General Committee - 12 May 2025
Date: Monday, 12 May 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 04:21:49
Synopsis: Resort MCU21/0110 approved, Odour limits set, Unitywater no appeal, Zoning review slated, Compliance Policy deferred 2025, Noosa River funding likely, Finances up, Environment endorsed.
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 Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Deputations
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Juliane Vogler detailed decade-long road maintenance failures on Upper Pinbarren Creek Rd (tilt/camber changes, drainage causing washouts) and requested corrective works and resident input into early-stage maintenance (01:08–13:08; Deputations 6.1). Brian Stockwell moved to approve Noosa Springs resort MCU21/0110 with conditions and to review cadastral zoning/urban boundary in next scheme amendment; debate ensued (59:01; Item 7.1). Jessica Phillips secured an amendment limiting guest/visitor pool hours to 6am–9pm to mitigate odour/noise impacts; carried unanimously (47:09–48:07; Amendment No.1, Item 7.1). Karen Finzel moved to defer MCU21/0110 to the Ordinary Meeting (15 May 2025); carried unanimously (01:14:26–01:31:14; Procedural Motion, Item 7.1). Patrick Murphy (planning officer) outlined the reduced proposal (106 to 69 rooms), odour assessment based on the 2.5 odour unit (OU) contour, increased building setback (302m), biodiversity offsets and tennis court relocations (15:51–27:49; Item 7.1 attachments). Council adopted in-principle an Integrated Compliance & Enforcement Policy, with Jessica Phillips adding clear role delineations for councillors (advocacy for voluntary compliance; no operational involvement) (01:42:58–01:49:55; Item 7.2). Tom Wegener then led a deferral of the Policy to 16 June 2025 to refine amendments; carried 5–2 (For: Wegener, Wilson, Finzel, Phillips, Lorentson; Against: Wilkie, Stockwell) (01:59:57–02:08:10; Procedural Motion, Item 7.2). Shaun Walsh reported progress on Noosa River boating facilities; Council noted report amid advice of likely $2.5m MSQ funding for boating infrastructure (on-land and on-water scope to be clarified) (02:25:13–02:40:27; Item 7.3). Council noted April YTD positive financial performance; operating revenue +$2.2m, expenditures under budget, asset sustainability ratio tracking upward but affected by capital delivery delays (02:52:41–03:05:11; Item 8.1). Environment team tabled 5‑year monitoring of Environment Strategy: 4 completed, 21 on target, 15 progressing; mid-term review endorsed (03:05:36–03:49:20; Item 8.2). Council awarded Cleaning Services Contract CN25031 to CMBM (A,B), Ecovia (C,D,F), David Gillman (E,G); CEO delegated to finalise and manage extensions (Confidential 9.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Unitywater strongly opposed MCU21/0110 citing “reverse amenity” risk and potential legal/prosecution exposure; however, it made no properly made submission during public notification and provided no technical odour modelling (27:54–47:00; Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson and Jessica Phillips pressed odour buffer history (400m EIS buffer from 1995) and ratepayer cost exposure if upgrades ensued; staff emphasised reliance on accepted 2.5 OU methodology and lack of Unitywater data (38:23–42:57; Item 7.1). Policy wording for councillor roles drew on‑the‑fly amendments; concerns over rushing led to deferral for a workshop and clarity, ensuring public-facing guidance is “clear and layperson friendly” (01:45:36–02:05:33; Item 7.2). Noosa Woods jetty options and potential commercial use generated sensitivity about protecting low-key recreation; officers to present options for Council decision and community engagement (02:31:34–02:43:27; Item 7.3). Upper Pinbarren Creek Rd deputation alleged inconsistent/unauthorised works (2015), poor quality control, and erosion from altered camber; calls for investigation and resident-inclusive maintenance (01:08–13:08; Deputations 6.1). Legal / Risk Planning Act posture : Staff reliance on accepted odour modelling (2.5 OU at 99.5th percentile) and expert peer review positions Council to defend approval; refusal based on non‑common material (late Unitywater letter) risks vulnerability in P&E Court (40:25–46:38; 01:16:50–01:18:44; Item 7.1). Appeal rights : Unitywater lacked submitter status; cannot appeal decision (46:38–47:06; Item 7.1). Zoning certainty : Motion to review and cadastralise Tourism Accommodation Zone and amend Urban Area Boundary aims to limit future encroachment disputes (59:01; Minutes Item 7.1B). Procurement confidentiality : Meeting closure under s254J(3)(g) LGR 2012 upheld for cleaning services contract discussion; re‑opened and awarded per probity (9.1). Compliance Policy : Clear separation of roles mitigates probity risk; councillors not to participate in investigations, PINs, orders, remedial or prosecution decisions (01:42:58–01:49:55; Item 7.2). Environmental Concerns Odour buffers at Noosa STP central to MCU21/0110; buildings outside 2.5 OU, outdoor areas time‑limited; increased setback to 302m; 120 koala trees offset retained despite reduced works; 38 trees saved by removing pavilion (15:51–27:49; 47:41–48:07; Item 7.1). Noosa River : MSQ funding likely ($2.5m) for boating facilities; Council to clarify scope, co‑contribution, and protect low‑key recreation at Woods; community engagement planned (02:25:13–02:45:56; Item 7.3). Environment Strategy : Mid-term review to address climate change, population pressures, river health, organics diversion, and integrated catchment management; roundtable terms imminent (03:05:36–03:49:20; Item 8.2). Flying-foxes (Kin Kin) : Continued management via vegetation works, subsidies, and adherence to State intents; no significant population spike beyond seasonal flux (03:17:04–03:20:57; Item 8.2). Planning Scheme / Zoning Changes Brian Stockwell sought to cadastralise the Tourism Accommodation Zone boundary and amend the Urban Area Boundary at Noosa Springs to reflect approved plans, reducing ambiguity and future expansion risk (59:01; Item 7.1B). Tom Wegener and others queried consistency of resort use within Recreation & Open Space zoning; staff confirmed impact assessment and conditions mitigate inconsistencies (01:11:56–01:12:22; Item 7.1). Short Term Accommodation / Rates Signals Finance noted reduced rates revenue partly from reclassification of some “transitory accommodation” properties back to other categories; numbers to be provided on notice (02:56:15–02:57:26; Item 8.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 12 May 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 12 MAY 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 Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh 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 14 April 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS 6.1. DEPUTATION - UPPER PINBARREN CREEK ROAD APPLICANT: JULIANE VOGLER SPEAKERS: JULIANE VOGLER 7. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 MAY 2025 7.1. FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RESORT COMPLEX AND ANICILLARY BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, AND CLUB (MINOR EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUBHOUSE) AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 6 MAY 2025) The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes - Images for benchmarking odour provided by staff Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the Further Report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 May 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0110 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use – Resort Complex and ancillary Bar, Food and Drink Outlet, Outdoor Sport and Recreation and Club (minor extension to existing clubhouse) at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads and: A. Approve the application subject to conditions in accordance with Attachment 1. B. The Zoning and Strategic Framework Maps covering the site be reviewed as part of the next amendment of the Noosa Planning Scheme to provide a cadastrally based boundary to the Tourism Accommodation Zone and an amended Urban Area Boundary to reflect the approved plans. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item A be amended to read: Approve the application subject to conditions in accordance with Attachment 1, with an amendment to Condition 11 to read: 11. Use by guests and visitors of the swimming pools is limited to the time period 6am to 12am 9pm only. Carried unanimously. Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the Further Report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 May 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0110 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use – Resort Complex and ancillary Bar, Food and Drink Outlet, Outdoor Sport and Recreation and Club (minor extension to existing clubhouse) at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads and: A. Approve the application subject to conditions in accordance with Attachment 1, with an amendment to Condition 11 to read: 11. Use by guests and visitors of the swimming pools is limited to the time period 6am to 12am 9pm only. B. The Zoning and Strategic Framework Maps covering the site be reviewed as part of the next amendment of the Noosa Planning Scheme to provide a GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 MAY 2025 cadastrally based boundary to the Tourism Accommodation Zone and an amended Urban Area Boundary to reflect the approved plans. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 15 May 2025. Carried unanimously. 7.2. INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT POLICY (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 6 MAY 2025) Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Business Improvement & Integration Officer to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 6 May 2025, and B. Adopt the Integrated Compliance and Enforcement Policy as outlined in Attachment 1 Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That item B, 1, be added to read: 1. That the wording in the draft policy provided at Attachment 1 under "Roles and Responsibilities", "Councillors" be amended to read: "ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Councillors Review and adopt Council’s Integrated Compliance and Enforcement Policy. Maintain procedural fairness and protect the rights of individuals and the integrity of the process. Councillors must not involve themselves in negotiating and resolving outcomes with aggrieved parties nor advocating on behalf of or representing parties. Councillors can assist constituents in raising concerns relating to compliance and enforcement by referring them to the appropriate functional area. Councillors may actively support and promote voluntary compliance through advocacy, education, and community engagement. This includes encouraging understanding of relevant regulations and fostering cooperative relationships between the council and the community. Councillors must not be involved in operational compliance or enforcement actions as outlined in Council’s endorsed Governance Framework. This includes (but is not limited to) participation in investigations, issuance of penalty GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 MAY 2025 infringement notices, enforcement orders, remedial actions, or prosecution decisions. These matters are to be managed independently by authorised council officers in accordance with legislative requirements and operational procedures. This separation ensures procedural fairness, protects the integrity of compliance processes, and upholds the principles of good governance. " Carried unanimously. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell That the wording below be reinstated in the draft policy provided at Attachment 1 under "Roles and Responsibilities", "Councillors" : "Maintain procedural fairness and protect the rights of individuals and the integrity of the process. Councillors must not be involved in negotiating and resolving outcomes with aggrieved parties nor advocating on behalf of or representing parties. Councillors can assist constituents in raising concerns relating to compliance and enforcement by referring them to the appropriate functional area." and Add words in red below, after paragraph 2, as follows: However, councillors must not be involved in operational compliance or enforcement actions as outlined in Council’s endorsed Governance Framework. This includes (but is not limited to) participation in investigations, issuance of penalty infringement notices, enforcement orders, remedial actions, or prosecution decisions. These matters are to be managed independently by authorised council officers in accordance with legislative requirements and operational procedures. Notwithstanding this, Councillors can consider legal and prosecution matters as reported by staff through the established council meeting processes." The Amendment No. 2 lapsed for want of a seconder. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the matter be deferred to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025. For: Crs Wegener, Wilson, Finzel, Phillips and Lorentson Against: Crs Wilkie and Stockwell Carried. The meeting adjourned at 2.41pm. The meeting resumed at 2.55pm. 7.3. NOOSA RIVER RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILITIES - UPDATE (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 6 MAY 2025) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Director Infrastructure Services to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 6 May 2025 regarding Noosa River Recreational Boating Facilities. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 MAY 2025 8. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 8.1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – APRIL 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 May 2025 outlining the April 2025 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 8.2. NOOSA ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5-YEAR MONITORING REPORT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 May 2025 regarding the Noosa Environment Strategy Implementation Plan for the 2023/24 Financial Year, and A. Note the progress against the targets and strategies in the Environment Strategy and the implementation actions in the Noosa Environment Strategy Implementation Plan for the 2023/24 FY; and B. Note the recommendations for the mid-term review and update of the Environment Strategy, at this halfway point into its 10-year implementation. Carried unanimously. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson 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 a contract proposed to be made by Council in Item 9.1 - Contract No: CN25031 - Provision of Cleaning Services for Administration Buildings, Libraries and Other Facilities. Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Wilkie Seconded: Cr Finzel That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 MAY 2025 9.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACT NO: CN25031 - PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES FOR ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS, LIBRARIES AND OTHER FACILITIES. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Wilkie Seconded: Cr Finzel That Council note the report by the Building & Facilities Coordinator (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 May 2025 and: A. Award Contract No. CN25031 for Provision of Cleaning Services for Administration Buildings, Libraries and Facilities under a schedule of rates contract, for an initial term of two (2) years commencing 30 June 2025 and expiring on 27 June 2027, to the following contractors: 1. CMBM Facility Services Pty Ltd for Separable Portions A and B; 2. Ecovist Pty Ltd ATF R & R McKindlay Trust t/as Ecovia for Separable Portions C, D and F; and 3. David Gillman for Separable Portions E and G. B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the Contract on behalf of Council and, subject to satisfactory performance of the suppliers, approve the options to extend the contract at the expiry of initial term for a further two (2) periods of up to 24 months each. Carried unanimously. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 4.52pm.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:05.920
Welcome, councillors, to the May General Committee Meeting. We'd like to start by paying respects to the Kabi Kabi People, their elders, past, present and emerging who were custodians and continue to be custodians of this place like us. There's a very long connection. We have all councillors in attendance. We then move on to confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move to the confirmation of minutes from the preview committee, moved by Councillor Lorentson. Reviewing those discussions. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? And that's carried unanimously. We don't have any presentations. But do have questions. A deputation. The deputation from Juliane Vogler in regard to the Upper Pinbarren Creek Road. Address cancelled. Welcome. Juliane Vogler 01:06.750
Good day. You for allowing me that I can talk about this long ongoing issue with Upper Pinbarren Creek Road. And I hope that you can take appropriate action after this. I would like to prefer not to be here, but it is what it is. So I have to go ahead. So my heading is still helping for a positive sustainable outcome for Upper Pinbarren Creek Road. Is. Outside of pononat with skin care. Skinkin. So turn left and I live up the hill in the forest. That's why I'm here in Australia. Because I love nature and I care. And that's why I'm here. I hope the entire greek world was upper Pinbarren creek road was established around in. 1912. And the property I live on, it's not always, I'm a little bit in and out and sometimes overseas, was a banana farm, the first banana farm in Queensland. And they built that road because they needed to get their bananas on the market. So it was a functional road over 100 years it has functioned quite properly. Of course we have flats and this is just normal for this region and then some boards overflown, but it's just a matter of a few days. So my name is Juliane Vogler, I'm a resident and I do care. Let me outline a little bit of sort of a scenario. Then we have been approaching council to appropriately act to save this road and to make it a functional road. In 2008 it was the start of the tilt of the roll the road on top of the hill, this is where I live, has been changed. A young supervisor said, "Nowadays we do it differently, I just learned it fresh from university." This with a grader, because the first grader came to the Sunshine Coast, obviously, in 1935, so 20 years after. Then, in 2009, there was the Easter flood. Staff came and approached the owner of the property, which is not very well, that's why I'm sort of filling in, asking him for being able to take material out of the driveway to fix a canyon emergency, fix a canyon on the road. He agreed and said yeah of course if that's an emergency for fixing the road, go ahead, just bring it back. Did not did not happen since then, so that was in 2009.2015, some staff came and started to dig a drench between road and driveway. Donald yeager called the police and the police said that this is a council matter, so he approached the council and Tony wellington at that time sent Bernard an SMS saying staff has determined that work in the road is not being undertaken by council. So who was that? Question. In 2017 I was here for a few months in Australia and when I told me that this is sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss resolvement, so I said okay, maybe I can try and get in contact with the council. And that was the first time I got in contact with Frank Wilkie. I rang him and two days later he was up there and had a look. So we discussed this the situation with the driveway. Words like tilt and camera come into play because the tilt has been changed. And when tilts of roads are going to be changed that means a redirection of water. And every toddler knows water runs downhill, so it has a massive effect what happens. And I consider graded driver as very highly skilled because they have to tune in. And it's maybe just a few millimetres to make a difference where the water is running towards. So then maintenance was a little bit on and off. And then in 2022, we had this millennium flood. So in that region, we had 1.5 metres in like that three days. Yeah. And the road survived quite good because bonadieck had the chance to talk to a rail operator. They agreed. Skilled grade operator because the water flow was the right way as it was all the hundred years before. In October 2022, I approached Frank Wilkie again. He came out again with Joe teresevich and I brought this ongoing issue because on and off. So there was still a gully between the driveway and the road. And brought other problems of the road to their attention. Intention. End of '23 there were two new bridges built. Millions of dollars and I think it came out of the budget of catastrophic disaster you have me how this is called. Something, money from the State. So it was late '23. On the 10th of January 2024 I before I had a meeting with the manager of maintenance Alex Neville on the road and pointing out there is a problem with a ford which is constantly overflowing because the green ban is full. There is a fall injury since 2022 which is like acting like a dam. It redirects the water back to the road. And he agreed in all that. We had a very efficient conversation and on top of the hill where the driver is, he sort of said. Don't have to talk about this. I can see this. It's pretty obvious. Yeah, if you have an eye and the skill for it, you know what's going on. Then in March 2024, there was an incident. It court case. Bernadette was not convicted. That court case was, in my opinion, totally unnecessary, but however, it was the case. And then, April 24th. So that is. January, I had a meeting with Alex Neville, and then April was maintenance due. And on the 23rd and 24th of April, staff has done really good work. Again, like it was, and it worked for 100 years. And we were so happy. So the driveway was not repaired, so this material is still not back, that what was taken out in 2009. But the road, tilt of the was back to as it used to be, and as it worked. This is what we want, a functional road. 23, 24, and then there was a day, happy holiday, anzac day. And after day on the 26th, they came back and changed the tilt again. Redirecting water. And 26th and 29th. And just recently, we got a text message from the council, after Bernard met someone from Telstra, that in that time, the landline was destroyed. So, what's going on? Why do they come back when the perfect work was done before? This is what needs to be investigated. Who is it? Who comes and does the good work? Is it the operator? Instructed by the council? Is there a supervisor who instructs what workers do? What happens with the quality control after performed maintenance work? This is all the questions I have. July 24, so a few months after this on and off. Let's call it on and off. First it was gone, it was on, and then it was off again. We had for almost eight months stabilisation work on the steep slopes of the road. Eight months, specialist teams, I guess that's millions of dollars. At the end of the year, I think it's going to be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, and at the end, that was February, March, when the top layers of the road were placed and the drainages, which, I don't know who was doing this, the contractor or a maintenance crew. I have no idea. However, the maintenance resulted in started in severe washouts when we had a little bit more than 300 millilitres in three days on the 26th, 27th and 28th of March. I'm not an engineer and I'm not specialised in roads where as I have I'm learning. When you drive this road up and down and I walk this road and I used to go by bike, by pushbike. Spending millions of dollars and bit is not done in a way that facilitates the water flow, that we don't promote washouts. I don't understand this way of dealing with repairing this road. I do not understand. It has to be the last bit done accordingly to facilitate have washouts. Road used to have no washouts before so there was a very clever system of tilt, how do I run the time? You've got a little over two minutes left. Okay, so I'm asking you please take action because how do it affects our mental health. In the meantime, my mental health as well. It consumes my life. This is my day off. On Thursday, I will be here as well. This is the day I take leave. I would like to go for maybe a beach bit short walk like other people do. So please do not ignore this situation. Please take action. Please stop ongoing erosion. Please look into repair, maintain, and sustain. Noosa has a reserve status. I was very when happy when I read the Kabi Kabi Commitment, and they invite us to tread lightly on this continent, and I ask you to stop this destruction of this old road, and to make a road functioning as it used to do all hundred years before. And I'm asking you to, on the top of the road, to make sure that it's not separating the driveway from the road, and a big gully is there. And I would be happy if, as a resident, we would be welcome to provide feedback at an early stage to be part of prevention. Sustainable, maintaining the road as it used to be, because at the moment it's really going downhill. I hope this is not a dream, I hope it's come true. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 14:59.650
So we then move on to items in section 7 and the first one is a report referred to the environment committee. It's a further report on MCU 210110, applications for material transduce, resort complex and utility bar, Food & Drink Outlet, outdoor sports and recreation and club, minor extensions and existing clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive. Out and we have the manager, the Director and the officer in development control here to brief us and to answer any questions. So, Patrick, are you doing Patrick Murphy 15:44.540
The overview? I am. From newcastle, I'll take a little bit of your time just to run through the history of this one and probably doing a bit of reading if that's okay. So I'll just go back to the beginning and the application was lodged in June of 2021 over land that is located within Noosa Springs. The site is split zoned. Most of the lower part of the site is zoned tourist accommodation with the remainder of the site zoned recreation and open space. Specifically the site is approximately 38,055 square metres in area of which 23,447 is on tourist accommodation with the remaining 14,608 zones. Recreation and open space. The site is subject to the following overlays. Land subject to acid sulfate soils, biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlay, bushfire hazard overlay and the overlay. The Noosa Springs golf and spa resort and most of the associated car parking areas are located within the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Four tennis courts, residual car parking areas and are located within the Recreation and Open Space Zone with the remaining area being generally vegetated. The site slopes from east to west with natural topography modified by a series of platform each accommodating the existing buildings, car parks and tennis courts. The application is impact assessable and was subject to notification 395 properly made submissions were received all objecting to the application. The application was first considered by council at the July of 2023 round of meetings and at that time the office of report recommended that the application be approved however councillors were not supportive the application and grounds of refusal were prepared reflecting councillors concerns at that time the applicant stopped the decision-making period which meant that council was not able to finalise a decision on the application a further report was prepared for the Planning & Environment Committee on the 7th of November 2023 at that time applicant had not amended the layout the proposed development however provided several written submissions which included an analysis of the submissions made during the notification period a letter from a solicitor reviewing the proposed grounds of refusal and a further letter from the applicant's planning consultant seeking to justify grounds support the development on the 13th of November the applicant made another change to the application to include an extension of the existing clubhouse the change was another change as it introduced the new land use into the application this meant that the application reverted to the confirmation stage and no decision was able to be made on the application at the November round of council meetings a report considering the proposal including the other change was prepared for consideration at the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11th of June 2024 and this meeting the matter was referred to the general committee meeting. At the General Committee Meeting it was agreed to defer the matter to a future meeting round as the applicant requested to extend the decision-making period so it could enter into meaningful about changes that might be made to the proposed resort hotel that are reasonable to address any valid planning concerns that councils might also have about the development. On the 27th of February applicant made a minor change to the existing application, reducing the proposal from a 106 bedroom resort to a 69 bedroom resort. In a letter supporting the amended application, applicant advises them other amongst things that the minor change stems from concerns raised by councillors about the scale of the development, which unavoidably extends into the recreation and open space and partly into the biodiversity waterways and wetlands. Towards the east of the site. The changes being made to the development are detailed below including pavilion 5 being removed from the top of the site towards the east with the stair and lift area reconfigured for pavilion 4. The presidential suite amended from two deluxe rooms. Sorry, to two deluxe rooms with a reduction in terraced areas. Minor increase in the size of the amenities building which will provide wellness facilities that complement the recreation zone. Change to overall design of the open space areas with pathways and small deck areas provided and increasing the size of one of the tennis courts so that it was an ITF pro 2 size tennis court and a reduction in the height of structures above the deck diktar car park. The minor change plans form the basis for the current assessment. Noting earlier officers' recommendations regarding previous versions of the development and noting the reduced footprint associated with the current minor change, the application is supported subject to reasonable and relevant conditions. Are pertinent to the application are obviously primarily around land use. Being a split zone site, we have development that extends into the recreation and open space area in which the resort is an inconsistent use. Most recent change has reduced the extent of development within zone and it's also noted that the pool area has been decreased from 1157 square metres to 457 square metres in area. Terms of odour, an odour report was submitted with the application which was refined as a result of review by council's external consultant. The report utilises accepted methodologies and our expert is satisfied that the use is suitably located within with accommodation facilities located beyond the 2.5 odour unit line. Whilst parts of the redesigned pool and outdoor recreation area are within recommended conditions limit the use of the area so that it is not available for use at times when the 2.5 odour units are predicted to exceeded. Notably, the buildings were previously 302 metres from the infrastructure within the sewage treatment plant. They're now, sorry, they were previously 270 metres and they are now 302 metres, so an increase of 32 metres from the previous proposal. In terms of traffic and car parking, our we have had an engaged traffic consultant who satisfied the provision of 250 formalised spaces was appropriate for the initial 106 room proposal. The applicant has not reduced the amount of car parking for the 69 room proposal currently under consideration. There is also an additional 38 overflow car spaces provided, 19 in two locations, being 19 in two locations. In terms of bushfire, supporting documentation provided by the applicant and subsequent review by council's consulting bushfire expert and environment officer have resulted recommendations so that the risk of bushfire from bushfire to the resort was suitably mitigated. An emergency response plan including the evacuation plan was also provided and determined to include appropriate strategies. The current proposal has increased the separation of the built form from the potential bushfire risk. In terms of biodiversity, through the year assessment process, amendments were made to the location of the tennis courts to preserve the map koala habitat vegetation. Officers were supportive of the intrusions of the biodiversity overlay associated with pavilion five on the basis of the nature of the vegetation in this location. The rehabilitations occur throughout the site and the voluntary offset involving 120 koala habitat trees and 25 black bee trees. The current proposal has reduced the extent of intrusion into the biodiversity overlay and when considering the extent of the limited intrusion associated with pathways and the like, this intrusion has been reduced from 1562 square metres to 720 square metres. Notably, the rehabilitation and voluntary offsets are to proceed as originally proposed, and the removal of the VN5 has provided the retention of 38 trees that were proposed to in terms of the tennis courts, they were relocated to ensure the protection of the map koala habitat. The tennis courts are situated on a platform above the existing car park, is where they're now proposed to be, and conditions have been recommended limiting hours of use to mitigate potential odour impacts on users of the tennis courts and the hours of which lighting can be used also noting that one of the tennis courts has been increased in size. An acoustic review has also been undertaken throughout the process. That is placing limitations on when the tennis courts can be used. It seeks that the tennis courts are limited to two courts between the hours of 6:00pm. To 9:00pm. And no use of the tennis courts after 7:00am. There is a grease trap that needs to be extracted approximately once every one to two months. It's noted that the grease trap will result in noise above the prescribed background levels, more than the three decibels. Our acoustic consultant is satisfied that this is reasonable frequency of the use and he's also proposing that a further acoustic report be provided with recommendations to further limit that impact, some form of barrier, some form of attenuation to occur. The loading dock is an existing loading dock and it's proposed that waste is taken from, it's still proposed that waste be taken from that loading dock at the same frequency. That's every day for general waste and twice a week for recycled waste. There will be more waste that will leave the site than what is currently leaving the site. It just means that the truck will be sent to more bins when it's there. In terms of site cover and plot ratio, the proposal as a whole is significantly under the amount of allowable plot ratio for the site. Accommodation zone permits 15,240 sqm of plot ratio. The total amount that's proposed is $8,738, $3 000 3 of which is in the Recreation and Open Space Zone. Similarly, the site cover is significantly under the amount that's allowed across the site. $9,378 permitted across the whole and $1,460 permitted which is a total of $10,838. $9,660 is proposed and that includes car parks and tennis because those items are elevated, they've been included. The original proposal had some exceedance in building height. As you'll be aware, the topography is quite steep for large buildings come down that slope and to maintain the maximum height is quite challenging. The extent of building height exceedance is the same as what was originally proposed. The amended plans haven't resulted in any frustrations in the maximum building height um I think that covers yes that covers all the issues and as I said previously the officer recommendation is again to support the application. Brian Stockwell 27:49.630
Thank you. Mr. Do Councillor. Do we have any questions? Amelia Lorentson 27:54.279
I'll start. Unitywater why does Unitywater still strongly oppose this development and what specific concerns remain despite the revised proposal? Patrick Murphy 28:12.350
Unitywater has made a number of deputations computations and written a recent letter to council. Their position hasn't changed throughout. They would like to see a greater separation between the resort and the treatment. Because of concerns that an occupier of the resort will make a complaint which will have implications upon how they manage their site and potential cost implications associated with that. Notably, the applicant has is provided a odour report that has been reviewed by our consulting expert and utilising the 2.5 odour unit line as being the acceptable line with to delineate where development should occur, are satisfied that the proposal is sufficient. Being the area beyond which it's been determined that odour won't exceeding be more than 99.5% of the time. So again, our consultants are satisfied and have made recommendations to conditions because some of the outdoor areas actually go into, go beyond the 2.5 odour line. So have sought that the use of those areas be limited to the hours, so that the hours when odour is most likely to be an issue, being in the early morning, noting with 99.5 percentile that the remaining percent I think equates to 43 hours across the whole year. There would be limited times on a daily or weekly basis where that might occur outside the odour unit line. It's also noted that the separation distance of the building at 302 metres is larger or greater than some of the residents that are located within the oasis occupied by and standing by permanent residents. Permanent residents. So the opportunity for complaints to be made about odour is in my not exacerbated by this proposal with residents already within close proximity. Noting there's also recreation activities that can occur on the golf course and on the existing site that are in much closer proximity to the sewage treatment plant. Letter from Unitywater talked about 12 complaints over I think the last 28 or 29 years. There's no detail around where they've come from specifically and it's unknown whether those 12 complaints were from one event, two events, were they from people that were within. Walking within proximity to the site and also where that there's the Men's Shed and a Women's Shed located within close proximity to the sewage treatment plant as well than the closer accommodation that's to be proposed Brian Stockwell 31:22.722
So just so we can lump issues together is there anyone else with questions around Unitywater? Tom Wegener 31:34.222
I was going back to the original plan prior to that use of plan 2020 and you had a big development there that was all that was organised and you had all the development you know it was cut up so then the 2020 plan re-assessed the area and said we want a five-star resort and we want it here where before it was a much bigger property but I always can't grapple with the five-star development goes on a biodiversity area on public use land and is so close to the treatment plant and in the back of my mind I'm always wondering perhaps was that a mistake in the 2020 plan to actually allow a five-star resort there or what was it more as soon as we decided to cancel it. Brian Stockwell 32:31.473
Councillor, the question you pose is why the decision of the Councillor is not a decision of the staff. So if there's not a question specifically related to Unitywater and other issues, can you part with us and think if there is something specific you can ask Frank Wilkie 32:49.434
I have a question, Mr Chair, if I may. It relates to the over-line, 2.5. Odour 0.4. You explain how that relates to the ultimate intended zoning for that parcel of land in relation to, because the report says the terms of combination uses and-slash-recreation uses. Intended for that property are not cadastral. So could you explain how the odour unit line is meant to determine the uses, is pivotal to determine the uses and the open zonings on that site please. Patrick Murphy 33:34.754
So at the time of list of plans for 2020 in and implementing the Tourism Accommodation Zone it was intended to have some form of separation from where the Tourism Accommodation Zone would be and where this retreatment plan is. That was not defined by a surveyor as a cadastral zone to say the easternmost point is and you know a surveyor reference to pin it down. Of this future applications and this application have provided the opportunity for ground truthings to occur as to where it's most suitable for the resort to be located. The Tourism Accommodation Zone as it's met at the moment partially intrudes into the odour line. So a scheme says it's that reasonable to have a resort within closer proximity of the sewage treatment plant than what's proposed in the current application. Hasn't sought to put Bill form and accommodation in that area and has maintained the suitable separation being the 2.5 over unit line. Frank Wilkie 34:44.908
And you're saying that already there are residential estates as part of this screen. So within the residential estates, it's part of this springs. So within close proximity to the shire's treatment plant, golfers on the course are often close to the STP and you've also got the men and women shed in close proximity the STP in this current resort. Do we know if those complaints are related to anyone from those locations and if so how are those complaints handled? Do those complaints, handled, deliver, did that result in an upgrade of the SED? Patrick Murphy 35:26.703
Firstly you're correct in terms of there being other accommodation and buildings that are used by the minton Women's Shed and recreation activities that occur in close proximity. We don't have specific details of the complaints because they appear to have been made to Unitywater and not to council Council but suffice to say there's no upgrades that have occurred. That we are aware of as a result of those complaints and they have not advised us that is the case in their communication as well. Is it the case that Unitywater have advised us that if there are complaints from this resort that may be obliged to upgrade their STP and therefore pass on costs to is a good answer. The position that they have taken. And as you say, there have been 12 complaints in the past that haven't resulted in an upgrade to the treatment plan. They have spoken about the there's a treatment plan that required a $38 million upgrade in 2010. That was something that has been referred to in their deputations. That treatment plan is within 70 metres of permanent residents I've sent you a document I'm not sure whether you've got it might just provide some context and just in terms of the complaints that stimulated I to that treatment plan so might just get up if that's okay so this is the site that required 38 million dollars of growth. As you see there's a, from infrastructure there's a house within 70 metres. This line here is 300 metres. This is the separation that is proposed as part of this application. So in that, I'm just showing you in context the amount of permanent residents that were in proximity of the treatment plan that we are requiring greater separation. If you go to the next page it does scale of this treatment plan. That's 53,000 square metres of area in which the infrastructure is located. The next one shows that the treatment plan can just go around the infrastructure is 22,000. So the scale of the infrastructure is much smaller on this site as well. So this is the Noosa SCV? Yeah. The previous was more on the downs in Brisbane. So just, again, I know you've awarded my deputation, so it's just important to clarify the difference between the two sites that they've been using as a benchmark, I suppose. SPEAKER_06 38:17.067
What that's all the questions I have for the section odour? 3 you, Mr Chair. Of anyone else have an odour-related one? Amelia Lorentson 38:23.607
I have a couple more questions with the Unitywater concerns. The first one is, under the environmental impact statement, section 3.1.10 of the buffer area that was commissioned by Noosa Council in 1995 when the sewage plant was last upgraded. And I'm reading this out of the letter that was sent to all the councillors from Unitywater. It actually states that the. Guests, there needs to be a buffer zoning of more than, sorry, within the 400 metre buffer zone that's required under the EIS. Can you explain or give this a little bit more context? Patrick Murphy 39:15.446
It clearly predates my time and I don't have a copy of that document. I am aware through my review of this application that when Parkridge harkery was put approved there had previously been a 600 metre buffer and I believe that might have been in the scheme and at that time it was determined based on the upgrade that had occurred to the go within that buffer down to I think it was approximately 400 metres again as part of this application we've had technical reports that have been prepared by the applicant reviewed our consultant who are both satisfied and Unitywater have not put through forward any technical reporting or undertaken any technical reporting through this process so at the moment the veracity of data and information that we have certainly sits on the side of what the applicant has provided and noting the methodologies are applying are something that will be validated through the Planning and Environment Court. Brian Stockwell 40:25.210
So what can just you follow up. Is it likely that those standard methodology methodologies that are accepted by the court would not have existed when the point had been made, but I would suggest it? I would suggest that's the case. I would agree with you, yes. Amelia Lorentson 40:41.529
My last question in terms of just our discussion around contour lines. If Unitywater is correct, who will ultimately bear the costs of infrastructure upgrades if hotel guests do complain about odour issues? Richard MacGillivray 40:58.607
I'm not aware of the structure of the Unitywater. Look, I guess it's a difficult answer to understand because like any complaint that requires an investigation, there's relevant factors and circumstances that need to be considered, as patrick's alluded received 12 complaints over since 1997, so 28 years. We aren't aware if that's resulted in any changes to their operation, so it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll have to make any amendments or changes to their operation, I guess it comes down to the nature of the investigation and whether there's a failure from the licensee's perspective and I guess again based on our position is we've had technical experts review experts review this thoroughly and robustly and we feel comfortable that the scientific assessment has been undertaken through this process is robust enough to withstand complaint and if complaints are made through to Unitywater or through the regulator they'll be able to look at the information that's been presented as part of this topical report and give way to that as part of their investigation I don't know whether the Chair will allow this question but we have reference the 38 million dollar upgrade down in Brisbane people the costs of that I'm not aware that I assume would be you would I had to do that upgrade as part of a regulatory action by the State government policy thank you Jessica Phillips 42:37.761
I have a follow-up question to that then please when that upgrade was this might be a question for note on notice but was there then an increase to the entire Shire on the Unitywater costs to residents after that upgrade is there any way we can find that out but we haven't Richard MacGillivray 42:57.230
Got that information specifically from water and I guess it's a bit more of a private probably matter for them in terms of how they passed on those costs but obviously given local governments are shareholders of Unitywater they will probably have to rely on some of that we need to also consider what again the historical circumstances were was the plant required for an upgrade what was decision making around the residential location of the proximity to the plant there's a whole range of different factors and that would have been probably worked through a thorough investigation very hard to try and draw exact similarities between that site I think the key takeaways from patrick's comments is that the circumstances on that site in Brisbane was significantly different to this one that was a distance of 70 metres to where permanent residents were residing this is proposed for a resort development which involves temporary occupation free occupation, and is consistent with the land use intense that council has endorsed for that particular site. Brian Stockwell 44:10.750
Is there any other questions questioning, that councillors councils have? Karen Finzel 44:14.150
Have? Councillor Finzel? Yes, there is. The Chair. In the correspondence we received from CEO this morning, the concern seems to be that the combination of enforced reverse amenity and the potential increased odour complaints could result in legal action against unity. It may lead to prosecution, costly plan modifications and financial loss resulting from civil cases. I know we've got a process that guests that have been conditioned can go to the hotel in a different way. What is the risk to council through a civil case against even council for approving this application Richard MacGillivray 44:56.064
My only comment would be is that council has based their assessment under the Planning Act 2016 based on the information lodged by the applicant and we've robustly assessed that through an independent qualified expert who would likely be in a situation to support us in making a decision through a legal process anyway so we've got a robust assessment undertaken from a qualified expert and that's the normal process you would undertake to evaluate the risk and whether or not the applicant has demonstrated their obligation and Planning Act 2016 to provide technical material to assess against the relevant scheme provisions Patrick Murphy 45:43.867
And just to reinforce the point from before the Tourism Accommodation Zone again goes into the photo buffer line so our scheme got to keep saying the resort is a consistent use in the Tourism Accommodation Zone and seeking that kind of development we've mapped it so that actually intrudes into the buffer but this application doesn't seek to develop the accommodation in that area it's pulling the buildings away from that area so I think the shows that due diligence is has been done by the applicant and that they've responded to the reporting that's been undertaken by the consultant and reviewed by our consultant as to the suitable location for the building in terms of odour. Thanks. Richard MacGillivray 46:31.158
It's also worth pointing out that Unitywater did not make any submissions during public notification of this application. Karen Finzel 46:40.063
What's the list because there was not a properly formed submission made by Unitywater? Brian Stockwell 46:48.743
The legal aspect in the Planning Act 2016 is they can't appeal. Amelia Lorentson 46:55.263
They can't be added. They can't become submitters to the appeal. Right. Karen Finzel 47:01.023
Okay. Thank you for the question. Brian Stockwell 47:06.029
Questions? Nicola Wilson 47:09.009
Just a small one on noise. In the conditions number 13, the noise limit, there's a limit plus 10 here, where the noise level has to drop. But at the same time, the swimming pool is operating until midnight. Is there a risk there that, first of all, that noise limit wouldn't be adhered to, but also how does that compare with other resorts that have a swimming pool open until midnight? Patrick Murphy 47:42.189
I think the condition around the swimming pool was a response to the odour impact. I think it would be logical to amend that condition to pull that back to 9pm or 10pm that would make sense to do that just to ensure that there's no impact Brian Stockwell 48:07.193
I'll keep going is it noise? It still on the noise Nicola Wilson 48:10.330
Yes okay um with the waste um issue if we don't have a waste management plan yet how can we assess what the noise impact would be on residents Patrick Murphy 48:22.565
Um there's been a waste management strategy that's been provided by a expert in that area um and that has been able to be reviewed by our acoustic consultant um the hotel will generate waste and that will be brought by a cart an electric cart down to the existing loading dock within the resort stored in a bin storage area and then collected on the same frequencies as it's currently occurring so the consultants were satisfied that there was no increase in noise impacts resolving the same activity occurring. It's acknowledged that they'll be there for marginally a longer period of time. From memory or from my recollection they're plastic bins that are reloaded and that minimises the noise impacts associated with collection of those bins. That there will be more bins that we might be there for longer, that could increase the amount of time that residents are exposed to most? Yeah, I would suggest it's negligible. Frank Wilkie 50:26.873
I had a question in the report, you mentioned that there are 120 koala habitat trees to be planted as an offset, but could you explain, this latest version of the application doesn't involve the fairing of koala habitat trees, but there will still be an offset provided. Patrick Murphy 51:18.849
000. Relocated. There's now four tennis courts in response to submissions. Through the process stage. SPEAKER_06 52:24.385
Not required because of clearing the koala. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 52:31.785
Other questions? Just in terms of the emergency response plan, again we received emails from residents concerned or not having enough time to adequately provide objective input into the bushfire management plan. They've raised quite a few concerns in terms of traffic and parking, in particular because they raised this last time the application came to council. They've made a request that should the application be approved the ERP should be reviewed and signed off by the emergency services. And there's, you know, I think last week staff put together a list of all the staff put together an information session and their concerns around bushfire is very real and they would like council to so my question is will there be an opportunity if the application is approved for the ERP to be reviewed and signed off by emergency services? Patrick Murphy 53:43.261
Historically that had been the case that council would condition that reports would need to be approved. By the emergency services they don't undertake that activity anymore pretty much since my time at council eight nine years they will not do that we've asked you to look at things in the past and they just extracted themselves in and that part of the process SPEAKER_08 54:10.185
There is opportunity SPEAKER_06 54:12.585
To condition that those reports are submitted to QFES for their records and that's something that we do generally on all applications with a bushfire hazard assessment or evacuation plan so council does try to give that opportunity the third party to have input into those reports and at least have them on hand so they understand what's occurring in the shop Amelia Lorentson 54:36.917
So that can be conditioned in this report we have Patrick Murphy 54:40.897
Condition already with condition that they be provided to the emergency services A hazard assessment report and mitigation plan and evacuation procedure listed within this decision notice must be provided to the nearest fire authority is existing proposed condition 82 Jessica Phillips 55:13.480
I have a quick question on that. When was the last time we checked in with QFES around providing that sort of information? As I understand they sort of come into a different umbrella now with fire management with QPF so I just want to know when the last time we checked that they still wouldn't be involved in assisting reports around this? Patrick Murphy 55:37.817
It would have been within the last 12 to 24 months. Shaun Walsh 55:52.994
State of QPS arrangements with QPF and QFES are in the same flux while they sort out the arrangements and I just wanted to note that they say it will be a couple of years before they actually confirm all the different confirmed arrangements. So our advice on lots of other things, the SES manager and the whole host of questions are in the picture but I think it will be some time before we get clarity on the changes. As yet they haven't changed any of the standard arrangements. Thank you. I'll stop looking at myself, thanks. Any further questions? Amelia Lorentson 56:27.813
Again probably a question that was raised when this application last came to council. There was a parking survey 2022 I think and I that was carried out in January February has council or the applicant undertaken any more recent parking surveys? I just know someone who goes to Noosa Springs it's almost impossible at certain times of day to get parking. Patrick Murphy 56:55.341
So at that time the survey was reviewed by our traffic consultant. He is someone who's very experienced in traffic matters and issues in the court and he often questions that he did in this the methodologies that is being used by the applicant to determine the suitable amount of car parking. At the end he was satisfied that 246 car spaces would be suitable. The applicant is providing 255 formalised spaces and another 38 overflow four so far exceeding the amount that was recommended and with the reduction in rooms from 160 to 69 bedrooms that car parking is to remain as it currently is proposed. So no reduction in the car parking that was originally proposed and supported for the 106 room development. Amelia Lorentson 57:59.740
Can the developer come back to council at a later stage and put an application for further development on the site? My question is are we actually assessing the 69 room development that has no opportunity for expansion? Patrick Murphy 58:16.440
We're assessing a 69 room development. And every approval can be sought to be changed or modified, increased, decreased, it's a right of an approval holder to that. At the moment, the footprint as to where the hotel accommodation can occur is constrained by the existing buildings that are on the site. Should there be a future that application would come to council, it would be rigorously assessed and all the matters that we've considered around car parking and bushfire ecology would again be considered. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 59:01.642
I might move the staff recommendation with a small addition please. The addition is B, that there's zoning and the strategic framework maps covering the site be reviewed as part of the next amendment of the Noosa planning scheme to provide a cadastrally based boundary to the tourism accommodation zone and an amended urban area boundary to reflect the approved plan. So as we've just been discussing it, the addition to the staff recommendation is aimed at reducing the potential for council having to consider further development. Which was one of the concerns expressed by the submitters to the original application. I don't think I need to talk any more on that. I do need to explain why I am supporting the development where previously. The initial General Committee Meeting I moved for the refusal and Cathy if I could have attachment to figure one up and I'll explain why. So what we've seen since this was originally proposed is the removal of the eastern most wind. Eastern most wing is closest to the Resort Drive and closest to the surrounding residents. We have got advice from staff that the area, yeah, oh we've you see up there where the orange is the Tourism Accommodation Zone, the green is the open space. If you go down to figure two, the change proposal. So you see that eastern area wing has been removed. In that area we've advised there's 38 trees that will now be retained that weren't retained in the original proposal. That area contains quite a number of quite mature eucalypt trees. They talk about in talked about DBH it's 30 and 40 centimeters that means the diameter of the tree at breast height. But and it also talks as was in the original application original report that the environmental consultant didn't rank the area that was either in the original proposal this one is having high conservation value. I need to say that is most likely from a biodiversity conservation perspective. There was mention of the Kabi Kabi Commitment earlier on and the Kabi Kabi Commitment actually starts with the words Welcome to Noosa, a place of great cultural and spiritual significance. This is a place of from shadows the guardian trees. And that stems from the Kabi Kabi word of noosra being place of shadows. So when we did the commitment I asked one of the native title applicants what the guardian trees meant within the context of Noosa and he said it's the high places with the cypress pines and there's actually quite a few cypress pines. This hill that will be retained now. It's actually when I went and did a drive around it was one of the values that I saw there are very few of these areas left around Noosa in the national park there is certainly that ecosystem that ecosystem but it's just another way to look at what the change is it actually retains this place of shadows I know when Parkridge went ahead there was a bushfire buff around the edge which actually took away some of this mature cypress vines it was one of my significant concerns at the time so one of those things is not is only the separation distance greater but also the what is coming back into an area which can be retained with native vegetation there's pathways going through it so some of those concerns about the loss of biodiversity the biodiversity overlay is mapped on the existing view of the vegetation and we heard in earlier discussion last Tuesday that the impact on that biodiversity overlay has been approximately halved the other one is the development in zone and if you look at the map there my position for some years even before this development after our case and came to the council is that it was appropriate to consider been oh good, I'm just about to finish. I'm sure the chairman won't give him any extra time today. That where the initial disturbance on the tennis courts was. So if you do look at that, actually takes into where the pool is. And then you look at where the Tourism Accommodation Zone is outside the 2.5 line and you switch that up to where the extension into the open space zone is and you notice that the area is about the same. So to me that is a logical compromise. That we didn't have the information about the 2.5 odaline at the time of doing the zoning boundary and if we were to look at the best place to put it we probably would have put it where the buildings are now so I believe that it is a reasonable compromise that the staff advice in regard to the aspects of odour is something that we can't disagree with and that the court is unlikely to disagree with so hence the change of my position. Who would like to speak next? Nicola Wilson 01:04:55.373
Can I move an amendment please? You may. Sorry Cathy. Cathy? To 9pm. Yesterday yes, please. Brian Stockwell 01:05:22.400
Do we have a second? I'll second. Segment of Councillor Phillips. You should talk to your amendment. Nicola Wilson 01:05:29.320
Oh, just really briefly. It's a minor matter, I know, but I just think noise within the hotel for surrounding residents, it would be prudent to restrict the pool hours. Brian Stockwell 01:05:40.565
I have a question. To be consistent, I know the debate between 9:00 and 10:00pm. Occurred with palo alto wedding. The Calile hotel did have a time limit on swimming pools? If you can't recall, is that something we can have available on Thursday? I can't recall right now, I'm sorry. Anyone else wish to Frank Wilkie 01:06:07.769
Speak? Look, I'm going to support it. It's not only a noise mitigation but my understanding is limiting use of that facility beyond 9pm also limits the likelihood that they may be also exposed to odour, because it's beyond, yeah, that's my understanding, so I think it's a wise amendment. Pia 01:06:31.142
I should say my name's Pia. Oh. Well, very good. I enjoyed it. Nicola Wilson 01:06:42.080
Thank you. It's one second. Brian Stockwell 01:06:49.599
Anyone else wish to talk to the amendment? Yeah, I'm happy to support it. If it turns out that other approvals have gone to 10, I think we should consider that as well. You said 10, but I said 9. Yeah, no, I'll support this now, but if I, before Thursday, I find that we've set the Calile lagging out to 10, I think we need to be consistent. Frank Wilkie 01:07:17.370
Question for staff. The reason, could you just tell us again the reason why using the courts restricted to 9:00pm. That was acoustic two to call courts after 6:00pm. Till 9:00pm. And four courts. Does it have any bearing on, does odour have any bearing on that decision as well or am Patrick Murphy 01:07:48.908
Those areas, it was after, it was midnight. It was similar to the condition that was proposed. Richard MacGillivray 01:07:57.108
And just to confirm on the question from Councillor Brian, the Calile hotel has the use of the pools limited from 6:00am. To 9:00pm. So consistent with Councillor Wilson's recommendation. Brian Stockwell 01:08:14.706
Anyone else wish to talk to the amendment? Well, therefore, would you like to close, councillors? I'll put the amendment, all those in favour? That's unanimous. We go back to the substantive motion. Does anyone else like to talk to that? Frank Wilkie 01:08:34.504
Yes, Mr Chair. I'll support the amended motion. This application has way since we first saw it. I'm particularly in favour of the reduction in scale, also the fact that the applicant has listened and has seen fit to amend plans no longer include any infrastructure in an area of koala habitat. But the offset that was approved at the time by the State government, they've still retained that, so there will still be 120 koalas. Koala habitat trees planted as a result of this application, but there will be no clearing of koala habitat. It's been a tricky application for me because normally you're used to seeing very clearly delineated zone markings on koalas. Planning maps, but the intent of this was that site was to be, the zoning of determined after where the contour line for the odour. Been determined. So I'm pleased that as a result of this application the amendment of the planning scheme will reflect the intention of the zoning. Also note that there are already residential resonantial permanent residential homes within close proximity to the STP in the surroundings and the conditions basically have gone a long way to ensuring that there will be no odour inside the rooms. And also use of the outdoor facilities will be limited to drastically reduce the likelihood that anyone would encounter odour while using those facilities. On the 43 hours of the year when it's it potentially could occur. I also we I also note that there have been 12 police other complaints since 1997. We don't know whether it's from the residential areas that are already closer to the STP or golfers using the course which is also close to the STP than resort or the men and women shed this resort. I think we've taken all reasonable precautions in regard to odour. SPEAKER_06 01:11:14.301
That said it still has been quite an unusual and complicated and protracted process and decision and I will support it at this stage. Nicola Wilson 01:11:29.805
I just have a question around what was triggered by the mayor's mays' comment around Karen Finzel 01:11:35.266
Clearly defaulting. Zoning. Just a question Through the Chair to the staff. When it came to the assessment, can you tell me, it was the hotel application, was it then assessed against open space recreation? Or the tourism visitor accommodation zone? Patrick Murphy 01:11:56.088
It's been assessed against, broadly assessed against the scheme, including those zones, as an impact assessed by location. SPEAKER_09_b 01:12:10.470
Just to make sure. Nicola Wilson 01:12:10.470
Just to remind you, said you earlier that it's in consistent use in the recreation and open space? That's correct. Brian Stockwell 01:12:19.251
So, and I'll leave it. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:23.092
I'll speak to the motion. I am not going to support the application. I simply can't go past the letter that we received by the Jackson of Unitywater which highlighted unacceptable levels of risk. Unitywater is a major infrastructure provider and a key partner in our region's sustainable development. When an organisation of this size and credibility delivers three formal deputations to council and then follows up with a direct letter from its CEO to all councillors I for one am going to listen. My question is why would they oppose this project so strongly unless they truly believe that the impacts are both foreseeable and significant. For that reason I can't support the development. It's not a decision or a risk that a risk I'm prepared to take. Wish to speak. Nicola Wilson 01:13:36.324
Well we don't, Karen Finzel 01:13:40.544
A bit conflicting, I don't know how to impose it, because we've been told by staff that there was no proper reform submission. Can we, well I feel then, based on that, can we get this referred to the next meeting to give us time to find out off Unitywater, like if they're so strongly opposed to it, I fail to understand why they didn't make a properly made submission. Given I think given the complexities in and the high importance of this application, perhaps I'd put forward the idea that we move this to the Ordinary Meeting to needing to get some further information. Clarity. So are you moving? I'll just hit Through the Chair happy to hear from the staff. Patrick Murphy 01:14:30.144
When the Unitywater, whilst in proximity to the site, are not adjoining the site. They did not automatically receive letters that an adjoining landowner would have received. Notification went so notification went out, we had a lot of people within proximity to the site make a submission. Whether it was an error on their behalf, I'm not sure, but we can't go back. They haven't made a submission so they don't have appeal rights. Certainly, we tried to engage with them through the process. We saw the significance of. Odour on the development and sought to engage with them. Initially, I had prepared a report to bring to council, but we delayed that report coming to council because the then CEO actually wanted me to pursue further conversations with Unitywater. They expressed that they wanted to have meetings prior to that point in time, but they never got organised. We put the request out there. They never got organised to attend or organise someone to attend that meeting. We had better we traction with them after the request from our CEO at the time, Scott watters, and we. They did a. They got a consultant to review, and you'll find that's in my report. Their consultant reviewed the report. They didn't do any technical reporting and have since have made deputations and written a letter with similar substance throughout, again, not undertaking any technical reporting themselves. SPEAKER_06 01:16:09.403
Can I have some questions, Mr Chair? You may. Frank Wilkie 01:16:12.103
When you say haven't provided any technical reporting, SPEAKER_06 01:16:15.383
That's in support of their position. That's correct. What, would a technical report, what sort of detail and data would a technical report typically include? It would. Their own auto-modelling? Patrick Murphy 01:16:29.261
Of, you know, from their site, which the applicant's undertaken. Yeah, to determine what is the odour that's actually emanating from their site at the moment and what might they consider as a benchmark, a suitable level. So, would it be fair to Frank Wilkie 01:16:41.889
Say, through you, Mr Chair, that Unitywater have so far just provided assertions, not backed by data? Correct, yeah, Patrick Murphy 01:16:51.596
Thank correct. And it might also. Richard, you might want to validate this, but the letter from Unitywater is not part of the common material of the application. So, material was provided as part of the application, has been publicly available, it's informed people's submissions. It's submission. The letter to councillors is, the applicants haven't had an opportunity to respond to that. This issue I suppose is, not a new issue. We've covered this ground before, but again, I don't believe it forms part of the common material for which the application should be determined by. Richard MacGillivray 01:17:31.194
And in that regard, just adding to patrick's comments, there's obviously, look when we from a Unitywater perspective, there's also risks for council in terms of making a decision based on the information it has before it, in terms of the assessment of that, and risks of a challenge through a legal process as well. So, risk is something, I guess, decisions, we evaluate that through the context of what we're assessing against under the legislation that we're required to assess, so that's a relevant factor for us to consider and councils to consider as part of a decision. SPEAKER_06 01:18:09.340
If I could to clarify what the Director is saying, you're saying if Frank Wilkie 01:18:13.620
We perhaps refuse this application on the basis of a letter which is not part of the submitted material, that is then subject to, highly open to challenge in a planning environment? Richard MacGillivray 01:18:26.290
I would say that the letter later itself, it's I guess is ultimately it's is the decision in terms of what we're deciding upon is that sound and basis and then our ability to defend the decision or seek to ratify that through a process. Thank you for help clarifying. Jessica Phillips 01:18:44.167
Can I ask another question? Thank you. Would be able to tell me if Unitywater have ever done deputations about an application prior to this? Because they did do the two deputations. I'm just wanting to know, similar to Councillor Lorentson, about the weight that they, not necessarily the letter this morning, but for me they are a major stakeholder and they have, in my opinion, it would be a. Is it rare that they would go as far as doing a deputation and the fact that they have, so have they done that before for an application? Brian Stockwell 01:19:20.877
I might answer that because others haven't been here. Others deputations are a relatively recent inclusion into the Standing Orders and no, they haven't. Karen Finzel 01:19:34.828
Say see clarification on that. I think deputations have always been the Standing Orders. I think that we've adjusted and agreed to the times, Brian Stockwell 01:19:48.395
Can check, yeah, but I believe in the time that the legislation was amended, it might have been in the 2016-2020 where deputations were included. Nicola Wilson 01:19:58.276
Can I just ask the question too, that might be the case that they haven't made a deputation to Noosa Council before but I think the question was broader about do they generally do that and I don't believe you know the answer but I think this statement was more about it seems a big deal for Unitywater to go and make a deputation to any council. Thank you very much. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:24.851
Can I ask a question to Richard with the correct process given that the email was received very early today would the correct process be move a procedural motion defer the decision to ordinary to allow the applicant an opportunity to review the contents of the letter is that so just in response to your concerns in terms of legal implications what is the correct Richard MacGillivray 01:20:54.081
Through process the Chair so that is one opportunity to do that is to is to defer I guess what I would say though is that the material put forward by you the water in this recent letter as nothing different what we've heard through deputations in terms of the material of you is that they principally don't want development near their treatment plant whether that's even designed as endorsed by council this is you know basically they haven't outlined talking about wanting more 400 metres or more the reality is council has endorsed zoning within that area already so landowners knowing that zoning is outlined for that intended purpose of have purchased purchase or own land that particular reason so going back again on the technical elements there's been plenty of opportunity for you would provide technical analysis and modelling just like the applicant indian council's experts have robustly evaluated today we you know four years down the track since this application was lodged we haven't received technical evaluation from Unitywater so my personal view is that deferral a further deferral deferrals is just for the time for the applicant when there's been plenty of time available for union water to provide the technical robust assessment for the applicant to evaluate and that hasn't happened to date. So I don't believe that it would assist at all any further to give the applicant more time because I of the view that their response has already articulated that they've done the technical assessment and you would have haven't so done that Amelia Lorentson 01:22:38.669
So to clarify nothing in the letter that's been sent to us that hasn't been previously stated by Unitywater through their deputations and many meetings with councillors through emails and in person yeah is correct just a general objection to the proposed development and the concerns in terms of risk yes thank you Karen Finzel 01:23:06.348
I'd still pop that in if you want to ask a question because I'm about to move like I think for the significance of the matter including you know the motion that's been raised by Councillor Stockwell today and what's before us I'm just think a bit more time for me to even go through this and I don't know about other councils. Councillors. Can we move the motion? Not a procedural, just to move it because of the significance of the matter. Brian Stockwell 01:23:35.083
No, an Ordinary Meeting you need to move it have to be a procedural? Karen Finzel 01:23:45.274
Well, I'll partner for a minute with our Councillor. Brian Stockwell 01:23:47.734
Just be aware that I'm waiting to the matter can be raised again at Ordinary Meeting. It doesn't preclude further debate. But if we have heard all councillors' views around the table, it may assist Thursday night or Thursday afternoon to be more efficient. Tom Wegener 01:24:08.985
I'll speak to the motion. I'll approve it. But it's very difficult. I feel as though we're pressured by lawsuits from either decision we make they're both very to approve it we run into complaints from odor we run into a potential court quarry situation where we wish we didn't do it in the future because it costs a lot and we wind up with a very expensive situation on our hands with the improvement in Unitywater if we refuse it then we and then we will have experts that will have the applicants fighting us in court and we'll be using our own experts concerning odor against us which is a very tenuous situation so we're between a rock and a hard place but I will all I'll back it because that situation I think that a lawsuit is absolutely eminent if we they've come so far they really have with the koala habitat with moving it was making it much smaller than before, it's a very weak position to actually refuse them I feel. Jessica Phillips 01:25:27.792
I'll speak very quickly for the same reasons as Councillor Wegener I'm going to vote against it given that I just I can't help but think of long-term risks not to. Big picture about the potential of Unitywater having to do an upgrade and pass it on to our residents through a different means. I understand that may not be exactly my lane but I do feel a real responsibility to hear I've really came in today to hear everyone around the table so I could make a very informed decision and I feel like I have to still say I'm not prepared because of the risk that I feel is still doesn't sit well with me but I do appreciate where they have come and I appreciate what staff have put into the report as Nicola Wilson 01:26:24.260
Well I appreciate that the applicant has made some inroads in reducing the amount of built format will be in the recreation and open space zone but it's still inconsistent used to have a resort in the zone we talk about defending the Noosa Plan therefore I want to keep strong on the zoning there and to be able to consider the relevant matters of residential SPEAKER_02_b 01:27:07.120
Like, Karen Finzel 01:27:07.740
I think there's risk of location on either side of the argument. I personally would like to have more time to digest this. I don't know. Has anyone got any appetite? I suppose I can put the procedural motion to the vote to see if there's any appetite to SPEAKER_02_b 01:27:32.732
Do that. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:34.672
A procedural motion Through the Chair doesn't need to be seconded under our Standing Orders. SPEAKER_02_b 01:27:40.312
Okay. Yes, it does. Is there debate over that? We'll refer that to the CEO. I just feel it's Brian Stockwell 01:27:55.200
Moved and seconded, only the mover and the Chair can speak. We'll just wait for the CEO to confirm it. SPEAKER_02_b 01:28:08.980
I just think it's a really significant number. Matter. Nice to meet you. Karen, just move it a little bit. Has to be seconded, so I'll move it. I'll second it. Brian Stockwell 01:28:25.872
Thank you Councillor Phillips. Can I ask a Finzel has to be given the opportunity to talk to you. So is that a deferral? No, you have to move the deferral and the date. Yeah, so is it deferred to 15th of March? Karen Finzel 01:28:40.524
Is that the Ordinary Meeting? Yes. I believe so, yes. Just think given the discussion around the table, you know, I personally am feeling there's still a bit of consideration to be made. So just in terms of the significance of the matter before us and the, you know, to also reflect the work that the applicant has put in to work hard to address the issues raised. I would like to defer it to the Ordinary Meeting 15 May 2025. We had a seconder on that. Question to the staff then. Does this pose any risk by moving it to the. To the date of 15 May in terms of the applicant? Richard MacGillivray 01:29:40.509
No. It's still. The Ordinary Meeting is the decision date at this stage. So it could be deferred. I guess I would say that grounds would be needed to be required if councillors have an alternate view to the recommendation, so that would need to be put together as well after back to that meeting. If that's the case is that enough time for the staff to put that together? If someone puts in an alternate view? Yes, yeah based on feedback from councillors on their views, yeah we're happy to work with those parties on that basis. SPEAKER_02_b 01:30:18.861
Thank you. No further questions Mr Chair? Brian Stockwell 01:30:24.841
Sure. Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 01:30:28.941
The question is this is going to the ordinary man in any way? Question? And from to the Director. Director's comments. If an alternative, if this is refused, grounds for refusal have to be provided that could stand up in court. Is that correct? Brian Stockwell 01:30:53.209
Yes. Correct. Thank you. So, I'm just looking, I believe in this motion only the mover can speak to it, so we'll put the motion. Those in favour? Go there. Those against? Okay. Is that unanimous? That is carried unanimously. Thank you Mr Chair. And apologies to the Chair, it does need to be seconded. Thank you. Our next item for debate is the Integrated Compliance & Enforcement Policy. It's referred from Services and Organisation Committee dated 6th May. We'll have a briefing. Richard MacGillivray 01:31:56.950
One moment. We're doing another duo. That's okay, councillors. So, councillors, as mentioned at the Services and Organisation Committee, today we've got a report put forward for council's adoption of the Integrated Compliance & Enforcement Policy. As previously outlined, the aims to enhance governance and provide a clear framework for council to administer its regulatory functions in a safe, fair, unbiased, balanced, consistent and transparent manner. Noosa Council is currently responsible for administering a range of laws and regulations as set out in the government act, local laws and Federal and state legislation which is principally designed around community safety and well-being of our community and also that harm including environmental harm is prevented. The policy seeks to establish the best practice compliance approaches by applying the following nine principles to its regulatory activities. Decision-making enforcement actions which is outlined in the policy. The policy follows a tiered compliance model with enforcement action escalating based on relevant factors to ensure a fair and just process while maintaining discretion officers to respond appropriately on each case. When determining appropriate action council considers factors such as risk level, nature and severity of the breach, likelihood of compliance, public interest and community impact and legal consideration. The policy was developed in collaboration with our governance our branch managers and representatives of our internal compliance reference group. It's worth noting that similar policies exist with other local state government authorities that undertake compliance and regulatory activities. As previously mentioned, the policy also addresses an existing policy gap we have and aims to improve governance and community awareness and address risks relating to consistency in and decision-making and transparency compliance enforcement matters. I think it's worthwhile also noting too, just based on some comments based at the last meeting, that key changes to the previous Sunshine Coast regional council policy from 2009. In terms of what's changed since that previous policy, which wasn't endorsed by Noosa Council, but was obviously carried through in terms of an awareness for staff. The policy obviously is more modernised, concise and clear. It provides and introduces new guiding principles and a Ted compliance model compared with the old policy. It clearly outlines key factors now by staff and making enforcement decisions whereas the previous policy didn't. There's some refinement around the scope and purpose expanding and updating the relevant legislative requirements also reflecting Human Rights Act which came in 2019 and it's aligned with all of our updated policy documents so if there's any further questions from councillors Amelia Lorentson 01:35:01.434
The Human Rights Act can you explain the process of review my understanding is that the act provides a framework the Human Rights Act provides a framework for challenging decisions that may infringe on human rights so if a resident feels that council's informant action has impacted on their rights they can raise this is my understanding and what I'm seeking clarification how do they raise their concerns or seek review under Human Rights Act process and not through council Richard MacGillivray 01:35:42.923
Yes correct so just in the policy itself so it actually requires what's called human rights capability statement so it's talking about the policy gone is drafted has gone through a process that's been evaluated against people's human rights and so we work with a governance team do a lot of that work when we prepare a report or material it needs to be evaluated under the human rights requirements if separate matter and an allegation that human rights have been breached there's a separate process for people to follow this is just in reference to the policies factored and human rights when it was being drafted thank you very much Jessica Phillips 01:36:22.042
Just to clarify I know this sort of document we talked about the standing operating procedures the SOPs that are coming that sort of sit underneath this policy see you reference it in there but when it the road hits the rubber and that's online can community access sometimes I look at I put my community hat on and just go how it how easy it is to like access how things link will this document sit with like a reference and a URL or something that just makes it easy for people to go this because we reference it standing operating procedures and like how that underpins it Richard MacGillivray 01:37:02.282
Yeah so extended operating procedures that are internal documents and they go they sit under this is essentially an umbrella and they are more specific and relevant particular the functions that staff undertake the important thing will be is those standard operating procedures will need to adhere to this overarching policy so it can't conflict with it just will provide some more specific steps and processes for staff to administer their functions that must be consistent with this policy so we have a number of those already and they're essentially like internal operating procedures to help staff with consistency and clarity, more transparency in terms of how they're administering their functions particularly for pieces of legislation they're very clear around what steps must be undertaken for council to discharge its statutory duties but they're not externalized all they're just very much sort of operating instructions and procedures that staff follow so this is the public guiding document I guess that staff will need to follow and gives our community certainty around how all we'll approach our decision-making. Jessica Phillips 01:38:10.475
Makes sense. Follow-up question, soon I'll talk about the roles and responsibilities for councillors. Prior to this document is there any changes to the way our role as councillors steps when we stay up away from operational matters can you just talk me through that there isn't changes to the way we do business as well and how that works. Richard MacGillivray 01:38:37.728
Yeah, correct, so councillors might there's an existing governance framework that was endorsed by council in 2022 which essentially sets out the roles and it does a range of things but it also sets out the role of councillors as I mentioned a service organisation committee who are involved in strategic-making and that operational related matters are generally left to the organisations under the CEO to administer so it's really clear that the roles are separate between the councillors and this policy the policy doesn't seek to take away any current functions funding that councillors or staff undertake there it's just designed to be really clear around their roles and responsibilities because as we know to the community and they see us all as council and sometimes that line can get a bit blurry and so what we've designed the policy is just make it really really clear and explicit it's already sort of referencing existing policies and procedures that are already in place but it just provides some greater clarity for the community so that they're not confused when maybe thinking who can undertake what action or what's an operational decision versus what's maybe an advocacy or strategic strategy. Decision of council. Jessica Phillips 01:39:53.595
Thank you. I have an amendment to come but I think I'll leave it for more questions at this stage. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:58.455
In terms of roles and responsibilities, Richard, is there an opportunity maybe to add maybe an extra sentence in there because I think the distinction needs to be made in terms of our roles that we're here to represent the community but that doesn't mean stepping into enforcement actions, decisions. What I'd like is. For the community to understand, my question is. Okay, I'm going to pose this as a question. What are the potential consequences, legal or reputational, of councillors exceeding their prescribed roles in compliance matters? Richard MacGillivray 01:40:39.509
Yeah, through so look, there's a range of different elements there, and obviously with having an endorsed governance framework in place, that's really clear around splitting the roles for councillors between operations. Operational and strategic matters. So there are risks, and I'll say this from a community perspective, of the role of councillors and operational staff. If these mixed messages are sent to the community members, they might be a confused bit and unsure of what the process is. There could be some legal consequences as a result of that, noting that we're all part of the one organisation, and if we take an action and there's been conflicting messaging or advice provided, that can have ramifications and prevent potential outcomes being explored. Look, potentially conduct related matters given there's roles and responsibilities are pretty clearly outlined as well, in terms of code of conduct and how officers and councillors conduct themselves, but I would say principally the biggest one would be around reputation and confusion and clarity for our community to understand who is the lead sort of area I guess to undertake those particular actions and activities around investigations and then compliance activities. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:53.692
Just for consideration maybe again just one sentence or two sentences that we can add to the report that actually explicitly states that there are legal reputational consequences. Of a Councillor exceeding or stepping into enforcement actions and so that- Oh, no, I'm sorry, oh, I might. Brian Stockwell 01:42:20.778
Just think about it as thank an amendment, thank you. No, you haven't got an amendment because we haven't got a motion. So you can move straight into yours as the originating motion, if you like. Frank Wilkie 01:42:39.629
Look, to avoid any confusion, Mr Chair, I'll move this motion. Brian Stockwell 01:42:43.871
To staff recommendation, Councillor Wilkie, do we have a any seconder questions? For that? I have a second. Councillor Finzel? Frank Wilkie 01:42:50.129
I waive my right to speak, Mr. Chairman. This was covered extensively last week. Brian Stockwell 01:42:55.689
Would you like to move an amendment now? Yes, please. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:42:59.109
Thanks for clarifying. Move an amendment that item B to be added to read that the wording in the draft policy provided at attachment 1 under roles and responsibilities councillors be amended to thank you. Review and adopt councils in Integrated Compliance & Enforcement Policy councillors may actively support and promote voluntary compliance through advocacy education and community engagement this includes encouraging understanding of relevant regulations and fostering cooperative relationships between the council and the community I might take the word out however and just for clear councillors must not be involved in operational compliance or enforcement actions as outlined in council's endorsed governance framework this includes but is not limited to participation in investigations insurance of penalty infringement notices enforcement orders remedial actions or prosecution decisions these matters are to be managed independently by authorised council officers in accordance with leisure sorry legislative requirements and operational procedures this separation ensures procedural fairness protects the integrity of compliance processes and upholds the principles of good governance- Ah, you can't. I'm happy to second, thank you. I'll keep this fairly brief because there's been discussion enough around it what I'm trying to achieve real clarity around our roles so that we don't, and community don't get confused with when we can't be involved, but also I believe that there should be, part of this document is. Our role in advocating for voluntary compliance. We're out in community every day and I believe that we do have a role in that community engagement and understanding there's this system that we can use to refer on which we use. Think around the table we use a lot to hand those matters into the right the right channels and so what I'm hoping to achieve is just a real clear delineation between when we can be involved and when we can't. Brian Stockwell 01:45:39.391
Does anyone wish to talk to the amendment? SPEAKER_02_b 01:45:40.330
I'll support this I think it's really good clarity in layman's terms that when a member of the public receives a complaints sorry enforcement notice that councillors can't override that notice. Or get involved on their behalf. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:57.990
Can I ask a question maybe to Jess or Richard do we need to delete what's already been already been written, can we have the amendment as an addition to what's already in the report? Is there duplication because like I love the clarity of Councillor Phillips amendment and I do think it's in layman terms and when you go back to the purpose it states it needs to be clear but I don't know whether it should be in addition to instead of deleting the clause and we'd love your recommendation or advice. Richard MacGillivray 01:46:40.046
Yeah, Through the Chair look yeah the amendment whilst slightly worded differently than what was originally proposed I guess does a good job of clarifying and as Councillor Wilson mentioned in clear lay person's terms I guess probably the previous wording was more technical I guess the wording makes it really clear of what the role of councils can do in terms of promoting the work that the organisation does more broadly and steering the public into the right directions where they've got questions or concerns as opposed to getting involved in making decisions and dealing with the particular elements of an investigational compliance proceeding so I think the amendment has sort of distinguished the two roles really clearly of being involved in advocacy and education but not being involved in operational related matters which is dealt with by the staff Frank Wilkie 01:47:36.299
Question the way it was originally written it might doesn't it make it explicit that councillors should not be involved in advocating on behalf of representing parties whereas the second one said it says we can advocate on behalf of compliance but yeah but doesn't say make it specific that councillors must not advocate on behalf or represent parties yeah it's all I'm expressing look I'll speak to it so is that accurate Richard MacGillivray 01:48:13.840
I'm just having a look through that now in terms of what's changed May actively support and promote voluntary compliance so it's important to promote voluntary compliance for advocacy so really the revision is only supporting advocacy for where there's promotion of voluntary compliance as opposed to compliance and enforcement matters but in contrast with the original wording which basically stipulates that there should be no must not involve themselves in any advocacy on behalf of particular parties Frank Wilkie 01:48:52.436
So yeah I think that's an important distinction so I'll speak to the amendment I appreciate the addition if that's what could ultimately end up being we all think differently and I think there's also benefit in the straight-talking that's involved in what was there originally because it spells out councillors must not involve themselves in negotiating and resolving outcomes with the grief parties or advocating on behalf of representing parties and also councillors can assist blah and the second part moved by Councillor Phillips. Phillips expands on that and puts it in the more I think they complement each other very well so if this is approved I would support a second amendment that allows original wording to also be included because I think together it's very complete and clear Jessica Phillips 01:49:55.099
Can I ask the question could we have a five minute break and I let that fall up with wording that everyone's happy with since now I've read it out or is that I hear everyone's point I think I think we can live old Frank Wilkie 01:50:17.336
Question Mr Chair if the mover of the amendments in favour just we can take just allow that to be I think it's more major than with the Standing Orders it's not it's your call Mr. Brian Stockwell 01:50:29.034
Chair I think it's either way the we can just chat I've got a further addition to the concepts in one of Councillor Phillips paragraphs anyway so I guess we put this in if councillors want to put the staff recommendation back in we'll do that as a second amendment Frank Wilkie 01:50:57.346
So what do you what's your preferred outcome? Jessica Phillips 01:51:03.586
When I've read it out loud there and then I was the bit that probably I would have liked now I've seen it is also about the appropriate functional area so there is a couple of things that potentially now I've heard everyone's point I definitely want it to be clear that was my out the point so let's not um okay you've answered the question Brian Stockwell 01:51:26.657
Yeah um anyone else wish to speak to the amendment I'm happy to support the amendment and foreshadow that the others coming Amelia Lorentson 01:51:37.803
Yeah um likewise I go back to the purpose of the report um is to provide clear guidelines and I think that you've done that but I would also like to see reinstated the original wording which I think was actually contained different information and was actually quite clear and I think important information that the community needs to understand because our role is not in advocacy in matters are operational and I think that distinction needs to be made clear so happy to support understanding there will be further amendments. Karen Finzel 01:52:36.141
Terms of referring on so I think part of this was to get clarification around yeah we can do advocacy we can support that education but delineating that idea of where there comes a point where councillors have to refer on so I'm supportive of the wording before us but I think maybe a little bit more clarification will be perfect. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:53:07.200
Okay I think you said you didn't want to talk to the amendment I'll hand back to Councillor Phillips to Jessica Phillips 01:53:13.180
Close quickly. I just want to highlight that it says support and promote voluntary compliance through advocacy so that bit is really important the voluntary bit is when we're out in community saying no this is our understanding because we know the intricacies so it's about the voluntary compliance which we spoke about in that report being the most important thing we want from our community and then there's those other steps so that was kind of what I was aiming at but I have nothing else to say Cathy 01:53:43.340
Okay put them amendment those in favour unanimous and I'll move a subsequent amendment I'm Cathy if you can bring up that little change do you want to add this in as well I'll move amendment that reinstates the staff recommendations in terms of the below clauses the previous amendment so I think it's good to start off with the clauses below positive as council do and then put the staff wording below it and add the words after paragraph two 2 as follows: is the however councils must not be involved in operational compliance or enforcement as outlined in council's endorsed governance framework this is includes but is not limited to participation in investigations issues of penalty infringement notices enforcement orders remedial actions or prosecution decisions these matters are managed independently by authorised council officers in accordance with legislative requirements and operational procedures notwithstanding this councils can consider legal and prosecution matters as reported by staff through established council meeting processes. Frank Wilkie 01:55:07.427
Question. Yes. The president what do you mean by that last part? We normally cancel. Why is it necessary? Brian Stockwell 01:55:15.907
Councillor Stockwell when I read Councillor Phillips outlining the positives of what we can do, one role we do have is when matters-- I was thinking in the context matters specifically that can go to two different courts, it's frequent that council does get involved in the enforcement by making the decision to go to court. So it's just outlining that if staff think a council decision is needed to progress enforcement action, then that is a role. Jessica Phillips 01:55:40.047
Question to staff, does that into this enforcement policy? I feel like that's not, the planning matters isn't what this document Richard MacGillivray 01:55:49.947
Is set out to achieve. No, it's all matters. I guess it's just highlighting that there are instances, and not very many, but instances where staff may and often it'll be through a confidential report, on particular compliance related matters that have legal ramifications and cost ramifications. So it's not very common, but this would just reflect that there may be times where councillors may be involved in making a decision around potential legal or prosecution related matters. So it's just not, it's not, without it there it's sort of absent. I guess and people might ask the question of what that is. So this probably helps just to clarify in that legal context where certain matters might require a confidential report to council for a decision. Or information. Jessica Phillips 01:56:50.099
Just seeking further clarification, I'm looking at all the legislation that this refers to, I just, I can't quite work out when that would come up in the 86 odd pieces of legislation you're dealing with, this wouldn't come into planning. Brian Stockwell 01:57:03.039
Why be covered by this policy? Richard MacGillivray 01:57:08.779
Yeah, yes, all, yeah, all legislation that we administer, yeah, including the Planning Act 2016, yeah. So, yeah, the policy doesn't list every item of legislation that we regulate. Like. As I mentioned in the report, it's more than 60 pieces And again, the policy is designed to cover all of those different pieces of legislation. This is just merely, yeah, merely highlighting that there are some small instances where there might be reports in council and they need to make a decision or at least receive a briefing for noting as well. SPEAKER_02_b 01:57:47.807
Can I just question the wording too, just grammatically challenged with councillors must not involve themselves. And also just from a community point it's not necessarily that the councillors council's would ward. Involve themselves, but they might be requested to get involved as well. Rather than just taking it upon ourselves to get involved. So yeah, I'm not, if we could word that better maybe. Richard MacGillivray 01:58:16.987
Would it be, are unable to be involved, in terms of. Karen Finzel 01:58:21.107
I think that's where the other day we were talking at the SNR about referring on, so that there's a point where we do advocate. Can do but at this point, our role then, we refer on. I don't know if that helps anyone with trying to get some wording? Brian Stockwell 01:58:37.635
So, Councillor Wilson, I think it's a valid grammatical correction, and it hasn't been taken in yet anyway. So, is that your answer to your query? A few more words, too. Okay, I'm happy to include that. Do we have a seconder for this version of the amendment? Probably should have separated the two bits but it includes the previous staff recommendation and the words in red. The counsellor's message. I think we're going to see the overall. If there was any competition. I can't. The member lapses for one of the seconder. So just to move things on, I'll try another one. Tom Wegener 01:59:37.930
If I may, do you have a question to the Chair? You know that I would like to bring a deferral motion here. And I feel as though we're kind of sliding into this space that we get into at times where we're on the fly right now. Can I bring my deferral motion now? Brian Stockwell 01:59:56.010
You can move a procedural motion anytime you like. Tom Wegener 02:00:04.474
I'm going to just roll the data. A bit. Yeah, this is. You'll need to move to motion now. I would like to defer this. The decision on this matter until a month from today in the next General Committee. And I don't of that one and the reason is these are really important matters that really. Excuse me, Cathy, it goes to the general committee rather than the interim meeting. And when we start doing this have a seconder? I'm happy to second. I'm just looking at the word 'General Committee meeting'. Brian Stockwell 02:00:53.980
To stop? Are we happy that it's the Standing Orders? That's okay. Do we have a seconder? I'm happy to second. Tom Wegener 02:01:08.340
I think staff and most of the councillors are surprised at how once you start looking into this it becomes really quite controversial and we've cleared the immediate but it's actually a really muddy water situation. I would like to actually have a have a workshop with this between now and then and then Richard mentioned that this was in response to an omniscience report and as a Saturday morning we received a year-long omniscience report concerning that the bus stop was stressed out but within the order Brian Stockwell 02:01:50.055
Yes there's nothing to do with this one so you have been advised that you aren't to advise to release confidential information in the public meeting please retract the statement. I retract the statement, my apologies. Tom Wegener 02:02:05.569
Within this report that I would like to offer it on the record. Amelia Lorentson 02:02:10.969
Point of order, please that's confidential material and I think he's acting outside the jurisdiction of this breach of our Standing Orders. Brian Stockwell 02:02:14.209
And so if you continue on you will be, you'll be able to have a--- Mr. Commander-in-Chief. The matter before us is a policy, not an individual matter before the opportunity. In procedural motion you could really only talk to the president of ontario. Tom Wegener 02:02:42.447
Well I'd still like to make the procedural motion to defer it for a month because I believe that we're kind of running on the floor here and I think this is really important and I would like further time to consider this. Amelia Lorentson 02:02:56.270
It. And I'll speak to it also. Can we all speak to procedural motions? Brian Stockwell 02:03:00.825
Yeah well I was wrong, that's what I was reading before. It's only a dissent from the chairman's ruling that doesn't get. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:07.685
I agree I'm feeling a little bit. I don't support around this table without considered information and time to digest the information. We're talking there are ethical risk and legal risk and implications that we need to understand. I'm concerned with just particular words. Particular words, must and we should etc et cetera. But I would concur with Councillor Wegener. I would like a workshop to have some further discussion. This is an important piece of work and I there's still quite a bit of feedback and input around this table and I don't think this is the correct forum to be having these actual discussions and information sessions. Jessica Phillips 02:03:58.220
I'll speak to it. I've gone through it with a fine tooth comb and highlighters to make sure that today I'm ready to make a decision. However, if I was in Councillor Wegener's shoes then I would hope that I'm supported in having some more time. So for that purpose I'm definitely going to happily have workshop and you can always learn more about legislation I guess, so. Brian Stockwell 02:04:20.646
I have a have a question. Considering we haven't had a policy since 2014, is next month making any significant difference? There's no time deadlines we're trying to meet here? Richard MacGillivray 02:04:32.840
No, what I would say though is we did have a workshop about this and that this document was circulated for more than a month. No comments were received and obviously this has been recirculated with councillors, so I just would say that we have had a workshop and sought input from councillors on this particular report. But, we haven't. Or 10 years since we haven't had a policy, so one more month is not necessarily a problem if councillors wish to extend. Amelia Lorentson 02:05:06.571
So a question to Richard. I concur we have had this report for us a month ago, but the amendments that have been made around this table have just And that's what I think the discussion today is, consideration of those amendments. Oh, thank you. Put in front of us. Richard, have you seen those amendments before? Richard MacGillivray 02:05:34.756
Just recently over the last few days. So obviously Councillor Phillips's amendments and Councillor Brian spoke to me about some suggested amendments as well. Thank okay. Karen Finzel 02:05:47.166
Can I just ask a question? You may. Through the Chair of the staff, notwithstanding this, council is considered illegal in prosecution matters as reported by staff through the established council in the meeting process. Brian Stockwell 02:05:59.886
Do you consider what's the value of having included in okay, yeah, so that's a result to an amendment that had lapsed, so we're now just talking about the motion to defer. Karen Finzel 02:06:12.916
Yeah, but in terms of that, is that something we're going to discuss around the table. Brian Stockwell 02:06:18.258
Well, if the motion to defer is successful, then that's something we can discuss between now and the next meeting. Frank Wilkie 02:06:28.018
I'll speak to the motion. As stated, we did have a workshop on this. We've had the material for a month we've had the report since it came out 10 days ago. We are discussing amendments to that. That's the only thing that would seem to be contentious and the council is struggling to understand the wording of parts of it, and that's good, doing due diligence. But I don't see why we need a whole month to get our hands around wordings on the screen before us. I think councillors can work, that meet, would like to, can work hard between now and Thursday night to understand the wording that's before us. I don't think a whole month is necessary. Councillors to use this time between now and Thursday to understand what's been put forward by Councillor Phillips. I don't think this is policy on the fly. These are quite. From my perspective, they look like very clear amendments. So I won't be supporting it. I hope we can revisit this again at the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday this week because we have had it for a good deal of time already and as we heard, there was no feedback during that month. And the amendments are just the new material that's come into our possession or come into our sphere of responsibility. Brian Stockwell 02:08:10.818
Yeah, I am of a similar view to Councillor Wilkie. I think there is appropriate time now and Thursday to review the suggestions. I also understand staff's point that it was fairly well discussed and a good workshop and a long time to consider. I also I also understand Councillor Phillips at the workshops etc. et cetera, and has turned it into the positive, which led me to believe, you know, think about, well, we're going to say what we can do rather than what we can't do, what else hasn't been listed. Vale. Whether that red goes in or not, it's not germane to the policy, but I think I won't support it on the basis that I believe there is sufficient time between now and Thursday to get our collective heads around it. Councillor? Jessica Phillips 02:09:08.400
Have I spoken to the procedure motion? You might have only asked a question. I did speak to it. Brian Stockwell 02:09:15.100
Okay. Tom Wegener 02:09:16.460
That was like the first. All right. Talking about. Is what we do. And I'm feeling chilled by it. I did when I first read it on the council of responsibilities. I was very, very chilled, chilling the definition of unlawful, and I'm glad that that's been dropped out. But I think that there's a lot of unpacking to do, and I think we actually need to actually brainstorm around the table to think about this, because I think that we might be limiting ourselves. And I won't go into any examples, but I would think that we are, potentially. Just limiting love to think that this is, and of course we have an ombudsman's report, I don't know if it's confidential, I don't believe it's confidential, but in the report itself, it mentions that there's lots of things to discuss in the findings that came about over the last year, and we haven't discussed them, and I'm a little bit hesitant on supporting a plan when this has not been impacted, and I don't think we can impact it by Thursday. I don't see us getting together, having a meeting, having this brilliant minds around the table, hashing through our job description. Brian Stockwell 02:10:34.542
Thank you. Can I ask a question? He's closed closing the debate so now all we can do is vote on it. Those in favour of the deferral motion for one month. That's Councillor Wilson, Finzel, Lorentson, Lorentson, Phillips and Wegener. Those against? I think it might be in Stockwell. The deferral motion is carried. I think we've been going for long enough but we need a sugar break. Brian Stockwell 02:24:31.660
Okay, welcome back. Before we proceed to the next item, I do wish to just clarify an element that came up in the last debate when it inquired about Director had seen the amendments. He did mention that he had seen the one from me, but it wasn't to infer that other councils had seen it. Was something that I had put to him and it was only one minute before the meeting when I realised that it hadn't been circulated. That was just because of the timing issues that I was responding on to item 3 in section 7 and that's the Noosa River Recreational Boating Facilities update and we have the Director of the infrastructure, Shaun Walsh, here to give us an overview. Shaun Walsh 02:25:13.779
Good afternoon councillors. This report provides an update on the progress of the Noosa Woods jetty, the Noosaville Boat Ramp and the Hilton Esplanade to Tewantin Doonella Bridge boat ramp. In addition, council has been advised that funding is likely to be made available by Maritime Safety Queensland for recreational boating facilities on the Noosa River in the near future. And I'd like to actually throw to the CEO for an update on with the general public. Manager for of that funding. Larry Sengstock 02:25:58.040
So, councillors, I've had a coach up with the general manager, Kel Dillon, as late as this morning, about so his understanding is that the $2.5 million dollars is a commitment by the government, so is now, to become available to us. Sit down. He's got a few family issues at the moment, so we've agreed that he'll come up to Noosa and we'll sit down and work through what that means, what it looks like. But, it does look like it's going to be available on land as well as in water. So, it's something that we can work towards in terms of, he's also certainly very cognisant of members of the community who have desires. To have a particular area of another area. That's the prioritised landing area or ramp, and that's something that we'll work through with him. But the money is available. How it's used, how it's utilised, management of that is we'll when it comes up here in a couple of weeks' time. Shaun Walsh 02:27:17.275
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:27:18.815
I welcome questions, councillors. So, we've got any questions? Amelia Lorentson 02:27:22.775
Councillor Lorentson. My first question is, the report in front of us, was that a direct response to a notified motion that was ratified in council in October 2024? Shaun Walsh 02:27:35.444
The report was brought forward as a response to that notified motion, but work was ongoing from the report presented to council in 2023. For instance, prior to that notified motion in October '24, the brief for the Noosa Woods jetty had been released with a consultant. We were working actively on the Noosaville Boat Ramp. And there was starting to be some early consideration of the Lake Doonella boat ramp. So that's why I was pleased to actually bring forward the progress report, because some progress had been made. Amelia Lorentson 02:28:04.992
Thank you. When I referred back to the notified motion, there were other actions that were identified in the notified report that weren't identified in the report in front of us. Can I ask will there be later reports that will look at including some of the aspects that were admitted in the notified motion in future reports. Shaun Walsh 02:28:34.706
Yeah, I don't consider the report actually omits those matters. It doesn't address it in detail. But for instance, if we look at the notified motion from October 2024, it references the Thomas Street, Noosaville parking improvements and walkway repositioning. That's actually been considered in the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan, which will be coming to council at next month's meeting, which has already been subject to significant debate. In regard to item B, the Tewantin lake street parking enhancement installation of a new floating walkway, that's referenced under the heading of lake street boat ramp and noting the need for a significant master plan to reconcile all the competing issues in that area, and that can certainly be considered as part of that master plan. In regard to the Hilton Esplanade Tewantin construction of a new two-lane facility, that's referenced again in the report on Hilton Esplanade Tewantin boat ramp, and the thought process that we have actually made an allocation for a forward planning and design budget allocation to advance design concepts, and that certainly will require further consideration by council and the community. The Noosa Woods replacement of the jetty with the pontoon, that again is referenced. Under the Noosa Woods heading. There's been a commission that's been underway at the moment, and that will be considered in that consultancy's work. And then in regard to shortfalls and trailer parking, that's actually referenced in regard to Noosaville, and that'll be coming up to council as part of the parking management plan. And council's already had two workshops concerning the next iteration of those workshops is about the local area parking plans, which includes recommendations on trailer parking at Noosaville. Amelia Lorentson 02:30:13.325
Thank you. I was referring specifically to, from the notified motion that the report focuses on high priority recommendations made by the State in the 2022 Noosa Shire recreational boating facilities demand forecasting study. And I just, and this is not this is a conversation, I'm not pulling you up or anything, but I just note in the report in front of us that is that we haven't considered like the top three or we haven't considered bits and pieces of the priority actions that were in the in the 2022 forecasting demand. Okay, so no so no worries, I'll let everyone speak and I'll just come back to you with a couple of questions. Shaun Walsh 02:31:05.627
If I could clarify, that's why in the report it also includes council's resolution with respect to June 2023 and that under 5.4 as well on that page of the report outlines council's resolutions with respect to the findings of the. Maritime Safety Queensland recreational and the report responds to that. So if you like I'm actually responding to the previous council resolution and the previous council resolution gave direction to staff about what facilities to focus on. No worries, thank you very Brian Stockwell 02:31:34.188
Much. Can I follow up on that one because it might be one that I've missed. In that resolution did we talk about the existing jetty A being A, converted to a pontoon and B being open to commercial? Shaun Walsh 02:31:45.809
And public jetty type uses? The maritime safety recreation facility study merely focused on the ability for deep draft vessels to actually pull into a jetty and/or pontoon at Noosa Woods. It did not reference whether it was used for commercial or public or other uses. It was more about recreational boating and the desire or the need for facilities which allow vessels with Brian Stockwell 02:32:12.958
Deep hulls. The MSQ report recommended a site where the old surf life savings shed used to be, which is something. Decades in our options study, are we looking at a range of options or are we just looking at the existing biddy which is generally used for recreational and fishing? Shaun Walsh 02:32:32.731
So our council actually have a schedule a session tomorrow at its discussion forum to give an update on where we're at with that draft study and it actually looks at three sites. Frank Wilkie 02:32:42.747
Question Mr Chair. The Hilton Esplanade Tewantin Doonella boat ramp, you've mentioned there's a funding allocation budget coming up for design. And probably a question to the CEO. The $2.5 million allocation announced by the transport minister, Brent mickelberg, SPEAKER_06 02:33:00.564
For on land and also water side. Is it on land and water side? Currently it says, this is verbatim, it says from the letter that I haven't witnessed, but this is my understanding, is $2.5 million is boating infrastructure on Noosa River. Frank Wilkie 02:33:22.828
All right. So if we wish we could use it for the design of the Doonella Street boat ramp. Yes. If we chose to, and perhaps even part of the construction. My understanding is that MSQ have already done a concept of that SPEAKER_06 02:33:36.992
Particular site. Yeah. But I don't know what detail or what it actually includes. And they're quite aware that they haven't considered all of the environmental and eco issues that may be outside. Brian Stockwell 02:33:52.125
So just to clarify, council talking about if we choose? Is it my understanding that we may be consulted but the decision will be won for the State government? In terms of where the funding is used? SPEAKER_06_b 02:34:06.974
Not at this point in time. Again, it just talks to boating infrastructure. It's not. Frank Wilkie 02:34:12.482
Is it an allocation to Noosa Council to use as they see fit for boating infrastructure? Again, until I get clarification. We don't know that. Amelia Lorentson 02:34:19.462
So can I ask a question? There was quite a bit of advocacy from the Noosa boating fishing alliance and also former state candidate and our former Mayor, Claire Stewart. Ask how much weight does that advocacy, because they were quite specific about where the $2.5 million funding was to be allocated towards, is that relevant? Or is it not? So they actually broke down. The $2.5 wasn't just plucked out of the air, it was actually put down $1.2 million for landside works, $1.3 million for meaningful waterside works, and then they actually broke that down in terms of location and works. They provided a cost breakdown to the liberal party. Does that carry any weight? Shaun Walsh 02:35:17.621
So council staff weren't involved in any of those submissions and those costings, so I can't verify the accuracy or other of those costings. I will note that in addition to representations made by those parties, council staff were also representations making to MSQ about onshore funding and that's consistent with council's resolution from June 2023 where there's actually a specific item C about council staff seeking discussions of increased funding from MSQ. In fact, I've found onshore components of the boat ramp facilities because as outlined in that report MSQ traditionally only fund over water components on these type of facilities so council staff are also advocating for the MSQ to fund over overshore so if you like I think it's a combination of both you know political advocacy in the lead up to the State campaign advocacy by particular community groups as well as representations by staff to actually get a piece of the funding puzzle so council staff haven't been involved in any prioritisation of any side and I think that still requires a further council discussion and decision exactly about where council perceives the priority for that investment is and I'm will that involve community consultation with key stakeholders we can again you know we're still trying to get our head around the scope of the funding and what we can use it for I'm still critically concerned for any co-contribution that council needs to make in terms of staffing and co-contribution for design infrastructure costs we're running a very lean budget there's no funding allocated for co-contribution so that's why I'm sort of you ah know hedging my horses if you like I don't want to get too excited by this announcement until I'm clarity around the scope and the terms because it's usual that the State government would have terms around funding agreement such as co-contribution and being very specific about what we can spend the money on. Amelia Lorentson 02:37:08.650
In terms in terms of the GT, GTR, duty I think on 20th of June 2024 at public question time a question was put to council in terms of whether the nine hundred and thirty three thousand raised in our Sustainable Transport Levy could be used towards the Noosa Woods jetty can you can you provide can it and I'm just trying to reference again the response given to SPEAKER_02_b 02:37:48.442
And we're talking about operational expenses versus capital Brian Stockwell 02:37:52.962
I can I think I it is it is directly relevant I think in terms of is it we're talking about progress it relates to the whether there'd be an option and it did relate to statements by the Director in regard to budgetary limitations so I think I'll accept it. Shaun Walsh 02:38:17.302
My recollection which would be consistent is the Sustainable Transport Levy is meant for public transport and reduction of road congestion so and I suspect that public question was might have been focused more about commercial jetties and I think I might have been concerned or maybe I said that use of the transport levy can't be used for commercial businesses and commercial purposes though you know we could certainly look at exploring its useful use for public transport as a congestion reduction now and we have to remember that the Noosa River ferry kindly which runs a fantastic service is a commercial operator rather than a recognised TransLink public transport operator subsidized by the Queensland ratepayer or taxpayer so the circumstances are a little bit unusual in the Noosa River. I note that council actually have a structured a scheduled workshop in coming weeks about use of the Sustainable Transport Levy and projects to focus on in the next two years and that would be a very good topic to discuss further at that workshop Amelia Lorentson 02:39:11.641
So just to clarify with two and a half million dollars election pledge by the LNP was or wasn't specifically for voting infrastructure does it exclude commercial tourism related projects Shaun Walsh 02:39:27.141
Again we haven't been involved in the specific advocacy to the State I can't say what it does include or not include at this point I look forward to having formal correspondence from the State government to confirm the funding arrangements. Brian Stockwell 02:39:41.601
You mentioned that in the near future we are receiving a briefing on the current status of the options report around the Woods jetty. Is there a decision timeline in terms of what council may or may not go with and are you proposing to come to a future council meeting with those options. Shaun Walsh 02:40:04.826
There will need to be both some further broader community engagement about the steps as well as a formal council decision about which option you may wish to pursue. Then that would require possibly funding allocation as well which would require budget deliberations as well. One option could be do nothing as well we have to remember that. Brian Stockwell 02:40:26.851
We can meet our KPIs on that one, yeah. Tom Wegener 02:40:31.351
Council Wegener. Looking great. Very long down long term down the track maybe we should change our Walking and Cycling Strategy to a walking cycling and boats pedaling or paddling or you know river Transport Strategy and then when I look at getting on the ferry down there at the Sofitel how restricted the question is are we limited to the three places council places that we've decided where Shaun Walsh 02:41:03.980
No, but it was always thought that this particular study for that study area between the Sofitel you know the old surfboard boat ramp and the public jetty would provide a good catalyst and understanding for how you could apply the principles of public transport. Public recreational boating and commercial usage in other locations in the whole of the Noosa River so rather than undertaking a study that embraces everything you know we had some funding allocation to look at one site and get a bit of a better understanding of all the implications and then we could make a decision about how do we then start applying that to other sites along the Noosa River looking at just wondering if it's a consideration the house how small the Sofitel is and how tight that is to get in and out of there do you turn yeah so firstly we just want to clarify that we have engaged with Noosa Lucille commercial marine operators which operate the number of vessels in that location so that's their body that is a very valuable facility and they can make the manoeuvreing work so we need to be really clear about what their expectations are but in terms of the future you know there challenges and could be the opportunity to expand it and that's also why we've selected a specific shoreline marine consulting consultant who has actually designed and overseen building of jetties across the eastern seaboard so that we haven't actually had an expert because in our team we don't have a jetty expert who knows how to it would be nice to have an upright pilot to see how to build jetties and in the like. Log. So that has been part of their brief. Brian Stockwell 02:42:33.364
Pointed question I suppose is, my recollection is councillors haven't been involved in any policy decisions that broad have been the broader impact of potential the pandemic. Enlarged commercial public jetties etc in that area. In terms of the scope of the consultant, would he or she or they have been given any indication about the desire to maintain recreational use currently made in the Woods bay area from the park to the existing jetties? Shaun Walsh 02:43:02.272
So we've given them various documents and information and one of the stakeholders for instance, they also engage with Noosa Parks Association who were instrumental in achieving the Noosa Woods open space. And its conversion from caravan park. So they've been given that information. That their brief is to look at all options and pros and cons. So very a neutral, or objective. Perspective to inform a council decision moving forward. Jessica Phillips 02:43:28.494
I have a question please. I think it was mentioned at S&O when I asked for the deferral to hear. And I think you mentioned something along the lines of it's very uncommon or. Uncommon or that MSQ would give on land and on water so that's why we waited for some confirmation today and now given we have more assurity that is covering that when I at look this report and it's looking at progress what at what point is there a pause to say well now we have that information is there anything that is progressing that is probably up taking allocated when you talk about co-contribution my question is at what point could we pause and go we've got this funding coming in we might have to divert to make sure that we can actually see this through because I don't think these opportunities come up very often is what I'm thinking. Shaun Walsh 02:44:28.735
So getting back to your first observation it is a different approach of MSQ to fund onshore and if you look at their website there's actually a link which specifies that you know the practice is for local government to fund the onshore component so that's their practice across the State so this is fairly unusual. In the event that the funding is fully released we get to use it as we do with our program constantly we will re-evaluate where our priorities are and noting that this also coincides with your deliberation capital works program there's a workshop on Friday to deliberate that so I think the timing is really good for us to re-evaluate where at what funding allocations we've got if we need to direct funds to that source we can. And in event that the funding 2.5 million also funds design costs well I can reallocate the money we've allocated in the forward design budget to other projects as well so won't be needlessly spending money our own money that we don't need to can I ask what amount have we sort of set aside for the forward planning and design budget to advance the recollection is $50,000 and you have to remember that because our design work is capitalised that covers staff time as well as any external consultancy work so you know it's an allocation to allow staff to work on it and any support consultants I've been working on it for a number of years the funding allocation has been made and will that be presented to us as part of our budget deliberations yes so what's what happens in the budget deliberations is it represented with an allocation it varies between four hundred and six hundred thousand dollars for forward budget and allows flexibility design to staff to apply some design work you know to emergent tasks as issues arise that forward design budget is monitored through the Capital Works Executive of which there are Councillors and the CEO who are representative at that executive and the design concept is for Hilton Esplanade Tewantin Doonella boat ramp that's what we've currently allocated and that's for 2526 so thank you Amelia Lorentson 02:46:41.563
I'm recommendation move council London I'll just I'll just speak briefly to the report funding has always been cited as the main obstacle to us improving Noosa boat ramps and trailer parking I'm excited that we now have confirmed two and a half million dollars and what a great opportunity for us to start progressing improving terms of I do want to acknowledge the work of the staff as well as our boating community and also the former state candidate who campaigned tirelessly to secure the two and a half million dollar investment specifically for boating infrastructure and not for commercial tourism projects it was secured to deliver real outcomes for local boating, small trailer parks, safer ramps, swash down areas and better facilities. Probably just want to highlight with now that we've got the funding we're making a commitment a to put some allocation towards design concepts for the Hilton, esplanade, Tewantin, Doonella boat ramp. I want to highlight that we have an essential boating infrastructure challenge. There are 36 trailer parking spaces for nearly 5,000 registered trailer boats. Trailer parking in residential streets is not a sustainable solution. So I'm excited and I think this is a really good positive step in the right direction. We've got the funding, we've got a site and in my opinion we've also got a community mandate or at least a preferred location site which is the Hilton Esplanade, esplanade, Tewantin, Doonella boat ramp. So again excited to see this progress. Frank Wilkie 02:48:53.601
Yeah look we've been very fortunate in Noosa Shire since the election. We've had a deputy premier and the transport minister have great regard for the very much forward to needs future of the Shire and this community. Looking very much forward to discussion around the design concepts for the Hilton Terrace Doonella boat ramp, what may be possible there, and also getting an understanding of how the funding from the minister for transport and MSQ may be used to provide better infrastructure for our community. Brian Stockwell 02:49:40.702
I'll cook talk. There's been a couple of different elements of community debate. One of the elements which my questioning would suggest that I'm interested in is actually that the options and we're having, you know, my yearning was to actually identify a council position on that now, but if the report is imminent, I think it's best to wait and seek a further report in the near future. I don't think, I recall in the capital works budget in terms of design down here, I don't think councils have had the opportunity to talk about priorities around that Noosa Woods area and I think that's important once we have the consultants information because I for one agree with the views that the existing jetty location and the beach around there probably should be protected for residents to enjoy low key recreational pursuits. I think I know when my kids were young we were down there a lot and lots of parties and lots of teaching how to fish and not catching anything down there. I just think that's an important thing to lock in and obviously in the community there's a range of different options available so I think we stick with this one as a noting report but subject to where the consultants come up with a net briefing in the near future it may be something we request another report from the near future to try and identify what the council's position is down at the Woods. Anyone else wish to talk? Jessica Phillips 02:51:17.060
I'll just say I'm just excited when we think of anything where our assets can be maintained or upgraded in every aspect really to hear that we've got two and a half million to go to an asset that whether you use it or not is to me just on the broader scale it looks like it gives council a great standard of you know it's our reputation around the things we own and the things or the assets that our community own and so I'm just excited that there's potential that we see an upgrade to something that has been for the long life I've lived here community have asked for some upgrade to something they use and love them yes I look forward to seeing the future and where we have this delivered yeah Brian Stockwell 02:52:08.522
No one else wish to speak I'll cancel that launch and do you wish to close no I'll say thank you okay I put it to them but those in favour that's unanimous Thank you. So much and move on to the next item which is it is direct to the general committee and we have the monthly Financial Performance Report and we have Pauline here to give us an executive summary and answer all our hard questions Pauline 02:52:41.060
Thanks councillors. Good councillors and afternoon so the financial performance for the month of April continues to be positive with operating revenues outperforming forecasts and operating expenditures continuing to be below budget at this stage of the financial year. Operating revenues revenue is $2 million above budget and is being driven predominantly through interest revenue of $2.1 million, $500,000 from sales of goods and services, $458,000 from other revenue, $146 vacancies, savings and wages of $146,000. From grant programs. This has been offset by lower than forecast rates revenue of $174,000 and Fees and Charges of $728,000. Operating expenditure is $293,000 under budget with employee costs $654,000 under budget to staff due to vacancies savings in work cover premiums and the forecast salary increase that was to commence in March this financial year still not yet taking effect due to the ongoing negotiations of council certified agreement. Once that's finalised that back pay will be funded through those underspends and so that council won't necessarily require additional budget for materials and services is $605,000 over budget with $760,000 of that relating to civil operations, $234,000 relating to holiday parks which obviously has associated revenue with that and street lighting for $161,000. Finance costs are $225,000 under budget and that's due to the deferral of the waste capital works program to next year. Overall council's year-to-date operating position at April 2025 is $2.5 million above budget and this will be used to fund emergent expenditure through to June 2025. Finance capital revenue is $9.7 million above budget due to the timing of receiving of QRA disaster funding and SEQ CSP funding in advance. Capital expenditure is behind budget $48.7 million year-to-date with $15.8 million relating to our base capital program and $32.9 million relating to the disaster projects which are funded by QRA, with the majority of this relating to timing and scheduling of project delivery. Council is currently holding $114 million with $25.5 million in cash, however this will diminish through to 30 June as business as usual operations occur and the capital program is delivered. Overall council's financial performance remains on track subject to any emergent issues that might arise between now and the end of the financial year. Brian Stockwell 02:55:19.112
Questions, Councillor? Tom Wegener 02:55:20.492
Bill Walsh. Councillor Wegener. Colleen, my favourite question I ask every time about the interest that. On that network, big debt, you know, 1.2 million in interest from QRA funding that's in the bank account right now, but surely that's got to be draining out soon with Black Mountain Road being finished and finalised. I would suspect there would be a payment Pauline 02:55:44.138
So, yeah, there is an element of QRA funding, but not all of it is QRA funding. There's a large component that relates to the capital program that's yet to be delivered, so we hold funds to deliver our base capital program. We also hold funds for unspent levies and other grants that we have, as well as some internally subsidies that we have for waste, which is multiple years. So yes, there is an element of QRA, but there are other elements in our cash holdings besides QRA. Tom Wegener 02:56:11.037
You revenue is slightly down, is that? Pauline 02:56:15.457
Yes, so what we have seen come through is Council will have noted that several years ago had quite some significant increases in our UCV values through the valuation from the Valuer-General's office. We have had some amendments to those valuations coming through as well as some changes to some classifications for transitory properties which has flowed through and therefore our budget, our actual revenue for rates is actually down. So we'll be looking at that to correct that through the next rating cycle. Frank Wilkie 02:56:45.031
Just a follow-up question. You mentioned there's some change in transitory accommodation categories. Does that mean transferring from transitory accommodation back to non-principal places? Correct. So there's a change in use of some of the properties, correct, when we've done the assessment. Yes. So are we able to quantify how many properties are no longer operating as STAs from this start? Data? I'd have to take it on note and see if I can get that. I don't have that available at the moment. Clarifying question. There's a breakout section about tourism and economic development investment summary where it talks about employee costs. Is that talking the council's economic development start? Staff? Pauline 02:57:23.905
Correct, that would be what that represents. SPEAKER_06_b 02:57:26.305
Okay, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:57:28.285
Thanks a lot. I note at the very start of the report and the asset sustainability ratio is behind budget. Few questions. A what factors have contributed to the asset sustainability ratio dropping to 66.3% instead of a target, about 90%? And does a lower ratio indicate underinvestment in our critical infrastructure or asset maintenance? Pauline 02:58:01.175
In so just context of that what that ratio represents it is essentially where council is required to or is preferable that council commits at least 80% of our depreciation to renewal projects. As you'll see it accumulates over the years so as we deliver that program it will go up. We're currently sitting at 66 with our target being 80 percent with the delay in our capital program. That obviously has slowed that down so depending on the remaining delivery of this financial year we will likely get much closer to that. I will note that we have not included any of the QRA spend in that so we haven't skewed the numbers but depending on the remaining delivery of that program or whether we hit that 80%. Amelia Lorentson 02:58:42.580
So you mentioned in capital expenditure affecting the ratio. Which projects are being impacted? Pauline 02:58:49.944
There's a variety of different projects that are renewal across the board. I couldn't necessarily specifically pick one in particular that's driving it but I think if I refer back to where I mentioned the capital program I think I think we're $15 million behind that at the moment where we would like to be and a large majority of that is our renewal projects. We pretty much dedicate the majority of our program to renewal. Amelia Lorentson 02:59:14.760
My last question is the industrial action dispute. Has that impacted on delivering some of these projects? Pauline 02:59:26.660
I couldn't comment on the delivery of the capital program. Programs. There may be some element of that. I'm not sure if shaun's aware of the capital program at all and obviously civil operations is different. Shaun Walsh 02:59:35.797
Through the Chair, most of the protected action has affected routine operation and day-to-day maintenance rather than the-to-day maintenance. It's more staffing resourcing that's affected delivery of things like a beach access renewal program and various others. And also just project delays associated with things like the nella bridge project renewal, which is quite significant in some. It's millions of dollars on that alone. So the previous report to the SMO committee me for reference in the update in a weeks' period, and there was discussion about resourcing moving forward to try and Resolve that in a carryover and understanding. And that'll be a matter for consideration in council's budget for 2025-2026. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 03:00:16.211
Have a question about the rates in arrears compared to other years. Compared to years, is there more in arrears at this point in the year? Pauline 03:00:32.031
It's slightly higher, probably about the same as last year. We haven't seen a huge uptick in that. We have a couple of debtors that we're chasing, mortgage debtors that we're chasing at the moment. But as a general rule, no, it's not higher than it has been previously. Okay, that's interesting. Thanks. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:52.608
Councillor Lorentson. Certified agreement, negotiations and wage increases. The report notes that there's 2.1 million underspend in wages due to vacancies. Can you explain, there's an indication in the report that may help offset some of the costs that may be incurred? Pauline 03:01:12.986
So in terms of the 2.1 million, there is also offsetting because there is obviously labour hire staff that are filling that hole for some of the vacancies. So the net amount of those two is about $600,000, $650,000, which is the year-to-date shortfall on our employee costs. And that would be what's utilised to fund the increase that's negotiated. So we've already budgeted we've already budgeted that. SPEAKER_06_b 03:01:38.238
Process is still in negotiations, so I'd prefer not to discuss it. Worries, OK Brian Stockwell 03:01:43.898
Thank you. Okay, does someone wish to move the motion? Councillor Wegener. Have we got a see you on the seconder? Half. Second seconder. Half. Councillor hence the movie. Cancel Councillor Wegener Tom Wegener 03:01:54.914
Thank you again for your very, very clear reports. It sounds like we are doing very well, but I'm worried a little bit about what's coming down the track for us, as we all are. So just please keep up the great work. I'd just like to just say, just in closing, Amelia Lorentson 03:02:19.944
Thank you, Pauline. Your reports are always really well presented, clear, and easy to read for not just up the report will say the same. Question I forgot to ask, which I ask every meeting, is what keeps you up at night? And I'm going to answer that question myself. Lots at the moment. So think when you're I when you work in local government you actually start understanding the enormity of the business and risk and how important it is to be future. Thinking have cash reserves the right staff in the right jobs performing and to council's councillors credit, we you know, do lots of things really well and Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:03:17.727
Again but lots is keeping me up at night I'm answering your question yeah thank you Mr Chair there's a very good reason why Noosa Council remains one of 20 out of 77 local governments to be to run surplus budgets it's because of its adherence to sustainable financial practices good clean reporting and responsible budgeting note the asset sustainability system ratio which is about our spending budgeted spending for capital works is we've budgeted to spend a hundred and sixteen point six percent on our assets we're at 66 at the moment there's a target of 80 it's a couple of months to go they some weather events but what this report doesn't also show is the work that is done on managing 130 million external capital works program that's funded by external funding Queensland Reconstruction Authority even though it's been managed by contractors Noosa Council is for the first time I can remember the last couple of years been responsible for two very significant capital works programs at the same time so that's not in the report but it's a sign that the organisation is highly ambitious punching well above its weight for a very small organisation and weathering challenges you know financially responsible way so thank you your importance key to keeping us on track Tom Wegener 03:04:56.300
No one else can't wait now I'll throw my hat head into it keeping you can me be awake at night I'm very happy to announce that we are committed to a surplus budget. Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 03:05:11.314
I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We now ask the manager of environmental services to come up to discuss the five-year review of the Environment Strategy. Welcome Ben. Oh, and Kim will, as Director of environment and sustainability, will join him. Ben 03:05:35.792
So we had our annual review of our Environment Strategy which has got 14 actions embedded in and we've given a potted summary of how we're tracking against each of those actions. Of the 42 we've got one scheduled for future which is fish biomass sitting within Noosa River which has been a component of the Noosa River Plan so as that develops we'll start to get some metrics around there. There's two that need attention relating to agriculture and they were always intended to be further on in the Environment Strategy as we're we starting started to develop plans through economic development, strategic planning and environment that will incorporate some of our metrics in there. Of the remaining 39 actions we've got four that have been completed, 21 are on target and 15 are progressing and progressing rating for actions where they're moving in the right direction but have been delayed for particular reasons and happy to take questions around those. Considering we've also got some four enabling, overarching enabling actions and we've given a product summary as to how we're progressing on those. Implementation of the environment grants program to support community projects and programs that lead to implementation of the Environment Strategy is on target and we've provided a summary of the reporting year for our environmental grants and climate change and sustainability grants. Enabling action number two: implementation of an environment sustainability roundtable to provide a mechanism for local groups, local community groups, government, stakeholders and experts to have an input into development of council policy is progressing and I'll provide a note to say that terms of reference and a project plan for that will be presented to council probably at the next council meeting, not the one on Thursday but the one coming up, the one other after that. We're just working through terms of reference of that at the moment enabling the third enabling action supporting community environmental sustainable development networks and forums to build partnerships to drive the implementation of the Environment Strategy is considered to be progressing and again that is attached to the environment sustainability round roundtable which coming up and the final one which is undertake monitoring programs are required for evaluating and reporting on the success of the implant implementation of the Environment Strategy is also progressing and so that's monitoring programs are always a work in progress as things change and more data becomes available to us so we've if provided a potted summary on how we're progressing for each of the enabling actions gone into a little bit more detail about all the other actions which are very council driven and council we've also provided an attachment for a summary of the environment environmental grants and climate change and sustainability grants there's two recommendations that we've put forward one is relating to we've also to this report and the contents in there and the second one is a proposing a midterm review of the Environment Strategy given that it's a 10-year strategy and it's still good certain things have changed in last five years and a strategy that spans 10 years there will always be changes along the way which is incorporating new technology it might be a better way to be able to measure track implement different networks that we might be using it and emerging trends which may have emerged over those for the last five years as well so in relation to that we're not proposing a full-on rebuild of it but it's a review of the existing actions whether any of those need amending and whether there's any emerging items that need to be considered by council Frank Wilkie 03:09:32.693
Thank you very much for the report there's a lot going on there's 42 actions this is a question yeah before with um four completed and 21 on target to me that looks like six halfway through a 10-year thing program was your 60% are track but can you tell us are there any programs what that in your mind require the most attention for a recalibration another is there any one or two that come to mind that will lead to some sort of adjustment Ben 03:10:18.193
Look the ones that are off track or we haven't progressed probably which are relating to agriculture and what was the other one, agriculture and fishing. The ones that we haven't quite got a concept around as to what's councils level of influence what can we do to be able to promote better metrics that we can measure that can say we're progressing in the right way for those and their they're reasonably new areas for council counselling to be able to step do. Into as well probably the one that has our most attention at the moment is issues relating to the river and particularly the transition we've got in between developing the Noosa River management plan on its own and incorporating that into the Resilient Rivers catchment action plan program which is just at that transition period at the moment where we're resourcing up the staff and getting frameworks together so there's quite a few actions that are sitting within there within that sphere that will be delivered as a component of and I think we're on the right track for it it's just a difficult period to be able to go through. SPEAKER_06_b 03:11:33.728
And with MSQ stepping up for a lot of the on-water Frank Wilkie 03:11:36.928
Responsibility that's taken a large element out of the Noosa River Plan or in the Noosa can I respond to that? I think we. Have an advocacy role but we're not looking at monitoring on-water activities. Kim Rawlings 03:11:57.176
Yeah, no, but what I would say, Councillor Wilkie, is that we are currently recruiting for that role and we are finalising the approach. With the State government through Resilient Rivers about what that catchment action management plan will include and I would suggest that's probably better to a separate conversation with council, which we have planned once that's in place, rather than at this point saying what's in and what's out, but would, that will absolutely take into account what's occurred in the last three or four years and what shifted from what our original aspirations were around the river and whose roles what. It will absolutely be contemporary. SPEAKER_06_b 03:12:35.590
That sense. Well I guess I'm saying with MSQ stepping up, it has changed the game significantly. Yeah. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 03:12:43.619
Question please, just around unspent grant funds, please. Are they reallocated or take, what happens to those grant Ben 03:12:56.009
Unspent funds? So there's two elements to that. One is the environmental grants, which are funded through the Environment Levy. Haven't got unspent monies in those. There was a reallocation of $50,000 from the project into alliance grants and so the books sort of balance. I think there's about a $50 excess for $150,000 odd of multi-year environment so if there's an underspend in environment Environment Levy grants that just transfers back into the Environment Levy pool and so they're used for you know all the things in the Environment Levy. It might be land purchases, it might be environmental initiatives or follow subsequent grant rounds. The climate change and sustainability grants are general revenue and so we did have an underspend in that with one particular project predominantly contributing the most of that which they got a fair way down the path and realised that they couldn't put solar panels on a community building because the structure structurally couldn't take it so those monies went back into general revenue it was too late in the piece to reissue those funds on that grant round and I don't think we had a suitable candidate to be able to reissue those so two different answers to the two different mining streams. Jessica Phillips 03:14:11.841
Thank you, that really clarifies it. And my last question is around the Plastic Free Noosa. This probably comes off the last week's Special Meeting, which I won't bring up. Okay. So just to clarify, please, the how is the Tourism Noosa funding arrangement separate to the Plastic Free Noosa? Ben 03:14:40.746
I can answer that from a project point of view. We assess the Plastic Free Noosa application separately without consideration of the Tourism Noosa funding body. There was nothing in our guidelines or policy which precluded Tourism Noosa from applying for those program funds, we assessed it and it matched very favourably with some of the objectives that sat within the Environment Strategy so they got the money. Kim Rawlings 03:15:06.320
I'll just add to that any organisation that's eligible under our grants guidelines can apply for grant funding. That's community organisations, tourism organisations, depending on which grant program. So Plastic Free Noosa, plastic free program is funded through our multi year environment grants, which are a three year program. They are in the final year of that three years. So our multi grants will come up again next year for consideration. Jessica Phillips 03:15:33.556
Okay. So how will potentially the Roadmap from the year of Tourism Noosa now align? Will it align at all or will we see that somehow? Kim Rawlings 03:15:45.098
It is quite separate. It's a grant, separate program, and it's assessed separately. It's governed under our grants policy and our grants guidelines. It's got its own acquittal process as it is with any organisation, sporting organisation, community organisation, anyone. It's you know governed through the community the grants program you know it should council be looking at the sorts of programs that Tourism Noosa might be doing in the future through the road map it could be considered that context but I wouldn't want to conflate those issues that they are they quite are separate the funding agreement and the road map and then the grant which is project specific and has very specific deliverables and its own time frame we need to you know just make sure that there's clear air between those two things because they are governed and under different processes. Great, thank you. SPEAKER_02_b 03:16:52.553
We have lots of references to the keeping it in kingpin projects but do we have a plan for getting out of kingpin? For the flying foxes, please. SPEAKER_08 03:17:05.611
Through the Chair, yep. Look flying foxes have always been contentious within the community and all the roosts do create conflict. The one in kingpin is somewhat unique where the majority of the habitat and the roost is in private land. There's only a small section of council managed land being the riparian area. As the population increases it does spill into larger areas of council. Officers really appreciate the challenge living next to a flying fox roost. You know hence the development of the Statement of Management Intent as well as the particular flying fox management plans of which there is one for kin. We understand that's a reasonably high conflict area. Based on our statement about management intent we've transitioned from a stage one which is background monitoring as a product summary background monitoring and education and restricting access to areas to stage two which is a greater amount of community consultation offering residents fox. Subsidy program as well as ensuring their routine maintenance projects don't aren't happening in and around the roost to disturb the roost we've got a range of longer-term actions that we do implement through there as well in terms of vegetation management and weed this year the population in Kin Kin for flying foxes has not changed markedly outside of the annual fluctuations that we'd expect so there has been some increases in population through summer and autumn as we expect for most of the populations but not something which is markedly more worse we feel than what than what it was five years ago in terms of the population with the what we can do for residents as I said we're doing stage two which is better vegetation management through there making sure that we're still managing our in accordance with the statement management intent and we've also lifted our individual subsidies from fifteen to two thousand dollars and it's quite prescriptive as to what each round of those we can apply the activities that we can apply for so if there's different that need rectification through advocacy from the community then we can seek funds to be able to make sure that we've got grants that align to that as well so that the grants at this point have been water filtration units and um yeah cleaning I'm not sure that it's got colours I think I think it's cleaning and vegetation removal so given most of the habitat is in private land council has got a policy written in the Statement of Management Intent that we will not go onto someone's private land and do vegetation cleaning but we'll we provide will subsidies subsistence so that people can engage contractors to be able to do that safely. So there's look up and I appreciate that flying foxes in the community is a it's a contentious issue when Ben 03:20:20.349
There's certain management actions that we went through when we develop the sime that we can and can't do dispersal is one that was debated with some vigour and Noosa Council generally doesn't support dispersion it's expensive it's seen as a you know potentially short-term because the roosts have demonstrated throughout Australia to fairly frequently come back and you can make it somebody else's problem as well so if they took off from Kin Kin they could land at Cooroy and create all sorts of issues there or somewhere else, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 03:20:55.993
Okay, question cancellation. Burgess Creek catchment management plan, there was another pledge by the LNP and they committed $100,000 for a critical study. Have we received any official confirmation from LNP regarding this funding? Ben 03:21:15.441
We do, we have. We've been liaising with the department. We've had email clarification or email confirmation that we'll receive that funding. We're working with the department at the moment to be able to put specifics around what the delivery will be. And so what they're looking for, what's going to suit our needs, what we've got the capacity to be able to do for $100,000. Given it's quite a small catchment, we still need to incorporate community we've got to be able to measure off environmental management, weed management, water quality and infrastructure requirements as well. So there's quite a lot of elements to be able to cover off for $100,000. And we're just working through the department at the moment just to be able to make sure that we've got the funding data agreement set. Amelia Lorentson 03:21:58.742
Probably a similar question that we asked with the pledge with the two and a half million dollars with the boating infrastructure. Who determines how the funds are used? Again, there was context around that $100,000, how it was going to be used. Irrelevant and do discussions, as you mentioned Ben, does council lead the narrative now that the funding's committed or does that get led by state? Kim Rawlings 03:22:31.240
I'll respond to that and then you can add if you like. Ben said, we are working department on what the scope is, so they've been allocated the funding but there are particular outcomes they want to achieve from that funding. Our original costings of the integrated water management plan were greater than $100,000. Amelia Lorentson 03:22:51.996
That's $750,000 I think two years ago. Kim Rawlings 03:22:54.876
So we do need to therefore re-look at scope to see what this $100,000 can actually deliver as being said so that is that you know and let's that's go there's a collaboration happening around that at the moment to say these well these are the things we think are the priority. Can they fit within the scope? What can we manage? So yes there is there's a scoping down of what that project can be given it's $100,000 not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ben 03:23:24.254
Yeah and looking in terms of the outcome and the detail that it goes into that's probably where those decisions will be made but rather than something which is very detailed and has detailed responses to what the risks and opportunities are in that integrated plan it might make statements at a higher level and it might direct strategic directions into particular areas for infrastructure further as an example of more investigation needs to be done around these areas to ensure that infrastructure, you know, remains viable Amelia Lorentson 03:23:52.155
We have funded just trying to think 23 Kim 20 23 24 the University of the Sunshine Coast we funded a report on looking at erosion movements around the mouth of Burgess Creek two um two questions will that report help guide this the scope because there's already been some investigatory work done in the space and- has that report ever been released to public I haven't I haven't seen it I'll take that on notice about that know we did do a status update on that report back to council maybe I'd have to check the date maybe mid last year or early last year but the actual report I don't think we ever had access to that Kim Rawlings 03:24:43.357
No I'll have to take that on notice and follow up about the status of that report whether it's been released I'm not sure I can't see Lorentson in but yeah there has been a lot of work done in that catchment over the last couple of years as you know so all of those things will be key inputs into what the scope of the water catchment management plan is now and really needs to focus on where the gaps are because we have got a lot more information now and there has been a lot of work done in the last couple of years so you know the best use of that investment will be in what are the gaps what don't we know and you know what we need to do going forward Amelia Lorentson 03:25:18.984
And my last question integrated water catchment plan so again going back a couple of years ago there was appetite to fund that we haven't and I'm anticipating that cost has exacerbated over the last couple of years how do we progress that will the environment then will you come to us as part of our budget deliberations and put that as an initiative for us to consider Ben 03:25:54.067
Yeah look haven't we've got a working group on it which is incorporating environment and infrastructure so we're getting technical officer input into what we consider be need to it need to address that will come to council prior to being signed off it's a significant government grant so we need to make sure the council is updated we haven't considered making a budget BID to increase that amount we're grateful that we've got a hundred thousand dollars where we didn't have a hundred thousand dollars a few months ago so you were working with what we've got. It's money we don't have to spend. Amelia Lorentson 03:26:32.864
Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 03:26:36.520
Does anyone want to move the microphone? No, we have any questions we can take. Council, cancel, wait until a minute. They cancel. Tom Wegener 03:26:41.265
Yeah, question. Go ahead. Looking at the round table coming up and working with community groups, do you see that? I would love to see them actually bringing a monetary value to what they're doing and to be more and more included in the actual running of the environment machine. And like for example, NICA, you know, they go off and they do the water monitoring and they bring that back and they're not staffed, but they do a fantastic job. And is there other groups we can really, - both as a Bushcare group and things like that, how can we expand our support for those groups doing stuff to help us out? Ben 03:27:26.068
Yeah, we're engaged with our network. Probably not engaged on the formal sense in terms of a roundtable, and so a roundtable, which is intended to be every six months for interested parties, will provide us with a kind of a strategic guidance on where we're headed. Probably, to be able to engage properly with those groups is a lot more organic and day-to-day. So, you know, prior to coming in here, I was supposed to be in a NICA meeting, and it's just that, you know, ongoing touch points of all of our officers, you know, regularly engaging with those community groups to make sure that they've got the support they need to keep going. If there's a group that is facing some challenges, and council is aware of it, we certainly offer our support so that they can move through those times and still deliver what their members want them to deliver. Yeah. So we're regularly engaged. I can appreciate needing a formal network so that we can report on it and recognise it and celebrate it. Yeah, day basis. That's something which is kind of the nuts and bolts of work. Tom Wegener 03:28:41.240
Speaking of that then, the Destination Management Plan and the concept of being a regenerative community. Is being a regenerative tourist area. And I think that the community groups will be the ones to lead the charge, to lead the informing of the public. Is that right? Are you looking at them as a conduit for your concept of a destination management, regenerative Destination Management Plan, to take hold in the community and find its roots? Kim Rawlings 03:29:15.553
I think, Councillor Wegener, there's still some further discussion to be had around the Destination Management Plan with council, but like any key strategy that council does, fundamental to the delivery of our strategies, Environment Strategy, Housing Strategy, any. Our community partnerships, they're embedded in our strategy. We couldn't achieve the things that we are achieving at the moment and this report with its 60 page attachment demonstrates how significant a community contribution our community organisations make. So I would think absolutely. You know, partnership arrangements and having our key community organisations involved and aligned with where we're heading across you know, I think all there's of a lot work our strategies to be is actually fundamental. And, you know, I think in many areas our community organisations do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of helping council achieve the objectives that we set. Tom Wegener 03:30:26.631
In strategies last thing, I was at the David attenborough movie the other night, talking about nets, and you know we have a lot of discussion of our sharpness, but could we have a no net Noosa? No net biosphere? Just throwing it out there. I don't think that's one for staff to answer. Brian Stockwell 03:30:54.782
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:30:56.030
You Mr Chair. Through the Chair and staff, first of all, thank you for the report. It is a big body of work. I'm out to review against the contemporary threats. And challenges moving forward. I know one of the threats I think about is our organic waste landfill. Which is really important given we're looking at being a sustainable environment. You know, destination. Two things. Firstly, I'd like to hear what maybe your top two things that you consider are threats at the moment that are contemporary. But secondly, how strategy does go into, in play into and in form, and this environment how does this Environment Strategy going go to into, play inform a strategy with DA conditions for organic waste as we develop our capacity to accept the organic waste stream? Kim Rawlings 03:31:51.236
Do you want to answer that? So I think the second, the response to the second question is the, it's a combination of Environment Strategy and Waste Strategy and legislative requirements and it's kind of changing landscape around waste and organics and things. So I, you know, it probably needs broader discussion, Councillor Finzel, to be honest, to answer that question. You know, it'd be good to have kyron in the room and actually sort of thrash, that out about what is it, what are the targets we're going to set, what are the, you know, what are the parameters, what are the expectations, and how we then flow that through our strategies, into our regulatory conditioning, into DA processes and, you know, what sort of expectations we have, I think there's a fair bit of water to go under the bridge around that at the moment. We definitely have aspirations and. Strategic objectives around that, but, you know, that whole kind of pipeline of how that then lands on the ground really probably needs a bit more consideration and a bit more conversation. SPEAKER_02_b 03:32:59.990
That maybe the top two threats that you can set up. Ben 03:33:03.086
Yeah, and Councillor Finzel, it's probably subjective to my view, so somebody might give you a different answer. Look, I think with the time that I've spent working in the environment field, which is close to three decades without question, climate change and population pressures on our biodiversity areas and our environment compromising our environmental values without question and particularly in South East Queensland they are the big two that require careful and strategic attention to and protection of the long-term protection of our conservation estate and the expansion of our conservation estate to make sure that we are operating sustainably from biodiversity, diversity, carbon and water perspective, which is something that we haven't picked up or we haven't quantified in the current Environment Strategy. We've got a target for conservation which is fairly rudimentary in terms of how that was chosen. But there's science out there now that says these are the targets that you should be hitting in these particular bioregions which we can anchor some science to, say Noosa within our boundaries, we've got sustainability, not for next few decades until the planning scheme eventually you know pushes right up into up into Noosa and we have to change but you know if we protect it right then for centuries and generations and generations to come for sustainability for genuinely what it is rather than something that we can do for a short period of time because that's some sometimes everything one Frank Wilkie 03:34:38.909
Last question the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management there's a number of actions there wording says progress in the plan includes there's a range of actions that does this mean progress has been made in each of those actions Ben 03:34:59.465
Yes okay yeah that's correct and not always are we seeing a lot of action it might be development of background material it might communication with community members down there as a First Point is that to we need to get that particular action moving the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management plan is a implementation actions that come out of that there's probably 70 or 80 of them so it's a big body of work as well to be able to work through a prioritisation SPEAKER_06_b 03:35:23.338
Yeah there's five Frank Wilkie 03:35:25.458
Key overarching actions there making progress that's correct yeah the fencing signage and a system natural regeneration for recovery sites meaning the dunes to improve natural foreshore resilience SPEAKER_06_b 03:35:40.686
That's probably a highly visible aspect of the plan seeks to address how are we going in terms of resourcing for that action yes that's very much embedded in the beach access infrastructure manual so signage is it will be addressed there as well as general fencing yeah-vegetation. Ben 03:36:04.406
Yeah, and making. Sure that the best available access to the beach is the most appropriate one as well so currently we've got some beach accesses which is where you know everyone's coming on to the beach at those points and so they're the ones that people make decisions so I wander off into the dunes or did I go down to the beach line getting those right is seen as absolutely critical for the creep comes out if we don't have clearly defined beach accesses and so that the draft BAME at the moment which is around about 80% completed moment is very prescriptive around tier one two and three what's going to be there what are the environmental objectives and what's the basic design of those beach accesses. Yeah so it's a it's a start. Amelia Lorentson 03:36:50.951
Question yeah so the report cites 2030 all food waste is diverted from landfill also identifies that some of the strategies towards targets is unable to be assessed due to insufficient monitoring data. A couple of questions how we're currently progressing on meeting the Noosa food waste reduction targets is 2030 realistic? Is 2030 target attainable? Shaun Walsh 03:37:28.919
I really think that's a matter for funding from the State government through a redistribution of the State food waste levy. You know, we collect a lot of money on behalf of the State and the committee has to get that money back. We're in the picture in terms of funding submissions but, you know, that level of technology and waste separation and composting and whatever is suggested is expensive and we're looking to the State for their assistance to help lead that project and achieve that goal. So it is achievable. That goal being in there, it's achievable with the education. I'm going to move to motion. Sorry, I have another question. Brian Stockwell 03:38:02.611
Okay, you can have a question any time. Thank you. Just a follow-up. No, I haven't moved to the second, so you can do it after. The report highlights a great amount of activity that has been done over the five years. There's been a significant body of work done both by staff and it was highlighted. Most of the stuff that gets done on the ground there's a partnership with council and the community and it's been done. Now we're fortunate to have hundreds if not thousands of people working across the various elements of the Environment Strategy at a community level helping us to achieve the targets. I the concept of having a five-year midterm review is good and you outlined in the report a range of different triggers that would warrant that. I actually think there's one more and it relates to one of the reds, the red 414 was enhanced integrated catchment management of the Noosa River and Mary River sub-captains with a view of improving land use, wetland and riparian management practices through landholder engagement on ground rehabilitation. Integrated cash management is a way operating. It's a much broader kind of concept than what we have embodied recently. It's about a holistic, it's about bottom-up, it's about stakeholder driven and it's, I think, something we have to think about whether it's council's role to do. In the Mary catchment they have had an integrated catchment management body since 1994. It's probably still the longest running and biggest one in Queensland and they've got multi-million dollar budget. In NICA, in Noosa Noosa we haven't got the same momentum and NICA has opted through their own reviews to I think the concept of how we get integrated natural resource and environment management is one we have think we'll get to the target targeting. In section 2.1 which is about maintaining and improving the health of our waterways, wetlands and capitals if we don't do something about it and I'd say that because it's a multi-stakeholder approach and it's an approach that gets stakeholders around the table so that you can manage conflict whereas at the moment and previously the news will reveal in particular is a source of conflict and hence why I think when we get to the enable the action C I don't think we've done it. I wouldn't agree that we've been progressive and part of that is because change of staff over time. There was a real reason why B which is a round table and C was separated because that was in the arrangement agreed to by the sector. We always we started we had every group whether they're a Bushcare group, whether they're an unincorporated environment group, we had the Cooroy residents association, Noosa Shire residents, anything that had a sustainable development focus. We had indigenous Kabi Kabi People come once or twice. We had reef check there, we had I think AusFish might have come. We had numerous quite other groups and they come council have an we might want to talk to them about one or two things but they would also lay their own agenda and they'd work how they'd like to work together so we had great projects like the eastern beaches Bushcare groups come together. We've sort of lost that since COVID and I think and just before COVID. There was this thing where council was trying to say we think the community should run it and community was trying to say no we want council to keep on leading it. I think we have to decide about who does and I think it's a germane to an achievement of not just that 2.1 but it's also around the Zero Emissions Noosa and why it's about how do we get integrated environmental solutions to achieve our waste targets and our emissions reduction which require a lot of work in the community to achieve behaviour change and to me that whole integrated and. Engaged and more collaborative approach on holistic options is something we can think more about. You know we do a good job at a project by project, sector by sector, but we're not doing that well in my opinion on the integrated. But as I said we're achieving great things I won't be too negative, but I just think as part of that review we have to think about how we operate. Now, Councillor Lorentson you wouldn't want to ask a question. Amelia Lorentson 03:42:15.558
Thank you Councillor Stockwell and I appreciate how nicely you just asked me that question. In terms of progress, Noosa signed an MOU with Gympie on regional waste management. I just want to know what specific initiatives have resulted from the partnership. Kim Rawlings 03:42:40.310
Noosa signed the MOU with Gympie Regional Council about waste. Is there any update on progress on that? Shaun Walsh 03:42:48.610
When we've been having discussions with the region, we've included Gympie as part of it. It's a bit challenging because Gympie is not playing the same as the Queensland regional organisation. But there are particular attributes they have in terms of space and particular waste streams that we can bring into the forum. So I suppose we've taken a position that we're advocating for waste outcomes that gindy can be involved in as part of bridging the solution. And also note that some of their waste suppliers such as corbett's we have a number of commercial contracts with. We're actually using gindy suppliers. So I'd say it's a healthy relationship but yet to you know have proper fruition in terms of its outcomes. Amelia Lorentson 03:43:27.961
Another question: how often do we meet with gindy there? I don't personally meet with the Gympie Mayor. Just with their waste staff? Kim Rawlings 03:43:38.835
Yeah we have a quarterly forum with Sunshine Coast Council and us as an executive. So all three CEOs and all three executives. Thank interesting. You, Kim. Tom Wegener 03:44:12.079
I'll speak to them. That was a, that was probably your most inspirational speech, thank you. It was, and it's visionary and. Know, you're saying that we actually need a central glue to pull all these groups together, and I think waste is doing it, they're incredible, but perhaps in the past there was, there was groups, probably the MTA that, in the distant past, that had the vision that Noosa followed, and I think we do need that integration amongst the groups. For example, I think their site is carbon sequence, key sequestration, and biodiversity offsets. If that's something that groups can do, that individuals can do, they can be outside of council, but for goodness sake, don't need to squash them when they're trying to do things, which can happen. I actually throw another great idea out there, and that is almost a PR firm as the central body to talk about what the groups are doing, and instead of council doing it, because council can't actually blow our own horn to get very good. That's not what we're good at. But if we work with other groups, but actually, maybe perhaps, maybe Tourism Noosa becomes the cheerleader for pulling all the groups and then sharing this vision, because of where we lack right now, I believe, is our lack of shared vision for a regenerative future. And I just love what you're doing, by the way. Great work. The environment team is fantastic. And I think that, as Frank pointed out, the amount of success on the ledger board there, if you go through all 42 actions, is phenomenal. So keep up the great work. Brian Stockwell 03:45:54.070
I think we should talk to the match from Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:45:55.950
I probably want to talk about the review period. So we are at the halfway mark of the 10-year implementation. And I agree with you, Ben, we've got to assess progress, adapt to assist environments. Challenges and ensure that our approach is effective and relevant, et cetera. Probably a critical time to ask, you know, I think Councillor Finzel asked you what your biggest challenges or future threats. I think the questions that I'm sort of asking is and maybe part of the review is we should start really really thinking hard about how green we are as a council today compared to say five years ago or compared to ten years ago and how green does our future look. You know biggest risk to me is our landfill emissions account for 63% of Noosa Council's total emissions. There's a there's a clock ticking in terms of the landfill. It's close to reaching capacity so that keeps me up at night and the other big risk is plastics and microplastics and these emerging contaminants and we saw that just recently Cyclone Alfred. There's serious threats and the only way we change behaviour is we start walking the talk and that goes back to my original question that we should be consider considering as part of the review is how green are we today and how green must be if we're going to sing under the mantra Different by Nature Brian Stockwell 03:47:51.175
I will close because there's one thing I think Councillor Wegener might be onto something and that's in terms of my thinking and his thinking combining under the concept of do we integrate around the concept of what is a regenerative future because I do think you know back prior to COVID the conversation was shouldn't we have Tourism Noosa in the room and it's probably quite clear that is now a big part of what the future involves and having people both from those who see the regenerative future as something that's happening in terms of weeds and bushes along the Coast to those who've got a more strategic about reducing emissions having that conversation is likely to drive a lot more common purpose and I think while not every environment decision can be done in a consensus fashion with all stakeholders it is a good way to get change in the community and I'll give you one example and that is the rejection of the traverson dam was as a result of all the relationships done in the formation and delivery of the Mary integrated cashflow management both the local, national and international networks that all came out telling the government they got it wrong. I'll put it back. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank thanks. I think that might be it, is it? I know we've got a confidential. So I'll have a motion to move in the confidential session. If someone wants to move what is on the board. Councillor Lorentson is moving. Amelia Lorentson 03:49:36.902
I'm happy to move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254 J3G of the Local Government Regulation for the purpose of discussing a contract proposed to be made by council in item 9.1 Contract No. CN25031, provision of cleaning services for administration buildings, libraries and other facilities. Brian Stockwell 03:50:01.879
Seconded by Councillor Wilson, there's no need for discussion. I think all in favour? That is carried. So, if those who SPEAKER_06_b 03:50:09.799
Aren't staff in the. SPEAKER_06_b 04:19:53.570
I think they're still outside too, waiting to come back in. Are they? I don't know. They're going out the door, I think. I can hear them. No, I don't think they're streaming. I'll go and have a look. It's on. They're waiting to have a chance to have a conversation. It's on. SPEAKER_02_b 04:20:10.430
Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 04:20:11.850
Thank you. Okay, so welcome back to the council meeting. We have a recommendation in front of us in terms of a confidential item. I can't see the recommendation. Okay, so Cathy if you could just bring up the recommendation please. SPEAKER_06_b 04:21:03.800
So why are we going to read all of it? Cathy 04:21:05.880
I'll just make it a bit smaller. Thank you. There you go. Amelia Lorentson 04:21:13.720
I'll move it over on the other side. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 04:21:18.279
Okay. Would someone like to move the staff recommendation? I'm happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Do you wish to talk to it? I do not. Anyone wish to discuss? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And that brings us to the end of the meeting. The meeting closes at 4:52pm. Thank you councillors, thank you staff. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
