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 Acting 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 00:13.240
So 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. At penns 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 national infrastructure master plan. We anticipate that item will take some time in 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 seconder. 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. Janelle Parsons 01:42.755
Thank you. Okay, good afternoon Mayor, CEO and councillors. I am Janelle Parsons. Now I'm a qualified councillor, time published author and a trauma recovery specialist and I'm completing my final year of my psychology degree. I'm also a mother, a survivor of domestic of violence and also a childhood 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 the system of values and I work now every day to repent. I know what it feels like to feel unseen and unearned. 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 goals, but I need it. The work I do speaks for itself. I'm here because the safety and wellbeing 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 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 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, include including senior sergeant John Fry, have confirmed what we all know. 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 a monthly forum and community services. We can all come together. Now, this is about identifying issues early, sharing our resources, solving problems together, and giving youth our a seat at the table. But that's just the beginning. We need alcohol-free events, youth-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. We need is Noosa Council's back. How else do we bring it here? 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. A two-time author, my latest book, 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 term one already. I started Sunshine high in term three and Noosa district as well. I work alongside QPS and frontline workers. I bring education and I'm now asking to match that platform with your support. I'm formally requesting the council support the establishment of a youth connect group, co-facilitated with rise and thrive. Shine co. That council invest in alcohol-free, youth-positive spaces and events during school holidays. And that rise and thrive's post-parent, resources and trauma-informed education tools be adopted and distributed across the Noosa region via council, library and. You don't need to create the solution, I've already done it for 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 partnership, my purpose and a plan that works. You all know someone who is directly in your network, your family, or your neighbour, who's experiencing this. So I'm asking you to change the story of Noosa youth together. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 07:55.740
Thank you. So councillors, we'll 8, Items 1 through to 8 first. So the first item are the community grants, if we can bring Alison up and Kerri. And I'm presuming you're addicted to some of your cutlery, and that's what we need for no problem. Alison 08:35.500
You're welcome. Thank you. Report today we've got is the 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, 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 a total of $251,533.53 for our community project rates. 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 09:52.507
Thank you. Do we have any questions? From the floor? Karen Finzel 09:56.665
Yes, thank you to the Chair. Thank you for your report. It was well written and informative. Given we've had new policies and there's a bit of transition going on in the community, a question Through the Chair to the staff. I just have a couple of questions. 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 events held across the Shire. In each town location? Very good question, Councillor, Alison 10:36.188
Through the Chair. 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 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 strategic goals and key initiatives, contributions. Contributes, whether it's financial or in-kind contributions, an 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. We're 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 as obviously the grant availability in, 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. Kerri Contini 11:52.933
That historically, this is always a difficult space. The value of the applications that come in is always greater than the budget that we have. It we're was in fantastic a fantastic position. That the council counseled does us. Support the community grants, so it's a very stringent process that we go through to make sure that those most worthy are then recommended for Karen Finzel 12:21.515
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, council, another good question. Alison 12:41.086
So council recognises the really important role that volunteers play in this space. They support our community, that we actually, so 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 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 up grant and 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 a development officer to provide support with writing their application. 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 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 once budget comes down that they're actually successful. 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. Kerri Contini 14:35.180
I think a I think particular exam example, Councillor Finzel, is that thank the review that we've done, we recognise that, you know, the three-year grant programs offers certainty to groups for the three years, but it's also a lot of work, it's very. 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 don't meet the criteria or you don't have a strong case. So we've introduced a used 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, et cetera. And then for those that do, they go on and do a full application. 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. Karen Finzel 15:47.252
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, X, you know, down at the Coast versus X? In the hinterland? Alison 16:05.030
Absolutely. In terms of our events, yes, we do look at the geographic location of events. Yes. Kerri Contini 16:10.570
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 if we could see that, actually, fundamentally, there were issues with the event. But we try to get a good spread across the Shire. Alison 16:34.706
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 a 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 office officer will actually meet with them and look at other opportunities. To support them as well. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 16:59.552
In terms of opportunity, so you mentioned before there are some organisations that have events July /August. And today will be today or Thursday 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 the short form, are they still eligible to reapply under either our emergent grants or our quick response can to help meet that short form? And are there other opportunities? Can we reallocate resources, for example, under our placemaking project to help them meet the short form? Alison 17:43.055
I think to answer part of that question, so our quick response grants won't not going be up until September. So because we need that time to open those particular grants up, 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. Kerri Contini 18:04.255
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 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 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 include? Could into your activity? And often lots of ideas then come through that. Jessica Phillips 19:03.784
Thanks. Just in relation to the more just wondering if there's a process a that process that we have to check the success of the project in three years? Alison 19:17.225
Yeah, 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. They're doing then they need to show the case that they've actually spent that money on the appropriate items. And then we would sign that off, and then they would re-invoice us for that second year. Jessica Phillips 19:41.947
But, um, sorry, you're talking about single year. Or more just like measuring the success of the program, rather than, um, that. Kerri Contini 19:49.272
And technical. Yeah. So the success of the program is absolutely captured in their acquittal. Okay. Yep. They have to report because when they apply, um, they will have made certain commitments, they will be saying about certain outcomes that they're going to achieve, and so the acquittal covers all that. They have to provide demonstrated evidence that they achieved what they said they were going to achieve. Yeah. Whether that's in terms of volume of numbers, or a change that was going to occur, or a 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. Alison 20:32.620
But I do think we've also those had 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 a particular project, 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 20:52.910
Just one more question. How do we communicate with the strategy around how the community would know that the grants are coming and the application process and things like that? Alison 21:03.286
Yep. So in terms of when the grants actually open, there are a number of different lines. 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 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. Kerri Contini 21:32.045
And any of, 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, 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. Alison 21:53.778
Our challenge, obviously, is we are dealing with volunteers, not for a proper organisation, so there is turnover. There are some that slip through the gaps, hence why we do, you know, making sure through our policy that we would allow out of rounds if there was an emergent need for it. Frank Wilkie 22:10.801
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 Kerri Contini 22:24.662
Grants program, including things like sports, field maintenance, et cetera, approximately $1 million there, probably across the year. It covers a lot. So today we've got the one-year grants and then community alliance and signature grants, but there's halls and communities, there's sports fields and sports grounds, there's quite a few. Frank Wilkie 22:49.020
And could you explain a bit about what the individual sports development grants is about and you to add this Kerri Contini 22:58.311
Yeah so through the work that we've done with our sports organisations and understanding you know we've got great talent out there, this feedback has come back through us over a couple of 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 grants review policy that we are going to trial and because it's a it's not something that you can have and 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 we're looking forward to seeing what comes through the process. Also planning to open that in September as Amelia Lorentson 24:08.153
Well. Thank you. 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 are now expecting given that the kingdom of the mountain event is now cancelled. The shortfall of the funding that they requested is quite the significant and timeframe that's required for them to try to find that shortfall is limited. 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. Absolutely. Thank you very much. I'll see you at the point of order. Brian Stockwell 25:10.542
Councillor Finzel is going to move the recommendation. I'll second it, Madam Chair. You've got the floor, Councillor Finzel. Yes, Karen Finzel 25:17.002
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 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. I'm happy to move this and look forward to hearing all the good news and the celebrations that come forth when we see community connect with one another and we know that builds real resilience and given the impacts of weather events and what's happening our in community now 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 those relationships that in times of trouble you know we all need 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. Amelia Lorentson 26:36.917
I agree so again reiterate what Councillor Finzel said. 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. 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 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. Again, know 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 recorded by us. Tom Wegener 27:51.660
Oh, just quickly, yeah, I'll yeah, back up the other councillors' and comments. 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 Amelia said. Alison 28:18.786
Thank you. Just Through the Chair, I just wanted to make sure, Kelly Shaw is our new grants officer. She's only got a feet out of the table for the 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 were. We're providing to our community as well. She's got a real focus on that. Fantastic. Brian Stockwell 28:40.120
Anyone else? Councillor Finzel, do you wish to close? Karen Finzel 28:43.360
I think it's all been said. We just look forward to the celebration. Brian Stockwell 28:46.760
Okay. I put the motion. All those in favour? That's carried unanimously. We then move on to second one, which is one of the specific grants, which is the 25/26 community grant program, community project grant events. Do we have a mover for that? Are there any conflicts? Do we have a conflict? Sorry. We're too quick. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 29:13.916
Councillor Phillips thank you. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I form the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, item 8 point-26, community grants program, community project grants events. In this matter, in relation to the funding recommendation, to the Hastings Street Association, as my sister-in-law, Joanne 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 30:01.950
I've got a question first, Councillor Phillips. Have you sort of guidance on whether this is a declarable or a prescribed? Jessica Phillips 30:09.390
Lurie, I have spoken I've spoken to lurie Larry about this one. This is where we landed. Brian Stockwell 30:17.392
The system will be a close associate under the act and the amount. And she's on the committee so she holds the executive position. You very much. Normal member? Jessica Phillips 30:35.333
I haven't clarified her role because she's just a normal committee member. Committee or member? Amelia Lorentson 30:46.586
Does she have any decision questions? Making habits? That's a good question. That's the question. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 30:53.726
I'll deal with it. We'll not get into it. Yeah. Well, I don't want to say, I don't actually. So in the absence of clarity, I would suggest the safe thing to do would be to leave the room. Jessica Phillips 31:07.540
Yeah. Okay. I'm coming to respect the decision of the Chair. Brian Stockwell 31:11.561
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 she's a close associate, I believe, under the act, that would make that's right. Thank you. And Councillor Finzel, you need to. Karen Finzel 31:38.661
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 to be a declarable conflict of interest as if the eligible councillors have declared it, decided it is a declarable conflict. So are you saying we don't think there's enough information around the room to keep it Brian Stockwell 32:02.750
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. Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 32:14.310
Quite correct. Association website in front of me. The executive committee has Councillor Phillips' sister-in-law as the vice president, unless that's not current. That might be what I call. Yeah. Thank okay, so do we have any questions or would someone like to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson moved, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to talk to this? Um no just saying this right now I did initially, thank you for the hard work and thank you for your commitment to bring this Grace forward. Brian Stockwell 32:59.072
Any other councillors wish to talk to the item? No? Karen Finzel 33:02.912
Yes. 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 committees and the incorporation. Cooperations volunteers do. They do put a lot of their time and energy into putting these grants in, so I also would like to acknowledge the amount of work that they do. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 33:53.520
Okay, we'll move on to the third item in this section, which is community grant programs, community project grant programs and projects. Do we have any questions or someone willing to move the please? Recommendations? This is number three, let's check. Frank Wilkie 34:33.641
Oh, let's oh look, this is just part of the program of one million dollars plus that we invest back in the community each year. As being said, it it's is a credit to the volunteers of these organisations that do have to go through the process of applying for these grants and acquitting the grants. It does require effort on their part, but they do great job in making Noosa a great community to live, part of the social fabric of the community. Happy to support. Brian Stockwell 35:02.477
Anyone else wish to talk? Next item. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's move on to the fourth item, which is 2536 community grants program, community project grant infrastructure. Do we have any declarations on this one? No. Do we have any questions or someone willing to move it? Moved. Happy to second. Moved, Councillor Wilkie. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilkie? I'd like to speak. Anyone else wish to speak to this one? I'll 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 35:56.426
Okay, yes, I thought it was the next one. In accordance with chapter 55B of the Local Government Act, I am from the meeting that I have 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 arts, the address the majestic feeder, leader 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 36:32.000
You, Councillor Wegener. We've got someone willing to move the motion. Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Phillips. To talk to the motion, Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 36:51.257
No, just some a second. Excellent community groups that we're supporting through these, so glad to do it. Brian Stockwell 36:58.037
Anyone else wish to discuss the matter? I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's carried unanimously. If we can ask Councillor Wegener to come back into the meeting. Excellent. Move on to the sixth item which is community grants program, three year community alliance agreements. Do we have a declaration or more than one declaration? Nicola Wilson 37:32.717
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 plans 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. Will exit the stage light. Frank Wilkie 38:09.280
You've got the one up there for the gymnastics club, not Noosa Arts Theatre. I can also look and inform the meeting lady that I I'm no not longer in a long hair. Have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I resign from my position as committee member for Noosa Shire, one of the recommended recipients of an IONS grant. I am now a general life member and volunteer of the theatre. Tom Wegener 39:13.948
So that's just all that. Okay. Actually, I have a conflict of interest on 8.6 here, Mr Chair. With this. Mona arts, incorporated. On the second page. So the same one? Same one, yeah. The same one as before, I'll just go and grab that. 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 organisations. Okay. I'll just change that. Oh, yes. The name of the grand Chair. We're all hanging out in the chairs. Good morning. New yeah, orleans, that's right? We're good? Uh-huh. It's going to change that. 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 good evening. 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 considered and voted on. Brian Stockwell 41:38.140
Okay, is there a Councillor willing to move the recommendation? Happy to move. Councillor Finzel, Councillor Phillips, and secondly, would you like to talk to the motion Councillor? Karen Finzel 41:47.421
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 these and I think it's a wonderful opportunity and I know when you meet with committee members that actually finally get this up because it's a quite a big process and be able to have that assurity that they can operate for three years with that money and really do some forward strategic planning. Think we all benefit from that so I think it's worth raising that. Brian Stockwell 42:56.240
Okay, we now can't move on to 8.7, which is 25/26 community grants program, 3 year signature community event grants. Do we have any declarations in regard to this one? Yes, we do. May peace and blessings of allah be we'll do a Councillor Wilson first. Based on what you said about Councillor Phillips earlier on, he's a celebrity as well. Thank you very much. Vicky 43:31.892
Change that. You described and then you were leaving anyway. Nicola Wilson 43:39.819
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 to 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. Frank Wilkie 44:17.215
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, an informal meeting marked a declarable conflict of interest for our 8.7 community events program, three-year signature community events grants. On this in relation to the funding recommendation to New South Wales. Initialised, according to Queensland government's guide to conflict of interest, dated April 25, being solely a patron of normalisation does not in itself constitute a declarable conflict of interest. However, I would like to declare as a proportionate measure that I have linked to one of the initialised patrons, David Williamson, has and that contributed Mr to my previous calculations. Current election campaign to a value of more than $2,000, which is considered a prescribed conflict if Mr Williamson, or if he was an executive committee member of, were to be the recipient of grant funding. As a result of this electoral donation, and tend to prescribe conflict of interest for full disclosure and to avoid any perceptions of bias regarding my consideration of israel's grant submission, I will choose to leave the meeting room in accordance with my legislative obligations. Brian Stockwell 45:13.501
Councillor go, I don't think the words that you said in the conflict last in the last sentence, I as a result of this election donation, I think, I think you said and potential competition. Frank Wilkie 45:26.825
I'll leave it as it's, ambiguous, but I'm declaring as out of. An abundance of caution. So I'm happy to leave it. Brian Stockwell 45:38.601
As prescribed? As you say, your patronage is not the same as any second amendment. Frank Wilkie 45:49.061
You just need to lay back your yeah, okay. A potential conflict of interest. As long as it's clear that I'm not a part of the decision-making process. Brian Stockwell 46:11.380
Hey, here's loose. Okay, councillors, do you have any questions, or someone willing to move the recommendation? I move the recommendation. We move Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wegener. All right to speak, anyone else wish to speak? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? As you know, let's see if we can invite that Councillor to the meeting. Vicky 46:34.815
Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 46:44.311
We get involved and show it. Cheyenne and Ben to the table, they can give us an overview of item 8, which is environment and climate change resilience grants, environment and grants. Project round 20, climate change is what's meant to end by. Hello Chair, hello councillors. What have you been using to get your salary? Shaun Walsh 47:15.301
Thanks very much Chair. We've had the rounds 20 and rounds 5 of the environmental project grants and climate change 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 officers prior to submitting their application so we can testify 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 without and they're funded from the Environment Levy with our climate change resilience grant. We've got a general rates budget of $50,000 and we received applications for a total of just over $130,000 so both grant schemes were oversubscribed. Once we received all the grant applications we've got a pool of assessors together from the environment team and the climate change team we went through conflicts of interest and making sure that nobody who either had a no council officers that had a connection into the grant applicants or had been have 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 as they are matched up against the different strategies. Following our assessments we ranked all of the applications for the environment grants and ranked all of the climate change grants. We then had a moderation session with Director Kim Rawlings and we through a recommendation that was put to council through this report. Brian Stockwell 49:57.673
It was very comprehensive, I can say that. Okay, councillors, do we have any questions or is someone willing to move the recommendation? Amelia Lorentson 50:14.837
Thank you for the response. 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 expertise that we have in this community. So, happy to support and I think, you know, a feeling around this table is I, you know, wish we had some more money in the pool. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 51:50.660
You want me to bring it up? I've got it, yeah. Vicky 51:54.420
That covers the whole motion. Device? Is that how you'd like to do it? Brian Stockwell 52:09.871
Is that fine? Yes. Okay, my. Amendment is that A, be amended to READ perhaps, put the word READ in there. READ? Yep. Okay, two. A, environmental project grants attachment 1,300. At $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 25.26, environmentally. Environment Levy budget be amended to cover the total of $33,163. Can I just question the figures? Sorry? That doesn't look right. It's the one you've got in orange there should read $9,340 from memory yes it is, $9,340. I'll just take that out. Just take it out? Yes. You have a question, Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 53:23.980
Yeah, I think, if I understand correctly, the Teewah Landowners Association turtle trackers monitoring and conservation initiative was 15,025? That's correct. Close to full funding. Yeah. Oh, and Wildlife Noosa recommended for full funding at 10,762? Essentially, yes. So that makes a total of 25,000. Yeah. What am I missing? Shaun Walsh 53:59.699
That's the. You're missing the star there, which I think is there. Yes. 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 $23,800 that we had for. $23,823 so that we had that matching up. Frank Wilkie 54:27.807
So the maths are right now? That's correct. Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Mr. I'll second it for the purpose panel. Of debate? Brian Stockwell 54:34.874
Yes, so councillors, as the staff have recognised, 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. The cut off line was based on the total budget being available to be that which was in the last, this current year's budget. The amount for 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 for in recent years. My suggestion is that the total budget for environmental grants as part of the allocation of the environmental we receive next year be increased to allow the approval of three applications rather than two and that's what's proposed as the staff have identified their it? Words. This is a really good project that aligns with CHAT 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 is one of the highest risk areas of the so I think that the ability to allocate Environment Levy funds next year allows us to actually just Tom Wegener 56:21.078
Project maybe Ben could you describe the project to us? Shaun Walsh 56:26.438
Sure yeah it's a Through the Chair it's a environmental environment 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 at 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 community needs particularly for road access in and out so 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 your 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 from that and so it takes in the high tide area and it's there's the section of dunes behind that which is which is for the protection SPEAKER_11 57:29.692
But yeah yes driving on dunes does impact the resilience all across Teewah Beach Tom Wegener 57:36.099
I just know that there's coffee rock under there and at times that coffee rock has been exposed and if you actually have been at a very difficult time driving at Teewah through the coffee rocks once they're exposed so that may be another just for them that the management sand into place. SPEAKER_11 57:53.474
They can certainly support it yes. Amelia Lorentson 57:55.654
I hardly support the initiative I know a little bit about it and I think it's a great initiative probably question is around process and precedence. So are we circumventing good process? Is this a fair and transparent way to be approving grants. A question maybe to yourself Ben or maybe a through CBO. And is this sort of a little bit dangerous because we start setting a precedent to circumvent what I understand is excellent governance, excellent process, probity, and equity. I'm just unsure if this is an unfair advantage. SPEAKER_04 58:47.381
Yeah, I'm not fully, I have to say I'm not fully familiar about this one coming in, so I'll to Ben for a moment and then I'll make my call on that. Shaun Walsh 58:57.152
So I can, 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 where we got, how we got the ranking. So it was 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 it's three separate council officers assessing the application based on those criteria and that's done independently and then everybody comes together. 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 10 doesn't have merit but assessed against the other ones it's the council officers with the technical expertise plus being able to deep dive and match them up against the different strategies that's how we put those criteria where that funding gets drawn council officers offices made a recommendation 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 emotional Amelia Lorentson 01:00:46.944
Thank you 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 okay yeah in terms of process the projects that are that sit below the line of what's been recommended on 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's not that it didn't make criteria or I didn't, you know, we literally had to draw the line with what the available funds work. Were. So this project absolutely meets all of the criteria. Brian Stockwell 01:01:37.619
And you follow the same property plan. And follow exactly the same process. 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 01:01:54.498
Yes, that's all we came to? 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. Right. Yeah. Right. Tom Wegener 01:02:10.160
Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:02:11.278
Yes, that's my question to clarify as well. So the funding is available if the budget, which we haven't had yet, then there'll be extra, which is your suggestion? Brian Stockwell 01:02:25.289
I'm suggesting that the budget be framed around putting extra into. Environment Levy component environment grants, that's part of the allocation of next year's Environment Levy funding. Frank Wilkie 01:02:37.161
Question, with the Environment Levy, the funds proposed to be levied for the environment in next year's budget, this money will be available as part of the budget? And Councillor Stockwell is saying that extra amount will be allocated to that particular program within the Environment Levy schedule of programs. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:57.560
Can I ask a game process question? Haven't ratified our budget yet. So how can this amendment be supported until that's been signed off? Kim Rawlings 01:03:10.451
So the levy budget the budget is in existence and unless 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 the levy that still exist and we've also done in the preparations for the budget some reshuffling around projects and expenditure next year. So there is some small capacity in the levy next year but that's. Correct. This is all subject to the budget process. All the allocation of our grants are across all the grant programs. So it is all correct, all still subject to budget. Brian Stockwell 01:04:03.634
And just one other question. Are environmental grants now like community grants only on screen here? Yes. Kim Rawlings 01:04:14.401
Except for our multi-year environment grants, which are every three years? Jessica Phillips 01:04:21.161
I'll just speak to it. I want to support it, but I'm going to say I'm against it because. The process feels really not right to me without the ratified budget, so I think next year if there's the funding for. Through the budget then I can't see why, if it's every year that it doesn't come through like due process for everyone else. Frank Wilkie 01:04:50.700
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. Workshop around that? Could we have a Councillor workshop around that? Kim Rawlings 01:05:12.065
Through the Chair, we can have another workshop. We've had budget workshops and the allocation of the levy was covered through that process. Councillor Wilkie? Yes, if we wanted to change what's proposed levy? Under the well does get, it does go through and gets ratified through the budget process so there it is. We have, we have Acting Director Corporate Services, we 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 as a budget review, BR1 one or be BR2 our two process. Councillor Wilkie. Willkie. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:02.653
Question. Under our emergent grants or quick response grants, can the TUR group make an application for a small part of this project to be funded under the emergent grant? Process? Don't have emergent or quick response grants. No, we don't have that category in our environment. That's right. It's quite different. The funding source is different here. We've been through the levy. It's 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. There are three categories that exist already. But we don't have a merchant. Emergent or quick response. Because the nature of them tend to be project based and require quite a lot of pre-planning and preparation. So yes, we have the annual which has the environment projects and alliance grants. And then we have the multi-year project grants, which are three-year. Kim Rawlings 01:07:10.199
Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:07:14.479
Council. Councillor Phillips. 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. 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 enough what is trying to be said I'm which I'm a bit uncertain myself you said can you just tell me the two projects that have been Through the Chair funded can you please remind me where those are funds drawn from Through the Chair to the staff so they're currently drawn from the environment now haven't got the Environment Levy in front of me to the policy to inform this when 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 how does that work is that through the policy does it tell us that it's constrained to only two is it you know I'm just 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's ticks all the boxes I'm just a bit I don't know confused about this process now around how it pulled into place. 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 point and where we're trying to go Larry Sengstock 01:09:27.705
So my understanding from this is that we have an allocation through our budget process we have an allocation for each of the grants the officers have assessed all the grants that have been applied for and then recommended particular those two that fit within our allocated amount so if we go higher than that means we are drawing down on next year's budget that has not been approved as yet so that makes it difficult 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 to catch 22. We've a fair understanding of what the budget budget's is going to be but 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 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 or forecasting money that we haven't actually agreed on for our projects even though it may well be capable of being accommodated but it's sort of a chicken before the egg exercise that we've found ourselves in at the time. Brian Stockwell 01:10:57.840
I think I might ask the Director, the process for these grants is that it's based on an assumption of what's in the draft budget. There's no current definite allocation for any grants in the current plans of the it's all about what may be in the next, one or two years, is that correct? Yes, Through the Chair, that is correct. Okay, so, I'll Mr Chair, Frank Wilkie 01:11:30.346
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 as part of this environmental grand grant round. I'm also a stickler for process. What you're saying and asking for can be accommodated 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 coming to this council that have been worked over months and then changes on the floor of the council. So for that reason, even though I understand what you're trying to do, it can be done in terms of clarity of process and the fact that the TUR 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. Margaret Gatt 01:13:04.441
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. 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, that small wording could then facilitate Brian Stockwell 01:13:46.592
Than, if necessary, rather than take a decision. 9,500, subject to, subject to adequate budget in the 25-26 environment, is that right? I'll speak to it. I just want to make this before we do, it was a suggestion of staff, but the whole council has agreed to that. Is that what I've done? No, I think it's too late to change words, I understand. I think it's going to die, so. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:37.060
I'll speak to it. 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 mean pub test. I we have made a commitment to our community to transparent and fair 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 this is precedence setting, 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 01:15:24.419
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. Initiatives. So, I'm not as confused and I believe it's a worthy request to find some additional budget. Karen Finzel 01:16:07.504
Yeah, look, I think don't think it's about seeking confusion. Clarification. Just to reiterate, the staff said that this could be reviewed in the next project review too. SPEAKER_10 01:16:20.584
Is that correct? Is that what I heard? Brian Stockwell 01:16:22.343
I think what was just said is it would need to be reviewed because as it stands there was a small amount of other. Karen Finzel 01:16:28.841
Through the Chair, question to the Chair. Yes. In the past, from memory, has this issue come up before? 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 this? I guess? Brian Stockwell 01:16:52.132
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, it's my view that, you know, just including CPI, you 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 caravan park fees. Karen Finzel 01:17:30.459
And this, I guess, yeah. So. Cancel. Larry Sengstock 01:17:37.879
You may. We could say subject to budget because it is the line of 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 process? Councillors 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 grants that are coming before us. And this will happen, and we will go along. That's all. So it can take back and review and look at because of this. Nicola Wilson 01:18:47.104
I would say that is being different from a levy funded grant process being different from the other things in yeah. The past. Just to know what we spoke before would this change have the consequence of changing all of the budget documents? Frank Wilkie 01:19:02.693
Some of them. SPEAKER_10 01:19:13.700
Some of these are pretty- Some of them are similar to that. Unless there was something a complete divergence from what has already been discussed and a reading principle at various budget workshops. And it would not be practicable to actually completely redo everything in the next couple of weeks before the budget adoption of the 30th Frank Wilkie 01:19:39.412
Of June. Not the whole, not do the whole budget package. No, I understand that. Can I ask a question? The extra money allocation for this grant program, be would that have to reflected in the budget documents. It could be taken up in budget review 1. I'm saying if we approve this amendment, would that extra allocation need to be reflected in the budget document? Yes. That's my point. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:09.134
Can I throw a question through that she may be CEO? 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 probably preferable option for us. And 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 points. 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 due crisis and I think that 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. Extra favour to a particular group. But if maybe we can play with some wording, see the five minute break, Councillor Stockwell can put some more wording together that if there is funding, once the budget has been ratified, then allocation of that goes to the next. Frank Wilkie 01:21:32.816
This amendment will have to fall. Okay. Yeah. Can I just raise a comment? Karen Finzel 01:21:36.436
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 applications in, for the 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 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. Question to the Chair, fire to the CEO, how do you perceive that fairness SPEAKER_04 01:22:32.612
Through process? I think your point is well made Councillor. I think that the offices 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 doing is actually sort of not circumventing we're actually sort of destroying that process if you like I mean we have to go back to do it so I think it's a as a as a fundamental it's the issue we've got is we're allocating money based on what we think we're going to have in the 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 year it's just going to affect potentially those that we've allocated less monies to that we possibly might have wiped to but because tried to fit more projects into the allocated bucket that we in other I get levies are different to our grant funding but it's still a process and the principles are Frank Wilkie 01:23:43.781
The same. Question probably to staff if, or Mr Chair, would there be, if we were to do this 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 well. Yeah that's right. Brian Stockwell 01:24:05.324
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 3rd highest ranked and that's the fairness. So people put in, generally you're ranked from the top down. The CEO's right, there has been, I think, a little bit changed off the top two. Applications, whether that would be fair to Noosa is another consideration. Frank Wilkie 01:24:33.554
So it's the amount that's left over could accommodate this third priority, but not the fourth. If the budget's right. Karen Finzel 01:24:43.780
And if the process is fair, Mr Chair, can we deal with this in amendment? A minute? Brian Stockwell 01:24:50.741
I'll close. I accept all the concerns of councils. In my defence, I suggested it as I was at the workshop on grants and on the turnpike decision. Where we've done the environment, that is not a surprise. I think we do need to increase the level of funding to these projects. I think this surge rate project is it is a key. Initiative to start what is incredibly important work on the North Shore in terms of extreme weather events that we are having and are predicted to have more of. I don't think there is a need to be overly cautious such that we have over a one year delay in increasing money to grants. I believe it's council's role to determine how much money they want to put I believe said that, I acknowledge that there could be an alternative approach which would then allow staff to use any excess budget that is in there. I'll move the motion. In favour? Those against? Oh, that was Councillor Wilson and Councillor Stockwell. I believe those against are Lawrence and Phillips, Wilkie, Finzel and Wegener. I'm not going to move the second subsequent amendment. We can do that with part of the B2 or something else. Thank you, Mr Chair. Okay. We now need someone. No, it goes back to the original motion. Nicola Wilson 01:26:29.414
So, on the flip side of this, of the discussion just want to clarify councillors' role in this process. 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 about which. 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. Where that goal kind of sits is if you. 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 process going to be? So. Brian Stockwell 01:27:30.496
Well, directors. Respond to this one. Yes. Kerri Contini 01:27:36.056
Thank you, councillors. Through the Chair, ultimately, we have grants that have different delegated authority. So some of the authority is delegated to staff. In 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 before 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 cases of our aberrantism. 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, and you'll 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 reducing. Ultimately, 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 01:29:33.900
I'll speak to the motion, Mr Chair. There are a lot of worthy projects. The two that were selected for funding, Teewah Landowners Association, the turtle trackers monitoring conservation initiative, it's a small group of people, 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 has challenged our challenged up there because of the amount of vehicles on the beach, so anything we can do to assist those creatures on the North Shore and the work of the volunteers that are nurturing them is fantastic. And also Wildlife Noosa, this a volunteer group and the money is to train for training and equipment for the volunteers to undertake expanding scope of rescues and that means all sorts of wildlife across Noosa on the land and in the river and at sea. They do an amazing work, mostly volunteer and largely self by I understand. Themselves. So congratulations for putting those two at the top. They're excellent recipients and do extremely valuable work. And if we were to expand the amount of money available for the Environment Levy projects, I'd like to see certainly Wildlife Noosa received more. Karen Finzel 01:31:29.900
Thank you. 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 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 what do you want to do, point of order, Mr Chair. Talking about a review of the whole process rather than a motion. Well, I think I'm allowed to. Brian Stockwell 01:32:07.558
Excuse me, you interrupted Through the Chair, follow the process. Point of order, you can interrupt me if you can get your Frank Wilkie 01:32:14.898
Point of order in. Point of order, Mr Chair. With respect, Councillor Finzel whereas the motion before us is about the climate change resilience grants and the environment grants. And our debate needs to be restricted to that. Brian Stockwell 01:32:33.840
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 that affects your decision is appropriate. Approach all right. I understand where Councillor Wilkie is 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 your decisions today. Karen Finzel 01:33:13.560
I support the merits of assessments and the waiting 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. Brian Stockwell 01:33:36.798
Thank you. Other questions? Councillors? I'll speak. Thank you. 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 response grants which also have a considerable amount of great community effort. The issue we're dealing with, I think, is one that is about 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. Issue 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 grants, much this is we allocate for this is how much we allocate for reserve management versus 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-ground-the 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 actually a great step forward so we can see where we are if councillors make the decision to increase the budget. Tom Wegener 01:35:59.345
Opportunities have been lost due to lack of funding. I would urge all of us again to put more money into this bucket, other buckets, but when it comes to grant funding, but especially the Environment Levy for next year, because Noosa 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 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 01:36:42.465
Can someone take my class? I'm just going to just summarise, I think, I what's been said around this table. So I think 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 at if making we changes, that if are looking at making changes, there is gaps then we do it properly. We go to the policy first, we look at the levy and maybe we do introduce an urgent response applications so that, you know, groups like this 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 01:37:47.335
Put the motion. Those in favour? And those against? Sorry, I better read that. In favour was Lawrence and Phillips, Wilkie, kingswood, Wegener, and Stockwell, and against I think at the beginning of the meeting. Councillors, I think said that the grants were going to be. I'll let you see, yeah? Bring it forward. It has been an hour and 40 minutes. Are we ready to take five minutes? Yes, thanks. Mr Chair. Is five minutes enough? Karen Finzel 01:38:23.800
Make it ten. Seven? Just make it ten. Frank Wilkie 01:38:27.440
Ten? Brian Stockwell 01:51:21.700
Okay, welcome back. Returning to the agenda item, which I had from the area. What if you would like to do a summary? Shaun Walsh 01:51:33.420
Thank you, Councillor. You might note that Dean project manager is not in attendance. He's on extended leave overseas, so we're standing in for him rather than making his return to present the report. Noosaville Foreshore is a beautiful and popular location for residents and visitors. It's where the Coast and the suburbs of hinterland come together. And enjoy each other's company, promenade, launch boat, stroll, picnic and swim against the stunning backdrop of the river and this hinterland. However, it's experiencing challenges 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 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 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 and I'll then hand over to Shaun to discuss climate resilience. Aidan. Aidan 01:53:27.122
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 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 program CSP allocated at funding program at a value of $1.8 million today. So that's 100% funded by the State. Mm-hmm. The draft master plan has also formed the basis of council's application DRFA funding for abatement wall renewal. This is leveraging council's existing asset renewal budget and, if successful, will be 50 / through the State. Council is also investing in guiding council investigating further grant opportunities, such as growing regions, for playground renewals such as the Pirates Playground. Shaun Walsh 01:54:31.034
I've missed out on that. Cheyenne 01:54:32.434
Thanks, 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 Environment, science, tourism and innovation as well as LGAQ to undertake a study foreshore resilience options through the QCoast2100 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 climate change. We work with expert river catchment consultants and partner with the University of the 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 microclimate sensors in the foreshore, undertook urban heat island modelling, analysed the existing site contexts 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 refuge 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. So that's our summary, and we just want to Shaun Walsh 01:56:24.969
Thank everyone for their interest in the plan and the passionate community representation we also received to get it much further. You. Brian Stockwell 01:56:38.252
Questions? Yeah, Frank Wilkie 01:56:40.572
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 01:56:48.132
Yes, so they're involved in a number of one-on-one stakeholder meetings. So representatives. We don't have a peer disability 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 of the car park coming back, so that's being honest, it actually makes it a lot easier for them to drop off and pick up people. They sought, 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 people who might want to get out on the water associated with any of the boat ramp or recreation area upgrades. Brian Stockwell 01:57:37.568
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Finzel, do you have a question? Oh yes, Karen Finzel 01:57:40.548
Thank you. Input, for your staff. 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? Shaun Walsh 01:57:58.879
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 also align with funding that might arise as well 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 part of a master plan it followed by very detailed you know 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 on specific challenges to that space and also consideration community of 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 there as already described. Karen Finzel 01:59:01.222
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 church 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 01:59:23.010
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 toilet blocks in quater park or near the big pelican and so we'll particular stakeholders so actually you know have a series of workshops with councillors to ensure that we're on the right track. We'll undertake engagement both with local businesses in that area as well as post that through normal you know engagement programs to make sure that we're on the mark and of course you know particular stakeholders so such as disability sectors will make them we're very aware of the proposal to make sure that they have a very clear view on whether we're approaching it correctly so and that is a process that will follow for any upgrade that will occur along the foreshore Nicola Wilson 02:00:09.254
Thank you sort of following up on that as well so do 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 suppose when is the point of no return when does actually get locked in or is time to revisit that at the design phase Shaun Walsh 02:00:32.365
Yeah again as articulated on page 35 of the master plan um it could all it could actually have further refinement so because stakeholder expectations could change they might want to go to a six metre and I'm just saying that you know as an example for a particular location because of specific issues where you might have multiple you know vehicles coming together or it might be that a particular business actually wants to relinquish a car parking space to encourage outdoor dining so it's it gets locked in at 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 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 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 ongoing engagement Amelia Lorentson 02:01:37.801
Terms of the recent so community consultation process will the community feedback received since the release will of the revised plan 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 direct result of the community feedback during the most recent consultation process Shaun Walsh 02:02:12.292
So as the question is that will of course where people have made submissions and written specific letters they'll 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 submission 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 council's decision was. Amelia Lorentson 02:02:40.184
But 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? Shaun Walsh 02:02:52.945
We didn't release the community survey story. Detailed results previously as part of the previous thing but we can certainly release a significant executive summary about what the key themes were and that's some good feedback I'm very happy to take that on board so 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 to the various feedback. That would be great, Jessica Phillips 02:03:20.392
Thank you. Thanks, Sean. Just 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 Flood Study upgrade volume 4 being 2017 and then a future title inundation mapping think you know from my questions at the S&O I really just need to understand a little bit more around how we look 20 years ahead but we relying on quite older policies. From council or from 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 02:04:14.675
Yes so firstly sometimes you do have to make a punt on the 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 are actually above the flood levels and we're very very fortunate 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 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 reevaluating the most contemporary information available and updating that's good professional practice that councils has definitely different implemented in the past. Shaun, did you want to add anything to that? Cheyenne 02:05:27.718
That was a very good summary, thank you. 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 updated 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 02:06:08.030
And just a quick follow-up question, will those all come back for report to council? Shaun Walsh 02:06:12.730
Well, every time council develops a new strategy or has a new technical report, you know, that's very common practice that we'd of course we'd report it through workshops, a sometimes it might be a briefing for you information. In at other times it might require a council resolution because it's changing a particular practice like, you know, a room floor level or the Amelia Lorentson 02:06:35.477
Total project cost total cost is $559,401 including $100,000 that was provided by the Queensland government through QCoast2100 to develop the concepts that have been now integrated into the master plan. Terms of the detailed will there be additional cost for further consultation and the preparation of 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? Shaun Walsh 02:07:16.689
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 the like. And, you you're well aware, we have a really well established community engagement program that we plot out with the councillors in terms of coming months. And then councillors and fellow staff recommend the way we engage with the community and using various different approaches. So, yes, certainly be part and parcel of any community program. It's very difficult to road map 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 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 Bill. Various, you know, state and Federal agencies. So, 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 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 and the appropriate budgets required for community engagement. Jessica Phillips 02:08:51.421
Other questions? Yes, please. Thanks. Just in reference, there's 29 drainage outfalls that have been identified in the plan that need infrastructure or that says vulnerable to tidal inundation backflows but was due to the 29 drainage outfalls and two drainage channels to the river. One thing that I, and I just maybe need a little bit of help finding, reference in the plan to when they would be prioritised because I can see, I think it's called natural, channel design. Thank you. And gross burden traps at the outlet. Yes, I can see that in there but I can't see 29 identified infrastructure on the priority list. Shaun Walsh 02:09:39.952
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 money we can achieve bigger stormwater pipes because our renewal budget only covers you know to replace light for light so we're going to 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 actually catch rubbish before it actually goes out the river which a very nice thing so um key thing of with stormwater is you try and do it before you muck up with any you know because 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 land and pathways and playgrounds so I dare say that the first priority we do the 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 of 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 upgraded prior to the major works commencing 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 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 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 it but it really depends on the funding available Jessica Phillips 02:12:04.454
Another question yeah thank you in the draft 80% from June 2024 I referenced that there was a recommendation that went to community on a 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 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 there's a suggestion of 3.5 Shaun Walsh 02:12:49.013
So I need to take that on notice exactly where the 3.5 metres 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 we've had two types of consultation or two types of findings like there were 17 submissions from 162 you'll say submissions saying didn't that we need to widen the pipeline. Pathways so as an example but then I think we have 40 submissions saying we need to better deal with the conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists so on the pathway and you note that the change from 2024 report through to November 2024 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 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 three metres up to 3.5 which is consistent with the more consistent with the osprey stain but do you want to add anything to that yeah my understanding Aidan 02:14:02.764
Of that 80 plan was that the pathway was set at three metres and then following the feedback that was increased the feedback from the community and staff review was that it would be increased to 3.5 at a minimum and some of the feedback that we were saying was that now we should be separating bike riders 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 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 eight percent plan Shaun Walsh 02:15:05.407
But it's a fair statement to say that consistent with that previous discussion we had that this can be this first time we have some money to upgrade you know a pathway 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 split 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 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 community expectations of if the path at that location Jessica Phillips 02:15:42.667
Thank you in the new plan that we see today there is what I can see is what do we call the great when the cycleway has been extended the whole way now on that so there is consistency now about a cycle lane Shaun Walsh 02:16:02.731
On the road cycle lane which is still shared with vehicle traffic yeah the difference with the June 2020 plan you know overtly modern one is it provided a dedicated two-way cycle route which is separate to the road traffic so it's a very very different approach. Jessica Phillips 02:16:20.375
I have one more question just around modelling then it 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 kilometers 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 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 because I see it very different and so does TMR, around the that's cycling and someone's that's recreational cycling Shaun Walsh 02:17:18.390
Yeah I think that's a fair request to actually you know do some more do detailed you know 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 some disabled people uh and encouraging the faster cyclists to use the with the green lane on the adjacent part of the road so we can't always control what cyclists do though so manage that so I think that's a fair request to undertake the entire survey counts to better understand the nature of the first design what do you think Aidan 02:17:58.693
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 for cyclists who will stick to the road no matter the condition and then we've got 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 cycling improving 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 02:18:39.870
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 just and runners they which is with that considered a high-use recreational would this be park? Yeah the whole of the foreshore is mapped on our Walking and Cycling Strategy as a principal recreational route. That why under Austroads guide to road design they say the 3.5 metres is the desirable width for shared paths in high recreational areas? That's their recommendation for safety and inclusion in high-use recreational areas? Have you taken that as, what weight have you given to that? Shaun Walsh 02:19:37.760
Well I think that's our that's why our recommendation is for 3.5 metres. I think that's table 5.3 and that's 6a of the you know the guidelines. So because when you go through that full you know AusRoad standard it goes into a lot of detailing about the path required. 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 up to 4.5 metres. Okay. I'm move from there. We can still have questions. Brian Stockwell 02:20:18.932
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:20:22.472
The final draft of the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Management 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 20-year plan. Vicky 02:20:57.200
I don't know what I'm just saying since our viewers don't show up. Brian Stockwell 02:21:08.700
Okay, so just before you do, because that wasn't up, Councillor Wilkie are you still happy to second that motion that's now on the screen for us? Yes. Frank Wilkie 02:21:16.440
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 and refinement, taking guidance from the endorsed master plan. It 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. 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 it was earnestly hoped our community would see their feedback reflected in this revised draft plan and that they felt it was a worthwhile process. Be. Many of the ideas received significantly improve on the first draft, such as leaving 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 pickleball. Instead of removing pedestrian safety, instead of improving pedestrian and cycling safety through two separate paths, 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 program, similar result by having one wider shared footpath in the narrower sections. Disability advocates have been consulted and are looking forward to the wider shared pathway. According to the Austroads guide to road design, page 29, recommends 3.5m as a desirable width for shared paths and high use recreational areas, which as we heard defines the Gympie Terrace foreshore. 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 beautify and help protect against erosion. 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 William street as originally drafted. This shortening in response to residents' concerns about impacts on amenity. A proposed wider footpath between Howard and William 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 along with community members who took the time to respond, I'd like to commend all councillors and the key staff who've worked in 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, is flexible and able to change based on the community's evolving needs and available funding avenues. The strategies are flexible, adaptable and staged so they can respond over time to changing 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 $10 million-plus in external funding needed for the upkeep and improvements on this 2-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 on infrastructure. The 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. The revetment walls. 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 we all can be proud of. Jessica Phillips 02:25:37.598
Question? Please 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 is confirmed with correct. So is that from austroads or TMR supplement? Both of them suggest that to in order to suggest a recreational definition the data has to support that which we don't have. Aidan 02:26:10.065
We 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 their Principal Cycle Network route so in the coastal pathway route which extends from Tewantin to Noosa Heads down to viridian. Brian Stockwell 02:26:27.855
Bridgion the Cooroy is not just us, it's also the State that's identified that? That's correct. Amelia Lorentson 02:26:33.576
This council wollongton? Councillor Lorentson. Just questions around car parking, so Services & Organisation meeting it was noted that there was only a loss of 10 car parts and you referred solely to self-reporting and you referred to self to-reporting. The boat ramp area. Over the last few days I've been discussing a meeting with residents who have just raised some income inconsistencies so I just want to throw a couple of questions just section by section so Ely Park Massoud's 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 off-street and on-street so probably the 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 and next net gains Shaun Walsh 02:28:27.292
The pathway and concerns for environmental nuisance and safety of the public about that interface. In discussions with the operators. You know, replace the car parking spaces in the park with still retention of a limited, you know, 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 park there. So, you know, the notion about whether we accounted for informal versus formal is a bit awkward because there's probably a favourite of informal car parking. Occurring in really, really valuable green space. So the recommendation is to, you know, 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 informal arrangement suits better. But I just want to note that the council staff recommendation still says 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 our 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, is actually protected from vehicle intrusion in the longer term. Because one of the things 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 so our staff recommendation as contained in the report presented to you today we think is the best outcome. Amelia Lorentson 02:30:43.856
So has a precinct wide audit before and after parking summary, has that been undertaken precinct wide that actually looked at bays, loading delivery bays, unmarked, undesignated car parking spaces? Research and we've done a lot of research Shaun Walsh 02:31:03.206
So generally yes, but this is again a schematic, and you'll note that councillors have been working through a parking management plan with the councillors, and that will ideally you know, ideally come out to the public 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 take on the feedback from this plan question, you know, inform that draft master plan. But there has been an overview of the whole spaces. We're confident that the only places we're losing car parking spaces as articulated to you is alongside the Noosaville program. Amelia Lorentson 02:31:43.566
Thomas Street, I note that the in the final round of community consultation by your site survey and 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. Shaun Walsh 02:32:04.652
What the response numbers and where can we find that information so that was distributed in the consultation report was previously distributed to the councillors so well I can distribute that at this meeting so but the intention is that the Thomas Street car parking arrangements stay exactly the same so as is as the moment so the plan indicates a desirability to create more outdoor dining and more water-sensitive urban design through green planting in that location and through detailed design we might be able to achieve that but with the current car parking arrangements that would be quite difficult you know and it's quite interesting to be 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 02:32:57.372
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? I read that correctly or not? Shaun Walsh 02:33:12.750
I'd need to take that on notice Councillor Lorentson and I can advise you for that. Amelia Lorentson 02:33:16.906
Okay I might throw quite a few questions at you just again in terms of inconsistencies. Um, 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. Cancel the questions please, I don't want to read all your questions. That'll do for now, thank that'll- Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:33:53.358
Just around the car parking situation, from anything I've read, policy reform is best accepted when it's implemented incrementally. And back to the discussion around data, along with what Councillor Phillips has mentioned this morning, we talked about data 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 02:34:31.876
So previously, council have 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 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 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 you know peak conditions to try and form 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 Karen Finzel 02:35:30.113
Okay then just a question Through the Chair 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 02:35:39.162
No we haven't put up a budget request for a detailed tech trial for Noosaville car so we've just a used a basic spot survey to inform the parking management plan. Karen Finzel 02:35:52.196
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 order that's fine? Shaun Walsh 02:35:58.256
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. 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 in one way out so you can actually easily track the amount of time spent in specific areas. So Noosaville might be a lot more complex because the number of entry and exit points and the length of the foreshore. Karen Finzel 02:36:30.346
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:36:31.486
Mentioned the Shire-wide 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 02:36:42.307
Well, the information that we've already gathered to date is a mid-week, you know, 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 or also is engage with all the business stakeholders to get their intelligence over what is an appropriate parking machine that suits their requirements. 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 new gear and the like. So there's a multi sort of step to actually gathering. Frank Wilkie 02:37:20.415
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 Amelia Lorentson 02:37:37.903
Just a couple more questions about car parks. I 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 to be directly. Vehicle access being removed or altered. Shaun Walsh 02:38:03.170
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 of the recreation space and also adding to you know unsafe practices you know so um and the possible for collisions so um the master plan is seeking to better manage those arrangements uh the consultants and ourselves have done a very good job of actually ensuring that all the current formal spaces are recognised um but if the operators are thinking that they can continue to drive through bollards and actually go and park beside their business in the middle of the lawn space that might be an unrealistic expectation Aidan 02:38:55.165
So just to clarify are you referring to the Pelican Boat Hire and Catalina access Amelia Lorentson 02:39:01.485
Um no further down in jetty 186 and Catalina oh pelican sorry you're right yep 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 boat hire I might just look into that question again and come back to you talking about formal car parts regarding Quota Park again can you confirm or just clarify these shape and line markings being identified does that result in a reduction of available car parking spaces Shaun Walsh 02:39:54.423
So it is usual when you know informal arrangements are reduced you know so and can you be aware of this about when we introduce t's l's you know on streets for actually add 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 um uh you know the uh the master plan has indicated dealing on the issue 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 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 with Councillor review and funding review to make sure we've got it right Amelia Lorentson 02:41:01.185
And just last question in terms of the shared pathway adjacent to the boat ramp there's a bit of discussion, Mayor Wilkie mentioned about metres. It's already for 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 incur any loss of car parking? Do you want to answer this question? Aidan 02:41:35.659
Existing path through there is approximately 2.8 metres wide with no offset to the car park or the boat ramp launching facility we could continue with the 2.8 metre path as it is without shade and with that conflict continuing if we were to achieve a three metre pathway with a half a 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.5 pathway it's likely that we would have to repurpose those car parks. Amelia Lorentson 02:42:14.500
Does the current pathway width which you said 2.8 metres does that meet state and national accessibility standards? Aidan 02:42:24.540
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. Amelia Lorentson 02:42:57.877
It'd be great to have that information or that data Aidan, just to understand how many complaints over what period just to begin. It's not. Can you provide that data for us, the CRM complaints? Certainly. That'd be great, thank you. Jessica Phillips 02:43:25.112
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. I'll just wait for the amendment. That's okay because that's a separate amendment. Thank you. Do you want me to wait for Karen? No, you just know that she's left the room. So my amendment is approve the final Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan provided in attachment one subject to a maximum shared pathway with the three metres for all of the foreshore. You can get rid of the end, Vicky. Just please, and just put a. Oh, right, sorry. I thought it was for my, the second part of. That's okay. So do we have a seconder for that amendment? I need a seconder. I can stand alone. Councillor Phillips. Okay, thank you. First 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 yep and it's just on page one will be a bit that says relationship with all this road guide to 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 odds road guide to road design pathway paths for walking and cycling when odds road guide to traffic management or safety the reader should also refer to TMR okay it says this supplement has precedence over the odds road guide to road design part 6a when applied in Queensland land details additional requirements including with amendments so if you go to page 3 three for me please Vicky design criteria 5.1 weeks of path 5.1 point one says clear with the path capacity is only increased in one metre with intervals page three yeah I'll respect I'll have to so the supplement that you're looking at now has precedence over the Austroads guide to road design when applied in Queensland it table five, table 5.3. Is replaced with the TMR 5.1.4 which is on page 3 coming up in a minute this means that TMR supplement to part 6a is the governing standard for shared path design in Queensland not the Austroads guide alone it says path capacity is only increased in one metre increments 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 bikers 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 mention 3.5 as a desirable width but also it clearly states three metres is acceptable where cyclist 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 OzRoads shows that three metres is suitable for recreational use that's 20 kilometers per hour while 3.5 is for mixed recreational and commuting at 30 kilometers an hour but the is foreshore not a commuter route with 95% of users being pedestrians and new on-road cycle lanes planned along Gympie Terrace. The 3.5 metre width is not only necessary it doesn't fit with and feel. The TMR supplement lack of 50 / directional split figure 5.4 you can see there it actually says that we need 200 stop there sorry Vicky go back okay. It oh. Explicitly up, that one. Okay. Shows that 200 pedestrians per hour and 460 cyclists per hour fits the three metre path. 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. 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 community amenity. Amelia Lorentson 02:51:10.622
I support the amendment. 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 Foreshore is a low speed community driven foreshore. It's not south bank, it's not a major city community route. Root, 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 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, risk over-engineering a space that thrives on its low-key, relaxed charm, and in doing so, inroads the 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 Phillips 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 of Noosa foreshore and car parks. Frank Wilkie 02:53:24.765
Question for questions for staff what weight was given to the TMR? Standards there. Shaun Walsh 02:53:41.325
Referencing between the number of different documents so the three minutes is a minimum so we're referencing you know complaints that we have about necessarily using existing pathways. Pathway network and people with dog leads and ability for people to get around people with wheelchairs and the like so our common sense tells us that you know three metres which is already in existence over a lot of it some of the pathway is not sufficient so that's why we recommended 3.5 metres. I'm also concerned about that amendment that in event the TMR guidelines do change we're no longer consistent with their guidelines and no longer eligible for grant funding so I'd feel more comfortable with that amendment if it said a maximum shared pathway consistent with TMR guidelines so allow us to interpret the guidelines on the basis of good data of both pedestrian and cyclist data and consistent with the TMR guidelines of the day and I think that would allow scrutiny by councillors to ensure adhering to the guidelines and also giving us you know certainly that we're going to meet our TMR guidelines I don't know. And at the same time it could be that under detailed design you know at 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 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 may be inconsistent for grant applications in the future. Frank Wilkie 02:55:11.669
Yes if it was a 3.5 metre pathway that would not make it in breach of TMR guidelines would it? Wouldn't make you ineligible for funding for TMR funding Shaun Walsh 02:55:25.563
And you know it could also for the Federal government as well so that's you know beyond the jurisdiction of TMR 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 TMR specific Frank Wilkie 02:55:42.002
For increasing to 3.5 metres and extending out on the road is to include more shade as well, is that as a result of the studies done with the heat managers? Monogies? Shaun Walsh 02:55:55.113
So there's a few reasons that we have a desire to make the pathway wide in that location is to divert pedestrians around the car park and the boat ramp from a safety perspective. We want an safe route that's very welcoming. Alternative and receptive and having a wide path that's also supported by shading would actually make that a much more attractive route. Shayan, you want to talk about the heat modelling because that is definitely the hottest part for sure I understand. Brian Stockwell 02:56:22.164
Yeah, I don't think we could go there based on the amendment at this stage. Okay, Frank Wilkie 02:56:26.024
Thank you. Sorry Mr Chair, that's the reason for the width of the path. Okay, I accept the rule. Jessica Phillips 02:56:34.099
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. Can I amend if the floor is okay with it to include, you know, if there's changes to TMR standards. Shaun Walsh 02:57:00.653
You've informed me of more information at this session, so I've just been thinking on my feet. Jessica Phillips 02:57:07.405
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 02:57:17.505
You can I ask a to the Chair? Brian Stockwell 02:57:24.276
So the question is, is the floor happy for Councillor Phillips to reword this amendment? Yes. We want to check out the amendment. Metre, the meterage. Jessica Phillips 02:57:36.178
Keep the meterage, but for sure consistent, given the information that I read out that TMR overrides the AusRoad, that we stay consistent with TMR guidelines. Vicky 02:57:50.558
And that may--- Or in the--- Or consistent. Brian Stockwell 02:57:53.199
Such other minimum as is required by TMR guidelines. Vicky 02:58:02.989
Okay. Sorry. Frank Wilkie 02:58:12.556
Mr Chair, I can suggest something that if this amendment is lost we can try a new one with proper wording. Brian Stockwell 02:58:20.616
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 as Councillor Wilkie has suggested, he's not happy with it. Does have to be unanimous to make a significant change. We'll deal with it as moved and then if we want a further amendment we'll go from there. Frank Wilkie 02:58:42.084
I have a further question. Just to clarify staff, if we were to go with a 3.5 metre wide pathway, it would not be in breach of TMR guidelines. Aidan 02:58:58.013
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 a 3 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 Karen Finzel 02:59:29.148
Yeah thank you just then a technical question just for my understanding what do you call the bits on the side that so we go 3 and community you have the, like the sort of run off, you know, if people got to get out of the way, what do you call that? Is that the, so where do you measure it from? We're talking the concrete to concrete as say 3 metres and then you've got the grass way or is that overseas? Overspin, yeah just to clarify that technical thing Aidan 03:00:03.638
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 an a metre on anything you could snag handlebars on. Karen Finzel 03:00:23.073
Okay thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:25.293
Can I ask a question? The recommendation part C states that council 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 appropriate and locally informed phone. 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 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 03:01:32.939
If that was a question I would respond I think it just sets up a contradiction that makes it difficult to try makes it difficult to and determine what staff are designing to. I agree with you because this is specifying specifically which would make it very difficult to change it you know it's subject to consultation Frank Wilkie 03:01:52.954
Okay look I'll argue against the amendment the OzRoads standards. Councillor Phillips points well made but we're not obliged to follow following the TMR standards, which are minimums. The desirable minimum width or shared path widths under the Austroads 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 or there is a high probability of conflict between users. That's people walking 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 asphalte desert at the moment and the intention was to have a wider path to make it safer, more inclusive, more enjoyable for all users and improve the safety and access for all users at that point. We're not talking about specific points, it's the whole thing. Well I think the point I'm going to mister. Sorry, tesla, you didn't have a point of order. Because this would limit the pathway at the pinch point. We're talking about where this would have the most negative impact is where two pathways converge into one near boat the ramp, 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 we can step off the path. At this pinch point you've got the boat ramp on one side and you've the road on the other. We do need, unfortunately, to improve amenity and safety and respect the feedback from disability advocates to have a wider pathway at this point. And 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 03:04:33.170
I'll go on. We're cancers, where do you think a conflict of objectives. Break 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 cycling and walking strategy as a mechanism to achieve a statewide corridor for cyclists 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 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 and kids riding their own little bikes. That's what we put out in stage one. And the feedback was we don't parks. Issue unless we redesign the area between Thomas Street my beret the only essential way if we don't want to lose car parks is to make it one way and make it an active street. 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 hinton Terrace but unfortunately we've had three bad experiences with bikes on this path. The last one left us traumatised. After the rider 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 bells 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 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 water road that is significant. 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 compromised solution that the only long-term solution is having a separate bikeway which will require a redesign. It's else you want to talk about? Councillor Phillips, would you like to close? Yes, I will, Jessica Phillips 03:07:25.818
Thank you. I'm just trying to find the reference for the commuting because it actually defines that there's there needs to be a change in the end location which I can't see ever coming but I want to reaffirm the supplement from TMR is that this precedes this supplement has precedence over the Austroads design when applied in Queensland so TMR have said that and I'm assuming these guys the experts in path management path capacity is only increased in one metre width intervals width intervals because it is unlikely to improve capacity I think it's more about the fact that I understand there's a conflict and we're getting CRM's 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 it still fits within the recommendation we're actually here to ensure that the Noosaville Foreshore remains a place for place for people not just the 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 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 03:09:16.070
Motion in those in sorry to the amendment those in favour that's Councillor Lorentson and Phillips those against it's Wilkie Finzel Wegener Wilson and Stockwell the motion is it's not that passed so we go back to the original motion do we have other amendments that people would like to test council longton Amelia Lorentson 03:09:39.329
Um I have a few so Vicky I might start with Kerri Contini 03:10:07.081
Can I just ask a question? Karen Finzel 03:10:09.120
Sure. Just to clarify, the staff mentioned there was a mix of paths. Some at TMR and some are at is that right? What's the. No? Shaun Walsh 03:10:24.505
Correct. They're all under council management. Oh, they're all council management. But we do rely a lot, trying to upgrade our cycle and pathway network on TMR grants. So we could also apply other programs which are released by the Federal government for pathway upgrades as well. Brian Stockwell 03:10:41.842
Okay, thank you. Have we got the right ones? Vicky 03:10:46.082
I'm just bringing it up here. Frank Wilkie 03:10:48.142
That's good. Brian Stockwell 03:11:09.680
So is this the amendment you wish to make, Councillor? Amelia Lorentson 03:11:13.520
Yes, it is. So note that the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master 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. Noosa climate scenarios, e.g. RCP 8.5, council supports an adaptive management approach that balances risk, science and cost-effective solutions. Ongoing consultation with key user groups including boaties, fishers, residents, businesses and environmental stakeholders will ensure that the plan remains inclusive, flexible and community driven. Brian Stockwell 03:12:07.160
Just I'm just a the mechanics, the last statement will ensure that the plan remains inclusive, flexible and community driven is not really worded as a motion. Amelia Lorentson 03:12:18.240
No, maybe delete that part, just finish including boaties, including ongoing consultation with key user groups. Ongoing consultation will occur with key user groups. That would be great. Any user groups including? Do you want all the including boaties? Yes, please. And environmental stakeholders. Okay, and I believe Councillor Phillips seconded it. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. So the strength of this plan lies not only in Phillips, thank you. Only in its mission, it's also in its ability 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 Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master 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 formalises the ongoing partnership with our community, the people who use and know this space best. Our boaties, our fishers, our local residents and 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 03:14:51.562
Question. Can we go back to the original motion, part C of the original motion, please? Minimise. Can we minimise that so we can read? That? I can't. I can't. I just want to read item C. The question is, how does what's being proposed not, how does, 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's an ongoing document subject to best practice and community consultation to ensure the most appropriate detailed design response. Brian Stockwell 03:16:14.734
So it's a question rather than a point of order? Amelia Lorentson 03:16:19.095
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. Is to basically highlight that evolving local priorities, demographic shifts and emerging data. Yeah, there is some duplication. I think that the of point 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 scene. 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. Yeah, what's the point you're making about high-end climate response data? Just to identify that the master plan moment identifies high-end climate change scenarios scenario. 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 03:18:09.193
So a question for staff, have we made about climate change scenarios? Were they were they actually high-end or were they too low? Shaun Walsh 03:18:18.953
My understanding is that the moderate end of the scenario. Kim Rawlings 03:18:29.516
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 for the master plan that already say this. So for instance it says the resilience strategies in the master are flexible, adaptive and staged 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 03:19:07.751
Yeah hi everyone can you hear me okay yes thank you and sorry I had to step out for a family matter basically with the with this project we took hazards the coastal adaptation 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 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 0.8 metres 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 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 organisations like the IPCC to continually consider whether that mission 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 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 emissions 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 best practice and that is in our climate change response policy our foreshore master plan and our CHAP so thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:21:11.166
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 yes Cheyenne 03:21:28.720
The it's the high it's a high-end emissions scenario correct but there are now the IPCC 6 6th assessment report recognises that low likelihood high impact outcomes as a result of climate feedbacks tipping elements in the climate system and other processes could lead to higher levels of warming and sea level rise and can no longer be ruled out from the risk assessment process, but that notwithstanding the modelling and the work done in this foreshore master plan was based on the coastal hazards adaptation plan which takes on the State technical guidelines of 0.8 metres of sea level rise by 21.2,102, and that has not been amended Frank Wilkie 03:22:11.046
Yeah 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 Chair and we a at like amendment I am question I just a 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 overwriting. Against overriding emotion. I question all that. I agree with the sentiment expressed in it, but I think it's duplication. Brian Stockwell 03:22:50.610
Okay, I'll just switch to talk. Jessica Phillips 03:22:51.810
I'll just speak in support because I really like the 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 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. I thank you for bringing it to the table. Nicola Wilson 03:23:14.375
Mine's more than a question, about the concept of a levy of document, and the Director for the Chair. Do we expect to keep playing redraft this document, or are we going to deal with changes to the design process? Shaun Walsh 03:23:29.803
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 contained in the master yes Karen Finzel 03:23:49.690
Thank you Mr Chair. Well 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, situations change. I asked a question at the start of the morning to grant staff 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 in terms of I think the document itself is a living document as questions have been raised in discussions around the table today. I don't want to make it too prescribed that we do then limit ourselves further down the track. I think we're all aware of, you know, 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 20 years. Brian Stockwell 03:25:39.898
Thank you, that was a good talk. I think I'm similar to Councillor Finzel. I think the sentiment that's being expressed is what is already intent within the plan. I think Councillor Wilson's questions are. Do if you remember 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 to raise up further expectations that we're going to amend the framework rather than just refine as we I also agree that it is embedded both within the item C as it currently stands and within the document. So whether it's gentrification, it's probably just overkill for me, so I won't support it. Amelia Lorentson 03:26:28.408
Councillor Lorentson, I don't think there's anyone else who wants to talk. Yeah, thank you for all the commentary around. I don't think with anyone. Probably I put myself in your position when an amendment comes forward where I think, yeah, possibly duplication. Again, I haven't had the opportunity to read Mayor wilkie's amendment until on the floor today. But and I think to myself, surely any opportunity support ongoing consultation, any opportunity to support. Continuous engagement, any opportunity to provide clarity to our residents, given what's happened preceding this for the last two years, where they 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 structured 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 foreshore. Brian Stockwell 03:28:07.459
The amendment, sorry, those in favour, Councillor Lorentson and Phillips. Opposed? Could be Councillor Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Wilson and Stockwell. Okay, do we have another amendment, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 03:28:23.947
That council ensures regular updates. Can you find that one, Vicki? No, I don't have the form in front of me. But the council ensures regular updates on the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master 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. Have- We a seconder, Angela Phillips. Probably reiterating what I've just said before, I think clear, consistent communication is essential for maintaining public insuring that accountability to go, insuring account to go. The delivery of the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan. Providing regular online updates allows the community to stay informed in real time about project milestones, changes opportunities of getting to engage. It ensures that our residents, our businesses and key stakeholders can access accurate information without having to rely on formal council meetings or second hand reports. Meanwhile, status reports to council creates a formal mechanism for tracking progress, assessing alignment with community expectations, identifying costs and identifying any emerging risks or delays. I the update strengthens 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 03:30:17.058
Would progress on a plan like this be tracked in quarterly reporting as part of the operational plan, let alone annually? Shaun Walsh 03:30:29.998
Would be second 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 to progress. The way we're set up financially is that we have funding for projects. 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 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 level. But I just don't want to overstate our capacity, you know, in that in that regard because we don't have a precinct manager. Frank Wilkie 03:31:18.900
Last question, a and follow-up question. Projects associated with the Noosaville fortuner 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? Shaun Walsh 03:31:34.118
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 03:31:46.918
Through the Chair, the amendment was actually, I actually post that. I said that council should provide quarterly progress or status reports and the response I got from staff was that quarterly reports is an onerous requirement regular could be provided on the whether web page with annual status reports to council so I did change my amendment after being given advice that a quarterly report may be onerous. Shaun Walsh 03:32:20.124
So bad. There was a lot of communication coming through in recent days Councillor Lorentson. This morning at 10:30 so and I think that the intention is that to integrate reporting into our established reporting system you know which is through our quarterly capital works. And then also through our quarterly operational plan updates makes a lot of sense. I can certainly ensure that we'll put more effort into it to actually give a lot more dialogue associated with those updates. Brian Stockwell 03:32:54.428
I think where the art department is, there isn't is a force of the law art that's department. Put on him. 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 I think for us. Well, I took from the regular, you know, the yearly one would be, it would retain, you know, its implementation is once again in a Corporate Plan that should be doing that in your annual report, whether the projects were done to implement the plan rather than status report for January. Because if only they force your master plan to get reported on a quarterly basis. Amelia Lorentson 03:33:40.538
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 03:33:58.368
Yeah, I suppose my advice actually is I don't see the need for the motion because we would normally report progress in our quarterly operational, you know, plan updates. So on operational matters we're up to in the area and we'd also report on projects of the Capital Works Executive. So 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 to ensure they're fully informed. Frank Wilkie 03:34:29.855
Any further questions? Karen Finzel 03:34:32.035
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 like make those updates there given that's already. Shaun Walsh 03:34:45.274
Well we do that automatically at the moment as is so that's not onerous at all. So that's. This is what I mean a standard practice for us to do this so that you can get this information. Yep, Nicola Wilson 03:34:55.894
Thank you. Ms Wilson? Yep, I want to support this amendment. I agree with all the comments made already, but the. 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 annual reports, 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. Brian Stockwell 03:35:46.638
And that's about it. I think 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 that it will be reported on an annual basis. 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 Lorentson said once again, I do think it is a little bit. Really what we're here is trying to stay put and normal operations would be without getting up. Karen Finzel 03:36:36.057
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. In terms of, I think, the comments around the table today, I'm satisfied that we have enough process in place to ensure 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. Amelia Lorentson 03:37:10.963
Okay. 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 funded. The amendment is again a response to community figures. 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. 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, that the motion in front responds to that. Brian Stockwell 03:38:20.099
Quick motion, quick amendment. Those in favour, Councillor Lorentson and Phillips. Those against, is Councillor Wilkie, Finzel, Finzel, Wegener, Wegener, Wilson and Stockwell. Correct. Amelia Lorentson 03:38:30.701
I'll move my original motion amendment that council provides quarterly progress or status reports on the implementation of the Noosa Shire management plan i've just sent it to you, Becky. That council provide quarterly progress or status reports 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. Brian Stockwell 03:39:38.400
Okay, we have a seconder for that. Nicola Wilson 03:39:42.060
I'll be to second. Brian Stockwell 03:39:43.540
Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:39:47.920
I don't need to re-argue this one. Same as what I said before, this sort of addresses some of the issues with the wording for the amendment beforehand Brian Stockwell 03:39:57.380
And aligns has a lot of sense to open up and do I thought she Frank Wilkie 03:40:19.022
She finished. Amelia Lorentson 03:40:20.042
Thank you, I finished speaking. So Councillor Lorentson, does this mean continue to provide quarterly report progress or status reports as part of the operational plan on the implementation of Noosaville flow, shore management to ensure so what you're referring to yes I am okay yeah would you be happy with that? The change of wording to continue to provide quarterly reports, progress or status reports as part of the operation? Frank Wilkie 03:40:49.058
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:40:51.598
Can we make a bit of change please if everyone agrees? Brian Stockwell 03:40:56.538
Continue to provide quarterly progress or status reports Frank Wilkie 03:41:02.437
Part of the operational plan reporting regime. Yeah, well, that's what we already do. Yeah, that's what's reinforcing. Yeah. I thank Councillor Lorentson for being open to the change. It reinforces that this sort of reporting is underway. Anyone who goes to the trouble of reading this promotion when it's finalised on 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 what's happening as well. Nicola Wilson 03:41:58.909
That's all 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 to get on. 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 there's another process on top. Brian Stockwell 03:42:29.012
How does it look? Jessica Phillips 03:42:31.412
I think I'll just quickly speak to it because I think one thing that I try to be really mindful of is whilst most of us here, everyone here understands sitting in workshops and getting those quarterly reports for me you know when I speak to community they don't know if we don't really be really clear and so for me this one yeah I'll support this because it um the master plan we saw last year was something that community will really passionate about whether we um you know people disagree or agree with how it was um portrayed in community there's 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 we saw 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 414 they don't school pick up at sport by now so 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. Nicola Wilson 03:44:01.800
Just have a quick question make we've got to provide quarterly progress for status reports that help this 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 are we going to be able to achieve this outcome? Shaun Walsh 03:44:33.580
I'm satisfied with the resolution I think it replicates the general intent of the Cooroy operation plan status. If you had a choice between a quarterly progress report or a status report what would be the difference? Well I think there's fair bit of I'm not going to report on quarterly as part of the operational plan update. 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 into the existing plan. Tom Wegener 03:45:05.894
So are you're 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 03:45:18.953
Yeah, you could probably put more information to be simple to respond to this resolution. So the best of council, that's a reasonable do. Request. Karen Finzel 03:45:28.128
Well, Through the Chair now, I guess I'm seeking clarity, rolling the big, rolling the conversation back. It was a matter 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 previous amendment. Is there a question? 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 03:46:04.936
So through the operational plan on progress of 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 to be the forefront of Noosaville, you know, the more we can build it into our standard can achieve that. And this means that intent about putting it into our standard reporting practice. Karen Finzel 03:46:37.657
Yes, please, because the question was directed to the Chair and not to the CEO. But 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 organisation is at capacity, we're here and around the table all the time. Our best approach is to fully engage with our community and, rightly so, put them at the centre of all our decision making. I would like to hear you Mr senior, around capacity. Larry Sengstock 03:47:07.387
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. So we would just, and then we just place it like that. It's a dot point report. So it's basically saying here's the number of projects this is going to help you on track, well, not started, 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 of is this is a last plan. And like we said, plan sort of sits there and then it becomes project based. There'll be times when there's no 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 if we report a quarter of this, like, well, we built that wall today and not, that's, okay, that's but that's the soil. Sort of thing that it's not going to, be a really broad, but I take Councillor Lorentson's point that keeping the community up to speed so they've got somewhere to go to have a look at it, that's a, to me, it's fine and it's not to be, not that onerous because I remember our operational plan has, Johnston can tell me, but Johnson there's 84, I can't remember the actual number. Pardon? Hundred and seven. Hundred and seven. 177, you're doing 17 there. That's um yeah are a number of projects, so we're reporting on that on a regular basis, so I don't see it being onerous to do it through the operational plan. Thank you. Tom Wegener 03:48:44.667
Can I take a speak? 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. That's what we're 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 for us to gather this information, but I'm not quite sure that, you know, we're fulfilling what your desire to help the mom and pops that are dropping the kids off at the school right now is probably not going to filter to them this amendment. So I just suggest that the status 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 is a long discussion about what's already happening really. Doesn't matter to you all to support. The amendment but it did actually is not that big of a change is it Brian Stockwell 03:50:13.091
Yeah so I'm going to support it I think it's slightly different from the previous line in that a links it to the operational plane and B it refers to and any change to our technology so what we're dealing with here is probably when we do the operational budget that comes out this month we'll have one two three or none projects places will be one. So all it does is when we have our operations operational plan report we just group specific projects over the part of the Noosaville foreshore and then it becomes transparent. 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 reporting.' They may never look at it but it gives them a sense of happiness that yes, we're going to make the implementation this transfer so I'll support this one. Wilson. Nicola Wilson 03:51:15.568
I just want to point out that the name of the plan is incorrect. Amelia Lorentson 03:51:19.168
Infrastructure and instrument plan. Aye. Brian Stockwell 03:51:25.189
Horseshoe, infrastructure. Master Plan. SPEAKER_10 03:51:27.163
Master Plan. It's been a long afternoon, sorry. SPEAKER_04 03:51:35.163
Are we happy to correct the names? No technical change please. Karen Finzel 03:51:39.183
Better be wise absolutely. We don't want to sit through it. No technical change please. Noosaville, horseshoe, infrastructure. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:08.283
It's one afternoon, it's been a long weekend. Brian Stockwell 03:52:14.900
The title, the title, just copy and paste. Yeah, copy and paste it. Karen Finzel 03:52:36.200
Is there anyone else wish to talk to the motion yes please yes indeed it has yes 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 council Lorentson and that you know a lot of work that she's put into these amendments today and if this provides you know a dot point adds a bit of reassurance you know and gives councillors more opportunity to direct concerned community members to another aspect of where they can find open and transparent communications I'm certainly all for that so I will support it I think also if it's one more I'm more, you know post in the in the journey that people can pause and review 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 support this I'm not sure that it 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 Amelia Lorentson 03:53:52.304
Will 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 you might not have got it right the first time but this time we are going over and above to try to rebuild your trust. You for the conversation around the table but again I keep stressing guys we need to respond to the people who have put us in these seats okay in favour unanimous we have any other item that council Brian Stockwell 03:55:02.177
Just sitting out for a moment and we can proceed with this. So we're going to continue. Jessica Phillips 03:55:06.497
Can I just suggest that maybe at some stage a five minute break or not even two minutes. Karen Finzel 03:55:15.617
Are we ready for a five minute break? Yes please Mr Chair. Make it as five minutes as not two minutes. Yes Thank you. To staff. Amelia Lorentson 04:01:51.720
Do we have any other amendments? 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. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry, Jess. So, amendment, 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-wide audit. We have a seconder for that motion. Happy to second. Give me a think one of the 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 master plan. Again, just speaking to residents over the last few days, a lot of them have resorted to pulling up google maps and have physically gone out and started counting the car parks in frustration because they just didn't know where to access this information. That, to me, spoke volumes about the level of clarity that the master plan provides in regards regard 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. Safe. I think my take home speaking with residents over the last week is that if a plan impacts public access, it's going got to be based on clear publicly available data. Information. So I hope you support this amendment, it's simply about transparency. Brian Stockwell 04:05:08.369
We've talked about a marketing fall, would another term appropriate for those sort of car parks be unapproved and that some may have just been creep and people taking cars into areas and if so, would that in fact account for something that might not be Shaun Walsh 04:05:26.588
Perfectly legal? That that's correct but probably on a point out that you said that there's a six significant number of informal spaces. I think there's some. So I don't think there's a 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 returning existing "Return parking include family available and tree planning provide fuller spaces. There's another leader for the angle parking that says retain existing on street parking, investigate time regulation and build the status. So as you go through a precinct by precinct the plan you know very clearly articulates the intention 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 vehicle for or more disabled parking, you know, make sure it's up to standard more. And all 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 04:06:36.800
Question is, 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. Shaun Walsh 04:06:49.410
Particularly in the original June 2024 planning, the overly designed one, there's 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 so that we know that are recognised in the plan. So it is really up to a Councillor 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 04:07:42.656
Or do you want to talk to the motion. Jessica Phillips 04:07:51.817
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 going and it is quite difficult without going to the leaders which I have tried to do, Sean, to go through and I found it quite challenging for me to work out. I 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 loss. 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 leaders it that we have not yet discussed and then I can't help but think that we've got you know these proposal around time to parking workshops and things that are coming in the future but potentially it's going to take a little bit longer than and this would help community with an understanding about the commitment to giving them access to the foreshore think 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 through Shaun Walsh 04:09:47.650
Chair I could that I think it's a reasonable request because that is the intent of the plan yeah 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 so 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 intended car parking if that would be a way a way to actually embed this in the master plan more clearly Nicola Wilson 04:10:28.154
Back to my original question about you know what happens in the master plan versus in detailed design and when do things get locked in I'm just thinking does that then pose a risk in the future or potential um confusion in the in the future because you said you know we've said at this stage this is how many places there will be and then in the design phase that changes and does that then cause a lack of trust because you already know how much you want it Shaun Walsh 04:10:58.321
I able to commit to a figure of overall loss or gain we'll just talk about the intent is to maintain the existing level of car parking provision to be assessed on a precinct by precinct basis 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 and that would achieve both Frank Wilkie 04:11:23.296
So just to clarify you're saying we couldn't really abide by this amendment because it requests numbers and that figure of overall loss of gain based on the audit so that's they're talking about number providing numbers of car parks now intended for this the life of this 20 year master plan that will make it very it's a very difficult thing to quantify at this early stage. Shaun Walsh 04:11:53.787
I think we could say, sabin, that there are currently 404 car parking spaces provided along the Noosaville Foreshore. Yeah. Because council's, I'm just sticking off the top of my head, council's intent is to have no net loss car parking across the know precinct across the yeah but this will be assessed by precinct approach as part of the detailed concept design phase, in 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 04:12:23.769
So the only number you could provide is the current level? Okay. But you can't commit to the overall providing loss or gain based on--- We probably should articulate the loss of the 10 car parking spaces alongside the tunnel street. In return for 18 motor scooters. Aidan 04:12:41.537
And the fact sheet that's available on your side, 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 Gympie Terrace alongside the boat ramp into scooter and motorcycle parking. So that's already, it's already made yeah, on the fact on the fact sheet. Frank Wilkie 04:13:03.410
Is it possible is it 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 a greater loss of car parks other than what we understand at the moment? Shaun Walsh 04:13:16.644
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 and you can those competing factors. I should also include park amenity you know beauty you know so we should include that as well as a factor that we consider. Tom Wegener 04:13:49.297
I'll speak to it. Seems we have their 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 the now. How many car parks do we have? 104. We know it. We have a dynamic, evolving 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 is-- I won't throw out the motion because it's not important really. We know how many car parks are ordered for. We know that we don't want to lose more of them. But going down on a 20-year plan, well-- not making massive changes is unsustainable with 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 ways 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 of moving people around not cars but people. Shaun Walsh 04:15:23.445
We've had lots of different views that the exercise is the master plan. The other approach could be rather than that of motion is just to simply note council is in the process of preparing a parking management plan for Noosaville foreshore, which is correct, which will provide the information and the display of parking provision along the Noosaville foreshore for further consideration by the public. So that would link it to the forthcoming. 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. That could be another way without changing. Master plan at all. Karen Finzel 04:16:09.836
I like the conversation around the table. And again, thank you, Councillor Lorentson for bringing this and it's really evokes of, you know, 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 social impact 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 early on I asked the about car parking. You've 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. Know, that's what we're trying $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 04:18:04.234
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 availability of car parks and accessibility to a treasured recreational space. As time goes on, availability about 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 parking during the day. 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 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 that of just noting that the car parking plan is going to address this. Frank Wilkie 04:19:28.960
I don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't know what we've heard that there is great support for the principle of this being a living document is a 20-year time frame in the designs that come out of it. Changes according to the designs that are done on a more detailed precinct by precinct basis. It has a 20-year horizon. What I do support in this amendment is that we can accurately provide a clear statement about the total number of existing car parks. We have that 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 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 facts on that, but had a looser ending about saying, explaining the approach to designating vehicle parks across the in 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 so if there was another amendment, if this was to fail and another amendment was to say amend the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan to include a clear publicly accessible statement showing the total number of existing car parks across the precinct and outlining the approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. I wouldn't support it and I can't support the wording of this even though I too and every Councillor wants to provide clear information. The community. They understand kapa. 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 04:21:59.596
So let's switch to the students. SPEAKER_10 04:22:02.848
I'm to come back to that concept of a limited 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 now that may change it. Amelia Lorentson 04:22:13.889
Okay, first I'll start with a question. We've already put out that there's a net loss of ten 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. 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 based on impact. What happens when the adjoining developments across Gympie Terrace, when we start giving them infrastructure 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 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 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. We, some of us were there when they were protesting at tennis courts, don't take away our car parks. So the amount of amendment is simple, but I feel that everyone's over thinking 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 question questions that they're asking and the question they're asking is where do I find how many car parks and how many are we going to lose in this drought. 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 a 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 we're not asking for setting ourselves into something rigid and committed. It's about what does the draft plan at the 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. So again, take the opportunity to provide clear, public communication to the community, because we owe it to them to 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'm not saying otherwise. Point of order, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 04:25:51.838
The council's made a statement about the community not trusting us as a council. Amelia Lorentson 04:26:01.718
I'll retract that and I apologise. That's come out incorrectly. What I'd like to say is that this is an opportunity an opportunity for us to continue building trust with our community. 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 04:26:22.985
I put the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. Those opposed is Councillor Wilkie, finsall. Finzel, Wegener-Wilson and Stockwell. The amendment has been lost. Frank Wilkie 04:26:35.762
While the iron is hot, can I propose an amendment similar to that one? If you bring that last one up. The last one? Yeah. Because I'll be using part of the wording. Okay. So, could you highlight, amend the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan to include a clear publicly assessable statement showing the total number of existing. Yeah. Highlight that. And cut and paste that to be the start of amendment. That is the start. An amendment? It is. That is the start. Okay. All right. Total number of existing and get rid of everything after the highlight. That's right. Currently and outline the approach to designating vehicle parks across the precinct into the future. Precinct into the future. I'm happy second happy to sit in that across the priest 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 we've interrogated this in the last amendment, this goes to the heart of what 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 don't think I need to say anything more. Brian Stockwell 04:30:33.420
More I think car parks by closing off at access and I think it's a I 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 frivolous we had one recently where we actually created more car more car parks by closing off at access and then that development approval 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 paths 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 we shouldn't be part of the consideration and I think this is suitably strategic enough in its approach that it won't create future problems. Tom Wegener 04:31:28.254
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 it's know brian's ideas. Is that what you mean by approach? Frank Wilkie 04:31:42.610
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 could be part of the statement. A wide approach? Yes, and yeah. It doesn't lock us into a set number because we don't know that number. Nicola Wilson 04:32:09.297
Just to bring you back to what I was wording before, it was more about the intent, so the intended Brian Stockwell 04:32:15.377
Approach, yes. Did the word intended, everyone? Shaun Walsh 04:32:26.277
I'd be pleased to supply a paragraph tomorrow for councillors. Frank Wilkie 04:32:30.440
I'm happy to include the word intended if councillors are interested. Yeah, explain the approach. Brian Stockwell 04:32:51.820
I'm happy with that, Mr Chair. Is everyone else happy? Karen Finzel 04:32:55.120
I just have a question. Do we need to be, I don't know, like say the title number of car parks, don't we already have that public available online? One, two, one, thank you very much. Two, three, four. Shaun Walsh 04:33:08.215
It was in the material distributed originally with the June 2024 version and it has been contained on fact sheets but that material will probably you know fade into the background so statement to be encapsulated in this master plan it would be good to state it in this document. Amelia Lorentson 04:33:29.750
So my question is do we need the amendment or you make the inclusion of that paragraph before thursday's meeting? Shaun Walsh 04:33:39.370
I think 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 make your resolution on this. 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 Brian Stockwell 04:34:08.459
Okay other questions or people wishing to talk to the amendment no, Councillor Wilkie, do you want to close? Put I'll the motion those in favour that's unanimous do we have any other amendments that's a long time Amelia Lorentson 04:34:26.954
Okay that's um that any redesign of parking areas within the Noosa foreshore precinct must result in no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including car parks 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, motorcycles, 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 i'm happy what's on the screen is what. Noosaville foreshore infrastructure management centre. I'd actually like to include including designated and undesignated or unmarked parking. So could you add. You just took that out? Yeah, can I add it back in, please? Thank you. Yes. Okay, do we have a seconder? I'll be the second. Do you have the floor? One of the strongest and most consistent messages from the community throughout this process has been the need to retain existing parking. Not simply the convenience, but to ensure equitable and practical access for all users. This includes our older residents, our mobility impaired individuals, families with young children and boaties 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 rely private vehicles. Unless council has realistic, accessible and fully operational infrastructure and transport alternatives in place, such as frequent and reliable public transport, effective parking and ride systems, of 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 decision. Proposed renewable complex of car parks, and we've had the discussion, particularly I want to talk about the tin bays near the boat ramp on Gympie 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 demand 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 minimum exceeds the standards and a three metre width could be accommodated perhaps without any parking lost. Question I keep asking 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. You can't 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. Expecting nearby residential streets to absorb trailer parking is equally unrealistic and unfair. I'm really sick and I'm afraid. 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 has the outcome the outcry from our community not to take away their car parks. This isn't just about preserving parking spots but it should it's about ensuring that any future plan remains grounded in the lived reality of our community. Frank Wilkie 04:41:18.298
Just a question was it if I read this actually allows the increase in car park and vehicle spaces from 10 to 18 yippee is on Gympie Terrace that the intention of this no where do you read that well no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including designated and undesignated unmarked car parking motorcycle and scooter base so we're the number 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 Amelia Lorentson 04:42:00.940
Seriously no it's not yeah so can we take out motorcycles for your base it's there's just no net loss of publicly available parking spaces including- Get rid of them ourselves as good vets? Load-in and drop-off zones. Keep them PWA? Excessive spaces, yep. And load-in and drop-off zones. Brian Stockwell 04:42:32.305
So is councillors happy with that change to the moved motion? That's fine. We're going to see it on the basis. Frank Wilkie 04:42:44.140
I have another question. Does the inclusion of a disability parking space require more space than one? Shaun Walsh 04:42:54.240
Yes. Some. Since the development of this precinct with the provision of disabled parking spaces, there's been significant changes to the disabled parking standards. You need a shared space beside each car parking space. So, for instance, two disabled car parking spaces usually require to buy three car parking spaces that's correct Frank Wilkie 04:43:13.472
Yeah um okay so the inclusion, if we wanted want 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 spice with space the precinct to compensate. So, technically, if we wanted have a net loss. That's correct. Amelia Lorentson 04:43:42.724
Can I request some help with the wording acknowledges that PWD accessible spaces, with the exception of PWD accessible, with the exclusion of that any net loss. Brian Stockwell 04:44:01.930
And you've moved in taking the motion we've done not run while I've been in it SPEAKER_04 04:44:06.548
Look I'll speak to him if you're not the way through I'm not going to keep going on this Frank Wilkie 04:44:11.728
That's all I understand what Councillor Lorentson is trying to achieve. I just don't. I think a motion like this an amendment like this needs more to be work because it is I understand it's contrary to what the council 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 disability car parking spaces that require extra space. Than a standard and it would result in a net loss which is contrary to the intention of this and I'm sure we're all wanting to as an accessible place as possible. 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 I because I think the wording needs work. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 04:45:20.848
I also can't support it. I'm just still coming back to this as a 20 year plan. Things will change over time. The types of vehicles people use may change over time. May even become bigger so that we have to make parking spaces bigger and that again would cause a loss and SPEAKER_10 04:45:40.299
I think we can't set this in stone now not knowing what will happen in the next 20 years. Brian Stockwell 04:45:48.930
Are the temples? Are the temples? I'm not going to repeat everything I've said previously which would argue against this. I only have to say that we've been through a very significant so, my eyes on this, I came up with what I think is a reasonable very. Compromise which largely achieves a minimal impact on existing provisions. I think the key is that when the community say they don't want to lose car parks they're saying 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 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 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 things that have done by creek without any approval and shouldn't be there. I create on site, I they've can been created it. To provide ease of access generally, I think, some of them to businesses, okay? So if it's not formally approved car parks, why would we seek to do the pattern? I'm not saying that's definitely the case. I'm saying it's highly likely that some of these car parks the park itself. In that are unmarked are because they've never been approved. And it would be a contrary to good practice to actually then seek their 10 counted in the number. I think the appropriate way to go, and it's right, the overwhelming feedback was. Car parking is an issue. One of the statements Councillor Lorentson made is actually quite interesting. We're one of the few places in Queensland on Gympie Terrace that has a high frequency bus service every 15 minutes. Brisbane city, inner city, and this is for sure the only two places in Queensland. When we first looked at it. Not sure if it's changed now. So what we need to do is work on the culture of this residence, about when it is appropriate to use that 15 minute bus service. Certainly if you're going on a full day picnic and taking I'm taking three kids as it's not. Well, if you're going for a leisurely walk and a coffee, maybe taking that's who it is. So there's a range of things that will change over the life of this plant and specifying this outcome I don't believe is a rational interpretation of the feedback we've the rational interpretation was included in the last one. We've got this many and we're going to do a car parking management strategy, detail design, but the most important thing is there is current problems with car parking hiding, and there is current conflicts in the prioritisation of cars and people using the car space. 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 have to look at it from a broad perspective and I don't think this does. Anyone Councillor Lorentson, moved to close. No. I've put the amendment, those in favour? Councillor Phillips and Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Wilson and Stockwell. The amendment hasn't been carried. Jessica Phillips 04:49:42.940
Do we have any more? I've one amendment that I've got to attest to, please. Vicky, you've got. It's just the slipway present, please. Thank you. So my amendment is that item A be amended to re-approve the final nussville foreshore infrastructure master plan provided in attachment 1 subject to 1 revert the design from the maslow slipway and that shown on the consultation version endorsed by council at its meeting. Yeah okay thank you 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 I'm doing this to please. So there'll be three different I just want to so everyone can understand where we're at. So this was the car park loss inside around the slipway with a loading zone there. Vicky, can you bring up the next one from the Special Meeting, please? Oh, okay. So that's the June 2024. Yeah. This is the Special Meeting one that we endorsed to go to community at the Special Meeting last year. You can see that there was, from what I understand, there was conversation from staff with the commercial operators where they came to an agreement that Shaun spoke to on that they require some car parking inside for staff and so they agreed that this concept suited them, it had the loading zone that was safe for 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 that went out to consultation. Now the one that we see today is- Today's? Yeah, which I had sent you as well. Okay, that's okay. Maybe I, now I'll get it, out. Let me, let me, okay, I'll just bring it up. Yes. Oh, sorry, we've got to. That's all right. Yeah, that is fine. Okay. Um, I can even tell you Shaun Walsh 04:53:43.440
So Councillor, I just want to correct it's the first version there. Um, 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, I feel like that's incorrect. This is what was endorsed for public consultation. In the Special Meeting? In November 2024. Yep. This is actually what's shown in the current version of the master plan before you took that one. Jessica Phillips 04:54:17.735
Okay. And I did send through the original one. Does it help everyone to see then from today to the one that went out to consultation in November? Um now then loss Aidan 04:54:33.686
I can send you a screenshot SPEAKER_10 04:54:37.666
Yeah she doesn't Shaun Walsh 04:54:42.646
So this, Through the Chair, if I could describe this. Arrangement actually affects people in the New South Wales environment. So, if you know, the pathway actually intersects the moving area for cars. So, there are 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. Also we're concerned with for the overall contract. Conflict. So, subsequent to that, this is what's being prepared by staff. Mostly what it does is it swaps the internal car parking actually within the park. And actually changes it to angle 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. The slipway allows a driveway for, you know, specific vehicle use for access. So, now, Christmas, so rainy this morning, and I'm on reflection, they prefer to go back to the original. So, staff efforts will try and Resolve what thought. But upon further reflection, they would like 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. So, and these issues are going to be interrogated. A lot more detail. And I do note that the existing leader, that's the leader there, says optimised car parking, you know, so that it forecasts that there is forecast to be a design process for actually looking at it again. So, I just want to note that this, because a 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 broader community on that day. Frank Wilkie 04:56:50.960
Thank you. Can I ask some questions? Brian Stockwell 04:56:53.440
No, because Councillor Phillips has sort of started talking and then. Right, no, my apologies. Jessica Phillips 04:57:07.944
Am 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 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 coffee shop that keeps expanding because the community absolutely loves their coffee and food, right? It is out of control because it's great food. That little pub, I'm there every second day and it is a bustling, place. Great precinct in Noosaville. 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. Filled up a residential street with my brother's large vehicles because they're tradies, they own utes. I'm sorry, this is not going to change. The ideology of people not driving vehicles, it's. I can't support that will happen. I'm sure we can encourage behaviour change when there's more public transport, and I'm not saying 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 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. 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. Workers will be pushed into surrounding residential streets, increasing congestion, frustration from residents and creating new enforcement burdens. And with the time to parking as we were discussing, we may risk that it is impossible for staff to park legally for a full shift. 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 05:00:49.035
Thank that's a little you. Can we have those two comparisons up again please? This will be a question for staff. Looking at rows, 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. You've got, instead of two parks, there is--- So my understanding for the design--- You've got two parks here. Yeah. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, By converting to angle parking, they're actually creating more space than if they were parallel parking. 15 parks there. I'm looking here. We've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Looks like there's an increase in car parking. Shaun Walsh 05:02:08.228
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 arrive to, like many other areas of indian territory, use the road network to manoeuvre into the space. And that provided, you know, capacity for space for, you know, resolving the pedestrian cyclist conflict with provided space to perhaps move the pathway so you could set up better landscape buffers around the Massoud's Slipway and also still acknowledge would be occasional delivery driveway as shown by that internal driveway under management control which is a much less risk environment than having all those cars into the space so there is from my understanding there is only one designated car parking space given under a long-standing management to one of those businesses the rest are parking for people. So as any person can drive into that space and park at the moment, so. And currently, the current arrangements, you've got cars reversing over the parking lot? That's right. To get out? Yeah, that's correct. Now, that's a long-standing arrangement that's been there forever and a day, and I do get the point that is what's put out to the public for consultation. Part of the reason for the change was actually following discussions with same stakeholders so we've 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. 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. You know, hadn't approached us, we probably wouldn't have changed it. We'd change it in response to them talking to us and then they'd come back and change their mind again. So the fact we've got a leader there that says optimised car parking is you know, is enough of a point we need to explore this in a much more detailed sense and it's not like we've got any budget to actually do anything with this space anyway at the moment either, so it's not like it's a burning platform. We could probably improve the safety side each about being very careful. What do we always get to hate each other? I can't, so the notion of if we're protecting the slipway for heritage, we're protecting its right to be used. So, and they have requirements, you know, because they undertake sanding and, you know, low-level activities, they have requirements for separation and screening. So the consultants view is this amended approach gives us more flexibility to that provide will provide better buffering to protect the slipway from adjacent. Observers and protect the ongoing functionality of the integrated slipway. Do the operators understand that there's actually, it looks like there's actually more car parks in that area as opposed to worse? Wasn't, I wasn't, and Dean arnold's away at the moment, so I can't speak in detail about the exchange of information between the car parties during that time. Frank Wilkie 05:05:40.179
Thank you, and this is the precinct where buses, which now cost 50 cents to access. Brian Stockwell 05:05:54.259
I'm going to speak to you, Sir. I've heard a couple of references to ideological pass me by, but of course 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 that 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, it's cutting in those I'll just wipe your face. Thing you want is long-term parking, packing up your customers' car bags. Staff, generally, should have an option 100 metres away. Have to cater for a business that's growing. When we did the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master Plan, that was all about concerns of the community how commercial enterprises were taking over land outside their lease area, including their lease area, for other than the marine industries that they're approved for. So we came up with a compromise saying that the little coffee shops can be ancillary to that's exactly what we want to hear, that they're growing all the time. 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 really a poor design-signal system. Option. So I think we have to be really clear that the purpose of the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Master 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 tradespeople in is satisfied with the second design. Having cow packs parks close to them so the 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 car to lay car park across the road in the car parks in the park should be closed using the park. And so 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 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 for future generations. I was with you for it SPEAKER_10 05:09:06.440
Was I'm it was I will I would say that the design on the left looks safer and more consistent with the rest of the parking lot of the foreshore. It does seem to have no net loss but I do go back to the point. That in the community engagement the design on the right was given and there's been three practices 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 or the cars are moving so I do have some concerns on the safety aspects but I will support it for the broader commercial reasons raisins. Tom Wegener 05:10:03.973
Can't believe that. Is this is it. A living plan where are you know optimisation I mean are we micromanaging this because like if it's not set what's going to happen now is with this isn't set in stone neither of these. It seems to me if it's not set in stone we don't this is not an amendment that needs to be passed is that right? Shaun Walsh 05:10:29.016
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 one that we 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 in the long term. Frank Wilkie 05:10:56.862
Question, was it the owners of the slipway as part of the consultation that pointed out the safety aspects about cars reversing across the path? I don't know whether it was the owner of the slipway, but it has come out from various conversations from other people as well. Look, in order to move this along, I. I'm looking at these two plans, I'm taking 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 response to issues they raised. In response to raised, as well as the general public. It doesn't. It addresses the very concerning issue of cars reversing across a public pathway, which is a. Safety issue that needs to be taken very seriously. I see the heritage of the slipway is respected. It can continue to operate. There is ample parking, more. In my. Just looking at these diagrams, more parking created on the road by the provision of angle parking 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 this precinct. It looks like fewer car parks and has safety issues and this design on the left is superior and it has taken on board issues raised by the slipway owner, but I'll be 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. 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 supporting the design on the left which on the face of it looks far more sensible. Karen Finzel 05:13:27.438
I just need a question to Council just to clarify your motion. Which one is it supporting? The one with the red square? The one that the commercial operators want which is the one on the right. And they spoke to you today and they said that's the one they want to go back. And that is to promote that they want that in the imagery. Jessica Phillips 05:13:45.505
Work at precinct and the one 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 and they're going to detail with Shaun and Dean over how hard it is to function you know operate those businesses so they're saying and these are busy people so I can understand how the miss sorry you asked question because I'll close later question. Karen Finzel 05:14:22.631
Clarify it is about the intent to have that initial one printed in the in the document so that's what we're really 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 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 05:15:05.973
Question to Through the Chair please is there any net loss of car parking in the preferred option Shaun Walsh 05:15:15.589
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, some of the issues they're servicing the area is the fact that there's 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 that it actually provides a dedicated area for the free from parking intrusion. So I just want will to note that. So it could actually be today betterment in some respects, but it requires more detailed design. Tom Wegener 05:15:48.907
Are you saying that if they park here, that they can park here for longer than waiting for the cars? That would be a better fine. Jessica Phillips 05:15:58.095
That's a loading day 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 operationally beneficial for workplace health and safety for them operating a business the way it is currently designed. So they can get the truck right next to the--- So do you think that they take the truck across without taking it here? Yeah, or in that particular area, which is proposed to be grass, I think, or the. Shaun Walsh 05:16:28.870
Yeah, so there is a lot of license like, 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 in virtue of conflict. Whereas our view from a design perspective, the design on the left, sets up a more of an arrangement. It will require changes change of by operating design. Arrangements for those, you know, operators that try to load a truck and put it on a Jenny, or 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, know, near the Jerry as they would be safe to use. Amelia Lorentson 05:17:18.040
Speak to it. I'll support the amendment in front of us. I think it just responds to community feedback in particular to that are going to be impacted by any 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 the master plan, are clear understanding that the document can be updated and changed at any time. So again, any opportunity to allow our community to know that we're listening, this is one of them. So I'm happy to support what's in front of us. Brian Stockwell 05:18:05.780
Yes, if you have any questions, you can speak. Jessica Phillips 05:18:11.160
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 be done and for me when I look at any of the pre 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 for the from the precinct level of ground what to needs be done my first priority is what the people that keep it alive what needs to they need to keep it operating you know otherwise we're getting to me a little bit of changes around what does the foreshore look like in 20 years I would hope loud and clear the community said we really like it how it is so I'm just you know we've kept talking about 20 years but in the references that it's not just 20 years as changes coming in eight years 14 years and 20 years or that's the way it's sort of projected so it isn't just something that we can't we've got to stop saying it's just 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 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 so let's park engage with the people that use each and every bit along the foreshore and this is why this amendment is up because I'm just today because I'm just saying that they're the main operators of that area and let's respect their work that you know that their community members and that they deserve to be heard. So I hope you can support the amendment. Brian Stockwell 05:20:21.442
Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Wilson. Those against? Councillor Wilkie and Stockwell. The amendments carried. Do we have any other amendments? Amelia Lorentson 05:20:33.142
Councillor Lorentson. I'm going to just reword an amendment that I've put forward before. Vicky, I emailed it to you, that any redesign of Brian Stockwell 05:20:51.600
So the Standing Orders will prevent you from moving an amendment substantially similar to one that has been refused before. Shaun Walsh 05:20:59.240
Oh, as I said, this is about to happen. Amelia Lorentson 05:21:02.080
No, just the, yeah, just the no-met loss of publicly available car park. Brian Stockwell 05:21:07.520
Just tweak everything. Any information from the W. See one of us and we can move to the next one. Jessica Phillips 05:21:13.940
I think that's our second minute. Sorry, just to clarify, sorry to interrupt, can I make an amendment because I seconded it? Brian Stockwell 05:21:22.432
No, any amendment that's substantially similar to one that's already been moved that will could not be accepted. Any 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 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 cane toads or flooding risk to nearby residents or the broader community do we have a second of that motion? I'm happy to second the divide. Debate. Thank you. Vicky, you've left out some word. I'm going to take a look at it and see if I can figure out what's going on. So these reports must demonstrate that the wetland proposal does not increase risk to the health of the rivers, river, health risk, or flooding risk. So it just does not increase SPEAKER_10 05:22:48.641
Risk to the health of the river. Ther. At the end of that. Oh, I think that does not. Get me happy with that. Increase Health risk and flood risk. Brian Stockwell 05:23:03.957
No, I think take that because the sentence as was on the screen said these reports must demonstrate the wetland proposal does not increase health risk. Yes. Or flooding risk. To nearby residents or the broader community and does not increase Amelia Lorentson 05:23:17.386
Risk to the house and the river. Full stop, yeah. So just delete. Take away health risk and flooding risk. Yeah, because you had. The words are still in there aren't they that you must say? Thank you. Just if you delete at the end, I think that catches everything. I'm going to pull over to them. Can I start with council's Environment Strategy? There's a section that commits to avoiding and mitigating environmental community risk. The community have raised a couple of their concerns about the proposal to transition part of Chaplin Park into wetlands. Acknowledging that ecological restoration does bring benefits, their concerns are about increased mosquito, sandfly activity and concerns about. 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 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. By community that if you start off in 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 that so we understand what impact these changes might have in future storm events. Both reports, the environmental impact assessment and a hydrology report, basically just give us a. Data, science-based guidance, so that we can understand the risk, whether they're too high, whether the benefits are not clear, and if that's the case, we should step back and reconsider. So, to me, it's about, again, just 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 close new wetlands west of the slipway at shaplan park. Frank Wilkie 05:26:21.066
Question. Do wetlands already exist there? Shaun Walsh 05:26:25.186
Technically, they do, because the area is already subject to tidal degradation. Because it's subject to tidal degradation, it doesn't propose a health risk in terms of mosquitoes as a basic thing. The proposal to enhance the series of wetlands is actually just building upon something that's happening already. And actually rather than 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 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 do the same for a playground for instance. Little-owned wetland to ensure that it's part of council's due process before it actually invests money and effort. There'd also be significant approvals required from all the different agencies and the like to ensure it met protection of the Noosa River. 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 and it's actually enhancing it and working with it to have an attribute for our community versus something that's detrimental. Brian Stockwell 05:27:46.043
Cheyenne's got her hand up, do any of you want to talk about some of the work that's already been done in regard to the hydrology centre? Yes, Cheyenne 05:27:58.483
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. 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 05:28:42.880
Mr Chair, I think if councillors were to endorse this amendment, it would. 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 chaplain Chaplin 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, yeah, I can't support that. This amendment. Tom Wegener 05:29:24.542
Others talk? Brian Stockwell 05:29:29.542
I'll. Add to it. The. What's there we see now in the western side of Chaplin 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 it. 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 reporting or the, you know, as we've heard, we've already done hydrological assessment from a flooding perspective to show, you know, these are classic things that people do to actually reduce the flood risk, to adjust the surrounding, not increase it. Gives you more flood plain storage capacity. The one actually of most concern to me would be independent environmental impact assessment because they can be very costly and we're when 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 I don't think it would be in the interest of road payers because we're looking at a grass park land with fringing riparian wetlands and a tidal inundation with sensors that come up because it's there's you know it's living quite it's wet most of the year so that really the science is quite well known about these things so I think the any design of a wetland would take in fairly standard approaches to designing urban wetlands you know they're used extensively through development processes that does include some level of hydrological assessment and impact assessment so 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 says it actually improves the situation. Jessica Phillips 05:31:42.567
Others wish to talk? Can I ask a question to Shaun? When this precinct comes to us would we get, see all that through a report? Like when it just give me help me understand what I'll see when I get, when we get to this. Shaun Walsh 05:31:59.031
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 of the methodology as part of a budget BID or part of a grant proposal so 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 especially with your concerns and obligations you have input into the overall project design and then when we meet the 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 of our 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 agree on what community engagement method is as well um question Jessica Phillips 05:33:07.864
Thank you um what feedback did we get through maybe through both last year's June and one just on this specific precinct was it for me I found that it almost got a little bit lost in you know if I said to someone 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 time with comms or um just talk me through maybe what was the question Shaun Walsh 05:33:40.499
Um so both iterations were very supportive of the retention of this as recreational space and met their expectations because the previous council prepared for the area which is the Noosaville land use master plan which uh designate tenure under the Land Act it was a very specific plan also said that this should all be recreational open space so 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 05:34:13.497
One more question can it ever join to Hilton Esplanade from anywhere in this I'm just trying to think what's in front of that Shaun Walsh 05:34:24.817
In the June 2004 report so June so June 2025 report we tease the notion to see whether there is appetite to do sort of an over the side boardwalk and that wasn't very popular so there is one property along that frontage between Hilton Esplanade and Chaplin Park that already has a public boardwalk it's never been connected and unfortunately it's not embraced in our planning schemes and development control or the like so unless we had a significant change in our planning scheme and really articulated requirement to have a some sort of public boardwalk across the frontage of the properties between Hilton Terrace and the river it's unlikely so they have to basically come back down Mill Street you know along that sort of service road and then back onto Hilton Esplanade. So it's not, I've just been clear, it's not proposed in this master plan. Jessica Phillips 05:35:24.177
No that's fine, okay thank you. Amelia Lorentson 05:35:26.017
A question: Lisa rivers-Slipley, slipway, were they consulted into in terms of just these changes whether it's the wetlands or the board book, were they consulted as part of this process as a direct stakeholder? Shaun Walsh 05:35:41.460
I need to take that on notice about the level of engagement but the slipway 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 slipway so other than seeking to formalise 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 the presentation of that area so and that would need to be so for anyone else who wants to make a motion. Shea's got his hand up. Okay shea please yeah thank you. SPEAKER_11 05:36:15.007
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 05:36:23.107
Thank you very much shea. Cheyenne. Thanks. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 05:36:28.054
Yes thanks for 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 the consultation did this come up and how we mitigating any risk that might arise around river health. I don't recall reading anything much about that. Shaun Walsh 05:37:06.100
Changing, probably look, probably I could mention that under 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. I think that river health was fundamental to the consideration of this plan. So Sean, do you want to add anything to that? SPEAKER_11 05:37:32.954
No that's exactly right Shaun. Yeah 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 and that's why nature-based solutions were the preferred management options provided. Karen Finzel 05:37:54.909
Thank you, thank you. Brian Stockwell 05:37:58.729
Other questions or people wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Lorentson do you wish to close? I'll close by saying Amelia Lorentson 05:38:07.349
Thank you Cheyenne. And Shaun for just letting me know that 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 reports are part of the process. So I'm happy for this amendment to fall, understanding that this is business as usual. Brian Stockwell 05:38:35.176
I'll put the motion, those in favour, those against, there'll 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. I've forgotten. SPEAKER_10 05:39:08.039
Is there anyone else like who Brian Stockwell 05:39:12.479
Would like to talk to the us? Motion? Frank Wilkie 05:39:14.539
We'll look at the substantive motion as it stands. Oh, thank you. Unless I. Then there's a D and an O. Then, yeah. SPEAKER_10 05:40:07.038
Is this a little bit. Brian Stockwell 05:40:08.578
There you go. Yeah. D was in relation to. And he was regarding the statement about a clear public accessible statement showing no car parks. SPEAKER_10 05:40:27.510
And then one was just. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 05:40:31.871
Should that be. Should I want to be reverting the design approach? Brian Stockwell 05:40:36.521
Well, that's what's past. Can't change it. Oh, yeah, good. It's technical. SPEAKER_10 05:40:40.081
Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 05:40:40.701
No. We've got to say authorising. Revert. No, revert is correct. But it's subject no, it's that council approve, that council authorise. Frank Wilkie 05:41:01.900
That's true. Subject to reverting and, yeah. Council note and authorise. Reverting to the design of practice? Well, it's got that, to that, as shown. Oh, right. Karen Finzel 05:41:16.944
Yeah. Okay. As shown. Yeah, that's fine. SPEAKER_04 05:41:30.140
Is that big enough yeah that's good it's very good Brian Stockwell 05:41:49.900
Okay. Karen Finzel 05:41:51.920
Are we saying something? Brian Stockwell 05:41:54.680
I'll start then. It has been a long process it's probably 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 recreational reserves on marine industries. In the river. 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 we to provide many years of enjoyment and I know many key events in my children's life occurred on the river. Scouting life occurred on and around the foreshore and I hope for generations to come we can maintain that level of enjoyment and accessibility. Others, we can talk, or others looking for dinner. 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 Noosaville foreshore made a bluey episode so only the parents might see so it's a really iconic stretch for most and even tourists alike if you haven't watched the bluey episode on the Noosaville foreshore that is your homework tonight because it is loved by so many people to reaffirm brian's like my whole childhood in every memory with my mum is on that and foreshore the feedback came loud and clear that reaffirmed how I strongly feel this isn't just somewhere I live this is my home and it has memories from one every single point along that whole foreshore um I can sit and think of something that has brought back a memory makes me feel really really proud to live here and so I know this took some time but to me this is probably one of the most important things I'll do in my term is see what the future holds for this space because there are people going anywhere that they have lived here a long time and 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 reinforce what community have said through the process my phone hasn't stopped around it and the emails and I just hope that we remember that our want to appreciate the staff effort and showing the amount of emails I've sent you and Kim because yeah I understand that it takes a lot of extra effort from 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 can this that 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 rigorous 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. Why don't anything I have else. Did I go on over time? I was just trying to get my first. 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. Nicola Wilson 05:47:45.260
Others wish to talk? Very briefly. I'm very 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. Okay, so, how do yeah, reading. So, yeah, 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 05:48:17.433
Councillor Wegener, the other day I went down and had an ice cream and 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, it's actually made us a stronger council, in a way. 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, you know, asset management and things, so. It's probably, there's a lot of positives that has come out of all of this. Karen Finzel 05:49:06.514
Oh yeah, man. Well, okay, next then, 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 pretty tumultuous ride, and there's been quite a few pain points, but also opportunity to learn, explore, and grow. And especially, I think, exploring the notion of change within that theme of excellence, and then, you know, keeping everyone together on that journey. Parks exist, I think, for our people. Definitely for connection, relaxation, and immersion, especially in nature, you know, as we get the built environment coming more and more, and 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, in our stories. I'd just like to close with, we've got a national 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. Amelia Lorentson 05:50:35.154
Yeah, so I won't go over everything that's said. Community and I think every Councillor 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 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 sheet pathway to be reduced to three metres. I'm concerned as I the argument that we perhaps over-engineering a space and we're forgetting you know we're forgetting what the Noosaville Foreshore looks like, 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. It wasn't supported. It committed actually no net loss of parking across the precinct and was no real acknowledgement that we would commit. I know we will aim to but I don't know. That amendment to me was the most direct way for me to tell the community that or us we've heard you. It was like a line in the sand and I just 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. 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 you know, may look good on paper. So 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 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 away our access and don't destroy the 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 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 final version. Let the community know that I'm hearing you, I'm listening. And we all are, but we need to continue to speak up for you. Frank Wilkie 05:54:53.551
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 that went out in July last year and the way we responded 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, the request to have separate paths for cyclists and pedestrians, but we couldn't achieve that without the loss of car parks, so we listened to the community and took that off the table. The enjoyment, the safety the accessibility of and all users is at the forefront of what we're trying to achieve here sometimes they're in conflict accessibility versus safety like we heard in the jet the jetty precinct but we can overcome that through further detailed design and consultation what we've come up with here is a resolution that shows 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 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 Noosaville foreshore will remain a low-key-tech recreational area that will be enjoyed by all users regardless of age that respects the heritage of the some of the traditional commercial users on the precinct and that 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 reflect what the community has said through this revised master plan I think I'll leave it at that. Brian Stockwell 05:57:39.357
Supporting the motion, that's Councillor Wilkie finsall-Wegener. Wegener, Wilson and Stockwell. Those opposed is Councillor Lorentson and Phillips. The motion is carried. You now councillors we've got more items on the agenda. Part six 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 05:58:08.150
Can we do 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 Brian Stockwell 05:58:20.810
The suggestion. SPEAKER_04 05:58:20.890
Another option would be to put the remaining items to the Ordinary Meeting it's not much else at the moment 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. Karen Finzel 05:58:44.710
Hello? Can we oh, you have just a phone. Sorry. Oh, we can't move. SPEAKER_04 05:58:53.048
I thought it was in character, he has to put, so Brian Stockwell 05:58:56.990
We wish have a break or do we wish to go to the next item and then refer the others to the Ordinary Meeting? That's okay. SPEAKER_10 05:59:07.110
That's good. Procedural motion to adjourn. Brian Stockwell 05:59:19.634
Plan 24-25, quarter to three, quarterly reporting. SPEAKER_04 05:59:26.854
Do you want a couple minutes break? Brian Stockwell 05:59:31.034
So Councillor Finzel does. Yes. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 05:59:36.274
That'll be fine. Brian Stockwell 06:06:46.484
Welcome back to the reporting and we have John tee with us to give us an overview. Johnston 06:06:51.784
Yeah. Good evening councillors. Karen Finzel 06:06:54.583
Evening. Johnston 06:06:56.483
This report provides a progress update for council's current operational plan 2425. So the annual operational plan is a key component in council's strategic and planning the initiatives in the operational plans are designed in accordance with the strategic planning framework and the initiatives in operational plans are designed to fulfil the objectives of the Corporate Plan 2328. 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 grains policy, Compliance and Enforcement Policy, the endorsement of the Pomona Place Plan, the Public Art Policy, the Housing Monitoring Program, and the Noosa Aquatic Centre Upgrade Plan. Just a few standard items amongst many things that have been achieved, so it's quite good sometimes to have a look at the operation plan to see what achievements there are, because they're quite large pieces of work. 18 initiatives or 70% are experienced. 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, will also increase community interest as we've just seen again with the master plan for the Botanic Gardens. Also eight initiatives that are experiencing experienced. Major disruptions, one of which is very good to see to be tables in Noosa infrastructure management plan. 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, the community strategy that hasn't seen significant progress due to lack of funding. 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 steering committee. So the report also provides an overview of key operation performance indicators. Performance is consistent with previous quarters. However, there were slight improvements noted for customer service, which is a customer phone focus. 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 they're the exchange of information occurs much faster. More efficiently as well then we also have seen in that quarter and improved ICT response time in terms of ICT requests that were responded to resolved within the top two day time frame and this was caused by an increase in allocated staff resources. Direct impact Brian Stockwell 06:11:12.185
So it's direct impact on the improvement there concludes the summary for this report president trump: questions someone like to move the recommendation yes second it would be Councillor Wilson Councillor Finzel Karen Finzel 06:11:23.425
Yes thank you to the staff and everyone for the 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 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 06:11:53.770
Anyone else council Wegener Tom Wegener 06:11:57.430
I look forward to seeing the note that he supports your plan reported in the next operation Councillor Wilson Nicola Wilson 06:12:05.970
Wilson um 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 Committee public 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 I'm glad that we have that level of transparency of what's actually happening, where money's been 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. Yeah 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. SPEAKER_04 06:13:18.435
Yeah, that will be an interesting one for sure, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 06:13:24.815
Councillor I lovilton: enjoy reading the operational plans because we talk about, you know, whether it's the foreshore the Destination Management Plan, all these plans that come and all these projects where we experience delays because of extended consultation periods 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. 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 other the 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 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 06:14:49.421
Yeah this will definitely be a focus of the next operation year as well to further develop that. I think it's also always a good opportunity because sometimes one is very absorbed in a current matter like for example the news of a foreshore 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 quite quickly sometimes and it gives you a good overview of all the achievements which is quite significant yes Amelia Lorentson 06:15:16.606
Thank you Johnson thank you for your work just in closing you're wonderful Brian Stockwell 06:15:21.026
Okay others Frank Wilkie 06:15:24.346
Cancel things well hang on I will I will say look what's impressive about this report is 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 uh strategic policies and projects like the Yurol Ringtail forest which, 400 hectares are being preserved as conservation estate linking Tewantin to Cooloola 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 and secure for the Resilient Rivers program dda compliance audits for all the community halls which will inform the resources that we give to those facilities the housing monitoring programs has been established to give us the data so we can make informed decisions about our housing availability and affordability. The new Public Art Policy, finally, Noosa Council gets one, well done Councillor Finzel. The revised Community Grants Policy, it's been revised after maybe a will good of a day. 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 use it as a training venue. Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment No. 2, 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 of short-term accommodation through our residential neighborhoods, providing provide incentives to private industry, to provide affordable housing and play our part in the housing affordability and availability crisis. The Pomona place program plan. First for Noosa Council. A shared vision for a vibrant livable Pomona and the Integrated Compliance & 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 now we can track the improvements and the challenges that we're facing is some delays but fortunately um 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 um 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 recording this John. Excellent. Brian Stockwell 06:18:36.399
If we look at complete and on track we're over 75% of all the items on the report. On the report and times, that's the distinction. Obviously, we're really inspired by the distinction, but minor disruptions are further 18, that's 92%. And minor in a quarter where had probably three weeks more rain 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 06:19:24.776
Oh, 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. So thank you everyone. Brian Stockwell 06:19:45.630
Okay. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? It's unanimous. Councillors, as foreshadowed. The break, I will move a procedural motion, which I've been beavering away at writing in the break. Thank you, Johnson. That items number 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14 be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 19th of June 2025. Do I have to take that? Councillor Wilkie. Councillors, it's now six hours and 21 minutes since the meeting started. I think it's good for a decision-maker to have a clear head. And we have a range of staff sitting around here have got family commitments and other things that we should not detract them from or deter them from in the current situation. So I hope you'll support the procedural motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Declare the meeting closed at 8:52. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
