General Committee, 17 March 2025
Date: Monday, 17 March 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 04:39:33
Synopsis: Development Approvals: MCU caps shades, on-site waste; Royal Mail acoustics, 5-park deal, Waste: On-site preferred; deferral failed, Carbon: 45,118 tCO2‑e; 18% down.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini (Via Microsoft Teams) Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie: Moved approval of MCU24/0074 (203–207 Gympie Tce) with updated conditions; carried unanimously (Item 8.1; 01:12:29). Karen Finzel: Amendment adopted to cap “Tide” shade structures at 5, require shade to a seat, and keep entirely within site boundary; on‑site refuse to meet Cond. 61 (Item 8.1; 01:14:21, 01:23:11). Jessica Phillips: Amendment to reopen waste option for on‑street collection lost (For: Wilson, Phillips; Against: Stockwell, Lorentson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener) (Item 8.1; 01:25:57–01:40:48). Frank Wilkie: Moved approval of Royal Mail Hotel extension and related demolition; carried unanimously after deferral attempt for acoustics/safety was lost (Item 8.2; 02:19:54–02:21:29; 02:48:56). Nadine (Officer): Hotel approval includes acoustic barriers, noise limiting, hours; 5-space parking shortfall offset via infrastructure agreement; public thoroughfare easement conditioned (Item 8.2; 02:05:45–02:07:01). Cheyenne/Team: Organisational Carbon Footprint FY23/24 noted; 45,118 tCO2‑e, 18% reduction from 2016; roadmap to net zero to come (Item 8.3; 03:04:27–03:05:16). Michelle (Officer): Pomona Place Plan approved; implementation of short‑term actions and upcoming evaluation endorsed (Item 8.4; 03:45:00–03:50:22). Pauline (Officer): Feb YTD finance report noted; operating rev +$2.3m vs budget; capex behind timing; cash peaks post‑rates; sustainability indicators added (Item 8.5; 03:57:35–04:00:24). Frank Wilkie: ALGA 2025 motions approved (waste/circular economy, wastewater reuse study, road user agreements, senior doctor reserve/registration, end‑of‑waste criteria); Finzel/Lorentson to attend (Item 8.6; 04:14:59–04:24:04). Nicola Wilson: CEO delegated authority to execute retail electricity contracts for streetlights/large sites; unlimited by general financial delegations (Confidential 9.1; minutes). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Pressed on waste safety/amenity; staff showed applicant’s conflicting turn-paths (HRV could exit; smaller side-loader shown as clipping), Council’s checks support on‑site service (Item 8.1; 19:39–28:12). Brian Stockwell: Noted policy preference for on‑site collection; side‑arm curbside poses higher risk to pedestrians/cyclists (32:15–33:36). Jessica Phillips: Sought deferral and later a conditional re‑opener on waste; both attempts failed; statutory deemed-approval timing confirmed (Item 8.1; 01:41:21–01:45:28). Karen Finzel: Shade structure count negotiated; landscaping primacy vs built screens debated; compromise adopted with in‑boundary condition (Item 8.1; 01:10:22–01:18:54; minutes). Royal Mail: Deferral for more acoustic/safety data lost; later officers to explore CCTV along easement and options for crowd-noise monitoring by Ordinary Meeting (Item 8.2; 02:48:56–02:50:27). Chair: Confidential session lawfully closed/reopened under s254J(3)(g) LGR 2012 (Item 9.1; minutes). Legal / Risk Officers: Both development reports provided under Planning Act 2016 s63(5); MCU24/0074 is code-assessable, constraining “extras” like undergrounding power (Item 8.1; 49:46–51:26). Richard MacGillivray: Acceptable Outcomes are deemed-to-comply; tightening Royal Mail hours beyond AO could be difficult to defend on appeal (02:27:55–02:29:06). Patrick Murphy: Easement affords reciprocal access; on‑site waste consistent with planning scheme policy; operational works to settle detailed manoeuvring and line-marking (01:37:56–01:39:17; 24:40–25:43). Committee: Closure under LGR s254J(3)(g); delegation to CEO under LGA s257(1) beyond general financial limits (Item 9.1; minutes). Royal Mail: Heritage character retained via conditioned balustrade/colour scheme; noise limited (70 dBA), amplified music ceased by specified hours; complaints register mandated (Item 8.2; 02:09:21–02:14:33). Finance: FAGs reduction/cash timing risk noted; mitigation via reserves and quarterly tracking (Item 8.5; 04:01:10–04:02:44). Conflicts of Interest Nicola Wilson: Declarable COI (financial interest in neighbouring property) on Royal Mail item; left room during discussion/vote (Item 8.2; 02:01:34; minutes). Amelia Lorentson: Declarable COI (spouse employment at Page Furnishers) on Pomona Place Plan; Council permitted participation under s150ES LGA; did not vote (Item 8.4; 03:42:35–03:44:32; minutes). Short-term Accommodation & Food/Drink – 203–207 Gympie Terrace (MCU24/0074) Andrew Gaffney: 16 STA units, ground-floor tenancies; flood immunity lifts perceived height; setbacks varied; site coverage 53% supported due to articulation/activation (Item 8.1; 02:34–10:36). Officers: Parking: 56 on-site, formalising 6 Albert + 3 Gympie on-street; 10 motorcycle spaces; 7-space shortfall offset by public realm gains (44:24–47:01). Outcome: Landscaping minimum 375 m²; min 1.0 m soft landscape to all frontages; limit to 5 shade structures, no encroachment; on‑site refuse per Cond. 61 (Item 8.1; minutes; 01:12:29–01:23:11). New Hotel Works – Royal Mail, Tewantin (MCU23/0090 & DBW23/0073) Nadine (Officer): Two landscaped beer gardens, internal refurb, 13 units with ensuites; additional 30 car parks; heritage facade treatments conditioned (Item 8.2; 02:02:15–02:10:04). Acoustics: Barriers with min surface mass density 12.5 kg/m²; noise limiting at 70 dBA; amplified/live music limited by time; beer gardens permitted to midnight per AO (Item 8.2; 02:12:52–02:26:18). CCTV/Monitoring: Officers to explore CCTV coverage of public easement and feasibility of crowd‑noise monitoring before Ordinary Meeting (Item 8.2; 02:49:11–02:50:27). Parking: 5-space shortfall via infrastructure agreement; consultant supports based on demand profile (Item 8.2; 02:14:33–02:17:37). Clarification: Erroneous “playground” label on a plan; any future playground requires change application and acoustic reassessment (Item 8.2; 02:22:31–02:23:42; 02:50:27–02:51:55). Environmental & Climate Officers: FY23/24 footprint 45,118 tCO2‑e; landfill 47% (gas capture/flaring key); direct emissions down ~38% ex‑supply chain; solar saves circa $300–375k/yr (Item 8.3; 03:05:12–03:11:25). Correction: Electricity increase since 2021 is ~7% (not 22%) due to typo; roadmap/investment strategy to net zero forthcoming (03:08:17–03:08:36). Councillors: Queried LED streetlighting constraints (Energex ownership), sustainable procurement requirements in tenders, and staff sustainability initiatives (03:13:07–03:21:29). Finance & Procurement Pauline: Operating rev above budget (interest, goods/services, other rev, grants, rates); civil ops materials over due to arborist/drainage/weather; options to constrain spend under review (Item 8.5; 04:00:24–04:06:23). Pauline: FAGs methodology cut (~14%) realized; timing risk if advance unpaid; managed via reserves (04:01:10–04:02:44). Council: CEO delegated to execute electricity retail contracts for streetlights/large sites beyond general financial limits (Item 9.1; minutes). Place Planning – Pomona Michelle: Three engagement rounds; plan adjusted for clarity and quarry truck issues; implementation plan for short‑term actions approved (Item 8.4; 03:45:00–03:50:22). Councillors: Emphasis on crossings, shade/greening, “town team,” and sustained delivery vs earlier 2005 plan aspirations; Men’s Shed to be engaged in implementation (03:49:24–03:55:04). National Advocacy (ALGA Motions) Karen Finzel: Motions on Waste Reduction Act 2020 efficacy and end‑of‑waste criteria review; circular economy focus incl. soil remediation (Item 8.6; minutes). Amelia Lorentson: Motions on EU‑style urban wastewater reuse feasibility; mandated road user agreements for heavy freight cost‑sharing; senior doctor volunteer register/medical reserve (Item 8.6; 04:16:39–04:23:01).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 17 March 2025 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 12.30pm. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini (via Microsoft Teams) Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings APOLOGIES Nil. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 17 February 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 7. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES Nil. 8. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 8.1. MCU24/0074 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AND SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION (16 UNITS) AT 203 & 207 GYMPIE TERRACE, NOOSAVILLE The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Attachment 1 to the General Committee Minutes 17.03.2025 - Diagram provided by Applicant - Vehicle Turn Paths MCU2 0074 Attachment 2 to the General Committee Minutes 17.03.2025 - Diagram provided by Noosa Council - Vehicle Turn Paths MCU2 0074 Attachment 3 to the General Committee Minutes dated 17 March 2025 Updated Conditions (with errors amended as advised by staff) Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding Application MCU24/0074 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Food and Drink outlet and Short-term accommodation (16 Units) situated at 203 and 207 Gympie Terrace Noosaville, and A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 3 to the General Committee Minutes dated 17 March 2025 Updated Conditions (with errors amended as advised by staff); and B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Item A be amended to read: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1 to the Minutes - Updated Conditions supplied by staff, with the following amendment: 1. That Condition 3, under CD 2.02 be amended to read: CD 2.02 B B Ground Floor Plan 20.02.2025 prepared by Arkos Architects AmendmentsThe plan is to be amended to demonstrate that a minimum of 1.0 metre width of soft landscaping can be provided to all street frontages particularly around proposed urban infrastructure in Albert Street. The plan is to demonstrate a minimum of 375 square metres of landscaping is provided on site excluding outdoor dining and paved areas. Provide an updated calculation which separates all landscaping areas individually to comprise 375 square metres of landscaping. The plan is to amend the number remove all timber landscape elements of ‘Tide’ structures GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 to all a maximum of 5, with each structure to provide shade to a seat frontages and reinstate with landscaping.Carparks 2 - 12 are to be amended to accommodate landscaping infrastructure in accordance with the Landscaping Works conditions of this approval.The ground floor plan is to accommodate on site refuse collection in accordance with the engineering requirements stipulated in condition 61. Carried unanimously. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item A, 1 be amended to read: 1. That Condition 3, under CD 2.02 be amended to read: CD 2.02 B B Ground Floor Plan prepared by 20.02.2025 Arkos Architects AmendmentsThe plan is to be amended to demonstrate that a minimum of 1.0 metre width of soft landscaping can be provided to all street frontages particularly around proposed urban infrastructure in Albert Street. The plan is to demonstrate a minimum of 375 square metres of landscaping is provided on site excluding outdoor dining and paved areas. Provide an updated calculation which separates all landscaping areas individually to comprise 375 square metres of landscaping. The plan is to amend the number of ‘Tide’ structures to maximum of 5, with each structure to provide shade to a seat, with the structures to be built within the site boundary. Carparks 2 - 12 are to be amended to accommodate landscaping infrastructure in accordance with the Landscaping Works conditions of this approval. The ground floor plan is to accommodate on site refuse collection in accordance with the engineering requirements stipulated in condition 61. Carried unanimously. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item A, 2 be added as follows: 2. That Condition 61 be amended to read: 61. Prior to Council issuing a Development Permit for Operational Works, an amended Waste Management Plan must be submitted to council for approval that investigates both on street and on-site waste collection. On-site collection should be provided unless it is demonstrated that it cannot occur to the satisfaction of the Manager – Development Assessment. The amended Waste Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person who is experienced in waste management. For: Crs Wilson and Phillips Against: Crs Stockwell, Lorentson, Wilkie, Finzel and Wegener Lost. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding Application MCU24/0074 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use Food and Drink outlet and Short-term accommodation (16 Units) situated at 203 and 207 Gympie Terrace Noosaville and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 3 to the General Committee Minutes dated 17 March 2025 Updated Conditions (with errors amended as advised by staff), with the following amendment: 1. That Condition 3, under CD 2.02 be amended to read: CD 2.02 B B Ground Floor Plan prepared 20.02.2025 by Arkos Architects Amendments The plan is to be amended to demonstrate that a minimum of 1.0 metre width of soft landscaping can be provided to all street frontages particularly around proposed urban infrastructure in Albert Street. The plan is to demonstrate a minimum of 375 square metres of landscaping is provided on site excluding outdoor dining and paved areas. Provide an updated calculation which separates all landscaping areas individually to comprise 375 square metres of landscaping. The plan is to amend the number of ‘Tide’ structures to maximum of 5, with each structure to provide shade to a seat, with the structures to be built within the site boundary. Carparks 2 - 12 are to be amended to accommodate landscaping infrastructure in accordance with the Landscaping Works conditions of this approval. The ground floor plan is to accommodate on site refuse collection in accordance with the engineering requirements stipulated in condition 61. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 8.2. MCU23/0090 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – HOTEL (EXTENSION TO EXISTING HOTEL) AND DBW23/0073 - BUILDING WORK (DEMOLITION) AT 118 POINCIANA AVE & 26 DIYAN ST, TEWANTIN In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wilson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a financial interest in a neighbouring property that may be affected by the outcome of this application. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Wilson left the meeting. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding Application No. MCU23/0090 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Hotel (extension to existing Hotel) and DBW23/0073 Development Permit for Building Work Assessable Against the Planning Scheme (Demolition) situated at 118 Poinciana Avenue Tewantin and 26 Diyan Street Tewantin and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1; and B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 March 2025 to allow further information around acoustics and safety. Lost unanimously. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding Application No. MCU23/0090 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Hotel (extension to existing Hotel) and DBW23/0073 Development Permit for Building Work Assessable Against the Planning Scheme (Demolition) situated at 118 Poinciana Avenue Tewantin and 26 Diyan Street Tewantin and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. Cr Wilson returned to the meeting. 8.3. NOOSA COUNCIL ORGANISATIONAL CARBON FOOTPRINT FY23/24 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Sustainability and Climate Change Officer - Carbon Reduction to the General Committee dated 17 March 2025 regarding Noosa Council's Organisational Carbon Footprint; B. Note that the report includes a calculation of the 2023/2024 Carbon Footprint for Noosa Council as an organisation and its progress in emissions reduction; and C. Note that a separate report will be presented to a future Council Meeting on the roadmap and investment strategy to net zero emissions. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 Carried unanimously. 8.4. POMONA PLACE PLAN In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson, wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my husband, Chris Lorentson, is an employee of Page Furnishers Pty Ltd, where he has served as General Manager for the past 32 years. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias as there is no personal gain or loss involved. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Lorentson and determine that in accordance with s150ES of the Local Government Act 2009, and having considered the Councillor's conflict of interest as described, it is decided that Cr Lorentson may participate and vote on this matter relating to the Pomona Place Making Plan as a reasonable person would not have a perception of bias as there is no personal gain or loss involved. Carried unanimously. Cr Lorentson having declared a conflict of interest was not eligible to vote. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding the Pomona Place Plan Pilot; and A. Approve the final Pomona Place Plan in Attachment 1; B. Note the changes to the Draft Pomona Place Plan as a result of submissions in Attachment 2; C. Approve the preparation of an Implementation Plan for actions designated as short term in the Pomona Place Plan; and D. Note an Evaluation report will be provided to Council in the coming months once the Place plan has been endorsed and implementation has commenced with community. Carried unanimously. 8.5. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – FEBRUARY 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 outlining the February 2025 year to GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 8.6. PROPOSED MOTIONS FOR SUBMISSION TO ALGA NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding motions to the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly (NGA) 2025 and: A. Approve the following motion (refer Attachment 1), initiated by Cr Finzel, to be submitted to the Australian Local Government Association: "This National General Assembly calls on the Australian Government to provide a review to improve the efficiency and impact of the Waste Reduction Act 2020 in addressing the current and future circular economy needs, resource recovery and waste challenges to address how the Act operates to inform and take action at local government levels to respond to the needs of developing critical circular economy markets, including the viability of soil remediation within the Circular Economy to address social and environmental best sustainable practice as priority for local solutions to contribute to healthier communities, sustainable development, housing, and responsible resource management. Bioremediation and phytoremediation are both innovative, nature-based solutions for soil decontamination, fostering targets to effectively deliver place-based solutions for environmental and financial sustainability." B. Approve the following motion (refer Attachment 2), initiated by Cr Lorentson, to be submitted to the Australian Local Government Association: "This National General Assembly calls on the Australian Government to Commit to undertaking a feasibility study of implementing a policy similar to the European Union’s Urban Wastewater Treatment and Reuse framework as part of Australia’s efforts to achieve Zero Pollution goals." C. Approve the following motion (refer Attachment 3), initiated by Cr Lorentson, to be submitted to the Australian Local Government Association: "This National General Assembly calls on the Australian Government to collaborate with local governments to mandate road user agreements with industry, ensuring fair cost distribution among road users, including those responsible for increased freight loads that damage local government roads." D. Approve the following motion (refer Attachment 4), initiated by Cr Lorentson, to be submitted to the Australian Local Government Association: "The National General Assembly calls on the Australian Government to support the policy of Australian Medical Association Queensland (AMA, QLD) and the Australian Senior Active Doctors Association (ASADA) by: 1. Amending the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to establish a new registration category under AHPRA for senior doctors wishing to volunteer before retirement. 2. Waiving or significantly reducing registration fees and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements for this category. 3. Providing indemnity insurance for senior doctor volunteers at minimal cost. 4. Establishing an Australian Medical Reserve to address workforce shortages during emergencies." GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 E. Approve the following motion (refer Attachment 5), initiated by Cr Finzel, to be submitted to the Australian Local Government Association: "This National General Assembly calls on the Australian 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." F. Approve Cr Lorentson and Cr Finzel to attend and present the motions at the National General Assembly, should they wish to attend. Carried unanimously. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION 9.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACTS RENEWAL DELEGATION – RETAIL ELECTRICITY FOR STREETLIGHTS AND LARGE SITES CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing Item 9.1 Contracts Renewal Delegation – Retail Electricity for Streetlights and Large Sites. Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Procurement Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding contract renewal for retail electricity for streetlights and large sites, and A. Pursuant to section 257(1) of the Local Government Act 2009, delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise and execute the following contracts on behalf of Council: 1. Retail electricity for Streetlights; and 2. Retail electricity for Large Sites; and B. Resolve that the delegation in Item A above is not limited by any general financial delegations that apply to exercising the Chief Executive Officer’s powers, and may be exercised to bind Council to a contract sum that exceeds the Chief Executive Officer’s general financial delegation. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 MARCH 2025 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 5.10pm.
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.881
Yes. I'm going to 245. Okay, we're on. So, it's not on yet. Brian Stockwell 00:06.593
Yes, it is on. So welcome Councillors and everyone in the gallery to the General Committee Meeting for March open. We have all Councillors present except Councillor Wegener is attending via Teams and will vote electronically. We now move Councillors. Now move on to the Acknowledgement of Country and today we're going to consider the Pomona placemaking plan. So I thought it might be appropriate to use the words of Norman bond, the Chair and Director of Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation. And he said, "We acknowledge our ancestors and elders who over thousands of years have cared for country as skilled land. Shapers and placemakers with deep knowledge and connection to these landforms, waterways and rainforests. Country is where we connect with each other and our ancestors. It are at peace and find strength and connection with our community." Working together and the by embracing community, we can protect our shared values and aspirations for healthy and sustainable future. So, I it. I think that's a wonderful sentiment to consider as we move through today's agenda. We next have confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move the Minutes? That's moved, Councillor. Which minutes are we moving? We're the Minutes of the February General Committee Meeting. Frank Wilkie 01:36.349
Happy to second it, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 01:37.870
Thank you for being accurate in your. Sorry, who was the mover? Moved, Councillor Lorentson, second, Councillor Wilkie. Presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. There are no presentations nor are there any deputations. There was nothing referred from committee. Therefore, we move straight on to section 8, which is report directed to General Committee. And the first item is MCU 240074, development application for Material Change of Use for food and drink outlet and short-term accommodation, 16 units at 203 and 207 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville. And we have the Director, the manager, and the assessing officer from development control here, and I believe Andrew gaffney will give us a. Executive summary of the report. Andrew Gaffney 02:34.489
Yes, thank you chairman. Today we have for consideration a Material Change of Use application for short-term accommodation and food and drink outlet at the property at 203 to 207 Gympie Terrace at Noosaville. The site is a large site. It's one of the sort of catalyst sites within Noosaville being 3 thousand 750 square metres in an area and being that size has significant frontages to Thomas Street, Gympie Terrace and Albert Street. The existing development of the site includes a single two-storey commercial developments as on the 203 Gympie Terrace property and a former car wash and fuel station on the 207 Gympie Terrace property. All that existing development will be removed as part of the redevelopment process for the proposed use. Looking at the proposal, the ground level of the development will include four short-term food and drink outlets located at the corner of Thomas Street and Gympie Terrace, which is in accordance with the local plan. So local plan intention to activate that corner of the site. There will also be one short-term accommodation unit on the northeast corner of Albert and Gympie Terrace. The next two levels of the development will be comprising the short-term accommodation development across those two levels. So, as mentioned, a total of 16 units ranging in, I guess, density from one to four bedrooms. The development. Also includes basement which a of which will accommodate a total of 45 basement car parks and 11 ground-level car parks adjacent to the site's southern side boundary. So a total of 56 on-site car parking spaces. The streets to Gympie Terrace will be improved by including an additional three car parking spaces, complementing the existing three spaces on Gympie Terrace. Six on-street car parking spaces front in Gympie Terrace, plus eight motorcycle spaces on Gympie tours and then another six spaces on Albert Street, which are currently not formalised, so it's formalising both street frontages with on-street car parks. So that's the general sort of format of the development. The proposed development application requests variations to the planning scheme for a number of different aspects, primarily relating to building heights, the inclusion of rooftop terraces two rooftop terraces. At the upper level, setbacks to all frontages. Site coverage and waste management of the development. With regarding proposed maximum building height as outlined under the Tourism Accommodation Zone code, which the entire site is located within and both uses being code-assessable. Building height maximum is required to be a maximum of 12 metres from ground level. The current proposal exceeds that height to a total of Frank Wilkie 06:42.960
It's 13.9. Andrew Gaffney 06:44.920
13.9 Metres that's correct yes to the top of the actual pergolas on roof and then decreases to a maximum roof facia height of 10.2 metres or 11.5 metres above ground level. So when looking at the actual height of the building when other either ground level or the raised ground level due to flood levels I compared to think the proposed development would present as a maximum height of 11.5 metres from ground level. Our general assessment is that the existing development to the west of the site which includes the DeBos building combined with the current proposed height, the building height is generally considered to be an acceptable form of development and height for the property. Frank Wilkie 07:36.218
I a question. Brian Stockwell 07:38.877
Wait until we can use the executive summary to ask questions. Frank Wilkie 07:42.626
So is that a that's a no, yeah. Well, I'm going to. No, you can answer it, but it is generally done that we don't. It is a relatively informal meeting, but thank you for your latitude, Mr Chair. I just want to clarify the point you made height. The question about height, you're saying because that is a flood-prone area, the buildings are allowed to be built up. What height? An extra 1.5 metres from ground level? At is. The moment ranges between approximately 1.5 to 1.7. Yeah, which makes the total height higher but that is consistent with what's been allowed with other buildings adjoining and surrounding that particular development. That's right. Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it was an important point to clarify. It was. Thank you. Andrew Gaffney 08:34.346
Buildings are required to actually meet minimum floor level of 2.7 RL to be above flood level, which means that the actual basement car parking top of slab is required to be about one metre above ground level at the moment. So. That's why the actual the building presents higher as an overall height compared to the maximum building height of 12 metres. Thank you. The next variant planning scheme requested by the applicant relates to setbacks. The Tourism Accommodation Zone code requires that the general format of setbacks are six metres for the first and second floor, up for and eight third level, which is the maximum building height for the zone. The way the design works is that the there are a range of setbacks to each frontage so technically the development does not comply with setbacks because it moves in and out of that sort of range. I think looking at the way on Thomas Street for example the existing development sets to the boundary there has been a bit of flexibility given regarding the closest sort of tendency to the existing development to allow for decreased setback from the six metres to interface with existing development to the south. So in that circumstance the setback ranges from 3.5 to 6 metres at corner, which is in compliance with the setback at ground level. However the tenancies also include substantial setbacks to all to the Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street frontages to allow for that intention of using those ground level spaces for pedestrians. And ability to have an interactive space between the full path and the raised ground level so generally speaking the ground level setbacks are considered to be satisfactory to the frontages to Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street. The development also further increases the at the second and third level from six to eight metres which is supported. The development also includes number of contained planters at these levels which slightly comes into those setbacks but given will be improved with guess elevated container plantings we are supporting of that architectural treatment. The setbacks to Albert Street metres generally five metres to the actual first floor and then eight second floor which is generally which is supported for that sort of profile of setback from the street. There is a reduced setback at ground level to accommodate a communal open space. Involving a pool, a small pool and sort of communal recreation space associated with the pool but again that would be an expected facility for a short-term accommodation development at ground level so we are supportive of setback in this instance as well. The other variation to the scheme that the applicant has sought involves site coverage up to a maximum of 53 percent the current site coverage allowance is 45 percent we believe that the increase up to 53 percent is acceptable in this instance given the fact that the overall outcomes sought under the local plan have been achieved. Building is articulated. It includes a number of building recesses to all street frontages. The site has, the development is required to deal with approximately 178 lineal metres of street frontages which would be challenging. They have articulated the building. They've broken up form and basically the urban design reflects which, the sort of form which is supported under the local plan code and the Tourism Accommodation Zone code. So even though there has been a lifting of the site coverage in this instance, we believe that the overall outcome of the development is satisfactorily complies with the local plan outcome and is supported. The final I guess variance to the scheme is the issue of waste management. The applicant would like to retain the current I guess format of on-street collection. The existing development has progressed over the years initially approved for development back in 1970. Slide additions and building extensions have allowed to occur over the years as outlined in the report which has allowed the continued collection of waste from on-street. This development is a catalyst project. It has three street frontages and we believe has sufficient room and space to accommodate a on-site garbage collection which is in accordance with the planning scheme policy waste for white collection. The moment we are requiring that the development maintain an arrangement of on-site collection to push the development to a more contemporary and better a outcome for the know, on-street presentation development rather than having bins on-street. Brian Stockwell 14:24.181
That's it. Okay. Do we have questions? Amelia Lorentson 14:30.725
I'll start. I'm going to. I've got a simple question. Brian Stockwell 14:34.171
Go ahead, Tom. Go ahead, Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 14:39.018
With the setbacks in relating to sidewalk dining, some of the ground floor tenants or restaurants, how would that affect. Would the leniency affect the ability of the sidewalk dining to kind of move out into that open space where. Brian Stockwell 14:57.739
Is more of a sidewalk or a pedestrian crossing? Andrew Gaffney 15:04.878
Oh, move beyond site boundary, Councillor, or. The project at the moment does not anticipate, I guess, external dining to the pedestrian area, I suppose. Richard MacGillivray 15:21.381
The challenge, too, is with the increase in elevation. Councillor, is a result of the levels required to meet flood immunity. So, essentially, this development needs to support the commercial uses within the site itself. So you'll note from, I think there's some of the illustrations there, I'm trying to find the best one for you, which probably articulates that in the report. I'm not worried about the same actual sidewalk, the for pedestrians as well, but on the upper level, above the flood zone, in front of the shops. Patrick Murphy 15:56.012
So there is a capacity for pedestrian dining in that area. Of the report, you'll see some renders that are looking north on Thomas Street, and it shows that there are warnings that are provided, which will allow for activated outdoor dining. And protection from the elements. Andrew Gaffney 16:20.931
And I think the actual the Terrace levels have a very generous setback to the glazing line of about 11 metres on Gympie Terrace. So it's a substantial outdoor area which can be used for outdoor dining. The applicant has designated outdoor dining spaces for each tenancy so you know there is a mix of outdoor dining as well as you know fairly accessible areas for pedestrians to come and go. Okay just one yeah just my concern is that kind of a Mr. OC situation where it moves all the way out maybe even you know a little bit further than people anticipated. Tom Wegener 17:02.490
Where the dining keeps getting busier and taking over more space than where the pedestrians are being through the tables then. Just highlight that. Brian Stockwell 17:15.103
If we can keep to the questions please rather than the concerns until we're in debate please Council. Patrick Murphy 17:20.390
Councillor Wegener, can we just sort of add one a couple points. Andrew you've prepared an amended recommendation due to some numerical. Andrew Gaffney 17:28.867
That's right there was some typographic errors in some of the I guess building height and car parking numbers which were picked up at a late stage. I sent an updated report to Cathy this morning just to highlight those spaces of those errors so. Specifically condition six. Patrick Murphy 17:52.742
Um the internal use area has been increased from 446 four square metres to 451 in the condition. Nine it previously referred to 2.4 metres it should actually have.2 metres and condition 40 referred to 56 to 57 car spaces should received but it should have referred to 56 spaces. Frank Wilkie 18:17.156
Mr Chair can I just flag that I'm happy to move the motion with these changes, technical attached as part of the initial motion if that's helpful. Brian Stockwell 18:32.062
To do it there. Councillor Lorentson Amelia Lorentson 18:33.945
You had a question? I've got a few questions. Firstly, most of us have met with the applicant and we've also received emails from the applicant in relation to waste and recycling collection. The question I want to ask you is that email received is deletion conditions they would like deletion of condition 61 and would like the collection to be on site. Sorry, on street, not on site. And their reasons in a nutshell that it's not safe nor operationally efficient for waste and recycling bins to be collected on site. My question is have we detailed risk assessment on the proposed on-site waste collection in relation to the issues that they've raised in terms of pedestrian safety and manoeuvring challenges. Patrick Murphy 19:41.272
It might be time to ask we can have meeting of waste. We've got the manager also got the senior development engineer who's done some work with our infrastructure area on some manoeuvreability through the site. Thank you. I might just ask Dan to come up. I'm just pushing. So through the course of the application when the application was originally submitted the applicant proposed to have on-site waste collection in response to an information request the form of the development is modified that generally consistent with what's before you now and at that time the applicant proposed that the waste collection occur off-site as opposed to on-site we were we weren't supportive of that noting the scheme seeks for on-site collection noting it is a greenfield site where they're starting again so there's opportunity to for this development to be designed in a manner that accommodates on-site collection and also noting I think it's important to note the site is benefiting from increased site cover but that shouldn't be at the expense of providing on-site servicing and other matters that need to be addressed on site so you've done some work with our you your Dan was involved assessment of the application and looked at the plans that were submitted by the applicant has identified some suppose irregularities in terms of some of the information that's being provided but also done, we've our own assessment as well and Dan can probably talk to some of the images that he's provided to Cathy and kyrone the broader sort of strategic intent we've that we're seeking to achieve with the waste management in the area Dan 21:35.185
So I guess just initially the applicants consulting engineer record provided Council with a set of vehicle turning parts for a heavy rooted vehicle those turn paths demonstrated that the vehicle could safely enter the site from uh Albert Street manoeuvre through the site and safely exit onto Thomas Street those plans like I said were prepared by recall the project rpeq further down the line in the application process Council received additional turn paths for the side loader series b which is typical of council's waste collection vehicle that would be used to manoeuvre on site to service on site sorry just on you can see on the screen there that left turn path for the heavy rigid vehicle is able to safely manoeuvre through that site and exit onto Thomas Street and we right that the side loader series which is again typical of the waste collection vehicle is unable to safely as it takes out the car parks in the median there I'd like to highlight just the difference between the heavy rigid vehicle and a larger less manoeuvrable vehicle than the standard waste collection which is shorter in length and objectively more manoeuvrable from engineering perspective and following our assessment we believe there's insufficient information to suggest that on-site waste collection isn't possible because a larger vehicle safely exit onto Thomas Street. In conjunction with the infrastructure services team we undertook our own turn path assessment that confirmed that a heavy rigid vehicle was able to safely manoeuvre through the site and exit onto Thomas Street Jessica Phillips 23:38.876
Just to clarify then when I'm looking at that image there's a car park on the property adjoining not the property next the commercial property next to it which shows when it's coming out it actually takes out that car park on both images so when these details are done is there consideration to a car being parked or is there suggestion that would be a removed car park because both of those image shows it'll clip the back of car parks Dan 24:16.796
Yeah. Yep so it is noted that car park is I wouldn't say oversized but larger than what a standard car park would be for this sort of area there may be an opportunity as part of an operational works application to revisit the line marking on Thomas Street to potentially avoid the loss of that car park. Richard MacGillivray 24:40.184
And Councillor, can I also just add to dan's point that so we're obviously at the Material Change of Use stage so there is ability through what we call the operational work stage which is with a detailed comes in which is where more of the specific analysis and design work is done in terms of can a vehicle safely navigate through there without you know impacting on the existing infrastructure it might result in sometimes slight modification to other arrangements and layout which is to ensure that it can any impact on existing infrastructure or line marking so further detailed work can be done but I guess what Dan is showing is that the analysis that's been undertaken can show that generally get a an HRV vehicle, a through or large vehicle through the site, which is already being serviced for other deliveries and goods through there as well as part of it so waste can also be serviced within the site and that would come down to a detailed design stage at operation works. Another question? Unidentified Speaker 25:44.147
Another question for the Chair, would that access Nicola Wilson 25:51.200
Going on to the neighbours neighbour's property as well on that driveway and could it cause conflict with incoming vehicles turning to the driveway? Dan 26:02.835
There's an existing easement just over that access driveway which provides the opportunity for both of those lots to use that access way in theory there could potentially be some sort of conflict but that could easily be managed internally by the site Amelia Lorentson 26:19.805
So does require an easement consent from parties. Both property owners that's my understanding so what happens in the situation when one property owner declines consent it's an existing easement that's right okay so it does not require then them consent for from the adjoining owner if the vehicle traverses over his property line Andrew Gaffney 26:52.492
So is the easement the currently approximately four metres wide Amelia Lorentson 26:56.872
And I believe sufficiently wide enough yeah I Andrew Gaffney 26:59.501
Think this service vehicle could actually be located entirely within the easement and exit the site and I think Dan and I spoke briefly about that issue previously to basically say that you shouldn't necessarily involved moving on to other sites Frank Wilkie 27:17.437
Just a clarifying question Mr Chair. To staff, are you saying that both these diagrams were provided by the applicant? Yes. So the first one shows a heavy rigid vehicle which is a larger vehicle, the applicant showed that it could traverse the site safely and exit onto Thomas Street safely without interfering any car parks or buildings but further down the track applicant provided this diagram showing a movement of the side loader vehicle which is smaller than the heavy rigid vehicle but this one is unable to safely traverse that's correct even though it's a smaller vehicle that is correct okay yeah and we did a and we this is why having trouble accepting the veracity of Patrick Murphy 28:11.656
That is the information that is correct and further studies that have been done by our own internal engineers yes to do sweat path diagrams of the heavy rigid vehicle correct yeah which Cathy also has support which to pull the notion that the vehicle can manoeuvre through the site Frank Wilkie 28:35.135
Follow-up question yeah. Mr Chair? Currently waste collection is on 240 litre bins daily from the football so yeah what it could have it might have a couple of 1100s but my sweet teeth mostly 240s okay what I can answer your question when we're on site Brian Stockwell 28:51.455
1,100 For cardboard recycling and 360 and 240 on site at the moment Frank Wilkie 28:59.173
And what's larger bins which will only involve collections a fewer times per week. Well the proposal would be daily collections okay um of 1100 size bins which are a larger entity rear entry truck which is of the same size as the MRV. Is a lower noise truck so the entry into the vehicle is from a lower height whereas a side entry truck higher height yes so if you have got glass and bottles you'll actually make more noise yeah so the 1100s are a lower noise vehicle are also deemed to be a safer type of vehicle for the way they operate ie the driver has to get out of the vehicle and load the bin to the vehicle so that the truck is stationary yeah and the reason why you're referencing the new supplying Noosa planning policy waste management code which requires waste management to occur on site as opposed to on the street is to minimise impact on neighbours and street but also you believe the site is sufficiently large to that's correct enable on-site collection like it is a range of other businesses across the show Amelia Lorentson 30:29.519
Thank you I'm to follow up on that question so when we talk about amenity impacts or noise impacts disturbance from visiting the site is actually on-site collection will have more amenity issues noise disturbances then it's kerbside do you agree that kerbside collection would have less noise disturbances to neighbouring or residents or twinkies I think is the resort next door they're going to be more impacted if it's data bits. We've got a question. Brian Stockwell 31:06.940
I think so. Do you think wouldn't? That on site will create more noise impacts than on street? Frank Wilkie 31:13.391
Well I mean without the actual data to check that out in terms of the decibel reading, the decibel at the truck side entry to a rear entry it would be lower from than a side entry. The act of lifting the bin high will create more noise. The length of travel on this drawing, I haven't got that information, I'd have to come back and take that on notice. But I guess the critical fact is the timing of that collection. If at five o'clock in the morning than the noise reverberates and travels we have the ability as we run the contractor to change the timing from six seven eight that's a scheduling ability that we have within Council and we currently do that and that goes through planning as a condition in terms of when we're allowed to schedule and collect on site so if planning were to put that waste as to when we can collect could be $7.30.8 o'clock, 9 o'clock and more. Brian Stockwell 32:16.245
If I could just. While we're in the difference between the two approaches, the initial question was about risk mitigation. I think I recall in the report that you suggested the sidearm at the front of the premises was a high risk, is that correct? Frank Wilkie 32:29.975
Yeah, in general we, not only an amenity point of view, visual the sidearm action is riskier activity due to the nature of the activity itself. Driver is in a truck, he's focusing on an arm that is going out, picking a bin up and lifting it out of the side. We have numerous new misses of that activity currently and it's across Australia for that activity. Cyclists, pedestrians and even vehicles. A rear lift truck, effectively the driver has to remove himself from the truck. Typically he goes to the bin and loads the bin from where it's stored and locks it onto the back of the vehicle and it loads the truck from So the vehicle is stationary, he's controlling the arm and the bin as it moves in from a position. At court. Truck. And if it's on site, obviously there's less vehicles, public and bicycles in the vicinity of that truck. Brian Stockwell 33:35.635
When will we decide then? One more with your side lift. Putting aside the historic practice, when you put out a wheelie bin, are you allowed to put it on the road itself or does it have to be on footpath? It should be on the road reserve. You're avoiding question, I get it. Patrick Murphy 33:56.303
If I could just add, I mean, we're not, this is a relatively busy area and there's a lot of apartments and there is an element of noise that's associated with waste collection that's existing in this area. I think our quick look at this was, we had a look and I think from the middle of the residence behind, middle of that building to the street in Albert Street, it's about 29 metres and it's a similar distance to where the bins are located on this subject site. So I think it's not unreasonable change that would be occurring. Richard MacGillivray 34:38.570
And there is a condition refers to servicing after 7 o'clock. So no earlier collection at is a condition for servicing. Which includes other deliveries as well for commercial businesses, food and other things that restaurants might be preparing for the day as well. So all of those vehicles can only enter after 7 o'clock in the morning which is more reasonable and akin to activity in centre zone. Brian Stockwell 35:03.380
Do we have any other questions? Karen Finzel 35:10.306
Oh, yes. Thank you, oh, thank you. Brian Stockwell 35:10.940
Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 35:12.621
A waste containment area in some places throughout the Shire, 5 or 6 metre high design, that hasn't been recommended. This application, how come we didn't explore that opportunity to have all the waste on site in one single area to contain all the bids and everything? Andrew Gaffney 35:42.637
The separation of the two areas for the waste, the left-hand side deals with the commercial waste. That's located at the back of tenant C4 there, you can see. Then if you move over to the right-hand side of the, I guess the communal area, there is another area of waste collection there for short-term accommodation component. So there is two separate sort of areas. The, why that was separated was probably because one separating the actual function of using commercial sort of spaces and staff versus the short-term accommodation which is purely linked with that component of the building. So I think that was a way of actually just separating the waste areas between the different types what are the types of uses proposed for the site? Jessica Phillips 36:34.834
Thank you very much. I need a little bit more clarity on the fact, circling back to the easement of the neighbouring property. I just feel a little uncertain it's sort of back on the back of what you had asked. Can you just clarify again, so there's an easement on the neighbouring commercial property, and I thought I heard that if there's no consent from them. To doesn't work, to be, because I feel like that wasn't clear to me. Patrick Murphy 37:11.065
Well the easements, my understanding is easements across both properties, going by the aerial photos, it's quite a wide easement that's existing, we'd have to go back terms of the easement to see exactly what it grants, but suffice to say that it's being used by both properties at the moment to allow for vehicles to come in and out of both sites. And that's evidenced by aerial photography, which shows car parks to the rear of each building. Site. Brian Stockwell 37:41.535
And just to follow up, generally the wording of access easements are broad in nature. They give reciprocal rights for anyone to access their site for lawful purposes. So I'm likely to refuse that a further consent would be required. Is that right? Patrick Murphy 37:57.257
I don't believe further consent would be required and I know we're focusing on waste management at the moment. There are other vehicles that will be moving through this site and that has not been raised by the applicant as being a problem. Jessica Phillips 38:09.310
Is just one more question then to follow up because you quoted "there was sufficient space for waste collection" and I just want to clarify it's sufficient because I don't get a lot of confidence out of that word. That was what you said, "sufficient." You said that there's want to have some confidence in work. Dan 38:34.391
The "sufficient." The term pass up we've received and prepared demonstrate that an appropriate sized waste collection vehicle can manoeuvre through the site, stop, be serviced, and exit the site. Brian Stockwell 38:47.011
And I think that may relate to the number of bins, so the enclosures, adequate the purposes. Andrew Gaffney 38:55.998
That's right. I mean, a typical operation, I would assume, the vehicle will enter from Albert Street, it will stop, it will collect the short-term accommodation bin room, then and proceed out through the southern area. Onto Thomas Street. The same sort of arrangement would happen, a truck would come in, collect from the commercial bin room, and then leave, so they don't necessarily have to do any manoeuvring on site, they are travelling in a linear path across the southern boundary. Travelling so that's a huge advantage for things like this, because typically developments need to accommodate turning circles and turning points for vehicle, refuse so this is a, it's a fairly, pretty much as efficient as you can get so far as a traffic refuse vehicle. Amelia Lorentson 39:38.273
And to clarify, that the operational works plan will rule nut out all the details. Correct, Councillor. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 39:49.010
Can I clarify as well, so will the other businesses on Thomas Street continue to have an on-street pickup and will that still be around 6am and then this will be an additional service? Comes after seven years? Frank Wilkie 40:00.176
Yeah, we accommodate that now, so we have other developments that we have to go after a certain period of time. It's a scheduling element within our gift with cleanaway and through our contract. Unidentified Speaker 40:13.479
But the other businesses on Thomas Street will continue to be serviced on site? Frank Wilkie 40:17.695
Sorry, the street, on the street, some them are So not kentucky fried chicken, red rooster, that is on site servicing now as we speak. So other areas, I guess the further that happens in and around the area, this is I guess our development process now. And our brief to go forward is to get more and off on site rather than off site for various reasons. Would it be fair to say that in practice, the is what where businesses, waste collection will be on site, but it's accepted that some tenancies are so small, on site collection is just not possible. But the preference. With large? With sites is on site. Exactly. And I think there's several, you know, there's several benefits. To on site and some of which I think we've raised, but there are other ones which are critical is visual amenity. Typically, we are a very operational business is wasted. In terms of work. Of we're collecting a lot of bins, 20,000 to 25,000, 30 sometimes a day in Noosa alone. If truck is slightly late and the person who's putting that bin out is a paid individual from a corporate body, that person tends to and has in the past left the bin out. So typically if it's a daily collection, the norm can become the bin is left out on the street. So the on-site removes one failure mode in the process of collection, collecting waste. That person is not needed. So you're not relying on a person taking that bin, putting it on the street and then removing it off the street. The rear service 1100 thank side. Site, the driver gets out and takes the bin from the bin store, puts it on the truck and puts it back. One failure mode, which happens regularly even today, is gone. So less disruption to the street and neighbourhood. The Exactly, yeah. Jessica Phillips 42:28.722
Just a follow-up question. Next to this development, the curve, it will still be on the street, so pick up, so they'll still be right next to it. Correct. Collection. But different service. Frank Wilkie 42:45.958
Okay. The service decided if they're 240s and 360s or a sidearm, different type of. Truck. Brian Stockwell 42:55.754
Having said that, if the usement's there, and they elected to put a 1100 behind their premises, they could probably roll that out and put it in, as well as those three shops or whatever that sit in front of them. Is that a question, Mr Chair? Is that correct? Frank Wilkie 43:12.134
I think, we I think you know we have taken this approach with other areas and worked with businesses to move towards the on-site collection we've done this in the junction and other areas works very well. We get the bins off the street, we improve the health and safety and the visual amenities. Of the street. So it does work. And working with what you just said in terms of getting businesses to identify the same location to put their bins, they actually end up saving some money because they haven't got a person who's taking the bin to the street. Mr Chair, I'm happy to move. Amelia Lorentson 43:48.730
I have some further questions if that's alright. Thank you. Car parking. I want to talk a little bit about car parking importance and value that our community place on car parking spaces, given the particularly in this precinct. My question is how many parking spaces are being provided within the boundary for accommodation and retail purposes if I could have that breakdown and is there a shortfall of parking spaces within the property boundary and what's the exact number? Andrew Gaffney 44:27.954
Thanks Councillor, yes the site accommodates 56 in total. Of those 56, 29 spaces are required for the short-term accommodation and that leaves 26 27 available for the food and drink outlets. There's a shortfall of seven spaces in total. However, there are up to 10 on-site motorcycle spaces as well as the creation of an additional formalised formalising of six spaces on Albert Street and three spaces on Gympie Terrace. So, when compared against the performance outcome of the actual code, the development does provide sufficient car parking. For the development. Amelia Lorentson 45:13.755
So, formalising of car spaces on Albert Street, so they're not formalised at the moment. No, it's just basically Albert Street is just a formed road. Andrew Gaffney 45:28.667
There's no guttering kerb and channel and there's no designated sort of line marked car parking spaces. Amelia Lorentson 45:34.455
So are we offsetting car parking onto public land? I'm just wondering, does this align with our public land policy of setting car park shortfalls onto public land? Patrick Murphy 45:54.913
You might be suggesting that we would normally say contributions parking. Amelia Lorentson 45:58.598
So we have 72 thousand dollars. I think that for the shortfall is that correct? Patrick Murphy 46:03.887
If an infrastructure agreement would be required I'm not sure the exact dollar value but in this instance because of the provision of car spaces in the public realm that are being initiated through this development we did not request that we enter into an infrastructure agreement for offsetting. Is that normal practice? It is not unreasonable to consider the benefit in the public realm for short hauling car parking. We did it with Hilton Terrace, the development there on Hilton Terrace. There was some car parking that was provided. You may recall at the front of the property. We also looked at it with the development that was occurring out at Elm Street. The initial commercial development which occurred out there, was going to be an improvement in the number of car spaces that were to be provided in Opal Street. Andrew Gaffney 46:59.643
We did it as well, didn't Yep, sedona. And I think also with this one, there's a number of existing crossovers on Gympie Terrace which are being closed, which will contribute more car parking on the street, which would not have been able to be provided typically. Richard MacGillivray 47:15.953
Councillor, can I just add, yeah, to the points raised, so there's, a, holistic approach to looking at the car parking when we've got particularly multiple sites that are being consolidated, so there's actually an efficiency created because all those extra crossovers that would have been required are no longer there so parking's being looked at holistically. You're right can separate the what's on the within the site itself but overall in terms of the uses proposed the assessment provided in terms demand of what the actual demand is staff are comfortable that on balance there's sufficient parking available for the uses proposed. Do you have a question? Jessica Phillips 47:55.261
Just in relation to infrastructure agreements, was there consideration that with this applicant? In terms of? What we're talking about, the streetscaping, any type of enhanced outside the development application itself? I'm thinking for a short plan, I'm thinking just broader. Community benefits. Patrick Murphy 48:16.790
So when. I think you might be alluding to the undergrounding of power, I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about, but when there was a pre-lodgement meeting on this one, 22 or 23, the then manager of planning addressed, there was conversation at the time about the undergrounding of power and maybe entering into a shared agreement with Council on the costs. At that time, there was no real information provided. The applicant was requested to provide further details about cost to enhance that conversation. Sometime later, I was approached by the planning consultant for this application seeking letter that they could provide to the energy provider. Whether we would condition the requirement for underground power. Would say that we wouldn't and the reasons for it. And I did provide a letter saying that we wouldn't. Conditioner and there would be unreasonable condition to do so. It would not be a reasonable relevant condition to require the developer to do that. There's been no further communication in regard, no. so cost provided. I think that's something would sit outside of this proposal if Council wants to enter into conversations with the developer and to, you know, to forecast those works and costs from a budget perspective as well. Richard MacGillivray 49:45.559
Can I just add question? I to patrick's comments to the it's important just to remember this it's a code-assessable development application so it's actually a consistent envisaged use in the planning scheme so our actual assessment is quite controlled I guess in terms of what we can assess and not like other impact assessable applications where we consider other relevant matters and you know broader community benefit arguments so essentially our limitations on our assessment are purely to the codes that are triggered through the assessment process so we are quite confined around what we can get out of the process as such and we've just got to really assess those performance outcomes and benchmarks as well so that limits the focus and narrowness I guess of our assessment given we don't decide within statutory time frames can be a deemed approval and then we are only obliged to then provide conditions so hopefully that helps just to address the clarify the comments yes Karen Finzel 50:48.507
Just moving away from the issues we've already covered just interested in asking some questions about the shade panels or the shelter the planning scheme does ask for you know shade and landscaping to soften the built environment can you talk to me a bit about I believe you've requested them to be removed yes given the community values our amenity opportunity to seek for you know our elderly population and landscapes my question is thank you why that's been removed Andrew Gaffney 51:27.113
I think when you look at the intention the development outcomes envisaged under the neighbourhood plan code under the local plan code they talk Thomas Street and Gympie Terrace being a key corner it's meant to project a subtropical form of architecture and openness a sort of a permeable space between public and sort of raised tendencies I think what we're trying to do there is basically provide that sort of visual openness to the corner the applicant as final amendment to that the corner set the development back six metres on the corner of Thomas Street to also assist with providing sight lines through those spaces from Thomas Street which is also an outcome intended under the local plan framework and character plan so the inclusion of so many shade structures along Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street were basically seen as being another sort of I guess screening or built form along those sort of streetscapes which would be preferred to be improved with landscaping rather than structures or screen elements which again provides another sort of visual barrier to the actual site between the upper level and the sort of street level. Karen Finzel 52:48.905
In support of the architects seeking for this element to complement the rest of the building and given we're looking at a really significant site that is you know okay yes um is there a way we can include those elements because those elements can be used like for example Noosa Junction where they're landscaping. Brian Stockwell 53:12.711
We'll keep with that question. Karen Finzel 53:13.954
Which one? Brian Stockwell 53:15.317
The one you started with. Frank Wilkie 53:16.620
Is there a way to be retained? I think the question was can the almonds be included? What was interested in. Patrick Murphy 53:23.290
Plans show at least 11. Some plans show more. Some plans, all the plans show the ones on Thomas Street as cantilevering over the property boundary, so that wouldn't be suitable. They do occupy areas for which improved landscaping could be provided in our opinion and I think that you don't use in my mind built form to soften built form they are landscape the Noosa principles around landscaping built form being within a landscape environment but at the end of the day it's really for councils to debate as to whether you consider it's reasonable to have these structures, number of them. And what you accept I think we've made it clear our position on it and I think I've sent an email to Councillors this morning which provides some evidence you fact that they'll cover approximately 26 of the site's frontage when you take in other areas that sterilised through the steps and ramps probably another 20 so almost half the site is occupied by the structures or these other elements, and it does sit upon podium. On a podium you've retaining wall, so landscaping is very important. Karen Finzel 54:43.582
Question Through the Chair? Question sure. So, when you assess these applications, do you often recommend shrubs and vegetation at varying heights to soften like the built form for example like a retaining wall or the built environment that's had to be put in to address say, flooding? Patrick Murphy 55:05.186
The operational works approval will address the specifics of the landscaping that's required we'll certainly need to see through the Material Change of Use process some concepts around landscaping where it's to be placed that'll be reviewed by our environment officer who will consider whether that's reasonable and he'll do the work at the operational work stage as I said to get that detailed design and those layers of landscaping that's required Jessica Phillips 55:35.382
Question I just got a bit confused how many sorry Patrick how many can to leave up Patrick Murphy 55:42.453
In time well there's the ones on Thomas Street there appears to be five on the plan that I'm looking at and they all extend over the property boundary only partially but notwithstanding the structure shouldn't be in that in the public realm. Jessica Phillips 56:05.327
And so to clarify the condition is to remove the ones that you're the five? Patrick Murphy 56:11.874
No the condition is to remove them all so the ones that face Thomas Street and Gympie Terrace are also being removed. Andrew Gaffney 56:22.085
I guess when you look at the placement of those structures as well they're directly over some of the landscaping beds so I think in preference we would prefer the landscaping to thrive rather than be shaded by a number of built form shading devices which can shade all that sort of space so we want the landscaping to be thriving landscape so we'd like to remove those sort of impediments to the actual the growth of the landscaping along the frontages Patrick Murphy 56:50.037
And noting there is awnings that come off the building to provide landscape that's right provide shade in the podium area Andrew Gaffney 56:57.580
As part of the terraces on Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street the applicants proposing number of pergola structures with retractable awnings that go back and forth so there is a degree of coverage sort brand level which can accommodate shade and comfort for people using those spaces. Nicola Wilson 57:14.480
Have there been any discussions with the architect on this so just thinking if it could have been something else he could have proposed or Unidentified Speaker 57:22.605
Just feel uncomfortable taking something away from holistic design so have there been any kind of negotiation on how else we could achieve this effect? Andrew Gaffney 57:31.650
No not at the stage Councillor Wilson I think it's fairly clear under the local plan code which talks about maintaining clear sight lines between the inside of tenancies and the street these are alternating sort of shade structures which there wasn't a great deal of information to provide but I do believe they pivot in response to the movement of the tides or some sort of inter-relationship between the two I guess depending on what sort of orientation this the shade devices would be at it would create a degree of screening which I thought was in conflict with the actual outcome of the codes. Amelia Lorentson 58:15.151
I've got a couple more questions. Parking again, back to again, community have made it really clear. Point of order. Please. There's been a lot of liberty given to other speakers at the table. I've said one sentence and I've already been reprimanded. I also think there's been too much commentary. My question, thank you. Brian Stockwell 58:41.720
Questioning which has highlighted to me sometimes. Been too much commentary. Amelia Lorentson 58:44.578
Thank you. My question, in of. Question in terms of providing has there been any parking provided in the plans for commercial vehicle deliveries and if not where would commercial vehicles park and offload? Andrew Gaffney 59:03.680
Ms Councillor, there is an MRV space at the within the southern grand level car parking area on the northern side of that car park so that is where the intended sort of vehicles will arrive from Albert Street park in the MRV space and service the back of the food and drink outlets that's the intended space. Amelia Lorentson 59:23.384
So that's the designated space. Also in terms of the draft Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan which is hasn't been endorsed at the moment did the plans align with community feedback and I'm thinking more widening of the footpaths opposite the development and the scooter parks which I think was there some concerns raised during the engagement process have you aligned your decisions or was there any reference made to the community sentiment around that precinct Andrew Gaffney 01:00:01.566
I think when we were doing the initial consultation with the applicants engaged consultants it was in the early stages of the foreshore master plan development and like you say it wasn't adopted what was fairly clear was that it was meant to be a pedestrian I guess access way to the north of the corner and we spoke to the applicants design team about maybe meshing in with how that might work and that's why they came up with that sort of broad set of stairs on the corner of Thomas Street and Gympie Terrace to provide a fairly easy transition a easy transition from terraces down the upper level terraces down to the corner and across to the north so I think from a permeability point of view that was the way in which the sort of applicant team tried to you know future proof the design so that when that sort of final master plan does get adopted it does provide that connection. Infrastructure services have been aware of what's been going on so far as this application is concerned and they have been. Providing support for the way it's gone so far as the layout goes. I appreciate it, Amelia Lorentson 01:01:09.813
Thank you Andrew. Brian Stockwell 01:01:13.415
Just before we do, Cathy there's been a request for one of the latest renderings. It wasn't in the report but it was in this morning's email. Do you have access to those? Karen Finzel 01:01:25.840
Which email? Is that the email? In the report on the page. It is nine. Patrick Murphy 01:01:30.392
I don't know if I've sent it to you. I'll forward now. Is it the one. In the report. Is that different from the one that's you emailed us this morning? Sorry, from the Chair? The ones with the yellow boxes around? Yes. Yeah. I can forward that to Cathy now to make sure it's the right one. Karen Finzel 01:01:50.836
It's the same? Yes. Okay, if that's the same, Cathy, it's on page nine in the actual report? Yes. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:20.227
Did you get that one in the actual one 1? Attachment 2? Karen Finzel 01:02:24.350
I thought it was just in the report. Page 9. Unidentified Speaker 01:02:36.027
All right, I'll give you attachment four. Karen Finzel 01:02:45.901
Attachment 4? Well, it's got proposed renderings and attachment. Unidentified Speaker 01:02:56.925
It's a G-Shock capitalist version. Capitalism. Which. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:03:21.624
That one. So do you have any further questions on that? Karen Finzel 01:03:30.642
Yes, I do. Only because, like, for people in the gallery and people at home, and for ourselves, for clarity, when we talk about the structures that needed removing, can you please clearly talk us through that image to talk about the reason, what's been removed and why. Andrew Gaffney 01:03:51.413
The image shows basically a line of landscaping on the left-hand side of the image that's it and that's basically the I guess the Thomas Street property frontage along that sort of landscaping edge to the right of that landscaping you'll see a pergola structure that is within the actual Thomas Street and on top of that you can see elevation a retractable awning device which will move in and out and provide some shelter to those external sort of open plaza bars areas. The two brown structures on the left-hand side of the image are the tide actuated pivot shade devices which of are like the columns of which are located I believe on the frontage so the actual operable screening element will pivot between being over the road reserve and I guess partially within the site itself. So the request is to remove those structures so that the landscaping area beneath it has an opportunity to accommodate maybe some opportunities for larger planting which might grow up above sort of height. The current, um, planting pallet would be limited to the smaller plants which wouldn't interfere with the Tide structures and, um, wouldn't require, I guess, ongoing landscaping work on a regular basis to cut them down and to sort of, you know, ensure that they don't grow up too high. Um, so what's being proposed to be amended is the removal of those structures on the left-hand side of the image. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:41.224
So, Andrew, in front of me, I've got acceptable outcome number 14B, which states that, um, the development includes detailing and articulation for horizontal emphasis, including awnings, fascia boards, um, parapat walls and upper level verandas or balconies. Is not what we're looking at consistent with that outcome? Andrew Gaffney 01:06:07.765
I would say what's consistent with the outcome is the incorporation of the retractable awning structure. I think once we start to delve in and sort of toggle between private and public space, we're sort of, you know, having our cake and eating it too to a degree. I mean, I think the development satisfies that by providing that retractable structure and providing shade at that grade level. I just think the shade structures provide an unnecessary visual sort of barrier between the private and the public spaces and possibly, you know, restrict the type of planting that can be achieved along those frontages. Sorry, I think it's a good question. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:49.282
Just one last question. Just a last question, is it reasonable or, you know, correct me, is it unreasonable to request maybe an independent architect to provide some input in this? Because it's, I don't know, just throwing it at you, Andrew, just so that we just get a third party that can give us an idea of whether it's appropriate or whether it compromises the integrity of the book form. Patrick Murphy 01:07:21.353
So the application is code-assessable and we had to, I won't say beg, but it meeting, was challenging to get it to this meeting, so if it's not decided by the Ordinary Meeting it will go deemed approved so there might be some limitations in what we can achieve in that time frame. We did have an architect that reviewed the we might have to go back and have a look at what comments they made around works within the frontage but it's most unusual for Council to support something right on the boundary of the development. Mr Chair. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:08:02.175
Is it one of the fundamental principles of planning that development applications, the infrastructure provided, must be within the property boundary? And to follow up the question, how could Noosa look if we started approving development applications that extended beyond the property boundaries? Patrick Murphy 01:08:20.594
We certainly wouldn't seek to approve development outside the property boundary and yeah, it would be dominant built form, very urban environment. I think my opinion and some of the other perspectives that I provided in my email earlier today. I think those structures are quite dominant when you look at the accumulation of four or five, six of them in one frontage. Very, very dominant built form and no disrespect but not overly aesthetically pleasing either in my mind in terms of materiality. So just to clarify, it's Frank Wilkie 01:08:57.034
A fundamental principle that developments must be contained within their property boundaries. That's correct. Brian Stockwell 01:09:02.888
Now, I've a question. I've got a question. Because it is a key song, give me the big song. Of green landscaping versus screaming, looking at, you know, trying to reduce the heat of our pavements and all that. If we gave you to Thursday to come up with a condition that gave some flexibility, my view is perhaps the articulation and the fact they move up and down is creating too many problems some form of timber screening as part of the landscaping solution may be, you know, with less, maybe something built form may be something that sits. What's the question? So is if we, is there a possibility to put this decision off with general guidance and do it at the operational work stage? Patrick Murphy 01:09:52.502
There is, potentially is, there is a draft condition that I've provided Councillors themselves, you might Brian Stockwell 01:10:00.308
Like to table that. That's the only question. I can hear the arguments on both sides. Richard MacGillivray 01:10:05.215
Yeah, it could be an opportunity to, yeah, to look at some sort of balanced outcome to improve the landscaping element and maybe reduce or lessen the sort of physical built form, particularly in that frontage area. Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:10:22.325
Thank you. So, yeah, I do have a question. How would Noosa look if we missed the opportunity on to explore opportunities to. Find a compromise. Brian Stockwell 01:10:33.643
I think you're using questioning for debating, leave it for the time being. Unidentified Speaker 01:10:37.642
I'll ask you a question. Karen Finzel 01:10:42.121
No, it's fine. Was going to ask about the amendment, Jessica Phillips 01:10:44.102
If you can go. Okay. Can I on get some clarity on how much of this is actually on the road reserve, if that's the sticking point? Patrick Murphy 01:10:52.125
Well, it's not the sticking point. Is the number of them, where they're set back and what could be provided from their location. I mean, the ground floor plan shows, I think it's five. The render that was up before showed, I think, four. So, you know, we've got plans that are a bit inconsistent with each other, but of those that face Thomas Street, which the ground floor plan, I think, shows five, they partially overhang. So whether it's hundreds of millimetres is probably the extent, three, four hundred millimetres. But notwithstanding, there shouldn't be any encroachment. Good. Karen Finzel 01:11:36.603
I just have a question then. So I do have an amendment to address this, but in terms of process of the meeting does it have to be made first? Frank Wilkie 01:11:47.785
I'll move a motion Mr Chair. I move that the Council note the report by the senior development planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 March 2025 regarding this application for development change of use, food and drink outlet and short-term accommodation, 16 units, situated at 203 and 207 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville and approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment three to the General Committee minutes dated 17th of March 2025, updated condition. With errors amended as advised by staff, which we ran through previously. And B, note the report is provided in accordance with section 63 in brackets 5 of the Planning Act 2016. I'm and I move to here to meet an amendment. Happy to second it please. Thank you. Mr chairman. Those slight changes were technical in nature. There were slight errors in the report. It's a code-assessable application. It's here because of our triggers for delegated reports. It's a significant site, it's a very prominent site, councils are wanting this application such as this to be brought to the General Committee or the full Council for a decision, it's, as says, it's in accordance there it is over height but so are all the adjoining businesses because that is a flood prone area and they the site needs to be elevated to get I it above the flood level. Think staff and the applicant work well together to come up with a very attractive design. I'm in favour of the on-site waste collection which occurs at all plenty of other sites around the Shire and when we have the opportunity to ensure that does occur to minimise impact on the neighbouring neighbours and streetscape we ought to do that we've conditioned that at Calile the other areas businesses that do this are Noosa Springs, royal mail, Noosa homemaker centre, Noosa Civic, Coles and Woolworths, gibsons road, showrooms, Sofitel, I believe the Noosa Heads Surf Club as well so it's a well-accepted practice it's a responsible practice if there are any amendments about the shave shape structures I'll be keen to hear the arguments for and against but I think it's a well-designed development and I think it will improve that site greatly Brian Stockwell 01:14:19.701
Yes thank you Karen Finzel 01:14:22.566
Thank you Mr Chair plan is to amend the number of the Tide structures to a maximum of five with each structure to provide a seat do we have a seconder for that yeah I just think we have an opportunity here to find a compromise where we can work together to give an outcome on a key site in the Shire to explore those opportunities by which we can bring the two elements together which I know there's different opinions around the table in terms of the environment like growing and plants versus the built environment and I believe those two can be successful melded together so that we can integrate softening, landscape, the built environment to come together as one to provide those elements that our community look for through amenity, shade, seeding. I think this is a really good opportunity. We always say we're Different by Nature. Let's put that to the test and see are we prepared to look at this element that the architect is seeking to complement the rest of the building and keep the rhythm of the design. It's pleasing to the eye and in my opinion it doesn't obstruct our line of sight. Frank Wilkie 01:15:52.547
Yes. Question. Would this amendment require an amendment to ensure that these shade structures do not impinge on public land? Or could that be achieved with the current wording? Patrick Murphy 01:16:05.916
I think it would be sensible to include that they must be located within the property. Entirely boundary. Frank Wilkie 01:16:12.827
Are you happy with that change? Brian Stockwell 01:16:19.377
Leave it second amendment. I have a question in relation to that. The majority of the development, old obviously has warnings that go across the footpath outside the property boundary, which is fairly standard in a commercial precinct. Is the concern here that you've got moving parts and they may be lower than an awning, so there's, so what is the concern about that? Andrew Gaffney 01:16:45.460
Yeah, a bit different too. Sorry. Oh, I was just going to say, I guess the concerns that we have is that it's fairly clear what the built form is meant to be under the local plan. Yeah. It's stepped back and ramped up to a six and eight metre setback profile. We're wanting that. To remove the fabric from the street so it's open and it's sort of more sort of subtropical feel. So as Patrick was saying, the inclusion of all these sort of potentially alternating sort of shade structures sort of just adds more fabric in that sort of space which wasn't intended under the scheme given the fact that the applicant's already proposing retractable awning system on the street. So I think that was the main concern about the tide Tide structures. Frank Wilkie 01:17:28.652
Just to clarify, when you're saying the retractable awning on the street, are you talking about within the property boundaries? And when you use the term fabric, literal or a structure, which is a hard material. For the retractable awning? No, no, the tilt. Oh, the tilt. I believe it's going to be some form of aluminium or wood sort of. Not a fabric? No. I thought I heard you say fabric. Sorry. The fabric's in the awning. Thank you for clarifying. Brian Stockwell 01:17:59.030
I'll support the amendment, but I'd probably support the concept of actually making sure that they are totally within the I think property. I understand that 11 of them may be overkill. I actually quite like the concept of interspersing shaded public seating for people perhaps not sitting eating a little. I don't know whether they need to be moving I don't need moving up and down. Up I know it sounds fancy, people will actuated, but I think having some recycled timber structures amongst trees would actually add to the transparency, but looking through into the private space to the public space, and so I'm supporting Frank Wilkie 01:18:54.807
I'll support the amendment as well and flag that once it becomes part of the motion, I'd like to add to it that the structures be contained within the property boundary. I agree that shade is a welcome addition, but also would like to see the landscaping flourish. In those planter boxes around the outside because it will soften. Nothing the form of a built structure like landscaping and plants rather than man-made structures, so. I'll accept that some structures providing shade is a benefit, but also I would like to see the landscaping flourish and that, as we do with all development applications, ensure that they don't impinge on public land. Amelia Lorentson 01:19:52.723
Happy to support I think it's going to be really an iconic bit of architecture and I think, given the prominence of the site, that it would be great to respect the integrity of the architect and I also believe it is consistent with our Noosa Plan. Acceptable outcome number 14, I think it is. B, that development includes detailing and articulation for horizontal emphasis, including awnings, and happy to capture that in. It's within boundary and there is no encroachment. But I'm looking at the external screen in front of us on page 21 of 36 of the report and tide actuated screens, recycled hardwood posts, recycled timber battens, aluminium frames. There is a lot of detail and work beauty in this design piece and I just think again we need to respect the integrity of the architect. I think he's done an excellent job Jessica Phillips 01:21:07.813
I'll support very quickly as well similar to everyone else I think it's an opportunity to see yeah, I trust that even just some looking at the plans that the materials that are going to be used they're beautiful it's not think it's a really great opportunity for us as a group to have a this position it's quite an iconic spot there the fact that we've got an opportunity to have the western some you know blocked with title warnings I think I'm quite excited to see what this development will look like and what it gives our community so yeah I'm very happy to support it Nicola Wilson 01:21:52.149
Too um again the architects work really well to try and come up with something of beauty and practicality with that fits in with the plan he did give his reasoning for um for some of these structures bringing that kind of perspective down to the pedestrian level rather than seeing a big built form so I think um yeah that's why I wanted to not just remove individual elements of a holistic design that has reason behind it um but you could also see that there's maybe a limit that we need to address there so I'm happy to support this Brian Stockwell 01:22:25.030
Council Wegener if you would talk the amendment Richard MacGillivray 01:22:36.255
I don't need talk, uh, yeah, I just want you to know that. Brian Stockwell 01:22:42.281
Okay. Would you like to close Councillor Finzel no I think it's all been said thank you Mr Chair put the amendment those in favour council Wegener Wegener? Yes. That's unanimous. Councillor Wilkie can't move amendment so I guess I'll just try yeah um it's written here for you uh I'll move the amendments with the addition of with the structures to be built within the site boundary happy to second Councillor Lorentson I'm Frank Wilkie 01:23:15.332
Sorry I think he's oh excuse me Brian Stockwell 01:23:19.298
We'll change that. Councillor Lorentson couldn't uh second because she's second the original motion he's good I don't need to talk to as it staff are happy that will give them the appropriate words that's Karen Finzel 01:23:37.424
Fine just a question regarding that for staff then is that something you will be able to negotiate with the applicant and the architect to make sure that like you know that conditioning the integrity of the site and what the outcomes are going to achieve is retained given its code-assessable like you said you know you're also constrained by what you can bring to the table. Patrick Murphy 01:24:01.684
Well it's quite prescriptive because it has a maximum number of five so I think it's quite easy for us to work with them. Karen Finzel 01:24:08.448
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:24:09.868
Yeah. Anyone wish to talk to it? No? I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Any Councillor Wegener? Yes. That's unanimous so the amendment becomes the motion and at this stage I believe only Councillor Finzel rupi had talked to it. Unidentified Speaker 01:24:27.502
Talk to order for a moment please? Brian Stockwell 01:24:29.725
Councillor Wilson. Unidentified Speaker 01:24:34.531
We've had, I think I'll go straight to the other one, Nicola Wilson 01:24:38.236
Thanks Cathy. We've had a fair bit of discussion about waste today. I know this has been an ongoing issue with this development my concern is really that given Councillors got this information on Thursday afternoon and we've been going back and forth with questions with the applicant and with the team that I'm not confident in imposing such rules. Specific conditions at this point we've got some quite conflicting information that been circulated so I guess and also being conscious of the timing prepare to approve this application therefore I'm kind of trying to leave this a little bit open to further negotiation so I'm proposing that condition 61 be replaced with prior to Council issuing a development permit for operational works and be submitted to Council for approval that investigates both on-street and on-site waste collection. On-site should be provided unless it's demonstrated that it cannot occur to the satisfaction of the manager of development assessment. The amended waste management plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified who's experienced in waste management. I think I already spoke to that sorry, motion. Yeah, my reasoning is I think there's too much complicated information for us to really nail this down. In the short period that we've had available to us. Brian Stockwell 01:26:14.307
So, I have a question. There's a key sentence there is on-site collection should be provided unless demonstrated that it cannot occur to the satisfaction of the managed development assessments. I thought I heard is that you had what demonstrated with our senior engineering officer and others that it can occur on-site so the amendment would be redundant. Am I right? Patrick Murphy 01:26:39.317
We wouldn't. Waste can be collected online. Have pursued that through the engineering methodologies, so we would not be supportive of this. Karen Finzel 01:26:52.321
Sorry to share. Chair, Councillor Wilson, would you like to change that before we put this in any further? Either way, information has just along. A question just come to mind. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:06.282
Being moved and seconded. Oh, sorry. I don't think you can. Karen Finzel 01:27:09.452
So we can let this lapse and you can raise another one with a different wording. Frank Wilkie 01:27:17.092
Mike, I also said questioned the wording on-site collection should be provided less is demonstrated that cannot occur to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessment. Hasn't there been submissions made by the applicant that it can't occur? You've tested that information and found that it can occur so you have made the assessment already can't based on the information provided to you on site. I'll just clarify that and the amended waste management plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person who is experienced in waste management, but would this be someone engaged by the applicant? Brian Stockwell 01:28:06.922
Yes. Just to clarify, I think that's part of the existing motion as well, isn't it? Yes. The, memory of the report suggests waste management if the plan submitted wasn't compliant? Yes and that requirement that last sentence was already in these suggested conditions with some additional points Unidentified Speaker 01:28:29.537
Yeah yeah yes you can take out the second sentence now I've been Brian Stockwell 01:28:39.741
Moving second and I don't think you'll get the support of the Council to change it can anything other than Yes, been the I'll speak against the amendment. I think there has been extensive consideration of these issues by highly qualified staff. Councils don't have to do anything other than listen to the qualified staff advice and come to their own judgement. We saw in the last amendment it was about an issue of book and deal where we did have a slightly different view to planning staff. In this one it is about can the truck move. Through the site the answer is yes the then the advice that I get and what I've read in the report is that on-site would be quieter it would be later in the morning safer than sidearm and hence probably less likely to get injured. Create too many impacts so to me these issues have been well ventilated and I believe the staff recommendation is the appropriate way ahead. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:52.205
I'll speak to it won't support but I do respect the intention of the amendment which reflects just some really careful thoughts so thank you for bringing that to us Nicola but I won't support it because I do believe due process has been followed. Forward in this regard. Brian Stockwell 01:30:15.734
I'll speak to Jessica Phillips 01:30:16.616
Support it in that what I'm hearing is very conflicting. What I'm reading from experts outside of. In the reports outside of Council contradict the experts in our Council. So I am stuck between finding the outcome that would give us confidence before I'm happy to vote on not seeing some changes here. Wild. So that is why I'll support Councillor Lorentson amendment because I think what she was trying to achieve is that we get the clarity on the waste side of things. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:15.313
Can I ask a question? Development permit for operational works. Can you explain what's involved in getting a Dan 01:31:29.620
The development application for operational works will just include a more detailed design that's assessed against the relevant codes for the type of work, especially development needs to comply with those codes before a permit's issued, so it will include more detailed design. For example, looking at, you know, straight line marking and, you know, particular earthworks levels stormwater design and all that of thing, so it's a more rigorous design stage, those. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:53.105
So, at that stage, will you know the logistics, whether or not manoeuvrability, the challenges or the questions that we've been raised around the table, he says, she recon versus our engineers, will that get sorted? It's part of that next process, which is the permit for operational works, Dan 01:32:16.027
Further, detail will be provided in that regard. I'd also just like to note that recall the consulting engineers provided and eugenie has provided that I suggesting that the heavy rigid vehicle can manoeuvre through the site and those same engineers tried to disprove that a smaller vehicle, the waste collection vehicle, couldn't. I just feel like that's just an important note there but yes further detail will be provided in that regard for the operational works which might include some fine-tuning of car parking areas and landscape areas to accommodate those sorts of things. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:51.648
So what happens in the situation that's let's say we've got it wrong and in fact these vehicles can't manoeuvre in the Dan 01:33:01.476
Well at this point in time there's no evidence to suggest that the vehicle can't manoeuvre through the site in any detail that might trigger a change to the high water but at this stage the detail we've received and prepared doesn't Patrick Murphy 01:33:15.830
Thank you very much. I think it's important to also point out a site that's going to be cleared. There's no constraint. So if there needs to be modifications that are made, the applicant can make those modifications to provide the on-site car parking. Whether that's a slight shifting of the footpath or whatever it might be, notwithstanding, the evidence shows that the vehicle can move through the site. Amelia Lorentson 01:33:39.046
One more question. Have we given the applicant enough allowances or flexibility around this development? Patrick Murphy 01:33:52.285
Considering we're allowed a 54% site cover and the car parking that we're accepting on the street, I think those are examples of being accommodating through the process. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:34:05.694
Can I ask a clarifying question? Development is being knocked down but the one next to it that triggers some of these questions, is that going too? No, it's not. So I think my question is that won't this give us clarity about the commercial building next to it and the. Next light effects? Way affects that and the landscaping and everything? Brian Stockwell 01:34:30.958
It's not just the. So if I can help, are you suggesting that there was a point made that it may interfere with the existing awning in the property to the south? Dan 01:34:43.770
Is that something we considered? We've existing items in the road reserve awnings and that sort of thing, there's no evidence to suggest that they would be substantially affected. Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 01:34:59.102
Thank you. Look, I appreciate the intent. Councillor's wanting to get clarity. Is this a question? No, I'm speaking to you. Talking to an amendment. Okay, sorry. Which is the clearest. Most unequivocal advice we've got on this has been from Council staff who are independent arbiters providing independent advice. They've got no skin in the game here. Nothing to gain or lose. The conflicting advice has come the development applicants, consultants who did modelling with a larger vehicle and said it could make it, could transverse the site onto Thomas Street quite easily. Sometime later. They're provided based on a smaller vehicle which for some reason shows that it couldn't make it its way through the site out onto Thomas Street without causing conflict with the traffic. That's the conflicting advice from. The development applicant's consultant. Council advice has been clear, independent and unequivocal throughout this whole process. The other question I have that I'll ask, it's a rhetorical one, is why have Noosa planning scheme policies that seek to minimise the impact on neighbours, neighbouring properties, in terms of waste collection being on site as opposed to street collection, if we don't seek to abide by that at every opportunity? This is going to be an aesthetically very pleasing development. It can be, it can demonstrate best practice. On site collection. If there's an opportunity for The other point I'd like to make is I can't support this amendment because it gives the applicant false hope and imposes more work on an applicant who is wanting certain. And clarity to be able to move forward as quickly as possible. It's not fair. It's giving false hope because these decisions have already been made and the advice has been very clear so to date. So I do appreciate what the intent is. Don't think this will achieve a good outcome but I can't support. Karen Finzel 01:37:23.886
I just have a question then to staff. I believe this is an unresolved issue. Is it not between you and the aboriginal? Andrew Gaffney 01:37:33.153
It's as we have requested that they deal with on-site collection. We could. The applicant basically still continued to, I guess, they. I guess, request that the bins be collected on the street. So, as Dan has mentioned, we have run the sweat paths independently within the engineering section and believe that it can still. Occur on site. I mean, and like we've spoken about, I mean, at this stage, we're looking at, you know, lines on a plan, articulating the applicant's envelopes. We've done the sweat paths based on those parameters, and we still believe it works, so if there is some fine-tuning that needs to be done through an operational works permit, we believe that there's a good deal of certainty that it will work. So at this stage, we support the scheme and policy, which requires that the. For a scale of this development, that the garbage is collected on site. Karen Finzel 01:38:31.664
A question Through the Chair then. So I just have a question, and given, you know, Council has raised the amount of time we have to address this, go to the site, look at all sides of the argument, in terms of, like, negotiating reasonable outcomes, especially for a lot of circles around that safety, which people can get in and out, like, it's not really clear, and you've just told us it is an unresolved issue, I've heard that from both sides of the party. Can we delete conditions 3 and 61? How does that work out, providing staff then, with opportunity, to go back to the drawing table and find that resolution? Richard MacGillivray 01:39:16.433
Councillor, I mean, so council's role as assessment manager under the Planning Act, particularly for code and assistive applications is to assess and decide aside. Applications. Decide Council staff have undertaken their assessment based on the material provided by the applicant and have made their recommendation based on what the scheme is seeking to achieve. That role. They've they have done that very thoroughly and have put their recommendation to you to consider. They have completed their assessment. That is done. It is before you with the recommendation as proposed. So that is what staff are recommending. It is up to the Council as the decision maker here today to determine whether they agree with that advice of staff undertaking very thorough and rigorous assessment. Does anyone else wish to talk to the amendment? Brian Stockwell 01:40:14.743
Do you wish to close, Councillor Wilson? Unidentified Speaker 01:40:18.844
I think my points all reports have been made. Brian Stockwell 01:40:21.207
I'll put the motion, no, the amendment. Those in favour? Unidentified Speaker 01:40:24.431
I'll second. Brian Stockwell 01:40:25.692
That's Councillor Phillips and Wilson. Those against? That's Councillor Lorentson and Finzel, Stockwell, Wilkie and. Fagina, yes. Motion is lost. Jessica Phillips 01:40:49.538
Can I propose a procedural motion at this point, just for Thursday, and I'll just quickly say why. I got from the Waste Manager that there's some possible things we have to take on notice, but since it's come, the ordering is Thursday, is there any issues with that, the decision is made very much. So it gives time for the place manager to collect that's the first thing I did, I left those two things on those. Brian Stockwell 01:41:22.515
You, you're open to a procedure of motions. A to defer has to be seconded but only the mover gets to talk to it. So, it's up to you. Um, if it's moved today, it still can be amended on Thursday. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:46.956
Can I just ask a question Through the Chair? Um, what are those issues, Councillor Phillips? Jessica Phillips 01:41:52.521
Um, I heard a of questions around data checks and things that could potentially just give us critical confidence in the decision on. I thought Noosa was making the decision today. I was asking would there be a time now and Thursday that we could have some more information on the two things that were pointed out around data checking. I didn't want the other one down. Brian Stockwell 01:42:16.423
Checking of what? Noise. You've got the noise, attenuation, distance. Change in distance, yeah. Jessica Phillips 01:42:23.073
I don't know if it's reasonable, but that's what I'm asking if it's. Brian Stockwell 01:42:25.933
The question is, would we have any chance of getting an acoustic assessment Thursday? Richard MacGillivray 01:42:33.257
Councillor, can I just add to there is a condition that's actually proposed that talks about no impact on amenity from as a result of the uses in there. I think it's condition number, so obviously, so you know, we'll be assessing as part of the operation works in terms of the detailed design of the mechanics of servicing to ensure that the use, and activities as result of use don't provide any adverse impact on amenity. You got the number of the condition there Andrew? Yes, it is condition 25.24 and Yes. Yeah it's just there's in about no and we can obviously again look at that in a bit more detail when the operation works. It's lodged for assessment as well. Andrew Gaffney 01:43:15.241
Sorry excuse me, it's condition 20. Under amenity. Amelia Lorentson 01:43:22.022
The operation of the approved use must not detrimentally affect the residential amenity including but not limited to noise, amplified music, overlooking, light spill or odour enjoyed by surrounding residents or cause a including a nuisance including a noise nuisance. So the onus is the applicant to comply with that condition. Patrick Murphy 01:43:43.826
There's also an incentive for them to do that internally to the site as well as they have accommodation uses themselves. Brian Stockwell 01:43:52.399
So we have a motion in front of us. Progress. Does anyone wish talk to it. I thought you said no. No, no, we it hasn't haven't been moved. Oh, so we're not doing it for second? No, there's a motion on the move. I'll think about it. There was a question about if I. Do defer. Karen Finzel 01:44:09.455
There's a question in the chat. If this, before we divide that, has that affected the date of the. Brian Stockwell 01:44:19.658
Oh, just to clarify we haven't got referral a deferral motion in front of us we emotions- and I talked about a motion. It's the motion moved by Councillor Wilkie as amended twice. It's now the standard motion that Jessica Phillips 01:44:29.744
We I thought my question was if there was a procedural motion, could there be an opportunity to get that information? And the answer is no. Karen Finzel 01:44:40.532
Through the Chair, I am seeking clarification. Brian Stockwell 01:44:44.396
What's the date of the decision? Patrick Murphy 01:44:47.899
The end of approval. The due date of the decision is the 21st of March. The Ordinary Meeting is on the 20th. So, yeah. So, Through the Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:58.007
The Chair, has the procedural motion been made? Withdrawn? It was a question whether I Jessica Phillips 01:45:02.188
Thank you. Yeah. Not a- Not an actual Nicola Wilson 01:45:08.782
Thank you. Question to the Chair, please. If there was if we reached the point of danger approval, is that including the conditions or exactly. No. Richard MacGillivray 01:45:18.913
So the applicant can apply for deemed approval and then the Council has 10 business days to provide conditions. Brian Stockwell 01:45:25.762
Okay. So I'll talk to other than the two issues that we had a little bit of a debate on. Bit I think the building form, design, mix of uses is very certain to the site. I think the rendering suggests a colour palette that will start to establish a riverside theme and nothing more then. Nautical than some weathered timber, whether the recycled timber is going to be weathered, I'm not sure, but there's those grey tones. I think the mix of downstairs eating and the commercial component is actually reduced from the existing. Together you know, with two storeys of short-term is compliant with the scheme. I note that the draft amendments to the scheme did look at changing the zone and therefore the desired use. That may result in even further mixed use on this site which would be a desirable outcome in my opinion but in terms of the scheme that was applied under I think it is going to be an asset to the community and I think activate the open areas on site but also provide some really nice shaded linkages through to the foreshore and with the proposed change crossing in that area I think we'll start to see a whole new vibrancy in Thomas Street as a result. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:58.046
I have one last question. And I want to ask this because I think it's significant. The site is more than 2,500 square metres and my understanding that it triggered state referral. The development is required to meet water quality objectives under state policy in council's water quality and drainage code and there's a bio-retention basins being proposed and given that at the moment surface runoff or roof water drainage or all the underground pipe network works at the moment they've been discharged directly into Noosa River. Just if you can explain how the site's going to be graded what drainage systems or explain a little bit about the bio-retention being proposed because I think it's significantly important in terms of water quality and how this development is going to contribute to better water quality. Dan 01:48:02.868
Sure, so if with soil the stormwater quality treatment devices in the form of a bio-retention basin. Store there are some secondary treatment devices as well within the site that captures smaller cataracts of the development. The Stormwater Management Plan provided by the applicant addresses the State planning policy outcomes for stormwater quality treatment and achieves all of those load reduction targets. Additionally the site doesn't increase the impervious area of the existing site so there is not going to be further stormwater runoff exiting the site post development. So as far as engineering is concerned the development ticks all those boxes in terms of stormwater quality and quantity targets. Karen Finzel 01:48:52.787
I just have a question, I know it's just popped up. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. A question Through the Chair of the CEO. We recently, I think, undertook a review of wire bio-retention patients across the Shire, when we're looking at the addition of another system like this in this development, where are we placed in terms of ongoing costs and budgets around? Managing the infrastructural infrastructure of bio-retention. Larry Sengstock 01:49:22.595
I'll refer that to the experts here, the engineers, but the bio-retention base, in my understanding, is on site for this actual development. It's not the bio-retention base that we're talking about you're that were referring to. Our larger ones that are out in the field are formed for overflow and for the base point of it. Yeah, a great tip. That's correct too. This is specific to this particular development. Going so does the cost go back to the applicant? You're welcome. Brian Stockwell 01:49:47.998
Oh, thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? No? So, Councillor Wilkie, would you like to close it? Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it's all been said, so I'll waive my right to speak. Okay, so I've put the motion. Those in favour? Now that's carried unanimously. Councillors, we've nearly been going for two hours. Is it time to have a respite and take a short? Five or ten minutes. Brian Stockwell 02:01:10.425
Much. Application to material change of used hotels, extension to existing hotels, Digby W23 0073, three work demolition at 118 ponce de Ávila Avenue and 26 guyana and 26 Diyan Street, Tewantin. And we have Naveen joining us as the assessment officer, but first we have a declaration from Councillor Wilson. Thank you. Nicola Wilson 02:01:34.842
I, Councillor Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as financial interest in a neighbouring property that may be affected by the outcome of this application. As result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Councillor. Unidentified Speaker 02:01:58.660
I'll go for a pop. I'm coming with walk you all. Are you going for a five? Sorry. 2-0.2-0. Brian Stockwell 02:02:11.301
Hey, Ms. Gordon, if you could give us an executive summary, that would be appreciated. Nadine Gordon 02:02:15.001
All right. Afternoon, Councillors. Application that we're dealing two applications this afternoon. The first deals with the DVW, which relates to demolition of the premises, as we know, is the royal mail. The demolition comes to Council because it's building works accessible against the planning scheme because of the heritage, the local heritage. Character of the site. The second part of the application is Material Change of Use for extension to the existing hotel. The demolition proposed on the site involves demolition of the liquor land premises out the rear facade, the front toilets on the corner on the southeastern corner of the site. Some internal renovations as well as some external renovations mainly to the poinciana frontage. Material Change of Use component relates to the extension to the existing hotel in the form of two new beer gardens. There's the northern beer garden which will go down Diyan Street and Blakesley street and then there is a new southern beer garden which is where the current toilets are and the dosser.poinciana.gov.au /beer the beer gardens have quite open pergolas and a landscaped area with paths and bar there as well, plus keg rooms. Renovations to the internal renovations. So there's a range of internal renovations, plus the existing 13 units are going to be renovated. At present they don't have, they have a shared toilet. Each of those is going to be given their own ensuite. The renovations to the development and the extensions include, as said, the new beer garden. We've required a two metre landscape setback around there. Is also a new car parking area in the corner site with an additional 30 spaces to be accessed through the existing car parking area. There was a note on one of the plans which has been picked up about a playground. That was an error and I have actually confirmed with the applicant today that there is no playground proposed and they're fully aware that their acoustic report does not address a playground and so they know if they want to put a playground in at a later date, it'll require a change to the application. The proposal has been reviewed against the planning scheme and generally complies with the relevant assessment benchmarks. I do know we've I included a number of relating to number of conditions relating to noise we had the proposal has been reviewed by our acoustic consultant who has given us a number of noise conditions relating to decibels including hours of operation and also hours relating to when waste management can occur on site. The beer garden also includes new acoustic screen along the back of and also then up western side there is one door that faces the north which is only for emergency access only. Also is garden also is covered to address noise as well. There is additional car parking provided as I said there's an additional 30 spaces on the corner lot. The development has also been reviewed against our planning scheme and we had an external consultant review the proposal initially because the original application was so short in terms of car parking. We're now five car parking spaces short. Our consultant, external has reviewed it and is happy with those that shortfall noting that we have received and signed infrastructure agreement from the applicant agreeable to the payment of a contribution in lieu of provision of car parking for five spaces. We're going, a number of, in terms of that five spaces shortfall, our consultant also was quite happy. There is significant community benefit from this proposal in terms of, we've conditioned a public thoroughfare go easement to go from blake's easement to from Blakesley street, which will allow access to lot, to 96 poinciana, which is currently, it's car parking, has to go through the royal mail. So the applicant is willing to agree to public thoroughfare easement, so that will enable them to always access their car parking. Also, it will enable pedestrians to continue to go through the site in that north-south orientation. There will be future. Are conditions about, as I've said, noise, acoustic, hours of operation as well as future operational works applications relating to landscaping and external works that are required for the site. Frank Wilkie 02:07:02.531
Thank you. Do we have questions? Submissions, Nadine. Yes. Could you summarise the key issues in the submissions about noise and traffic and mainly and then how you would mitigating be mitigated Nadine Gordon 02:07:18.033
In the next. In this? Addressed, I should say. Yes. Most of the conditions, there were several conditions received. We did receive a number of conditions, I think, in the report. It indicates that we received a number of submissions in support proposal. We did receive nine objections to the proposal. Most of them talked about the potential concerns relating to car parking and access from the site. A few of them suggested taking access off Diyan Street. Basically, the planning scheme talks about trying to minimise the number of access points. We're currently going to utilise the existing in-out system of the existing Blakesley street car parking, which therefore minimises potential conflicts between traffic and pedestrians leaving the site. We only have one. The initial application that was advertised was significantly short and there were concerns that there wouldn't be sufficient car parking the provision of the additional 30 spaces now addresses those aspects. There was some, there were concerns raised about noise and we've got noise from the operations of the beer garden but we've also got noise about traffic leaving the site. Again, we have an existing car park. Hotel. We will be requiring, I think we've got some conditions about fencing and landscaping to the external parts of the site to try and minimise those aspects. We've also noted that there will be a complaints management register that will establish a clear process if people do have complaints that we'll be able to look at and they'll deal with complaints from residents. So they were the main issues, noise and car parking. A couple of them were raising concerns about the loss of the character and making sure we wanted to address the maintenance males of the raw male character as well, which conditions. We've included conditions. Frank Wilkie 02:09:17.195
Can you talk about how the heritage look and feel of the building will be maintained? Nadine Gordon 02:09:22.149
My of the so most of the, we've included conditions requiring a colour scheme to be provided. We've included a condition requiring reinstatement of a more horizontal balustrade to the front of the building. In the report you can see the comparison of what was there and they've put in vertical slats. We did ask them as part of the information request to ask them to change it. Keen. They weren't very keen however we have conditioned that approval on the basis of our heritage officer had suggested that was a key component and more fitting in with the art deco feel of building. Jessica Phillips 02:10:05.613
Please just in relation to public safety there's the closed circuits television equipment must be installed within the property and along all frontages of the site can you just confirm if that would be in the easement as well all frontages would that include that Nadine Gordon 02:10:25.133
No no not how it's worded no Unidentified Speaker 02:10:32.227
So it's for the security cameras to be installed within the property facing Nadine Gordon 02:10:37.586
Out yeah we have all frontages won't include these no easement is internal to the site so the frontages is poinciana, Dianne and blakesleaf we wouldn't be we haven't got any the condition doesn't read to reflect that easement it could be amended to include that easement or the internal car parking layout Richard MacGillivray 02:11:01.227
It's likely that the applicant will have their own measures and secures you know CCTV of you know their car around their car park area as well which is not uncommon for establishments of this sort of nature but we have specific condition around the public-private interface on those key street areas which is part of what's been conditioned Jessica Phillips 02:11:24.022
Would it be acceptable to condition Nadine Gordon 02:11:33.392
As well um could yes I Richard MacGillivray 02:11:36.392
Don't think there's any yeah I think there would be any major objection we could maybe even know it could consult with the applicant and that regard noting that yeah you'll have the public general potentially accessing that private land but still through an easement Nadine Gordon 02:11:52.949
I'd have to check the privacy side of that because my understanding is in the public realm, so I think that's okay. It should be fine. That would be my only question. Thing I that's okay, you can clarify it. Yeah, that's the don't know that side of things. Unidentified Speaker 02:12:10.043
We'll get it clarified it does allow it sorry, so you're getting the message like this. Richard MacGillivray 02:12:18.565
A bit of independence there, yeah. Good. Amelia Lorentson 02:12:21.346
In terms of the beer garden, we've received an email from residents that live in blakeslee street requesting opening hours on fridays and saturdays to not go beyond 10:00pm. Can I ask what was the reasoning that we've extended the opening hours to midnight? Is it consistent with other beer gardens or other development applications or is this I've never seen a beer garden open till midnight? Nadine Gordon 02:12:53.105
This is consistent with what our planning scheme says so for the entertainment and activities code we pulled we've there's an AO. Is a that talks about those operating hours so when you have a look at the continue at the condition 21 we talk about the hours operation of the beer garden areas so we've got the actual operating hours then acoustic barriers and then if you go down to condition 26 and it talks it about sorry, oh the limiting yeah it talks about the noise limiting system so that 70 dba and then condition 27 talks about amplified live music must cease to operate in the northern and southern beer gardens by 7pm so any acoustic music has to stop by music has 7pm but people could but yes people could still be out in the beer garden till later and then condition 28 also includes provision of acoustic live music to the northern beer garden shall be operated such that it does not exceed the 70 dba they had a cc oh sorry and that's condition 22 acoustic live music must not operate after um 9pm Sunday to Thursday and um 10pm Friday and Saturday so we've limited the musical side of things and we put a 70 dba on it as well um but yes, the beer gun can operate till a later time. In accordance with our benchmarks in the planning scheme Amelia Lorentson 02:14:30.170
Um question in terms of car parking so there is a shortfall of five and there has been an infrastructure agreement entered into and think the shortfall about or the infrastructure agreement is seventy two thousand seventy two four that's um again probably similar question to what I just asked before in the meeting beforehand is um the value that this community places on car parking um my what's the cumulative impact of car parking shortage shortfalls within the Tewantin precinct and have we actually assessed that number um and are these considerations factored into approval or planning of this application in front of us and is there any requirement that we need to ensure that the area the precinct parking infrastructure meets current think of Peregian Beach. I'm a bit off topic okay so let's stick to the questions. Nadine Gordon 02:15:57.603
So when they first lodged the application they were quite significantly below council's requirements. The application was referred to our expert traffic consultant that we use and he came back and indicated to us that it was way under and that we couldn't accept it. We required several reports from them which was still unsatisfactory and then earlier this year basically it got to the point where again our consultant spoke to them and said it is not enough car parking and so when he's looking at it the surrounding uses intensity of the use when the peaks are going to be the types of people using it so basically we came back and said his comment to us was it needs to comply with the planning scheme requirements when they came back and they were five fired spaces short I checked with him and said are you okay with this and he said yes noting that there will be a lot of people who will be coming from the surrounding area and our planning scheme is based on use area which means everything is counted so keg rooms, store the bar rooms, kitchens all those areas are included in our calculations and he said considering that where it's located the type of people who are going to be going to it he considered and looking at our surrounding area he was satisfied that the car parking rate that we're proposing under the planning scheme less those five was appropriate thank you Karen Finzel 02:17:34.389
Thank you. For the report just have a question because we all got the email today about amenity of noise issues which on everyone's agenda and rightly so I noticed that we're conditioning a amenity complaints management procedure an attachment for item number 29 so can you just tell us a little bit you've got a record of all complaints investigation results including corrective actions must be maintained and made available for inspection at any time upon request by Council who's going to be sort of regulating that and making sure that the complaint process is you followed through and we get the results that community feels that you know they have actually been listened to they have followed the due process and who's sort of who's like the regulator in that space to ensure that this condition is at the end Nadine Gordon 02:18:40.078
I think it will be the planning department so we once we place this condition on the applicant as part of the DA it becomes yeah it's a condition that must be complied with so if there is a complaint it will go to our compliance section and they will have to investigate and then we'll be able to look into it Richard MacGillivray 02:18:59.283
And in addition also noting that the type of use on this particular site would be subject to other approvals and licenses as well particularly around liquor licensing and they have a range of obligations usually attached to their requirements as well so this sort of multi-layered approach and obviously part of this would notify us if there's a matter that liquor licensing have dealt with and we would be aware of that been actioned by liquor licensing particularly so this is about keeping an overarching database. I guess if those matters, what's being done how have they been handled so that Council at any point in time receives concerns from our community can seek to view this document and ensure that they've taken all reasonable steps to address and respond to any issues being raised from the community. Frank Wilkie 02:19:54.520
Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to move it. I'll second it. Thank you. For the report. I think this project is, and not to use the term that was used in the last application, a catalytic project. It will revitalise the Tewantin CBD. It's been a topic of conversation for years, what's happening to the royal mail, when is it going to get a facelift, be upgraded. It's a welcome application. It has regard to the art deco heritage look and feel of the existing premise. It's had regard to the fact that it is on a well serviced transport route. People will be arriving and leaving by public transport. Peaks, peak usage times of the hotel will. Perhaps be. In the night time when there are gaps in public car parking and the rest of the CBD. I appreciate the work that's been done to ensure that there is adequate car parking on the site. I accept the consultant's report that there is. And I think it's. A welcome and long-awaited and much-needed place to a. Pivotal. Hotel in. And part of tawantins heritage, so thank you for the report and I hope it goes ahead as quickly as possible. Brian Stockwell 02:21:29.538
Do you want talk to the motion. Karen Finzel 02:21:31.716
I just have one more question. Just with reference to the email received over the weekend from residents, just a clarification. Sorry, Councillor Wegener, Finzel is in the middle of a question. I'll get to you next. In relation to the car parking on the land deemed not to be owned by the hotel, I'm just seeking clarification, I'm not quite sure if refer to. Public meeting that was in this area. And we're told at that time it was out of the. Remit of the hotel and owned by another entity? Nadine Gordon 02:22:04.555
I'm assuming that's the northern lot, which is to the bottle shop. It's the same owner as the hotel now. I'm wandering back. It might have been a while back in a separate ownership but it is now under the same ownership as part of the same hotel ownership Richard MacGillivray 02:22:25.609
Thank you Brian Stockwell 02:22:25.890
Okay cancel what new is next Tom Wegener 02:22:30.611
Uh with the um the children's play area that's uh it came up um in some letters that not a requirement it's not being it's not a part of the permit rather it's something that the hotel plans to do, and if they don't do it, they can't get returned back on counselling. Say well Council didn't um allow us to do this by any stretch so that's not a possibility Nadine Gordon 02:22:58.338
Yeah it's not it seems to be a mistake on one of the plans the overall site plan the lower floor plan shows it as being beer garden and then there's a close-up on figure five in the report and it shows seating and then they've left text on saying playground and I believe it might have been way back when the application was originally proposed I think there was talk on Facebook about it being a playground but I with this I spoke with the applicant this morning and there's no intention at this stage for a playground and they are fully aware that if they do want to put in a playground they'll need to amend the application and definitely noise will need to be considered as part of that. Tom Wegener 02:23:44.723
Second, the time frame for the northern beer garden closing at midnight, what would 10 o'clock, it just seems to me is far more reasonable for that area. Does Council considered that. Brian Stockwell 02:24:09.022
Did staff consider an earlier closing time? Nadine Gordon 02:24:12.874
Tom, the condition has been imposed in accordance with the acceptable outcome that's detailed in the entertainment and activities code for this zoning. So we've utilised those requirements under that code Patrick Murphy 02:24:30.360
By our QC consultant. Nadine Gordon 02:24:31.748
And been reviewed. Acoustic consultant also agrees with the conditions that we have imposed as part of the recommendation. Brian Stockwell 02:24:40.698
And if I can have a subsequent one. After 10 o'clock at night, and likely to be conditioned by the legal licensing, the EPA. Noise does have with restrictions on above and beyond background noise, etc. So our security consultant would have taken in the higher Nadine Gordon 02:25:02.018
Requirements. He says the 70 DBA is pretty, yeah, limiting. Brian Stockwell 02:25:09.748
And to add, 70 DBA after 10? Richard MacGillivray 02:25:15.094
Yeah. Tom Wegener 02:25:16.916
Could I just test an amendment to limit the opening hours? Until 10pm. Brian Stockwell 02:25:25.131
The opening hours till 10pm? So, Councillor Wegener, have you provided an amendment to the staff yet? Because I believe another Council may have one that's already typed up and ready to go. Richard MacGillivray 02:25:35.646
Okay, well that's fine, I'll let the other Councillor present that then. Patrick Murphy 02:25:41.913
Councillor Stockwell, just to clarify your 70 DBA, that was in relation to acoustic live music, which is conditioned to cease by 10pm. Brian Stockwell 02:25:52.861
I would have thought it would be something like 5 decibels or 10 decibels over the background noise, which is probably closer to 50. Patrick Murphy 02:25:59.361
Yeah so so 10pm Friday, Saturday and 9pm Sunday to Thursday. Frank Wilkie 02:26:04.181
Just a clarifying question, it also refers to a 70 DBA limit for amplified sound as well. That's correct. 70 yes, that is correct. 70 dBA is what our Nadine Gordon 02:26:15.203
Consultant has said should be the maximum. And that's under a lot key isn't it? Amelia Lorentson 02:26:21.669
Yes, lock So as just an data, analogy, what does 70 DBA sound, what does that equate to? Can you tell didn't me? Can you that's all right. Sorry, I just thought Nadine Gordon 02:26:41.010
Might from what I understand. Me playing my guitar here and you being there. I believe so. I don't believe it'll think it'd be very hard to get any amplified music at 70 dBA. So it's more acoustic and talking is what you would get. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 02:26:58.840
Quick question to follow up. I'll work out how to make this a question, but I just did the quickest look up Facebook on the 10th of February. There was a comment and I know that Facebook hasn't been peer reviewed yet, but it says we're thrilled to bring the Tewantin community a brand new bistro, sports bar, gaming complete with a kids Nadine Gordon 02:27:19.808
Playground. I spoke to the applicant I this morning and they've said no, it's not there's no playground. Frank Wilkie 02:27:24.918
Yeah. Okay. Does that mean Facebook is sometimes misleading? Nadine Gordon 02:27:29.106
I can if we can condition something we can include a condition if you Brian Stockwell 02:27:39.240
Want to change something to state that. I just did a quick search. 70 decibels is normal conversations between 60 and 70. Open office noise 65 to 75. Alarm clock 70 to 80. Washing machine 70. Dishwasher 70. Richard MacGillivray 02:27:55.735
Not very loud. It's pretty quiet. And Councillor, just on that point around the noise, it's important to highlight too the noise specified as condition is actually an acceptable outcome in the code. What that means is essentially it's a deemed to comply provision. So, once you meet that, generally when you assess against the planning scheme, if you meet an acceptable outcome, you're deemed to comply with the performance outcome. So, just giving you a bit of context of how we've come up with the thresholds that are prescriptive in the acceptable outcome of the scheme, which is a deemed to comply. Amelia Lorentson 02:28:31.391
Why so does that mean that if legally challenged that given that it does comply with the Noosa Plan acceptable outcomes, where we might be in a difficult situation to support an amendment? Is that correct, Richard? Richard MacGillivray 02:28:50.688
That would be my advice. Once they meet a deemed to comply provision, you're deemed to automatically meet the accepted performance outcome as listed in the scheme. Brian Stockwell 02:29:07.278
So, Councillor Phillips, did you still wish to test your potential amendment? Jessica Phillips 02:29:15.201
I'm just working to quote. Out how to get some clarity around it after that. Frank Wilkie 02:29:22.824
Okay. I have a question in the meantime. Thank you. Okay. How would those sound limits compare to sound limits possibly imposed by OLGR? Nadine Gordon 02:29:36.283
I think the ones I've looked at for the junction are 75 dBA. I looked at one recently. Frank Wilkie 02:29:43.812
Yeah. And just a process question, why wasn't OLGR involved in providing advice? Nadine Gordon 02:29:49.371
Because this is a planning application, so they will, as part of the liquor licensing, they will come to us and request our comments about this proposal, and then we'll have to say whether it's got approval. So we will give them a plan of what's been approved in the areas, but then we'll also give them our conditions of hours of operation. Sometimes they. It'll be an interesting one, because sometimes they agree with us, and sometimes they don't. So it's possible they may say, "Oh, it's too restrictive." Yeah. Then we've got--yeah. Our will look-- but our conditions will still apply, because they're going to be conditions of approval, so they can't. Really shouldn't other give anything other than what we set as part of our conditions of approval. Jessica Phillips 02:30:30.732
OK, thank you. OK, question. So the decibels is in relation to music. When we're talking about an outdoor beer garden and we've got voices that can be louder than 70 decibels. Back circling to the later night, which will introduce my amendment, I have concerns that it's not necessarily the music because they've complied with the 70 decibels, but how we improve or maintain amenity for the residents around when the garden potentially could have very loud voices. Nadine Gordon 02:31:26.662
We've had it, as I said, reviewed by our noise consultant and in terms of the zoning again this is a consistent use in the zone we do have an existing hotel there he was satisfied legislation and the requirements that these conditions and these requirements were sufficient to protect amenity there are a number of um there's the noise mapping which shows how the noise fades and again it's showing that it is fading as we leave the site it to Blakesley city. Before it gets to Blakesley street so he was specifically asked to look at the noise sources and the impacts on the surrounding residents and he's satisfied that it complies with relevant legislation and data that he can deal with so garden or from inside? The beer garden you have the acoustic barrier? And that's right. We do barriers remember that go all along the back and then they go I've got the lid on top of on the backside and then we also have the one that goes along the west as well and one on the east portion yeah there's a low one across I actually even asked him about the potential impacts on the people on the North Shore and he was not worried at all about that I thought there might be concern some about the noise travelling but he said it complies with the legislative regulations Amelia Lorentson 02:32:53.728
So the noise limiting speakers can you explain Nadine how they work so so I know that four pines have a similar system yep and that's and I think they're always pretty much compliant yeah but we have had issues and think a lot of the councils have been have spoken to residents in these heads that are impacted by again not necessarily music by people and beer gardens are very noisy and people speak very loudly so does a noise limiting speaker does it will it pick up if conversations exceed 70 decibels. Nadine Gordon 02:33:41.447
I don't it's just really controlling the noise coming out of the speakers the music oh yeah it's not a noise reader metered that's picking the levels are and that would be something different I can check with our consultant to see and I'll have another look at his report. Amelia Lorentson 02:34:02.348
Is there opportunity to include a condition that we have some sort of noise monitoring device in the garden. Beer that allows us you know if there's a complaint made by a neighbour we can check it against data. Is that a possibility? Richard MacGillivray 02:34:26.960
There's challenges around some of that I guess when we've got a scheme that allows particular uses to occur and obviously both parties the applicants consultant and our independent noise consultant. Have evaluated the in proposal in terms of what's the use and the nature of noise that's likely to emanate and have considered that the mitigations proposed in terms of acoustic fencing and barriers around it obviously the hours of operation that the buffers to residential properties to be considered appropriate so from I guess an expert perspective we've sought advice that it's reasonable and sufficient mitigation has been put in place to manage that take your point is there an ability to control or have an intervention of Amelia Lorentson 02:35:12.445
Just a monitoring system outside just to ensure that the acoustic barriers are doing what they're supposed to do which is mitigate any noise impacts can we investigate that maybe that would be excellent yeah thank you we need Unidentified Speaker 02:35:29.960
A similar condition for bounce I recall they had Richard MacGillivray 02:35:34.670
With the manager yeah maximum we'll make some inquiries. Amelia Lorentson 02:35:39.460
I would appreciate that. Brian Stockwell 02:35:45.262
Talking to the owner of many campaigns. Let me have one complaint. Nadine Gordon 02:35:51.164
It's actually when you actually go to bounce and you walk around the back of the units it is actually quite amazing. The actual building just stops all the sound. Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:36:05.086
Just following on from that and we're referring that email received from residents as well. We're talking about you know mitigating noise and meeting legislation within the beer garden and the barriers. Questions are being raised around you know the noise outside of the venue so of you know headlights, car when cars starting up, intoxicated people leaving the venue. How is that mitigated moving forward? We haven't, how does legislation cover that or? Nadine Gordon 02:36:38.589
So we've required landscaping and fencing to the car park. So at moment we've got limited landscaping that even goes along the existing car park along to Blakesley street, so we've required additional dense landscaping to be provided there, so that should help mitigate in terms of the lights. They're all going to be coming out utilising the existing in and out system as well. Again a lot of this I suppose anti-social behaviour, I think there's this crossover that we have to be careful with liquor licensing. Has their own requirements where they have to, under their legislation, provide a safe environment for patrons and staff. If we get too involved in that, my understanding is liquor licensing will flick a lot of, if they can flick anything over to us, they will. So, I think those sort of things, we're dealing with the land use and the management, so we've at the lighting, we've looked at the screening of it. We would be, yes, I take your point about if we provide security cameras where complaints register, you know, trying to get again the hotel to take more responsibility than trying to legislate for that activity Richard MacGillivray 02:37:59.357
And there's different layers as well as Nadine said around liquor licensing, obviously around responsible service of, you know, liquor and there's certain, I guess, processes and requirements in place, but there's also a role too for the police to intervene, particularly the public realm if there's instances that occur. With antisocial behaviour and anything that spills outside of the site itself that could and can be addressed, but tricky from a land use perspective to manage that in advance, I guess, with dealing with land the use component as opposed to those behavioural elements. Karen Finzel 02:38:36.010
Yeah, so just a question Through the Chair following on from that. Mr Chair. Oh, sorry. Yes. CEO. In our Corporate Plan on page 47, we support strategies and plans around the Noosa social strategy, justice charter and community strategy through to the CEO. Where are we placed at the moment around developing that strategy or getting budget to get that strategy up and running because I think you know rightly so the staff have said this is a planning issue but to mitigate this. Amelia Lorentson 02:39:16.269
Point of order. This is not relevant to what we're doing at the moment. Karen Finzel 02:39:20.593
I thought we were addressing the social impacts that aren't covered by the planning scheme. Brian Stockwell 02:39:25.357
Yes we are. Dealing with the perception of social impacts, but we're a specific application rather than looking at the future and revising a strategic document. Karen Finzel 02:39:36.365
Thank you Mr Chair for bringing that to my attention. I'll raise it at the budget meeting. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:39:42.290
A question in terms of disability access and thank you for your response. I've sent you a few questions. I would personally and the question I'm asking is we haven't got any condition or any statement. We've got a human rights compatibility statement with our development report. There's been no mention report in terms of compliance with the disability discrimination act any work whether it's footpaths, car parks, building works need to comply with disability discrimination act, given that it's an important priority of Council, I believe it's important that we make a statement that all applications, development should my question is, DDA, where will DDA be assessed and is there opportunity to include it as a standard statement in every development application to, I'm throwing it at you, DDA, equitable access for all people is very important. Nadine Gordon 02:41:03.373
I sent you that response. We have an advisory note that we include with all permits that goes on at the end of it, which indicates that we haven't assessed, I remember we're dealing with the land use concept. So the next stage is when they do the further detailed design, their building, they'll do their building works, they get their building approval. That's when they really get into the nitty gritty. They do their engineering, they go to those working drawings that next stage, so do their operational works. So we haven't assessed it for disability compliance. In terms of car parking side of things, that'll be addressed at the operational work stage. Toilet facilities, disabled access. That's what the building certifier is required to do under his legislation. Therefore, that's why it's under an advisory note that goes out with all applications. Amelia Lorentson 02:41:54.113
And that advisory note, can it be included as part of the reports that we received in Council? Nadine Gordon 02:41:59.760
I think, again, it's outlining that we haven't assessed it for these requirements. And that further application that they must consider it by law. That's what the certifier has to do. He has to make sure it's compliant. And that the right number of toilets disabled access the are ramps of all comply and there's and legislation changes. So ramps changes, there's, you know, all different requirements, widths of doors. That's a constantly changing sort of requirement. So at this stage, we've been put in as advisory notes, and they're going to be quite difficult to put in as a condition. Yes, yeah. Not but as a state. As a statement? In the report? Amelia Lorentson 02:42:46.525
Oh, sorry. Okay. It's compatible. Compatibility statement. It would be great to have some reference to disability discrimination. Act, given the importance that we as a community and as a Council place on equitable access. Richard MacGillivray 02:43:00.839
Yeah. Fair and equitable access. Okay, in the report. 'Cause as Nadine said, that will be included in any decision notice, an advice note to that effect. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:09.309
Yeah. There's a key point that needs to be addressed through the process. Thank you very much. I just think it's important. Thank you. Even if it's just a little thing. Yeah, that's right. No, that's fine. Brian Stockwell 02:43:18.962
I believe the flip side's true. We can't condition anything that's building act matter. Nadine Gordon 02:43:24.849
No. But we can put the report. Yes. Thank you. Noted. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:43:29.214
In okay I think Councillor Wilkie is still the only one to talk to the Amelia Lorentson 02:43:34.800
Is it a question Through the Chair should a procedural motion be moved so that Nadine you can find out whether a noise monitoring system can is reasonable to condition on the applicant for the beer garden yep okay I'd like to move a procedural motion and just wait for the information provided. So you may have to be specific with the procedural motion if you're going to defer it. Ask a question about that. I'll give further. Just move a procedural motion seeking further information to be brought to the before Ordinary Meeting. Brian Stockwell 02:44:19.647
That isn't in the wording that's acceptable understanding orders. So a deferral motion has to have a specific thing. If you're deferring consideration here it have the date and that you say we defer this moment. Way that's great Amelia Lorentson 02:44:32.172
Thank you that's I'll leave that to the CEO. Brian Stockwell 02:44:41.496
Okay, Councillor Lorentson, is there a seconder? Jessica Phillips 02:44:44.700
I'll say it. I just have a question. I can't Brian Stockwell 02:44:48.500
No, you can't have a Jessica Phillips 02:44:49.511
Question. Okay. So, Councillor Lorentson, you can talk to the motion. Amelia Lorentson 02:44:56.319
Just, I think that we need to give further consideration to the concerns of the people that are going to be directly impacted by this development. And they're the residents that live behind in Blakesley street. And if there's opportunity for us to do better, then we should explore that opportunity. So I'm just requesting deferment due to the significance of the application in front of us. That we just seek some further information to help provide an informed decision an and possibly an opportunity and possibly opportunity to make a slight amendment to the development application. Brian Stockwell 02:45:40.911
Questions. Thank you very much. I'm just thinking that no one thinking about else can talk to the motion. But the Standing Orders do say that Council can ask the question at any time. So I'm going to say okay that. Doesn't rule out questions as long as they are questions. Frank Wilkie 02:45:56.253
It is a question. Do you want to go first? Jessica Phillips 02:45:59.434
Yes, please. Just to clarify, we're getting the noise will be for voices, not for. Nadine Gordon 02:46:06.916
For voices? So my understanding. Brian Stockwell 02:46:10.380
Yeah, you may answer. Nadine Gordon 02:46:12.200
Through the Chair. My understanding is a comment about the noise from the patrons, whether it was considered in terms of the conditions in the DBA, whether it's appropriate to put a noise metre on site, and potentially would Council like the matter of the privacy cameras through the easement to be considered as well? Yeah. Yes, I think I can. Part two, yes. Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 02:46:40.120
So are there any instances of where crowd noise is measured in a beer garden that result in an actual regulation of crowd modes in a bugle. Like to what end would it have been? Richard MacGillivray 02:47:05.014
My understanding would have to be on the outside of the acoustic fence to obviously understand the barrier is essentially doing what it's designed to do, which is to attenuate noise. But I'm not aware of many cases where that's been done for crowd noise as such, possibly festivals. And things like that but that's more around the amplified music side of things. Brian Stockwell 02:47:28.712
I shouldn't have allowed that question because we're dealing with a procedural motion about deferral. Councillor Phillips' question is about what we deferred Frank Wilkie 02:47:40.856
Could that information be provided by the ordinary medium anyway? Amelia Lorentson 02:47:46.894
Potentially. Oh, without a deferral? Yeah. Oh, look, I'm happy to withdraw the procedural motion and have. It's already been said. Pro no worries. Arts. Frank Wilkie 02:47:56.377
Does a procedural motion gag, essentially further debate and questioning on this issue today? Amelia Lorentson 02:48:03.262
Yes. If it's deferred. Brian Stockwell 02:48:06.345
Yes. So I'll put the motion. Those in favour? The Standing Orders also state. Ah, no. Excuse me? You say you've got to include the reason for your deferral. Ah, okay. So you haven't put that in the motion? No. So thank you for interrupting. Reason was to get further information around acoustics and safety. Thanks to Cathy and. Sorry. Now we can put the motion. Those in favour? Against? Yes. So that's unanimously opposed. So we go back to the State of motion. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:48:56.419
I have a question Mr Chair. Sure. It's about the interesting topic of CCTV. What was the information that would be sought about CCTV by a person? Nadine Gordon 02:49:12.840
It was just whether it could be put internally to view down the easement. We've got the public easement going through the car park at the rear, so the condition reads the CCTV is to be on the external boundaries of the site, so this was a suggestion whether it can go Frank Wilkie 02:49:28.975
And you'd have sufficient time between now and Thursday to talk to the applicant about that? Yes. Okay. The other will one would be about time for you to investigate whether crowd noise limiting technology is available? Yes. Just real time noise sensors and feeding back into the. And noise smoothing. And it would lead to another condition. Would it Councillor? To what end would it? Amelia Lorentson 02:49:59.084
Maybe it forms part of the complaints management process that there's. That it's data driven, that any complaints correlate to real life information. Okay, thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:50:14.246
Yep. And can we include one there to have a face recognition of all Council staff on a Friday afternoon? Have we got any other questions or discussion? Frank Wilkie 02:50:26.791
It's just clarity flag around the game. Around the playground again, and what would need to happen before a playground would be included in on that site? So at the moment--- As Councillor Phillips has pointed out, it has been signalled to the community. Yes. It's happening? Brian Stockwell 02:50:44.579
Oh, I didn't sorry. Turn it off. Not just, it was on the--- Yes. Nadine Gordon 02:50:47.676
Not just the red Noosa community or-- Yes, from a credible source, yeah. I understand when it was originally, I think, mooted, that there talk about putting in a playground, but since then they're-- reports that they've submitted haven't addressed it at all, and their plans haven't put it on, and I think it's more of a leftover. So confirmation from the applicant this morning was that they have no-- they're not proposing a playground, and they're fully aware that they would need to update their acoustic report to address that, and put a change application back to Council to get a playground on the site. Brian Stockwell 02:51:33.376
And don't go further. And condition three, this. Lists the plans approved. That's correct. Is the playground indicated in any of those plans? Nadine Gordon 02:51:44.141
It would have to amend, I think it's annotate, just needs one of the plans to be annotated to be. We could have a suggested condition for Thursday. Yes. Frank Wilkie 02:51:55.897
Just some advice about your knowledge of these acoustic barriers. It's talked about having minimum surface mass density of 12.5 kilograms per square metre, so that sounds like it's quite dense. Is that an industry standard that they're referring to there? Nadine Gordon 02:52:16.223
That was given, that condition was set by our acoustic consultant who's indicated that is the minimum that has to be provided. Frank Wilkie 02:52:24.817
Okay, thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:52:25.958
Are there questions or who other questions or people wish to just talk to the motion? I'll speak Councillor Wegener, you have the floor on the airwaves. Thank you. I think it's a fantastic development. Tom Wegener 02:52:42.574
I'm looking forward to having a beer at the new royal mail. However, I still help hold reservations about the northerly beer garden, and I look at the amenities amenity humidity of the river and the hills and the hill overlooking it is one of the few, if not the only, place where there's a clear, the serenity that I've enjoyed there, walking past there at night, very nice. It's a romantic place where young people could be. I worry that the midnight opening of the northern beer garden, with loud voices even, may disrupt that utterly amazing amenity. Really and it's almost as spiritual site I mean that was the place with where the Kabi Kabi lived. It's. Where they buried, what I understand, It is a very significant place. So, I am. I'm very hesitant about giving something that is very hard to take away. I would rather go until 10 o'clock and say, "Oh, you know, there I was worried she's about is not a problem. Okay, let it go until 12. But the opposite of going until 12 and pulling it back until 10, I think would be very difficult. So, I just. I think of just the amenity of the beauty of the serenity and the quiet of the river in the very famous Noosa bend in the river. Richard MacGillivray 02:54:13.865
There is another Councillor that would put forward, you know, I would support that amendment. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 02:54:26.283
We can do it now. Okay. Brian Stockwell 02:54:28.464
Yeah. Oh. Oh, if we're going to get more conditions relating to noise, would it be more appropriate to do it as a bulk change on Thursday night? I think so. I think if noise is one of the issues we are going to talk about, it's probably good to encapsulate it into one change. I'm happy with that. Sorry, did you hear that Councillor Wegener? What I said is because we are predicting or forecasting we will have some more information about potential for a change to the noise related acoustic conditions that it'd be probably better to lump all that consideration into one discussion rather than having part of it now as by way of an amendment. Okay fine thank you. Karen Finzel 02:55:21.053
Off the back of Councillor Wegener's comment around the sacredness of the place and that amenity, I do notice we've got Cheyenne in the room. Are we allowed to ask questions about how the Kabi Kabi, given we've got an agreement with them, have been brought along this journey as part of this conversation? Brian Stockwell 02:55:41.776
So we certainly can ask the question whether there has been any engagement on a specific development application. And I think you would probably, yeah. Kim Rawlings 02:55:52.884
From my understanding there hasn't been any engagement with Kabi Kabi on this development proposal. Okay, Brian Stockwell 02:56:04.265
To the side, obviously where we sit. Terms of PhD work around here shows that anywhere where there's a high hill above water with gum trees is where the semi-sedentary camps were because that's where the mosquitoes were left and down in the low country, but we do have the heritage of the burial tree just down the road. That's what I wanted to talk about is that it is a quite significant local heritage site and when I first started reading about you know vertical versus horizontal handrails I thought oh we're going over the top and then I saw the 1941 picture realised strongly and realised how strong that horizontal theme was down low and that there's you know theirs is dark which actually brings out the art deco better than you know the light as it currently is always proposed um it'd be great if we could get that 1941 back out front as well but it has got a lot of heritage so um it's just both for indigenous but you know the first commercial fishing that happened here I believe was during the sawmill strike when the workers were running out of money they decided to go in and throw the net back and take it up to gimp. Gympie and know from all the old Tewantin residents when they met last year they did a there was one of the researchers do a bit of local history on the site and it has got a fascinating story and has been a key to this community so it's important to get it right and also understand the concerns of the neighbouring people who live there but also acknowledge that it has been a sight zone for these purposes for many a year and living near a centre has many benefits and of the side downsides is it's noisier than living in a quiet suburb. So it is a balancing act and I think the key point that's made is if we put a condition that's in excess of what is an acceptable solution our opportunity to defend that should it be challenged is probably quite slim. Jessica Phillips 02:58:16.896
I'm just going to take real. Going to speak really quickly about one of my favourite sites. I nearly 40 years ago would start walking from ward street with my family every Saturday night to have a meal at the royal mail so I have a long history of memories with my late mum and my family and it was one of those opportunities where it felt like everyone got together and shared a meal so since everyone's touched on the softer part of heritage yeah it's a really special time to watch the existing royal mail have a facelift that I think is really timely maybe overdue and yeah I'm looking forward to being able to share more mails with my kids there now into the future once we have some clarity around yeah the amenity part as well. So, thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:59:16.955
Anybody else wish to talk? Amelia Lorentson 02:59:19.125
Add in and I just to add and I won't repeat what's already been said around the table but this is also an excellent opportunity to activate the precinct we're talking about reviving the Royal Mail but we're also talking about activating this untapped diamond we call Tewantin. So, I think it's going to have like a domino effect, that it'll inspire other businesses to invest more or to redevelop and it's one of the best precincts in the Shire, so I'm really excited that this development application is going through and thank the applicant for, you know, this is significant investment and also between now and Thursday hope maybe there is some opportunity to address some real amenity issues. I think we have a responsibility to our community to do all that we can to ensure that we mitigate through triggers like conditions and development applications to just minimise any impacts in terms of noise. The gardens are noisy. They're really noisy. I've spent a lot of years these in bee gardens. So again, we must give consideration to residents. They, too, should be ensured their rights of quiet enjoyment. Brian Stockwell 03:00:57.623
I've never Karen Finzel 03:01:00.465
I just had a question. Sorry. Brian Stockwell 03:01:04.345
Be anybody? Karen Finzel 03:01:04.926
Right back. Just a question, given we're talking amenity and opportunity to, you know, embrace further our story, connection to each other and our place, we've got the public art infrastructure policy coming before us. Has anything been raised around public art within this site or externally? No. Is there opportunity for any such thing? The policy relates to the public places is my, not to the. I thought it was going to say a percentage of the infrastructure through. Brian Stockwell 03:01:46.273
Yeah. So I'll just-- so there's no, what we're saying, is there's no trigger in our planning scheme to require public art. Vision of public art. The public infrastructure. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to talk? I think we've all, I know you haven't talked yet. Karen Finzel 03:02:05.700
Look, I just think it's a great opportunity for our community to activate the space, continue that story. And our history that brings us enjoyment with our families now and into the future. I think it's good to activate the business community and people can come here with confidence. Knowing that we're supporting you know relevant businesses into our Shire to do support both our local economy through tourism and our visitors to the region as well as our residents who really love it. So the other afternoon I was, you know, out in the hinterland and people were already talking about this development. They knew all about it. Was heritage. They knew about the Tewantin mail. So I think it's a great opportunity to give it a facelift and support. Growth in our area. Brian Stockwell 03:02:59.587
Okay. Councillor Wilkie, would you like to reply? Frank Wilkie 03:03:03.421
I covered the I think Councillors have covered the key issues really well. It's about this development will transform and uplift energise Tewantin wanton Tewantin significantly but we're also having strong regard to resident amenity. Brian Stockwell 03:03:21.012
Thank you. I put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor? Yes. So that's unanimous noting that Councillor Wilson wasn't in the room and we can Councillor Wilson back into the room please. Thank you. Our next item is Noosa Council's organisational carbon footprint, financial year 23/24. Jessica Phillips 03:03:45.092
And we have Cheyenne. And Emma. Brian Stockwell 03:03:53.290
As well as for the team. There we go. We'd Wilson, to return. And also manager of stratiki planning, Anita. Welcome back. So who was going to give us an executive summary? Unidentified Speaker 03:04:27.687
I think they're on a pause to me. So this report is the council's organisational carbon footprint and its recommended deployment noting. Its part of the footprint includes council's expenditure data to date and also looks up sorry the last financial year and also includes emissions from our supply chain. The footprint was calculated in accordance with climate active methodology and was completed by our third-party auditor. So the footprint was determined to be 45,118 tons of greenhouse gas emissions which is given in tons of co2 equivalent. The majority of emissions came of from the at% landfill at 47 percent next was professional services at 14 percent which does include engineering services and also and then construction materials and services at 13 percent. So started Council measuring its footprint since 2016 so that's taken as the baseline year. Since 2016 we've seen a total reduction of 18% starting at 55,843 tonnes. 2016 so we have achieved the 18% reduction. We have seen an increase in utility rate related emissions but this has been offset by the significant reductions in emissions at the landfill and this is to capture occurs. And flaring that occurs there. If we exclude some of the emissions from our supply chain which are out of our direct control we've achieved closer to a 38% reduction in since 2016 which is similar to other LGAs like the Sunshine Coast who's sitting at about 40 in direct emissions reduction. So the sustainability and climate change team has just begun working on a comprehensive Roadmap and investment strategy to net zero emissions and we will present this to Council later in the year and it will include priority areas to action and our emissions reduction further to deal with our residual emissions that are sitting at about 45,000 tonnes Brian Stockwell 03:06:52.342
Thank you do we have questions there's some interesting stuff terms of electricity which most people think is the most important in our case it's only a small component and we are saving the equivalent of an estimated around $375,000 year by our solar installations however, we've gone up by 22%.% since 2021. Is that real consumption or is that because it's based on how much we spend on electricity? Unidentified Speaker 03:07:29.867
It's very difficult to say with the data that we've got. Savings that we've estimated are based on as of now, so as if we have 750 kilowatts of solar now and it's all utilised. But looking at historical stuff it's very hard to say when the solar was installed. Brian Stockwell 03:07:49.990
Now I'm just talking about, sorry, the table that can pay. The end and electricity has actually gone up 22% since 2021, so is that because we have been less focused on our energy efficiency or is it because we opening are up, say, new offices just because the formula's worked on how much we spend on. Unidentified Speaker 03:08:12.126
So it's not based on expenditure data, that. It's based on consumption data. Nadine 03:08:15.989
So there has been an increase. So, to clarify, Councillor, that we found that Richard MacGillivray 03:08:22.964
That is a typo in the report, that percentage, it should be 7%. If you look at the difference between the numbers, so that is the one typo we found just before this. Brian Stockwell 03:08:33.378
Yes, so apologies for that. And obviously the. News story is, I think the biggest reduction is waste to landfill as a result of the capturing of the gas, 31%. Frank Wilkie 03:08:47.227
Just also on the landfills, the biggest contribution to greenhouse gases, since 2016, there's been a reduction from 36,000 to about 21,000. Could you talk about, congratulations on the work done, but can the key pieces of work that have been done to get that result, that impressive result? Unidentified Speaker 03:09:09.272
So, from what most the gas captures. The gas capturing, so the capturing the methane gas and flaring it to CO2 has the largest contribution to that emissions reduction in the landfill. There are other initiatives which waste team would be better to speak to but such as the green waste that kind of thing which would reduce it. The way green waste is categorised differently when you calculate emissions so Frank Wilkie 03:09:39.948
Just on the green waste which came in 2017 I think we were the first to introduce it Queensland, correct? Unidentified Speaker 03:09:47.750
Yes I think that's right. Frank Wilkie 03:09:49.050
So that organic matter no longer goes to landfill if it had gone to landfill it would create methane so now it's not that's so could you talk about how significant a reduction in methane production it is from not having organic matter going into landfill Unidentified Speaker 03:10:05.802
So I don't we have the numbers for that at the moment it's something that we can take a notice and see if we can work that out Frank Wilkie 03:10:13.730
And just the people who might be listening could you explain why flaring methane which produces carbon dioxide is actually a reduction in greenhouse gas even though we're it's creating a gas Unidentified Speaker 03:10:25.044
Sure so methane has a higher global warming potential than in carbon dioxide essentially so the equivalent amount of methane would produce more harmful global warming than of carbon dioxide so and I think it's about 28 times so it's significant yes and so that's why we convert methane to co2 as a preference Frank Wilkie 03:10:45.998
And a lot of work's been done and moving towards non-polluting technologies and Council operations where you have to quantify the amount of savings for example that has meant for ratepayers over the years because the installation of solar for example Unidentified Speaker 03:11:00.038
So that's it is difficult to quantify and we based on the 750 kilowatts of solar that we do have installed across Council that's when if you work out the direct savings that could equate $300,000 of savings a year and there are a lot of assumptions that have to go into that but yeah it does show that could be the potential savings from solar. And that's just one element yeah it should be more than that yeah it's there's a lot of variables so it makes it difficult to quantify. Frank Wilkie 03:11:32.536
You mentioned the difficulty in actually calculating emissions and other things. Can you talk about the methodology that you use which is based on expenditure? To help you explain why professional services seem, which we understood were lawyers and accountants initially before you educated us. Unidentified Speaker 03:11:53.832
Just to explain the methodology so admissions- So, emissions basically are categorised into scope one, two, and scope three. One are our direct emissions, which for us is basically our landfill. Scope two is our, predominantly purchased electricity. And scope three is our, basically the emissions from our supply chain. So that's the best, or the only way currently we can estimate that is by using the expenditure data. So we take a general ledger and look where we spent our money. Climate active give us emissions factors, they're called. So it's a way, it's a rate of us converting dollars to carbon dioxide, tons equivalent. And this, it the sceptre. That the expenditure is in. So it could be on construction materials, could be concreting, could be IT services. It could be cloud storage as part of our IT. Each of our expenditure items are categorised into the different categories then and an emissions factor tailored to those categories is applied, and then you get your carbon dioxide equivalent out from that. Nicola Wilson 03:13:06.691
Oh, just to further clarify, so you could have the same level of activity in the same amount of materials and services that you're purchasing, but because prices have gone up, it would convert you to greater emissions. Unidentified Speaker 03:13:20.396
Although the admissions factors are changed or reviewed periodically, so the assumption is that the increased cost of things be factored into that admissions factor. But there would be a lag essentially as well. Jessica Phillips 03:13:36.646
Questions please, thank you. I don't know if this might be more of an infrastructure question, so apologies for this, but the street lighting with um with the rates one and two and then the rate three separate, my understanding is that are more network owned, Council operated, but are not, or maybe it's the other way around. But what my question is, when we're considering our street lighting, how many need to go into LED or to continue this reduction? I don't know if you can try and work out my explanation there or my question through that. Yes, I think it seems to be that we could do more with the street lighting. Unidentified Speaker 03:14:31.522
There is more that can be done in the street lighting. We, Council only owns and operates a very small percentage. Of the street lights. So it wouldn't make, whilst it's something, yes, we could absolutely do, it would make a material difference in our reduction. But it is something that's being looked at. Brian Stockwell 03:14:49.056
And other councils that sought to take over the street lighting so they can enhance the implementation of the D Jessica Phillips 03:14:57.078
Yeah, 'cause we can't really sit on an Energex street light and use their, is this the right way to--- Street lighting, so yeah. And then if we had our own, we could not only reduce this, but we can have more control over it. LED in our electricity, is that--- Yeah, I mean, Energex have committed to rolling out LEDs. Yeah, okay. And there is a lot of advocacy going on in that space. So, but yeah, that is definitely something that we can look at. Yeah, great. Follow-up question, let me just, sorry. If anyone wants to jump in. Brian Stockwell 03:15:36.723
Okay, I'll do one. It was a bit of a surprise and it's only been to base, but some actions that I thought led to sequestering carbon in the soil have given us to 380. It's 309 tons, which is parks and garden care, mulch and soil preparation and planting, is that purely something about getting all the people there or is that just you put it into the system and that's what it yeah. Because it doesn't make sense when you compare it to say concrete products. I mean we do rely on the climate act of having the accurate, as it can be in this respect. It needs to be stuff to increase sequestration but it's got a reasonable signature, did you-- Jessica Phillips 03:16:20.388
I've- found that increased expenditure on suppliers such as Hazel brothers, CMC civil, KG in the construction of materials. When we go to fuelment, is that a consideration to put back on those that companies we use to buy into our reduction? Is that--- Yes. It definitely-- sustainable procurement is definitely something that we are looking into to address that. Yeah. So when we come- Kind of like tender and process--- Essentially. They say, well, if want a job here, this is our--- Yeah. Larry Sengstock 03:17:03.568
Okay. It's one of the criteria we have, and it's becoming larger, or it's being investigated at how we do address that further but some of the larger companies recognise that's part of what they need to do. Other smaller companies would love to do it, I'm sure, but they don't have the agility yet. Amelia Lorentson 03:17:24.522
I have a couple of questions. Hi. In terms of costs, lots and of data collection, an account auditor, roadmaps, plan, the level of detail. What's the cost to Council, and who pays, and who does this work? Is it done internally, or are in two feedback? Externally outsourcing the accounting or the auditing? Unidentified Speaker 03:17:55.860
So, for last financial year, the one that I've just reported on, that was done by an external. Amelia Lorentson 03:18:01.825
Internal? External. Independent auditor. Unidentified Speaker 03:18:04.708
Okay, independent, yeah. It does require in-house resourcing to provide the data. Prior to that, the two previous years were done in-house, I believe it was two, and then the one before that was done again by an external. It is going to be, it's a decision we've got to make as to what the next one, how is produced, whether that's internal or external. Amelia Lorentson 03:18:30.301
Do we have an idea of cost, actual costs, or can you take that on notice and us the information? It's around $20,000. Okay, so it's not significant, no, okay. Other question, we're in the process at the moment, I believe, negotiating or finalising employee bargaining agreements. Have we taken the opportunity to align the agreements? Brian Stockwell 03:19:00.729
I don't think we can talk about I agree with talking about an active negotiation on staff contract. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:10.257
Okay, Through the Chair. Okay, so I can't ask the question, that's why. Brian Stockwell 03:19:14.481
Yeah, I think I know where you're going, and I had a similar idea in my head, but I think it's because of the sensitivity of the confidential negotiations, we can't say what's in or what's out. Yeah, Amelia Lorentson 03:19:33.321
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 03:19:39.046
If you like, the CEO can put what he, his vision would be on Amelia Lorentson 03:19:44.271
Questions. I'm not sure what the question's going to be, but I think it's, it is a very sensitive, it's very sensitive at the moment, Councillor, I just, I think Larry Sengstock 03:19:51.837
We, unless it's really relevant, I think we'd best not to go there. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:56.389
It's really relevant. I'll throw the question first and then you can let me know if it's in or out. Just opportunities. Is there opportunity to align the agreements with council's broader strategy mission or sustainability goals? Have we considered incentivising staff to catch public transport, to walk, to cycle, to not provide car allowance that's the question that I was asking, whether we're using whatever opportunities we have for Council to walk the talk, basically. Larry Sengstock 03:20:39.889
It's not something that's been captured, necessarily. We can, and we don't. Honest, we provide a lot of vehicles anyway, or allowances, so those sorts of things haven't necessarily been part of the negotiation to this point. Unidentified Speaker 03:20:55.413
I can speak to embedding. Um, to, um, our operational plan and in our Corporate Plan, in we do have an action in there to embed climate risk management and sustainability throughout the organisation, and so that would include incentive programs and working with teams. To upskill, to build capacity and capability, to incentivize things like coming to work through active transport. And looking at electric vehicles and the cost reductions available there. The available there and things Richard MacGillivray 03:21:25.012
So we're looking at all of that definitely as part of our embedding Roadmap. Kim Rawlings 03:21:29.033
Thank you. We've just run a program, shay, around electricity usage at home across the organisation. The and yeah yeah Nadine 03:21:38.260
That's a program run by Sian and Jordan from the economic development team. It's called an energy flex program and it helps Council staff understand how they can reduce their electricity bills and greenhouse gases from their electricity at home and so programs like that we're hoping to roll out in Unidentified Speaker 03:21:56.037
On massive in different ways around Council. Jessica Phillips 03:21:59.221
Thank you. My last question which was just in the finance part of the report. Noosa Council's capital works program also includes an annual 400,000 budget allocation for emissions reduction projects. Would you be able to tell me more about that? Unidentified Speaker 03:22:18.076
So yeah, in the past we've had a four hundred thousand dollar annual allowance for emissions reduction, capital work so that allows us to do a lot of our solar installations, LED rollouts, Kim Rawlings 03:22:33.066
Lighting upgrades, air conditioning upgrades, capital to all of our buildings. To reduce emissions. Jessica Phillips 03:22:43.266
And is that 400 so it says for the financial year 25? Unidentified Speaker 03:22:49.013
It'll be the last year. Next financial year will that $400,000 allocation is included. Brian Stockwell 03:22:58.598
If I could have a subsequent question, are we gonna spend it this year? Yes. That's the plan. Richard MacGillivray 03:23:03.478
We have a number of projects identified which we're working on. Karen Finzel 03:23:07.458
Yeah. All right, yes. Question? Then. Yep. Thank you for the report. It was, yeah, it's reading in there. Some things were unexpected and other things were quite surprising in terms of where we thought, emissions would you know, things like I would like to talk about. You've asked us to note this report with a future report coming up to us with a Roadmap and investment and strategy to net zero emissions. And that is noticing also in the report the reputational litigation, financial investment risk, strategic and operational risks. I was surprised it wasn't mentioned in this report, but hopefully it's coming to us. You know, the elephant in the room, I think, is the 2026. Target. Just wondering where we're travelling along with actually reaching that to mitigate the risks mentioned in this report. With that snapshot that was provided through the Griffith university, can we be expecting some type of idea? If we're going to be looking at perhaps changing that 2026 target? Me, it seems unreliable. A little bit unreasonable. Maybe this is a question. Or was it a question? It's a question. Brian Stockwell 03:24:28.090
Maybe if we can put the question that in. Debt. Looking at a Roadmap, will Councillors be asked whether they want to retain or change the target of 2026? Kim Rawlings 03:24:39.418
Council, we are bringing forward to you an investment Roadmap to try and continue to reduce our emissions, and yes, of as part of that you will be asked to consider a number of things around you can see in the report how we're tracking and there's a very short time frame to 2026 so yes around to consider on how we achieve the outcome that the Council been trying to achieve for number of years Karen Finzel 03:25:14.483
Yeah and we'll will help let's us address the necessary, I don't know what we've got to reach through our requirements for the Local Government Act how at risk are we at not aligning with that in terms of our targets for zero what's emission. Specifically is Well you have mentioned it in your report under risks and opportunity the Local Government Act and the agreed roles and responsibilities to climate change adapt action in Australia Kim Rawlings 03:25:47.797
That refers to our duty of care as a local government to address general risks for our community at the strategic level climate change is one of our major risks sits at that level there is no so there are strategic risks around this and the cost if we don't continue to reduce our emissions becomes greater to the society over time so we are working towards trying manage and mitigate those target that we have said is the is a local government set target it's not a legislative target it's something that Noosa Council has said itself. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Brian Stockwell 03:26:40.304
Yes, thank you. As a part of the road map towards zero emissions Tom Wegener 03:26:50.440
Sequestration of carbon through biochar and through our composting because I believe that we could really sink a lot of carbon that way. Are you investigating that as a part of our road map? Brian Stockwell 03:27:07.072
So you've answered your own question in that you're asking a question about a road map that we haven't got in front of us. We've got a report about last year's emissions and being a Councillor I'm sure that they will be considered because you'll there saying we have them. Frank Wilkie 03:27:27.080
Because I'd like to leave before midnight. I like to move the recommendation. Kim Rawlings 03:27:33.944
Councillor Finzel Brian Stockwell 03:27:36.498
So move Councillor Wegener Wilkie sorry I'll get you Councillor Finzel and I've just explained Councillor Wegener I move that your question was out of order Frank Wilkie 03:27:49.851
Okay okay Thank you. For the report it is a very difficult task to quantify these emissions you've showed us how we're tracking by according to the best methodology and that's the best advice you can give at this time it makes it clear we've got a lot of work to do we're not going to meet that 2026 target so let's be clear about that I'm looking forward to the work you're doing giving us some options to consider whether it's timeframe pushing out the time frame or how we pay for offsets I know councils that don't have landfills have a much easier time at reaching net zero we're taking response we're not trying to divest ourselves of that responsibility by selling off our landfill where going to be taking some initiatives that will reduce our landfill emissions and not only this move toward non-polluting technologies and practices will reduce our impact on the environment and our responsibility responsibilities for climate change it's also a discipline that it imposes on this organisation to be more efficient and there are great savings for ratepayers as well so thank you for the work and I look forward to your future report. Brian Stockwell 03:29:01.413
I'll talk to it. There is some really good improvement in areas that we have an ability to fix within current budgetary constraints. I did have were a look and I noticed we referred to the Carbon Reduction Officer doing previous assessments and I thought that's an out of date concept. We should be a carbon reduction organisation where every officer thinks part of their job description is carbon reduction. And we had a bit of a talk about that. Like some of the good areas, those things, the efficiency and thinking about what you buy and how much you use to have paper has significantly reduced in terms of office supplies. There's others where fleet fuel has gone up. But there's a lot in here that's gone up as a result of the increased capital works. So we have this concept. So to me, it's about the ability to make decisions that make the best cost outcomes for carbon reduction. I think one of the upcoming gender items on this meeting will be a test of that. Amelia Lorentson 03:30:24.026
I'm just going to add just something trying to say this nicely start with the four piece people, planet, profit, purpose and I think that sometimes in our language and reporting so carbon reports for the ordinary person on the street carbon footprints may not mean a lot I just think we need to and Mayor Wilkie explained it really great it's about efficiencies it's about cleaner air it's about the future we want to leave to our children and it's about doing what's right it's about not wasting it's not sustainable for us to keep going the way we are so so probably what I like is how doing green good stuff means better business efficiency and on a community level how that impacts on tax lower rates and that we as a Council spend money in core business where it's needed on our roads and these efficiencies give us the opportunity to a do good by the environment but also the community benefits in terms of better roads, cleaner air, waterways. And thank you for the report. Brian Stockwell 03:31:56.251
You. Anyone else? Richard MacGillivray 03:31:59.833
I'd like to speak. Brian Stockwell 03:32:02.835
You have the floor Councillor Wegener. Richard MacGillivray 03:32:05.981
Well, considering that the world. Tom Wegener 03:32:10.482
Considering that the world's biggest economy has abandoned climate change and the goals, sometimes you think that the world is going to end and it's all low. And then I reflect on the stoic philosophy and reflect on socrates and in his trial he said when spartans, the had sacked athens, people walked around like the world was ending in all remorse and socrates kept his head up high and he never changed the way acts because he has absolute values that transgressed or on the other side of actions and local occurrences such as we're facing with climate change and so he has absolute value we have an absolute value here in Noosa and that is our absolute value is we have to give the next generation a Noosa that is the same or better than the Noosa that we inherited and that's an absolute so I really believe that what you're doing what Cheyenne and the team there is doing with this is very very important and we do need to just stick to our goals and climate change emergency because it's to do it is the absolutely correct thing to do I would like to also just mention that I would love to see the economic development team really get on board with this because I think that we have enormous opportunities through the TIP, through reception resources. Sequestration I mean the research resource recovery centre here this is our advantage economic that I believe could it be utilised a lot more thoroughly so yeah thank you to the team for doing this wonderful job and I look forward to the Roadmap coming up Kim Rawlings 03:34:02.243
Thank you can I just say the economic development team are on board this that's right. Brian Stockwell 03:34:07.286
Very much anyone else Councillor Wilkie no thank you I think it's all been said I put the motion those in favour yes that's unanimous thank you we need a short break Brian Stockwell 03:41:59.194
Ready? Yeah. We're and the pumps are going to be finished by 4:30 on to item 8.5 which is a financial I know we're not 8.4 which is the Pomona placemaking plan Unidentified Speaker 03:42:15.727
And do we have and we have a. Amelia Lorentson 03:42:20.047
Yes me Michelle yeah excuse me Through the Chair just declare but a I've got a declarable of interest. I, Council Lorentson wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my husband Chris Lorentson an employee of page Furnishers Pty Ltd. where he has served as general manager for the past 32 years. Although I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias. There is no personal gain or loss involved, therefore will choose to remain in the meeting room as a result of my conflict of interest, Oh, sorry, that's okay. However. Brian Stockwell 03:43:11.279
Okay, thank you. Okay. Richard MacGillivray 03:43:13.139
I'll move that. Brian Stockwell 03:43:15.099
I'll second. Are we moving the stay? The standard motion to stay. And it's been moved by Councillor Phillips and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. And the reason for staying. Jessica Phillips 03:43:29.145
But in accordance with section 150 ES of the Local Government Act 2009, and having considered the council's conflict of interest as described, it is decided that Councillor Lorentson may participate and vote on this matter relating to. Frank Wilkie 03:43:43.573
Pomona placemaking plan. And you need a clause. Sorry, Mr Chair, you're in charge. Brian Stockwell 03:43:58.033
A relation to that a reasonable person would consider that she could. Remain in charge. Consider a vote on the matter in the public interest. Jessica Phillips 03:44:07.917
I'll just put this here. Because I do not believe a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias as there is no personal gain or loss involved. Brian Stockwell 03:44:17.720
You have we are happy okay. We're happy to do with that. Do you need to talk to it? No? Anyone wish to talk or ask questions? Do we have a seconder for that? Seconder was Councillor Wilkie. If there's no one wish to talk, I'll put the matter to a vote. Those in favour and yeah so that was unanimous noting that Councillor Lorentson Lorentson didn't vote. Okay, now we can proceed to Michelle to give us an overview. Unidentified Speaker 03:45:02.021
Councillors, today I'd like to present to you the Pomona Place Plan, the final plan endorsement. For program commenced in June 2023 after Pomona was endorsed by Council for the location for the placemaking pilot in February in 2023. This report presents the final Pomona plan for endorsement by Council. The Pomona Place Plan has been prepared in partnership with the Pomona community and is the result of three rounds community engagement. First round of engagement was undertaken in August till October in 2023 to determine the visions and values of the Pomona community as well as asking the community what made Pomona a great place to live and how we could make it even better. Over 500 people participated in the engagement through a range of activities with 250 people completing the community survey identifying a diverse range of ideas for potential actions in the plan. Also had two workshops with community organisations and we participated in a walk-on country with the Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation. The Pomona Place Plan Engagement Summary Report was endorsed by Council at its meeting in December 27. The second round of community engagement was undertaken in May to June of 2023, sorry, 2024, where the committee were asked to prioritise actions from Round 1 engagement and to confirm the vision statement. The plan we received over 240 survey responses with approximately 60 participants attending pop-ups and separate workshops were also held with community organisations and the Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation. This then allowed us to prepare the final and draft plan which was then underwent a third round of committee engagement from October 18th to November 17th in 2024. The purpose of this round was really the draft Pomona Place Plan to the community, to confirm the visions and actions, reflected their aspirations and to enable community members to nominate to be involved in specific community led actions. Council received submissions to the place plan, as well as some submissions via email. We also held workshop with community organisations to discuss implementation. The final Pomona Place Plan has been developed based on the community input and responses from all three rounds of community consultation, and has been amended considering those submissions from the most recent round. The majority of changes really focused around providing further clarity, detail around some actions, functionality and readability of the document, and strengthening the issue of quarry trucks moving through the village. Brian Stockwell 03:47:39.264
Thank you. Do we have questions? Amelia Lorentson 03:47:42.565
The Chair, were there questions that you were going to ask on behalf of a resident or not? Brian Stockwell 03:47:51.715
Not that I can recall. No, okay. That's all right. I will tell you I wasn't up there, but I can't recall that I was up there. Frank Wilkie 03:47:59.803
Okay. I believe there may some be questions coming to the Ordinary Meeting, is that what you're referring to? Amelia Lorentson 03:48:05.174
Are there questions coming to the Ordinary Meeting? Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Sorry, public questions. Fantastic. I have a couple of questions, first in terms of costs. What are the costs for the Pomona placemaking project in terms of external consultancies? What were the costs of each round of consultation? And what, in terms of value for money and reach of engagement, has that been assessed? Unidentified Speaker 03:48:38.829
So the project has come in under its budget through Council. The consultation, the engagement of the consultants to run all the consultation sessions as well as prepare the document and the. Guess the preparation was around $130,000. Fantastic. Amelia Lorentson 03:49:03.291
Any other questions? Pomona Men's Shed. I met up with some of the members of the Pomona Men's Shed just recently, a couple of days ago. They, and I could be is. Wrong, so my question is were they engaged as part of this process. Unidentified Speaker 03:49:24.322
They were certainly invited to all the community organisational workshops and did attend the last workshop we had, where we had one representative from the Pomona Men's Shed. But I guess is I guess this is the development of the plan. The process now is implementation and we're going to be going back out and engaging around the actions in the plan with community groups. So we would love to chat to them. Amelia Lorentson 03:49:44.723
Fantastic. There has been some change in committee members. So that would be excellent. They've reached out and would really love to partake. And more so, they would also like the Men's Shed just to be identified as an important social. Infrastructure in the community. They provide a lot in this space of health and wellbeing for men within the Shire and also within the community permaino. Of Pomona. Thank you. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 03:50:17.781
Leaving, I'm moving, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 03:50:19.277
You're moving again? Pindell. Frank Wilkie 03:50:22.525
Again, midnight approaches. I think an enormous amount of work has gone into this. Really appreciate how the plan already delivered some quick wins on the ground in the Pomona community. You've outlined them in report. There's short-term goals in the next one to two years, which are already. Some of them are already underway. And looking. I do appreciate it. Is budget-dependent on how some of the long-term goals do proceed, and that's the correct procedure. Thank you for your work. It's a wonderful template. And I'm looking forward to. It reaching us. Its community scene. Amelia Lorentson 03:51:12.209
I know we're sort of at the end and very tired, but I do want to raise tree planting program. So in 2023-2024, Council committed to a proactive I've gone through the new plan. Has it been explicitly. I know we've got native trees and there's all mentions of great vegetation and programs. Has that tree planting program been explicitly included in the new plan? Unidentified Speaker 03:51:43.777
Not explicitly. I guess it falls under that streetscape upgrade action which is quite broad and I appreciate, you can't delve down into everything but I have been working with that department within Council about if there's any opportunity to bring forward those things we'll be going to do a um, a greening, um, mask training master plan which we might be on able to get some additional provided we get funding for we can potentially move that forward as well but very cognisant of keeping all opportunities open to bring some of these actions forward that the community have been waiting for. Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Frank Wilkie 03:52:27.919
No I think everyone's done really well I've waived my right to speak I Karen Finzel 03:52:31.432
Just a long-term resident of Pomona. I love reading the report. It's a really good reflection of the community. I've so don't be you know have too big of a conflict but I think it's fantastic. The community is eagerly awaiting you know several things that we've reached there especially you know going back and readdressing the quarry trucks. Know they're walking crossings those things that are high up on you know people's front of their minds every day as they look at our community. So I'm looking forward to seeing this progress and reach its full potential and especially the bit about the what was it called you know the team where you get the town team together. So yeah there's already some generated conversations around that and people are enthusiastically waiting to participate in part of that so yeah I think it's been a great you know way showing we how we can do this better, and like Frank said who's going to be the next you know one that comes out of the hat to go let's continue this great work throughout the Shire. So thank you to everyone involved Amelia Lorentson 03:53:45.699
I'm just going to reference in 2005 there was a Pomona town centre precinct plan. What was interesting when read that was that same priorities then are relevant today. In improve public transport. 2005, they wanted more shade trees. Cycleways. They wanted improved public transport, upgraded sports facility and a swimming pool. That was 20 years ago. It seems like those same priorities are still there. Are still very relevant today. So I am placing my confidence in this plan that unlike the 2005 plan where not much progress has been made to date, that we can progress those priority actions for Pomona. And I think it's important that we do because it will give us the confidence and give the community the confidence that we can actually duplicate these programs in other precincts and achieve. Deliverables. I think the community want outcomes, so I think, you know, the pressure is on us and the town team deliver and I'm confident we will. I've enjoyed the process. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:55:06.996
I'll be brief. The project was a pilot and we are getting a separate report, but when I read the plan, I do, because I lived in Pomona for a couple of years, you really feel that it has captured the essence of both the town, but also of what you know, what we hear as Councillors. What the to be in the future, about how, what they want to retain and what we can work together to achieve it. And that's the essence of place planning is you refine it to a point where locals can understand that this is what our place is and we're going to work with Council or our community groups to achieve it. I think the process has worked and I think there's good learnings out of it. To me, the best part that I was involved with was just going along to the markets and seeing all the community suggestions up there and everyone walking past and putting where their priorities. It was so clear what was important and what wasn't so important and it was that engagement at that level and I think one of your learnings was conduct your consultation where people are already at. You know, you'll get much bigger buy-in and that's something we learned. But yeah, from the, you know, when you read the vision statement I think people in the final will say yeah that is what we want to achieve and the actions listed under that also go towards achieving it. So, well done. Thank you. Karen Finzel 03:56:35.330
Can I just make a comment? Me. No, you can't, you were exposed. Brian Stockwell 03:56:37.700
Oh, question. Oh wait, I'm going to send it in. Anyone else want to talk? Wait, are you right? Sorry. Those favour? In Councillor Wegener? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. Now move on to 8.5 which is the Financial Performance Report. Oh, this is the most important. So funny. We can put my bag. So we have the manager of funds and the Acting Director Corporate Services, actually Director. And Pauline, would you like to give us an overview please? Pauline 03:57:35.941
Sure. Good afternoon Councillors. So financial performance for the month of February continues to be positive with operating revenues continuing to outperform forecasts. And operating expenditure under budget at this stage of the financial year. Operating revenue is billion. Above budget and this has been driven by $1 interest revenue. $400,000 sales of goods and services, almost $300,000 from other revenue sources, $200,000 from grant programs and $190,000 from this has been offset, however, by lower than forecast Fees and Charges of $250 operating,000 under budget, with employee costs showing as almost break-even and that's due to the recruitment of the vacancy savings dividend adopted as part of the budget. Materials and services are $109,000 over this is driven predominantly from civil operations, which is $430,000 over budget year-to-date, and holiday parks, which is $109,000 of the budget. Be noted, though, that holiday parks has offsetting revenue streams to fund that overspend. As we generate more revenue, we also generate additional costs associated with it. Have offsetting those overspends and underspend in waste of $170,000 and $150,000 underspend in arts and culture, $100 canals and waterways and $100,000 in development assessment. Finance costs are $165,000 under budget, and that's due to the deferral of some capital works that were flagged to be blown funded during the year. Overall council's year-to-date operating position at February is $2.4 million above budget, which will be utilised to fund emergent expenditure through to the end of the year. Revenue is $8.6 million of our budget, and that's due to the timing of receipts from QRA funding and SEQ CSP funding. Capital expenditure is behind $32.2 million year-to-date, with $12 million relating to. Sorry, I've written it wrong, but council's base capital program and $20 million relating to disaster projects. Council is currently holding $135.6 million, with the second biannual rates run occurring in February. Are at the second peak for the year in our cash reserves, and this will diminish through to June. This peak has resulted in council's investment return showing slightly under target, but this is expected to return to target range as these funds are utilised for operations through to June. Council's financial performance remains on track, subject to any emergent issues that arise between now and the end of the financial year. Brian Stockwell 04:00:24.307
Thank you. Questions? Karen Finzel 04:00:27.956
Yes, thank you for the report. Good reading as always. Watch them when those figures rise and fall. On page four of the report, Council has received notification of the approved 2024-25 financial assistance grant allocation. It's less than budgeted. As such, there's a potential for this to impact 2024-25 operating. Position if payment of the future year's allocations are not paid in the preceding year. My question is, what steps will be undertaken to ensure the risk of potential impacts on the 2024-25 operating position are identified and mitigated? Unidentified Speaker 04:01:10.795
Okay, so in terms of the financial assistance grant, the government had previously taken the position to advance pay those amounts. In last financial year they actually missed the payment deadline and didn't pay in June, they paid in July. So we received that amount. In this financial year. However, the amount that we budgeted for was less about $400,000 and it was flagged I think back in 2022 when they did a review of the methodology around the financial assistance grant that Council would receive approximately 14 less than its existing grant allocation. So we eventually seen we have eventually seen that occur. In terms of being able to mitigate that risk we don't actually have lot of control over the amounts that we get allocated Noosa is the smallest allocation of financial assistance grants in Queensland and there's lots of factors that go into determining that whether that's remoteness, our population rentable radical properties, our grant funding, those sorts of things all play into it. We are a smaller Council in a more urban area so we do get an allocation that's less. $400,000 reduction, in terms of this year's current financial position, if we are to receive the advance payment that we would normally receive in June, there will be no impact into this financial year. If that payment was again delayed like it was year, we would see a half a million dollars down. Overall, it is a cash flow thing, so it's just a tiny issue. The really is the reduction amount of $400,000 and that would need to be absorbed by council's reserves on operations. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 04:02:40.737
I have a question. So capital works is behind what we forecast but our civil operations materials is over budget and we've made some changes in BR2 in regard to a range of things in terms of operations but is the materials and services because we're doing more than we expected or is there some other reason? Unidentified Speaker 04:03:08.205
So in terms, I don't know if Shaun wants to comment but I can talk it if you'd like or if you want me to talk to it. You could introduce. Worries. So in terms of the overspending materials and services versus capital, obviously operational, capital is completely separate. Currently being driven by I suppose some programs that may have been not necessarily planned for as well, and we've had additional costs in arborists which were higher than we had originally intended. We also had cut back the budget again last year to find savings, which hadn't necessarily eventuated at this stage of the year in terms of civil ops. Brian Stockwell 04:03:45.145
We ingest some of that in the BRD? Unidentified Speaker 04:03:47.454
Didn't adjust that much in BR2 for them. There was an anticipation that potentially it was a timing issue and that it would come back in line, and depending on the management of that through to the end of the year it still could occur, but at this stage it's showing over budget. Shaun Walsh 04:04:02.366
Yes, I would on said. There was pauline's said actually an $870,000 reduction in the civil assets and migration budget last financial year and the expectation that we could peg down some costs. Hopefully we're having a dry year. Unfortunately that hasn't been true. We've had significant vegetation costs. And also drainage costs across the Shire and it's been very challenging. I'll be working, now that's a budget overrun year to date. We have an opportunity to curtail operations to actually bring it in on budget or alternatively work with the finance team to see what costs we do need to deliver services adequately so Brian O'Connor has been in the lead for the last three weeks, the relevant manager, so I look forward to working with him to get a much clearer perspective on what we need to actually finish the year. Karen Finzel 04:04:48.794
Just a follow-up question on that. Thank you, Shaun. This has been raised before, especially around with, you know, more weather events and we've got trees coming down and all of that, so it's a question Through the Chair and the CEO. At what level through the organisation we address that about, you know, I think this is going to be ongoing so rather than addressing like where we fall short, how do we be more forward planning, is that going to be through the budget or how are we going to like do that to help these guys out, like stay ahead of that? Larry Sengstock 04:05:21.568
Because it comes up repeatedly. It's a budget issue and as Shaun said last year we reduced the budget because we thought we might have a clear year, we hope we some of those things haven't been chosen so that's a decision we take as a budget measure each year. We can't predict necessarily but we're always striving for efficiencies and better ways of doing things but you know those things take time as well and sometimes they cost money to make money if you like, sometimes to make savings. So we were as we're in as that process well in terms of but it's one of those things will come up as a budget discussion absolutely for 25-26. Shaun Walsh 04:05:59.330
Yeah if I can add to that it's been a fair bit of time in the budget preparation for 25-26 to better articulate some of these costs such as vegetation management, and traffic control and line marking which are really hitting our budget line really with quite significantly at the moment to actually have better discourse with finance and the organisation about these costs which are effectively reducing the capacity of Brian Stockwell 04:06:21.931
The overall program. So line some markings in parts of it are internal, some parts of the considerations we've got is to try and build out internal deliveries like in terms of arborists Shaun Walsh 04:06:36.305
They can be, I know we did at some stage have someone who had a bit of a few of the costs but we thought about this. We have some we do have some internal resources that apply to arborist tasks in terms of assessing the tasks actually doing the work and it's really good that you always maintain baseline to be able to do reactive work but when you look at the significant fluctuations of work that occurs and then also combined with the proactive scheduled vegetation. Reduction on the air traffic routes and the like it's something that's highly fluctuating and there's also economies of scale by contracting it out so the model is a mixture of both sorry what was that the model oh you've got key expertise you know internally to actually lead the program and to guide it, but then you're actually contracting the vast majority of the work out. Amelia Lorentson 04:07:24.910
Cash expense cover targets more than three months and we've got 14.1 months. Of cash at the bank. Question and probably question that's coming out of community a lot in terms of our cash reserves. What's the primary reason behind the surpluses? How does Council determine what is the appropriate level of cash reserves needed for contingencies or future projects? It just seems it keeps going up and So, you know, a couple of other questions thrown in with that one is are we underestimating annual revenue? We overestimating annual expenditure and should we be looking at making maybe reviewing our budget forecasting methodologies? Unidentified Speaker 04:08:20.617
So in terms of right now and what's been reported we are at the peak of the cycle so we've just collected six months worth of rates so we're at a high in the cycle so it as into will come down as we go into June and July. In terms of the cover at the moment that is currently calculated based on our entire cash holding now within in our cash holdings we contain restricted cash reserves for all our unspent levy funds, our unspent grant funds, our undelivered capital programs so if we're behind in capital program we're holding funds to pay for that if that's not delivered in this year we carry it to next year when we're going to deliver those funds so without some of that surplus cash we wouldn't be able to deliver those programs we've also in terms of what's an appropriate amount of cash to be holding in surplus it is recommended as part of our financial sustainability guidelines that hold guidelines that we hold a minimum of three months cash cover above our restricted so take out your restricted components and I think you'll recall it hasn't happened for a little bit but we do a quarterly update on what cash reserves are being held by Council and that breaks it down it's not included in this report but it will be included in the March quarter report in terms of what makes up our cash balances and why we hold them. Brian Stockwell 04:09:31.376
Is it a difficult task? I'm just thinking this it is. Graph could have three colours Unidentified Speaker 04:09:40.515
It's a difficult it's a little bit more in terms of you've got to go through and reconcile all of the different programs and see where they're at and see and allocate those out so they're capturing. Otherwise I'm giving you a ballpark. So we do put quite a bit of effort into making sure that it is accommodating everything that we're aware of at that moment in time. Frank Wilkie 04:09:56.510
I'll move the report. I'll second it. Thank you. For the report. It's excellent. Brian Stockwell 04:10:05.445
Anyone else wish to Amelia Lorentson 04:10:06.787
Talk? I will just, in the space of continuous improvement, Pauline, and not no I love your reports and I love the clarity and a simplicity. Criticism, a thought it would be great to have the report maybe what I would like to see I'll start from is maybe when we're looking at employee expenses a comparative chart I'd like to see have we increased our employee cost over a period of the year over the what are we spending today compared last year in the year before and the reasons I don't know whether that's a audit and risk deep dive exercise or whether it's a financial reporting but I would love to see maybe I don't know some I analysis of some of the information not on each section but just a commentary on how does this fare with cost this time last year and what are the different circumstances or why have we seen in employee an increase in employee costs? We can certainly look at what we can pull together for you. Potentially include a last year's column so you can see the year to date last year. That would be excellent, yeah. But we just need to update some of the reports that we've got for that. Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 04:11:33.560
Interesting and I'm sure it's only a coincidence the first time that I've been directed but it's the report's dipped into red the investment returns sector. It's not quite true, it did each and every 20 point year. Happen in February 2022. Just a question, like the bond rate, are we seeing that and the market has a more pessimistic view of the future than what the fund-raising. Unidentified Speaker 04:12:00.213
Yeah, terms coming into in terms of common interest that dip down, it's actually because of the way the formula calculates, it's using the high peak and we've only just got the cash, so we haven't held that cash the whole way through, so it's actually lowering it down. So that's the way the calculation occurs because we're at the peak of the cycle. In theory it's projecting we should be higher. But we are generally around 4.8 to 5% return at the moment. Karen Finzel 04:12:30.046
Yeah, I'm glad you could track with thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:12:36.253
Mr Chair are we going to close that debate? I don't mean to sound flippant about just saying the report excellent because port it is the reasons why it's excellent is there is so much information in there I commend it to anyone who's interested in council's financial position to read it. Councillor Nicola who's a forensic accountant she has no questions so if she's happy it's a good sign if you're a ratepayer but questions about cash at bank is like 14 months is a very good one and as the report shows there's really only predicting a surplus of a 2.4 million not for not the it's not that much cash that's spare it's constrained cash has been responsibly managed and as you say it's been collected because we're at the height of the rate cycle all the information is there you've got the overs the unders the reasons why there's some each individual department is over why under and so I commend you for the work you put into every monthly report and also for the way you take on board suggestions from Councillors as ones that come forward in this meeting the collective sum of all Councillors requests are reflected in these the graphics and the information provided these reports so that's why I said the report was excellent and I commend ratepayer any payer to read it. Brian Stockwell 04:14:06.227
Thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Pauline. Thank you Paul and thank you. Well done. Acting Director mark. And we move on to item. I'll move it Mr Chair. Amelia Lorentson 04:14:27.336
I'll second. Brian Stockwell 04:14:30.691
8.6 is the ultimate motions and Councillor Wilkie's moving the recommendation. Happy to second. And Councillor Lorentson is seconding it. Frank Wilkie 04:14:39.090
Thank you Mr Chair. I don't think much needs to be said about this. I think if there's any, a Councillor may want to change the wording of the motion. That can be done on Thursday night. They're all there for residents to read if they're interested. And commend the Councillors that have put in some of the work into getting these motions up. Unidentified Speaker 04:14:59.941
Can clarify that's Thursday morning? Frank Wilkie 04:15:02.548
Thursday. Unidentified Speaker 04:15:03.069
What did I say? Oh, thank you Councillor, we'll see. I tried, Frank. Brian Stockwell 04:15:08.019
Thank you Councillors. Does anyone else wish to talk? Karen Finzel 04:15:14.175
Yes, I actually do and I understand people on time restraints, but I think it is respectful to give opportunity for people that wish to say given the volume of work undertaken by Councillor Lorentson and myself to deliver these within a time frame and get them in report. I won't hold you up for long Councillor Frank. I'd just like to say that the reports that I'm putting out to the national assembly I believe are, you know, important, not only in our local communities. Shire but they come at the forefront of the national assembly as well especially when we're talking about circular economy recycling you know road specifications all the things that we've talked about meeting today I believe are addressed in some of the motions that I myself will put up and Councillor Lorentson so thank you for listening everybody I'm looking forward to the recommendations coming before us I believe they'll moving along to help address your time frames timeframes due your wording I respect that so thank you everybody for listening and let's hope we get some really good support at the National General Assembly for the work that councillors and staff, including the CEO have supported us in raising these motions thank you for your time Amelia Lorentson 04:16:38.647
Thank you I will speak to the report firstly it's important to note that these motions have no financial impact Council if approved the costs for a Council attending the conference will be covered by the council's mandatory representation funding also don't extend Council beyond its core responsibilities our community has made it clear that they expect Council to concentrate on its core businesses, roads, rubbish, rates and residents and as Councillor Finzel mentioned these motions do align with council's mandate and more importantly they require no additional resources or cost. The motions simply allow us as a Council to lend our voice and influence to state and Federal matters of local significance. I'm going to run through just really really quickly the three that I put together. First is wastewater and what I'm asking the National General Assembly is to commit to undertaking a feasibility study on implementing a policy similar to the european union. Urban wastewater treatment and reuse framework. Basically, and I'll sum this up really quickly, is that the european union have a goal to remove micropollutants from urban wastewater by 2045. And I'm going to reference what's been happening down along sydney's northern beaches. Over the last week, there's been nine have closed along the coastline. That have been Sydney northern beaches. And it's a stark reminder of why treating wastewater to the absolute high standards is absolutely essential. Part of the coastline down in New South Wales, for those who aren't aware, have been closed because there's been a bunch of debris, including what's called tar balls, that have been washed ashore and they're surmising that it might be combinations of diesel sewage. Terms of the european union, I will give you again a quick summation of their ambitious goals and the motion that I said is, you know, can we just look at what they're doing over there and is we and is there something we can learn from their zero pollution action plan. So by 2045, in europe, urban wastewater treatment plants will be required to implement. What's called caterinary treatment to remove all micropollutants such as those from pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. This is in addition to existing requirements for removing biodegradable organic matter and nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. Producers of pharmaceuticals and also contribute to the costs of advanced treatment under a polluted pay principle. So the measure aims to improve water quality, protect ecosystem and support european union's water sustainability and climate neutrality objectives. Again what I'm asking is that we just assess whether similar policy can apply here in Australia and whether we can learn anything from what's happening over in europe. Second motion I have is again I start from a local perspective. What we need here in Noosa and then see if it's any got application on Federal level. In response to local issues and the local issue in this motion is damaged roads that are caused by heavy vehicles, including but not limited to, say, quarry trucks. My motion is a request to the National General Assembly to work with local governments to mandate what's called road user agreements with industry and the purpose is to simply ensure fair cost distribution among road users including those responsible for increased freight loads that damage local government roads. The third motion is response in to meetings that I've had with local doctors here in Noosa and basically what they've asked is if Council can lend their voice in supporting their advocacy and what they're advocating is that with that the Federal government amend its national health law to allow doctors and also to have like a sub register category that before you retire you can volunteer and part of that is just reduced you know barriers is stuff like registration and ongoing fees so this is this motion is simply again allowing us to support or lend our voice to help support a group of really great doctors advocating for really positive changes in national health laws. Again, not. It's an opportunity and a privilege for us as councillors to advocate on either a state or Federal level and I jump on the opportunity every single year. It's part of our job and responsibility to you know as Councillors lend our to voice to any matter that has local relevance and also anything that is national or state. Thank you very much. Karen Finzel 04:22:59.072
Councillor Lorentson. I just would like the opportunity. See we've got seven minutes so can I please just give a little added some summary. When we're talking about the local. Brian Stockwell 04:23:10.767
Have got another we item and the family order is only about eight points. I'd like to hear that. Covered this section. Nice! Right. Moving forward. So sorry. That then we will put motion oh we'll cancel any other should talk I. Jessica Phillips 04:23:33.225
I'm going to my right and I'm happy to give Council at the end of my time, if possible. I mean. Brian Stockwell 04:23:39.151
The Standing Orders are done. It's Thank you, though. It's OK. So, Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 04:23:44.839
Yeah, thank you. I'd just like to make the point that in promptly moving and seconding a motion, it's. Not precluding any Councillor from speaking to it. I hope that impression is correctly received and you can tell by the way the two Councillors spoke about their motions how passionate they are about it and it's commendable. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 04:24:04.924
Question Through the Chair. Brian Stockwell 04:24:06.725
Okay. Good. But, once- the device comes, then it goes. Works. Right, thank you. So I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. So that is the last item in open session. The next item is in confidential session. So we will ask that there's no one in the audience, but if we can cease the recording. We do need to move the motion that's up on the board. Frank Wilkie 04:24:38.685
I move, Mr Chair, that the meeting be closed to the public, pursuant to section 254J3, list alpha reference of the Local Government Regulation. 2012 for the purpose of discussing item 9.1, contracts renewal delegation, retail electricity for street lights and large sites. Brian Stockwell 04:25:13.381
All those in favour? Brian Stockwell 04:38:54.520
Can turn the cameras back on. Thanks, Maggie. Okay. So we are considering the staff recommendation for item 9.1. Do we have a mover of the motion? Jessica Phillips 04:39:10.072
I'll move it. Brian Stockwell 04:39:11.514
Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Phillips. Do we wish to talk to the motion? No, anyone? No, thank you Mr chairman. I'll then put motion. Those in favour? Yes. And that's carried unanimously. That brings us to the end of the meeting at 5:09pm. Thank you Councillors. Frank Wilkie 04:39:30.132
Thank you Mr chairman. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
