Ordinary Meeting - 20 February 2025
Date: Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:09:26
Synopsis: Meetings: 5pm shift defeated, Planning: meat facility approved, Environment: levy land buy OK, Transport: buses ended; levy excludes ramps, Finance: reports noted.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie: Motion to shift Ordinary Meetings to 5:00pm defeated 5–2; daytime schedule retained citing decision quality, staff wellbeing, and online access (22:30–27:54; Item 10.1). Brian Stockwell: Minor-change approval for home-based Meat Processing Facility at 82 Patterson Dr, Tinbeerwah with revised conditions: amend 10, refuse deletion of 21 (but modify), delete 6, strengthen landscaping via amended 19; carried with one dissent (54:18–1:07:52; Item 11.3, 7.1). Planning delegated decisions for Dec 2024 noted, with deletion of NP20MCU 12637DA-59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba (Item 11.1, 8.1). Confidential authority to negotiate Environment Levy land purchase granted; CEO to pursue acquisition and Nature Refuge status if purchased (Item 11.1, 9.1). Comensura Pty Ltd awarded contingent staff (labour hire) contract CN24861 to Apr 2027, with CEO delegated to extend up to 3 years (Item 11.2, 7.1). Noosa Holiday Parks operations update noted to 31 Dec 2024 (Item 11.2, 8.1). Cemetery fees updated to reflect ATO GST exemption on burial rights and cremation memorials; GST to remain on ancillary items (Item 11.2, 8.2). Capital Works Program Q2 status noted; later used to frame a conflict process (Item 11.2, 8.3). Lease approved: Tenancy A2, Peregian Digital Hub to NextPlay (1-year + 2-year option) (Item 11.3, 8.1). Financial Performance Report for Jan 2025 noted, with sustainability indicators added (Item 11.3, 8.2). Operational Plan 2024–25 Q2 progress and KPIs noted (Item 11.3, 8.3). Shaun Walsh: Go Noosa free weekend/peak buses ceased; Sustainable Transport Levy cannot fund private vehicle/boat trailer parking such as Hilton Esplanade; on-land ramp design slated FY25/26 (15:18–18:41; public Q 8.4). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Argued 5pm start enhances public access; cited business chambers’ letters and meeting duration stats; motion lost (22:57–27:54; 45:40–50:19; Item 10.1). Frank Wilkie: Opposed night meetings; cited century-old practice now superseded by streaming; warned of fatigue after 7-hour meeting; claimed unanimous prior scheduling (27:54–35:08; Item 10.1). Karen Finzel: Raised psychosocial hazard obligations and staff right to disconnect; CEO confirmed risks and staff protections (35:49–38:55; Item 10.1 discussion). Brian Stockwell: Point of order on relevance during debate; later stressed prior review in Nov and lack of fresh evidence for change (33:17; 43:18–45:06; Item 10.1). Craig Vella (read by Councillors/Director): Public challenge to reallocating transport levy to boat ramps after bus cancellations; clarified levy purpose limits (15:18–18:41; public Q 8.4; prior Gen Comm 20 Jan noted in Q). Patricia Spicer: Probed 62 Lake Macdonald Dr spend and rationale for remediation approval pre-tender/grant; response affirmed duty to remediate contamination and future consultation on Lots 2–3 (04:26–09:42; public Q 8.2; links to 23 Jan resolution referenced in Q). Legal / Risk Tinbeerwah decision issued “in accordance with s63(5) Planning Act 2016,” evidencing lawful assessment record (Item 11.3, 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Confirmed conditions must meet legal tests of reasonableness/relevance; vehicle-movement caps for home-based business not supportable given mixed residential trips (1:02:39–1:04:35; Item 11.3, 7.1 debate). ATO GST determination implemented for cemetery burial rights, reducing tax risk; GST retained on plaques/headstones/services to maintain compliance (Item 11.2, 8.2). Larry Sengstock: Highlighted obligations under QLD psychosocial hazards code and staff right to say no to after-hours, mitigating WHS exposure (36:34–38:55; Item 10.1 debate). Kim Rawlings (via answer): Council frames remediation at 62 Lake Macdonald as duty of care on contaminated land; funding via loans/grants permissible for essential infrastructure under Local Government finance powers (08:20–09:42; public Q 8.2). Shaun Walsh: Noted $2.5m LNP pledge for river ramps not yet confirmed in State budget; Council engaging MSQ pending confirmation; avoids reliance risk (18:57–20:13; public Q 8.5). Conflicts of Interest Jessica Phillips: Declared COI (consultant/coach to Cooroy Gymnastics Club) related to Cooroy Sports Complex tender mentioned in Capital Program; Council, under s150ES LGA 2009, allowed participation and vote; she did not vote on the eligibility motion (51:31–52:23; Item 11.2, 8.3). Cemeteries & Community Services Kerri Contini: Cemeteries Plan in development; trend shift to ashes/memorials/green burials; Pomona buffered 200m from waste site; exploring regional models cautiously (01:50–04:05; public Q 8.1). Kim Rawlings (via CEO): 62 Lake Macdonald Dr investigations ~$380k (mostly 23/24 budget $500k), aided by $178k Fed grant; $3.3m (24/25) mainly for remediation/civil works (05:19–06:10; public Q 8.2). Transport, Boat Ramps & Levy Use Shaun Walsh: Sustainable Transport Levy dedicated to congestion/active/public transport (e.g., PT, park-and-ride, ITS); cannot fund boat/vehicle parking upgrades; Hilton Esplanade on-land design in FY25/26 (16:58–18:41; public Q 8.4). Shaun Walsh: State pre-election $2.5m boat ramp pledge unconfirmed; Council liaising with MSQ and seeking multi-source funding (18:57–20:13; public Q 8.5). Environmental Concerns & Land Management Kim Rawlings (via Director): Johns Landing: 70% Nature Refuge; 2019 bushfires set back targets; restoration plan to be updated; ~$12k/yr refuge works; ~$10k/yr for remainder; Fire Management Plan in place; future uses to follow Strategic Land Activation Policy (20:15–22:19; public Q 8.5). Environment Levy acquisition authority aims to secure high-value conservation land with Nature Refuge overlay post-purchase (Item 11.1, 9.1). Regulation & Community Compliance Richard MacGillivray: Dog registration: 7% late in prior cycle despite reminders; infringement revenue funds regulatory services; 1–3 year registration option needs operational/budget review (13:09–14:21; public Q 8.3). Minutes recorded cemetery GST changes and user-fee clarity, improving compliance and cost transparency (Item 11.2, 8.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 20 February 2025 10:00 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 10.00 AM 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 COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Nil. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 23 January 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PETITIONS Nil. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8.1. BRIAN O'CONNOR QUESTION 1 We are told that Noosa Shire is experiencing a housing shortage, but I wonder whether is extends beyond death? The Tewantin Cemetery is not accepting any more prospective guests in repose and the council has given up land set aside for expansion of the Cooroy Cemetery for use as affordable housing for the living instead. At Pomona, the dead are buried beside the rubbish at the adjacent waste disposal facility. Given Noosa Shire's growing and ageing population, what current and future planning is the council undertaking to ensure sufficient land is reserved for burials and for niches containing cremated ashes, or even so-called 'natural' burial sites, now creeping into favour? Answer provided by Kerri Contini Director Community Services Thank-you for your question and interest in the cemetery services Council provides. Council operates three cemeteries at Tewantin, Cooroy and Pomona. To clarify, although I’m sure Mr O’Connor was being tongue-in-cheek, people are not buried beside rubbish at Pomona Cemetery. Our Pomona Cemetery is a beautiful garden sited cemetery surrounded by trees with a 200m vegetation buffer between the cemetery and the waste transfer site. Council officers are currently undertaking the research and analysis stage to develop a Cemeteries’ Plan to guide the future internment needs for Noosa residents. This includes understanding the impacts of changing trends which is broadly seeing a reduction in demand for traditional burials and an increase in requests for ashes internment, memorial plaques and contemporary offerings such as green burials. This Plan will guide requirements for land requirements. QUESTION 2 Noosa and Gympie councils have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that aims to explore efficiencies in waste management and potential cost-sharing arrangements across the two-council area. Would this be a model for cooperation on possible development of a management model for establishing a regional cemetery in the hinterland serving a wider catchment area? ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 Answer provided by Kerri Contini Director Community Services Thank-you for your additional question. Council is researching a range of options for the planning of future cemetery needs. Regional models for service delivery can be very effective in relevant scenarios however we would need to investigate a range of factors such as land availability, community willingness to travel to a regional cemetery and importantly priorities of our neighbouring Council before considering whether that would be appropriate for cemetery services. We do meet with cemeteries’ staff from other Councils in Southeast Qld each month to share knowledge, trends and approaches which supports a strong public cemeteries’ sector. 8.2. PATRICIA SPICER QUESTION 1 How much of the $3.3 million initial budget allocation has been used in the process of investigating, getting reports, subdivision, tree clearing and remediation planning for 62 Lake Macdonald Drive, Cooroy? Please include when the budget allocation was made and the details of costings for each report and plan that has been done for 62 Lake Macdonald Drive, Cooroy to date. If investigations/plans/reports were done prior to this budget allocation, what was the cost of these and how was this cost met? Answer provided by Kim Rawlings Director Strategy and Environment Thanks Pat for your questions. None/very little of the $3.3m has been used for the investigations. This allocation is in the 24/25 budget for delivery costs/ remediation and civil works. The budget allocation for site investigations was $500,000 in the 23/24 budget. Most investigation expenditure was completed under this budget year with some carry overs in the first half of current FY. Most of the plans and reports undertaken form part of the civil works package, approvals and remediation package. The total expenditure for the investigations to date is approx. $380,000 . Important to note Council was successful in a $178,00 Federal grant that contributed to these costs. QUESTION 2 Council has in Item C of the resolution from the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 23 January 2025 approved all remediation and subdivision works to create Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the 62 Lake Macdonald site. Council in Part D has seemingly made Part C contingent on a loan or grant. Some at Council have publicly described the resolution "as a once in a generation opportunity for the Shire," (to definitely have 25 social housing units built). Part E uses the word "should". QUESTION: Does council have a rational basis to approve remedial works before even tenders, a loan or a grant has been obtained? What is council's strategy to give credibility that the rate payers of the shire will be given a genuine opportunity to influence the final development of Lots 2 and 3, if it even proceeds - when the only obligation on council is that it "should"? How could a grant be offered to council (or a loan be taken) to remediate Lots 1, 2 and 3 if most of the land becomes public open space parkland... in Noosa shire of all places? Surely the insistence of council to seek loans or grants ties Lot 2 and 3 to housing on a significant scale and casts considerable doubt over Part E of the resolution? There are four aspects of this question; please address each aspect in your answer. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 Answer provided by Kim Rawlings Director Strategy and Environment Council considers that it has a duty of care to clean up contaminated land and make it (the land) available for future uses. Currently no community uses can be undertaken on the land including for cemetery purposes because of the contamination. The remediation work will unlock the land so that it can be used for community needs. A cost estimate of the remediation work was undertaken to gain an understanding of the cost of the work. It is normal process to seek endorsement with a cost estimate and then go to tender. The Council resolution of 23 January 2025 clearly indicates that investigations for proposed Lots 2 and 3 consider a range of land uses and include community consultation. The residents closest to the site have been consulted and their concerns have been taken on board with the revised subdivision layout and going forward will continually be kept up to date on the process to remediation and subdivision work and be consulted on the range of potential uses for the remaining lots. Local Government are able to access loans (subject to meeting certain requirements) to deliver essential infrastructure. There are a range of opportunities that are available to Local Government that may not necessarily tie the proposed future lots to any particular outcome. As per the resolution of Council from January Housing will be part of the consideration for these lots. 8.3. DEBRA WALZ QUESTION 1 At November's Ordinary Meeting last year, I asked Council to consider changing the time-frame of dog registrations due to many community members receiving infringement notices for not renewing their annual dog registration on time. An amount of over $225,000 was collected by Council during the dog renewal/infringement period, despite Council's efforts to advise residents of their responsibility. Whilst Council confirmed lifelong dog registrations will not be considered, the Qld Animal Management (Cats & Dogs) Act 2008, Section 50 Duration of registration states (1) Registration of a dog is for the period of years fixed by resolution of the relevant local government for the dog and (2) However, the period must not exceed more than 3 years. On behalf of Noosa residents who own a dog or dogs will Councillors please consider a resolution to extend the dog renewal period from 1 year to 3 years whilst maintaining the same fee structure that currently exists. That is, Pensioners - free, Entire dogs - $193.50 and Desexed dogs - $48.50. This would be seen as a positive change by Council particularly in assisting with the cost of living crisis as well as acknowledging the value that dog ownership provides to our residents. Answer provided by Richard MacGillivray Director Development and Regulation As mentioned previously registering your dog helps the council provide essential animal management services. These services include managing aggressive and barking dogs, responding to and investigating dog attacks, providing pound services, reuniting lost dogs with their owners, and maintaining off-leash areas, litter bins, and doggie bags where needed. Council is always mindful of minimising any additional costs to ratepayers which is why the current fees and associated revenue reflect the cost of service delivery for our community. Any changes for dog registration from a 1 to 3 year period will require further consideration from both an operational and budgeting perspective and this may take some time. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 QUESTION 2 Can Council confirm how the dog renewal infringement funds will be, or have been spent and whether Council has begun to look into possible reasons for the increase in overdue registrations, as identified last year, as a priority, by Council's Environmental Health Manager? Answer provided by Richard MacGillivray Director Development and Regulation Infringement revenue is used to fund the operational expenses for regulatory functions and services to our community. In terms of animal renewals last year, more than 10,000 dog owners paid their animal registration on time. Around 7% of owners did not pay on time despite multiple reminders being sent and media releases issued. These ratios are not considered high when compared with other Councils. Council continues to encourage payment for animal registration on time through improvement awareness and education as well as exploring opportunities for making it easier for customers to register and update their details with council. 8.4. CRAIG VELLA QUESTION 1 The Go Noosa Interim report prepared by the Infrastructure Manager and tabled at item 8.1 of the General Committee Agenda considered on 20 January 2025:(a) recommended the cessation of both the Free Weekend Bus Services and the Go Noosa Free Bus Service for peak season (Service) in light of 50 cent bus fares implemented by the state government; and (b) identified that the Service was funded to the amount of $900,000 through Council’s Sustainable Transport Levy. That recommendation was unanimously approved by Council and now necessitates a reconsideration and update of Council’s response given to public question 2 on 20 June 2024 given that existing services have now been curtailed* so please now advise: Could the Sustainable Transport Levy which is budgeted to raise $933,000 in the 23/24 draft budget be used to repair and/or reconstruct the 'on land component' of the boat ramp and associated car and trailer parking at Hilton Esplanade or at any other boat ramp in the Noosa Shire? If not, then why? Answer provided by Shaun Walsh Director Infrastructure Services Thank you for your question regarding the Go Noosa program and the potential use of the Sustainable Transport Levy for boat ramp and parking improvements. Firstly, to clarify, while the Sustainable Transport Levy is budgeted to raise approximately $933,000 in the 2023/24 financial year, these funds are allocated to various sustainable transport initiatives as outlined in report. The Free Bus Service, while significant, does not account for the entire levy amount. Following Council’s recent decision to cease the Free Weekend Bus Services, options for the reallocation of these funds will be considered in due course. However, under the existing levy framework, all funded initiatives must align with the primary objectives of sustainable transport management, congestion reduction, and encouraging active and public transport use. The Sustainable Transport Levy is not intended to fund infrastructure improvements for private vehicle and boat trailer parking, including those at Hilton Esplanade or other boat ramps in Noosa Shire. As outlined in Council’s Transport policy, the levy is specifically designed to support initiatives such as public transport services, park-and-ride facilities, intelligent transport systems, and congestion management strategies. Council ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 acknowledges the importance of boat ramp facilities and associated parking for the community and note that the ‘on-land component’ of the Hilton Esplanade boat ramp and parking area has been identified for planning and design work in the 2025-26 Financial Year. Council will also continue to explore funding opportunities for these desired upgrades. We appreciate your engagement on this matter and encourage continued community participation in shaping Noosa’s transport and infrastructure priorities. 8.5. ANDREW MCCARTHY QUESTION 1 When will Council contact the Minister for Transport to access the $2.5 million pledged for boating infrastructure on the Noosa River and further advocate for immediate due diligence to be undertaken to assess the most suitable boat ramp upgrade due to ageing infrastructure in consultation with the Noosa Community which was first canvassed in a Mayoral minute on 17 January 2023 set out below:- Answer provided by Shaun Walsh Director Infrastructure Services Thank you for the question. Firstly, Council acknowledges the importance of boat ramp facilities and associated parking for the community and desires for upgrades. However relevant officers from the Queensland Government have not been able to confirm that the Liberal National Party pre-election pledge of $2.5million to Noosa River boat ramp upgrades has actually been confirmed as a budget commitment for the elected government. Council will continue to await confirmation from the relevant Minister and staff to avail ourselves of any funding opportunities. However, I can confirm that Council officers have been proactively meeting with Maritime Safety Queensland Officers to discuss boat facilities upgrades, and opportunity for funding from all available sources, and will continue to actively progress the matter in a collaborative manner. QUESTION 2 Johns Landing was purchased for $2m in 2017 by the Noosa Council, with a fiveyear plan to complete the rehabilitation and removal of contaminants on site, which should now be completed. Does Noosa Council have any plans for development or use for this site, or is it going to let return to a natural state? Answer provided by Kim Rawlings Director Strategy and Environment In 2017 Council acquired a block of land in Cooroibah known as “Johns Landing” with approximately 70% of the site allocated for nature conservation and 30% earmarked for future consideration of recreational use. The restoration of John's Landing in Noosa represents a significant environmental initiative, with the parcel being purchased through the environment levy and designated as a Nature Refuge across 70% of entire land parcel. An Ecological Restoration Plan was developed and has been diligently followed by Council. However, the 2019 bushfires severely impacted the Nature Refuge section, hindering the previously set restoration targets. Council will likely update this restoration plan soon to better inform restoration efforts. Despite this setback, ongoing efforts continue to focus on rehabilitating the affected areas, with roughly $12,000 per annum spent in the Nature Refuge section. The remaining portion of the site has $10,000 per annum allocated for maintenance of the slashed access tracks and open paddocks, managing hazardous trees and priority weeds. A Fire Management Plan has also been developed for this reserve which Council is managing accordingly. Council acknowledges community interest in the potential use of the Johns Landing site for public and community purposes. Any future consideration of development and ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 use of the site would involve a thorough assessment process, including site evaluations, due diligence and feasibility studies in accordance with Council’s Strategic Land Activation Policy. 9. MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. 10. NOTIFIED MOTIONS 10.1. CHANGE OF ORDINARY MEETING TIME Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council agree to amend the scheduled time for Ordinary Council Meetings from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM, effective immediately. For: Crs Lorentson and Phillips Against: Crs Wilkie, Stockwell, Wegener, Wilson and Finzel Lost. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 11. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS 11.1. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 11 FEBRUARY 2025 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Tom Wegener Cr Amelia Lorentson (via Microsoft Teams) NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS CR Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Cr Frank Wilkie COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 7.1. MCU21/0154.02 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS (MEAT PROCESSING FACILITY) AT 82 PATTERSON DRIVE, TINBEERWAH That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. 8.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - DECEMBER 2024 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 11 February 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for December 2024 as per Attachment 1 to the Report with the deletion of NP20MCU 12637DA-59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba. 9.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE That Council note the report by the Senior Conservation Partnerships Officer to the Planning and Environment Committee dated February 11 2025 and authorise the CEO to: A. Commence negotiations with the owners or their agent regarding purchase of the property as detailed in the report; B. If purchased by Council, place a Nature Refuge over the property; and C. Manage the property to maintain/enhance its environmental values. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the report of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 11 FEBRUARY 2025 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 11.2. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 11 FEBRUARY 2025 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel (Chair) Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Nicola Wilson NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Cr Frank Wilkie COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 7.1. CONTRACT RENEWAL - PROVISION OF CONTINGENT STAFF (LABOUR HIRE) That Council: A. Note the report by the Governance Manager to the Services and Organisation Committee meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding a contract renewal for the provision of contingent staff for Council; B. Award contract CN24861 to Comensura Pty Ltd for the provision of contingent staff (Labour Hire) under a schedule of rates, for the period 1 March 2025 to 30 April 2027; C. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and do all things necessary to administer the Contract on behalf of Council; D. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to extend the contract for a period of up to three (3) years from the date of 1 May 2027 at Council's discretion. 8.1. NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS UPDATE That Council note the report by the Commercial Business Advisor to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2025 providing an update on operations of the Noosa Holiday Park Business Activity to 31 December 2024. 8.2. CEMETERY FEES - GST DETERMINATION That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the Services and Organisation Committee dated 11 February 2025 regarding the ATO GST determination on burial rights in public cemeteries and its implications for Noosa Council's fees and charges; B. Adopt the updated Fees and Charges Schedule in Attachment 1 to reflect the GST exemptions for burial rights, including those for cremation memorials, while ensuring GST continues to apply to ancillary services and items such as plaques, headstones, and ash placements; and C. Authorise the CEO to implement and communicate the new fees and charges in Attachment 1. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 8.3. CAPITAL PROGRAM 2024/2025 DELIVERY STATUS In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Jessica Phillips provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Phillips, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to an upcoming tender for Cooroy Sports Complex and Multipurpose Area (which includes the Cooroy Gymnastics Club) mentioned in the Capital Program Update Report. I have been hired as a consultant by the Cooroy Gymnastics Club to assist in resourcing of their coaching staff and I am currently coaching the senior competitive program on an interim basis. I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the information in the report is merely noting that a tender is upcoming in the future. 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. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Jessica Phillips and determine that in accordance with s150ES of the Local Government Act 2009 and having considered the Councillor's conflict of interest as described, it is decided that Cr Jessica Phillips may participate and vote on this matter relating to the Capital Works Update Report including mention of the Cooroy Sports Complex and Multipurpose Area (which includes the Cooroy Gymnastics Club). For: Crs Stockwell, Finzel, Wilson, Wilkie, Lorentson and Wegener Against: Nil. Carried. Cr Jessica Phillips, having declared a conflict of interest was not eligible to vote. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Director of Infrastructure Services to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 11 February 2025, providing an update on the delivery of the 2024/25 Capital Works Program as at 31 December 2024. Carried unanimously. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the report of the Services & Organisation Committee meeting dated 11 February 2025 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 11.3. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 17 FEBRUARY 2025 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Nil. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 7.1. MCU21/0154.02 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS (MEAT PROCESSING FACILITY) AT 82 PATTERSON DRIVE, TINBEERWAH Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Refuse the request to delete Condition 21, instead changing the condition as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Delete condition 6. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 Amendment Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item C be amended to read as follows (and subsequently renumber the original C & D to D &E): C. Amend condition 19 to read: The access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants and shrubs to provide a dense screen of vegetation between the driveway and neighbouring residents. The landscape garden bed along the southern boundary adjacent Lot 61RP886676 pool area must be enhanced with supplementary planting being eight (8), “Syzygium australe” or “Syzygium luehmanii” with a minimum plant stock size of 45 litres at a density of 1 plant per metre. All supplementary planting works must be undertaken 1 month from the date of this approval. Within 1 month of the February 20, 2025, Ordinary Meeting additional planting must be provided to the access handle in accordance with the advice of Council Senior Environment Officer, Development Assessment. D. Delete condition 6. E. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Finzel, Wilson, Wilkie, Phillips, Stockwell and Lorentson Against: Cr Wegener Carried. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Refuse the request to delete Condition 21, instead changing the condition as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Amend condition 19 to read: ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 The access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants and shrubs to provide a dense screen of vegetation between the driveway and neighbouring residents. The landscape garden bed along the southern boundary adjacent Lot 61RP886676 pool area must be enhanced with supplementary planting being eight (8), “Syzygium australe” or “Syzygium luehmanii” with a minimum plant stock size of 45 litres at a density of 1 plant per metre. All supplementary planting works must be undertaken 1 month from the date of this approval. Within 1 month of the February 20, 2025, Ordinary Meeting additional planting must be provided to the access handle in accordance with the advice of Council Senior Environment Officer, Development Assessment. D. Delete condition 6. E. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Wilkie, Wegener, Finzel, Wilson, Phillips, Stockwell, Against: Cr Lorentson Carried. 8.1 NEW TENANT - TENANCY A2, PEREGIAN DIGITAL HUB That Council A. Note the report by the Director, Digital Hub & Innovation to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 February 2025 regarding the commercial lease of office space at the Peregian Digital Hub; B. Agree to enter a commercial lease for Tenancy A2 at the Digital Hub, Peregian Beach, to NextPlay for a 1 year term, as generally outlined in the report; and C. Authorise the CEO to award one option of 2 years, subject to the lessee complying with the terms of the lease. 8.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JANUARY 2025 That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 February 2025 outlining the January 2025 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. 8.3. OPERATIONAL PLAN 2024-25 Q2 QUARTERLY REPORTING That Council note the report by the Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 17 February 2025 regarding the 2024-25 Operational Plan and: A. Note the progress report for Q2 2024-25 Operational Plan to 31 December 2024 provided as Attachment 1; B. Note the comments on the progress of all initiatives provided as Attachment 2; and C. Note the status of Council's Operational Key Performance Indicators provided as Attachment 3. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 FEBRUARY 2025 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the report of the General Committee meeting dated 17 February 2025 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 12. ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS Nil. 13. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 14. NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 20 March 2025 at 10.00am. 15. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 11:09 AM
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.000
Welcome to the Ordinary Meeting of Thursday 20th of February 2025. We declare the meeting open at 10am. I'd like to acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi People and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging and also reiterate their invitation for us to join them as joint custodians respecting and caring for this place we all love. Respecting and caring for each other. I note that all councillors are in attendance. Confirmation of the minutes. Can I have a mover and seconder of the minutes for the Ordinary Meeting held on 23rd of January 2025. To serve for 22nd moved Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's unanimous. There are no petitions, there are no presentations, there are no deputations. The first is an application with two questions from Brian O'Connor. O'Connor is not in attendance but has requested the CEO read out his questions which will be answered by Kerri Contini, Director Community Services. Mr. CEO. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 01:01.503
Okay, question one. We are told that Noosa Shire is expecting a housing shortage but I wonder whether it extends beyond death. The Tewantin cemetery is not accepting any more prospective guests in repose and the council has given up land set aside for expansion of the Cooroy cemetery for use as affordable housing. The living instead. At Pomona, the dead are buried beside the rubbish at the adjacent waste disposal facility. Given Noosa shire's growing and ageing population, what current and future planning is the council undertaking to ensure sufficient land is reserved for burials and for niches containing cremation? Thank you, cremated ashes or even so-called natural burial sites, now creeping into favour. Frank Wilkie 01:48.482
Director Community Services, Kerri Contini. Kerri Contini 01:50.962
Thank you and Through the Chair. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor, for your question and interest in our cemetery services. Council operates three cemeteries at Tewantin, karoi Cooroy and Pomona. To clarify, although I'm sure Mr. O'Connor was being tongue-in-cheek, people are not buried beside rubbish at Pomona cemetery. Our Pomona cemetery is a beautiful garden-sided cemetery surrounded by trees. A 200 metre vegetation buffer between the cemetery and the waste transfer site. Council officers are currently undertaking a research and analysis stage to develop a cemeteries plan to guide the future internment needs for Noosa residents. This includes understanding the impacts of changing trends which is broadly seeing a reduction in demand for traditional burials and an increase in requests for ashes internment, memorial plaques and contemporary offerings such as green burials. This plan will guide requirements for land requirements for sanitary cemetery purposes. Larry Sengstock 02:54.680
Thank you. Next question please. Okay, the second question. Noosa and Gympie councils have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that aims to explore efficiencies in waste management and potential cost-sharing arrangements across the two council area. Would this be a model for cooperation on possible development of a management model for establishing a regional cemetery in the hinterland serving a wider catchment area. Kerri Contini 03:20.467
Thank you again, Mr Chair. You, Brian, for your additional question. Council is researching a range of options for the planning of future cemetery needs. Regional models for service delivery can be very effective in relevant scenarios. However, we would need to investigate a range of factors such as land availability, community willingness to travel to a regional cemetery. And importantly, the priorities of our neighbouring councils. Before considering whether that would be appropriate for cemetery services. However, we do meet with cemetery staff from other councils in South East Queensland. Every month to share knowledge, trends and approaches. Which supports a locally strong public cemetery sector. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:04.942
Thank you, Director Contini. The second application with two questions is from Patricia Spicer. Ms Spicer, if you'd like to come to the lectern and deliver your questions. And they'll be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy & Environment. But at red hat biosecurity. At the end of the show. Thank you, Jay. I just got, I noticed that it says in the application to read out your supporting documents. Do you want that or not? No, just a question, thank you. Patricia Spicer 04:35.486
How all right. Much of the $3 million initial budget allocation has been used in the process of investigating, getting reports, subdivision, tree clearing and remediation planning for the 62 Lake MacDonald Drive corral? Please include when the budget allocation was made and the details of costings for each report and plan that has been done for 62 Lake MacDonald Drive corroy today. If investigations, plans, reports were done prior to this budget allocation, what was the cost of these and how was this cost met? Larry Sengstock 05:20.180
Thanks, Pat, for none or very little of the 3. Million has been used for the investigations. This allocation is in the 24/25 budget for delivery and costs and remediation and civil works. The budget allocation for site investigations was $500,000 in the 23/24 budget. Most investigation expenditure was completed under this with some carryovers in the first half of the current financial year. Most of the plans and reports undertaken form part of the civil works package approvals and remediation package. Total expenditure for the investigations is approximate is to date is approximately three hundred eighty thousand dollars but it's important to note council was successful in a one hundred and seventy eight thousand dollar Federal grant that contributed to these costs you can have a second question Patricia Spicer 06:21.660
I'm sorry. I have ten to five. You're welcome. Thank you. Council has an item C the resolution below approved all remediation and subdivision works to create lots one two and three at 62 lake MacDonald's site. Council in part D has seemingly made part C contingent on a loan grant loan or grant sorry. Some at council have publicly resolution as a once in a generation opportunity for the Shire to definitely have 25 social housing units built. Part E uses the word should. Question: does council have a rational basis to approve remedial works before even tenders, a loan or a grant has been obtained? What is council's strategy to give credibility that of the ratepayers Shire will be given a genuine opportunity to influence the final development of lots two and three, if it even proceeds, when the only obligation on council is that it should? How could a grant be offered to council, or a loan be taken to remediate blots 2, 1, 2 and 3, if most of the land becomes public open space parkland in Noosa Shire, of all places? Surely the insistence of council to seek or grants ties lot 2 and 3 to housing on a significant scale and casts considerable doubt over part E of the resolution. There are four aspects to this question. Please address each aspect in your answer. You. Larry Sengstock 08:15.156
Thank you Pat. Council considers that it has a duty of care to clean up contaminated land and make the land available future uses. Currently, no community uses can be undertaken on the land, including for cemetery purposes because of the contamination. The remediation work will unlock the land so that it can be used for community needs. The cost estimate of the remediation work was undertaken to gain an understanding of the cost of the work. Is a normal process to seek endorsement with a cost estimate and then go to tender. The council resolution of 23 January 2025 clearly indicates that investigations for proposed lots two and three consider a range of land uses and includes and include community consultation. Residents closest to site have been consulted and their concerns have been taken on board with a revised subdivision layout and going forward will continually be kept up to date on the process through remediation and subdivision work and be consulted on the range of potential uses for the remaining lots. Local government are able to access loans subject to meeting certain requirements to deliver essential infrastructure. There are a range of opportunities that are available to local government that may not necessarily tie the proposed future lots to any particular outcome. As per the resolution of council from January, housing will be part of the consideration for these lots. Frank Wilkie 09:43.843
Thank you, Mr Sengstock. The next is an application of two questions from Debra Walz. Mr Walsh, welcome. Would you like to come and read your questions, which will be answered by Director Richard MacGillivray of development. And regulation. Debra Walz 10:02.610
Good morning, everyone. My two questions are about dog regressions, which stem from a deputation last year and under which the council's responsibility with the Queensland animal management cats and dogs act 2008, which says to ensure their dog owners have current registration for their dogs and in regulating that the animal welfare services appendix C of the auditor general's report 6/2021/22, it clearly states that council need to review processes enforcement outcomes and community feedback to ensure its practices are in line with legislation best practice and community expectation. In addition effective regulation of local laws including infringement notices local councils need to ensure minimum prescribed standards. Are met but also consider risk-based and intelligence-led information for enforcement. So my question with that background is at november's Ordinary Meeting last year I asked council to consider changing the time frame dog registrations due to many community members receiving infringement notices for not renewing their annual dog registration on time. An amount of over $225,000 was collected by council during the dog renewal infringement period. That's over and above the around about $500,000 for actual renewals of registration. Despite council's efforts to advise residents of their responsibility, I know council make an effort there. Whilst council confirmed lifelong registrations will not be considered, the Queensland animal management cats and dogs act 2008, section 50, duration of registration, states: ways. Registration of a dog is for the period of years fixed by resolution of the relevant local government for the dog and, however, the period must not exceed more than three years. On behalf of Noosa residents who own a dog or dogs, will councillors please consider a resolution to extend the dog renewal period from one year to three years whilst maintaining the same fee structure that currently exists. That is pensioners being free, entire dogs $193.50 and de-sexed dogs $48.50. This would be seen as a positive change by council, particularly in assisting with the cost of living crisis, as well as acknowledging the value that dog ownership provides to our residents. Frank Wilkie 13:00.245
Director MacGillivray. MacDougall, right? Thank you. Richard MacGillivray 13:05.224
You, Dave. As mentioned previously, registering your dog helps council provide essential animal management services. These services include managing aggressive and aggressive and barking dogs, responding to and investigating dog attacks, providing pound services, reuniting lost dogs with their owners, and maintaining off-leash areas, litter bins and doggie bags where needed. Council is always mindful of minimising any additional costs to ratepayers and dog owners which changes is why to the new the current fee and rules for associated revenue reflects the cost of service delivery for our community. Any changes to dog registration for a one to three year period will require further consideration from both an operational and a budget perspective. May take some time to investigate further, but thank you for that. Appreciate it. Next question please. Debra Walz 14:01.841
Can council confirm how the adult renewal infringement funds will be or have been spent and whether council has begun to look into possible reasons for the increase in overdue registrations as identified last year as a priority by council's environmental health manager? Richard MacGillivray 14:21.200
Thank you again, Deb. Infringement revenue is used fund the operational expenses for regulatory functions and services to our community. In terms of animal renewals last year we had more than 10,000 dog owners paid their animal registrations on time. Around 7% of owners did not pay on time despite multiple reminders being sent and media releases being issued to our community. These ratios are not considered high when compared with other local governments as in where similar local governments nearby had up to 25% that didn't pay on time. Continues to encourage payment for animal registration on time through improving awareness and education as well as exploring opportunities to make it easier for customers to register and update their details with council. Thank you very much. Ms. Frank Wilkie 15:11.309
Walts. Next is a question from Craig Vella. Mr. Vela is not in attendance. I first requested Councillor Lorentson read out his question which will be answered by Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 15:26.972
A question. The Go Noosa interim report prepared by the infrastructure manager and tabled at item 8.1 of the General Committee agenda considered on the 20th of January 2025, recommended the cessation of both the free weekend bus services and the Go Noosa free bus service. Peak season in light of 50 cent bus fares implemented by the State government and b identified that the service was funded to the amount of nine hundred thousand through council's sustainable transport living. That recommendation was unanimously approved by council and now necessitates a reconsideration and update of council's response given to public question two on the 20th of June 2024 given that existing services have now been curtailed so please now advise could the sustainable transport which is budgeted to raise $933,000 in the 23-24 draft budget be used to repair and/or reconstruct the on-land component of the boat ramp and associated car and trailer parking at Hilton Esplanade or at any other boat ramp in the Noosa Shire? If not then why? Thank you, Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 16:58.251
Good morning. Thank you for your question regarding the Go Noosa Program and the potential use of the Sustainable Transport Levy for boat ramp and parking improvements. Firstly, to clarify, whilst the Sustainable Transport Levy is budgeted to raise approximately $933,000 in the '23 / '24 financial year, these funds are allocated to various sustainable transport initiatives including free weekend bus services, congestion reduction and the like. The free bus service, while significant, does not account for the entire levy amount. Following council's recent decision to cease the free weekend bus services, options will be considered in due course. However, under the existing levy, all funded initiatives must align with the primary objectives objective of sustainable transport management, congestion reduction and encouraging active and public transport use. The Sustainable Transport Levy is not intended to fund infrastructure improvements for private vehicle and boat trailer parking, including those at Hilton Esplanade or other boat ramps outlined in council's transport policy the levy is specifically designed to support initiatives such as public transport, park and ride facilities, intelligent transport systems and congestion reduction strategies. Council acknowledges the importance of boat ramp facilities and associated parking for the community. And note that the on-land component of the Hilton Esplanade boat ramp and parking area has been identified for planning and design work in the 25-26 financial year. Council will continue to also explore funding opportunities for these desired upgrades. We appreciate your engagement on this matter and encourage continued community participation in shaping new south's transport and infrastructure priorities. Frank Wilkie 18:40.142
Thank you, Director Walsh. The next is an application with two questions from Andrew McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy is not in attendance, but has requested Councillor Phillips read out his question, which will be again answered by Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services. Jessica Phillips 18:55.950
Thank you, good morning. When will council contact the minister for transport to access the $2.5 million pledge for boating infrastructure on the Noosa River and further advocate for immediate due diligence to be undertaken to assess the most suitable boat ramp upgrade due to the ageing infrastructure in consultation with the Noosa community, which was first canvassed in the Mayoral minute on the 17th of January. 2023. Shaun Walsh 19:24.084
Director Walsh. You for the question. Firstly, council acknowledges the importance of boat ramp facilities and associated parking for the community and the desire for upgrades. However, relevant officers from the Queensland government have not been able to confirm that the liberal national party pre-election pledge of $2.5 million Noosa River boat ramp upgrades has actually been confirmed as a budget commitment for the elected government. Council will continue to await confirmation from the relevant minister and staff to avail ourselves of any funding opportunities. However, I can confirm that council officers have been proactively meeting with Maritime Safety Queensland officers to discuss boat facilities upgrades and the opportunity for funding from all available sources and will continue to actively progress the matter in a collaborative way. Manner. Jessica Phillips 20:15.868
Johns Landing was purchased for two million dollars in 2017 by the Noosa Council with a five-year plan to complete the rehabilitation and removal of contaminants on site which should now be completed. Does Noosa Council have any plans for development or use for this site or is it going to be let return to a natural state Shaun Walsh 20:41.427
I'm answering this on behalf of Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy & Environment, who's on leave at the moment. In 2017 council acquired a block of land in Cooroibah known as Johns Landing with approximately 70% of the site allocated for nature conservation and 30% earmarked for future consideration recreational use. The restoration of Johns Landing and Noosa represents a significant environmental initiative with the parcel being purchased through the Environment Levy and designated as a nature refuge across 70% of the entire land parcel. Ecological restoration plan was developed and has been diligently followed by council however the 2019 bushfires severely impacted the nature refuge section hindering the previously set this restoration targets. Council will likely update restoration plan inform restoration efforts. Despite this setback ongoing efforts continue to focus on rehabilitating the affected areas with roughly $12,000 per annum spent in the nature refuge section. The remaining portion of the site has $10,000 per annum allocated for the maintenance of the slash access tracks and open paddocks managing hazardous weeds and priority weeds. A fire management plan has also been developed for this reserve which council is managing council accordingly. Acknowledges the community interest in the potential use of Johns Landing for public and community purposes. Any future consideration of development and use of the site would involve a thorough assessment process including site evaluations, due diligence and feasibility in accordance with council strategic land activation policy. Frank Wilkie 22:19.667
Thank you Director Walsh. There are no Mayoral minutes and we have one notified motion from Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson would you like to move your motion please. I will, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 22:31.650
Okay. Motion is, that council agreed to amend the scheduled time for ordinary council meetings from 10:00am. To 5:00pm. Effective immediately. Frank Wilkie 22:46.130
Is anyone willing to second that notified motion? I'll second. Councillor Jessica Phillips will second that. Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 22:57.259
The decision to change the meeting time to 10:00am. Was introduced this term to help balance work-life commitments for staff and councillors. However, community feedback has highlighted concerns that this change has made it difficult for residents, working residents, to attend and participate in council meetings, particularly as we've just seen during public question time. So most residents are engaged in work or other commitments activities. During the morning hours, the accessibility of meetings has been significantly reduced. While work-life balance for staff and councillors is important, council has a fundamental commitment to community engagement and transparency. Given that ordinary meetings occur only once a month, it's reasonable and appropriate to revert that to the 5pm. Time slot to ensure that residents can be involved in the decision-making process. Adjusting the meeting time will help address the concerns raised by the community and reinforce our commitment to and participatory local government. Can't just speak a little bit more on it. The question I think I'm simply asking today is what time best allows our 27,000 plus working residents to attend our ordinary meetings 10 o'clock or 5pm. I've moved this motion today because I've been approached by residents and business chambers across the Shire and I'm talking from Pomona to Noosa Noosa heads to Noosaville business chambers and I've circulated letters to all the councillors who believe that the current 10-hour meeting time creates a barrier for working people. It limits their ability observe. And sit in the public gallery. It limits their ability to ask questions or participate in person during public question time and deputations. As a council we've committed to public access, engagement and participatory local government. Yet it seems that our schedule excludes many from having that opportunity. Right now we hold three meetings, a planning and environment meeting at 9:30am. We hold our Services & Organisation meeting at 1:30pm. And our ordinary meetings tradition that was held since 2014 it was always at 5:00pm. This term we've changed that to 10:00am. And again I reiterate is only once a month the reality is that these daytime meetings force working residents to submit questions by proxy rather than attending in person again we've what witnessed that today they've argued is that that's not real community engagement it can be seen by some as community exclusion again from 2014 we held ordinary meetings at 5pm. And it worked that changed this turn to accommodate councillors and staff work-life balance which I fully acknowledge and fully respect but I don't believe it is too much of an ask for just one evening meeting per month to commence at 5pm. To allow again if I quote our stats that 27,536 residents are employed in the Shire. So I've also done a quick review of our last 12 ordinary meetings to understand how long we're actually we actually sit at the ordinary meetings. Over the 12 last ordinary we had six an hour or less which meant that we finished in less than an hour. Three of the 12 that were under two and a half hours and only three out of the 12 that exceeded three hours and I do note one was extraordinarily long and in my five years I've never witnessed a meeting that went on for that long. So my point is that if business changes, resident community groups, surf clubs can adjust their schedules holding breakfast meetings at seven o'clock or networking nights at 5:00pm. Or community forums to include our working members, why can't we? They're volunteers and they don't get paid. Are paid and we're here to serve the community. So I ask again that you support the notified motion in front of us and revert back to your practice that commenced in 2014 to hold ordinary meetings at 5:00pm. That served our 27,536 employed residents and community well. Frank Wilkie 27:46.958
Thank anybody else wish to speak to the motion? I'll say a few words. The tradition of having a meeting start at 5:00pm. Didn't begin at 2:14, it goes way back to, could be 1910, it went over a century ago when councillors were part-time or worked and most of the district residents population worked full-time or were farmers and couldn't get to a day-time meeting. Even in the 1980s the demographic of Noosa had a greater proportion of full-time employees and they were, it was a younger demographic. Now our most engaged demographic are in the retirement bracket and many have told me that they don't like driving at night. So it's recognition of the changing demographic. Also, it's in recognition that times have changed. There's a good reason why no other council in Queensland has night time meetings. It's because technology allows anyone interested in council decision making processes to log on anywhere in the world and watch live or watch a recording over and over as many times as they like of that meeting. There is no absolutely no reason why anyone would need to be here the numbers at our General Committee Meeting where all the robust debate takes place haven't suffered as a result of they've been traditionally held in the day and this gallery has been full on many occasions during that. The other question raised was about the ability for people to be present and ask their questions now that's puzzling because today we had two questions that weren't being able to be asked by the writers but those two people weren't able to ask their questions when the meetings were held at night either so I'm a bit puzzled why that was raised and most questions are asked by people in person. Other thing that's happened in this term is the very real consider a factor of council fatigue during daytime meetings which must be respected and last month's Ordinary Meeting took the best part of seven hours so have we started that 5:00pm. We will be finishing finished close to midnight and the goal of the meeting structure is the best decisions on behalf of the community so councillors sharp and healthy and that's why daytime meetings another reason why daytime meetings are a better option we unanimously approved the meeting scheduled for the 10:00am. Ordinary Meeting in May with a review to happen towards the end of last year we did that in November when we approved the 2025 schedule with 10:00am. Start again unanimously approved I talk to a lot of people and not one has mentioned wanting to go back to last century the time that was instituted last century given the availability of technology now and the ability for anyone to watch a life live council meeting over and over at their leisure anytime anywhere in the world as many times as they want so I think we need to also do more than just say we support staff health and well-being we need to demonstrate that through our actions and decisions so although Councillor Lorentson was doing an excellent job representing what people are telling her people are telling me opposite and I think there are very good reasons for being in step with all of the councils in Queensland and given the advent of new technology and our commitment to a good life work balance so I mean for those reasons Amelia Lorentson 32:05.658
Could I ask some questions please? In terms of the councils in Queensland Councillor Mayor Wilkie mentioned that no other councillors have night time meetings. I've got in front of me the benchmarks and I note their General Committee at 10:00pm. That Barcaldine council hold their General Committee at 8:30am. Blackall Tambo 8:30am. Hinchinbrook a.m. McKinlay hold their ordinary very much. Richmond hold their meetings at 8:30am. And winton 8:00am. So they may not be so the question Through the Chair is I take what you stated which was that there were no nighttime meetings I argue that 8:00am. Starts are the equivalent of starting the meeting at 5:00pm. And that's not a question. Brian Stockwell 33:17.320
Point of order. Large areas of data there was argument being that saying I'm arguing it's clearly not a question. Thank Walsh, could you ask your question? Amelia Lorentson 33:28.491
Sure. Mayor Wilkie, can you explain why there are so many councils across Queensland that have 8 o'clock meetings and 8:30 meetings? Frank Wilkie 33:41.899
Well, for them. I guess it's about working during daylight hours and having a good, healthy work-life balance. And the point we're arguing here is moving from daylight meetings to night-time meetings. I'm arguing against night-time meetings. And I've cited that data there as in support of daytime meetings, and I can only assume that all these other councils have opted for daytime meetings for the reasons I've cited. Advent of live technology, recordings, healthy work-life balance for their staff, council fatigue, having to avoid council fatigue, all those reasons. Amelia Lorentson 34:26.622
Thank you. In my other question, in reference to the six or the nine meeting that we had just recently, again, I've never experienced that before. If we had a five o'clock meeting in the afternoon and the meeting did go on long, can council move a procedural. Motion to adjourn the meeting or to move the meeting to another time to allow councillors time to refocus and rethink? Or is there an opportunity in those instances when there is a lot of community public interest in the matter that we actually leave it to a Special Meeting? Frank Wilkie 35:08.389
You're absolutely right, councillors could opt to adjourn a meeting, a night time meeting, to another date, but then again, in my opinion that's not very effective decision making, it would slow down the decision making process, it costs, ratepayers a lot more to reconvene another meeting, when the purpose of a daytime meeting is you can get the business done there and then, in that one meeting. It's all part of effective decision making, which is what we unanimously endorse this meeting schedule to do and ensure that we can deliver the best outcomes for the Shire in terms of our decision making processes. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 35:49.288
Thank you. This is the CEO Through the Chair. The Queensland psychosocial hazards in the workplace legislation was taken effect on the 1st of April 2023. This council at the time was actively engaged to ensuring that this workplace meets code of conduct and the new requirements. Um, I'm seeking your opinion in terms of the risk and meeting our requirements under legislation around psychosocial hazards and how we'll manage them especially around meeting times after hours. Larry Sengstock 36:34.990
Thank you, kessler. Councillor. I mean, it's a very broad question, very difficult to answer I suppose, but technically from a staffing point of view for our senior management staff, particularly our directors, we have it in our contract that we're making ourselves available for various times of day and night for meetings and commitments. For other staff, particularly in the below manager level then it becomes more of an issue in terms of expecting them to be available outside of regular work hours. And they do, in the new legislation, they do have the right to say no. So we're conscious of that as well. And we are conscious of workloads in this environment. So that was part of the whole initial discussion around having meetings during the day. And that still stands. It's know it's up to you to make that decision. But all I can say is yes, that we do have obligations to our staff to ensure that they aren't overworking outside of hours that's not appropriate. I don't accept to look at that. Jessica Phillips 37:42.799
A question, please. Just in relation, because we're hearing all of the different points of view, when we recently did the workplace survey, did anything come up around fatigue or meetings through? That process? Larry Sengstock 37:59.591
Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, absolutely. There's absolutely questions and discussions around work-life balance, and that's something that we're very conscious of and making sure that is available to all of our staff. It's a real concern, this day and age, and we want to make sure that we provide that as best we can. This is obviously just a small part of it, the council meetings monthly, but certainly in general, it's all about looking after our staff and making sure that they aren't put in a situation where they don't have a choice or they are expected to do something that puts pressure on them in their you know Jessica Phillips 38:35.974
Just a quick question then, thank you. So in the directors' contracts the hours can vary but if there is a staff that is this was to proceed, what considerations will council take for the staff that may say "I don't want to attend" or what will happen? Larry Sengstock 38:55.450
Generally it would be the directors would take control of that and they would be the ones who would be here to answer questions or provide the feedback. In terms of we do have. Because we have staff working different hours so we have we have flex time, we have overtime, we have things like that we can draw upon for our staff. Very very reason, but it's not something that we want to force on them if we think it's going to put them under undue stress. Jessica Phillips 39:27.509
One more question, and it will get to a question, but I want to make a statement first because in my previous role in the police, we used have social events, which were after a big day at work, it was a really good time to sit down around the station and kind of take off the police hat and really build some trust around the group because I've only been here nearly a year. I think I had one evening session which was good for Arthur to speak to staff and councillors. My question is potentially is an observation now around the table and the elephant in the room maybe that there isn't quite that same level of group camaraderie question is could potentially going back to the evenings give us the ability to do some more team group, I won't call it team. Larry Sengstock 40:31.375
And bonding I well I guess that's really a question for you as a group as well. To do it during the day doesn't mean we can't do lunches as opposed to evenings and dinners or gatherings or just you know opportunities to get together instead of just allocating that time. Generally it's with directors who have got more flexibility with the time anyway, in terms in terms of that, yes, I mean it was it was a tradition or a useful thing that we did in the past but it's not to say we can't do it again. It's just up to councillors up to councillors to do that and pick a time do it. You're could sign, saying you say we could do it at lunch after well it could be done at any time. Again, that's for you to discuss. Frank Wilkie 41:16.813
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 41:19.533
I'll speak to the motion. I do fully respect the engagement of our working community and their desire to attend meetings in person. But I do want to point out that not all workers are available at 5pm either. Many people work beyond 5 o'clock and certainly shift workers, hospitality workers, all of those people also in our community are working at 5 o'clock. Young families, parents so I do feel like this discussion is kind of favouring one type of worker over another to be assuming that they would be available. At 5:00pm. And so it's one of those situations where we can't please everyone. I do also consider our own staff. They by legislation have the right to disconnect after work. They also have because the I right to have hobbies. Commitments, volunteer commitments, any night of the week and we can't ask them to stop doing that once a month. We do have community meetings. We have committed to having community meetings at least three times a year. And they, so that's or four times a year where we're already asking staff to extend their working hours and I think that actually represents quite a good compromise for those people who can attend at five versus at ten. I also want to consider councillors decision-making as well as Mayor Wilkie already stated. We and staff have had a long day working all day and then start decision-making and discussion at 5:00pm. I don't know if that leads to the best outcomes. Our schedule is available ahead of time online. Workers who would really want to attend for a particular meeting. Could potentially make themselves available if they can. And obviously can watch the meeting afterwards on the last day. Thank that's it. You. Frank Wilkie 43:12.990
Any councillors wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson, any wish to close? No. Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 43:18.770
Yes. Range of contexts where moving a notice of motion is quite useful. This is not one of them. We decided to go down this path at the beginning of this term and we all agreed that we'd review it after six months. You have a comment on which we did, and in the appropriate format, with input from all councillors, not in a debate epistereo position, we decided to continue, having considered all the relevant matters. That was only a few months ago. The problem with bringing these sort of issues to a notice of motion is we haven't got substantive reports upon which to base our decisions, so we've heard a emotional plea about 27,000 workers being benefited, but as Councillor Wilson highlighted, not all workers are available during the day. In fact, our biggest two, well, two of our three biggest employees sectors are health and also in hospitality and accommodation, where it's equally likely they're working at night. You add to that nearly 20%% of our working population that works from home, which is likely that they have a high degree of flexibility in their hours. And then you add on top of that over 25% of our population who are retirement age. And quickly, it's quite easy to put the reverse argument that our residents are more available during the day. I'm not going to repeat all the other internal considerations. All I'm going to say is this was a decision by us as colleagues in consultation with the staff only a few months few months ago. It's appropriately decided in the manner we did and there was no need for this motion. Amelia Lorentson 45:06.878
Just a question Through the Chair. I can't recall that six month review. Can I get some. Idea of when that happened? Frank Wilkie 45:17.222
There was a report to council in November where we discussed the schedule and we ratified the schedule which had the times, meeting times and dates for all of 2025 in November. Councillor Lorentson, Alison, you would wish to close? No. Amelia Lorentson 45:38.585
I do. The question today is about, it goes beyond just 5pm, it goes into public access and community engagement and allowing our community access to any forum, any community forum, any part of this local government decision-making. Sitting here and a little bit sort of confused with some of the conversation. What I'm asking is once a month, we allow community access to our ordinary meetings to our working residents. Know again, I sit back and go, let's understand what this role demands. And I'm talking as a Councillor and also as staff. And we have excellent staff. Saturdays, and I and see them the working on saturdays, I and I work see them, see them working on sundays. Saturdays. This morning. I was emailing one of our excellent staff at seven o'clock in the morning. That's part of our role. It's not a nine to five job. It's working late into the night. I was working until 10 o'clock two nights ago. Last week, myself and Councillor Wegener, we were at a function until almost 11 o'clock at night. This Friday, I'm at a meeting at 7 o'clock. I go to community forums at 5 o'clock, at 6 o'clock at night. Working late into the night is part of our job. It's about weekend commitments. We go to conferences. This is the responsibility we, as councillors, and also as local government employees, accept. That's what we've signed up for when we take on this job. We've all been through an election period. There were a lot of people who put their hand up for this position, understanding fully what this position takes, because a lot of them have been volunteers that work seven o'clock in the morning conducting network meetings at five and six Again, I go back to the original question that I asked today is, what is best for our community? In comparison that's been made today with other councils, to me, important but not relevant. We are Different by Nature. We serve our community. We don't align our interests to the community values of other councils. We align our interests to what's important to this community. A house. Again, I've circulated quite a few emails from residents across from Cooroy to Pomona to Noosa Heads to Noosaville to business chambers, again asking that we revert back once a month to our five meetings. And in the instance that it impedes on a staff member's social life or extracurriculum activity or they're just carrying too much weight at the moment, they have the option to say no. They have that option. She's a Councillor. And to the councillors who have other commitments, they also have the option of attending online. That option is available. But again, as our commitment to see this. Participatory local government, we need to put our communities' access to these forums before, in my opinion, before the interests of councillors and staff. And I'm not dismissing work-life balance. But, you know, again, I go to the last 12 ordinary meetings. Six meetings lasted just over an hour, which means we would have finished at 6 o'clock at night. Three meetings out of the 12 finished under check. And a half hours, which means we could be home at 7:30. And three meetings, which went over three hours. Again, one in exceptional circumstances. And again, we opportunity to adjourn those meetings or move into a Special Meeting to allow, again, work-life balance. But working until o 6 'clock, 00, until 7 30 at: 30 at night, it's part of our role councillors. So I ask that you support the amendment, the notified motion in front of us. Thank you, Councillor Walsh. Those in favour of Frank Wilkie 50:21.714
The Phillips and Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Wilson, Finzel, Stockwell and Wilkie. Motion is lost. We now move on to consideration of committee reports. Planning & Environment Committee report was referred to the general committee meeting 7.1.8.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority December 2024.9.1 is a confidential not for public release Environment Levy proposed land purchase. I have a mover and a seconder for the Planning & Environment Committee. Moved. By Councillor Stockwell. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Now move on to Services & Organisation Committee reports. 7.1 is contract renewal. Provision of contingent staff labour hire. 8.1: Noosa Holiday Parks update. 8.2: cemetery fees GST determination. 8.3: capital program 2020.2024-2025 delivery status. We've got some declaration here, Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 51:30.719
Thank you. I, Councillor Phillips, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to an upcoming tender for the Cooroy Sports Complex Multipurpose Area, which includes the Cooroy Gymnastics Club, mentioned in the capital world program update report. I have been hired as a consultant by the crow Cooroy Gymnastics Club to assist in resourcing. Of their coaching staff and I'm currently coaching the senior competitive program on an interim basis. I do not believe a reasonable person would have a perception of bias because the information in the report is merely for noting that a tender is upcoming in future. 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. Frank Wilkie 52:18.855
Thank you. Perhaps someone. Brian Stockwell 52:23.350
I'm happy to move that the standard resolution that council note the terrible comparable conflict of interest by Councillor Jessica Phillips and determine that in accordance with section 150ES of the Local Government Act 2009 and having considered the council's conflict of interest as described is decided that Councillor Jessica Phillips. May participate and vote on this matter to the capital works update report including mentioning the Cooroy Sports Complex and Multipurpose Area which includes the Cooroy Gymnastics Club. I'm happy to second. Councillor Finzel for the seconded. I just speak to it now no, I think it's I think it's quite clearly as the grounds grams that Councillor Phillips identified is merely saying that a tender is in the future. When that tender comes up it may be something that we have to consider the declaration again. Okay, thank you. Frank Wilkie 53:11.019
Okay, all in favour? That is unanimous. Noting that Councillor Phillips did not vote on that. Now, we have, this item had to be, the capital program item was pulled out so we need a mover for the Capital Program Delivery Status item. More to say to me, and moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? That's unanimous. And now we can have a mover and a seconder for the Services & Organisation Committee reports. Happy to second. Chair from the of fintel, all in favour? Moved by Councillor Lorentson. They are now General Committee report. The first one is MCU 210154.02, which is an application for a minor change to development approval for Homebased business meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. Councillor Lorentson would like to move an amendment for this, but for that to occur, she's requested that someone move and second the original motion, please. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 54:19.767
I'm happy to move as per the General Committee resolution. Frank Wilkie 54:22.847
Councillor Stockwell. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. I'll waive my right to speak at this stage. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 54:36.031
First amendment, I would like to move. If I can have that on the screen please, speaking. Can I have one? Yes please. So it's C amend condition 10 to read the access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants and shrubs to provide a dense screen of the driveway and neighbouring residents. The landscape garden bed along the southern boundary adjacent to the lot area must be enhanced with supplementary planting. Eight particular types of plants with a minimum plant stock size of 45 litres at a density of one plant per metre. All supplementary planning works must be undertaken one month from the date of this approval. Watch and add the addition within a month of each. The February 2026-25 Ordinary Meeting, additional planting must be provided to the access handle in accordance with the advice of council's senior environment officer and development assessment. I'm happy to second that. Seconded by Councillor Finzel, Councillor Lorentson. The request for additional screening and planting in certain locations along the driveway is so that it complies with condition 19 and 20 of the approval which states that the access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants and shrubs to provide a dense ground of vegetation between the driveway and neighbouring residents. And I think all the councillors were all given just a photograph. Just vegetation. And it was identified by a planning staff that there are spots which should be densely aligned. So this helps protect amenity for the neighbouring resident. It also allows compliance with condition 19 and condition 20. Frank Wilkie 56:49.793
Any questions, councillors? Councillor Wilson. Yeah, a question for the Chair. Nicola Wilson 56:56.053
Given that the application that we're looking at was a request for a minor change to conditions around service ending on site and the frequency the review process, I just question whether this is relevant to those conditions. Richard MacGillivray 57:15.501
Thank you, Director MacGillivray, if you can help with that question. Yes, thank you, Councillor. Through the Chair, this seeks to a minor modification to an existing condition to allow some further landscaping to be undertaken, which should be considered. In context of the change which includes two extra employees operating. So, reviewing some details, there are some there areas where may be some viewpoints from one property to the other, so the condition would support some further enhancements to the screening to allow more of a visual buffer between properties. Does that answer your question fully, or would you like some more clarification? I'm having two employees. Attending on-site requires any visual changes. Yes, I'm not really sure why any visual changes. Through the Chair, yeah, it's really just to help with further buffering the vegetation screening between subject properties and surrounding properties. Councillor Wegener. So that how long is the driveway that would require one plant per metre? Through the Chair. So the existing condition actually has already been met, so officers have there. Been out that vegetation has been planted and is growing and maturing as we speak. There's a further addition where there's a small area towards the front as vehicles enter the site, which we've identified there's some small gaps where there's a visual inability to visually see vehicles coming from the site, so this amendment would further restrict I guess the visibility of access to and from the property as a result of the changes being proposed. Brian Stockwell 59:11.990
I'll talk to the motion. The way I understand it from the advice of staff is this addition would allow a few other smaller shrub plantings to just block the lower understory below some taller shrubs. I don't think it's a large request it's probably something we can approve. Frank Wilkie 59:29.607
Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 59:36.207
I don't, I'm not familiar with the names of the plants. I'm not, I don't see, it just sounds very haphazard. What are we actually talking about? How many plants that are 45 litres are we talking about? It's so nebulous. I just see this as arguments erupting, even if it's done to some extent. I don't see this as an actual. Amendment. It doesn't mean anything to me, saying that at some places there has to be some plants planted because there appears to be a gap in the and type of plant here, nobody's told me exactly what sort of plant this is, why we're imposing this type of plant on there. I mean, you know, I always just, that's just bamboos. They want, you know, a solid wall, but yeah, I don't get it. I'm not going to support it. I some after you first. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:38.979
Can I ask a question? The condition 19 already reads, that's the existing permit Councillor Wegener. I'm unsure, can I ask Richard to actually explain that the amendment is within one month of the 2025. Additional planting must be provided. The condition 19 is already existing that specifies the type of plant and plant stock that needs to be planted. And that's already been adhered to in the most. Richard MacGillivray 01:01:11.756
Through the Chair, yes you are correct Councillor. So all the wording that's not in bold is essentially already as per the existing permit and has actually been fulfilled. What we're seeking due to the fact is there's further people, employees coming to the site. We've had a close look at some of the images of the site and there's a couple of areas where possibly a handful of shrubs be planted to create a further buffer to one small section of the property. Brian Stockwell 01:01:48.976
Can I just ask a question just for Councillor Wegener? I think Councillor Wegener was talking luehmanii. Is it correct that they're both Lily-pillies? The bush cherry has a red berry and the luehmanii has a bluish one. But those advanced trees have already been planted and what we're looking at here is actually just being a little more specific in terms of the first sentence about provide a dense green of vegetation of native shrubs and plants so they could be smaller. Richard MacGillivray 01:02:16.917
Is that correct? That's correct Councillor, yes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:02:20.797
Councillor Lorentson do you wish to close? No. Okay we'll put it to the vote, those in favour? Councillor Lorentson, Wilson, Finzel, Stockwell, Phillips and Wilkie. Councillor Wegener. The amendments carried and it becomes part of the original motion. Do you wish to contest another amendment? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:39.981
I'll start by asking the question, can we condition vehicle movements and side activity. Richard MacGillivray 01:02:52.305
Through the Chair, it's a broad question. In terms of the Homebased business code provisions, we have to be mindful that any condition we apply has to meet the legal tests around being reasonable and relevant. The lawfulness around whether on any application you can apply those will depend on the facts and circumstances of each application, whether it is considered reasonable and relevant. Obviously, you're requesting in relation to this particular application, can we control the number of vehicles moving? In my view, I don't believe we can put a restriction on vehicles because it'll be linked to the number of the activity, the scale of activity that we actually approve under the planning scheme. And so in this particular case, we're talking about numbers of employees and the difficulty is, like all businesses, they might have to come and go to or from at a certain time and there might be things that happen in the day and they might need to go and then come back again. So it's very difficult for us to probably manage those things. In reality. Particularly with employees. So the challenge is I think it's a difficult thing to put numbers around vehicle movements to and from a property given there may elements to this as well, where people, friends, family, guests might be coming to and from. So how do you distinguish between workers to a Homebased business versus friends and guests? Amelia Lorentson 01:04:29.178
I just want to ask a couple more questions and I asked this question at the General Committee and just want to sort of ask a couple more and condition 21 I think it is. Talks about permit lapses on the 17th of December unless written consent is provided by council to extend the approval. In assessing an extension council will have regard complaints received from nearby residents concerning breaches of the development approval conditions and any other relevant matters. And I want to really just ask a couple of questions about other relevant understanding this is not an impact assessment, also I'm sorry. Relevant matters has a different meaning in this context. Excuse me, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Lorentson. My question is, can you explain what other relevant matters, what's captured under other relevant matters? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:39.559
Through the Chair. I know this exact point was discussed at the General Committee because the planning manager answered that as well. So other relevant matters described in the condition doesn't refer to the other relevant matters which is described in the Planning Act 2016 which is a lot of a more broader consideration. I understand and again the context was that a broader consideration for staff when evaluating compliance of 21 consider in terms of the types of impacts and for example I would consider the previous amendment which we've just discussed is where we might require further buffers to prevent visibility of activity happening so that's I would say in other relevant matters whereas it's not just about the visual of the noise or the light impacts it's actually about other things such as being aware of activities happening and can we put in measures that might assist to alleviate any of those impacts on amenity at all which could include visual the presence of the use happening at all. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:55.608
So does, are there relevant matters, so I, my question is do other relevant matters capture psychological or mental health effects and are economic impacts also captured under other relevant matters. Richard MacGillivray 01:07:16.680
Through the Chair, difficult to answer that specifically because it's not defined at all and I would no planning matters that are relevant to planning grounds and planning matters and obviously we have the planning scheme which provides our benchmarks which we must assess against so my answer would be no it wouldn't include other matters such as that. It needs to look at materials of planning impacts because obviously that's the role of the planning schemes to assess those particular impacts. Frank Wilkie 01:07:51.941
So we have an amended motion, we have a motion before us which has been amended and Councillor led by Councillor Stockwell is he's waived his as right well. To speak first. Any other councillors wish to speak for the motion as it stands? Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? I'll put it to the vote that goes in favour. That is Councillor. Wegener, Wilson, Finzel, Stockwell, Phillips and Wilkie. Against? Councillor Lorentson? The motion is carried. And now the next item is the new 8.1 new tenant Tenancy A2 to the Peregian Digital Hub 8.2. Thank you Richard. Thank you. Financial Performance Report January 2025 8.3 operational plan 2024-25 quarterly reporting for second quarter. May I have a mover and a seconder for the General Committee recommendations? I'll second. Councillor Wilson like a rocket. I'll second. Followed very closely by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Ordinary Meeting reports. There's no reports direct to the Ordinary Meeting. There are no confidential items on today's agenda. The next Ordinary Meeting will be at Noosa Council chambers on Thursday 20th of March 2025 at 10:00am. I declare the meeting closed at 11:09 and I thank everybody for their attendance today. Thank you councillors, thank you gallery, thank you staff. SPEAKER_06 01:09:21.841
Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
