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)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie appointed Acting Chair; remote attendance for Brian Stockwell and Karen Finzel approved under s254K LGR 2012 (00:18–01:59; Minutes 1). Approved minor change to Town Planning Consent for Noosa District Netball Association clubhouse relocation at 31 Butler St, Tewantin with amended and additional conditions (C17–C37) and advisory notes; flood resilience, landscaping and facade articulation conditioned (02:59–13:15; Item 5.1). Refused “minor change” to convert seafood kiosk to a bakery with on-site dining at 185 Weyba Rd, Noosaville; found to be substantially different development and inconsistent with Residential A/Medium Density zoning and parking code (14:20–18:15; Item 5.2). Recommitted to the Local Government DFV Prevention Champions Network; appointed Nicola Wilson plus two staff (Community Development; People & Culture) as representatives (51:32–55:03; Item 5.3). August 2024 YTD finances: operating revenue +$722k, operating expenses –$840k vs budget; cash $123m; interest returns ~5% aiding budget position; capital underspend mainly disaster/waste projects timing (55:57–01:03:35; Item 6.1). Adopted revised Standing Orders and new procedures (Petitions, Deputations, Public Question Time) and Councillor Investigation Policy, with significant amendments carried on Chair’s casting vote where required (01:07:40–02:46:06; Item 6.2). Standing Orders s18 (Notified Motions): CEO veto removed; replaced with non-mandatory guidance encouraging clear, relevant motions aligned to plans and powers (carried on Chair’s casting vote) (01:33:23–01:52:43; Item 6.2A). Deputations Procedure: 15 minutes total per meeting, max 3 deputations, 5 minutes each with possibility of extension by Chair with councillor consent; clarity added after confusion under prior 17.4 (01:57:34–02:16:49; Item 6.2C.1). Deputations on live development/statutory applications before Council prohibited to protect procedural fairness; amendment carried (02:26:07–02:42:35; Item 6.2C.6). Delegated to CEO all matters to resolve P&E Court Appeal 1997/2024 re refusal of STA (MCU23/0101) at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd; carried 5–1 (Against: Nicola Wilson ) (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Robust debate on democratic access: some councillors argued deputation time reduction erodes public voice; others said new settings increase equity by enabling up to three speakers and allow extensions (01:42:49–02:16:49; Item 6.2C.1). CEO power to reject Notices of Motion was replaced with “encouragement” criteria after concerns it shifted authority from elected body to administration (01:33:23–01:52:43; Item 6.2A). Procedural motion by Karen Finzel to defer Standing Orders for further wording/benchmarking lapsed for want of seconder; noted community concern about perceived rights dilution (01:46:28–01:50:15; Item 6.2). Weyba Rd bakery: questions on informal pre-lodgement advice, fees accepted, multiple information requests, and timelines; staff clarified applicant didn’t seek formal written advice or pre-lodgement meeting; minor change test remains decisive (18:15–25:35; Item 5.2). Public clarification: prior Standing Orders text caused confusion on whether 15 minutes applied per speaker or per deputation; new procedure aims to resolve (01:19:19–01:21:23; Item 6.2C). Legal / Risk Minor change test: officers cited Planning Act 2016; converting kiosk (1973 “refreshment service”) to bakery (“service shop”) introduces a new use and likely new impacts (hours, on-site dining, parking), defeating “minor change” (14:20–17:29; Item 5.2). DA Assessment Rules/procedural fairness: prohibiting deputations on live DAs avoids ex parte statements without right of reply that could undercut defensibility and fuel appeals/lobbying risks (02:26:47–02:32:59; Item 6.2C.6). Setbacks/flood: Netball clubhouse approved despite reduced McKinnon Dr setback given wide road reserve and enhanced landscaping; building elevated for flood resilience; CPTED sightlines considered acceptable (04:39–11:27; Item 5.1). Abandonment of existing use: staff noted no fixed time; assessed on factors incl. retained commercial kitchen; not yet abandoned (31:12–33:11; Item 5.2). Confidential session lawful closure under s254J(3)(e) LGR 2012 to discuss legal advice on STA appeal; resolution delegated to CEO for efficiency (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Conflicts of Interest Jessica Phillips declared a declarable COI (close family friend on Tewantin Netball building subcommittee); Council permitted participation and vote; she abstained on the participation motion; substantive item carried unanimously (02:59–04:22; Item 5.1). Nicola Wilson declared a declarable COI (volunteer director, CAYAC DV charity) for DFV Champions Network; Council permitted participation; she abstained on the participation motion; appointment then carried unanimously (49:15–51:14; Item 5.3). Short-term Accommodation (STA) & Litigation P&E Court Appeal 1997/2024 (MCU23/0101) STA at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd: CEO delegated authority to manage resolution; split vote signals policy sensitivity around rural STA (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Closure/reopening to public handled per LGR 2012; indicates live litigation posture and preference for centralised conduct of proceedings (02:47:48–02:49:13; Item 7.1). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Community Impact Weyba Rd refusal grounded in inconsistency with 1973 Residential A intent and current Medium Density Zone; bakery more appropriate in centre zone; on-site parking shortfall against Driveways and Parking Code PO6/AO6.1 (14:20–17:29; Item 5.2). Councillors canvassed “abandonment” of historical use and whether new application should be impact assessable with public notification to test amenity impacts (noise, early hours, cycling groups) (17:29–31:12; Item 5.2). Netball clubhouse change tied to 2020 Sports Complex Master Plan road widening; conditions require additional landscaping over 60m frontage and facade articulation to meet Noosa design principles (04:39–10:55; Item 5.1). Community Engagement, Petitions & Question Time New Petition, Deputation, and Public Question Time procedures adopted; petitions to be lodged earlier for validation; question time now a standalone procedure; deputation scripting/background material required and Chair/CEO gatekeeping clarified (01:07:40–01:19:19; Item 6.2B–D). Councillors highlighted multiple channels beyond deputations: consultation processes, meetings, online submissions, Councillor Discussion Forums, and requests for CEO reports (01:16:55–01:37:11; Item 6.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 16 September 2024 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Frank Wilkie (Acting Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Community Services Paul Brinkman Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf APOLOGIES Cr Tom Wegener Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Crs Stockwell and Finzel are approved to attend the Meeting dated 16 September 2024 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Cr Frank Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting due to Cr Stockwell attending via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 12 August 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 5.1. 51988.2770.02 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A TOWN PLANNING CONSENT FOR INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND EXTENSION OF AN INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT - 31 BUTLER STREET, TEWANTIN (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2024 - ITEM 5.1) In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Phillips provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Jessica Phillips, declare I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my close family friend, Fran Sadlier, is on the building sub-committee and a long-term member of the Tewantin Netball Courts. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the position she holds is not a decision maker, nor is she an executive committee member: neither I nor my family friend stand to gain a personal or material benefit from the decision over and above what other club members would gain. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Phillips and determine that Cr Phillips participates and votes on this matter as Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Phillips did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2024 regarding Application No. 51988.2770.02 to make a minor change to an existing Town Planning Consent for indoor entertainment and extension of an indoor entertainment situated at Noosa District Sports Complex - 31 Butler St, Tewantin and: A. Approve the change. B. Amend condition 2 and 9 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. C. Include additional conditions 17 to 37 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. D. Include advisory notes 1 to 6 as outlined in Attachment 2 to the Report. E. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. F. Approve the Final Conditions as provided in Attachment 1 to the Minutes - Final Conditions Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 5.2. 51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01 APPPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR A SEAFOOD KIOSK AT 185 WEYBA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2024 - ITEM 5.2) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2024 regarding Application Numbers 51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01 to make a minor change to two (2) development approvals for a takeaway seafood kiosk situated at 185 Weyba Rd, Noosaville and: A. Refuse the change for the following reasons: 1. The proposed changes do not constitute a minor change to the development approvals as defined by the Planning Act 2016, as the changes will result in a substantially different development. 2. The proposed bakery (service shop) is not consistent with the Residential A zoning intent under the 1973 Planning Scheme for Noosa Shire or the Medium Density Residential zone under Noosa Plan 2020 and is more appropriately located in a centre zone. 3. The proposed bakery is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 2(a), (d), (e) & (j) and Performance Outcomes & Acceptable Outcomes PO1, PO5, AO5.1, AO5.2 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code under Noosa Plan 2020 as: a. The proposed bakery is not a residential use and is not compatible with surrounding residential uses. b. The proposed bakery is more appropriately accommodated in a centre zone and the land maintained for dual occupancies, multiple dwellings and the like. c. The proposal is likely to adversely impact on surrounding resident’s amenity. B. The proposal is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 2(a) & (b) and Performance Outcome and Acceptable Outcome PO6 and AO6.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code as the proposal provides insufficient on-site car parking and is likely to generate additional demand for car parking compared to the takeaway seafood kiosk. For: Crs Frank Wilkie, Brian Stockwell, Nicola Wilson and Karen Finzel Against: Crs Amelia Lorentson and Jessica Phillips Carried. 5.3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CHAMPIONS NETWORK (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2024 - ITEM 5.2) GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wilson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I am a volunteer director of a CAYAC Ltd, Maroochydore, a charity that supports victims of domestic violence (amongst other services). While CAYAC is not the subject of the decision being made today to appoint a councillor to an observer role in the Network, I note that matters discussed in the Network’s meetings in future may be relevant to CAYAC’s operations. I share this information for transparency and to support my nomination for the position, having an interest and experience in this area. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because CAYAC is not the subject of today’s decision, and I am able to remain impartial. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilson and determine that Cr Wilson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Cr Wilson would be able to remain impartial and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Wilson did not vote on the above motion. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Community Development Coordinator to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2024 and: A. Endorse Noosa Council’s recommitment to the Local Government Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Champions Network; and B. Appoint Cr Nicola Wilson and two staff members (from Community Development and People and Culture teams), as Noosa Council’s representatives to the Network. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024 outlining August 2024 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 6.2. REVISED STANDING ORDERS & OTHER RELATED POLICIES & PROCEDURES Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024 regarding the amendment of Noosa Council's Standing Orders and other relevant policies and procedures and A. Adopt the updated Standing Orders for Council Meetings Policy (provided at Attachment 1) and repeal current Standing Orders Policy (adopted 19 November 2020) subject to the amendment of the updated Standing Orders, Section 18 – Notified Motions to delete the following words: "18.8 The Chief Executive Officer may reject a Notice of Motion which: a) does not relate to the objectives, roles and function of Council as outlined in the annual Operational and Corporate Plan; b) is vague or unclear in intention; c) is identical or substantially similar to a Notified Motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d) is outside the powers of Council; e) relates to an operational service request or relates to a matter that can be handled under delegation; f) is a matter subject to a Council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete." B. Adopt the new Petition Procedure (provided at Attachment 2); C. Adopt the new Deputation Procedure (provided at Attachment 3), subject to the amendment of items 1, 3, and 6, and the deletion of item 5 as follows: 1. Up to 15 minutes in total will be allocated per deputation at each Meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of 5 minutes will be allocated per deputation with a maximum of 3 deputations per meeting are allowed. 3. The applicant must provide Council with the deputation topic and draft script sufficient background material, whereby the CEO, on receiving an application for the deputation, shall notify the Chairperson who, in conjunction with the CEO, shall determine whether the deputation may be heard. The CEO shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing. 5. Four deputations per calendar year by the same applicant /group will be allowed. 56. Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before Council are not permitted. Deputations on Specific GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 development applications or other statutory applications under Council Officers' assessment are not allowed. Deputations will only be permitted on applications reported to Council for determination. D. Adopt the new Public Question Time Procedure (provided at Attachment 4) and thereby repeal current Public Question Time Guideline (adopted on 17 October 2019); and E. Adopt the Councillor Investigation Policy (Attachment 7) and repeal current Councillor Investigation Policy (adopted on 19 November 2020). Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconder: Nil That the matter be deferred to the October meeting round to allow further Councillor discussion to get the wording right on the proposed changes. The motion lapsed for want of a seconder. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Item A be amended to read: A. Adopt the updated Standing Orders for Council Meetings Policy (provided at Attachment 1) and repeal current Standing Orders Policy (adopted 19 November 2020) with the updated Standing Orders, Section 18 – Notified Motions to be amended to read: "18.8 Councillors are encouraged to lodge Notices of Motion which: a) relate to the objectives, roles and function of Council as outlined in the annual Operational and Corporate Plan; b) are clear in intention; c) are not identical or substantially similar to a Notified Motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d) are not outside the powers of Council; e) do not relate to an operational service request or a matter that can be handled under delegation; f) are not matters subject to a Council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete."; For: Crs Frank Wilkie, Brian Stockwell and Nicola Wilson Against: Crs Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips and Karen Finzel The motion was Carried on the casting vote of the Chair. Amendment No.2 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item C, 1 be amended to read: 1. 15 minutes in total will be allocated at each Meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of 5 minutes will be allocated per deputation with an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting chair and by consent of the councillors with a maximum of 3 deputations per meeting allowed. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 For: Crs Frank Wilkie, Brian Stockwell and Karen Finzel Against: Crs Jessica Phillips, Amelia Lorentson and Nicola Wilson The motion was Carried on the casting vote of the Chair. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Item C, 6 (which will become 5) be amended to read: 5. 6 Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications under Council Officers' assessment are not allowed. Deputations will only be permitted on applications reported to Council for determination. Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before Council are not permitted. Crs Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson and Karen For: Finzel Against: Crs Amelia Lorentson and Jessica Phillips Carried. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024 regarding the amendment of Noosa Council's Standing Orders and other relevant policies and procedures and A. Adopt the updated Standing Orders for Council Meetings Policy (provided at Attachment 1) and repeal current Standing Orders Policy (adopted 19 November 2020) with the updated Standing Orders, Section 18 – Notified Motions amended to read: "18.8 Councillors are encouraged to lodge Notices of Motion which: a) relate to the objectives, roles and function of Council as outlined in the annual Operational and Corporate Plan; b) are clear in intention; c) are not identical or substantially similar to a Notified Motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d) are not outside the powers of Council; e) do not relate to an operational service request or a matter that can be handled under delegation; f) are not matters subject to a Council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete."; B. Adopt the new Petition Procedure (provided at Attachment 2); C. Adopt the new Deputation Procedure (provided at Attachment 3) subject to the amendment of items 1, 3, and 6, and the deletion of item 5 as follows: 1. 15 minutes in total will be allocated at each Meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of 5 minutes will be allocated per deputation with an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting chair and by consent of the councillors with a maximum of 3 deputations per meeting allowed. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 3. The applicant must provide Council with the deputation topic and draft script sufficient background material, whereby the CEO, on receiving an application for the deputation, shall notify the Chairperson who, in conjunction with the CEO, shall determine whether the deputation may be heard. The CEO shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing. 5. Four deputations per calendar year by the same applicant /group will be allowed. 5 6. Deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before Council are not permitted. D. Adopt the new Public Question Time Procedure (provided at Attachment 4) and thereby repeal current Public Question Time Guideline (adopted on 17 October 2019); and E. Adopt the Councillor Investigation Policy (Attachment 7) and repeal current Councillor Investigation Policy (adopted on 19 November 2020). Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION The meeting adjourned at 3.15pm. The meeting resumed at 3.30pm. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - APPEAL 1997 OF 2024 RELATING TO REFUSAL OF MCU23/0101 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 561 GYMPIE KIN KIN ROAD, KIN KIN CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J(3)(e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing legal advice relating to an appeal for Item 7.1 - Appeal 1997 of 2024 Relating to Refusal of MCU23/0101 Material Change of Use for Short Term Accommodation at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin. Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That in respect of Planning and Environment Court Appeal 1997 of 2024, Council through the General Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2024, delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. For: Crs Wilkie, Stockwell, Finzel, Phillips and Lorentson Against: Cr Wilson Carried. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 3.50pm.
Meeting Transcript
Unknown 00:00.000
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 00:05.960
You know just because of course 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 on September 2024 um i'd the company that we're on the government and the government people they acknowledge their elders past present I'm our normal Chair today flying scotland is unwell he's online to join us today so we need to that's why I'm meeting as the Chair but have a motion for Amelia Lorentson 01:00.212
And Councillor Phillips as well so can do both in one motion I'm ready happy to second Frank Wilkie 01:08.153
By Councillor Lorentson. I'll put that to the right. Councillor Harris? Okay, Councillor Stockwell? Unknown 01:22.150
Yes, so thank you and welcome everyone. Brian Stockwell 01:24.767
Because my voice is not great and it's difficult to do a chair's role from online, I would like to nominate the Mayor as the Chair of this meeting. Amelia Lorentson 01:35.933
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. Oh, it's moving. Frank Wilkie 01:55.259
Okay. Again, welcome everybody. Do have an apology from Councillor Wegener. 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 just, can't see you so we'll just rely on you calling out. Councillors Finzel and Stockwell. We have no presentations, no deputations. We have items referred from the committees. The first being an application for minor change to a town planning consent for indoor entertainment and extension of indoor centre of 31 Butler street, Tewantin, and this is nursing the Noosa district netball clubhouse redevelopment and we have here our first Director. Me. Oh sorry, Councillor Phillips. Just declarable please. Jessica Phillips 03:02.185
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 a long member-term of the Tewantin netball courts. Although 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 the Frank Wilkie 04:21.350
In favour? Yes. You, that's carried unanimously. Right, we have a team here, Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray, Patrick Murphy and Sara Norwood. Would you give us a run through of the report please, Sara? Sara Norwood 04:39.747
So the applicant is seeking a minor change to a 1988 town planning consent to remove the existing network bunkhouse 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 McKinnon Drive as part of that relocate sorry 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 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 applicant has is also included information regarding landscaping landscape 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 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 is acknowledged elevations that the eastern of the building. It is acknowledged 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 of the building. We have included additional landscaping requirements to screen that building a little bit both from the internal road and from McKinnon Drive. So these 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 07:08.072
I don't know if that was about the screening of the eastern summit and things like that. Patrick Murphy 07:14.383
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 first conditions. And essentially condition 18 has been amended to separate it and separate out and make more specific the requirement for the eastern elevation of the building to not be of a single colour to now contain a mixture of 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 08:32.121
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? Amelia Lorentson 08:51.369
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. Okay. Yes, 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? Patrick Murphy 09:43.500
So just to reiterate, at this point in time, this is not the officer recommendation. We've provided conditions as part of the original report and we've provided these amended conditions to Councillor. And as I said, if Councillors choose to move the alternate conditions, they would need to do that. But just to explain the CPTED requirements. Frank Wilkie 10:07.699
Just for those who don't know, could you explain what that acronym means? Sara Norwood 10:13.039
It's crime prevention. Thank you. Prevention. Safety by design. Yeah, again. So essentially the areas shown up here are where the additional screening is proposed. So in terms of sight lines and things like that, we don't think it would raise any issues around, you know, safety or things like that. So I'm not sure if anybody has different opinion in terms of that, but we thought those areas were. They're along that boundary, they're away from the car park. Frank Wilkie 10:48.233
So we didn't believe in it. Visible from the road. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 10:55.135
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 Norwood 11:27.417
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 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 11:51.474
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 feel good thank put on that matter. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 12:15.972
Right, anyone is everyone happy to move the Council I'll move. Of gents? Amelia Lorentson 12:27.132
One second. SPEAKER_11 12:35.560
Just, clarify, are we moving with the amendments. Yes. Post that would be nice. Recommendation? Thank you. Frank Wilkie 12:51.682
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 13:01.442
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 13:14.964
Any members of the Council speak to the motion? Thank you staff, the Noosa Netball Association will be running on time for this. 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 cover parks, a wide a safer road through the facility itself. It'll be a welcome addition to this great community club. Thank you. Anybody online wish to speak? Yes, do you wish to close? No, thank you. Put it to the both of those in favour. That's unanimous. Karen? Yes. Thank you. That's unanimous. Next item is application for minor change to development approvals for seafood kiosk, 185 Weyba Road, Noosaville. Referred from the Planning & Environment Committee for further consideration. Thank you. Sara Norwood 14:21.183
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. Touched, the applicant is has 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 commercial use of seven square metres, which would reduce the attached dwelling size. The applicant has stated that they will be up to five staff on site at any time. With two bakers on site from 4:30 and 5:00am. And two front of house on site 6 7:30am. With a third staff member during the busy appearance from 6:30am. Originally, initially the applicant is proposing to open Wednesday to Sunday from 6am. To 5:00pm. And to looking increase 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 as such 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 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 approval. Applicant is therefore proposing to introduce a new use on the additionally, the existing approval specifically prohibited on-site dining, so the proposal to include 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 the proposal. Apply, the proposal is therefore considered to be substantially different development and as such does not meet the criteria for a minor change application. The applicant's 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 is to report in the report is to refuse the application. Frank Wilkie 17:30.389
And just to clarify, it's decided so for some residential? Correct. It's surrounded by a meeting residential area? Yes. And because changes from operating hours, which kiosk was open from 2:00am. Opening 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. The application laws is another change, which means that public notification may have an opportunity have a comment. Yes. And if the Council decided to approve it through that process, conditions could be imposed to minimise impact on the 05:51.00 thank you. Amelia Lorentson 18:11.690
Questions, Councillors? Larson? I have a few questions. Do you have an applicant email or phone, Council, seeking advice prior to submitting the application in 2023? Patrick Murphy 18:28.904
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 Richard MacGillivray 19:11.632
Through the process. If I can just add to that point too, the applicant the 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 regarding a complex proposal of this nature over a phone call Amelia Lorentson 19:45.703
Did Council accept fees for the minor change application? The Noosa, applicant for the submission in 2023. Correct. After how long did Council notify the applicant that the proposed change could not be considered a minor change? Patrick Murphy 20:10.595
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. 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 by Richard MacGillivray 20:38.885
The process that was undertaken. To that point. Of the Planning Act 2016 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 identify that there were issues with the proposal and the 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 applicant can lodge an application we must accept it and then proceed to what they'll work and assess. Jessica Phillips 21:22.762
I have a question. How much does it cost an applicant to put in a minor change application? SPEAKER_08 21:32.663
It would likely be approximately $2,000, between $2,000 and $8,000. Nicola Wilson 21:37.082
Okay, and now just to 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 proposal and there is a fee not required for impacting adapting consistently. Uses under council's Fees and Charges. Patrick Murphy 22:02.137
The fees are generally to reflect the cost for the Council to provide the assessment of the application. In this circumstance where the application has afoot 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 22:25.512
So so another question then to pull up from that, how, what's our obligations around how long it takes us to assess an application for minor application and for another? Patrick Murphy 22:38.105
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 timeframe 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 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 officers to request an extension of time to assess an application where there's complexity is involved. Jessica Phillips 23:46.232
And so did we do that for this case because we were over the 20 days? Richard MacGillivray 23:51.252
Yes, yeah, and there is ability extend that one. The time frames within agreement the applicant or they can also choose to elect to stop the clock which essentially ceases any assessment time frames particularly during the decision period where the applicant and the Council officer can assess and discuss and negotiate particular issues as well which has happened obviously in this particular case. So the application is still within statutory time frames as such but there's an ability for the applicant to either extend or stop the clock while they're seeking advice or looking to make amendments have further discussion with Council officers. I've still done the 20 day statutory time frame. Yes, 35 business days to make a decision on the development application. Amelia Lorentson 24:47.225
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? Required that the applicant to provide or review designs which they engaged a consultant in providing. Patrick Murphy 25:13.791
That would be true. That's the standard part of 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 before decision on it. Jessica Phillips 25:36.363
In relation to the exacerbation of impact, how do we get data to say that the seafood kiosk had so much impact and know that this is going to be an exacerbation with a patisserie? Patrick Murphy 25:53.735
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 Sara 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 introduce. Don't need data when they're not allowed to have people on site and then they're 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. Richard MacGillivray 27:27.663
It Patrick Murphy 27:28.322
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 27:55.752
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 28:02.781
That's the legal approval that exists there an approval for the seafood kiosk which has been identified through the report that's the use that 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 Amelia Lorentson 28:50.097
Planning. 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 defined similarly again what are the practical differences in their impacts on the community. Richard MacGillivray 29:15.236
Councillor it's as mentioned because when the approval was issued 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 Food & 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 29:48.608
So either of those pathways, the other change or seeking to have recessed as a Food & Drink Outlet would involve public notification? Area, 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? Patrick Murphy 30:10.684
Correct, yes, And the introduction of. Patients eating on site which they currently cannot do. Richard MacGillivray 30:18.806
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 node on this a it's respects 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 commercial purposes. This has been sought to be used for residential accommodation. Notwithstanding this historical approval, it can continue it as long as it's not abandoned. Frank Wilkie 30:59.253
Any further questions? Councillor Wilson. Yes. Nicola Wilson 31:03.859
Um given that the empty been used for seafood in some years, at what point would it become abandoned. Richard MacGillivray 31:16.499
Terms Abandonment under the funding act is a complex sort of legal term. In 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. 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 kiosks, 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 kit kitchen in there hasn't been modified or changed so some of those things are still factors in it so there were adjustments and modifications to remove that infrastructure within the building so the commercial cooking facilities that could be an intention that abandonment has happened because they've made an intentional decision to remove the infrastructure required for that use so there's a range of factors and it's not unfortunately very clear-cut world around it when abandonment does occur there's instances 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 33:02.534
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 I second 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 or great property token of an offering, but at the same start, time. If the intention is to start 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, 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 that's the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 34:38.456
Just a question. In terms of seating, outdoor 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 we have that ability to condition the application. Yes or is that correct? You do. Patrick Murphy 35:08.216
Again, we'd still say that the issue of introducing new views is occurring contrary to the definition of the substantial development. Richard MacGillivray 35:20.720
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 Amelia Lorentson 35:52.484
Councillor Lorentson. 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. 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. The 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. 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. 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. Current view is that the refused because the proposed change transforming a fish and chip takeaway into a bakery allegedly constitutes substantially different development with concerns over increased impacts. Councillors, the owners are taking over a food premise that has been operating for a long time, over 40 years. What they're doing is modifying the kitchen for a bakery. 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 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 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 a mistake in affording a way? Some flexibility? Did they supporting a small business? Providing employment for our residents? Question I ask around this table can't is why 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 made must 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. 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. And 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 40:32.840
Councillor Stockwell, you have a Brian Stockwell 40:36.920
Yes, I've got a question for Councillor Lorentson. SPEAKER_11 40:40.320
Under what part of the act do you suggest that Councillors, industry 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 to the opinion given by Noosa Council's. So I won't answer that question. I'm sitting around a table as a community representative. Not as a lawyer, even though I am trained legally. Frank Wilkie 41:35.720
Question for staff, there's quite an extraordinary comment made there that staff advise the applicant this is a minor change. Is there any validity to that? Patrick Murphy 41:48.608
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. It was the applicant who said they would submit a minor change and see how it would go. Frank Wilkie 42:08.700
Do the Councillors wish to speak in motion? Councillor Phillips. Can I speak? Unknown 42:13.076
Did I get in first? Councillor Phillips. Thanks. Jessica Phillips 42:16.956
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 it from the AFL grounds, famous farmers market, the theatre, famous restaurants now, a resort. I think it's part of the natural progression of that street to have a local family business, operate a patisserie from there. 506 staff, I think they said that they could employ with the patisserie Baker on site living there. I can't sit here 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 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 refusal. Of the application. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 44:03.020
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 can be done as a minor change. A 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. Was for the residents to write a small seafood operation in scale hard at 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. Altafireys and staff could not give it any force or effect. So there is only one option in this case and that's to support this motion. Frank Wilkie 46:39.820
Thank you Councillor Stockwell. May the Councillor Stockwell to speak to motion. Councillor Finzel, are you wishing to speak? Karen Finzel 46:54.914
Thank you Mr Chair, I did not wish to speak to the motion. Frank Wilkie 46:58.713
Yes? No. No, castle Wilson? No. Okay. I think the important point here is do residents deserve the right to be informed and given the opportunity to be publicly notified about if business next door to them or in their neighbourhood is going to start operating from 6:00am. 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 think the residents from any neighbourhood, 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, Stockwell? Yes. Councillor Finzel? Against? Councillor Phillips, Lorentson? The motion's carried. Next item, thank you, Richard. Next item is leveled 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. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 49:18.842
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 CAG is not the subject of today's decision and I am able to remain impartial. Therefore, will choose to remain in the meeting room. Frank Wilkie 50:06.022
However, I respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate okay. Council's had questions. Councillor Wilson. Amelia Lorentson 50:17.617
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 trust that a final decision is made in the public interest. Second. By Councillor Phillips. Frank Wilkie 50:43.399
Sorry, I just skipped a word in my own language. A reasonable person would trust that the final decision is not in their public interest. Yes. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to speak to that. I need to Amelia Lorentson 51:00.137
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 51:14.516
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. Paul Brinkman 51:32.230
Thank you, good afternoon Councillors. The Queensland government established the domestic and family violence prevention Council to support greater community understanding about and to challenge the values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that trivialise, excuse and perpetuate this abuse. 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 site 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 prevention champions network, two Council staff and one Councillor representative. We seek the nomination of that Councillor. Frank Wilkie 52:29.661
Questions Councillors? Jessica Phillips 52:31.261
I have a question please. We've received the letter on the 12th of April 2024. There's three meetings this year, we've missed one on the 16th of July. Can you just explain to me how long, come it's taken so long for this to sit with Council? Paul Brinkman 52:51.115
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 52:57.370
Question, as it's prevented, cast itself and. Participating in again, I'll have to take that on notice. Unknown 53:06.533
Has it affected the work of the organisation? Paul Brinkman 53:09.693
This is a position on the network to be able to listen to the network. It's not a voting situation. It's a position on there to show Council support of the network. So no, we wouldn't have any changes in regards to the work that the network has done today. Frank Wilkie 53:31.124
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 report back and inform the other Councillors accordingly. Karen Finzel 54:20.067
Yes, I would like to speak to the motion, that's what I'd like to say to the Councillor, thank Nick you to Nicola lovett, 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 that would can impact them in a timely manner. Be involved in this space at whatever capacity, given the national crisis that's being declared around violence against women. So I've I'm been 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 55:03.709
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Any else who wants to speak? According to the Finzel, Councillor Phillips, Lawrence. Yes. Councillor Wilkie, Stockwell. Thank you, Paul. Next item is reports direct to the general committee, which is Financial Performance Report. We have full range. Financial manager. Pauline carls, financial services manager. How are you? Good, thank you, Pauline. How are we tracking, Pauline? Pauline Carls 55:57.880
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. This has been offset by lower than forecast rates and levies income of $27,000. Capital revenue is above budget due to the timing of the receipt of QAO 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 therapy during 2020.30 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 58:02.042
Thank you Paul. Any questions, Councillors? Nicola Wilson 58:06.702
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 Carls 58:18.262
At this stage it would appear to be more of a timing difference. 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. Amelia Lorentson 58:33.667
With the delay in the Destination Management Plan, when are we scheduled to review the tourism and Noosa agreement? Pauline Carls 58:44.953
So as far as I'm aware, off the top of my head, the tourism and Noosa agreement is due to be reviewed 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 Amelia Lorentson 59:06.500
Question, in terms of a change of government, what are the potential risk and opportunities associated with the change of government and how might this impact funding, regulation? Or policy shifts affecting council's financial and sustainability operations. Frank Wilkie 59:27.018
Difficult question is Trent, or through the CEO. Yes, impossible for us to give an answer to that, because we don't know. In relation, what the policy is, necessarily, or what we did when we came to sign ourselves. It's funny how to walk in. Do. That's all I can think of at this point. We don't know. We'll have to wait a few years to find out. Yeah, I mean, the remedy for holiday parks is above budget. Have we, what's going on there? Have we, When Pauline Carls 01:00:13.817
Do the budget, we always budget conservatively based on our previously historic performance. So, there is generally some room and that allows for things to emerge through the year so if we budget and do push targets, that means that emergent issues can't be dealt with. We don't 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 well. Above budget, but that has been historically trained, yes, to be above budget. Frank Wilkie 01:00:41.711
And the increase in interest rates 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? SPEAKER_02_b 01:00:56.360
At this stage, life is-riskful, full but not till tools. Probably later next year. So we are kind of maximising our interest revenues and some of the delayed 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 01:01:23.785
Any other questions for anyone? Karen Finzel 01:01:25.845
Yes, please Mr Chair. In terms of sales of goods and services, I can make what is management fees is below budget. Can you just talk to us a little bit about what's going on there in that space? SPEAKER_02_b 01:01:39.579
Yep, sure. So I've spoken to the business area. What is management fees? Yep. So in terms of sales of goods and services, Council? Yes. So in that respect, there's a delay they've had in 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 01:02:04.859
Okay, thank you. Is there any shortfall with the sale of the steel? Frank Wilkie 01:02:12.550
Sorry, 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 01:02:20.150
Sure. I'm just interested in how that's being addressed with the- or the feeds, where they might have been printed. Is there a process or a projected how to go? Unknown 01:02:33.900
Get us up to speed with the projected pocket. SPEAKER_02_b 01:02:37.320
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. Yeah. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:02:54.280
Any further questions from for staff? Amelia Lorentson 01:02:58.555
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 why I raised the issue of a change of government before. Can I ask. SPEAKER_02_b 01:03:17.860
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 01:03:34.122
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 01:03:46.926
I have a question to say, I haven't been on any sites in terms of tracking staff. Larry Sengstock 01:03:53.061
In terms of the finance department, we're a little off to a hand at the moment. I've heard about that. Maybe we'll get out to the market a couple of times, as it's very difficult to get appropriate to see what we can and skilled people in this area, so we haven't been able to do that. I tell you, we're watching and listening. I won't. No, please, it's very difficult, come on, it's so good. The organisation is in particular industries in different areas that we're having trouble or we find difficult to interact with white people, but in other areas this is the moment. So, I think if you ask any questions while I'm asking, I think we're far against on that now. Yeah, in fact, we're in a position, I think, where it's very, very, it's just the environment, for some reason, it's not very much.org community Jessica Phillips 01:04:56.479
Can I ask a follow-up question? Internal performance, like, what sort of training do we do to even encourage, you know, someone to move up through the organisation Frank Wilkie 01:05:09.459
If we can't outsource? Larry Sengstock 01:05:14.582
Look to promote in general where possible, absolutely. I think that's one of the money gains of being a multi-skilled, disciplined organisation. There are opportunities for people to live across it up in the organisation. So this is entirely skilled. Which is what happened with me. I progressed some of the previous positions. This is, yeah, this is still a little bit of a tragedy to define. And if you look in the news paper or in the strategy log or anything, we're looking for employees. All the councils are also struggling. To define the future of this project, that was not in the first year. We do, we provide australians with care, we identify people we want, we've not driven through. Trying to figure this out. That's it. What I thought. Jessica Phillips 01:06:05.021
And then so I guess the general question around like do we have anyone from our staffing in our schools promoting our workplace with. Local community? Within SPEAKER_02_b 01:06:19.657
Oh I was going to say I'm also about schools but definitely university. Richard MacGillivray 01:06:24.557
Okay. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 01:06:30.476
Any further questions or comments? If so, I'll move the motion please. Moved by Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Wilson will speak. Nicola Wilson 01:06:44.416
You for another thorough report and for all the answers to your questions. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:06:51.676
Thank you for the report. It'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? Let's cancel the roll. It's unanimous. Thank you for that. 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. I'm happy for that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, cool. This is correct. Larry Sengstock 01:07:40.106
Report obviously is with attention and interest. So I'll just keep it that way until we move forward and I know there are a lot of questions that have been proposed. So we can talk about this. Report an update on the legislative list of changes introduced by the local government. It provides 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 the procedures, Councillor Conduct and investigation processes. The Councillor is required to adopt these amendments, which are included in this report and in the standing order changes, and documented there, and has taken this up 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 I with orders the of Council from meeting's along policy with along with the supporting of procedures the and policies to strengthen. Governance, transparency and conduct within the Council of meetings. 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 the seats, which we are, we will go to day one. All councils do. The first one is petitions. The major change there is that we've taken our sort of referred to in these Standing Orders that were later a specific procedure, a standalone procedure. We've done for a number of these. The petition to be submitted, the major changes to this, a few days prior to the meeting. Previously there was no minimum of requirement. The reason for that is to allow the staff to 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. In terms of the public question time, pardon the me. Major changes are now a stand-alone procedure replacing the current public registration time guideline. The major change there, or that we're proposing, and again these are recommendations for debate and decision, from the officers, must be submitted five days, business prior to the 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 a Council report, where a notified notification motion is likely to commit Council Councillors 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, and recognise the people in the audience here today, is the piece from. Section 18.8 for Noosa motion, referring to the CEO. This has been through three workshops, and this is proposed, and again it's proposed, only a recommendation, again for debate and for decision. It's proposed because. What we're looking to do as a CEO is not to gag, not to hold back, but simply to try to as an organisation, organising and running this business is to ensure that I we hope that continue to. Deliver and there's operations and offices we in line with the agreed operational plan, corporate and. Branch plans. So we're going to be able to operate on an annual basis. So it's really just to ensure. And allow us to ensure that happens. Again, this is up for discussion today, but I just wanted to make sure that the reasoning. There are a number of councils, so this is not something that we've dreamed up. That actually already operate under these rules. So it's just something, again, it's recommendation for Council to decide, and 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 four deputations per calendar year per applicant and or group a maximum of five minutes per deputation. So they are the changes that are proposed. It's really great that they are proposed. Maybe we'll take questions and we'll end the discussion. That's Frank Wilkie 01:13:43.339
Questions, councils? Amelia Lorentson 01:13:46.542
Council lost. Terms of notified motions, how many notified motions have been brought forward this term? Were brought forward last term and by whom? I have the answer. I'll address it in my speech. I wasn't didn't mean to catch you out. CEO. It was a very honest question. Any other questions? In terms of 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 01:14:42.984
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. Frank Wilkie 01:14:55.704
Yep, it has been subject to workshop number one and two. Nicola Wilson 01:15:02.444
As part of that benchmarking, what was the general findings about deputations from other councils of whether they allow them and for how long? Larry Sengstock 01:15:12.012
A number of councils don't actually allow them and it ranges from 3 minutes up to 15 minutes. The model, in whole procedures, it says for example 15 minutes. It doesn't say, it doesn't give any exact, just gives out the exact. Unknown 01:15:37.935
I have a question, just in relation to deputations. Thanks. Jessica Phillips 01:15:42.119
Why are we looking at a change? Larry Sengstock 01:15:46.299
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 about around the interpretation of the existing Standing Orders which say five, three minutes. So the 15 minutes of three times five minutes or per deputation is not clear and we've had discussions around the table on that. 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 01:16:22.797
This is the CEO at the one of your meetings, there's some feedback about the capacity for the Council to provide answers to the questions and issues raised in the invitations. Is that part of what's. Larry Sengstock 01:16:38.657
Well it's not to get any answers here, debate, but it is to provide if needs clarification, then that ability then is provided in these changes. Jessica Phillips 01:16:55.356
Thank you. Just another question. Apart from deputation then and question time, when stand in front of Councillors and provide how they feel about their community if we don't have that? What's another. No, no, but what's another example? How else can they online give. Their community a voice. You mean in a formal meeting session? 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. Apart from organising meetings with Councillors? Unknown 01:17:39.319
But another one like we're online? There's. I guess there's not. I don't time. Is there? Frank Wilkie 01:17:48.023
We're not talking about deputations. All we're saying is we're reducing instead of one, except there'd be five minutes each. We're saying only 15-minute deputations. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:15.986
Regarding deputations, what do the best practice examples provided by the State say about deputation times and limits? Frank Wilkie 01:18:28.597
The best practice guide does not provide an exact advice on that. It just provides an example, which is 15 minutes for deputations, but it doesn't really venture into different formats or whether that should be per deputation or it doesn't provide any advice of the timeframe allocated. In accounts and into deputations. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:50.196
In terms of confusion, there was discussion that it was confusing what was uploaded on the website. Our Standing Orders, Noosa Council Standing Orders, are they clear or are they also, is it also written confusingly? My understanding the Standing Orders provided by Council are very clear that it's 15 minutes per speaker. Frank Wilkie 01:19:16.624
Am I correct? For deputation? Larry Sengstock 01:19:21.575
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 01:19:38.167
Can I ask, can we have the section of our Standing Orders read? Because have you got a copy there Nicola? Nicola Wilson 01:19:48.847
Yeah. So, 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 this is for if it's one person. Where it has been determined the deputation will be heard, a convenient time should be arranged for that purpose and an appropriate time period allowed. 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 of the 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. 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 That's the source of the confusion which we're hoping to clarify today. Through the Chair. Councillor Phillips. Karen Finzel 01:21:25.087
Thank you. 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 community to look like we're in any way minimising or diluting our government 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, at Standing Orders, deputations 7.2. It actually says in there, I will read the last bit of 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 purpose, and an appropriate time allowed, and then in practice, they 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, and when Councillors at the meeting determine otherwise by you know, excuse me, they are going to ask you to talk to them and. 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. Democracy, which is really concerning, but we need to take be care very of the cat with us. Need to be careful with Frank Wilkie 01:23:28.736
You have a question it's just been right yet. You want to move to a question what's that question. You were providing an answer to earlier question. Karen Finzel 01:23:38.783
I was providing to clarify, SPEAKER_03_b 01:23:40.903
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 the, I've read this document, there's practice of Standing Orders through the State government to try and help inform this meeting today around how we set clarity in the wording of the Standing Orders. So for the general questions at this time, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:13.015
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 meeting dated 16 September 2024 regarding the amendment of Noosa Council Standing Orders and other relevant policy. 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 updated Standing Orders section 18 notified motions to delete the following words 18.8 the CEO may reject a notice of motion which 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 two. C deputation three subject to the amendments of items one, three and six and the deletion of item five as follows: one, up to 15 minutes will we'll be allocated per deputation at each meeting for members of the community to present deputations. A maximum of three deputations per meeting are allowed. The applicant must provide Council with the deputation topic and sufficient background material whereby the CEO on receiving an application for deputation shall notify the chairperson who in conjunction with the CEO shall determine whether the deputation may be heard. Inform the applicant of the determination in writing. Deletion of number five, that four deputations per calendar year by the same applicant act. 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 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 guidelines adopted on 17 October 2019. And E, adopt the Councillor investigation policy attachment seven, and repeal current as adopted on 19th of November 2020. I'll second that. Firstly, I'd like to request that the Chair allows me some leniency. Speech is just under six minutes, not five. The alternate motion in front of us seeks to protect the democratic rights of Councillors and those of the community. It seeks to uphold the current Standing Orders about notified motions and deputations which comply with the Local Government Act and the principles of democratic representation, community engagement and transparency. As mandated by section four two of The proposed changes to the Standing Orders specifically concerning deputations and notified motions beg the question, what problem we trying to solve or who are stop? The current system has functioned well for years. For example, I brought to your Council two significant notified motions on Burgess Creek last year without any issues. Over the past five years, other than myself, only one other Council, Councillor Stockwell has made 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 two notified motions, a notified motion requesting the Council policy position on shark nets and drumlines, an extension to the consultation period of the Noosa Plan amendments, and one trial of rescue tubes on remote beaches to 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 the CEO or administration having the power to veto councillors' motions. The fight. Is about safeguarding the democratic rights of all Councillors and the community we serve, and our community to be heard. The residents of Noosa elect Councillors to represent their interests independently Council. The proposed changes to the orders, in my opinion, threaten to silence this independent voice. Currently the councils can submit notified motions with seven days notice and the chairperson has already the authority to rule a motion out of order if it falls outside council's jurisdiction. The proposed changes however go beyond this and would, want one, 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 criteria. And three, limit council's ability to propose new initiatives outside of these plans. This would, in my opinion, stifle innovation and restrict council's 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 and future interests of residents and furthermore section four 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 to five minutes and restricting their frequency weakens the public's ability to the 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. As elected representatives, we must protect the democratic right to bring forward notified motions and to ensure that deputations remain transparent and an accessible platform for public participation. This includes 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 people who elected us. I ask that you support the motion that protects the democratic rights of Councillors and 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. It reads: adopt the updated Standing Orders to Council meetings policy, divided at attachment 1, and appeal current Standing Orders policy with section, 18 notified motions to be amended to read. Councils are encouraged to lodge notices of motion which: relate to the objectives, roles and functions of the Council as outlined in the annual operation and Corporate Plan b are clear in intention; c are not identical or substantially similar to a notified motion that has been considered by the Council and lost in the preceding six months; d are not outside the powers of Council, 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 but is has not yet complete. Been approved. May I have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Wilson, thank you. Look, Councillors, believe I 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 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. 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 for moving this amended motion. It gives some guidance to Councillors without diminishing the power of the narrowing elected body or imbuing the CEOs.the CEO with. So I'm not saying it can be unacceptable an level of authority over the Council body. That's the reason for moving it. Nicola Wilson 01:36:20.257
Could I ask a question to the CEO, to the Chair? Are the opportunities what do Councillors have to present items for discussion or consideration other than a notified motion? Larry Sengstock 01:36:34.592
We also have Councillor discussion forum which is where Councillors councils can bring ideas their 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 problem comes through, but yes, that's the other option. 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? It's directly to me and forward the reports and then we can have that discussion and bring it to an alarm. I don't know how to put it in support, so why is it not an issue? Frank Wilkie 01:37:24.080
So he's you're saying signing if Councillors haven't got their emerging issues 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. I mean, Councillor Clarence. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:44.258
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. Bring 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. Karen Finzel 01:38:49.620
Just to clarify, I want because I can't see the screen. SPEAKER_03_b 01:38:53.117
Has this motion at the beginning been someone Simon, second of information. Yes. Can you please remind me who was that? Frank Wilkie 01:39:03.876
Nicola, Councillor Stockwell the original motion. Is this the amendment or No this is the amendment. So the original motion was moved by Councillor Amelia, seconded by Councillor Jessica Phillips. And the amendment was moved by myself, Wilson. The amendment is asked, substituting words that encouraged to lodge notices of motion which relate to the objective's role as a function of the councillor's care and their intention, and yeah, they're not mandatory. You see that or I can't see, no. Is there anyone with the main screen available? she's got the screen. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:49.372
The screen's being shared. Frank Wilkie 01:39:52.312
Karen. Nicola Wilson 01:39:58.443
That's Good. we clarify that taken out. thank you. the item above that gives the CEO Frank Wilkie 01:40:02.603
The. Yeah. Yeah, so this is taking out the CEO's ability to veto a notice of motion on these grounds. It's just general guidelines. It's become generally. Non-mandatory guidelines for Councillors for when they're lodging a. Notified motion that it's relevant and focused. That's the purpose of that. So any other Councillors who wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell. Ben Shepardson 01:40:40.380
Yes, I'm Ben shepardson. Um, yeah, I. Could you speak closer to the microphone, please? That much. As a person who has been a recipient of notices of motion, I'm quite happy with what the staff have recommended, but I'm also happy to leave it in our own hands. Um, the important things with notices of motion is, when they're effective, 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. He's an example. Sorry, can I hear something? SPEAKER_03_b 01:41:48.248
Sorry, I didn't hear that. Okay. Whoever's interrupted can't will stop while I can hear, comment clearly. Frank Wilkie 01:41:57.785
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 01:42:11.594
The issue with the Noosa motion is that it doesn't go through all the normal processes that our budget deliberations, for example, go SPEAKER_11 01:42:22.654
Through. 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. Unknown 01:42:33.803
But this, once again, your amendment is preferable one. It does take us and put the responsibilities back on Council, so I'm happy to support it. Frank Wilkie 01:42:46.814
Question. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 01:42:49.174
So, your amendment is not suggesting any changes to the report suggesting we reduce deputation time. No, this is only to do with. You're just taking the section from. Just clarify for me, sorry. Frank Wilkie 01:43:05.180
This is only to do with notify motions. Yeah. It removes the CEO's power to veto motions based on these conditions. This changes. 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 at all and it does not give the CEO the power to veto a motion, even if they're contrary to these conditions. And, sorry, just to clarify then, in relation to amelia's, it's going to come back up to this. And it doesn't change amelia's at all. So it's still. Except for this section, aye. Yeah, yeah. So it takes. The CEO will still not be able to veto a notice of motion based on these grounds. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:03.218
Can I, Through the Chair, can I actually, question? Yes, you said it doesn't change A. It does change A. Sorry, this is a debate. OK. Yeah, we've had this. OK. Question? Through the Chair to the CEO. Can you confirm, currently, Councillors have the ability to rule out a notified motion? Is that correct? Yes. Under the current Standing Orders? Yes. OK. So. So, in your opinion, is the amendment in front redundant. That ability is. Larry Sengstock 01:44:44.429
I don't think it is. My interpretation of it is that it's just clarifying it prior to giving some parameters around what the 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 also be able to Amelia Lorentson 01:45:10.411
Step up. This 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 actually captures 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 it's SPEAKER_09_b 01:45:44.345
Yeah, thank you. SPEAKER_03_b 01:45:52.478
I just have a question, yes, please, Through the Chair to the CEO. Is there a definitive timeline when Karen Finzel 01:46:04.718
We have to have the scanning orders wrapped up? No. Larry Sengstock 01:46:12.261
Not definitive. We do need to include or accept the changes from the government. Are a lot of changes to be changes, but there is no absolute deadline. Karen Finzel 01:46:27.854
So apart from adopting the legislative changes, time frame that's going to be that time? Could go. Yes, so we could do SPEAKER_03_b 01:46:42.787
Like put forward a proposal that we ratify the legislative changes that meet us within that requirements and then separate other matters under our Standing Orders for Council meetings to be moved to another meeting time. I just this feel 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 I think yeah, my question is, well, perhaps I just proceed more motion onto the table that we just move this and defer this until another meeting, external in October. Frank Wilkie 01:47:43.874
Okay, so Councillor Finzel has moved a procedural motion to defer the matter to the October meeting so defer the matter to the October meeting. Point of order Mr Chair. Yes, what's the If you read the Standing Orders you do need a seconder. Okay, well we'll just get the motion defer the matter to the October meeting round to allow further discussion. Now, further, to allow, what Council of discussion on the matter. On Karen? SPEAKER_03_b 01:48:36.822
Yeah, not, so that's part of it. But I think we need to be very specific. And I can see, I just don't think right now, working through the faith, it's I mean, very challenging, you know, and brought matters before us. I'm just not comfortable with it. Appears we're just building 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, all Councillors. Is that correct that needs a seconder for procedural motion? I believe so we currently need a second to see the motions, don't we? SPEAKER_03_b 01:49:48.484
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 Frank Wilkie 01:50:09.745
Standing in the same place today as them. Alright Karen, point noted. Thank you, Chris. 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, Stockwell have spoken to. Karen, do you have any further questions about the amendment? I have no questions about amendment, I think, yeah, it doesn't matter. 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 it's entirely supportive of that position. It's to provide some guidance to Councillors, not about how 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. 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. Stockwell. Okay. Wilson, Councillor Stockwell. Against? Councillor Lorentson, Phillips. Yes. Councillor Finzel. I'll use my casting vote. It's carried. Okay, to the original motion. Karen Finzel 01:52:43.120
Just, excuse me, Through the Chair. SPEAKER_03_b 01:52:47.240
Just prior to, like, writing the reason why that. Procedural motion. Now in the Minutes, says that it was for Councillor discussion, it actually wasn't 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. Okay, noted, Councillor. Is it just because it Karen Finzel 01:53:22.742
Doesn't actually reflect what I have to say. Okay. Well, we can amend the Minutes to reflect that. Oh, sure. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:53:35.537
So we can do our further discussion to get the wording right on motions. Karen, the proposed changes. SPEAKER_03_b 01:53:45.410
It's it is in doing so that this Council is not under disrepute dispute. And nor are we seen to be diluting the opposite. Frank Wilkie 01:53:55.811
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. SPEAKER_11 01:54:27.840
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. Brian Stockwell 01:54:44.315
In essence, the Standing Orders are how we set up our system of meetings to get informed and the deliberative decisions. The 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 and a very small 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. This is one way to get an issue. 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. SPEAKER_11 01:57:01.680
Was CEO. It was very apparent we've had a range of inefficiencies. Problems. And associated with the lack of clarity and I believe that this motion actually undoes quite a lot of the review, consensus that we achieved on major points in those three workshops, hence I won't support the substandard motion. Frank Wilkie 01:57:25.093
I'd like to move an amendment that the deputations conducting will be conducted in accordance with the following procedural document, where one 15 minutes in total will be allocated to each meeting for members of the community to present deputations. That's when of the five minutes 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. You thank you Councillor Finzel. Finchley. 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, it increases access and equity of access to three deputations per meeting and upon request to the Chair and the Councillors there's nothing to say that those deputations can't be 5, 10, maybe even 15 minutes each anyway upon request it clarifies the wording so this is not about limiting and reducing it's actually about increasing access to more than one person per deputation to allow at least three if need to allow three if that's required and also if they want to have that speak for more than five minutes they can do so it also responds to feedback we've 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 and that's read out they were saying why what 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 the 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 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 because we're all on the same page here, all for democratic inclusion we all learned a lot through hearing back from our residents to any argument here that includes that certain councils are against democratic inclusion trying to shut down democracy or block councils council's capacity for the community capacity to have a say to notified motions or deputations is misleading the community this is about actually increasing equity of access so I hope you support this amendment Jessica Phillips 02:01:06.421
Wording upon request suggests that yeah question is upon request in my opinion the interpretation means that could then be rejected or request is could suggest you can say no it's a question could the wording upon request suggest that we can say no Frank Wilkie 02:01:38.487
Well we have today in terms of Councillors being allowed to speak longer than just allowed so what wording would you like to see there with an extension of time allowed upon request like in my in and that's what I'm in my opinion upon request says well it doesn't say allowed or refused allowed upon request so would you prefer definitive definitely just remove the words upon request I think is what's been asked. The purpose of it is like it has to be in response to a request that the resident needs to ask for to receive it. Jessica Phillips 02:02:33.786
Why are we asking our community to ask to speak? Why to us upon request for a longer time? As a new Councillor, I've enjoyed. Well, I mean, we can allocate unlimited time, but. 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 02:03:02.897
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 02:03:14.837
But then it's reducing someone to five minutes, because 15 minutes to me says we could listen to three, 15-minute deputations and that would take 45 minutes. Frank Wilkie 02:03:23.847
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. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:33.767
You can speak 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 02:04:08.450
Well, it says adopt the new deputation procedure provided in attachment 3 with the procedure to be amended to read 15 minutes in total, so deputations procedure as written as conditions contained within that, would be adopted aboard this change allocated with an extension of time, to allow 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, 15 can I do that? Amelia Lorentson 02:05:00.869
So question, okay, Through the Chair. Don't we already afford that opportunity through an individual deputation? So if someone in a group wants to speak more than five minutes, they can just write and request an individual deputation of 15 minutes. Thank you for the question. Okay, so I'm just processing this. Okay, so they have that option at the moment. So if this doesn't go up, someone who wants to speak over five minutes can ask to present an individual deputation which allows them 15 minutes to speak. Up to 15 you have Okay. Frank Wilkie 02:05:47.949
It's extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting Chair and by consent of the Councillors and panel. Think Councillors will say no. Karen Finzel 02:05:59.209
Excuse me, oh SPEAKER_03_b 02:06:00.889
Yes, Council Oh, a couple of things. Yes. Sorry to interrupt but firstly um request break given we've been at this for two hours that's reasonable. Secondly, while we're on the break, which is not permitted but at some point, I've received a recommendation to be seconded and there under receipt for motion 15.2 are exemptions of the rule for needing a second as of the 22nd of July 2024. Can we please come a little bit back. Frank Wilkie 02:06:34.444
Okay, well we'll adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes and we'll, are Councillors okay to Amelia Lorentson 02:06:45.584
Can I just make a recommendation that we vote on amendment before adjourning, given that in the middle of discussion. Frank Wilkie 02:06:56.442
We're going to finish this amendment. Can I ask you to put your hand up and then to Councillor Wilson. SPEAKER_11 02:07:04.082
I think if Councillor Finzel's question is one of process and her perceived preference 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 do need that question answered. Frank Wilkie 02:07:29.330
It does require a second death. Procedural motion has the new Standing Orders have not been accepted, so these are Standing Orders. We need to adopt to get a seconder. I've stand Karen Finzel 02:07:47.018
Thank you. Okay, so we'll continue on with this amendment before we break. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? I wish you could help me, sorry. Frank Wilkie 02:08:04.158
I think I have a question. So, when somebody is applying to make a deputation, are we not now saying that they need to provide the script? So has that been taken out? No. they do well, that's in thank you. Nicola Wilson 02:08:24.801
Because at the time of writing that script, they would need to know whether they're writing script for five minutes or for longer. And so at that point, we'd need all-- I'm 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 where they're preparing for the meeting or when they're in meeting? Frank Wilkie 02:08:51.250
Could be either of they're right and that they've got, because they're a couple of answers. Calculators that can-- like a 15-minute speech is about 2,000 words, a five 795 words. So there are ways of working out approximate time to be taken. And if-- know, you so you'll be able to give something-- to give time when you're fine to have a deputation. And if it happens to be running over time because of, you know, speaking slowly, more during the deputation, you can ask to go away. Amelia Lorentson 02:09:25.009
It's flexible. 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 I wanted to clarify that. Sorry, you brought it up. 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 in terms of a five-minute rule. Frank Wilkie 02:10:14.843
And it's normally the chair's looking at you and might say, well, you're 15 minutes is up, would you like, you know, time to continue? All right. Now, Councillor Stockwell? Unknown 02:10:32.780
Yes. I think in the discussion there has been some SPEAKER_11 02:10:42.480
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 02:10:58.960
Well, I'm hoping it's a catch-all. So certainly at the meeting itself. When all councils are present. But the Chair has the right to approve. The application to host have. A deputation comes to the Chair of the meeting ahead of time. So that hasn't changed. But if it goes over in the meeting, we normally include the Councillors in seeking consent. For the deputation to continue. So I was hoping it would be a catch all? SPEAKER_11 02:11:51.119
I'll speak to it. I'm happy to support the amendment. I don't think it relates to prior to the meeting. Because that would be a change to the deputation procedure. Unknown 02:12:06.769
As someone who's known to have 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. Brian Stockwell 02:12:23.600
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 is 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 My experience appears to be different to most of the Councillors, councillors. 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. 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. SPEAKER_07_b 02:13:40.905
I'd like to speak, 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 02:14:16.800
Can I ask a question? Are we reducing the time allowed for the community to speak in this amendment? Frank Wilkie 02:14:25.940
I will answer it by saying if they still want 15 minutes, they can upon request. It's about, not 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 Amelia Lorentson 02:14:55.938
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 amendment in front of us. SPEAKER_03_b 02:15:26.620
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 opportunity to come and speak originally to five minutes. It can be expanded upon. Yes. Provide then greater opportunity for more people of different subjects across the Shire That's absolutely correct, Councillor Finzel. So is that a mathematical information? Karen Finzel 02:16:15.806
So is that only at the Ordinary Meeting? Frank Wilkie 02:16:22.046
No, deputations can occur at the General Committee Meeting or the ordinary committee meeting. And I'll just ask you this is always a thing and then any other community I think just as a general, and the ordinary, there's two opportunities at each meeting round, so potentially six people per meeting round as opposed to two. SPEAKER_03_b 02:16:50.333
So that does put them in my voice at and table the-front for every community that's kind going of to thing. Speak. Frank Wilkie 02:16:56.916
Exclude Council special man. And a special man? The president exclude. No special man, I don't believe. Kinzell? Karen Finzel 02:17:09.150
Yes, it does, thank you. SPEAKER_03_b 02:17:11.632
I think um I don't think that 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. That's an important part of what we're trying to 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 how you propose this. So I will support the motion because I believe it does support the democratic opportunity for people to have a big voice. SPEAKER_01_b 02:17:56.910
Can I ask a question? Yes. Amelia Lorentson 02:17:59.410
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 02:18:25.116
In answer to your question, no one's been shut down from speaking. We know we've shut down people 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 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. It's not about shutting down development. Democracy. Anyone else who wants to speak? Councillor Wilson. SPEAKER_07_b 02:19:27.538
I think the problem we were trying to fix here was clarity and I'm not sure that this Nicola Wilson 02:19:32.381
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 I 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 of how much today 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. 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 Councillors as well. On the basis of clarification I think we've SPEAKER_07_b 02:20:49.365
Not reached a resolution yet. Frank Wilkie 02:20:52.725
Question, how would samina need to be changed to satisfy what she was seeking? For reality. 15 minutes or 5 minutes and no latitude to extended need? Is that what you're suggesting? SPEAKER_07_b 02:21:10.200
Not necessarily a latitude but we're kind of saying if you ask for it you're going to get more time so that didn't they clarify it. Amelia Lorentson 02:21:19.516
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 minutes, can do so individually by submitting an individual deputation. SPEAKER_07_b 02:21:54.710
They can do that. So if I come back to that. I think the problem we're trying to fix is 17. Nicola Wilson 02:22:03.489
2 Says where individually an application for deputation is received and appropriate time period is allowed and that's what we haven't defined is what that because the 17.4 issue is about three people. SPEAKER_03_b 02:22:21.873
The problem that we've tried to solve here, even when you look at the State. Is this a question, Councillor Finzel? Alright, then to Councillor Nicola if she would consider then putting some other upwording? Wording on it? It's a clap from passion I support the idea that we need really clear, concise information back to our community. This is where the answers come in. I don't think this is what anyone else Frank Wilkie 02:22:51.536
Would. Okay. Is this a question to you? Is you. It's Councillor Nicola if she would like to change the word. Well, okay. No. No, she doesn't want to. So we'll test the amendment, let it stand before. There's no limit to the amount of amendments that Councillors can move on this issue unless you move the original so motion Councillor Finzel, Wilson, Councillor Stockwell, myself will freely 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 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 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 Phillips. I'll use my casting vote to carry that. No. we can test this all again on Thursday and try 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 02:24:51.015
To have that 15-minute break. Amelia Lorentson 02:24:52.558
Can we just finish this? I think it's only fair for people in the gallery to just finish this report. Frank Wilkie 02:24:54.418
It's not unanimous that we have A break at the moment, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:25:06.498
Sure, I respect that. Frank Wilkie 02:25:07.858
Okay. So, any other Councillors wish to speak to this? I'm ending the motion now for us. I'll speak to it. Look, this is a very complicated issue. We're all on board in terms of wanting to increase democratic representation and inclusion to 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. 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? SPEAKER_11 02:26:07.647
Councillor Stockwell I have got a question. I don't know if the appropriate staff in the room is not here. Unknown 02:26:14.120
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 02:26:26.800
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 us a definitive advice as to the requirements under law and the risks of having deputations in answer to your question we've got Director of regulation compliance Richard you're good right here. Can I even answer your question? Yes, Richard MacGillivray 02:26:47.860
Thank you Councillor um just in relation to development assessment matters um 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 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 through deputations is the fact is that there is no right reply of 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 2016 and DA assessment rules for the community 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, to Councillors would we need to be aware of the potential for lobbying which could occur leading up as well. Noting the acts requirements regarding influencing decisions being made. So it's the interest of all parties that the correct process through the Planning Act 2016 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. Frank Wilkie 02:29:20.514
So it's question your Council 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? No, now, I'm sorry, I'll, was going to move the amendment, there was a direct negative, I can't do that, so I'll wait until Thursday night. Okay, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:29:45.281
In terms of lobbying, my understanding under the definition that lobbying only applies to registered lobbyists, and registered lobbyists have to be recorded under council's register, so that risk, it's not there if they're registered lobbyists, is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 02:30:16.978
Lobby, My advice is that they don't have to be registered lobbyists to 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 sick. 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 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 02:31:01.660
So if that 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 02:31:29.697
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 formal 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 if the act and one party has the ability to have a deputation the other one doesn't that may impact on their rights to an appeal potentially because they might be relying on particular information provided through that deputation may have influenced a particular outcome of an application. Amelia Lorentson 02:32:15.262
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 opposing or Richard MacGillivray 02:32:33.048
Supporting the application that's my question that's right so my apologies for that Councillor my advice would be that for all parties that's right so not for one specific group the applicant or community or another party is that we don't have deputations for any of those parties and the correct process to provide feedback is through the informal formal notification process Frank Wilkie 02:32:59.512
So far Councillor Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie have spoken to this motion anyone else wish to speak before we go to A for this will have the status of a recommendation that will go to thursday's Ordinary Meeting sorry I have a question does that make C5 inconsistent with what Richard just advised 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 if you wish to do so I was Brian Stockwell 02:34:06.251
Too happy to but yeah that's then I would just move that oh sorry is it number five that we're talking about here it will be Brian can you see the screen kathy's oh I'm just moving too quick we're doing good. Everyone 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 okay which reads deputations that I don't see can you read it the needed amendments to delete number five Amelia Lorentson 02:34:54.679
Okay angry and re-instact the original Frank Wilkie 02:35:10.760
Okay all right look I'll second that for the purpose of debate um I don't need to talk about the I thought the Director outlined the reasons why we would nation in this regard quite eloquently okay Councillors I Amelia Lorentson 02:35:41.419
Speak to this one because it did challenge me a little bit um my concern was that uh the reality is that we get sent information for and against non-stop on every application that we as Councillors have a duty of care to do due A deputation by an applicant then prohibits our communities right to make a deputation for or against to me this is an equity issue we can't one hand say you know democratic processes only applied 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 02:36:47.069
Can the Councillors speak to the amendment? Questions? Christians. That so this would allow deputations on development applications from the 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. SPEAKER_11 02:37:29.646
No, it's the opposite, you state the opposite, the original motion was proposing to take this out, by amendment put to date, Frank Wilkie 02:37:43.286
So your amendment which, your amendment would prevent the amputations, yes. Back to the original. So we want this to go back. No, it's oh. So brian's amendment prevents deputations. Yes. From occurring when there's a live application. Yes. From community or from. SPEAKER_07_b 02:38:16.542
From community. Or all the developer. Or applicants. Amelia Lorentson 02:38:22.302
It goes back to the original. Okay. The original wording. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 02:38:27.095
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 02:38:39.355
Okay. Okay. Bye-bye. So I'm going to tell a question. Yes, Councillor Finzel. I'm just trying to think of the changes. Dictation on this what I mean to it and not permitted. Frank Wilkie 02:38:59.190
For me so does that align with our policy for Councillors that we're. Sorry, that was a cough. Councillor Finzel oh, sorry. Go ahead. Amelia Lorentson 02:39:18.660
Can I step in and maybe suggest the wording deputations on specific to Council for determination. I'm not, oh actually no, no reference, oh it is covered here. Richard MacGillivray 02:39:37.817
Can I just add some information I think where Councillor Finzel was my second door to ask the question was in relation to the Councillors policy for engagement. Yes, thank you. So that process is still okay and then once agenda is released there is 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 all 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 02:40:36.083
Yes, thank you. SPEAKER_03_b 02:40:37.343
We need to clarify that those patients can only come once in a while given our policy restrictions. Frank Wilkie 02:40:46.144
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 that thank you. Okay. Any other Councillors have any questions about this change? So I'll put the- Councillor Stockwell, would you wish to close SPEAKER_11 02:41:18.614
I will um Councillor Lorentson 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 for all the reasons that the Director outlined. Frank Wilkie 02:42:17.922
You can ask now. Okay, we'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Stockwell. Against? Yes, I'm a yes. I'm for. Councillor Finzel. Thank you. And Councillor against? Lawrence and 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 Councillor Lorentson, Stockwell, Councillor Wilkie. Any other Councillors wish to speak in favour of or against this motion or move any further amendments to this complicated Karen Finzel 02:43:15.118
That's a question for the Mayor to clarify. SPEAKER_03_b 02:43:19.498
Can we still make changes at the Ordinary Meeting before we go to the final vote? What was the question? Frank Wilkie 02:43:26.988
You can make more changes. Yes, 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 it. Thank you. All right. Okay. Any other Councillors wish to speak to this motion that's before us? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 02:43:56.458
I will close and I'll keep it really brief. A little bit confused and a little 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. I found a really good quote. It's ex-president of the US, obama, president 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 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 thought with all the Councillors around the table as we deliberate what has been discussed today and then Thursday come to the table with clearer minds and include or exclude anything that's been I'm voting clearly in favour of the alternate motion. It upholds our democratic rights of Councillors. And again it upholds the community that we serve. Frank Wilkie 02:45:37.886
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? I'm for. Okay, so that's unanimous. Sorry, what are we voting on? I'm sorry. We're voting on the motion. Karen Finzel 02:46:04.247
Sorry, I'm watching the topic. Yes, it's four. Frank Wilkie 02:46:06.687
Yeah, four. So that's unanimous. 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. And interest 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, everybody. We've now moved, we've been reopened after a short adjournment. To 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 for item 7.1, appeal 1997/2024 relating to the refusal of MCU 230101, Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation 561 okay, I'll 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 the same to do that. Councillor Lorentson, thank you. Any discussion? All in favour? Five just uh before you do. Yes Councillor Stockwell. The way you read it out, sorry I was being frantic, is it delegates or Well, I said delegate. Councillor No, I think that's correct. Okay, Sir. You change the motion to reflect what you said? Well, Council is a singular, so it's delegated. Thank you. Yeah, I'm delegates. Yeah, sorry. 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
