General Committee - 16 December 2024
Date: Monday, 16 December 2024 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 03:30:38
Synopsis: Ringtail Creek function facility deferred to 16 Jan 2025 amid noise conditions, Cootharaba farm stay approved with bushfire controls, Solid finances, Climate progress, Legal delegation.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Council deferred decision on MCU24/0084 Function Facility at 658 Louis Bazzo Dr, Ringtail Creek to 16 Jan 2025 after amended conditions were tabled; vote 5–2 (For: Wilson, Phillips, Wegener, Finzel, Lorentson; Against: Stockwell, Wilkie) (59:22–1:15:28) (Item 7.1). Brian Stockwell ruled an initial deferral motion out of order for not specifying a date per Standing Orders; a revised dated motion then carried (1:04:29–1:05:13) (Item 7.1). Staff outlined key conditions for the function facility: 11:00–22:00 operations, all guests off-site by 22:30, max 150 guests, real-time noise monitoring, mandatory bus use for >50 guests, acoustic barrier near 642 Louis Bazzo Dr, and compliance with noise/operational management plans (6:07–9:25) (Attachment 1 to Minutes, Item 7.1). Paul King (Acoustic) confirmed a stringent 39 dB LAeq(15 min) external limit at nearest sensitive receptors with character adjustments; explained enforcement metrics and low ambient hinterland context (12:15–16:49; 40:33–41:18) (Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray confirmed public notification by registered post met statutory “reasonable steps” under the Planning Act; region-wide notice (not individual letters) applied during Noosa Plan 2020 exhibition (9:57–11:50) (Item 7.1). Staff confirmed SARA-required upgrades to state-controlled Louis Bazzo Dr and sealed access for dust/noise; lighting to meet AS4282 (2:41–4:49; 46:29–48:07) (Item 7.1). Council approved an “Other Change” to 12637DA at 59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba: Group Farm Stay (max 88 beds incl. 8 teacher beds) with emergency access trail and bushfire conditions; clubhouse retained; lightweight removable “glamping” structures to avoid alienating agricultural land (2:27:25–2:36:01; 2:48:56–2:50:09) (Item 8.4). Peer review found acceptable bushfire risk; conditions include buses on-site for evacuation, prohibition of use on catastrophic FDR days, vegetation covenant over koala habitat, and emergency trail limited to emergencies (2:36:26–2:43:22; 2:41:57–2:42:51) (Item 8.4). Financial Performance (Nov 2024) noted: operating revenue +$2.3m vs budget (interest +$1.1m; sales +$0.5m; grants +$0.6m), opex underspend, cash reserves $101.3m; inclusion of sustainability indicators and cash holdings breakdown (1:16:34–1:26:44) (Item 8.1). RADF 2024/25 grants of $50,585 for seven projects approved; Cr Wegener left due to prescribed conflict (1:27:26–1:31:12) (Item 8.2). Climate Change Response Plan implementation update received; 23 of 37 targets/priorities on track; landfill flagged as key emissions challenge; net-zero roadmap due early 2025; strong focus on embedding climate risk, transport, organics diversion (1:46:07–2:03:48) (Item 8.3). Court Appeal 1219/2020 : Council delegated resolution authority to CEO after a confidential session under s254J(3)(e) LGR 2012 (3:29:49–3:30:24) (Item 9.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Narrow deferral vote on Ringtail Creek reflected tensions between timely decision-making and desire for a site visit; Chair warned of deemed refusal risk if out of statutory time, proposing Dec Ordinary as safer path (1:02:43–1:08:45) (Item 7.1). Public awareness gap : Adjoining residents said they were unaware that Noosa Plan 2020 made function facilities consistent in Rural zone; staff cited extensive whole-of-Shire engagement (11:20–12:15; 31:54–36:53) (Item 7.1). Deputation on Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment No. 2 was withdrawn by applicant Nick Cooke, limiting public hearing on scheme changes (Section 6.1 Minutes). QPS interface : Council relies on close working relationship with police for after-hours noise complaints if lodged to QPS rather than Council (20:48–21:42) (Item 7.1). Standing Orders enforcement : Chair ruled an undated deferral motion out of order, reinforcing procedural compliance (1:04:29–1:05:03) (Item 7.1). Legal / Risk Noise compliance anchored to Environmental Protection Act metrics (LAeq(15min), character adjustments); conditions require real-time monitoring, complaint logs, and potential independent acoustic reviews; breaches can attract fines, injunctions, prosecution (12:15–16:49; 17:28–19:48) (Item 7.1). Bushfire risk for Cootharaba farm stay managed via peer-reviewed design: emergency access trail, on-site buses for evacuation, operational bans on catastrophic FDR days; structures designed as removable to protect Agricultural Land Classification (2:36:26–2:44:15; 2:41:57–2:42:51) (Item 8.4). Statutory timeframes : Staff warned of “deemed refusal” exposure if Ringtail Creek decision slipped; advised seeking applicant’s agreement to extend (1:03:03–1:08:45) (Item 7.1). Confidentiality observed under LGR 2012 s254J(3)(e) for legal advice on Appeal 1219/2020 before delegating resolution to CEO (9.1 Minutes; 3:29:49). Notification sufficiency : Registered post confirmations satisfied Planning Act “reasonable steps,” despite residents’ claims of non-receipt (9:57–11:20) (Item 7.1). Lighting spill constrained by AS4282 (dark surrounds, 1 lux at boundary), with certification prior to use (46:29–48:07) (Item 7.1). Conflicts of Interest Amelia Lorentson declared a declarable interest (engaged a submitter once for legal advice) on Ringtail Creek MCU; remained after noting and meeting acceptance (Item 7.1; 1:44:51). Tom Wegener declared a prescribed conflict (son connected to “Artist’s Residency Noosa Natural Ecology”) and left for RADF item; vote carried unanimously without him (1:27:26–1:31:12) (Item 8.2). Planning Scheme & Policy Context Function facilities became “consistent” in Rural under Noosa Plan 2020; current draft amendments aim to allow only where in conjunction with nature-based tourism, narrowing scope (30:19–31:29) (Item 7.1). Policy rationale for amendment: curb isolated non-rural uses, link to on-site residency of nature-based tourism, protect rural lands; timing overlap meant current MCU assessed under 2020 scheme (28:28–31:29) (Item 7.1). Farm stay approval aligned with strategic framework for agro-tourism and low-impact rural accommodation; conditions avoid permanent alienation of agricultural land (2:46:40–2:48:30; 2:52:04–2:54:49) (Item 8.4). Environmental & Community Impacts Ringtail Creek : Acoustic barrier, real-time monitoring, bused guests, sealed access, and AS4282 lighting controls to protect amenity and fauna; generator/pumps must comply within 39 dB cap (23:43–25:36; 46:29–48:07; 54:42–55:49) (Item 7.1). Vegetation covenants required for both MCU (rehabilitation of identified community) and Cootharaba (koala habitat), reinforcing biodiversity protection (9:25; 2:36:26) (Item 7.1; Item 8.4). Climate Plan : 750 kW of Council solar; ~50% of Noosa connections host PV; landfill transformation, transport electrification, organics diversion flagged as next-step priorities (1:58:23–2:01:09) (Item 8.3). Community advocacy : Councillors sought targeted advocacy (tariffs, community battery ownership model) via LGAQ/State to reduce household costs and accelerate emissions cuts (2:19:31–2:23:05) (Item 8.3).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 16 December 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 DECEMBER 2024 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 12.31pm. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings APOLOGIES Nil. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 18 November be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS 6.1. DEPUTATION - NOOSA PLAN 2020 AMENDMENT NO 2 APPLICANT: NICK COOKE SPEAKERS - NICK COOKE Deputation withdrawn by applicant. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 DECEMBER 2024 7. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 7.1. MCU24/0084 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - FUNCTION FACILITY – 658 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE, RINGTAIL CREEK In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers in a personal capacity for legal advice on a single occasion. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not have a close personal relationship with the submitter. 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. Cr Lorentson remained in the meeting room. The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Provided by staff - Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the General Committee meeting dated 16 December 2024 - Amended Proposed Conditions Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilke That Council note the report by the Development Planner, to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 December 2024 regarding Application No. MCU24/0084 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Function facility situated at 658 Louis Bazzo Drive Ringtail Creek Qld 4565 and defer the matter to allow Councillors to attend a site inspection. The motion was ruled as out of order by the Chair as it was not in line with Council's Standing Orders. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Development Planner, to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 December 2024 regarding Application No. MCU24/0084 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Function facility situated at 658 Louis Bazzo Drive Ringtail Creek Qld 4565 and defer the matter to the 16 January 2025 General Committee Meeting. For: Crs Wilson, Phillips, Wegener, Finzel and Lorentson Against: Crs Stockwell and Wilkie Carried. 8. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 DECEMBER 2024 8.1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – NOV 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 outlining the November 2024 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 8.2. REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND (RADF) - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS 2024/25 ANNUAL ROUND In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to Artist's Residency Noosa Natural Ecology as my son has a connection to this project and may derive a benefit from this grant funding. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Wegener left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council A. Note the report by the Arts and Culture Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 regarding applications to the Regional Arts Development Fund 2025 Annual Round; and B. Approve the recommendations of the Assessment Committee to fund projects to the value of $50,585 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report. Carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2.03pm and resumed at 2.15pm Cr Wegener returned to the meeting. 8.3. CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE PLAN - IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Sustainability & Climate Change Project Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 providing an update on the implementation of the Noosa Climate Change Response Plan. Carried unanimously. 8.4. 131998.981211.5 APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, COOTHARABA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 DECEMBER 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 regarding Application No. 131998.981211.5 for an Other Change to Development Approval (12637DA) Integrated Permaculture Designed Organic Orchard and Golf Course Complex (18 holes) to include Group Farm Stay Accommodation (undefined use) and associated supporting infrastructure (maximum 88 beds), situated at 59 Kabi Rd Cootharaba, and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the following additional conditions outlined in Attachment 1. Carried unanimously. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION 9.1. CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 1219 OF 2020 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, DETACHED HOUSE AND RECONFUGURATION OF A LOT (1 LOT INTO 2 LOTS) AT 27 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS, NOOSA HEADS CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips 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 Item 7.1 Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. 1219 of 2020 Application for Multiple Dwellings, Detached House and Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 Lot into 2 Lots) 27 at Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads. Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That in respect of Planning and Environment Court Appeal 1219 of 2020, Council delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. Carried unanimously. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 4.02pm.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.000
Our appreciation and knowledge that we are on Kabi Kabi country and pay respects to Elders past, present and emerging. And just relate to the emerging leaders who recently with us Kabi Kabi commitment and reflect on some of the words in there that talks about Noosa is a place of great cultural and spiritual significance. It's a place of shadows from the Guardian Trees. It connects us all and draws us together from around the world. And their commitment suggests that the key to custodianship is having the humility and respect to care for and protect that which sustains us in return. So, something to keep in mind as we go through today's business. The first item, we note that we are all in attendance and we move on to the confirmation of minutes. confirmation of minutes. We have someone who wishes to move the confirmation of minutes, so we move Councillor Lorentson and seconded Councillor. We presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? The motion is carried. We did have a deputation on the agenda, but the deputy has advised that they are unable to make it today. it today. So we move then on to item 7, and there's one item referred from the committee. So we move then on to We have someone who wishes to It's a MCU 24 0084 for a material change of use for a function facility 658 Louis Basso Drive, Ringtail Creek. And we have several representatives of the planning group. the planning group, we've got the assessment team here, and Patrick, are you going to give us the overview? Matthew will give us the overview. Good afternoon councillors and staff. Yes, so this application, it's for a material change of use of premises for a function facility, and it's for the purpose holding small-scale functions, weddings and events. The use is proposed to operate between 11:00am. and 10:30pm. and cater for a maximum of 150 guests. The applicant advised that the proposed function facility is intended to be undertaken in accordance with an approved operational management plan. the key operational features of the proposed function facility are as follows so maximum of 96 events per year 72 estimated to be weddings and then with the max 150 guests the average might be 80 to 100 persons it's also estimated plan? Patrick Murphy 02:41.208
That 70 to 80 percent of guests to be chauffeured to an event and that's through two buses the primary issues that were associated with the development that we have assessed the application against is land use noise traffic and the protection of the site's environmental values first First and foremost the proposal is a consistent land use in the rural zone and from a noise management perspective an environmental noise impact assessment was submitted. submitted and peer-reviewed in support of the proposed development and the recommendations from that have been conditioned to ensure that the use operates in accordance with the relevant noise criteria. So the submission and approval of a noise management plan was a key recommendation and the construction of a 1.8 metre high by 30 metre long acoustic barrier parallel to the adjoining house at 642 Louis Bazzo Drive. Louis Bazzo Drive. It's been conditioned that noise from the site inclusive of patrons or and or amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels LEEQ adjusted for 15 minutes. adjusted for 15 minutes and external 20 off-site residents so that's external 20 off-site residents or sensitive receiver. All guests must be vacated from the premises by no later than 10:30pm. and functions and functions must not occur Queensland public holidays or on a Sunday unless followed by a gazetted Queensland public holiday. From a traffic from a traffic perspective a traffic traffic impact assessment was carried out by a registered professional engineer and the State assessment and referral agency has conditioned upgrades to Louis Bazzo Drive, which is a state controlled road. The access bit has been conditioned by council's engineers to be sealed to address dust and noise. It was also recommended that the site's environmental values values be protected through environmental covenants and environmental impacts have been addressed in the submitted ecological report and stormwater management plan. The application material and associated reviews have demonstrated that this use can occur on site with potential amenity impacts being mitigated through implementation of recommendations of the associated management plans or conditions. It's recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions. approved subject to conditions. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 05:44.784
Thank you. And we received by emails and suggested amended conditions. Would you like to walk us through that Patrick? Certainly can. Amelia Lorentson 05:52.964
Can I, excuse me, through the chair. Would it be possible be possible to start with questions? Brian Stockwell 05:58.740
No, I'd like the staff to do the attachments first. So we can just see how the staff have suggested a change, then we can ask questions after that. Patrick Murphy 06:07.860
So it is an amended set of conditions to go with the recommendation. The first change is to condition eight. A number of the conditions seek to augment the existing amenity conditions. For example, condition eight, just to tighten it up, making it clear that it's the use of the function facility is limited to the hours of 11am. to 10pm. including provision of amplified music sound because the site is also used for agricultural pursuits we just wanted to make sure it's quite clear as to what the condition related to. There's inclusion of a new condition condition 11 which requires a minimum of one bus must provided for all events which have over 50 guests. Subject to some of the discussion at the Planning Environment Committee meeting and our discussions with the applicant it was agreed that this would be a suitable condition to include. Conditions Conditions 15 and 16, just clarifying that the conditions are related to the function facility use, and then condition 17 is a new condition stating that the event manager and /or on-day controller must ensure that noise levels generated by the function facility use are continuously monitored facility use are continuously monitored in real time to protect the amenity of nearby sensitive receptors and ensure compliance with the relevant noise standards. Again just augmenting the existing noise conditions, further discussion at planning and environment It was agreed to insert that condition. Then new condition 22, just again providing that clarity. We talk about an amended plan being operational committee meeting. Sorry, environmental noise level impact assessment and noise management plans being required, but there really should be conditions in the approval requiring compliance with those documents, so that's been included as well. Similarly, new condition 26 requiring compliance with the operational management plan. plan. Condition 54 is a new condition and this condition embellishes the requirement for the covenant and also now requiring that there be rehabilitation occurring in the area identified as station community for and detailing the types of rehabilitation works to be provided and the final change was to the last condition which is now condition 65 and it was just providing that clarity the condition was I think there might have been some confusion with the condition considering that portable toilets were provided it was considered sensible to remove that word permanent from that condition thank you and I just might just note that we do have our environmental noise consultant available for questions today Paul King he's online our acoustic consultant my apologies Amelia Lorentson 09:25.760
Just two questions that I asked in the planning environment meeting that I'm seeking answers to. So Patrick, the first was in terms of the notice, notification. Council did receive confirmation from my host post that each letter sent Richard MacGillivray 09:57.776
I'm happy to answer that. So in terms of the requirement under the Act is that they've got to take the reasonable steps to issue that correspondence to the adjoining parties. So we have had formal correspondence or formal advice back from Australia Post that each of the properties adjoining the properties did have a registered post with the correspondence issued to each of those property owners. Australia Post have advised that each of those properties were delivered and have provided Matt with the details of that and they're seeking to follow up in an email with that confirmation. up in an email with that confirmation and our view the applicant has discharged their duty under the Act by meeting that requirement if there's a situation where a party it has been delivered but they saying they haven't received it then that's a situation beyond their ability to require any further steps I guess beyond that so technically they've met their obligation under the Act which is to issue that to the properties and to get advice from Australia Post that it has been delivered and the other question that I was seeking an answer which I asked on at the planning environment meeting was in relation to the amendments made to the Noosa Plan in 2020 so So it was... Amelia Lorentson 11:20.244
It was under those amendments that a function facility was defined as a consistent use. It had historically been an inconsistent use and my question was again around notification. I asked whether the adjoining residents were notified during the amendment process with the 2020 Noosa Plan. Were they notified and were they made aware of the change in the definition of function facilities? facilities. Richard MacGillivray 11:50.672
Yeah. So all residents were made aware. There wasn't a letter box dropped to all residents in the rural hinterland areas in relation to particular changes, but there was region-wide public notification which occurred in relation to the changes for the 2020 Noosa facilities. but no specific letters were sent to individual landowners in relation to the changes as such. Frank Wilkie 12:15.500
The question of the acoustics consultant um yeah paul could you us understand what condition 14 says amplified music associated with the previous must not operate outside sorry no 15 must not exceed 39 dba laeq adjusters 15 minutes external 20 off-site residents noise-sensitive receiver could you break that down into layman's terms please about what that means and what's the relevance to 15 minutes thanks Thanks. Paul King 12:50.472
Okay. so the intent of that condition is to set a numerical value that can be measured or to regulate its use. Unknown 13:00.572
In terms of the SEQ, which is the descriptor, so that's in acoustic So, the internal recognition is terms the energy average noise level. So it's not just a straight average because noise is a logarithmic scale in terms of looking at different levels. It's an energy average level. The 15 minutes comes from state legislation. legislation, the Environmental Protection Act defines 15 minutes as a minimum monitoring period for determining compliance. Paul King 13:30.504
There are longer periods for different type events. Road Road traffic noise, for example, has an 18-hour period. But a 15-minute period during the day and evening period, so 7am to 10pm, is deemed as an appropriate averaging period to assess the noise impact of a time-varying use. For example, a function... Facility, many different operations, you know, a supermarket, a fast food, something like that, so 15 minutes is an appropriate period. If we were looking at activities of music and such after 10 o 'clock at night, then shorter averaging times may be provided, and we'd be looking at sleep... And we'd be looking at sleep disturbance criteria, so Lmax criteria, which could relate to one second impacts. But in this case, the 39 decibels LEQ, so energy average, the ADJ and adjust, which means you have to adjust the noise if it's got any specific total or impulse characteristics. Unknown 14:31.576
So, a lot of low frequency noise. If you determine there's a lot of low frequency noise, then you add a penalty. If you measure 37, for example, and it's a lot of low frequency, you add 5 to it, so that would make the number 42, which would be non-compliant with the 39. Paul King 14:47.316
So, the conditions set in a way that captures both the characteristics of the noise and the level of the noise, and the 15 minute average... the level of the noise and the 15-minute averaging period is, I believe, based on my experience, an appropriate period during which to assess impact of noise at the time area such as a function facility upon residential... In terms of the 39, if you want me to explain what 39 decibels means, probably where you're sitting in the council chambers, I sat there before in front of you, if no one was talking I wasn't talking and it was just the air conditioning that you could faintly hear, that's somewhere between 35 and 40 decibels. So a boardroom, a private office is somewhere between 35 and 40. If I was sitting across the table from the councillor talking to you at a distance of about 1.5 metres, that would be a noise level of 60 to 65 decibels. So there's a big difference between normal conversational... between normal conversational speech at 65 and the limit we're talking about here which is 39. So 39 is quite a low noise level, is the point I'm trying to make. But that's based upon the consultants' measurements of existing ambient noise levels. The background noise level in the locality they've measured at two locations. So we're saying the criteria do not exceed that by more than five decibels. That's where the 39 comes from. The 5 dB exceedance or 5 dB increase is an accepted metric. which that level of change in noise level is not deemed offensive to the majority of the population so 39 decibels I feel is an appropriate limit for operations to 10pm. If it was not right after 10pm. then lower noise levels would apply. the way the conditions have been drafted, the function use finishes at 10 and then everyone has to go on and leave by 10:30. Frank Wilkie 16:49.008
So Paul, are you saying that the noise levels would have to be monitored for a minimum of 15 minutes and found to be higher than 39 decibels for 15 minutes for it to be deemed to be in breach? Jessica Phillips 17:11.680
It's around noise. Can you talk me through how council investigate or conduct a noise complaint investigation maybe on a Saturday evening at 10:30 at night? How would this happen in real life? In real life? Richard MacGillivray 17:28.340
In real life, in terms of monitoring. So the first thing, and as you'll note in the package of conditions, there's a range of different tools around complaint management procedures. So the onus around voluntary is one that seeks that the parties take reasonable steps to manage and monitor noise and particular complaints is the first port of call. So that requires them if there's issues raised for them to keep a log of those requests and b take appropriate action to respond to that if that those issues persist then they're able to be escalated to council who would then go and investigate those particular noise issues. If there's a situation where we're getting concerns raised in the evening council does have the ability to set up noise monitoring equipment. set up noise monitoring equipment and can take readings late at night if it needs to that would involve staff needing to work outside their normal hours to do that sometimes that does happen though for a range of reasons particularly our environmental health officers who deal with a range of issues under the Environmental Protection Act which sometimes they do include issues that arise after normal hours so we can address those from a time-to-time basis but those from a time-to-time basis but in most cases we would be seeking to put the onus of that responsibility back on the applicant to respond to the initial requirements there is also a condition in the application which if we do get reasonable complaints that are raised that are substantiated complaints we can require the applicant to prepare a separate independent acoustic report to go into further detail around the particular nature of the issues being raised and whether or not further mitigation may be required or not so there's an extra layer of I guess protection included in this recommendation if there are issues that do arise we can require them to do further investigation and get a further independent report and then council will evaluate and assess the recommendations and findings of that report and that may require further additional works to be require further additional works to be done or further acoustic treatment to be done to manage additional noise if it's found to occur if compliance is substantiated. Jessica Phillips 19:48.465
So just to follow up, thank you. Then the onus is on the applicant for the conditions, but then given that it's weddings, so it'll be different hosts each time. How does that play a part in... Yeah, Richard MacGillivray 20:05.352
So the approval runs with the land, so essentially the land holder or the applicant who owns obviously the permit, so the business owner, is responsible for compliance with all of those conditions at all times. So whilst they might have other parties coming to the site and having fun and yahooing, ultimately the responsibility rests with the land owner and the operator in terms of ensuring compliance. with those approval requirements so they're ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with those activities and they must ensure that the guests that are on site are well aware of those obligations and requirements otherwise they'll be the ones that will you know potentially could receive the fines or further enforcement action if breaches are confirmed. Jessica Phillips 20:48.736
And one more question then, since given that some of those complaints go through to police rather than to us, how are we going to assure that we're being told about complaints that are coming in- Okay, and one more question then. Yeah look, we have a close working relationship with the QPS in Noosa, so we liaise with them often, so if there's issues that they're receiving in relation to particular land use activities. relation to particular land use activity. They're quite often relaying that on to us, so we might undertake a joint inspection or we might take over and advise them. We're happy to deal with those particular requests moving forward and we would take action against the owner, I guess, owner, I guess, to ensure that they've taken all reasonable steps to address those issues from arising with the police need to attend in the first place. Nicola Wilson 21:42.135
If there were continued reaches, and we did have to go to that. Acoustic treatments that you talked about, how long might that process take and does that mean that the functions continue in the meantime? Richard MacGillivray 21:59.438
Good question. So look, there isn't a standard set of time. I guess it all comes down to the facts and circumstances of the nature of the breaches at the time and what's founded through. evidence and data gathering. There are instances where you may require them to undertake certain treatment. There may be a situation where you require them to withhold having any further events until we get to the bottom of this particular issue. It's the powers we can seek an injunction if we need to, if there's clear blatant disregard for their conditions and the operator is seeking just to you know continue to exceed the requirements that have been set upon them. So there's no one-fits-all solution as such. We would need to go through a process and a reasonable process in relation to the nature and scale of the issues raised. And take reasonable steps to work through those. And that will depend on the scale and nature of the impacts created from that and the level of exceedance maybe of the conditions that are imposed as well. And so they're sort of the different compliance tools that council has at its disposal right from a verbal... its disposal right from a verbal warning right through to a potential prosecution or an injunction against the applicant. Nicola Wilson 23:30.172
The Chair, just a question to Mr Paul King around power generator. What is the decimal reading for power generator? Paul King 23:43.532
Good question. So a number was used as part of the assessment. Again, the operator of the power generator on the site has to comply with the overall noise limits that we've set, so it's 39 decibels. Unknown 23:56.992
It falls within that because it's part of the operation of the site. but different fillings, levels, so on and so they've got a, they've adopted a noise level generator of 60 decibels at a distance of 8 metres, so that's equivalent to about 75 decibels at 3 metres. So that's a reasonable generator with an acoustic enclosure, so it wouldn't be a... It would need to be something and you can buy or you can hire generators that come in acoustic enclosures with proper exhausts but are not that nice at all. So the emergency ones they put out during storms and the like. Paul King 24:41.840
So it can be designed to achieve an appropriate noise level I suppose is the point I'm trying to make. Patrick Murphy 24:49.177
The facility will be connected to mains power the generator will only be used in backup circumstances. When we met with the operator on site that was conveyed to us. So following on from that, just to make sure then that the power generator on site is that you consider it will properly Can I just add to that? Nicola Wilson 25:13.066
On site, is that, do you consider the proper link condition that it meets the requirements as per Mr. Paul King's response around it's not one that we bought by from Bunnings, is it adequately conditioned that in the circumstances it has to be engaged and use the generator that it will meet the noise requirements in your plan? Patrick Murphy 25:36.146
Well, the condition does increase. Well, the condition does include the requirement for all noise from the site operation to comply with the condition. Nicola Wilson 25:48.087
Exactly with the type of power generator on site that it is. Patrick Murphy 25:54.043
We haven't got a condition specific to a power generator or a type of power generator. Nicola Wilson 25:59.023
Are we able to do that? Patrick Murphy 26:01.683
If councillors would like to include that condition it could be included. Nicola Wilson 26:04.883
Well, I think it could mitigate risk moving forward. Patrick Murphy 26:11.540
Have to make that a condition. Nicola Wilson 26:13.840
Oh, that's my call. Frank Wilkie 26:17.100
Well, if you want to put it to the table. No one's moved anything. Nicola Wilson 26:22.140
Oh, okay, we're just collecting information at the moment, okay. Frank Wilkie 26:26.440
I have a question. Another question, Councillor Wilkie. It's about the land rehabilitation. Condition 32 talks about a vegetation protection case. A vegetation protection covenant to be registered against the title of the property, which is considered important by neighbours. It does go on to say if a provision included in the covenant is refused registration by the relevant titles authority, a substitute provision must be included in the document, which is nearly as Patrick Murphy 27:13.485
We're lucky we use a standard terms document so that's a bit of a coverall condition in case something Yes. Someone new starts I guess in land titles and doesn't like something in our standard terms and needs to add something different. something. In all the years I've worked I've never seen that the need for that condition to be required mostly because we have a standard term. standard terms document that we signed off on. vegetation protection covenant will be registered. Thank you. Nicola Wilson 27:42.831
I'd like to get an understanding of the change to the 2020 planning scheme which first allowed... facilities as a consistent use and then in the rural zone and then the subsequent amendment which is said only in conjunction with tourism, nature-based tourism So is that something that Director Kim would like to answer? Could you repeat the question? I'd like to understand the process or the reasoning for a function facility to be first treated as consistent in the...zone from the 2020 plan, and then the recent amendment that's just been proposed that would make that only if in conjunction with nature-based tourism. Kim Rawlings 28:28.217
So as part of these random, these amendments, you'll recall that the short state monitoring report was one of the key strategic pieces of work that was undertaken. taken and there's a rafter of amendments done, proposed around sort of strengthening short-stay, including some changes in the law and the precincts. And one of those was needing to ensure that there were residents on site when you do short stays. So nature-based tourism requires residents on site and linking function facility was part of that consideration. Also protect rural lands from sort of isolated, non-related type uses. So there was a review to link those facilities, you know, where there's nature-based tourism, where there's someone where there's someone on site, then you could, you know, also have a function facility. That was sort of the thinking that was done, you know, two and a half, three years ago. Now that kind of thinking and drafting, but that was the intent behind it. Nicola Wilson 29:39.996
So based on nature-based tourism being a small-scale business with minimal effects to the environment, is this type of function facility what was anticipated to be the use of that land? So would we, the would we, objective of having nature-based tourism consistent with a function facility, would we anticipate that being something as large as 150 guests, that type of facility? Kim Rawlings 30:11.811
I haven't got into haven't got into the detail of this application, I need to be upfront, so I haven't looked at it from a detailed perspective. Richard MacGillivray 30:19.514
Yeah, there is clearly a, so the scheme amendments are clearly seeking a policy shift, I guess, from the 2020 planning scheme which made function facility on its own a consistent use, whereas the current scheme amendments are basically seeking that it is consistent only where in conjunction with nature-based tourism. So, it has to have a nexus with tourism, natural-based tourism of the land as such, which generally, you know, would be something that's you know would be something that's got a direct connection with operational nature-based activities I guess so it's more specific rather than function facilities of broader land use definition so there certainly is an intention to narrow the scope moving forward however I would say obviously the timing for this application being lodged which was essentially lodged which was essentially pretty much a parallel at the time that the scheme amendments were being advertised so the applicant was under the guise of the 2020 plan so it was really unaware when they were doing preparing their application that there were changes were changes at foot which obviously started drafting at least a couple of years ago. Kim Rawlings 31:29.233
We also have had some historic function facilities in the hinterland that as So, you know, it was considered, you know, to do them in conjunction with an action base. You know, it makes a bit more holistic kind of development. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 31:54.602
So, I've had email from the adjoining property owners and none of them were or none of them were aware of the changes in the 2020 plan and I think I asked this question at the planning environment course. Given the significance of the change and particular and potential impacts to the adjoining land owners um what can they do? Richard MacGillivray 32:21.742
In terms of this application? Amelia Lorentson 32:23.642
In terms in terms of addressing um not lack of notification but they were made unaware of the changes in the planning scheme in 2020. Um we spoke last time statute of limitation. I think there 12 months um where they could make a claim for adverse impacts caused to changes in a planning scheme. Um given they had no idea about it until this application has come forward, what what can they do? Um they're they're just again taken back um by the significance of the application. It's said small in scale but we're talking seven day a week. Um function facility that's going to accommodate up to 150 people. Um um yeah yeah so the pro during the 2020 planning scheme scheme um um the the 2020 2020 planning planning scheme was five years in the making. Uh we consulted at least four times across the whole community across those those four and a half years in the development of um there was There was, it was the most significant community engagement that this council had undertaken in over a decade. So there was TV ads, there was radio ads, there was so much notification. About the Noosa Plan and it was a new, it was a new planning scheme. So there were hundreds of changes, thousands of changes. In fact, there was, it was a hundred changes to levels of assessment that happened between the 2006 scheme and the 2020 scheme, pretty much across all land uses. So. So... There was absolutely an incredible amount of engagement and awareness raising that happened at the time. You know, I just, I will say that about that process. It was incredibly... was incredibly significant in terms of notification and engagement and you know at the time and I you know talked a little bit about this last week planning schemes are dynamic they change depending on the the policy issues that Depending on the policy issues that the council of the day wanted to achieve, you know, the Noosa Plan, it was a new planning scheme, so it was addressing everything, but there was also a very strong push to allow more to happen in our rural areas at the time, you know, so to encourage dispersal, tourism dispersal, from a lot of pressure from the coast, so there was quite a pressure from the coast so there was quite a bit of a push, policy push to allow more to happen in the rural areas so a number of changes were made to our rural zones and land uses to allow a raft of things to happen. At that time this was one of them and then since then we've had a you know quite a bit of a shift around short stay and nature base so that you know there's been another review. That doesn't answer the question of what they can do but I just wanted to get on the record that it was incredibly comprehensive and across a number of years in terms of the engagement and notification process. you. That doesn't answer the question of what they can do but I just wanted to get on the record that it was incredibly comprehensive and across a number of years in terms of the engagement and notification process. Thank you. Another question for the chair to circle back because I just probably need a little bit more clarity around the noise for a second and to get to my question I'll just give like a real reality on a Saturday night at 9:30 pretty high chance QPS won't be attending Ringtail Creek for a noise complaint that's reality is the onus of proof on council to prove they exceeded 93 dispels or for them to sorry or for them for us to prove or them so to disprove where's the the onus the obviously the obligation to meet the condition risks with the applicant the owner the onus to demonstrate they haven't met that lies with council or another party who wants to initiate potentially their own action so so if there's sufficient evidence and admissible evidence that can demonstrate that someone has breached their conditions and that can be used to take action so in the case of if we were out there and got notified of Saturday that and let's say it nights was successive at nine o 'clock there was an exceedance there we could potentially set up some equipment some testing equipment we could go and do some of our own monitoring from those sensitive receptors and if we deem that they've exceeded their noise requirements then we can take compliance action against them in relation to that so So the so the obligation obligation to to meet that rest with the applicant to prove that there's an offence or a breach is up to council to take action against that for a breach. Brian Stockwell 37:17.277
So from recollection in the conditions and I think it's in their operation or their acoustic plan, there's real-time sound monitoring and noise limiting devices. Is it taken from That they have a responsibility to provide us with the results of that monitoring? Richard MacGillivray 37:33.851
Yeah and we can we can ask for copies of that information that would be a normal first step so obviously as I mentioned earlier with a complaint management procedure is okay if there was an issue have you be made aware of an issue from say resident about the noise what did you do about the noise what did you do can we have access to your real lifetime monitoring data and we'll evaluate that and make sure it's to the quality controlled and robust if that continues then we may want to undertake our own further testing to validate if their data is accurate or whether or not the situations where they've exceeded the 39 DBA the next at the neighbouring sensitive receiver so the onus will be So the onus will be seeking back on the applicant to get copies of records of what actions and reasonable actions have they taken noting that police are not likely to turn up at 9:30 on a Saturday. We'll be seeking to put that obligation back on the applicant and then if we're not satisfied that they're continually, continuously maintaining that we might do our own independent testing but we've tried to put enough robustness around the measures with the applicant. robustness around the measures with the applicant has to take all reasonable necessary steps to prevent that from getting to that point where the neighbours are concerned by doing this testing so they get alerted themselves whether there's an exceedance and ensure that they can manage those impacts back down to Nicola Wilson 38:59.618
How much weight is given to submissions from the public participation process given that all of the submissions from people who in the Ringtail Creek area were opposing the equalisation? Patrick Murphy 39:15.729
Well, yeah, I mean, in terms of weight, we need to look at the planning scheme requirements. We need to take the advice of our experts and certainly the matters which are raised by the submissions need to all be reviewed and, as you can see, they're detailed in our report and, I think, given a balanced response. And certainly those responses are based upon the evidence that we have through the Operational Management Plan and the Acoustic Consultants recommendations. Nicola Wilson 39:51.487
So, can I just follow up on that with our noise expert, please? Just to talk us through a bit more in layman's terms of how that assessment is actually made, specifically with the sighting in the hinterland sighting in the hinterland where it's really about not just the level of noise but the type of noise, how that's taken into account, so being able to hear a conversation from a long distance away in the hinterland and then anticipating. high levels of talking and having fun that we expect from this facility, how that actually is measured or assessed in the hinterland. Paul King 40:33.025
So as I said before, the applicant's consultant undertook long-term noise monitoring at two locations. Unknown 40:41.725
So for seven days at each location. So put noise data loggers out. So that recorded what the existing noise levels are during the day, evening and night periods. In terms of setting the noise levels In terms of setting the noise levels to assess the use against, quite often we adopt what's called the background noise level, the noise level that's exceeded 90% of the time. In this case, we went one step further and required them to use what's called the rating background level. So it's the tenth percentile of the background noise level. So it's almost like the average minimum noise level. Paul King 41:18.162
So we used that as the noise floor upon which to set the criteria of five above that. So to answer your question more clearly, we've taken account of what the existing noise level is in the area. It's fairly quiet, as would be expected. The criteria is allowed to be five above that. For example, if we were looking at a service station at Noosa Junction, the background noise level there would be more like 45 to 55 during the evening. And night time could be between 55 and 45. So the criteria would be five above that if we were looking at a service station. So by taking into account what the ambient noise environment is, manage the... manage the use so it's not even sitting at by more than five. So what that means, and this function centre, the nearest house I think from the room is about 670 metres away. That's the house to the north. Other houses are between 800 metres and over a kilometre away. That's quite a distance. Unknown 42:41.601
So it's allowed to be five of our background, which means you may discern it outside your house, but you should be able to hear it inside your house. So it's allowed to be five Paul King 42:52.821
I'm sorry, we've said I've recommended quite stringent noise limits, and there's quite comprehensive conditions here to regulate this function facility. Based on my experience with many other function facilities over many years, so there are a lot of conditions. So there are a lot of conditions here in the attempt to provide certainty to both the local residents, the councillor and the operator, so they know what their requirements are to protect the amenity of the surrounding residents. And just one more thing I'll tell you, I know it's a very good condition, but I'll imagine I've got Amplified Music must admit the noise limits, but we've also said use of the generator must be controlled at all times to comply with the noise limits of the approved noise report. Patrick, I agree with what's said before in that the conditions have been, we're getting all of the sources back to the environment and noise report, and we've got the overarching condition because that's the 39- 39 dB noise limit. So, and then the operational management plan, which then is another layer on top again as to how they manage it, and then the complaints response procedure, just to finish up, sorry. I'm talking a bit. The complaints response procedure also has a requirement that any complaints are made available to Council if requested. Brian Stockwell 44:09.889
So, just to follow up on that, from my experience, 34 dB is a fairly standard thing for a rural environment. Did it include any, like where they've monitored the road noise further away from the site? And in terms of comparing, what's the likely sound to residents close to the road that the car going by passed in terms of decibels? Paul King 44:34.532
Certainly, so the noise levels were well away from Louis-Bazzo Drive. There was one in the middle of the site and one towards the function centre. So, houses closer to Louis-Bazzo Drive, let's say... there's a house within 200 metres of Louis-Bazzo Drive, passing traffic noise would be more in the order of 50 to 70 decibels, there's a big noisy car going past, the background noise levels would be higher than the 34 that's been measured here, depending on proximity to the road. So, they've been quite conservative in where they've undertaken undertaken the monitoring, which is why I was satisfied that the conditions protect the amenity of the surrounding residents, including those that are closer to Louis Bazzo Drive and would have a slightly higher ambient noise environment. Brian Stockwell 45:24.870
Thank you. Do you have any other questions? Amelia Lorentson 45:29.051
I have some questions, thank you, through the Chair. In terms of the jetty. Residents have asked is the jetty that's located or constructed near the lake, will it be lit up and are there any conditions set around lighting given sense of an environmental environment? Patrick Murphy 46:00.878
The jetty may be lit. There is a lighting amenity condition and Paul you might be able to give a bit more specifics. around as4282 the controller yeah yeah so i also assisted by writing these lighting conditions so lighting associated with the use must be designed Paul King 46:29.107
Is about the control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting. So it's specific to outdoor lighting. So what it means is that... Any outdoor lighting they use on site must meet two specific criteria related to spill light from the site and to the glare of the light, so the visible glare of the light from external to the site. And I suppose there's a third limit in that which also relates to sky clock, which is something more concerned about... coastal location. So in this case, AS4202, again, a bit like noise looks at what the existing lighting environment is. So quite simply out there, it's dark, very dark. There's no artificial lighting in my updated individual houses, so the lighting requirements are based upon dark surrounds that they shall not exceed levels of one lux beyond the boundary of the site, given where the function centre... located well away from the site boundaries and well away from any neighbours, they should readily be able to achieve that in terms of light spill and in terms of light glare, so visible light from external to the site... that's a simple design matter of using appropriate light fittings, directional aiming of fittings, not using gamma type floodlights to light things up, using low mantic height lights and focusing any light which would be to the car park and the lawn areas to those areas. So I think in this case the condition is robust in that it sets what needs to be met, and then there's the further condition that requires certification that they comply with that standard, and that would I expect to be prior to commencement use. Brian Stockwell 48:07.795
Okay, are there more questions councillors? Amelia Lorentson 48:10.932
I'm not sure if it can be conditioned, but is there any way we can, as part of the operational management plan, include some certainty is probably the word that I'm looking for, for residents living in adjoining property. I know that there's going to be a complaint process if there's a noise, but an understanding of what are the consequences. It's a noting report I'm not sure but it just seems the conversation we're having around the table is it's a process and a half and you know with just other noise issues whether it's from the junction we know that this is this is quite difficult for a resident that's impacted to actually go through the process To actually go through the process, are they going to be tuning up with their own noise monitors? Is the onus back on them? Do they have to prove? It's he says, she says. It just seems really confusing. Richard MacGillivray 49:42.866
Yeah, look, thank you, Councillor. Look, obviously this is the challenge where you've got a situation where the use hasn't happened, so you're basing it off..the technical assessment, the work that's been done to demonstrate are there going to be adverse impacts or not. Obviously, as Paul's outlined, he's done a very robust assessment against all of the relevant standards and is comfortable with what the applicants put forward in terms of the operation, that those noise impacts will be within the acceptable tolerances. And I guess this is the point around the conditions, there's been a lot of investment around the conditions to give a surety around that the obligations and the onus on the operator are very substantial and significant. The operational management plan... That they have to meet to ensure that there are those impacts. So there's a number of steps and you'll see in the operational management plan which has a significant sort of steps and elements that they must need to step through. Elements that they must need to step through in order to operate as well as including proper operational measures they need to have a person on site responsible at all times they must keep a copy of all complaints and must do real-time monitoring and testing so there's a real rigorous process I guess what you're seeking is as if they exceed do we is there an ability for them to still immediately stop or for us to intervene and there are tools I mean obviously we can issue fines we can seek injunctions and things which is a pretty extreme measure in the first case as I outlined earlier Councillor Jess in relation to the process we would generally look to contact the owner around their records and have they been undertaking more reasonable necessary steps as per their operational management plan because that is essentially setting up the process for how they need to manage that site to ensure that that the residents aren't adversely impacted. And we'll need to investigate those to make sure that they've done all the necessary steps possible. We don't have the ability as such to say you've exceeded one. You need to completely stop that's that's a challenging issue for us because you know in the event of an approval there's an approval there we can require further acoustic testing to be done and works to be undertaken if are issues so puts the obligation back on the applicant and if there are as I mentioned earlier ongoing breaches or successive exceedances we can take action in the form of enforcement action rhythm prosecute if it gets significant So there are tools available to us, like with all land uses as well, that have approval subject to a raft of conditions. We can take steps to address Ultimately, this operational management plan puts the obligation back on the applicant to take all of these steps to get to that point where they can manage those impacts before they become a problem. Thank you, just in terms of potable water on the site, in terms of I understand there's going to be condition for tanks to 46,000 litres based on some questions. some questions raised by residents I'm just wondering how that's going to be managed. Is that sufficient water if there's a fire and secondly if we have a drought how will that impact the significance increase of you know trucks along the road to deliver sufficient water to the site that to accommodate 150 guests. Patrick Murphy 53:33.220
My understand is there are tanks on site and well I'm not sure if you can help me if the bushfire management plan requires a tank separate from the potable supply? Yep, so the availability of reliable static water supply for firefighting purposes is required to be provided in the form of a minimum 10,000 litres. The water tank is to be located within 10 metres of any building and there's also an additional 10,000 litres of static water to be provided at the machinery shed for the shelter-in-place location. So they're going to have separate 10,000-litre water tanks for purely firefighting purposes, only separate to that of a global water source. Brian Stockwell 54:20.585
Could they also be, in extreme events, be using the dam as well? Could they also be an Which would be megalithous by a little bit. Nicola Wilson 54:29.705
So just another question for the Chair going on from that. If they're going to be using the dam, that would be a pump. How is that conditioned in terms of noise mitigation? Richard MacGillivray 54:42.483
Just to Paul's further point, so all noise from the site is wrapped up in the 39 dBA limit, so whether it's the generator or pump, they basically still cannot exceed that 39 dBA. So anything associated with function facility uses must not exceed that 39 dBA. So whether they need to enclose it to meet that obligation or not is on them to ensure that they meet that 39 dBA. Paul, did you have anything to add to that comment of mine? Has that pretty much covered it off or have you got anything to add around that? generators as well and the pumps? Paul King 55:25.971
Yeah, you're right Richard. So we have the entertainment, we've got the generator, but then we had the catch-all condition which was Noosa site operation inclusive of... must not exceed 39. So it's inclusive of, it's not excluding everything else. So Noosa site operation, which is everything to do with the site, will not exceed 39 dBA. Frank Wilkie 55:49.884
Paul, you've said you're pretty confident that 39 dBA is a realistic limit. as the equivalent of us sitting in this room here listening to the air conditioning, which is pretty low. You've described it... Could you tell us, talk us through what is it about the distances from the nearest homes and the topography that makes you confident in that assessment and that level, which is very, quite low? Paul King 56:16.303
So, the primary... The primary noise that's going to be affecting from this use that I focused on in the second part of what I did was the use of the driveway. So, the only time that anything gets near 39 decibels at a residence from the predictions that were undertaken relates to use of the driveway. So, that's where it's within, I think it's less than 100 it's within, I think it's less than 100 metres of a house. So that's why a noise barrier was put in plus. So in a lot of cases the noise predictions are less than... Unknown 57:00.637
Are less than, so people noise is less than 28 decibels. Equipment music is 35, but that's assuming they're playing fairly loud music. Noise from car park activity would eight and a half decibels, so they're all quite small components. The highest noise, the use, but limited, limits the operation of this really relates to the driveway and traffic on the driveway. Paul King 57:26.987
So... So, in terms of this, the topography, the land, remember, sort of falls in different directions, but the low point is the length. The nearest houses to the north, I think they're right downwards, 670 metres away, to the west of that. Is as is this. And in those cases, I've acted for both councils and the operators, so I've played both sides of the fence, so I understand the issues. But I think here, given the separation distances from the function centre itself, it's It's well-placed in a rural area. It has appropriate buffers. So the planning scheme that makes a function centre consistent, or actually consistent, this is one of the better sites for where one could be located, as compared see many which are within a couple of hundred metres of houses and it really depends on how they operate. In some of those they need to be all totally in a building. This building was a marquee raptor I believe. They haven't paid any paid any account of that, but controlling the noise involved will have some effect, so this has been quite conservative, so this is one I can be quite confident about, that can protect or maintain the energy of the surrounding residents. Yes, there'll be some noise audible at times, but it's well cited. Nicola Wilson 59:22.040
Can I move a motion to defer the matter until councillors have attended on site? Brian Stockwell 59:26.880
You may. Seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Nicola Wilson 59:33.870
I just, much as I fully respect your expertise, I think it would be really useful for councillors to actually get out and be able to see the topography of the site, really understand where the function will be, function centre will be located and all of the different aspects of what we've talked about today before making this important decision. So we're deferring the matter to the ordering meeting. Brian Stockwell 01:00:00.500
The ordinary meeting? Yes, it has moved and seconded. There was also a suggestion that, oh I can do that in a minute, so are people happy to add the words defer until the ordinary meeting? meeting as part of that motion. Is that actually a motion? Because we can vote on the ordinary meeting anyway. Yeah, but that is a motion. It's a procedural motion. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:38.337
So it's an adjournment. It just means nothing will be moved today, basically. So it will be debated on Thursday. Nicola Wilson 01:01:03.702
So is it like they're not stating the… It's up to you, do you want to move that without the date or you're the mover? So because there's something that I'm going to not include the date because you didn't move it that way, sorry, Councillor Wilson, you've moved your motion, I've accepted it, going back to the original one, you can talk to that and if there's any amendments we can do it from there, otherwise we're just going round in circles. What was the original wording? I think it was pending councillors being able Frank Wilkie 01:01:59.340
Happy? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:02:00.900
Would you like to talk to that? Nicola Wilson 01:02:02.900
No, I don't think that's how it's going to be. Frank Wilkie 01:02:07.200
It's always better to have a date for the meetings deferred to, but I support this because it's important that we actually see the site in question. We need to satisfy ourselves of the conditions, and I think looking at the topography, the distances involved, will give us a better understanding distances involved will give us a better understanding of how such an operation may impact on the surrounding residential, sorry, rural amenity, which is a critical thrust of all these conditions. Brian Stockwell 01:02:43.487
Just a question in terms of statutory time limits for decisions. Where are we at with regard to this particular development? of December. It's an impact-accessible application, so it would only go deemed refused. Richard MacGillivray 01:03:03.996
We could seek an extension by agreement. Desirably, to keep within statutory time limits, we would make the decision on Thursday. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:12.956
Sorry, can I just listen to what Richard just said, that we can seek an extension? By agreement, Richard MacGillivray 01:03:19.611
So obviously extend the time frame, the decision-making time frame. yes. So at this stage, its decision date is due. The 20th, did you say, Patrick? Of December? Of December. But the parties can agree by agreement to extend that to a further date to allow us to make a decision within the statutory time frame. But the ramifications, to Patrick's point, if we don't ramifications, to Patrick's point, if we don't make a decision, doesn't mean we still can't make a decision after that date. It's just that the applicant can seek a deemed refusal, but there's no deemed approval provisions that will make this, in fact, accessible. Can I just say the one question in relation to, I understand there's an inspection arranged. Are councillors, are all the councillors attending, or some, or just one? So they're made, I guess, based on what councillors have councillors have attended then we can work out when the appropriate date might be to begin with. Brian Stockwell 01:04:29.193
The motion must specify a time or date to which the debate shall be deferred. So we can put a line through this motion and try again. Frank Wilkie 01:04:40.173
I vote against it. I know, I won't accept it. So do you want to try again, Councillor Wilson, and put in a date? Nicola Wilson 01:04:50.287
Yes. Tom Wegener 01:04:51.107
So am I putting this as out of order? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:04:55.147
The motion is ruled out of order by the Chair, just so I can appear to be tough. Nicola Wilson 01:05:03.700
Okay, I'll try again. Seeking to defer the matter until the January general meeting. Frank Wilkie 01:05:13.700
Just a question, would that have a deemed refusal? Unless the parties agree? May I? Brian Stockwell 01:05:22.420
Okay, so she's moved that. Well, Councillor Wilson has moved that. Nicola Wilson 01:05:27.220
So the reason I've... So to talk to that, I'm just concerned about the ordinary meeting being only three days away, not all councillors being able to attend the site in that time, and as the CEO pointed out, out, we we may may all all be restricted from going due to weather conditions, so this would give us a fair amount of time to be able to attend a site session. Frank Wilkie 01:05:55.883
I would much prefer to be deferred the matter to the December ordinary meeting, which is later this week, because that would be the appropriate time to determine the next course of action, give staff time to see if the applicant is agreeable to extending the decision-making period. If we just defer to the January, it automatically places, gives the applicant a deemed refusal, which I think is not due process, it's not fair, and it places all parties at a disadvantage. So I would strenuously urge my colleagues Amelia Lorentson 01:06:37.627
Can I ask a question through the Chair? Richard, can you explain the implications if this is deferred to the January meeting? Mayor Wilkie talked about it is a deemed refusal. Can you explain in terms of process, does that mean the applicant has to restart the process or does he appeal the appeal the refusal? No, so they have to apply for a deemed refusal so they can apply for a decision. If we don't make that we statutory time frame. My advice would would be is is to stick within the time frame so I agree with Mayor Wilkie's comment around a deferral to this ordinary on the basis that that we can then have a conversation with the applicant to agree to extend that, based on giving councillors more time to make a decision at the ordinary meeting, that way we're acting within a statutory timeframe and we can have some dialogue with them around potential extensions if beyond the ordinary meeting date this week. So the risk is if we make a decision and they apply for a dim refusal, you know, we're in a situation. in a situation where a decision is made on the application because we haven't made it, the applicant can. Not that I think that's highly likely, but I'm just giving councillors advice that we're outside of our statutory timeframe and those risks are available. may exist, so my preference would be is that we stay within the statutory timeframe and we can reconvene to make a decision on the Thursday ordinary meeting within the timeframe and then if they're agreeable agreeable to need more time based on discussions that evolve between now and then then we can do that. So question again, can this same motion be raised on Thursday if not all the councils are able to? all the councils are able to attend and if rain if there's rain we're not able to, yeah? Richard MacGillivray 01:08:45.850
We can certainly raise that with the applicant if they agree to give more time. Frank Wilkie 01:08:51.710
Possibly if they happen to be parties. Yes, you are right, or you already talked to them. So I'm hoping to answer the question. Jessica Phillips 01:09:00.170
Can I ask a question? Through the Chair, given that Richard spent, or the team spent a bit of time, I would imagine, with the applicant. Do we feel that they will understand that we can't hold the rain and that there's three days 'til the If we need a little bit more time to get out to site to make a really informed decision, do you feel that, without speaking on their behalf, that it would be acceptable? Richard MacGillivray 01:09:33.409
I can't probably speak for the applicant in terms of their will agree. I'm noting they might have their own commercial pressures and time frames, but what we will do is encourage them to allow you to have you to have that benefit of the doubt to have procedural fairness to hear from them directly and be able to attend the site to understand the nature and locality of the application you're making an important decision on. So we'll relay that. I can't guarantees give because I can't speak on their behalf but certainly the team will engage with them following the meeting and no doubt they'll be probably watching this meeting discussion as well so I have an understanding of the allow need to councillors some time to attend and view the site so I'm not going to support this motion I think we have to be clear on what our role when is we're deciding impact assessment the the role is of us is to determine whether the relevant benchmarks in the scheme has been met and the from devices staff as it has. I don't believe there's any matter relating to pain regulation 2017 that of impact so the only thing we're doing by going at the site and seeing is is there any other relevant matter under the Act and there's very few potential relevant matters that aren't covered by the potential planning scheme. Basically just getting councils to determine understanding but we're not the ones that have to determine whether the site can meet the benchmarks that whether the site can meet the benchmarks. We've already got professional advice that the application meets the benchmarks. So while it is always good to get a feel for the land, it's not essential to making the appropriate decision on this matter. I think it's important also that we do have benchmarks or performance indicators that we look at on a regular basis. One of those is do we decide applications within the relevant time frame and it's one that this council is quite often criticised for for not letting things take too long and so it's really important. really important to understand that sometimes we have to make hard decisions and deferring it is not always of benefit to all parties, including the reputation of Council, so I don't think a deferral until January is a good move. Tom Wegener 01:12:12.260
I agree with the chair. We just got to stick to process and this is the process. I think that do your vote today on the general meeting and can be re-prosecuted at the ordinary meeting. People can go out to the property if they like. I can't make Wednesday, sorry, back in Brisbane for the medical reasons. Um, so. But I really don't think pressing things out like this matters because we can re-prosecute it at the ordinary. You can change votes between now and then. This is just it to do it. This vote shows where we are as council but it can change by the ordinary. Is that right? Yeah. Jessica Phillips 01:12:57.559
I'll speak very quickly just in for, given that I can't be there to cite for ordinary but I do appreciate the conversation around the table. and respect the decisions but yeah I do, I will support the procedural motion. Thanks. Nicola Wilson 01:13:15.143
I'll just briefly comment. I will support the motion. I think given the concern around the community and make sure that we've got it right especially around the conditioning and different things that we've discussed today I'm happy to support the motion just to make sure that we do have you know feel satisfied that our due diligence at all levels not in just in relation to the statutory time requirements I'm happy to support it. Brian Stockwell 01:13:43.638
Councillor Lorentson, I think you're in, hasn't spoken. Amelia Lorentson 01:13:51.518
So the motion is, what's the date that we put forward? January 16. I think just because of the significance of the matter and for all of us to feel comfortable with the information that's been presented around the table and in respect of the community that are sitting here in the audience, I think the right thing to do is to defer consideration to see To see whether there are other impacts that haven't been captured in the report, so I'm happy to support this. Brian Stockwell 01:14:34.025
Kate, would you like to exercise your right to reply? Nicola Wilson 01:14:37.445
I can close, is that correct? Brian Stockwell 01:14:40.085
Yes, so technically your close is the right to reply, so you reply to the debate around the table rather than-- Nicola Wilson 01:14:47.025
Yeah. So I do think there may be other relevant matters that-- matters that we can consider at a site visit, one of those being whether it's in the public interest and the impact on residential amenity, which we've heard about through the submissions. So I do believe that it would be-- would be a fair process for all to hear from the applicant, but also to have visited the site to understand and consider the resident's position as well. As-salamu So given the weather and the short period of time, I think that gives us enough time to do all of those things. And I hope that the applicant will be able to. Brian Stockwell 01:15:28.688
Okay, so I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Here's Councillor Wilson. Phillips, Wegener, Lorentson and Finzel. Those against? Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell. So the motion is deferred. We move on to the next item. So the next item is section 8 of the agenda. That's report direct to general committee and the first item there is the financial report for November 2024 and we welcome Pauline to the table, our manager of finance. Oh and Fred is here too, the director. Hi. Would you like to give us an executive summary, thanks Pauline. Kim Rawlings 01:16:34.359
Good afternoon councillors. So financial performance for the month of November continues to be positive with operating revenues continuing to outperform our forecast and operating expenditure under budget at this stage of the financial year. Operating revenue is $2.3 million above budget and that's been driven by $1.1 million in interest revenue, $500,000 from and interest revenue: $500,000 from sales of goods and services, almost $600,000 from grant programs, $113,000 from rates and levies and $72,000 from other revenue. This has been offset, however, from a lot of... Lollapalooza Forecast Fees and Charges of $127,000 with development assessment and local law fees and charges currently under budget. This has been offset partially by over budget fees and charges from building and plumbing compliance. Operating revenue is $318,000 under budget with employee costs reported marginally underspent due to the offset of Council's vacancy reinvestment dividend. Materials and services are $158,000 underspent. We have underspend in waste, arts and culture, development assessment and ICT or information technology. Which have been offset by some overspends in holiday parks, which is largely commissioned due to increased revenue, civil operations and fleet. Overall Council's year-to-date operating position at November is $2.6 million above budget, which will be utilised to fund emergent expenditure and offset the forecast. Deficit adopted at Budget Review 1. Capital revenue is $4 million above budget due to the timing of the receipt of QRA disaster funding and the local roads and community infrastructure program funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget year-to-date by $25.7 million, with $16.2 million relating to disaster projects and $9.5 million relating to Council's base capital program, with the variance of these programs largely driven by delays in project delivery Council is currently holding a hundred and one point three million dollars in cash reserves with thirty million dollars invested in higher yielding term deposits. You will note that this month's report also includes the quarterly dissection of Council's cash holdings. This is comprised of forty four point nine million dollars in restrictive funds which can be broken into twenty two point two million dollars relating to externally restricted funds such as unspent levies and separate charges, the advance payment of grant charges: the advance payment of grant funds, the advance payment of multiple years of waste levy subsidy to offset residential domestic waste that would be subject to waste levy, and developer contributions for trunk infrastructure and environmental offsets. $22.6 million relates to internally restricted funds. This includes things like: Natural disaster rehabilitation, which is equivalent to 5% of Council's general rates, and is in accordance with Council's management of surplus cash policy. This ensures that in the event of a disaster, Council has the capacity to fund immediate rehabilitation works, irrespective of whether it has the ability to secure federal or state disaster funding. Furthermore, there's $3.4 million for fleet replacement. This ensures Council is able to finance its ongoing replacement of Council's plant and fleet, and is funded through unspent depreciation. In recent years, this has been higher due to the impacts of COVID and ongoing supply chain issues around the delivery of our Council vehicles and plant. This is also endorsed under Council's management of restricted cash policy. A further $12.8 million for the provision of future landfill rehabilitation works, which includes things like cell capping, site remediation and post closure costs, with the landfill end-of-life currently forecast to 2058. In this regard, Council is committed to maintaining intergenerational equity by holding cash reserves specifically for the remediation of the landfill site. This approach ensures that future ratepayers are not burdened with the costs associated with waste management or remediation efforts initiated by previous generations. There is a further $1.5 million of commercial operation reserves. This is funding Council's commercial business activities and is used to reinvest back into those businesses for infrastructure works or enhancement. There's a further $1.3 million in revegetation offsets, Noosa senior reserves and land development reserves. So they're the two components of our restrictive funds. There is a further $11.3 million in our cash holdings that relate to capital projects which have carried over from prior years as well as current year projects which are still to be delivered and are funded by depreciation or cash reserves. Council is committed to holding the equivalent of three months cash cover which is $28.8 million to ensure it can meet its financial sustainability requirements and meet its ongoing and emergent financial demands which is a key component to solvency. This leaves us currently with $6.9 million in unrestricted surplus cash. This cash is available to fund emergent or new capital works projects and allows Council to leverage grant funding opportunities by funding any co-contribution requirements. It should be noted there is funding to replenish this unrestricted cash component unless Council generates a surplus operating position. no At this stage of the financial year, Council's financial performance remains on track and, however, is subject to any emergent issues that may arise. Amelia Lorentson 01:22:53.611
My question is, why do we anticipate an additional $300,000 in consultancy fees, and which projects or departments are currently engaging consultants, and is this information easily accessible? Kim Rawlings 01:23:08.851
I don't have that much detail available to me right now, so I'd have to take that on notice, but I certainly can provide you with some information around that. Amelia Lorentson 01:23:16.871
That would be great, thank you. In terms of transitory rating, we only had it once taken out of the report and some details around how much revenue we're actually generating from the transitory rating. Can I make a request maybe for the next report to have that information sort of taken out, just to give us an idea of how much in rates are we generating? Nicola Wilson 01:23:56.118
See, did you want to go or should I? Patrick Murphy 01:23:58.438
Through the chair, can I potentially suggest that in terms of complete of completeness that what we used to do in in previous terms we would provide a biannual rating report. It would come through to you after the rates had been run. Just given other priorities for meeting rounds that hasn't happened in the last year or two but we can we can bundle a breakdown of the general rate and some of the statistics around general rate through through the the future future report, so probably most likely be after the February, you know, the rate loan has completed, so we're talking probably late February, um, depending on the February meeting vanity or the February or March, but what you would get then is a complete picture of the revenue generated. Complete picture of the revenue generated across all rating categories, the level of arrears, um, and any other key statistics around your rates entirety and entirety across all your land uses would be my suggested approach. So you're seeing the complete picture. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:55.826
Well, that biannual report, Trent, will that also separate, um, business-related revenue? It'd be great to have a look at how much moneys are we getting from residential and how much money are we generating And how much money are we generating, is being generated for, from, um, tourist-related businesses or businesses in general. Is that easy to do or am I putting... Patrick Murphy 01:25:24.424
Limited to the land uses that are provided by the Department of Natural Resources on their land use categories. So obviously, um, the assumption on whether a type of business is primarily just commercial or tourism is not the breakdown we Tourism is not the breakdown we have. So it would be, for example, residential would be residential, and then short-term residential and non-PPR residential. It would be agricultural. In terms of the level of breakdown in that commercial-industrial, going to have to take that on notice and confirm that it will be subject to that, because otherwise it would be a manual and subjective exercise for us to go through the few thousand... like the fees and charges it might be a little bit messy yeah okay i'll as throw just leave an idea only thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:26:12.302
Move Councillor Wilkie, I'll second it. Frank Wilkie 01:26:15.742
Thank you for an excellent reporting on the way you've also given the breakdown of restricted and non-restricted cash, very helpful, and conservative budgeting is such... Brian Stockwell 01:26:31.000
Other people wish to talk to the motion? No, I just thought it was very nice of the director to commit to do something in February and March Okay, Kim Rawlings 01:26:44.680
Councillor Wilkie, did you wish to close? Brian Stockwell 01:26:53.980
No, thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried. So the next item is the regional arts development fund RADF grant recommendations for the 2024-25 annual round and we have a declaration by Councillor Wegener in accordance with chapter 5b of the local government act 2009. Tom Wegener 01:27:26.730
I will provide the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter. I Councillor Wegener are from the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to arts residency Noosa natural ecology as my son has a ecology as my son has a connection to this project and may derive a benefit from its grant funding. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Brian Stockwell 01:27:58.071
And while Councillor Wegener is looking out, we have the manager of arts and culture, Paul Brinkman, who's joined us, as well as director Contini. Paul, would you like to give us an overview, please. Patrick Murphy 01:28:09.751
Thank you. Good afternoon, councillors. This report makes recommendations for funding for the 2025 year of the Regional Arts Development Fund grant program, a partnership between Noosa Council and Arts Queensland. The 2025 RADF grant round is the first round where the program has changed from biannual to an annual round, with maximum funding available per application rising from $7,500 to $10,000. This change is in response to industry need and we'll see this vital funding program stay relevant for the many creatives living and working in the region. This round we received 29 applications requesting a total of 150,000 thousand one hundred and thirty eight dollars of funding. After assessing all applications the assessment committee recommends seven applications for funding totalling fifty thousand five hundred and eighty five dollars of support. The seven applications are Spencer David, Tiny Mountains, Tiny Worlds film event for five thousand nine hundred dollars. Aaron Linden, Ouroboros short film for ten thousand dollars. Tess Miller, Ceramics residency for eight thousand nine hundred Jordan Neal, The Pursuit of Ideal Content Exhibition and Workshop Program seven thousand dollars. Simone Zappon-Leo residency at the Icelandic Textile Centre for four thousand dollars. Pomona and District Community House Harmonising Spaces Music Event and Workshops for four thousand seven hundred and eighty-five dollars. And finally Tony Wells, the SCCA Residency Program for ten thousand dollars. All projects will commence from January 2025 and be completed within a 12-month period. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:29:49.652
Do we have any questions? I don't think we wish to move it. Happy to move it. Moved by a representative on the committee, Councillor Finzel and seconded by Councillor Lorentson, would you like to talk to them? Nicola Wilson 01:30:02.162
Only briefly, I think this is a fabulous opportunity and process that we undertake, you know, on a regular basis to give opportunity to our artists and creative to contribute in a positive way to the development of creative. arts and associated business in the Shire, and also brings health and well being and connectivity to all our residents and visitors alike to the region. So I think it's a really positive program, and it's worth every bit of economic development and funding that we can make available to bring about a wonderful opportunity. In our Shire and globally, we see a few of our recipients recently having the opportunity to travel overseas and bring back that learned experience and bring that to our community at a local level, so I really support this, and as the RADF chair on the committee, I'm really happy happy to be a part of such a great growth in the sector in our region. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:31:06.165
Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Do you wish to argue with anything that's been said? Nicola Wilson 01:31:12.865
No, not today. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Mr Chairman, we have 10 minutes. Frank Wilkie 01:31:18.945
Thank you. Mr Chairman? Brian Stockwell 01:31:19.905
We may have 10 Okay, councillors, we're back in session. Before we move on to the next item, we did have an oversight in the last item and it's noted that in the planning environment meeting that Councillor planning environment meeting that Councillor Lorentson did declare a conflict of interest, a declarable conflict of interest in relation to a dealing she had with a local solicitor once. It was at was at the planning environment meeting agreed that she could stay in the room. There is no need to vote on the matter because the matter has been deferred but it will just be in the amendments as being noted that when she became aware oversight it was brought to the meeting's attention. All good. So we'll move on to item 8.3, climate change response plan implementation update. Welcome Cheyenne and Sion from the climate change team and their director, Kim Rawlings. Frank Wilkie 01:45:59.400
Hello Chair, hello everyone. Hello Sion. Brian Stockwell 01:46:03.280
And Sion, I believe you're giving us the executive summary. Sion 01:46:07.480
I will do that. Thank you very much for your time. This report on the actions that are imposed within that plan. The plan directly responds to a climate emergency. Council responds to a climate emergency that was declared by this Council in 2019, so this is our plan for responding to climate emergency going forward. It addresses broad themes related to leadership and governance, emissions reduction, sustainable transport, natural environment, sustainable agriculture, resilient communities and waste management. to say it is a big plan is an understatement. It covers very many areas of Council's operations. This report speaks broadly to the targets and strategic priorities under each theme and highlights what has been achieved and what requires further attention. As I mentioned it covers a period starting 2021 and ending at the end of the last financial year. We are working on a process of reporting more frequently so reports of this nature don't have to cover so much and be so much for you all to read and for us to write. So that's a development coming for the future. The Climate Change Response Plan identifies 20 strategic priorities, 17 targets and 58 actions under 8 themes. It has a 5 year life span. The 8 themes in the plan include strong leadership and governance, which looks at Council's advocacy, regional partnerships and our organisational approach to climate change, energy efficiency and renewable energy, which looks at how we mitigate the negative effects that are causing climate change, clean, low emission industries, which looks at how we support local business and industry in their transition to zero emissions. and circular economy. Sustainable transport, which looks at the transition to electrification and supports the uptake of public transport and active transport. Healthy and resilient natural systems and carbon drawdown, which addresses how we conserve protect and enhance the natural environment. Sustainable agriculture and food systems, which look at the effects of agriculture and food on our climate and encourages sustainable practices in these areas. Resilient and adaptive communities and built environments, which support community capacity to be resilient in the face of a changing climate and supports the development of built environment that incorporates best practices for climate resilience. And finally, zero waste and circular economy, which looks at how our community deals with waste and how we deal with emissions resulting from waste creation and management at our resource recovery centre. Through the strategic priorities and actions outlined in the plan, Council is striving to lead by example, support and inspire others, and demonstrate best practice in responding to this significant and best practice in responding to this significant and growing climate emergency. And our response includes working towards achieving net zero emissions for council operations, transition to 100% renewable power for council buildings and facilities, driving clean, low-emission industry, innovative technology and solutions that address the climate crisis, that considers climate change in day-to-day and business decisions, facilitating sustainable, resilient and adaptive communities, buildings and infrastructure to help reduce the impacts supporting a climate ready community. climate change and reduce emissions, partnering with First Nations people to embed Indigenous knowledge and science into decision-making, enable adaptation and prioritise intergenerational well-being and holistic sustainability. Supporting vulnerable populations, ensuring inclusion in solutions and equitable access to opportunities and benefits, accelerating this transition to sustainable transport, enhancing ecosystem health. health, adaptive capacity and carbon drawdown, and to improve biodiversity in our region. Growing and distributing food locally and sustainably, enabled by sustainable land management and regenerative farming practices, and achieving a zero waste through this report we have identified that 23 of 37 targets and strategic priorities are either well-progressed or are on track and we think that that think that that is a huge achievement not just for our team but for other teams across council who have contributed to this work. It also acknowledges that there is still a lot of work to do in this space addressing climate change risks continues to at the forefront of need for us and we will continue to work on this to the end of this plan and beyond. So there are several areas that need special attention including embedding climate knowledge and action across council, building community resilience, advancing sustainable transport, building sustainable food systems, supporting long-term water security measures, encouraging sustainable building design, and diverting food and organic waste from the landfill. So that's a bit of a high-level overview and I'd like to just share a few highlights from the report so you get a sense of what the achievements are. I'd first like to acknowledge former staff Rebecca Britton and Annie Nolan who were part of our team for many years and contributed significantly to the creation of this plan as well as to advancing many actions that are in this plan. Also want to acknowledge contributions from staff in the areas of economic development, transport, waste, environment services... infrastructure services and in our branch strategy and sustainability for contributing data as well as progressing actions that are in this plan. The challenge for us really is in addressing risk and mitigating the effects of climate change. We have over 500 staff in this organisation and over 56,000 people. living in this Shire so the challenge of embedding and educating and supporting transition to a sustainable behaviour is a huge challenge and we acknowledge that we're only really just beginning this work. We have begun in an embedding program at Noosa Council by convening a sustainability Council, by convening a sustainability working group and progressing the development of the sustainability framework, a comprehensive embedding program of climate risk management and holistic sustainability is in development and we hope to come back and present that. the council soon in the future. We've been partnering with key organizations in our region, leading education and research organizations and regional governments, local governments to progress an understanding of what our regional approach should be to climate change. And we've leveraged council-based budgets for roughly four times the amount from grant funds from state and federal sources, reducing the burden. on ratepayers, and scaling the size of our response, despite staff resource challenges. In the energy space, council has achieved over 750 kilowatts of solar on our council buildings, and close to 50 of energy connections in Noosa Shire have solar PV systems that accounts for almost 30,000 kilowatts of solar produced by the community in Noosa, which is pretty significant, I think. Council's carbon footprint continues to reduce. We've seen a 20% reduction since the 2016 baseline, and we expect to have a carbon footprint report for the last financial year coming soon, as well as a net zero roadmap to meet our needs. We continue to make progress in the transport sector, with continued investment in the Go Noosa program, installation of new cycling and walking paths, and I mention this one because transport is responsible for approximately 33% of our community's emissions. But we acknowledge this area requires further attention, in particular around the transition to electrification for vehicles and the use of those. I'll also highlight Noosa reputation as a place that values and protects the natural environment, and this has been noted with an increase in the area been noted with an increase in the area that's managed for its environmental value and an increase in the voluntary conservation agreements and land for wildlife partnerships. And so this is a significant contribution to carbon drawdown for our Shire. Some key priorities for us to advance: developing the roadmap for net zero Which will provide a direction on Council's investment approach to achieve nets for emissions and in particular a focus on transformations at our landfill facility in line with the new waste strategy. Developing a carbon offset policy and guideline to guide decision-making around self-generated offsets through environmental restoration and potential purchase of third-party offsets where appropriate. Securing funding to deliver and direct substantial emissions reduction for the Noosa landfill. Continuing to partner with First Nations as joint custodians of the And there are many others, but I may ask Jay if you'd like to add any to that list. It's very comprehensive. Thank you so much, Ian. That was good. I have a long list, so I won't speak too much. I would like to open up to any questions, though, so we can speak specifically to those. Amelia Lorentson 01:56:47.940
Our climate change response plan has a target of net zero emissions by 2026. Will we get there? Sion 01:56:59.825
Great question, and I know that our team is working on a plan for that, and that will be presented to council early next year. Is that accurate to say? Frank Wilkie 01:57:09.345
Yes. Is it true that councils that don't have landfills can easily achieve net zero through offsets? If we solve off our landfills, go a long way towards net zero. Kim Rawlings 01:57:26.677
Yeah, landfills definitely are a major contributor. Sixty percent. Significant contributor. So yes, organisations that don't have landfills, it's easier to get there. So yeah, there are still some challenges for us to meet that target, but what we are committed what we are committed to is a really clear strategy to move towards zero and that will come to you early in the new year. SPEAKER_01 01:57:56.914
It won't make it easy if we were to sell were to sell it off, it would still be difficult, but it will be easier work. But look, I kind of see the risks at the landfill site as the opportunity, right? For example, composting and biochar, that has huge benefits for agriculture and soil health, which, you know, we can leverage rather than looking at it as just a problem. We look at the opportunity with the solutions at landfill. Frank Wilkie 01:58:23.574
Just if you can quantify the 750 kilowatts of solar on council buildings. How much does that save ratepayers each year and electricity costs? Well, we can take that on notice, Frank, and we'll get back to you. We do have those figures, but just not at hand. Tom Wegener 01:58:45.871
I love this quote, it says, "Evidence shows that sustained and transformative action "are needed for an effective response "that is commensurate with the level of risk-based."-based, meaning that you look at what the risk is, and then we actually should, 'cause they're pretty big risks, what do we need to do? And it has to be commensurate to that, kind of a balance. First question is, it's such a wide program. is, it's such a wide program. I mean, you know, it's like there's certain places, certain groups that waste has a very narrow target or, you know, narrow we're talking. Well, your actual remit is massive, is wide. And so we know, are we getting to a question? Yes, we are. How are you, do you feel confident that you're able to address such a wide... range of issues? Because there is so many. And you, like, you're pulling them together. Sion 01:59:40.800
Yeah, well, one of the high priorities on my workload is to do this council embedding program, which is bringing all the stakeholders together and having this conversation as one conversation, and asking us not to work in silos anymore, but to address challenges and find solutions collaboratively. And I really believe that that will tip the scale in... that that will tip the scale in favour of finding real solutions to the huge risk and issue that we face. Yeah, I couldn't agree more with that. I think over the last three years working at Council, the realisation is that, you know, with three permanent staff in our team, we can only do so much, but if we can embed and disseminate the knowledge and understanding to influence all Council decision making and policy making, I think we'll really scale the way we respond for our community. Tom Wegener 02:00:32.969
In the green drinks, are you going to maintain that? Because I found that that was one place where you could all of a sudden, everybody's talking with each other freely, you know, outside of the meeting, but you'd have many, many, many different representatives from different parts of Council and the community groups there. Sion 02:00:47.686
I believe that's a program that's run by an officer in the economic development team and I do understand that those Green Drinks events are ongoing, but I agree that networking and getting together socially provides an opportunity to tackle some of these issues that we don't often get to do in professional space. I believe that's a program Brian Stockwell 02:01:09.466
It might be worth clarifying to the general public that Green Drinks isn't what we have. Jessica Phillips 02:01:19.042
And it's very important given that we need to work together collectively with all our partners across community and internally to be able to respond to the climate challenge. Tom Wegener 02:01:31.567
Then the last, maybe I'll just, I'll talk to, so it's not a question. We haven't got a motion yet so you can't talk. I'll forward it. Brian Stockwell 02:01:41.887
You'll move it? I'll move it, yes. I'll second it. Tom Wegener 02:01:45.247
You can talk to the motion. This is fantastic that, I lost my thought there, Ann Kennedy's group. Zero. Then, Zero Emissions Noosa. They're a group, I look at what you're doing because it's such a wide, wide, wide remit and then I look at the community groups that are very, very active in that role and Zero Emissions Noosa has been enormously successful. I mean, they do something that we give back and the whole junction all of a sudden, Sunshine Beach Road, is cut off so that we can have the Zero Emissions Day. That is an example of a community That is an example of a community group that has really stepped up. I'd love to see other community groups that are interested, my thing is agriculture, to do that, to step up and be a part of that. I think the Open the Gate group, that's a really important thing that used to bring people to the farm areas. I think, as I just spoke about, we have our waste department putting in composting, a composting unit, and hopefully putting a biochar unit next to that. And my gosh, but I think as that plan goes forward, we need to be looking at the agriculture side over here and trying to find a market for that compost already. You have to be thinking way ahead so that we don't have a mountain of compost growing and no market for it. There's just so many no market for it. There's just so many aspects, and I think working with community groups, going back to Zen, going back to, I might just kind of put it blank there a bit, and there's lots of others, but it's so fantastic, but that's where the green drinks and coming together and really having these lively conversations as a community, away from the silos within council, is really important, and you are doing it, so I commend you on that. On being able to actually address such a wide remit and successfully, overall, the balance done very, very well. So congratulations. Brian Stockwell 02:03:48.310
Let you speak next, but while Councillor Lorentson is speaking, could you bring up figure three in the report, please? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:55.470
It's a question, sorry. I know that the plan's going to be reviewed in 2026, so... My question, and sort of following up from where Tom was, we've got 20 strategic priorities, 58 actions under eight themes. How do factors like rising cost of living, inflation, resourcing, challenges, and also changing... demographics. Will, as part of the review, will there be an opportunity maybe to narrow the scope to say critical priorities such infrastructure, which is what is probably my area of most interest in this space. Stormwater, ageing infrastructure, impacts on our roads, transports, and I stuff that community can also relate to. Will there be an opportunity as part of the review... to actually go out to community and understand, you know, 2021 is a very different world... even today, 2024. So will we have an opportunity to go back out to community and just make sure that... and just make sure that the plan reflects current values, current priorities... and whether there is an opportunity to narrow the scope. I'm happy to speak to that. We'll be looking at reviewing the climate change response plan in 2026... because it's a five-year plan. It's going to be so... And so there's potentially an opportunity there as you might note that we in the corporate plan 2023 to 2028 we have the goal of creating a resilient strategy which is one of our five high-level strategies that guides all our plans and in that I would imagine maybe there would be significant... Yeah. Okay. And so there's potentially an opportunity there as you might note that we in the corporate plan 2023 to 2028 we have the goal of creating a resilient strategy which is one of our five high-level strategies that guides all our plans and in that I would imagine maybe there would be significant... consultation with the community and engagement in terms of resilient and sustainable infrastructure being a high priority it definitely is we're currently working on an asset vulnerability assessment Vulnerability assessment as part of the local government infrastructure plan, looking at multi-hazard climate risk to public assets and infrastructure, as well as updating the Noosa design principles to help guide the community. Jessica Phillips 02:06:42.558
Relation to the Go Noosa program, so I'll probably just close on to this, are we, probably two parts, I thought we had some resourcing changes in the Go Noosa program, so is that still looking like it's going to have its have its capabilities next year, and the reason why I want to ask this is we have those deputations on linking cycle pathways to schools, and that was one of the things that was identified about infrastructure and the paths across New Money Road and those areas to the schools, so I'll get to my question, Mr Chair, how is that information related? Sion 02:07:27.215
Into this plan how does it keep connecting well just broadly the plan speaks to supporting multimodal transport and as well as the uptake of public transit I can't speak directly to your question around staff resourcing from know what in writing this report because this report finishes at the end of financial last financial year we don't have any data in here to say where we're at currently it's definitely the Go Noosa program would be one that we would encourage strongly to continue from our end on but notice we can take and speak to the sustainable transport team under the infrastructure planning to get advice on that one and then the linkages as Sian said multimodal transport sustainable transport and clean transport options are huge so definitely supporting the walking and cycling strategy that council has is part of this plan yeah I'll I'll probably probably just just phrase phrase one one because because I I didn't didn't actually actually ask that properly we had those um you know people were saying we would actually encourage our kids to ride to school but there was gaps in the network to assist is pretty much what else yeah so each year council considers the Go Noosa program and the Kim Rawlings 02:08:49.729
Funding and prioritisation of that and I know there's some discussions at the moment about the transport levy and traffic traffic translates the government's determination 50 cent fares yeah so there's this there'll be some further considerations probably as part of budget process councillors on that and Come You know also through the budget process we look at filling in the gaps you know that's one of the key things about those missing links between walking and cycling and I know infrastructure services have been applied for a number of grants to do local walking plans to get further investment to fill in some of those gaps so they are you know two big priorities but you're right we have had some resource challenges in the traffic transport team so yeah so just another question correctly if I'm wrong but I when I was sort of playing around and just reading the report is it report is it Brisbane City Council that have a public disclosure statement and I remember reading it I did look at it and it was really good so it was pretty much how does council walk the Amelia Lorentson 02:10:20.020
And that information is, I think it's every year, they do this public disclosure on climate response. Is that something that we're looking at or? SPEAKER_01 02:10:32.700
Yes, definitely. As part of forthcoming environment social governance ESG reporting requirements, not for local government but for businesses and the Sustainability Standards Board, we are looking at that for. Potentially next annual review, but our annual report, but we have to discuss that internally further with governments. But yes, definitely looking at that, Amelia. I think it's best practice and we would like to get that. Amelia Lorentson 02:10:57.224
I think it went through from photocopying the reduction. But it was, and it's stuff that we're doing, but it was so readable, just a beautiful statement. Sounds good, we'll definitely look at that. SPEAKER_01 02:11:10.141
Yes, we would definitely look at that. And then with carbon footprint reporting. have the carbon footprint for last financial year coming out soon, so together with Heather we'll be back early in the new year to talk about that with Council and at least be transparent and open and accountable on the carbon footprint for last financial year. That's one place to start, but yes. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:11:35.217
Initially that's a, I think, state government funded program delivered through LGAQ and they initially had an external consultant, Donovan, I forgot his last name. Donus and Burton. Yeah. Is those annual reviews, are they still done externally or is that based on our own assessment? SPEAKER_01 02:11:56.617
So, we've done an assessment. My So, actually that's to be put Predecessor in the adaptational grant dinner did an assessment. I want to say it was 2018 and then I did another assessment as part of the regional climate action roadmap in 2022 and then this more recent data is from LGAQ from Donovan Burton. They had actually consult got him as a consultant to have a look at every council in Queensland. Um yeah. Brian Stockwell 02:12:23.070
So, when it was first rolled, first rolled out Noosa Council was pretty high in the pack. Are we aware whether we're still high in the pack or whether others have taken us over? SPEAKER_01 02:12:33.562
I believe we are from what I've heard, but I can share the reports with you which do have some benchmarking associated with it. Brian Stockwell 02:12:40.842
Okay, I'll move on to talk to it. Councillors, our roles are really responsible. responsible for the governance. I want you to think about how much you've thought about the governance and implementation of the climate response plan since the last election. A lot. And now I'm going to read the risk report. Climate change is identified as only one of two extreme risks in Council's risk and opportunity management framework. So one of only two extreme risks, and in my view, first time this term that we're starting to think about it. I'm not saying the staff haven't continually tried to implement the plan, and they've identified a great lot of work. But if we're serious about our role as the strategic leaders of this organisation, climate risks should I'm going to go on. Normally I don't even scan the risk and opportunity section. It's normally quite dry. But let's read what the risks are. The level of risk to council and Noosa community continues to grow. It's not getting better, it's growing. As global emissions increase and impacts begin to be felt, governments at all levels of business important complementary and shared responsibilities in adapting to climate change and addressing the cause of climate change through emissions reduction. There are risks to council not to continue to implement or adequately resource the climate change response plan. This includes risk to lives. And my view was in 2019 we're out there climate emergency. We had the 2019-20 bushfires across Australia and then think that was the turning point for the society more generally. Everyone understood that climate change costs lives. Heat stress is probably the biggest threat in our ageing community. But it's not just lives, it's our livelihoods, our health, our wellbeing, our food supply chains, economic disruption, disruption to critical infrastructure and the loss of biodiversity and natural values that underpin the livability in Noosa. The increasing frequency and severity of climate hazards including flooding, sea level rise, bushfires, droughts, landslides, extreme heat, severe storms and cyclones are evident the succession of local disasters in recent years. I won't keep on going, but if we as leaders of this organisation can't maintain the focus, then we are we are passing on a legacy of risk. Now, as I said, we have done some good stuff. The transition to net zero will be an interesting plan because it will be challenging. We have one major opportunity to make a step change out of the landfill, which I hope will prove to be a viable option. But to me, we need to constantly think how much time do we spend on day-to-day operational issues of current importance. This is how much time do we spend setting up this organisation so that intent 25 years people aren't losing their lives to climate change impacts or the next series of bushfires or the next extreme storm. To me it's a salutary lesson but it's also it's good to look at the opportunities and as we see the opportunities. And as we see the economic development department have the fun part of this, they get to have green drinks and talk about the opportunities because solving the ongoing emissions issue is really about re-jigging our economy to be a carbon neutral economy. It's about looking at all the fantastic technological options available. It's about looking at how renewable energy can replace stationery coal-fired stations. There's numerous opportunities and I'd like to thank all those staff, including the two that were mentioned. Rebecca, who has just left, and Annie were the powerhouses in this for many years. And they did a great job of getting the climate change response plan up and going. And our new team have the great job of trying to get the organisation up and going in implementing it. So I commend the review and look forward to our continued and regular review of how we're Frank Wilkie 02:17:25.180
Just in case the chairman has got the fear of God, this council's focus on adapting to climate change and preparing for climate change, and I'm referring specifically to the extremes that you mentioned, bushfire, drought, floods, increased severity of storms, cyclones, perhaps it's because... Perhaps it's because Councillor and I are involved in the Local Disaster Management Group and the CEO and key staff are from across the organisation. I'd just like to reassure people that there is a continual focus on the adaptive capacities of this organisation and also the emergency services not only in this Shire but the region and I dare say across region and I dare say across the nation the awareness of the increased risk from climate change is very much front of mind and also as we've heard from Sion and Cheyenne and Kim across the organisation there's more work to be done in embedding that awareness across the organisation with Councillor Stockwell's comments about being aware at a council level and having discussions about that is well made and perhaps I can perhaps I can bring more to the discussions about what happens at the LDMG level, and we can be more curious about the work of this hard-working team. Jessica Phillips 02:18:50.165
I have one more. have one more question, please. And it probably goes hand-in-hand with what you both stated. I was reading about the community factory part in the report, and I guess my question is, like, where would staff recommend councillors play maybe more advocacy? To state, you know, through LGAQ, like, it seems like Noosa fighting the fight harder than other places. What can we do that pivots maybe what we're doing here? And then what we can actually leave as we can pull higher. So we're not, it's not just on us to be, I hope that I asked that properly. Kim Rawlings 02:19:31.767
Feel free to jump in, but there's, you know, there's, there's often a range of topical issues. A community battery was one this year. And there was some great advocacy done by Noosa Council. And we had other organisations join us around, around tariffs and things. And we've had some success in that space. You know, and in the past, we've put, this council's put particular motions to LGAQ around legislative changes to enable, you know, particular outcomes. comes. For residents to try and reduce emissions and things like that. So, there are a raft of things that we try and stay on top of. We do staff submissions into changes, and we bring key advocacy issues. We are part of a South East Queensland alliance that we are sharing information now and doing joint advocacy, so there is quite a bit happening. you know, there is quite a bit happening in terms of what's in the space, in terms of specifics. SPEAKER_01 02:20:33.381
Yeah, I agree for sure, Kim. I'd say thank you for asking, Jess, and we definitely... could use support in raising our voice to the State and federal level because a lot of the challenges will have to be addressed at that level. We have two governance sort of committees at Noosa Council. We have the program steering group for climate change response as well as the community reference group. We're hoping to reinvigorate both next year and through that we will have a specific agenda item on advocacy opportunities that we can share with councillors to take forward. That would make a lot of sense. Jessica Phillips 02:21:14.063
I'll try to ask a question through it because my statement it may come first around just a family my family putting solar on to significantly try and help and now it's almost pointless pointless, the tariff I get back. So my point is like I'd really like some help maybe in where we can advocate stronger in that space because it is a state and federal for them to I hope I've clearly articulated a question there. Frank Wilkie 02:21:58.142
Very good point, thank you. Sion 02:22:00.382
So we are in debate. You've got an answer Well I have a kind of response to that because I think the community battery is a really important project for Noosa Shire. It's innovative, it's pioneering, it's going to be one of a kind for this state where all other community batteries are owned and operated by Energex or Ergon whereas the Noosa community battery will be owned and operated by this community so it's a real opportunity for us to be able to utilise as I mentioned a huge community solar array to soak up solar energy that is generated during daylight hours and redistribute that to the community to provide resilience emissions reduction and cost reduction for households so I think any opportunity that we see for there to advocate for this to progress and for other this to progress and for other opportunities similar to this to progress, I would love to be able to bring that to council for support. That was a question I see. I will answer it. Brian Stockwell 02:23:05.587
Would anyone else like to speak to the motion? Nicola Wilson 02:23:08.647
Can I note that you've raised this graph, that most of those add up to 99, not 100. Brian Stockwell 02:23:17.254
Very differently. That'll be rounding errors. Yeah, probably rounding errors, but I'll check with LGAQ. Nicola Wilson 02:23:26.394
Yeah, it was external. Amelia Lorentson 02:23:29.754
I'll quickly speak. Opportunity used quite a lot around this table. And I agree, total opportunity. As a councillor, I think where I see this, how do we take the burden away from ratepayers? And this is the opportunity. How do we source external funding in Funding in this space of climate change how do we improve efficiency so we can pass the benefits to our community how do we provide affordable living I think this is the opportunity that these plans present and you know and and again for me it's about how do we leverage grant funding to improve I keep going back to stormwater Burgess Creek what's happening over there our drainage drainage systems, clean water, clean air. So this is the space we need to be. And I think from a resident's point of view, we've got to use different language to communicate at a resident level what's in it for them. And there's Tom Wegener 02:24:44.560
Anyone else? As you can see from the comments around the table, the job is very wide ranging, and there's a lot of expectations upon you from being on the committee, which is understandable considering that after what Amelia just said about advocacy and reducing emissions, which is a huge one, and then the emergency response for fire, flood, everything else. And then what I talk about is empowering community, which is another part of the remit, which is going to Emilia elaine Bradley and the Mary Valley Farmers, where when the pandemic hit, they saw they're just a little group growing organic foods, and then they realised that a lot of the people weren't coming to Pomona Market to pick up their veggies because of the pandemic, so they set up a phone tree. And actually, that phone tree saved lives because everybody had the mandate to call 10 people every day, and so there was a constant calling going around to make sure that everybody's okay and everybody had enough food and little things like that. So I think that a big part of the job is actually empowering community in a way. So that's just as important as advocating for funding from the federal government. So I really appreciate your job. I'm glad that there is a climate change response plan and that you're doing your job. It's fantastic. Brian Stockwell 02:26:17.640
Let's carry you noticeably. Thank you very much. I think it was a wet weekend. I'd just like to say there's no truth in the rumour that it's been raining every day since I cooked solar on the roof of my house. Actually, this is true. So the next item is an application for change to development approval 12637DA, integrated permaculture design, organic orchard and golf course complex, 18 holes to include group farms. The accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at 59 Kabi Road, Cootharaba. We welcome back Richard, the director, Patrick, the manager, and you also have the court right here. Frank Wilkie 02:27:13.243
Nadine. Nadine, thank you. And Will. And Will, our environment officer associated with health and control. And I take it, Nadine, you'll be giving us the overview. Nadine 02:27:25.246
I'll give you a brief overview, yes, if you'd like that. you'd like that. Good afternoon, councillors. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good to see you. Thank you and Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Okay, today we're going to consider a report that was initially considered by the previous council. It was presented to council at the P &E meeting of 12th of September, 2023, and it was for an other change to an existing approval. The existing approval approval is a golf course approval, which was approved as a permaculture golf course. The 2023 application proposed a group farmstay type accommodation group farmstay type accommodation in conjunction with the existing golf course across the site. This original application proposed to cater for school groups, weekend groups and school holiday use for up to 299 people. The application was considered at the council P &E meeting. Staff P &E meeting, staff, it had the proposal, sorry, the proposal had four distinct areas. The first area was a communal area centreed around the existing golf, the golf clubhouse, and that had an area of 2,330 square metres and it offices, meeting rooms, reception, kitchen, and a dining hall of 543 square metres, and a covered communal sports hall of 945 square metres and associated amenities. The second part of that application comprised three villages. Village one had an area of gross floor area of 1,365 square metres. It included a central dining area, secondary dining area, kitchen, three enclosed activities and shared accommodation for 84 people. The second village had an area of 1,735 square metres. It also included a central dining area, secondary dining area, kitchen, three enclosed activity and shared accommodation for 112 people. The third village proposed on the site had an area of 915 square metres, and it included a central dining area, a kitchen, three enclosed activity areas, and shared accommodation for 113 people. The third village proposed on the site had an area of 915 square metres, and it included a central dining area, a kitchen, three enclosed activity areas, The applicant had indicated that approximately 50 staff would be engaged running these activities, and that the vision for this facility, and I quote, is to provide a farm-to-plate visitor accommodation experience for groups interested in permaculture. The proposal adds a farm stay to the existing golf course and expands the existing permaculture farming practices to include a centropic market garden with paddock grazing areas. Staff didn't support the application for a number of the application for a number of reasons and recommended refusal on the basis that it was contrary to the SEQ regional plan as it didn't promote, it was considered to alienate agricultural land. It was also inconsistent with the strategic framework of the Noosa Plan as it would permanently alienate land that was mapped as agricultural land conservation area. was going to become the more predominant use than the agricultural land and it was not a small scale and not and the setting comprising three villages and ancillary facilities was not it was not small scale and was on a small area, the accommodation component was not a small scale and was on a small local road. It was also contrary to a number of outcomes and performance outcomes of the Noosa Plan. Again, it was alienating agricultural land. It was not a small scale. And also the scale was large. The traffic was also large. And the last one, it didn't meet the bushfire hazard code, which required a secondary access. The applicant was considered by council and the applicant recommended that the matter be held over to enable further discussions with staff. so that was September 23 there have been a number of discussions with the applicant with the application formally amended in October 2024 where the applicant reduced the development down to 88. staff. Since that time to 88 beds. That 88 beds is 80 for the patrons plus eight for staff. Eight teacher beds, sorry. And the further plans were submitted in November and December, which located the development outside all the mapped hazard area. This revised proposal substantially reduces the footprint compared to the original development. So previously we had a proposal for 299 persons. We now have a proposal for 88 persons. We've also reduced the GFA from 8,320 The GFA from 8,325 square metres down to 1,150 square metres. The communal building which involved a multi-purpose hall has also been removed and the existing clubhouse Clubhouse retained. The previous development was quite a substantial construction with large buildings proposed with walkways. There were several slab on ground construction matters. ground construction matters. This development now is using lightweight materials so we've got buildings on platforms well actually the clamping tents which is the applicants term and they are tents on a suspended platform with generally canvas sides. All of the works previously there were some works proposed in the waterway that's been removed and there is a provision of been removed and there is a provision of an emergency fire access trail along the southern boundary connecting to Cootharaba Downs Road. Following this submission of this revised information we did refer especially the bushfire to an external bushfire consultant who has peer reviewed it and has basically indicated that the proposal presents an acceptable level of risk of bushfire harm to people and property. We have a result of that we're recommending approval of the application and we've included a number of conditions relating specifically to the use that it also has to be of lightweight construction which can be removed so it won't alienate the agricultural land in the future. There is some clearing required for the emergency access so sort offsetting that we've included a vegetation covenant over the core koala habitat areas across the site. We've also required we've conditioned that fire access trail along the southern boundary to be provided and only to be used for emergency emergency evacuation and I've got another thing but I Evacuation. And I've got another thing but I can't read my writing. So basically we've recommended approval of the application. Brian Stockwell 02:34:27.836
Thank you. So questions? Amelia Lorentson 02:34:30.957
Nadine, how did the applicant go from 299 to 88 beds? Did that have anything to do with the definition of what was considered small in scale or was that something negotiated between yourself and the applicant? SPEAKER_01 02:34:46.416
It was, so we were looking at the visitor accommodation code and in the code it talks about a maximum GFA for those types of activities of 1500. It does talk about a maximum size of a central facility of 250. It we was basically something we did negotiate down to and it it took us a while to to get there so 88 wasn't their first number so yeah yeah so so it it was was really really just just a negotiation and trying to get something again small-scale something that we saw is what what the planning scheme is looking for we identified I think the first time round that group of kids camping in a high bushfire area was exposing vulnerable youths so did that number have anything to do with the evacuation processes and that's that's been a major consideration for us We we have have and and we we and and that's why we actually went out to get a peer review of the revised information we have actually conditioned a requirement for two buses to remain on site while the uses in operation to ensure that the site can at be evacuated any time so I suppose that number sort of fits roughly around that side because if they are busing in kids that's we should we believe- two buses should cater for that most staff would will travel travel by by car car and and there's there's an an on on-site manager who, he'd have his own vehicle as well. So yeah, that's been a big issue for us to make sure that we got right. Brian Stockwell 02:36:26.569
Just a question on the buses, I read that. Is it mandatory that there be two buses even if it's a smaller group? like you put the one in bread Like I understand it's full of, you know, two buses full of kids but if it and is it only related to group when it's group booking rather than you know weekends which might be individuals? SPEAKER_01 02:36:52.552
It's not supposed to be really individuals by the way so it is supposed to be groups. It's supposed to be groups. We don't want it as sort of an individual type activity because indicated to us that it would be groups coming to utilise the site and it's that farm to plate so it's all related to the agricultural activities so you have a go there and they're supposed to be able to pick the food, they cook the food and they have activities associated with that but that's a good point about the bus. Well it actually just says actually I must I haven't numbed I've said bus is capable of evacuating all patrons during an emergency event to remain on site and again it's really putting it back on them sorry yeah I think we were taught we we were talking about two previously and going, "What would we need? " Other questions? Just one quick question around the fire access trail. Just to refresh my memory, was Council getting it appropriately cleared? Cleared and usable? And then are we then maintaining it? So we've required the track to be relocated to as far as possible onto the applicant's land. So if you could bring up... I just want to see if you can bring up. We have it in the bushfire section. There is a plan. You might be able to talk to figure one. Figure one. Just talk to it. Go over to the screen. If we go figure one on basically it's an attachment to. Yeah sorry. So basically there's go a little bit further down. That one So you can see the blue line. It goes all the way here to here. So that's Council Road. This is actually of a driveway standard. So we've asked the applicant to minimise works required. They have to bring the access back through their property and they'll pop out here and there's approximately 170 metres that they will have to construct. And then, yes, we would have to, the road, it's of a, I don't even know, it's not a gravel standard, so they will have to construct that portion about 170 square, 170 metres. They will have to construct it to a R.E.P.E.Q. standard, which then Council, yes, we would have to maintain. Brian Stockwell 02:40:25.676
So it would be serving two properties? SPEAKER_01 02:40:27.376
It would be serving two properties, yes, which is not great, The people who would probably be maintaining it now would probably think it's a good idea, potentially. Again, we have thought about this. The applicant could apply. There is a current permaculture golf course operating on the site, so they came to us and said for emergency purposes as they would like to put a emergency vehicle track along here, we would probably have to agree to that because it does make sense. It's giving a secondary access. As I said, there's already an activity approved on the site. We have limited it to there is exempt clearing that we've looked into quite thoroughly as well about the extent of clearing that they can undertake along that boundary and the condition has Amelia Lorentson 02:41:29.229
Used in emergency situations and it's got to be gated and not available as a general secondary access point, so it's only under emergency situations. That's correct. Yeah, correct. And at the moment buses can't go through it, is that correct? No, not at all. So the upgrade is a condition of the application to allow access for buses? That's correct Richard MacGillivray 02:41:57.557
Yes. And I think it's worth pointing out too, isn't it, Nadine, that there's also a condition restricting them being able to use the site and is it extreme and catastrophic? Catastrophic conditions. So when, as we know that the dial on the fire, so when they're at those two sort of peak periods, there's a condition they require that they don't post that. And again, these are proactive measures to stop potentially people being in an environment when the risk levels are high. So that's again further unlikely to need that these emergency provisions are to be used because we're trying to avoid having people in a high risk situation when, you know, those risks are apparent, when those fire risk levels are such at an extreme level. Brian Stockwell 02:42:51.275
Did you refer to the... point of truth for that fire rating, because obviously some rural fires, great areas do their own, and then there's the bomb one, is it... The Bureau of Meteorology is the thing on that we... line that we've required them to address this part of the... The downside of that might be that Bureau might do a whole regional one where we've just had a hole in the rain, but yeah. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:22.030
In terms of events, so there's 88... Does that mean 88 people? Yes, that's right. So we have a maximum number of persons? Yes, there's a condition. So there's a condition there. We've also conditioned that... So the way they've indicated it, there are 80 beds plus there are specific tents for staff. The kids' tents are double bunks. The teachers' tents are single beds. But we've also got a condition that no staff are to... as in other staff who might come to do, I suppose, cooking, cooking, cleaning, whatever. They can't live on the site. And as I said, they're in the bottom sort of corner of the site. There's an existing manager's residence on the site as well. So there is someone who will be maintaining the farm. Brian Stockwell 02:44:13.097
So you're thinking about why staff couldn't live there? SPEAKER_01 02:44:15.808
Again, we're talking about scale and intensity. So that's actually what they indicated to us in the original application that they would be providing employment for people in the local surrounding areas that this site would be. would be for the accommodation and the teachers and then they'll draw on people in the surrounding area too and basically again we're reducing the risk on the site. There is an existing house on the site. I'm just thinking in other uses we've encouraged development applicants to actually have staff accommodation because of the housing crisis. Again, yeah, but as I said, they're looking for, well, there would be nothing if it's based on farming. Remember, this isn't, we're in a rural zone. So we're trying to make sure that agriculture is our main activity. So if they put in workers accommodation that was serving the farm, I think that would be okay. But again, you know, that's, that's, again, the primary purpose is the agricultural activities, and this is being linked in. agricultural activities, and this is being linked in to, it's to, it's improving, I suppose, yeah. Tom Wegener 02:45:18.347
Councillor Wegener, you had a question? Yes, with the clubhouse that's there now, and is that, that's stay according to the report? That's correct, yes. But will it be used by the permaculture people? SPEAKER_01 02:45:30.739
So they've indicated that because this is, again, there'll be school camps and groups coming, that that would be an additional activity that the groups coming can So it's it's a permaculture golf course because it's got the orchards through it so but yeah it's really will be retained as another activity for people attending the site so the golf so the golf club stays yes before it was going to be with the last application it was going to be torn down it was going to be totally removed but in its stead it was being replaced with a very large reception office it was a very commercial sized building going on there I think there was another kitchen and dining area that could fit basically the 300 people on the site basketball court next door to it as well with massive toilet facilities. So it was a very large substantial building, Tom. So this will be torn down. The golf course is not open to the public when the camp's in use because, of course, they'll have children or school groups there. Tom Wegener 02:46:37.369
May I move that? Amelia Lorentson 02:46:40.329
I'll second. Tom Wegener 02:46:43.169
I'm very excited about this. And going to the strategic framework, this is exactly what Noosa has been aspiring for in the hinterland. And referencing the new agricultural paradigm, I'm just going to read directly strategic framework. This includes ancillarily-- my tongue-- ancillary rural industries to support production, investment, and diversification. For example, farm processing, farm example: farm processing, farm gate sales, cooking schools, and value-adding food production, as well as agro-tourism, low-impact homestays, rural and nature-based accommodation, retreats, and lifestyle and leisure experiences. And so, with the Hincheland and these properties, I just love going down this route. I think it's really important for us. This is what we do as a biosphere, is we live in harmony with nature. Conservation is one thing, living in harmony with nature and utilising our wildly degraded environment. Farmland, in an economically viable way, is actually the mandate of the biosphere. That's what we want to do, is be able to create income and create value from land. Conservation, creating value from land, but leaving the whole land piece to the next generation better than we found it. And so, by doing this, by the permaculture part there, it just seems perfectly consistent with our biosphere and with our own Strixie 2 framework and our intent in moving, going forward at Noosa. That makes Noosa different by nature. Jessica Phillips 02:48:30.221
I just have one more question for the Chair please. Just the traffic impact road works, councils, senior engineers reviewed the revised proposal, provided the following comments. There's a There's a bit here about an intersection upgrade to support heavy vehicles and buses. Would you mind just maybe talking me through that bit? That's for Kabi Kabi. That's for coming out the other way? SPEAKER_01 02:48:56.073
Yes. If you go...if we go up to...figure. Maybe it's on figure one. So that's coming in from the western side. So that intersection needs to be upgraded. The road needs to be upgraded and the intersection needs to be upgraded. No, it's not there. it's not there so it's the one coming out and yes it will be upgraded and that the applicant has to do that as well and it has to be passing lanes and unfortunately there is some vegetation that would be required to be removed in that road reserve. Jessica Phillips 02:49:26.188
And my last question back to that little fire access trail. When we look at that, does that actually fit the rural fire truck? That might be a little simple question and I know it's a new question. Is it? Yes it will. That small gap of 170 metres or whatever it was, it's definitely going to fit? SPEAKER_01 02:49:43.103
Oh no, so it's a 10 metre wide. Yeah, so we've got a 10 metre width to work with, so within that that 10 10 metres metres we'll we'll be be able able to to fit fit a a rural rural fire truck and full access for the bus and then it'll come out onto Road 176 which is a full road with road reserve there which they can construct the road as required as per the EQ. Thank you. Question? Tom Wegener 02:50:09.078
Question. With the golf course as an ancillary use to the to the permaculture is it realistic to think that you could maintain a golf course for 88 school camping kids as an ancillary use? It just seemed wildly out of balance. SPEAKER_01 02:50:27.718
It's currently being maintained now if you actually look at the area photos and go out on site the golf course is currently operating it's it's fully maintained at the moment and I'm not quite sure what their current patronage sure what their current patronage is. So it is golfing, it's still a business. Yeah if you go out there you see it beautifully mined. Okay I didn't know that. Just to clarify that the golf course is a separate approval not the It's an other change so the applicant didn't request any changes to the original approval so the original conditions of the permaculture golf set course still change and then there's a of conditions as part of that approval which will just run it's additional it's an additional supersede yeah okay yeah because before it was going to the golf house was going to go and it's all going to be the perfect so now it's substantially different because the golf course is still running in conjunction with the 88 it It was was always always planned planned with with the the old old one one it was still going to run and yes well they were removing I think I think there were three three or four holes on the north eastern portion on the opposite side to where this one is and that's where another village was proposed and they lost a couple of golf holes there so it was probably was going to be a smaller golf club golf course sorry. Brian Stockwell 02:52:04.599
I like Councillor Wegener have always liked the concept. I do really appreciate the effort the staff have gone through to get to a size and scale and a location that over Soil size and scale and a location that overcomes the range of constraints for this nature of development is one of the few areas where we have really good quality soils mapping and it is definitely good quality agricultural land. So moving to the the clamping tents which are not a permanent alienation of agri-land is a good thing that you know in the location that hasn't adversely location that hasn't, adversely affected by bushfire hazard to a scale that is probably, you know, there's not many school groups bigger than 88 anyway, you know, it's probably a whole year level in most even large schools. And as Councillor Tom said, in embedding education in the real world of local agriculture. is a really important thing. If you looked at their last report on climate response plan, it was an area where we were behind what we said we're doing, it's not an area that we've done a lot of in terms of the importance of local food in climate, particularly in a disaster scenario where, where, you know, in even, you know, regional change. think it is really important to understand that Noosa future agriculturally isn't the same as Gatton. Just protecting the land considering the level of subdivision that's historically occurred is really, it's hard to make a single property commercially viable so I did a bit of research on this a decade ago and you know the number one thing for farmers in these peri-oven areas is we need to have a second source need to have a second source of income. So having this mixed use on site is really part of a sustainable future for food production, recognising like the function centre, that scale of the macadamia farm is So it is how we can balance maintaining our food production capacity but also ensuring those who own the land can make a living. So in this case it's owned by a foundation or a not-for-profit organisation, a charitable trust, whatever it is, and it is actually building capacity both into our local schools and the other schools about local food. So it is to me a good development. Amelia Lorentson 02:54:49.054
Question question chair um so so in in September September 2023 2020 the applicant actually stopped the clock can i ask um and then over the last 12 months or further negotiations can i ask when you stop the clock um do you still because it's still impact accessible um are residents residents told told of of the the changes and is there an opportunity for the residents to um make any submissions or are the submissions from the very first um application um the only ones that are considered um as part of the application that's correct that is correct okay so so the joining neighbours at this point um are they aware that this has been resubmitted with um a revised scope uh they haven't been formally notified no okay so again we're looking at this however as we've said this is continuing clearing yeah yeah okay the da rules govern the the steps in the process for assessing an application application and and there's there's sometimes sometimes you can can have to go back to the beginning and you know reach your confirmation notice and potentially issue a new information request and go back through notification when matters are raised through the information request or through further advice from council that seek changes to the applicant application and then they're made it allows If the application to they continue respond to the matters that have been raised- That's right- the scale and the issues around bushfire which the applicant is to stop and address. I'll speak to the application. I'm also really excited and pleased that this outcomes been achieved. At the time my recollection was that most if not all the councils were in support of the vision. It was simply the scale and and potential risk that were not supported but the vision was and you know the applicants listening I want to reach out and say thank you for not giving up on their dream. This is what Noosa needs and this will have enormous community benefit. It aligns with our strategy and who we are and I think it part of the negotiation or the further negotiations over the last 12 months what's in front of us shows a real respect and understanding a real respect and understanding of both the values of who we are as a community and also the Noosa Plan so I'm I can't wait to see this actually in its complete phase. Jessica Phillips 02:57:50.960
I'll speak to it very quickly and really historically young people have been able to talk about Guga from Good Shepherd. see it as another awesome history writing for young people and I hope I hear my kids and their friends talking about school camp here if it gives Guga a run for its money thank you for what we've seen in the presentation over there. Nicola Wilson 02:58:23.763
There's a huge There's a huge difference between what was originally presented and what we're seeing now so well done in the negotiations have arrived here I think it's a really great outcome. Yeah I think it's a really great outcome like they cast a vision and everyone's worked together to to get an outcome so I think that's a really good indication how when people come together and collaborate for great ideas around the table. I'm really excited for young people that get the opportunity that if they're coming from a city to you know come completely way out to the country and have that first-hand experience some of them may never have that so I think when we talk about may never have had that. So I think when we talk about envisioning for our future and sustainability for our future generations, I think this is a fine example of how we can actually embed that and so just a big thank you to the staff and the applicants that, you know, worked together. That's a significant scaling down but we've been able to achieve this. Brian Stockwell 02:59:30.232
Yeah I think the councillors have covered all the issues really well and again it's another great example of what can happen when applicants work collaboratively with professional planning staff so congratulations again and just before I ask the councillor If he wishes to reply I did mean to mention and commend staff attachment to the further report doesn't always happen but the staff have changed the recommendation and the further report clearly identifies the grounds upon which they were varied which I think is for me very valuable to see the logic and I suppose for those people who did make submissions I can also follow that logic through so too thank would like to thank staff for the approval on the site. I would, to be honest, I would love to see it become successful and more successful and have the golf course gobbled up by Permaculture Farmland. I think it would vastly increase the value to the Noosa Shire having cooks and farmers and in a very vibrant space out there. It reminds me of the farm in Byron Bay, you know, how that went from, you know, the dilapidated cow pasture to a vibrant, vibrant money-making place for employing many, many, many locals. So I see this as a fantastic step forward. Thank you. I'll put to the vote. Those in favour? Our next item is actually a Planning Environment Court Appeal which is identified as a confidential session. Could I have someone to move the motion, move Councillor Lorentson? Jessica Phillips 03:01:30.325
I'll second. Brian Stockwell 03:01:31.585
Second is Councillor and basically we're closing the meeting to the public based on the standard provisions within the Act because we're discussing legal advice. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Frank Wilkie 03:01:47.685
Let's just wait for that. Brian Stockwell 03:29:49.105
That recommendation is agreed to. I'll read it. That in respect of Planning and Environment Court Appeal 12/19/2020, Council delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. Seconded, Councillor Wilkie. I don't have anything to say. Does anyone else wish to have anything to say? I put the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. We've reached the end of our committee meeting at 4:02pm. Thank you for all your deliberations and contributions, councils and staff. Frank Wilkie 03:30:24.004
The Press: Thank you, Mr Chair, and to Mr. Kennedy. Amelia Lorentson 03:30:27.704
The Press: Thanks, Captain. Richard MacGillivray 03:30:28.664
The President: Well done, Kev. Mr. Thank you, Kev. Good stuff on children. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
