Frank Wilkie 09:24.091
Okay. Yes, Yeah. Jessica Phillips 09:29.373
I have a question from last week's condition for the extra screening. Will this still meet requirements from our CPTED report with screening there? Sara Wilson 09:39.123
Catherine, can I just get your phone number? Patrick Murphy 09:43.860
So, just to reiterate, at this point in time, 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. Unidentified Speaker 10:02.725
But just to explain the CPTED requirements. Frank Wilkie 10:08.662
Just for those who don't know could you explain what that acronym means? Sara Wilson 10:13.442
It's crime prevention. Uh. Thank you. Safety by design. Yeah, safety by design. So essentially the areas shown up here are where the additional screenings proposed. So in terms of sight lines and things like that we don't think it would raise any issues around, know, safety things like that. Or like that. So I'm not sure if anybody has a different opinion in terms of that but we thought those areas were there along that boundary there away from the car park. Amelia Lorentson 10:56.016
Just for the benefit of those who didn't listen to the Planning & 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 reduced setback is considered a minor variation in this case, and how does this compare with previous development applications such as the Stockwell kindergarten development? Sara Wilson 11:28.110
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, a justification for that reduced setback given that it's approximately 30 metres from the edge of that road. Patrick Murphy 11:51.966
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 would be reasonable. In terms of the Stockwell development, I don't think it would be appropriate to comment on that at this point in time, considering there is an appeal put thank good on that matter. Frank Wilkie 12:12.555
Thank you. Right, anyone happy to move the. To I'll move. The Council of gents? Amelia Lorentson 12:27.421
One second. Brian Stockwell 12:36.102
Just, to clarify, are we moving with the amendments. Yes. Post that would recommendation? Thank you. Frank Wilkie 12:52.843
So it's moved by Councillor Phillips, seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Will we motion it? Yes. Can we speak to the motion, Jess? Jessica Phillips 13:02.013
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 13:23.840
A new flood proof clubhouse, 210 square metres, 10 new unisex toilets which we've been waiting for a long time, a social room, first aid meeting rooms in store, accessible ramps to the grandstand seating, 68 car parks, a wider. And safer road through the facility itself. It'll be a welcome addition to this great community club. Thank you. Anybody online wish to speak? Just wish to close? No, thank you. Put it to the both of those in favour? That's unanimous. Karen? Thank you. That's unanimous. Next item is application for a minor change to development approvals for a seafood kiosk, 185 Weyba Road, 185 wiley road, Noosaville. Referred from the Planning & Environment Committee for further consideration. Thank you. Sara Wilson 14:21.868
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 is 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 extension to the existing commercial use of seven square metres, which would reduce the attached dwelling size. The applicant has stated that they would be able to fire staff on site at any time, with two bakers on site from 4 and 5:00am. And two front of house 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 6:00am. To 5:00pm. And looking increase to seven days per week if the business permits. 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 plumbing that's on site, so there's 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 does not constitute a minor change. So the planning legislation 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 refreshments service under the 1973 scheme when this was originally approved, whilst the bakery was separately defined as a service shop. So as the uses were separately defined at the time of the approval, the bakery is not interchangeable with the takeaway under the existing a the applicant is therefore proposing to introduce a new use on the site. Additionally, the existing 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 car parking demands 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 proposal. The is therefore considered to be substantially different development and as such does not meet the criteria for a minor change application. The applicant's been 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 17:31.289
Correct. And surrounded because of a green area. In this area, and because of these changes from operating hours, which kiosk was open from 2:00am. Open from 6:00am. 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 open. The application is loss another change. Which means that the public notification may have an opportunity to have a comment. If the Council decided to approve it through that process, conditions could be imposed to minimise impact on the correct. Thank you. Questions, Councillors? Amelia Lorentson 18:16.081
Catherine Lawrence. I have a few. Do you have an applicant email or phone? Councillors, seeking advice prior to submitting the application in 2023? Do you have an applicant Patrick Murphy 18:28.834
Email or phone, Councillors, seeking advice prior to submitting the application in 2023? There were some discussions between the planning consultant and a member of the planning team at that time. Plans were provided. It was a relatively high level conversation. The officer has advised that they did advise the applicant that they had concerns with what was being proposed. This is quite a complex matter. There's a lot of interrogation of the approvals and the previous schemes that are required to enable a 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. Richard MacGillivray 19:14.170
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 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 advice or consideration regarding a complex proposal of this nature did over a phone call Amelia Lorentson 19:49.226
Council accept fees for the minor change application? Noosa, the applicant for the submission in 2023. After how long did Council notify the applicant that the proposed change could not be considered a minor change? Patrick Murphy 20:11.517
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 of the officers. The hurdle that's required to be overcome about whether there's a minor change or not doesn't get impacted Richard MacGillivray 20:38.923
By the process that was undertaken. To that point. None of the Planning Act is an applicant driven process, so an applicant can lodge any application under the planning scheme at any time if they choose to do so. Council is required to assess that application. Obviously, as this application did progress, staff did identify that there were issues with the proposal and factors that 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 aware 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 to have our work assessed. Jessica Phillips 21:23.605
I have a question. How much does it cost an applicant to put in a minor change application? Unidentified Speaker 21:31.802
I it would have likely been approximately $2,000, between $2,000 and $8,000. Unidentified Speaker 21:37.766
Okay. And just to follow up then, how much does it cost for a other application? Richard MacGillivray 21:45.186
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 multiple. Required for impacting consistent uses under council's Fees and Charges. Patrick Murphy 22:02.279
And the fees are generally to reflect the cost for the Council to provide the assessment of the application. In this circumstance where the application afoot has for over 12 months and there's been a lot of officer time spent assessing this application and communicating with the applicant and providing Council reports, I'd say that money has been lost there. Jessica Phillips 22:25.730
So another question then to follow up from that, how, what's our obligations around how long it takes us to assess an application for a minor application and for another? Patrick Murphy 22:38.679
Minor change, we have 20 business days to decide it, but it does not go deemed approved. It's the applicant to move forward on the 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 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 assessable application, the would not go 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 to request an extension of time to assess an application where this complexity is involved. Jessica Phillips 23:46.795
And so did we do that for this case? Because we were over the 20 days? Richard MacGillivray 23:51.554
Yes. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. And there is the ability. To extend timeframes within agreement with the applicant, or they can also choose to elect to stop the clock, which essentially ceases any assessment timeframes, particularly during the decision period where the applicant and the Council officer can assess and negotiate particular issues as well, which has happened obviously in this particular case. So the application is still within statutory timeframes as such, but there's an ability for the applicant to either extend or stop the clock while they're seeking advice or looking amendments have further discussion with Council officers. Frank Wilkie 24:33.541
I've still done the 20 day statutory timeframe. Richard MacGillivray 24:37.831
Yes, 35 business days to make a decision on the development application. Amelia Lorentson 24:48.507
In terms of cost 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 by two more information requests that require the applicant to provide or review designs which they engaged a consultant in providing. Patrick Murphy 25:13.873
That would be true. And that's the standard part of the program. The process so we can give advice and we consider it's not a minor change but 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. Making a decision on it. Jessica Phillips 25:37.224
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 25:54.436
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 new use has been introduced and as tara 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 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 need to not meet any other criteria for not to be a minor change we say it doesn't make that but we also say that there'll be new impacts and we've had to base that upon our understanding of how the premises operating and how it was allowed to operate through its conditions and now what it's seeking to do 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 one black and white assessment Jessica Phillips 27:04.858
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 a residential. Patrick Murphy 27:27.642
It has existing dwelling on the side in terms of if they wanted to redevelop that site that in that would incur similar cost to anyone that has a house 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 27:56.810
So to clarify what we're saying is can put a fish and chip shop there because it's always been that but you can't put a patisserie Richard MacGillivray 28:04.350
That's the legal approval that exists there an approval for the seafood kiosk which has been identified through the report that's that use can continue and includes that approval however because the planning scheme and the series of planning schemes prior to the Noosa Plan have identified 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 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 planning. Amelia Lorentson 28:51.498
I'm still trying to understand the severity of impacts changing fish and chip shop to the 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 again what are the practical differences in their impacts on the community. Richard MacGillivray 29:15.664
Councillor it's as mentioned because when the approval was issued the approval was specifically for a secret kiosk you can't infer 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 assessable 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. Frank Wilkie 29:49.279
So either of those pathways, the other change or seeking to have recessed as a food and drink outlet would involve public notification? Correct. So then because it's a residential everyone who lives there has an opportunity to stay, including on the change of use which would involve the opening and operating from 6am as opposed to currently 2pm? Correct, yes, correct. Patrick Murphy 30:11.562
And the introduction of. The introduction of patients eating on site, which they currently cannot do. Richard MacGillivray 30:19.313
That's right. And importantly from a land use planning perspective, the planning schemes, the Noosa planning and prior planning schemes hasn't sought to recognise a commercial this node particular on location whilst it there's an approval for the seafood kiosk, there has been a strategic intention to zone that premises for a 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 30:59.897
Any further questions? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 31:03.318
Yes. Given that property the empty hasn't been used for seafood in some years, at what point would it become abandoned. Richard MacGillivray 31:13.006
Abandonment under the funding act is a complex sort of 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 change of ownership. Shortly after the recent ownership by the applicant who has lodged this application, they have sought to make this change and whilst it is 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 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 it just back to residential accommodation then you would consider that the use could be abandoned. Staff have also mentioned that the commercial kitchen kit and 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 world around it when abandonment does occur there's instances for different types of uses where they can be mothballed or stalled 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. Frank Wilkie 33:03.000
Councillor Finzel you had a question? Are you there Councillor Finzel you're on mute? Yes my question's been answered Thank you. If there are no other questions I'll move the recommendation. I'm happy to second. I it 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 it's going to start is operating from 6am in the morning and have on site dining, I know 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 it's a residential area. The neighbourhood at least deserves the right to have a say to a publicly notified process that is how they feel about those change impacts and so I'm in favour of this going through another change process. This is the incorrect process, I do note that the applicant didn't receive written advice, formal written advice in response to their questions or be on the meeting, so very difficult, complex matter, but I support the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 34:39.918
Just a question. In terms of seating, outdoor 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. Patrick Murphy 35:08.822
Again, we'd still say that the issue of introducing new use occurring, contrary to the definition of the substantial development. Richard MacGillivray 35:21.407
And we would suggest that councils are aware of the advice sought in relation to the use that's been applied for, which doesn't meet the minor change test. Therefore, there's risks that 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. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 35:53.925
I'll speak to this. The applicant did seek advice from Council officers before lodging their application. It wasn't written, nor was it formal. Nor 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 May, the applicant emailed planning officers again requesting feedback on the application. 11th of May 2023, they were allegedly advised by phone by the Council officers that the proposed change was likely to 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 paid the 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 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 is that the should application 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 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. Their adjoining neighbours are supported 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 successful seafood kiosk, it's, in my opinion, unlikely to cause any additional impacts on parking, traffic or noise, and may even result in few 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 the current use, despite conflicts with the planning scheme. Did those Councillors make any a mistake in affording some flexibility? For our residents? Question I ask around this why can't we do the same? Seafood kiosk was approved in 1973 despite conflicts with the 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 officers 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 and 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 previous councils have done 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 bill to shut down a small local business. Who wins in this scenario? I approve this application because it aligns with current planning definition. Fairness and common sense principles. I 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 40:33.285
Councillor Stockwell, you have a question? Brian Stockwell 40:37.841
Yes, I've got a question for Councillor Lorentson. Under what part of the act do you suggest that Councillors, industry Councillors, have the ability to override ministerial development assessment bills which suggests we can't consider this a minor change? Amelia Lorentson 40:54.304
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 meeting this Thursday. The applicant also sought legal advice which was contrary opinion given by um Council at Noosa Council's. So I won't that question. I'm around sitting around a table as a community represent representative not as a lawyer even though I am the trained legally Frank Wilkie 41:36.225
Question of the staff, there is quite an extraordinary comment made by the staff this is a minor change, is there any validity to that? Patrick Murphy 41:49.113
Having spoken to the coordinator of planning and people's party to the conversations at that time, it's my understanding that it wasn't explicitly stated that it was a minor change application. There was some debate about what application should be submitted. And yeah, it was the applicant who said they would submit a minor change and see how it would go. Frank Wilkie 42:09.236
The Councillors wish to speak to them. The motion. Councillor Phillips. Can I speak? Brian Stockwell 42:12.464
Did I get in first? Councillor Phillips. Thanks. Jessica Phillips 42:15.599
I'm going to speak on social aspects from this lived here long enough to remember the water slide and pizza hut on the corner of where some young guys is now, so quite a while. When I look at that street and I've, yeah, spent my whole life I look at it from the AFL grounds, famous farmers market. Theatre, famous restaurants now, a resort. I think it's part of the natural progression of that street to have a family business operate a patisserie from there. Five or six staff, I think they said that they could employ with the patisserie baker on site living there. Can't I sit here and not support local business and honestly say that with all the considerations that you've put in front of me, I've seen that street. I know what the community expect from that street and I think they would be very supportive of seeing a yummy patisserie there. I just, yeah, 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 I can't. Support the staff's the refusal of the application. Frank Wilkie 43:59.101
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 44:03.890
Yes, there's a range of questions that Councillor Lorentson put. Alright. I won't give them all other than to say that we have unequal staff advice and unequivocal legal advice that this use cannot be approved under the application as submitted. To suggest councillors and for flexibility to override you do it in the interest of business is not an argument. 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 be done as a minor change. Kiosk. You can't would extend to a broader definition. Wasn't under the act in 1989 and 1990 when this matter was last considered. It was, contrary to what Councillor Lorentson had said, it was quite a controversial matter in that time which is identified in this report. It is zoned for residential. And did the Councillors in 1973 do the right thing or the wrong thing? It's hard to say. It was for the residents to write a small seafood operation in hard to imagine in scale at the time. But certainly we've had four different through and control our ability as the assessment manager since that time. And it is clear from the advice given. 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 46:40.323
Thank you Councillor Stockwell. May the Councillor switch to speak to the motion. Councillor Finzel, are you wishing to speak? Karen Finzel 46:54.776
Thank you Mr Chair, I did not wish to speak to the motion. Frank Wilkie 46:58.997
Yes? No. No, Councillor what's the. Wilson? No. Okay. I 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 the opportunity to have their say and appropriate conditions to be able to be imposed. If it is, to minimise the impacts. We all want to see local business prosper. I it's the principle on this occasion. Ought to be applied everywhere. So for that reason, I'm supporting the staff recommendation. Richard black, those in favour? Councillor Wilson? Yes. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell? Yes. Councillor Finzel? Against? Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson? The motion's carried. Next item, thank you, Richard. Next item is levelled on the domestic and family violence prevention champions network. And to talk about that, we have Paul Brinkman. See a rundown of what we're looking at here, because we've got a number of domestic and family violence prevention channels everywhere here, and we're also getting an answer from Mr. Councillor. Yes. Nicola Wilson 49:17.864
Hi, 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 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 respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Frank Wilkie 50:13.577
Okay. Council's had questions. Amelia Lorentson 50:16.221
Councillor Wilson. I'm happy to move that Councillor Wilson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would 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 50:38.691
Second. Amelia Lorentson 50:39.437
Seconded by Councillor Phillips. Sorry, I just skipped a word in my own language. There's some wording, let's see, impartial, a Frank Wilkie 50:49.427
Reasonable person will trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Amelia Lorentson 50:53.754
Yes. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to speak to that. 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 on the table. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 51:14.857
I'll second that. You've exercised an abundance of caution, an overabundance of caution. Thank you, thank you very much. Okay, Paul Brinkman, I'll put it to vote. Those in favour? Yes. Carried unanimously. Thank you Paul. Paul Brinkman 51:33.076
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 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, 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. Frank Wilkie 52:30.390
Questions Councillors? Unidentified Speaker 52:31.964
I have a question please. We've received the letter Jessica Phillips 52:38.062
The 12th of April 2024. There's three meetings. There's three meetings this year. We've missed one on the 16th of July. Can you just explain to me how long, how come it's taken so long for this to sit with Council? Paul Brinkman 52:51.569
I'll have to take that on notice to get back to you. I'm Acting Director at the moment so I don't have that information. Frank Wilkie 52:56.615
Sure. Question, as a SS preventive Council stuff and participating again, I have to take that on notice. Paul Brinkman 53:06.758
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 53:32.048
I move that we appoint Councillor Nicola Wilson and two staff members from community development and People and Culture as first Councillors representative on the network. I'll second. Councillor Phillips. As Councillor Wilson pointed out, she does have experience in this field in a voluntary capacity as a Director of 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. You. Karen Finzel 54:20.127
So we'll just read the motions, that's what I'd like to say to our Councillor, thank you to Nicola for putting her commentation forward. I think given her experience and her interest in the matter, she'd be well-placed to represent us well. I think it's really important that we put as many opportunities before us. It would impact them in a to timely manner. Be involved in this space at whatever capacity, given the national crisis that's being declared around violence against women. Putting a hand up and I'm looking forward to being on the track with sort of bringing the rare power of women to the courts and Council in that space. Frank Wilkie 55:04.081
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Any else who wants to speak? According to the vote, those in favour? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Finzel, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson. Yes. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, Paul. Next item is reports direct to the General Committee, which is financial performance. Report. We have Pauline, our financial manager. Pauline carls, financial services manager. How are you? Good, thank you, Pauline. How are we tracking, Pauline? Pauline 55:58.100
Okay, good afternoon Councillors. 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. Has this has been offset time. By lower than forecast rates and levies income of $27,000. Fees and Charges of $33,000, which relate to development assessment and building and planning. Operating expenses, $840,000 underspent, with $253,000 relating to employee expenses and $579 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 BR1. Capital revenues above revenue is about. Budget due to the timing of the receipt of QRA 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. Council is currently holding $123 million in cash reserves with $30.5 million invested in high yearly return deposits. Cash is at its high point in the cycle with receipts from the first rates from being received in August. This position will degrade spiritual through therapy. 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 58:02.629
Thank you Paul. Any questions, Councillors? Nicola Wilson 58:07.583
In our materials and services where we've got a little bit of an 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? Pauline 58:18.298
At this stage it would appear to be more of a timing difference. Is 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 profile budget based on updates that we receive from them, but at this stage it looks like timing. Brian Stockwell 58:32.219
Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 58:32.219
With the delay in the Destination Management Plan, when are we scheduled to review the Tourism Noosa Agreement? Pauline 58:44.897
So as far as I'm aware off the top of my head the Tourism 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 59:07.181
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, regulations or policy shifts affecting council's financial and sustainability operations? Difficult question is Trent, or through the CEO. Larry Sengstock 59:34.117
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 or what we did when we came to sign ourselves. It's funny that we don't know about that. So that's the best I can do. So I think that at this point, we don't know. We'll have to wait a few years to find out. Frank Wilkie 01:00:00.199
Pauline, the revenue for the holiday parks is consistently above budget. What's going on there? Have we aimed to. Pauline 01:00:10.247
An initial sense, but I just we do the budget, we always budget conservatively based on our previously historic performance. So 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 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 01:00:42.354
And the increase in interest rates in maine, a benefit to supplementing the rate payer funds and cash that are returning on ratepayers. What's the four provisions like in that regard? Pauline 01:00:56.931
This. Well, based on. At this stage it's life-riskful, but not till probably later next year. So we are kind of maximising our interest revenues and some of the delay in capital gains also helping us out with higher cash balances. So at this stage we're seeing around 5% and this stage in terms of investment in our cash, which is higher than we had originally budgeted for. We expected that it would fall. Frank Wilkie 01:01:24.407
Any other questions for anyone? Karen Finzel 01:01:26.597
Yes please Mr Chair. Councillor Finzel. In terms of sales of goods and services, I suspect waste management fees is below budget. Can you just talk to us a little bit about what's going on there in that space. Pauline 01:01:39.807
Yep, sure. So I've spoken to the business area. Waste management fees? Yep. So in terms of sales of goods and services, Council? Yes. So in that respect, a delay they've terms of their timing of their operational budget of sales of metal sails. So they were anticipating a larger sale of metal. I think that's just a timing issue at this stage. Karen Finzel 01:02:05.365
Okay, thank you. Is there any shortfall with the services? Sale of the steel? Frank Wilkie 01:02:12.971
Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Could you say that again please, Councillor Finzel? You're breaking up. Can I get you to speak closer to the microphone if possible, please? Karen Finzel 01:02:20.290
Sure. I'm just interested in how that's being addressed with the, or the feeds, where they might be protected. Pauline 01:02:29.445
Is there a process for protecting how they go? To get us up to speed with the projected pocket. 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. They just haven't, it hasn't happened yet. Unknown 01:02:50.819
Yeah. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:02:54.905
Yeah. Any other further questions for staff? Amelia Lorentson 01:02:59.238
A question that hasn't been asked and 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. Can I ask? Pauline 01:03:15.367
I think that probably it's delivering the grant funding programs with the constraints and resourcing that 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 01:03:34.082
Organisation so, your question, it doesn't relate to human resourcing, or is it the capacity of the organisation to deliver? Yes, okay. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:03:47.531
I have a question to say, I haven't been on any sites in terms of tracking staff. Larry Sengstock 01:03:51.645
In terms of the finance department, we're a little short-handed at the moment, and we'll get out to the market a couple of times, as it's very difficult to get a appropriate and of it. Properly trained and skilled people in this area, so we haven't been continuing to do that, so I'll tell you we're watching and listening. It's very difficult to find the right way to release it, but it's very difficult to find the right way to track it. Move on to the next one. The organisation is in particular industries in different areas. We're having trouble or we find it difficult to track the right 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 far against on that now. Kind of bonus. Yeah, I think we're Peter in a position where trade is very strong in the US. It's just that in finance, for some reason, it's not very much. It's starting to be a little bit okay. Unfortunately, it falls back onto probably the entertainment and trade sector. Jessica Phillips 01:04:57.326
Can I ask a follow-up question on that? Yeah, of course. Internal performance, like, what sort of training do we do to even encourage, you know, someone to move up through the organisation? Larry Sengstock 01:05:11.377
If we can't outsource. Look to promote in general where possible, absolutely. I think that's one of the money games, being a multi-skilled, multi-disciplined organisation. There are opportunities for people to move across and up in the organisation. So this is entirely. Which is what happened with me. I progressed some of the previous positions. This is something I've heard a great deal about. Is Cecilia. This is still a little bit of a strategy we've been defying. And if you look in the news paper or in the strategy log or anything, we're looking for employees. Other councils are also. To find people in this project that was known to be in the finance area. We provide australians with care, we identify people we want, to bring them Jessica Phillips 01:06:06.303
And then, so I guess the general question around, like, do we have anyone from our staffing in our schools promoting our workplace with within our local community. Pauline 01:06:20.120
I was going to say, I'm also about schools, but definitely university. Okay. Frank Wilkie 01:06:29.080
Thanks. You. Any further questions or comments? If so, I'll move the motion, please. Moved by Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilson will speak. Nicola Wilson 01:06:43.610
Not much. Just thank you for another thorough report and for all the answers to your questions. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:06:50.017
You, Colleen. The report's always extensive and highly detailed and it's really appreciated how the Council has asked for further information. We're always willing to provide it now to the already extensive financial report. We've got a lot of indicators going on, so thank you. Put the motion those in favour? Guess along. It's unanimous. Pauline 01:07:15.952
Thank you for that. Frank Wilkie 01:07:17.455
Next item is a revised Standing Orders and other related policies and procedures. I'd like to move an alternate motion. Sorry, thank you. A summary first. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:31.528
Summary first, I'm happy for that. Thank you very much. Larry Sengstock 01:07:37.516
Okay, cool. So this report obviously is got quite a bit of attention and interest, so I'll just see what I can do before we move forward and I know there are a lot of questions that have been proposed, so we can talk about this. Report provides on the legislative changes introduced by the local government. It provides an update on the legislation amendment act 2023, which went into parliament on Wednesday 16 November last year. It includes amendments related to the model meeting procedures, addressing changes to meeting procedures, Councillor contact and investigation processes. Council is required to adopt these amendments, which are included in this report and in the standing order changes, and documented there, and the State is asked to conduct a general review of the Standing Orders of Council meetings policy, which hasn't been done since 2019, 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 the revised Standing Orders of Council meeting 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 to make a change to the, same. Standing Orders, other than the adopted model needed for procedures, which we are, we will go to day no one. All councils do. You. The first one is petitions. The major change there is that we've taken our sort of referred to in the, Standing Orders that were later a specific procedure, a standalone procedure. We've, done for a number of these. The a petition submitted to make the changes to this, the petition to be submitted a few days prior to the meeting. Previously there was no amendment to the requirement. Uh, the reason for that is to allow the staff to, um, make sure that it's properly, formed and properly presented. We've, done our petition prior to it being made on the table at our meeting and the use of the template provided by Council is encouraged. Um, in terms of the public question time, the major changes are now, a standalone procedure replacing the current public question time guideline. Um, 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 previous in three days. In terms of notified motions, the major change there, and it stays within the scanning orders, so it's not taken out as a separate piece. The major change, any notified motion that commits the Council to expenditure in excess of $10,000, inclusive of staff resources and the entire passport for notified a Council report. Where a motion is likely to commit Council to significant expenditure not included in the adopted budget, then the notified motion must only call for a referral to and for council's consideration as part of its future year's annual budget process. The second piece of data, and I know that it's again gaining some public interest, my and I recognise the people in the audience here today, is the piece from. 1868 section 1848 for Noosa motion referring to the city area. This has been through three workshops and has been, this is proposed, and again it's proposed, it's only a recommendation, again for debate and for decision. It's proposed because what we're looking to do as, the 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, um, deliver, and there's operations and offices we continue to deliver in line with the agreed operational plan, Corporate Plan, and, um, branch plans. So we're going to be able to operate on an annual basis. So it's really just to, ensure. Assure and help and allow us to ensure 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, so this is not something that we've dreamed up. Are a number of councils that actually already operate under these rules. So it's just something, again, it's a recommendation for Council to decide. It's something that, again, as CEO and as officers, we believe that it just gives us some. Little. 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 our operating model and our agreed deliverables for that. Year. The next one is public question time. 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 so they are the changes that are proposed, and I'm really glad that they are proposed. And if questions, then we'll. Councillors? Brian Stockwell 01:13:47.175
Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 01:13:48.475
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 you've called me out. I don't know who this is. I have the answers I'll address it in my speech I wasn't linked I didn't and we need mean to catch her you out as a CEO. It was a very honest question. Any other questions? In terms of benchmark benchmarking Standing Orders, has there been any benchmarking of our Standing Orders against other councils of similar size and budget, particularly third tier councils? Larry Sengstock 01:14:43.445
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 benchmarked across a range of councils, not just in Queensland but across Australia. Yep, it has been subject to workshop number one and two. Nicola Wilson 01:15:02.866
As part of that benchmarking, what was the general findings about was the general findings about deputations from other councils of whether they allow them and for how long? Larry Sengstock 01:15:12.841
A number of councils don't actually allow them and it ranges from 3 minutes up to 15 minutes. To do this, I'm going to keep doing this. The model, in procedures, it says, for example, 15 minutes. It doesn't say, it doesn't give any exact. Brian Stockwell 01:15:37.191
I have a question, just in relation to deputations. Thanks. Jessica Phillips 01:15:42.926
Why are we looking at a change? Larry Sengstock 01:15:47.036
What was the driving. First of all, there's been some feedback that the 15 minutes is a long time, and has also been some discussion around the interpretation of the existing Standing Orders which say five, three minutes. So it's whether the 15 minutes of three times five minutes or whether the 15 minutes per deputation is not clear, and we've had discussions table on but 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 01:16:30.437
The capacity for the Council to provide answers to the questions and issues raised in the invitations. Is that part of what's. Larry Sengstock 01:16:38.657
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 then. Provided in this. Some of your sons. Jessica Phillips 01:16:55.536
Okay. You. Just another question. Apart from a deputation, then, in question time, when can community stand in. Front of Councillors and provide how they feel about their community? Larry Sengstock 01:17:08.124
If we don't have that, what's another. Jessica Phillips 01:17:10.868
No, no, but what's another example? How else can they online give their community a voice. Frank Wilkie 01:17:21.463
You mean in a formal meeting session? Jessica Phillips 01:17:23.987
Yeah. If there's no 15-minute deputation or a change to that, what's another way our community can talk to Councillors in a formal setting where we're all sitting in a room. Frank Wilkie 01:17:35.300
You mean apart from organising meetings with Councillors? Brian Stockwell 01:17:39.961
But another one like we're online? There's. I guess there's not. I don't time. Another. Is there? Larry Sengstock 01:17:47.966
No, we're not talking about deputations. All we're saying is we're reducing the Frank Wilkie 01:18:08.026
Instead of one. Except there'd be five minutes each. Larry Sengstock 01:18:11.250
We're saying if we do, we don't have to do deputations. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:16.535
How's the launch? Regarding deputations, what do the best practice examples provided by the State say about deputation times and limits? Larry Sengstock 01:18:28.717
The best practice guide does not provide an exact advice on that, it just provides an example which is 50 minutes for deputations but it doesn't really venture into different formats or whether that should be per deputation or provides, it doesn't provide any advice of the timeframe allocated in accounts and into deputations. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:51.718
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 is it also written confusingly? My understanding the Standing Orders provided by Council are very clear that it's 15 minutes per speaker. Am I correct? For deputation? Larry Sengstock 01:19:21.577
For deputation. That's the piece that's been part of our discussion. It's not each Council has had and officers have a different interpretation of that. What we want to clarify. So it's 15 minutes or it's 3 by 5 minutes. Amelia Lorentson 01:19:38.848
Can I ask, can we have the section of our Standing Orders read? Because have you got a copy there Nicola? Yeah. Nicola Wilson 01:19:52.423
So this so the relevant parts are 17.2. The CEO on receiving an application for deputation, trying to find the Chairperson. I'm going to skip ahead a bit here, so 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. So it doesn't actually state how many minutes. 17.4 starts with the 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 by the meeting. So that 15 minutes is specifically in the paragraph that talks about deputations comprising three or more persons. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:37.678
So that aligns with the State definition which is to allow appropriate reasonable time for the community to make their deputation. Frank Wilkie 01:20:50.832
Okay. Just a minute. To go to the question, that's 17 points forward, deputations comprising three or more persons, only three persons shall be at liberty to address Council, unless the Council discerns otherwise, and this is where it also says generally no longer than 15 minutes. Why some Councillors were confused as to whether that's five minutes per deputation or 15 minutes per deputation. That's the source of the confusion which we're hoping to clarify today. Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:21:24.979
Just to add to that, to try and get some clarity around it, and certainly, you know, we don't want the intent out there in the community to look like we're in any way minimising all of our learning. And, right, you know, there is, you know, no way that we're going to be standing for that. So I'm just like, in front of me, I've got the best practice example under the State development, best practice Standing Orders. Under deputations 7, 7.2, it actually says in there, I will read the last bit of the paragraph, the CEO will inform the deputation of the determination in writing where it has been determined that the deputation will be heard, a convenient time will be arranged for that and an appropriate time allowed, and that individual will be heard. Brackets, like e.g. 15 minutes. In 7.3, following on from that, the deputation is comprised of three or more persons, only three persons. Shall be at liberty to address local government meeting, excuse me, I want Councillors at the meeting to permit otherwise high resolution, excuse that information 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. Excuse me which is really concerning, but we need to be very we need to be very careful. 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 read this document, there's brackets on Standing Orders through the State government to try and help inform this meeting today around how we set clarity in the wording of the Standing Orders. The general questions at this time, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:12.135
Do you want to move your I'd like to move my alternate motion, please. Could I please have that on the screen? That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 16 September 2024 regarding the amendment of Noosa Council orders and other relevant policies and procedures and a adopt updated Standing Orders for Council meetings policy provided at attachment one and repeal current standing order policy adopted 19 November 2020 subject to the amendment updated Standing Orders section 18 notified motions to delete the following words 18.8 the CEO may reject a notice of motion which 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 proceedings six months d is outside the powers of Council e relates to an operational surplus 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 is 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 amendments of items 1, 3 and 6 and the deletion of item 5 as follows 1 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 3 the applicant must provide Council with the deputation topic and sufficient background material whereby the CEO on receiving an application of a 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 deletion of number five that for deputations per calendar 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 deputations will only be permitted on applications reported to Council for determination d adopt the new public question time procedures provided in attachment four and thereby repeal current public question time guidelines adopted on 17 October 2019 and e adopt the Councillor investigation policy attachment seven and repeal current Council investigation policy as adopted on 19th of November 2020. Frank Wilkie 01:27:28.735
I'll second that. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:30.171
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 Standing Orders about notified motions and deputations, which comply with the Local Government Act and the principles of democratic representation, community engagement and transparency. Mandated by section 4 of the Local Government Act. The proposed changes to 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? The current system has functioned well for years. For example, I brought to your Council two significant notified motions on Burgess Creek last without any issues. Over the past five years 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 I have so far moved to 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 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 as 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 I 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 CEO or administration having the power to veto Councillors motions the fight is about safety about safeguarding the democratic rights of all Councillors and the community we serve. And the democratic rights of our community to 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. 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 no notified motions to those aligning only with the operational and corporate plans. Two, grant the CEO the authority to refuse the motions deemed not to meet these 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 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 future interests of residents. And furthermore, section 4 of the Local Government Act emphasises democratic representation, transparency and community engagement, principles that the proposed changes, in my opinion, would undermine. In regards to deputations, limiting deputations to five minutes and restricting their frequency weakens the public's ability to 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 type of public deputation is, to me, an unjustifiable attack on residents' democratic rights. 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 allowing applicants of development applications to have their say. Equity must be upheld in all aspects of democracy. That's how democratic processes work through 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 support the motion that protects the democratic rights of Councillors and the democratic rights of the community. We serve. Question time. Frank Wilkie 01:33:23.394
Advice from governments. Do these proposed changes in any way reach any aspect of our government? I don't know if you'd like to start, if you'd better make it as normal. No. Thank you, Diane from governments. I would like to move an amendment. That agrees. 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. Are councils are encouraged to lodge notices which I would like to be 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, do not relate to an operational surplus request or a matter that can be handled under delegation; f are not matters subject to a Council decision-making process which is commenced but is not yet complete. May I have a seconder it. For that, please? Councillor Wilson, thank you. Look, Councillors, I believe this is entirely consistent with the first motion that we're considering, which goes to the heart of the powers that both the member and Councillors have and the CEO has. A general feeling that the proposed changes to notify motions places too much power in the hands of the CEO and takes that away from the Mayor and the elected body. At the same time, we do want to encourage outcomes. Notify motions 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 of motion which do these things but we don't need to give the CEO veto power over these things in order to achieve them. So that's the reason so for moving this amended motion. It gives some guidance to Councillors without diminishing the power of the narrowing elected body or imbuing the CEO with. We've-- sort so the CEO can be an unacceptable level of authority under the Council body. That's the reason for moving it. Nicola Wilson 01:36:20.106
Can I ask could I ask a question to the CEO, to the Chair? What are the opportunities to Councillors have to present items for discussion or consideration other than a notified motion? Larry Sengstock 01:36:38.323
Where councils can bring ideas for reports or for notification or discussion that they've done at their CPS. We have a regular meeting set up at that forum for that. So if it's a basic report. Statistics or some data, then that's where that problem comes through, but yes, that's the other option. Nicola Wilson 01:37:01.496
And if they 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 01:37:11.950
It's also an opportunity to convert come directly to me and forward the reports and then we can have that discussion and bring it to an alarm. Frank Wilkie 01:37:20.356
I don't know how to put it in support, so why is it not an issue? So you're saying if Councillors haven't got their emerging thank issues you. They can request a report from the CEO, either directly or through the councillor's discussion forum. They don't need to use a complainant, that's the only process. Any other questions, Councillors, pertaining to the. Amendment. I mean, Councillor Clarence. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:45.019
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 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 vires 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 01:38:43.963
And the Councillors wish to speak to the amendment. Karen Finzel 01:38:49.739
Just a clarification I want because I can't see the screen. Has this question at the beginning been summoned? Seconded this motion? Yes. Who? Can you please remind me who was that? Frank Wilkie 01:39:04.166
Nicola, Councillor Nicola. Sorry, the original motion. Karen Finzel 01:39:07.376
Is this the amendment or the original motion? Frank Wilkie 01:39:10.043
No, this is the amendment. So the original motion was moved by Councillor Amelia, seconded by Councillor Jessica Phillips. The amendment was moved by myself, seconded by Councillor Wilson, and the amendment is asked, substituting words that councils 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 01:39:41.873
Ms I can't see that no. Frank Wilkie 01:39:44.798
Is there anyone with the main screen available? She's got the screen. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:49.426
The screen's being shared. Frank Wilkie 01:39:51.273
The screen's being Karen. Nicola Wilson 01:39:57.765
We clarify that taken out. Thank you. The item above that gives the CEO the. Frank Wilkie 01:40:03.093
Yeah. Yeah, so this is taking out the CEO's ability to veto a notice of motion on these grants. Grounds. It's just general guidelines. It's become generally. Non-mandatory guidelines for Councillors for when they're lodging a notified motion that is relevant and focused. That's the purpose of it. Okay, so and any other Councillors who wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:40:39.223
Yes, a lot of interest. I'll be sure to speak to the amendment. Frank Wilkie 01:40:51.805
Would you speak closer to the microphone, please? Brian Stockwell 01:40:53.541
I do apologise. Stockwell: I do apologise. Is that better? 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. The important things with notices of motion is when they're effective, they. Do bring a matter more urgently through to the meetings. What happens when they are misused is we make decisions without the full and informed basis of a report, which we know has caused issues in past. The issue of the Burgess Creek taking staff off planned activities for many months, such that the corporate planning performance criteria in that area were not met. Here's an example. Frank Wilkie 01:41:47.428
Sorry, can get a hear something? Karen Finzel 01:41:48.248
Sorry, I didn't hear that. Okay. Sorry, whoever's interrupted can't. Will Stockwell, I didn't hear that comment clearly. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:41:56.701
Can I shut sorry, it's just a reminder to go everything. Microphones are very sensitive. You can assist us by refraining from talking. That would be really helpful. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Stockwell. Unknown 01:42:12.435
The issue with the Noosa motion is that it doesn't go through all the normal processes that our budget deliberations, for example, go through. Brian Stockwell 01:42:23.229
So I completely understand the desire of staff to ensure that they're not used to, I suppose, have a knee-jerk reaction to something. But this, once again, your amendment is a preferable one. It does take us and put the responsibilities back on Council, so I'm happy to support it. Frank Wilkie 01:42:44.794
Stuff will. Question. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 01:42:49.837
So, your amendment is not suggesting any changes to the report suggesting we reduce deputation time. Frank Wilkie 01:42:59.309
No, this is only to do with. You're just taking the section from just for me, sorry. This is only to do with notify motions. It removes the CEO's power to veto motions based on 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 go ahead it doesn't limit your capacity to lodge a notified motion at all and it does not give the power to veto a motion even if they're contrary to these conditions Unidentified Speaker 01:43:40.233
And sorry just to clarify then in relation to amelia's Frank Wilkie 01:43:45.220
It's going to come back up to this and it doesn't change amelia's at all amelia's at all except for this section yeah yeah so it takes it's the CEO will still not be able to veto a notice of motion based on these Amelia Lorentson 01:44:03.102
Grounds can I Through the Chair can I actually yes question that you said it doesn't change a it does change a so this is a good idea okay Through the Chair to the CEO can you confirm currently Councillors have the ability to rule out a notified motion is that correct under the current Standing Orders okay so in your opinion is the amendment in front of us of redundant. That ability is I it. Larry Sengstock 01:44:45.449
Don't think it is. My interpretation of it is that it's just clarifying it prior to giving some parameters around what Noosa 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, if it goes this way then it will still come back to the Mayor as the ability and then the Council will listen to the meeting. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:11.703
Noosa motion should include or so through the CEO I've got all my motions here all over the place. I've had a bit of experience in notified motion. Can I ask the process that I've been engaging with you prior to actually putting my notified motion out 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 um and it's yeah Karen Finzel 01:45:45.491
You. Larry Sengstock 01:45:45.694
Thank you Karen Finzel 01:45:53.401
I just have a question yes please uh Through the Chair to the CEO um is there a definitive timeline when we have to have these scanning orders Larry Sengstock 01:46:12.684
No not definitive we um we do need to include or accept the um the changes from the government the other changes Karen Finzel 01:46:29.219
So apart from adopting the legislative changes put a time frame that would be that right? Larry Sengstock 01:46:38.301
You could go there apart from Councillor, yes. Karen Finzel 01:46:41.609
Yes, so we could do like put forward a proposal that we ratify the legislative changes that meet us within that requirements and then separate the other matters under our Standing Orders for Council meetings to be moved to another meeting time. I just feel this that 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 got um new samples on board. My question is well perhaps I just proceed more motion onto the table that we just move this and defer this until another meeting at the next General Committee in October. It over. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:47:45.277
Okay so Councillor Finzel has moved a procedural motion to defer the matter to the October meeting that correct? The name is seconded to the procedural motion. So defer the matter to the October meeting. By point of order Mr Chair. Yes, what's the point of order? If you read the Standing Orders you do need a seconder. Okay, well we'll just get the motion right first. It's the new ones that got moved. So I'm ahead of myself. Defer the matter to the October meeting round to allow further rollout, what further council to the October meeting discussion round to allow on further the matter. Councillor discussion on the matter. Karen? Karen Finzel 01:48:35.867
Yeah, not, so it's part of it, but I think we need to be very specific, and I can see, I just don't think right now, wording through the paper, and it's challenging, you know, and broad matters before us, I'm just not comfortable with it. Appears we're just beating on the spot. We've got two Councillors that aren't 100% 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 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 01:49:21.645
Okay, we'll get a seconder for this. Is anyone prepared to second the motion? It looks like it's lapsed for one of the second of Karen, it looks like all Councillors. Karen Finzel 01:49:37.375
Is that correct that needs a seconder for procedural motion? Frank Wilkie 01:49:40.861
I believe so we currently need a second to see the motions, don't we? Karen Finzel 01:49:49.646
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 rights in the community that contacted me and given that there's no actual frame for when this needs to be done, that I've given them any support even to bring it to the State I'm on at, I'm standing Frank Wilkie 01:50:09.461
In the same place today as them. Karen Finzel 01:50:12.006
Alright Karen, point noted. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:50:16.808
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? I have no questions about the amendment, I think, yeah, it doesn't matter. All right. Okay. I'll close. Councillors, this does not in any way erode a councillor's right to lodge a notified motion. It's not 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 ratified 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 relevant to the local government and 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 motion being put up. This is not about us Councillors, it's about practices, good that will be, future Councillors will be the beneficiary of. So, I ask that you support this amendment. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell. Okay, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Stockwell. Against? Brian Stockwell 01:52:19.993
Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Phillips. Karen Finzel 01:52:23.495
Councillor Finzel yes. Frank Wilkie 01:52:25.983
Councillor Finzel. I'll use my casting vote. It's carried. Okay, we go back to the original motion. Karen Finzel 01:52:43.264
Just. Excuse me Through the Chair. Yeah. Just prior to, like, writing in the reason why that. Procedural motion, now 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. Okay. It was also looked at the wording and get it precise and put it back against also the other legislation and act to make sure that we've got it right. Frank Wilkie 01:53:19.537
Okay, noted Councillor--- Is it a-- Karen Finzel 01:53:21.778
Isn't just because it doesn't actually reflect what I have to say. Frank Wilkie 01:53:27.602
Okay. Well, we can amend the Minutes to reflect that. Oh, sure, thank you. Okay. So we can do our further discussion to get the wording right on motions. Karen, get the wording right on the proposed changes. Karen Finzel 01:53:46.312
It's in doolidge 4 that this Council is not under disrepute and nor are we seen to be diluting the opposite. Frank Wilkie 01:53:54.882
Okay, all right. Okay. I think the wording covers that. Get the wording right on the 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 should speak to this motion? We have the full motion. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:54:28.344
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 are how we set up our system of meetings to get informed and the deliberative 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 reasonable timeframe to clarify what was always intended in 2019 is no way diminishing democracy a very small and number of people who have been encouraged to make their views known do 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 opportunities for community consultation. We have coffee chats. Participate in local government. There are a myriad of 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 original 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. Isn't, is certainly an improvement in terms of our meeting. I think that a 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 Scott Waters was CEO. It was very apparent we've 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 01:57:26.651
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 to each meeting for members of the community to present deputations. Maximum of five minutes will be allocated to 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 in 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 two after three speakers. Currently one person can speak 15 minutes, one deputation usually for the meeting. This allows an 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 ten, maybe even fifteen minutes each anyway, upon request. It clarifies the wording. So this is not about limiting and deputations. It's actually about increasing access to more than one person per deputation. To allow at least three, to allow three if that's required. And also, they want to have the speed 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 were really, they enjoyed hearing the immediate responses to questions on notice provided by staff. So questions are provided and the staff provide a written answer 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 in it, the current Standing Orders does not allow Council to provide an immediate response to those questions or requests that are contained within the deputation. So this amendment contains the capacity to allow that response. To occur. And it also allows each deputation to be longer than five minutes upon request. We're not limiting 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 assets. But we're on the same page here. Inclusion. We all learned a lot through hearing back from our residents to any argument here that infers that certain councils are against democratic inclusion, trying to shut down democracy or block councils. Council's capacity for the community, or capacity to have a say through notified motions or deputations is misleading the community. This is about actually increasing equity of access. So I hope you support this amendment. This. Jessica Phillips 02:01:06.321
I have a question, Mr. Mayor. The wording upon request suggests that the question is, upon request, in my opinion, the interpretation means that could then A request is, could suggest that you could say no. Is that a question or a comment? It's a question. Could the wording upon request suggest that we can say no? Well, be fine. Frank Wilkie 02:01:39.291
We haven't today. In terms of Councillors being allowed to speak longer than five minutes, we've just allowed it. So what wording would you like to see there with an extension of time allowed upon request? Jessica Phillips 02:01:55.890
And that's what I'm in my opinion upon request says. Frank Wilkie 02:01:58.297
Well, it doesn't say allowed or refused upon request. It says allowed upon request. So. Amelia Lorentson 02:02:09.013
Would you prefer definitive, definitely allowed upon request? Just remove the words upon request, I think is what's been asked. The extension of time, allowed upon request. Frank Wilkie 02:02:20.706
That can the purpose of it is, like, it has to be in response to a request. The resident needs to ask to receive it. Jessica Phillips 02:02:34.148
Why are we asking our community to ask to speak? Upon request. Why? For a longer time. As a new Councillor, I've enjoyed-- well, I mean, we can allocate unlimited time, but-- 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. Okay, in answer to your question, Frank Wilkie 02:03:03.406
It's about clarifying the 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 02:03:15.274
But then it's reducing someone to five minutes, because 15 minutes me we could listen to three 15-minute deputations, and that would take 45 minutes. Frank Wilkie 02:03:24.328
It could. 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 against it if you want. Us, you'd- Amelia Lorentson 02:03:35.288
Thanks, Mr. Clerk. 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 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 02:04:08.034
Well it says, "Adopt the new deputation procedure provided at attachment 3 with the procedure to be amended to read minutes in 15 total. So the dictation procedure as written as provided in attachment 3, with the conditions contained within that, would be adopted aboard this change that 15 minutes in total will 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 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 02:05:00.467
And then I have so question, okay, question Through the Chair. Don't we already afford that opportunity to an individual deputation? So if someone in a group wants to speak more than five minutes, they can, just write a request an individual deputation of 15 minutes. Okay, thank you for the question. 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 individual deputation, which allows them 15 minutes to speak. Frank Wilkie 02:05:42.953
Up to 15 Amelia Lorentson 02:05:46.430
Okay. Frank Wilkie 02:05:47.629
And it's saying an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting Chair and by consent of the Councillors and panel. I don't think Councillors will say no. Karen Finzel 02:05:59.470
Excuse me, Mr Chair. Yes, Councillor febbs-Ellen. Well, a couple of things. Sorry to interrupt. You're right. Firstly, request a break given we've been at this for two hours and I think that's reasonable. Secondly, while we're on the break, which is not permitted, but at some point, I could look up a record of motions to be seconded and there, under receipt for motion 15.2, are exemptions of the rule for needing a second. 26th of July, 2024. Can we please come a little bit okay, back? Frank Wilkie 02:06:35.166
We'll adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes and we'll. Our councillor's okay to adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes. Amelia Lorentson 02:06:46.899
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 02:06:57.006
We're going to finish this amendment. Can I ask you to put your hand up and then to Councillor Wilson? Brian Stockwell 02:07:04.202
I don't think if Councillor Finzel's question is one of process and her perceived. 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. So we do need that question answered. Frank Wilkie 02:07:29.010
Requires a second if that's Councillor we're saying enough Larry Sengstock 02:07:33.628
The procedural motion has the new Standing Orders have not been accepted Frank Wilkie 02:07:37.941
So these are the Standing Orders. We need to adopt the new Standing Orders to get a seconder calendar. Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:07:45.325
I've brought the Standing Orders. Frank Wilkie 02:07:46.838
Okay, thank so you okay so there's we'll continue on with this amendment before we break and any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? A question. Nicola Wilson 02:08:06.550
So when somebody is applying to make a deputation, are we not now saying that they need to provide the script? Unidentified Speaker 02:08:17.023
So has that been taken out? No. They do need to provide the script? Frank Wilkie 02:08:20.526
Well that's included in the. May I? Nicola Wilson 02:08:24.721
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. Believing the discipline of trying to write are 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 Frank Wilkie 02:08:48.335
Org community if they're right, then they've got because there are calculators that can, like a 15-minute speech is about 2,000 words, which is 795 words so there are ways of working out the approximate time to be taken and if script, you know, so you'd be able to give some indicative time when you're trying to have a deputation. And if it happens to be running over time because of, I'm not speaking slowly, more slowly during the deputation, you can ask to go over. It's flexible. See you. Amelia Lorentson 02:09:26.610
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. So what I've asked is sufficient background material. Just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Can I ask a question Through the Chair? Have we ever stopped a group from speaking over 15 minutes? No. So we've always afforded some leniency. Yeah. In terms of a five-minute rule. Frank Wilkie 02:10:15.063
And it's normally the chair's looking at you and might say, "Well, you're 15 minutes is up. "Put your arm down. Time to continue." And we'll pause. Amelia Lorentson 02:10:24.003
And we're out. Frank Wilkie 02:10:24.663
Okay. All right. Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 02:10:32.540
Yes. I think in the discussion there has been some statements that need to be clarified. And I'll ask you as the mover. Amendment suggests consent by Council. This can only refer to at the meeting itself. Is that correct? Frank Wilkie 02:10:59.140
Well, so I'm hoping it's a catch-all. So certainly at the meeting itself. At the meeting itself there's, that's why all councils are present. But the Chair has the right to approve the advocate's 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. Seeking for the deputation to continue. So I was hoping it would be a catch-all. Brian Stockwell 02:11:53.209
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. As someone who's known to incurred the wrath of chairman of frontenac 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. 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. He's mentioned about 700 words. That's only two pages of writing. There's very few issues that can't be very well described within two pages of writing. My experience appears to be different most of the Councillors. I find that providing 15 minutes means we hear a lot of padding around the key issues 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 that we provide ourselves, I think, is a step in the right direction. For democracy. Nicola Wilson 02:13:42.668
I'd like to speak, Jessica Phillips 02:13:44.693
Especially since my previous job was recognised as a national 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 02:14:17.362
Can I ask a question? Are we reducing the time allowed for the community to speak in this amendment? Frank Wilkie 02:14:26.561
I will answer it 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. And put some discipline around it. Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Amelia Lorentson 02:14:54.439
I will just to repeat what I've already said. This 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 02:15:27.382
Just to clarify, so you're proposing that by putting the 15 minutes in, it provides greater opportunity for more people to speak within the time frame? Yes, that is correct. So in support of democracy and giving greater diversity and voice to more people, you're saying we put this to come and speak. Originally, it took five minutes. It can be expanded upon. Provide then greater opportunity for more people on different subjects in front of the show, I don't want to speak. Frank Wilkie 02:16:09.653
That's absolutely correct, Councillor to Finzel. That. So, is that a mathematical information? So, is that only at the Ordinary Meeting? No, deputations can occur at the General Committee Meeting or the ordinary committee meeting. Nicola Wilson 02:16:27.969
Just ask this is always a thing and then any other community I Frank Wilkie 02:16:37.012
I just think I it's just as a general and the ordinary. There's two opportunities at each meeting round. So, potentially people. Six per meeting round as opposed to two. Community to come and speak. Exclude Council Special Meeting. And a Special Meeting. Exclude. Karen Finzel 02:17:02.783
No Special Meeting, I don't believe. Does that help, Councillor Finzel? Yes, it does, thank you. I think I don't think that the, I don't think the wording is well worded, which is why I tried to put brake on this, because this is where the evidence is coming from our community, and it's brought, you know, a lot of unrest. So that support, we're sort of all doing this on COP, in my opinion, but we do support the idea of supporting democracy by giving greater opportunity for diversity on different subjects because of help how you propose this. So I will support the motion because I believe it does support the democratic opportunity for people to give voice. Amelia Lorentson 02:17:52.686
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. 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 people speaking? Because we've had a list of ten people putting their hand up for deputations. Frank Wilkie 02:18:25.277
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 that can speak for 15 minutes and 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 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 Committee. That it's not about shutting band down of opportunity. Anyone else who wants to speak? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:19:28.092
I think the problem we were trying to fix here was clarity and I'm not sure that 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 prepare for whichever. It is 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 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. 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 does have an opportunity to provide more information after the meeting and of course ask for meetings with Councillors as well. But just on the basis of clarification I think we've not reached a resolution yet. Frank Wilkie 02:20:53.347
Question, how would samina need to be changed to satisfy what she was seeking? For we're would reality. It have up to be only 15 minutes or 5 minutes and no latitude to extended need? Is that what you're suggesting? Nicola Wilson 02:21:09.760
Not necessarily a the latitude, but we're kind of saying if you ask for it, you're gonna get more didn't clarify it. Amelia Lorentson 02:21:20.585
So again just purposes of clarity the existing Standing Orders allows leniency to be afforded to anyone speaking. Again we don't shut we have never in my experience in five years we've never shut someone down after 15 minutes. Thank you and if a member of a group wants to speak for 15 they can do so individually by submitting an individual deputation. They can this does not preclude that from happening. Nicola Wilson 02:21:58.390
Okay. I'll come back to so says individually an application for deputation is received and appropriate time period is allowed. And that's what we haven't defined is what that appropriate time period is. Because the 17.4 issue is about three people. Frank Wilkie 02:22:18.312
So I think there's six that will clarify that. Karen Finzel 02:22:22.595
The problem that we've tried to solve here, even when you look at the State. Is this a question? Is this oh, okay. All right. Is this a question then to Councillor Nicola if she would consider then putting some up wording the on the Z Clapham passion because I support the idea that we need really clear and concise information for our community. This is where the answers come in, I don't think this is where anyone else could. Frank Wilkie 02:22:52.901
Okay. It's a question to you. Karen Finzel 02:22:56.598
It's a question to Councillor Nicola if she would like to change the word. Well, okay. Um, no. No. Frank Wilkie 02:23:03.800
She doesn't want to. So we'll test the amendment, let it stand before. And we can, there's no limit to the amount of amendments that Councillors can move on this issue unless we 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. So look, again, I'll repeat, this is not about shutting democracy down. Is about actually increasing access for more people during council's deportation times, and seeking to give some clarity and 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 need to. But I think this is a step in the right direction, and I hope you support it. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wilkie, Stockwell. Yes. Councillor Finzel, against. Councillor Wilson, Lawrence and I'll use my casting vote to carry that. We can test can again 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 02:24:50.838
In about 15 minutes, right? Amelia Lorentson 02:24:52.620
Can we just finish this? I think it's only fair for people in the gallery to just finish this report. Frank Wilkie 02:25:00.195
It's not unanimous that a we a break at moment. Councillor Finzel. So, any other Councillors wish to speak to this motion the 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 about this. It's not perfect, it's obviously that 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 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 02:26:08.109
Councillor Stockwell I have got a question. I don't know if the appropriate staff in the room is not here. Unknown 02:26:14.180
On Thursday, I've just re-read it, and noticed the applications on specific development applications or other statutory applications under Council assessment are not allowed, is being taken out. Frank Wilkie 02:26:27.154
Is there staff in the room that can talk to the legal risk or is that something that they can take on notice to give a second us a definitive advice as to the requirements of the law and the risks of having deputations in answer to your question we've got Director of regulation compliance Richard gillibray here he can answer your question yes Richard MacGillivray 02:26:47.963
Thank you Councillor just in relation to development assessment matters the planning at the DA 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 applications 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 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 deputations is the 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 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 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 validated 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 act's requirements regarding influencing decisions being made. So it's. The in the interest of all parties that the correct process through the Planning Act and the DA assessment 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. So it's. Frank Wilkie 02:29:22.517
Question can I ask you a question Councillor Stockwell it does, so I'll move the amendment. Can I please just ask a question? Oh, we'll just get the amendment up. Yes, Councillor Stockwell? 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. Brian Stockwell 02:29:44.412
Okay, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:29:44.412
In terms of lobbying, my understanding under the definition that only applies to registered lobbyists, and registered lobbyists have to be recorded under council's register, so that risk, it's not they register if they're registered lobbyists, is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 02:30:14.480
My advice is that they don't have to be registered lobbyists to lobby, so there may be parties that haven't advised 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 or to influence a particular decision. And the first question would be 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 02:31:03.479
Deletion was restated 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 02:31:28.740
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 feedback on particular applications through a process and that then can be considered holistically as part of the common material that's presented to full Council that's the normal process that should be followed under the act and if party one has the ability deputation other one doesn't that might impact on their rights to an appeal potentially because they might be relying on particular information provided through that deputation. Amelia Lorentson 02:32:11.243
May have influenced a particular outcome of an application 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 supporting the application that's my question Richard MacGillivray 02:32:35.863
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 formal notification process Frank Wilkie 02:33:00.453
So far Councillor Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie have spoken to this motion anyone else wish to speak before we go to a final vote this on this for this will the status of a recommendation that will go to thursday's Ordinary Meeting sorry Nicola Wilson 02:33:24.141
I have a question does that make C5 inconsistent with what Richard just advised Frank Wilkie 02:33:29.393
No because this is suggesting oh yes it does yes and Council 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 to if you do so. Brian Stockwell 02:34:06.251
Too happy to but yeah that's thank then I would just move that oh sorry is it number five that we're talking about here it Frank Wilkie 02:34:24.088
Will be Brian can you see the screen kathy's oh I'm just moving too quick- You're doing good, can I get the original motion and I'll tell you what to type, how's that? In it, that's it there. She's printed the original one. Okay. Which reads deputations that item C can you read it? Brian Stockwell 02:34:48.246
That item C it means delete number five. Amelia Lorentson 02:34:54.640
Well, okay. And re-instact the original. Frank Wilkie 02:35:11.001
Okay. All right. Look, I'll second that for the purpose of debate. Brian Stockwell 02:35:25.962
Director at to night vary the notion in this regard quite eloquently. Frank Wilkie 02:35:31.742
Okay, Councillors. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:41.090
I will speak to this one because it did challenge me a little bit. My concern was that the is that reality 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. To me, this is an equity issue. We can't on one hand say, you know, democratic processes only apply. To certain people, equity is So again, I was challenged on this one, but on the principles of equity and fairness, I am not going to support the amendment in front of us. Frank Wilkie 02:36:59.430
So this would allow deputations on development applications from either the applicants and community groups. Sorry, can I hear? This amendment would. Mean that understanding orders, there could be deputations from both applicants and community groups, residents, on development applications which are live before that particular Council meeting. Brian Stockwell 02:37:30.672
No, that cannot. It's the opposite. Mr Mayor, can I say something? You stated the opposite. Yes. The original motion was proposing to take this out. Amelia Lorentson 02:37:41.594
My amendment puts. That's it. Frank Wilkie 02:37:45.566
So, you're a man. Your amendment would prevent the deputations. Goes back to your question. Sorry. Okay, it goes back to the original. Oh, so we want this to go. No, it's good. Yes. Oh. So, brian's amendment prevents deputations from occurring when there's a live application. Yes. From community or from. Amelia Lorentson 02:38:14.896
From community. Or the developer. To the original wording. Frank Wilkie 02:38:25.355
Yeah. So deputations on specific applications and other statutory applications of the board of councils would not be permitted if you support this amendment. Karen Finzel 02:38:40.452
Okay, so I'm going to tell a question. Yes, Councillor Finzel. So, I'm just trying to think of the changes. The deputation on this amendment are not permitted. So, does that align with our policy for Councillors that we're. So, that was the a cough. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, I'm just. Amelia Lorentson 02:39:19.683
Can still? I step in and maybe suggest the wording deputations on specific development applications reported to Council for determination. I'm not. Oh, actually, no. No reference. Richard MacGillivray 02:39:35.729
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. 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 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 02:40:36.630
Yes, thank you. We need to clarify that those patients can only come once in a while given our policy restrictions. Frank Wilkie 02:40:46.424
Karen, to answer your question, this only applies to deputations during meetings. It's not referring to the council's right to meet with applicants once the report is released outside the Council. Does thank you. Okay. Any other Councillors have any questions about this change? Okay, so I'll put the. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Brian Stockwell 02:41:18.907
I will um said she would oppose basing on the equity and fairness. Staff's clear advice was not to do this. 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 02:42:18.003
You can ask now. Okay, we'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Stockwell. Against? Yes, I'm a yes. I'm for. Councillor Finzel. Thank you. And against? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Phillips. The 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 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 complicated motion. Karen Finzel 02:43:15.640
That's a question for the Mayor to clarify. Unidentified Speaker 02:43:20.189
Can we still make changes at the Ordinary Meeting before we go to the final vote? What was the question? Frank Wilkie 02:43:27.810
You can make more changes. Yes, you can make changes. I can still continue, yeah. Changes can be made at the Ordinary Meeting before it goes to the final vote. Absolutely. And you can make further amendments today if you wish to. Fantastic. Okay, looking forward to that. Thank you. It. Looking forward to it. All right. Okay. Any other Councillors wish to speak to this motion that's before us? Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 02:43:57.374
I will close and I'll keep it really brief. A little bit confused 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. We set ourselves parameters that already exist. So I'm challenged a little bit with that inclusion. I'm going to close. It 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 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 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 that's discussed today. I'm voting clearly in favour of the alternate motion. It upholds our democratic rights of Councillors. Councillors and again it upholds the democratic rights of the community that we serve. Frank Wilkie 02:45:38.677
Let's put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's Councillors Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson. Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie. Against? Yes. Sorry, are you against or for, Karen? Karen Finzel 02:45:58.340
I'm for. Okay, so that's unanimous. Sorry, what are we voting on? I'm sorry. We're voting on the motion. I'm sorry, I'm watching the target. Frank Wilkie 02:46:05.866
Yes, it's for. 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, for your patience. Here today. We're going to be moving into a confirmation session at 3:00, 4:00, still before that. So a General Committee in the short-term. Yes, everyone's here? Okay. Welcome back, we've everybody. Now moved, we've been reopened after a short adjournment. We've now moved to a confidential item, which is an appeal relating to a refusal. We 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 the purpose of discussing legal relating to the refusal of MCU 230101, Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation 561. Thank you. Okay, now I'm I'll move that in respect to Planning & Environment Court bill 1997 of 2024, Council through the General Committee Meeting dated 16th of September 2024, delegate to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. I have a seconder to that. Councillor Lorentson, thank you. Any discussion? All in favour? Five no, uh just before you do. Brian Stockwell 02:48:38.956
Yes, Councillor Stockwell. The way you read it out, sorry I was being frantic, is it delegates or Well, I said delegate. Frank Wilkie 02:48:49.132
Councillor delegates. Brian Stockwell 02:48:51.300
Yes, I think that's correct. Will you change the motion to reflect what you said? Frank Wilkie 02:48:56.945
Well, Council is a singular, so it's delegated. Thank you. Yeah, I'm delegates. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, delegates. All right. Happy now, Councillor Stockwell? Yeah, sorry, I just tacked in. Thank you. All in favour? Yes. That's, Councillor Lorentson, Phillips, Wilkie, Stockwell, Finzel. Yes. Against? Councillor Wilson. 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 3:50pm. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
