General Committee - 17 November 2025
Date: Monday, 17 November 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:53:22
Synopsis: Royal Mail Hotel minor change approved: noise accepted; gaming cap, VIP parking fixes, Finance weak; arrears down, Contract let, Appeals mixed, Gaming policy signalled.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell: Chaired the meeting, framed the Royal Mail Hotel item as both a heritage and community hub issue, and steered detailed amendments rather than a straight up‑or‑down vote on the minor change application (00:00–01:20; Item 7.1). Patrick (planning officer): Confirmed the Royal Mail Hotel proposal qualified as a “minor change” under the Planning Act only after Council’s acoustic consultant rejected the first report and required robust remodelling for playground and amplified music noise, avoiding public notification that would have applied to a non‑minor change (03:03–08:01; Item 7.1). Patrick (planning officer): Explained acoustic modelling assumed up to 30 children on the new playground plus 400 patrons in the northern beer garden and 40 in the southern area, with 4.1m acoustic barriers and speaker limits; Council relied on this expert evidence to justify no time curfew on the playground (29:15–30:04; Item 7.1). Brian Stockwell: Led Amendment No.1 to retain Condition 52 but convert it into a binding cap on the gaming area of 260m² plus a non‑enforceable advisory note expressing Council’s opposition to increases in gaming machine numbers in Noosa Shire, closing a loophole left by deleting the condition entirely (13:24–15:14, 18:19–23:24; Item 7.1C). Amelia Lorentson: Proposed Amendment No.2 to restrict the playground’s hours to 10:00–20:00 to protect nearby residents’ amenity, explicitly citing original submitters’ concerns and the lack of fresh public notification for this minor change; the amendment failed on the Chair’s casting vote (26:21–28:48, 36:22–43:41; Amendment No.2, Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Successfully moved Amendment No.3 requiring prominent playground signage stating age guidelines, mandatory adult supervision, emergency contacts and a “be mindful of nearby residents” noise message, embedding both safety and neighbour‑awareness into the approval (44:06–49:58; Amendment No.3, Item 7.1F). Brian Stockwell: Secured Amendment No.4 requiring the CEO to formally advise the Royal Mail Hotel that six bright‑green “VIP gaming only” car parks are inconsistent with the approved plans and must be made available to general users to comply with the substantive approval, tackling both parking adequacy and problem‑gambling incentives (55:12–01:02:30; Amendment No.4, Item 7.1G). Councillors (collective): Ultimately approved the minor change for the Royal Mail Hotel extension, including updated acoustic conditions, refusal to delete noise and end‑of‑trip (EOT) conditions, the 260m² gaming area cap, new playground signage requirements, and directions about VIP parking (01:03:33–01:09:01; Committee Recommendation Item 7.1). Jessica Phillips: Moved to note the October Financial Performance Report; councillors focused on fee and charge under‑performance, high external labour‑hire costs (~$0.5m), use of agencies (~$2.29m), rate arrears (7.2% vs 5% benchmark) and capital underspend, while finance officers committed to tighter reviews and external cash/reserve analysis (01:11:06–01:14:32, 01:18:09–01:22:15; Item 8.1). Executive (finance): Advised that rate arrears had fallen by $1.9m in October, in part due to a large debtor entering a payment plan, and that Council aims to move from 7.2% arrears toward the 5% “best practice” benchmark via a new debt policy and stronger collection (01:18:09–01:21:34; Item 8.1). Executive Officer (Yondji): Reported that 85% of the 98 Operational Plan 2025‑26 initiatives are on track, with key achievements including Floating Land, pool safety and dog control education, 650 disaster‑resilience engagements, and a new contract management framework, but flagged resource‑driven delays to Kabi Kabi engagement, the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, Regional Art Gallery Stage 4, and workforce planning (01:34:04–01:37:16; Item 8.2). Council: Entered confidential session under s254J(3)(g) and (e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 to consider a major civil works contract (Western Batter capping) and legal advice on two Planning & Environment Court appeals (Gympie Terrace STA/food outlet; Seaview Terrace dwelling), then re‑opened and resolved all three matters unanimously (09. Confidential Session; Items 9.1, 9.2, 7.2). Contentious / Transparency Matters Nicola Wilson: Declared a declarable conflict of interest and left the chamber before the Royal Mail Hotel item, but neighbours’ amenity concerns about the new playground were not re‑tested through public notification because the application was kept within the minor change pathway following further acoustic evidence (02:03–02:48, 26:21–28:48; Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Explicitly argued that re‑introducing the playground via a minor change, after it had been removed in the original approval, circumvented a new public notification opportunity for adjoining residents, raising a perception issue around procedural fairness even if the statutory “minor change” test was technically met (26:21–28:48; Item 7.1). Brian Stockwell: Acknowledged residents’ fears but relied on the joint acoustic expert advice that the playground and music would cause “minimal and generally imperceptible” additional noise; this created a clear tension between expert modelling and lived‑experience concerns, resolved in favour of expert evidence (37:43–40:04; Item 7.1). Councillors (collective): Recognised that the initial plan to delete the gaming‑machine condition entirely would be unenforceable under the Planning Act, but nevertheless used the planning approval to signal a policy stance on gaming harm through advisory notes and area limits—lawful but close to the boundary of planning vs moral policy (08:09–09:17, 13:24–15:14; Item 7.1C). Amelia Lorentson & Karen Finzel: Sought a stronger, quasi‑regulatory role on gambling through Thursday’s upcoming “notified motion” on gaming policy and possible re‑joining of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, highlighting that Council currently lacks a formal anti‑pokies policy despite using planning levers to signal opposition (11:26–13:24, 01:01:21–01:02:30; Item 7.1 discussion). Councillors (general): Repeatedly interrogated high staff turnover, agency costs and vacancies (especially in finance and operations) as “red flags” for burnout and service degradation, requesting detailed vacancy and overtime reports—an implicit acknowledgement of governance and resourcing risk, though no systemic breach was identified (01:15:09–01:17:56, 01:49:15–01:52:51; Items 8.1, 8.2). Legal / Risk Patrick (planning officer): Clarified that if the Royal Mail changes had not passed the Planning Act 2016 “minor change” test—specifically, no worsening of environmental or amenity impacts—then public notification and a more intensive merits assessment would have been required; Council’s acceptance hinged on strengthened acoustic modelling reviewed by its own consultant (03:03–08:01; Item 7.1F, s83(9) Planning Act note). Patrick (planning officer): Emphasised that Council has no statutory power to regulate pokies numbers through a planning condition because that role sits with the Queensland gaming regulator; retaining Condition 52 in its original form would have been invalid or unenforceable, so it was reframed into an area limit plus an advisory note to avoid legal vulnerability (08:41–09:17, 19:34–20:43; Item 7.1C). Patrick (planning officer): Confirmed that any condition on playground operating hours would create a prosecutable offence for a child using the equipment outside hours; councillors were warned this could trigger enforcement actions over relatively trivial breaches, a key reason some opposed the curfew amendment (40:04–41:33; Amendment No.2, Item 7.1). Council (in confidential): Resolved to award Contract CN25113 (Western Batter Missing Link Capping Construction) to Offaly Civil Pty Ltd for $1.302m (ex GST) and delegated broad variation powers to the CEO, appropriately using s254J(3)(g) LGR confidentiality for commercial negotiations while ensuring a public resolution once agreed (Confidential Item 9.1). Council (in confidential): Decided to settle part of P&E Court Appeal D44/2025 (203–207 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville – food & drink + short‑term accommodation) on agreed conditions while continuing to defend remaining issues, balancing litigation risk and cost against preserving key planning scheme objectives (Confidential Item 9.2). Council (in confidential): Resolved to fully defend P&E Court Appeal D92/2025 regarding a dwelling house at 58 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, signalling confidence in its refusal reasons and a willingness to test coastal/character controls in court, likely under the Planning Act 2016 framework (Item 7.2 / 7.4 reference). Short Term Accommodation / STA / Short Stay Letting Council (in confidential): Considered legal advice on P&E Court Appeal D44/2025 involving a mixed‑use proposal combining “food and drink outlet” with “short‑term accommodation” on Gympie Terrace, demonstrating the sensitivity of STA intensification along the riverfront and Council’s selective willingness to compromise via conditions while still defending core contested elements (Confidential Item 9.2). Councillors (collective): By choosing partial settlement rather than capitulation, preserved scope to enforce planning scheme controls over STA scale, design and amenity impacts while reducing the risk of an adverse, precedent‑setting court judgment on tourism‑accommodation creep in Noosaville (Confidential Item 9.2, cross‑referenced to 8.2 Destination Management Plan progress). Sunshine Beach – Development & Litigation Council: Agreed unanimously to defend P&E Court Appeal D92/2025 concerning a material change of use for a dwelling house at 58 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, underscoring a firm stance on coastal hillside development controls in one of the shire’s most sensitive and precedent‑rich locations (Confidential referral; Item 7.2). Brian Stockwell: Ensured this appeal was shifted to the end of the agenda and handled in confidential session, consistent with s254J(3)(e) LGR requirements to protect legal advice and litigation strategy (01:09:37–01:09:43; Item 9 confidential motion, Item 7.2). New Hotels, Gaming & Community Health Councillors (collective): Framed the Royal Mail Hotel not only as a heritage asset but as a test case for integrating public‑health concerns—particularly gambling harm—into land‑use decisions, citing corporate plan commitments to community health, wellbeing and safety (15:14–18:19, 24:06–24:10; Item 7.1C). Karen Finzel & Nicola Wilson: Emphasised the risk of “over‑concentration” of gaming machines in Tewantin, including another nearby venue with 130+ machines and proximity to youth services, aligning their stance with recent Queensland reforms targeting gambling‑related harm and domestic violence (19:34–20:43, 01:01:21–01:02:30; Item 7.1 discussion). Councillors (collective): Used the VIP parking amendment to blunt “VIP gaming” marketing tactics at the Royal Mail, referencing Alliance for Gambling Reform material that such VIP schemes are linked to problem gambling; this goes beyond strict planning law into behavioural‑harm mitigation while remaining within conditions aimed at equitable parking (55:12–01:02:30; Amendment No.4, Item 7.1G). Council (policy direction): Signalled intent to re‑examine its withdrawal from the Alliance for Gambling Reform and to adopt a formal policy on gaming machines via an upcoming notified motion, which, if passed, would provide a stronger legal and policy foundation for future planning decisions involving hotels and gaming expansion (11:26–13:24, 01:01:21–01:02:30; linked to Item 7.1C). Conflicts of Interest Nicola Wilson: Declared a declarable conflict of interest under Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 due to a financial interest in a neighbouring property to the Royal Mail Hotel, and left the chamber for the entirety of Item 7.1, complying with statutory COI requirements and protecting the legitimacy of the approval (02:03–02:48; Item 7.1 COI note). Council: Recorded Wilson’s departure and return in the minutes and ensured she did not vote on the item, thereby reducing appeal and misconduct risk under the Local Government Act and OIA oversight frameworks (Item 7.1 COI; post‑vote note of return).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 17 November 2025 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 12.30pm. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 13 OCTOBER 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 13 October 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 7.1 MCU23/0090.02 - APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - HOTEL (EXTENSION TO EXISTING HOTEL) AND DBW23/0073.02 BUILDING WORK (DEMOLITION) AT 118 POINCIANA AVENUE AND 26 DIYAN STREET, TEWANTIN (Item 7.1 Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 November 2025) Cr Nicola Wilson "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 I, Cr Nicola Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest for Item 7.1 - MCU23/0090.02 - APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - HOTEL (EXTENSION TO EXISTING HOTEL) AND DBW23/0073.02 BUILDING WORK (DEMOLITION) AT 118 POINCIANA AVENUE AND 26 DIYAN STREET, TEWANTIN on this agenda because as I have a financial interest in a neighbouring property that may be affected by the outcome of this application. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on". Cr Nicola Wilson left the meeting. Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 November 2025 regarding MCU23/0090.02 and DBW23/0073.02, to make a minor change to an existing approval for a Material Change of Use (extension to existing hotel) and Development Permit for Building Work (Demolition) situated at 118 Poinciana Ave Tewantin Qld. B. Approve the application in accordance with amendments to conditions 3, 22, 23, 26 and 27 and outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report.Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the General Committee Meeting dated 17/11/2025 - MCU23/0090.02 & DBW23/0073.02 Amended Conditions - as provided by the Development Assessment Manager C. Agree to delete condition 52 and include an Advisory Note which states: "Noosa Council is committed to minimising the social impacts of gaming within the community and therefore does not support any increase in the number of gaming machines in the Noosa Shire."; D. Update the Reference documents to include the Royal Mail Hotel Tewantin: Noise Impact Assessment report prepared by Assured Environmental and dated 23.09.2025 Release R, Ver R2. E. Refuse to delete conditions 28 and 42(f) for the following reasons: a. Condition 28 is required to provide a quantifiable noise level of non-amplified entertainment in the northern beer garden. b. Condition 42(f). The proposed End of Trip Facilities are required to encourage users of the site including employees to access the site by alternative transport modes. The absence of EOT facilities in the existing hotel does not justify noncompliance in the proposed expansion. Staff may work across varied shifts, and GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 facilities such as a shower and secure locker may improve staff ability to utilise alternative transport. F. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 83(9) of the Planning Act 2016. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item C be amended read: C. That Condition 52 be amended to read: 52. The gaming area be limited to 260m2 in accordance with the approved plans and include an Advisory Note which states: "Noosa Council is committed to minimising the social impacts of gaming within the community and therefore does not support any increase in the number of gaming machines in the Noosa Shire."; Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item F be added to read (and the current Item F be renumbered accordingly): That Condition 4 (a) be added to read: (a) The playground located within the northern beer garden must only be available for use between the hours of 10:00am and 8:00pm, seven days a week. Outside these hours, the playground area must be closed and access restricted to prevent use. Lost. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Against: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Lost on the casting vote on of the Chair. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item F be added to read (and the current Item F be renumbered accordingly): That Condition 4 (a) be added to read: (a) The playground must display clear, durable, and weather-resistant signage at all entry points and within the play area that includes: 1. Age-appropriate usage guidelines (e.g., “For children aged 2–12 years”). 2. Supervision requirements (e.g., “Children must be supervised by a responsible adult at all times”). 3. Emergency contact information and location of first aid facilities. 4. Noise awareness, (e.g., “Please be mindful of nearby residents”). Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: Cr Tom Wegener GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 Amendment No. 4 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Item G be added to read (and the current Item G be renumbered accordingly): That the CEO be requested to advise the applicant that: 1. The restriction of 6 carparking bays for the use of VIP customers of the gaming room was not included in the proposal plans; 2. The restriction of 6 carparks to a very limited number of clients is considered to result in inadequate parking provision for the overall development; and 3. The removal of the exclusive use restrictions on these six bays is required to meet the conditions of the substantive development approval. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 November 2025 regarding MCU23/0090.02 and DBW23/0073.02, to make a minor change to an existing approval for a Material Change of Use (extension to existing hotel) and Development Permit for Building Work (Demolition) situated at 118 Poinciana Ave Tewantin Qld. B. Approve the application in accordance with amendments to conditions 3, 22, 23, 26 and 27 and outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the General Committee Meeting dated 17/11/2025 - MCU23/0090.02 & DBW23/0073.02 Amended Conditions - as provided by the Development Assessment Manager. C. That Condition 52 be amended to read: 52. The gaming area be limited to 260m2 in accordance with the approved plans and include an Advisory Note which states: "Noosa Council is committed to minimising the social impacts of gaming within the community and therefore does not support any increase in the number of gaming machines in the Noosa Shire."; D. Update the Reference documents to include the Royal Mail Hotel Tewantin: Noise Impact Assessment report prepared by Assured Environmental and dated 23.09.2025 Release R, Ver R2. E. Refuse to delete conditions 28 and 42(f) for the following reasons: a. Condition 28 is required to provide a quantifiable noise level of non-amplified entertainment in the northern beer garden. b. Condition 42(f). The proposed End of Trip Facilities are required to encourage users of the site including employees to access the site by alternative transport modes. The absence of EOT facilities in the existing hotel does not justify noncompliance in the proposed expansion. Staff may work across varied shifts, and facilities such as a shower and secure locker may improve staff ability to utilise alternative transport. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 F. That Condition 4 (b) be added to read: (b) The playground must display clear, durable, and weather-resistant signage at all entry points and within the play area that includes: 1. Age-appropriate usage guidelines (e.g., “For children aged 2–12 years”). 2. Supervision requirements (e.g., “Children must be supervised by a responsible adult at all times”). 3. Emergency contact information and location of first aid facilities. 4. Noise awareness, (e.g., “Please be mindful of nearby residents”). G. That the CEO be requested to advise the applicant that: 1. The restriction of 6 carparking bays for the use of VIP customers of the gaming room was not included in the proposal plans; 2. The Restriction of 6 carparks to a very limited number of clients is considered to result in inadequate parking provision for the overall development; and 3. The removal of the exclusive use restrictions on these six bays is required to meet the conditions of the substantive development approval. H. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 83(9) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None Cr Nicola Wilson returned to the meeting. 8 REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 8.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - OCTOBER 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by Revenue Services Manager and Financial Services Manager (Acting) to the General Committee dated 17 November 2025 regarding Council's financial performance to 31 October 2025. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 8.2 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2025-26 Q1 QUARTERLY REPORTING Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 17 November 2025 regarding the Operational Plan 2025-26; B. Note the progress report for Quarter 1 of the Operational Plan 2025-26 provided as Attachment 1; and C. Note the status of Council's Operational Key Performance Measures for Quarter 1 FY25/26 provided as Attachment 2. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the meeting be closed to the public for the purpose of discussing: pursuant to section 254J(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 - a contract proposed to be made by Council and in particular, the potential commercial negotiations in relation to that contract for Item 9.1 CONTRACT AWARD REPORT - CONTRACT NO. CN25113 – WESTERN BATTER MISSING LINK CAPPING CONSTRUCTION; pursuant to section 254J(3)(e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 - legal advice relating to an appeal in the Planning & Environment Court in relation to Item 9.2 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D44 OF 2025 – APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AND SHORTTERM ACCOMMODATION AT 203 - 207 GYMPIE TERRACE, NOOSAVILLE; and pursuant to section 254J(3)(e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 - legal advice relating to an appeal in the Planning & Environment Court so that Council’s in relation to Item 7.2 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D92 OF 2025 – APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DWELLING HOUSE 58 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH (Item 7.4 Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 November 2025). Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 9.1 CONFIDENTIAL - CONTRACT AWARD REPORT - CONTRACT NO. CN25113 – WESTERN BATTER MISSING LINK CAPPING CONSTRUCTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Project Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 November 2025; B. Award Contract No. CN25113 for Western Batter Missing Link Capping Construction to Offaly Civil Pty Ltd under a lump sum contract for an estimated total contract value of $1,302,337.75 (GST Excl); and C. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate, finalise, execute and do all things necessary to administer and vary the contract on behalf of Council. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 9.2 CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D44 OF 2025 – APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AND SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 203 - 207 GYMPIE TERRACE, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 November 2025 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D44 of 2025 and: A. Agree to settle part of the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1. B. Continue to defend all other aspects of the appeal. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 NOVEMBER 2025 7.2 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D92 OF 2025 – APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DWELLING HOUSE 58 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH (Item 7.4 Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 November 2025) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 November 2025 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D92 of 2025 and agree to defend the appeal. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 10 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 03:24 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.000
That some of us looked a little bit more dishevelled than normal, particularly three people here, we're all partaking in movember, a very good cause for men's health. I will now declare the meeting open and acknowledge that we have all councillors present and will acknowledge that we're meeting on Kabi Kabi land and respect the contributions made to this place by elders past, present and emerging and to reflect also that one of our matters today deals with the local area with the Royal Mail Hotel which has been a meeting place for locals ever since the pioneer times and Indigenous people here gathered here for annual oyster festivals and there's large oyster mounds here and that if you at the application in front of us today it is a really icon in terms of european culture in Tewantin as well so we acknowledge that there's been contributions made to this community over a long time to make the place what it is today. As I mentioned we have I've no apologies, everyone's in attendance. Can I have someone to move the confirmation of the minutes of the General Committee Meeting on 13th October? Moved by the Mayor and seconded by Councillor Amelia. I presume there is no discussion. All in favour? That's unanimous. We have no deputations deputies. Or presentations so we move on to the first item and that is MCU23/0090.02 application for a minor change to a development approval material. Change of use hotel, extension to existing hotel and DBW23/0073.02 building work demolition at 118 Poinciana Avenue and 26 Diyan Tewantin. Street, and that's been referred from the Planning & Environment Committee meeting. And we have Patrick and Richard. Oh, we've got a declaration by Councillor Wilson. Karen Finzel 02:01.671
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, government act 2009, and from the meeting this I have a declarable conflict of interest for item 7.1 MCU23/0090.02, application for a minor change to a development approval for Material Change of Use, hotel, extension to existing hotel, DBW23/0073.02 building work demolition at 118 Poinciana Avenue and 26 Diyan Street, Tewantin on this agenda today because as I have because I have a financial interest in a neighbouring property that may be affected by the outcome of this application. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Brian Stockwell 02:58.510
If we could have a executive summary. Thanks Patrick. Patrick Murphy 03:02.990
Thank you. As you've stated it's a minor change to the existing development approval for the site. The key proposed changes are the addition of a 78 square metre outdoor playground area in the northern deer the northern beer garden. Amendments to the noise conditions and operate associated operational parameters. That would include the removal of the requirement for amplified music to cease at 7pm. Also the applicant is seeking the removal of conditions limiting the number of gaming machines and the requirement for End of Trip Facilities being showers and lockers. The revised application was when it was originally submitted the revised application was supported by an acoustic report and our initial review before accepting that application was that we were not satisfied that the proposed changes would not result in further impacts associated with the development primarily around the noise associated with the playground that was a very key needed to be clarified because if it wasn't a minor change application would be another change application and would require a re-notification of the application so an action notice was issued on this basis because the applicant had applied for applicant went away and provided a more robust acoustic report that was reviewed by our acoustic consultant prior to the acceptance of the application and it was able to be determined that the proposed changes would not result in the exacerbation of the known impacts and that therefore the application was accepted as a minor change and in that regard the acoustic modelling looked at the playground area and did an analysis of the playground being occupied by 30 children at a time 15 of those being at ground level and at 15 of those at elevated level up on the playground equipment. It also included further modelling around the use of amplified music within the venue and that being in part located at the northernmost end when there were entertainers with the speakers facing in a direction again the council acoustic consultant reviewed the report and was satisfied with the modelling that was undertaking to demonstrate that the changes were supportable from an acoustic point of view the removal the end-of-trip facilities is not supported on the basis that the scheme does have provisions we seek for alternate means to access the site and get those services to be on the site to facilitate those different forms of access. In terms of the removal of the gaming machines, council is not the authority, the removal of the conditions relating to in determining the number of gaming machines for a site. There is a separate process involved. And again, retention of conditions around the amateur facilities. The recommendation has been, the conditions supporting the recommendation have been slightly tweaked. There was a need to amend condition 23 to correctly detail the height of the acoustic barriers and the number and the plans that show the acoustic barriers. And condition 26 6, C was sitting within B. It was a sentence that was at the end of 26B. C needs to stand in its own right and not just be related to 26B so that was separated out. So that's an amendment to the conditions supporting recommendation. Brian Stockwell 08:01.722
Thank you. Do we have any questions? Yes. Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 08:10.122
Thank you Mr Chair, thank you Patrick. You mentioned that by believing the conditions we've been through it acknowledges that council has no power to limit the number of gaming machines under the Planning Act 2016 and the planning scheme. You discussed it briefly last week, but for the benefit of those who may be listening, for what an advisory note might indicate in its space? Patrick Murphy 08:40.738
So the decision notice will include conditions and there will also be a section within the decision notice titled advisory notes. Advisory notes are a non-enforceable component of the decision, but they do provide council with the opportunity to reinforce the requirement to comply with other forms of legislation or detail a position in terms of an aspect of the development that is not enforceable. Frank Wilkie 09:12.898
So condition 52, as it stood, was not enforceable. Mr chairman, in order to get things going, a motion needs to be moved. I'm prepared to move the motion. Sure. It can be amended depending on how fast you want to go with this. Catherine, did you bring up the motion? So, item B is being changed to note the updated attachment to the minutes which have those technical corrections. Item C advises that, and the advisory note indicates that an advisory note has been added in place of the deleted the advisory note states our view that Noosa Council is committed to minimising the social impacts of gaming within the community and therefore does not support any increase of the number of gaming machines in Noosa Shire do we have a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Wegener. You have the floor. Thank you Mr Chair, as the manager of planning indicated. Update, the detection one, corrects the conditions related to the acoustic barriers, the heights of the acoustic barriers and also makes a more appropriate statement about how amplified music will be addressed in the northern end of the beer garden. As we heard before, agreeing to do it. Condition 52 acknowledges that Noosa Council has no power in turning out the regulated gaming but we can include an advisory note which has people standing under the law which states Noosa Council's position on gaming machines and we do not support any increase in the number of gaming machines in Noosa Shire. Brian Stockwell 11:19.740
Would others wish to talk to the motion or move an amendment? Amelia Lorentson 11:25.680
Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson just a question. First of all, I support the amendment. I'm just sort of a little bit curious. This links directly to a notified motion. I'm proposing to bring on Thursday. And that's in terms of council actually having a formal policy on gaming machines. At the moment, we don't have one. So my question to the CEO is. Even given the notified motions martial coming to council on Thursday, is it okay to keep this? Because I don't want to delete it. But a formal policy at this stage, council hasn't endorsed. Just what is your recommendation? I can just read it now. I don't think it affects it. So you're happy and come Thursday there will be hopefully endorsement of the notified motion so the two work. Great. I'll speak to it and I'm have happy to support the advisory note. I keep referring news that doesn't at the moment have a formal policy. We used to be part of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. We stepped away from that I think in 2021 and I think in 2018 we also had a LGAQ motion I you written to LGAQ for a follow-up. So given that there is a notified motion coming on Thursday which hopefully formalises our position in terms of gaming machine, I think this is critical. It's an intent that I think is unanimous around the table. And in council. Thank you for adding that. Brian Stockwell 13:24.477
I might try my first amendment. Thanks Cathy. Since it follows on. The one about. Okay, condition 52. Yep. We'll oh, we'll need to add to that all the words that were in. So I'll do it. The intent is to, instead of the words delete condition 52, that gaming area is limited to 260m2 in accordance with approved plans and include the advisory note as we'll get that up if we can. Amelia Lorentson 14:16.445
Do you want me to copy what we had? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 14:25.886
Sorry, it might be a second. Sure, just sort that. Larry Sengstock 15:06.280
Do you want to vote on the first amendment? Brian Stockwell 15:18.780
Now you need to put mine up the front and then take out agree to delete condition 52 so everything amended and then put what you had before this the words in red and then just the words "agree to delete condition 52" yes. That's what I'm moving. Sorry councillors, I should have said that before. Do I have a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. So councillors, the Mayor was correct in terms of interpretation that we don't have an ability to control the numbers. However, we're dealing with a land use application. The land use application showed an area for gaming which was 260 square metres. It didn't show any increase in that area. I think it's totally appropriate to limit the gaming area to what is there and what is shown on the plans as a land use decision. I think it's also a good to add the additional elements as proposed in the original motion about the advisory note in terms of the number of gaming machines. I just think it's an issue that. We have previously prosecuted. We know that there is a range of social factors associated with gambling. We know that Tewantin has a large number of existing gaming machines and any additional growth is not something that we support. We do in this application have the ability as it's an impact assessable application to consider relevant matter and while Councillor Lorentson is right we don't have a specific policy at this stage on our position on gambling we have had historically taken action to seek to mitigate the impacts of gaming machines or excessive use of gaming machines but we do have in our Corporate Plan a provide opportunities to enhance the health well-being and safety of our community and when we make this decision it is about doing that it isn't it's a bit not missing providing an opportunity to do this but to reducing the potential for activities that would threaten that objective so I do think it is something we can validly put into a planning application particularly since the development application in no way indicated there was an intent for growth from the footprint of the gaming area. Anyone else wish to talk? Karen Finzel 18:19.429
Well I just have a question. I fully support your intent and where you're going around the social impacts and supporting health and wellbeing. The gaming area be limited to 260m2 could be a bit of overkill because I think that's already firmly stated in the plan. SPEAKER_08 18:40.521
Do you think that's relevant that we need to put that in there when it's already clearly stated? Brian Stockwell 18:45.581
So the original condition had that in there as well the as number of machines. So this amendment just takes out the reference of the number of machines but includes the area that was suggested by staff in the original application. I suppose it's explicit in terms of the approved plans. Thank you very much. Amelia Lorentson 19:08.658
Just a question to Richard or Patrick. Is it better to be more specific and actually have the number of gaming machines or would you prefer just the area limited to 260 square metres? Question, which is the better or preferred condition as planning experts? Patrick Murphy 19:33.694
Yeah, it's an interesting one. Sometimes when we do a development approval if it's for a Material Change of Use for a range of uses you might have a condition that says the nature and extent of the uses and it will stipulate the different amount of areas to each of those uses. In circumstances where the use itself as a hotel encompasses sub uses within the property it just sort of changes my thinking I do note as Brian has said it was part of the original officer condition so there may be some validity in actually removing the element I don't think we should keep the more specific question the element around the game extreme scheme machines I think that's problematic in terms of us not being able to regulate the numbers it is somewhat redundant by virtue the fact that the actual plans already showed the amount of area to be two hundred and sixty square metres but I'll leave that for council to decide whether it wants to have a condition that reinforces the plan Jessica Phillips 20:45.670
This site stop them from let's say renovating but going okay here's another 100 square metres okay so it's really just being very specific around you've already got 260 you can only have 260 so whatever you can fit in there you might be able to make machines smaller but basically we're just your intent is to say it's 260 and no more Amelia Lorentson 21:17.955
I'm think given that we don't have any legal any legal levers to restrict the number of gaming machines I think restricting it in terms of limiting the space allocated to the gaming machines is the next best I also want to note that my concerns is just the potential over concentration of gaming machines in Tewantin given you know almost across the road there's a huge concentration of gaming machines over a hundred and thirty gaming machines and I also want to highlight the proximity of these venues to vulnerable communities including youth services and residential areas so happy to support the amendment in front of us. Tom Wegener 22:17.427
And so we're done. So Patrick if the building is built and all of a sudden you go in there and it's a 300 metre square of gaming area I would assume that you know something would have to be done would this actually change what you would do if you will walk in there and there's metres would this have any effect this amendment? Patrick Murphy 22:43.180
Well it does show on the plan 260 square metres and it's not just an area that we've measured to be 260 square metres it actually states on the plan and that took that number it as a gaming area there's I think some element of enforceability associated with that. And a condition makes it very explicit as opposed to just relying on the plans which are generally in accordance so the condition can be very explicit and a condition will override any a plan so it has the higher level of authority I guess from an inconsistency and enforceability perspective. Jessica Phillips 23:23.708
Anyone else? I'll speak to support it. I think wherever we can we've got obligations make it council. Very explicitly say I think around the table we've spoken about that we all we can agree on this one we see when there's opportunity that we can restrict it I think we should because it's certainly something that we see hurting community when there's addiction to gambling or not saying that everyone is so that's just to be clear. But just, yeah, there's impacts that I feel we have an obligation to make sure we can do what we can. Brian Stockwell 24:05.548
Anyone else wish to talk? Karen Finzel 24:08.869
I'm happy to support it. It's always good to have a bit of extra information. I think it was captured in the plan, but happy to support this to really put out to the community that we support know health and well-being and look at towards minimising the impacts and possibilities of increasing opportunity for people to access gaming machines. I think moving forward you know I think it's great this opportunity to be able to raise conversations around it and where collectively Noosa Shire sits within this space. I think it'll be great if this can elevate action towards social strategies and further embedding the council's desire to support health and well-being aligned with our Corporate Plan and aligned with our community who shares those values so thank you for bringing that forward and having this conversation around the table where we can have opportunity to clearly state as a council in our community that we wish to support strategies and policies or any opportunities that can reinforce our collective views of supporting our values. Support health and well-being throughout our Shire and especially our young people coming up. So yeah, thank you everyone around the table, that's great. Brian Stockwell 25:38.193
Okay, I don't need to close. I'll put the amendment. That's carried unanimously. It becomes part of the motion. SPEAKER_09 25:45.290
Okay. I'd like to move an amendment also. Councillor yeah, 4A and first. So I'd like to move Amelia Lorentson 26:05.846
That item F be added to read. That condition for A be added to read A. Located within the northern beer garden must only be available for use between the hours of 10:00am. And 8:00pm. Seven days a week. Outside these hours the playground area must be closed and access restricted to prevent use second? And so long, Sir. Where thank you. Do I start? I start by saying that the original approval removed the playground and it was reintroduced at a later stage and unfortunately because it went through as a minor change not as an other change there was no need for full public notification so the amendment that I have in front of our gives respect to the original submission where residents adjoining residents actually made some detailed submissions just in terms of the playground and in terms of potential impacts introduction, of the playground at the northern beer garden I think the site directly interfaces with the homes on blakeslee Street and I just fear that without limits on operating hours the noise associated with children playing could extend into early mornings and late evenings when the residents expect peace and quiet so setting defined hours of use from 10am. To 8pm. Protects residential amenity and provides a fair balance in my opinion between the venues operations and the community's rights to living conditions again I stress that the amendment basically reinforces the importance of respecting the expectations of the residents who participated in the original approval process the playground was removed and its reintroduction raises to me some concerns about I hope you support the amendment in front of us which supports and respects the concerns raised by the adjoining residents in the original approval process. Brian Stockwell 28:47.143
Thank you. Others wish to discuss or ask questions? Frank Wilkie 28:52.903
A question of staff. The two acoustic consultants recommended acoustic areas. Are they intended to adequately mitigate the noise coming from the playground, correct? Patrick Murphy 29:15.068
That's correct, so we didn't apply conditions around the operating hours because the material supporting the application from an acoustic point of view demonstrated that SPEAKER_04 29:28.667
At all times the sound would be suitable and the barriers are a part of that. Frank Wilkie 29:37.473
Yes, and that would include mitigating against the noise of ails from the beer garden? SPEAKER_04_b 29:44.036
The modelling looked at a total of 400 patrons in the northern beer garden, 300, sorry. Children on the playground, the use of the amplified speakers and 40 patrons in the southern beer garden on the other side of the building. Frank Wilkie 30:04.664
And just a reminder, the hours of operation for the Royal Mail? I don't, I'm not off the top of my head. Apologies. Pretty much like the 19th century. Oh, that is correct. It will be later than OPA, yes. Thank you. Look, I'll start with question. I wonder if, given the acoustic consultants for both the council and the applicant have agreed 4.1 metre high acoustic fencing model to mitigate the sounds of 400 patrons in the room. One beer garden, 300 in the other, amplified music, plus 30 children on the playground. I just wonder if restricting. THE HOURS THAT CHILDREN. To 30 children can play on the playground is a bit of overkill and the noise of children on the playground would perhaps less than 400 patrons in a beer garden. Some might think is more enjoyable than 400 adults in a beer garden. I just question that this is overstepping and overregulated given that we have two consultants agreeing that a 4.1 metre high, maximum 4.1 metre high acoustic barrier fence is adequate to do all the patrons, amplified music and any children that may be on the playground, restricting the hours of operation for a playground problematic in moment. My view. Brian Stockwell 31:53.837
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 31:55.357
Look, I support this amendment. We've just had a conversation around the table about supporting social strategies, health and wellbeing and standing up for the values within our community that reflect our narratives. Have been there for many years, I believe. And also the fact that, you know, this did not go out for public consultation, but I'm sure all of us received concerns from residents about their amenity. I support it. I think that 8pm is a reasonable time to have children out playing on the playgrounds. When we're trying to find a balance of, you know, complying to regulations and getting database regulations and also, in my opinion, have to align with lived experience and our own values to come together and support our lived experience and our values. And I see this as a great opportunity, and I thank Councillor Lorentson for raising it, to have a discussion around the table as to how we want to support our values and our health and wellbeing. And I personally thank APM for a children's playground I understand the reports and I respect that, but the other side of the story is that social aspect and how do we provide that for our community as reasonable people. Jessica Phillips 33:27.610
I'll speak to it. I went there for dinner last night with my seven and nine-year-old because I thought, well, I better. They first asked, is there a playground? I said, not yet. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe there is. I'm not sure. Because they said we only want to go somewhere with a playground and both of them took a book and sat and read write a book. So I am also aware that maybe I'm a little bit different in my parenting style. We were home and well and truly in bed by eight o'clock. I was there seven to nine and it's Sunday night. So I think we left at 6:45, maybe just four, in bed by 7:30. So to me, very reasonable eight o'clock, I think, for the kids that are going to be using the playground. I don't know if it's an overstretch. Whenever we go to hotels, the pool always says closed it's pretty reasonable to say for those parents that need a little bit of extra enforcement or a sign that helps them save time to go home, time to wind down. They also have ice cream with their kids' menu, so it's really important that you would be thinking about trying to let them have a little bit of extra, you know, burn off that sugar on the top and I think eight o 'clock's reasonable to go home and try and wear it off. So thank you for bringing it because I do think it comes back to respecting the residents, trying to find balance. We just spoke about the gaming, this is no different. If we can put conditions that help find a balance I think that's our absolute obligation. It covers lunch time, you know, means that kids can be there for lunch with their families. I don't think it's unreasonable to say our park should be finished at 8 o'clock. I am supportive of seeing a playground, not so keen on the way that it's been done but it is what it is and I thought last night looking across the road at the park if there's not one in the pub they will probably be running across the Street to the playground next door so I had a bit of you know a real think sitting there that it's important that if they can provide it and they're obviously doing the restrictions around it. I do live on the other side of like over bushlands way and I can still hear music from the. Um, the, um, down here at the wharf on a late night so it does travel and I know those conditions would have been approved. I think there's still an element of I believe all the acoustic you know treatments and all of that but it's still we live in a really beautiful quiet area because of. Typically Noosa's just yes it's quiet so I think noise does trouble and whenever we can we've got a right to make sure or an obligation to strike a balance for our residents and commercial operation of the pub. So thanks Amelia for bringing Amelia Lorentson 36:22.152
A question Through the Chair please. Patrick when I spoke with you regarding the hours of operation we had a discussion about our local laws in terms of swimming pools and when children could swim in pools and the operating hours of pools. Can you let me know what they are? Richard MacGillivray 36:50.992
I don't believe there's anything in the local law that I'm aware of. I know that we condition. I think 9 o'clock at night as Jess said is quite common in resorts. SPEAKER_04_b 37:11.700
Probably I would expect in a resort earlier than 10am. When we did the ackroyd Cooroy at the bowls club, I think we did 9 o night. That one is a bit different to this one in terms of it's smaller. It's at ground level and there's a building that separates the residential areas from that playground. Amelia Lorentson 37:42.152
Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 37:43.852
I'll speak. I appreciate that what council is trying to do is to respond to the concerns raised by the adjoining landholders. And we're in a bit of an unusual situation that we've already had the ability to test whether the measures we put into the approval of the original application were working and on opening day there was quite a crowd there and you could hear quite a lot of noise as you walk in front of it. But as soon as you go around the corner the effect the of the noise abatement measures was really clear and while we do want to consider the concerns of the adjoining residents we have to also be really clear that the expert advice to us is and I'll read it with the inclusion the children's play area and limiting deck speakers to 73 decibels at three metres or live performances by two speakers under the northern roof speakers facing south at 78 decibels at three metres the resultant overall change in noise levels would be minimal and generally imperceptible. With sustaining an argument to limit use based on advice that it makes imperceptible difference is a hard one for me. And as Councillor Phillips mentioned, if we artificially limit children's use of playgrounds, does that actually increase noise nuisance by sending them across the road? I'm not sure. Yeah, just while it is something that no doubt had this been an impact assessable application that the adjoining residents would have made representations on and they have given us unofficial versions, it's hard to marry that to be so restrictive on a plate. Play area when the advice is imperceptible and I think also that 8:00am. Is probably quite early when for other applications 9:00pm. Seems to be something that we generally tick off so I don't think I can support it. Frank Wilkie 40:05.148
Just a question for staff. If this becomes a condition of approval, what happens if Charlotte is playing on this equipment after 8:00pm. In a breach, and then a breach action may be taken? Richard MacGillivray 40:21.541
That's correct. So if they do breach the conditions we get complaints and we sometimes undertake random audits as well and if they're detected then they're in breach of their approval which carries some pretty significant penalties and you'd obviously look at the case by case elements of the particular offence but yeah it does constitute an offence. Frank Wilkie 40:42.994
That mean that Noosa Council planning officers may be called to the Royal Mail Hotel to investigate whether or not a child may have been playing on the playground at this time of the night, at 8pm. Karen Finzel 40:56.691
Correct just a question Through the Chair of the staff, would that be at any time even if it was conditioned to 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock? Do the local laws still apply? Richard MacGillivray 41:08.148
Yes, so the conditions will apply and run with the land so at all times and obviously council will investigate those matters you know at the earliest convenience. Sometimes that's the next business day as opposed to getting out but if there's a systemic period of maybe non-compliance then council will potentially step up its compliance efforts in that regard. Karen Finzel 41:33.165
So to clarify, it would be the same outcome whether that was six o'clock, seven o'clock, ten o'clock? Yeah, correct, yeah. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 41:42.880
Does anyone else wish to talk, I think? Councillor Wegener? No? Councillor Lorentson, would you like to close? Amelia Lorentson 41:50.220
I will. The amendment was placed in direct response to the submissions that were received during the first approval process, so to me it was just respecting the expectations of the residents that lived close by to the Royal Mail. I think in the discussion around the table, there's sort of like maybe an idea that need a playground to be entertained. I recall bringing my children when they were little to lots of coffee shops and restaurants and there were no playgrounds, so I don't think it restricts the commercial was commercial use. People would go to the Royal Mail Hotel and have coffee, have breakfast, kids can still be entertained by talking to their parents or digital devices. The restrictions in terms of the playground does is, again, it's just respecting that the Royal Mail is located with close vicinity to people who live in the precinct. And again, gives respect to the fact that the playground was taken out during the original negotiations and reintroduced as a minor change that did not allow, again, public notification, it did not allow the community again to say whether they approved or didn't approve. So I believe this is fair, but to respect the views and the decisions that will be made around this table. Brian Stockwell 43:40.322
Okay, I put amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Finzel and Phillips. Those opposed? That's Councillor Wegener, Wilkie and Stockwell. It's a tied vote, therefore I get a deciding vote to support the staff recommendation which didn't have this amendment in it and therefore it will be lost. Amelia Lorentson 44:06.103
I'd please. Sure. Thank you. That condition 4B be added to read B. The playground must display clear durable and weather-resistant signage at all entry points and within the play area that includes one age-appropriate usage guidelines. For example children aged 2 to 12 years. Two supervision requirements e.g. children must be supervised by a responsible adult at all times. Three emergency contact information and location of first aid facilities and four awareness e.g. please be mindful of nearby residents. Do we have a seconder? In amendment before didn't go through, again the idea of the amendment is to respect the expectations of the residents who participated in the original approval process. Amendment in front of us it's basically just some clear rules restricted access sorry invisible signage and the signage is simply to demonstrate that the venue recognises and responds to concerns raised by the residents and that also council takes seriously its role in safeguarding and regarding neighbourhood liveability. Also um, requirement the requirement for this sort of signage also ensures that safe and responsible use of the playground within the license venue so age guidance supervision expectation emergency contact emergency contact details. And noise awareness messages again just contribute to public safety and responsible behaviour and support the operators duty of care while reminding the patrons that the venue sits within a residential area so just the idea again is to encourage greater consideration for the nearby households. So again I hope you support the amendment in front of us which again respects the expectations of residents who the original approval process. Question for Councillor Lorentson. Amelia what's the idea behind age appropriate usage guidelines to ensure we don't have any enthusiastic adults? Yes and if the playground is suited for children up to 14-15 years then again it's just got to be visible and clearly displayed. Frank Wilkie 47:28.123
I'll the amendment. I think it's good to have this general safety information, usage information. It doesn't restrict children using the playground equipment. We can remember the last amendment which ensures that children are likely to stay within the venue with their parents and not after 8pm be going across the road to play on the other equipment which is not noise mitigated. I think it's just very sensible and responsible to have some sort of appropriate signage being paid by the people. So I think it's probably a very responsible thing to do. Jessica Phillips 48:17.541
Anyone else? I have a question. Where's the age program appropriate usage guidelines come from? I actually should know this but I feel like I'd like to know. How will the playground be determined as ages? Well I would expect, and this is just an opinion, that a playground is, as construct it, you would be advising that this playground is suitable for someone that nought to seven or nought to nine, that there would be some information. Have they indicated that in the. No. Okay. I'd like. I'll support the amendment. One of the reasons why we stopped going to the villa is because there was always these teenage kids, older kids, just absolutely like almost knocking over my kids when they were little. So, yeah, I think age-appropriate guidelines is. Certainly something that I would, as a mum, think is. A really reasonable suggestion, and I also think another soft suggestion is supervising your children, which would be lovely if we saw that. More often. I'm supportive of all of it. Yeah, I think it's. Again, sometimes I wonder, you know, why we have to do these things, but then remembering that we do have to, because not everybody. Most people do the right thing, but it's always a good reminder. So, yes, thank you again, Amelia, for thinking the extra things that make the place. Is enjoyable. SPEAKER_00 49:57.817
And so we are imposing this upon the establishment, shouldn't we be leading the charge by having this signage across the road at our own public playground? Richard MacGillivray 50:14.266
Councillor, we do have some information at some of our playgrounds that talks about the specifics of the equipment and a bit of a disclaimer around the use of it is, you know, and obviously supervision and encourage those things. I'm just trying to recollect exactly what is on our own signage in relation to our own playgrounds. I can remember, yeah, there is some information there. It probably doesn't go to maybe all of the detail of that around noise awareness and things like that, but it certainly does make reference around being mindful of the equipment and obviously personal liability supervision. But yeah, I don't have the specifics on that and whether it's in every single playground and every play equipment across the Shire, I'm not 100% sure. Jessica Phillips 51:03.733
I think our website says it, like this playground is really suitable for these ages, but I don't, I think it's more around when you go there it's got the please supervise. I think our website has some of the ones that are just under. Richard MacGillivray 51:17.659
We've got a Director of social services that might be able to Brian Stockwell 51:20.759
Provide some light. Joanne, can you provide any illumination on this issue? Joanne 51:25.199
Through the Chair, I think it's inconsistently applied. Contemporary playground equipment does provide guidance about industrial use, but it's always under conscious supervision. There's because there are some children who don't exceed age restrictions, some children who are in excess of age restrictions. So those signs always rise to the parents' discretion. Karen Finzel 51:50.076
Thank you. Just another question Through the Chair, please for clarity. It's my understanding also that people that produce and manufacture children's playgrounds these days, they are built to certain ages, is that correct? Shaun Walsh 52:04.826
So for the Chair, playgrounds are certified by certified developers to be a design practice in terms of the play experience and the safety associated with them. And the playgrounds need quite an extensive inspection regime to ensure that they maintain serviceable standards and meet those. But in terms of that kind of recommendation, for children to use it, but again, it's up to the child and parent to determine the way they use it. So there's nothing to enforce a four-year-old getting onto equipment which is designed for seven-year-olds. At southlake and brannistreet, young girls, in particular, are high risk, not high risk, but high appetite for risk and will easily exceed playground children. Amelia Lorentson 52:52.904
Young boys will often get trapped on playground equipment. We didn't need that. The appetite of a child to be able to take on this, which is the whole point of playground playwright equipment, is to test a child. Shaun Walsh 53:14.182
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 53:12.145
Is there's anyone else wish? I have no trouble with the proposal. I think it's good. I think a little bit of prompting about awareness of neighbours is good and the other things are essential. So I've got no problems with the proposal. Councillor Lorentson, Mr close. I put the motion. All those in favour? That is Lorentson, Finzel, Phillips, Wilkie, Stockwell and opposed is Councillor Wegener. Okay so that becomes part of the motion. Do we have any other members? If not other peoples I will move another one. Just let's wait for that to come up. Oh if you could show the picture first so we know what we're talking about in case people haven't seen it. I'll good didn't I? Night. It doesn't matter. I can just tell people what it is. This the one you wanted? Yes. Okay. Do you know what the item will be now? Is it item G? This that the item G be added to read. Restriction of six car parking bays for the use of VIP customers of the gambling room was not in, oh, wait a minute. There is a pre-cursor to that. In, it was that the CEO be requested to advise the applicant. This is the way to do it. There was a pre-cursor before then. SPEAKER_00 55:04.430
Yeah, there was a, sentence in Richard MacGillivray 55:09.136
Do you want me to read it out to you? Yeah, I'll just type it in. Where does it go? It's just above it. Above one? Yeah, so it says that the CEO be requested to advise the applicant that. Brian Stockwell 55:29.700
Peace. Yes. Okay, so I'll read it again. That the CEO be requested to advise the applicant that. One, the restriction of six car parking bays for the use of VIP customers of the gaming room was not included in the proposal plans. The restriction of six car parks to a very limited number of clients is considered to result in inadequate parking provision for the overall development and three, the removal exclusive use restrictions on the six bays is required to meet the conditions of the substantive development approval. Do I have a seconder? I Councillor Wegener. Could we have a seconder to the motion? No, that's fine. Yeah, it wasn't Councillor Wegener. So councillors, yes, I was quite surprised when on opening day when the car park was full and there were six empty car parks painted bright green with the words "VIP gaming only. I've been back there twice since and each time the car park has been relatively few and there's six car parks So I from think planning grounds when we were asked to adopt a reasonably generous method of calculating car parking, we weren't asked to consider whether six of those should be kept aside for some unknown VIP clients. I've tried to search on weekend to find out what a VIP gaming room client for the royal mail hotel is, and there is nothing in the public. But we do know from the Alliance for Gambling Reform that VIP packages for gaming is a real trap for problem gamers. It is an incentive for poor gaming behaviour. It entices a lot of people to stay and giving them special privileges by gaming for longer. Now, I'm not a wowser, I don't mind people who bet, but we do know that problem gambling behaviour does create social harm. So both on the planning grounds that we came up with a set of numbers for car parks based being available for the whole use, that they haven't applied to restrict that use, and the fact that we know in Tewantin that car parking is a premium, and that we've had letters recently from businesses saying how hard it is that this concept we can just allocate six of the 121, I think, required car parks to some unknown VIP clients, to me, does suggest that the development, as proposed, in the original application is not providing adequate car parks. So hence why I've given that. The further explanation is it's not a condition of this approval, because it wasn't a subject of the modifications, so it is virtually advice to the CEO, advise the applicant, it's really those staff that are required to seek compliance with the conditions of approval. Does anyone else wish to talk? Tom Wegener 58:47.067
Councillor Wegener. It just seems to be a blatant misuse of the parking requirements that it gives you. Just totally inconsistent with the concept of there's so many parking spots you have to have. And then they put six of them as VIP gate because it's ridiculous. And I don't remember seeing anything else like that. This is foreign. So, yeah, thanks oh, Frank Wilkie 59:14.062
I agree. Mr Chair, good pick up. If, as you said, parking is a premium in Tewantin and certainly in this establishment. And I hope to see a family be excluded from buying parking Tewantin. In the parking area, as a result of six physicians being reserved exclusively for VIP members, I think it's against our policy of inclusivity. It's very exclusive. And doesn't send a lot of message. Jessica Phillips 59:47.976
I'll speak to it. I support the amendment. In the training that I was delivering before I ran for council around the nature between communication and safety training, we talked a lot to young team members from retail if they were parked really far away from their workplace and they were working late into night in their 15 minute break to, if they can, try and grab their car and come closer to the venue so it's not as unsafe to walk to at night. I think I can't suggest what they do with their VIP parking but rather than gaming I would almost suggest that there was quite a lot of young staff over there waiting on tables. It would be great to see them, if they're not catching public transport to and from work, that they can get their car from somewhere around the streets of Tewantin and bring it closer for them to be safer leave at the end of the night. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:51.657
Total support of the amendment in front of us, again, this just goes against the grain of who we are and what we want to be as a community. You mentioned, Chair, that we stepped away from the Alliance for Gambling Reform. Again, it's part of the notified motion I'm proposing to bring forward on Thursday. There's a request that council reconsider rejoining the alliance for gambling that's we can have on Thursday. Karen Finzel 01:01:22.805
Yeah, just the attorney-General and the minister for justice and prevention of domestic and family violence noted in a media statement with the new laws, it was about minimising gambling harm and hold Queensland casinos to account. So I think we're well and truly in line with, you know, the Federal, state and local government to bring this to be able to help, you know, bring around these reforms, support that and also ensure that these places operate with integrity and that they have measures in place to prevent gambling harm. Combat, you know, the associated issues around that. So I'm fully supportive of this. Again, it just reflects everything we've spoken around the table in terms of our values in our community and, you know, aspiring to see a future where, you know, we're supporting good health and wellbeing and good social policies in our local Shire, thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:02:30.485
I'll close. Thank you all for your support and I think we are all on the same page in respect to how we think we should be managing this issue. I will say that Councillor Phillips brought up a good point and since it's bright green, there would be absolutely no problem panic with painting staff because there's always staff so they'd be always utilised. You know, part of the planning grounds is they're terribly underutilised. So yeah, good point in a terms of if you want to provide some precedence on your property, the first place to look for is the safety and building for your staff to find a car park. So I'll put the motion. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Part of the motion. Do we have any other amendments? If not, back to debating the substantive motion. I believe only Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Lorentson have spoken to it. Jessica Phillips 01:03:31.575
I'll it. Again, after going to it last night, I'm happy to see the Royal Mail Hotel kept with heritage. It's such an iconic place to sit at, especially, you know, I've got a long history here. And it was, I think every second table was local. So I really do hope it ends up being a place. That locals can socialise, bring community back together, be up, watch the cricket, do whatever. You know, it's a really nice thing to, it's an aussie, you know, thing we should cherish. Yeah, sure, there's going to be people that take advantage of stepping outside, but that's, you know, not our role today after bringing the conditions. I like to see that, yeah, that Tewantin has a bit of an injection of something like that, because I think it was needed. And, yeah, so I'm supportive of, again, I will reiterate, I'm probably more for the residents I wasn't I didn't like the way that it came to us as a minor change. That said, I appreciate the staff work in presenting it the way it has, and the amendments make it maybe feel a little better for me to support it. Thanks. Brian Stockwell 01:04:52.677
Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:04:53.677
Yeah just along those lines it's great to see you know that we have had a developer coming and you know look at the overall identity. Of Tewantin, value the heritage, work with staff to deliver it you know in a timely manner. We the other afternoon and it was full of locals everyone was you engaging and it was all positive so I think it's great when we talk about planning and linking to who we are responding to our identity and our story and our connection to place and I think this development has managed to capture that and it's great for our openness. Locals and visitors alike to come along to a place that's had a long history and connection to Tewantin and our community so overall I think this should be celebrated and I think I'm glad we've had the opportunity today to you know reflect our community's social values and the things that we support in this community so yeah thank you to everyone around the table and all those involved that have seen this come to this point and a lovely meeting place for people thank you Brian Stockwell 01:06:05.838
So I'll speak the interesting it is a development that people have been wanting for decades and on top of all that the good work in terms of the design and how they finished that redesign to be in keeping with character and heritage and a place where locals can meet. The other big thing is it's re-established tewantin's link with the river. There can be so many people sitting there in the outside area looking down that river. This building that was built probably blocked some of that traditional views of the river but Tewantin is really our river village and that facility and will actually make that connection it will be, I'm sure it will be something where locals will go to. And I think, you know, on the whole, when we did our heritage study, it was really interesting. We went around the whole of the Shire, the many different places, and I think the most frequent thing to be nominated for heritage and character was the local pub, whether it be tintin here, and it is, you know, the Royal Mail Hotel has so much history, the pioneer families who have their lunches there will tell so many stories, for example, the first commercial fishing in Noosa Shire happened during the sawmillers strike when all the strikers were sitting there running out of money to buy the beer in the Royal Mail Hotel and they decided let's throw in some nets over the back there and if you ever read the accounts of what one day it was absolutely amazing and they took it up to Gympie. So it is both a place of many stories but there's also a modern development that's been well done. So I support the minor change and I do respect the fact that the adjoining neighbours had genuine concerns and that our staff have gone to sufficient rigour in the noise assessment to ensure that those impacts or the feared impacts are unlikely to occur and the conditions specifying the noise limits that can be applied. They are breached, then that is an area where we can make sure that the facility doesn't have a significant impact on Councillor Wegener, did you want to speak to the overall motion? Tom Wegener 01:08:35.483
Councillor Wegener no, thank you. It does justice to the wonderful place that it is and to the Royal Mail Hotel and you're right, the view of delivery. The river is spectacular. Anyways, that's probably not as important as, you know, the motion here. Frank Wilkie 01:08:56.175
A long awaited upgrade to an iconic location and apart from that it's all been said and said well. Brian Stockwell 01:09:01.395
Okay, I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We can now invite Councillor Wilson back into the meeting, if you'd still like. Any councillors intending to seek information regarding to the next item or are they likely just to support the recommendation as proposed? I would love to put it into confidential, please. So I'm going to move, um, the next item. It's on the screen. So I'll move as the Chair to move item two, Planning and Environment Court appeal number D92 of 2025 to the last item on today's you don't want to go into confidential now? No, we'll move the agenda and then we'll do with that. Okay, I think we're I don't think it has to be a motion. So we move on to the next item. Thank you, get to wait around. And we have the Financial Performance Report for October 25 and we have the Director of finance and the Acting Manager of Finance. Manager's act. So, I presume you're going to do the overview for us? I am, Zach 01:11:06.340
Thank you, Through the Chair. I'll take the report as read. So October provides us with four months of actual data for the financial year or one third of the total financial year. Thank you for providing us so great evidence base for full year predictions. There's been no substantial change to the update provided in September. We are tracking ahead both in revenue in terms of operating position and again with a working eye across our capital works program as noted in the financial report itself, we are tracking ahead of NIF surplus by 21.16% and operating result is 8.78% budget. A couple of detailed comments just related to the report itself. Raised a question relating to the tourism and economic development investment summary on the bottom of page four. There's a $66,000 variance to the Tourism Noosa funding agreement line item. Just to simply note that is a timing issue based on the underlying modelling itself. It isn't actually a variance of the actual funding. So that will be corrected over the next couple of months. In regards to the capital expenditure WIP, work. My comments from the previous financial report was stand. Again, there is lower than expected capital works today, but we would expect to see the upward hockey stick analogy swing of capital works over the period of the year. As a working note, we will look through budget review which is scheduled for early in the new year to look at the capital works program and whether in fact it needs to be recast or where the actuals are at that point in time. We did take on board a from Councillor Finzel in the previous round around the WIP. We will bring that back to a monthly report following the conclusion of our financial statements this year. We were in a better informed position to provide that plus the detail that was requested then. You. And then one further note as part of the cash management and investment performance itself, historically there have been questions from councillors around our cash position, so noting that the Acting Director Corporate Services in the previous meeting noted we will do an external review of our cash position which again will be built into the future budget workshops that will be presented to you earlier in the year that looks at our cash management and reserves and ultimately how that is tied to our capital position as well. Brian Stockwell 01:13:28.306
And so Wegener will hand his hand up first. On the Fees and Charges, Tom Wegener 01:13:37.306
Numerous lower than expected Fees and Charges, totalling $465,000. I believe I'm always, you know, watching how many Fees and Charges that are going through the planning, the plumbing, the panel tables area. Is that reflected in this? Because I'm wary of a Downing turn in the market. I was just watching if there's any signs. Zach 01:14:02.160
So the comment there is there are a number of fees that obviously make that up. At this point in time, it's just a watching brief. Again, it is hard to predict fees as they come through the year due to the dependency of the market itself. Actual works, so we just highlight that as the case which are minor variance of actual to budget. Again, our modelling is based on our best efforts at the start of any year to predict future works, patterns, development, etc. So, does that answer your question? Brian Stockwell 01:14:32.579
Councillor Lorentson, I think, was the next person to indicate their question. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:36.199
Oh, I have a few. I'm going to start with employee benefits. So, have I read correctly? So the of vacancies across council total 2,289,000. Wow. That that's it. Seems significantly high. Which departments have the highest vacancy rates? And how is this impacting Margaret Gatt 01:15:06.852
Service delivery? Through the Chair, I can initially respond to that, Councillor Lorentson. I'll have to take that question on notice in terms of which department are carrying the highest number of vacancies. As councillors would know, the finance area within corporate services has had a number of vacancies over the last couple of years and we're working actively to recruit those. Actually anticipate that the vacancies within the finance area will all have new employees within the next couple of months. So I can just respond to the corporate services area but for the other departments within the organisation I can take that question on notice and provide that answer to you. Or internal communications will apply in the next council report. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:54.097
We are still in terms of vacancies so I'm noticing in the report we're managing the risk with external labour hire. Is that correct? And I've got $501,000 that we're really paid to through the chavius-Castell-Lawson? That's correct. Again, in terms of just some of my red flags, employee benefits also show offsets due to lower than anticipated sick leave, $320 and superannuation payments of $199,000, overtime $236,000, other leave payments $224,000. Again, they seem quite significant. And my questions are probably what controls are in place to manage excessive overtime and what does the current turnover and staffing gap, how does it affect financial reporting compliance and operational risk in critical areas like finance SPEAKER_01 01:17:10.948
And revenue services? Through the Chair I can attempt to answer that question. Margaret Gatt 01:17:16.848
For all of those particular areas context is very important because for each business area the context around the amount of labour hire, the term of vacancies, the superannuation, the other offsets, it's all contextual for each department so it'd be hard to provide you an overall response to that would be consistent for the whole organisation. But I can again take that on notice and I'll have a discussion with the CEO whether we can come back with a more detailed report on vacancies over time, reasons for etc. We could bring that back to you. Through the CEO. I would appreciate that, thank you mark. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:03.490
I think I'll get out quite we've a few. So you're welcome. We'll send them. SPEAKER_08 01:18:09.990
Rates are raised. When we look at the percentage of total arrears over this year's rates of revenues, could we be separating out what's the arrears that's relevant to this financial year and what's for previous years? Because does that kind of speak to something that's come up in if it's multi-years against one year's revenue? Zach 01:18:32.052
Yes, Through the Chair to answer that question, yes. So the previous report, which was the September 2025, you would have seen it was a much detailed summary. So what we're looking to do is get that regular the those reporting of it. It's quarterly, we bring up that more detailed analysis. Yes, it does obviously say, sway some of the information, but you will hopefully see it routinely, three month basis, the age degrees and what that looks like as well. If it's required, it could be done more formally at each month. So it's just a balance of how much is included in each month. So happy to take advice on board if you would like more detailed summary on Frank Wilkie 01:19:08.861
Just a follow up question, if I'm reading it correctly, there's been 1.8, 1.9 million views on the prior month, does that mean you pulled it back? Through the Chair, yes, simply. Noting arrears is just rates that are outstanding, so yes, we received 1.9 million dollars of payments in the October month- Is that a reminder notice that's been sent out? Zach 01:19:33.224
No, that's a-- Payments yeah, coming in over time? Yeah, a combination both. Some people on direct debits, payment plans, there's a number of different factors that would factor into that. Some people simply paying late, so the combination of all of those and the reminder notices going up speak probably to 1.9. That's not inconsistent with the previous period a year ago. We're seeing relatively similar tracking in terms of payables over the respective months. Margaret Gatt 01:20:00.246
Chair I could just add a bit more detail to that. Our councillors would be aware when we provided you that workshop around the rate arrears there was one significant outlier. We successfully were able to enter into plan with that particular property owner and we have received some substantial amounts of revenue to come in relation to that outstanding arrears. Frank Wilkie 01:20:23.628
Looks like something like that would have yes. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:28.948
Okay. That's still a follow-up with in terms of the ratio, so we have 5% rate of reuse threshold, is that correct? Zach? Zach 01:20:44.019
Through the shares, a general best market, best practice market in the Street. That's the intention is to get to about 5%, yes. And where are we sitting at the moment, Zach? 7.2 yep the important thing to remember with rates is it's kind of cyclical that you always get an upswing in July and January. So based on where we're currently sitting at 7.2%, we're tracking for there or thereabouts for about a 5% at the end of December period, noting that the broader weight we eventually work to work through that as the new debt policy that will become operational early next year. Amelia Lorentson 01:21:20.857
So in terms of a trigger level, at what point do we get a little bit nervous? Is it three percent, four percent, five percent, six percent? What's the trigger level SPEAKER_10_b 01:21:33.259
In turn? Well, again, it's cyclical because we get the spikes after both of the respective periods. So I think if we were starting an upward trend in terms of that percentage nearer the end, so your December and June dates become very important because that's the absolute minimum point. If we were seeing them significantly in excess of 5% again our eventual plan over the course of the next year is to ultimately bring it down past best practice into two, three, four percent with the new policy. That is tracking there or thereabouts for historic years, so I don't think there's any reason to flag that. It's more of a working notice to hope that you over the preceding six months that come down over time. Jessica Phillips 01:22:15.301
Thank it'll probably be to Director Walsh, because it's about fleet. So just down, talking about I like the yellow, green mark. Markers by the way um so it's on, why don't you watch? Do you think maybe you can help me understand that? That's right, they're on the capital expenditure fleet. We have. Fleet, okay. Fleet, yeah. Sorry. So fleet is currently managed through corporate services. So I can ask. Okay, back to you. Got it. I thought you said lace. Least. SPEAKER_06 01:23:04.038
Sorry. I thought it was huge. It has been. Just recently. Margaret Gatt 01:23:09.639
And transition. Wrong. Right. So you're wrong, I get it, I got it. Okay. Yes, Through the Chair. Just to clarify for our community, you currently are sitting within the corporate services department in terms of responsibility and accountability, but we've just concluded a transition and consultation process, so that function will be transitioning to the infrastructure services area. So in the future, if you have any questions, you could direct it to there. But for the purposes of this report, as at the end of September, it's still within response. So in summary, the reason for that being a watching brief is generally your fleet replacement program really does have a time and doesn't have a high level of actual expenditure against the budgeted, usually within the first six months of the year, dependent on the type of plant that's in the replacement if it's your standard light vehicle or say potentially a ute you would expect to be able to get those into the organisation fairly quickly and operational. If you've got large pieces of yellow plant, say a drum roller, a digger, grader, etc, they take a longer lead time because generally those parts have to come from overseas, they come via ship obviously, then it needs to be put together once on Australian soil and then brought to site. They generally take a long lead time. So this whilst it says it's a watching brief, I'm fairly confident with the detail of planning for the fleet replacement program and the schedule that by the time you come to probably March, April, May next year, you'll see a significant amount of that expenditure. Has been drawn down Jessica Phillips 01:24:54.203
And it's probably I'm having to be taken on notice as well because I am aware you might not have this one on straight off but what I'm aware of is we're trying to move to electric without fleet. Not many electric chargers so we're using diesel generators to charge our electric vehicles costing us more. So something maybe for a notice that I would like to unpack. This I'm aware that we want to move our fleet to electric and while I'm okay in principle I also want to understand the financial implications of a council that we're going to be investing in diesel generators that are of higher mission in the first place so I really need to understand a little bit more of that. How are you for that not to be today? Margaret Gatt 01:25:50.673
Through the Chair I can initially respond our manager for fleet has started that initial analysis of what it would actually look like in a 24 48 months sorry a year to 12 to um geez what am I saying I'm getting confused with my date sorry um for what it looks like for a year to two years to three years around converting um all plant and vehicles to a green fleet where possible so we initial financial implications but then also obviously there are all those alternative offsets and benefits for the financial whatever that cost is so we have but it's really high level at the minute so yes we can come back to you and that will probably be through Sean as Director Infrastructure Services will come back at some time in the future with what that looks like. Jessica Phillips 01:26:46.248
So just a quick follow up then, in the meantime if we're purchasing fleet, what's happening, are we purchasing electric fleet without the infrastructure and relying on the diesel or is that, do we have a policy? Margaret Gatt 01:27:01.508
Through the Chair, shaun's going to help me with this response, thank you. Shaun Walsh 01:27:06.740
I just want to note that certainly with regards with regard to vanilla paint, claims. There's has not been sufficient advance in electric the. Batteries to make that paint viable. So there's still some ways, so Michael and I, we figured extensive discussions. It is a rest of industry trends. So certainly there's scope for us to transition to a small fleet, to a more electric basis. We do have every challenge in the cities, but we don't have recharging facilities at the local level. There would be a significant financial cost result at the moment as we purchase all the commercial vehicles. So I just want to note that a transition to the fleet with our electric only vehicles would require significant analysis of cost impacts and the necessities. Brian Stockwell 01:28:05.663
So I think there's a little bit of misinformation. Do we have charging facilities at the time? Tom Wegener 01:28:11.423
Yes we do. We don't. Oh yeah we do. Sorry. I'll correct that. We have one charging facility which is available for one vehicle only, which is used by the IT crew. That charging facility is not available to any of the. So it's got a specific Brian Stockwell 01:28:27.905
Plug. Yeah. So Larry Sengstock 01:28:29.725
Thank you for. Can I also say, I don't know the information regarding using generators to charge up our electric vehicles. I'm not aware of that being the case with we don't use generators to charge electric vehicles. The electric vehicles, we only have a couple in the fleet, and they use exist or charges that we have available, electric charges. So we're not using diesel at this point. Just to clarify. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:28:59.924
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:03.104
Where is the 1.9 million statements dollar fraud loss reported in the financial Margaret Gatt 01:29:08.482
Statements. Is it? Through the Chair? I can answer that. So in the preparation of our end of financial year statements that will be a special note or what is referred to as a disclosure note that will be contained within those financial statements and at the back of the annual report. Brian Stockwell 01:29:37.808
Other questions? Frank Wilkie 01:29:43.468
Just a question on that. Perhaps. How much of the cash at hand, how much of that is QRA disaster recovery funding? I'd have to take that on those. Yeah, for sure. Just here's an indication that we might have our same numbers again. Margaret Gatt 01:30:02.372
Yeah. And Through the Chair I'll just try to find where it is in the report. We have made community a commitment in here that for our internally restricted funds that we will bring back a report to council that explains the percentage differences and where things are at. So that's a future report that will come to council that will talk about the balances of all of those. Yes, that's not answering your question, just to provide some extra. Brian Stockwell 01:30:37.649
Okay, would someone like to move the motion? Phillips, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. You have the floor Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 01:30:48.802
Thank you, it'll be very quick. I appreciate how well the reports are me to understand, I like the systems and I appreciate again that you looked back at questions around the table because I think it's pretty clear when you're reading them that they're a little clearer for the everyday person that accounting background so that's hopefully what we can do for community to see and easily pick up the financial documents and have a fairly good understanding of where we're sitting, so thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:31:20.519
Others wish to discuss? Well, Lucas, Frank Wilkie 01:31:25.588
Thank you again for the reporting, the clear reporting, the regular reporting, really helps us understand what's going on in the organisation and I think it's played a big part over the years of ensuring that Noosa Council remains one of 20, or around 20, that are on a surplus budget and I think very clear financial reporting plays a big part in actually sustaining Noosa Council. So thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:32:03.309
Councillor Finzel out today. Lofton. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:05.249
First, thank you for the report in front of us and I think I've raised this just in questions, just some of my concerns in terms of significant staff vacancies across the council um amount of overtime the amount of lead pay outs um I'm just concerned about staff um I keep saying you know we're as good as the staff that um we have working for us so for me where I sit when I look at these reports I look at the red flags what's the story it's telling um and what can we do to strengthen our processes again? In order to protect our staff from burning out um and um again how we can attract the right people um to do the right jobs in the organisation so these are the things that like I said keep me up at night um we really need to take care of our people and really need to understand the underlying issues um behind the numbers in these reports Brian Stockwell 01:33:16.903
Thank you um I'll be brief I was just interested when we were looking at greater rears and had report that sort of said we're going to focus our efforts on it I thought it'd be good to have a little bit of a challenge for an acting manager and I noticed that to get from the current 7.2 percent rate to five percent is just under 2.7 million and based on like the month's reporting format we should be there by Christmas and then getting better after Christmas so you can take that as a challenge Larry Sengstock 01:33:50.420
Thank you Amelia Lorentson 01:33:56.180
Through the Chair we're motivated by challenges Brian Stockwell 01:34:09.250
Councillor Phillips do you wish to close okay I'll put the motion all those in favour that's unanimous thank you. Thanks so we then move on to um sections section eight number two operational plan 2025 26 quarter one reporting and we welcome up yonji good afternoon councillors good afternoon Yoshi is our executive officer Yoshi 01:34:42.446
Correct acting um so the purpose of this report is to provide council with the progress update on the implementation of the operational plan and the status of key performance measures for the quarter one of this financial year of the 98 initiatives 85% are currently on track. Some of the key achievements in this quarter were the Floating Land B &L, education campaigns for pool safety and responsible dog control in public spaces they have commenced, consultation for the drive Destination Management Plan has completed which is fantastic. 650 community engagements to strengthen community disaster resilience have been conducted and the implementation of a new contract management framework. There have also ten percent of initiatives are experiencing a minor delay and five percent a major delay or disruption. The major disruptions are caused by competing priorities as you all would be very well aware. There's an increased focus at the moment on the finalisation of the Destination Management Plan and Tourism Noosa Roadmap, which is quite resource demanding for the teams. And there's obviously also unplanned staff movements, which can impact the delivery of operation plan initiatives. The affected initiatives, key initiatives, are Kabi Kabi engagement and commitment council has its adaptation plan, the progression of stage four of the regional art gallery, and the scoping of a workforce planning model. Attachment two, so the update is providing attachment one on these operation plan initiatives, and the second attachment 2 provides an overview of council's current key performance measures. Overall, the majority of KPMs performed in line with targets in previous reporting periods, with two exceptions. The indicator for workplace safety has significantly increased, which is mainly due to two long-term staff absences. The second one is the return on investment was slightly below target range, reflecting current downward trend and interest rate market conditions. Happy to take any questions. Brian Stockwell 01:37:15.156
I don't have any questions Tom Wegener 01:37:25.505
As you you'll probably know that I'm going to be asking about the agriculture which is 3.4.1 and it says that it's on track but it says that there's plans but it says it's what the sector economic of development is refreshing a food and agriculture development plan in collaboration with the food and agribusiness network, FAN, identifying where Council will deliver the greatest value, is about to get profusely for a proof of concept for a business is about to commence with successful proponents to be appointed by the end of quarter two. So I just wanted to bring that up because as you know I'm a stickler about this. But sometimes I wonder it's actually on track if we're about to start something. But you probably aren't going to wear it across this particular one because it's a pretty small piece in the big puzzle. Lay down. Yoshi 01:38:35.975
I think all pieces Through the Chair. All pieces are very important the puzzle. But obviously for more specific insight into this initiative, its update, I would rely on the team to be here as well. So I'll take that on notice if you want to have further information. Tom Wegener 01:38:53.143
I would love further information. I'll take it on notice. Yoshi 01:38:55.283
Thank you. Absolutely. Not a problem at all. Jessica Phillips 01:38:58.884
Melty, one of the only ones that really flags to me is the asset management. Can you tell progress constrained by available resourcing? That one. What's the risks, I guess, for the CEO, but what's the risks of not having this position? To me, it's just really important that we have our asset management top notch, but are we recruiting? Larry Sengstock 01:39:28.590
Is there something yes, we've got a- well, in that area, we've got a long term- a person on leave, long term, so we're dealing with that, but also, it's not to say that the asset management's not continuing, we've still got a fairly large or a good group of staff that are working through that, it's just that it is a major, piece. And with every asset management plan it's, we've talked about this before, it's an ongoing thing, you never finish your asset management plan, so it's constantly updating, and I think we're in a reasonable position in terms of our asset management, but we could always be better. We're working through that. And it is a focus, we are looking to actually put more focus on our asset management, delivery and development. Jessica Phillips 01:40:26.351
I think maybe, I'm not, most of it, I guess, to me, the one thing I think of is what's the risk to us not having it. It's all knowing, I understand, but having it is not an option. Is it financial risk to us? Is there, like, an ageing asset that we miss? Larry Sengstock 01:40:43.035
What's the. Sorry, our planning has been really very much on the civil infrastructure, so everything below the ground and the roads, and we haven't really focused in recent years on our, we've recognised on our buildings as such and some of our other assets, so that has now become more of a priority, so that's now being picked up and being driven harder. And we've already, we've recognised that, we're sort of working through that progressively. And yes, it does come with a financial risk because any asset doesn't matter, your own arm, you look at it and you say, "Well, I've got that under control." I've really looked at that piece and that's the piece that catches you out. So we're working through that and trying to understand where the biggest risks are so we can address those first. Jessica Phillips 01:41:30.680
Follow-up question and just with an asset that we might be decided that we're gonna run it to end of life because that's the best financial decision how are we communicating that with our community because you know I see just think so they see they go you why being fixed how is it that we could or is there a way we can communicate that better that actually we've identified that one but we've the first thing that springs to mind was foreshore plan back in the day you know people would say segmenting to me why was is the you know falling whatever and then through the foreshore plan it was identified that yeah that it may not that we might need to run that to life was the cost I just don't know how that's communicated to our community that would see it every day there a suggestion or can you think of Larry Sengstock 01:42:24.815
No it's a very good point I'm happy to take it on notice I think that's a really good point is to be you know again communication I know that's a that's a key piece for you and it is for all of us but I think all of those suggestions are really you bring them up the more we can address them and I think the more we can be ahead of that sort of stuff with the community the better because people understand if they know what's going on and know what we can and can't do or why we're doing it then you're going to get a much better response and it absolutely sorry. Council thanks. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:57.681
In I'll our investment returns they were below the target of bloomberg Osborne bank Bill index at point. 0.25 um but despite being below the target the average monthly returns of 4.15 to 4.39 we're above RBA yep cash rates um get you a question um go back to I think what actually, I've raised it quite a few times in terms of our QTC investments being quite high um and whether there's opportunities to adjust our investment strategies and portfolio Brian Stockwell 01:43:39.826
I'm going to put it up there is this a operational plan or a because it sounds like a financial report Amelia Lorentson 01:43:46.082
It's both a combination okay let me change the question so is does council's investment performance um how does it compare say with similar size councils or other local governments in coin in Queensland and are there best practices that we could adopt I'm just wondering um is how do we assess performance against risk Brian Stockwell 01:44:09.382
So I'll I'm sure yonji would give us a very interesting answer to the Director. Margaret Gatt 01:44:16.743
Thank you. Chief Councillor Lorentson. As you know predominantly our funds are invested in QTC because they generally do give us the best cash rate. At the same time as they are also advisors not just for the government but government. They're in period I'm going to do a credit review with council to look at the health of our finances and they also look at, they're quite independent ironically and are provided by us as to whether they think we could do alternatives to our investment portfolio. So we have credit reviews and as I've mentioned before, I have also requested that they do a surplus cash and debt review. That's $26,000, in your budget. So both of those things are in the planning stage. So a credit review that will come to council in the early winter of the calendar year next year and also that surplus cash and debt review. So when you can combine those things, what's also our sustainability ratios and how we report against those, the local government monitors those and if they have any cause for concern around our liquidity, so at the moment our liquidity is beyond the sustainability ratios of over only three points in time we're up to nine months we have liquidity so we've got enough cash to cover operations in the event that something occurs. So I don't know if that gives you a little bit of confidence that between our bank up, so the working government and also the QAO. We have essentially those statutory bodies looking at how we're managing our finances. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:02.347
If there was a concern, you would know about it. I look forward to the upcoming reports, mark. Thank you very much. Frank Wilkie 01:46:15.380
Thank you. Seconds is about half of what's, what the target is of 60 seconds. What's happened in that department? To get that significant reduction in previous years? Anyone else? Yoshi 01:46:39.960
Through the Chair, there was, there was, yeah, a significant improvement. With the team moving together into premises next, door, where there's a better exchange and better training opportunities for new staff members. So that has significantly increased the response time pretty much, or reduced the wait, the queue wait time for customers. So, and that has, that remains unchanged at the moment. Whether we want to review the KPI and make it a bit more challenging is obviously up to your view of these KPMs. But I think really having the team not across different places at departments. They were really spread out places. Across different departments and where there was pretty much space available and now that we moved together as a team into one location and that has caused quite a significant simply because they can help each other straight away when there's more information required. It's basically more like a collective brain than isolated groups of people. Customer service offices. Frank Wilkie 01:47:52.111
Service tends to be one of the most outward-facing teams. One of the challenges they've faced in the past is because they're so well-trained, they're built with viable partners. Has there been a slowdown in the loss of the customer service team to other departments as well? Is that a factor? Is it a more stable team? Larry Sengstock 01:48:13.847
I don't have the statistics on that, but. Certainly it certainly has been in the past where it's been a practice of that coming through the customer service and then moving to the organisation in other areas and that's been quite successful for us in terms of rest of the organisation. Yoshi 01:48:33.972
From a customer service they're continually retraining but that's certainly one of the processes. I'm not sure if that's changed of late but I don't think it has. And for the Chair in addition to that I think customer service officers are very highly regarded because they have the incredible knowledge and understanding of council because they work with customers. Find response to their inquiries for all aspects of council so therefore for operational teams having a person on board is quite valuable. There will always be a healthy competition for those offices. Amelia Lorentson 01:49:17.700
She's staff that is, again, a concern for me. 12 month moving average staff turnover rate for the report is 19.5%. That's consistent with previous periods and the permanent positions is approximately 13%. Again, probably concerned what happens if the current rate continues? What type of risk does that pose to the organisation? And should we be concerned. Brian Stockwell 01:49:59.667
I think that's probably best answered by the CEO. Larry Sengstock 01:50:04.887
I wanted to make that, or show the difference between overall rate of change as well as to the permanent, because we have casuals, we have people on short-term contracts, so we have a whole range of that, and we have people coming in. From there are areas that we have had issues, and mark brought that up before, in the finance area, we have quite a bit of turnover in our operations team, civil operations team, we have had, in recent times, over the last couple of years, but that's now starting to slow down. You'd be surprised, over the COVID and then post-COVID period, there was a hell of a lot of turnover, because people were just moving around. And it was very difficult also to attract the appropriate people. Our attraction rate now is much higher. We're getting much higher numbers of but also much better quality of people applying. So people more appropriate to the positions that they're applying for. So I'm really comfortable that number is actually coming down. I don't think that we're I talked talk to CEOs across the State and we're not unusual in terms of the turnover, it's just one of those things that we have. I also think that in this world, particularly in local government, we attract good people, we train them up, and because we're a smaller council, they're looking to grow, so they're often looking to move around and move on, and other councils are looking at our good people and no question they're cherry picking. And that's a risk for us even though we've now put in a number of steps to try and retain and keep people on board, but you know, you're never going to keep everybody, there's people who have got other ambitions or are attractive or are, you know, particularly down south, they're going to Sunshine Coast or to Moreton Bay because they may live down that area, and it's just more convenient for them as well. So a whole range of things in there, but what I am confident of is this is whilst we have gone through quite a bit of turmoil, I think that the majority of our departments are now quite solid in their staffing, and the ones that aren't we reckon are really hard to make sure that we rectify that. For example, finance we're with now. I know there's a number of interviews going on today for some very good quality applicants for some important roles that will stand us in good stead going forward. Okay, I guess that's all we've got. Tom Wegener 01:52:52.180
Graphs are fantastic in the KFU report. I don't think I've ever seen them this good before. They just really speak very clearly in colours and lines. For people that are listening, all 10 of you out there, you can see this graph. So thank you Johnston. I really like that. The graph literally shows what's happening. For the Chair, Yoshi 01:53:18.953
Thank you. Councillor Tom. It's much appreciated. However, I'm very glad that they're well perceived, but I think the plan is to further improve these quite significantly for more easily, to make them more easily visually digestible, pretty much, yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:53:37.938
I'm going to move the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:44.637
Have a question just a last question and I can't not ask this question. To Burgess Creek water catchment management plan, where are we up to and which agency is going to take the lead on this? Council or Unitywater? Larry Sengstock 01:54:03.234
I'll have to take that on as I got haven't got the file before, these reports are done by our directors and managers, so I'll take what's possible on there, but to give you any more further information on that I'll have to take that on as I go back to you. Brian Stockwell 01:54:21.930
Yeah, I like Okay, so I had moved it and Councillor Wilkie had seconded, so thank you. As always, it gives a very good picture of a lot of good progress across the organisation. Just picking up on a few points that were raised in the questions, that minor and significant disruption, when I did a quick look, there's a lot in future and in excellence, and when you look at those, they tend to be the more strategic, and I suppose that's always my area of interest. Of interest is the more you discount the future, and it's the easiest ones to push off, it becomes harder the longer you push them off, so as an organisation we just have to keep on saying, make sure we're not discounting it. And so one of those examples in relation to coastal hazard and it's easy to push that off until you have a coastal storm and all of a sudden we've got huge problems. So that's one. The other one was talking about the customer service and I was trying to click back and remember what the guarantee was. We've got a long-standing member of our community, Bob ansett, who built the reputation of a company based on how quickly they'd answer the phone. And so it is a really good indicator to people about when you're customer service and you're customer focussed. That improvement that the Mayor had picked up on. That And then we looked at the turnover rate. And I started thinking, well, that's good to identify a few problems. But maybe we should also think about some indicators, whether it's quarterly or annually. About identifying where our strengths are, each time we do recognition, we have a series of people coming up and getting 10 years of service.20 years of service, and occasionally 30 years of service. It might be equally as important to identify. How much of our organisation is actually really solid, really long-term. Because that's where your corporate memory's in. And it would be. It's both that strength, but also if you see that reducing rapidly, you also know risk of losing your corporate memory. So, just a thought. But other than that, obviously when you compare the amount that's on track versus those that have had disruptions, it's a very worthwhile picture. Others wish to talk to this motion. Lawrence. Just the, oh Amelia Lorentson 01:56:44.495
Thank you Johnston for the operational plan and I think it shows how big and how great and how much we do as an organisation. I think what I really just want to say just really quickly again and again and again our people are our greatest asset and I really want to thank them and concerns I raise is to ensure they don't burn out, to ensure they don't leave the organisation and they're being because we value them here. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:57:23.064
Time I see an operational plan it's really hard for me not to do operational policing because it's so important. So I understand it's but when I think of delivering for a community, all the extent that you've listed is amazing. I can't help but sometimes always think of these really simple things like you have the right people with the skill set, the wrong culture. I can't think that's a balance in, and I'm not suggesting that's happening, but I really want to make sure that we're focusing on the two things, the right people and the right skill set. Have one without the other, and I think that's really detrimental to what communities see. And when you want to work, I relate it again to a police station that I would work with, the guys may build it, you know, of who to look. Work with, I know that they, you know, since my car accident in a police car just two weeks ago, my phone hasn't stopped from the guys that have checked out and reached out, not because they're just ticking the box, but they actually care. How I'm travelling. That's culture, that's not in part of their KPI's. So I think we've got to make sure that we're constantly looking at have we got the right mix, because I think you can teach people a lot of things on paper. I didn't go to uni, thank you very much. Paper, or you can know have the right attitude and the right core values, and I think that's a really important mix of having the right values aligned. With what we want to see and people will, the community will see that through the operational plan. That's all I've got to say. Yep, agreed. Brian Stockwell 01:59:13.551
Anyone Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 01:59:15.992
Thank you for the report. It's only been a few months since July when council has unanimously endorsed the operational plan for this financial year with 98 major initiatives and projects in it. It's good to see that 85% of or them are completed and are on track already. That's very encouraging. And it's important to note that every, almost all recommendations that come before this council are driven by the initiatives that this council has put in place in the operation of planning. So that's the origin of all of the material that comes to this table for ratification by the councils. Council are driven, council are endorsed. Again, please pass on our thanks to the hard working staff, the other ones that are actually doing the work, and we are very grateful to them. Brian Stockwell 02:00:15.540
Anyone else? No? I don't need to close. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That is unanimous. So, councillors, the next three items are all in confidential session. May I suggest we move the motion to go into confidential session, but then have a short break for convenience. And it's up there. We've got three items to discuss. Amelia Lorentson 02:00:39.240
Hang on, I'll make the second one. Brian Stockwell 02:00:57.440
Moved move Councillor Lorentson you're happy to do it seconded by Councillor Finzel. I don't think we need to debate. All those in favour? That is unanimous. Brian Stockwell 02:51:29.540
We're right okay so welcome back we're now in open session you just want to open the door to see if it no one's waiting and the item we're dealing with is section 9 number 1 it's the contract award report Contract CN25113 western batter missing link capping construction. Is there someone who'd like to move the recommendation. Councillor Wegener and the seconder, Councillor Wilkie. Anyone wish to talk to this? No? I'll put to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. We then move on to item 9.2 which is a planning environment accord appealed D44 of 2025. Application for a Material Change of Use for Food & Drink Outlet and short-term accommodation at 203 to 207 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville. Do we have a mover? I'll go for Councillor Lorentson and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. I presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? That also is unanimous. We then move on to the last item on the agenda, which is the one we moved earlier in the meeting. It's item 2, which is a Planning & Environment Court appeal, number DE92 of 2025, for an application for a Material Change of Use for a dwelling house, 58 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. We have the recommendation up there. Do we have a mover of the recommendation? Moved by Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Do we wish to have any discussion? No? I'll put the motion nosy in favour? And Councillor Phillips? That's also unanimous. Thank you councillors and thank you staff. That brings us to the end of the November General Committee Meeting and it closes at 3:23pm. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
