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 Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings 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
Brian Stockwell 00:05.512
So, it's not on yet? No, no. Yes, it is on. So, welcome. So welcome Councillors and everyone in the gallery to the General Committee Meeting for March 2025. I declare the meeting open. We have all Councillors present except Councillor Wegener is attending via Teams and will vote electronically. 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 for country as skilled land changers and place makers with deep knowledge and connection to these landforms, waterways and rainforests. Country is where we connect with each other and our ancestors. It is where we are at peace and find strength and connection with our community." By working together and embracing community, we can protect our shared values and aspirations for a healthy and sustainable future. So 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 moving the Minutes of the February General Committee Meeting. Frank Wilkie 01:36.345
Happy to second it, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 01:37.866
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 24-0074, 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 at property 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 3,750 square metres in area. And being that size, it has significant frontages to Thomas Street, Gympie Terrace and Albert Street. The existing development of the site includes a single. And 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 of 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 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 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 a 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 so a total of six on-street car parking spaces front in Gympie Terrace plus eight motorcycle spaces on Gympie Terrace 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 to rooftop terraces at the upper level of course setbacks to all frontages site coverage and waste management of the development. With regarding to building heights the proposed maximum building height as outlined under the Tourism Accommodation Zone code which this the entire site is located within the Tourism Accommodation Zone code and both uses being code-assessable. The 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 06:43.800
Is it 13.9 Andrew Gaffney 06:44.993
Metres that's correct yes to the top of the actual pergolas on the top of the roof and then decreases to a maximum roof face here height of 10.2 metres or 11.5 metres above ground level so when looking at the actual height of the building when compared to either ground level or the raised ground level due to flood levels I think the proposed development would present as a maximum height of 11.5 metres from ground level so 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 07:35.870
Just on that point, we may I ask normally wait until we can use the executive summary to ask questions. So is that a no? That's a no. Brian Stockwell 07:46.152
Well, I'm going to. You can answer It is generally done that we don't. Frank Wilkie 07:51.231
It is a relatively informal meeting. Thank you for your latitude, Mr Chair. I just want to clarify the point you made about height. The question about the point you made 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? The ground level at the moment ranges between approximately 1.5 to 1.7. Which makes the total which height higher but that is consistent with what's been allowed with all other buildings adjoining and surrounding that particular development. That's right. Thank you Mr Chair I think was an important point to clarify. It was. Thank you. Andrew Gaffney 08:34.346
Buildings are required to actually meet a 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 so. That's why the actual the building presents higher as an overall height compared to the maximum height of 12 metres. Thank you. The next variant the 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, and second floor and eight metres for the 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 that will the development does 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 regard regarding the closest sort of tendency to the existing development to allow for a decreased setback from the six metres to interface with existing development to the south so in that circumstance the setback ranges from three point five to six metres at the corner which is with the setback at ground level however the tendencies 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 to allow for that 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 at the second and third level from six to eight metres which is supported the development also includes a number of contained planters at these levels which slightly comes into those setbacks but given will be improved with I guess elevated container plantings we are supporting of that that architectural treatment setbacks to Albert Street five metres generally five metres to the actual first floor and then eight metres to the 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 expect facility for a short-term accommodation development at ground level so we are supportive of that 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 is allowance 45% we believe that the increase up to 53% is acceptable in this instance given the fact that the overall outcomes sought under the local plan have been achieved the articulated it includes a number of building recesses to all street frontages this 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 the up form and basically the urban design reflects which reflects the sort of form which is supported under the local plan code and the tourist accommodations own code so 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 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 for waste collection. At 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 outcome. You know a better for the on-street presentation development rather than having bins on-street Brian Stockwell 14:23.895
That's it? Do we have questions I'll start. I've got a simple question. Go ahead Tom. Go ahead Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 14:39.015
With the setbacks in relating to sidewalk dining some of the ground floor tenants or residents. 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 which more of a sidewalk or a pedestrian crossing? Andrew Gaffney 15:05.223
Move beyond the site boundary, Councillor? Yeah. Um, the project at the moment does not anticipate I guess external dining to the pedestrian area. Richard MacGillivray 15:20.052
I suppose. 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 here, I'm trying to find the best one for you, which probably articulates that in the report. Tom Wegener 15:47.478
I'm not worried about the actual sidewalk, the for pedestrians as well, but on the upper level, above the flood zone, in front of the shops. Patrick Murphy 15:56.047
So there is a capacity for pedestrian dining in that area? Towards the end of the report, you'll see some renders that are looking north on Thomas Street, and it shows that there are awnings 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. Unidentified Speaker 16:51.414
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. Where the dining keeps getting busier and taking over more space than where the pedestrians are through being through the tables then just highlight that. Brian Stockwell 17:15.099
If we can keep to the questions please rather than the concerns until we're in debate please Councillor Wegener. Patrick Murphy 17:21.997
Can we just sort of add one a couple points. Andrew you've prepared an amended recommendation due to some numerical. Andrew Gaffney 17:28.855
That's right there was some typographic errors in some of the I guess building height and some of the 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 17:52.740
The internal use area has been increased from 446 square metres to 451 in the condition. Nine it previously referred to 2.4 metres it should actually have referred to 2.2 metres and condition 40 referred to 56 car spaces but it should have referred to 56 Frank Wilkie 18:15.048
Mr. Thank you. Chair can I just flag that I'm happy to move the motion with these changes technical changes attached as part of the initial motion if that's helpful not Brian Stockwell 18:30.108
Now so I need to do it there. Councillor Lorentson, you had a question? Amelia Lorentson 18:33.442
I've got a few questions firstly most of us have met with the applicant and we've also received some emails from the applicant in relation to waste and recycling collection. The question I want to ask you is that email received is 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 are 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 done a 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 19:40.097
It might be time to ask. We can have the manager of waste. We've also got the senior development engineer who's done some work with our infrastructure area on some manoeuvrability through the site. Excellent, thank you. I might just ask Dan to come up. So through the course of the application, when the application was originally submitted, the applicant proposed to have on-site waste collection in response in to an information request, the form of the development is modified. That form of the development is 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. Supporting 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 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. Dan was involved in the assessment of the application and looked at the plans that were submitted by the applicant. He's identified some I suppose irregularities in terms of some of the information that's being provided but also we've done. Our own assessment. As well and Dan can probably talk to some of the images that he's provided to Cathy and kyrone can probably talk to the broader sort of strategic intent. We're seeking to achieve with the waste management in the area Dan 21:35.181
So I guess just initially the applicants consulting engineer record provided Council with a set of turning parts for a heavy rigid vehicle those turn paths demonstrated vehicle that the vehicle could safely enter the side from Albert Street manoeuvre through the side and safely exit onto Thomas Street those plans like I said were prepared by recore the project up you queue further down the line in the application process Council received additional turn paths for the side loader series B which is typical of councils waste collection vehicle that would be used to manoeuvre on site to service on site sorry you on the screen there that the left turn path for the heavy rigid vehicle is able to safely manoeuvre through that site and exit onto Thomas Street and we can see on the right that the side loader series which is again typical of the waste collection vehicle is unable to safely exit onto Thomas Street 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 the waste collection vehicle. The heavy rigid vehicle is a larger, less manoeuvrable vehicle than the standard waste collection vehicle which is shorter in length and objectively more manoeuvrable. From engineering's perspective and following our assessment, we believe there's insufficient information to suggest that on-site waste collection isn't possible because a larger safely exit onto Thomas Street. In conjunction with the infrastructure services team, we undertook our own turnpath assessment that confirmed that a heavy, rigid vehicle was able to safely manoeuvre through the site and exit onto Thomas Street Brian Stockwell 23:32.275
You want to talk to that? We'll get the question in. I think there'll be a few questions that we can. Jessica Phillips 23:38.903
Just to clarify then, when I'm looking at that image, there's a car park on the adjoining, not property adjoining, the 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 images shows it'll clip the back of both those car parks. Dan 24:17.154
Yeah, so. So it 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 24:40.182
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 the ability through what we call the operational work stage which is where the detailed comes in with 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. Ensure that it can safely navigate through there without 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 you can get a an HRV 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 operational works so would Nicola Wilson 25:44.408
That access necessitate going on to the neighbours property as well on that driveway and could it cause conflict with incoming vehicles Andrew Gaffney 25:57.177
There's an existing easement just over that access driveway which provides the opportunity for both of those to 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 26:23.815
So does an easement require consent from 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 does not require then consent from the adjoining owner if the vehicle traverses over his property line? Andrew Gaffney 26:52.490
So is the easement? Is currently approximately four metres wide. Amelia Lorentson 26:56.819
So it's sufficiently wide enough. Andrew Gaffney 26:58.403
Yeah. I think the 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 involve moving onto other sites. Frank Wilkie 27:17.437
Just a clarifying question Mr Chair. To staff, are you saying that the both these diagrams were provided by the applicant? Yes. So the first one shows a heavy rigid vehicle which is a larger vehicle applicant showed that it could traverse the site safely and exit onto Thomas Street safely without interfering with any car parks or buildings but further down the track the 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 Patrick Murphy 28:03.129
That is correct okay yeah and we did a Frank Wilkie 28:08.314
This is why you're having trouble accepting the veracity of Patrick Murphy 28:11.640
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 rigid vehicle correct which Cathy also has which support the notion that the vehicle can manoeuvre through the site Frank Wilkie 28:35.635
Questions all to Chair currently waste to questions to Chair currently waste collection is on 240 later bins daily Larry Sengstock 28:44.875
From the football I believe so yeah what could have it might have a couple of 1100s that might be 240 okay what's Brian Stockwell 28:48.955
It what I can answer your question when we're on site there's 1100 per cardboard recycling and 1100 per cardboard recycling and 360 and 240 millions on the side Frank Wilkie 28:58.720
And what's proposed is larger bins and what's which will only involve collections a fewer number of times per week fewer number of times Unidentified Speaker 29:08.950
Per week well the proposal would be daily collections of 1,100 size bins, which are a larger entity, from a rear entry truck, which is of the same size as MRV. The rear entry truck is a lower noise truck, so the entry into the vehicle is from a lower height, whereas the side entry truck is from a higher height, so if you have got glass and bottles from a higher height, you'll actually make more noise. So the 1100s are a lower noise vehicle. Are also deemed to be a safer type of vehicle for the way they operate, I.e. the driver has to get out of the vehicle and load the bin to the vehicle so that the truck is stationary. Frank Wilkie 30:01.349
Yeah and the reason why you're referencing the 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 the street but also you believe the sufficiently large to that's correct enable on-site collection like it is a range of other businesses across the show Amelia Lorentson 30:29.417
Thank you I'm to follow up on that question so when we talk about amenity impacts noise impacts, or noise impacts disturbance from 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 on site know what Brian Stockwell 31:06.423
Got a question so do you think that on site will create more noise impacts than on street? Larry Sengstock 31:13.091
Well I mean without the actual data to check that out in terms of the decibel reading the decibel at the truck from a side entry to a rear entry it would be lower from a rear entry 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 the timing of that collection o'clock in the morning, then the noise reverberates and travels. We have the ability, as we run the contractor, to change the timing from 6, 7, 8 o'clock in the morning. 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 on waste as to when we could collect that could be $7.30.8 o'clock, 9 o'clock and more. Brian Stockwell 32:16.019
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? Unidentified Speaker 32:30.262
Yeah, in general we, not only from a view, an amenity point of view, visual amenity point of view, the sidearm action is a riskier activity due to the nature of the activity itself. The driving force of the sidearm action the activity itself. The 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 the back of the vehicle. So the vehicle is stationary, he's controlling the arm and the bin as it moves in from a position. The back of the truck. And if it's on site, obviously there's less vehicles, public and bicycles in the vicinity of that truck. Brian Stockwell 33:36.715
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. Right reserve you're avoiding the question 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 7 o'clock 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 a centre zone. Brian Stockwell 35:06.760
We have any other questions? Oh, yes. Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 35:11.940
Oh, thank you. A waste containment area in some places throughout the Shire, 5 or 6 metre high design, that hasn't been recommended. For 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 35:40.053
Separation of 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 image at the of the I guess the community back communal area there is another area of waste collection there for the short-term accommodation component so there is two separate sort of areas why that was probably separated was probably because one separating the actual function of using commercial sort of our 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 proposed. Jessica Phillips 36:34.842
Yeah just 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 how 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 use then this stuff this doesn't work to be can you just clarify because feel like that wasn't clear for me Patrick Murphy 37:11.079
Well the easements are my understanding is easements across both properties going by the aerial photos it's quite a wide easement that's existing that we'd have to go back to the easement to see exactly what it grants but suffice to say that it's of being used by both properties at the moment to allow for vehicles to come in and out of both sites and that's evidence by aerial photography which shows car parks to the rear of each building and Brian Stockwell 37:38.958
Just to follow up generally the wording of access easements are broad in nature that they give reciprocal rights for anyone to access their site for local purposes it's unlikely that a further consent would be required is that right? Patrick Murphy 37:57.261
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 are will be moving through this site and that has not been raised by the applicant as being a problem Jessica Phillips 38:09.333
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 about that word that was what you said sufficient could you just sorry can you just read um what you said, I'm sorry. That there's sufficient space for waste collection and I just want to have some confidence in the word sufficient Andrew Gaffney 38:36.297
The term parts that we've received and prepared demonstrate that an appropriate sized place collection vehicle can manoeuvre through the side stop be serviced Brian Stockwell 38:44.586
And exit the side and I think that may relate to the number of bins etc so the enclosures etc as drawn are adequate for your purposes Andrew Gaffney 38:56.021
That's right I mean a operation I would assume the vehicle will enter from Albert Street it will stop it will collect the short-term accommodation bin room then proceed out through um the southern area and onto Thomas Street the same sort of arrangement would happen a truck would come in collect from the commercial um in room and then leave so they don't necessarily have to do any manoeuvreing on site they are travelling in a linear path across the southern boundary so that's a huge advantage for things like this because typically developments need to accommodate turning circles and turning points for vehicle refuse vehicles so this is a it's a fairly pretty much as efficient as you can get so far as a traffic refuse to vehicle Amelia Lorentson 39:39.080
Clarify and that the operational works plan will nut out all the details. Correct. Thank you. Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 39:49.013
Can I clarify as well so will the other business on Thomas Street continue to have an on-street pickup and will that still be around 6:00am. And then this will be an additional service comes after 7:00pm. Larry Sengstock 40:00.119
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. Jessica Phillips 40:13.460
But the other businesses on Thomas Street will continue to be serviced on site? Larry Sengstock 40:18.240
Sorry, on the not all of them are on the street. So not kentucky fried chicken, red rooster, that is on site servicing now as we speak. So other areas, I guess the further development that happens in and around the area, this is our, I guess our development process and our brief to go forward is to get more and off on site rather than off site for various reasons. Frank Wilkie 40:48.365
Would it be fair to say the practice is a business where businesses waste collection will be onsite but it's accepted that some tenancies are so small onsite collection is just not possible but the preference with larger sites is onsite. Larry Sengstock 41:07.885
Exactly and I think there's several. You know there's several benefits to onsite and some of which I think we've raised that there are other ones which are critical is visual amenity. Typically we are a very operational business as in is wasted. Terms of we're collecting a lot of bins twenty to five thirty thousand sometimes a day in Noosa alone. If a 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 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 comes onto 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 the neighbourhood. Exactly, yeah. Jessica Phillips 42:29.172
Just a follow-up question, next to this development, it will still be on the street, so pick up, so they'll still be next to it. Correct. Collection. But different service. Okay. Unidentified Speaker 42:47.612
The service decided if they're 240s and 360s or a sidearm, different type of. Truck. Brian Stockwell 42:56.158
Having said that, if the usement's there and they elected to put a 1100 behind their premises, they could 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, Unidentified Speaker 43:08.249
Mr Chair? Is that correct? I think, you know, we have taken this approach with other areas and worked with businesses move towards the on-site collection. We've done this in the junction and other areas and it works very well. We get the bins off the street, we improve the health and safety and the visual amenity 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 purse. Person who's taking the bin to the street. Amelia Lorentson 43:47.022
Mr I'm Chair, I'm happy to move. I have some further questions if that's alright. Thank you. Car parking. I want to talk a little bit about car parking. Given the importance of and value that our community place on car parking spaces, 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 44:25.631
Thanks Council. Councillor, yes the site accommodates 56 in total. Of those 56, 29 spaces are required for the short-term accommodation and that leaves 20.27 available for the food and drink outlets. There's a shortfall of 7 spaces in total. However, there are up to 10 on-site spaces, as well as the creation of an formalising of 6 spaces on Albert Street and 3 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 45:13.759
So, formalising of car spaces on Albert Street, so they're not formalised at the moment. No, it's just basically at the moment Albert Street is just a formed road. Andrew Gaffney 45:27.915
Formed road. There's no guttering kerb and channel and there's no designated sort of line marked car parking spaces. Amelia Lorentson 45:34.462
So are we offsetting car parking onto public land? I'm just wondering does this align with our public land policy? Offsetting car park shortfalls onto public land? Patrick Murphy 45:54.921
You might be suggesting that we would normally say contributions in lieu Amelia Lorentson 45:58.446
Of car have $72,000, I think, for the shortfall, is that correct? Patrick Murphy 46:04.751
If an infrastructure agreement would be required, I'm not sure of the exact dollar value, but in this instance, because of the provision of car spaces in the public realm that have been 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 a shortfall in car parking. We did it with Hilton Terrace, the development there on Hilton Terrace. There was some car parking that was provided. At you may recall 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 oakville street and sedona street. We did it as well, didn't we? Andrew Gaffney 47:01.061
Yeah, 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 so. Richard MacGillivray 47:15.977
Councillor can I just add to the points raised so there's a holistic approach to looking at the car parking when we've got particularly multiple sites that consolidated this is actually an efficiency created because all those extra crossovers that would have been required are no longer there so the parking speed looked at holistically you're right you can separate the what's on the within the site itself but overall in terms of proposed the assessment provided terms in of what the actual demand is. Staff are comfortable that on balance there is sufficient parking available for the uses proposed. Jessica Phillips 47:54.496
Question, 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 48:17.422
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, costs. 22 or 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 a that they could letter provide to the energy provider around whether we would condition the requirement for underground power, seeking a letter that would say that we wouldn't and the reasons I did provide a letter saying that we wouldn't condition it 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 no further communication in that regard no. So there's been no cost provided. I think that's something that would sit outside of this proposal if Council wants to enter into conversations with the developer and to forecast those works and costs from a budget perspective as well. Richard MacGillivray 49:46.659
Can I just add to patrick's comments too, it's important just to remember 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 broader community benefit arguments so essentially limitation 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 narrowing us 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 Karen Finzel 50:48.152
Yes 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 built 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 see 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 local plan code but talk about the corner of Gympie Thomas Street and 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 I what we're trying to do there is basically provide that sort of visual openness to the corner the applicant as a 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 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 would be preferred to be improved with landscaping rather than structures or screen elements which again provides it another sort of visual barrier to the actual site between the upper level and the sort of street level. Karen Finzel 52:48.915
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 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 53:12.708
We'll keep with that question. Which one? The you started with. Is there a way to be retained? Frank Wilkie 53:18.599
I think the question was can the elements be included. What I'm interested in. Patrick Murphy 53:23.173
The 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, you don't use built form to soften built form. The Noosa principles are around landscaping, built form being within a landscaping 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, the number of them and what you accept. I think we've it clear our position on it. Made and I think I've sent an email to Councillors this morning which provides some evidence of the fact that they'll cover approximately 26% of the site's frontage when you take in other areas that are sterilised through the steps and ramps, probably another 20%. So almost half the site is occupied by either the structures or these other elements. And it does sit upon a podium. You've got a retaining wall. So I think landscaping in this environment is very important. Karen Finzel 54:41.135
Sure. So when you assess these. Applications, do you often recommend shrubs and vegetation at varying heights to soften both the built form, for example, like a retaining wall, or the built environment that's had to be put in to address, say, yeah, flooding. Patrick Murphy 55:04.903
So 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 Environmental 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 55:33.940
Thank you. Question, I just got a bit confused, how many, sorry Patrick, how many cantilever are used? Patrick Murphy 55:44.503
Well there's the ones on Thomas Street they're 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 the public realm. Jessica Phillips 56:05.371
And so to clarify the condition is to remove the ones that you're the five? Patrick Murphy 56:11.875
No the condition is to remove them all. So the ones that face Thomas Street and the ones that face Gympie Terrace are also being removed. Andrew Gaffney 56:22.086
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 growth of the frontages. Patrick Murphy 56:50.041
And noting there is awnings that come off the building to provide landscape. That's right. I mean to provide shade in the podium area. Andrew Gaffney 56:57.591
As part of the terraces on Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street the applicant's proposing a number pergola structures with retractable awnings that go back and forth. So there is a degree of coverage at that sort of ground level which can accommodate shade and comfort for people using those spaces so. Nicola Wilson 57:14.496
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 just feeling comfortable taking something away from a holistic design. So has there been any kind of negotiation on how else we could achieve this effect? Andrew Gaffney 57:31.288
No, not at the stage, Councillor, because 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 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 there is. 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. I've got a question for you. Amelia Lorentson 58:13.878
I've got a couple more questions parking again back to parking again community have made it really clear point of order please there's been a lot of liberty given to other speakers at the I've said one sentence and I've already been reprimanded Frank Wilkie 58:35.006
I also think there's been too much commentary. Brian Stockwell 58:36.992
My question I'm the Chair of the meeting and you have been using questioning which has highlighted to me sometimes, so it's my job. Amelia Lorentson 58:46.815
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 59:02.952
And Ms. this 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 59:23.132
So designated space. Also in terms of the draft Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan which hasn't been endorsed at the moment, do the plans align with community feedback and I'm thinking more in terms of the widening of the footpaths opposite the development and the scooter parks which I think there was 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 01:00:01.578
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 fairly was clear was that it was meant to be pedestrian a 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 from the upper level 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. Brian Stockwell 01:01:09.344
Appreciate it. Thank you. 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? Patrick Murphy 01:01:31.090
Know if I sent it to you. I'll forward it to you now. Is that the one? Is that different from the one that's in the report that you emailed us this morning? Sorry, to 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 01:01:50.845
It's the same? Yes. Okay, if that's the same, Cathy, it's on page nine in the actual report? Yes. I don't attachment 1, attachment 2. I thought it was just in the report. Page 9. Attachment 4, page 9, well it's got proposed renderings and attachment. Patrick Murphy 01:03:06.730
Attention. Unidentified Speaker 01:03:20.962
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:03:28.026
So do you have any further questions on that? Karen Finzel 01:03:30.647
Yes, I do. Only because 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 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 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 elevation and on top of that you can see a retractable awning device which will move in and out and provide some shelter to those external sort of open plaza the two brown structures on the left-hand side of the image are the tide actuated pivot shade devices which are 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 planting palette would be limited to the smaller plants which wouldn't interfere with the Tide structures and wouldn't require I guess ongoing going landscaping a work on a regular basis to cut them down and to sort of ensure that they don't grow up too high. What's being proposed to be amended is the removal of those structures on the left hand side of the image. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:41.805
In front of me, I've got acceptable outcome number 14B, which states that the development includes detailing and articulation for horizontal emphasis, including awnings, fascia boards, parapet walls and upper level verandas or balconies. Is not what we're looking at consistent with that outcome? Andrew Gaffney 01:06:07.761
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. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:50.163
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, 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 Patrick Murphy 01:07:21.356
So the applications code-assessable and we had to, I won't say beg, but it was challenging. To get it to this meeting so if 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 original proposal. We have to go 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. Frank Wilkie 01:07:59.357
Thank you. Is it one of the fundamental principles of planning that development applications, the infrastructure provided, must be within the property boundary? And the follow-up 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 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 01:09:04.969
I've got a question. Because it is a quayside, getting the mix 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, is my view is perhaps the articulation and the fact they moved up and down is creating too many problems, but some form of timber screening as part of the landscaping solution maybe with less 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 like to table that. Brian Stockwell 01:10:01.210
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 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 a quayside to explore opportunities to. Brian Stockwell 01:10:30.384
Councillor, I think you're using questioning for debating, leave it for the time being. Jessica Phillips 01:10:37.667
I'll ask you a go. Go. Your question. Karen Finzel 01:10:42.464
No, it's fine. I was going to ask about the amendment, but you can go. Jessica Phillips 01:10:44.762
That you've been- Okay, well, well, can I clarity get some on how much of this is actually on the road reserve, if that's the sticky point? Patrick Murphy 01:10:51.508
How much. 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. But, I mean, the ground floor plan shows, I think it's five. The render that was up before showed, I think, four. So, we've got plans that are 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, it's probably the extent three, four hundred millimetres. But notwithstanding, there shouldn't be any encroachment Karen Finzel 01:11:36.605
I just have a question then. So I do have an amendment to address this, but in terms of process of the meeting. It have to be made first? Frank Wilkie 01:11:46.543
I think Councillor Wilkie is indicating he'd like to move. 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 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 I approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in the attachment 3 to the General Committee minutes dated 17 March 2025 updated conditions with errors amended as advised by staff which were we ran through previously and B note the report is provided in accordance with section 63 in brackets 5 of the Planning Act 2016. And I move to 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. Because 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 it 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 it above the flood level. I 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 other sites around the Shire and when we have the opportunity to ensure that on-site waste collection does occur to minimise impact on the neighbouring neighbours and streetscape we ought to do that we've conditioned that at Calile other areas business that do this are Noosa Springs, Royal Mail, Noosa Homemaker Centre, Noosa Civic, Coles and Woolworths, Gibson 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 shade 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 yes Brian Stockwell 01:14:19.860
Thank you Mr. Karen Finzel 01:14:22.153
You, Mr Chair so cathy's got some wording there, I do the believe. Plan is to amend the number of the Tide structures to a maximum of five with each structure to provide shade to a seat. Do we have a seconder for that? Thank you, Mr Chair. 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 differing opinions around the table in terms of the environment, like growing and plants, versus the built environment. And I believe those two can successfully melded together so that we can integrate softening, we can integrate landscape, we can integrate 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 01:15:52.188
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 01:16:05.917
I think it would be sensible to include that they must be located within the property. Entirely located within the property boundary. Frank Wilkie 01:16:12.827
Are you happy with that change? Brian Stockwell 01:16:19.377
Leave it to a second amendment. I have a question in relation to that. The majority of the development, old development, 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 what is the concern about that? Andrew Gaffney 01:16:48.130
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. It's meant to be stepped back and ramped up to a six and eight metre setback profile. We're wanting 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 a retractable awning system on the street. So I think that was the main concern about the Tide structures. Frank Wilkie 01:17:28.654
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, are you talking about literal fabric or are you talking about a 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 perfect's the audio. It's next to the recording. 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 property. I think 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 up and down. I know that sounds fancy. Call the tide 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 supporting I'm the amendment. Frank Wilkie 01:18:54.867
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 contained within the property boundary. I agree that shahid 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 softens the form of a built structure like landscaping and plants rather than manmade 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 01:19:52.497
I'm happy to I support 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 architecture. And I also believe it is consistent with our Noosa Plan. Acceptable outcome number 14 I think it is be that development includes detailing and articulation for her horizontal emphasis including awnings and happy to capture that 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 a lot of work a lot of 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 01:21:10.316
I'll support very quickly as well similar to everyone else I think it's an opportunity to see I trust that even just looking at the plans that the materials that are going to be used they're going to be beautiful it's not I 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 sun you know blocked with tidal awnings 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 Nicola Wilson 01:21:50.988
It 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 01:22:25.049
Council Wegener if you would talk the amendment I don't, need to talk, uh, yeah, I just want you to know that. 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 Wilkie yes that's unanimous Councillor Wilkie can't move the amendment so I will try. It's written I will move the amendments with the addition of with the structures to be built within the site boundary. Amelia Lorentson 01:23:11.384
Happy to second. Brian Stockwell 01:23:12.910
Councillor I think he's seconded. Me. We'll change that. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Councillor Lorentson couldn't second because she's seconded the original motion. Any good? I don't need to talk to it. As staff are happy that will give them the appropriate words. That's fine. Karen Finzel 01:23:37.999
Yeah, 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 condition? I don't know, the integrity of the site and what the outcomes are going to achieve is retained given it's code-assessable and like you said, you know, you're also constrained by what you can, you know, bring to the table. Patrick Murphy 01:24:01.662
Well it's quite prescriptive because it has a maximum number of five so I think it's quite a easy task for us to work with them. Karen Finzel 01:24:08.285
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:24:09.745
Yeah. Anyone wish to talk to it? No? I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? And Councillor Wegener? Yes. That's unanimous. So the amendment becomes the motion and at this stage I believe only Councillor has talked to it. Jessica Phillips 01:24:27.424
Can I talk to it at a further moment please? Councillor Wilson. We've had, I think I'll go straight to the other one, thanks Cathy. Nicola Wilson 01:24:40.980
We've had a fair bit of discussion about waste today and 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 specific conditions at this point. We've got some quite conflicting information that's been circulated so I guess and also being conscious of the timing with the statutory period 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 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'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. Do we have a second? Brian Stockwell 01:25:58.753
I'll second. Nicola Wilson 01:25:59.802
By Councillor Phillips. Sorry, I think already spoke to that in addressing the motion. So, 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 so, us. Brian Stockwell 01:26:14.027
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 01:26:38.973
Yes, we believe that waste can be collected 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 procrastinate any further? Either way, information has just come along. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:06.277
Being moved and seconded. I don't think you can. Karen Finzel 01:27:09.493
So we can let this lapse and you can raise another one with a different wording. Through the Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:27:16.620
I also question I also said that I 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 based the information provided to you that it can occur on site? That's correct and the amended waste management plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person who's experienced in waste but is would this be someone engaged by the applicant? Brian Stockwell 01:28:05.932
Yes just to clarify I think that's part of the existing motion as well isn't it? The report suggested memory the waste management plans submitted wasn't compliant yes and that requirement that last sentence was already in these suggested conditions with some additional points Jessica Phillips 01:28:32.654
Yes if you take out the second sentence now Brian Stockwell 01:28:39.314
Now I've been moving second and I don't think you'll get the support of the Council to change it 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 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 was yes. 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, it would be safer than the side arm and hence probably less likely to create the impact. So to me these issues have been well ventilated and I believe the staff recommendation is the appropriate way ahead. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:52.225
I'll speak to it. I won't support but 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. In this regard. Jessica Phillips 01:30:23.712
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, yeah, not seeing some changes here. So so that is why I would 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 permit for operational works? Andrew Gaffney 01:31:29.120
Yes, so 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, and essentially the development needs to comply with those codes before a permit's issued, so it will include more detailed design. For example, looking at the on-street line marking and you know particular earthworks levels. Stormwater design and all that sort of thing, so it's a more rigorous design stage. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:53.102
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, out? It's as part of that next process, which is the permit for operational works. Andrew Gaffney 01:32:16.026
Further, detail will be provided in that regard. I'd also just like to note that report, the consulting engineers provided data 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 works, which might include some fine-tuning of car parking areas and landscape areas to accommodate those sorts of. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:51.384
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 space. Andrew Gaffney 01:33:02.055
Well point at this 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 suggest that the vehicle can't. Patrick Murphy 01:33:15.810
Thank you very much. I think it's important to also point out, we're 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 01:33:38.506
And just one more question. Have we given the applicant enough allowances or flexibility around this development? Patrick Murphy 01:33:52.281
Considering we're allowing 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 01:34:05.715
Can I ask a clarifying question? That development is being knocked down but the one next to it that triggers some of these questions is that going to? No it's not. So I think my question is that won't this give us clarity about the commercial building next to it? The way it affects that and the landscaping and everything? It's not just the. Brian Stockwell 01:34:34.369
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? Yeah. Is that something we've considered? Andrew Gaffney 01:34:46.146
We've considered the 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 Frank Wilkie 01:34:58.436
Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Thank look, I appreciate the intent. Councillor's wanting to get clarity, but-- is this a question? No, I'm speaking to you. Brian Stockwell 01:35:08.921
Because- the amendment which is-- talking to amendment. Okay, sorry. Is that a-- yeah, no, I was thinking you-- which is-- Frank Wilkie 01:35:13.987
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 from the developer the development applicant 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 modelling 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 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 aesthetically be very pleasing development. It can be. It can demonstrate best practice. On site collection. If there's an opportunity for on site collection. 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 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. I can't support this amendment. Karen Finzel 01:37:23.892
I just have a question then to the staff. I believe this is an unresolved issue. Is it not between you and the aboriginal? Andrew Gaffney 01:37:33.183
It's unresolved insofar as we have requested that they deal with on-site collection. We could. The applicant basically still continued to. 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. 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 stage, this we support the scheme and we support the policy, which requires that the. For a scale of this development, that the garbage is collected on site. Karen Finzel 01:38:41.600
Address this, go to the site, look 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 us that 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 Councillor, Richard MacGillivray 01:39:17.761
Can I just, can I answer that one there? I mean, so council's role as assessment manager under the Planning Act, particularly for code and CISO applications, is to assess and them aside the Planning Act. 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 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 or wish to amend that. But Council and staff are undertaking a very thorough and rigorous assessment. Does Eleanor Ashby wish to talk to the amendment? Brian Stockwell 01:40:14.743
Do you wish to close, Councillor Wilson? I think all reports have been made. I'll put the motion, no, the amendment. Those in favour? Jessica Phillips 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, Finzel, Stockwell, Wilkie and? Fagina, the motion is lost. Jessica Phillips 01:40:51.802
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, and but since it's come, the ordering is Thursday, is there any issues with that, the decision is made on Thursday. So it gives time for the place manager to collect those two things on notice. Brian Stockwell 01:41:22.758
You're open to a procedure of motions, to defer has to be seconded but only the mover gets to talk to us. Gets to talk to her. So it's up to you, if it's moved today it still can be amended on Thursday. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:46.757
Can I just ask a question Through the Chair, what are those issues Councillor Phillips? Jessica Phillips 01:41:52.209
I heard a couple of questions around data checks and things that could potentially just give us critical confidence in the decision on. I've got no issues making the decision today. I was asking would there be a time. Between 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 01:42:19.701
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 01:42:33.413
Councillor, can I just add to that? 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, 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 a result of use don't provide any adverse impact on amenity. You got the number of the condition there Andrew? Yes, it is condition 24 and 25. Yeah it's just there's already provisions in there about no adverse impact on amenity 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 01:43:16.943
Sorry, excuse me, was conditioned 20 under amenity. Amelia Lorentson 01:43:22.023
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 nuisance including a noise nuisance. So the onus is on 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 01:43:51.871
Okay, so we have a motion in progress. Does anyone wish to talk to it? Frank Wilkie 01:43:57.494
I thought you said no. What about the second one? Brian Stockwell 01:43:59.515
No, no, it hasn't been moved. Oh, so we're not doing it for the second one? No, there's a motion on the move. I'll think about it. There was a question about if I do defer it. I'll think about it. Karen Finzel 01:44:09.379
Is a question for Mr. James. If this. If all of you write that, how does that affect the date of the meeting? Brian Stockwell 01:44:19.799
Just to clarify, we haven't got a deferral motion in of front us, and I talked about a motion, it's the motion moved by Councillor Wilkie as amended twice. It's now the standard motion that we have. Jessica Phillips 01:44:30.544
I thought the last question was if there was a procedural motion, would there be an opportunity? To get that information? And the answer is no. Was it moved or was it seconded? Karen Finzel 01:44:41.229
Oh so Through the Chair, I am seeking clarification. What's the date of the decision? The end of approval. Patrick Murphy 01:44:49.232
The due date of the decision is the 21st of March. The Ordinary Meeting is on the 20th, so, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:57.688
So through has the Chair as the procedural motion been withdrawn? It was a question whether I--- Nicola Wilson 01:45:01.322
Thank you, yeah. Not a--- I didn't hear the actual--- Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask a question to the Chair, please? If there was, if we reached the point of deemed approval-- that including the conditions or not? Richard MacGillivray 01:45:17.190
So the applicant can apply for a deemed approval and then the Council has 10 business days to provide conditions. Brian Stockwell 01:45:30.859
Think other than the two issues that we had a little bit of debate on, 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. You know, there's nothing more 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 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 that even further mixed use on side 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 01:46:59.445
I have one last question and I only 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 any 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 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. Andrew Gaffney 01:48:03.569
Sure, so the site's provided with stormwater quality treatment devices in the form of a bio-retention basins, 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:48:47.711
Interesting. Thank you. 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 and the CEO. We recently. I think undertook a review of bio-retention vacancies 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 infrastructure of bio-retention vacancies now and into the future. Larry Sengstock 01:49:22.594
I'll refer that to the experts here, the engineers, but the bio-retention vacancy, my understanding, is on site for this actual development. It's not the bio-retention vacancies we're talking about that you were referring to. Our larger ones that are out in the field are formed for overflow and for the base point of it. Yeah, that's a great tip. This is specific to this particular development. So does the cost go back to the applicant? Oh, thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:49:50.598
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? 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, building demolition at one night. 118 Poinciana Avenue 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
Aye, Councillor Wilson informed 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. Thank you, Councillor. Unidentified Speaker 02:01:58.940
Okay, we're fine. I'm comfortable. Are you going for a five? Unidentified Speaker 02:02:05.829
Sorry. Nadine Gordon 02:02:06.350
Too soon. Brian Stockwell 02:02:09.874
Hey, Ms. Gordon, if you could give us an executive summary, that would be appreciated. Nadine Gordon 02:02:15.320
All right. Afternoon, Councillors. This application that we're dealing with, two applications this afternoon. The first deals with the DDW, which relates to demolition of the premises as we know as the Royal Mail. The demolition comes to Council because it's building works assessable against the planning scheme because of the. Heritage character of the site. The second part of the application is a 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 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. The Material Change of Use component relates to the extension to the existing hotel in the form of two new beer gardens. There is 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. Smoking area is on Poinciana Avenue. The beer gardens have quite open pergolas and a landscaped area with paths, and there is a new bar there as well, a cake renovations to the internal range of internal renovations, plus the existing 13 units are going to be renovated. At present, 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 I 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 of 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 on one of the plans 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 a 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 included 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 a new acoustic screen along the back of the beer garden and also then up the western side there is one door that faces the north which is only for emergency access only. The back of the beer 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, our external consultant has reviewed it and is happy with those that shortfall noting that we have a 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 space was shortfall, our consultant also was quite happy. There is significant community benefit from this proposal in terms of we've conditioned a public thoroughfare easement to go from Blakesley street, which will allow access to lot, to 96 poinciana, which is currently it's out, it's car parking, has to go through the Royal Mail. So the applicant to agree to a 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 02:07:02.532
Thank you. Do we have questions? Submissions? Nadine Gordon 02:07:06.300
Yes. Frank Wilkie 02:07:06.962
Could you summarise the key issues in the submissions? Of the. I'm sorry. Traffic and will and then be mitigated and addressed, I should say. Nadine Gordon 02:07:20.037
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 of the 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 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, park. We have an existing 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 complaint 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 be able to 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 Royal Mail character as well, which we've included conditions. Frank Wilkie 02:09:17.190
Can you talk about how the heritage look and feel of the building will be maintained? Nadine Gordon 02:09:22.391
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 what was there and they've put in vertical slats. We did ask them as part of the information request to ask them to 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 the building. Jessica Phillips 02:10:05.171
Question please. Just in relation to public safety, the closed circuit's television equipment must be installed within the property and along all frontages of the site. Can you just if that would be in the easement as well? All frontages, would that include that? Nadine Gordon 02:10:25.133
No, not how it's worded, no. Unidentified Speaker 02:10:31.630
So it's for the security cameras to be installed within the property at the frontages. Nadine Gordon 02:10:38.934
Facing out. Jessica Phillips 02:10:40.216
But all frontages won't include the easement? Nadine Gordon 02:10:42.459
No, the easement is internal to the site, so the frontages is poinciana, Diyan and Blakesley Street. So 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 02:11:01.688
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 specifically conditioned around the public-private interface. Those key street areas which is part of what's been conditioned. Jessica Phillips 02:11:24.037
Would it be acceptable to condition CCTV Nadine Gordon 02:11:32.766
Any easement as well? Richard MacGillivray 02:11:34.548
We could yes I don't think there's any I yeah don't think there would be any major objection we could maybe even consult with the applicant in that regard noting that yeah you'll have the public general public potentially accessing that private land but still through an easement. Nadine Gordon 02:11:53.319
Have to check the privacy side of that because I my understanding is in the public realm so I think that's okay it should be fine that would be my only thing I don't yeah that's the only thing I don't know that side of thing yeah. Does it does allow Amelia Lorentson 02:12:15.026
Okay in terms of the beer garden we received an email from residents that live in Blakesley Street requesting opening hours of the beer garden 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 12 o'clock but 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 this Nadine Gordon 02:12:53.032
Is consistent with what our planning scheme says so for the entertainment and activities code we've pulled those there is a kinder there's an AO that talks about those operating hours so when you have a look at the continue at the condition 21 we talk about the of the beer garden areas so we've got the actual operating hours then we've got the acoustic barriers and then if you go down to condition 26 and it talks about sorry oh the noise limiting uh yeah it talks about the noise limiting system so that talks about the 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 7pm, 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 I thought they had a cc sorry 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 big gun can operate a later time in accordance later till a later time in accordance with our benchmarks in the planning scheme Amelia Lorentson 02:14:30.150
Question in terms of car parking so there is a shortfall and there has been an infrastructure agreement entered into and I think the shortfall about or the infrastructure agreement is seventy two thousand seventy two seventy four thousand again, similar question to what I just asked before in the meeting beforehand is the value that this community places on car parking my question is what's the cumulative impact of car parking shortage shortfalls within the Tewantin precinct and have we actually assessed that number and are these considerations factored into approval 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 needs I just keep thinking future what's the cumulative impact how many infrastructure agreements have we granted infrastructure agreements have we granted across the whole business precinct and across the whole business precinct and I also always think of Peregian Beach I'm a bit off topic okay so let's stick to the questions so when Nadine Gordon 02:15:58.024
They first launched the application they were quite significantly below with our 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 more reports from them which were 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 he's looking at he's looking at the surrounding uses he's looking at the 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 when they came requirements back and they were five 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 rooms, 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 02:17:39.496
Thank you for the report. Just have a question because we all got the email today about amenity of noise issues which is on everyone's agenda and rightly so. I noticed that we're conditioning an a amenity complaints manager complaints management procedure in attachment four. For item number 29. So can you just tell us a little bit you've got a record of all complaints and 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 know, 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 I think Nadine Gordon 02:18:39.958
It could it will the 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 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 02:18:59.285
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 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 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. Brian Stockwell 02:19:57.343
I'll second it. Frank Wilkie 02:19:58.504
Thank you. 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. Been a it's topic of conversation for years, what's happening to the Royal Mail, when is it going to get a facelift, when is it going to be upgraded. It's a welcome application. It has regard to the art deco heritage look and feel of the premise. It's had regard to the fact that it is on a well serviced transport route. People will be arriving and peak leaving by public transport. Peaks, usage times of the hotel will. Perhaps be 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 long-awaited and much-needed place to a. Pivotal. Karen Finzel 02:21:47.512
In relation to the car parking on the land deemed not to be owned by the hotel, I'm just.ie what they are referring to a public meeting that was in this area. Nadine Gordon 02:22:12.550
The hotel now so 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 Unidentified Speaker 02:22:25.609
Thank you Brian Stockwell 02:22:27.317
Council witness Wegener was there? Yes, Council uh with Nadine Gordon 02:22:32.873
The um Tom Wegener 02:22:33.594
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 um it's something that the hotel plans to do and if they don't do it they can't ever turn back on Council and say well Council didn't um didn't allow us to do this by any stretch so that's not a possibility yeah it's not Nadine Gordon 02:22:59.802
It it's 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 the figure five in the report and it shows seating and then they've left the 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 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 10 o'clock is far more reasonable for that area okay yes, Council considered that. Brian Stockwell 02:24:06.779
Did staff consider an earlier closing time? Nadine Gordon 02:24:12.855
Tom, the condition has been imposed accordance with the acceptable outcome that's detailed in the entertainment and activities code for this zoning so we've utilised that those requirements under that Patrick Murphy 02:24:27.150
Code and been reviewed and by acoustic our consultants. Nadine Gordon 02:24:31.009
Consultant and being reviewed at acoustic consultant also agrees with the conditions that we have imposed as part of the recommendation Brian Stockwell 02:24:40.697
And if I can have a subsequent one after 10 o'clock at night and likely to be conditioned by the liquor licensing the EPA maybe one of the noise does have a higher with restrictions on above and beyond background noise etc so our security consultant would have taken in the higher requirements. Nadine Gordon 02:25:03.542
He says the 70 DBA is pretty um yeah limiting. Brian Stockwell 02:25:09.748
And to add 70 DBA after 10? Tom Wegener 02:25:15.094
Yeah. Could I just test an amendment to the opening limit opening hours till 10pm? Brian Stockwell 02:25:25.114
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. Tom Wegener 02:25:35.586
Okay well that's fine. I'll let the other Councillor present that then. Patrick Murphy 02:25:41.926
Councillor Stockwell, just to clarify your 70 DBA, that was in relation to acoustic live music. Oh sorry, yes. Which is conditioned to cease by 10pm. Brian Stockwell 02:25:51.879
10Pm. Yeah, I would have thought it would be something like 5 decibels or 10 decibels over the background noise, which is probably close to the 50s. Patrick Murphy 02:26:00.732
So 10pm. Friday, Saturday and 9pm. Sunday to Thursday. Frank Wilkie 02:26:04.189
Just a clarifying question, it also refers to a 70 DBA limit for amplified sound as well. That's correct. Nadine Gordon 02:26:10.812
Okay. Yes. That is correct. 70 DBA is what our consultant has said should be the maximum. Frank Wilkie 02:26:17.900
Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:26:18.401
And that's under a lot, like a lot key, isn't it? Nadine Gordon 02:26:21.985
Yes, under a lot key, that's right. Amelia Lorentson 02:26:23.567
Yes. So as. Just analogy, what does 70 decibel sound. What does that equate to? You didn't tell me. Yeah, all right. I just you might know. From what I understand. Nadine Gordon 02:26:41.790
Me playing my guitar here and you being there. I believe so, I don't believe it'll 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 02:26:58.841
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 bar, complete with a kids' kids playground. Nadine Gordon 02:27:20.488
I spoke to the applicant this morning. And they've said, "No, it's not. Frank Wilkie 02:27:23.748
There's no playground." Does that mean Facebook is sometimes misleading? Nadine Gordon 02:27:35.255
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 75. Alarm clock 70 to 80. Washing machine 70. Dishwasher 70. Richard MacGillivray 02:27:55.456
It's 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. So what that means, 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 02:28:32.038
So does that mean that if legally challenged, that given that it does comply with the Noosa Plan acceptable outcomes, 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. Amelia Lorentson 02:29:06.698
Okay. Brian Stockwell 02:29:09.581
So Councillor Phillips, did you still wish to test your potential amendment? Jessica Phillips 02:29:15.200
I'm just working out how to get some clarity around it after that. Frank Wilkie 02:29:23.946
I have a question in the meantime. Thank you. Okay. How would those sound limits compared to sound limits possibly imposed by OLGR? Nadine Gordon 02:29:36.282
I think the ones I've looked for at junction are 75 DBA. I looked at one recently. Frank Wilkie 02:29:43.819
Yeah. And just a process question, why wasn't OLGR involved in providing advice? Nadine Gordon 02:29:49.386
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 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, but then we've got, yeah, but our conditions will still apply, because they're going to be conditions of approval, so they can't, they really shouldn't give anything other than what we set as part of our conditions of approval. Jessica Phillips 02:30:30.525
Okay, thank you. Okay, 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. When we're 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 use, the zoning. Again, this is a consistent use in the zone. We do have an existing hotel there. He was satisfied in terms of the legislation and the requirements that these conditions requirements were sufficient to protect amenity. There are a number of this is noise mapping which shows how the noise fades and again it's showing that it is fading as we leave the site. 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, from the beer garden. The west as well and one of the eggs Amelia Lorentson 02:33:15.345
To residents and new Sir heads. Pick up if conversations Nadine Gordon 02:33:53.131
Picking up what 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 02:34:02.502
Is there opportunity to include a condition that we have some sort of noise monitoring device? In the beer garden 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 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 02:35:12.444
Just a monitoring system outside just 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 Unidentified Speaker 02:35:29.658
We need a similar condition for bounce I recall they Richard MacGillivray 02:35:38.166
We'll make some inquiries. Brian Stockwell 02:35:45.262
Talking to the owner of many campaigns. Let me have one complaint. Nadine Gordon 02:35:51.151
It's actually you 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 back to 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 you know headlights, cars starting up. Intoxicated people leaving the venue. How is that mitigated moving forward? We haven't, how does legislation cover that? Nadine Gordon 02:36:38.601
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. The noise 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 they have to 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 looked at the lighting. Screening of it 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 02:38:00.353
And there's different layers as well as Nadine said around liquor licensing obviously around responsible service of you know liquor and there's this certain I guess processes and requirements in place but there's also a role too for the place to intervene particularly in the public realm if there's instances that occur anti-social behaviour and anything spills outside of the site itself that could and can be addressed but tricky from a land use perspective to manage that and in advance I guess we're dealing with the land use component as opposed to those behavioural elements. Karen Finzel 02:38:35.809
So just a question Through the Chair following on from that. Mr Chair. Oh sorry, yes. Following on from that, a question through the CEO. In our Corporate Plan on page 47, we support strategies and plans around the Noosa social strategy, social 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 02:39:15.379
Point of order. This is not relevant to what we're doing at the moment. I thought we were addressing the social impacts that aren't covered by the planning scheme. Brian Stockwell 02:39:24.819
Yes we are. Dealing with the perception of social impacts but we're dealing with a specific application rather than looking at the future and revising our strategic documents. Karen Finzel 02:39:35.792
Thank you Mr Chair for bringing that to my attention. I'll raise it at the budget meeting. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:39:41.992
I have 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 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 in terms of 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 applications should comply with disability discrimination 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 equitable access for all people is very important. Nadine Gordon 02:41:03.378
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 land-use concept so the next stage is when they do the further detailed design is when they do 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 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 that and that further application they must consider it by law that's what the certifier has to do he has to make sure it's compliant and he has to make sure that the right number of toilets and that the disabled access the ramps of all and there's and legislation 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 yeah it in as advisory Amelia Lorentson 02:42:51.230
To disability discrimination act given the importance that we as a community and as a Council based on equitable access. Richard MacGillivray 02:43:01.741
Fair and equitable access. As Nadine said that will be included in any decision notice then an advice note to that effect so yeah there's a key point that needs to be addressed. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:12.736
Thank you very much I just think it's important. Yeah that's right no that's fine. Brian Stockwell 02:43:18.963
I believe the flip side is true we can't condition anything that's a building act matter. Nadine Gordon 02:43:25.210
But we can put in the report yes thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:43:28.154
Okay I think Councillor Wilkie is still the only one to talk. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:34.806
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 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 by planning. Specific procedural motion if you're going to defer it. Ask a question about that I'll give best. My verse further. Just move a procedural motion seeking further information to be brought to the before to be brought to the Ordinary Meeting. Brian Stockwell 02:44:19.646
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 has to have the date and that you say we defer this way that's great Amelia Lorentson 02:44:31.835
Thank you I'll that to the CEO. Brian Stockwell 02:44:40.699
Okay, so that's been moved. Councillor Lorentson, is there a seconder? I'll say it. I just have a question. No, you can't have a question. Jessica Phillips 02:44:49.916
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 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 and an opportunity. Possibly opportunity to make a slight amendment to the development application Brian Stockwell 02:45:42.331
I'm just thinking about that. No one 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. It is a question. Frank Wilkie 02:45:57.222
Do you want to go first? Jessica Phillips 02:45:59.445
Yes please just to clarify we're getting the noise will be for voices not for. Voices? Nadine Gordon 02:46:07.734
So my understanding. Brian Stockwell 02:46:10.777
Yeah you may answer. Nadine Gordon 02:46:12.984
Answer Through the Chair. My understanding is to get 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, we'll go back to part two. Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 02:46:40.118
So are there any instances of where crowd noise is measured in a beer garden that result in an actual regulation of crowd noise in a beer garden? I don't know like what to end would it be? 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 I Brian Stockwell 02:47:29.174
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 for, not about the context. Frank Wilkie 02:47:37.213
Okay, here's a procedural question. Could that information be provided by the ordinary medium anyway? Amelia Lorentson 02:47:46.818
Yes. Potentially, yes. Oh, without a deferral? Yeah. Oh, look, I'm happy to withdraw the procedural motion and have. It's already been said. Oh, it's already been said? No, no worries. Frank Wilkie 02:47:55.634
And does procedural a motion gag, essentially gag, further debate and questioning on this issue today? Amelia Lorentson 02:48:03.176
Yes. If it's deferred. Brian Stockwell 02:48:05.336
It stops it. Yes. It stops it. So I'll put the motion. Those in favour? The Standing Orders also say. Ah, no, excuse me? Unidentified Speaker 02:48:12.916
Standing Orders also state you say you've got to include the reason for your deferral. Brian Stockwell 02:48:16.957
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, thank you Cathy, and I'm going to give Amanda the record. Sorry, excuse me. Now we can put the motion. Those in favour? Those against? Yes. So that's unanimously opposed. So we go back to the motion. Frank Wilkie 02:48:56.201
Thank you. 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? Nadine Gordon 02:49:10.253
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 suggestion whether it can go through the car park. Frank Wilkie 02:49:28.799
And you'd have sufficient time between now and Thursday to talk to the applicant about that? Yes. Okay, and- the other one would be about time for you to investigate whether crowd noise limiting technology is available? Brian Stockwell 02:49:43.165
Yes. Just. Oh, crowd monitoring? Real-time noise sensors. Frank Wilkie 02:49:47.005
Yeah. And feeding back into the. And noise smoothing. And it would lead to another condition. Would it lead to another condition, Councillor? To what end would it. Amelia Lorentson 02:49:57.316
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. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:50:12.926
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 on Frank Wilkie 02:50:28.034
Just clarity around the playground again and what would need to happen before a playground would be included on that site. As Councillor Phillips has pointed out it has been signalled to the community. It's happening yep it's like being to not just it was on there yes not just yes from a yes Nadine Gordon 02:50:55.538
I understand when it was originally I think mooted that there was talk about putting in a playground but since then their acoustic reports that they've submitted haven't addressed it at all and their plans haven't put it on and I think it's a 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 they would need to put a change application back to Council to get a playground on the site. Brian Stockwell 02:51:33.268
And to verify this is condition three lists the plans approved. That's correct. Is the playground indicated in any of those plans? Nadine Gordon 02:51:44.145
It would have to amend, I think it's annotate, it just needs one of the plans to be annotated to be. Yes. Frank Wilkie 02:51:55.177
Just some advice about your knowledge of these acoustic barriers. It's talked about having a 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 02:52:16.224
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 02:52:24.885
Okay, thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:52:27.939
Male speaker: other questions okay? Or people wish to just talk to the motion? I'll speak to the motion. Male speaker: Councillor Wilkie, you have the floor on the airwaves. I think it's a fantastic development. Tom Wegener 02:52:42.548
It's-- 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 I'll look at the amenities amenity of the river and the hill overlooking the river. And it is one of the few, if not the only place where there's a clear-- hill overlooking the river. And the serenity that-- I've enjoyed there, walking past there at night, is 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. And it's almost a-- spiritual site. I mean, that was the place where the Kabi Kabi lived, and it's-- where they buried, what I understand, the Kabi Kabi, and it's 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 10:00 and say, "Oh, the-- you know, there-- isn't the amenity that-- I was worried about." It's not a problem. Okay, let it go until 12:00, but the opposite of going until 12:00 and pulling it back until 10:00 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. So otherwise than that if there's another Councillor that would put forward, you know, I would support that amendment. Thank you. We can do it now. Brian Stockwell 02:54:27.750
Can I do it now? Yeah. 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. Thank I'm happy with much. 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. Karen Finzel 02:55:14.166
Okay fine, thank you. Okay. Yeah. Just coming off the back of Councillor Tom's comment around the sacredness of the place and that amenity, I do notice we've got Cheyenne in the room. 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
Mr. 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 02:55:52.181
From my understanding, there hasn't been any engagement with Kabi Kabi on this development proposal. Brian Stockwell 02:56:01.021
Yeah, I'll talk to the side. And obviously, yeah, terms where we sit is where we sit is also quite significant. In 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. So, but we do have the heritage of the burial tree just down the road. That's 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, to the top." Then I saw the 1941 picture and realised how strong that horizontal theme was down low and that theirs, you know, theirs is dark, which actually brings out the art deco better than, you know, the light as it currently is or is proposed. It'd be great if we could get that 1941. Car back out front as well. But it has got a lot of heritage, so 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 and they decided to go in and throw the net down the back and take it up to Gympie. And I know from all the old Tewantin residents when they met last year, 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 it's important to 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 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 02:58:17.600
I'm just 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 at the Royal Mail 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 the 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 meals 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 02:59:16.956
Anybody else wish to talk? Amelia Lorentson 02:59:18.846
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 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 you know it's one best of the 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 also and hope between now and Thursday 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 in bee gardens so so so again we must give consideration to residents they too should be ensured their rights of quiet enjoyment I just had a question. Sorry. Brian Stockwell 03:01:04.674
Anybody? Karen Finzel 03:01:06.306
Just a question given we're talking amenity and opportunity to you know embrace further our story our connection to each other in our place we've got the public art infrastructure policy coming before us has any thing been raised around public art within this site or externally? No. Is there opportunity 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. That's a public place. Brian Stockwell 03:01:47.127
So there's no, what we're saying, there's no trigger in our planning scheme to require art. Public provision of public art? Okay, anyone else wish to talk? I think we've all, I know you haven't talked yet. Karen Finzel 03:02:05.306
Look, I just think it's a great opportunity for our community to the space. Activate 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 relevant businesses into our Shire to 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 out know, 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. The growth in our area. Frank Wilkie 03:03:11.963
Uplift an energy. Tewantin significantly, but we're also having strong regard to resident management. 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 now invite Councillor Wilson back into the room, please. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Our next item is Noosa Council's organisational carbon footprint, financial year 23-24. And we have Cheyenne and. Emma? Heather. As well as Patrick. We'll just wait for Councillor Wilson to return. And also manager of strategic planning, Anita. Welcome back. So who was going to give us an executive summary? Cheyenne 03:04:27.661
I think they're on a pause to me. So this report is the council's organisational carbon footprint and its recommended deployment noting. It's part of the footprint includes council's expenditure data to date and also looks up sorry for 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 last financial year the footprint was determined to be forty five thousand one hundred eighteen tons of greenhouse gas emissions which is given in tons of co2 equivalent. The majority of emissions came from the landfill at 47 forty seven percent. Next was professional services at fourteen percent which does include engineering services and also and then construction materials and services at thirteen percent. So Council started measuring its footprint since 2016 so that's taken as the baseline year. Since 2016 we've seen a total reduction of eighteen percent starting at fifty five thousand eight hundred and forty three tons. 2016 so we have achieved the eighteen percent 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 largely to the gas capture and flaring that occurs there if we exclude some of the emissions from our supply chain which are out of a direct control we've achieved closer to a 38 percent reduction in emissions since 2016 which is similar to other LGAs like the Sunshine Coast who's sitting at about 40 percent in direct emissions reduction. So the stainless. 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 action and our emissions reduction further to deal with our residual emissions that are sitting at about 45,000 tonnes. Brian Stockwell 03:06:54.910
Thank you. Do we have questions oh well I'll keep off there's some interesting stuff in 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 a year by our solar installations. However, we've gone up. By% since 2021. Is that real consumption or is that because it's based on how much we spend on electricity? Unidentified Speaker 03:07:29.868
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 03:07:49.983
Now I'm just talking sorry, the table that compares towards 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 or is it just because the formula's worked on how much we spend on. Cheyenne 03:08:12.140
So it's not based on expenditure data, that. It's based on consumption data. So there has been an increase. Unidentified Speaker 03:08:18.688
So, to clarify, Councillor, that we found 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. Yes, it should be 7%, so apologies for that. Brian Stockwell 03:08:37.329
For that and that obviously 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, 2016, since there's been a reduction from 36,000 to about 21,000. Could you talk about, congratulations on the work done, but can you talk about the key pieces of work that have been done to get that result, that impressive result? Nicola Wilson 03:09:11.789
From what we know the moment, most, the gas capturing, so the capturing the methane gas and flaring it to CO2 has the largest contribution to that emissions reduction of 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 Frank Wilkie 03:09:39.754
Just on the green waste which came in 2017 I think we were the first to introduce it in Queensland, correct? Yes I think that's right. 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 Cheyenne 03:10:05.894
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 03:10:13.726
And just the people who might be listening could you explain why flaring methane which produces carbon reduction in greenhouse gas even though we're it's creating a gas Nicola Wilson 03:10:25.047
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 03:10:46.017
And a lot of work's been done and moving towards non-polluting technologies and Council operations were you able to quantify the amount of savings for example that has meant for ratepayers over the years because the installation of solar for example Nicola Wilson 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 to about three hundred thousand dollars 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. Unidentified Speaker 03:11:25.711
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. Nicola Wilson 03:11:50.116
Yeah. How, just explain the methodology a bit, please. So, emissions basically are categorised into scope one, scope two, and scope three. Scope one are our direct emissions, which for us is basically our landfill. Scope two is our, predominantly our purchased electricity. And scope three is our, basically the emissions from our supply chain. 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 depends on the sector 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. I'll 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. Remissions 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 um with rates 1 and 2 and then the rate 3 separate, my understanding is that the rate 3 are more network owned, Council operated, but the rates 1 and 2 are not, or maybe it's the other way around. But my question but what my question is, when we're considering our street lighting, how many to 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 03:14:31.523
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 the--- That's right. Enhance- Yeah. Implementation of LED lighting. Jessica Phillips 03:14:57.058
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, there was, sorry. Let me, I don't know if anyone wants to jump in. Brian Stockwell 03:15:36.763
Okay, I'll do one. It was a bit of a surprise, and it's only expenditure base. In fact, some but that some actions that I thought led to sequestering carbon given that it's 308 tonnes, 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 spits out? Essentially a bit of both yeah yeah because it doesn't make sense when you compare it to say concrete products yeah I mean we do rely on the climate act of having the accurate as they can be but yes it needs to be yeah that's to increase the illustration but it's got regional a reasonable signature did you Jessica Phillips 03:16:20.186
I- found increase that expenditure on suppliers such as Hazel brothers cmc civil in the construction of materials when we go to fuelment is that a consideration to put back on those companies that we use to buy into our reduction yes it definitely sustainable procurement is definitely something that we are looking into to address that yeah so when we kind of like tendering process essentially they say well if we want a job here this is our Larry Sengstock 03:17:04.848
One of the criteria we have and it's becoming larger or being investigated at the moment in terms of how we do address that further but some of but the some of the larger companies recognise that part of what they need to do other than smaller companies we'd love to do it I'm sure I have Amelia Lorentson 03:17:24.791
A couple of questions hi in terms of costs lots and of data an account auditor accounting auditor roadmaps of plan the level of detail what's the cost to Council and who pays and who does this work is it internally done internally or are we externally outsourcing the accounting or the auditing Unidentified Speaker 03:17:55.860
Sorry for last financial year the one that I've just reported on that was done by an external internal 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 the next one is produced and thus internal external. Amelia Lorentson 03:18:30.121
Do we have an idea of cost actual costs or can you take that on notice and just send 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 agreements yeah Brian Stockwell 03:19:00.350
I don't think we can talk about I agree with talking about negotiation on stuff Amelia Lorentson 03:19:06.869
Through the Chair okay so I can't ask the question that's right Brian Stockwell 03:19:14.457
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 out Amelia Lorentson 03:19:31.941
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 03:19:39.044
If you like the CEO can put what he, his vision would be on the question. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:44.650
I'm not sure what the question's going to be. The question, maybe best I ask the question. Unidentified Speaker 03:19:49.194
It's very sensitive at the moment Councillor, I just I think Larry Sengstock 03:19:53.499
Unless really it's relevant, I think we're to go there. Amelia Lorentson 03:19:56.391
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 mission strategy sustainability. Or 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 03:20:39.848
It's not something that's been captured, necessarily. It's not something and we don't, to be honest, we don't 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 operation. Our operational plan, in our Corporate Plan, 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. The cost reductions available there and things. So we're looking at all of that definitely as part of our embedding Roadmap. Kim Rawlings 03:21:29.020
Thank you. We've just run a program, shay, around electricity usage at home. Yes. Across the organisation. Unidentified Speaker 03:21:38.260
That's a program run by Sian and Jordan from the economic development team. It's called the 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 on mass in different ways around Council. Jessica Phillips 03:21:59.220
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 four hundred thousand budget allocation for emissions reduction projects. Would you be able to tell me more about that? Nicola Wilson 03:22:18.074
So, yeah, in the past we've had a four hundred thousand dollar annual allowance for emissions reduction uh capital work, so that allows us to do a lot of our solar installations, a lot of LED rollouts. Kim Rawlings 03:22:35.360
Lighting upgrades, air conditioning upgrades, capital upgrades to all of our buildings. Reduce emissions. Jessica Phillips 03:22:43.246
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 be the last year that 400k allocation is included. Could do that. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:22:59.219
If I could have a subsequent question are we going to spend it this year? That's the plan. We have a number of projects identified which we're working on. Karen Finzel 03:23:07.610
Thank you the report. It was yeah it's an interesting reading in there. Some things are unexpected and other things were quite surprising in terms of where we thought like the emissions would be or you know things like that. I 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 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 to me it seems a little bit unreasonable maybe this is a question so if Brian Stockwell 03:24:24.057
We can put the question in that looking at a Roadmap will Councillors be asked whether they want to retain or change the target of 2026 Kim Rawlings 03:24:39.420
Council we are bringing forward to you an investment Roadmap to try and continue to reduce our emissions. Missions and yes 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 asked around a number of things to consider on how we achieve the outcome that the Council been trying to achieve for a number of years Karen Finzel 03:25:14.483
Yeah and we'll let's help 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 our targets for zero emission. What specifically is the Local Government Act? 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 so that refers to our duty of care as a local government to address general risks for our community at the strategic level Kim Rawlings 03:25:56.351
Climate change is one of our major risks, so it 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 to manage and mitigate those the target that we have said is a local government set target it's not a legislative target it's something that Noosa Council has said itself. Jessica Phillips 03:26:34.907
Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Brian Stockwell 03:26:40.304
Yes, thank you. Unknown 03:26:43.464
As a part of the road map towards zero emissions Tom Wegener 03:26:50.760
Sequestration of, 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 03:27:06.800
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 be there saying we have to consider them. Frank Wilkie 03:27:22.421
I'm happy to answer. Mr Chair, because I'd like to leave before midnight. I'd like to move the recommendation. Brian Stockwell 03:27:33.957
Councillor Finzel. Move Councillor Wegener. Wilkie, sorry. I'll get to you. Councillor Finzel. And I'll just explain, Councillor Wegener, I move that your question was out of order. Frank Wilkie 03:27:51.084
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 and giving us some options to consider whether it's pushing out the timeframe 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 not trying to divest ourselves of that responsibility by selling off our landfill. We're going 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. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:29:01.924
I'll talk to them it. There is some really good improvement in areas that we have an ability to fix within current budgetary constraints. Um I did have 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 Officer. And we haven't been able to talk about that. Like some of the good areas, those things, the efficiency and thinking about what you buy. And how 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. To me it's about the ability to make decisions that make the best cost outcomes for carbon reduction. And I think one of the upcoming agenda items on this meeting will be a test of that. Amelia Lorentson 03:30:24.027
I'm just going to add just something. I'm trying to say this nicely. Start with the four piece, ps. 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 probably what I like is how doing green good stuff means better business, better efficiency, and on a community level, how that impacts on lower and that we as a Council time and energy money in core business where it's needed on our roads. And these efficiencies give us the opportunity to do a good by the environment, but also the community benefits in terms of, you know, better roads, cleaner air, cleaner waterways. And thank you for the report. Unidentified Speaker 03:31:55.696
Thank you- Good feedback. Anybody anyone else? I'd like to speak. Brian Stockwell 03:32:02.841
You have the floor, Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 03:32:08.802
Well, considering that the world's biggest economy has abandoned climate change and the goals, sometimes you think that, you know, 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, when the spartans 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 he acted because he has absolute values that transgressed or on the other side of actions and local occurrences such as 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 stick to our climate change emergency because it's 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 sequestration I mean the resource recovery centre here this is our advantage economic advantage 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 Councillor. Can I just say the economic development team are on board with this. Very much. Anyone else? Brian Stockwell 03:34:11.616
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. Richard MacGillivray 03:34:23.706
We need a short break. Brian Stockwell 03:41:59.347
Ready? Yeah. Go for it. At the pump we're going to be finished by 4.30. We're on to item 8.5 which is the Pomona Place Making Plan. And do we have a. I. Amelia Lorentson 03:42:19.327
Yes, me. Michelle? Got to come. Excuse me Through the Chair, I've got declarable conflict of interest. Councillor 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 as a result of my conflict of interest. Oh, sorry, that's what you meant. Mm-hmm. That's it. Choose to stay in the room. Okay, thank however. Richard MacGillivray 03:43:12.691
Okay, do it. Are that's it. Brian Stockwell 03:43:14.609
Hold on a second. We moving the motion to stay? And it's been moved by Councillor Phillips and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. There a reason for staying? Jessica Phillips 03:43:29.158
That 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 the Pomona placemaking plan to place me lighting's relating good. To the Pomona light on. Frank Wilkie 03:43:53.309
Placemaking plan and you need a clause sorry Mr Chair you're in charge Brian Stockwell 03:43:59.213
Relation to that a reasonable person would continue to consider that you could remain considerate vote on the matter in the public interest. Jessica Phillips 03:44:07.740
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 03:44:19.372
You have to put a not in there. Frank Wilkie 03:44:32.960
Okay. Brian Stockwell 03:44:33.681
We're happy 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? Yeah so that was unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson didn't vote. Okay, now we can proceed to Michelle to give us an overview. Michelle 03:45:02.022
Councillor, today I'd like to present to you the Pomona Place Plan, for endorsement. The final the Pomona place 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 three rounds of community engagement. The 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 actions. Led Council received 40 online submissions to the place plan as well as some submissions via email. We also heard a workshop with community organisations to discuss implementation. The final permanent 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, further detail around some actions, some functionality and readability of the document and strengthening the issue of quarry trucks moving through the village. Brian Stockwell 03:47:39.241
Thank you. Do we have questions? Amelia Lorentson 03:47:41.703
Through the Chair, were there were questions that you were going to ask on behalf of a resident or not? Brian Stockwell 03:47:51.713
Not that I can recall. No okay. That's right. I will tell you I wasn't up there, but I can't recall that I was up there. Frank Wilkie 03:48:01.220
I believe there may be some questions coming the ordinary meetings. Amelia Lorentson 03:48:03.767
Meeting, is that what you're referring to? Are there questions coming to the Ordinary Meeting? Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Sorry, public questions. Fantastic. I have a of questions. First in terms of are some the things that you costs. Future? You would like to see in the future? What are the costs for the. 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 03:48:38.668
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 do 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 wrong, so my question is, were they engaged as part of this process? Unidentified Speaker 03:49:24.315
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. 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 03:49:44.737
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 of Pomona. Thank you. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 03:50:17.784
I'm moving, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 03:50:19.277
You're moving again? Amelia Lorentson 03:50:20.467
Yes. Frank Wilkie 03:50:20.610
Happy to second. Amelia Lorentson 03:50:21.026
You, Councillor Finzel. Frank Wilkie 03:50:22.525
Again, midnight approaches. I think it's an enormous amount of work that's gone into this. I really appreciate how delivered the something. Plan has already delivered some quick wins on the ground in the Pomona community. You've outlined them in the report. There's short-term goals in the next one to two years. There's short-term to two years. Some of them are already underway. 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 teaching reaching this. It. The community is seeing, and they already are seeing, the results coming from this process. It's still a big mystery what township will benefit next, exactly. But we'll watch that space. Amelia Lorentson 03:51:12.206
I know we're sort of at the end and very tired, but I do want to raise tree three points. Planting program. So in 2023, 2024, Council committed to a proactive tree planting program. 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 planning program been explicitly included in the new plan? Michelle 03:51:43.771
Not explicitly, I guess. It falls under that streetscape upgrade action, which is quite broad and I appreciate. Know, we 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'd be going to do a greening. Master plan, which we might be 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 03:52:27.924
No, I think everyone's. Karen Finzel 03:52:34.410
As a long-term resident of Pomona, I love reading the report. It's a really good reflection of the community I've tried to I've tried step back little a bit so I don't be you know have too big of conflict but I think it's fantastic the community's eagerly awaiting um you know several things that we've reached there especially you know going back and readdressing the quarry trucks you walking the crossings those things that are high up on you know people's front of their minds every day as they look in our community so um I'm looking forward to seeing this progress and reach its full potential and especially the bit about the um what was it called you know the team where you get the town team together so um 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 um you know way of showing how we this can do this better and like Frank said who's going to be the next uh 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 thank you Amelia Lorentson 03:53:45.239
I'm just going to reference in 2005 there was a Pomona town centre precinct plan what was interesting when I read that was that same priorities then are relevant today 2000 in 2005 they wanted more shade trees they wanted more 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 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 very 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 to deliver and I'm confident we will I've enjoyed the process Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:55:04.623
If I'll be brief the project was a pilot and we are getting a separate report but when I read that the plan I do because I lived in for a couple years you really feel that it has captured the essence of both the town but also of the you know button we hear as Councillors about what the town 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 we're going to work with 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 just to the markets and seeing the market. All the community suggestions was just going along 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 already at you know you'll get much bigger buying 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. Karen Finzel 03:56:30.726
Thank you can I just make a comment? Brian Stockwell 03:56:37.013
Anyone else want to talk? Wait, am I right? Wait, you're right. Sorry. In favour? Councillor Wegener? Yes that's unanimous. Thank you. Now move on to 8.5 which is the Financial Performance Report. Thank you. 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. Expenditure under budget at this stage of the financial year. Operating revenue is $2.3 million above budget and this is being driven by $1.3 million in interest revenue. $400,000 from sales of goods and services, almost $300,000 from other revenue sources, $200,000 from grant programs and $190,000 from rates and utility charges. This has been offset, however, by lower than forecast Fees and Charges of $200,000. Operating expenditure is $116,000 under budget with employee costs showing as almost break-even and that's due to the recruitment the vacancy savings dividend adopted as part of the budget. Services are $109,000 over budget. This is driven predominantly from civil operations which is $430,000 over budget year-to-date and holiday parks which is $109,000 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. We have those offsetting overspends and underspend in waste of $170,000 and $150,000,000 underspend in arts and culture, $100,000 underspend in canals and waterways and $100,000 in development assessment. Costs $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 same basis. Operating position at February is $2.4 million of budget which will be utilised to fund emergent expenditure through to the end of the year. Capital revenues: $8.6 million of our budget and that's due to the timing of receipts from QRA funding and SEQ CSP funding. Capital expenditures behind: $32.2 million year-to-date with $12 million relating to sorry, I've written it wrong, $12 million relating to 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 as subject to any emergent issues that arise between now and the end of the financial year. Brian Stockwell 04:00:24.302
Thank you. Questions? Karen Finzel 04:00:27.974
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 received notification of the approved 2024-25 financial assistant grant allocation is less than budgeted. As such there's a potential for this to impact 2024-25 operating. Position if payment of the future years 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? Pauline 04:01:09.010
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 have eventually seen that occur. In terms of being able to mitigate that risk we don't actually have a 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, our rentable properties, our grant funding, those sorts of things all play into it and we are a smaller Council in an urban area so we do get an allocation that's less. So that $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 again delayed like it was this 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 04:02:45.718
I have a question. 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? Pauline 04:03:08.214
So in terms. I don't know if Shaun wants to comment, but I can talk to it if you'd like, or if you want me to talk to it. You could introduce. Sure, no worries. So in terms of the overspending in terms of materials and services versus capital, obviously materials and services are operational, capital is completely separate. Materials and services are 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 civ ops. Brian Stockwell 04:03:44.875
Didn't we adjust some of that in the BRD? Unidentified Speaker 04:03:47.286
We 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 04:04:02.376
Yes, I would reflect on what Pauline said. There was actually an $870,000 reduction in the civil assets and operation 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. I think we've had significant vegetation costs. And also drainage 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 you know work with the finance team to see what costs we do need to deliver services adequately, so Brian O'Connor has been late 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. Just a follow up question on that, Karen Finzel 04:04:50.132
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 then and will 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 04:05:21.563
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 have a clear year, some of those things haven't been decided so that's a decision we take as a budget- Yeah. Measure each year. And we can't predict necessarily but we're always driving for efficiencies and better ways of doing things but those things take time as well and sometimes they cost money to make money if you like, sometimes to make savings. So we're in that process as well in terms of, but it's one of those things that will come up as a budget discussion absolutely for 25-26. Shaun Walsh 04:06:00.032
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 quite significantly at the moment, to actually have a better discourse with finance and the organisation about these costs, which are effectively reducing the capacity of the overall program. So, line marking- Oh, some parts- Yeah. Of it are externalised, but we do have some. Brian Stockwell 04:06:29.669
One of the considerations we've got is to try and build our internal delivery. Like, in terms of arborists, they can be. Shaun Walsh 04:06:37.993
I know we did, at some stage. Have someone who had a bit of the few of the costs but then we thought about this we do have some internal resources that apply to arborist tasks, in terms of assessing the tasks and actually doing the work. And it's really good that you always maintain a baseline to be able to do reactive work. But when you look at this. 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 is. Oh, the model is a mixture of both. You've got key expertise, you know, internally actually to lead the program and to guide it, but then you're actually contracting the vast majority of the work out. Amelia Lorentson 04:07:22.872
Thank you. 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? And does 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 up. So you know a couple of other questions thrown in with that one is are we underestimating annual revenue? Are overestimating we annual expenditure and should we looking at maybe reviewing our budget forecasting methodologies? Pauline 04:08:20.619
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 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 sustainability 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 04:09:32.770
Is it a difficult task? I'm just thinking this graph could have Unidentified Speaker 04:09:40.110
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 allocate those out so they're capturing. Otherwise I'm giving you a ballpark. So we did 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 04:09:56.504
I'll move the report. I'll take it. Thank you. For the report. It's excellent. Brian Stockwell 04:10:05.445
Anyone else wish to talk? Amelia Lorentson 04:10:07.309
I will just, in the space of continuous improvement, Pauline, and not a criticism, I love your reports and I love the clarity and simplicity just a thought, it would be great to have the report, maybe what I would like to see, I'll start from what I would like to see 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, what are we spending today compared to last year and the year before, and the reasons. I don't know whether that's an audit and risk deep dive exercise or whether it's a financial reporting, but I would love don't to see maybe, I don't some analysis of. Some of the information, not on each section, but just a commentary on how does this fare with costs this time last year and what are the different circumstances or why, an increase in employee costs? Unidentified Speaker 04:11:18.303
We can certainly look at what we can pull together for you. We can certainly potentially include a last year's column so you can see the year to date last year. That would be excellent, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 04:11:27.775
But we just need to update some of the reports that we've got for that. Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 04:11:33.606
Interesting and I'm sure it's only a coincidence it's the first time for a native Director but it's the first time the report's dipped into red in the investment return sector. It's not quite true, it did happen in February 2022. Just a question, like the bond rate, are we seeing that the bond rate and the market has a more pessimistic view of the future than what the bond rate reflects because yeah, in terms of common interest in terms of 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 lower. So that's the way that 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. Karen Finzel 04:12:28.545
Yeah yeah I'm glad you retracted that thank you Brian Stockwell 04:12:36.245
Mr Chair are we going to close that debate? Frank Wilkie 04:12:41.803
I just like so I don't mean to sound flippant about just saying the report is excellent because it is reason the 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 rate payer. I think it's a good sign if you're a rate payer, but questions about cash at a at bank is. Like 14 months is a very good one. And as the report shows, there's really only. Predicting a surplus of $2.4 million. Not the. It's not that much cash that's spared. It's constrained cash that's being responsibly managed. And as you say, it's being 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 each individual department is over, why each individual department is under, 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 the ones that come forward in this meeting. The collective sum of all councillors' requests are reflected in these, the graphics and the information provided in these reports. So that's why I said the report was excellent and I commend any rate payer to read it. Brian Stockwell 04:14:06.240
Thank you. I'll motion. Put the those in favour? Yeah. That's unanimous. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, mark. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Well done. And we move on to item 8.6. I'll move it, Mr Chair. Amelia Lorentson 04:14:27.342
I'll second. Brian Stockwell 04:14:30.677
8.6, which is the OLGR motions, and Councillor Wilkie's moving the recommendation. Happy to second, thank you. And Councillor Lorentson is seconding it. Frank Wilkie 04:14:39.096
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 the residents to read if they're interested. And I commend the Councillors that have put in some of the work into getting these motions up. Can we just clarify that it's Thursday morning? Oh, thank you Councillor. I tried, Frank. Brian Stockwell 04:15:09.840
Does anyone else wish to talk? Karen Finzel 04:15:14.045
Yes, I actually do, and I understand on people 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 timeframe and get them in a 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 important, not only in our local 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 throughout the 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 be moving along to help address your timeframes due your wording. To 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 the staff, including CEO, have supported us in raising these motions. Thank you for your time. Brian Stockwell 04:16:40.068
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:16:40.068
Thank you. I will speak to the report. Firstly, it's important to note that these motions have no financial impact on Council. If approved, the costs for a Councillor attending the conference will be covered by the councillor's mandatory representation. Funding. Also important to note that these motions 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 core 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's urban wastewater treatment and reuse framework. Basically 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 beaches that have been closed along the Sydney northern beaches and it's a stark reminder of why treating wastewater to the absolute high standards is absolutely essential. 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 and sewerage. Sewage so in 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 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 "caternary treatment" to remove all micro pollutants 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. Produces a producers of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics will 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 need here in Noosa and then see if it's any got any application on a 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 in response to meeting that are 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 the government amend its national health law to allow doctors, retiring doctors, to establish an Australian medical reserve 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 for retired doctors. 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 group of really great doctors advocating for really positive changes in national health laws. Again, 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 it's part of our responsibility as Councillors to you know lend our voice to any matter that has local relevance and also anything that has national or state thank you very much so excuse me Through the Chair Karen Finzel 04:22:54.913
Thank you Councillor Lorentson I just would like the opportunity I see we've got seven minutes so can I please just give a little added summary uh when we're talking about Brian Stockwell 04:23:12.446
And, the, if anyone's any ready to talk to us about that, we'll do we've right covered this section moving forward I'm sorry so that we will put that motion oh well Councillor any other Councillors wish to talk I Jessica Phillips 04:23:32.638
I I'm happy to give um to Council at the end of my time if possible I mean the Standing Orders thank you though okay so Council Frank Wilkie 04:23:44.495
Will be yeah thank you um in 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 um correctly received and you can tell by the way the two Councillors spoke about their emotions how passionate they are about it and it's commendable thank you Amelia Lorentson 04:24:04.932
Question Through the Chair Brian Stockwell 04:24:09.540
The debate closes so I put the motion those in favour that's unanimous so uh that is the last uh item in open session the next item is in confidential session uh so we will watch this. There's no one in the audience but if we can uh cease the recording and we do need to move the motion that's up on the board Frank Wilkie 04:24:38.669
I'll move mr Mr Chair that the meeting be closed public discernment section 254 j3 this alpha reference of the local government of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing sorry item 9.1 contracts renewal delegation retail electricity for street lights and large sites and Brian Stockwell 04:25:09.586
The end discussion all those in favour Councillor Wegener of the Brian Stockwell 04:38:54.742
Turn the cameras back on thank you thanks Maggie okay so we are considering the staff regulation for item 9.1 we have a mover of the motion move Councillor Wilson second Councillor Phillips we wish to talk to the motion thank you no thank you Mr Chair I'll then put the 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 thank you Mr. chairman Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
