Ordinary Council, 17 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 00:00.060
We are meeting on traditional land of the Kabi Kabi People and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. All councils 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 00:25.371
Clearly before I do that there's two different lots of minutes. Which one are we doing? Clare Stewart 00:29.726
This is the Ordinary Meeting. All in favour? Are you in favour of those minutes? Thank you. 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 Councillor 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 Hansen. Good evening Bob. Mr Hansen would you like to come up? Mr Hansen please come up to the podium and I believe you have a maximum of 15 minutes for your deputation. Welcome and thank you for joining us tonight. Councillor Lorentson. I don't know if you can hear me. Amelia Lorentson 01:20.052
Like to seek advice through the CEO given that this is that not a decision process is there the need for me to declare my conflict of interest Larry Sengstock 01:37.172
You 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 01:58.546
Yeah, why don't I just use all the pages? Clare Stewart 02:01.047
Sorry, I'm just going to hand it over to this client. I think it's fine, Amelia Lorentson 02:05.244
I'll a declaration. Make it declarable and leave it for a decision. In accordance, excuse me Bob, sorry Mr Hansen. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I make the following declaration. I, Councillor Lorentson will 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. Stay? We did get 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. I'd respect the decision if they choose not to leave me in the meeting rooms. Clare Stewart 03:00.211
I move that Council note would be declarable declarable conflict of interest of Councillor Lorentson and 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 in the public interest that Councillors members can stay. In the room. I'll second that. Thank you. Can I ask Council members any questions? Joe Jurisevic 03:33.952
No, but I'll speak to what a nonsense this is. Not a decision-making forum. The Councillor can listen and hear anybody's opinion on any matter in any area of the any area of the Shire so to have to declare this here is, in my humble opinion, way beyond any of the expectations of independent assessors with regard to declarations of this nature. Clare Stewart 03:59.985
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. Else anyone else like to speak to it? We'll put it to vote. All in favour? Carried unanimously.. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson stays in the room. Sorry Mr Hansen, it's very long with the introduction to you. Bob Hansen 04:23.489
It's a new world we're operating in. Don't worry. The very last song. Slide of this I give my credit accreditations. To. I graduated as a quantitative geneticist, started work as a poultry breeder, did a graduate diploma in management, went into business management. From then on, I've agri-consultant, mainly for banks. I help banks recover assets and agri-usiness people. I'm considered an industry expert in intensive lifestyle. And that in addition to that, we decided to retire in Noosa and we bought management rights in Noosa, Sunshine Beach. I couldn't say I did a very good job of retiring. I've probably taken on more work than when I was fully employed. I've put together a presentation of about twelve slides. We only tend to talk to six or seven. The reason being, I'm trying to keep it to like eight or nine minutes and then you can ask me questions if you'd like. So if we flick on to slide three, Cathy. So this is just the basic outline of what I'm going to talk to. I mean, basically, what I'm trying to figure out is why we'll meet at Sunshine Beach and others certainly in our area are exempted, like Hastings Street and Noosa Lakes. So if you now flick on to the next one. So the other ones, is. Straight off your website, the other ones are the 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 in Australia. 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 that pushed me to do this. If you go on 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 5 off-site for off-street parking. Which, when the DA 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 why 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 in living out of residential areas. So, various. 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. Okay, for go to the next slide please, Cathy. Cathy? Here 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, this 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, my son is the manager. Leah is our office manager. That's my company, and we all have an RE licence. We're all fully licensed. Now, license we're now that's not actually your actually a requirement under 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 won't owe my staff training. 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, how can there be more level when we've already got zero? There are resorts with on-site management that have issues with 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? There was a lot of shuffling of papers, and somebody sort of muttered something like five, and said, how many are in total? 1,300. Is that correct? Do we know how many complaints have come from on-site management results? Awesome Clare Stewart 10:50.215
I've been upset and I'll notice we have some Director of we do, Frank Wilkie 10:56.273
Bob, this is not a, you have the right to ask. I'm not asking the question. Clare Stewart 11:03.445
We're happy to take any questions. Frank Wilkie 11:04.752
We listen to you. We can provide you with information afterwards. Clare Stewart 11:07.886
Mr Hansen, we're happy to take any questions. If you want to submit questions, we're happy to take them. Well, I think that is one of the primary ones that would apply. Bob Hansen 11:14.466
I require how what are the issues being generated from on-site management of the doors? 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 owned by one car capacity. We do have two units where owners, some owners stay there for up to six months and then let out their out units. Still on a short-term letting basis. So at La Mer we're 100% short-term letting. So next slide, and that's the end. That's my, uh. Qualifications. The questions, the I have for you then is why can't we have an exemption and why a pacing strip? That's the main question. So I'll take any questions from you. Clare Stewart 12:16.679
In a deputation stance and 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 kind answers of to you in an email. Bob Hansen 12:28.148
Okay. A couple of weeks ago, and I didn't put this in my presentation, a couple of weeks ago you used to send out a what do you it, a slide. Call a short stay letting or 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 significantly incorrect. Firstly it implies that on Hastings 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 discriminatory. If you have a management right or a Noosa or lakes or one of the other presented 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, our. Caretaker wish agreements which by law are up to 25 years are effectively one year. So you've made, winners and losers in the Noosa resort. I have a paper copy of that and I did put it onto a stick so I'm happy to give you a USB stick. And that's my presentation. Clare Stewart 14:24.710
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. Thank you. I'll give these to Karen. We have reached the cabinet. Thank you. Thank you. We're now to item 8, consideration of committee reports. Item 8.1, the Audit and Risk Committee report. 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. We'll move it for these recommendations, please. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. In the second year, thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank favour? You, everyone.2 Planning & 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. Brian Stockwell 15:55.911
Yes. 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 16:17.268
Do you want me to add that in? Frank Wilkie 16:24.742
Yeah, I'm going to buy one. I'll move item 6-1-. Clare Stewart 16:26.668
Thank you, I'll second it. All in favour? Carried unanimously. I'll also move the resolution from the committee recommendations and I'll second it. Favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. We're up to item 8.3, Services & Organisation recommendation. Item 5.1, amendment of General Committee and ordering meeting dates October 2023.6.1.6 capital program 2022-2023.6.2. Noosa Holiday Parks update. So moved, motion changed. Thank you. Seconded? Yeah, seconded. That's been joined. Thank you. 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 planning plan, community consultation, overview and proposed changes. Here we go again. Frank Wilkie 17:42.636
I, Councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict interest in this matter, as in early 2020 I received an electoral donation of $750 from Peregian resident Susan Francis. Is the partner of Peregian resident Barry Cotterell. Mr the president of the Peregian beach community association. Beach community association, PBCA. The has provided feedback on the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management plan. The office of the independent assessor and legal adviser 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 it ought to be declared although I or 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 remain and participate in the decision. Brian Stockwell 18:43.105
Just before you do Councillor, I think you might wish to amend that from your previous declaration we're actually not noting the report this time. Joe Jurisevic 18:55.405
Well the report's only a report for noting, it's in the agenda. Frank Wilkie 18:58.639
Oh, it's approving the motion. So yeah, although, we're going through approving this report, approving, moving this motion. Through moving this motion. I make this declaration now. I move Joe Jurisevic 19:19.741
That Councillor Wilkie declare a 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 19:38.955
All in favour? You can't recover. Against? Carried. Councillor Wilkie, welcome to the room. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 19:53.384
I, Councillor 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 the property at beaches estate, Sunrise Beach. I have a declarable conflict of interest, on the basis of exercising an abundance of caution, I choose to leave the meeting. Clare Stewart 20:25.277
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 20:28.028
Oh, yes, Ma'am. Yes, 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 20:45.019
I move that the Council note. The declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and the determinants in the public interest of the Council of Stockwell participates in favour of the matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would not consider this a conflict of interest and trusts the final decision made in public interest. I'll second it. Clare Stewart 21:01.376
All in favour? Carried unanimously. Carried unanimously. Welcome back Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 21:05.777
I also declare in regard to my previous written declaration in regard to Noosa District Landcare which also has not changed since the last time I. Joe Jurisevic 21:15.399
Once again, I'll note the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Council of stockholm. The term of Council of stockholm 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 21:32.642
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Finzel, informed 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 executive committee. Of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. The EBPA has provided feedback on the eastern beaches foreshore reserves management plan. The office assessor and legal 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. Clare Stewart 22:27.613
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Does someone like to move the staff recommendation? Joe Jurisevic 22:31.630
I will once the Council is out of the way. I'll second it. Brian Stockwell 22:37.331
To clarify, is the recommendation coming from the General Committee and not different from the staff's? Clare Stewart 22:42.658
Yes, would you like to talk to this? No, thank you Madam Chair. We will put it to vote. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Mr Chair. Item 5.2, MCU 2022/0039, materials. Application for material change for use, relocatable home park, community and affordable housing, 32 dwellings at $50 55 and,000.7. Amelia Lorentson 23:28.032
I'd like to move a motion that Council note the report by the acting coordinator planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2023 regarding application MCU 22-0039 for Material Change of Use relocatable home park community and affordable housing 32 dwellings at 55 and 70 carpenters koala. Carpenters Road, Cooroy and deferred the decision for the application to a future meeting to allow the applicant additional time to provide further information about the proposal. Happy to speak with you. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. 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. He would like the opportunity to bring additional information to staff and the Councillors before a final decision is made. On monday's General Committee, 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 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. 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 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 is being requested is fair and reasonable, given the significant amount of money the applicant has spent on this application and the time he's 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 26:30.799
Any questions we've got Richard? Brian Stockwell 26:34.444
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 Richard MacGillivray 26:46.493
Through the Chair, the applicant has used up all the stop the clock time available to them and they are currently out of time frame. 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 whether provided will change or suggest a changed decision from what's recommended as it is Clare Stewart 27:16.427
Thank you Joe Jurisevic 27:17.669
So just to clarify that whilst the type here is up deemed refusal is in motion if we defer this here the applicant that does doesn't give the applicant that time to come back at a further a future time to present any of these elements to Richard MacGillivray 27:36.672
Council 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 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 or not that will impact on the decision recommendation before Council. Frank Wilkie 28:09.151
Would the extended time incur extra costs for the applicant? Richard MacGillivray 28:14.958
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 28:31.033
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 a development. Richard MacGillivray 28:44.504
Through the Chair there are a range of issues that have been identified in the officers report and as you can all see there this proposal and as you can all see 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 29:05.542
Can I just ask how central is the isolating location of the land parcel in question? How central is that to the reason for refusal? Richard MacGillivray 29:13.851
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 it's the gravity of the conflicts I guess which is why the officers report is as recommended for refusal as is from Brian Stockwell 29:44.339
A technical point of view is there any difference the way they in appeal against the decision would be considered from a deemed refusal versus a refusal based on grounds within a report. 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 the decision to refuse based on arranged grounds? Richard MacGillivray 30:23.172
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 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 30:54.050
Given that what we've got before us is a request to defer the decision, there's no um there's no decision being made at this point in time. So is that a moot point, the question being raised? Richard MacGillivray 31:07.475
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. Karen Finzel 31:17.271
I like to speak to you. I just have a question for Amelia. You've brought the motion to the table, Amelia. Is there anything we can amend this motion to help with the debate? Do you want to change that in any way? Amelia Lorentson 31:36.892
Important. 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. 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 martian breeds correctly. Clare Stewart 32:10.840
But I don't know how to speak to this. Frank Wilkie 32:12.197
Another question, is the applicant working on another project in more appropriately sited location? Richard MacGillivray 32:20.437
Through the Chair, not that I'm aware of, apologies, not that I'm aware of. There might be it a question or is it a related question? Not that I'm aware of, the current applicant, no. Amelia Lorentson 32:35.634
Can we just ask Through the Chair at the time if you start a relevant question? Clare Stewart 32:39.673
No. We've got a procedural motion. There's no more questions relating Brian Stockwell 32:44.335
Do have one. Have we got anything on record for the applicant requesting a deferral? Richard MacGillivray 32:51.191
Through the Chair, no, the applicant hasn't requested an extension for decision making. Amelia Lorentson 32:56.823
Just Through the Chair, I have received through the town planner a request for a deferral. Tom Wegener 33:11.801
I'll speak them. To it. Just 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 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 is not other side of an industrial area, way past 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 you want vulnerable people to live. It is a far away from the town. And then when I walked it, at the night at 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 in and chief. 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 to pave next to the dirt road, or they say, oh, well, no, we're just going to make a way jarrah on 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 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. Clare Stewart 34:59.134
I think a reminder, Councillors, that we have a procedure motion before us to defer, but not necessarily re-prosecuting the merits of the actual application. This is purely about the deferral of motion at this point in time. That will potentially, if this gets up, be done at a later stage. Thank you, Councillor. Does anyone else like to speak to the procedure motion? No, I will. Brian Stockwell 35:19.560
The councillor Councillor has not received it. 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 to why further information may be useful, made a range of statements. Which, if directly they were directed at staff, could be taken as offensive, and certainly as a Councillor, I can assure that I did read the report as well, I do understand the nature of the development of the implicitity, 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 we to every other Councillor who talked on Monday, I think the nature of the development concept is excellent. I really struggle to find what further information would do or could do 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 it's probably going to do a little more than take more staff time and more of the applicant's cost because the nature of the location is such that the potential benefits of the proposal and there are yeah 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 as a whole that those benefits exceed the constraints of the site and what staff and what in my assessment of the case they don't. I think there is any additional information that would change my view as to the appropriateness of the site not the development. Develop the concept itself and hence I too won't be supporting the third week. Frank Wilkie 37:40.001
Thank you Madam Mayor. Look I can't support this because I think it's cruel. I think it's cruel. I think it's cruel to Mr Greg Phipps who has already expended over $100,000. And this deferral would require him to expand even more. And we know that given the principal objection was the isolation the site, which would place, if approved, would place single women and fleeing domestic violence in an isolated parcel of land, away from services, down the lane, behind an industrial estate. It offends all the principles designed to prevent crime prevention. I know this is a deferral motion, but the reasons that are given for deferring are not, I'm not in agreement that. I don't agree with them. The report was very clear. There was no confusion. This application was refused on many grounds, but the principal one was the isolated nature of the site, which would, if approved, contrary to be contrary to our housing, a key principle of our Housing Strategy, because it would replace our most vulnerable, in an isolated location, on land not connected to services, on flood and fire prone land, near industrial estate. An 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 where this is going. And this is just to defer the first give false hope, and I think it's cruel to Mr Phipps, who I understand on good advice, is 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 will fully focus his resources which are precious on delivering something of value in an appropriate location. We know that if we that if value most people, 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 that it's based upon it's just the wrong location and councils 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 please let's not be cruel Mr Phipps, let's respect that gentleman enough not to give him false hope. Joe Jurisevic 40:34.612
Here, yeah I'll speak to it. I appreciate where Councillor Lorentson is coming from again and it's been reiterated around the table time and again. We do acknowledge the concept of what's been trying to be achieved here. The location as far as planning scheme and I'm concerned is far as I'm an isn't the idea isn't an ideal location it is charging challenging. I mean I wish there was an opportunity to in my mind to see what is really out there but I think having asked the question having seen the uh the elements that are in the motion with regards to how it does not meet the planning scheme and does not deliver tooth planing 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 developments in the current location that's been 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 uh the reasons for refusal that have been mentioned above so I won't be supporting the motion. Clare Stewart 42:01.672
I will support because this is a request that Councillor Lorentson has received. From someone in our community. This is a request by someone in our community. This is his wish. We may come to the same conclusion if this is deferred as we had did on Monday but it's an opportunity. For him to have a chance a second chance at this and we he didn't go directly to staff because we heard from our Director that he was out of time in regard so this was the only way he could get this to be deferred at a later stage to have the opportunity to provide further information. Now have heard, and we heard on Monday- a million reasons why we shouldn't, 100 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. 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. But perhaps, if we give him the time, we give him the opportunity to have one last pitch at the stumps, they something. And I'm willing to fight for that maybe something. Because that might make the difference between someone sleeping on a park bench and someone sleeping in a house. Amelia Lorentson 43:40.189
That someone was a lady called Veronica. And I got a call from vetra from making lives matter about, she'll find us. Brian Stockwell 43:52.687
So I believe the Mayor has already made we're a ruling that talking we're talking to a deferral motion. And that we should be restricting ourselves to the. Clare Stewart 44:02.445
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 44:14.430
I'd like to first address a couple of the matters that were raised by Councillors around this table. Location. Seems to be like the number one sticking point. The project is an emergency response to 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 response. The question I ask around the table is where else in the whereas koroid Cooroy or anywhere that can fit 32 cottages that can house 45 people 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 are already living in isolated locations. They are 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. They're social outfits. Going to be negative social outcomes with this pilot project. How do we know that? This has never been done before. And that is part of the conversation that Greg Phipps would like to continue with Councillors and staff. 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 drive down Carpenters Road and see an underutilised asset doing nothing, are you going to care knowing that we have the power to the hope that maybe 32 cottages can be built and 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 you what we is imagined is not what is the reality maybe what's imagine what this project is going to don't you look like is you know a proper look 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 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 48:12.523
Thank you Councillor Lorentson for your vote, all in favour, Councillor Lorentson and Stewart against. Lawson and Stuart against Councillors Wegener Jurisevic, Finzel, Stockwell, Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 48:24.878
I move to start the recommendation. Thank you. Of the staff recommendation. This decision is being lodged. Made because we care enough not to put people in, our isolated locations. Not connected server to services. They deserve better. And had this been the last lot in the Shire where this sort of project could take place, perhaps then we, might. Into time that 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. That sort of work is I won't I go into the real reasons why this application, as I've said, is a good idea but in the wrong location. If approved, it 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 tractors, provide attractively designed dwellings 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. The question was asked earlier, how would we feel 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 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. Self honestly isolated locations. They'll be living in beautiful homes. There's no doubt about that if this was a trip. There's just the wrong location. So in answer to the question. I wouldn't feel about it. Good if I had to do this. So we have to do, we have to value our most vulnerable enough to do the right thing by them. That's why I'm moving this motion. Thank you. I'd like to talk to this. Joe Jurisevic 52:11.803
Yeah, I will. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Again, challenging situation. If we weren't stretching the bounds of the planning 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 it as Councillor Wilkie's allude to it, given that it does not meet the criteria of all those elements, 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 and help in to try find a solution. To the Housing Strategy game. Clare Stewart 53:04.482
Yes, Larry Sengstock 53:09.672
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just, sorry, right at the start, Councillor Amelia, you made mention of Joe Jurisevic 53:17.139
Staff maybe not reading the documents Amelia Lorentson 53:20.362
Correctly. And like I'd like you just to qualify that if you could please. Absolutely. I apologise that I didn't mean staff. 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. Thank you. Ms. Leigh-Anne. 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. I'm going to just bring forward a recent example. In 2019, Sunshine Coast Council allowed wind and sea surf club to build a clubhouse at the end of Buderim Street in Currimundi. Councils went against council's the staff recommendation and they approved the clubhouse development using the discretionary powers conferred under the Planning Act and that was what I was trying to argue on Monday that we actually had the powers under the Planning Act to consider other consider need planning need and other relevant matters and make a decision as makers that whether or not whether on the benefits and the planning need allows us to deviate from our planning scheme and I just want to try that again at the table you know I there are extensive benefits there are positive outcomes and it's just a shame that again we're not looking at what could be I just wanted to add that I just thank you Frank Wilkie 55:34.091
Are looking at what could be and what we're seeking to avoid on this side and what we're seeing to provide in the right spot there's points made about councils council's having the power to make decisions contrary to the planning scheme and strategies and that's absolutely correct it has to be for the right reason it has to be an overwhelming benefit to do that in this case there would not be for all the reasons in this motion and it's not about necessarily 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 on our most 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 from the department of families and community or the officers from Queensland fire and rescue service having to attend to this site if any of these risks, well understood risks, come to fruition. We'd be okay. There would be a short-term benefit for us, we've done a good thing for the housing crisis, but we wouldn't be but ones dealing with the consequences. Perhaps the unintended consequences in the minds of some. But, they're plain to a lot of us. Clare Stewart 57:23.172
So, I think proof to vote all in favour? Thank you. Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel, Stockwell, Wilkie against Stewart, Lorentson, Barrie. They're made up by the chiefs. All right, thank you very much, thank you. Are you coming back, Councillor Stockwell? No? All right, thank you. Item 5.3, the economic development grants policy review. Item 6.1, contract number CN00315, flood reconstruction, package 10, stormwater infrastructure replacements. 6.2, Draft Waste Plan 2023.2028.6.3, financial report July 23, 6.4, budget review BR1 for the 2023-2024 financial year. 6.5, operational plan there are no reports to direct to the Ordinary Meeting. We have no financial 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 Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings, here to answer, Mr. O'Connor. Brian O'Connor 58:59.525
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I beg the indulgence of the meeting to change one word in my question. In the interest of at its meeting on the 16th of February, 2023, Noosa Council endorsed. Noosa endorsed pomona's 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? Kim Rawlings 59:39.730
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 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 outside the IGA and at Pomona markets, a family-friendly community event, walkshops, ideas competitions, as well as other creative activities such as 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 council's Your Say Noosa webpage and while the community engagement the project team will be developing options for future governance structures to help guide the preparation of the draft plan, which will be further be informed 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 2024. Occur thank you. Brian O'Connor 01:01:08.913
Our second question is this: Noosa Council recently nominated Pomona as a great place under the South East Queensland Regional Plan. The Noosa Noosa plan 2020 acknowledges Pomona as an Noosa shire's "living heritage town" 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 01:01:50.871
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 identify. You identified in alignment with community values, 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 more integrated approach and delivery of these outcomes on the ground. Richard MacGillivray 01:02:24.761
Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:02:26.029
Thank you. That brings us to the end of 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. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
