Ordinary Meeting - 18 July 2024
Date: Thursday, 18 July 2024 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 03:03:35
Synopsis: Planning Amendments consultation extended with STA curbs, Noosaville Foreshore redraft after parking backlash, LGAQ motions mandating STA data-sharing, Recycling Hub Stage One approved, Appeals settled.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Acting Ceo Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Kyrone Dodd Deputations
Taylor Ladd Hudson Albie Curtis Jarrah Small Nick Cooke AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Council reopened community consultation for Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 from 19–28 July 2024, with notification via Facebook, media release and Your Say webpage updates (split vote; Minutes 5.1; Transcript 01:05–01:08). Multiple petitions received and referred to CEO: opposing Noosaville Foreshore Master Plan (1,511 and 1,663 signatures), opposing Amendment No.2 medium density change (27), and restoring People’s Park carpark (≈1,095) (Minutes 4; Transcript 01:36–04:10, 01:39–01:54). Further engagement endorsed: redraft the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan (NFIMP) and pause broader consultation on the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan to align with SEQ Council of Mayors’ Resilient Rivers Catchment Action Plan framework (unanimous) (Minutes 9.1; Transcript 02:20–03:02). Public Q&A confirmed Council’s 2023 Community Engagement Framework principles and process, and that extra NFIMP engagement round will “close the loop” with a revised draft (Minutes 11.2; Transcript 02:02–02:06). Recycling & Renewables Hub Masterplan Stage One concept approved, including a Solar Site requiring Impact Assessment with 20 business days of public notification (Minutes 8.3, Item 6.2). Unitywater Noosa Netserv Plan planning assumptions endorsed under the SEQ Water Act for Unitywater’s Netserv Plan (Minutes 8.3, Item 5.1). TMR Lot 115 RP861914 dedication as road supported; CEO authorised to execute title transfer (Minutes 8.3, Item 5.2). LGAQ motions approved, notably to mandate STA platform data-sharing of validated property-level booking data statewide, and fact-checking/authorisation of third-party HTV cards (Minutes 8.3, Item 6.3). Flood recovery: significant QRA-funded contract variations approved (+$1.7m PM services; +$2.596m Black Pinch Rd landslide works) with CEO delegated administration (Minutes 8.3, Items 7.2–7.3). Planning appeals: Council agreed to settle Appeal D23 of 2022 (1→12 lots, 111 Lake Weyba Dr) by conditions; for Appeal 3156/2023 (Goodchap St day hospital), CEO delegated all matters post confidential session (Minutes 8.3, Item 7.1; Minutes 10.1; Transcript 02:12–02:13). Show holiday request: 12 Sept 2025 for Noosa Shire (Minutes 8.2, Item 5.2). Councillor appointments to external groups updated, incl. STA, climate and botanic gardens reference groups (Minutes 8.2, Item 5.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Debate over whether extending planning scheme consultation constitutes “political interference” with staff workflows and State caretaker timelines; ultimately a shorter extension with limited comms was adopted (Minutes 5.1; Transcript 06:59–01:12:19). Community backlash on NFIMP focused on parking reduction and consultation adequacy; Council committed to a third engagement round and clearer education on long-term foreshore resilience context (Minutes 9.1; Transcript 02:24–02:39). People’s Park trial criticised for carpark loss and lack of dedicated consultation; petitioners demanded full cost transparency and accountability (Minutes 4; Transcript 01:39–01:54). Public queried Council’s Transport Strategy vis-à-vis parking cuts; staff confirmed extensive 2017 consultation and future review via a Movement & Connectivity Strategy (Minutes 11.4; Transcript 02:10–02:12). Request raised to review Community Engagement Policy for contemporary approaches; CEO proposed a separate workshop (Transcript 02:30–02:33). Legal / Risk Consultation extension risks missing State pre-caretaker assessment; staff cited potential delay of months and uncertainty with a new government’s policy posture (Transcript 06:59–07:43). Planning Act/Minister’s Guidelines: staff ran 6-week consultation (beyond 20 business days), targeted letters to affected owners, and industry briefings; >350 detailed submissions received (Transcript 17:34–21:38). Councillors canvassed using the Coty principle and housing “need” to resist STA in medium/high density pending amendments; staff noted Coty weight grows with process maturity (Transcript 37:10–38:38). Meeting closure to public under s254J(3)(e) LGR for confidential planning appeal; subsequent delegation to CEO was carried (Minutes 10.1; Transcript 02:12). DES email regarding Noosa River Conservation Park concept confirmed as held; potential governance models to be tested through revised River Plan engagement (Minutes 11.3; 9.1; Transcript 02:27–02:29). Shark Control Program is State-run; Council’s June 2024 policy positions it to advocate for lower-bycatch alternatives during State plan review (Minutes 7.1; 11.1; Transcript 01:55–01:58). Conflicts of Interest Karen Finzel declared a declarable COI (distant relative signed anti-Conservation Park petition); Council resolved she could participate and vote (Minutes 9.1; Transcript 02:19–02:21). Brian Stockwell stated prior COI declarations were unnecessary per legal advice; will not declare for named groups unless circumstances change (Minutes 9.1; Transcript 02:18:44–02:19:18). Short-Term Accommodation, Zoning & Planning Scheme Amendments Amendment No.2 advances making STA inconsistent in medium/high density residential zones; staff warned delay may spur more STA applications (Transcript 32:49–37:10). Debate highlighted school holiday overlap, complexity, and concurrent NFIMP consultation potentially overshadowing submissions (Transcript 04:52–06:59, 29:11–30:24). Petition lodged opposing medium density changes preventing single dwellings/duplexes (Minutes 4.3). Tom Wegener emphasised long runway of Housing Strategy and prior STA reforms; argued residents were primed to submit within six weeks (Transcript 21:45–23:18). Noosaville Foreshore, Parking & Transport Strategy NFIMP round-two feedback substantial; Council will redraft, engage stakeholders (incl. groups previously missed), and return with a revised draft for public input (Minutes 9.1; Transcript 02:24–02:37). Public questions challenged carpark relocations; Council cited green space goals and 4-minute-walk relocation concept, plus Transport Strategy’s staged shift to sustainable modes (Minutes 11.3 Q2; Transcript 02:06–02:09). Transport Strategy 2017–2027 confirmed broad 2017 consultation (1,200+ inputs) and impending review into Movement & Connectivity Strategy (Minutes 11.4; Transcript 02:10–02:12). Nicola Wilson called for clearer upfront communication on 20-year foreshore context and hazards, and alignment with residents’ use patterns (Transcript 02:37–02:39). Environmental Concerns: Shark Nets & River Health Youth-led deputation urged seasonal shark net removal during whale migration; Council pointed to its June 2024 policy and upcoming State review as the pathway to lower-bycatch alternatives (Minutes 7.1; 11.1; Transcript 01:23–01:38, 01:55–01:58). Tom Wegener lamented ongoing Noosa River siltation and biodiversity decline; staff outlined Resilient Rivers pathway to prioritise funded catchment works via a uniform CAP (Minutes 9.1; Transcript 02:42–02:50). River Plan to be refreshed under Resilient Rivers CAP Guide; potential economic impact assessment to be scoped with funding proposal (Minutes 9.1; Transcript 02:39:15–02:39:40).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 18 July 2024 10:00 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting CEO Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Kyrone Dodd APOLOGIES Nil Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Cr Finzel is approved to attend the Meeting dated 18 July 2024 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2.1. ORDINARY MEETING 20 JUNE 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 20 June 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 2.2. SPECIAL MEETING 28 JUNE 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 28 June 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 2.3. SPECIAL MEETING 10 JULY 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson The Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 10 July 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. 4. PETITIONS 1 PETITION: OPPOSE THE NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE MASTER PLAN Refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the e-petition with 1,511 signatories submitted by Caryn Musgrave, regarding opposition to the Noosaville Foreshore Master Plan be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Carried unanimously. 1 PETITION: FRIENDS OF NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE SAY 'JUST LEAVE IT ALONE" Refer to Attachment 2 to the Minutes Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the e-petition with 1663 signatories submitted by Andrew McCarthy, regarding opposition to the Noosaville Foreshore Master Plan be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Carried unanimously. 3 PETITION: DELORME STREET AGAINST AMENDMENT NO. 2 CHANGES TO THE NOOSA PLAN 202 MEDIUM DENISUTY RESIDENTIAL ZONE Refer to Attachment 3 to the Minutes Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the petition with 27 signatories submitted by Suzie McDonald, regarding "opposition to the proposed amendments to the medium density residential zone Noosa 2020 Plan which disallow the construction of single dwellings and duplexes" be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Carried unanimously. 4 PETITION: PEOPLES PARK Refer to Attachment 4 to the Minutes Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the hard copy and e-petition with approximately 1095 signatories submitted by Nick Cooke, requesting that Council "return the People's Park to a Carpark in Hastings St Noosa Heads", be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 appropriate action. Carried unanimously. 5. NOTIFIED MOTIONS 5.1. REQUEST TO REOPEN THE CONSULTATION PERIOD FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO NOOSA PLAN 2020 Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council Request the CEO to re-open the community consultation for Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020, for an additional two weeks, from 22 July to 4 August 2024. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council Request the CEO to re-open the community consultation for Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 from 19 July to 28 July 2024. For: Cr Stockwell Against: Crs Wegener, Wilson, Lorentson, Finzel, Wilkie and Phillips Lost. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council Request the CEO to re-open the community consultation for Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 from 19 July to 28 July 2024and notify the community via Facebook and Media Release with updates on the Your Say webpage. For: Cr Stockwell, Lorentson, Finzel, Phillips and Wilson Against: Cr Wilkie and Wegener Carried. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council Request the CEO to re-open the community consultation for Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 from 19 July to 28 July 2024 and notify the community via Facebook and Media Release with updates on the Your Say webpage. For: Cr Lorentson, Phillips, Wilson and Finzel Against: Cr Stockwell, Wilkie and Wegener Carried. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 7.1. DEPUTATION - SHARK MITIGATION IN NOOSA SHIRE APPLICANT: OCEANS FOR ALL - CAROLYN LANSDOWN, CHAIRPERSON SPEAKERS: TAYLOR LADD HUDSON, ALBIE CURTIS, JARRAH SMALL 7.2. DEPUTATION - PEOPLE'S PARK APPLICANT: NICK COOKE SPEAKERS: NICK COOKE 11. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 11.1. TAYLOR LADD HUDSON - SURFRIDER FOUNDATIONS SUNSHINE COAST Question 1. Does this next generation of Noosa residents being young people deserve new modern solutions and alternatives in the management of Shark mitigation strategies? Response provided by Director Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings Working closely with representatives from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), Noosa Council adopted a Council policy position on the Shark Control Program (SCP) in June 2024. The purpose of this strategy was to support the State transition to lower bycatch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to Noosa. Holding a policy position now also allows Council to effectively represent community views and desired outcomes of the SCP to the State. Under the Queensland Shark Management Plan, Noosa Council and SLSQ have assisted DAF to undertake a range of alternative bite mitigation trials, including the delivery of SharkSmart community awareness programs and drone detection trials. Noosa Council will continue working with the State to help transition the SCP to lower bycatch potential alternatives. Primarily, this will be through the upcoming review process of the Queensland Shark Management Plan. Question 2. In my work as a youth eco leader, I have learnt that 95% of kids aged eight to 19 years old do not want to fish sharks and want to see them thriving and healthy populations off our coastline. We are so lucky to be named as UNESCO biosphere, can we uphold our values of a biosphere and lead the way to be a trial site for innovative Shark mitigation strategies? Response provided by Director Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings In 2010, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries introduced a maximum size limit and stricter take and possession limits on non-protected sharks in Queensland waters. These changes were based on fishery stock assessments and stakeholder consultation. Noosa Council acknowledges that your community observations regarding the importance of sustainable shark fisheries are supported by a number of residents within Noosa Shire. Council views our advocacy to the State for the transition the SCP to lower bycatch potential alternatives is a key strategy in upholding our values as a Biosphere Reserve. UNESCO defines Biosphere Reserves as places that should promote the testing of interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and managing changes and interactions between social and ecological systems, including conflict prevention and management of biodiversity. It is Council’s and the community's responsibility to represent our Biosphere values to the State Government. It is understood that ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 DAF will be incorporating past and current stakeholder consultation outcomes in the upcoming evaluation of the current Queensland Shark Management Plan. Discussions with DAF also indicate that the development of the next version of the Queensland Shark Management Plan (and associated bite mitigation strategies) will include community consultation during 2025. 11.2. DEBRA WALZ Question 1. The Community Rally on 5th July 2024 was a demonstration of a united community front which served to amplify concerns of residents in relation to the proposed Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan. Problematic land use planning ideas, as outlined by the Council's approved consultants, do not meet with community expectations or ideals. Is Council prepared to abandon this Plan as a show of respect and acknowledgement to community sentiment? Response provided by Acting Director Infrastructure, Kyrone Dodd For clarity, the Draft Infrastructure Master Plan does not manage land use planning issues on the foreshore. These have been addressed in the Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan which was endorsed in 2018 and informed this Draft Master Plan which primarily deals with infrastructure upgrades and future proofing our foreshore over the long term. Council acknowledges the community rally was that was held and thanks the community for its active engagement on this vital community asset. While we cannot independently verify the attendance figure cited, Council received significant feedback through the Have Your Say survey which closed Sunday 7 July 2024. Written submissions were also received and a series of stakeholder meetings were held over the engagement period. All the engagement responses received are currently being analysed to better understand what specifically people liked and did not like within the Draft Master Plan. In consideration of the high level of feedback received, Council will be considering a report at this Ordinary Meeting today which proposes to adjust the current program to add an additional third round of community engagement which includes coming back out to community with a revised Draft of the Master Plan. This additional round of engagement will aim to work proactively with key stakeholders, clarify and improve on key issues, and undertake education and awareness on how we have listened to the community and provided a Master Plan that delivers on community needs. While we deeply respect the strong community sentiments surrounding the proposed draft Master Plan, this is Council’s current plan at the moment: to review and revise the current draft with enhanced community engagement. It is important to highlight that a Master Plan is needed to provide the strategic framework for sustainable development, enhancing community well-being and future-proofing the foreshore over the long term. It aims to improve degraded infrastructure, increase levels of service and provide resilience to important threats such as flooding and erosion. It is also intended for the masterplan to set out the plan for long-term asset and service management, which is currently ad hoc and costly. A Master Plan can guide Council in coordinating and strategically planning the delivery of infrastructure over the next 20 years. The Master Plan therefore intends to ensure that this highly loved community asset remains a vibrant and sustainable community hub and parkland for generations to come. Thank you for your continued engagement and passion for our community. Question 2. How is the Council ensuring transparency and accountability in decision making processes, particularly in relation to community engagement? Response provided by Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings Council’s Decision-making processes Council has responsibility under Chapter 1, section 4 (2)(c) of the Queensland Local Government Act 2009 to engage with the community through “democratic ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement”. Further to this Council has endorsed a Community Engagement Framework to guide engagement with our community in matters that are identified as benefiting from community input to shape future major strategic decisions or directions, this framework is used to guide how Council designs, plans and delivers community engagement projects. Our approach to community engagement outlined in Noosa Council’s Community Engagement Framework and Policy 2023 is governed by a suite of guiding principles to ensure that all of our engagement activities are: Inclusive Transparent Appropriate Accountable Timely Well-resourced Informative and Understanding of our changing community. Council undertakes a detailed planning process underpinned by international best practice approaches to community and stakeholder engagement to develop fit for purpose engagement for each project. Transparency and accountability are two of the key guiding principles of the Community Engagement Framework and Policy. Council continues to demonstrate transparency and accountability through: Being open and honest about the engagement project's purpose and goals. Clear and consistent engagement and communications around the engagement process, timeline, purpose and scope Providing background or contextual information to assist the community in understanding the topic and to be informed Inviting the community to provide their feedback and have a say on projects using a broad range of methods and tools, including both face-to-face and online engagement, as resources permit. Being responsive to community feedback when there is confusion or questions. Documenting whom we engaged with and what we heard Collecting information in a consistent way to support efficient analysis. Closing the loop with the community to share what we heard openly and honestly and identify how this will inform decision-making or the next steps. Taking on board community feedback to refine plans and strategies and when necessary, undertake further engagement. Upholding the principles and processes outlined in the Community Engagement Framework and Policy. The Community Engagement Framework and Policy has been developed to strengthen trust and community participation. Noosa Council has the advantage of a highly engaged community, although it is recognised that Council will not be able to satisfy every member of the community on every matter. Council has a delegated responsibility from the Queensland Government to deliver services and facilities at the local government level that balance community needs and aspirations with the requirement to responsibly manage service delivery efficiently and sustainably on a comparably modest ratepayer revenue base to other local government organisations. 11.3. ANDREW MCARTHY Question 1. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 Does Noosa Council hold in its possession any documentation generated by the Department of Environment and Science which refers to a discussion DES had a while back with ... (name withheld)... (Noosa Parks Association) about the pros and cons of declaring a Conservation Park in parts of the Noosa River System as ... 'not being the best idea' Yes or No? Response provided by Acting CEO Kerri Contini To the best of our knowledge, the only documentation that Council holds which has been generated by the Department of Environment and Science and refers to a discussion DES had with Noosa Parks Association about the pros and cons of a Conservation Park in Noosa River, is a copy of an email that was attached to Mr McCarthy’s application for today's public question time. This email appears to be between two state government employees and references an earlier discussion between those employees and the Noosa Parks Association. Part of this same email was attached by a member of the public who submitted an Administrative Action Complaint in June 2024. Question 2. The community believes it's a double standard to propose removing 103 carparks in the Noosaville Foreshore plan and encourage public & active transport use when Noosa Council won't lead by example and require Council staff & Councillors to transit to & from work only using public & active transport. (a) Will Noosa Council consider implementing a staff and Councillor policy to transit to and from work by means of public or active transport? (b) If yes, does Council anticipate a significant reduction in staffing levels similar to the significant reduction in both staff and customer levels business owners on the Noosaville foreshore anticipate receiving if the Noosaville Foreshore Master Plan was adopted? Response provided by Acting CEO Kerri Contini The draft Noosaville Foreshore Management Plan responded to the community’s requests in the first round of consultation to increase the amount of greenspace. Part of the proposal to achieve this is to relocate approximately 100 carparks from directly on the foreshore and place them within the broader foreshore precinct with an approximate four-minute walk to the foreshore. A report is being considered by Council at today’s Ordinary Meeting to potentially conduct a further round of stakeholder and community education and foreshore businesses would be a key stakeholder in this consultation. Noosa Council’s Transport Strategy 2017 – 2027 proposes a staged shift in modal transport to reduce reliance on private vehicles, it facilitates other forms of sustainable transport and outlines strategies which assists voluntary shift to public and active transport. Council encourages and actively supports staff who wish to use sustainable means of transport to work, particularly where car park spaces are in high demand. Our goal is to gradually transition to more sustainable transport practices along with the broader community and we do not anticipate that this will result in a reduction in staffing levels. 11.4. CRAIG VELLA Question 1. I understand that domestic animals are not allowed off leash in Conservation Parks. If a Conservation Park over the Noosa River goes ahead does Noosa Council know if the state government allow residents to have their dogs on leash each time it goes below the high tide mark and swimming in the Noosa River? Response provided by Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Advice from the State Department of Environment, Science and Innovation website states that dogs and other pets are welcome in some conservation parks, State forests and recreation areas, but not in national parks. As no decision has ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 been made regarding the proposed concept of a Conservation Park over parts of the Noosa River, no advice has been provided by the State Government regarding animal management. Question 2. In response to a resident's question in June ordinary meeting about reduced car parking, a Council staff's reply was "Council is committed to encouraging all residents and visitors to embrace public and active transport to reduce congestion as part its endorsed Transportation Strategy". When were residents advised that Council had a strategy to encourage them onto public and active transport? Shouldn't residents be consulted before Council enacted a Strategy that changed the way residents live their lives? Given the community negative reaction to loss of foreshore parking, will Council now consult the community to confirm they support its endorsed Transport Strategy which plans to encourage them onto public & active transport? Response provided by Acting Director Infrastructure Kyrone Dodd The development and endorsement of the Noosa Transport Strategy 2017-2027 involved several stages of community consultation and public input throughout 2017. Information about the strategy and consultation process was made available through multiple channels, including public meetings, Council’s website, newsletters, and local media. Over 1,200 submissions were made by the public through surveys, submissions and in person events and the final Strategy reflected this input. For further information on the consultation process please visit the Noosa Transport Strategy 2017-2027 page on Your Say Noosa. Council has committed to review the Transport Strategy and prepare a new Movement and Connectivity Strategy which will include further community consultation. 10. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION 10.1. CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 3156 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR A HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICE (DAY SURGERY AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES) AT 47 GOODCHAP STREET, NOOSAVILLE CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson 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 Item 10.1 Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. 3156 of 2023 – Application for a Hospital and Health Care Service at 47 Goodchap St Noosaville. Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That in respect of Planning and Environment Court Appeal 3136 of 2023, Council through the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 July 2024, delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. Carried unanimously. 8. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS 8.1. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 9 JULY 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Tom Wegener Cr Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel EXECUTIVE Acting CEO Larry Sengstock Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Community Services Kerri Contini APOLOGIES Cr Frank Wilkie COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1 UNITYWATER NOOSA NETSERV PLAN - PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.1 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That the report of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 9 July 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 8.2. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 9 JULY 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel (Chair) Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer, Larry Sengstock Acting Director Infrastructure Services, Shaun Walsh Director Community Services, Kerri Contini Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Cr Frank Wilkie COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. FURTHER REPORT - COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATION ON VARIOUS COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS, BOARDS AND EXTERNAL GROUPS 2024 That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 April 2024 and the Further Report to the Services and Organisation Committee Meeting dated 9 July 2024; and B. Make the following Councillor appointments (noting that these supersede any prior appointments): 1. Appoint Cr Phillips and Cr Lorentson to the Noosa World Surfing Reserve Committee; 2. Appoint Cr Wilson as Chair, and Cr Phillips to the Climate Change Response Plan Community Reference Group; and 3. Appoint Cr Finzel as Chair, Cr Lorentson and Cr Phillips to the Noosa Botanic Gardens Masterplan Stakeholders Reference Group 5.2. APPOINTMENT OF 2025 SHOW HOLIDAY That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 9 July 2024 and request the Chief Executive Officer write to the Office of Industrial Relations requesting the appointment of Friday, 12 September 2025 as a Show Holiday for the Noosa Shire. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: PROPOSED DEDICATION OF TMR-OWNED FREEHOLD LAND AS ROAD NOOSAVILLE That Services & Organisation Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the report of the Services & Organisation Committee meeting dated 9 July 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 8.3. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 15 JULY 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting CEO & Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Kyrone Dodd APOLOGIES Nil. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. UNITYWATER NOOSA NETSERV PLAN - PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 9 JULY 2024 - ITEM 5.1) That Council A. Note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 9 July 2024 regarding the Unitywater Noosa Netserv Plan - Planning Assumptions; B. Endorse the planning assumptions contained within the Technical Note in Attachment A under Chapter 4B Part 1 Section 99BK of the South East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009 for the purpose of Unitywater's Water Netserv Plan. C. Note the Netserv Model is a dynamic model and can be updated should any changes occur to any of the inputs such as land use scenarios, planning schemes, population projections and Development Approvals. 5.2. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: PROPOSED DEDICATION OF TMR-OWNED FREEHOLD LAND AS ROAD NOOSAVILLE (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 9 JULY - ITEM 7.1) That Council A. Note the report by the Manager, Infrastructure Planning Design and Delivery to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 July 2024; B. Support the Department of Transport and Main Roads proposal to dedicate Lot 115 RP861914 as road, and accept the road in Council's capacity as the Road Manager; and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute any title transfer documentation if required on behalf of Council. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 6.1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JUNE 2024 That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 outlining the interim 2023/24 full year financial performance against budget, with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. 6.2. RECYCLING & RENEWABLES HUB MASTERPLAN – STAGE ONE CONCEPT That Council A. Note the report by the Waste Project Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 regarding the Recycling & Renewables Hub Masterplan provided at Attachment 1 to the Report; B. Note the benefits and opportunities associated with the proposed development of the Recycling & Renewables Hub; C. Approve Stage One Concept of the Recycling & Renewables Hub Masterplan pending funding and development approvals: 1. Inclusive of Section A - which is subject to Code Assessable development approval. 2. Inclusive of Solar Site - which is subject to Impact Assessment development approval and public notification. D. Agrees to provide a public notification period of 20 business days associated with the proposed impact assessment development application for the solar site. 6.3. 2024 LGAQ CONFERENCE MOTIONS That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 July 2024 and approve the submission of the following motions to the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) Annual Conference 2024 for consideration and debate: 1. Motion A: "That the LGAQ calls on the State Government to support councils to establish a workplace giving program through the creation of a consistent framework. This framework should include guidelines for: Setting up workplace giving programs for local government employees, Mayor and Councillors. Selecting eligible charities. Administering contributions and funds." 2. Motion B: "That the LGAQ calls on the State government to Promote and encourage the adoption of wastewater recycling and diversion initiatives statewide. Allocate necessary funding to Local governments and Wastewater service providers for wastewater recycling and alternative treatment option trials such as biosolid gasification Monitor and evaluate the outcomes of these projects to inform future policies and initiatives. Explore what other states are doing to address wastewater recycling to leverage collective knowledge and experience to support and guide local governments and wastewater service providers to transition to a circular economy." 3. Motion C: “The LGAQ calls on the State government to amend the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 (or relevant legislation) to ensure how to vote (HTV) cards issued at elections ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 by third parties are fact checked and properly authorised, just as HTVs are for registered candidates.” 4. Motion D: “That the LGAQ advocate to the State Government of Queensland to legislate that share economy platforms and providers such as Airbnb, Booking.com and Stayz, and STA providers share their validated booking data, inclusive of real property addresses, through a state-wide data sharing agreement. This will allow local governments to have accurate oversight of STA and effectively manage and regulate STA. This approach to mandate the provision of validated STA booking data is already successfully occurring in location such as New South Wales (NSW), Tasmania, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Canada." 5. Motion E: “That the LGAQ advocate for ALGA to be a Full Member on the Housing Ministerial Council." 6. Motion F: "That the LGAQ calls on the Queensland Government to undertake a comprehensive review into the end of waste criteria for resource recovery products against the specification for materials used in Federal, State and Local Infrastructure projects." 7. Motion G: "That the LGAQ calls on the State Government to direct Energy Queensland to review and revise its Dynamic Network (Storage) Tariff as proposed in its recent Tariff Structure Statement (TSS) currently under assessment by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) for the next regulatory control period (2025–2030) to ensure the elimination of barriers to the widespread roll-out of community batteries across Queensland. 6.4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - MAY 2024 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority as per Attachment 1 to the Report. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D23 OF 2022 – APPLICATION FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT– 1 INTO 12 LOTS AT 111 LAKE WEYBA DRIVE NOOSAVILLE DESCRIBED AT LOT 4 ON RP36729 That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D23 of 2022; and B. Agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. 7.2. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - 2122Q125 - CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES - 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024, and ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 A. Approve increasing the value of the QRA funded contract 2122Q125 by $1,700,000 (GST exc.) from $3,400,000 (GST exc.) to $5,100,000 (GST exc.), with program completion expected by 30 June 2025. B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of Council; and C. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value; and D. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to amend the contract finish date to no later than September 30, 2025. 7.3. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – CN00317B - CONTRACT VARIATION FOR FLOOD RECONSTRUCTION – PACKAGE 7B – LANDSLIDE REMEDIAL WORKS (BLACK PINCH RD) That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 and A. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to vary the contract value, based on Business Case approval by QRA, allowing a scope change which will increase the value of contract CN00317B by $2,596,239.57 (GST exc.) from $9,849,609.12 (GST exc.) to $12,445,848.69 (GST exc.); B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of Council; and C. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the report of the General Committee meeting dated 15 July 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted. Carried unanimously. 9. ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 9.1. FURTHER CONSULTATION ON NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND NOOSA RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Cr Stockwell informed the meeting that: "For the past two terms, I have declared a conflict of interest as a result of my long association with, or previous contracts as a sole trader consultant (trading as Watershed Australia) with the following organisations: Noosa and District Landcare and its unincorporated forebear; Mary River Catchment Coordination Association; Noosa Integrated Catchment Association; Healthy Land and Water and its predecessors; Seqwater; and potentially early in the 2016-2020 the Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association. However, having now received more detailed legal advice, it is clear that my circumstances do not meet the definition of a declarable conflict of interest because none of these organisations are close associates nor are any a related ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 party under the Local Government Act. This advice was based on an outline of my history with these organisations which I have uploaded for public viewing on my website crbrianstockwell.myporfolio.com. I will not be declaring any type of COI for this matter or in relation to these organisations into the future unless circumstances change.” In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Finzel provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as, in October 2023 a petition 'Stop Noosa River turning into a Conservation Park' was submitted to Noosa Shire Council. Listed on the petition was the name Sharyn Finzel, who is a cousin of my husband with whom I do not have a close personal relationship. At that time, I was not made aware of her intention to sign the petition, nor did I consult with her on the matter. Although I am declaring 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 signatory. 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. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Finzel and determine that Cr Finzel participates and votes on this matter as Council believes that she does not have a close personal relationship with petition signatory and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel did not vote on the above motion. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note report by Director Environment and Strategy to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 July 2024 regarding further community engagement and review processes for the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan (NFIMP) d the Noosa River Catchment Plan (River Plan) and A. Acknowledge the significant amount of community feedback received on the draft Noosaville Foreshore Masterplan (NFIMP) during the recent community engagement phase; B. Demonstrate that Council is listening to this feedback and commits to analysing and using this information to redraft the NFIMP and to undertake a further stage of community engagement; C. Note that early review of the NFIMP feedback indicates there are some issues directly relevant to the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan (River Plan), and therefore Council should take time to properly understand these issues to ensure consistency across key documents, prior to undertaking further public consultation on the River Plan; D. Commit to meet and work with key River Plan stakeholders and government agencies to understand key issues of concern and mutual ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 JULY 2024 interest prior to redrafting the River Plan and undertaking any further broad community engagement; and E. Note that Council is now a formal partner in the SEQ Council of Mayors Resilient Rivers Initiative (RR). It is recommended Council work with RR to review, refresh and align our draft River Plan in line with the RR Catchment Action Plan Preparation Guide ensuring a more consistent and aligned approach across all river catchment planning in SEQ and seeks funding and resources from RR to assist this process. Carried unanimously. 12. NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 15 August 2024 at 10.00am. 13. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 2.11pm.
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.000
Custodians of the land on which we are gathered, which is the Kabi Kabi People, pay respect to their elders past, present and emerging and also reiterate their invitation for us to join with them as joint custodians in caring for this place that we all love and caring for each other. Councils are in attendance and we have Councillor Finzel wishing to attend via Microsoft Teams, so therefore I move that in accordance with section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Councillor Finzel is approved to attend the meeting, dated 18th of July, 2024, teams. Can I have a seconder for that, please? I BID you second. By Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Item 2 is the confirmation of the Minutes. Thanks Karen. Mover and a seconder for the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on the 20th of June? Move Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's unanimous. Special 28th of June? I'll move it. Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on the 10th of July? Please we have Councillor Wegener quick off his feet, and Councillor Wilson also getting quicker. All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. There are no Mayoral minutes. We have some petitions. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:36.651
I have three petitions that I'd like to present the CEO. First petition, I'm presenting on behalf of Bernadette O'Sullivan and Caryn Musgrave. It's a petition signed by 1,511 people opposing the Noosaville foreshore management plan. Frank Wilkie 01:59.330
We need a seconder for the petition, please. I'll second. And the motion is that the petition with 1,511 signatories submitted by Caryn Musgrave for going in opposition to the Noosaville foreshore master plan being received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Do you want to go on to the next one? All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Amelia Lorentson 02:27.668
Next petition I have is on behalf of Andrew McCarthy the friends of Noosa north warshaw management plan. The petition has 1,663 signatories regarding opposition of the Noosaville foreshore warshaw master plan. I request that it's received and referred to the CEO to determine appropriate action. Frank Wilkie 02:51.769
I have a seconder for that please, Councillor Wilson. All in favour? You're doing well Councillor. One more to go. Amelia Lorentson 03:04.259
I have a petition I'm presenting on behalf of the residents of Delorme Street against amendment number 2 changes to the Noosa Plan 2020 medium density residential zone. The petition with 27 signatures submitted by Susie McDonald regarding opposition to the proposed amendments to the 2020 plan, which disallows the construction of single dwellings and duplexes be received and referred to the CEO to determine appropriate action. Frank Wilkie 03:38.223
We have a seconder for that please, Councillor Phillips. All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. I have a petition. I move that the hard copy and e-petition with collectively approximately 1,095 signatures submitted by Nick Cooke requesting that Council return the People's Park to a car park in Hastings Street, Noosa Heads be received and referred to the officer to determine appropriate action. Can I have a seconder for that please? Councillor Wilson. All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. Next item is a notified motion from Councillor Lorentson. Would you like to move your motion? Amelia Lorentson 04:22.980
It cancels that Council, requests the CEO to reopen the community consultation for proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 for an additional two weeks from 22nd of July 2024 to we have a seconder for that please. Second. Councillor Phillips. Fourth. Councillor Lorentson. I initially made this request on June 29th but unfortunately it did not go ahead. I'm now bringing this matter to the Council for a decision. My primary concern is that we had two concurrent consultations involving complex documents, the Noosa vale foreshore infrastructure master plan and concept designs for resilience which was over 100 pages. In the proposed Amendment No. 2, over 1,000 pages. Both documents were complex and both impacted and challenged residents and businesses. The consultation for the Noosa foreshore infrastructure master plan concept and designs closed on July 7th. It attracted significant media interest, community rallies, petitions, and a record number of submissions. In my opinion and that of others in the community, this intense focus have the consultation process the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020, a document of substantial importance with far-reaching implications for residents and businesses. The proposed amendments could potentially impact or change residents existing planning rights, property values, businesses and the character of Noosa, therefore we must allow our residents adequate to review the changes and provide informed feedback. The Noosa chamber of commerce held a forum breakfast on 25 June which was well attended with over 120 businesses. Given the significance of the documents, school holidays impact and inconvenient timed pop-ups and meet in the park events, they too have requested an extension to the council's consultation period. I will now I'll leave this to the floor for discussion. Frank Wilkie 07:02.778
Councillors, in the interests of good governance and given we have received submissions from all major chains of commerce, traders, community and resident groups and hundreds of submissions, I've urged there be no political interference ought to be an at arm's length assessment process to allow staff the professional courtesy of the time and space to get their reporting right on what has been a thorough and already delayed exercise so we can get the amendments to the State before election caretaker period shuts down potentially delaying service. The government potentially delays approval their till next year. This is also a good opportunity to thank the staff for conducting such an effective and thorough consultation process your work has been invaluable as has your advice ministerial guidelines recommend I'm going to talk a bit to that so we get an understanding of what has gone on ministerial guidelines recommend 20 business days for consultation on planning scheme amendments staff recommended 6 weeks to allow extra time and fuller engagements which Councillors wisely endorsed since submissions closed on Sunday July 14 they've been collating hundreds of submissions and have provided a fact sheet to Councillors about the process feedback from all the major chambers of commerce, traders associations and interest community and residents groups and hundreds of residents have been received and has been assessed planners spoke face-to with over 250 people in no fewer than seven public displays at different locations across the Shire some spending up to an hour and a half with each person including at the very popular Noosa farmers markets on a Sunday please pass on our thanks to your staff for giving up their personal time with their families to do this important work. Apart from the public advertising and newspapers multiple press releases and Facebook posts staff sent over 1,000 letters. Directly to the owners of properties where a zone change was proposed and to that are joint sites of proposed zone changes advising them on how to comment. Noosa offices sent 100 emails directly to planning, design and development consultants known to operate in or have clients in the Noosa Shire. As well as alerting them to proposed amendments, they are invited to attend an industry briefing which was subsequently held. Staff sent specially written emails to 39 business and community groups advising them of proposed amendments, urging them to comment and share information with their members. Staff responded to over 60 enquiries via phone, email or walk-in customers. They have advised councillors that some of these conversations. Led to submissions. Others had their questions answered there and then. And felt they therefore did not need to make a submission. On the Your Say engagement page.848 people visited at least one page. And accessed the material. 1,802 people downloaded the document. Thanks to the thorough approach. You've taken to this consultation, staff advised that the full advise range of views that are likely to emerge. Have already been captured in submissions. Already received. As many know, this process was already. Unavoidably delayed by one year. When the amendments were held up by the State in their state interest check. We've received advice from the State that with the October state election looming, this amendment package needs to be sent to the State planners by the end of August, no later than to help ensure they can be ratified before caretaker mode shuts down the State government. Election on approximately September 1. We've been advised that if we miss this period, the amendments could be delayed until well into next year. We need to respect the doing the work, that is our planners, need the space and the time to get their reporting right. Interfering in their work by re-advertising and reopening the consultation will rush and compress their reporting timeframe, likely increase the chances of technical errors and thus unnecessary delays and almost certainly fail to deliver the certainty to industry and residents until next year. Let's allow staff the professional courtesy time re-opening and space for preparing their reporting without political interference that could cause unnecessary and irresponsible delays on an already extensive, thorough, effective and time-sensitive process. Again, please accept my thanks for your professionalism, work ethic and willingness to give up your weekends to deliver a thorough and effective process and gather this feedback from our community. Have a question. You keep referencing. Political interference, can you elaborate? So staff since July 14 the process closed. Staff have been collating the submissions and doing their work as endorsed by the last Council resolution when we approve the six week consultation period. By moving a motion by the political arm of this Council to interfere in that process I'm calling a political because it's the Council that's interfering with the organisational arm of the Council where the work is done. That's what I mean by political interference. Excuse me, Mr Chair. Councillor Lorentson was on her feet first, if that's all right. My apologies. I'd just like to comment that online I didn't hear the question nor can I clearly understand what's being said by Councillor Lorentson. I'm just wondering if there's something wrong with the microphone there. All I can say is. No, it's not that one. We've only got one team's microphone. That's the screaming one. So, with the problem of the PPA, that's the best we can do, I'm sure. Okay, I'll repeat the question, Karen, if you can hear me. Councillor Lorentson asked, "What did I mean by political interference? Thank you, Mr Chair. Okay, Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Amelia Lorentson 13:52.900
So, I'm just getting some clarification. We Councillors around the table, we politically interfere with the duties of staff, is that what you're saying? Frank Wilkie 14:06.880
I'm just a little bit confused with the response to that question. I'm advising we don't interfere with the already approved reporting process. So I'm speaking against the notice of motion and process to allow staff the time and the space to get their reporting right and meet the reporting timeframes that we've been advised from the State need to be met in order for these amendments to be assessed by state planners before the government shuts down due to caretaking period. Jessica Phillips 14:46.276
Can I speak to the Mr Chair? Thank you. So I just want to speak on behalf of the notified motion by Councillor Lorentson and my support for that and there's a few reasons why I just wanted to triple check the June /July school holidays as a parent and speaking on behalf of many of our community members that are family members, parents trying to work through the school holidays. The consultation period overlapped with period for June /July. It ran from the 22nd of June to the 7th of July and I know myself how difficult it was to work through school holidays and the time to digest the information just as a Councillor, let alone the community that we're talking about language that not everyone understands and so really important to me that we give community opportunity talk, which our community do. They love to sit down and have a barbecue with each other don't they and chat about the things that are affecting them and this is one of those things that is affecting our community and I believe that over that period we probably had families get together and chat about how this would impact them and so then they go back they digest and they go to someone they might trust with that information and take time to really understand the impacts that is going to have and so one thing that I'm concerned about and not to take away anything from the staff because I really think they've done a great job in with the workload that I've even seen you have on and we've discussed the workload with consultation so I want to firstly acknowledge that because I'm not taking away from that but I want to go into reality which is out there in our community winter, sickness, school holidays, cost of living like all of these are impacting our day-to residents and so when we throw things out to them with consultation on the foreshore river plan and these amendments I believe that takes time and I understand what you're saying Mr. Mayor but I really want to support that the amendment to give the community some more time to chat with each other and see what information they can give us to make sure that we're making really sound decisions in here. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 17:34.160
Given the number of submissions raised from all the business groups, traders association, resident groups, community and residents and all the people that you met face-to with during the pop-ups. Over 250 we had conversations. Do you feel you've been given a sufficient range of views to feel that all the issues likely to be raised are already covered in the submission section for us, you've addressed, we'll receive. Kim Rawlings 18:05.968
I'll start with a response to that. We have received very comprehensive feedback. There very comprehensive submissions. We were just commenting this morning how incredibly impressive the submissions are, in terms of their level of detail and consideration. That's both from groups, so community groups, our industry. Chamber groups, our consultant town planners, architects, builders, but also residents and landowners. Really comprehensive, considered submissions you know, have built on conversations that they've had with staff, that access the information. We had a dozen different fact sheets, lots of frequently asked questions, so people have drawn on all of that information, mapping changes and everything, and included those things in submissions. So reflecting on the last six weeks or so of consultation and the issues that have been raised of concern, they've been raised by multiple people, so yes, we think we know what the issues of concern are in the scope of those in the amendments. Amelia Lorentson 19:27.020
Are the main ones how does that convey to the Noosaville foreshore master plan? Karen Finzel 19:33.740
Sorry, just before there's an answer, I'm having great difficulty in hearing Councillor Lorentson's questions. To the Chair, I'm just wondering if you're able to repeat Councillor Lorentson's questions before an answer's provided? Is that possible? Frank Wilkie 19:50.420
We'll do, Councillor Finzel. So, the question was how many submissions were received for the planning scheme amendments and how do they compare the number to the submissions received for the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Management Plan draft? Was that clear Councillor Finzel? Yes Kim Rawlings 20:13.383
Thank you Mr Chair. So today we've got about 350 submissions on the Noosa amendments process but they are still trickling in given mail and the system so with that numbers a little bit fluid and like I mentioned they are they're not format submissions or standard submissions in comparison to the Noosaville foreshore master plan I haven't analysed all of those I've looked at all of the planning scheme submissions so I know the in-depth nature of those there a lot more for it's around 2000 but we are still in the process of reviewing those in terms of you know whether there's some standard numbers to those or individual submissions or so you know what I would say is it's not just a quantity issue it's about the quantum and the in-depth nature of the submissions we've also received through the planning scheme which are you know incredibly comprehensive. Frank Wilkie 21:39.565
The Councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 21:46.125
So here are the two plans the new south planning amendments and the Noosa River foreshore master plan and they're two very very different plans completely. And the planning amendments they come after the Housing Strategy that took the entire term last we were working on. And the STA. Local laws and the fallout from that. So this doesn't come out of the vacuum. This is the continuation of long standing work policy by Noosa Council. So the two are just different. When you go online and you make your submissions they are wildly different things. In conversation they're very I think that the four weeks was plenty but there's also six weeks now. There's a two extra weeks given to this. So I feel in a way that the people that have been waiting for this a very very long time for these amendments. They were very ready for them to come out and make submissions. And in a way I just think you do not underestimate the intelligence of the Noosa resident. They know the difference between these two. They've been waiting for this for a year. We've learned over and the last election being a fine example of how the Noosa residents understand what is going on and make great decisions. So I'm very, very confident in the process for this too, and especially for that planning scheme amendment. So I will not be supporting motion Frank Wilkie 23:18.262
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 23:21.382
I just have a question to the staff. Excuse me. Is there an opportunity, if the process proceeds forward, to then engage further with the community with regards to this amendment on the Noosa Plan 2020 so that it doesn't be seen to be political interference but staff to for sorry for community to have their say on the matter Kim Rawlings 23:53.581
So Through the Chair the process which is specified by the minister's guidelines under the Planning Act 2016 is that local governments undertake community engagement. On their planning scheme amendments that's the process we've just done it's it was a six-week process and it just closed on Sunday and we're now in the analysing submissions the next step in the process Councillor Finzel is for Council to consider feedback from the consultation process and consider whether any changes need to be made to the amendments in response to the submissions we will bring it as officers we will do that analysis and bring a report to you and recommendations of changes community's submissions they that goes back to the State government for final state interest and ministerial sign-off so the formal process to undertake consultation and engage the community is the one yeah, question. Karen Finzel 25:02.808
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 25:03.788
Okay, Councillor Stockwell. I'm going to look at it from a different angle. What's the purpose of scheme amendments? Tell you, I know exactly who hasn't made submissions to the planning scheme in the six weeks. They're the people who have moved out of town because they couldn't afford to live here. The reason we're doing these amendments, fact that we've had a housing crisis that's been growing since 2019. It's about the people who moved out shelter. Of the Shire because their rental premises were sold for an STA, and the businesses that then lost their staff. That's what these scheme amendments are about. It's the people who've moved out of town because of the impact of short-term accommodation and the fact that they could sell up with the increased housing prices move elsewhere. They're people who didn't submit their response to this planning scheme because they made their decision that the previous settings of the plan didn't support the residents adequately. So we can't forget that what this Council the one before has been trying to do is refresh the planning scheme to increase the availability of affordable housing and community housing. It is the number one priority in terms of planning for this Council and it has been for the last several years. And we've heard that the notion of extending by two weeks is likely to lead to an extension of several months before some of the benefits of the planning scheme amendments are made. And what does that mean? We know there are landowners who have been waiting for these amendments to actually look at putting in development that will provide affordable social housing built around. It'll mean that there'll be more hurdles to go in for some of the public housing and community housing that's in the drawing board. So, is it's six weeks enough? We've heard that every person who is likely to be specifically impacted has a letter and six weeks to respond. That's no conflict. They can clear time look at the foreshore master plan and scheme amendments. We've heard that it's a complex matter and that yes, planning schemes are written professionally and have legislation handled, but I've heard from industry groups and planning consultants that the fact sheets and the frequently asked questions are very readable in plain english and easy to understand. So they've distilled all that complexity down to what we've heard is 12 fact sheets and some frequently asked questions. You have a very good understanding of the purpose and the detail of the amendments if that's all you read. The other key point is that consultation is not a numbers game. It's about getting the views to test the ideas that you put out into the public and that diversity of views and as we've heard several times we have very detailed submissions not just from business groups but from community groups, from environmental groups, from residents groups concerned about STA. We will have a very good spectrum of perspectives to consider when we come to adopting and reflecting any changes in the advertised draft to achieve that primary purpose and is making this place a more affordable place to live so we don't continue to get the exit of residents who councillors, these are our key workers and have barriers on the businesses and the councils in this Shire from attracting good staff because they can't afford to live here. Councillors these scheme amendments have already been delayed through the process of the State government review for over a year. It's now time to proceed. As was voted on by all Councillors before the advertising period. I won't support the notice of motion. Frank Wilkie 29:05.614
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Nicola Wilson 29:08.494
Yes, I will. Councillor Wilson? I'm concerned on this. I'm speaking in support of the motion. I'm concerned that we're rushing to a deadline that's something out of our control, being the caretaker period for state election and I don't believe that should be our goal post here. We've asked for community consultation and I agree that the process was actually an excellent consultation process it was just that it's been foreshadowed by the Noosa foreshore master plan so everyone's focus has been and attention has been there and I am seeing in the community that there are people saying that they hadn't realised this was happening or perhaps that they had only read the hadn't gone into the detail so those who have of the scheme amendments are seeing how huge this is and how we know how much we defend our Noosa Plan and therefore we need to make sure that plan is right going into the future some of the feedback that I've seen in the submissions I still haven't quite worked out whether those residents are misunderstanding what's in the amendments or whether those amendments are actually ambiguous and need further work and I'm just really concerned that we won't have time to actually get into all those details to try and meet a deadline that's not our deadline it's the State government deadline Frank Wilkie 30:23.068
Thank you Councillor Wilson. Brian Stockwell 30:26.168
Question could staff outline, and it might be of particular interest to new Councillors, what is the process of reporting? Do you report back on each individual issue that's raised and the response and how you reflect it? Do Councillors get a workshop where the detailed information is run through so that every Councillor is well understanding of those submissions made. Kim Rawlings 30:50.392
Yeah that's absolutely the process. So we summarise all the submissions and you know at the moment the table's huge and we go through each of those issues with the Councillors through what series of workshops those of you have been involved before that can be many hours of workshops and then provide with recommendations about how we think they the amendment should be changed to respond to the issues whether or not we don't believe or Councillor Wilson just said there's this submission has not understood and you know we go back and could and explain the situation so it there's absolutely a very thorough process to go through both at the staff level and with Councillors we're also required to be that with the State provide all the issues and how we've considered them responded to them Frank Wilkie 31:48.447
Thank you so you're saying a report will come workshops will be held with Councillors identifying all the issues raised and the feedback and then after that there will be a report back to Council to be formally ratified here where councils are free to make any changes and then only does it go back to the site Jessica Phillips 32:13.578
That's correct can I ask a question yes um just with the two very different plans that went out at the same time is that a common um hang on let me rephrase that yeah um to have like out they're is it common for us as Council to have two major plans out in community um that require some really in-depth understanding around the plans Kim Rawlings 32:47.241
Um is it common um there's been you know there's organisation a raft of initiatives and projects and we are consulting at various levels with the community all the time you know whether it's on you know works that are happening around a footpath what's happening in the local park at our facilities, you know to localise plans like foreshore master plan or Shire-wide initiatives so those sorts of things do happen we as you know given the time the lapse loss that we had with the amendment process it's been the State government for 12 months there was a sense of needing to move forward on this there are some risks associated with these amendments not proceeding and as one of the council's mentioned that we have landed landowners and applicants waiting on these amendments to deliver outcomes you know we have very clear direction from Council and many of our community about taking the next step to tighten up on short stay you know these amendments do that so there are multiple drivers to why we wanted to continue to move this process forward you know we would have much preferred a shorter time with the State government and these would have happened you know earlier but given we only got signer from state government this year we needed to keep those it is and as we talk we're in another agenda report the Noosaville foreshore master plan has attracted a significant amount of interest and given the engagement that was done in the first phase of it I guess there was wasn't anticipated that would be interesting. So much interest in that so you know when we made the decision to do the amendment process we did that in the context of these issues that subject of the amendments have actually been in the public realm for nearly four years, so it was continuing a process and Councillor Wegener alluded to that you know we had the Noosa Housing Strategy out in the community and consulted on that we had the short stay monitoring report so we've been consulting on these issues for a number of years this is the implementation those strategy pieces so it was about you know let's finish what we've started and keep that going rather than delay that because people have been waiting a long time years for some of these amendments to be in place so you know it was a bit of a judgment decision to go this would be working on it for so long there's a lot a fair bit at risk if we don't proceed with it you know that's why they ended up out at the same time. Frank Wilkie 35:43.798
Question, what is the risk regarding further proliferation or short-term accommodation if these amendments are delayed not just by two weeks but by the months that could be incurred if they miss the cut off for the caretaker? Kim Rawlings 36:02.289
So it's part of these amendments and the short-term monitoring report and the Housing Strategy. Council provides some direction that they wanted to move towards making short stay accommodation holdings. Whole dwellings in our residential zones inconsistent. We had done that through the low density residential zone as part of the Noosa Plan. These amendments take it another step. These amendments seek to make short stay that inconsistent in our medium and high density residential zones, acknowledging that those zones are residential zones and should primarily be for permanent residents. So it does take another step to try and mitigate the proliferation of short stay. If these don't proceed then there is a continued risk of further applications for short stay in our medium and high density residential zones that could continue to come in and be considered as they are at the moment. Amelia Lorentson 37:10.710
Okay, I'm sorry, I have a question. The audience: under the CODI principle, can we not rely on to refuse applications in medium and high density? Also under section 63 of the Planning Act 2016, can we not again argue the need? We're in a housing crisis and there is a planning need for housing, not short-term accommodation. Frank Wilkie 37:39.791
Cllr Finzel, the question from Councillor Lorentson was could we refuse applications for short-term accommodation using the Cody principle and the fact that we are in a housing crisis? Kim Rawlings 37:52.118
Thank you Mr Chair. Through the Chair. Yes, the Cody principle definitely does have some weight in decision making. As you move further down each of the steps that I outlined previously, the Cody principle is a principle where if you are making changes to a planning scheme so it's new policy or it's emerging policy and you've sought first state government sign off, you've consulted with your community and you've got a good understanding of what those issues are, you can start to give more weight to proposed amendments. So yes, it can play a role in decision making. But it depends on how far you're down that track. Frank Wilkie 38:38.770
Councillor Wilson, a question. Nicola Wilson 38:39.590
Thank you. Given the number of submissions we've project, got to date, if we reopen this process, we may only get a small number of submissions anyway. Does it actually stop the work continuing in the meantime, like the analysis of any further amendments? Would that have to halt for that two weeks or can the two happen in parallel? Kim Rawlings 39:01.913
Definitely won't stop us working. We will absolutely continue to work through and we need to. There's a lot to digest and a us to work through so we will continue that work. What it will impact is we have our first workshop planned with you next week. We would delay that because we would need to have the full gamut of information so that the start of the workshops and the discussions with you would be delayed. We, you know, that would then push out and then, you know, we have at the moment, you know, a date for a potential. Meeting with you planned, that would be pushed out too. So it's not that the work would stop, we would continue to do that and then we'd understand what would come in further and analyse those. It would just push the program of Council starting to consider the issues and then ultimately decisions. Kim, when is the deadline and can we have a Special Meeting to accommodate the deadline if this extension does go through? So the there's no deadline per se but we have sought advice from the State government knowing how caretaker impacts people's workload and decision-making in governments like we've experienced you know here so both at the highest level of the department and from our counterparts and the advice is that in order for it to considered at all because it requires a ministerial sign-off by the minister it would need to be with it with them by end of August so at the moment we were already planning Special Meeting around to accommodate try and meet that time frame Brian Stockwell 40:51.072
Yeah can we just move Councillor in those little box I can see the day so with the date of 4th of August with the you'd be suggesting that the first Council workshop would then be after the 4th of August basically and if we were to keep to the end of August deadline is that why could the amendment result in less time for Councillors to actually consider all the people who put their submissions in on time SPEAKER_08 41:29.700
What I would say is there's two scenarios Kim Rawlings 41:36.000
One is we try and continue to meet the end of August at time frame and get it to the State government and yes that would definitely mean there's going to be less time to work with Councillors to try and Resolve issues if we're going continue to stay to that time frame. That's one scenario so less time for those things to be considered. The other scenario is we use the time that's needed to analyse the information and workshop with Councillors so that everyone understands it and we don't meet that time frame. Frank Wilkie 42:13.920
Another question, if the amendments package goes back to the State, they're not able to be assessed before care take out. A new government is elected which has a different, perhaps a more to short-term accommodation. Could that perhaps impact on whether or not we get approval for the amendments package in relation There's other political considerations different political view about before or against short-term accommodation. Amelia Lorentson 42:49.055
Through the Chair, and just correct me if I'm wrong, is it correct to ask be asking staff questions about what may or not happen? Kim Rawlings 43:02.076
I wasn't going to answer that. Can't, I couldn't say. Frank Wilkie 43:08.390
No, I'll withdraw the question. It's unfair to ask for that. What I could say is that if we are working with the are government. President: I don't think you've tried this question. What are the possible implications of working, these amendments being assessed by new government? Kim Rawlings 43:28.766
There, again, level of unknown about that, but we would, you know, it could potentially add some time to the process is, you know, to work through where that government's policy is on a range of issues. You know, it is fair to say that the staff in the department tend to stay stable. You know, the political arm changes, the staff that we work with stay stable so that, you know, there is some consistency still with the staff we work with, but ultimately the implementation of these outcomes need to align with state policy. So there's a level of uncertainty there. That's probably all I could say. Brian Stockwell 44:12.882
Thank you. I'm going to move an amendment. Requests the CEO to reopen community consultation proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan for an additional, oh I have to work out the number of days, oh no, just amendment from July 19 to July 28. That's 10 days, additional 10 days, that's my amendment. Frank Wilkie 44:59.380
Do you have a seconder for the amendment? I second the amendment. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. Brian Stockwell 45:04.100
I do so because it's unsure whether the proposed motion is going to get up or not. If it I think that's a far more realistic and reasonable approach. Everyone's already had 10 years six weeks. This will be public knowledge. We can reopen it as of tomorrow rather than waiting until Monday. And if anyone hasn't had this chance in six weeks, ten days is certainly enough for individuals and/or groups to re-evaluate. Amelia Lorentson 45:38.123
I have no problem with what's being proposed. I actually put that forward dates and was advised those dates couldn't be accommodated. Can I ask through the Acting CEO, are you happy with the dates? Because my understanding was you needed until Monday to start the process or reopen the process. Kerri Contini 46:01.748
Thank you. Yes, so we do consider- Excuse me for interrupting. Frank Wilkie 46:07.886
Oh, sorry, Councillor Finzel. Lorentson asked if these dates are doable, if you're asking the staff if they're able to reopen the process from tomorrow rather than from Monday. Kerri Contini 46:22.200
You, Mr Chair. So, yes, we did consider that. One of the difficulties that we were facing is around timeframes, that we had a meeting today and then potentially being able to try and open something tomorrow, including advertising. Will put the question to the Director to see whether there is further thought around that. Kim Rawlings 46:47.625
What I would say is what does open mean? So, if open means putting it on Your Say dates Ken is in the room you know that's probably something that can be done fairly easily but you know Councillors what I would also and I know you haven't asked me question about this but I need to put this on the table just to manage expectations is by opening what is opening has in it it's not just that we've extended the dates what happens is we have walk-ins, we have phone calls, we have, you know, there's a lot of work that happens during consultation. We've had five staff, six almost full time on consultation in managing. Questions, feedback, responding to letters, responding to emails. So it's not just you're extending the dates, what you are doing is diverting the resources from analysing the current data and information to re-engage them with community and that's fine, we can do that, we can divert, but you just need to consider that it's going to delay the process anyway, because we will need to divert the staff back onto engagement. Frank Wilkie 48:04.851
So you say it will interfere with, any delay will interfere, if you're reopening, the staff's capacity to continue to do the work of assessment? Kim Rawlings 48:18.332
Yeah, working full time now on reading hundreds of pages of submissions and understanding it and, you know, and lots of meetings and discussions about the issues happening. If we reopen consultation, based on what we've experienced in the last six weeks, it's fairly constant in terms of the engagement from the community, which is fabulous. But that's what the staff will need to then do for that period. So there will be some impact, absolutely. Kerri Contini 48:49.882
So thank you. What we would want ordinarily, if we were to undertake something like a reopening and consultation, is give our communications team adequate time to prepare communications to be able to let the broader community know that in fact we had reopened consultation. Now those, you know, that's a small team who already have work planned for the next week. So that will require them to be able to adequately respond and undertake adequate notification. It also requires them working with our partners, media et cetera, do that. So if we were to. Effectively try to reopen that tomorrow, we are going to get less awareness of that through the community. So that would be something that I would suggest considering. Frank Wilkie 49:49.407
I'll speak to it. Yes, Councillor Wegener. SPEAKER_03 49:52.287
Any Anybody have more questions? You're free to speak to it. Tom Wegener 49:55.567
I think that, again, we do not want to underestimate the resident here. There's a lot of plans coming up. We have the Destination Management Plan. We've got the car plan. I'm forgetting several of the big ones here, but we've got a very, very busy schedule, and we've put a lot of effort into, actually, the last few weeks, behind. Outside of the optics of the public, trying to manage how we are going to do these public consultations coming up for the entire next year and the year after that. So I wonder I want to say that you don't underestimate the public here. And the price to live in this paradise is eternal vigilance. And that's what it takes. We demand, actually, that the voters and the ratepayers and the people that are making submissions, they're on top of it. And they are you have to look at cost of pushing it back is, well, what about the botanic garden plan? We have a new plan going in there. We want it to support them. We want staff to be working on that. We have the placemaking pomosa plant. All of these really terrific things are just getting invisibly pushed back into the netherworld by ourselves continually delaying, where I think that we've run a solid foundation with what we have already. Submitted to us. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 51:18.062
Just- Cheers. A question to CEO and Kim. Which dates would you prefer if an extension is supported? Frank Wilkie 51:26.482
Question, Councillor Finzel, was which dates would staff prefer if an extension of some form was supported? Thank you, Mr Chair. Which I think is, which is the lesser of, more preferred option in a difficult situation as they are not here. Kim Rawlings 51:46.596
Thank you. Look, I think if Council is of a mind to reopen the engagement, that we should allow adequate time to prepare And allow enough time for comms to get prepared, staff to, us do reallocation of resources. Some resourcing. You know, probably at least you're pushing it out to a Monday. It would probably be better than from tomorrow. We'll be scrambling a bit. Yes, so Kerri Contini 52:23.811
Thank you. I'm very mindful of the workload that staff are under. I'm also mindful that we like to be able to achieve the quality of work and I'm concerned that putting staff under pressure to reopen something tomorrow is unreasonable. Staff are working very hard to try and get this to the State so that it can be considered before they go into care-taking mode, so. Are the two things to consider, but my priority is the staff, and so I think that I cannot ask them to be put under unrestful pressure. I appreciate what you've done. Brian Stockwell 53:08.205
Sure. Nothing within the substantive motion of the amendment asks for any additional budget, any additional advertising, or any additional staffing. So the only realistic option, in my opinion, would be that the reopening just involves, as you say, changing the dates on Noosa and putting it on social media. That's something as you say, requires our staff, but that's not something that places any tomorrow or Monday, placing the date. Yes, I'm getting the cake. Is that likely to create stress in the organisation? Kim Rawlings 53:54.044
Look, that act in itself is not, because you change a date on the back of the website and it updates the website. So, you know, that can be done, but what that does is generate the question. And the inquiries and the emails and the phone calls and the counter, you know, that's where the work comes and we're responsive to those things. Know, if someone's on the phone saying here the amendments are still open, great, can I talk to you about blah blah of course, you know, that's the work. So it's not just changing the dates on the website, it's what that then generates. Frank Wilkie 54:38.623
Else wish to speak to the amendment? So far we've had Councillor Stockwell speak to it, Councillor Lorentson asked a question, and Councillor Wegener spoke to it. I have a question. Consultation periods are budgeted, are they not? Are extensions to consultation periods, is there a budget for contingency in the budget to cover extensions? Kim Rawlings 55:18.484
Planned we have a project communications plan, that's all budgeted for. The impact of an extension really is staff time and staff are budgeted for. So that's primarily the impact and possibly some, SPEAKER_08 55:36.898
A bit of media and comms budget which, you know, we could cover that. In project budgets. It's really the staff time. Frank Wilkie 55:55.980
Councillor Council fintel, Finzel, do you wish to speak to the amendment? Karen Finzel 55:59.060
I just have a question and I guess it's directed to Councillor Stockwell with regards to the amendment. Can you clarify the date you've requested? Does that need to include that it's for Your Say only or what's your intention that what is to be undertaken between those dates? I think it should be included in the amendment for clarity. Can you please provide some feedback? Brian Stockwell 56:24.068
I was just changing the dates in the notified motion to reduce any potential extension in terms of its impact if your point is correct and it referred to the substantive motion not to the amendment. Thank you. I didn't quite understand what you just said. I probably agree that good motion for extending a town plan would consider the impact would include identifying giving advice to staff on how it was to be reopened, what was the advertising, what other arrangements would be done but the substantive motion didn't so I was just trying to reduce the impact of the sustainment Through the Chair, Karen Finzel 57:11.585
Thank you Councillor Stockwell. I guess then that's a question back to Councillor Lorentson original motion around the exact process for the community engagement. Amelia Lorentson 57:29.101
Councillor Finzel, again repeating what Councillor Stockwell said, I think that's for staff to answer, not for Councillors. We can't direct Kim, I'm sorry, Kim or Kane, to be able to answer that question. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Can you repeat the question, Councillor Lorentson? What form will community consultation take? Kim Rawlings 58:09.174
I about what council's expectations are, if you want to reopen the engagement, what are your expectations around that engagement? Because the first two weeks of our, community consultation program involved developing and publishing 12 fact sheets, you know, involved three separate media releases on particular issues. I did a number of radio interviews, the staff did seven pop-ups, had at the library. That was the first two weeks of the consultation, so it really is dependent on what council's expectations are around reopening, you know, whether you expect the library pop-ups to be back up there because we had information there which we've taken down, that would need to be set back up. You know, media statements, interviews, you know, it really is what council's expectations are, Councillor Lorentson, and I don't mean to avoid that question but, you know, it's Council who are seeking to reopen it. Amelia Lorentson 59:13.790
What I would be such. Expecting is social media, and as you were saying, I don't think we need to put any extra put burden on staff. Excuse me, point of order. The Council is answering her own question. I don't think that's in accordance with any of this. Frank Wilkie 59:27.660
So, question to you, Kim. Can we have something to do with that maybe after the meeting? I'll ask a question. Is this not the appropriate forum for Councillors to direct staff? If there is any time and place where Councillors can direct staff, I'm seeing this formal process here through resolutions and if Councillors wanted to only have the consultation period extended notification of that through Facebook and by Your Say, this would be the time and place to do it by amending this current amendment in front of us. Kim Rawlings 01:00:07.877
Yes, absolutely. This is the time and the place to provide real clarity to the officers as to what Council would like to do during that extended period. Frank Wilkie 01:00:16.708
Question to Councillor. Stockwell, given what you've just heard, would you be in favour of amending this, adjusting this amendment further to indicate your intention as to how this would be done? Be.how the community would be notified of this, bearing in mind what Councillor Lorentson was also agreeing to? Brian Stockwell 01:00:40.270
It couldn't stand in order to hold a councillor's degree to any amendment. I'm happy to do it, or the other way, if this passes, we could do a subsequent amendment. Either way, I'm happy to provide the guidance in terms of the limitations. On what that additional period may be required to do, or, you know, in terms of communications and advertising. Frank Wilkie 01:01:01.283
Okay, so, for example, would what you would, an amendment along the lines of what you're considering being a Council requests the CEO to reopen the community consultation to propose Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 from 9th of July to 28th of July and notify the community via Facebook posts and the Your Say website, web page. And media release may be added to that. I hope I'm human fire. Facebook, Your Say, and media release. Brian Stockwell 01:01:39.276
So, I would be happy to change the amendment as is, but that, as I said, would require the approval of the whole Council. Nicola Wilson 01:01:45.616
Can I just take a clarification on that? Yes. I don't think say is how you notify the community but how a submission is. Made. So you would reopen the community consultation for a proposed amendment via Your Say and potentially email submissions, and that would be notified to the community by Facebook and Frank Wilkie 01:02:09.073
You mean the Your Say page, because there's instruction on Nicola Wilson 01:02:14.693
Yeah, it's more in terms of making a submission. There's information on the Your Say page? Yes, we're reopening the community consultation in order for people to make further submissions, written Frank Wilkie 01:02:23.453
Ah, yes. It so it is public? So, and notify the community via Facebook, yeah. So, let's go back to the original, amendment. Maybe cut and paste in case there's something else coming. Yeah, yeah, so the amendment before us. For the purpose of our debate and discussion and support the amendment to see where it takes us. So are we adding that to this amendment? No, we're dealing with this amendment first. So, Councillor Finzel, do you wish to speak to the amendment? No, thank you Mr Chair. Any other councils are you forward to statement? Oh, okay. Tom Wegener 01:03:23.151
Can I ask you a question? Yes, you can ask a question. Are we making a mockery of our own public consultation? Frank Wilkie 01:03:29.571
It's an unfair question. Brian Stockwell 01:03:31.631
Okay. I think I won't take too long because I think during the questions that everything has come out. For me, I haven't changed my substantive position for all the reasons staff and other councils have identified. However, do think if I am in the minority, it's important that the disruption to the staff program is as short as possible and hence the amendment. Frank Wilkie 01:03:59.741
We'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? That's Councillor Stockwell. Those against? That's Councillor Wegener, Phillips, Wilson, Lorentson. Where do you stand on the issue Councillor Finzel? Against. The amendment's lost. Is anyone wishing to move any further amendments? Brian Stockwell 01:04:30.820
I'm happy to move along the lines. Excuse me. No sorry, I'm in the middle of moving a motion Councillor Finzel. I'll do that and you can ask your question afterwards. The Councillor requests the CO to reopen the community consultation proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan from the 19th of July to the 28th of July and notify the community Facebook and media release with updates, right, on the right, Your Say web page. Frank Wilkie 01:05:26.960
So, it's the Council request the CEO to reopen the community consultation promosed amendment no. number two 2. To the Noosa Plan 2020 from 19th of July to 28th of July 2024, and notify the community via Facebook, and media release, and. Take out the next, with, yeah, take out Get rid of with updates on the Noosa webpage. Anyone who doesn't want to listen to the councillor's talk can only be prepared to second that. For the purpose of debate? You can second this, yeah. Is Councillor, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Salford. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:06:15.271
No, I don't need to talk, we know what we're voting on. Karen Finzel 01:06:18.171
Excuse me I just have a question is there an opportunity to add to this amendment a request also to the CEO to take a review of the community engagement policies to look at subsequent changes moving forward into the future so that we can find a greater strategic resolution to the matter of how we conduct community engagement now and into the future? Is there an opportunity to add that now or would that be separate? Amendment to this motion. Frank Wilkie 01:06:53.464
Councillor Stockwell Finzel, I'd say that's outside the scope of this motion and we do have an item coming up about public consultation on a couple of plans coming up where you could probably ask some questions there if you'd like. Councillor Stockwell thank you, Mr Chair. Okay. Wish to speak to this amendment? No, just a question. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:13.594
The same question as before, does this change your preferred option? In terms of dates, do we start tomorrow or would you prefer to start on Monday? Kim Rawlings 01:07:27.178
I'd like to clarify that none of these are my preferred options. But that provides the direct clarity that we were seeking. Frank Wilkie 01:07:41.238
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:07:42.878
I still don't think it's clear that the community is invited to make submissions. Via your site. Kim Rawlings 01:07:50.495
So the Noosa page does outline how to make a submission and provides all the options to the community on how to make submissions to the planning scheme. When you a planning process or planning scheme, there are specific requirements under the act to make a properly made submission. So it is really important that the community do follow those instructions because that needs to meet a number of criteria to be considered properly made. Hide. Frank Wilkie 01:08:27.623
I will to the amendment. I really appreciate what Councillor Stockwell is trying to do here is reach a compromise, minimise the impact on staff, also give community extra time to make submissions. I can't support, I'll go back to my original speech that I cannot, I do not want to be on the record of supporting. Any interference in this process, knowing the work that the staff have already put into the consultation process, knowing the full range of submissions that have already been received. Knowing that all the significant community groups and business groups have made submissions. Knowing that we've got advice before us from the State about the implications of possible delays. I do not want to be on the record of supporting anything that could delay these, knowingly delay these very are. Important amendments longer than they already have been delayed. And again, I want to give the staff the respect and the professional courtesy, the time and the space to reflect and review all the submissions from the work that they've already done. They're the ones that have been out of these pop public displays interacting with over 250 community members face to for up to an hour and a half every time. I've looked at some of the submissions. We've all received them. They are very well informed and well written. I don't underestimate the intelligence of the community to put together a well-formed submission. So I might be having a good six to one on this, but I just really ask to respect the process and give some professional courtesy of the retirement space not to be rushed or distracted from assessing this very important feedback and allowing us to give our Council the best chance of getting these amendments back from the State prior to the government being shut down due to the key attacking period. Any other Councillors who would speak to this particular amendment? Excuse me Mr Chair. Yes Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:11:05.277
Chair to the CEO. Is that okay? Of course. Yes, I just have a question around when it's being discussed today about potentially political interference is what penalties, if any, under the Local Government Act around statutory regulations or this process, is there actual a risk to, like, you know. Penalties, if we move away from this process? Kerri Contini 01:11:37.722
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. There are no penalties as such. What we are working towards is advice from the State government that if we are aiming to get these amendments back to the State government for their consideration and potential ministerial sign-off by, if we can get it back by the end of August, then we have a chance for these amendments to be approved. So there are no penalties as such. We have an opportunity to get them considered by the current government and resolved. And so that is the timeline. We're working towards. Frank Wilkie 01:12:19.251
Thank you. I'll just clarify, Councillor Finzel, I'm not inferring that anything improper or illegal is happening by the political arm of the Council. Interfering with this process. Karen Finzel 01:12:34.369
Thank you for the clarification, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:12:37.829
Any, uh, Councillor langdon, can I speak to this one as well? Of course. Yes, you haven't spoken this time. Tom Wegener 01:12:43.509
Um, you know, sometimes, um, worse than a bad decision. And I think that applies in this situation. Um, we, know that there is a risk that these amendments will get lost in the State for months and if not forever. We have worked so, so very hard with enormous public consultation to get to this point. I just urge that we erring on the side of caution is actually to go with the process that is well ingrained with a very, very good public consultation process. Don't at a whim throw it away. When there is so much at risk. There's an enormous amount of at risk reputation wise and as for all those people that Brian speaks of. Not to mention the entire future as I've stated before. The floor of short-term accommodation especially in the rural and hinterland. Jessica Phillips 01:13:45.883
Okay, I just want to reiterate my support for the extra delay. Frank Wilkie 01:13:55.490
In my 38 years living here I think Jessica Phillips 01:13:57.709
I can count on one hand how many rallies I've seen in town around things that are really passionate to the community we saw that with foreshore plan so we've got to give some time for that like we've spoken about but in particular with this one I do feel now community will have some reassurance after we're doing moving forward with these consultations and then they can digest this information and go back and get some more understanding around it and really give us some extra feedback and doesn't like you said you're not overly happy with the extra time but I feel that our community will be thanks Amelia Lorentson 01:14:41.723
I will speak and I think everyone's missing the major point of the notified motion. The issue today that we have two major consultations that have run concurrently. It's not about underestimating the intelligence of our community. I know so well our local knowledge and experience is overwhelming. What has happened should not have happened. We shouldn't have had two major consultations occurring at the same time. Each. Consultation should have received the attention it deserved. That's what we owe our community. It's also a statutory requirement that there is. And meaningful community engagement in all decision making. That's mandated by principle three of the Code of Conduct for Councillors in Queensland. Some around this table may call this political interference. I call it doing my job. Ensuring that our community gets every opportunity to consult on matters that impact their livelihoods, property values and Noosa. Again, rushing this process to meet a deadline is crazy. We need to afford our community adequate time to review and provide feedback and it would be remiss if we could underline the integrity of amendment process to do otherwise. I'm happy with the amendment to move the dates forward and I hope and urge the Councillors to support the motion of the amendment to ensure a fair and thorough review process. Karen Finzel 01:16:44.967
Mr Chair, can I speak to the motion please? Frank Wilkie 01:16:48.127
I'm just on my feet Councillor Finzel, you'll be next. Thank you. Just for the record, the staff believe that the public consultation process was run along the principles of social inclusion and meaningful engagement. Do you feel that this process encapsulates? Those values? Kim Rawlings 01:17:09.352
We believe the planning, preparation and delivery of the consultation meets all the principles of our act, code of conduct and community engagement framework. It was very thorough, it had multiple avenues, it was representative, it was both specific and broad, so we were very comfortable with the consultation process today. Frank Wilkie 01:17:38.708
Thank Councillor Finzel, you had questions. A Sorry, Councillor Finzel was next. Karen Finzel 01:17:47.808
Thank you, Mr Chair. I was just going to speak to the motion, but is there any more questions? Wants to ask? Frank Wilkie 01:17:58.386
You're free to speak to, we're speaking to Amendment No. 2 now. Karen Finzel 01:18:03.366
Yes, okay. Thank you. Everyone for the debate around the table. This is a challenging topic in thinking. Terms of the engagement with the community, the number of consultations that are currently live, the complexities and the overlap. I do carefully consider the amount of time that's taken for to take place and by no way minimise the amount of work that staff and community together have undertaken to engage in the process. I support the amendment before us because my approach to representation is to support inclusive community engagement, to bring accountability and transparency with a proactive local focus with collaborative solutions and I'd like to thank Councillor Stockwell to move this motion forward today to try and find a collaborative. Solution which is challenging around the table. I think we do owe it to our community to give them a short amount of time to make further submissions but I strongly and I will be raising it further down well, the track, to request a review of this process in 2024 of how we engage with our community. I think since COVID you know we are fundamentally changed and I think moving forward we have to really focus on collaborative voices around the table so that everyone you know feels that they are valued, that they feel that their voice has been heard and that it matters. I think you know we're at a transitional time not just in Noosa but across you know the State, Australia, I think it's a challenging time for leadership as we sit in this space of uncertainty. It's unfortunate but transition is always uncomfortable and I believe this is where we sit today and I want to thank everyone who is working their best. To try and facilitate a through a process where everyone feels that their position is acknowledged and valued. So thank you to everyone who has contributed today and I will support this amendment to in an act of goodwill to facilitate that every voice matters. I've heard the risks, the opportunities and the impacts and know it will be challenging but hopefully we can find our way towards equitable outcomes for all. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:21:06.600
Thank you, Councillor so is there a question? Stavros, do you wish to comment? Okay, we'll put the amendment. To the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Stockwell, Lorentson, Wilson, Phillips and Karen, are you in favour? You are in favour of this motion? Yes. Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie and Wegener. The amendment is carried. The amendment now becomes a substantive motion and every Councillor except for Councillor Finzel has spoken to the original motion. Do you wish to speak again, Councillor Finzel? No, thank you for asking, Mr Chair. Councillor Lorentson, close? We put the motion to the vote. Those Councillor you. In favour? Phillips, Wilson, Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Stockwell, Wilkie Wegener. Sorry, Councillor Finzel, where do you sit on that? Sorry, can you repeat? I'm sorry, I've just lost track of where we're at. Are we making the original motion. No, with the amendment that was just ratified, passed, now it becomes a substantive motion that changes the original notice of motion. Yes, I support that. Thank you, Mr Chair. Okay, and Councillor Finzel is in favour. Councillor Lorentson, Phillips, Wilson and Finzel, the motion is carried. That's good, item. Thank you, thank you staff. The next item we have no presentations. We have two dedications today. The first one is from Oceans For All and we have Taylor ladd Hudson, albie Curtis and jarrah small here to speak. Would you like to come to the podium and just remind them that dedication is limited to 15 minutes in total. Taylor Ladd Hudson 01:23:29.520
Thank you for having us today. I am Taylor ladd Hudson, a 15-year-old local from Sunrise Beach. Our request today is not for the permanent removal of the sharpness in the river bay, but instead we are proposing a seasonal removal during half-life migration season. Oceans For All is a working party representing environmental groups that work within the Noosa Shire. Each group has a shared goal of caring for our environment and the wildlife that inhabits our beautiful Noosa philosophy. Working together as a team, we have collaborated on the issue of the shock control program in green bay. Our team has the support of Sandy Bolton, MG, and have collaborated with her to serve local residents regarding their opinion on the use of while representing a variety of groups, our team have consulted with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Surf Life Saving Queensland, and the scientific experts in the field to ensure our data is correct and sits in on our meetings, offering advice and reminding us of Noosa Shire guidelines and procedures. Sandy bolton's survey, which was released earlier this year, questioned the local Noosa residents if they supported the current use of Shire permits at Noosa my beach. They don't. Bond university associate professor McVeigh said under oath during a Queensland administrative appeals tribunal that he would never recommend a lethal program and could never imagine advocating for legal shock program anyway. He agreed it was highly plausible that if the shock control program became non-lethal tomorrow, we would see no discernible change in on-the-go shock bites, in particular fatalities. If we tomorrow decided nest remove the nets and replace them with a non-lethal alternative, it would have no ramifications on shock incidents. There have been only 70 bites and 30 fatalities at protected beaches in New South Wales and in Queensland since 1937. Frank Wilkie 01:25:44.890
Excuse me is someone filming this is anyone filming this or recording this oh okay we need to get full permission Sir for you to be filmed. Are you comfortable being filmed? Taylor Ladd Hudson 01:26:14.898
Yeah yeah okay well Councillors you're comfortable with being filmed with yes at Greenmount Beach on the Gold Coast in 2020 a surfer had a fatal incident with a shark the beach was fitted net and eight drumlines it has been this means scientifically proven that sharks have a 96% chance of getting past the nets and over 40 of the sharks caught in the nets are caught on the beach side meaning they've already been in close contact to beachgoers and are peacefully making their way back out into deeper waters in Laguna Bay since 2001 576 non-targeted species have been caught and killed. This includes turtles, rays, dolphins, whales and any known species to inhabit or migrate through a beautiful area. Once an animal is caught it attracts larger sharks to the net for a fee free Over the same period only 129 targeted shark species over two metres find since 2013 at least seven known humpback whales have been entangled at Noosa Main Beach. I have personally witnessed and recorded three whale entanglements in the past a critically endangered grey nurse shark was caught in one of the nets in Laguna Bay this individual was identified by the unique markings along the side of her body. Name was Mary and this is the first sighting of her since April 2015. Nine years later. Almost to the day she popped up dead while pregnant in one of our nets. This program is nearly a hundred years old. I've been in the shark conservation space since I was 12. I'm nearly 16. I'm a swimmer, surfer and volunteer lifesaver for Noosa Heads Surf Lifesaving Club. It's time for change. It's time we see the Shark Control Program removed and replaced with current modern technology. We are not asking for nets but seasonal removal during humpback migration season like New South Wales. One small step in the right direction. It's time we change and improve our ways to allow ocean goers and marine life to coexist in our biosphere. Thank you. Albie Curtis 01:28:37.200
Good morning everyone. I'm captain albie from the Wilder songs Noosa charter boat and we take visitors out to see the dolphins. And the whales. Care of our ocean environment by being a research vessel as well. Now I've been boating, surfing since 1970 in been here for a long time. And when I go out, all the visitors and local, interstate and international that get on our boat are quite shocked that we still have nets here at Noosa, especially in Noosa promoted as a biosphere town. The scientists. That we actually do our research for, we take the information to these scientists that are in the universities. It's Olaf majonek, who is a whale expert at Griffith university. We also do the dolphins through Alexis lavengood, and she's in the SCU. And Bonnie Holmes, the scientist for SCU studying the bull sharks. Recent research shows bull sharks in the river, mainly juvenile, can grow up to and go up to the river system during the winter months. And winter months is when whales are here. So we don't have the sharks out there. She says the nets are misplaced and not stopping bull sharks at all. Nets are not needed in winter months, especially, um, as it's very much supporting, and she's the removal of the nets during whale migration, especially. Now, all three scientists, they say there is no science or logic in the nets whatsoever. So my DAP? Question is, who is advising it's certainly not the experts. So let's take advice directly from the experts and not make decisions based on fear and misunderstanding. As surfers, apparently the highest at risk. Every day there are literally hundreds of surfers in the oceans around Noosa and on the open beaches. There's no nets and no shark problems. The positioning of the and moving. We used to get the coordinates as boat operations by Coast guard, but this hasn't happened, doesn't anymore. Frank Wilkie 01:31:49.809
Everything else in the, as the nets keep moving and no communication is given. Albie Curtis 01:31:57.409
So nobody's really sure where the nets are. The current position of the nets does not correlate. With the currents coming out of the river as it is now. Back in the seventies, the was closer to these currents as the river mouth was vastly different. It from where it is now. Has changed by 500 metres and the nets are still in the same position as they were in the 70s. The whole shark net deterrence Noosa are very outdated, misplaced and need urgent attention. Queensland is behind every other state. We would like to see Noosa, the biosphere town, the way in smart shark deterrence and make the ocean safer for all. So our Council maybe support us as well and support the dolphins and whales that we all love and go out to sea. See. Thank you. Jarrah Small 01:33:19.697
My name is jarrah small. I'm a 15-year-old conservationist, wildlife rescuer and environmental educator. I'm the recipient of several environmental and conservation awards within the Noosa Biosphere and beyond and I volunteer with Oceans For All. On the 6th of October 2023 I was one of the many people who stood on Noosa Main Beach and witnessed a humpback whale calf struggling and fighting for its life heavily entangled in shark nets and boys just a few hundred metres from our world-famous Noosa beach. Yes, behind the glitz and glamour the nightlife of Hastings Street and all the tourists enjoying their coffees and cafe breakfast they all knew nothing of the heart-wrenching reality of the Noosa shark nets. It wasn't until I stood on Noosa Main Beach with a cardboard sign which is outside that people realised the heart-wrenching incident occurring the pristine waters just offshore as the baby whale was entangled in netting, buoys and rope from the Queensland government's Shark Control Program. The calf's cries of helplessness and distress was heard by concerned Noosa residents and tourists during the night and the early hours of the morning on the 6th of October 2023 as we woke to the news of this calf's battle for survival. The gentle giant's cries Pierce the hearts of those who witnessed this tragic scene as evident by one interstate tourist who detailed her harrowing experience whilst in Noosa. Let me read out a piece of what she wrote. I'm currently on holiday in Noosa from Tasmania. My accommodation last night was very close to Noosa Heads. As I woke at around 5:00am. I could hear a whale. This was not a pleasant or normal sound that you would expect from a whale, which was very concerning. My concerns were later confirmed when it was confirmed a baby humpback was stuck in a shark net. The night before, I had enjoyed watching a breaching, although the joy it gave me was overshadowed by concern for the animal being so close to the nets. As a tourist, this leaves me feeling very guilty for supporting the economy in an area that still continues to advocate for shark makes me not want to return. End quote. Will this damage the work done by Noosa Council and Tourism Noosa promoting our region as Different by Nature, stating that nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than our commitment to our environment and sustainability. Coastal councils in New South Wales are now looking to opt out of their state Shark Control Program, known as the shark meshing program, with support from the New South Wales environment minister, Penny sharp. The minister states in an email to another minister, following: the I understand work with local councils is progressing to allow them to decide whether to continue to use shark nets in their local areas, giving councils the choice to opt out of shark nets empowers local communities to decide the best mix of shark protection measures our respective agencies work together and with local councils on a staged approach to remove the shark nets. With this in mind the Noosa Council has the opportunity to prove themselves as a smart biosphere embracing modern technologies and helping to transition an industry that relies on the capture and death marine wildlife to one of marine conservation whilst ensuring water users feel safe in their ocean pursuits. I envision a new industry emerging drawing in creative youthfulness and innovation where once an ageing population hold of the Shark Control Program this approach aligns with the economic vision of the Noosa Council where you seek to transition to a smart biosphere. I strongly believe that the Noosa Council needs to take this opportunity to make a commitment to our environment and clear policy condition. On the use of sharknets and drumlines in the Noosa Biosphere Reserve. This position will help advocate for innovative solutions to replace outdated sharknets with alternative technologies that will balance public safety and marine wildlife conservation. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:37:37.125
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:37:39.905
Yeah, I've got a question as the Director Strategy & Environment. Recently we did adopt our position on it and in the lead up to that we had a presentation from the recollection the issues that have been raised by the deputation and also the research referred to was brought up in the conversation and it was my recollection that the DAF team said that all that information was going into their review and there's a major review. I just can't recall what that was going, was it the end of this year and would that be the time where Council and the community would have input into those deliberations? Kim Rawlings 01:38:21.244
Through the Chair, thanks for the question and the deputation which was fantastic, thank you. That's correct, so department of fisheries advised Council that they are taking into account all of the new technologies. Understanding of the testing that's happening right along the Coast around different technologies in their review of their shark. Plan, which is planned for later this year and early into next year. Nick Cooke 01:39:35.775
Wales and moving forward. So this petition is more than just the People's Park and the calls to abandon the project. It's actually about car parking and vehicle access in general across the Shire. It's also about the values of the community in terms of car parking and access and the need for consultation, transparency into decision-making, these are all key themes in petition. So here I have a petition with just under 1,100 signatures, 1,094 signatures, telling Noosa Council that they disapprove of the People's Park trial, removal of other car parks across the Noosa Shire and they want transparency and consultation on future projects. It's no secret that the People's Park project attracted immense criticism and backlash from the community and rightfully so when it saw the loss of approximately 40 to 50 car parks in a highly valued location and also when it was the product of no dedicated community consultation. Council have dubbed this project a success, however this declaration doesn't seem to take into account the community sentiments about the project and in my opinion community sentiment and approval should be the number one metric to gauge the success or failure of the project. This is why the community sentiments and values must be taken into account before proclaiming any Council project a success. Criticism abounded on social media and even local news reports. One resident told Noosa Today, and I thought it's worth reading out, that the People's Park was a visual and usage embarrassment. How do you get your kids to the Main Beach and green beach with all their surfboards and wheel boards? You're not allowed to take some surf gear on buses. Old people down to the river mouth? How do you get your Dog Beach? They went on to say some people can't afford to stay in Hastings Street and choose lovely accommodation a couple of kilometers away restricting their access options some would say is discriminatory against wealthy australians unless wealthy australians that's in quote and I agree with that especially as a hinterland resident who is car dependent and you know this project saw inequitable access to people of inner Noosa and outer Noosa so we have a wide cross-section of signatories on this petition including residents visitors to Noosa also including community leaders as the president of the Noosa chamber of commerce and even our former Mayor Bob Abbott who has signed the petition to express his satisfaction with the People's Park and the removal of car parks across the Shire and this is why I started the petition because I saw the very public community disapproval with the project and decided to create an Avenue for people to feedback through an official form public participation that is recognised by Council so not social media comments and there's a petition and today the deputation I wanted to capture the disapproval from the streets and the social media and convey them to Council through this Avenue the aim of this petition is to inform council's decision-making post-trial including informing current and future Council plans such as the Transport Strategy the Noosa car parking management plan which has to be undertaken later this year the destination management draft plan which I'll speak more about and the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan which also proposed reduction of car parks from our placemaking study and the town planning amendments all of which focus on traffic congestion and car parking this Council have actually asked for feedback following the trial to quote inform ongoing initiatives to improve access and also to determine the community's more initiatives like this around the Shire when I read that I thought absolutely this petition needs to go ahead because the Council need to know people's views on this so I thought I'd just read quickly through the petition and explain a little bit in more detail so we expressed our position to the people's on Hastings Street and call on Noosa Council to immediately abandon this absurd project and return the location to a dedicated car park this speaks for itself it's directly expressing 1094 people's opposition to the council's project it also expresses the people would prefer the space to be used as and that's important because there could be potential in the future to change that space this must inform any future plans to remove car parks at this location or plans to turn it into a permanent park petition goes on to say the project has seen the loss of over 40 value car parks in a location they are most required made worse by the timing of the peak holiday period this tells Mr Council that the these car parks are valued by the community and therefore the removal of them is not in line with the community's values people who value car parks by extension value vehicle access to Hastings Street and in Noosa and this should inform Council of the community sentiments in regard to limiting vehicle access during peak times which is something that's been raised in multiple Council plans the petition goes on to say we also call Council newscouncil to publicly reveal the total cost of this project to ratepayers and who in Council is responsible so this would ensure transparency and accountability which are two pillars of the public sector ethics act which councils, Councillors and staff must follow by law. Committee wants to know the total project cost of this project would include but not limited to cost of materials, the cameras, number plate recognition, the sandstone blocks, the tents, the planning and investigation if there was any, the time staff spent planning, implementing and responding to community members and media releases. It's important because especially a failed if it's a project, the community deserves to know the costs are the right part. Furthermore, in the name of accountability people want to know who in Council, what staff, department councils, if applicable, were responsible for the implementation and signing off of this project. Most importantly, clause in the petition says: we also object to the removal of other existing car parks around Noosa Shire. Now this was a key point in this and I believe it's why a lot of people signed on to this petition. It's not just about the People's Park, as I said earlier. It expresses community sentiments about car parks in general, that is they want to keep them and this is important because numerous Noosa Council plans and projects have proposed the removal of car parks to deal with traffic congestion. We saw the closure of the Lions Club car park. That was used for car parking which saw the loss of 97 car parks in Noosa. The People's Park which lost 40 to 50 car parks. The Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan which proposed a loss of approximately 104 car parks. The town planning amendments 40 car parks on Albert Street to rezone that car park to high density living and the planning amendments also propose reduction the number of car parking spaces required for new builds, particularly affordable housing. In fact, I'll just quickly read from that town planning amendment. The proposed amendments will specifically address affordable rental premises at Noosa Junction, business centre and Tewantin, which are serviced by high frequency of buses. It's interesting that Noosa Council's Transport Strategy talks about the inefficiency of buses. In these instances, formalised car sharing might reduce the need for a portion of car parking spaces. Each car share vehicle with its nominated space can reduce the minimum car parking rate by four spaces each. Depending on the number of affordable rental premises. Development can have a maximum of three shared vehicles if car parking is unbarred from the tiles of the individual units and remains in the common property, the minimum car parking rate can be reduced up to ten percent. So not only are we losing car parks we're actually losing them in private developments. And I think it's worth noting that in my submission to that amendment, I also called for extended community consultation because here we have a petition with over 1,000 signatories related to college education. To carparking and not removing it yet the planning amendments only have 350 submissions so there's a disconnect between what council's getting, between official consultations and petitions, particularly this one, and even the infrastructure foreshore play. Fact 350 respondents to the planning and amendments represents 0.06% of Noosa residents. This moves me to move on to the Destination Management Plan, a very important plan for Noosa, which a lot of people don't know about either. And I believe the people part links into this because I've seen it referenced many times. When quoting the People's Park and the Destination Management Plan, floats vehicle restrictions, pedestrian only areas. Quote, make Hastings Street and Gympie Terrace pedestrian only zones during peak times. Quote, make Park Road access to Noosa National Park by free bus only during peak times, so more vehicle access restrictions. Can Noosa Council advocate for restricted access in booking system to the shire's iconic landscapes, for example, Noosa National Park and Noosa North Shore? There's also floating flirting of mandates on local tourism experiences and service operators to make them zero waste and zero emissions. And that's important because the Transport Strategy also focuses on zero emissions. I think it's also important because. DMP shows councils potential outcomes that they want from this. The Destination Management Plan link resources on the website, around." One of these articles, which not a peer-reviewed article, it's an opinion piece, but it's presented by a Council nonetheless, is quoted: "Reclaiming the streets: the increasing trend of pedestrianisation around the world." This was written by rapid transition alliance. The co-author is Andrew Sims, who's an author, political economist and activist. He's known for writing about quote driving cars out of our cities, the green new deal of the UK, banning car adverts, advocating the removal of car parks. In fact, in this very article that Noosa Council quote, he promotes the banning of cars, pedestrianisation and removing private cars from city centres. That article says critical element in the adoption of car-free days and protectionised zones in many cities has been the rise of activist groups pushing to reclaim public space. So it appears that Noosa Council has been driven by activism in this space. The other article that has been linked on the council's website is reasons to be cheerful: spain's happy little Carver city modelling. Obviously wanting to model Noosa around spain. "Calls for car-free cities can sometimes sound like a call to end driving entirely, a lovely fantasy, but one that's not likely to materialise any time soon. Where we find advocates for saner transportation, their dream scenario usually hinges on same outcome, making cities blissfully free of cars. To this end, the spanish city of pontevedra, population 84,000, has done something remarkable. It has reduced car use in its historic core by 90% and citywide by half, or bans which is interesting because feel like this is the road Mr Councillor going down of banning cars, use clever engineering and some gentle nudging to get people out of their cars and onto the street. For smaller cities, they want to tap the brakes on car usage. HondaVenture offers a masterclass in tactical de-vehicularisation this seems like something Council is going down to deal with traffic congestion and the removal of the car park seems to be in line with this and it the Destination Management Plan and it's worth noting the transferable strategy at this point, which is a 10-year plan but is reviewed at least annually and I don't have time to go into it but I think that there's some contradictions in it it's talks about encouraging transport options for the needs of both locals and visitors it's clear that residents want parking yet the Transport Strategy also focuses on moving people and goods rather than moving cars so they're adults with each other so Council seem to be picking and choosing parts of the Transport Strategy to implement but in that same report it talks about constraints on the dependence on active transport and public transport for most people, driving a car is a way life and their preferred mode of transport combined 44 of jobs in Noosa are within retail, hospitality, accommodation and healthcare sectors the nature of this work shift late hours means that active transport walking and cycling may not be appropriate public transport is unlikely to be available this council's own Transport Strategy also talks about constraints on the topography and the climate of Noosa the hilly terrain making it challenging for pedestrians and cyclists subtropical climate extreme weather events shortfalls in infrastructure and services I think the quarries in the hinterland plays into this it's not listed in the Transport Strategy but it's a risk to the public safety and requiring people to walk and cycle can increase those risks it also goes on to say the buses currently stuck in congestion during peak periods and offer no efficiency of a private car other than having not to find a car park so Council know these issues with relying on active transport but unfortunately to deal with the congestion it's also worth noting in this Transport Strategy that consultants Parsons binkroff recommended the Noosa Council consider managing the supply of car parking rather than continuing the philosophy of supplying free parking in response to demand it doesn't actually say to remove car parks the management controls that this consultant offers are by time short-term versus long term control by price free versus paid and control by type resident versus non-resident so removing car parks doesn't seem to be congruent with improving access or the advice controls advised by this consultant the petition also further says in Future Noosa Shire residents and ratepayers must be consulted on projects like this before they implement and not after. The people of Noosa deserve transparency and important decision making. That's pretty self-explanatory. People want to be consulted given the chance to provide input before decisions are made, not on just overarching plans and concepts but individual Council projects which are stated in the petition. This just popped up one day, there was no dedicated consultation informal was eventually conducted after the petition. After the project and after the this is petition, as I said, the community needed a formal and simple way to have their voice heard. And lastly, we seek this petition to be presented to the whole of Noosa Council and this is actually a very important clause. Cause, it's one required by our petitions, but it actually new seeks that all Noosa Council staff, and decision makers are aware of the views of the 1094 people that have signed on to this petition and it's again the reason why it was created. Should be a report on the People's Park hopefully soon and as well as the feedback received by email I would like this petition to be included in that report but also as well as other Council reports and plans once mentioned and also future worth mentioning put it in comparison the 1093 signatures in say the Destination Management Plan that received 791 survey respondents so we have more responses to this petition and it's hopefully going to provide some balance to the outcomes of that Destination Management Plan consultation in conclusion so this petition should be filed and referenced when making decisions about traffic management including reviewing car parking arrangements in Noosa but it should also be considered in regards to all Council plans especially as the petition calls for transparency, consultation and input. Into decision making. I would just like to finish on that this is my fourth deputation to Noosa Council and unfortunately to date I haven't received a meaningful response to any of these deputations and I hope that this may be a change and I actually receive some feedback from Council Cole. Frank Wilkie 01:54:35.931
Councillors, we're going to have a short break and move, with your permission, question time, which is at the end of the agenda, to the next item because there's a confidential item before the question time, which means we have to clear the gallery, which would be unfair if people turned up to ask the questions. So when we return, people will be able to ask questions. Okay, welcome back everybody. We've cleared the meeting open again. We now move to public question time. And we have four submissions for The first one is from Taylor ladd Hudson from the Surfrider Foundation, Sunshine Coast. So this is ladd Hudson. You like to join us at the podium to read out your questions, which will be responded to by our Director Strategy & Environment, Kim Rawlings. Taylor Ladd Hudson 01:55:30.402
Thank you, thank you. My first question is, does the next generation of Noosa residents, being young people, deserve new modern solutions and alternatives in the management of sharp shark mitigation strategies? Kim Rawlings 01:55:45.102
Thank you for the question. Working closely with representatives of the State government, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Council has adopted a policy position on the shark shock control program in June this year. The purpose of this strategy was to support the State to transition to lower bycatch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to Noosa. Holding a policy position, Council now allows us to effectively represent views and outcomes of community Shark Control Program to the State government? Under the Queensland shark management plan, Noosa Council and SLSQ have assisted DAF to undertake a range of alternative mitigation trials, including the delivery of the SharkSmart community awareness programs and drone detection. Noosa Council will continue to work with the State to help transition the Shark Control Program to lower bycatch potential alternatives. Primarily this will be through the upcoming review process of the Queensland Shark Management Plan. Taylor Ladd Hudson 01:56:46.512
Thank you. My second question was in my work as a youth eco leader I've learnt that 95% of the kids I talk to aged 8 to 19 years old do not want to fish sharks and they want to see them thriving in healthy populations of our coastline. We're so lucky to be named a UNESCO biosphere. Our values of a biosphere and lead the way to be a trial site for the innovative Kim Rawlings 01:57:13.932
Thank you again for that question. In 2010 Queensland primary industries and fisheries introduced a maximum size limit and stricter take and possession limits on non-protected sharks in Queensland waters. These changes were based on fisheries stock assessments and Noosa Council acknowledges that your community observations regarding the importance of sustainable shark fisheries. Are supported by many residents within the Noosa Shire. Council views our advocacy to the State. For transition to the Shark Control Program to lower bycatch alternatives. As the key strategy in upholding our values as a biosphere reserve, UNESCO defines biosphere reserves as places that should promote the testing of interdisciplinary approaches. To understanding and managing changes and interactions between social and ecological systems. Including conflict prevention and management of biodiversity. It is council's and the community's responsibility to represent our biosphere values to the State government. It is understood that DAF will be incorporating. And current stakeholder consultation outcomes. In the upcoming evaluation of the shark management plan. And discussions with DAF also indicate. That development of the next version will include further community consultation. During early 2025. Frank Wilkie 01:58:38.468
Next we have a question from Debra Walsh. Is not here today, so. Paula Brady is attending in the place of Deb. Would you like to join us? Paula, and your questions will be responded to by our Acting Director Infrastructure Services, Kyrone Dodd, and Acting CEO, Kerri Contini. Thank you, Paula. Kerri Contini 01:58:58.090
The community rally on the 5th of July 2024 was a demonstration of a united community front which served to amplify concerns of residents in relation to the proposed Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan. Problematic land use planning ideas, as outlined by the council's approved consultants, do not meet with the community expectations or ideals. Is community prepared to abandon this plan as a show of respect and acknowledgement to community sentiment. Frank Wilkie 01:59:34.595
Thank you for the question. Kyrone Dodd 01:59:37.795
For clarity the draft infrastructure, excuse me, master plan does not manage land use foreshore. These have been addressed in the list of foreshore land, excuse me, use master plan, which was endorsed in 2018 and formed this draft primarily deals infrastructure upgrades and future proofing our foreshore over the longer term. Council acknowledges the community rally that was held and thanks the community for its active engagement on this vital asset. I cannot independently verify the attendance of your sited. Council will receive significant feedback through the have Your Say survey which will close Sunday 7th July 2024. Written submissions were also received in a series survey which closed sorry. Of stakeholder meetings were held over the engagement period. Responses received are currently being analysed to better understand what specifically people liked and did not like in the McGrath master plan. In consideration of the high level of feedback received, Council will be considering a report at this Ordinary Meeting today which proposes to adjust the current program to add an additional third round of community engagement which includes coming back out to the community with a revised draft of the master plan. This additional round of engagement will aim to work proactively with key stakeholders, clarify and improve on key issues. And undertake education and awareness on how we have listened to the community. And provided a master plan that delivers on what the community needs. What we deeply respect is the strong community sentiment surrounding the proposed direct master plan. This is the council's current plan to review and revise the current plan with enhanced community engagement. It is important to highlight that a master plan is needed to provide a strategic framework for sustainable development. Enhancing community wellbeing. And future proofing the foreshore over the long term. It aims to improve greater infrastructure. Increase level of service and provide resilience to important threats such as flooding and erosion. It is also intended for the master plan to set out a plan for the long-term asset and service management which is currently ad hoc at COSNI. A master plan can guide Council in coordinating strategic planning and delivery of over the next 20 years. The master plan therefore intends to ensure that this highly loved community asset. Remains vibrant and sustainable community hub and park for generations to come. Thank you for your continued engagement and passion for our community. Second question, Paul. Kerri Contini 02:02:38.914
How is the Council ensuring transparency and accountability in decision making processes? Particularly in relation to community engagement. Kim Rawlings 02:02:49.153
Thank you. I've got a fairly lengthy answer, so. Shall I sit back down? You can sit at any time. Council has responsibility under chapter 1, section 4 of the Queensland Local Government Act 2009 to engage with community through democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement. Further to this, Council has endorsed a community engagement framework. To guide engagement with our community in matters that are identified as benefiting from community input, to shape future major strategic directions and plans. This framework is used to guide how Council designs, plans and delivers community engagement projects. Approach to community engagement outlined in the community engagement framework and policy of 2023 is governed by a suite of guiding principles to ensure that all of our engagement activities are inclusive, transparent, appropriate, accountable, timely, well resourced, informative and understand. Have an understanding of our changing community. Council undertakes detailed planning processes underpinned by international best practice approaches to community and stakeholder engagement to develop fit for purpose engagement for each project transparency and accountability are two of the key guiding principles of the community engagement framework and policy. Council continues to demonstrate transparency and accountability through being open and honest about the engagement project purpose and goals. Clear and consistent engagement and communications around the engagement process timeline purpose and scope providing background or contextual information to assist the community in understanding the topic and be informed inviting the community to provide feedback. And have a say on the project using a broad range of methods and tools including both face-to and online engagement being responsive to community feedback when there is confusion or questions documenting who we engage with and what we heard collecting information in a consistent way support efficient analysis closing the loop with the community to share what we heard openly and honestly and identify how this will inform decision making and the next steps taking on board community feedback to refine plans and strategies and when necessary undertake further engagement upholding the principles and processes outlined in the community engagement framework and policy. This has been developed to strengthen trust and community participation Noosa Council has the advantage of highly engaged a very highly engaged community and although he's recognised that Council will not be able to satisfy every member of the community on every matter Council has responsibility and delegation from the Queensland government to deliver services facilities and at the local government level that balance community needs and aspirations meet the requirement to responsibly manage service delivery efficiently and sustainably on a comparably modest right hierarchy based to other local organisations. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:05:50.573
Thank you Paula. The next question is from Mr Andrew McCarthy. Mr is not here today so I ask our Acting CEO Kerri Contini and provide answers to the response. Kerri Contini 02:06:03.908
Thank you Mr McCarthy. I'll read out your first question. Does Noosa Council hold in its possession any documentation generated by the Department of Environment and Science which references DES had a while back with Noosa Parks Association about the pros and cons of declaring a conservation park in parts of the Noosa River system as not being the best idea, yes or no. Mr McCarthy, in response to your question, to the best of our knowledge, the only documentation that Council holds, which has been generated by the department of environmental science and refers to a discussion that DES had with Noosa Parks Association about the pros and cons of a conservation park in Noosa River, is a copy of an email that attached to Mr. McCarthy's application for today's public question time. This email appears to be between two state government employees and references an earlier discussion between those. Employees and the Noosa Parks Association. Part of this same email was attached by member of the. Public who submitted an administrative action complaint in June 2020. Mr. McCarthy's said second question is, the community believes it is a double standard to propose removing 103 car parks in the Noosa and cooroshire plan and encourage public and active transport use when Noosa Council won't lead by example and requires Council staff and Councillors to transit to and from work only using A. Will Noosa Council consider implementing a staff and Councillor policy by means of public or active transport? B, if yes, does Council anticipate a significant reduction in staffing levels similar to the both staff and customer levels business owners on the Noosaville Foreshore anticipate receiving if was adopted? The response to Mr McCarthy's question, the draft Noosaville foreshore master plan responded to the community's request in the first round of consultation to increase the amount of green space. Part of the proposal to achieve this is to relocate approximately 100 car parks from directly on the foreshore and place them within broader foreshore precinct with an approximate four minute walk to the foreshore. A report is being considered by Council at today's Ordinary Meeting to potentially conduct a further round of stakeholder and community education for foreshore businesses would be a stakeholder in this consultation. Noosa Council's Transport Strategy 2017 to 2027 proposes a staged shift in modal transport to reduce reliance on private vehicles. It facilitates other forms of sustainable transport and outlines strategies which assist voluntary shift to public and active transport. Council encourages. And actively supports staff. We wish to use sustainable means of transport to work particularly where car park spaces are in high demand. Our goal is to gradually transition to more sustainable transport practices along with our broader community and we do not anticipate that this will result in a reduction in staffing levels. Frank Wilkie 02:09:38.950
Thank you Mrs Acting CEO. The next question is from Mr Craig vallow who is also not here in person. So I ask our Acting CEO to read his questions and his responses will be provided by the Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray and Acting Director Infrastructure Services. Ladd Hudson 02:09:59.084
Thank you very much. I've got a question from Craig Vella. The question is: I understand that domestic animals are not allowed off leash in conservation parks. If a conservation park over the Noosa River goes ahead, does Noosa Council know if the State government allow residents to have their dogs on leash each time it goes below the high tide mark and swimming Richard MacGillivray 02:10:21.463
In the response is: advice from the State Department of Environment, science and innovation website states that dogs and other pets are welcome in some conservation parks, state forests and recreational areas, but not in national parks. As no decision has been made regarding the proposed concept of a conservation park over parts of the Noosa River, advice has been provided by the State government regarding animal management. Kerri Contini 02:10:52.740
Thanks, Richard. Mr Vella's second question is that in response to a resident's question in the June Ordinary Meeting about reduced car parking, a Council staff's reply was, "Council is committed to encouraging all residents and visitors to embrace public and active transport to reduce congestion as part of its indoors transportation strategy." Waymoor residence advisor Council has had a strategy to encourage them onto Shouldn't residents be consulted before Council enacted a strategy that changed the way residents live their Given community negative reaction to lock to loss of foreshore parking, will Council now consult the community to confirm they support its endorsed Transport Strategy which plans to encourage them onto public and active transport? Kyrone Dodd 02:11:44.238
Thanks Mr Vella for the question. In response to the development announcement endorsement of the Noosa Transport Strategy 2017-2027 involves several stages of community consultation and public input through 2017. Information about the strategy and consultation process was made available through multiple channels including public meetings, Council websites, newsletters and local media. Over 1200 submissions were made by the public through surveys, submissions and personal events. And the form Australia reflected this input. Further information on the consultation process, please visit the Noosa Transport Strategy 2017/27/2027 page on Your Say Noosa Council is committed to review the Transport Strategy and prepare a new Movement and Connectivity Strategy, which will include further consultation. Frank Wilkie 02:12:41.365
Thank you, thank you. The next item is a confidential item and so we it's a not for public release planning and environmental court appeal number 3156. So we're going to be moving that we close the gallery so these confidential discussions can take place. So I'll move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J3E of the Local Government Regulation 2012, in the purpose of discussing item 10.1, Planning & Environment Court appeal number 3156 of 2020. Application for hospital and health care service at 47 goochap street, Noosa hook. May I have a seconder please? Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. We just ask that all members of the public can leave. Okay, welcome back everyone. In open session. We have a resolution before us. So can you move that? I'll move do it. That. Move Councillor Phillips. I'll second it. Any discussion? All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. Now, we won't break. We'll push on. Brings us to item eight, consideration of committee reports. 8.1, remaining environment committee report, 9th of July 2024, and committee recommendations. I am fighting on one Unitywater. This is a HETSURF plan, planning assumptions, which is referred to the General Committee this was the only annual report. From this committee. Can I remove the second for the Planning & Environment Committee recommendations please. I'll move it. Councillor Wegener. I'll second it. Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. Unanimously. Next are the Services and Organisation Committee report recommendations. 5.1 further report. Council representation on various committees, working groups, boards and external groups 2024.5 7.1 was referred to the general committee. Can I have a mover and a seconder of the services committee. So that was Karen first and seconded by Councillor Wilson. All in favour? Yes. That carried unanimously. Next the General Committee reports. Unitywater of Noosa and nefsa planned many assumptions which was referred to the Planning & Environment Committee.2 was a confidential item not for public release. Proposed dedication of TMI on freehold landers road, Noosaville, referred from the Services and Organisation Committee. 6.1 was a financial performances report, June 2024.6 recycling and renewables hub master plan stage 1 concept. 6.3 2024 LGAQ conference motions. 6.4 decided by delegated delegation. Authority by 2024.7.1 was a confidential not for public release item, Planning & Environment Court appeal number D23222.2022, applications for reconfiguring a lot, 112 lots at 111 lakewater drive, Noosaville, described as lot 4 on RP36729.7.2 was another confidential report, 2122. Contract variation for project management services 2022 flood recovery and reconstruction. 7.3 was another confidential item, CN00317B, contract variation package 7B, landslide remedial works at blackfinch road. Move of seconder for the General Committee recommendation. Move of Councillor Lorentson and seconder of Councillor Phillips. All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. Okay, there's a request from Councillors for a quick break for some water and a toilet break before we go on to the final items of the discussion. Okay, we're back on. And the next item is a report direct to the Ordinary Meeting, which is further consultation, Noosaville foreshore infrastructure management plan and Noosa River attachment plan. And we have from the Director. Brian Stockwell 02:17:31.180
It's, um. Wish to advise the meeting that for the past two terms, I've declared a conflict of interest as a result of my long association with or previous contracts as a sole trader consultant. Trading as Watershed Australia with the following organisations: Noosa and district landcare and its unincorporated forbear, Mary River catchment coordination association, Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, Healthy Land and Water and its predecessors, SEQ potentially early in 2016-2020, the Noosa residents and ratepayers association. However, having now received more detailed legal advice, it is clear that my circumstances do not meet the definition of a declarable conflict of interest because none of these organisations are close associates nor are any a related party under the Local Government Act. This advice was based on an outline of my history with these organisations which I have uploaded for public viewing on my website which is got there. I will not be declaring any type of conflict of interest for this matter or in relation to these organisations into the future unless circumstances change. Can I ask a question please? Councillor Stockwell, is the legal advice also uploaded for public viewing on your website and where can we access the legal place? No, and it won't be. It is a legal conference and it goes into a range of detail that I've asked our own Council legal officers whether it should be made public and their advice was not to. Frank Wilkie 02:19:18.118
Okay, do we have any other conflicts of interest? Councillor Finzel. Yes, Karen Finzel 02:19:23.517
Thank you, Mr Chair. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as in October 2023, a petition stopped Noosa River turning into a conservation park was submitted to Noosa Shire Council. Listed on the petition was the name Sharon Finzel, who is a cousin of my husband with whom I do not have a close personal relationship. At that time, I was not made aware importance. Of her intention to sign the petition, nor did I consult with her on the matter. Although I am declaring a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not have the signatory. 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. Brian Stockwell 02:20:16.791
Thank you. I'm happy to move that Councillor Finzel, the Councillor noted a clear conflict of interest by a Finzel and determined that Councillor Finzel participates and votes on this matter as Council believes that she does not have a close personal relationship with the petition signatory and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in public interest. Frank Wilkie 02:20:36.772
Councillor Wilson will second that. Any discussion? All in favour? That's carried. Unanimously, you're noting that Councillor Finzel did not vote. Okay. Now, Kim, would you care to give us an overview of this report, please? Kim Rawlings 02:20:56.326
Through the Chair, this report provides an update on two very important projects, the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan and the Noosa River Catchment Management Plan. For the sake of conversation, I'll refer to them as Noosaville Foreshore river plan. So we have just completed phase two of community engagement on the as Councillors would be well aware, received significant community interest and feedback through that process. This report therefore recommends that, in light of that, Council undertake a further round of consultation on a revised foreshore master plan. At the moment, the project team are very much analysing and working through that raft of feedback from the community, and it is showing that there are a number of issues, including that are relevant to the river plan. So the report not only seeks council's consideration of acknowledging the significant amount of feedback from the community on the foreshore master plan, demonstrate that Council is absolutely listening to and will be taking into account that feedback by including a third phase of consultation for them for master plan but it also recommends that given the relevance of some of the issues for the river plan that we understand what they are and how they relate to the river plan before we undertake any further consultation on plain. And further to that the report also outlines that Council are now a formal partner in the SEQ regional Council of Mayors Resilient Rivers Initiative which has been going for some time and many of the southend Queensland government have been members for some time but Noosa Council has just become part of that process which is fantastic and through that process there is opportunity for all of the local governments to develop catchment action plans in a consistent manner with South East Queensland councils and potentially an opportunity for some resourcing and funding support for Council to do that. Given that opportunity, we also think it's a great opportunity for Council to take to revise and refresh and hopefully simplify our Noosa master plan. River excuse me, in line with that framework. So for those range of reasons, the report recommends a third phase of consultation for the 4 shore master plan. Not advancing any further consultation on the river plan at this stage. Capitalising on the partnership we would now have with Resilient Rivers and seeking some funding and resource and support through that process. Frank Wilkie 02:24:00.500
You mentioned there would be some targeted stakeholder consultation done prior to. The either of these plans going out further or broader community-wide strategy. Can you just elaborate on that a bit please? Kim Rawlings 02:24:13.817
Work Yeah, sure. Absolutely. So the intention in the next phase is absolutely to meet with all key stakeholders for both plans and interested in further understand what their concerns are in relation to the foreshore master plan, what the ideas are, and you know, workshop and through what they are to feed into before it goes back out to the broader community. And the same with the river so in meantime, if we go down the path of developing or aligning our river plan to the catchment management action plan framework, we would, the resolution also seeks that we meet with key stakeholders and groups that have shown interest in the plan today in the interim to further explore issues, concerns and also importantly outline what the process might be for aligning our foreshore management plan framework. Frank Wilkie 02:25:12.574
Questions, Councillors? Oh, I'm happy to move it. Just to get through. Okay. Thank you for the report. I endorse this approach. It gives us the time to really think carefully. About all the feedback that we've received during the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Management Plan process, as we've said, are listening. None of these ideas are endorsed to proceed. They're all going to be up one in light of the feedback, community and submissions, and then further stakeholder engagement, key stakeholders, and then a third, sorry, another master plan is being drawn up for a third phase of public consultation. There's no time constraints on this. It's very important to take the time to do it right, show that we are listening. And also with the Noosa River Plan, the fact that we are now part of the South East Queensland Council of Mayors and the Resilient Rivers program, there is resourcing and funding available. It's an opportunity to update, review and simplify the Noosa River Plan, modernise also have key stakeholders be engaged with, put it out before we to public consultation. Again, I think it's a very wise approach and gives us an opportunity to demonstrate to the community that we have listened to them and whatever we proceed with will be. They'll save themselves from that can anyone else speak? Councillor Lorentson. Just some questions, if that's okay. In regards to conservation park concept, will it be raised with other options or is it no longer considered a consideration given that we're going down the resilience? Resilient brevis model. Finzel, the question was pertaining to the conservation park. How is that matter going to be handled? Is it still relevant? And how is it Resilient Rivers pathway? Karen Finzel 02:27:22.900
Thank you, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 02:27:25.280
Yes, Ladd Hudson 02:27:29.245
If we're putting the river plan out for consultation of aircraft in terms of putting it into a different format, re-interrogating what the values are and what the outcomes are, that should be the concept of a conservation park or any other governance arrangement. Can form part of that initial discussion and if it's seen through our community and public consultation and departmental and agency consultation prior to developing the broader community consultation element to it, if that's seen as worth progressing through those areas good, that's it, thank you so much, I but it doesn't mean it's still on the table, if that makes sense. So if we are re-interrogating it, then yes we can consider it, and this is a debate that people will look forward to. Karen Finzel 02:28:23.074
Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 02:28:25.034
Now the staff are still answering that question. Oh my apologies. You're next, Kim Rawlings 02:28:31.054
Yeah I guess what this report doesn't do is say what's in and out of what's rural plan. What it does do is say the current draft rural plan hasn't been endorsed or advanced, so the actions in it haven't What this says is that we are suggesting a revised process for the development of a reviewed and refreshed rural plan along with the captain action plan. So it doesn't say whether anything is in or out at this stage. Amelia Lorentson 02:29:07.288
Karen, you had a question? Yes, thank you. Karen, and then we said a follow-up question. So to say that differently, Kim, so the concept of a conservation park or any other governance models will be addressed through stakeholder consultation before any redraft, is that correct? That's Frank Wilkie 02:29:28.249
Thank you very much. So Karen, the question was the concept of a conservation park or any other governance arrangement will be addressed through. The stakeholder consultation. Prior to any redraft. Of the Noosa River Plan. Thank you, Mr Chair. Okay. And you have the floor now, Karen. Oh, Karen Finzel 02:29:52.890
Thank you. Coming back to my point earlier in the meeting this morning with regards to reviewing community engagement consultations I proposed wondering if we can amend or add to this current item a proposal to review the current community engagement policies to increase visibility and understanding of the issues empowering communities to have their say over these decisions. Is this the right opportunity to include that now in this item? Frank Wilkie 02:30:38.317
Scroll up a bit so we can see the full recommendation? Karen Finzel 02:30:44.638
Oh, OK. So in relation to D on this current item. An they'll just wait for the screen to come up. Yeah. For Council to. Sorry, I can't quite read it. But comment to meet and work with the community. Do we enlarge on that or is it a new item F to add an amendment that we request through the CEO for a review through the Council organisation to look at how we can better serve our community with more contemporary and innovated approaches to community engagement Frank Wilkie 02:31:25.994
In. So, let's probably lay it forward. Councillor Finzel, I would suggest you move an amendment to add an F that Council requests the CEO to organise a review of the current community engagement policy. Is that in line with what you're asking for? Karen Finzel 02:31:42.947
Yes, please, Brian Stockwell 02:31:44.427
Mr Chair, that would be a motion that's outside the scope of the item in front of us and I would support it as being within the context of Standing Orders to commit it. Karen Finzel 02:31:54.687
Um well. Okay, thank you, I'll take that. Board. I just raised that because the Chair earlier said that I had an opportunity to raise this matter at this item, but I'm happy to take the advice of the Councillors around the table in relation to the Standing Orders. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:32:14.449
With such a moment at this point. Kim Rawlings 02:32:19.888
I think potentially what would be good is that we could have a workshop with the Councillors to bring it up to speed on the community engagement framework that was just reviewed and to understand and that we leave this as a separate item. Kerri Contini 02:32:38.249
This is quite structured, whereas a review of the community engagement framework and policies is a separate piece of work and quite normal in nature. Frank Wilkie 02:32:49.269
So having taken the advice, Karen, the feeling is that we might focus on the motion that's before us, which is specific in scope, and that we, the staff, have committed to a further workshop on the community engagement policy and community engagement framework. How does that sit with you? I Karen Finzel 02:33:13.954
Thank everybody for your input in that. I think that's fantastic. I think as we discussed earlier, we're definitely sitting at an intersection of where, you know, we're in transition. We want to try and minimise moving forward the impacts of, you know, community feeling disengaged. We want to really move from transactional relationships to collaborative relationships that allow everyone to feel like that their voice is being heard. You know, as we know, that's a core component and innovative cultures. So, yeah, I'm really happy to support that workshop and look forward to seeing that in our calendars as soon as possible. Frank Wilkie 02:33:53.692
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any other Councillors wish to speak directly to the motion? Jessica Phillips 02:34:01.037
Got just my own, sometimes I find there's a lot of buzzwords, so can you please just break this paragraph down into like real layman's terms for me, please. Adaptation, first thing I'll tell you where it is. Um news Noosa River Catchment Management Plan, the river plan. Last paragraph. Adaptation of the current draft river plan will not negatively impact the future aims and aspirations of Council to manage the catchment in a strategically sound manner. However, it will further delay its. Finalisation. The values and management goals uniquely inherit to the Noosa River will still provide the foundation of a revised plan. The process for developing the ACE cap will ensure it occurs in a collaborative manner ensuring. The identification of strategic priorities direction of resources align with Council and the Noosa community aspirations. Kim Rawlings 02:35:02.626
Yes, essentially that means that even though we are looking to align with state endorsed kind of program, that it will still reflect local values and Council will still be able to have a say in that process as will our community. Essentially saying that. Okay, thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:35:26.560
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:29.200
Regarding stakeholders and community consultation, how can we be assured that this will be conducted with all groups, that have not been previously consulted? And I've got a list from Laguna boating centre, Noosa North Shore association, Noosa commercial and marine operators, Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance, in terms of the Noosa shore. Social management plan, so Lions Club. Frank Wilkie 02:35:57.320
The question was, in regards to the upcoming stakeholder engagement, what reassurances are there that people, groups that have not been involved before will involved this time? And there was a list. Councillor Lorentson, do you wish me to read out the list? As moussa commercial marine operators, Laguna boating centre, Noosa North Shore association, groups that have not been previously involved, lions, club. Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance were not, we say that they weren't involved before. Do we have any slides for that? Kim Rawlings 02:36:42.066
Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, yeah, so feel free to pass on the list. We'd be and you know, we're happy to meet with whoever would like us about these issues. And I'm sure the foreshore team would say the same. Amelia Lorentson 02:36:58.818
Clarity, Noosa boating and fishing lines have been engaged and are continuing to be engaged, but we are revising the community Kerri Contini 02:37:05.898
Engagement plan for this project and we are reviewing the stakeholder list to update that and add anyone that was missing. Frank Wilkie 02:37:13.236
I just have to have due process and analyse the feedback and understand moving into this next phase. Do Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wilson. You go first. Questions. I want to Nicola Wilson 02:37:37.202
Thank Director Tim Rawlings and team for the report and also acknowledge all of the work ahead in analysing the feedback. Next, I want to thank the community engagement in this matter and the submissions we've received, all of which gave really practical points based on the way each person uses and enjoys the river and foreshore. This report and the recommendations make it clear that we're listening and there are can learn from this too. The first being communication and education. Personally, I think we needed to give a clear summary of what was happening and why and when over the next 20 plus years before releasing the full report. But that said, even if the master plan concept was better understood in the community, there are elements in the draft that are far from community expectations and needs. And it doesn't really reflect what we residents love about the river parks and pathways along Gympie Terrace and the various ways we all access the area. So as a new Councillor, I do want to understand how we got here so it doesn't happen again. In the meantime, I fully support this motion and the recommendations in the report and hope that this restores some faith in the community that we take all feedback seriously. Based on that feedback Council will redraft the foreshore plan and engage again to make sure it's right. The river plan will also be revised undergo further consultation as we've heard. This is an area loved by residents and the plan should be shaped by residents'. Views. Frank Wilkie 02:39:07.471
Question Council will answer. Given the importance of the economic impact assist. Assessment in the Resilient Rivers Initiative, will such an assessment be conducted for our river plan? The question was will there be an economic impact assessment done for the river plan given its connection to the. Resilient Rivers program. Kim Rawlings 02:39:40.069
If we're successful in getting resources and funding through that program and that this gets endorsed, then we will adopt the process that the. Catchment action planning framework outlines and undertake each aspect of the. Of that process. Yes. Frank Wilkie 02:40:03.200
Okay, so we've had myself and Councillor Wilson speak to the motion. Anyone else wish to Councillor I think. Councillor Wilson, Finzel. You go ahead. Councillor Finzel, you've got the floor. Karen Finzel 02:40:16.657
Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, I'd like to just take this opportunity to acknowledge everyone's hard work. And contributions to this process. It's been ongoing and it's been very tumultuous to say the least. But I think, you know, this has brought us to a point through those challenges and conflicts of moving forward I think to a really collaborative approach and meaningful steps forward where we've identified both risks and opportunities to do better through governance and including and along the journey all voices within our community so I'm really excited about this opportunity today to really bring everyone on the journey and continue to develop and strengthen our relationships with individuals and community groups so that they feel that there is trust in this Council to actually have the agility and capacity. To really listen to what our community is saying and take those steps forward with Council staff and executives to build a really robust and resilient community that feels that their voice is heard and acted upon. Their needs as they identify their needs where they live, in their homes, in their streets, in their river. I just think it's been very I think the intersection we find ourselves today at is really hopeful in apparent communities to have their say over decisions that affect their lives. I just want to thank everybody for their participation and their respectful way of working together through these challenging times. So thank you, everybody. Frank Wilkie 02:42:24.514
Thanks, kansal-Thunzell. Wilkie. Tom Wegener 02:42:29.804
I'm fully supportive of this report. I'm very pleased that we're going down and reassessing. They have a fantastic amount of consultation and that feedback that we have. On this, I consider this an enormous success. For Noosa Council to enjoy so much feedback from the residents, from the stakeholders, and so forth. So let's go forward with this. On the other hand, I have to lament the fact that the river is still choking in silt. We have gone nowhere with the overall plan, which my concern is, my value in the river is a healthy river, full of life, full of a benthic layer, full of little crustaceans, full of fish, full of prawns, full of. Oysters, and we are just slipping further and away from that goal as we do this. But it's a necessary thing to do. I'm not going to say necessary evil, because it's not. We are just marching forward. But. What is it? We're making haste very, very slowly in this case. Jessica Phillips 02:43:37.502
Another question, please? Just apologies for pulling apart the report the way. I just need to get a little bit more clarity on another part of the report. Finance, improving resources, and internal processes for engagement. It says this has resulted in some projects not. Adequate budgets to execute the appropriate level of staged engagement required. Kim Rawlings 02:44:07.812
My question is how, moving forward, will we make sure this doesn't happen again? Well, that's for you to say yes to what we asked for in terms of budget allocation of the project, firstly. So, as we're having lots of conversations about, you know, making sure that there's enough time and planning and preparation in terms of the phases of consultation that is required for our community. You know, we've traditionally done two phases consultation for our major projects. What we're now seeing is that we need to do three. So that'll start to inform how we budget and plan going forward. And you will see that there will be some financial and resource implications because when phase of consultation in, there are, you know, costs associated with that. So that'll yeah, start to flow through. Frank Wilkie 02:45:06.262
Yes, Councillor ashes, Acting CEO. Kerri Contini 02:45:08.662
Yes, so just in terms of process, those types of issues are addressed through our budget review process and what might well be, for example, through budget review two, that the proposal is then put forward to address these field considerations. So you would then consider and potentially adopt that. Amelia Lorentson 02:45:30.699
Morris. In terms of external cost consultancies, will the redraft of the foreshore management plan be done in-house or will we be going out to consultants again? And if so, what sort of costs are we looking at? Frank Wilkie 02:45:48.819
So the question was, Councillor Finzel, will the redraft of Noosa or any of these plans involved go external consultancies? And if so, could it be done in-house? Or if it is going external, what would be the cost to Council? Kim Rawlings 02:46:06.747
Thank you, Mr Chair. Sorry, Councillor Finzel. Through the Chair, we have a project team on the foreshore master plan, which includes external consultants. And we have an arrangement with that. We've got a contract around that. We also have some government funding, grant towards this and they. So, there's a multidisciplinary project team that will see this project through, and that will include the consultants that we're currently working with. Scope of the process and the project is still being considered and underway, so I can't provide you with what that means. It is our hope and intention and best efforts that we will keep, contain any costs within the country. Total project budget, but if not then there will be a conversation through the normal processes. Frank Wilkie 02:47:06.851
Just a follow up question. In terms of the work done in progressing the Noosa River Plan, you mentioned that there is funding and resources. Available to the Resilient Rivers arrangement. Is that intended to be fully funded in this regard? Kim Rawlings 02:47:27.897
Can't-- through Councillor Wilkie, we are putting a to the Resilient Rivers Initiative Project Control Group tomorrow about what that resourcing might look like. So potentially a catchment management officer was a part of the time towards assisting us to develop the plan unclear at this stage what it might mean and whether it's partial or full funding or support for the development of the plan. We'll have to come back with details as that because that you know that was subject to today's discussion Frank Wilkie 02:48:09.901
To speak to the motion Karen Finzel 02:48:15.101
I have a is that okay Mr Chair of course just on the back of the Resilient Rivers and in response to Councillor Wegener's concerns around silt into the river and different things like that I'm just wondering if staff is able to give us a bit of further feedback around the opportunities under the Resilient Rivers to creating you know those thriving and sustainable rivers and the part of that in the catchment where funding or support can be done to address those things around silting through the regional strategy. Ladd Hudson 02:48:57.400
I'll answer that for the Chair if that's okay. The Resilient Rivers Initiative funding program once we get to that stage and look I'll step back a little bit and say the first part of establishing what our priority framework will be is to have a clear strategy which is the cash and determined or what we've proposed as action plan. We've got that endorsed by Council hopefully sometime next year based on this resolution then we'll be able to prioritise potentially project funding through RRI and that's part of the city deal to be able to allocate funding to the different councils depending on what the high value priorities are we've already done large volume of work understand where the risks and threats and where our we think the priorities should be able to address those lot of that work will probably carry through to determining the priorities under the catchment action plan in which case then we'll be able to say okay here's a suite of projects which really closely align to what the objectives of the resilient riveters funding is and potentially we can have some projects coming through that. The anticipation of the city deal funding $30 million over five years to be spread around the different catchments based on priority and that's one of the reasons to be able to get a really consistent uniform catchment action plan so that we can compare apples and across the region. Frank Wilkie 02:50:26.688
Cast was good. Will speak to the motion. Councillor Stockwell. Yeah I'll speak. Brian Stockwell 02:50:30.488
The Councillor Phillips mentioned that she can count on one hand the number of demonstrations, protests and I think I can probably get a bit above my hands that I've done the rivers not being as a plaited ground for cohesive community views. We've had flotillas of boats going down talking about the war on wrecks. We've had a number forums that Noosa residents and ratepayers in my time called which had hundreds of people attend because of lack of action on the river. The current flashpoints are interesting. Embedded within the community response on the Noosa master plan for infrastructure was the fact that we have some of the flashpoints to be mentioned today. The flashpoints about how's Council going to manage the conflict when it comes to the future planning for our green spaces. And it was mentioned that 2017 is where the community gave this Council a really big indication where they wanted to go and that was put people above cars. But since then we've probably had 30 to 50 percent% of the residents living here who weren't there in 2017. But then when we look at the Discussion Paper for the Destination Management Plan, those sentiments were pretty similar. But what went wrong is we had a whole lot of thinking that had years in its progression. Technical assessment, we put it out and the community didn't probably have an understanding of why we were making or suggesting some sorts of infrastructure and it is only an infrastructure, not a land use plan. So that's one of the flash points. Other one that's embedded actually is residents saying no you're designing this to look like a tourist town. So it's the same argument that we started in 2020 with about the sense of residents losing their sense of place which is driving all this great feedback and input. So when you apply that for example to car parking it's not about the numbers of car parks it's about the availability for residents wanting to do what they've always done and that and could be achieved like our deputation mentioned it can be achieved by things like different timing so that done by having priorities within our car parking management plan that treat visitors different to residents in terms of what's charged when it's available all those sort of things and in the future when accessibility by other forms is much easier. It's not saying that just because you need a car park now and we're not trying to say that we're going to take out car parks so that residents can't use the park in exactly the same way they've always used it. What we're saying is if we know that the population of South East Queensland is growing, just keeping what's there is not going to lead to a better experience for our residents. It's going to gradually diminish the experience of our residents. And that's another flashpoint that I found in the Noosa build foreshore master plan is when I explained to people that remember we had that coastal hazard adaptation plan and remember what it predicted about what would happen to in 20, 30, 40 years time. So if we'd gone out with this master plan and asked the questions, do you think your grandchildren would like a salt marsh along the Noosa foreshore? They'd probably say no. They'd say no, let's try and get prepared for it. What we have to do in this next round is get people to understand what is the forecast because we know that sea level is rising. Closest technical boy in Moreton Bay is telling us and that the prediction is that we're going to have quite frequent and increasing frequency of just tidal inundation, such that the storm water that's meant to drain the streets on a number of times a year will actually take the river into the streets. So we have to start looking at infrastructure responses. One of the ones was about, you know, it is low key, everyone loves it, you know, I've been enjoying it for 40 years. And I saw some commentary around, why are we going to boardwalks? And then I saw a social media, I don't know if it came in it, but it was from someone who's over. I think he's over 70, lived here all his life and he talked about the boardwalk that used to join up to where the caravan park is so that the kids used to go along the foreshore, walk along the boardwalk, get to the end where Coast guard is and swim across to the beach. And people are saying this boardwalk never fitted there but we're driven by our perception of our experience and depending on how long are and you know keep it natural was a big thing and I totally agree but we probably didn't say look we've got treated pines legal walls that we're spending probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to prop up because we're having these increased impacts of weather events etc. there's these all flashpoints that came together on what was a landscaping infrastructure plan and that's what our consultation has to address. There is another flashpoint that came out really clearly in both the river plan and the foreshore management plan and it's something that a Federal minister in the press recently well in her presentation and she talked about the impact of social media and the need to move to democracy 2.0. In the river plan there was a concerted and coordinated attempt to provide misinformation to the community. To guide views and it was hugely successful and that's building out of the social media dynamic where you put incorrect information and build a headstand and it becomes reality for people so it's going to be really interesting that the more we move into this social media space where fake news and incorrect information assumes a life of its own, the more it probably drives us back to the fundamentals of community consultation, of face-to engagement and really building the knowledge of those who are providing the input. So I'll give you another example. We're talking about living foreshores and this is the example that why we would have to put off the river plan for the foreshore manager plan. Attempted to guide, show how we might adopt a living foreshore approach and that's foreshadowed in the draft Noosa River Plan. Clean. Now some people might think that's all very new and future. I remember in the Noosa Biosphere board environment sector that we put that up as a suggestion from another point to I think the amalgamated Council probably 14 years ago. So it's something that the community has previously said let's look at the foreshore so we can manage the erosion influences by using more natural means other than treated pine logs and boards in the river. So the final thing, no second thing, we've talked about groups in consultation. I think one of the great disappointments is that it's been portrayed that the river plan hence the last Council was anti-fishing and anti-boating. Great misinformation campaign. I could stand here all my life and no one would agree that I was wrong. But they're wrong. So when we consult, we need to consult with groups that have a reputation for honesty and integrity. So if you look, for example, local AusFish group who understand that the connection between habitat and fishing. We need to engage with the young people because the young fishers is who we're doing this plan for. Nothing in river systems have quick results. They're decadal responses. So when we go out, we need to look at how we can solve, how we build the knowledge. Because this. I still think that some form of conservation is needed. I think we should be talking to recreational fishing rivers whether they go for net free zones and things like that. These are all things that we can do as part of this next process. But finally, to answer Councillor Wegener's response, are not deferring our decision to do better management and more environmental and catchment management in the Noosa River. Our Environment Strategy and the motion of December 2023 clearly showed what the priorities are and urged Council staff to take whatever action they could under their existing budgets. So deferring producing the river plan is not deferring action to get a better river. Frank Wilkie 02:58:59.063
Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel I'm just foreshadowing I might not be able to replicate everything that Councillor Lorentson has said. I'll try to keep this short. Amelia Lorentson 02:59:21.120
Thank you. Referenced this great engagement as being a success. I think success for me today is this report acknowledgement that we've got aspects of the Noosa foreshore infrastructure master plan and the river plan parts of it wrong. That our communication strategies have not been what they should be and that we understand the impact this has had on our community and we recognise the need for further improvement. That to me is success and that's what I'm applauding today. The report we have presented shows the way forward. Our commitment to learning from our errors and improving our approach and it demonstrates that we're ready to work with the community to ensure that our plan meets the community's needs and expectations. In terms of the foreshore master plan, further consultation and a redraft will be required. River plan, the locals have recognised that the resilient river initiatives and the catchment action planning is having a really good structure and a better approach to consistent management of our especially given the opportunities for catchment, sources of funding beyond rate payers' money. It's also seen to be fairer and more importantly, it's more equitable model for all of the community, not just some sectors By scaling back our river catchment. Management plan in line with the RII, we align our strategy with other catchment plans across South East Queensland, and we also ensure that we can leverage the $40 million investment from the SEQ city deal over the next five years. I think overall what's been presented today is what will make us better positioned to ensure that the Noosa River remains a clean, safe and again more accessible natural asset for everyone and not just for some. I'm supportive of this report and I thank the staff for their hard work putting this together. Frank Wilkie 03:01:47.540
Yeah, it's been a long journey. I think what this will allow us to do is demonstrate that we are listening, take some time, get it right, raise the bar with community engagement, taking community engagement to places where we haven't gone before, third phase of community consultation is very rare, but I think it's, we all agree it's necessary because we are all committed to ensuring a good level of community canoeing on the ocean. Engagement. We do it when it's merited. The Noosaville Foreshore and the river are just two of the things, the love that we all have in common. And we share a lot of things in common, but are two of them. We do want to make sure that it's never just been, the river's never just some, it's been for all. And we're doing this work because we the foreshore and the river remains to be accessible to families and to anyone who wants to use the river, who are now a member of the future. So I put the motion to the vote. All in favour? Yes. Thank Stella. You, staff. I believe that's it. We've reached the end of the agenda today. Thank you, Councillors, for your respectful debate. It was excellent. It was a really good process to deal with some really multifaceted issues. But at that point, there weren't any issues, so well done, Councillors. Thank you, everyone, for coming along, and thank you, staff. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
