Ordinary Council - August 2023
Date: Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 5:00PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:02:50
Synopsis: MCU22/0039 refused for conflicts, Eastern Beaches Plan adopted with zero-tolerance, Contract CN00315 awarded to SGQ, Budget/Financials adopted, Waste Plan adopted, Audit/Cyber noted, Grants amended.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Clare Stewart Karen Finzel Joe Jurisevic Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Awarded Contract CN00315 Flood Reconstruction – Package 10 (stormwater infrastructure replacements) to SGQ Pty Ltd; CEO authorised to negotiate and vary up to 11.5% (Item 6.1, 8.4) (57:27). Adopted Draft Waste Plan 2023–2028 for further community consultation (Item 6.2, 8.4) (57:27). Adopted Financial Performance Report – July 2023 with sustainability indicators (Item 6.3, 8.4) (57:27). Adopted Budget Review 1 (BR1) 2023/24 and updated Debt Policy per s192 Local Government Regulation 2012 (Item 6.4, 8.4) (57:27). Noted 2022-23 Operational Plan Q4 progress and KPIs (Item 6.5, 8.4) (57:27). Amended October 2023 meeting dates: General Committee to 23 Oct; Ordinary Meeting to 26 Oct (Item 5.1, 8.3) (16:48). Noted Noosa Holiday Parks performance update 2022/23 (Item 6.2, 8.3) (16:48). Noted Capital Program 2022/23 delivery status to 30 June 2023 (Item 6.1, 8.3) (16:48). Noted QAO/KPMG external audit plan, interim report, internal audit update, EOY statements progress; Cyber risk update noted no incidents; supply-chain cyber process improvements underway (Items 5–9, 8.1) (14:24). Adopted revised Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan; reinstated “zero tolerance” wording in Action 16.1; directed sign and wind fencing at 70 Lorikeet Dr to deter dune encroachment (Item 5.1, 8.4) (22:35). Refused MCU22/0039 (Relocatable Home Park – 32 dwellings, 55 & 70 Carpenters Rd, Cooroy) for extensive conflicts with Noosa Plan 2020, Local Plan, Rural Residential/Special Residential codes, access/parking, bushfire evacuation, koala habitat and Housing Strategy integration (Item 5.2, 8.4) (48:26). Rejected procedural motion to defer MCU22/0039 to allow applicant time for further information (For: Lorentson, Stewart; Against: Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie, Jurisevic, Finzel) (Item 5.2, 8.4) (35:04–48:24). Approved amended Economic Development Grants Policy; CEO to run future rounds and report quarterly on applications (Item 5.3, 8.4) (57:27). Public Q&A confirmed Pomona placemaking pilot engagement underway (Aug–Sept), with integrated approach to “Great Place”, Living Heritage Town and Biosphere Trails roles (Item 11.1) (59:39–1:02:24). Noted delegated approvals list for June 2023 (Item 6.1, 8.2) with prescribed COI managed (15:55–16:26). Contentious / Transparency Matters Bob Hansen challenged STA licensing exemptions for Hastings St/Noosa Lakes versus Sunshine Beach complexes, alleging discriminatory effect and “winners and losers” via annual licensing versus 25-year caretaking rights (Item 7.1) (04:25–14:24). Joe Jurisevic criticised need to declare COI for a non-decision deputation as “beyond expectations,” while Council nonetheless resolved transparency by permitting participation (Item 7.1) (03:35–04:00). Eastern Beaches Plan debate proceeded with multiple COI declarations; participation determinations were separately voted, including a split vote enabling Frank Wilkie to remain (For: Jurisevic, Wegener; Against: Stewart) (Item 5.1, 8.4) (17:42–19:38). On MCU22/0039 deferral, Clare Stewart argued for community need and a “second chance”; majority rejected deferral as false hope given core locational conflicts (Item 5.2, 8.4) (42:08–44:14; 37:41–40:36). Transcript shows firm chairing to keep debate to deferral merits, yet broader merits were canvassed by both sides, underscoring high public-interest sensitivity (Item 5.2, 8.4) (35:04–44:14). Legal / Risk MCU22/0039 refusal grounded in Noosa Plan 2020 Strategic Outcomes s3.2.2, s3.3.1(b),(f), s3.3.3(a–f),(k); Cooroy Local Plan outcomes; Rural Residential/Special Residential codes; Driveways & Parking PO6; Bushfire Hazard PO6; plus koala habitat impacts and misalignment with Noosa Housing Strategy actions A5.3.x, A5.6.x, A5.7.2 (Item 5.2, 8.4). Reverse amenity risks identified for nearby and future Low Impact Industry (Jarrah St) and 70 Carpenters Rd; lack of visitor parking; uncertain safe evacuation and roadway configuration (Item 5.2, 8.4) (28:29–29:44). Applicant had exhausted “stop the clock”; deemed refusal territory noted; officers advised Council could still defer by resolution, but extra work would incur more costs without addressing core planning conflicts (Item 5.2, 8.4) (26:46–31:06). Cyber risk update reported no incidents; Council improving resourcing model and supply-chain cyber incident processes—mitigates enterprise risk and aligns with QAO scrutiny (Item 8, 8.1) (14:24). Eastern Beaches Plan reinstated “zero tolerance” enforcement word in Action 16.1; directive for signage/fencing at encroached dune front (70 Lorikeet Dr) strengthens compliance posture and reduces environmental liability (Item 5.1, 8.4) (22:35). Conflicts of Interest Amelia Lorentson declared STA-related interest (owns Noosa Heads property used for STA); Council allowed participation for non-decision deputation only (Item 7.1) (01:15–04:00). Brian Stockwell declared prescribed COI re Suncoast Building Approvals and left for delegated approvals item; later declared two EBFP-related declarable interests; Council permitted participation (Items 6.1, 5.1; 8.2, 8.4) (15:55–16:26; 20:30–21:29). Frank Wilkie and Karen Finzel declared EBFP-related donations links; Council voted to allow Wilkie to participate; Finzel left for the item (Item 5.1, 8.4) (17:42–22:32). Amelia Lorentson declared EBPA family link and left the chamber for EBFP item (Item 5.1, 8.4) (19:49–20:25). Short Term Accommodation / Short Stay Letting Bob Hansen argued Sunshine Beach complex “Le Meur” should be exempt like Hastings St/Noosa Lakes; cited zero complaints, onsite management, body corporate bylaws, and impact of one-year licensing on 25-year caretaking agreements (Item 7.1) (04:25–14:24). Clare Stewart accepted questions for follow-up by staff; Council did not debate merits during deputation; transparency concerns about “level playing field” claims to be addressed via correspondence (Item 7.1) (11:07–12:28; 14:24). Planning Scheme / Zoning & Affordable Housing Tom Wegener opposed MCU22/0039 deferral, citing CPTED concerns and unsafe pedestrian access through industrial area; not suitable for vulnerable cohorts (Item 5.2, 8.4) (33:11–35:04). Frank Wilkie framed refusal as safeguarding vulnerable residents, aligning with Noosa Housing Strategy—avoid isolated, hazard-prone, service-poor sites (Item 5.2, 8.4) (48:41–51:54). Clare Stewart supported deferral on humanitarian grounds, highlighting homelessness crisis; acknowledged many planning conflicts yet sought “second chance” for applicant (Item 5.2, 8.4) (42:08–44:14). Amelia Lorentson argued Council’s discretionary powers under Planning Act allow approvals despite benchmark conflicts where public benefit/need is compelling; majority rejected deferral and later refused on scheme consistency grounds (Item 5.2, 8.4) (53:44–55:36; 57:27). Environmental Concerns (Eastern Beaches Foreshore) Plan adoption included explicit “zero tolerance and timely enforcement” for new encroachments (Action 16.1) and site-specific dune protection measures at 70 Lorikeet Dr (Item 5.1, 8.4) (22:35). COI declarations reflected community group engagement (PBCA, EBPA, Landcare), but determinations allowed informed decision-making to progress (Item 5.1, 8.4) (17:42–22:35). Community Transparency & Governance Multiple COIs were transparently declared and adjudicated in open session, with tailored participation decisions, consistent with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 (Items 7.1; 5.1, 8.4) (01:15–04:00; 17:42–22:35). Audit & Risk items and cyber risk posture openly noted; quarterly reporting on Economic Development Grants mandated, enhancing oversight (Items 8.1; 5.3, 8.4) (14:24; 57:27).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 17 August 2023 5:00 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Crs Clare Stewart (Chair), Karen Finzel, Joe Jurisevic, Amelia Lorentson, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Councillor Clare Stewart (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Brian Stockwell Councillor Tom Wegener Councillor Frank Wilkie EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf APOLOGIES Nil 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2.1. ORDINARY MEETING 20 JULY 2023 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 20 July 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 2.2. SPECIAL MEETING 3 AUGUST 2023 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 3 August 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 3. MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. 4. PETITIONS Nil. 5. NOTIFIED MOTIONS Nil. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1. BOB HANSEN TOPIC: NOOSA SHORT STAY LETTING LICENCE In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. My husband and I own a property at Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads. Since November 2020 this property has been used for Short Term accommodation rental. Given that the deputation is not for decision making I request to to stay in the room however, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Stewart Seconded: Cr Wilkie That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Lorentson and determine that Cr Lorentson participates and votes on this matter as this is purely to hear the deputation and not a decision making process. Carried unanimously. The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Mr Bob Hansen – PowerPoint presentation - refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 8. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS 8.1. AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE REPORT - 27 JUNE 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Tom Wegener Audit & Risk Committee Chair - Timothy Cronin Audit & Risk Committee Member - Ian Rushworth (via Teams) OTHER ATTENDEES Michael Claydon, Queensland Audit Office (via Teams) Jessica Rossouw, Queensland Audit Office(via Teams) Jillian Richards, KPMG Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Executive Officer, Internal Audit & Corporate Performance Debra Iezzi Governance Manager Diana Stewart Financial Services Manager (Acting) Pauline Coles APOLOGIES Thomas Cook, KPMG COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5. 2023 AUDIT COMMITTEE BRIEFING PAPER That Council note the External Audit Plan provided by the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) and KPMG to the Audit & Risk Committee meeting dated 27 June 2023. 6. 2023 INTERIM REPORT NOOSA COUNCIL That Council note the Interim Report 2023 provided by the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) and KPMG to the Audit & Risk Committee meeting dated 27 June 2023. 7. INTERNAL AUDIT UPDATE That Council note the report by the Executive Officer to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 27 June 2023 providing an update on internal audit matters. 8. ICT CYBER RISK UPDATE That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 27 June 2023, noting there have been no incidents and that Council is reviewing its resourcing model as well as commencing a process improvement to supply chain cyber incidents. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 9. 2022-2023 SHELL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND END OF FINANCIAL YEAR UPDATE That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 27th June 2023 regarding Council’s progress preparing for the 2022/23 financial statements. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the report of the Audit & Risk Committee dated 27 June 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted. Carried unanimously. 8.2. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 8 AUGUST 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Tom Wegener (Chair) Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Frank Wilkie EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment and Sustainable Development Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Councillor Karen Finzel COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. EASTERN BEACHES FORESHORE RESERVES MANAGEMENT PLAN - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OVERVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGES That Planning and Environment Committee Agenda Item 1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. 5.2. MCU22/0039 – APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 RELOCATABLE HOME PARK (COMMUNITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 32 DWELLINGS) AT 55 AND 70 CARPENTERS RD, COOROY That Planning and Environment Committee Agenda Item 2 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue and for further information. 5.3. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS POLICY REVIEW That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 3 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY JUNE 2023 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell declare I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as follows: Suncoast Building Approvals is identified as the applicant in number 18 for Development Application EXE23/0016. I contracted Suncoast Building Approvals to undertake Building Certification for my proposed residence in Boreen Point on the 29 November 2021. This process is currently underway. The total fees associated with the completion of the certification and inspection regime is $5,904 which includes Noosa Council Plumbing and Drainage fees. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell returned to the meeting. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That the report of the Planning & Environment Committee dated 8 August 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 8.3. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 8 AUGUST 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. AMENDMENT OF GENERAL COMMITTEE & ORDINARY MEETING DATES OCTOBER 2023 That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer (Acting) to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 and request the Chief Executive Officer: A. Defer the date of the General Committee from 16 October 2023 to 23 October 2023 B. Defer the date of the Ordinary Meeting from 19 October 2023 to 26 October 2023 6.1. CAPITAL PROGRAM 2022/23 DELIVERY STATUS That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Planning, Design & Delivery Manager to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 providing an update on the delivery of the 2022/2023 Capital Program as at 30 June 2023. 6.2. NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS UPDATE That Council note the report by the Property Advisor – Commercial Property to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 providing an update on operations of the Noosa Holiday Park Business Activity for the 2022/23 financial year. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the report of the Services and Organisation Committee meeting dated 8 August 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 8.4. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 14 AUGUST 2023 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Frank Wilkie (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Clare Stewart Councillor Brian Stockwell Councillor Tom Wegener EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer, Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services, Shaun Walsh Director Corporate Services, Trent Grauf APOLOGIES Nil. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. EASTERN BEACHES FORESHORE RESERVES MANAGEMENT PLAN - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OVERVIEW AND PROPOSED CHANGES (Referred from Planning and Environment Committee dated 8 August 2023 - Item 5.1) In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wilkie provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as in early 2020, I received an electoral donation of $750 from Peregian resident Susan Francis. Susan Francis is the partner of Peregian resident Barry Cotterell. Mr Cotterell is the president of the Peregian Beach Community Association (PBCA). The PBCA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and legal advice has indicated the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan is not Ordinary Council business because it relates to a specific geographical area and that links to groups who have made submission to it ought to be declared. Although I nor the PBCA, which is a volunteer community group, stand to gain personally or materially through moving this motion, I make this declaration out of "an abundance of caution" and commitment to transparency. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and l therefore 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 Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilkie and determine that Cr Wilkie participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 neither Cr Wilkie nor the PBCA stand to gain personally or materially from this decision and that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. For: Crs Jurisevic and Wegener Against: Cr Stewart Carried. Crs Wilkie, Stockwell, Finzel and Lorentson did not vote on the above motion. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter because my brother Gabriel Cerasani, who until recently, was on the Executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association has made submissions to the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan and owns a property at Beaches Estate, Sunrise Beach. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest on the basis of exercising an abundance of caution I choose to leave the meeting room. Cr Lorentson left the meeting. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as in early 2020, I received an electoral donation of $500 from Susan Francis. Susan Francis is the partner of Barry Cotterell. Barry Cotterell is the President of the Peregian Beach Community Association (PBCA). The PBCA has made submissions requesting council address illegal encroachments. Neither I nor the PBCA stand to gain personally or materially through the introduction of this shire-wide policy however I make this declaration out of an "abundance of caution” given the possible scope and interpretation of Conflict of Interest rulings. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and l therefore 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. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes a reasonable person would not consider this a conflict of interest and trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell, Wilkie and Finzel did not vote on the above motion. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my long standing connection with Noosa District Landcare as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Noosa District Landcare is identified as being consulted in the report. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter and l therefore choose to remain in the meeting ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would not consider this a conflict of interest and trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Stockwell, Wilkie and Finzel did not vote on the above motion. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Finzel provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as during my 2020 Future Noosa Election Campaign I received an electoral donation of $1666.66 from Mr Peter Butt who sits on the Executive Committee of Eastern Beaches Protection Association (EBPA). The EBPA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and legal advice has indicated the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan is not Ordinary Council business because it relates to a specific geographical area and given links to groups who have made submission to it ought to be declared. I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is discussed and voted on. Cr Finzel left the meeting. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Council note the report by the Environment Officer – Coastal Management to the Planning & Environment Committee meeting dated 8 August 2023 regarding the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan and community consultation and: A. Note the community input received during the public consultation period for the draft Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan and Council's proposed response; B. Approve the revised Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan for implementation - provided at Attachment 1; and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make minor changes or amendments to the document prior to publishing on Council's website, including reinstating the words "taking a zero tolerance" in Action Item 16.1 so that it reads: "taking a zero tolerance and timely enforcement approach to any new encroachments." D. That Council demonstrate its commitment to dune protection by erecting a large sign in the cleared area in front of 70 Lorikeet Drive Peregian Beach and further erect wind erosion protection fencing for the full frontage. Carried unanimously. Crs Lorentson and Finzel returned to the meeting. 5.2. MCU22/0039 – APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RELOCATABLE HOME PARK (COMMUNITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 32 DWELLINGS) AT 55 AND 70 CARPENTERS RD, COOROY (Referred from Planning and Environment Committee dated 8 August 2023 - Item 5.2) ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee meeting dated 8 August 2023 regarding application MCU22/0039 for a Material Change of Use – Relocatable Home Park (Community and Affordable Housing – 32 Dwellings) at 55 and 70 Carpenters Road Cooroy and defer the decision for the application to a future meeting to allow the applicant additional time to provide further information about the proposal. For: Crs Lorentson and Stewart Against: Crs Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie, Jurisevic and Finzel Lost. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0039 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Relocatable Home Park (Community & Affordable Housing), situated at 55 & 70 Carpenters Rd Cooroy and A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is contrary to Section 3.2.2 of the Strategic Intent and Sections 3.3.1(b), (f) and 3.3.3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (k) of the Strategic Outcomes of the Noosa Plan 2020 as: a. The proposed development is located outside the Urban Boundary, intrudes into a rural residential area, and does not integrate well with the existing settlement pattern and the broader urban areas of the Cooroy community. b. The land is not suited or designated for the proposed housing form. c. The land is located in the vicinity of industrial land uses and industrial zoned land that has the potential to impact the amenity of residents. d. The proposed development is likely to inhibit the development and future use of 70 Carpenters Road and land zoned Low Impact Industry in Jarrah Street due to potential reverse amenity impacts. e. The proposed development will need to provide its own infrastructure and is located outside the Priority Infrastructure Area. 2. The proposed development is contrary to Overall Outcomes 2(b), (j), (l), (p), and PO14 of the Local Plan Code for Cooroy which details that development is to be limited to land within the urban boundary. The site is located outside the urban boundary and does not respond or integrate well with Cooroy’s country town feel, with attached housing planned close to the town centre and low to medium density semi-attached housing dispersed through existing residential neighbourhoods. 3. The proposal is contrary to the Rural Residential Zone Code as the development will not result in a high level of amenity for residents and it does not achieve the zoning intent for houses on larger lots. 4. The proposal is contrary to the Overall Outcomes 2(c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) and PO1, AO1.1, AO1.2, AO1.3, AO1.4, PO4, AO4, PO6, PO7 and PO9 of the Special Residential Zone Code as: a. The proposal does not have reasonable access to a variety of essential services and facilities, including retail, commercial, social and medical facilities and public transport. b. The proposal is not located so as to avoid conflicts with surrounding land uses. c. The proposal is of a high density that is not compatible with the zoning intent and the preferred character of the area. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 The proposal is of a design, layout and intensity that will not integrate with the broader neighbourhood and allow residents to interact with the wider community. d. The proposed development is not appropriately sited and designed in a manner that is compatible with the developed character of the area. 5. The proposal does not meet PO6 of the Driveways and Parking Code as the proposal provides no car parking for likely visitors to the development. 6. The proposal has not demonstrated that safe and satisfactory roadway configuration is achievable to the site from the Carpenters Road and Mary Street/ Jarrah Street roundabout. 7. The proposal does not meet PO6 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as it has not been demonstrated that an efficient and safe evacuation route is available to residents and that emergency vehicles can access the site. 8. The proposal is not consistent with actions A5.3.1 to A5.3.6, A5.6.2, A5.6.3, and A5.7.2 of the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 as: a. The land is not located within the urban boundary and is more than 400m from the town centre, school and public transport. b. The land is located where it would have a reverse amenity impact on industrial business and land committed for industrial purposes. c. The proposal is not well integrated within the community and is clustered in an isolated area. 9. The proposal is unlikely to satisfactorily deliver the social outcomes sought as: a. The land is not suited for the proposed development it has poor accessibility, adjoins industrial land and is not well connected to services. b. The proposal has not been designed to integrate well with the neighbourhood and within the community with driveways extending around the permitter of the site and the density not consistent with the surrounding character. c. The applicant has provided no clear mechanisms that can be conditioned through a development approval to achieve the proposed social/affordable housing outcomes. 10. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development will not interfere with koala habitat mapped by the state as being Core Koala Habitat Area or that the works in this area are considered exempt works. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie, Jurisevic and Finzel Against: Crs Lorentson and Stewart Carried. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. 5.3. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS POLICY REVIEW (Referred from Planning and Environment Committee dated 8 August 2023 - Item 5.3) That Council note the report by the Economic Development Officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 and A. Note the Economic Development Grants Review Report, provided at Attachment 1 to the report; B. Approve the amended Economic Development Grants Policy, provided at Attachment 2 to the report; and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to conduct future rounds of the Economic Development Grant Program in accordance with the amended Policy. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 D. Request the CEO report quarterly on the status of grant applications received during that quarter. 6.1. CONTRACT NO. CN00315 - FLOOD RECONSTRUCTION - PACKAGE 10 - STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 14 August 2023 and: A. Award Contract No. CN00315 for Flood Reconstruction - Package 10 Stormwater Infrastructure Replacements to SGQ Pty Ltd; and B. Authorise the CEO to negotiate the final Contract with SGQ Pty Ltd; and C. Authorise the CEO to amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value. 6.2. DRAFT WASTE PLAN 2023-2028 That Council note the report by the Manager Waste and Environmental Health to the General Committee Meeting dated 14 August 2023 and adopt the From Waste to Resource Draft Waste Plan 2023 – 2028 for further community consultation. 6.3. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JULY 2023 That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 14 August 2023 outlining July 2023 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. 6.4. BUDGET REVIEW 1 (BR1) FOR THE 2023/24 FINANCIAL YEAR That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 14 August 2023 and A. approve the proposed changes to the Budget and Schedule of Fees and Charges for the 2023/24 financial year as outlined in the Revised Budget Financial Statements provided in Attachments 1 - 5 to the report. B. Pursuant to section 192 of the Local Government Regulation 2012, adopt for the 2023/24 financial year the updated Debt Policy, which is provided as Attachment 6 to the report. 6.5. OPERATIONAL PLAN 2022-23 Q4 QUARTERLY REPORTING That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer (Acting) to the General Committee Meeting dated 14 August 2023 regarding the 2022-23 Operational Plan and: A. Note the progress report for the Q4 2022-2023 Operational Plan to 30 June 2023 provided as Attachment 1; and B. Note the status of Council's Key Performance Indicators provided as Attachment 2. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Joe Jurisevic Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That the report of the General Committee Meeting dated 14 August 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 9. ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS Nil. 10. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 11. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 11.1. BRIAN O'CONNOR Question 1. At its meeting on 16 February 2023, Noosa Council endorsed Pomona to be the location of a pilot Placemaking Plan; the strategy to be rolled out eventually across the Shire. Six months on, can Noosa Council provide an update on progress being made around placemaking at Pomona? Response provided by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy and Environment Council is pleased to advise that the Placemaking Pilot has been progressing well since the endorsement of Pomona as the pilot location with community engagement commencing as of Wednesday 16 August through to 24 September 2023. The engagement program includes a diverse range of activities for the entire community to participate including a survey (online and hard copy), popups outside the IGA and then at the Pomona Markets, a family friendly community event, walkshops, ideas competition as well as other creative activities such as a sketching workshops and letter writing. There are also options for more tailored stakeholder engagement throughout the process if required. Further information can be located on the Your Say Noosa page. While the community engagement is being undertaken the project team will be developing options for future governance structures to help guide the preparation of the draft plan which will be further informed by engagement with the community. The draft plan will be developed in conjunction with the community to help prioritise actions, implementation and resourcing throughout the remainder of the year with further community consultation on the draft plan to occur early in 2024. Question 2. Noosa Council recently nominated Pomona as a ‘Great Place’ under the SouthEast Queensland Regional Plan. The Noosa Plan 2020 acknowledges Pomona as Noosa Shire’s ‘Living Heritage Town’ and the Noosa Biosphere Trails Masterplan identifies Pomona as the ‘hub town’ for the trail network. These ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 17 AUGUST 2023 designations seek various practical and tangible outcomes that, ideally, should complement each other. How will this occur beneath the umbrella of a Pomona Placemaking Plan? Response provided by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy and Environment The placemaking process will consider the many and diverse roles and functions of Pomona as a village in a way that delivers these outcomes in alignment with community values, priorities as well as enhancing its unique character and identity. The Placemaking process will likely identify recommendations and actions that will require these broader strategies and plans to be reviewed and coordinated to ensure a more integrated approach and delivery of these outcomes on the ground. 12. NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 21 September 2023 at 5.00pm. 13. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 6.03pm
Meeting Transcript
Clare Stewart 00:00.000
We are meeting on the traditional land of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. All councillors are in attendance and we have a number of people in the gallery this evening so welcome to everyone who is in our gallery. Confirmation of minutes. Can I please have a mover for the confirmation of minutes. Thank you Councillor Lorentson, second Councillor Finzel, thank you. All in favour? Carried and added. Brian Stockwell 00:24.872
Clearly before I do that there's two different lots of minutes. Which one are we doing? This is the ordinary meeting. Thank you Mr Stockwell. All in favour? Are you in favour of those minutes? Thank you Mr Stockwell. I move for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting. Thank you Councillor Wilkie. I'll second it. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Seconded by Mr Stewart. All in favour? Carried unanimously. There are no Mayoral minutes. Are there any petitions this evening? There are no notified motions and there are no presentations but I do believe we have one deputation from Mr Bob Hanson. Good evening Bob. Mr Hansen would you like to come up? Please come up to the podium and I believe you have a maximum of 15 minutes for your deputation. So welcome and thank you for joining us tonight. Frank Wilkie 01:20.177
I would like to seek advice through the CEO. CEO, given that this is not a decision-making process, is there the need for me to declare my conflict of interest? SPEAKER_10 01:37.277
I don't believe so but I think the fact that you have now, if we capture that on there, so for the sake of the full disclosure, we're accepting that you stay in the room, I believe. Bob Hansen 01:57.913
My name is. Sorry, Mr Hansen. Sorry. Amelia Lorentson 02:04.693
I'll make a declarable leave it for a decision. In accordance, excuse me. Sorry, Mr Hansen. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I make the following declaration. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. My husband and I own a property at Noosa Parade, Noosa Heads since November 2020. This property has been used as short-term accommodation rental. So you want us to-- given that the deputation is not for decision making, I would like to just leave the decision to remain in the room to the councillors in front of me. However, I respect the decision if they choose not to leave me in the meeting room. Clare Stewart 02:58.462
I move that Council note that there has been a terrible conflict of interest of Council Lorentson and that Council Lorentson stays in the meeting and participates because this is purely to hear and digest the information of the deputation and it's not in a decision-making context and that all councillors and in the public interest that Council Lorentson stay in the room. Joe Jurisevic 03:51.163
Way beyond any of the expectations of the Office of Independent Assessment with regard to declarations of this nature. Clare Stewart 03:59.863
I'd agree, Councillor Jurisevic, but I think everyone has been coming into the season we are. Election season, everyone is being overly prudent and I commend and thank Councillor Lorentson for being so transparent in this matter. Anyone else like to speak to it? We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Carriage unanimously. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson stays in the room. Sorry Mr Hansen, it's very long with the introduction to you. It's a new world we're operating in, don't worry. The very last slide of this I give my accreditations. I graduated as a quantitative geneticist, started work as a poultry breeder. I've been a graduate of panel and management, went into business management. I'm now an agri-consultant, mainly for banks. I help banks recover assets in agri-business field. I'm considered an industry expert in intensive lifestyle. In addition to that, we decided to retire Noosa and we bought management rights. I didn't say I did a very good job of retiring. I've probably taken on more work than when I was fully employed. I put together a presentation of about 12 slides. I only tend to talk to 6 or 7. The reason being I'm trying to keep it to like 8 or 9 minutes and then you can ask me questions if you'd like. So if we flick on to slide 3 Kathy. So this is just a basic outline of what I'm going to talk to. I mean basically what I'm trying to figure out What we're trying to figure out is why La Mer Noosa, Sunshine Beach and others certainly in our area aren't exempted like Hastings Street and Noosa Lakes. So if you now flick on to the next one, so the other ones, this is straight off your website, the other ones are the properties or regions that are exempted, but why aren't Noosa built and Sunshine Beach? In Sunshine Beach definitely we have very similar dynamics to what's happening on Hastings Street. One of our owners is a judge and he said to me well Bob, there's more noise that comes from the surf club than there is from any noise from any owners. So, and that is the reason I'm actually making the presentation because he is the one that pushed me to do this. If you go to the next one, we are in a multi-use, high-use area. We're in the red zone. You can see that the surf club is just down here. And this is Duke Street. Keep going, please. In our DA approval, we're approved to have 20 car parks with five off-site for off-street parking which when the VA was done, we were approved. And there was to be no detrimental effect upon the neighbourhood or regional creation of excessive noise. This council approved that. So, the question to you is, why don't we have an exemption like everybody else? When I've been to your meetings that your staff have asked me to come to in the past, they say there are two reasons that you're bringing in these licenses. One is noise from residents, or other nuisance like rubbish, car parking. And the second one is you're trying to get short term living out of residential areas. So I don't understand how this license actually achieves what you're wanting to do, and if it does, why aren't we exempted, like Hastings Street or Noosa Lakes? Go to the next slide please, Cathy. So this here is our bylaws. I just took an extract out, and this is the ones for our noise. So no owners to have a party on the property. We don't allow noise from 10am to 8pm. There's no excessive noise from radio, TV, piano, no child crying. Guests who leave after 11 have to leave quietly, no extra cars. Now, in Noosa, sorry, in La Mer, the caretaker has the authority to police those matters. Now, of course, to do a breach, the body corporate committee must do a breach, but the caretaker is on site. We'll go to the next slide, please, Cathy. So these are my son is the manager. Leah is our office manager. That's my company, and we all have a RE licence. We're all fully licensed. Now, that's not actually a requirement under the Act. The Act is only the person that is the nominee manager has to have a RE licence, but I felt it was best practice that we did that, the reason being is that I work almost. Next slide. Complaints from our Parliament are zero that I know of. I don't know if there's any issue of complaints from our Parliament. So one of the points made in the circular put out by the Noosa Shire a couple of weeks ago was that we were going to make a level playing field. Well, it happens to be more level when we're already... There are resorts with on-site management that's had issues from complaints, but I don't know who they are. I mean, at the meeting that you held here in February, I actually asked the question, how many complaints came from resorts with on-site management? And there was a lot of shuffling of papers, and somebody sort of muttered something like five, and said, how many are you entitled to? And so how many of you in total? 1,300. Is that correct? Do we know how many complaints have come from outside management resorts? I've noticed we have a director of policy. Well, how can we not say that this is a level playing field? We do, Bob, this is not a, you have the right to ask. I'm asking the person. This is not a. We listen to you. We can provide you information afterwards. Mr. Hanson, we're happy to take any questions. If you want to submit questions, we're happy Bob Hansen 11:11.421
Well, I think that is one of the primary ones that I would apply. What are the issues being generated from outside management resorts? Clare Stewart 11:20.501
We can find that out for you. Yes, thank you. Next slide. At La Mer, basically all our apartments were built for short-term living. They're 112 square metres, they've all got minimal storage capacity, they're only got one car capacity. We do have two units where owners, some owners stay Any deputations to answer? We're not allowed to ask questions. It's an opportunity for you to put your case forward and we can, as I said, we're happy to follow up with those answers to you in an email. Bob Hansen 12:31.500
Okay. A couple of weeks ago, and I didn't put this in my presentation, a couple of weeks ago Noosa sent out a... What do you call it? A short stay, letting of home, hosted accommodation, local law, annual renewal and fees. No. In it I find that there are a number of issues that I believe are incorrect. Significantly incorrect. Firstly, it implies that on Hastings Street, Noosa Lakes, Hasting Street, Noosa Lakes, and a number of these other ones that are listed on page two of that document that there are no permanent residents, but we know there are permanent residents in there. The very last sentence of that document says that this will make a level playing field. Well, it's made an ill-level playing field. It's actually a discriminatory. If you have a management right on Noosa or Noosa Lakes or one of the other exempted facilities, you don't actually have to apply for a licence. The effect of actually having a one-year licence means that in reality... This means that in reality our caretaker agreements, which by law are up to 25 years, are effectively one year. So you've made winners and losers in the realm. Noosa Resort. I have a paper copy of that and I did put it on to a USB stick so I'm happy to give you And that's my presentation. Clare Stewart 14:24.240
Thank you very much, Mr Hansen. And we will have someone, we appreciate you coming in and stating your case. We'll have someone follow up with those questions that you have as well. So, but greatly appreciate your time. Bob Hansen 14:36.620
Thank you. I'll give these to Karen. Thank you. Thanks, Mr Hansen. Clare Stewart 14:51.116
Thank you. We're now to item 8, consideration of committee reports. Item 8.1, the Audit and Risk Committee Report. Item 5, 2023- Item 5:2023 Audit Committee Briefing Paper. Item 6:2023 Interim Report, Noosa Council. Item 7: Interim Audit Update. Item 8: ICT Cyber Risk Update. Item 9:2022-2023 Shell Financial Statements and End of Financial Year Update. All in favour for these recommendations, please? Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. In the second year, thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, everyone. 8.2, Planning and Environment Committee Report, Recommendations. Item 5.1 was referred to the General Committee. Item 5.2 was referred to the General Committee. Item 5.3 was referred to the General Committee. Item 5.4, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority, June 2023, Councillor Stockwell. I wish to make a declaration in regard to Prescribed Conflict of Interest on Suncoast building approvals as per my declaration and I will leave the meeting room and advise there has been one slight change. I've now received building approval. Amelia Lorentson 16:15.424
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:24.360
I'll move item 6.1. Thank you. Clare Stewart 16:26.940
I'll second it. All in favour? Carried unanimously. And it's like, it's the right thing to do. I'll also move the resolution from the committee with nominations. And I'll second it. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. We're up to item 8.3, services and organisation recommendation. Item 5.1, amendment of general committee and ordinary meeting dates October 2023. Capital program 2022-2023.6.2, Noosa holiday parks update. Joe Jurisevic 17:18.922
So moved and seconded. Clare Stewart 17:20.622
Thank you. Seconded. Thank you. All in favour? All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, everyone. We're now up to item 8.4, general committee recommendations. 5.1, Eastern Beaches foreshore reserves management plan community consultation overview and proposed changes. Frank Wilkie 17:42.281
I, Councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. As in early 2020, I received an electoral donation of $750 from Peregian resident Susan Francis. Susan Francis is the partner of Peregian resident Barry Cottrell. Mr Cottrell is the President of the Peregian Beach Community Association. The PBCA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserve Management Plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and Legal Advisor has indicated that the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserve Management Plan is not ordinary Council business because it relates to a I make this declaration because it relates to a specific geographical area and that links to groups who have made submission to it ought to be declared, although I nor the PBCA, which is a volunteer community group, stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report. I make this declaration out of an abundance of caution and commitment to transparency. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest in this matter. I will respect the decision on the meeting on whether I can in the moment participate in the decision. Just before you do, Councillor, Brian Stockwell 18:44.129
I think you might wish to amend that from your previous declaration. We're actually not noting the report at this time. Joe Jurisevic 18:54.843
All the reports on the report are noted in the agenda. Oh, it's approving the motion. Oh, it's approving it. Sorry. Frank Wilkie 19:00.643
So, yeah, although we're going through approving this report, moving this motion, through moving this motion, I make this declaration now. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 19:18.946
I move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wilkie and determine that Councillor Wilkie participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that neither Councillor Wilkie nor the PBCA stand to gain personal material from this decision and that a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Clare Stewart 19:38.486
All in favour? Karen Finzel 19:40.272
You can't recover. You can't recover. Frank Wilkie 19:43.172
Against? Clare Stewart 19:46.912
Carried. Councillor Wilkie, welcome to the room. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 19:52.672
I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have... I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter because my brother Gabriel Cerasani, who until recently was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, has made submissions to these submissions for short management. ict of interest in this matter because my brother Gabriel Cerasani, who until recently was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, has made submissions to these submissions for short management. ict of interest in this matter because my brother Gabriel Cerasani, who until recently was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, has made submissions to these submissions for short management. ict of interest in this matter because my brother Gabriel Cerasani, who until recently was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, has made submissions to these submissions for short management. Brian Stockwell 20:24.726
Ict of interest in this matter because my brother Gabriel Cerasani, who until recently was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, has made submissions for short management. I have two conflicts in accordance with my written declarations on both, I'll do it one at a time, in terms of Susan Francis, which is in front of you and has not changed from my previous declaration. Joe Jurisevic 20:46.807
I'll move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell that determines in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates in the matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would not consider this a conflict of interest and trusts the final decision to be made in the public interest. Clare Stewart 21:02.554
I also declare in regard to my previous written declaration in regard to Noosa District Land Thank you, also, it's not changed. It also has not changed since the last time I moved it. Joe Jurisevic 21:15.406
Once again, I'll note the council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and the term that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because council believes that a reasonable person would not consider this a conflict of interest and trusts the final decision is made in the public interest. Karen Finzel 21:33.257
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as during my 2020 Future Noosa election campaign, I received an electoral donation of $1,666.66 for Mr Peter Butt, who sits on the Terms for Mr Peter Butt, who sits on the Executive Committee of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. The EBPA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches foreshore reserves management plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and Legal Advisor and legal advice has indicated the Eastern Beaches foreshore reserves management plan is not ordinary Council business because it relates to a specific geographical area and given links to the groups who have made submission it ought to be declared. I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is discussed and voted on. Brian Stockwell 22:36.353
Just to clarify, is the recommendation coming from the General Committee and not different from the staff's? Clare Stewart 22:42.273
Yes, it's up to the judge to talk to this. We'll put it to vote. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, councillor. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Mr Chair. Item 5.2, MCU 2022/0039, application for material change for use, relocatable home park. Community and affordable housing, 32 dwellings at 55 and 70 Carpenters Road, Cooroy. Amelia Lorentson 23:27.630
I'd like to move a motion that council note the report by the acting coordinator, planning to the planning... and environment committee meeting dated 8 August 2023 regarding application MCU 220039 for material change of use, relocatable home park, community and affordable... housing 32 dwellings at 55 and 70 Carpenters Road, Cooroy and deferred the decision for the application... to a future meeting to allow the applicant additional time to provide further information. I've made this request on behalf of the applicant Mr Greg Phipps. As most of you are aware the applicant's been working on this project or this development application for over two years. To date he has spent out of his own money $120,000. $90,000 for external consultants and $30,000 in his staff cost. $90,000 $30,000. He would like the opportunity to bring additional information to staff and the councillors before a final decision is made. On Monday's General Meeting staff and councillors raised some concerns including but not limited to land tenure. The planners were unsure how the site will be maintained in perpetuity and what the land tenure arrangements were proposed. Also staff required more details regarding infrastructure plans. The applicant has requested the opportunity to provide this information to staff and councillors. Again his investment to date is $120,000 and time out of his life two years on a project that there is no personal gain. Great. Greg Phipps has sacrificed his time and money on a bona fide community and affordable housing project to provide housing for those disadvantaged and low-income earning groups such as single women over the age of 50 and families and individuals suffering from domestic violence. It is not every day that a private landowner offers 2.431 hectares of underutilised, lazy, land in Cooroy to accommodate community and affordable housing and it's not every day that you meet a Greg Phipps. I believe what has been requested is fair and reasonable given the significant amount of money the applicant has spent on this application and the time he has invested. I ask everyone around this table today to do the right thing and support this motion and allow Mr Phipps some more time to provide additional information to staff and councillors and have the decision today deferred to a future meeting. Clare Stewart 26:29.812
Any questions we've got Richard? Brian Stockwell 26:33.672
Just a question in terms of statutory time frames. Are we working against the statutory time frame and has there been a formal request to stop the clock yet? Richard MacGillivray 26:46.048
Through the Chair, the applicant has used up all the stop the clock time available to them. They are currently out of timeframe, so therefore we move it into deemed refusal territory for council, but ultimately this decision today is a decision for councillors to make on whether they agree with the deferral or not. And whether the additional information provided will change, will suggest a changed decision from what's recommended as it is. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 27:16.829
So just to clarify that, whilst the time period is up, the time period is up, a deemed refusal is in motion. If we defer this here, the applicant, that doesn't give the applicant that time to come back at a further, a future time to present any of these. To present any of these elements to council. Richard MacGillivray 27:38.093
Through the chair, yes. So basically the applicant can come back to us. We ultimately can make a decision here today, given the applications before us, but we can agree to extend that time and that can go on as long as necessary to make a decision. Again, a decision for councils to make around what that will entail. And the amount of time and effort and money that may come forward, and whether or not that will impact on the decision recommendation before council. Frank Wilkie 28:11.588
Extra costs for the applicant. Richard MacGillivray 28:14.468
Through the chair, likely, that is the case. And that comes down to, I guess, the amount of effort and what they want to put forward to council for further consideration. But generally, there will be additional costs incurred. Frank Wilkie 28:30.074
Principal reasons for refusal to do with the isolated location of this proposal and the detrimental effect it would have on the most vulnerable people living in such an element. Richard MacGillivray 28:44.004
Through the Chair, there are a range of issues that have been identified in the office's report and as you can all see, there are many issues that need to be overcome. There are many issues that need to be overcome as part of this proposal and obviously again, a decision for Council to evaluate whether further work that can be done can address some of these issues that have been identified and raised. Frank Wilkie 29:05.035
Can I just ask, how central is the isolated location of the land parcel in question? How central is that to the reason for refusal? Richard MacGillivray 29:15.251
Through the Chair, that's a critical piece of the concerns raised by officers and the report that the location of the site is not appropriate for the type of development proposed and conflicts with some major parts of the planning scheme and it's the gravity of the conflicts I guess which is why the officers report has recommended for refusal as is. Brian Stockwell 29:42.776
From a technical point of view, is there any difference in the way an appeal against a decision would be considered from a deemed refusal versus a refusal based on grounds within a report? Cool. Frank Wilkie 30:03.516
What were you actually asking? Should the decision, is council in a bed reversal of the same position, should appeal be lodged as a deemed refusal versus an appeal against a decision to refuse based on arranged grounds? Richard MacGillivray 30:22.290
Through the chair, probably not an easy question to answer as such, not being a judge of the court, but certainly I think there are pros and cons probably in both regards, but ultimately the decision refusal either which way, whether it's a deemed or a refusal by officers could be worked through if there's an I don't know if there's an appeal setting or likewise, but I don't see there being, it's a hard question to probably give you a concise, precise answer on, Councillor. Joe Jurisevic 30:53.099
But given that what we've got before us is a request to defer the decision, there's no decision being made at this point in time. So is that a moot point, the question being raised? Richard MacGillivray 31:07.009
Through the Chair, yes. In relation to this particular motion, it's about a deferral. And essentially that just means we don't make a decision tonight based on the motion. Thank you. Karen Finzel 31:18.207
I'd like to speak to you. I just have a question for Amelia. You brought the motion to the table, Amelia. Is there anything we can amend this motion to help with the debate? Is there any further- do you want to change that in any way? Amelia Lorentson 31:36.366
No, I think it's really quite straightforward. It's a deferment to allow the applicant to provide more information and given the conversation that was on Monday, there just seems to be a lack of understanding of what the project actually entails. I don't know whether- I don't know whether just miscommunication, not reading documents correctly, but the applicant would like the opportunity to provide that information to both councillors and the applicant. I think the motion reads correctly. Clare Stewart 32:11.110
Another question, is the applicant working on another project in a more appropriately sited location? Richard MacGillivray 32:19.531
Through the Chair, not that I'm aware of. Apologies. Not that I'm aware of. There may be a Clare Stewart 32:26.491
Is it a question? Richard MacGillivray 32:30.451
Not that I'm Not that I'm aware of, the current applicant, no. Can I just ask through the Q &A time, if you start a relevant question? Clare Stewart 32:39.377
Yeah, we've got a procedural motion. There's no more questions relating specifically to this. Brian Stockwell 32:44.417
I do have one. Have we got anything on record for the applicant requesting a deferral? Richard MacGillivray 32:50.643
Through the Chair, no, the applicant hasn't requested an extension for decision making. Amelia Lorentson 32:58.083
Just through the Chair, I have received through the Town Planner a request for a deferral. Tom Wegener 33:11.260
I'll speak to it. You know everybody knows I like wood. I like things made out of wood. I really like things that are made out of Australian grown timber and I appreciate Mr. Phipps work here and his dedication to this but when you just say this is for primarily women over 50 and sufferers of domestic violence I just cringe having walked that twice once in the dark and I just think it's not one it's not safe on the other side of an industrial area way past the town is not a place where you put over 50 women and people suffering from domestic violence and other vulnerable people it is not a place where you want vulnerable people to live it is a far away from the town and then when I walked it I walked it at the night at night and I thought it's pretty scary and then I've realised that it'd be far more scary to have to do that walk when it's 35 degrees I wouldn't want my mother-in-law to walk that and she fits this category really well I know others with enough kids that would want to walk into town it is a long walk into town if you they'd have If you they'd have to pave next to the dirt road or they say oh well no we're just going to make a way on to Jarrah Street which also does not have sidewalks so they'd be walking down the middle of an industrial street Jarrah Street which is completely outside of it's not safe it's not good for um walking to town so it's just it's a great idea fantastic ideas we hope that Mr Phipps takes his eco cottages which are fantastic beautifully built and works with other land places in a much in a better place it's a great idea in just a completely unworkable place so I will not be supporting the motion we have a procedure motion before us to defer we're not necessarily re-prosecuting the merits of the actual application this is purely about the deferral motion at this point in time that will potentially if this gets updated at a later stage. Clare Stewart 35:14.850
Thank you councillor. Does anyone else like to speak to the procedure motion? Brian Stockwell 35:24.860
Councillor has not received a request for deferral. So I'm not saying the advice that Councillor Lorentson has given is wrong, but it hasn't been a formal request for deferral to council. Councillor Lorentson in her argument for why further information may be useful made a range of statements which, if they were directed at staff, could be taken as offensive, and certainly as a councillor I can assure her that I did read the report as well, I do understand the nature of the development of the implicitity, and I do understand... and I do understand what the meaning of that the development proposal offends first principles of town planning. You don't get many reports that go back and say this is just basic town planning. Like every other councillor Like every other councillor we've talked to on Monday, I think the nature of the development concept is excellent. I really struggle to find what further information would do, or to overcome the primary constraints which led staff to the position, after an extensive period of discussion and assessment, to the recommendation in front of us. I think, as was mentioned, could do, I think, as was mentioned, it's probably going to do a little more than take more staff time and more of the African's cost because the nature of the location is such. It's such that the potential benefits of the proposal, in terms of supplying housing, does have a community benefit. There's no doubt about that. But the litmus test of, you know, is when you look at it as a whole, those benefits exceed the constraints of the site and what the staff and what, in my assessment of the case, they don't. I don't think there is any additional information that would change my view as to the appropriateness of the site, not the concept itself. too won't be supporting the deferral. Clare Stewart 37:40.276
Thank you Madam Mayor. Frank Wilkie 37:42.836
Look, I can't support this because I think it's cruel. I think it's cruel that Mr Greg Phipps, who has already expended over $100,000, and this deferral would require him to spend even more. And we know that given the principal objection was the isolation of the site, which would place, if approved, would place single women and women fleeing domestic violence in an isolated parcel of land, away from services, down the lane, behind an industrial estate. It offends all the principles of property design but could prevent crime prevention. I know this is a deferral motion but the reasons that are given for deferring are not, I don't agree with them. The report was very clear, there was no confusion. This application was refused on many grounds but the principle one was the isolated nature of the site which would, if approved, be contrary to our housing, a key principle of our housing strategy because it would have placed our most vulnerable in an isolated location on land not connected to services, on flood and fire prone land, near an industrial estate, exactly everything we said we wouldn't do. We need to respect the applicant enough to not give impulse hope because I think everyone around this table knows in their heart of hearts where this is going and this is just to defer is to give false hope and I think it's cruel to Mr Phipps who I understand on group that's already working on another proposal in a more suitable location of a similar nature and if he's not given false hope about this he can more fully focus his resources which are precious on delivering something of value in an appropriate way. we know that if we value our most vulnerable like we say we do we're not going to be approving we're not going to be seeking to put them on this sort of land as we all agree it's a great concept beautiful design worthy principles worthy principles that it's based upon it's just the wrong location and councillors we know that when this comes back to us this deferred decision it's going to end up as a no and we know that so please let's not be cruel mr. Phipps let's respect that gentleman enough not to give him false hope Clare Stewart 40:25.901
I don't know if you can see this. Joe Jurisevic 40:36.180
Yeah, I'll speak to it. Look, I appreciate where Councillor Lorentson is coming from. Again, and it's been reiterated around the table time and time again. We do acknowledge the concept of what's been trying to be achieved here. But the location, as far as the planning scheme, and as far as I'm concerned, isn't the ideal. It isn't an ideal location. It is challenging. I mean, I wish there was an opportunity to, in my mind, to see what is out there. But I think having asked... Having asked the question, having seen the elements in the motion with regards to how it does not meet the planning scheme and does not deliver to the planning scheme and the elements that are being reviewed and currently available through the planning fair for other localities, I think there are better alternatives that would suit this type of development than the current location that's being before us. So in the same vein of I don't believe deferring this decision and getting that additional information will supply sufficient additional information to alter the the reasons for refusal that have been mentioned above. So I won't be supporting the motion. Clare Stewart 42:00.888
I will support because this is a request that Councillor Lorentson has received. But it's an opportunity for him to have a chance, a second chance at this. And he didn't go directly to staff because we heard from our director that he was out of time in regards. So this was the only way he could get this to be deferred. To be deferred at a later stage to have the opportunity to provide further information. Now we have heard and we heard on Monday a million reasons why we shouldn't, a hundred reasons why we shouldn't approve this. But we heard about one why we should that was because there was a lady in our community sleeping on a cement bench and she wasn't alone. But we heard about one. 2400 other people like her on the Sunshine Coast are doing just that right here. They are our mothers, they are our fathers and they are our children. It's not acceptable. Now as I said there is many reasons why this shouldn't be approved. There are many reasons why this shouldn't be approved, but perhaps, perhaps if we give him the time, we give him the opportunity to have one last pitch at the stumps, there may be something, and I'm willing to fight for that "may be something" because that might make the difference between someone sleeping on a park bench and someone sleeping... Amelia Lorentson 43:39.560
That someone was a lady called Veronica and I got a call from Vetra from Making Lives Matter about she'll find us a new material. Brian Stockwell 43:51.340
So I believe the team there has already made a ruling that we're talking to a deferral motion. And that we should be restricting ourselves to the process-- Councillor Stockwell Yes. And that we should be restricting ourselves to the process-- Councillor Stockwell around the table over the last ten minutes. Everyone has talked about the pros and cons of this. Councillor Wilkie went to great lengths. Councillor Wegener. So I think it's only fitting that we hear both sides of it. Amelia Lorentson 44:14.259
I'd like to first address a couple of the matters that were raised by councillors around this table. Location. Location. Location seems to be like the number one sticking point. The project is an emergency response to a crisis. A crisis that's happening right now. It's not meant to undermine the planning scheme. It's not meant to undermine the housing strategy. It's an emergency. It's an emergency response. The question I ask around the table is where else in the Cooroy area or anywhere that can fit 32 cottages that can house 45 people right now? Right now? Putting vulnerable people in an isolated location. Vulnerable people are living in isolated locations. They're living under trees. They're living in toilets, public toilets. They're already living in isolated locations. They're already living far away from their jobs, towns. I just don't think I'm getting through, and this is where I think Greg Phipps would love that opportunity to talk and provide that information to councillors, to give you an idea that it's a community. This is a pilot project. We talk about all the social... There are going to be negative social outcomes with this pilot project. How do we know that? This has never been done before. This has never been done before and that is part of the conversation that Greg Phipps would like to continue with councillors. it's I won't go on. I went on quite a bit on Monday so I'm not going to re-prosecute or restate what I've already said but I am going to just throw a couple of questions to the councillors. What are you guys going to think of yourselves when you look back and think about this decision? You look back and think about this decision. When you drive down Carpenters Road and see an underutilised asset doing nothing, are you going to care knowing that today we have the power to continue the hope that maybe 32 cottages can be built and 45 people will have a room. 45 people will have a roof over their heads. And another matter which again I raised on Monday that there's a possibility that the State under its ministerial powers can actually step in, reassess and redesign the application and how are we going to feel if the State does step in and approve the application. And what if what is imagined is not what is the reality. Maybe what this project is going to look like is, you know, a proper community. Look, to say that I'm disappointed, I think everyone around this table knows is an understatement. I go back to the quote that I left everyone on Monday. The person who really wants to do something finds a way. And then the other person just finds an excuse. And then the other person finds a way. Again, I urge the councillors to have the courage to at least give Greg Phipps the opportunity to realise or have a last shot at his dream. Clare Stewart 48:13.977
All in favour? Councillor Laurinston and Stewart. Against? Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel, Stockwell, Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 48:24.177
I move to start the recommendation. Thank you. This decision's being made because we care enough not to put people in, our most vulnerable people in isolated locations, on flood and fire prone land, not connected to services. They deserve better. And had this been the last lot in the Shire where this sort of project could take place, we may entertain this application more than we already have. But, as we know, there are currently projects underway to provide hundreds of appropriately sited dwellings, close to existing centres, connected to services, public transport, the support services that they need. If approved, would be a demonstration that we don't really care about our most vulnerable enough to give them proper housing at a proper location, not shoved away next to an industrial estate. We do have land available in Cooroy, Tewantin, to provide attractively designed... close to services. It's a home that's worthy of our most vulnerable. We have to value them enough to not give them second rate dwellings or living circumstances. After this decision, the truth is I could not live with myself if I knew I was responsible for approving a development where we knew from the best of advice, against all the principles of the housing strategy, that we were not doing the right thing and we were not following through on the and we were not following through on the commitment we made to this community through the housing strategy. After advice from people who work in this space, like QPS, Community Department of Housing, St Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army, they've all told us we've got to look after our most vulnerable and not shove them away in second, substandard substandard, isolated locations. They'll be living in beautiful homes. There's no doubt about that, if this was a trip. But it's just the wrong location. So in answer to the question, I wouldn't feel good if I... I wouldn't feel good if I had to do this. So, we have to value our most vulnerable enough to do the right thing about them. That's why I'm doing this motion. Joe Jurisevic 52:11.220
Yeah, I will. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Again, challenging situation. If we weren't stretching the bounds of the planning scheme, scheme, if we weren't adhering to a housing commitment and a housing strategy that we put forward, if we were on the last bastion of available land and the only bastion available, we may consider this. Given that it does not meet the criteria of all of those elements, and given that other land has been identified that is more suitable and more ideally located for developments of this sort, I can't in my right mind approve a development that is contrary to all of those documents and all of the time and effort that this council has put into trying to find... Amelia Lorentson 53:24.775
I apologise that I didn't mean stock. I was referring to there was a misunderstanding around the table with councillors and I retract that. I didn't even pick that up until Councillor Stockwell made mention of that. So I apologise and would like to retract that. I will, again I'm not going to repeat what I said on Monday but I do want to just add non-compliance with an assessment benchmark does not result in an automatic refusal and I'm going to just bring forward a recent example in 2019 Sunshine Coast Council allowed wind and sea services To consider other, to consider need, planning need and other relevant matters and make a decision as decision makers that whether the benefits and the planning need allows us to deviate from our planning. And I just want to throw that again at the table. You know, there are extensive benefits, there are positive outcomes, and it's just a shame that... We're not... We're not looking at what could be. I just wanted to add that. Clare Stewart 55:32.580
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 55:36.080
I'd just like to put account of you. We are looking at what could be and what we're seeking to avoid on this side. And what we're seeking to provide in the right spot. There's points made about councils having the power to make decisions contrary to the planning scheme and the strategies, and that's absolutely correct. It has to be for the right reason. It has to be an overwhelming benefit. Benefit, to do that in this case there would not be for all the reasons listed in this motion and it's not about necessarily, the problem is not just being in conflict with the planning scheme or a housing strategy, it's because the implications of doing so would have very real impacts on people. To do that... Our most vulnerable people and it would be easy if this council was so inclined for councils around this table to vote in favour of this and go home to our comfortable homes but we wouldn't be the Queensland police officers or officers from the Department of Families and Community or the officers from Or the officers from Queensland Fire and Rescue Service having to attend to this site, if any of these risks come, well, well understood risks come to fruition, we'd be okay, there'd be short term benefit for us now, we've done a good thing for the housing crisis, but we wouldn't be the ones. But we wouldn't be the ones dealing with the consequences, and perhaps the unintended consequences in the minds of some, but they're plain to a lot of us, so. I think I've said enough. Clare Stewart 57:27.346
Proved to vote, all in favour? Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel, Stockwell, Wilkie, Agnes, Stewart, Lorentson. All right, thank you very much. Are you coming back, Councillor Stockwell? We are at 5.3, the Economic Development Grants Policy Review, item 6. Item 6.1, Contract Number CN00315, Flood Reconstruction, Package 10, Stormwater Infrastructure Replacements, 6.2, Draft Waste Plan 2023-2028, 6.3.6.3, financial report July 23, 6.4, budget review BR1 for the 2023-2024 financial year. 6.5, operational plan 2022-2023.4.4, quarterly reporting. Thank you, Councillor Wegener and Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Carried unanimously. No need. Councillor Stockwell has left. Thank you, Kat. There are no report... There are no reports to direct to the ordinary meeting. We have no confidential items, but we have one submission to public question time from Mr. Brian O 'Connor, or A. Brian. How are you, Brian? Welcome. You know the drill, Mr. O 'Connor. So if you'd like to come up and ask your question, thank you. And we have our Director of Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings, here to answer, Mr. O 'Connor. Frank Wilkie 58:58.990
Thank you, Mayoral minute. I beg the indulgence of the meeting to change one word in my question, in the interest of accuracy. At its meeting on the 16th of February, 2023, Noosa Council endorsed, per moment, relocation of a pilot placemaking plan. to be rolled out eventually across the Shire. The strategy... Six months... six months on, can Noosa Council provide an update on progress being made around placemaking at... Kim Rawlings 59:36.575
Thank you, sir. Through the Mayor. Good evening, Brian. Nice to see you. I'm very pleased to advise that the placemaking pilot has been progressing well since the endorsement of... We've been progressing well since the endorsement of Pomona as the pilot location, with community engagement officially being launched yesterday, which is very exciting. The engagement process is open through to the 24th of September. The engagement program includes a diverse range of activities for the entire community to participate, including a survey, online and hard copy, pop-ups, Formal and hard copy: pop-ups outside the IGA and at Pomona markets, a family-friendly community event, walkshops, ideas competitions, as well as other creative activities such as sketching There are also options for more tailored stakeholder engagement throughout the process if required. Further information can be located on Council's Your Say Noosa webpage and while the community engagement is being undertaken the project team will be developing options for future governance structures to help guide the preparation of the draft plan which will be further informed by community engagement at another later date. The draft plan will be developed in conjunction with the community to help prioritise actions, implementation and resourcing throughout the remainder of this year and with further community consultation on the draft to occur in early Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:01:07.889
Our second question is this: Noosa Council recently nominated Pomona as a great place under the South East Queensland Regional Plan. The Noosa Plan 2020 acknowledges Pomona as Noosa Shire's living heritage town and the Noosa And the Noosa Biosphere Trails Master Plan identifies Pomona as the hub town for the trail network. These designations seek various practical and tangible outcomes that ideally should complement each other. How will this occur beneath the umbrella of a Pomona placemaking plan? Kim Rawlings 01:01:50.106
Thanks again Brian. The placemaking process will consider the many and diverse roles and functions of Pomona as a village in a way that delivers the outcomes that you identified in alignment with community values, priorities as well as enhancements. Priorities as well as enhancing the unique character and identity of Pomona. The process, the placemaking process will likely identify recommendations and actions that may require these other strategies, broader strategies and plans to be reviewed and coordinated to ensure a Clare Stewart 01:02:32.295
The agenda, the next ordinary meeting will be held at Council Chambers on the 21st of September at 5pm. So thank you everyone for attending this evening. It's lovely to have a gallery full of people. I declare the meeting closed at 6:03pm. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
