General Committee - 16 June 2025
Date: Monday, 16 June 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 06:21:10
Synopsis: NFIMP approvals, Path min 3m, Parking transparency, Quarterly updates, Grants endorsed pending funds, Env/Climate grants approved, Youth Connect sought, Conflicts managed, Q3 progress.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Deputations
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Community Grants Program endorsed across categories, noting totals and “subject to sufficient funds” in 2025/26 budget: Events $38,168.05 (Item 8.2), Programs/Projects $20,404 (8.3), Infrastructure $149,926.54 (8.4), Equipment $43,034.94 (8.5), Alliance Agreements $135,370.11 (8.6), Signature Events $55,500 (8.7); Quick Response/Individual Sports to be funded from remaining balance (8.1) (08:35–28:46; Items 8.1–8.7). Youth Connect deputation sought Council-backed monthly multi-agency forum, alcohol‑free youth events, and distribution of trauma-informed resources; noted QPS desire for diversion, not detention (01:44–07:55; Item 6.1). Environment Project Grants Round 20 ($23,832) and Climate Change Response Grants Round 5 ($50,000) approved (50:09–01:07:14; Item 8.8). Amendment to add an extra environment project (Teewah Bushland Biodiversity Restoration, $9,340) by increasing Environment Levy allocation failed on process/budget timing grounds (52:12–01:06:03; Item 8.8). Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan (NFIMP) approved with amendments: revert Massoud’s Slipway/Ely Park design to the November 2024 consultation version; quarterly progress via the Operational Plan reporting; provide public statement on current carparks and intended approach to future designation (01:51:33–05:54:53; Items 7.1, final motion A–E). Operational Plan Q3 noted: 107 initiatives; 76% on schedule; improvements in customer service and ICT response; major slippages linked to extended engagement and resourcing (06:06:51–06:19:46; Item 7.2). Items 8.9–8.14 (incl. Environmental Services Supplier Register, Biosphere Partnership, P&E Court Appeal re Function Facility at Ringtail Creek, Audit & Risk membership, May Financials, 2025/26 Fees & Charges) deferred to 19 June Ordinary (06:19:46; Procedural Motion). Council highlighted successful external funding leveraging for NFIMP (e.g., $1.8m Changing Places facility; revetment DRFA bid) (01:53:45–01:54:32; 02:21:16–02:25:36). Pathway standard for Gympie Terrace debated; AusRoads/TMR guidance cited; staff position is minimum 3m, desirable 3.5m in high-use recreational areas; 3m cap amendment lost (02:12:06–03:09:13; Item 7.1). Transparent carparking accounting: Council adopted “state current total and outline intended future designation approach,” not fixed net‑loss/ gain numbers (04:02:50–04:34:10; Amendment E carried in final) (Item 7.1). Quarterly status updates for NFIMP to continue via Operational Plan reporting to improve public visibility (03:39:09–03:54:35; Amendment D carried) (Item 7.1). Wetlands concept west of slipway: calls for mandatory EIA/hydrology reports withdrawn after staff confirmed such due diligence occurs at detailed design and that area already functions as tidal wetland (05:22:17–05:38:34; Item 7.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Jessica Phillips initially framed Hastings St Association link as declarable; Chair and CEO clarified sister‑in‑law in executive role is a prescribed conflict; she left and did not vote (29:13–32:37; Minutes 8.2). Environment grants “add one more” amendment (Teewah) triggered process concerns: pre‑budget allocation, policy equity, and precedent; failed 2–5 (01:04:50–01:07:14; Minutes 8.8 Amendment Lost). NFIMP pathway width cap (3m) argued for character retention vs. safety/access; staff referenced Austroads/TMR; amendment lost (02:44:23–03:09:13; Item 7.1 Amendment No.1 Lost). Parking transparency: initial bid to publish precinct-wide net change including unmarked spaces failed; compromise adopted—state current total and intended designation approach (04:01:55–04:34:10; Amendments No.5 Lost, No.6 Carried; Item 7.1). Quarterly public-facing NFIMP reporting added to bolster community trust post-2024 consultation backlash (03:39:09–03:54:35; Amendment No.4 Carried; Item 7.1). Massoud’s Slipway layout: Council reverted to Nov 2024 consultation graphic after operator feedback; safety concerns (reversing over paths) noted; further refinement at detailed design (04:50:23–05:20:17; Item 7.1 A.1). Legal / Risk Conflict handling applied per Local Government Act 2009 Ch 5B; councillors with prescribed conflicts left room and did not vote (Minutes 8.2, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7; 29:04–45:38). Budget law compliance: grants resolutions conditioned “subject to sufficient funds” and staff cautioned against pre‑adoption allocations; environment levy augmentation flagged for BR1/BR2 if needed (01:03:10–01:11:23; Items 8.1–8.8). Climate hazard basis: CHAP uses State-guided 0.8 m SLR to 2100 (QCoast2100), aligned with Council policy; adaptive updates to utilise new CSIRO/BOM/IPCC data (03:18:18–03:21:28; Item 7.1). NFIMP staging ensures each precinct undergoes detailed design, statutory approvals (e.g., coastal, stormwater) and engagement before works; quarterly reporting creates audit trail (01:59:22–02:06:11; 03:39:09–03:54:35; Item 7.1). Pending litigation item (Planning & Environment Court Appeal re Ringtail Creek Function Facility) deferred—no discussion on merits (06:19:46; Item 8.11 deferred). Conflicts of Interest Jessica Phillips : Prescribed COI—relative on Hastings St Association executive; left for Item 8.2 (29:13–32:37; Minutes 8.2). Tom Wegener : Prescribed COI—committee member, Pomona Arts Inc.; left for Items 8.5 and 8.6 (35:56–41:46; Minutes 8.5, 8.6). Nicola Wilson : Prescribed COIs—SVP Noosa Arts Theatre (8.6) and partner on Cooroy Chamber executive (8.7); left; Frank Wilkie declared precautionary link to a donor re Noosa Alive! and left (37:32–45:38; Minutes 8.6, 8.7). Environmental Concerns & Infrastructure (Foreshore, Grants, Climate) Environment Project Grants prioritised turtle conservation and citizen science; oversubscribed rounds with rigorous panel scoring and moderation; conflicts screened (53:24–54:27; 50:09–01:01:54; Item 8.8). NFIMP integrates QCoast2100 resilience options: living shorelines, shade/cool refugia, revetment renewal, and stormwater upgrades; leverages grants (01:54:32–02:12:06; 02:09:40–02:12:06; Item 7.1). Chaplin Park wetland concept builds on existing tidal inundation; further risk/technical assessments at detailed design; intent to enhance water quality and flood performance (05:26:20–05:38:34; Item 7.1). Shared path width set via detailed design per Austroads/TMR; high‑use sections near boat ramp flagged for 3.5 m to reduce conflicts and improve accessibility (02:19:10–03:04:32; Item 7.1). Stormwater outfall renewals prioritised with DRFA co‑funding; sequencing to precede surface works; Mill St drain daylighting cited as aspirational improvement (02:09:40–02:12:06; 02:12:48–02:20:58; Item 7.1). Community Safety & Youth Janelle Parsons reported youth congregation on Hastings St, e‑scooter misuse, school disengagement; QPS (Senior Sgt John Farrell) supports prevention over detention; asked Council to co‑facilitate Youth Connect and fund alcohol‑free events/resources (01:44–07:55; Item 6.1). Councillors acknowledged grants and partnerships as preventive tools; staff outlined streamlined grants access and training for volunteers (08:35–22:23; 24:10–25:10; Items 8.1 ff.). Planning, Parking & Access (Noosaville Foreshore) Narrow precincts will rely on wider shared paths vs fully separated bikeways to retain parking and character; cycle lanes marked on-road, with slow recreational cycling on paths (02:12:48–02:17:18; 02:15:44–02:17:18; Item 7.1). Parking management plan to audit spaces, timing, disability/loading, and stakeholder needs; tech trial costs noted; time-controls preferred before net number increases (02:33:52–02:37:20; 02:35:30–02:36:32; Item 7.1). Boat ramp pinch-point: safety upgrades (offsets, shade, width) justified by CRM complaints; existing 2.8 m path inadequate for inclusive access (02:42:24–02:43:25; Item 7.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 16 June 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 16 JUNE 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 Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE MINUTES DATED 12 MAY 2025 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 12 May 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS 6.1. DEPUTATION: YOUTH CONNECT GROUP APPLICANT: JANELLE PARSONS SPEAKERS: JANELLE PARSONS 7. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES Dealt with after Item 8.8. 8. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 8.1. 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM SUMMARY - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS, THREE-YEAR COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AGREEMENTS AND THREE-YEAR SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENTS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council: A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025 outlining the summary of the 202526 Community Project Grants, Three-Year Community Alliance Agreements and Three-Year Signature Community Event Grants; and B. Fund the Quick Response Grants and Individual Sports Development Grants categories from the remaining 2025/26 Community Project Grants budget subject to sufficient funds being allocated in Council’s adopted 2025/26 Community Grants Program budget. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 8.2. 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (EVENTS) Cr Jessica Phillips "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 - I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 8.2 - 2025- 2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (EVENTS) on this agenda because in relation to the funding recommendation to the Hastings St Association as my sister-in-law Joanne Phillips is on the committee of the Hastings St Association. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.". Cr Phillips left the meeting room. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025; and B. Approve the 2025-26 Community Project Grants (Events) as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $38,168.05 being allocated in Council's adopted 2025-26 Community Grants Program budget. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Cr Phillips having declared a conflict of interest was not eligible to vote. Cr Phillips returned to the meeting room. 8.3. 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM – COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (PROGRAM/PROJECTS) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025; and B. Approve the 2025-26 Community Project Grants - Programs/Projects as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $20,404 being allocated in Council's adopted 2025-26 Community Grants Program budget. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 8.4. 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (INFRASTRUCTURE) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025; and B. Approve the 2025-26 Community Project Grants (Infrastructure) as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $149,926.54 being allocated in Council's adopted 2025-26 Community Grants Program budget. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 8.5. 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (EQUIPMENT) Cr Tom Wegener "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 - I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 8.5 - 2025- 2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (EQUIPMENT) in relation to the funding application to Pomona Arts Inc. (Majestic Theatre) on this agenda as I am a committee member of Pomona Arts Inc. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on." Cr Tom Wegener left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025; and B. Approve the 2025-2026 Community Project Grants (Equipment) as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $43,034.94 being allocated in Council’s adopted 2025/26 Community Grants Program budget. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Cr Wegener having declared a conflict of interest was not eligible to vote. Cr Wegener returned to the meeting room. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 8.6. 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - THREE-YEAR COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AGREEMENTS Cr Nicola Wilson "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 - I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 8.6 - 2025- 2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - THREE-YEAR COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AGREEMENTS on this agenda in relation to the funding recommendation to Noosa Arts Theatre as I am the Senior Vice President. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on." Cr Nicola Wilson left the meeting. Cr Frank Wilkie I, Cr Wilkie, inform the meeting that I no longer have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I have resigned from my position as committee member of the Noosa Arts Theatre, one of the recommended recipients of an Alliance Grant. I am now a general member (life member) and volunteer of the theatre. Cr Tom Wegener "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 - I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 8.6 - 20252026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - Three-Year Community Alliance Agreements in relation to the funding application to Pomona Arts Inc. (Majestic Theatre) on this agenda as I am a committee member of Pomona Arts Inc. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.". Cr Tom Wegener left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025; and B. Approve the 2025-26 Community Grants for Three-Year Community Alliance Agreements as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $135,370.11 being allocated in Council’s adopted 2025-26 Community Grants Program budget. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None Crs Wegener & Wilson having declared a conflict of interest were not eligible to vote. Cr Tom Wegener returned to the meeting. Cr Nicola Wilson returned to the meeting. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 8.7. 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - THREE-YEAR SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENT GRANTS Cr Nicola Wilson "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest for Item 8.7 - 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - THREE-YEAR SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENT GRANTS on this matter in relation to the funding recommendation to the Cooroy Chamber of Commerce as my partner (Roy Vanderberg) is on the executive committee. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on." Cr Wilson left the meeting. Cr Frank Wilkie "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest for Item 8.7 - 2025-2026 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - THREE-YEAR SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENT GRANTS ON this in relation to the funding recommendation to Noosa Alive!. According to the Queensland Government’s Guide to Conflicts of Interests dated April 2025, being solely a Patron of an organisation does not in itself constitute a declarable conflict of interest. However, I would like to declare as a precautionary measure that I have a link to one of Noosa Alive’s patrons David Williamson in that Mr Williamson has contributed to my previous and current election campaigns to a value of more than $2000 which is considered a prescribed conflict if Mr Williamson or a group he was an executive committee member of were to be the recipient of council funding. As a result of this electoral donation link and potential conflict of interest, for full disclosure and to avoid any perceptions of bias regarding my consideration of Noosa Alive’s grant submission, I choose to leave the meeting room in accordance with my legislative obligations." Cr Wilkie left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025; and B. Approve the 2025-26 Three-Year Signature Community Event Grants as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $55,500 being allocated in the adopted 2025-26 Council budget. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None Crs Wilkie & Wilson having declared a conflict of interest were not eligible to vote. Cr Frank Wilkie returned to the meeting. Cr Nicola Wilson returned to the meeting. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 8.8. ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE GRANTS - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 20), CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 5) Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025 regarding applications for the Environment Project Grants (Round 20) and Climate Change Resilience Grants (Round 5), and approve the recommendations to fund projects totalling the amounts below: A. Environment Project Grants (Attachment 1) - $23,832 B. Climate Change Response Grants (Attachment 2) - $50,000 Amendment Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That A be amended to read: A. Environment Project Grants (Attachment 1) - with the inclusion of Teewah Bushland Biodiversity Restoration Initiative (Stage A) to a value of $9,340 and (if necessary) the draft 2025-26 Environment Levy budget be amended to cover a total of $33,163. Lost. For: Cr Brian Stockwell & Cr Nicola Wilson Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Against: Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 June 2025 regarding applications for the Environment Project Grants (Round 20) and Climate Change Resilience Grants (Round 5), and approve the recommendations to fund projects totalling the amounts below: A. Environment Project Grants (Attachment 1) - $23,832 B. Climate Change Response Grants (Attachment 2) - $50,000 Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: Cr Nicola Wilson GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 7.1. NOOSAVILLE FORESHORE INFRASTRUCTURE MASTERPLAN (REFERRED FROM SERVICES AND ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 10 JUNE 2025 - ITEM 7.2) The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Phillips – refer to Attachments: Attachment 1 to the General Committee Minutes 16 June 2025 - DTMR Austroads Guide Attachment 2 to the General Commitee Minutes 16 June 2025 - NFIMP Massoud's Slipway Site Plan Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Director Infrastructure Services to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 10 June 2025 and A. Approve the final Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan, provided at Attachment 1; and B. Authorise the CEO to implement the final Master Plan in order to enhance and protect Noosaville foreshore for both current and future generations including using the document as a key support document to attract grant funding for infrastructure renewal C. Note that each stage of subsequent delivery of the master plan will be subject to detailed design refinement, taking guidance from the endorsed master plan, and will be subject to ongoing community consultation including key stakeholders to ensure the most appropriate detailed design response as the community evolves over the next 20 years. Amendment No.1 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item A. be amended to read: A. Approve the final Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan, provided at Attachment 1 subject to: 1. A maximum shared pathway width of 3 metres for all of the foreshore; Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Against: Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 Amendment No.2 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item D. be added to read: D. Note the Noosa Foreshore Management Plan is a living document, open to ongoing refinement in response to community feedback, emerging data, and evolving local priorities. Given the original use of high-end climate scenarios (e.g. RCP 8.5), Council supports an adaptive management approach that balances risk, science, and cost-effective solutions. Ongoing consultation will occur with key user groups including boaties, fishers, residents, businesses, and environmental stakeholders. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Against: Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No.3 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item D. be added to read: D. Ensure regular updates on the Plan are made available to the public via the project webpage, with formal annual status reports presented to Council to track progress, timelines and community priorities. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Against: Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No.4 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item D. be added to read: D. Continue to provide quarterly progress or status reports as part of the Operational Plan reporting regime on the implementation of the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan, to ensure transparency and keep the community informed of key milestones, timelines, and any changes to project delivery. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 Amendment No.5 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item E be added to read: E. Amend the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan to include a clear, publicly accessible statement showing the total number of existing and proposed car parks across the precinct, including designated and undesignated / unmarked carparks, standard, accessible, motorcycle, scooter, loading and drop-off bays dash; with a net figure of overall loss or gain, based on a precinct-wide audit. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Against: Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No.6 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item E be added to read: E. Amend the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan to include a clear, publicly accessible statement showing the total number of carparks currently available and outline the intended approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Amendment No.7 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item F be added to read: F. That any redesign of parking areas within the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan precinct must result in no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including designated and undesignated / unmarked carparking, PWD (accessible) spaces, and loading / drop-off zones dash; unless an equivalent or greater number of spaces is reallocated within the precinct and clearly identified during the detailed design phase. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Against: Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 Amendment No.8 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item F be added to read: F. Prior to any detailed design or construction of the proposed new wetlands west of the slipway at Chaplin Park, Council should undertake a risk assessment. This includes commissioning an independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Hydrology Report. These reports must demonstrate that the wetland proposal does not increase health risks (e.g., mosquitoes, cane toads) or flooding risks to nearby residents or the broader community and does not increase risks to the health of the river. Lost. For: None Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Against: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Director Infrastructure Services to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 10 June 2025 and A. Approve the final Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan, provided at Attachment 1; subject to 1. Reverting the design approach for the Massouds Slipway and Jetty in Ely Park to that as shown on the consultation version endorsed by Council at its meeting of the 6 November 2024. B. Authorise the CEO to implement the final Master Plan in order to enhance and protect Noosaville foreshore for both current and future generations including using the document as a key support document to attract grant funding for infrastructure renewal C. Note that each stage of subsequent delivery of the master plan will be subject to detailed design refinement, taking guidance from the endorsed master plan, and will be subject to ongoing community consultation including key stakeholders to ensure the most appropriate detailed design response as the community evolves over the next 20 years. D. Continue to provide quarterly progress or status reports as part of the Operational Plan reporting regime on the implementation of the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan, to ensure transparency and keep the community informed of key milestones, timelines, and any changes to project delivery. E. Amend the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan to include a clear, publicly accessible statement showing the total number of carparks currently available and outline the intended approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. Carried Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr For: Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 7.2 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2024-25 Q3 QUARTERLY REPORTING . (REFERRED FROM SERVICES AND ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 10 JUNE 2025 - ITEM 8.1) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the report by the Executive Officer to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 10 June 2025 regarding regarding the 2024-25 Operational Plan and: A. Note the progress report for Q3 2024-25 Operational Plan to 31 March 2025 provided as Attachment 1; B. Note the status of Council's Operational Key Performance Indicators provided as Attachment 2. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica For: Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Item numbers 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13 and 8.14 be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 19 June 2025. Carried. Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica For: Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 8.9. CONTRACT NO. RP00440 – REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS FOR PROVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 8.10. NOOSA BIOSPHERE RESERVE FOUNDATION LTD. PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 8.11. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 1391 OF 2025 - APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A FUNCTION FACILITY AT 658 LOUIS BAZO DRIVE, RINGTAIL CREEK 8.12. AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 8.13. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – MAY 2025 8.14. 2025-2026 FEES AND CHARGES GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2025 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 06:52 PM
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:13.400
Welcome to the Dune General Committee meeting. We acknowledge that Noosa Shire is the home of the Kabi Kabi peoples, the traditional custodians whose lands and waters we all now share. We recognise that the land and seascapes across the Shire have cultural, spiritual, social and economic significance to the traditional custodians. An appreciation of these unique values and their ancient and enduring culture deepens and enriches the life of our community. Attendance. We note that all councillors are in attendance. We also have some members in the gallery who are here. One is a deputation which we will hear straight after the minutes and the other may be in relation to the Noosa infrastructure master plan. We anticipate that item will take some time in the debate so we are going to reshuffle the agenda to do the reports in relation to the grants up front but they should not take a significant amount of time to deal with. So we then move to the general committee meeting minutes dated 12 May 2025. Do we have someone willing to move? I think Councillor Wegener was first and Councillor Wilkie was the second. I presume there will be no debate. All those in favour? That's unanimous. We now have a deputation from Janelle Parsons in regard to the Youth Connect group. So welcome Janelle if you can come to the left and then you have up to 15 minutes. Thank you. Janelle Parsons 01:44.076
Okay, good afternoon Mayor, CEO and Councillors. I am Janelle Parsons. Now I'm a qualified Councillor, a two-time published author, and a trauma recovery specialist, and I'm completing my final year of my psychology degree. Now I'm a qualified... I'm also a mother, a survivor of domestic violence, and also a childhood wife. I also have founded Rise and Thrive Co. It's a non-for-profit charity on the ground every single day working with youth across our region. I have lived through the system of values I know what it feels like to feel unseen and unheard. And I also know how dangerous it can be for young people who are left without guidance, connection or opportunity. I'm not here for your cause. I don't need it. I'm here because the safety and well-being of our youth and our community depend on action not just awareness. We need to do more than just talk. What's happening in Noosa is not isolated. Youth are gathering on Hastings Street every weekend, long weekend and school holidays. They go there because they've got nowhere else to go. E-scooters are being used in assaults, intimidation and to provoke police chases. Now these aren't hiding criminals. They are bored, disconnected and unmonitored youth looking for a sense of belonging in all the wrong places. Now I've talked to the police and they do not want... talk to the police and they do not want to lock these kids up underneath the new laws of adult crime, adult time. They want to work with us. Schools are exhausted. Families are overwhelmed. And our young people, well our young people, they feel invisible. Now I've spent months gathering first-hand accounts from Sunshine Beach State High where... where many students are disengaged and teachers are feeling unsupported. Noosa District State High, where schools are being forced to choose between funding literacy programs or providing better mental health services to their kids. And Noosa Flexi School, where students say to me outright, "No one listens to us." QPS officers, including Senior Sergeant John Farrell, have confirmed what we all know. This is a crisis of This is a crisis of connection, not of crime. It is about a privilege gap. Kids with everything materialised, but they lack in being given accountability. Kids who come from trauma and lack in love and opportunities. I'm here to propose to you a Youth Connect group. A monthly forum, where youth, schools, QPS and community services, we can all come together. Now this is about identifying issues early, sharing our resources, solving problems together and giving a youth a seat at the table. But that's just the beginning. We need alcohol free events, youth led events, during school holidays. We have led events during school holidays, live music, sport and workshops held away from Hastings Street in safe, accessible places, like the sports ovals we have near Noosa Junction. We must stop criticising parents and start supporting them with real tools, digital safety, trauma education and emotional regulation strategies. I have already created these resources through Rise and Thrive Co. and they can be delivered through schools, libraries and community hubs. All we need is a Noosa Council's backing. How else are we working? So just let me be clear, this is not a passion project. It's professionally built through lived experience and informed movement. I've turned my own journey through generational trauma into being an award-winning program writer and facilitator. Being a two-time author, my latest book, Roy's Journey to a Happy Home, was published to help young children who can understand and express their traumas. I coach basketball teams. I run school programs in our community. I've worked with 98 students in term one through eight. I started Sunshine High in term three and Noosa District as well. I work alongside QPS and frontline workers. I bring education and experience. And I'm now asking you to match that platform with your support. I'm formally requesting the Council support the establishment of a Youth Connect Group, co-facilitated with... The Youth Connect Group, co-facilitated with Rise and Thrive Co. That council invests in alcohol-free, youth-positive spaces and events during school holidays. And that Rise and Thrive's co-parent, parent resources and trauma-informed education tools be adopted and distributed across the Noosa region via council, library, and networks. You don't need to create the solution. I wrote that for you. What I need from you. What I need from you is access, amplification, and action. Because if we don't intervene now, we're going to pay for it later. In violence, disconnection, and broken futures. I'm not asking for permission. I'm offering my part. My partnership, my purpose, and a plan that works. You all would know someone, either directly in your network, your family, or your neighbour, who's experienced this. So I'm asking you to change the story of Noosa youth together. Brian Stockwell 07:55.780
Thank you, so councillors, we'll do section 8, items 1 through to 8 first. So the first item, the community grants, if we can bring... Kerri Contini 08:35.700
So the first report today we've got is a summary report of all our community grants. So community grants that we're considering this round are our community project grants which includes events, includes equipment, includes infrastructures and programs and projects. The other part we're bringing to the table is our three-year grants which is our alliance and signature community events. We are recommending We are recommending a total of $251,533.53 for our community project grants and for our three-year grants we're recommending $190,870.11. That then gives us a remaining budget of just over $111,000 to be put forward to our quick response, our individual sports grants and any emergent grant respondents that were received throughout the year as well. So this is our first year that we're running the new policy and our new policy only covers that one year of community grants. So it's only open for one year. We're then looking to open up our quick response grants in September. So we're looking for applications. But just in case some very emergent grants come through and they slip the gap in terms of that one year, we've also got a little bit of remaining budget to cover that. Brian Stockwell 09:52.426
Thank you. Do we have any questions from the floor? Yes, thank you to the Chair. Karen Finzel 09:58.186
Thank you for your report. It was well written and informative. Given we've had Given we've had new policies and there's a bit of transition going on in the community, I question through the chair to the staff, I just have a couple of questions just to help with the education process and support people, mostly volunteers, that are having to make these applications. My question is what is the process when determining the allocation of monies to ensure equity and fairness is applied to each individual application including number of Application, including number of events held across the Shire in each town location. Very good question, Council, through the Chair. Kerri Contini 10:37.070
So we have a very transparent and consistent approach when talking about the assessment and allocation of our grant funding. For community projects, I was talking specifically for community projects, each application is evaluated on its individual merit against the set criteria. So that set criteria for community projects includes demonstrated need, benefit to the organisation and wider community, alignment to a strategic goals and key initiatives. Contributions, so what the applicant contributes, whether it's financial or in-kind contributions and organisation's capability to actually deliver the event or deliver the project. Once scored by the actual officer, we then take it to a moderation panel which is made up of senior staff for the actual moderation. It's actually been presented to the councillors as part of a workshop. To ensure the equity and fairness, consideration is also given to the geographic distribution of the grant funding across the Shire as well, so we do look at that in terms of our community project grants and the other consideration that we always look at The question that we always look at as well is obviously the grant availability, sorry, the budget availability allocated to grants. So we are working towards a proposed budget as such for '25, '26 and that's the budget we work towards. Thank you. Nicola Wilson 11:52.700
It's fair to say that historically it's always a difficult space. The value of the applications that come in is always greater than the budget that we have. We're in a fantastic position that council does support the community through community grants. So it's a very stringent process that we go through to make sure Thank you, following on from that, how is Noosa Council addressing red tape reduction across our community grants program to help support our volunteers who spend considerable hours working diligently on their applications to Council? Thank you, Councillor. Another good question. Thank you. Kerri Contini 12:41.504
So, Councillor recognises the really important role that volunteers play in this space. They support our community. We really need our own volunteers to do this for us. So, in terms of responses to our grant applications, we've recently reviewed our community grants policy to make it easier and supportive for our volunteers to apply. We've also re-looked at our We've also re-looked at our guidelines and application forms to try and streamline it so we're not requesting such detailed information, so whatever information we're receiving we're actually utilising. Our application forms are just seeking that essential information. We've got three year community grant categories in place as well, so those organisations that are looking to do long term events or we're giving them three year grant applications, we're offering Applications. We're offering grant running workshops throughout the community. We also do our Grants Network and Nibbles Nights as well where we bring in external grant bodies too to look at grant opportunities for those particular organisations. We also offer development officer to provide support with running their applications and that development officer not only looks at community grants that we supply as council but also external grant opportunities as well so we really do tap into other our external partners and we also offer our online system as well through SmartyGrants so it's not paper based etc and we do take on board people's feedback and I think that's the most essential part that we do look at so one of those pieces of feedback that we received this round is we've got events that have been occurring in July we only let organisations know at the end of June or once budget comes down that they're actually successful so we need So we need to reconsider our guidelines and ensure that we incorporate some of those events from July /August time period, so that gives them assurance that they do have funding moving forward. Karen Finzel 14:35.176
I think a particular example, Councillor Finzel, is that through the review that we've done, we recognise that the three-year grant programs offers certainty to groups for the three years, but it's also a lot of work to do. It's very attractive funding, everybody wants to get a three-year grant, so that requires a lot of work, and that can then be putting a lot of work in, but actually you... you don't meet the criteria, or you don't have a strong case, so we've introduced a two-stage process, which enables organisations to just put in an expression of interest, which is only a small amount of information, really the key information that helps the assessment panel understand, you know, what is the proposal, does it meet the criteria, etc. And then for those that do, they go on and do a full application. For those that don't, then they will be referred, say, to back to the community grant program, which is single-year funding, and referred to work with a community development officer, so that they can better position themselves for the next round of three-year funding. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, I did ask about, and I might have missed it, the number of events held across the Shire. In the process for your evaluation, do you also check, like, do we have equity across the Shire, like X, you know, down at the coast, versus X in the hinterland? Kerri Contini 16:04.432
Absolutely, in terms of our events, yes, we do look at the geographic location of events, yes. Karen Finzel 16:10.492
It's absolutely part of what we look at to try and get a spread, but, for example, if we had an application come in that did not score very well, even though it might have been in an area that was underrepresented, we wouldn't recommend that funding. actually, fundamentally, there were issues with the event, but we try to get a word spread across the Shire. I think what the development officers do really well, too, is provide detailed feedback as well, so, to the applicant, so if they're in contact with the development if we could see that. Kerri Contini 16:40.767
Contact with the development officer. They will get that feedback along the way while they're writing their application and once, if they're unsuccessful or they didn't receive the funding that they require, the development officer will actually meet with them and look at other opportunities to support them as well. Thank you. In terms of opportunities, so you mentioned before there are some organisations that have events July /August and today they'll be formally notified whether they've been successful or not. Some may have not received the funding that they were anticipating. In terms of assurance, are they still eligible to reapply under either our emergent grants or our quick response grants? Can they reapply to help meet that shortfall? And are there other opportunities? Can we reallocate resources, for example, under our placemaking project to help them meet the shortfall? I think to answer part of that question, so our quick response grants won't be up until September. So we need that time to open those particular grants up. The emergent grants? Yes, so quick response, emergent grants, we call it quick response. So if an event is actually happening in July then obviously they would not be able to repatch that quick response. Karen Finzel 18:05.049
So what I would say is that when an applicant is funded under one program they're generally not then funded under another program for the same thing. What we do do, though, is work with the applicant to say how else can you support the activity that you're wanting to do. If the money that has been provided isn't sufficient, what else can you do? Often what we find is that it's really natural for community organisations to come to council. Our application process is very simple compared to a lot of other application processes, but there's a lot of other funding that's available out there, so our grants officer's role is to work with that community organisation and say what else can you look at? Are there other bodies? Is there philanthropic funding? Is there a revenue based element that you could include into your activity? And often lots of ideas. Jessica Phillips 19:03.520
Just in relation to the more just wondering if there's a process that we have to check the success of the project. So if we're talking about three years, so for our alliance and signature community events, at the end of each year we do require an acquittal of their funds, which looks at the progress of their activity that they're doing, and then they need to show the case that they've actually spent that money on the appropriate items, and then we'll actually, and then we would sign that off, and then they would re-invoice us for that second year. So we're talking about single year? Or more just like measuring the success of the program rather than that process. Kerri Contini 19:50.491
Yeah, yeah. So the success of the program is absolutely captured in their acquittal. They have to report, because when they apply, they will have made certain commitments, they will be saying about certain outcomes that they're going to achieve, and covers so the acquittal all that. They have to provide demonstrated evidence that they achieved what they said they were going to achieve, whether that's in terms of volume of numbers or a change that was going to occur or number of people that they were going to engage. And balancing that though against an administrative burden, so we won't be asking for things that are really unnecessary, that just puts too much of a burden on the volunteer organisation. and balancing I do think we've also had those discussions as well internally, some of our improvements too, is how to celebrate some of those great successes as well, so not only celebrating that an organisation's put on an event or particular event, but what have we actually got out of that, so from a council perspective as well, so making that sure that we are celebrating and letting people know. Jessica Phillips 20:53.003
Just one more question, how do we communicate, what's the strategy around how a community would know that the grants are coming and the application process and things like that? Yep, yep, so in terms of when the grants actually open, a number of different ways. So the traditional ways, newspaper, social media, etc. We've also got our community connect e-news as well that goes out to all not-for-profit community organisations that are on our mailing list, so I think there's over 600 on our mailing list at the moment. We do our grants networks, nipples nights, we do our grants workshops and then we've also got development offices that are allocated to particular community organisations that they work with. Karen Finzel 21:32.102
And any of the say for example the three-year funding agreements all of the current recipients would get contacted directly and I always say to staff have you know people's lives are busy people's lives are busy things can disappear through emails have you made a phone call to make sure that they know about it so they try and reach out that way. Our challenge obviously is we are dealing with volunteers not for a proper organisation so there is turnover so yeah there are slip some that through the gaps hence why we do making sure through our policy that we would allow out of rounds if there was an emergent need for it. Frank Wilkie 22:13.206
Thank you Chair. The grants program has evolved over the years. What is the total amount that's reinvested back in the community now by this grants program annually? Karen Finzel 22:23.626
The total grants program including things like sports, field maintenance etc. Approximately one million dollars, probably across the year and it covers a lot. So today we've got the one-year grants community and grants and then then community alliance and signature grants but there's halls and communities, there's sports fields and sports grounds, there's quite a few. And could you explain a bit about what the individual sports development grants is about and what led to... So through the work that we've done with our sports organisations and understanding we've got great talent out there, this feedback has come back through us over a couple of years that it can be then really expensive for families to be able to support their young people. who are reaching say state level, national level, international level competition and there's not a lot of avenues to be able to get some support through that and so this comes about through that work that we've done to say how can council demonstrate that we're supporting our up-and-coming talent so this is something this has come through the grant This is something, this has come through the grants review policy that we are going to trial and because it's not something that you can have once a year and say okay everybody you need to get your application in now, we're going to trial it over what we call a rolling open round. And as people this need comes up they will be able to apply for it. So looking forward to seeing what comes through the process. Also planning to open that in September as well. Amelia Lorentson 24:10.236
I am going to just raise another question and that's because I've received a phone call earlier this morning in relation to the Pomona Fun Day. It's a significant event, a vibrant event and it is what the Pomona community Frank Wilkie 24:48.820
Point of order Mr Chair, this sounds like advocating for a grants recipient rather than asking a question. I accept that, but can I just reiterate your commitment to working proactively with the local organisations and giving them proactive feedback. Thank you very much and I accept the point of order. Brian Stockwell 25:10.485
Councillor Finzel's going to move the recommendation. I'll second it then, Mr Chair. You've got the floor, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 25:16.845
Yes, thank you. Look, I think this is one of the things that we all love to celebrate in our role here. We're all here because it's all about our communities and our benefactors sit at the centre of everything we do. I wish I had more money to hand out because I think, you know, as we give to these groups and the people in our community, we all thrive and everyone benefits. We could spend the afternoon here addressing all the benefits that these community grants bring to our individuals, to our young people, to our ageing population and to our environment. So I'm happy to move this and look forward to hearing all the good news and the celebrations. They come forth when we see community connect with one another and we know that that builds real resilience and given the impacts of weather events and what's happening in our community now, it just keeps coming and I think these grants contribute to building that resilience in community, bringing people together to connect with one another and build that relationships that in times of trouble, you know, we all need our neighbour, our friends, so I think it's a wonderful time and for me personally, it's a highlight in my role here. Thank you and thank you to all the staff. Brian Stockwell 26:31.271
Anyone else wish to talk to the nation? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 26:36.571
Yeah, I agree with what Councillor Finzel said. I reiterate what Councillor Finzel said, that this is probably one of the highlights of our job, giving money to good community groups. I want to stress we're not handing out money, what we're doing is investing. Investing in people, in ideas, and the future of Noosa. With grants that empower seriously passionate locals to drive... Projects that make a real difference. Work that can't be resourced internally, but it's essential in protecting what makes this place so special. For me, what grants offer is a unique opportunity or window into who we are as a community and what we truly value. They highlight the causes that this community champion, the issues that we refuse to ignore, and the legacy that we're building for our future generations. Just, again, not about financial support, it's just about enabling good people to do great things for our community. So, thank you and happy to support being reported by Noosa. Brian Stockwell 27:49.760
Anyone else? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 27:52.000
Just quickly, yeah, I'll back up the other councillors' comments. You guys, Alison, Kerri, thank you very much. It's a fantastic team that does the whole grant program. My experience has been phenomenal. I just would like to mention to councillors, next year at the budget, I would like us to throw a little bit more money into the bucket. I think it's money very well spent, as Emily said. Kerri Contini 28:18.730
Thank you, just through the chair I just wanted to make sure Kelly Shore is our new grants officer, she's only got a bit out of the table probably last six or seven weeks and she's doing a phenomenal job so just watch this space I think we see some great improvements and great celebrations around the grants that we're providing to our community as well. So we're providing to our community as well, so we're all focused on that. Brian Stockwell 28:40.085
Anyone else? Councillor Finzel, do you wish to close? Karen Finzel 28:43.405
I think it's all been said, we just look forward to the celebration. Brian Stockwell 28:46.765
Okay, I put the motion. All those in favour? That's carried unanimously. We then move on to the second of it, which is one of the specific grants, which is the '25-26 Community Grant Program, Community Project Grants' events. Vince, do we have... Frank Wilkie 29:04.800
Are there any conflicts? Do we have a conflict? Brian Stockwell 29:08.620
Sorry, too quick. Councillor. Jessica Phillips 29:13.980
Thank you. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009... I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, item 8.2, 2025-26, community grants program, community project grants events. In this matter, in relation to the funding... In relation to the funding recommendation to the Hastings Street Association, as my sister-in-law, Joanna Phillips, is on the committee of the Hastings Street Association. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because my sister-in-law does not stand to receive a personal benefit. Therefore, I will choose to... remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Brian Stockwell 30:01.860
I've got a question first, Councillor. Have you sort of guidance on whether this is a declarable or a prescribed? Jessica Phillips 30:09.240
Larry, I have spoken to Larry about this one. This is where we landed. Brian Stockwell 30:17.730
The sister-in-law will be a close associate under the Act and the amount and she's on the committee so she holds the executive position. She's not just a normal member? That's a very good question. Jessica Phillips 30:35.350
I haven't clarified her role because she's just a normal committee member. Brian Stockwell 30:40.390
Committee or? Amelia Lorentson 30:46.680
Does she have any decision made in the House? That's the question. Jessica Phillips 30:53.760
I'll deal with it. It's up to her to try and clarify. Well, because I don't want to say... So in the absence of clarity, I would suggest the safest thing to do would be to leave the room. Yeah, OK. I'm happy to respect the decision of the chair. Brian Stockwell 31:11.708
Oh, yeah, you don't have to. It's just, if you're unclear, my view would be that if she's on a committee that is an executive of the role and that she's a close associate, I believe, under the Act, that would make her deprived, if that's the case. And Councillor Finzel, you? Karen Finzel 31:36.860
Well, I've got the compliance mandatory training manual in front of me, and on page 59, it says if a council voluntarily declares a conflict of interest with any of these matters, this is taken to be a declarable conflict of interest, as if the eligible councillors have declared it, decided it is. So are you saying we don't think there's enough information around the room to keep it declarable? Brian Stockwell 32:03.716
With the words that was used that she's on the committee and the declaration, that would normally in my view trigger it being as described rather than declarable. Amelia Lorentson 32:13.516
It's quite correct. Through the Chair, I have the Hastings Road Association website in front of me, the executive committee... the executive committee has Councillor' sister-in-law as the vice president, unless that's not current. Brian Stockwell 32:28.928
I think that... I made the right call. Yeah. Larry Sengstock 32:33.288
That's my error. Mm. Brian Stockwell 32:37.348
So, do we have any questions or would someone like to move to the recommendation? Amelia Lorentson 32:42.164
Happy to move the recommendation. Happy to... Happy to second it. Councillor Lorentson moved, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson, do you want to talk to this? Um, no. Just saying this is what I did initially. Thank you for the hard work and thank you for your commitment, um, to bring this great sport. Okay. Larry Sengstock 32:59.124
Any other councillors wish to talk to the item? Karen Finzel 33:03.004
No. Yeah. Yeah. I'd just like also to add, like, on top of the great work our staff does, I'd like to just acknowledge the hard work that all the, um, the committees and the corporations and the volunteers do. They do put a lot of their time and energy, um, into putting these great... into putting these grants in, so I also would like to, um, acknowledge the amount of work that they do. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 33:24.652
All done. Councillor Lorentson, may you... All set, thank you very much. Put the motion, those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay, we move on to third item in this section, which is community grant program, community project grant programs and projects. Do we have any questions or someone willing to move the recommendations? This is number three. Oh, please check. Check, is there any comments? No? Frank Wilkie 34:27.500
We're right now. Happy to move it. To move, Brian Stockwell 34:30.200
Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 34:33.020
Oh, look, this is just part of the program of $1 million-plus that we invest back in the community each year. As being said, it is a credit to the volunteers of these organisations that do have to go through the process of applying for these grants It does require effort on their part, but they do a great job in making Noosa a great community to live, part of the social fabric of the community. and acquitting the grant. Happy to support. Brian Stockwell 35:02.648
Anyone else wish to talk? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We move on to the fourth item which is 2536 Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants, Infrastructure. Do we have any declarations on this one? No. Do we have any questions or someone willing to move it? Moved. Karen Finzel 35:25.928
Happy to second. Brian Stockwell 35:26.908
Moved, Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 35:29.908
I have my right to speak. Brian Stockwell 35:31.528
Anyone else wish to speak? Anyone else wish to speak? Anyone else wish to speak to this one? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And we move on to the fifth item, which is community grants program, community project grants for equipment. Do we have any declarations to be made on this particular item? It looks like we do. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 35:56.588
Okay, yes, I thought it was the next one. In accordance with chapter 55B of the Local Government Act, I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to item 8.5, the 2025-2006 community grants program, community project grants equipment, in relation to the funding application to Pomona Arts, the Majestic Theatre, on this agenda as I am a community member of the Pomona Arts Incorporation, and as a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted off. Brian Stockwell 36:37.560
We've got someone willing to move the motion. Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor. Nicola Wilson 36:51.180
No, just some excellent community groups that we're supporting through these, so glad to do it. Brian Stockwell 36:58.040
Anyone else wish to discuss the matter? I'll put the motion those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Move on to the sixth item which is community grants program, three year community alliance agreements. Frank Wilkie 37:23.300
Do we have a declaration or one declaration? Nicola Wilson 37:27.280
Yes we do. Amelia Lorentson 37:29.220
Councillor Wilson. Brian Stockwell 37:30.960
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 37:32.800
In accordance with... In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I inform the meeting that I have prescribed conflict of interest in relation to item 8.6, 2025-26 Community Grants program, three-year community alliance agreements on this agenda in relation to the funding recommendation to Noosa Arts Theatre as I am the Senior Vice President. As a result of my convict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. I will exit stage one. Larry Sengstock 38:39.520
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 38:56.240
I, Councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting that I no longer have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I resign from my position as Committee Member for Noosa Shire. I am one of the recommended recipients of an IONS grant. I am now a General Life member and a volunteer. Brian Stockwell 39:16.594
I have a conflict of interest on 8.6 here, Mr Chair, which is Mona Arts, Incorporated, Tom Wegener 39:49.380
It's nice to see that there's lots of conflicts of interest because that means that you actually were on the boards and working, you know, with these fantastic organizations. Okay. I'll just change that. Oh, yes, sir. Nicola Wilson 40:06.020
Charity. Brian Stockwell 40:12.760
I won. That's great. We're good? Nicola Wilson 40:14.060
Uh-huh. Tom Wegener 40:49.540
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to item 5, 8.6 actually, 2025 through 2026 Community Grants Alliance to the Year Community Alliance, Community Alliance Agreements in relation to the funding application to the Pomona Arts Majestic Theatre. On this agenda, as I am a committee member of the Pomona Arts Incorporation, as a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is. Brian Stockwell 41:46.840
I think we've said a lot, but I do love the signature events, because when I've worked on committees back in the past, you know, applying for these grants, you know, rolling over, alliance grants, my apologies, I got excited. I think it's great because it leaves the committee to get on with the job of delivering what they need to bring to the community. So I love, I love these and I think it's a wonderful opportunity. And I know when you meet with committee members that actually get, finally get this Okay, we now move on to 8.7, which is 25-26, community grants program, three year signature community event grants. Do we have any declarations in regard to this one? Yes, we do. Nicola Wilson 43:11.120
We'll go to Councillor Wilson first. Based on what you said about Councillor earlier on, I think this is already described. Brian Stockwell 43:25.140
Yes, yes, I think so. Apologies. Nicola Wilson 43:30.640
So, just change that to describe? Yes. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest for item 8.7, 2025-26 community grants program, three-year signature community event grants. On this matter, in relation to the funding recommendation, recommendation to the Cooroy Chamber of Commerce, as my partner, Roy Vanderbilt, is on the executive committee. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted. Larry Sengstock 44:16.900
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I inform the meeting I have declared will conflict of interest around 8.7 community events per year and 3-year signature community events grants on this in relation to the funding recommendation to initial life. According to Queensland Government's Guide to Conflict of Interest, dated April 25, being solely a patron of... being solely a patron of an organisation does not in itself constitute a terrible conflict of interest. However, I would like to declare as a precautionary measure that I have linked to one of Mr O 'Reilly's patrons, David Williamson, and that Mr Williamson has contributed to my previous and current election campaign to a value of more than $2,000, which is considered a prescribed conflict if Mr Williamson or a group he was an executive committee member of were to be the recipient of... Subjective committee member of whether to be the recipient of grant funding. As a result of this electoral donation and potential prescribed conflict of interest, for full disclosure and to avoid any perceptions of bias regarding my consideration of this trial's grant submission, I will choose to leave the meeting room in accordance with my legislative obligations. Brian Stockwell 45:13.336
Um, Councillor Wilkie, just before you go, I don't think the words that you said reflect in the last... I think as a result of this election relation, I think, I think you said "and potential competition" versus "and prescribed competition". Frank Wilkie 45:26.900
I'll leave it as, it's, it's ambiguous, but I'm declaring as out of an abundance of caution. So, I'm happy to leave it. Brian Stockwell 45:38.720
As prescribed? Yeah. As you say, the, the, your patron is not the same as any second amendment. No. I would just, you could just even leave that link "and potential conflict of interest" Yeah. It's up to you. Yeah. Okay. Frank Wilkie 45:58.240
A potential conflict of interest. As long as it's declared and I'm not in, part of the decision. Brian Stockwell 46:12.520
Okay. Councillors, do you have any questions or someone willing to move the recommendation? I will move the recommendation. Can we move Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wegener? No. We're correct to speak. Anyone else wish to speak? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? As you know, we'll see if we can invite that councillor back in. We can invite Cheyenne and Ben, if there's those two, to the table and they can give us an overview of item 8, which is Environment and Climate Change Resilience Grants, Environment and Project Grants Round 30, Climate Change Resilience Grants. Thanks very much, Chair. We've had the rounds 20 and rounds 5 of the Environmental Project Grants and Climate Change Resilience Grants applications were put out, or applications were open in between early February and late March this year. We received a total of 15 applications, 10 for the Environment Grants and 5 for the Climate Change Grants. This year we changed our application process a little bit where we had a requirement of each application for candidates to be engaged with council offices prior to submitting their application. So we can test Applications, so we can testify that all 15 applications were really strong and aligned really well with council strategies and plans and current programs as well, so our strength of application this year is absolutely fantastic. We received, for the environment project grants, we received 10 applications to the total of $172,000. We've got a budgeted grant amount for $23,000, just over $23,000, and they're funded from the environment levy. With our climate change resilience grants, we've got a We've got a general rates budget of $50,000 and we received applications for a total of just over $120,000, so both grant schemes were oversubscribed. Once we received all the grant applications, we got a pool of assessors together from the environment team and the climate change team, we went through conflicts of interest in making sure that nobody who either had a, no council officers that had a connection to the grant applicants or had been engaged with them to submit an application were part of the assessment panel. So from then that staff pool were able to allocate independent assessors and each assessment panel was made up of one management or coordinator, one technical officer with one officer with technical skill in those areas and one independent from outside who could look at the grant application without the technical experience but could look at the merits of the grant application to see how it matched up against the different strategies. Following our assessments, we then ranked all of the applications for the environment grants and ranked all of the climate change grants. Shaun Walsh 49:37.175
Following our assessment Strategies. We then had a moderation session with Director Kim Rawlings and we went through a recommendation that was put through to council through this report. Brian Stockwell 50:02.020
Okay, councillors, do we have any questions or is someone willing to move the recommendation? Amelia Lorentson 50:09.900
Councillor Lorentson? I'll move the second. Brian Stockwell 50:12.240
Councillor? Amelia Lorentson 50:15.578
Thank you for the report and for allocating funds to really important environmental projects, again I go back to what the Greens talked to me about and it's about the people who love this place so much and are willing to give up their free time to protect exactly what they love. It also showcases the depth of the expertise that we have in this community. So happy to support and I think a feeling around this table is I wish we had some more money in the pool. Thank you. Nicola Wilson 51:47.200
So Brian's developing something. Brian Stockwell 51:50.860
Do you want me to bring it up? I've got it here. Nicola Wilson 51:53.960
Yeah. That covers the whole motion. So. Ah, sure. Yeah, is that how you'd like to do it? Brian Stockwell 52:12.000
That's fine. Yes. Okay, my amendment is that A, be amended to read perhaps, put the word read in there. A, environmental project grants attachment one at $23,000. $23,382 with the inclusion of the Teewah Bushland Biodiversity Restoration Initiative Stage A to a value of $9,340. And if necessary, the draft 2526, environmentally, environment levy budget be amended to cover the total of $33,163. Frank Wilkie 52:50.345
Can I just question Can I just question the figures. Sorry. Brian Stockwell 52:55.747
That doesn't look right. That one you've got in orange there should read 9,340 from memories. Amelia Lorentson 53:03.847
Yes it is, 9,340, yeah. Nicola Wilson 53:11.107
I'll just take that out. Brian Stockwell 53:22.220
Do you have a question Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 53:24.000
Yeah, I think if I understand correctly the Teewah Landowners Association Turtle Trackers Monitoring and Conservation Initiative The Turtle Trackers Monitoring and Conservation Initiative was recommended for full funding at $15,025. Shaun Walsh 53:41.836
That's correct, close to full funding. Yeah, and Wildlife Noosa recommended for full funding at $10,762. Essentially, yes. So that makes a total of $25,700. What am I missing? You're missing the star there. Which I think is there. There were some minor adjustments that were made to both of those projects because they were quite detailed in terms of what was budgeted for that money. And so we're taking small amounts out of that for the recommendation just to be able to adjust it to the twenty three thousand eight hundred dollars that we had for twenty three thousand eight hundred and twenty three dollars so that we had that matching up. Frank Wilkie 54:27.797
So the maths are right now? That's correct. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 54:31.577
Do we have a seconder? Frank Wilkie 54:33.097
I'll second it for the purpose of the debate. Brian Stockwell 54:34.557
Yes, so councillors, as the staff have referenced, we had a number of high quality applications. The one that I am proposing we add in, it was the third ranked project, which is the one immediately after two that were recommended, that the cut-off line was based on the total budget being available to be that which was in this current year's budget. The amount The amount of these individual grants was reduced two years ago to supplement some three-year budgets but the actual overall budget for grants under the environment levy hasn't increased in recent years. My suggestion is that the total budget for environmental grants as part of the allocation Part of the allocation of the environmental levies that we receive next year to be increased to allow the approval of three applications rather than two, and that's... As the staff have identified their words, this is a really good project that aligns with CHAP and the environmental strategy, strong in kind and community ownership. It's a particularly valuable project that it's starting the community getting involved in the management of the North Shore Coast. It's a... Happy? It is one of the highest risk areas of the coast. And so I think that... And so I think that the ability to allocate environmental levy funds next year allows us to actually just include... Tom Wegener 56:22.640
Maybe Ben could you describe the project to us? Sure. Shaun Walsh 56:27.360
Through the Chair it's an environmental restoration grant for an area of bushland reserve just south of Teewah Village which is directly on the foreshores and we know that it's a particularly weak area so it's stage one of what will be... quite a well-planned project to strengthen the native vegetation of the area which will provide the resilience that that community needs particularly for road access in and out so it's it's adjacent to Teewah Village just to the south works in community land and benefits the community. with the um that track there because there's a high tide people might be driving up on the dunes would that have an effect on that what we're going to be restoring i believe it's back back from that and so it takes in the the high tide area and it's there's the section of dunes behind that which is which is for the the protection but yes But yes, driving on dunes does impact the resilience all across Teewah Beach. Tom Wegener 57:36.425
Could I just let you know that there's coffee rock under there, and at times that coffee rock has been exposed, and if you actually have had a very difficult time driving at Tewant, through the coffee rocks once they're exposed, so that may be another justification for the management there to hold the sand into place. It can certainly support it, yes. Amelia Lorentson 57:57.717
I highly support the initiative. I know a little bit about it and I think it's a great initiative. Probably my question is around process. And precedence. So are we circumventing good process? Is this a fair and transparent way to be approving grants? All right, so the question may be to yourself, Ben, or maybe... And is this sort of a little bit dangerous because we start setting a precedent to circumvent what I understand is excellent... Government's excellent process, probity and equity. I'm just unsure if this is an unfair advantage. Larry Sengstock 58:47.321
Yeah, I'm not fully, I'll have to say I'm not fully familiar about this one coming in so I'll defer to Ben for a moment and then I'll make my call on that. So I can talk to the process that we've had to assess and rank all of the projects which is essentially what's been presented to council. From that process, I'll jump forward a little bit, from that process that ranking... with the numbers or the requested funds allocated to it, that's where we could see quite clearly these two projects can get funded from what is budgeted. Everything below that obviously fell outside of the budget process. To be able to step back as to how we got the ranking, so it was based on our... Based on our application, which is 70 questions, which is a fairly deep dive into the merits of the project and the assessment criteria that we've got, there's a suite of weighted assessment criteria which is provided in the report. Once we've got the application then it's three separate council offices assessing the application based on those criteria and that's done independently. And then everybody comes together, all the assessors come together to be able to work out those different variations from individual assessors and so all the group comes together we talk about all the different projects and that's where we come up with a ranking which this is how we've ended up with one, two, three, four, five down to ten. It's not saying ten doesn't have merit but assessed against the other ones it's the council offices with the technical expertise. Plus being able to deep dive and match them up against the different strategies. That's how we've got those criteria. Where that funding gets drawn, council offices made a recommendation through which is part of that paper to this is how much money we've got. This is where it gets put to. Discussions beyond that, that's the motion on the table. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:46.718
I think my question is more to the line should the recommendation have come from staff or a councillor? I've just never seen this before in my five years and just asking the question is this Thank you. Is this okay? Kim, maybe you can answer the question? Yeah, in terms of process. The projects that sit below the line of what's been recommended, the lines drawn there because of the money that is available. So if there was more money that was available, this project would have been recommended. Yeah, it would have been the third one. So it's not that it didn't meet criteria or didn't, you know, we literally had to draw the line with what the available funds were. So this project absolutely meets all of the criteria. And you follow the same property plan. Exactly the same. Can I just ask a subsequent. In setting the total amount available, staff have to assume that the budget's going to have the same amount in it as last year, is that correct? Nicola Wilson 01:01:54.462
Yes, that's correct. That's all we came to. That's all, absolutely. Yeah. So, just to comment, I think the purpose here is really to for us to approve further budget, not that we're selecting particular projects. Larry Sengstock 01:02:08.355
That's right. Yeah, that's right. Jessica Phillips 01:02:11.195
Yeah, so that's my question to clarify as well. So, the funding isn't Funding is available if the budget, which we haven't had yet, then there'll be extra, which is your suggestion? I'm suggesting that the budget be framed around putting extra... into the environment levy, environment grants as part of the allocation of next year's environment levy funding. Frank Wilkie 01:02:37.127
Question. With the environment levy, the funds proposed to be levied for... levied for the environment in next year's budget, this money will be available as part of the budget? Yes. And Councillor Stockwell is saying that that extra amount will be allocated to that particular program within the environmental levy schedule. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:57.911
Can I ask a process question? Yeah. We haven't ratified our budget yet, so how can this amendment be supported until that's been signed off? Nicola Wilson 01:03:10.451
So the levy, the levy budget is in existence and unless that is changed... Once that is changed, then it's maintained. We have an allocated amount in the levy budget towards grants, which we've worked within. There are some funds in reserve in the levy that still exist, and we've also done, in the preparations for the budget, some reshuffling. Some reshuffling around projects and expenditure next year. So there is some small capacity in the levy next year, but that's absolutely correct. This is all subject to the budget process. All the allocation of our grants are across all the grant programs. So it's all correct, all still subject to budget. Brian Stockwell 01:04:03.268
And just one other question, are environmental grants now aligned with community grants? Jessica Phillips 01:04:14.560
Except for our multi-year environment grants which are every three years I'll just speak to it I want to support it but I'm gonna say I'm against it only because the process feels really not right to me without the ratified budget so I think next year if there's if there's funding through the budget and I can't see why if it's every year it doesn't come through like like due process for everyone else. Frank Wilkie 01:04:50.649
Question maybe for Ben or Kim when it comes to determining how next year's environment levy funds are going to be distributed would there be a councillor is it the big councillor workshop around that could we have a councillor workshop around that? Nicola Wilson 01:05:12.282
Through the chair we can have another workshop we've had budget workshops yes and they that the allocation of the levy was covered through that process councillor Wilkie yes if we wanted to change what's proposed under the proposed levy well it Well it does does get get, it does go through and gets ratified through the budget process so there it is. We have, we have, Director of Corporate Services, we have finished the workshop process and the next step is to report the budget to Council. So if there's a reshuffling of that, it probably needs to be done at the budget review. It needs to be done at the budget review, BR1 or BR2 process, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:03.369
Question. Under our emergent grants or quick response grants, can the Tier 1 group make an application for a small part of this project to be funded under the emergent grant process? Nicola Wilson 01:06:17.008
We don't have emergent or quick response grants. Or September? No, we don't. It's quite different. The funding source is different here. We've been through the levy. It's an interesting question because our economic development grants and our community grants now both have quick response and emergent grants. We don't have that in environment grants, that option. So we have three categories that exist already, but we don't have a merchant because the nature of them tend to be project based and require quite a lot of pre-planning. We have three categories. So yes, we have the annual program, which has the environment projects and alliance grants, and then we have the multi-year project grants, which are three year. Frank Wilkie 01:07:14.360
Council. Yes, thank you through the chair. Thank you for the report to the staff. I understand the merits of assessment and the weightings have gone through a very rigorous process, and that's all above board. I fully support that. My challenge here today is the process around allocating funding. Funding I don't know what the word is like forward or yes so I guess my question is well firstly the wording if necessary on that I don't like it because I don't think it supports clear clear enough enough what is trying to be said which I'm a bit uncertain myself um you said can you just tell me the two projects that have been through the chair um funded please can remind you me where those funds are drawn from through the chair I don't know what the word is. Karen Finzel 01:08:12.132
To the staff so they're currently drawn from the environment now I haven't got the environment levy um in front of me to to um the policy to to inform inform this this when we talk about the number of monies allocated and we've said that the third one couldn't go in because of the bucket of money in the policy for the environment levy through the chair to the CEO um how does that work is that through the policy does it tell us that it's constrained to only two is it you know know i'm i'm just just confused confused because i think i feel sort of like it's been raised with other councillors i feel this process and it's not about the merits and the waiting i feel that's above you know it sticks all the boxes i'm just a bit i don't know confused about this process now around how we're pulling money if necessary i mean i like i like the um the dots dotted and the t's crossed so through the CEO can you please tell me about how we've arrived at this Larry Sengstock 01:09:27.220
Right, so my understanding from this is that we have an allocation through our budget process, we have an allocation for each of the grants. Our officers have assessed all the grants that have been applied for. And then recommended particular, those two, that fit within our allocation amount. So if we go higher than that, it means we are drawing down on next year's budget. It has not been approved as yet. So that makes it difficult for our staff, and we would have to go back and readjust our budget, even though our budget has not been approved yet. So it's a bit of a, and that's the problem of doing it at this time of year, because we've got a catch-22 where we've got a fair understanding of what the budget is going to be, but we've not, until it's ratified, we can't actually allocate it. We can only allocate what we believe is there from previous years, and that's what our staff have done. So that makes it difficult. Again, I understand that this is a very worthy project and I hope to be standing in the way of it, but from a process point of view, it's my opinion that this is now allocating all... Well, allocating or forecasting money that we haven't actually agreed on for our projects, even though it may well be capable of being accommodated, but we haven't actually agreed on it. But it's sort of the chicken before the egg exercise that we've found ourselves in at the time. Brian Stockwell 01:10:57.770
So, I think I might ask the director, the process for the is that it's based on assumption of what's in the draft budget. There's no current, definite allocation for any grants in the current year. It's all about what may be in the next Maybe in the next, the next one, Andrew here, is that correct? Kerri Contini 01:11:21.566
Yes, through the chair, that is correct. Brian Stockwell 01:11:23.846
Okay, so, and I'll leave it at that. Mr. Frank Wilkie 01:11:30.926
Chair, Mr Chair, Mr Chair, I also believe the Teewah Landowners Association's grant application is extremely worthy. I also note that they're also the recipient of the grant already is part of this environmental grant round. I'm also a stickler for process. What you're saying and asking for can be accommodated, but But what I have a difficulty with is at this stage of the budget process where we've worked very hard to come up with a proposed budget with allocations. This would involve a minor change to that, change to budget documents, and it doesn't sit well with me for projects. Charity of process and the fact that the Teewah group is already the recipient of a grant and that there may be other ways we can fund their project. Unfortunately I cannot support this amendment. Nicola Wilson 01:13:04.480
Through you Chair, sorry I've just got some more clarification if I can. So at the same time grant assessments were done through the selection was based on the prior year's allocation with the finalisation... of the environment levy through the budget workshops there was a small unallocated amount of the environment levy which has been used to increase the allocation of those grant funds. All of the grants being considered as subject to adoption of the budget. So if I could, through the Chair, make a recommendation that the recommendations say subject to budget. I think a small, through the Chair... A small, through the Chair, that small wording will then facilitate a decision. Rather than, if necessary, rather than take our 30/09/2005 subject to, subject to... Adequate budget in the 25/26 environmental levy. Is that right? Amelia Lorentson 01:14:03.938
Yes. I'll speak to it. Brian Stockwell 01:14:05.818
I'll just make a note of this before we do. It was a suggestion of staff, but the whole council has agreed to that. Nicola Wilson 01:14:13.278
Is that what I've done? Brian Stockwell 01:14:28.980
Now, I think it's too late to change words, I understand. I think it's going to die Amelia Lorentson 01:14:33.320
So... I'll speak to it, regardless of... Regardless of adding those extra words, I think the fact that we're all sitting around a table and we're all confused, uncertain, asking questions about does this circumvent process, is it transparent? I think it simply doesn't make the part test. I think we have made a commitment to our community to be transparent in their processes. I, again, single the process of this initiative, I don't think there's anyone around this table that doesn't want this initiative to go ahead, but I think we just need to understand that this is precedent. And let's just follow June process. We haven't passed the pub test on this one, so I won't be giving it my support. Nicola Wilson 01:15:24.446
I will support this one. I believe at this stage, the reason it's complicated and confusing is because we haven't adopted the budget yet, and within the we wouldn't have to actually increase the amount that's raised by the environment levy, we just need to reallocate funds within that levy, so if we were to say there is a bigger budget available for the environmental grants, then the staff recommendation would be to include more, more initiatives, so I'm not as confused and believe it's a worthy Brian Stockwell 01:16:07.760
Yeah look I don't think it's about confusion I think it's seeking clarification just to reiterate the staff said that this could be reviewed in the next budget review too, is that correct? I think what was just said is it wouldn't need to be reviewed because as it stands there was a small amount available. There was a small amount of other... Karen Finzel 01:16:28.664
Through the Chair, question to the Chair. Yes. In the past, from memory, has this issue come up before? Brian Stockwell 01:16:39.164
I'm thinking that I'm pretty sure I've had a project in before. Yes, and I think this has, you know, I think we're at that same point, so I'm just wondering, how do you propose to address... That's a good question, because I've been thinking, I think the problem we're in is that we're approving grants that haven't got any budget, all of them, so probably next year what we need to do is have a recommendation and a consideration of the value of grants before they actually go out to the community. So we need to lock in an amount prior to the budget, because the issue here is... Because the issue here is, it's my view that, you know, just including CPI, you'd want to increase the amount that they're able to maintain status quo on the project, so the only way to have certainty would be actually to adopt an amount earlier. Like we do say for Karewin Park, please. Karen Finzel 01:17:30.514
And this, I guess, yeah. So... Cancel it. Larry Sengstock 01:17:39.772
We could say subject to budget because it is relying on a budget that's adopted. My question would be that it sets up, because we have a number of grants and grant opportunities, and we're going to be doing this for every grant group. Which, again, falls within our process. We can do that. It's a matter of, as councillors, do we want to start that? Because, again, you're right, we have to adopt the budget, so therefore we're actually doing something without knowing exactly what the budget's going to be. And officers have been working on last year's budget, because that's the process that we currently have. So if we put it subject to budget, then it would be up to councillors then at that point. But my fear is that it starts to go wrong for all of the other groups. So it might be something we can take back and review and look at because of this timing, as you said. Nicola Wilson 01:18:45.496
I would say that that is being different from a levy funded process being different from the others. Mr Mayor, what we spoke before, would this change have the consequence of changing all of the budget documents? Frank Wilkie 01:19:02.644
Some of them. Amelia Lorentson 01:19:07.204
It's all incorporated in there. As a quick statement, it's based on the current use allocation. So there's an amount that is similar to that. Unless there was some complete divergence. Apologies. Nicola Wilson 01:19:20.208
Unless there was a complete divergence from what has already been discussed and agreed in principle at various budget workshops. And it would not be practic- And it would not be practicable to actually completely redo everything in the next couple of weeks before the budget adoption of the third budget. Frank Wilkie 01:19:39.494
Not do the whole budget package. No, I understand that. Can I ask a question? The extra money allocation for this grant program, would that have to be in effect? Nicola Wilson 01:19:51.520
It could be taken up in Budget Review 1. Frank Wilkie 01:19:55.920
I'm saying if we approve this amendment, would that extra allocation need to be reflected in the budget document? That's my point, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:10.040
Can I throw a question through to Chi, maybe CEO. Would an amendment that just notes that if there is surplus, then Council will then consider the next in line in grants can we... That would be a... Brian Stockwell 01:20:29.224
Probably a preferable option, but I think the majority... And that way we're not actually identifying what project that is. We're following the due process, which is whoever's next in line that got the most... We've got the most points, but it also acknowledges that there may be some extra funding in the levy and we can achieve the outcome we're seeking without the confusion. I keep going back to... Amelia Lorentson 01:20:57.828
Due process and confusion, and I think the confusion, it's not confusion, you're right, it's more about the wording, that we've actually identified a project, and that may be, back to the pub test, being perceived as we're giving priority or extra favour to a particular group. But maybe we can play with some wording, seek a five-minute break, Councillor Stockwell... 5-minute break. Councillor Stockwell, do you want to put some more wording together that if there is funding, once the budget has been ratified, then allocation of that goes to the next? This amendment will have to fall. Can I just raise a comment? I know like we're talking about from the now economic perspective, I just then go we've done a whole process. When we talk about then equity for everyone that's put the time in, you know, to put their applications in, for the process, for the staff? It's a process for the staff to go through. It's all robust and rigorous. I just feel now with this focus on the economic and around the budget, and rightly so, but then how do we address what you could say is that fair to all, you know, the process that's being followed and adhered to for transparency and openness before you head into, I guess my question is, would you please, I don't know, how you're going to take that into consideration with your wording? or question to the chair, fire to the CEO. How do you perceive that fairness through process? Larry Sengstock 01:22:35.529
Can I respond to that? I think your point is well made, Councillor. I think that the office is not just in the environment, but in other levies. What we've done is work toward the budget. And you'll see that we haven't allocated full requests to some to be able to fit more into the budget. So if we go down this path, then what we're doing is actually sort of destroying that process. and we're actually sort of destroying that process. If you like, I mean, we have to go back to do it. So I think as a fundamental, the issue we've got is we're allocating money based on what we think we're going to have in the budget as opposed to what we have in the budget because of the timing. So I think we need to go back and actually re-look at the process in general and see whether that, rather than, if we do it one off. It's just going to affect, potentially, those that we've allocated less monies to that we possibly might have wiped to, but because we've tried to fit more projects into the allocated bucket that we have in other areas. And again, levies is different to our grant funding, but it's still in the process and the principles are the same. Frank Wilkie 01:23:44.166
Question probably to staff. If, or Mr Chair, would there be, if we were to do this process, would there be a capacity to fit in other people on the priority list here? Where would it stop? How much? Where would you stop? Because there are other worthy projects on this list as Nicola Wilson 01:24:03.510
Well. Yeah, that's right. Brian Stockwell 01:24:05.350
So the question to me is, so my understanding is there is about $10,000 that is available. This project's $9,340. It's chosen because it's the third highest ranked, and that's status so people put in generally your income top top down um the CEO right is right there they has have to been i think a little bit changed off the top two applications whether that would be fair to come to another consideration um it's the so it's the amount that's available left over could could accommodate accommodate this this third third prior priority but not the fourth if the budget's right yeah and if the process is fair i don't yeah well Mr Chair can we deal with this amendment yeah well we haven't i'll close um i accept all the the concerns of councils um In my case, I suggested it. I was at the workshop on brands to hand on. the two petitions where we've done the environment that is not a surprise um i think we do need to increase the level of funding to these projects i think this third grade project is a key um initiative to start what is incredibly important work on the north shore in terms of the extreme weather events that we are having and are predicted to have more of um i don't think there is a need to be overly cautious such that um we have over a one year delay in um increasing money for grants i believe it's council's role to determine how much money they want put into grants um having said that i acknowledge that there could be a There could be a term of approach which would then allow staff to use any excess budget that is in there. Nicola Wilson 01:25:54.292
I'll move the motion. Those in favour? Those against? Oh, that was Councillor Wilson and Councillor Stockwell. I believe those against are Lorentson and Phillips, Wilkie, Finzel and... Considering the amount of time, I'm not going to move the second subsequent amendment. We can do that with Tractor 2G2 or something else. Thank you, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 01:26:25.380
Okay. We now need someone... No, it goes back to the original motion. Nicola Wilson 01:26:29.453
So, on the flip side of this, of the discussion we just had, just want to clarify councillor's role in this process. So, on the flip side of this... So, we do have workshops where we're presented with this, the rankings and the recommendations, and if we've made comment at the time or asked questions about... So the other side I want to add more in is to say I don't agree with that being funded then that isn't really our role to say that so then when we do get to a decision making meeting. We're not involved in the actual process in selecting which project should be funded and so then if you don't actually agree with that determination, what is our problem? Karen Finzel 01:27:48.856
The economic development grants that's delegated to staff. There are some grants and as per the policy it's councillors making the decision about those grants which may be funded or not funded. So ultimately the ones that come before you, you can make a decision around whether or not to fund them. What the staff bring to you is the end result of their process. Which in all the cases of our grants is a meticulously assessed and scored process and they recommend the ones that have scored the highest above the threshold of funding so they set the funding as per what is allocated in the draft budget. see in the community grants ones they say subject to sufficient funds being allocated in the 25-26 budget and should there be a situation between now and budget time when you if you change your view then staff would address that out the other side by either increasing or budget, and, you know, It is your decision to take the staff's recommendations through their considered process and then it's on the table for you as councillors to then decide around whether or not you would fund or not fund a particular application. And the staff are here to answer the questions about their assessment of those particular grants. Frank Wilkie 01:29:33.960
I'll speak to the motion, Mr Chair. There are a lot of worthy projects. The two that were selected for funding, Teewah Landowners Associates, the Turtle Trackers Monitoring Conservation Initiative. It's improving monitoring, reducing human impacts, increasing community awareness, contribute Turtle conservation on the North Shore includes acoustic monitoring, motion activation cameras, GPS data loggers, mesh netting, sand temperature sensors, signage, and training for volunteers at Mon Repos for the key volunteers. We know that the North Shore is a key area for turtle hatching. It is challenged up there because of the amount of vehicles on... Projects I'd like to see certainly wildlife Karen Finzel 01:31:32.960
It is a bit yeah I feel really uncomfortable about being here because you know I think we need a review of what we're doing to ensure that what we're bringing to the table after everyone does all this work our external community our internal staff and the councillors you know I think in 2025 we do need to be rigorous and have a contemporary review of what Point of order Mr Chair. Talking about a review of the whole process rather than a motion. Well I think I'm allowed to, excuse me you've interrupted through the chair follow the process. Point of order you can interrupt me if you can get your Frank Wilkie 01:32:14.891
Point of order in. Point of order Mr Chair with respect Councillor Finzel is talking about a review of the whole process whereas the motion before us is about the climate change resilience grants. And our debate needs to be restricted to that. We are deciding grants but I think Councillor Finzel started by saying she was uncomfortable about being in this position so I do I think refining targets to Targets to how how that that affects affects your your decision decision is appropriate. I understand where Councillor Wilkie's coming from, but if you can just take that on board, Councillor, we're not here to talk about the process of the grants program, we're here about how do we make this decision in front of us. So I don't think I'm going to say the point of order was correct, but I will actually just refine that to how that influences Karen Finzel 01:33:13.480
The process. I support the merits of assessments and the weighting and the rigorous process. In the past the grants before us for decision making today and now have in my opinion been impacted by a process that falls short in meeting the expectations of these grants to deliver equity to beneficiaries. fisheries. Brian Stockwell 01:33:41.440
I'll speak. I think the great thing is that the number of high quality applications we've received and it's unfortunate that not all of them can be funded and that's always a key issue with most grant processes that good quality applications haven't got the budget. We haven't talked much about the climate change We've talked very much about the climate change response grants which also had a considerable body of great community effort proposed. The issue we're dealing with I think is one that is of our process and that's about the uncertainty of an ultimate budget and I think we'll need to deal with that at some stage in the future. The issue for council I guess is here we have projects that are really getting on ground action and it's that balance that we will need to place in the future between how much we allocate for grants versus how much we allocate for reserve management versus how much we allocate for buying future land. Because as the impacts of extreme weather events and sea level rise and other climate change happens it may be it's more important to take urgent on the ground action than it is to take strategic protection but that's something for a later date. So I support all those groups that are getting the money and I think you know from memory this might be the first time that we've had staff put a public report to rank of applications. I think that's a actually a great step forward so we can see where we are if councillors make the decision to increase the budget. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wegener? I thought it would already be moved so I moved to amendment. Councillor Lorentson and Ed Burrows? Frank Wilkie 01:35:47.222
So didn't you move it? Brian Stockwell 01:35:48.342
I moved to amendment. You didn't vote for it, remember? Tom Wegener 01:35:52.262
I know you won't forget. Frank Wilkie 01:35:55.582
Just noticing how many fantastic opportunities have been lost due to lack of funding I would urge all of us I thought it would already be there Tom Wegener 01:36:02.362
Again to put more money into this bucket other buckets but when it comes to grant funding but especially the the environment levy for next year because Noosa is can be seen as a giant garden and it's a beautiful garden but bloody hell gardens are expensive they take a lot of maintenance to maintain the standard or else you lose it so I think it's really important. So I think it's really important for us to not only continue to buy properties, which are very important, critical for our wildlife corridors, but also maintain the properties that we have in our reserves. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:43.930
I'm just going to just summarise, I think. What's been said around this table, something, a great process that was supposed to be almost a tick and flick ended up in quite a bit of conversation. I think what the take home for me is we don't erode process. That if we are looking at making changes or there is gaps, then we do it properly. We go to the policy first. We look at the levy. Maybe we do introduce an urgent response application. So that groups like this don't have to wait a year to make an application. But I think again this is a big organisation and we have to have fair and transparent processes. We owe that to our community and it's also legislated. That's what we're supposed to do as a council our size. So great take homes and I think we've all learned quite a bit but a review of policy I think is probably the next step. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:37:50.560
And those against? Sorry, I'd better read it out. In favour was Lorentson and Phillips, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell, and against was Councillor Wilson. Councillors, I think at the beginning of the meeting I said that the grants workers... It's true. I'll let the CEO bring it forward. It has been an hour and 40 minutes. Are we ready to take five minutes? Yes, thanks, thanks Mr Chair. Is five minutes enough? Yes. Seven? Thanks be to God. Okay, welcome back. Returning to the agenda item which I had from the area. What if you would like to do a little bit of summary? Shaun Walsh 01:51:33.500
Thank you, Councillor. You might note that Dean Arnold, the project manager, is not in attendance. He's on extended leave overseas, so we're standing in for him rather than making this return to present the report. New Civil Foreshore is a beautiful and popular location for residents and visitors. It's where the coast and the suburbs and hinterland come together and enjoy each other's company and promenade, launch boats, stroll, picnic and swim against the stunning backdrop of the river and this hinterland. However, it's experiencing challenges from ageing infrastructure, tidal inundation and river flooding and erosion, as well as increasing visitation. The infrastructure master planning process over the last two years has been very important to establish a shared vision for the space of the community, so we ensure required infrastructure replacement meets the mark and meets climate challenges. A master plan is also fundamental to attract funding from the State and federal government as a sign of broad community support and astute investment for their funds. The first iteration of the draft plan which was released in June 2024 didn't get it right. The design approach was too overtly modern and the community had no appetite to relocate car parking spaces to liberate green space and achieve better cycling lanes. The second iteration of the plan released in November last year has largely met community expectations with a softer more responsive design embracing Noosa character that also provides sound direction for infrastructure replacement. A key focus for the finalisation of the plan has been significant community engagement including one-on-one conversations, pop-ups, meetings as well as the display on Council's website and media channels that has indicated significant community support for the modified approach. I'll hand over to Aidan to briefly discuss infrastructure planning aspects of the plan. We're going to discuss the infrastructure planning aspects of the plan and then I'll hand over to Shaun to discuss climate resilience. Thanks Shaun. So the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan will provide a clear direction for asset renewal in the future. It will allow Council to strategically renew infrastructure such as pathways, shelters, furniture, lighting and revertment walls in line with the 20 year vision. Council has successfully received grant funding for the Quota Park Changing Places facility through the SEQ CSP allocated funding program at a value of $1.8 million, so that's 100% funded by the State. The draft master plan has also formed the basis of Council's application for DRF funding for abatement wall renewal. This is leveraging Council's existing asset renewal budget and, if successful, will be 50/50 funded through the State. Council is also investing, gaining further grant opportunities such as growing regions for playground renewals such as the Pirate Park playground. I've been shown. Thanks. Cheyenne 01:54:32.713
With regard to foreshore resilience, the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan identified Noosaville foreshore as at high risk to future permanent inundation due to sea level rise as well as erosion and storm tide inundation. Council was successful in receiving $100,000 of grant funding from the State Department of From the State Department of Environment, Science, Tourism and Innovation, as well as LGAQ, to undertake a study on foreshore resilience options through the Pew Coast 2100 program. This project was integrated into the foreshore infrastructure master plan. The project set out to address three primary challenges: foreshore erosion, foreshore inundation due to sea level rise, and extreme heat, which are projected to increase in the future due to climate change. We work with expert river catchment consultants and partner with the University of We have worked together with the University of Sunshine Coast to develop solutions that complement and enhance the existing Noosa-wide natural character, improving ecological and environmental sustainability of the foreshore at the same time as improving resilience to growing risks. Through the project, we deployed micro-climate sensors in the foreshore, undertook urban heat island modelling, analysed the existing site context and projected impacts, assessed nature-based foreshore and shoreline options through a multi-criteria analysis Developed a 12D foreshore model and developed concept designs that can be taken forward for future detailed design projects. This has led to a set of design responses that are in keeping with the natural Noosa look and feel by using nature-based solutions, cool refugia, areas with large shade trees and cool breezes, and non-intrusive innovative and living foreshores to ensure the future resilience of this critical community space to tidal inundation, heat waves, and erosion in the future. It should be noted that these solutions should also help with other hazards such as riverine flooding and storm tide inundation such as that which we experienced in the recent ex-tropical cyclone algorithm. Thank you. Shaun Walsh 01:56:26.151
So that's our summary and we just want to thank everyone for their interest in the plan and the passionate community representation we've also received to get a much further improved plan. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:56:38.331
Questions? I think I saw Councillor Wilson. Yeah, thank you. Disability advocates have had input into this plan. Can you talk us through some of their key areas of interest and input please? Shaun Walsh 01:56:48.151
Yes, so they are involved in a number of one-on-one stakeholder meetings. so we don't have a peer disability you know group in the Shire so we targeted a number of carers who actually take people out on the foreshore regularly both to access the foreshore as well as use watercraft and their key feedback was firstly they're very appreciative the car park coming back so that's being honest that actually makes it a lot easier for them to drop off and pick up people they saw it you know wide graded smooth paths to actually make it easier for people to move around they're also very appreciative of the changing places facility and also the opportunities to improve our launching facilities for disabled disabled people who might want to get out on the water associated with any of the boat ramp or recreation area upgrades yes Thank you. for your report staff to help To help inform the community and iron out just some gaps perhaps in their knowledge I'm just going to ask through the chair what is the purpose of a master plan and how it works to inform the next 20 years so a master plan sets if you like a strategic framework about how we approach our joint investment in the space and manage it for the future and tries to forecast the changes that are coming and and also align with funding opportunities that might arise as well so so if you like it's not a detailed construction plan it sets a framework and the words are just as important as the visual graphics so about setting that framework and in any And in any part of a master plan it always is followed by very detailed concept design for each precinct or each area as funding becomes available and it's very usual that as part of that subsequent stage there's ongoing budget consideration, ongoing consideration. design challenges specific to that space and also consideration community engagement because expectations can sometimes change so that's a natural progression from the master plan through the concept and that's actually articulated in the master plan under page 35 about the next steps so and it also referenced page 5 of the master plan where it talks about the purpose of the master plan basically articulated. Karen Finzel 01:59:03.324
Just to follow on from that I know you mentioned that in the master plan but just to reiterate once it's ratified what's the opportunity for the community to remain on the journey and how will they be meaningfully engaged over the life of the 20 year master plan to give them opportunity. Shaun Walsh 01:59:22.968
Thank you councillor. So for instance one of the first projects that we're ready to roll with is the design of the changing places facility or the disabled you know toilet blocks in Kota Park or near the big pelican and so we'll actually again you know have a series of workshops with councillors And of course, you know, particular stakeholders, such as disability sectors, will make them very aware of the proposal, to make sure that they have a very clear view on whether they're approaching it correctly. And that is a process that will follow for any upgrade that will occur along the foreshore. Karen Finzel 02:00:09.251
Thank you. Nicola Wilson 02:00:11.691
Sort of following on from that as well, so could you please explain between the master plan and the design phase. Where the master plan has been quite specific in terms of things like pathway width or number of parking spaces and things. Where, I suppose, when is the point of no return? Like when does that actually get locked in or is it? Or is that time to revisit that at the design phase? Shaun Walsh 02:00:32.627
Yeah, again, as articulated on page 35 of the master plan, it could all, it could actually have further refinement. So, because stakeholder expectations could change, they might want to go to a six metre wide path. for a particular location because of specific issues where you might have multiple, you know, vehicles coming together. And I'm just saying that, you know, as... Or it might be that a particular business actually wants to relinquish a car parking space to encourage outdoor dining. So, it gets locked in at that concept design phase that then goes to detailed design documentation to allow construction to happen. So, it's a long way between what's in the master plan. And it's a long way between what's in the master plan now and what we'll end up seeing on the ground. And if you, for instance, compare the master plan that was prepared for the Corridor Mill site, you know, 20 years ago, and you see the way it's executed on the ground, the principles are there. There's a library, you know, there's a playground, there's a major revegetation of the creek, and there's also a restoration of a major heritage facility. But the nuances change quite significantly through that process as a result of that. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:34.297
In terms of the recent community consultation process, will the community feedback received since the release of the revised plan, will that be made publicly available? And probably what I really want to ask is will you also analyse the new feedback? What changes were made as a direct result of the community feedback during the most recent consultation process? Shaun Walsh 02:02:13.125
So the answer to the question is that of course where people have made submissions and written specific letters that will be getting a specific response back and of course we can try and tailor that to the maximum extent about what changes we have made so to the draft plan as a result of their submissions so it's not saying that they have to be clear that we always agree with this you know what they've said. but we'll actually let them know what the outcome of the council's decision was so that's that in terms of a summation or just an opportunity for the community to have access to that feedback will that be made publicly available on our website So we didn't release the community survey detailed results previously as part of the previous plan, but we can certainly release a significant executive summary about what the I'm very happy to take that on board, as well as the specific correspondence going out to the individuals. I think it's fair, a request that we actually put on the website, an overview of how we've actually responded. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:18.888
That would be great, thank you. Jessica Phillips 02:03:21.868
Question please, Shaun. Something that I sort of struggle with a little bit when we look at a 20-year master plan is when I see reference to key studies that inform it, and something that when I look at, say, the Noosa River Blood Study Upgrade Volume 4 being 2017. For being 2017 and then a future title inundation mapping 2018, I think, you know, from my questions at the SNO, I really just need to understand a little bit more around how we look 20 years ahead, but we're relying on quite older policies from council or from, so can you just help me out? So can you just help me understand that will those be updated throughout the process as well, and the outcomes from that, will that also form detailed design? Shaun Walsh 02:04:14.747
Yes, so firstly, sometimes you do have to make a punt on the form. You have to make a punt on forecasting for the future, and if I give an example of what happened after the significant river flooding in 1992, the Shire planner here in Noosa at that time, without any support from a major flood study or without support from the State planning policy, introduced a minimum floor level across Noosaville of 2.1 metres, a habitable floor level, on the basis of common sense. And luckily, following that, establishing that flood level, we had all the modern townhouse and housing development occur in Noosaville. And so, by and large, our floor levels were actually above the flood levels. And we're very, very fortunate that that planning process, on the basis of information to date, you know, set a direction for the future and made us very resilient. But in the- as a result of new information being presented over the years, that minimum floor level is now at 2.4 metres as a result of further refinement of flood level. So at every time we go and do a detailed concept of a particular site, whether it's a playground or whether it's like- we'll actually be re-evaluating the most contemporary information available and updating it. That's good professional practice. That's good professional practice that Council has definitely implemented in the past. Shaun, did you want to add anything to that? That was a very good summary. Thanks, Shaun. Cheyenne 02:05:29.322
With regard to those specific studies, that's the best available information we have at this time. We are updating both of them though, so as soon as that new information becomes available, aligned with best practice and more accurate, localised data collection, we will update what we've suggested. To ensure that the local area application, the construction, is done with the best available information. So that, again, feeds into detailed design process. The high level strategy is set now, but the detailed design process will take in the best available information. Once it becomes available. So we are updating our flood studies. We are developing a new overland flow model for the area. So we're working on it. Jessica Phillips 02:06:08.149
And just a quick follow up question. Will those all come back for a report to council? Shaun Walsh 02:06:11.725
Well, every time council develops a new strategy or has a new technical report, you know, that's very common practice that of course we report it through workshops. Sometimes it might be a briefing for your information. At other times it might require a council resolution because it's changing a particular practice like, you know, a new floor level or the like. Amelia Lorentson 02:06:33.745
The total project cost The total project cost is $559,401 including $100,000 that was provided by the Queensland Government through QCoast 2100 to develop a concept. that have been now integrated into the master plan. Shaun Walsh 02:06:54.092
In terms of the detailed designs, will there be additional cost for further consultation and the preparation of detailed design beyond detailed design beyond these initial concepts and how and when will the community be informed about progress especially regarding any additional consultation costs or design phases well firstly of course there will be additional costs associated with detailed design so that's part of the course of applying you know the most recent standards and and the like and you know as you're well aware we have a really well established community engagement program and that we plot out with the councillors in terms of coming months and then councillors and fellow staff recommend what the way we engage with the community and using various different approaches so yes certainly that Yes certainly that will be part and parcel of any new program. It's very difficult to roadmap how you go forth with that because you know we're really wanting this master plan to actually be opportunistic to make available for federal funding and state funding and we're not in control Funding and estate funding. And we're not in control of the way federal and the State, you know, distribute their money. Sometimes they've got a real flavour associated with, you know, climate resilience and coastal protection. Other years they might have a flavour on playgrounds. So, you know, we basically capitalise on what their theme or their, you know, strategy is at any given moment and then launch or jump onto that to actually make the best opportunity, the funding levels that are coming from various, you know, states. And it really, in terms of the budget that we set, it really depends on the extent of what council wants to achieve in the space. You know, do they want to achieve a very large playground or a modest playground? Does it want to achieve it with really complex, you know, all abilities playground equipment, which can be very expensive? And then also what level of community engagement we want. So I'd say it's really up to councillors to decide the appropriate budgets. Brian Stockwell 02:08:50.222
Any other questions? Jessica Phillips 02:08:52.362
Yes, please. Thanks. Just in reference, there's 29 drainage outfalls that have been identified in the plan that need infrastructure or that says vulnerability to tidal In the plan to when they would be prioritised because I can see I think it's called natural thank you and yes I can see that in there see but I can't 29 identified infrastructure on the priority list. Shaun Walsh 02:09:40.293
All of the stormwater infrastructure along the Gympie Terrace foreshore is coming close to end of life so we're already beyond what we'd perceive to be a reasonable life of infrastructure. We've got particular problems with pipes around Thomas Street near where the public boat ramp is and where the pits are and also with corrosion in the pipes. So that's one area we're particularly concerned about. So on the back of this master plan what we'll be trying to do is actually leverage off our renewal funding which replaces like for like. We're trying to see what grant funding we can get from state and federal processes to double our money. So that's a key aspect and then by getting better we can achieve bigger stormwater pipes because our renewal budget only covers you know to replace like for like. So we can achieve bigger stormwater pipes to get the stormwater away more quickly. It also allows us to consider natural channel design to better treat the stormwater and also gross pollutants. you need to make a terrible mess to lay pipes so you do it first and then you come back and then you do the surface landscaping pathways and playgrounds so I dare say that the first priority we're doing stormwater is to make sure that the stormwater around the changing places facility is up to scratch so we don't have to come back and do it again the next change to stormwater we would look at if we have a successful funding application for the revetment walls which is in with the State government at the moment then we'd make sure the stormwater is up to scratch for that so it'll really depend on where we're doing works and we need to make sure the stormwater is upgraded prior to the major works demensing or at the same time as part of it so again it gets back to that opportunistic responding to when the funding becomes available if council If Council, you know, wanted to release a significant amount of money for us to self-fund stormwater as much as possible, I'd love to see the rectification of the drain that runs along Mill Street, you know, where there's a new slipway, because we all know it's not the best So it's not the best image of Noosa Shire having, you know, pollutants running down that area and it doesn't really reflect our natural aspirations and there's a lot of really good design parameters that can actually balance operational needs like car parking with, you know, good resilient design as well as achieving really sound environmental drainage outcomes so that would be my personal priority to really daylight it but it really depends on the funding available. Jessica Phillips 02:12:06.255
Another question? Thank you. In the draft 80% from June 2024 I referenced that there was a recommendation that went to community on a reference of three metre pathways. I'm struggling a little bit to find in the plan that came to the special meeting in November or the one that I'm currently seeing now of any reference to the metre of the pathways that's going to be suggested and my second question to follow that up is with how a community then consulted if the original 80% said three and now that 80% said three, and now there's a suggestion of 3.5. Shaun Walsh 02:12:48.862
Yeah, so, I need to take that on notice, exactly whether 3.5 minutes is referenced in the plan. I don't know that off the top of my head, so. But the reports that have come to Council is that we've had two types of consultation, or two types of findings. There were 17 submissions from the 162 your say submissions saying that we didn't need to widen the pathways, so as an example, but then I think we have 40 submissions saying that we need to better deal with the conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists, so on the pathway. And you note that the change from the June 2024 report through the November 2024 report, remember the June design actually put the cyclists on the road, or on a dedicated way, and that was the impetus to remove car parking. So by almost changing track and By almost changing track and putting the car parking back, we've lost capacity to consider cycles on a separate route and we're having to push recreational cycles back on the pathway. So it's essentially a staff recommendation that to try and marry all of these competing factors, it seems wise to increase the shared pathway width from the bare minimum of 3 metres up to 3.5, which is more consistent with the OSRA. Did you want to add anything to that? Yeah, my understanding of that 80% plan was that the pathway was set at 3 metres, and then following the feedback that was increased, the feedback from the community, and then staff review. was that it would be increased to 3.5 at a minimum, and some of the feedback that we received was that now we should be separating bike riders from cyclists from cyclists from walkers and people walking their dogs and that sort of thing so we should have a separated cycle track off-road and a pathway which meant a two metre pathway and up to a three and a half metre two-way cycle track this is separate from your on-road cycle lanes we didn't have the space for that and the feedback from the community was that we didn't want a five lane highway through there so a compromise of three So a compromise of 3.5 metres was adopted and my understanding is that 3.5 metres has been kept consistent since that decision following the feedback from the 80% plan. But it's a fair statement to say that consistent with that previous discussion we had that this can be the first time we have some money to upgrade a pathway, we can look at the exact circumstances. We can look at the exact circumstances of the users in that location and determine the best width for that location. It could be that where the pathway is split, for instance, which is where we have room on the western end of the foreshore, we might be able to narrow the In order to narrow the shared path down to a more smaller standard, but where we've got the combined pathways we don't have any room, up on the eastern ends of it, we might need to really have a good think about what are the community expectations of the path at that location. Jessica Phillips 02:15:44.411
Thank you. In the new plan that we see today there is, what I can see is, what do we call the green, when the green part, the cycleway has been extended the whole way now on that new plan though that we see today. So there is consistency now about a cycle lane. On the road cycle lane, which is still shared with vehicle traffic. Yeah. The difference with the June 2024 plan that, you know, overtly modern one, is it provided a dedicated two-way cycle route or, you know, which is separate to the road traffic. So it's a very, very different approach. I only have one more question just around modelling then. Is there going to be, before any of the pathway upgrade, some modelling around how the use is? So there's data for the councillors around the table to see evidence-based decision of how many pedestrians, how many cyclists. My understanding is... You know someone doing over 30 kilometres an hour is probably going to go on the road and my kids who aren't going to trip someone over, they're pretty good cyclists now, but they're probably going to stick to the footpath so capturing the footpath so capturing data that gives councillors the understanding of who is actually using the foreshore for cycling as opposed to who's actually cycling to commute to work or um because I see it very different and so does TMR around the the um the someone that's cycling and someone's that's recreational cycling yeah I think capturing Shaun Walsh 02:17:18.545
That's a fair request to actually you know do some more do detailed survey counts to understand the mix and you're right that the pathway that we have through the path through the parklands is ideally for slow speed recreational users who are really having regard to the other users on the path whether it's pedestrians or whether it's disabled people and encouraging the faster cyclists to use the with the green lane The nature of the first design, what do you think Adam? Yeah I agree and I think it's important just to consider the different types of bike riders so we've got cyclists who are performance or sports cyclists who will stick to the road no matter the condition and then we've got the the crowd And then we've got the the crowd that we're sort of aiming for which is the people who are interested in riding a bike but don't feel safe to do so at the moment so we want to get them on a bike rather than driving a car so improving cycle lanes so that it feels safer and that's about interaction with parked cars and dooring zones but then also providing off-road facilities where we can so that people can ride slower with their children. Frank Wilkie 02:18:37.804
The point where the two paths west of the boat ramp converge near the boat ramp where they're trying to accommodate people walking dogs cyclists, pedestrians, people on scooters, e-bikes and runners, they converge near the boat ramp which is... was it was that considered a high-use recreational area? Would this be considered a high-use recreational park? Shaun Walsh 02:19:10.944
Yeah, the whole of the foreshore is mapped on our walking and cycling strategy as a principal recreational route. Frank Wilkie 02:19:18.204
And is that why under AusRoad's guide to road design they say the 3.5 metres is the desirable width for shared paths in high recreational areas, that's there. That's the recommendation for safety and inclusion in high-risk recreational areas. Is that, have you taken that as, what weight have you given to that? Shaun Walsh 02:19:37.778
Well, I think that's our, that's why our recommendation is for 3.5 metres. I think that's table 5.3 in, that's 6a of the, you know, the guidelines. So, because when you go through that full, you know, AusRAID standard, it goes into a lot of detailing about the path required for pedestrians, for people in wheelchairs, for people in bicycles. And so we're happy to take that as a, as a really appropriate standard. I think under that same table, they actually give a range of figures, which might even go to a wider than that, might even go up to four or 4.5 metres. Okay. Frank Wilkie 02:20:10.352
I'm happy to move the motion. We can still have questions. Brian Stockwell 02:20:19.232
Seconded by Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:20:22.246
Thank you. The final draft of the Noosaville foreshore master plan presenting an adaptable 20 year vision has responded to feedback from over a thousand residents and as promised has shaped a different plan than that presented in June 2024. Sorry, there's a motion that I prepared earlier, which takes on board some of the discussion around the table and makes the point that it's an evolving Amelia Lorentson 02:20:58.600
Process. Thank you very much. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:21:16.020
So the change to the original staff recommendation is note that each stage of subsequent delivery of the master plan will be subject to detailed design refinement, taking guidance from the endorsed master plan, will be subject to ongoing community consultation including key stakeholders Stakeholders to to ensure ensure the the most most appropriate appropriate detailed design response as the community evolves over the next 20 years. It's a very different plan than what was presented in June 24. Approaches to car parking, the tennis court, playgrounds, boating, public amenities, pathways and riverbank erosion have been refined to align with community feedback. our community would see their feedback reflected in this revised draft plan and that they felt it was a worthwhile process. back. He was earnestly hoping Many of the ideas received significantly improve on the first draft, such as leaving Pirate Park in its current location and including not replacing it with a natural play area. Like not replacing the tenants court but increasing public use of it, while upgrading it over time into a multi-use court, possibly also for basketball and picket ball. Instead of improving pedestrian and cycling safety through two separate paths, the length The length of Gympie Terrace, which would have involved removing on-road parking in the narrower strip of parkland east of the Thomas Street boat ramp, has been proposed to achieve a similar result by having one wider shared footpath in the narrower sections. Frank Wilkie 02:22:42.068
Disability advocates have been of Gympie Terrace, which would have involved removing pedestrian and cycling safety through two separate paths, the length of Gympie Terrace, which would have involved removing pedestrian Consulted and are looking forward to the wider shared pathway. According to the Austroads Guide to Road Design, page 29, it recommends 3.5 metres is a desirable width for shared paths in high-use recreational areas, which is, as we heard, defines the Gympie. The layout of the Thomas Street boat ramp is to remain untouched, but in order to fit a wider, safer, more inclusive and compliant treeline path around the boat ramp in this narrow section, it's proposed to convert 10 car parks to 18 motorcycle or scooter parks. This draft makes it clear that views to the river will not be blocked by any raised banks and that there will be gentle slopes planted with grass to the water's edge in well-used areas and low plantings and other The boardwalk proposed to be built over the rock wall of the eastern end of Gympie Terrace is now proposed to end at Howard Street instead of continuing along to Williams Street as originally drafted. This shortening is in response to residents concerns about impacts on amenity. A proposed wider footpath between Howard and Williams Street is intended to enable safer and more inclusive pedestrian access. On street parking is proposed to be flipped to the other side of the road to allow this to occur. Along with community members who took the time to respond, I'd like to commend all councillors and the key staff of work and good faith to listen to the community's concerns about aesthetics access and safety to help draft this final plan. As page 35 of the master plan makes clear, the implementation approach is flexible and able to change based on the community's evolving needs and available funding. The strategies are flexible, adaptable and staged so they can respond over time to changing weather, erosion, natural influences and shifts in community values. As each project progresses through its planning and design phase, the community will have opportunities to actively shape the final design outcomes. This plan will enable Council to apply for the $10 million plus in external funding needed for the upkeep and improvements on the two-metre-long strip of parkland so it can continue to be enjoyed for generations to come, despite predicted increases in storm intensity and frequency, heavier recreational use and increased wear and tear. and increased wear and tear on the infrastructure and in fact as you've seen we've already been able to apply for 1.8 for the changing places facility and potentially another three quarters of a million for the revetment wards. The Noosa community is rich in knowledge and good ideas and combined with the technical expertise with our staff they've helped create a shared vision for the foreshore we all can be proud of. Jessica Phillips 02:25:36.950
Thank you. Question? This might help Mayor Wilkie's statement to clarify in the guidelines the definition of recreational pathway actually only comes once data is collected about the usage and volume of cyclists. That's correct. Shaun Walsh 02:25:55.652
So is that from Austroads or TMR Supplement? Jessica Phillips 02:25:58.992
Both of them suggest that to in order to suggest a recreational definition the data has to support that which we don't have. Shaun Walsh 02:26:10.012
So we've identified it as a principal recreational route to the walking and cycling strategy back in 2020 which looked at the whole Shire. So it's on one of our, the principal cycle network route so in the coastal pathway route which extends from Tewantin to Noosa Heads down to Viridian. Brian Stockwell 02:26:30.777
It's also the State that's identified that. That's correct? Yes. Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:26:37.237
Just questions around car parking. So services and organisation meeting it was noted that there was only a loss of Noted that there was only a loss of 10 car parks and you referred solely to the boat ramp area. Over the last few days I've been discussing a meeting with residents who have just raised some inconsistencies so I just want to throw a couple of questions at you if that's okay. In terms of, and I might go through just section by section, so Eli Park, Massouds, Slipway area, can you confirm whether the redesign reduces available parking from 17 vehicle spaces and five motorcycle school base down to just 11 on street car parks and I think the calculations were done by combining These are done by combining off-street and on-street spaces. So probably the question I really want to ask is that whether unmarked or undesignated car parking spaces were taken into account when you were doing your parking analysis and when you discuss net losses or net gains. Shaun Walsh 02:27:59.671
I'll just step through that process. So, the November 2024 plan that was presented to Council, the endorsement of community consultation, pretty well maintained. Pretty well maintained the status quo at the Nassau Safeway in terms of the loading arrangements and parking arrangements and the adjacent on-street car parking spaces. In the process of engagement, there were issues raised about lack of separation. between the slipway and the pathway and concerns for environmental nuisance and safety of the public about the interface. In discussions with the operators, it was proposed to actually flip the car parking arrangements to actually convert the on-street car parking spaces to actually replace the car parking spaces in the park. with the stool retention of a limited loading zone adjacent to it. And that's what's in the plan that's shown with you today. You know, there is an issue in that space is that we do have cars in a sort of fairly uncontrolled manner, you know, using the green space to actually... The legislation is to change the arrangements there with a focus on the public car parking spaces being accessed immediately off Gympie Terrace, with a number of spaces and loading arrangements adjacent to the slipway. It will be subject to detailed design, but I will note that this morning I was contacted by two of the operators and upon further reflection, despite those conversations that occurred at the start, they would like the plan to reflect what was previously put out to the public in November 2024, so I just wanted to note that. They think that that informal arrangement suits them better, but I just want to note that the Council staff recommendation still stays is because we have a conflict issue that we're dealing with at the slipway, the Masood slipway, you know, which is we have people sanding and grinding boats and the like, and we have public, you know, walking very close to that. And if we want to maintain the living heritage of that site, we've got an obligation to actually separate those uses a bit better. And we also have an obligation to ensure our valuable green space, which is very narrow down that end of the river, you know, is actually protected from vehicle intrusion in the longer term. Because one of the things that, you know, that people have always said is the value of this green space. We want more green space if we can get it. So what's the balance, you know, in this site? our staff recommendation as contained in the report presented to you today we think is the best outcome. So has a precinct-wide audit So Amelia Lorentson 02:30:47.110
Before and after parking summary, has that been undertaken precinct-wide that actually looked at loading bays, delivery bays, unmarked, undesignated? Shaun Walsh 02:31:02.833
So generally yes but this is again a schematic and you'll note that councillors we've been working through a parking management plan with the councillors and that will you know ideally come out to the public later this year and and that goes into a lot more detail about time restrictions on parking, provision of loading spaces, provision of disabled spaces in a much more granular detail and we'll be able to Amelia Lorentson 02:31:49.919
Survey, there was a question asked about car parking on Thomas Street and I think from memory it asked the respondents whether they supported the loss of few car parks and gave a number up to six. What was the response numbers and where can we find that information? Shaun Walsh 02:32:08.921
So that was distributed in the consultation report that was previously distributed to the councillors so I can distribute that. But the intention is that the Thomas Street car parking arrangements stay exactly the same so as is the moment. So the plan indicates a desirability to create more outdoor You know and it's quite interesting to provide a really nice ambiance for successful trading at Thomas Street. Having more outdoor dining and having more greenery would probably improve its overall amenity appearance but it may be the expense of car parking spaces in the future. Amelia Lorentson 02:32:57.421
So there's a section between O'Meary Street roundabout and the Islander entrance Can you confirm that seven angled parks have been replaced with two parallel spaces? entrance. Have I read that correctly or not? Shaun Walsh 02:33:12.441
I'd need to take that on notice Councillor Lorentson and I can advise you further. Amelia Lorentson 02:33:16.961
Okay I might throw quite a few questions at you just again in terms of inconsistencies. That, you know, just whether or not there are, in fact, only 10 car parks lost. And we've got probably a couple of amendments that I want to throw just for discussion also that picks up the designated and undesignated or unmarked car park spaces. So, Councillor, questions please, not commentary on your questions. Okay, yep, no worries. That'll do for now, Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:33:52.914
Just around the car parking situation, from anything I've read, policy reform is best accepted when it's Noosa is accepted when it's implemented incrementally. And back to the discussion around data, along with what Councillor has mentioned this morning. We talked about data in terms of cycling. Is there a In terms of cycling, is there a way we can collect data around car parking? Like how long a car stays, when it's empty, where are we at with that to be able to inform the decision moving forward over the 20-year plan, so it's data-based? Shaun Walsh 02:34:31.912
So, previously, Council had undertaken a car park tech trial, but it did not include Noosaville, so it was for Noosa Heads and Hastings Street, so there is the capacity to actually collect data like that. And that gave us a lot of information to be able to inform the parking provisions for Noosaheads Precinct. We haven't had the budget to do such a detailed exercise at Noosaville. There was some basic assessment to inform the car parking arrangements for the parking management plan, which we've been working through with workshops, and I can advise you on what... because they needed to try and determine what was the average length of stay, and they did a spot survey on midweek or normal conditions versus peak conditions to try and inform what is the best length of stay for our residents who might be expected to visit there on a normal day versus peak season. So there has been some parking, definitely parking data gathered, but not to the sophistication of these events. Karen Finzel 02:35:30.117
Okay, then just a question through the Chair, just we've had a lot going on with the budget. Did you put that up as a budget request in this round of, I don't recall seeing it? Shaun Walsh 02:35:39.237
No, no, we haven't put up a budget request for a detailed tech trial for Noosaville car parking, so we've just used a basic spot survey to inform the parking management plan. Off the top of your head what do you think, through the Chair, what would that sort of cost, I mean if that's out of the hall? I think the budget for the Noosa Heads car park tech trial, which was quite significant, including MS boards and metres and the like, was in the order of $150,000 to $200,000. So it's not cheap technology to actually do that. And Noosa Heads is fairly easy to gather because we have sort of controlled in one way in, one way out, so you can actually easily track the amount of time that a car is actually spending in specific areas. So Noosaville might be a lot more complex because of the number of entry and exit points and the length of the foreshore. Frank Wilkie 02:36:32.868
We've talked about the car parking management plan before and that the Noosaville foreshore will be part of that. What information will you be gathering as part of that process? Shaun Walsh 02:36:42.268
Well the information that we've already gathered to date is a mid-week examination of how long cars spend in the space. So that we have a good understanding but the first step that we'd normally do also is engage with all the business stakeholders to get their intelligence over what is an appropriate parking regime that suits their requirements so and then you know subsequent to that then there's a broader community engagement about what works for them and then there's lots of nuances like you know disabled groups like where they'd like to see more disabled parking and the like or you know loading facilities to drop people off and loading gear and the like so there's a multi sort of step to actually gathering them. Frank Wilkie 02:37:20.564
And just to clarify what I thought you may have said before it'll involve an audit of the number of spaces in the precinct and which ones are disability parking, what are timed and so on and so forth, commercial vehicles. So there'll be some good data coming out of that. Amelia Lorentson 02:37:35.094
Just a couple more questions about car parks. Frank Wilkie 02:37:36.144
That's correct. Amelia Lorentson 02:37:42.574
You may have not read this correctly, but what's the current status of the delivery vehicle access to the businesses around the boathouse and the Catalina and Jetty 186? Has the direct vehicle access been removed? Shaun Walsh 02:38:02.896
I need to take that question on notice, Councillor. It's fair to say, though, that we have a lot of informal vehicle use within the foreshore, which is, and this is one of the issues that the master plan set out to actually address, is that we do need to better manage the situation because, you know, having a car park or cars within green space is actually diminishing the quality So the access to the Pelican at the moment the master plan has retained maintenance and delivery access which is in line with consultation with the Pelican Amelia Lorentson 02:39:32.140
I might just look into that question again and come back to you. Talking about formal car parks, regarding quota park, again, can you confirm or just clarify, there's Shepparton 1 markings being identified. Does that result in a reduction of available car parking spaces? Shaun Walsh 02:39:55.746
So it is usual when you know informal arrangements are reduced you know so and councillor you'll be aware of this about when we introduce T's and L's you know on streets we actually add you know you know certainty about car parking spaces in some cases it actually does reduce the number of car parking available but in terms of trying to provide an orderly arrangement which is safe around green space you know you know the master plan has indicated delineation of car parking spaces to you know more formalize and keep it clear about where people should park and shouldn't park but again this is a question that will get down to the details get down to the detailed design you're actually interrogating a master plan at a level that was never really designed to do you know so and you know when and if we get funding to actually achieve a detailed design of that question then we'll have all the extremely detailed survey we'll have very very detailed plans laid out all the delineation and as we've discussed already that would be subject to ongoing community engagement and counselling review and funding review to make sure we've got it right and just last question in terms of the shared pathway adjacent to the boat ramp there's a bit of discussion Councillor Wilkie mentioned Amelia Lorentson 02:41:13.320
About three metre and sorry the need the need to consider 3.5 what I call gold standard sort of pathway can I ask if we upgraded the pathway to three metres not to the three and a half metres would we would we incur any loss of car parking so the existing path through there is approximately two point eight metres wide with no offset to the car park or the boat ramp launching facility we could continue with the two point eight metre path as it is without shade and with that conflict continuing if we were to achieve metre a three pathway with a half metre offset to try and provide a buffer between those conflicts then we would likely have to repurpose the car parks so whether we proceeded with three metre or 3 The.5 metre current pathway width, which you said 2.8 metres, does that meet state and national accessibility standards? So accessibility, a pathway to be accessible only needs to be about 1.2 metres wide for a wheelchair, 1.8 metres for two wheelchairs to pass. If we're trying to achieve Australia's guidelines then no, at 2.8 metres it wouldn't be. We also know that the existing pathway is deficient and that we receive CRM's customer complaints regularly about the conflict between bikes, pedestrians, dog walkers. So we'll continue to have that issue if we leave it at as it is. It'd be great to have that information or that data Aidan, just to understand how many complaints over what period Over what period? Can you provide that data for us, the CRM complaints? Certainly. That would be great, thank you. Jessica Phillips 02:43:25.433
Understanding that it is a master plan, my first amendment is going to be the three metre pathways, and I've got some information to pull up on the screen for everyone as well. Sorry, not the two channels are here, just the... That's okay, because that's a separate amendment. Okay. Thank you. Do you want me to wait for Karen or...? Brian Stockwell 02:44:20.120
No, you just know that she's left her room. Okay. Jessica Phillips 02:44:23.040
So my amendment is approve the final Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan provided in attachment one, subject to a maximum shared pathway with the three metres. You can get rid of the end, Vicky, just get rid of the end, please, and just put a, oh, right, sorry, I thought it was for my, the second part of that. That's okay. Okay. Brian Stockwell 02:44:51.590
So do we have a seconder for that amendment? I need to second it. I can stand alone. Councillor. Jessica Phillips 02:45:02.620
Okay, thank you. First up, up until December 2024, the three metre shared pathway was not only considered suitable, but it was optimal as it was presented in the original 80% draft in June 2024. I'd like to reference the planning and design standards. And Vicky, if you could bring up that attachment, please. This will help explain the yeah, and it's just on page one. There will be a bit that says relationship with There will be a bit that says relationship with AusRoad guide to road design 6a 2021. I've got it here, but you can see on the screen. So it says that the Department of Transport and Main Roads, this is a GTMR guideline, in principle agreed to adopt the standards published in the AusRoad. It's published in the AusRoad Guide to Road Design, Paths for Walking and Cycling. When reference is made to other parts of the AusRoad Guide to Road Design, AusRoad Guide to Traffic Management or... to Road Design Part 6A when applied. Details, additional requirements including accepted with amendments. So if you go to page three for me please, Vicky. Design criteria 5.1 width of path. 5.1.1 says clear width. The path capacity is only increased in one metre width intervals. So the supplement that you're looking at now has precedence over the AusRoad guide to road design when applied in Queensland. It specifies table 5.3 is replaced with the TMR 5.1.4 which is on page three coming up in a minute. This means that TMR supplement to part six Part 6a is the governing standard for shared path design in Queensland not the AusRoad guide alone. It says path capacity is only increased in one metre increments. Intermediate widths like 3.5 metres. Intermediate widths like 3.5 are unlikely to improve capacity. The supplement does not differentiate between new and upgraded paths and the foreshore path is largely an upgrade of an existing route so the one metre increment rule applies directly. A 3.5 metre path is only justified when commuting cyclists are present at higher speeds which isn't the case here because we have the data from the community feedback that 95% of users are pedestrians. We do not have the monitoring data showing the number of pedestrians and bicyclists per hour that are currently using this path the data is explicitly required when applying for grant funding under the cycle network government grants program. The planned on-road cycle lane along Gympie Terrace will further reduce cyclist volumes on the shared path especially commuting cyclists. The policy alignment of guides part 6a does mention 3.5 as a desirable width but also it clearly states three metres is acceptable where cyclists will grain. Is acceptable where cyclists volumes and speeds are low and that's exactly the case on the foreshore. And more importantly TMR's 2023 supplement explicitly replaces this section stating that the path capacity should only be increased in one metre increments. So there's no support for immediate widths like 3.5 unless justified by usage which we don't have the data for. The claim that TMR supplement only applies to upgrades is unfounded because the supplement makes no distinction. In fact the foreshore path is largely an upgrade of an existing route meaning the one metre increment rule applies. The Appendix A figure from Austroads shows that three metres is suitable for recreational use, that's 20 kilometres per hour, while 3.5 is for mixed recreational and commuting at 30 kilometres an hour. But the foreshore is not a commuter route with 95% of users being pedestrians and new on-road cycle lanes planned along Gimba Terrace. The 3.5 metre width is not only necessary, it doesn't fit with the foreshore look and feel. With the foreshore look and feel. The TMR supplement lack of 50/50 directional split figure 5.4 you can see there. It actually says that we need 200, stop there sorry Vicky go back. It explicitly shows that 200 pedestrians per hour and 460 cyclists per hour fits the three metre path. I can't see a day I can't see a day where we will have more than 200 pedestrians and 460 cyclists in an hour. A three metre path is not a compromise. It's actually a balanced solution. That's why I'm putting the amendment up today. Bye. Let's not sacrifice anything along that iconic stretch for an unnecessary half a metre of asphalt. Space is limited. Every metre gained for concrete is a metre lost for green space, shade and Brian Stockwell 02:51:15.140
Water. Amelia Lorentson 02:51:16.600
I support the amendment. The proposed three and a half metre shared pathway might meet technical best practice, but it's not the right solution for our Noosaville foreshore. Noosaville News of all, foreshore is a low-speed community driven foreshore. It's not South Bank, it's not a major city community route, it's Gympie Terrace and I think we've got to just keep remembering it's laid-back, it's a family-friendly foreshore frequented by walkers, runners, families with prams, young kids on school scooters and occasional leisurely cyclists. This is not a high-volume, high-speed cycling corridor, it's a gentle connection between park-like spaces. A wider path I actually think risks over-engineering a space that thrives on its low-key, relaxed charm and in doing Relaxed charm and in doing so in roads the very character that very character that we've been entrusted to protect. It's also been one of the number one concerns and messages that the community have been sending to us to leave it alone. Sometimes doing what's best means knowing when not to upscale. And I think a thoughtful three metre pathway that meets accessibility standards is supported by data usage. Again, reiterating what Councillor says. I'd love to see the data that says that we have cyclists commuting through that pathway at 30 kilometres an hour. This is leisurely cycling corridor, a leisurely cycling corridor. I support safe shared use, but character is really important and we can't undermine the village feel or sacrifice again what the community values most. The character charm and accessibility of Noosa Foreshore and Frank Wilkie 02:53:32.420
Staff. What weight was given to the TMR? Standards there? Shaun Walsh 02:53:38.780
You know we're referencing between a number of different documents so the three minutes is a minimum so we're referencing you know complaints that we have about users already using existing pathway network and people with dog leads and ability for people Brand funding. So I'd feel more comfortable with that amendment if it said a maximum shared pathway would be consistent with TMR guidelines. So then that would allow us to interpret the guidelines on the basis of good data, of both pedestrian and cyclist data, and consistent And I think that that would allow scrutiny by councillors to ensure we're adhering to the guidelines and also giving us, you know, certainly that we're going to meet our TMR guidelines. And at the same time, it could be that under detailed design, you know, at a particular part, on a particular part of that foreshore, that someone, you know, the community actually might want it to be wider than three metres. And that concerns me as well, that this is locking you in. So that concerns me. But probably my primary concern is that if we specify that specific distance rather than the generality of the TMR guidelines, I'm concerned that we... So just bear that in mind as well, there could be some program coming up and they'll be looking to the AusRoad standards versus the two specific Queensland ones. Frank Wilkie 02:55:40.676
And the reason for increasing to 3.5 metres and extending out onto the road, which is to include more shade as well, is that as a result of the studies done with the heat monitors? Yes, so there's a few reasons that we have a desire to make the pathway wide in pedestrians that location, around is to divert the car park and the boat ramp from a safety perspective. We want an alternative safe route that's very welcoming and receptive, and having a wide path that's also supported by shading would actually make that a much more mr Chair, that's the reason for the width of the party. Okay, I accept the rule. Jessica Phillips 02:56:34.156
Given that during the process of trying to reach this amendment, I actually sought recommendation for you and from you, I would have loved to know that, including TMR, at that point, because I would have been happy to. Can I amend if the floor is okay with it? If the floor is okay with it, to include, you know, if there's changes to TMR standards. Shaun Walsh 02:57:01.014
You've informed me of more information at this session, so I'm just thinking, I've been thinking on my feet. Jessica Phillips 02:57:05.994
I would have included that had I known that it's not locking us into something. If the floor is happy, I'd like to just put that. Amelia Lorentson 02:57:19.381
Can I ask a question? Brian Stockwell 02:57:21.621
The question is, is the floor happy for Councillor to reword this amendment? Amelia Lorentson 02:57:33.461
Keep the metre rich but for sure consistent given the information that I read out that TMR overrides. I read out that TMR overrides the AusRoad, that we stay consistent with TMR guidelines and that may... Is that the other minimum as is required by TMR guidelines? Frank Wilkie 02:58:12.665
Mr Chair, I can suggest something that if this amendment is lost, we can try a new one with proper wording. Amelia Lorentson 02:58:20.065
You're suggesting you're not happy to do it? I think it's going to be cleaner if we deal with this and then look at another way of dealing with it. Jessica Phillips 02:58:29.281
As Councillor Wilkie has suggested, he's not happy with it, it does have to be unanimous to make a significant change, so we'll deal with it as moved, and then if we want a further amendment, we'll go from there. I have a further question. Frank Wilkie 02:58:45.576
Just to clarify staff, if we were to go with a 3.5 metre wide pathway, it would... It would not be in breach of DTMR guidelines, would it? No. And it goes the other way as well. So, even with pathways that we design now, we get to detailed design and where we're aiming for it... a three metre path, we justify to TMR where they're involved because they're not always involved. It's our pathway. Essentially, we do the best that we can and sometimes we can't meet the TMR guideline and we accept a 2.5 metre path and we do that with TMR as well. So, they'll accept on occasion outside of the standard. Yeah, thank you. Karen Finzel 02:59:32.824
Just then a technical question just for my understanding. What do you call the bits on the side that say we go 3.5 and then you have the like the sort of runoff, you know, people got to get out of the way. What-- or is that-- just to clarify that technical thing Shaun Walsh 03:00:03.991
Yeah. So the clear width is another term that we use and that's where we're designing a bikeway is the width from the edge of the sealed pathway whether that's asphalt or concrete yeah and we're aiming for a minimum half a metre on anything you could snag handlebars on. Karen Finzel 03:00:22.353
Can I Okay, clearly. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:26.413
Ask a question? The recommendation part C states that council note that each stage of a subsequent delivery of the Noosa foreshore master plan will be subject to detailed design refinement guided by the endorsed master plan and include ongoing community consultation including engagement with key stakeholders to ensure the most Key stakeholders to ensure the most appropriate and locally informed design outcomes are achieved. If there are changes in TMR guidelines, doesn't the amendment C of the recommendation give Council the opportunity to recognise that this is a living document and that it'll get tweaked? And any updates with TMR? That'll be all captured under that recommendation C. So my question is, the amendment as read is actually fine given it's in the context of the overall recommendation which recognises the document as a living document that can be amended at any time? Shaun Walsh 03:01:32.700
If that was a question I would respond, I think it just sets up a contradiction that makes it difficult to try and determine what staff are designing to. I agree with you at first. With a lot more clarity. Yeah, so because this is specifying a specific group which would make it very difficult to change it, you know, it's subject to ongoing consultation. Okay. Frank Wilkie 03:01:54.540
Well look, I'll argue against the amendment. The Austroads standards, Councillor points well made but we're not obliged to follow the DTMR standards which are minimums. The desirable minimum width of shared path widths under the AusRoad standards is 3.5 metres and it actually says a greater width may be required where the number of cyclists and pedestrians are very high. there is a high probability of conflict between users, that's people walking dogs on leads, dogs on leads can stray, impede the passage of pedestrians, people on bikes, people on scooters, mobility scooters, wheelchairs. The whole purpose of having a wider path at this point was because we wanted to improve the amenity of that section. It's been described as an asphalt desert at the moment, and the intention was to have a wider path to make it safer, more inclusive, more accessible. More enjoyable for all users, and improve the amenity and safety and access for all users at that point. Nicola Wilson 03:03:10.146
We're not talking about specific points, it's the whole thing. Frank Wilkie 03:03:13.746
Yeah, well I think... The point I'm going to is that... Sorry, Councillor, you didn't have a point of order. You didn't have a point of order. Because this would limit the pathway at the pinch point. The pinch point we're talking about where this would have the most negative impact is where two pathways converge into one near the boat rank, let's be frank. That's what we're talking about here. we've got the volume of pedestrian and cycle traffic from two pathways merging into one. In the other areas they can step off the path. At this pinch point you've got the boat ramp We've got the boat ramp on one side and we've got the road on the other. We do need, unfortunately, to improve the amenity and safety and respect the feedback from disability advocates to have a wider pathway at this point. Three metres is only 20 centimetres wider than the existing 2.8 metre pathway. It's not really respecting the feedback we've received if we only increase it by 20 centimetres and if you limit it, it's being a bit too prescriptive at this stage, I think, so I can't support it. Brian Stockwell 03:04:32.632
I'll follow on. Councils, we're dealing with a conflict of objectives and there's been certain assumptions made in this amendment. The assumption is this is not a commuter bike path. That assumption is incorrect. This is dedicated in our cycle and walking strategy as a mechanism to achieve a statewide corridor for cyclists commuting between Tewantin, Cooroy, Doonan, Kabi Kabi, Cooroy, Doonan, Kabi Kabi, Cooroy, Doonan, Cooroy, Doonan, Cooroy, Doonan, Cooroy, Doonan. The cyclist commuting between Tewantin and the rest of Queensland. It was a recommendation of staff to include it within the parkway design and that's why we went out originally with separating it because I don't... because I don't believe there's any way we can achieve the objective of having safe recreational slow use with community use. I believe we will need in the 20 year time frame a clear separation of bikes and pedestrians... But to suggest we can get by with three metres is ignoring the reality of today. Staff have said clearly it's a constant source of complaint. Here's the latest one that came through to us by email. I am 77 years old and my wife is 76. We both love walking our dogs along the path on Hindi Terrace but unfortunately we've had three bad experiences with bikes on this path. The last one left us traumatised. After the ride of verbally abused us for walking too slow and taking up too much space. A joint walking path is not working as bikes don't have barrels and approach you at speed. This is the advice I get quite a lot in that section is there's constant conflicts. The sensible compromise that came out the next day was to widen the path to allow bikes to pass more easily and it won't always won't completely remove it but suggest we can get by three metres is suggesting that we don't currently have a bikeway in the path between Thomas Street and wide array that is significantly overused for the capacity of the design it's not something that happens when the tourist peaks here it's something that's happening every day and it's only sensible to maximise that with as much as we can while realising it's a compromise solution that the only long-term solution is having a separate bikeway which will cancel the phillips would you like to class Jessica Phillips 03:07:30.920
I'm just trying to find the reference for the commuting because it actually defines that there needs to be a change in the end location, which I can't see a change in the end location ever coming. But I want to reaffirm the supplement from TMR is that this precedes, this supplement has... precedence over the Oz road design when applied in Queensland. So TMR have said that, and I'm assuming these guys are the experts in path management, path capacity is only increased in one metre width intervals because it is... likely to improve capacity. I think it's more about the fact that I understand there's a conflict and we're getting CRMs. I've spent my whole life here. People would like to sometimes walk through the boat ramp. We've got to allow some common sense to people. We've got to allow some... It still fits within the recommendation. We're actually here to ensure that the Noosaville foreshore remains a place for people, not just for movement. A three metre shared path is safe, functional and it's sensitive to the space that it occupies. This community does not want urban scale, they want us to protect the unique character of Noosaville. I think they made that pretty clear. Let's approve the master plan with an amendment that suggests that it is still within the guidelines specifically outlined here and that we show our community that we are listening. Brian Stockwell 03:09:13.310
Put the motion in the amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson and Phillips. Those against? It's Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Wilson and Stockwell. The motion is not passed. So we go back to the original motion. Do we have other amendments that people would like to test? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:09:39.525
I have a few. So Vicky, I might start with Nicola Wilson 03:09:57.300
Do you want to start? Can I just ask a question? Karen Finzel 03:10:09.560
Sure. Just to clarify, the staff mentioned there was a mix of parts, summer TMR and summer council, is that right? No, No? Shaun Walsh 03:10:24.490
Correct. They're all under council management, but we do rely a lot on trying to upgrade our cycling pathway network on TMR grants, so we could also apply other programs which are released by the federal government for pathway upgrades as well. Have we got the right one? Brian Stockwell 03:10:46.570
I'm just bringing it up here. Larry Sengstock 03:10:48.930
That's good. Brian Stockwell 03:11:09.700
So is this the amendment you wish to make, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 03:11:13.560
Yes, it is. So note that the Noosa Foreshore Management Plan is a living document open to ongoing refinement in response to community feedback, emerging data, and evolving local priorities. Given the original use of high-end climate scenarios, e.g. Our RCP 8.5, Council supports an adaptive management approach that balances risk, science, and cost-effective solutions. Ongoing consultation with key use of groups including boaties, fishers, residents, businesses, and environmental stakeholders will ensure that the plan remains inclusive, flexible, and Brian Stockwell 03:12:07.120
Community driven. Just the mechanics. The last statement will ensure the plan remains inclusive, flexible, and community driven is not really worded as a motion. Amelia Lorentson 03:12:18.260
No, maybe delete that part. Just finish including boaties, including ongoing consultation with key user groups. Brian Stockwell 03:12:28.880
Ongoing consultation will occur with key user groups. Ongoing consultation will occur with key user groups. That would be great, yeah, will occur with key user groups, including. Ongoing consultation will occur with key user groups, including. Yes, please. And environmental stakeholders. Okay, and I believe Councillor seconded it. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, do you have the floor? Amelia Lorentson 03:13:04.919
So the strength of this plan lies not only in its vision. Thank you. So the strength of this plan lies not only in its vision, but it's also in its ability to adapt, to be responsive. We are committed to adapt to be responsive to new data, shifting conditions and the lived experiences of our community. The amendment in front of us reinforces that adaptability, flexibility and safeguards its relevance over time. When the Noosa foreshore management plan was first developed, it was modelled on high-end climate projections. Since then our understanding of climate trajectories and local impacts has evolved and that's the reason I've included that as part of the amendment an adaptive management approach acknowledges that risk signs and community expectations are not static and neither should our response be. Crucially this amendment also formalizes the ongoing partnership with our community, the people who use and know this space best. Our boaties, our fishes, our local residents and our environmental groups. They bring invaluable experience and on-the-ground perspectives. Their continued involvement ensures that we're not just ticking boxes but actively co-designing a plan that delivers practical, sustainable outcomes, now and into the future. So by embedding this flexibility, transparency and continuous engagement into the plan. We create an achievable plan, one that's resilient and one that's, in my opinion, truly community led. Frank Wilkie 03:14:51.491
Question. Can we go back to the original, part C of the original? Can we minimise that so we can read? Read that. Can that be? I can't. I can't. I just want to read item C. The question is, how does what's being proposed host How does what's being proposed, how is what's being proposed not consistent with part C? In terms of efficiency, do we need an extra clause in the original motion, whereas part C encapsulates that, that it's an ongoing document subject to best practice and community consultation to ensure the most appropriate detail. Brian Stockwell 03:16:14.660
So, it's a question rather than a point of order. Amelia Lorentson 03:16:18.220
It's a question. So, first of all, Councillor, Mayor Wilkie, this only appeared in front of us. In this meeting, I hadn't read C. And secondly, my understanding of C that it's specific to consultation during the detailed design refinement. So, my amendment is to basically highlight that evolving local priorities, demographic shifts and emerging data. Yeah, there is some duplication. I think that the point of difference is just identifying that the high-end climate change scenarios, identifying that that's also part of emerging data and spelling that out. So it gives, it's a part, it's maybe a seed one, but it just reinforces what you've said and maybe is a little bit more explicit, just describes it a little bit more. Frank Wilkie 03:17:27.307
Yeah, what's the point you're making about high-end climate response data? Amelia Lorentson 03:17:31.447
Just to identify that the master plan at the moment identifies high-end climate change scenarios and I just think that we need to make sure that all our decisions are grounded in the latest and the most responsible information climate science. So rather than going to a worst-case scenario, my motion just identifies that an adaptive management approach is one that balances risk mitigation with flexibility that we don't have to go straight to a worst-case scenario. Frank Wilkie 03:18:09.039
So a question to staff, what assumptions have we made about climate change scenarios? Were they actually high-end or were they too low? Shaun Walsh 03:18:18.959
My understanding is that the moderate Moderate, the moderate end of the scenario. So, Sian's just had to step out for a few minutes. It's online, but can I just say something before Sian? Nicola Wilson 03:18:29.630
So, Sian's online and can answer that. But I will refer councillors to page, I think it's page 35. Yeah, but also the other parts of the document. Yeah, exactly. So, there's parts from the master plan that already say this. So, for instance, it says the resilience strategies in the master plan are flexible, adaptive and sustainable. So, they can respond over time to changing weather events and community values. So, the master plan already encapsulates what's being said here or kind of put on the table. But in terms of specific scenarios, Cheyenne, did you want to comment also? Cheyenne 03:19:10.294
Yeah. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Yes, thank you and sorry I had to step out for family matter. Basically with this project we took the coastal hazards adaptation and plan modelling which is following the State government technical guidelines to use 0.8 metres of sea level rise by 2100 and so that is the type that was the type the the modelling that we took into consideration to design the concept designs for resilience so we didn't take on board any new modelling of climate scenarios now the 0.8 metres is mandated by the State in their current technical guidelines it is also reflective of the RCP at 8.5 which is now the SSP 5-8.5 this is in our climate change response policy at council referred to as well and we do acknowledge that we will take on board any new science from CSIRO your Bureau of Meteorology and other reputable organizations like the IPCC to continually consider whether the emissions scenario is relative continues to be relevant into the future at this time because we refer to that scenario in our policy I wouldn't and because the State government policy I wouldn't and because the State guidelines recommends a 0.8 metre sea level rise to be used we I wouldn't recommend moving away from that we acknowledge that we need to continue to demonstrate best practice and take in new data but global missions continue to rise year on year and there's a number of other factors that come into play on why this emission scenario is still relevant and no longer the worst case so I think let's continue and we I think acknowledging that will continue to be adapted is always better practice and that is in our climate change response policy, our foreshore master plan and our CHAP. So thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:21:11.271
Should I end my own, well I understand the amendment, my only question is what used to be called RCP 8.5 currently considered a high-end climate scenario? Cheyenne 03:21:28.250
Yes, it's a high-end emissions scenario, correct. But there are now, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report recognises that low likelihood high impact outcomes as a result of climate feedbacks to being elements in the climate system and other processes could lead to higher levels of warming and sea level rise and can no longer its adaptation plan, which takes on the State tech. technical guidelines of 0.8 metres of sea level rise by 2102, and that has not been amended. Frank Wilkie 03:22:11.550
Mr Chair, in the interest of moving things on, it's almost four o 'clock and we do have a resident group coming in at 4:30. I would like to speak to this amendment. I question that its necessity, given that Part C encapsulates all that, and the adaptive approach to climate change and community sentiment is already captured on page 35 of the document itself, and cautioning against overriding a motion. I question all that. I agree Jessica Phillips 03:22:54.066
Idea of having a living document when it's 20 years. I think it's really important to have something that can be, and I understand that that might be in the original, but this sort of gives us even more clarity that it'll be ever evolving along with the information that we're sort of getting in. So yeah, I thank you for bringing it to the table. Nicola Wilson 03:23:14.145
Mine's more than a question, about the concept of a living document. Do we expect to keep playing to redraft this document? Or are we gonna deal with changes to the design process? Shaun Walsh 03:23:29.722
We're not expecting to change the actual document unless there's a council resolution that requests us to change the document. It'll be interpreted at each stage when we do detailed concept design against the principles. Karen Finzel 03:23:49.180
Thank you Mr Chair. I want to commend Councillor Lorentson for bringing this because you know we're really here representing community and trying to make sure we get the best wording. to support this living document. I do think perhaps you know the definition of a living document is that it can be continually edited and updated as new information becomes available. As new information becomes available, situations change. I asked a question at the start of the morning to grant the staff to inform, you know, what this 20-year plan means. I think there's enough sitting before us without the inclusion of this item D that informs, you know, how these scenarios and different changes and community engagement can inform as we move forward. So I really understand where Councillor Lorentson is trying to go and I support her diligence in the matter but I do think perhaps in my opinion today I don't think we need to go to this detail. So I really... In terms of I think the document itself as a living document as questions are being raised and discussions around the table today. I don't want to make it too prescribed that we do then limit ourselves further down the track. You know, I think we're all well aware of that. advocating for our community and most aware of what they want. And I'm very aware that the community will be brought along on this journey. So I'm satisfied as the document sits that our community will be definitely engaged and their aspirations will be considered with fairness and equity, with adaptability and effectiveness as we, you know, go through this Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:25:44.484
I think I'm similar to Councillor Finzel. I think the sentiment that's being expressed is... What's being expressed is what is already intent within the plan. I think Councillor Wilson's questions are, what we're dealing with is a framework that will evolve as a result of detailed design, so it's probably a living document made. We've raised up further expectations that we're going to amend the framework rather than just refine as we go, and I also agree that it is embedded both within IBC as it currently stands and within the document, so whether whether it's due to passion or whether it's probably the type of kid. Amelia Lorentson 03:26:30.440
Thank you for all the commentary around. I don't think I disagree with anyone. Probably I put myself in your position when an amendment comes forward where I think possibly duplication again, haven't had the opportunity to read Mayor Wilkie's amendment until on the floor today. But I put myself in your position and I think to myself surely any opportunity to support ongoing consultation, any opportunity to support continuous engagement, any opportunity to provide clarity to our residents given what's happened preceded before this for the last two years where they Bye. don't feel perked, they don't feel like their feedback has had any direct impact with the revised plan. So any opportunity that provides some assurance to our community that we are listening, that we are committed to continuous engagement. If I was sitting in your shoes I would support so I'm going to support the motion because we need to keep rebuilding public trust. It was fractured over this process and this is just another way to say we're committed to co-designing this plan and we understand that it's a community asset funded by community money and we need to serve the people that use the foreshore. Noosa, Tewantin, Cooroy, Doonan, Kabi Kabi. Noosa, Tewantin, Cooroy, Doonan, Kabi Kabi. The Council creates a formal mechanism for tracking progress, assessing alignment with community expectations, identifying costs and identifying any emerging risks or delays. I think together the updates The updates strengthen transparency, reinforces the plan's status as a living document, and helps ensure that delivery remains, again, responsive, inclusive, and well on track. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:30:16.192
Question, would progress on a plan like this be tracked in quarterly reporting as part of the operational plan, let alone annually? Shaun Walsh 03:30:29.712
That would be certainly my preference because it integrates with all the other reporting that we do on all our projects across the board. Also note that we're not funded to have a precinct manager to actually track the overall progress of progress. The way we're set up financially is that we have funding for projects and then we have a project officer who goes and executes it. So I'm just concerned that from a funding perspective that we're not set up to do this level of ongoing updates and to be as efficient as possible from an administrative perspective to integrate it into our Administrative perspective to integrate it into our operational reporting. I'm sure we can update that on the website, you know, to ensure that it's kept up to date as we make progress on this. But I just don't want to overstate our capacity, you know, in that regard, because we don't have a precinct. Frank Wilkie 03:31:18.287
Just a question, a follow-up question. Projects associated with the Noosa Foreshore Master Plan would also come to the Capital Works Executive and also the Capital Works program updates that we get quarterly as well? That's correct. And also the operational plan quarterly updates and annual report. Shaun Walsh 03:31:34.872
And we also undertake work in progress reporting on our website as it is for each suburb locality. So under Noosaville you'll be able to get a report on everything we're doing in Noosaville at a particular given time. Amelia Lorentson 03:31:46.852
Through the Chair, the amendment was actually, I actually post that, I said that Council should provide quarterly progress or status report. And the response I got from staff was that quarterly reports is an onerous requirement. Regular updates could be provided on the webpage with annual status reports to Council. So I did change my amendment after being given advice that a quarterly report may be onerous. There was a lot of communication coming through in recent days, Councillor Lorentson. This morning at 10:30. Shaun Walsh 03:32:29.134
So I think that the intention is to integrate reporting integrate reporting into our established reporting system, you know, which is through our quarterly capital works reporting, which goes to... Which is preferred, yeah and then also through our quarterly operational plan updates. Makes a lot of sense. I can certainly ensure that we'll put more effort We can certainly ensure that we'll put more effort into it to actually give a lot more dialogue associated with those updates. Brian Stockwell 03:32:52.465
I think where the heart of the problem is, the Noosa La Foreshore master plan, once complete, will be an item on the current completion of our corporate plan and our operational plan. Once it's complete, it becomes a series of projects that are important quarterly. Where I took from the regular, you know, the yearly one would be if it retained, you know, if its implementation is once again in a corporate plan, it should be doing that in your annual report, whether the projects were done to implement the plan rather than a state report for January. like that, yes, because finally the force your master plan to get reported on a quarterly basis. Amelia Lorentson 03:33:40.630
Can I ask a question to the directors? Which do you prefer? I put forward quarterly, I've gone on advice that annual is better, but I'm happy to work on advice. But I think the intent of the motion is simply to provide regular updates. Shaun Walsh 03:33:58.673
Yeah, I suppose my advice actually is I don't see the need for the motion because we would normally report on progress in our quarterly operational, you know, plan updates. So on operational matters we're up to in the area and we'd also I think by maintaining the status quo you have every expectation to get regular reporting on projects we make process of and then we can discuss well how do we project that into the community. Frank Wilkie 03:34:30.660
Further questions? Just a question back to you raised the point around the locality drop-down box on the council website. How onerous would be on staff to make those updates there? Well we do that automatically at the moment as is. Shaun Walsh 03:34:48.200
So that's not onerous at all. this is what I mean standard practice for us to do this so that you can get this information. it's I won't support this amendment. I agree with all the comments made already about the quarterly reporting we already have but for me this is too vague to be able to measure whether it's been achieved so until regular updates that's not defined how often. Formal annual reports. I don't... Formal annual status reports. We don't have a definition of a formal annual status report. And I don't know how we would... The plan itself is not going to be updated. It's a static document. And I don't know how we would track community priorities through the project management process. Brian Stockwell 03:35:51.080
I think it is desirable to have annual reporting on the overall framework, overall plan. I think currently, and I'm not 100% sure, it would be an item on our corporate plan, therefore on our operational plan, so that is a given. I think all the other stuff relates to projects and that's something we consider on a case-by-case basis. So while I understand what Councillor Arntzen said once again, I do think it is a little and what we're doing here is trying to stay calm. Karen Finzel 03:36:36.172
I'd like to just add again you know I want to really take the time to thank Councillor Lorentson for her diligence and hard work to ensure that you know she's given the best representation you know to the community and that is to be applauded. I think the comments around the table today I'm satisfied that we have enough process in place to ensure that that updates reporting from an annual level and all the things that we've already discussed I won't go down that road again so I won't be supporting this amendment today. in terms of like Amelia Lorentson 03:37:17.460
I'm happy probably to make this one fall and then go to my original but I do want to just state that after years of engagement, workshops, multiple revisions, there still remains widespread confusion in the community about what will happen, when is it going to happen, how is it going to be done. The amendment is, again, a response to community feedback. That's our job. The fact that it's already implied, it's already on page 35, it needs to be spelt out. The community don't go through this document. You know, they want This document you know they want to know straight up they read the first few paragraphs and they want to know what's happening. So again our job is to ensure that we respond to community concerns and the community concerns are what is happening, what council plans to deliver, when, why and how. So that we motion in front response to that. Brian Stockwell 03:38:29.376
I'll move my original motion amendment that council provides quarterly progress or status reports on the implementation of the Noosa Shire Council meeting. Amelia Lorentson 03:39:09.700
I've just sent it to you Vicki. So that council provide quarterly progress or status reports on the implementation of the Noosa foreshore management plan to ensure transparency and keep the community informed of key milestones timelines and any changes to This is what I said before, this sort of addresses some of the issues with the wording for the amendment beforehand and aligns with some of the statements made by Mayor Wilk in terms of quarterly progress, aligns also with... Director Shaun Walsh's preference in reporting. I have a question for Councillor Lorentson. Brian Stockwell 03:40:15.068
Councillor Lorentson is still talking. I thought she'd finished. Amelia Lorentson 03:40:20.008
Thank you, I've finished speaking. So, Councillor Frank Wilkie 03:40:22.628
Laurison, does this mean continue to provide quarterly report progress or status reports as part of the operational plan on the implementation? Are you happy with the change of wording to continue to provide quarterly reports, progress or status reports as part of the operation? Yes, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:40:51.540
Can we make the change please Vicky, if everyone agrees? Brian Stockwell 03:40:55.876
Continue to provide quarterly progress or status reports? As part of operational plan. As part of? The operational plan reporting regime. Good, good, okay. Yeah, well that's. That's what we already do. Yeah, that's what's reinforcing. Yeah, yeah. I thank Councillor Lorentson for being open to the change. It reinforces that this sort of. It reinforces that this sort of reporting is underway and anyone who goes to the trouble of reading this motion when it's finalised on this issue will see that there will be regular reporting as part of the operational plan as intended and I know when that occurs we can also go to the extra step of as councillors taking it upon ourselves to inform our community through our various media to let them know Nicola Wilson 03:41:59.920
I won't support it, I think again it's a bit vague in terminology but looks like it's an extra level of reporting on top of what we already do because we don't have much in progress. If we've just got general reports that come to general committee meetings and ordinary meetings it's then redundant because that seems really happening but I think this is going to actually add to more confusion by looking at it. Jessica Phillips 03:42:31.420
I think I'll just quickly speak to it because I think um one thing that I try to be really mindful of is um whilst most of us here everyone here understands you know the process and sitting in workshops and getting those quarterly reports for me you know when I speak to community they they don't know if we don't really um be really clear and and so for me this one yeah I'll support this because it it um the master plan we saw last year was something that community were really passionate about whether we um you know people disagree or agree with how how it was um portrayed in community they certainly we couldn't question that they want to be part of probably one of the most loved places in our Shire and so um I can see why the amendments are there to really make sure that this one we build trust through this whole process we take people on the journey because the people I speak to they're 4/14 they don't school pick up at sport by now so they don't know what we're doing and I think we have an obligation to them to make sure that they're continually updated through any projects so if it doesn't create any more strenuous pressure on staff I'm supportive of that really transparent, open reporting. Thanks. I just have a quick question. Brian Stockwell 03:44:04.260
I'm not sure it's a real question. We provide quarterly progress for status reports I'm that help just concerned about how we decide if this condition is being met. Because a quarterly progress report isn't defined, a status report isn't defined. Shaun Walsh 03:44:33.640
I'm satisfied with the resolution. I think it replicates, you know, the general intent of quarterly operational plan status. Nicola Wilson 03:44:41.760
If you had a choice between a quarterly progress report or a status report, what would be the difference? Shaun Walsh 03:44:47.260
Well, I think there's a fair bit of flexibility in modelling the report on quarterly as part of the operational plan update. So I can take this resolution into account. So I can take this resolution into account in terms of how I more comprehensively report against it. So I'm comfortable with this in terms of integrating it into the existing reporting methodology. Tom Wegener 03:45:04.961
So are you saying that you would alter your normal reporting with the operational plan because of this? So that this amplifies for how you would report your normal reporting on the quarterly? Shaun Walsh 03:45:18.966
You'd probably put more information to be simple to respond to this resolution. So the request of council, and that's a reasonable request, so. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:45:28.786
Well, through the chair now, I guess I'm seeking clarity. Rolling the conversation back, it was a matter of capacity in the organisation. We didn't have a precinct manager, it wasn't the dollars for the budget to support a precinct. To support a previous amendment. Brian Stockwell 03:45:48.907
Is there a question? Karen Finzel 03:45:52.047
Okay, do we have capacity in the organisation to now bring forward extra reporting around the context of capacity and dollars? Through the chair to Mr. CEO, thank you. Shaun Walsh 03:46:05.247
So we already report quarterly through the operational plan on progress in this construction master plan, so I think by building this into existing reporting mechanisms, I'm comfortable with that, rather than requiring a separate report. So I just wanted to be clear that we don't have a precinct manager to sort of drive outcomes and, you know, to be the So, you know, to be the forefront of Noosaville, you know, the more we can build it into our standard practice, we can achieve that, and this meets that intent about putting it into our standard reporting practice. Larry Sengstock 03:46:36.337
Can I just add to that? Yes, please, because the question was directed through the chair. Thank you, staff, for the answer. I think when we're talking about questions of capacity, I do believe the CEO is the best person to report on that. Given our organisation is at capacity, we hear it around the table all the time, our best approach is we fully want to engage with our community, and rightly so, put them at the centre of all our decision making. I would like to hear, please, Mr Senior, around capacity. I think what the original request was in terms of capacity is to write extra reports, so that's the full blown report that requires a whole lot of detail. This would be included as one of our initiatives in our operational plan, which it already is, and then we would just basically say it's a dot point report. So it's basically saying here's the number of roads that exist to go up to on track, not starting, that sort of stuff, and just capture some of the pieces. So this is general, because one of the things you need to be aware too, We need you to be aware too, this is a master plan, and like we said, a master plan sort of sits there and then it becomes project based. There'll be times when there's not a lot to report on, because this is a long term thing, so even when we're building the changing places, that's a 12-month exercise, so very important. We've built that wall today, we've built that wall next month. That's the sort of thing, but it's not going to be a really broad, but I take it. I take Councillor Amelia's point that keeping the community up to speed, so they've got somewhere to go to have a look at it, that to me is fine, and it's not to be, not that onerous, because I remember our operational plan has... I remember our operational plan has, Johnson can tell me, but there's 84,177, I can't remember the actual number. Pardon? 177.167. There are a number of projects, so we're reporting on that on a regular basis. So I don't see it as being over the arm for us to do it through the operational plan. Thank you. Tom Wegener 03:48:46.038
You can. I understand what you're saying, Jess, about we want to give as much information to the people, but we wound up saying that it's going to be in the operational plan, the quarterly operational plan. And whether it's one sentence or two sentences, it's probably not going to filter out to the public that you're speaking about any more or less if it's already in the operational plan, if that's what we're talking about. That's what we're talking about. That's what I'm talking about. So I think that Shaun has got the drift that, yeah, he wants to report on it. We also have the opportunity to ask Shaun about what's happening with the foreshore management plan four times a year when the operational plan comes out. So there's lots of opportunity and there's lots of opportunity for us to gather this information, but I'm not quite. I gathered this information, but I'm not quite sure that, you know, we're fulfilling what your desire to help, you know, the mom and pops that are dropping, you know, the kids off of the school right now. It's probably not going to filter to them that this amendment, but so I just, I just suggest. that the status quo is actually okay, because it gives us, the councillors, lots of opportunity, and then we can tell that those people that you're in touch with. So this, this is a long discussion. This is a long discussion about what's already happening, really. So it doesn't matter if we, I'll support the amendment, but it actually is not that big of a change, is it? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 03:50:14.074
Going to support it. I think it's slightly different from the previous one in that, A, it links it to the operational plan, and B, it refers to any change to project delivery. So what we're dealing with here is probably when we do the operational plan, you know, the budget that comes out this month, we'll have one, two, three, or none, projects resumed like this, and we know changes places will be one. So all it does is all it does is when we have our operational plan report, we just group specific projects over the part of the Noosaville foreshore, and then it becomes transparent. I think the value, I think what Councillor Lorentson is trying to achieve here is something similar to when we said we'd report on the TN. Agreement and the roadmap is to get feedback that people who were concerned about that said oh we're happy that you're going to keep on getting reported and they might never look at it but it gives them a sense of happiness that yes we're going to make the implementation of this. The implementation of this transference, so I'll support this one. Anyone else? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 03:51:15.552
I just want to point out that the name of the plan is incorrect. Amelia Lorentson 03:51:19.372
Infrastructure Management Plan. Brian Stockwell 03:51:20.812
Aye. Noosaville or Shawlaw? Infrastructure Management Plan. Jessica Phillips 03:51:46.938
I'm sorry to cut you off at the end. Thank you. It's about to play. Here's the bills. NFIMP. Larry Sengstock 03:52:04.999
Lighten the mood. It's long afternoon. It's been a long weekend. Brian Stockwell 03:52:14.419
The title. Just copy and paste. Yeah, copy and paste it. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:36.300
Is there anyone else who wishes to talk to the motion? Yes, please. Karen Finzel 03:52:40.680
Yes, indeed. It has been a long afternoon. Thank you everyone for your patience. Look, in support of, like, making sure that we have our beneficiaries, our community, at the centre of everything we do. Out of respect to Councillor Lorentson and the, you know, the lot of work that she's put into these amendments today. And if this provides, you know, a dot point, adds that bit of reassurance, you know, and gives councillors more opportunity to direct concerned community members. Post in the journey that people can pause and review and be satisfied and that we engender trust that we are constantly putting our people at the centre of all decision-making. I'm more than happy to to support this. I'm not sure that actually probably I do believe there's a duplication but in support of all the things that we've discussed around the table I'm happy to support this today. Brian Stockwell 03:53:53.264
I will. Amelia Lorentson 03:53:55.764
Every and any opportunity we have to build public trust, we should jump on it. Clear, consistent communication is essential for maintaining public trust. That's what D does. It tells the community we're listening. We might not have got it right the first time but this time we are going to get it right. This time we are going over and above to try to rebuild your trust. Thank you for the conversation around the table but again I keep stressing guys we need to respond to the people. Brian Stockwell 03:54:35.800
Okay. The unanimous. Do we have any other? Amelia Lorentson 03:54:48.120
I don't. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:54:53.840
So we're just having a technical debate. Yeah, let me know that the Mayor is just stepping out for a moment and we can proceed with this. So we're going to continue? Yeah. Could I just suggest that maybe at some stage a five minute break or not even two minutes? Karen Finzel 03:55:15.540
Are we ready for a five minute break? Yes please, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 03:55:20.480
Yeah, make it five minutes, not two minutes. Yes, Thank you. to staff. Do we have any other amendments? Amelia Lorentson 04:01:55.480
That council amend the foreshore master plan to include a clear, publicly accessible statement showing the total number of existing and proposed car parks across the precinct. Amendment, council amend the foreshore master plan to include a clear, publicly accessible statement showing the total number of existing and proposed car parks across the precinct, including designated and undesignated unmarked car parks, standard accessible motorcycle, scooter, loading and drop-off bays, with a net figure of overall loss or gain based on a precinct. Brian Stockwell 04:02:50.820
Do we have a seconder for that motion? Nicola Wilson 04:02:54.100
Happy to second. Amelia Lorentson 04:03:05.340
One of the issues that have been raised to me by community is that it's really difficult to find in the document, in the master plan, just a statement, a transparent statement regarding net loss or gain of car parking across the precinct. So I've included this amendment that as part of the final document there's some sort of clear statement that actually identifies what's existing, what's proposed and to have included in that the numbers of designated and undesignated and unmarked car parks. We heard today around the table that a lot of the car parkings are informal, unmarked and I just think we need to understand the cumulative loss of car parks as in a precinct-wide context, not just about the Noosaville foreshore management plan. Again, just speaking to residents over the last few days, a lot of them have resorted to pulling up Google Maps and some have physically gone out and started counting the car parks. The amendment provides in regards to what is lost and what is gained. The amendment's not about stalling and it's not even about criticising the design detail, it's simply just about transparency. I think my take home speaking with residents over the last week is that if a plan impacts public access, it's got to be based on clear publicly available data. So I hope you support this amendment, it's simply about transparency. Question. Brian Stockwell 04:05:08.499
We've talked about unmarketing before. Would another term appropriate for those sort of car parks be unapproved? And that some may have just been creeping, people taking cars into areas, and if so, would that in fact encounter something that might not be perfectly legal? So that's correct, but properly I'll point out you said that there's a significant number of informal spaces. I think there's some informal spaces, so I don't think there's a significant number of informal spaces. I think I'll just need to weigh that. So the master plan at the moment deals with the provision of car parking and a precinct approach. For instance, when you look at quota park on page 29, there's these clear leaders that says, "Retain existing parking, include family available, and treat when you provide fuller spaces." There's another leader for the angled parking that says, "Retain existing on-street parking, investigate time regulation and the status." So as you go through a precinct by precinct, the plan very clearly articulates the intention of where existing parking is to be retained. So I think the plan does it quite well at the moment, but noting that there will still be further examination at the detailed design stage, you know, to examine the need for more disabled parking, you know, make sure it's up to standard and all that. So just to say that I think the plan deals with it quite well and it is clear on a precinct by precinct basis at the moment. Frank Wilkie 04:06:38.037
The wording of this about providing a number of proposed car parks, is this premature in the sense that you've yet to do the detailed design so we don't know how many proposed car parks there will be? the wording of this about Shaun Walsh 04:06:48.257
So firstly, particularly in the original June 2020 June 2024 plan, the overly designed one, there was actually a car parking strategy proposed as part of that and there was a full audit of the existing number of car parking spaces which I take to be 404 car parking spaces so that we know that Marking spaces so that we know that are recognised in the plan. So it is really up to a council to decide do you want this level of detailed statement in the master plan or are you prepared to rely on the existing leaders that are actually embedded. in the graphics of the plan on each of the different precincts. So I think it's just a technique whether you want a more overt statement because the intention is to make apart from Noosaville boat ramp is to maintain the existing number of car parking spaces. Brian Stockwell 04:07:41.460
Any other questions or do you want to talk to the microphone? Jessica Phillips 04:07:51.120
I'll speak to it just quickly it would actually help me I feel a lot in answering questions I was down there on Sunday meeting family at 10:30 for a barbecue and no one could find parks but also this was topical conversation and how many car parks are actually you know going and it is It's actually, you know, going and it is quite difficult without going to the leaders, which I have tried to do, Shaun, to go through and I found it quite challenging for me. To work out, so I feel like it actually would help us. We know that this was a huge part of the community's request was car park. It was it was a big one and I think if we could have a real clarity that would certainly help me feel better about the overall master plan moving forward. I think that's let's be honest that's been one of the biggest key parts for community is trying to get down there and find a park and if we take them away they want to know what we're doing about more you know all the other About more, you know, all the other leaders that we have not yet discussed and then I can't help but think that we've got, you know, these proposals around time to parking, workshops and things that are coming in the future. Potentially, and this would help community with an understanding about the commitment to giving them access to the foreshore. I think it's, yeah, it's pretty reasonable to me, if possible, to have a number of total existing and proposed car parks across the precinct. Yeah, I'm quite happy to support this. I would like to know myself. Shaun Walsh 04:09:47.370
Through the Chair, I could suggest that, I think it's a reasonable request because that is the intent of the plan. And can I suggest, and I could do this in preparation for the ordinary meeting, that we prepare an additional paragraph to be inserted under page 12 under understanding our assets with a subheading called car parking that expresses this intent. And that would be explored as part of the detailed design phase. So that could be, you know, to expand section understanding our assets on page 12 to have a clear paragraph about the intent of that car parking. If that would be a way to actually embed this in the master plan more clearly. Nicola Wilson 04:10:28.729
Just back to my original question about, you know, what happens in a master plan versus in detailed design, and when do things get locked in? and then in the design phase that changes and does that then cause a lack of trust in the figure you already Shaun Walsh 04:10:58.330
I don't think we'd be able to commit to a figure of overall loss or gain. We're just talking about the intent is to maintain the existing level of car parking. provision to be assessed on a precinct by precinct basis in accordance with need for disabled parking safety you know business demands at that time so we so we sort of generally state the principle but we have some provisions there that we'd explore as part of the detailed design. Frank Wilkie 04:11:25.640
So just to clarify, you're saying we couldn't really abide by this amendment because it requests numbers, a net figure of overall loss of gain based on the audit. So they're talking about providing numbers of car parks now. Intended for the life of this 20 year master plan. That will make it very, that's a very difficult thing to quantify at this early stage. Shaun Walsh 04:11:53.687
I think we could say that there are currently 404 car parking spaces provided along the Noosaville foreshore. Because Council's, I'm just sticking off the top of my head, Council's intent is to have no net loss of car parking across the precinct. But this will be assessed by precincts. This will be assessed by precinct by precinct approach as part of the detailed concept design phase. Consideration of road safety, business needs and desires, the provision of loading bays and drop off zones, the provision of disabled parking spaces. Frank Wilkie 04:12:23.515
So the only number you could provide is the current level? The current level. Okay. But you can't commit to providing the overall... Shaun Walsh 04:12:32.218
We probably should articulate the loss of the 10 car parking spaces in return for 18 motor scooters. The fact sheet that's available on your publicly available fact sheet says that most car parking spaces along the foreshore have been retained in the plan. One exception is where it's proposed to convert about 10 spaces on Gyppy Terrace alongside the boat ramp. into scooter and motorcycle parking so that's already it's already there yeah on the on the fact sheet is it is it possible that over the 20 year life of this plan as you do precinct by precinct planning based on community feedback there could be a greater gain or greater loss of car parks other than what we understand possible and that's why I'm not committing to a future number more or less I'm just I think it's just getting back to a statement of what is there at the moment and then it can be considered and assessed at a later date so to ensure whether the reason to reduce car parking or increase car parking is appropriate and in consideration of those competing factors I should also include park amenity you know beauty you know so we should include that as well. Tom Wegener 04:13:49.220
I'll speak to it. It seems we have our parking strategy, we have our walking and cycling strategy, we have our transport strategy, we've got a lot going on with cars. And this just is focusing on what's happening now. How many car parks do we have? One of the four, we know it. We have a dynamic, evolving situation with how we're going to deal with Situation with how we're going to deal with parking and transport in the future and I get a little bit frustrated with the foreshore management plan discussing about parking at all because it's actually you're dealing with the foreshore management not parking but I think so I think that this that this is I won't throw out the motion because it's not important really we know how many car parks are ordered. We know how many car parks are ordered for we know that we don't want to lose more of them but going down and on a 20-year plan well not not making massive changes is unsustainable with with we know with with the We know with the amount of population that's going to come, we probably should be like most every other smart city on the earth, working with car parking, working with trying to figure out better ways to move people around, bike lanes, buses. Whatever, all the different things. There may be car park losses in the future, but that's something separate to the foreshore management plan. I don't want to, I have a hard time getting stuck in that when we, a 20 year plan, we're looking ahead for different ways, different opportunities, different ways of moving people around, not cars, but people. Shaun Walsh 04:15:23.564
We've had lots of different views than the exercise. We've had lots of different views than the exercise. The other approach could be, rather than that motion, is just to simply note council is in the process of preparing a parking manager plan for the Noosaville portal, which is correct. Would you provide the time? Would you provide the time? Which will provide the information and the display of parking provision along the Noosaville portal for further consideration by the public. So that would link it to the forthcoming piece of work, which has been well informed by this work. And you've still got the leaders in the precinct plans to keep, you know, when we come into the detail, but that gives, that gives security to people or the public about the process we're about to embark on. And you've still got... That could be another way without changing the master plan at all. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 04:16:09.494
Yeah, I like the conversation around the table and again, thank you, Councillor Lorentson for bringing this and it really evokes a thought-provoking conversation. I like the idea put forward that you can put an extra heading in page 12 in the report to reiterate what we've got there. Again, I come back to this idea, you know, what are we here for? We're here to make sure that the beneficiaries of our governance, you know, gives us the social impact that we and our community. want to see as we co-create together towards a future. Understanding also that the trends influencing car parking and everything along the lines of, you know, what Councillor Wegener brought to the table, this broader conversation across the whole of Shire. And this afternoon, you know, earlier on, I asked the question about car parking. You answered that saying you did a spot survey. Then we went forward to find out that the cost of a detailed tech trial, you know, that'll be based on budget, $150,000, to again give us detailed plans. So given we're working within the framework of a, you know, living, dynamic document, I won't support this. I fully understand where Councillor Lorentson, and I want to respect where she's moving in that. space. But I think we're all on that same page. Again, for replication, and I don't know, trying to widen us out across the Shire as well. I think we're moving in the right direction. I think we've heard our community. You know, we're all working hard, each one of us, councillors and staff and the community to come together to, you know, connect with one another, listen and value our stories and work together towards a sustainable future for all. So I won't be supporting the amendment before us. Brian Stockwell 04:18:04.163
Thanks. I concur with Councillor Wegener, is that this is a 20 year plan and I wouldn't be, even though this member doesn't talk about the Noosa car park, we know that our community at the moment, their main concern is... In the community at the moment, their main concern is availability of car parks and accessibility to a treasured recreational space. As time goes on, availability can be changed by a range of different measures, one of them being time controls. Instead of holidaymakers parking their car 24 hours a day in front of their unit, we have a car space that might have 12 or 20 cars parked. I also think that the thing we have to remember here is that some of the beneficiaries of this plan are the families of 10-15 years time. They're the kids that we're currently hooning around in that little e-box, so the chance, the probability that modes of transport will change during life in this plane and that the private motor vehicle becomes less of the dominant transporter are quite high. So I don't think we should be locking it in. I think I quite like the suggestion of just noting that the car park momentum. Frank Wilkie 04:19:31.900
We've heard that there is great support for the principle of this being a living document is a 20 year timeframe in terms of the designs that come out of it. It changes according to the designs that are done on a more detailed precinct by precinct basis. It's a 20, it has a 20 year horizon. What I do support in this amendment is that we can accurately provide a clear statement about the We have that information. I'm in favour of providing as much information as possible about these things because it is of interest to the community. But what we can't do is provide a definitive What we can't do is provide a definitive number which is required by this amendment about what the final number will be in the future after community consultation the community will help decide what that will be and community values do shift over time community patterns of transport shift over time so if this was an amendment that locked us into providing a statement of existing car parks we could provide the facts on that but had a looser ending about saying explaining the approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future as well as providing the existing number of car parks I would support it the current wording I think it puts a straitjacket on the council in terms of what's possible and what we can accurately share with the community at this point so if there was another amendment if this was to fail and another amendment was to say amend the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan to include a clear publicly accessible statement showing total number of existing car parks across across the precinct and outlining the approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future I would support it, but I can't support the wording of this, even though I too, and every councillor, wants to provide clear information to the community, they understand that car parking is important, but this has to be a plan that takes into account what may fall out of community consultation into the future. Brian Stockwell 04:22:02.523
Yeah, Nicola Wilson 04:22:03.583
I'm just going to come back to that concept of the living document, that it's not going to keep getting updated and therefore I just think there's a bit of a risk in putting a figure out there. I figure out there now that we need to change it. Amelia Lorentson 04:22:17.747
First I'll start with a question. We've already put out there that there's a net loss of 10 car parks in the Noosaville boat ramp, is that correct? That's correct. That's correct. So I'm sitting here a little bit confused. In 2024 when we had the draft master plan, we had a statement. How many car parks, how many proposed and what's the net loss? I don't know what's different this time around. So that's my first question. Thank you very much. Data. I keep sitting here going, for us to sit around a table making decisions about the future, we need to have as much data as possible. Our decisions are... Our decisions are based on data. Understanding cumulative impacts. What happens when the adjoining developments across Gympie Terrace, when we start giving them infrastructure agreements. agreements. And, you know, allow them to pay X amount of dollars in lieu of car parks. We need to understand what does that mean as a precinct? Tourism. You know, what's the future? We talk about future facing. I think about adjoining developments, impact of visitation, and we can't. And we currently don't. We've got to keep going back to, we've got to talk, as much as we'd love to talk about the Noosa of the future, the Noosa of today, we don't have alternatives. The community have made it loud and clear they value their car parks. I don't know how much clearer they have to do that. Some of us were there when they were protesting at the tennis courts. Don't take away our car parks. Don't take away our car parks. So the amendment is simple but I feel that everyone's overthinking and making everything more complex than it is. Again I keep saying the same thing over and over again. When you've got an opportunity to provide clarity, to provide the community a response to the questions that they're asking and the question they're asking is where do I find how many car parks Where do I find how many car parks and how many how many we're going to lose in this drought? That's what that's what we're doing, our job, responding to community concerns about transparency and clarity, understanding how important this issue is. So I hope you rethink it's not as onerous requirement. It's something we did in 2024. Director has said it's quite simple. He can invent it before the ordinary meeting. It's just not a big ask. We're not asking for setting ourselves into something rigid and committed. It's about what What does the draft plan at the moment tell us about car parking? And we've got C and all these other recommendations that identify that it's a living document, that it will be revised and will be updated. Um, so it just, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's They build their trust. They don't trust us. And these are opportunities that I'm throwing in the form of amendments to help the community know that we are genuine. And I know we are genuine. I know we are genuine. I'm not saying otherwise. Point of order Mr Chair. The council has made a statement about the community not trusting Noosa Council. I'll retract that and I apologise. That's come out incorrectly. What I'd like to say is that this is an opportunity for us to continue building trust with our community. So thank you for... So thank you for pulling me up on that, Mayor Wilkie. That is retracted. So again, not onerous. I hope you support the amendment in front of us. Brian Stockwell 04:26:23.608
I put the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson and Councillor. Those opposed is Councillor Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener-Wilson and Stockwell. And the amendment has been lost. Frank Wilkie 04:26:35.768
While the iron is hot, can I propose an amendment? If you could bring that last one up. Nicola Wilson 04:26:46.180
The last one? Yeah. Frank Wilkie 04:26:48.260
Because I'll be using this part of the wording. Shaun Walsh 04:27:30.600
Okay. Frank Wilkie 04:27:32.420
So could you highlight, amend the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan to include a clear publicly assessable statement showing the total number of existing and cut and paste that to be the start of amendment. That is the start. That amendment? That is the start. That is the start. Okay. All right. Total number of existing and get rid of everything. Nicola Wilson 04:28:31.520
Oh, cow ducks? Frank Wilkie 04:28:39.300
And outline. Vehicle parks across the... Amelia Lorentson 04:29:09.640
I'm happy to second that. Frank Wilkie 04:29:12.100
Vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. Yes. So, Councillor Wilson has picked out an extra word that doesn't need to be there, so... Get rid of the word existing. Get rid of the word existing. Brian Stockwell 04:29:45.520
Yeah, look, Frank Wilkie 04:29:49.480
We've interrogated this in the last amendment. This goes to the heart of what can be provided. We have accurate data on the existing number of car parks, and we can outline... the approach to the vehicle parks across the future. I think this, if I understood correctly, this is what Councillor Lorentson would like, was aiming for, the clear public accessible statement about this issue. And this doesn't lock us in to a final number, but it will explain clearly the approach to that going into the future. so I'd have Brian Stockwell 04:30:33.580
I think it's a preferable approach in that there is a lot of uncertainties about what could or couldn't occur. So for example, Councillor Lorentson in the last debate mentioned about development approvals. We had one recently where we actually created more car parks by closing off an access and then that development approval also nominated a number of We also nominated a number of motorcycle car parks that would be provided on the southern side of Gympie Terrace. What might be an option if that proceeds is that if we then do the widened footpath that we could actually swap the motorcycle park over to the other side of the road and bring the car parks onto the southern side. There are all these different detailed designs that shouldn't be part of the consideration and I think this is suitably strategic enough in its approach that it won't create any problems. Tom Wegener 04:31:26.680
So we're going to question approach. When you say approach, do you mean like the wide definition of approach, like the different plans we're going to go about, how we're going to think about it, bicycle ways, all of Brian's ideas? Is that what you mean by approach? Frank Wilkie 04:31:41.507
Well, I mean, as we've heard, there's going to be more detailed design that needs to be done for each of the areas across the foreshore, and there'll be community consultation, there'll be inputs from different stakeholders, that all has to be taken into approach, so I'm hoping that… I'm hoping that that can be part of the statement. It's a wide approach. Yes, and it doesn't lock us into a set number, because we don't know that number. Just speaking back to the directors' wording before, it was more about the intent, so the intended approach. Brian Stockwell 04:32:19.337
Are we happy to include the word intended? Shaun Walsh 04:32:25.640
I'd be pleased to supply a paragraph tomorrow for councillors. I'm happy to include the word intended if councillors are... Frank Wilkie 04:32:38.800
Contribute. I'm happy with that Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 04:32:53.640
Is everyone else happy? I just have a question, do we need to be, I don't know, say the total number of car parks, don't we already have that public available online? 440? Shaun Walsh 04:33:09.000
It was in the material distributed originally with the June 2024 version and it has been contained. Amelia Lorentson 04:33:37.540
Meeting. Shaun Walsh 04:33:37.628
I think that that amendment gives us plenty of scope and then I can I don't think we should be in the period between now and the ordinary meeting wordsmithing a couple of paragraphs so I think that would be a bit torturous just to be frank so but I'm happy to have a first crack at it but I don't think we should But I don't think we should make your resolution on Thursday contingent on that. I think we can have a bit of time to think about it to make sure it captures everything you'd like to be in that statement. Okay. Brian Stockwell 04:34:10.796
Other questions or people wishing to talk to the amendment? No? Councillor Wilkie, do you wish to pose? No, thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Do we have any other amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Okay. Amelia Lorentson 04:34:27.892
That any redesign of parking areas within the Noosa foreshore precinct must result in no net loss of publicly available parking spaces. I might get rid of including designated, undesignated, unmarked car parks. And just make it read that any design of parking areas within the Noosa Foreshore Precinct must result in no net loss of publicly available parking spaces, including car parks. motorcycle, scooter bays, PWD spaces, and loading or drop off zones, unless an equivalent or greater number of spaces is reallocated within the precinct and clearly identified during the detailed out i'm happy what's on the screen is what Oh sorry, Noosaville foreshore infrastructure. infrastructure. I actually like to include including a designated and designated and undesignated or unmarked parking so could you add you just took that out yeah can I add it back in please and undesignated We must result in no mid-loss of public levy, including decent levy. Thank you, yes. One of the strongest and most consistent messages from the community throughout this process has been the need to retain existing parking, not simply for convenience but to ensure equitable and practical access for all users. This includes a This includes our older residents, our mobility impaired individuals, families with young children and boaties with trailers who require proximity to water and green space. Noosa is a regional town, not a high density inner city environment. Unlike cities with extensive public transport infrastructure, our communities still relies heavily on private vehicles. Unless council has realistic, accessible and fully operational infrastructure and transport alternatives in place, such as frequent and reliable public transport effective park and ride systems, or active transport networks, cycleways and footpaths that are safe and convenient for all ages and abilities, reducing parking becomes an ideological rather than a practical... The proposed removal of car parks, and we've had the discussion, particularly I want to talk about the tin bays near the boat ramp on Guilby Terrace, does not, in my opinion, reflect the lived reality of how this space is used. There is no clear data justifying the change, no pedestrian safety audit, no parking demands... analysis and no demonstrated evidence that removing car parks is necessary to improve safety or accessibility. Claims that these spaces must be lost to achieve a wider accessible pathway, I question. Current path meets or exceeds minimum standards and a three metre width could be accommodated perhaps... without any parking lost. Question I keep asking myself is who are we designing for. The proposed additional scooter and motorcycle parking often sits empty while families, grandparents, fishers and long-time locals, the people who define and use this space daily, are left with fewer options. strap a tinny to an e-scooter and you can't expect a 75 year old resident to walk 500 metres from a distant lot just to reach the foreshore. You can't... Expecting nearby residential streets to absorb trailer parking is equally unrealistic and unfair. Councillors, I think we just have to be really careful that we're not designing for a version of Noosa that doesn't yet exist. Removing car parking without a viable alternative penalises the very people this foreshore is meant to serve and will only lead to congestion, frustration and reduced access. The amendment in front of us is about protecting functionality and fairness and responding to the outcry our community, the outcry from our community not to take away their car parks. This isn't just about preserving parking spots but it's about ensuring that any future plan remains grounded in the lived reality. Frank Wilkie 04:41:18.220
Just a question, if I read this, this actually allows the increase in car park and vehicle spaces from 10 to 18. Amelia Lorentson 04:41:36.220
Where do you read that? Well, no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including designated and un-designated, unmarked car parking, motorcycle and scooter bays. So we're actually increasing the publicly available number of parking spaces from 10 to 18 in front of the boat ramp. I don't know if that's the intent. Oh excuse me, no it's not. So can we take out motorcycles for your base? There's just no net loss of publicly available parking spaces, including designated and undesignated, unmarked car parking. Nicola Wilson 04:42:20.004
Get rid of the motorcycle scooters. Amelia Lorentson 04:42:21.984
Yep. And load in and drop off zones. Keep the PWA. Excessive spaces. Yep. And load in and drop off zones. Brian Stockwell 04:42:32.976
If this council is happy with that, you change to the moved and seconded motion? Yes, sir. We can see it on a basis. Sorry. Frank Wilkie 04:42:44.956
I have another question. Any other question? Does the inclusion of a disability parking space require more space than one? Shaun Walsh 04:42:54.708
Yes, since the development of this Pre-Central Division of Disabled Parking Spaces, there's been significant changes to disabled parking standards. You need a shared space beside each car parking space. So, for instance, you know, two disabled parking spaces usually require three car parking spaces. Frank Wilkie 04:43:18.088
Yeah, so the inclusion, if we wanted to include more disability car parking spaces, we'd actually have a net loss of car parking spaces. And we'd have to find more space with them. More space within the precinct to compensate. So, technically, if we wanted to include more disability car parking spaces, we'd have a net loss? That's correct. Okay. Amelia Lorentson 04:43:42.748
Can I request some help with a wording that acknowledges that PWD accessible spaces, with the exception of PWD? With the exception of PWD excessive. With the exclusion of the E-net loss. Brian Stockwell 04:44:02.704
You've moved to take a motion, we've done one more, I believe. Look, I'll speak to it. Every one of the ways we were not willing to keep going with this. I understand what Councillor Dolores is trying to achieve. I just don't, I think a motion like this, an amendment like this needs more work because I understand it's contrary to what the Councillor was trying to achieve in regarding to an increase in vehicle, in parking spaces because motor scooters are also classified as vehicles and also it would preclude us from including more Frank Wilkie 04:45:01.276
I know Councillor Lorentson and as all councillors are mindful of improving access for all abilities and this would not be the intention of this amendment so I can't support it because I think the wording needs a bit more work. Nicola Wilson 04:45:22.688
I'm just still coming back to this as a 20-year plan. Things will change over time. People, the types of vehicles people use may change over time. They may even become bigger so that we have to make parking spaces bigger and that again would cause a loss and yeah I think we can't set this in stone now not knowing what will happen. Brian Stockwell 04:45:49.060
Other councillors? I'm not going to repeat everything I've said previously which would argue against this, only to say that we've been through a very significant development phase on this and came up with what I think is a reasonable compromise, which largely achieves a minimal impact on existing There's a minimal impact on existing provisions. I think the key is that when the community say they don't want to lose car parts, they're saying we're finding it difficult to We're finding it difficult to find a car park, and we don't want it being more difficult, whereas the car parking management plan will consider time control, which should make a significant difference in the availability of car parks, and that's achieving it. It's not just the raw number of car parks that will determine how easy it is to access a car park. There is a mix of measures. The first one is time control, the next one is potential of paid parking for visitors with resident permits, a whole host of different levers that could be considered into the future that would achieve a better result than just saying we're just going to keep the same number of car parks. I'm very concerned about the inclusion of unmarked car parking. because as I say, some of these are... because as I say, some of these are things that have done by proof without any approval and shouldn't be there. They're unsafe, they've been created to provide ease of access generally... I think some of them for business, okay? So if it's not formally approved car parks, why would we seek to do the patent? I'm not saying that's definitely the case, I'm saying it's highly likely that some of these car parks are in the park itself. Some of these car parks in the park itself, they're unmarked because they've never been approved and it would be a contrary to good practice to actually then seek their, then count them in the number. I think the appropriate way to go and it's... and it's right, the overwhelming feedback was car parking is an issue. One of the statements Councillor Lorentson made is actually quite interesting and we're one of the few places in Queensland on Gympie Terrace that has a high... We've got this many and we're going to a car parking management strategy, we're going to do a detail design, but the most important thing is there is current problems with car parking and there is current conflicts in the prioritisation of cars and people using the pathways and where the community settlement will change is if we don't get it right and we do have a serious incident then why didn't council do something about it? So we have to look at it from a broad perspective. Jessica Phillips 04:50:23.720
Thanks. So my amendment is that item A be amended to read, approve the final Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan provided in attachment 1, subject to 1, revert the design approach from the Maso slipway and jetty in Eli Park to that shown on the consultation version endorsed by Council at its meeting of the 6th of November. 2024 which was the special meeting and just to give clarity I'm going to I actually snipped it I screenshot was snipped the um the precinct for everyone's information so you can actually see we need to oh we need a seconder yeah council Wilson yeah okay thank you um it's easier if it's up on the screen Vicky so would you mind bringing up the last email I sent you which is yes please yep so there'll be three different I just want to so everyone can understand where we're at yeah so this was the proposal for this precinct in the June 2024 amendment okay I'm going to take you on a journey so this is the 2024 June which is most of the car park loss inside around the slipway with a loading zone there you bring up the next one from the special meeting please so that's the June 2024 this is the special meeting one that we endorsed to go to community at the special meeting that last year you there can was see from what I understand it was there was conversation from staff with the commercial operators where they came to an agreement that Sean spoke to on that they require some car parking inside for staff and so And so they they agreed agreed that that this concept suited them. It had the loading zone that was safe for the operators and it retained some car parking. I believe that there was no net loss but it was just the configuration that was specifically more user friendly for the people that are down there every single day. So that was indoor that was the one that went out to consultation now the one that we see today is yeah I had sent you as well. Nicola Wilson 04:53:17.806
I'll just bring it up, Jess. Oh, sorry, we voted. Yeah, I bet it's fine. Kerri Contini 04:53:27.006
Okay. Jessica Phillips 04:53:28.086
I'm sorry. Nicola Wilson 04:53:43.980
So, Councillor, Shaun Walsh 04:53:45.420
I just want to correct that it's the first version there. That's actually, that's actually in the current master plan. It's reverted back to that, has it? I think it was slightly different. So this, just to clarify, if you leave that up. So, if you're correct, this is what was endorsed for public consultation. In the special meeting? In April 2024. Yep. This is actually what's shown in the current version of the master plan before you today. Jessica Phillips 04:54:17.908
Okay. And I did send through the original one. The original one was all descriptive again. Yes. Okay. Does it help everyone to see then from today to the one with the- that went out to consultation in November? Shaun Walsh 04:54:35.440
I can send you a screenshot. Nicola Wilson 04:54:40.260
In 2000, which one was that? Shaun Walsh 04:54:45.260
Chair, if I could describe this. Sure. This arrangement actually reflects pretty well the news as of the moment. So- Yeah. So, if you know, the pathway actually intersects the moving area for the cars. So, there were conflict points. And subsequent to this being a consultation, there was discussions with a couple of the operators there. And they wanted to see better separation between the pathway and the slipway to actually better accommodate safety and environmental issues and the like. And also we're concerned for the overall conflict. And also, Yeah. So, subsequent to that, this is what's being prepared by staff. And basically what it does is it swaps the internal car parking actually within the park. And actually it changes it to equal parking off the street so that the cars don't go into the park. And better resolves the interface with the slipway by actually having more room for better landscape separation that still allows a driveway for, you know, specific vehicle use for access. So now, Christmas, so rain this morning, and I'm on reflection, they prefer to go back to the original. So staff efforts were trying to resolve what they thought, but upon further reflection, they would like to go back to the original, which is shown here. Now I note that this subject to the resolution as we're seeing, this is going to be subject to detailed design and these issues are going to be interrogated in a lot more detail and I do note that the existing leader, that's the leader there, says optimise car parking, you know, so it's forecast to be a design process for actually looking at it again. Now, I note that... So I just want to note that this design change actually came as a result of discussions with the community. Perhaps they've changed their mind or they've reflected upon it further and they would like to go back to what was actually displayed to the Board of Communities that day. Frank Wilkie 04:56:51.552
Can I ask some questions? No, because Councillor has sort of started talking and then... Right, no, my apologies. Jessica Phillips 04:57:06.120
My amendment to it, I understand, again, I respect that there will be detailed design, but the reason why I'm bringing this on as a specific amendment is really to respect To respect heritage along that foreshore and appreciate the commercial businesses that provide employment to so many people. You know, that area isn't just the slipway. I don't know if anyone's been to Depot, a coffee shop that keeps expanding because the community absolutely loves their coffee and food, but it is out of control because it's great food. That little pub, I'm there every second day and it is a bustling, fun, great precinct in Nooseville. And the thing that I can't help but, all we're going to do when we reduce car parking is they will go and park in residential streets and then there will be complaints about, we parked seven cars on Sunday from our family down a residential street because we've been parked in a car park near Pirate Park. We filled up a residential street with my brother's large vehicles because they're tradies, they own utes. I'm sorry, this, it's not going to change. I, the ideology of people not driving vehicles, it's, I can't, I can't support that that will happen. I'm sure we can encourage behaviour change when there's more public transport, and I'm not saying that that won't happen, but the community made it really clear that they want to be able to access their workplaces. I'm not even talking about the people down to enjoy the foreshore, I'm actually talking about the economic part of our foreshore right now, so it's actually not about the car spaces right now, it's about the jobs and the day-to-day reality of the working people. So the businesses operating in this precinct, they're not temporary pop-ups, they are long-standing commercial operators, many whom have served this community for decades. They employ local tradespeople, marine workers and service people. People who need to be physically on site with some tools, equipment and sometimes early starts. So removing staff or car parking from this area, it's not just inconvenient, in my opinion it's actually economically reckless. We've all participated in these car park management workshops and we've acknowledged that staff car parking is essential to the functioning of commercial precincts. If we remove these spaces without viable alternatives, then we're not solving the problem, we're displacing it. The workers will be pushed into surrounding residential streets, I just put this up because it is one that highlights to me the areas that could potentially be and again in detailed design I'd like to see it revisited but the community in that area are saying we really need it to remain as it is to be commercially viable. Frank Wilkie 05:00:48.966
Thank you. Can we have those two comparisons and just come out that way. Thank you very much. Thank you. Looking at the This is parallel parking along here, is that correct? That's correct. So is that approximately, would you say, three spaces? Three, yeah. You're looking here, converting to angle parking, you've got sort of two parks there. Shaun Walsh 05:01:41.460
So my understanding for the design. You've got two parks here, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, by converting to angle parking and the direction to add more space than if they were parallel parking. 15 parks there. I'm looking here, we've got one... We've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, it looks like there's an increase in car parking. So the advice from Dean and consultants was that they were confident they could achieve no net loss of car parking spaces along there, it was just the configuration. Rather than having to drive into the parkland to see the park, you were able to, like many other areas of Gimby Terrace, use the road network to manoeuvre into the space. And that provided capacity for space. For, you know, resolving the pedestrian and cyclist conflict with cars moving into that space. It provided space to perhaps move the pathway so you could set up better landscape buffers around the Maso Sipway. And also, still acknowledge that there would be occasional delivery driveway as shown by that internal driveway under management control, which is a much less Which is a much less risk environment than having all those cars into the space. There is, from what I understand, there is only one designated car parking space given under a long-standing arrangement with one of those businesses. The rest are parking for people. So any person can drive into that space and park at the moment, so. Frank Wilkie 05:03:17.972
And currently, the current arrangements, you've got cars reversing over the parking lot? That's right. Yeah, that's correct. Shaun Walsh 05:03:30.402
That's a long-standing arrangement that's been there forever and a day and I do get the point that that is what's put out to the public consultation. Part of the reason Part of the reason of the change was actually following discussions with these same stakeholders. So we've actually come up with a more lateral solution which provided better separation. So I'm ambivalent either way. So because when it comes to detailed design of this space, we're going to have to-- This could be revisited. This could be revisited because it's all about trying to come up with the best outcome. There could be other solutions which are even better. And I take the point that as a sign of-- The consultants view is this amended approach gives us more flexibility that provide better buffering to protect the slipway from adjacent observers and protect the ongoing functionality of the integrated slipway. to protect-- Frank Wilkie 05:05:19.442
The operators understand that there's actually-- it looks like there's actually more car parks in that area. Shaun Walsh 05:05:29.672
I wasn't-- Dean Arnold's away at the moment so I can't speak in detail about the exchange of information between the local parties during that time. Frank Wilkie 05:05:40.312
Thank you. And this is the precinct where buses, which now cost 50 cents to access, are going on every 15 minutes. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 05:05:53.374
Hey, I'm going to speak to you, sir. I'll let a couple of references to ideological pass me by, but in case, because the logic is so egregious to me in this particular argument, I have to point out it's not ideological. This is sound planning principles have been adopted across the world for many years. It's not you. The argument that a business would want their staff to come back close to the business on the river is cutting your nose off to spite your face. The last thing you want is long term parking, packing up your customers car bags. Staff generally should be, have an option 100 metres away. To suggest that we have to cater for a business that's growing. When we did the Noosa foreshore management plan, that was all about the concerns of the community, how commercial enterprise can be ancillary to the marine industry. They're very small size, which they're allowed. So we probably don't want to hear that they're growing all the time. But to me, this is about what a park is for. And I certainly used the park before those car parks were there, and I certainly, when my children were alone, had the conflict of having to negotiate small kids riding little bikes and people reversing in and around them. It's clearly a poor design option. So I think we have to be really clear that the purpose of the Noosaville foreshore management plan is to maintain and improve the public foreshore. Yes, we do have a range of very long-standing marine industries and I've enjoyed it. I've enjoyed going down there for a coffee, but it's not the primary driver. Providing access to allow them to run their business and get trades people in is satisfied with the second design. Having car parks close to them so their car parks are close to them so their customers can come in and out if they want to get a coffee or hire a boat. But it's not to provide staff car parking in a park. I know one of my associates who has a business office across the road was complaining about losing a car park for their car park across the road in the car park. Car parks in a park should be closed using the park. And so I think it's really important that we look at I think it's really important that we look at what is the best outcome for the safety of people using the car park and try and minimise the impact on total overall usage. It's not ideological, it is sound planning to try and encourage... to try and encourage people to take active or public transport. It is a key initiative in a number of documented council strategies and it's key to reducing our footprint so that we have a river and a foreshore that's usable... I would say that the design on the left looks safer and more consistent with the rest of the parking on the foreshore. It does seem to have no net loss but I do go back to the original point that in the community engagement The design on the right was given and there's been feedback since then on whether that would actually, whether the one on the left would actually work for the operations that need access so I will support the motion but just noting safety concerns because I have seen little kids have a few near misses around there as they pile up the cars and the cars are moving so I do have some See you. Nicola Wilson 05:09:55.838
So, I do have some concerns on the safety aspects, but I will support it for the broader commercial reasons. Tom Wegener 05:10:03.818
Chancellor Wegener. This is a living plan, where, you know, optimisation. Are we micromanaging this? Because, like, it's not set what's going to happen now. With this, this isn't set in stone. It seems to me, if it's not set in stone, this is not an amendment that needs to be passed. Neither is it. Is that right? Shaun Walsh 05:10:29.553
I think it's about what Council's preference is to graphically show on the plan. Whether it's, you know, the one that was shown in November of 2024, or the one that we've presented to you more recently as part of the report, which is on the left there, which indicates a long-term safer approach. And it indicates an appetite for Council to change the approach to make it safer. Frank Wilkie 05:10:56.940
Question, was it the owners of the slipway as part of the consultation that pointed out the safety aspects about cars reversing across the park? Shaun Walsh 05:11:05.720
I don't know whether it was the owners of the slipway, but it has come out from various conversations from other people as Frank Wilkie 05:11:13.080
Well. yeah look um i want to move this along i i'm looking at these two taking plans on on board the fact that the one on the left which appears to have the same if not even more car parks was developed after consultation with the slipway owners and also the in general response sponsor to issues they raise in response to issues they raise as well as the general public it doesn't it addresses the very concerning issue of cars reversing across a public pathway it addresses which the very concerning issue of cars reversing across a public pathway which is is up there safety issue that needs to be taken there safety issue that needs to be taken very seriously I see the heritage of the slipway very seriously I see the heritage of the slipway is respected can continue to operate is respected can continue to operate there is ample parking more in my just there is ample parking more in my just looking at these diagrams more parking looking at these diagrams more parking created on the road by the provision and of taking created on the road by the provision of angle parking on board the fact that this is going to be consulted on again I just and taking on board the fact that this is going to be consulted on again I just think I cannot support a plan that has fewer in think I cannot support a plan that has fewer in this in This in this this precinct precinct looks like fewer car parks and has safety issues and this design on the left is superior and it And it has has taken taken on board issues raised by the Zipway owner, but I'll be very interested to hear what happens when the further detailed design happens for this precinct. And I'll respect that as well, but looking at it, clearly there's no net loss of car parking, and maybe even more, which has been thrust of what we've been talking about previously. It has to be seen in the context, perspective of the whole precinct, which has 404 car parks. So that has to be taken into account. So I'll be supporting the design on the left. The design on the left, which on the face of it, looks far more sensible. Brian Stockwell 05:13:27.767
I just need a question to Councillor Phillips to clarify. Your motion, which one is it? Supporting the one at the red square. The one that they, the commercial operators want, which is the one on the right. Karen Finzel 05:13:37.524
Right, and they spoke to you today and they said that's the one they want to go back. And Shaun, and that is to promote that they want that in the imagery. They need to be able to work at the precinct one and the that they on reflection the one that they that on the left it doesn't allow that makes it harder on that the entire business of getting equipment on and off the jetty The JETI and and their they're point going to of detail with Shaun and Dean over how hard it is to function, you know, operate those businesses. So they're saying, you know, and these are busy people. So I can understand how the mis... Sorry, you asked your question because I'll close later. Have I answered your question? Yeah, so just to clarify, it is about the intent to have that initial one printed in the document. So that's what we're really, is that your intent for today? Yeah. Okay, if that's the case, thank you for the clarification. I will support that so that imagery goes out. Noting also, again, that it is open, you know, back to community consultation. We see there's a lot of toing and froing, you know, with the community engagement. Community engagement. It is a living document. It is a living document. It's flexible. I'm happy to support the business owners there if they've reached out and said we want that imagery, you know, back on that document. I'm happy to support that. Amelia Lorentson 05:15:06.346
Question to, through the Chair please. Is there any net loss of car parking in the preferred option? Shaun Walsh 05:15:14.878
So the advice from Nadine and the consultants is that there's more than adequate space to ensure there's no net loss of car parking in either scenario. I would suggest that some of the issues they're having with servicing the area is the fact that the staff parking there all day, making their trucks difficult to come in and out. And the benefits of the amended approach on the left is it actually provides a dedicated area for them, free from parking. Jessica Phillips 05:15:58.491
That's a loading bay though and they've got to take equipment from both those jetties all the way down to there and at the moment they take it straight off into the, so it's actually operating. It's actually operationally beneficial for workplace health and safety for them operating a business the way it is currently designed because they can get the truck right next to them. Do you think that they take the truck across the path? No, in that particular area which is proposed to be grass I think. Shaun Walsh 05:16:29.145
So there is a lot of license with the way they There is a lot of licence with the way they use that space with trucks, and when you look back at the primary function of the foreshore, which is a recreation space, you're basically encouraging a solution which actually encourages vehicle and truck and bicycle and vehicle conflict, whereas our view from a design perspective, the design on the left, sets up a more of an arrangement. Um, and, um, and it will require change of operating arrangements for those, you know, operators that try to load a truck and put it on a jenny, or to put it on a trolley, and, you know, safely manoeuvre equipment across, rather than the assumption that they can, you know, park across the bikeway or park, you know, near their jenny as they please. Amelia Lorentson 05:17:17.440
I'll speak to it. I'll support the amendment in front of us. I think it just responds to community feedback, in particular to the businesses that are going to be impacted by any design change, given just the Design change given just the discussion in front of us that it doesn't really pose any real issue which design is actually presented in a master plan there's a clear understanding that the document can be updated and changed at any time so again any opportunity to allow community to know that we're listening this is one of them so I'm happy just Brian Stockwell 05:18:11.100
Thank you I think for me it just comes down to you know I think staff can probably agree with it's really hard when someone external tells you how to do your job right and I know that in policing when external people tell me how policing should What kind of policing should be be done? done and for me And for me, when I look at any of the precinct, any areas along the precinct, all I do is walk and use it for recreational and buy coffee. But if I want to know what to do from the precinct level around what needs to What needs to be done? My first priority is what the people that keep it alive, what they need to keep it operating, you know, otherwise we're getting, to me, a little bit of change. A little bit of changes around what does the foreshore look like in 20 years. I would hope loud and clear the community have said we really like it how it is. So I'm just, you know, we've kept talking about 20 years but in the... 20 years there will be changes that we see fairly soon and for me it's just about saying well I'm not going to go in and tell a commercial operator how to do business I'm going to listen to them I would do it in every part of the precinct I'm going to think who if we go to Pirate Park let's hope we don't engage with the you know the people that don't use Pirate Park about what kids want at a park so let's At a park. So let's engage with the people that use each and every bit along the foreshore and this is why this amendment is up today because I'm just saying they're the main operators of that area and let's respect their history and acknowledge the work that you know that their community members and that they deserve to be heard. So I hope you can support the amendment. I put the amendment in favour. That's Councillor Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Wilson. Opposed against? Councillor Wilkie and Stockwell. Amendments carried. Do we have any other amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 05:20:34.902
I'm going to just reword an amendment that I put forward before. Vicky I emailed it to you. Brian Stockwell 05:20:51.480
So the standing orders will prevent you from moving an amendment substantially similar to one that has been refused before? Amelia Lorentson 05:20:59.200
No, just the no net loss of publicly available car park. Just tweak everything. Jessica Phillips 05:21:13.538
Can I make an amendment because I seconded it? Brian Stockwell 05:21:22.398
No, any amendment that is substantially similar to one that has already been moved. Any other amendments? Amelia Lorentson 05:21:34.940
Yes, I have another amendment. That prior to any detailed design or construction of the proposed new wetlands west of the slipway at Chaplin Park, Council undertake a risk assessment including commission, NENA, an independent environmental impact assessment and hydrology report. These reports must demonstrate that the wetland proposal does not increase risk to the health of the river and health risk, example mosquitoes and canyons, or flooding risk to nearby residents Brian Stockwell 05:22:17.800
Do we have a second of that motion? I'm happy to second the debate. Amelia Lorentson 05:22:26.620
Vicky, you've left out some words. So these reports must demonstrate that the wetland proposal does not increase risk to the health of the rivers, risk to the health of the rivers, risk to the health of the river, health risk, or flooding risk. So it does not increase risk to the health of the river. Nicola Wilson 05:23:00.902
No, Brian Stockwell 05:23:04.562
I think take that because the sentence that was on the screen said this. The sentence that was on the screen said these reports must demonstrate the wetland flow and does not increase health risk or flooding risk to nearby residents or the broader community and does not increase risk to the health of the river. Risk to the health of the river, full stop, yeah. Nicola Wilson 05:23:22.091
So just delete. Yeah because you have, the words are still in there aren't they that you want to say. Amelia Lorentson 05:23:30.771
Thank you. Just if you delete health risk and flooding risk at the end. Can I start with council's environment strategy. There's a section that commits to avoiding and mitigating environmental community risk. Community have raised a couple of their concerns about the Their concerns about the proposal to transition part of Chapman Park into wetlands. Acknowledging that ecological restoration does bring benefits, their concerns are about increased mosquito, sandfly activity, and concerns... Increased risk to the health of the river, oysters, and overall biodiversity in terms of whether or not chemical controls are used or introduced into the wetlands. And a risk... And a risk assessment means that we can sort of understand unintended impacts on our aquatic ecosystems and also in terms of health risk and flooding risk. So altering the landscape, and these are just issues, again, raised by community, that if you start altering the landscape... there may be unintended consequences for drainage and localised flooding. The park already at the moment is in the low-lying land and the idea or request for a hydrology report is simply so that we understand what impact these changes might have. Both reports, the environmental impact assessment and a hydrology report, basically just give us, again, data, science-based guidance, so that we can understand the risk, whether understanding that, or just identifying that we will undergo sort of due process and undertake a risk assessment when we get to the detailed design in post-new wetlands west of the slipway at Chaplain Park. Frank Wilkie 05:26:20.877
Question. Do wetlands already exist there? Do wetlands already exist there? Shaun Walsh 05:26:25.139
Technically they do because the area is already subject to tidal inundation and because it's subject to tidal inundation with salinity, it doesn't propose a health risk in terms of mosquitoes as a basic thing. Technically. The proposal to enhance a series of wetlands is actually just building upon something that's happening already and actually rather than seeing it as a detriment to the area. To actually work with it and actually come up with a design response which responds to what's happening at the moment, which becomes a much more attractive area that also has recreational as well as environmental benefit. And I note that consistent with every other stage of this master plan, of course it would require detailed design assessment and risk assessment. We'd do the same for a playground for instance, let alone a wetland, to ensure that it's part of council's due process before we actually invest money and effort. There'd also be significant approvals required from all the different agencies and the like to ensure it meant protection of the Noosa River and also assessment from a health perspective. So to me this is just replicating, of course we would do this as part of a detailed design of that area. But I think the notion is we're not creating a wetland, there's a wetland already emerging. So we're adding a wetland. There's a wetland already emerging, and it's actually enhancing it and working with it to have an attribute for our community versus something that's detrimental. I know Brian Stockwell 05:27:46.363
Cheyenne's got her hand up. Thank you, Cheyenne. Do any of you mind talking about some of the work that's already been done in regard to the hydrology centre? Cheyenne 05:27:56.143
Yeah, hi everyone. Can you hear me out there? Yes, thanks. Yes, there's probably not much to add. Shaun summarised it quite well, but maybe just one point that our sustainable catchment management consultants looked at all of the potential options in detail. And for Joplin Park, it was determined that allowing a gradual transition over quite a period of time would actually benefit the water quality of the river and could reduce flood risk elsewhere. So, but as Shaun said, definitely with detailed design, we would be looking at doing risk assessments and a bit more hydrology, hydrological analysis before we fully understood all the implications. So yeah, thank you. Frank Wilkie 05:28:43.397
Mr Chair, I think if... Mr Chair, I think if councillors were to endorse this amendment, it would signal that we don't understand what's going on there. This is a wetland already. We're not creating a new wetland. We're not increasing the risk of mosquitoes or cane toads as a result of doing any work. in Chapman Park and also it's redundant to say that we need these reports because as we've said with previous amendments there's going to be design done before any changes are done so please I think Brian Stockwell 05:29:29.500
I'll add to it. The, what's there we see now in the western side of Chaplain Park is largely unusable as parkland because it is quite often damp. What is proposed is something more akin to rehabilitation or of what was there. There is no doubt that there was extensive wetlands there in the past and that over time it was filled to try and make it a park. The hydrological Hydrological reporting, as we've heard, we've already done hydrological assessment from a flooding perspective to show these are classic things that people do to actually reduce the flood risk to adjust the surrounding, not increase it. It gives you more floodplain storage capacity. The one actually of most concern to me would be independent environmental impact assessment because they can be very costly and when we're dealing with a fairly well-known urban area the benefit of doing it other than just looking at the environmental risks and benefits of approaching would be, I don't think it would be in the interest of road payers because we're looking at a grass park land with fringing. We're carrying wetlands and tidal inundation with sensors that come up because there's, you know, it's quite wet most of the year. So really the science is quite well known about these. So I think any design of a wetland would take in fairly standard approaches to designing early wetlands. You know, they're used extensively through development processes that does include some level of hydrological assessment in the impact assessment, but I don't think we need to be as specific as this, and I don't think we have to put out there concerns about flood risks. And increasing risk to health when there is decades of science implementation that says it actually improves the situation. Jessica Phillips 05:31:42.570
Others wish to talk ask a question Can I ask a question to Shaun? When this precinct comes to us, would we get, would we see all that through a report? Just give me, help me understand what I'll see. When I get, when we get to this. Shaun Walsh 05:31:58.974
So firstly, we'd need to have a budget to start a design process, which we don't have. So that would either be through a council funded initiative, where you'd actually get to approve the scope and methodology We actually get to approve the scope and the methodology as part of a budget bid or part of a grant proposal and we usually require a co-contribution so we need a co-contribution and then the same way we roll out any project you'd expect initially a council workshop similar to what we did recently with Noosa Woods where we sort of talked about the scope of the project and you have input into saying what you think will be required what you think will be required to meet your concerns and obligations you have input into the overall project design and then when we meet with statutory authorities including our own internal approval entities they've got their checklists under Noosa Plan and all the different acts that we have to follow to ensure we meet these sort of standard obligations it's almost like we're a land developer just following the process and then of course as we progress the design we need to take you on the journey of the design and then also Jessica Phillips 05:33:05.504
Question, thank you. What feedback did we get through, maybe through both lines? Through both last year's June and the one just on this specific precinct, because for me, I found that it almost got a little bit lost in, you know, oh, yeah, there's, have you seen Chapel and Park, that it was a bit of a surprise that anything was really happening there, so it probably ties into a conversation we have, Tom, with comms, or just talk me through maybe, what was the question? Shaun Walsh 05:33:42.272
So both iterations were very supportive of the retention of this as a recreational space, and it met their expectations because the previous plan for council. Which is the Noosaville land use master plan, which designate tenure under the land act. It was a very specific plan. Also said that this should all be recreational open space. So it met the community expectations. So it wasn't the subject of major submissions or concerns in both iterations, both the June as well as the November. So be supportive. Jessica Phillips 05:34:13.594
One more question. Can it ever join to Hilton? I'm just trying to think what's in front of that, off the top of my head. Shaun Walsh 05:34:29.990
June, so June 2025 report. We teased the notion to see whether there was any appetite to do sort of an over with the side bulwark. And that wasn't very popular. So there was one property along that frontage between Hilton Esplanade and Chaplain Park that already has a public boardwalk. So there was one property. It's never been connected. And unfortunately, it's not embraced in our planning scheme as a development control or the like. So unless we had a significant change in our planning scheme and really articulated requirement to have some sort of public boardwalk across the frontage of the properties between Hilton Terrace and the Not proposed in this master plan. Jessica Phillips 05:35:24.150
No that's fine, okay thank you. Amelia Lorentson 05:35:25.950
A question: Lisa Rivers-Swiddeley, were they consulted in terms of just these changes, whether it's the wetlands or the board book, were they consulted as The board book, were they consulted as part of this process as a direct stakeholder? Shaun Walsh 05:35:41.756
I need to take that on notice about the level of engagement, but the SIPWA is very active in understanding what's happening in and around their precinct. So this plan does not propose any change to the operating rights of the SIPWA, so other than seeking to formalize the access arrangements and parking arrangements in the area. So because it is it's an area that reflects really badly on Noosa at the moment in terms of Noosa at the moment in terms of the presentation of that area so, and that would need to be, so if anyone has any more information. Shea's got his hand up. Okay, Shea, please, yeah, thank you. Cheyenne 05:36:15.100
Oh, yeah, Shaun, just to add that, yes, Councillor Lorentson did, Dean and I had a number of engagements with the operator of the slipway. Amelia Lorentson 05:36:23.160
Thank you very much, Cheyenne. Thanks, Shea. Karen Finzel 05:36:28.480
Yes, thanks, your patience, everyone. One thing we haven't looked at, addressed out of this is, and I guess it's maybe a question to Cheyenne through the chair, increased risk to the health of the river. I think that's really important. Given, you know, the amount of time and energy and the love that our community has of our river. Just a question around, you know, through the consultation, did this come up and how are we mitigating any risks that might arise? Mitigating any risks that might arise around river health. I don't recall reading anything much about that. Shaun Walsh 05:37:05.988
Shonji, look, probably I could mention that under the section, the section on page 11 about understanding the environment, and also about some of the subsequent sections. I think that there, and also loss of habitat and biodiversity to ensure that's addressed under page 13. Addressed under page 13. I think that River Health was fundamental to the consideration of this plan. So, Shaun, do you want to add anything to that? Cheyenne 05:37:33.396
No, that's exactly right, Shaun. Yeah, it was fundamental to all our... It was fundamental to all our considerations for resilience. You have to have biodiversity considerations go hand in hand with anything that addresses climate change. And so the River Health was taken into consideration at every step for every option. For every option, and that's why nature-based solutions were the preferred management options provided. And that's why Nature Bay... Karen Finzel 05:37:56.060
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 05:37:58.720
Are there questions or people who wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 05:38:05.880
I'll close by saying thank you, Cheyenne and Shaun, for just letting me know that these reports are done as business. These reports are done as business as usual is sort of what I've understood. When we get to the detailed design and construction of the proposed Westlands, I've understood that these reports are part of the process. So I'm happy for this amendment to fall, understanding that this is business as usual. Brian Stockwell 05:38:34.640
Okay, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Those against? Those against? That would be unanimous. Do we have any other amendments? We go back to the substantive motion and Councillor Wilkie is the only one to have talked to us. Frank Wilkie 05:39:11.386
Anyone else would like to talk to the motion? We'll look at the substantive motion as it stands. Oh, thank you. Brian Stockwell 05:39:57.058
And then... Frank Wilkie 05:39:57.878
Can't say it all at the same time. Can't say it all at the same time. Then... And then there's a D and an E. Brian Stockwell 05:40:04.978
Then, yeah. There you go. Yeah. D was in relation to the... Good morning...all the progress, and E was regarding the statement about a clear, publicly accessible statement showing... Nicola Wilson 05:40:26.300
Mm-hm. And then one was just... Yeah. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 05:40:31.380
Should that be... Should A1 be reverting the design approach? Brian Stockwell 05:40:36.500
Well, that's what passed. Can't change it. Oh, yeah, good. It's technical. Nicola Wilson 05:40:40.100
Yeah. No... You've got to say authorising. Revert. No, revert is correct. Amelia Lorentson 05:40:46.665
But it's subject to reverting the design approach. Subject to. Subject to. Yeah. Then, as Nicola says, B should be authorising the C. Yeah. No, it's... Karen Finzel 05:41:19.430
Yeah, that's fine. Larry Sengstock 05:41:31.820
Is that big enough? Yeah. It's very good. Frank Wilkie 05:41:49.920
Okay. Karen Finzel 05:41:51.960
Are we saying something? Brian Stockwell 05:41:54.720
I'll start then. It has been a long process. It's probably been one of the more engaging processes of this term and I believe we've got a good outcome. I think it's really important to understand what parks are for and I think because there was so much discussion around car parking we perhaps have lost that overall focus of what these reserves are for. in the eyes of the Land Act as I said I was in the minority I think it was contrary to good planning to focus recreation to focus recreational reserves on marine industries in the river. I think the priority should be put on the accessibility and safety of park users. I think it is a very key recreational area for our community and it is one that if we do properly will continue to provide many years of enjoyment and I know many key events events in my children's life occurred on the river. Many key events in my scouting life occurred on and around the foreshore and I hope for generations to come we can maintain that level of enjoyment. Jessica Phillips 05:43:42.620
I'll keep it really really brief it's probably not a lot of people in the room that know that the Nooseville foreshore made a bluey episode so only the parents might see so yeah it's a really iconic stretch for most and and even tourists alike if you haven't watched the bluey episode on the Nooseville foreshore that is your homework tonight because it is loved by so many people to reaffirm Brian's like my whole childhood and every memory with my mum is on that foreshore and the feedback came loud and clear that reaffirmed Term is see what the future holds for this space because there are people that aren't going anywhere. They have lived here a long time and they they aren't planning on moving. I am one of them so I am glad that it took robust decision-making and conversation around the table. Councillor Lorentson and the effort that you put into all the amendments I think is admirable because it may have seemed to some that it took some time but to me all I got was how committed you are to I know my phone hasn't stopped around it and the emails and I just hope that we remember that our position here, I want to appreciate the staff effort and the amount of emails I've sent you and Kim because I understand that it takes a lot of effort. It takes a lot of extra effort from you to help bring the amendments along as well and that we're, I hope you can understand, we're just seeing it from a very different perspective as well and hope that we can all be respectful through the process. I believe that it's things like this that can actually build trust because trust is built on consistent behaviour so if it's tested and we stand up to that then the trust is built in that process which is why I feel really strongly about making sure that we come together and find a very good solution to lots of different voices in our community the only other thing I'll touch on is that it's probably reaffirmed to me that I'd love to see asset management into the future done really rigorously because it's sad to hear that we have so much ageing infrastructure along there and maybe without changing the past it would have been great to see maybe ratepayers money spent in maintaining that before it got to end of life so that's something that I'm certainly passionate about while I sit in this chair that we if we're going to put something out there infrastructure then we need to know the whole of life cost and we need to know what impact it's going to have on our generations when it comes to their rates I don't have anything else. Did I go over time? I was just trying to get my first one. Because the bell keeps on going off and I forget to stop it. I thought maybe now I can go over time for the first one. Brian Stockwell 05:47:45.360
Others wish to talk? Nicola Wilson 05:47:46.580
Very briefly, I'm very pleased we've got this position today with a plan that celebrates and cherishes and protects the foreshore. Noosa River is probably the reason I moved to Noosa. It's the reason I moved back to Tewantin. It's where I spend most of my free time, if I had any. So, yeah, I'm just really pleased that we've been able to... I'm just really pleased that we've been able to get through all of this work. Thank you to the staff as well, and to the community for the engagement on this much-loved piece of Noosa. Tom Wegener 05:48:17.301
Councillor Wegener. The other day I went down and had an ice cream, and I was by the boathouse and watched the music down there, and there were so many people, and it was such a happy place. It is paradise. It really, really is. I think that this whole escapade or this whole chapter in council has actually made us a stronger council in a way. I congratulate Cheyenne and Sean and the whole team for pursuing, for being persistent, marching forward, getting to this point and considering all in all I think it makes us better councillors for sure. We have a much better understanding of our job I think because of it and like you say about asset management and things so it's probably there's a lot of positives that has come out of all of this. Karen Finzel 05:49:10.760
Yeah firstly thank you to everybody to firstly our community for their commitment on sticking with us on the journey to all the staff and to all the councillors I think it's been a a pretty tumultuous ride and there's been quite a few pain points but also opportunity to learn explore and grow To learn, explore and grow and especially I think exploring the notion of change within that thing of excellence and then you know keeping everyone together on that journey. Parks exist I think for our people. Our open spaces are definitely for connection, relaxation and immersion especially in nature you know as we get the built environment coming more and more. People on screens I think you know prioritising our parks and open spaces is essential. I myself have so many memories there you know with grandchildren, children, ice creams, birthday parties along the river. I think it's integral in who we are and our stories. I'd just like to close with you know we've got a national policy in Australia at the moment and it says a place for every story and a story for every place and I think our river definitely captures that. So a big thank you to everyone one. Amelia Lorentson 05:50:35.096
Yeah so I won't go over everything that's said. I think the community and I think every council around this table we're all saying the same thing. We're acknowledging that it's a moving document, it can be updated, we can feed extra data, we can look at changing local priorities and we just want to get on with it. We don't need any more delays, we don't need to spend any more money, we don't need any more revisions, we don't need more consultation. Probably my only concerns are that there were two really main issues that were clearly voiced throughout this entire consultation process. First one was don't destroy the low-key charm and character of the foreshore and the second one was made loud and clear, keep our car parks. So I'm sitting a little bit in the middle at the moment. So there was an amendment by Councillor Phillips with the three and a half metre shared pathway to be reduced to three metres. I'm concerned, as I mentioned in the argument, that we're perhaps over-engineering the space and we're forgetting, you know, we're forgetting what the Noosaville foreshore looks, who are catering Special looks, who we're catering for. It's relaxed, it's low-key charm. So that's one of my concerns. The other one is my amendment didn't come out, wasn't supported, a commitment to no net loss of parking across the precinct, and there was no real acknowledgement that we would commit. I know we will aim to no net loss of parking across the precinct, but I don't know. That amendment to me was the most direct way for me to tell the community that, or us to tell the community that we've heard you. It was like a line in the sand, and I just feel... I feel that we didn't do it. So I 100% support the plan. I want to get on with it. I want to progress it, but I want that progress to be grounded in respect for the people who participated. in good faith over multiple years that have helped shape this plan. And I want it to be shaped by the lived reality of those who use the foreshore plan every day and not just a future vision that may look good on paper. I want to state that the conversation of car parking, that's not going to go away. The people who fought for no loss of car parking, they're going to still be here. And they're going to be here at each They'll be here at each detailed design stage and each budget discussion and at each construction milestone and they'll be saying the same things. Don't take away our car parks, don't take our access and don't destroy the low key charm and character of our foreshore. So my vote today is not, I'm not voting to delay the plan, I'm not voting to start over, I'm not voting to, I'm voting simply to acknowledge that some of the concerns of the community, particularly around access and A three and a half metre shared park, which was a big one for me. I'm voting to acknowledge that those concerns aren't going to be overlooked. And my vote today is to ensure that their voices are not lost in the final version. My vote today is to let the community know that I'm hearing you, I'm listening. We all are, but we need to continue to speak up. Brian Stockwell 05:54:53.760
Thank you, the real test is not that you face a difficulty or a challenge, it's how you respond to it. And we always said that this was going to be a genuine consultation process. And July, the plan that went out in July last year and the way we responded was an opportunity to rebuild There was an opportunity to rebuild that trust and demonstrate that trust and respect for what the community was telling us and the document that went back out showed to a large extent that we had listened. We listened to what the community was saying about the net loss of car parks. The intention was good. We were responding to the need to have a request to have separate parks for Frank Wilkie 05:56:08.736
What we've come up with here is a resolution that embodies our collective respect for what the community has said, our respect for what the staff's advice is, technical advice about how to deliver all these things the community has been telling us. We all love this precinct, we all love our community, we've all listened very hard to what the community's been telling us, and I think it was worth working through all those amendments, testing them, to find out what lies at the heart of them, and what lies at the heart of them all, including the original motion, which is based largely on the staff recommendation and all their hard work, is that we have listened to the community. The Noosa Ville foreshore will remain a low-key recreational area that will be enjoyed by all users, regardless of age, that respects the heritage of some of the traditional commercial users on the precinct, and that will continue to consult. We will continue to consult very carefully before we introduce any changes in the future. So thank you staff for your hard work. Thank you councillors for your diligence on this and working together to reflect what the community has said through this revised master plan. Brian Stockwell 05:57:34.700
I think I'll leave it at that Thank you, I've put the two votes so supporting the motion. That's Councillor Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Wilson and Stockwell. Those opposed is Councillor Lorentson and Phillips. The motion is carried. Now councillors we've got Now councillors, we've got 6 more items on the agenda. Part 6 will probably be an hour and a half or more since we had a break. Do we want to play one? Do we want another break? Amelia Lorentson 05:58:09.236
Can we move a procedural motion and maybe resume the meeting tomorrow? Can that be done? Or are we continuing? I'm happy to continue but just throwing back the suggestion. Brian Stockwell 05:58:20.836
Another option would be to put the remaining item to the ordinary. Larry Sengstock 05:58:31.880
We can do that. My only thing is we've got Johnston sitting over here who's sat through the lot. His report is the next one up. Let's go ahead. Let's continue. Brian Stockwell 05:58:56.225
So, do we wish to have a break or do we wish to go to the next item and then refer the others to ordinary meeting? That's okay. Okay. That's good. So. Larry Sengstock 05:59:08.365
Procedural motion to adjourn. No. Not at the moment. Brian Stockwell 05:59:12.285
We're down to item two. Item two. It's the operational plan 2425, quarter three, quarterly reporting. Larry Sengstock 05:59:29.263
Do you want a couple minutes break? Brian Stockwell 05:59:35.023
Yes? Frank Wilkie 05:59:36.263
Yeah, that'll be fine. Larry Sengstock 05:59:39.083
Do you want to sit down for a few minutes? Brian Stockwell 05:59:42.743
Five minutes and we'll bring it on together. Welcome back to the reporting and we have John T with us to give us an overview. Johnston 06:06:51.760
Yeah, good evening councillors. Good evening. This report provides a progress update for Council's current operational plan 24/25. So the annual operational plan is a key component in Council's strategic planning framework and the initiatives in the operational plans are designed to fulfil the objectives of the Corporate Plan 23/28. Accordingly progress is updated to Council and this is the third quarter update for the operational plan. There's 107 initiatives in the operational plan. 81 of those initiatives or 76% are expected to be completed as scheduled and notable achievements for that quarter as you remember are the endorsement of the community grants policy, compliance and enforcement policy, the endorsement of the Pomona Place Plan, the public art policy, the housing monitoring program and the NAC upgrade plan. Just a few standard items amongst many amongst many things that have been achieved so it's quite quite good sometimes to have a look at the operation plan to see what achievements there are because they're quite quite large. 18 initiatives or 70% are experiencing minor disruptions however these are anticipated to be finalised over the coming month. These disruptions could be due to adverse weather conditions in terms of roadworks, resourcing limitations, shifting priorities or also increased community interest as we've just seen again with the master plan for the botanic gardens. There are also eight initiatives that are experiencing major disruptions, one of which is very good to see to be tables. And as you're all aware, the extended community engagement for that plan also caused delay and postponement of other strategies. Once the Noosa River catchment management plan, and the destination management plan, for example. But other major items, for example, is also the community strategy that hasn't seen significant progress due to lack of implementation. This report, before I go to the KPIs, I think I was also alluded to an error in the report, item 531. It's a digital strategy and roadmap. It reads, it will be tabled at the June ICT steering committee, which in fact should be the September ICT. So the report also provides an overview of key operation performance indicators. The performance is consistent with previous quarters, however there were there was a slight improvement noted for customer service which is a decreased customer phone wait time and I spoke to the manager and he advised that it's likely caused by the team moving into a central location where staff can train each other much more efficiently and the exchange of information occurs much more efficiently as well. Then we also have seen in that quarter an improved ICT response time in terms of ICT requests that were responded to and resolved within a two-day time frame and this was caused by an increase in allocated staff resources so a direct impact on the improvement there. That concludes the summary for this report I hope you've taken... Brian Stockwell 06:11:15.600
Someone like to move the recommendation? Karen Finzel 06:11:18.140
Yes thank you to the staff and everyone for the report I think that it's really good to have this report to us to see how much stuff is on track everyone's working really hard to meet the ambitious requirements and big thank you to everyone that's that's got involved there doesn't appear to be anything that's like outstanding in terms of we've really got to get a focus and move along so yeah everyone keep up the good work and yeah happy to hear the report thank you. Brian Stockwell 06:11:55.960
Anyone else? Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 06:11:57.780
I look forward to seeing that it meets the foreshortening. I look forward to seeing that it meets the foreshortening. Thank you for the report and all the great work in achieving 81 projects that will be completed. I just thought this might be a good opportunity to highlight the difference between councillor roles and staff roles. So often we try and talk about a councillor's role as strategic and staff's role as operational and it's not always really clear what that means and of course there are the customer facing staff that residents do interact with all the time and there's services that are more visible but some of these elements in this operational plan are maybe things that are not so visible to the general public and this quarterly report And this quarterly report is a really great way of finding out what actually else is happening within council with all of our staff. So, yeah, it's a really great read for us every quarter and I'm glad that we have that level of transparency of what's actually happening, where money's being spent, what's on track. But yeah, just a good way for people to actually delve into all the different departments and find out what people do as well. And of course, it's always good to celebrate progress and achievements, so I'm glad that we can do that and look forward to seeing the next update for the end of the year. Johnston 06:13:18.540
Yeah, that would be an interesting one. Amelia Lorentson 06:13:24.620
I enjoy reading the operational plans because we talk about, you know, whether it's the foreshore management plan, the destination management plan, all these plans that come and all these projects where we experience delays because of extended consultation. periods because workforce capacity and well-being. It's great to actually see that in a document to understand real impacts of these real challenges, our resource limitations, emerging priorities. So it's great to have that document in front of us because you appreciate the enormity of the work and projects that this council undertakes, and it is ambitious, and there are some serious challenges. So for me, probably the other take home when I looked at the operational plan, I'm encouraged and really, really, really can't wait until the capability plan that's been outlined in the corporate plan, when Corporate plan when that comes to fruition because I think that's going to be a really important document when we talk about you know identifying potential gaps and opportunities to strengthen operations, efficiencies, streamlining all this. I think that documents going to hold the secrets. Johnston 06:14:49.700
Yeah this will definitely be a focus of the next operation year as well. Fantastic. To further develop that. But I think it's also obviously a good opportunity because sometimes one is very absorbed in a current matter like for example the news of a social management plan. Just take a step back and see actually what have we achieved in that quarter. Because once it's adopted yes there's always joy but it's still forgotten quite quickly sometimes and it gives you a good overview of all the achievements which is quite significant. It is. Amelia Lorentson 06:15:16.840
Thank you John. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 06:15:28.080
What's impressive about this report is that it shows that Council's operating at a very high level of efficiency at not only the strategic but also the operational level. For those strategic policies and projects like the Ural Ringtail Forest which is a huge initiative. This is a huge initiative where 2,400 hectares are being preserved as conservation estate, linking Tewantin to Kaloola National Park. By contrast, the Noosa National Park is 240 hectares. The Noosa Head Section of the Noosa National Park, this is 10 times that size. Funding secured for the Resilient Rivers Program, DDA compliance audits for all the community halls, which will inform the resources that we give to those facilities. Funding secured for the Resilient Rivers Program, DDA compliance audits for all the community halls, which will inform the resources that we give to those facilities. A good part of a decade. Very important strategic decision. Noosa Aquatic Centre upgrade plan, which allows to attract the funding to make this facility even better than it is and ready for Olympic teams that will come to use it as a training venue. Noosa Plan 2020 amendment number two, despite long delays at the State level, we got that across the line and that contained very pivotal changes to our planning scheme that allow us to further limit the spread of short-term And the integrated compliance and enforcement policy which hadn't been we inherited one from the Sunshine Coast Council but this is through the work of all councils made this our own and the council website has been transitioned there is but you can see all the KPIs there's a lot being happening a lot happening at the operational level as well we can track the improvements and the challenges that we're facing there is some some delays but for There is some delays but fortunately, thanks councillors for the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure management plan being endorsed today, that's one more we can tick off the list as a commitment we made to the community to get done so congratulations everyone on that. Next up is the destination management plan and the Noosa River catchment. management plan is on the way as well. This is a really good document anyone who wants to know how their rates money is spent this will give them a sense of how we're tracking and thanks mainly to the staff because you're doing the hard work. Thanks for the report. Brian Stockwell 06:18:36.500
If we look at complete and on track we're over 75% of all the items on the report and that's the universal terms, that's the distinction obviously we're really inspired by the distinction but But minor minor disruptions disruptions of further 18, that's 92%. And minor disruptions in a quarter where we had probably three weeks more rain than than the average year. It's not, you know... And we do a lot of those projects would likely be outdoors. I think it's a good outcome. That's it. Yeah. Councillor Finzel, would you like to close? Karen Finzel 06:19:23.764
I think it's all been said it is a great document encourage everyone out in community to access that, read it, understand where we're at, send councillors questions if you want clarification but yeah thankfully community can celebrate where we're headed and where we are now and a really good future ahead of us. Oh, I think it's all been said. Thank you everyone. Brian Stockwell 06:19:46.456
Those in favour? Okay, I'll put the motion. It's unanimous councillors as foreshadowed in the break I will move a procedural motion which I've been beavering away at. Yeah, right in the brain. Oh yeah, all right, I'm sorry. Keith Johnson. That items number 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14 be deferred to the ordinary meeting date. The new meeting dates 19th June 2025. Right, the seconder, Councillor Wilkie. Councillors, it's now six hours and 21 minutes since the meeting started. I think it's good... It's good for decision making to have a clear head and we have a range of staff sitting around here who have got family commitments and other things that we should not detract them from or deter them from. The current situation. So I hope you'll support the procedural motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Clear the meeting closed at 8:52. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
