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 shadows from the Guardian trees, it connects us all and draws us together from around the world they commitment in their commitment is suggested to that 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. Have someone who wishes to move the by Councillor Lorentson and seconded by Councillor Phillips. I presume there is no discussion. All those in favour? The motion is carried. Have a deputation on the agenda but the deputy has advised that they are unable to make it today. So we move then on to item 7 and there is one item referred from the committee. It's a MCU 24.0084 for a Material Change of Use for a function facility 658 Louis Bazzo Drive, Ringtail Creek and we have several representatives of the planning group. We've got the assistant team here and. Matthew 01:41.613
Are you going to give us the overview? Matthew will Good afternoon Councillors and staff. Yes, so this application is for a Material Change of Use of premises for a function facility and it's for the purpose of 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, and the key operational features of are as follows. So maximum of 96 events per year, 72 estimated to be weddings, and the Max 150 guests, the average might be 80 to 100 persons. It's also estimated that 70 to 80% of guests to be chauffeured to an event, and that's through two buses. The primary issues that were associated the development that we have assessed the application against is land use, noise, traffic, and the protection of the site's environmental values. Um first and foremost the proposal is a consistent land use in the and from a noise management perspective, an environmental noise impact assessment was 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 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 it's been conditioned that noise from the site inclusive of patrons or and or amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels le eq adjusted for 15 minutes and external 20 off-site residents so that's external to any or sensitive receiver all guests must be vacated from the premises by no later than 10:30pm. And functions must not occur Queensland public holidays or on a Sunday unless followed by a gazetted Queensland public holiday from a traffic perspective a 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 councils engineers to be sealed to address dust and noise it was also recommended that the site's environmental values be protected through environmental covenants and environmental impacts have in been addressed in the submitted city 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 Thank you. Brian Stockwell 05:45.842
And we received by email some suggested amended conditions. Would you like to walk us through that Patrick? Certainly can. Amelia Lorentson 05:52.962
Can I, excuse me, Through the Chair, would it be possible to start with questions? Brian Stockwell 05:58.083
Ah, I'd no, like to the staff start to do the attack. Attachment to that please first. So we can just see how the staff have suggested a change and then we can ask questions after that. Patrick Murphy 06:07.710
So it is an amended set of conditions rules. To go with the recommendation. The first change to continue condition 8. A number of the conditions seek to augment the existing amenity conditions. 24.27.28.29. For example, condition 8, just to tighten it up, making it clear that it is the use of the function facility, is limited to the hours of 11am to 10pm, including provision of amplified music sound because the site's used for agricultural pursuits, we just wanted to make sure it was quite clear as to what the condition related to. There's inclusion of a new condition, 11, which requires a minimum of one bus must be provided for all events which have over 50 guests. Subject to some of the discussion at the Planning & Environment Committee meeting and discussions with the applicant, it was agreed that this would be a suitable condition to include. 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 the event manager and/or on-day controller must ensure that noise levels generated by 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 conditions, further discussion at Planning & Environment Committee Meeting, it was agreed to insert that condition. Then new condition 22, just again providing that clarity. We talk about an amended plan being operational sorry, an 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. And similarly, new condition 26, requiring compliance with the operational management 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 vegetation community 4 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. Condition caused. 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'll just, mate, note that we do have our environmental noise consultant available for questions today, Paul king. He's online. Our acoustic consultant, my apologies. Paul king. Brian Stockwell 09:20.990
Welcome, Paul. So, Amelia Lorentson 09:26.577
To 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. Mm-hmm. Council did receive confirmation from auspost that each letter sent to the adjoining property owners was delivered. The question is, there a requirement that they be received? Richard MacGillivray 09:58.335
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 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. In our view the applicant has discharged their duty under the act by meeting that requirement. If there's a situation where a party that has been delivered but they're saying haven't received it then that's a situation beyond our ability to require any further steps I guess beyond that. So technically they've met their obligation under the act which is to issue to the properties and to get advice from Australia post that it has been delivered. They Amelia Lorentson 11:05.715
And the other question that I was seeking an answer which I asked on the planning environment meeting was in relation to the amendments made the Noosa plan in 2020. Was under those amendments that function facility was defined as a consistent use. It had historically been an inconsistent use. And my question was again around notification. And I asked whether the adjoining residents were notified during the amendment process with the 2020 Noosa Plan. Were they notified and were they made so all the changes that we've aware of seen the change in the definition of function facilities? Richard MacGillivray 11:50.097
Yeah, so all residents were made aware. There wasn't a letter box drop to all residents in the rural hinterland areas relation to particular changes, but there was region-wide public notification which occurred in relation to the changes for the 2020 Noosa but specific letters were sent to individual landowners as such. Frank Wilkie 12:15.721
Question of the acoustics consultant, yeah, Paul, could you help 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. 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. Paul King 12:50.070
Okay, so the intent of that condition is to set a numerical value. That can be measured for, to regulate its use. In terms of the LEQ, which is the descriptor, so that's, in acoustic 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. The Environmental Protection Act defines 15 minutes as a minimum monitoring period for determining compliance. There are longer periods different type events. For 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, a many opportunities. Operations, 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 disturbance criteria, so lmax criteria, which could relate to one second intense. Impacts. But in this case, the 39 decibels are LEQ, so energy average. The ADJ, the adjust, which means you have to adjust the noise if it's got any specific tonal or impulse characteristics. So a lot of low frequency noise, if you determine there's then you add a penalty. You can measure 37, for example, and if it's you can add 5 to it, so that would make the number 42, which would be non-compliant with the 39. So the condition is set in a way that captures both the characteristics of the noise and the level 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 of use, such as a function facility upon residential amenity. In terms of the 39, if you want me to explain what 39 decibels means. Where you're sitting in the Council chambers, I've sat there before in front of you. If no one was talking, if I wasn't talking, 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 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 speech in '65 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, measured at two locations, so we're setting the criteria to 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 by 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 great after 10pm. Then lower levels would apply, but the landing conditions have been drafted, the function use finishes at 10 and everyone has to go on and leave by 10:30. Frank Wilkie 16:48.989
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.drafted, all right. Jessica Phillips 17:08.007
I question have a question and thank you that might be for you Richard I'm not sure it's around noise, um can you talk me through how our 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? Richard MacGillivray 17:28.305
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 the onus around voluntary compliance 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 those issues persist, then they're able to be escalated to Council, who will 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 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 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 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 done or further acoustic treatment manage, you know, additional noise if it's failed to occur if compliance is substantiated. Jessica Phillips 19:49.349
So just to follow up, thank you. Then the onus is the applicant for the conditions but then given that it's weddings, so it'll be different hosts each time, how does play a part in, I think hopefully you get. Richard MacGillivray 20:04.966
Yeah, 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 landowner and the operator in terms of ensuring compliance with those approval requirements so they're ultimately responsible for activities and they must ensure that the guests that are on site are well aware of those obligations and requirements otherwise they'll be ones that will you know potentially could receive. The fines or further enforcement action if breaches are confirmed Jessica Phillips 20:48.564
And one more question then since given that some noise complaints go through to police rather than to us how are we going to assure that not we're being told about complaints that are coming from there that may go straight through to police link instead of Richard MacGillivray 21:07.590
Through. 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 activity 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 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 21:40.777
Ms Wilson, thank you very much. If there were continued breaches and we did have to go to that mitigation acoustic treatments that you talked about, how long might that process take? And does functions continue in the meantime? Richard MacGillivray 21:59.359
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 further events until we get to the bottom of this particular issue. Is 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, know, continue to exceed you 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 a warning to a through to a potential prosecution or an injunction against the applicant. Councillor Finzel Karen Finzel 23:29.910
Thank you. Through the Chair just a question to the Paul king around power generator. What is the decimal reading for power generator? Brian Stockwell 23:41.890
Uh, boom, Paul King 23:47.631
Of the assessment but again the operator of the power generator on the site has to comply with the overall noise limits that are set so it's 39 decibels. It falls within that because it's part of the operation of the site. Different noise levels so they've got a they were not to the noise level for a generator of 60 decibels at a different distance of 8 metres so that's equivalent to about 75 decibels at 3 that's a reasonable generator get around but it but with an efficient enclosure so wouldn't be a garden variety generator you went and bought from it Bunnings, it would need to be something and you can buy or you can hire generators that come in acoustic enclosures with proper exhausts that are not that noisy at all. So the emergency ones that grow out during storms and the like. It can be designed to achieve an appropriate noise level I suppose if we're quite in front of that. Patrick Murphy 24:49.390
Can I just add to that? 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. Karen Finzel 25:06.831
Is there a following on for that power generator on the side that you can see properly condition that 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 make meet the noise requirements? Patrick Murphy 25:36.194
Well the condition does include the requirement for all noise from the site operation to comply with the condition. Karen Finzel 25:46.814
But exactly with the type of power generator on site that it is. Patrick Murphy 25:53.987
We haven't got a condition specific to a power generator or a type of power generator. Are we able to do that? If Councillors would like to include that condition it could be included. Karen Finzel 26:04.867
Well I think it could mitigate risk moving forward well we we'd would have to make a condition thank you. Oh that's my call. Frank Wilkie 26:17.276
Well, SPEAKER_03 26:19.936
Well, there's nothing to vote. No one's moved anything. Karen Finzel 26:22.136
Oh okay we're just collecting information at the moment. Frank Wilkie 26:24.916
Okay. I have a question. Another Councillor Wilkie. It's about the land rehabilitation. Condition 32 talks about a vegetation protection cover. 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 practical addressed as the objective sought by the requisition or refused provision. Could give example what SPEAKER_03 27:13.983
Could you give us an example of what a substitute provision might be if we're lucky use a standard terms document so that's a bit of a coverall condition in case something someone new starts I guess in land titles and doesn't like something in our standard terms and needs to add something different. In all the years I've worked never seen the need for that condition to be required, mostly because we have a standard terms document that we've signed off on. Frank Wilkie 27:35.993
Kind of like vegetation protection covenant will be registered. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 27:42.713
I'd like to get an understanding of the change to the 2020 planning scheme which first allowed. Function facilities as a consistent use and then the. Karen Finzel 27:52.419
In the rural zone and then the subsequent amendment which is said only in conjunction with tourism. Nature-based Brian Stockwell 28:02.388
Is that something that Director Kim would like to answer? Nicola Wilson 28:10.748
I'd like to understand the process or the reasoning for a function facility to be first treated as the consistent in rural 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 28:26.737
So as part of these random amendments you'll recall that the Short Stay Monitoring Report was one of the key strategic pieces of work that was undertaken. And there's a raft of amendments done proposed around sort of strengthening short-stay including some changes in the world precincts and one of that one of those was needing to ensure that there were 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 protecting rural lands from sort of isolated non-related type uses so there was a review to link those facilities you there's nature-based tourism where there's someone on site then you could you know also have function facility that was sort of the thinking that was done about you know two and a half three years ago now that kind of thinking and drafting was that was the intent behind it. Nicola Wilson 29:40.367
So based on nature-based tourism being a small-scale business with minimal effects to the environment is this type of what function facility was anticipated to be the use of that land so would we Jessica Phillips 29:58.372
We the objective of having nature-based tourism consistent with a function facility would we anticipate that being something as large as 150 guests Kim Rawlings 30:08.952
That type of facility? I haven't got into the details application, I need to be upfront so I haven't looked at it from a detailed perspective. Richard MacGillivray 30:19.502
There is clearly a, so the scheme amendments are clearly seeking a policy shift I guess from the 2020 planning scheme which made a function facility on its own a consistent whereas the current scheme amendments are basically seeking that is consistent only we're in conjunction with nature-based tourism so it has to have a nexus with tourism, natural-based of the land as such which generally 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 pretty much 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 were changes afoot which obviously started drafting least a couple of years ago Kim Rawlings 31:28.736
Yeah we there was a we also has had some historic function facilities in the hinterland that as standalone have not time so you know it was considered you know to do them in conjunction and that you based a bit more holistic development so I had Amelia Lorentson 31:56.885
Email from the adjoining property owners and none of them were made or 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 potential impacts to the adjoining land owners what can they do in terms of this application in terms addressing not of lack of notification but they were made unaware of the changes in the planning scheme in 2020 we spoke last time at statute of limitation I think there was 12 months where they could make a claim for adverse impacts caused to changes in a planning scheme given they had no idea about it until this application has come forward what can they do they're just again taken back by the significance of the application it's said small in scale but we're talking seven day function a week facility that's going to accommodate up to a hundred and fifty people Kim Rawlings 33:14.741
During I'm talking to just me oh yeah yeah so the price during 2020 planning scheme the was five years in the making we consulted at least times across the whole community across those see four and a half years in the development of 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 so much notification about the Noosa Plan and it was a new planning scheme so there were hundreds of changes thousands of changes in fact there was it was a hundred change to levels of assessment that happened between the 2006 scheme and the 2020 scheme pretty much across all land uses um so there was absolutely an incredible amount of engagement and awareness raising um that happened at the time you know I just I will say that about that process it was incredibly significant terms of notification and engagement um and you know at the time and I you know I talked a little bit about this last week planning schemes are dynamic they change 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 um allow more to happen in our rural areas at the time you know so to encourage dispersal tourism from a lot of pressure from the Coast so there was quite a bit of a push policy to allow more to happen in the rural areas so 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 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 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 Jessica Phillips 35:38.387
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 to spells or for them to sorry for us to prove or them to disprove where's the onus Richard MacGillivray 36:18.337
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 potentially initiate 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 that and let's say it was successive Saturday nights at nine o'clock there was an exceedance exception. There, we could potentially set up some equipment, testing 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 could take compliance action against them in relation to that. So the obligation to meet that rests with the applicant to prove that there's an offence or a breach is up to Council to action against that for a breach. Brian Stockwell 37:17.278
So from recollection in the conditions it and I think it's in their operational 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 results of that monitoring? Richard MacGillivray 37:33.823
Yeah and 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 an issue from say resident 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 we have exceeded the 39 DBA at the neighbouring sensitive receiver 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 sick 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 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 with that there's an exceedance and they can manage those impacts back down to an acceptable level how Nicola Wilson 38:58.819
Much weight is given to submissions from the public participation process given that all of their submissions from people who were in the retail print area were opposing the equalization? Patrick Murphy 39:15.804
Well yeah I mean in terms of weight it's need to look at the planning scheme requirements 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 to and certainly those responses based upon the evidence that we have through the operational management plan and the acoustic consultants report recommendations Nicola Wilson 39:49.719
So just follow up on that noise our expert noise please um just to talk us through a bit in more layman's terms of how that assessment is actually made specifically with this cycling 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 long distance away in the hinterland and then anticipating that the 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 40:31.769
As you can see, we have a very good, so as I said before the applicant's consultant undertook long-term noise monitoring at two locations so for seven days at each location so it 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 to assess a set 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 10th percentile of the background so it's like almost the average minimum noise level so we use 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 levels in the area it's fairly quiet as would be expected and the criteria 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 group. So the criteria would be five above that if we were looking at a service station. Taking account of what the ambient noise environment is, manage the use so it's not upsetting it by more than five. So what that means at 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. You would not be able to understand a that distance, they won't hear it. Now, if someone's yelling loudly and the wind is blowing from the function centre towards someone's house, you might hear something, but the important test, sorry, the important point to make is that audibility is not the test. If audibility was the test in the pre-Champion period, we couldn't develop so it's allowed to be five and a half background, which means you may discern it outside your house, but you should be able to hear it inside your house. 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 here in the attempt to provide certainty to both the local residents, the Councillor Councillor and the operator, so they know what their requirements are to bridge and just one more thing I know it's a very good condition, but I've must admit that all of us have also said use of the generator must be controlled at all times to comply with the noise limits of the approved noise report. So Patrick, I agree with what you said before, you know, the conditions have been, we're getting all of the sources back to the environment noise report, and we've got the overarching condition because that's the 39 D.V. 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. Also has requirement that any complaints are made available to Council if requested. Brian Stockwell 44:09.891
So just to follow up on that, from my experience 34 decibels is a fairly standard thing for a rural environment. Did it include any, like where they've monitored road noise further away from the site? And in terms of comparing, what's the likely sound to residents close to the road of the car going past in terms of decibels? Paul King 44:34.553
Certainly, so the noise loggers were well away from Louis Bazzo Drive. There was one in the middle of the site and one towards the function centre. So it has this as close plus as interlude it will be as I draw. To Louis Bazzo Drive, it. Let's say within, if 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. So there's a peak of noisy car going past. The background noise loggers 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 monitoring, which is why we're 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 45:24.839
Thank you. Do we have any other questions? I have some questions, Amelia Lorentson 45:30.659
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. Sensitive sense of an environmental? Patrick Murphy 46:00.911
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 control, yeah. Paul King 46:16.589
I- Yeah. Also assisted by writing these lighting conditions. So, lighting associated with use must be designed, sited, installed, tested to comply with the Australian standard. Now, 4282 is about the control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting. So, it's specific to what it means is that any outdoor lighting they use on site must meet two specific criteria relating to spill light from the site and to the glare of the light, so the visible from external to the site. I suppose, is a third better limit thing in than that which also is something relates like to sky clock, which is something you're more concerned about near coastal location. So in this case AS 4282, again bit like noise looks at what the existing lighting environment is. So quite simply out there it's dark, very There's no artificial in my updated individual houses 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 is located, well away from the site boundaries and any neighbours, they should readily be able to achieve that in terms of light white spill school and layer, so visible light from external to 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 lights which 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 further condition that requires certification that they comply with that standard and that would I expect to be prior to commencement use. Brian Stockwell 48:07.928
Are there more questions? Amelia Lorentson 48:10.124
Surety 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 certainties probably the word that I'm looking for residents living adjoining the 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 if there are breaches and if it's a level one breach a level two three breach and a process a time frame just to give them some sure that as a Council we will address compliance issues and breaches. Whether it's a noting report I'm unsure but it just seems the conversation we're having around the table is it's a process and a half. You know with just other noise issues whether it's from the junction we know that this is quite difficult for a resident that's impacted to actually go through the process it's a they going to be tuning up with their own noise monitors that is the onus back them do they have to prove it's he says she it just seems really confusing yeah look process are Richard MacGillivray 49:41.655
Comfortable thank you, Councillor. Look and obviously this is the challenge we've got a situation where the use hasn't happened so you're basing it off essentially the technical assessment the work that's been done to demonstrate how they're 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 some comfort is of what the applicants put forward in terms of the operation that those noise impacts will be within the acceptable tolerances the operational management plan and is the point around the conditions there's been a lot of investment to give a surety around that the obligations and the onus on the operator are very substantial and significance that they have to meet to ensure that though 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 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 how do we is there an ability for them to still immediately stop or for us to intervene and there are tools I mean can issue fines we can seek injunctions and things which is a pretty extreme measure in the first case as I outlined earlier the Councillor Phillips in relation to the process we would generally look to contact 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 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 um we don't have the ability as such to say you've exceeded once you need to completely stop that's a challenging issue for us because you know in the event of an approval there's an can require further acoustic testing to be done and works to be undertaken if there 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 the in form of enforcement action or even prosecute if it gets significant where the parties aren't complying so there are tools available us like with all land uses as well that have approval subject to a raft of conditions we can take steps to address those if they do occur but ultimately you know 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 for the residents thank you SPEAKER_10_b 52:53.739
You Karen Finzel 52:53.979
Just in terms of potable water on the site I understand there's going to be Nicola Wilson 53:01.079
Condition for tanks to 46,000 litres based on 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 significant increase of you know trucks along the road to deliver sufficient water to the site that to accommodate 150 guests per day. Six days a week. Patrick Murphy 53:32.674
My understanding is there are tanks on site and well I'm not sure you can help me if the bushfire management plan requires a tank separate from potable water 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 SPEAKER_03 54:09.026
The shelter in place location. So they're going to have separate 10,000 litre water tanks for purely firefighting purposes only separate could Brian Stockwell 54:20.833
They also be an using the dams as well? Which would be mega litres by the look of it. Karen Finzel 54:28.493
The press so just another question for the Chair following on from that. If they're going to be using the dam, that would be a pump. How is that in terms of noise mitigation? Richard MacGillivray 54:42.511
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 a pump, they basically still cannot exceed that 39 dBA. So anything associated with function facility uses must not whether they need to enclose it to meet that obligation or not is on them to ensure that they meet that 39 dBA. Brian Stockwell 55:09.530
Rule for aries would have their arm pumped and then you have the dames rule and they can't run out of the tank or the helicopters Richard MacGillivray 55:17.410
Did you have anything to add to that comment of mine? Has that pretty much covered it off? Or have you got anything added around the generators as well and the pumps? SPEAKER_10_b 55:26.150
Yeah, you're right Richard, so we had the many amputators-puzzles. For entertainment, we've got the generator, but then we had the catch-all condition which was noise from site operation, inclusive of patrons amplified music, must not exceed 39, so it's inclusive of, it's not excluding everything else. So which is everything to do with the site, so not exceed 39 DBA. Frank Wilkie 55:48.707
Paul, you said you're you've got. Pretty confident that 39 DBA is a realistic limit. You've described it as the equivalent of us sitting in this room here listening to the air conditioning, which is pretty low. 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 close SPEAKER_10_b 56:17.141
So, um, the, primary, you know, noise that's going to be affecting from this is that I focused on in the second part what I did was the use of the driveway. Car park. So the only time that anything gets near 39 decibels at a residence from the predictions that were undertaken relates to So that's where it's within, 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 uh, unless the, uh, for example, unless a list of people some who are is less than 28 decibels. Amplified music is 35, but that's assuming they're playing fairly loud music. Noise from car park activity would be 8.5 decibels. So they're all quite small components. The highest noise use, but the limited to the operation of this really relates to the driveway and traffic on the driveway. So in terms of this, the topography, the land, I remember, sort of falls in different directions. But the low point is the length. The nearest house is to the north. I think the right down was 670 metres away. To the west about 1,100 metres away and 870 metres the south. That's quite a distance. I'm involved with a lot of function centres that are in rural hinterland areas in the Sunshine Coast, gold that have houses within 200 metres of them. They are able to manage their operations and comply. So in this case, I feel that there is more than adequate separation, and they're in quite rural areas, 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 but I think here. Given the separation distances from the function centre itself, it's well-placed in a rural area. It has appropriate buffers. So the planning scheme that makes a function centre consistent or potentially consistent, this is one of the better sites for where one could be located. Compared to I see many which are within a couple 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 is a building with a marquee factor I believe. Um they haven't paid any account back for controlling the noise origin and of they'll who have had some effect. In this sense it's been quite conservative. So this is one I can be quite confident about. It can protect or maintain the amenity of the surrounding residents. Yes there'll be some noise audible at times but it's well sited and well conditioned. Nicola Wilson 59:21.806
Can I move a motion to defer the matter until Councillors have attended on site? Brian Stockwell 59:26.806
You may. What second? By Councillor Wilkie. Nicola Wilson 59:31.287
Wilkie 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. SPEAKER_08 01:00:04.644
Can you do that for us? Brian Stockwell 01:00:07.944
It had moved and seconded to be the, yeah, I, 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? Tom Wegener 01:00:24.775
As part of that motion. Is that actually a motion? Because we're, we can vote on the Ordinary Meeting anyway. Brian Stockwell 01:00:33.495
Yeah, that is a motion. It's a procedural motion. Okay. Doesn't. This is, just means, it nothing will be moved today, basically. So it'll be debated on Thursday. Larry Sengstock 01:00:55.806
Take number Check them, bros. O's. I thought, just to be you could just go. Flooding out there. Nicola Wilson 01:01:04.786
So, is it like they're not stating the date and saying? Brian Stockwell 01:01:10.471
We need to put a note. It's up four. To you. Do you want to move that without the date? 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? We have. Yeah, no, Cathy, I'll do it next. It was to defer that to-- sorry, Councillor Wilson. You've moved your motion. I've accepted it. I was going back to the original one. Yep, 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. Nicola Wilson 01:01:42.296
Yeah. What was the original wording? I think it was pending Councillors being able to attend the site. Happy? Brian Stockwell 01:01:59.580
Yeah. Would you like to talk to that? Nicola Wilson 01:02:02.700
No. Frank Wilkie 01:02:07.000
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 on of the conditions, and I think looking at the topography, the distances involved, will give us a better understanding of how such an operation may impact on the surrounding sorry, rural amenity, which is a critical thrust of all these conditions as far as I can see. Brian Stockwell 01:02:44.046
Just a question in terms of statutory time limits for decisions. Where are we at with regard Patrick Murphy 01:02:52.537
To this particular development? Due the 20th of December. It's an impact assessable application so it would only go Richard MacGillivray 01:03:01.297
Deemed refused. We could seek an extension by agreement. Desirably to keep within statutory time limits. That's right, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:12.937
Sorry, can just I listen to what Richard just said, that we can seek an extension? Richard MacGillivray 01:03:18.896
By agreement, yes. So obviously extend the time frame, the decision making time frame. So at this stage its decision date is due. The 20th, did you say Patrick? Of December, yes. Of December. But the parties can agree by to extend that's to it's just a matter further date of to allow us to make time a decision before within the statutory time frame. But the ramifications to we patrick's can point, if we don't make a decision, doesn't mean we still can't make a after that date. It's just that the applicant can seek a deemed refusal, but there's no deemed approval provisions that will I give us in fact accessible. Can I just say the one question in relation to, I understand there's an inspection range, counselling. Are all Councillors attending, or some? I'm not sure if they're all Councillors. Just one? Okay. I've had a conflicting meeting. And the weather. So they're made I guess, based on once Councillors have attended, then we can work out when the appropriate date might be to begin with. Brian Stockwell 01:04:25.028
The CEO has just pointed out under our new bystanding orders, 313A, 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 it. I know, it's just a rule that we've so do you want to try again, Councillor Wilson, and put in a date? Nicola Wilson 01:05:05.741
To defer the matter until the January General Committee. Frank Wilkie 01:05:13.541
Just a question. Would that have a deemed refusal? Unless the parties agree? Brian Stockwell 01:05:21.541
Yeah. Okay, so she's moved well, Councillor Wilson has moved that. So the reason I've. Sorry, I'll second. Nicola Wilson 01:05:30.076
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 as the CEO pointed out, we may 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 inspection. Frank Wilkie 01:05:58.660
To defer 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. 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 not to support this. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:37.905
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 terms of process, does that mean the applicant has to restart the process or does he appeal the refusal? Richard MacGillivray 01:07:05.895
No, so they have to apply for deemed refusal so they can decision. If we don't make that within the statutory timeframe. My advice would be is, to stick within the timeframe. So I agree with Mayor wilkie's comment around a deferral to this ordinary on the basis that we can then have a conversation with to agree to extend that based on giving councils more time and make a decision at the Ordinary Meeting. That way we're acting within statutory timeframe and we can have some dialogue with them around potential extensions if they're required beyond, the ordinary. The meeting date this week. So the risk is if we make a decision and they apply for deemed refusal, you know, we're 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. And 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 to need more time based on discussions evolve between now and the end, then we can do that. Safely. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:29.782
So question again can this same motion be raised on Thursday if not all the councils are able to tend and rain if there's rain we're not able to yeah. Richard MacGillivray 01:08:45.869
We can certainly raise that with the applicant if they'll agree to give more time. And principally if they the applicant have an increase. Agrees. Brian Stockwell 01:08:53.356
Yes. In terms we of your right of order you already talked to them. Come on, ask a question. Jessica Phillips 01:08:59.556
Can I ask a question? You may. 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? We can't hold the rain and that there's three days till the ordinary if this, if we need a little bit more time to get out to site to make a really informed decision. Yeah. Do you feel that, without speaking on their behalf, that it would be acceptable? Richard MacGillivray 01:09:33.382
I can't probably speak for the applicant in terms of their will agree, noting they might have their own commercial pressures and time frames, but what we will do is encourage them to allow you to have that benefit of the doubt to have procedural fairness to hear from 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 give you any guarantees because I can't speak on their behalf but certainly the team will engage with them following meeting and no they'll doubt be probably watching this meeting discussion as well so I have an understanding of the need to allow Councillors some time to attend and view the site. Brian Stockwell 01:10:18.149
So I'm not going to support this motion. I think we have to be clear on what our role is. When we're deciding impact assessment. The role of us is to determine whether the relevant benchmarks in the scheme have been met advice is from staff is 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 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 have an understanding but we're not the ones that have to determine whether the site can meet the benchmark except 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. It's important also that we do have benchmarks or performance indicators that we look at on a regular basis and 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 not meaning that things take too long and so it's really important to understand it's that sometimes it's hard, we have to make hard decisions and deferring it it's not always of benefit to all parties including the reputation of Council so I don't think a deferral until January is a good thing. A good move. Does anyone else wish to speak? Tom Wegener 01:12:10.246
Councillor Wegener? Yeah I agree with the Chair. We just got to stick to and this is the process. I think that do your vote today on the General Committee 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. So but I really don't think pressing things out like this matters because we all 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? Jared? Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:12:57.555
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. Karen Finzel 01:13:16.958
I will support the motion. I think given the concern 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- you know, feel satisfied with our due diligence at all levels, not just in relation to the statutory time requirements, it. Brian Stockwell 01:13:47.887
Councillor Lorentson, I think you're in, hasn't spoken. Amelia Lorentson 01:13:51.587
So the motion is what's the date that we put forward? January 16th. I think just because of the significance of the matter and for all of us to feel comfortable with information the that's been presented the around 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 whether there are other impacts that haven't been captured in report, so I'm happy to support this. Brian Stockwell 01:14:34.481
Would you like to exercise your right of reply, Councillor Wilson? I can close, is that correct? Technically, your close is the right of reply, so you reply to the debate around the table rather Nicola Wilson 01:14:47.796
So, I do think there may be other relevant 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 be a fair process for all to hear from the applicant but also to have visited the site to understand and consider the residents position as well. So given the weather 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 agreeable to that. Brian Stockwell 01:15:29.824
Okay, so I'll put the motion. Those in favour is 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 of the agenda. Thank you Mr king so the next item is section 8 of the agenda. Thank you planners. That's report direct to General Committee and the first item there is financial report of November. 2024 and we welcome Pauline to the table, our manager of finance. And Fred is here too, the Director. If you'd like to give us an executive summary, thanks Pauline. Pauline 01:16:34.675
Good afternoon Councillors. 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. Revenue is $2.3 above budget and that's been driven by 1. Million dollars in 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 all of the forecast Fees and Charges of $127,000 with development assessment and local law currently under budget 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 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 one. Overall revenues capital 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 council's base capital program. With the variance of these programs largely driven by delays and in project delivery and some budget profiling. Kim Rawlings 01:18:46.596
Council is currently holding $101.3 million in cash reserves with $30 million invested in higher yielding term deposits. Brian Stockwell 01:18:54.936
You will note that this month's report also includes quarterly dissection of council's cash holdings. Pauline 01:19:01.143
This is comprised of $44.9 million in restrictive funds, which can be broken into $22.2 million relating to externally restricted funds, such as unspent levies and separate charges, the advance payment of grant funds, multiple years of waste levy subsidy to offset residential domestic waste that would be subject to levy and developer contributions 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 cost associated with waste management or remediation efforts initiated by previous generations. There is a further $1.5 million for commercial operations. 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. Karen Finzel 01:21:22.278
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 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 is available to fund emergent. New capital works projects and allows Council to leverage grant funding opportunities by funding any co-contribution requirements. It should be noted there is no funding to replenish this unrestricted cash component unless Council generates a surplus operating position. Kim Rawlings 01:22:17.311
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. Brian Stockwell 01:22:27.751
Thanks. Do we have any further questions? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:22:32.831
I have a consultancy fee. Fees in materials and services. I note that we've spent $1.66 million last year, 2024, and the current budget for 2025 is $1.85 is $1.989. 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 01:23:09.985
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. Would be great, thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:23:20.004
Any other questions? Amelia Lorentson 01:23:24.624
In terms of transitory rating, we've only had it once sort of 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 from transitory rating? Nicola Wilson 01:23:55.062
Thank see, did you want to go or should I? Trent Grauf 01:23:58.405
Through the Chair, can I potentially suggest that in terms of completeness that what we used to do in previous terms, we would provide a biannual rating report. Would come through it to you after the rates had been run. Just given other priorities for meeting rounds, that hasn't happened last year too. But we can bundle a breakdown of the general rate and some of the statistics around general rate through to future reports. So probably most likely be after the rate run has completed. So we're talking probably late February, depending on the February meeting or round. The February remarks, what you would get then is a complete picture of the revenue generated across all rating categories, the level of arrears, and any other key statistics around your rates in entirety across all your land uses. Be my suggested approach. So are you seeing the complete picture? Amelia Lorentson 01:24:56.437
Well that biannual report Trent, will that also separate business related revenue? It would be great to have a look at how much money are we getting from residential and how much is we being generating generated. Being for from tourist related businesses or in general. Is that easy to do or am I putting. SPEAKER_03_b 01:25:24.753
Limited to the land uses that are provided by the department of natural resources. On their land use categories. So obviously the assumption on whether a type of business is primarily just commercial or 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 I'd have to take that on notice and confirm that it would be subject to because otherwise a manual and subjective decision. Exercise for us to go through the few thousand. Amelia Lorentson 01:26:01.926
The Fees and Charges might be a little bit messy. Okay, I'll just leave that as an idea only. Thank you. Very much. Moved by Councillor Wilkie, I'll second it. Frank Wilkie 01:26:15.845
Thank you for an excellent reporting on the way you've also given the breakdown of restricted and unrestricted cash. Very helpful. You know, I'm conservative budgeting. Is serving us well, so thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:26:30.924
Other people wish to talk to the motion? I just thought it was very nice of the Director to commit to do something in February and March. I'm glad you noticed that. Okay, Councillor Wilkie, did you wish to close? No, thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you thanks so the next item is the Regional Arts Development Fund RADF grant recommendations for the 2024-25 annual round and we have a declaration from Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:27:21.937
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I will provide the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this I, councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have matter in relation to our residency, Noosa natural 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 the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Brian Stockwell 01:27:58.023
And while Councillor Wegener is looking out, we have the manager of arts and culture, Paul Brinkman, who has joined us, as well as Director Contini. Would to give us an overview please? Paul Brinkman 01:28:09.539
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 total of $150,138 of 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 worlds film event for thousand nine hundred dollars. Aaron linden, ouroboros, short film for ten thousand dollars. Tess Miller, ceramics residency for eight Jordan Neal, the pursuit of ideal content exhibition and workshop program seven thousand dollars simone's upon 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 twenty-five and be completed within a twelve month period. Brian Stockwell 01:29:48.689
Thank you. Do we have any questions? Would you like to talk to them? Karen Finzel 01:30:02.290
I- Oh, only briefly, I a 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 and local level so I really support this and as the RADF Chair on committee, I'm really happy to be a part of such a great growth in the sector in our region. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:31:06.103
Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Do you wish to argue with anything that's been said? I'll put the motion those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you. We might have a 10-minute agenda. Brian Stockwell 01:44:51.611
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 the planning environment meeting that Councillor Lorentson did declare a conflict of interest, a declarable in relation to a dealing she had with a local solicitor once. It was at the pain 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 of the 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. Sion 01:45:54.891
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:45:59.291
Hello Chair, everyone. Brian Stockwell 01:46:03.151
And Sion, I believe you're giving us the executive exact. Summary. Sion 01:46:08.077
That. Thank you very much for your time. And report on the actions that are enclosed within that plan. The directly 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 that 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 a development coming for the future. The climate change response plan identifies 20 strategic priorities, 17 targets and 58 actions under eight themes. It has a five year life span. The eight themes in plan include strong leadership and governance, which looks at council's advocacy, regional partnerships and our organisational approach to climate change, energy efficiency, renewable energy, which looks at how we mitigate the negative effects that are causing climate change. Clean low emission industries, support local business and industry in their transition to zero emissions. 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 on our climate and encourages sustainable practices in these areas. Resilient and adaptive communities 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 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 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, emission industry, innovative technology and solutions that address the climate crisis, supporting a climate-ready community that considers climate change in day-to and business decisions, facilitating sustainable, resilient and adaptive communities, buildings and infrastructure to help reduce the impacts of 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 sustainability. Supporting vulnerable populations, ensuring inclusion in solutions and equitable access to opportunities and benefits. Accelerating this transition to sustainable transport. Enhancing ecosystem 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 circular economy. 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 is a huge achievement not just for our team but for other teams across Council who have contributed to this work. It that there is still a lot of work to do in this space addressing climate change risks continues to be at the forefront of need for us and we will continue to work on this to 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 of need 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 have been to date. 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 and 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 sustainable behaviour is a huge challenge and we acknowledge that we're only really just beginning this work have begun an embedding program at Noosa 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 to the Council soon in the future we've been partnering with key organisations in our region leading education and research organisations and regional governments local 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 size on the site 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 Energex 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 2026 target. 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 mentioned this one because transport is responsible for approximately 33 of our community's emissions. But we acknowledge that 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 that's managed for its environmental value and Voluntary Conservation Agreements and Land for Wildlife partnerships. And so this is a significant contribution to carbon drawdown for some key priorities for us to advance: developing the Roadmap for net zero emissions, which will provide a direction on council's investment approach to achieve net zero 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 decision-making around self-generated offsets through environmental restoration and potential purchase of third-party offsets where appropriate. Securing and direct substantial emissions reduction for the Noosa landfill. Continuing to partner with First Nations as joint custodians of the Noosa region. And there are many others but I may ask Jay if you'd like to add any to that list. Very comprehensive. Thank 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. Guide Amelia Lorentson 01:56:47.329
Our climate change response plan has a target of net zero emissions by 2026. Will we get there? SPEAKER_04 01:56:59.783
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 01:57:09.143
Is it true that councils that don't have landfills are easily a change between net zero through offsets and emissions reduction. 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 a really clear strategy to move towards zero, and that will come to you early in the new year. SPEAKER_01 01:57:56.872
It won't will make it easy if we were to sell it off, it'd still be difficult, but it'll be easier work. But look, I can 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. Look at more the opportunity detail about with the solutions at landfill. Frank Wilkie 01:58:25.008
Just, if you can quantify, the 750 kilowatts of solar on Council buildings, how much does that save ratepayers each year of electricity costs? SPEAKER_01 01:58:34.653
Take it well, we can take that on notice, Frank, and we'll get back to you. Kim Rawlings 01:58:39.433
We do have those figures, but just not at hand. Tom Wegener 01:58:47.234
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 faced." Meaning that you look at what the risk is, and then we actually should, because they're pretty big risks, what do we need to do? And it has to be commensurate to that. Know, kind of a balance. First question is, it's such a wide program. I mean, you know, there's certain places, groups that waste has a very narrow target, or narrower target. Well, your actual remit is massive. Is a wide. So we know are we're we getting to a question? Yes, we how are you, do you feel confident that you're able to address such wide range of issues? Because there is so many, like you're pulling them together SPEAKER_04 01:59:40.073
Yeah well one of the high priorities on my workload is to do this Council embedding program, which is about 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 will tip the scale in. Favour of finding real solutions to the huge risk and issue that we face. Yeah, I couldn't agree SPEAKER_01 02:00:08.852
More with that. I think over the last three years working at Council, the realisation is that, you know, with three permanent in staff 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 02:00:29.887
In the green drinks are you going gonna to maintain that? Because I found that was one place where you could all of a sudden everybody's talking to each other freely, you know, outside of the meeting, but you'd have many, different representatives from different parts of Council and the community groups there. SPEAKER_04 02:00:49.147
I believe that's program a 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 a professional space. Brian Stockwell 02:01:09.488
It might be worth clarifying to the General Committee public that green drinks isn't what we have at st patrick's day. SPEAKER_01 02:01:19.937
It's very important given that we need to work together collectively with all our partners across the community and internally to be able to respond to the climate challenge. Tom Wegener 02:01:31.477
The last, maybe I'll just, talk to, so it's not a question, but is, we have we haven't had a motion yet, so you can't talk, so I'll forward it, I'll, you'll, move it? I'll move it, yes. I'll second it. You can talk to the motion. This is fantastic that, I lost my thought there, and, kennedy's group. Then. Like, they're, a group. I look at, what you're doing, because it's such a wide, remit, and then I look at the community groups that are very, very active in that role, and zero missions 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. 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 unit, and hopefully putting a biochar unit next to that. 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 aspects, and I think working with community groups, going back to Zero Emissions Noosa, My mind just kind of went 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 either 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 wide remit and successfully overall the balance done very, very well. So congratulations. Brian Stockwell 02:03:43.840
Thank I didn't don't expect-- I'll let you speak now, but while Councillor Lorentson is speaking, could you bring up figure three in the report for us, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:03:55.444
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, resources. 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 as infrastructure, which is such what is probably my area of most interest in this space. Stormwater, ageing infrastructure, impacts on our roads, transports and I think that's stuff community can also relate to. Will there be an opportunity as part of the review to actually go out to community 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 sure that the plan reflects current values, priorities, and just make priorities, and whether there is an opportunity to narrow the scope. I'm happy to that. SPEAKER_01 02:05:25.796
Speak to we'll be looking at reviewing the climate change response plan in 2026 because it's a five-year plan. Years, so. Yeah. And okay. 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 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 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 and key stakeholders towards more resilient design. So I think we'll continue to focus on that in this plan. But yes, opportunities for engaging the community again. I mean, we do it on a project by basis, as you know, but we'll also hopefully with the resilience strategy and the climate change response plan, do it again. Jessica Phillips 02:06:43.985
That's Thank you. Yeah. Question, please. In relation to the Go Noosa Program, so I'll probably just close on to this. We probably two parts. I thought we had some resourcing changes in is that still looking like it's going to 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 money road and those areas to the schools so I'll get to my question Mr Chair how is that information related into this plan how does it keep connecting SPEAKER_04 02:07:38.203
Plans. I'm not going to speak to a well 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 what I know in writing this report because this report finishes at the end of financial last year we don't have any data in here to say where we're at currently or where we're going forward. SPEAKER_01 02:08:02.590
It's definitely the Go Noosa program be one that we would encourage strongly to continue from our end but we can take that on notice and speak to the sustainable transport team under the infrastructure planning to get advice on that one and then linkages as Sion said multi-modal transport sustainable and clean transport options are huge so definitely supporting the Walking and Cycling Strategy that Council has is part of this plan yeah Jessica Phillips 02:08:28.940
I'll probably just phrase one because I didn't 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 I was getting at. Kim Rawlings 02:08:44.370
So each year Council considers the Go Noosa Program and the funding prioritisation of that and I know there's some discussions at the moment about the transport levy and traffic. Translinks, the government's new determination, 57 fares. Yeah so there's this there'll be some further considerations probably as part of the budget process for your Councillors on that, and as you know also through you 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 I know infrastructure services have been applying for 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 key priorities but you're right we have had some resource challenges in the traffic transport team so yeah. Thanks. Amelia Lorentson 02:09:45.963
So just another question. Correct me if I'm wrong but I was sort of playing around and just reading. The report. Is it Brisbane City Council that have a public disclosure statement and I remember reading it and I did look at it and it was really good so it was pretty much. Does Council walk the talk and it went through all the number of employees and I wish I had that number at the top of my head but it's thousands and how many and how they get to work whether they walk that ride bikes and that information. 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 02:10:31.238
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 Amelia Lorentson 02:10:56.833
I think it went through from photocopying the reduction but it was any stuff that we're doing so readable just a beautiful statement it sounds good we'll definitely look up SPEAKER_01 02:11:08.465
Yes we would definitely look at that and then with carbon footprint reporting so yeah we 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 02:11:35.238
Um actually that to be put up so initially that a I think the State government funded program delivered through LGAQ and they initially had external consultant Donovan got his last name Don is in britain yeah is those that is those annual reviews they still done externally or something is that on our own SPEAKER_01 02:11:56.355
So we've done an assessment my 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 Donovan Burton they had actually consult got him as a consultant to have a look at every Council in Queensland Brian Stockwell 02:12:21.687
Yeah so when it was first rolled out Noosa Council was pretty high in the pack are we aware whether we're still or whether others have taken us over 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 I'll move on to talk to it Councillors our roles are really 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. 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 standing starting to think about it. I'm not saying that staff haven't continually tried to implement the plan and there's identified a great lot of work but if we're serious about our role as the strategic leaders of this organisation. Risks should be a monthly review. I'm going to on normally I don't even you know 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 felt governments at all levels business households and community each have important complementary and shared responsibilities in adapting to climate change and addressing the cause of climate 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 across Australia we-20 bushfires across Australia and then I think that was the turning point for the society more generally everyone understood the 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 health our well-being food supply chains economic disruption to critical infrastructure and the loss of biodiversity and natural values that underpin the liveability 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 in 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 are passing on a legacy of risk. 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 a 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 operations. Operational issues of current importance. This is setting up this organisation so that in 10 and 25 years people aren't losing their lives to climate change impacts or the next series of bushfires extreme storm. Song. It's a salutary lesson but it's also good to look at 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 ongoing the emissions issue is really about rejigging our economy to be a carbon neutral economy. It's about looking at all the fantastic technological options available. How renewable energy can replace stationary coal-fired stations. There's numerous opportunities and I'd like to thank all those staff, including the two that were meeting 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 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 going to address this risk. Frank Wilkie 02:17:25.221
Just in case the chairman has got the fear of god, this council's focus on adapting to climate change and preparing for I'm referring specifically to the extremes that you mentioned, bushfire, drought. I floods. Increased severity of storms, cyclones. Perhaps it's because Councillor Phillips 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 nation. 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 there's more work to be done in embedding that awareness across the organisation, with Councillor stockwell's comments about being aware at Council level and having discussions about that is well made, and 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 02:18:49.522
I have one more question please. It probably goes hand in 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 it seems like Noosa is fighting the 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. Fight Kim Rawlings 02:19:29.195
I hope that I asked that properly. Feel free to jump in but there's a you know there's often a range of um topical issues a community was battery was one this year and there was some great advocacy done by Noosa Council and we had other organisations join us 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 particular to LGAQ around legislative changes to enable you know particular outcomes 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 into. Changes among and we bring forward you know key advocacy issues there are we are part of a South East Queensland alliance that we are sharing information now and doing joint advocacy so there you know there is quite a bit um happening in terms of what's in the space specifics SPEAKER_01 02:20:32.978
Yeah I agree for sure Kim I'd say thank you for asking Jess and we definitely um 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 response as well as the community reference group we were 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. So yeah if you agree Jessica Phillips 02:21:14.182
I'll try to ask a question through it because my statement it may come first around just family my putting solar on to significantly try and help and now it's almost pointless the tariff I get 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 step up in that. Clearly articulated or question made. Take it I know. But I just sent you a question at the end as well. Finish with what do you think? Very good point. Brian Stockwell 02:21:59.834
Thank you. So we are in debate. You've got an answer to the question that wasn't asked? Sion 02:22:05.395
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. Pioneering. It's going to be one of a kind for this state where all other communities community batteries are owned and operated by Energex or Ergon, whereas the Noosa community battery will be this community. So it's a real opportunity for us to be able to utilise, as I mentioned, a huge community solar array. 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 opportunities similar to I would love to be able to bring that to Council for support. Nicola Wilson 02:22:59.408
Was a passionate answer. I didn't know how to answer it. Brian Stockwell 02:23:05.388
Would anyone else like to speak to the motion? Now raised this graph, that most of those add up to 99, not 100. That would be rounding errors. Yeah, probably rounding errors, but I'll check with LGAQ. Amelia Lorentson 02:23:29.962
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 race? Ratepayers, and this is the opportunity. How do we source external funding in this space of climate change? 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 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 there, our drainage systems, clean water, 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 at resident a level. What's in it for them and it's, there's lots. Tom Wegener 02:24:44.441
Anyone else? I'm going to close. As you can see from the comments around the table the job is very wide-ranging and there's a lot of expectations upon allegations 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 another part of the remit which is going to Elaine Bradley and the Mary River valley farmers where when the pandemic hit they saw they're just a little group you know 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 that the pandemic so they set up a phone tree and actually that phone tree saved lives because everybody was had the mandate to call ten people every day and so there's a constant calling going on 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 it actually is 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 have you're doing your job it's fantastic thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:26:10.985
I'll take the vote on that matter. I was wondering what's everybody waiting for? Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you Councillors. Thank you very much. It was very comprehensive. Like it was a wet weekend. I'd just like to say there's no truth in the rumour river that it's been raining every day since I cooked solar on the roof of my house. So, the next item is an application for change to development approval 12637DA integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course complex 18 holes to include group farmstay accommodation associated supporting infrastructure at 59 Kabi Road, Cootharaba. Can we welcome back Richard, the Director, Patrick, the manager, and also have the support right here. Nadine. Thank you. And will. Our environment officer associated with development control. And I take it, Nadine, you'll be giving us the overview. Nadine 02:27:25.384
I'll give you a brief overview, yes, if you'd like Good afternoon, Councillors. Good to see you. Thank you, and merry Christmas. Okay, today we're going to consider a report that was initially considered by the previous 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 is golf course approval. Which was approved as permaculture golf course. The 2023 application proposed group farmstay type accommodation in conjunction with the existing golf course across the site. Proposed to cater for school groups, weekend and school holiday use for up to 299 people. The application was considered at the Council P&E meeting. Staff, it had the proposal, sorry, the proposal four distinct areas. The first area was communal area centred around the existing golf clubhouse, and that had an area of 2,330 square metres, and it included offices, meeting rooms, reception, kitchen, and a dining hall of 543 square metres, and a covered communal sports hall of 945 associated amenities. The second part of that application comprised three villages. One had an area of gross floor area of 1,365 square metres. It included a central dining area, a secondary dining area, kitchen, and three enclosed activities, and shared accommodation for 84 people. The second village had an area of 1,600 square metres. It also three enclosed activity areas, 112 the third village proposed on the site 915 square metres, and it included a central dining area, a for 50 people. 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." Proposal farm stage, 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 number of reasons, recommended refusal on the basis that it was contrary to the South East Queensland 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. The accommodation component was going to become the more predominant use than the agricultural land, and it was not a small scale, and the setting comprising three villages and ancillary facilities was not, 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. The traffic was also large, and also the scale was large, and the last one, it didn't meet the bushfire hazard code, which required a secondary access. So the applicant was considered by Council, and the applicant recommended that the matter be held over to enable further discussions with staff. Since that time, 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 beds. $84,000, $84 that 88 beds, 000, $84 is 80 for the patrons plus 8 for staff, 8 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 88 persons. We've also reduced the GFA from 8,320 square metres down to 1,150 square metres. The communal building which involved a Multipurpose hall has also been removed and the existing clubhouse retained. The previous development was quite a substantial construction with large buildings proposed with walkways, there were several slab-on-ground construction matters. This development now is using lightweight materials so we've got buildings platforms, well actually they're glamping tents which is the applicant's 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 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 as 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 of 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 evacuation uh emergency evacuation and I've got another thing that I can't read my writing um so basically we've recommended approval of the application. Thank you, so questions? Amelia Lorentson 02:34:30.723
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. Nadine 02:34:46.244
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 central facility of 250. It was something we basically we did negotiate down to and it took us a while to get there so 88 wasn't yeah so it was really just a negotiation and trying to get something again small-scale something that we saw is what the planning scheme was looking for. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:25.473
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 evacuation processes? Nadine 02:35:42.112
That's been it's we have and we and that's why we actually went out to get a peer review of the revised information. We have actually conditioned requirement for two buses to remain on site while the users are in operation to ensure that the site can be evacuated in at 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 travel by car and there's an 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 02:36:26.833
Just a question on the buses, I read that. If it's a smaller group? Like I understand it's full of, you know, two buses full of kids, but is it only related to group, when it's group booking rather than weekends which might be individuals? Nadine 02:36:52.519
It's not supposed to be really individuals by the way. So it is groups. It's We don't want it as sort of an individual type activity because that's more coming along in short-term. And that's how it was 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 group, they go there and they're supposed to be able to pick 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 say I haven't numbed it, I've said bus is capable of evacuating all patrons during an emergency event to remain on site. Richard MacGillivray 02:37:37.279
So there could be minivans if there's a small group potentially. Nadine 02:37:40.619
And again it's really putting it back on there. Sorry yeah I think we were talking about two previously and going what would we need. Jessica Phillips 02:37:50.109
Just one quick question around the fire access trail. Just to refresh my memory did it that was Council getting it appropriately cleared and usable and then are we then maintaining it? SPEAKER_01_b 02:38:09.159
We've required the track to be relocated to as far as possible onto the applicant's land so if you could bring up off the report have it in the bushfire section or maybe did I put it in? There is a plan. SPEAKER_03_b 02:38:41.120
You might be able to talk to figure one. Just talk to it. Go over to the screen. SPEAKER_01_b 02:38:48.040
If we go figure one on basically it's an attachment basically so so basically there's going a little bit further down that one will do nice no that one doesn't do it. Keep going. Oh I've missed it on my page. That one. So you can see the blue line. So road 176 and it goes it all the way here to So that's Council road. This is actually of 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 of road. 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 metres, it to a RPEQ standard, which then Council, yes, we would have to maintain. Brian Stockwell 02:40:25.390
So it would be serving two properties yes, which is not however. The people who would probably be maintaining it now would probably think it's a good idea. Nadine 02:40:39.533
Look, again, we have thought about this. The applicant could apply. There is a current permaculture golf course operating on the site. So if they came to us and said for emergency purposes they would like to put an 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 been limited to reflect the amount of clearing that is exempted development under the act. Amelia Lorentson 02:41:22.439
Can I note my understanding the access trail will only be used in emergency situations and it's got to be gated and not available as general secondary access point. So it's only under emergency situations. That's correct. Yeah, and at the moment, buses can't go through it, is that right? No, not at all. So the upgrade is a condition of the application to allow access for buses. That's okay. Richard MacGillivray 02:42:00.349
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 catastrophic? Conditions. So when, as we know, 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 host 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 measures. 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. Did you refer to the. Brian Stockwell 02:42:57.985
Of truth for that fire rating? Because obviously some rural fires, great areas do their own, and then bureau of meteorology autumn the bottom line one that we've required them to address is part of the pushback. The downside of that might be that bureau might do a whole regional one where we've just had a whole heap of rain, but. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:20.471
In terms of events, so there's 88 beds. Does that mean 88 people? Yes that's right. So we have a maximum number of persons? Nadine 02:43:34.698
Yes, there's a condition, yes, so there. We've also conditioned that so it's way they've indicated it there are 80 beds plus there are specific tents for staff, the kids tents are double bunks, beds but we've also got condition that no staff are to, as in other staff who might come to do I suppose cooking, cleaning, whatever, they can't live on the site and as they're in 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. So you're thinking about why staff couldn't have been? Again we're talking 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 for the accommodation and the teachers and then they'll draw on people in the surrounding area too and basically again we we're reducing the risk on the site. There is an existing house Brian Stockwell 02:44:42.580
I'm just thinking another in other uses we've encouraged development applicants to actually have staff accommodation because of the housing crisis SPEAKER_01_b 02:44:48.244
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 trying to make sure that agriculture is our main activity so they put in workers accommodation that was serving the farm I think that would be okay but again you know that's again the primary purpose is the agricultural activities and this is being linked in to, it's, Tom Wegener 02:45:19.192
You had a question? Yes with the clubhouse that's there now and is that going to stay according report? Yes. Will it But will it be used by the permaculture people? SPEAKER_01_b 02:45:30.669
So they've indicated that because this is again there'll be school camps and groups coming that would be an additional activity that the groups coming can undertake so it's a permaculture golf course the because orchards it's got the through it so but yeah it's really will be retained as another activity for people attending the site so the golf club stays yes before it was going to be with the last application torn down be totally removed but in its stead it was being replaced with a very large reception office it was 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 plus there was a Multipurpose basketball next door to it as well with massive sorry 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 when the camps in public use because of course they'll have children or school groups there yeah man move that all right yeah I'll say Tom Wegener 02:46:41.030
Again okay and I'm very excited about this and going to the frame. Strategic 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 from the strategic framework includes this ancillary rural industries to support production, investment, and diversification, for example, farm processing, gate sales, cooking schools, and value-adding food production, well as agro-tourism, low-impact homestays, rural and nature-based accommodation, retreats, and lifestyle and leisure experiences. And so, with the hinge land and these properties, I just love that going down this route. I think it's really important for us. Is this is what we do as a biosphere, is we live in harmony with nature. Conservation is one thing, living in harmony in nature and utilising our wildly degraded 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 but leaving the whole land piece to the next generation better than we found it. And so by doing this, by the permaculture park there, it just seems perfectly consistent with our biosphere and with our own strategic framework and our intent in moving, going forward at oh, that's Noosa, makes different, by nature. Jessica Phillips 02:48:30.998
I just have one more question for the Chair please. Just the traffic impact road works. Council's senior engineers reviewed the revised proposal, provided the following comments. There's a bit here about. 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_b 02:48:55.812
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 and the No, it's not there. So it's the one coming out and yes, it will be upgraded and the applicant has to do that as well and it has to be passing lanes. Unfortunately there is some vegetation that would be required to be removed in that road reserve. Jessica Phillips 02:49:26.313
And my last question back to that little firetruck access trail. When we look at that, does that actually fit the rural firetruck? That might be it a might be real simple question. And I know. Will. That small gap of 170 metres or whatever it was, it's definitely going to fit. SPEAKER_01_b 02:49:43.059
Oh no, so it's a 10 metre wide. SPEAKER_10_b 02:49:46.039
Yeah, we've got a 10 metre width to work with, so within that 10 metres we'll be able to fit a rural SPEAKER_03_b 02:49:51.719
Fire truck and full access for the bus. And then it'll come out onto road 176 which is a full road with reserve there, which they can construct the road as required as per our VEQ. Tom Wegener 02:50:07.456
Thank question? With the golf course as an ancillary use to the permaculture, is it realistic to think that you could maintain a golf course for '88? School camping kids It just seemed wildly out of balance. SPEAKER_01_b 02:50:27.784
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 fully maintained at the moment and quite sure what their current patronage is. So it is golfing. It's still a business. If you go out there, you see it beautifully mown. Brian Stockwell 02:50:48.259
I didn't know that. Just to clarify, the golf course is a separate approval, not reliant on this, so it has conditions. SPEAKER_01_b 02:50:58.373
Sorry. Or are you combining the conditions. 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 course still change and then there's a whole new set of conditions as part of that the approval, which will just run. It's additional. An Tom Wegener 02:51:19.122
Yeah, because before the golf house was going to and it was all going to be the perfect. So now it's substantially different because the golf course is still running in conjunction. Ada. SPEAKER_01_b 02:51:31.783
It was always planned with the old one. It was still going to run. And yes, well, they were removing, I think, there were three, or four holes on the north eastern portion on side to where this one is. That's where another village was proposed and they lost a couple of golf holes there. So it was probably, it was going to be a smaller golf club, course, sorry. Talk to Mike. Amelia Lorentson 02:52:01.892
Sorry. Brian Stockwell 02:52:02.412
I'll go in and take questions. I, like Councillor Wegener, have always liked the concept. I do really appreciate the effort that staff have gone through to get to a size and scale and a location that overcomes the range of constraints for this nature of development. It 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 glamping tents, which are not a permanent alienation of ag land, is a good thing in the location that hasn't been adversely affected by bushfire hazard to a scale that is probably. You know there's not many school groups bigger than 88 anyway. It's probably a whole year level in most, even large schools. And as Councillor Tom said, embedding education in the real world of a local agriculture is really important thing. If you looked at our last report on climate response plan, it was an area where we were behind what we said we were 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. We're, you know, regional change, size disasters can spoil the food chain, but if you can imagine if it's a larger one, our global food supply chains can be really impacted. I think it is really important to understand that Noosa future agriculturally isn't the same as gatton's. 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 the number one thing for farmers in these peri-oven areas is we need to have a second source of income. 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 probably not commercially viable, 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 both capacity into our local schools and the other schools about local food. So it is, to me, a good development. Amelia Lorentson 02:54:50.240
Question. So in September 2023, the applicant actually stopped the clock. Can I ask. And over the last 12 months, further negotiations, when you stop the clock, do still, because it's still impact impacting, accessible, are residents told of the changes, and is there an opportunity for the residents to make any submissions, or are the submissions from the very first application? The only ones that are considered as part of the application. That's correct. Is okay. So the adjoining neighbours at this point, are they aware that this has been resubmitted with a revised scope? SPEAKER_01_b 02:55:46.760
They haven't been formally informally notified, no. Okay. So again, we're looking at this, however, as we've said, this is a continuation. Patrick Murphy 02:55:55.520
Yeah, okay. The DA rules govern the steps in the process for assessing an application, and there's sometimes you can have to go back to the beginning and, you know, reissue a 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 application and then they're made, it allows the to continue. Richard MacGillivray 02:56:28.063
If they respond to the matters that have been raised, such as the scale and the issues around bushfire, which the applicant is to stop and address. Amelia Lorentson 02:56:40.635
Speak to the application. I'm also really excited and pleased that this outcome's 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 potential risk we're 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. I think of the negotiation or the further negotiations over the last 12 months, what's in front of us shows a real respect and understanding of both the values of who we are as a community. Also the Noosa Plan. So I'm, I can't wait to see this actually in its complete phase. Jessica Phillips 02:57:50.939
I'll speak to it very quickly and really historically. Young people have been able to talk about googa, google. From good shepherd. I 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 googa a run for its money, that's awesome. Thank you for what we've seen and the presentation and everything. Anyone else? Nicola Wilson 02:58:23.818
There's a huge difference between what was originally presented and what we're seeing now. So, the negotiations have arrived here. I think it's a really great outcome. Karen Finzel 02:58:36.118
Yeah, I think it's a really great outcome. They cast a vision and everyone's worked together 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 completely way out to the country and have that first-hand experience, some of them may never have had that. So I think when we talk about envisioning for our future and sustainability generations, I think this is a fine example of how we can actually embed that. 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 the outcome. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:59:30.924
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. Brian Stockwell 02:59:44.752
Just before we go, I 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. It doesn't always happen, but the staff have changed the recommendation and the further report clearly identifies the grounds upon which they were buried, which I think is, for me, very valuable to see the logic and I suppose for those people who didn't make submissions, I can also follow that logic through. So thank you. Councillor Wegener, would you like to pose? I too would like to Tom Wegener 03:00:16.213
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 a very vibrant. A 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, money-making place for employing many, locals. So I see this as a fantastic step forward. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:00:57.355
I'll put to the vote. Those in favour? That would be being enormous. And I've got all my hard questions at the end merry Christmas thank you good job, guys. My bushfire, man. Our next item is actually a Planning and Environment Court appeal, which is identified as a confidential session. Could I have someone to move the motion? Moved by Councillor Lorentson. I'll second. By Councillor Phillips. 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. Brian Stockwell 03:29:42.126
Okay, we'll start with the recommendation. I'm sorry. no problem. The recommendation is. It's in your report. I'll read it. That in respect of Planning & Environment Court appeal 12/19/2020, Council delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. Of Councillor Wilkie. I don't have anything to say. Does anyone else wish to 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. And contributions. Deliberations Councillors and staff. Frank Wilkie 03:30:24.543
You, Mr Chair. Thanks, everyone. Catherine. Richard MacGillivray 03:30:29.063
Well done, Kev. Thanks for. You, Kev. Good stuff on children. I like that. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
