Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - 10 February 2026
Date: Tuesday, 10 February 2026 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:52:28
Synopsis: Community Land-Use Policy amended prioritising access and ending kite-surfing lessons and beach massage, Tender criteria refined, Bounce approved, Affordable rentals advanced, Grants rescheduled, Infrastructure resilience identified.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie: Temporarily chaired to manage a conflict process for Item 7.1; councillors then resolved that Amelia Lorentson could participate and vote on policy amendments (04:34; Item 7.1). Dennis (officer): Policy will discontinue kite-surfing lessons at Noosa Spit (no operator; unsuitable learner conditions) and beach massage at Main Beach (low need, weather/setup burdens) (06:31–12:11; Item 7.1). Dennis : Refreshment van at the Spit retained due to community interest and changed usage patterns (dog beach reopened), despite a previous operator exiting (09:02–10:56; Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray / Dennis : DMP will inform tender criteria (regenerative tourism, community-first lens) rather than be embedded as binding policy; related conditions to be in permits (16:09–16:53; 24:39–25:38; Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Queried two-permit cap per holder; officers cited anti-concentration intent and legacy settings; broader market-test via competitive tender, not roundtables (17:24–19:26; Item 7.1). Committee : Adopted amended Commercial Use of Community Land Policy and noted tender outcomes will return before current permits expire 30 June 2026 (Item 7.1). Patrick Murphy : Bounce Hostel food-and-drink outlet approved as an “Other Change” with amended conditions after multi-year, complaint-free trials; publicly notified with no submissions (32:37–37:12; Item 7.2). Brian Stockwell: Framed Bounce as a planning-scheme-aligned success enabled by flexible COVID responses and good design mitigating amenity impacts (37:24–41:07; Item 7.2). Committee : Referred 25-unit affordable rental premises (64 Lake Macdonald Dr) to General Committee given significance; officers outlined minor non-compliances justified under performance outcomes (42:51–55:53; Item 7.3). Patrick/Georgina : Affordable rental premises consistent in Community Facilities Zone; height ≤8m but three-storey appearance on one elevation due to on-grade parking; 1-space parking shortfall accepted; small setbacks/private open space variations offset by design/landscaping (46:41–54:03; Item 7.3). Committee : Noted December 2025 delegated approvals; superseded planning scheme pathway used for a duplex proposal lodged during scheme transition (01:10:07–01:12:53; Item 7.4). Ben / Shaun Walsh : Delayed multi-year environment and alliance grants 12 months; provide one-year bridging grants to align with a refreshed Environment Strategy; legally and procurement-compliant (01:18:03–01:25:18; Item 7.5). Jo : Noted critical infrastructure failure risks and practical adaptations (solar, batteries, comms redundancies, water) for LDCC/Depot; to inform 26/27 budget bids; state agencies commended the work (01:32:33–01:45:55; Item 8.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Declared surfing links to tender applicants; chose to remain, with meeting to decide participation; resolved she could participate but not vote on that resolution (02:50–05:37; Item 7.1). Dennis : Declined embedding World Surfing Reserve Code in policy to avoid “leading” tenders; will operationalise via permit conditions, maintaining competitive neutrality (24:39–25:38; Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Sought clarity that DMP is advisory and that local-employment weighting and accessibility/inclusivity be explicit in tender criteria; officers agreed to reflect via criteria and permit conditions (14:40–17:24; 20:50–23:25; Item 7.1). Chairing protocol : Lorentson reminded councillors of standing orders on mover/seconder sequencing and chair’s role in controlling debate, after a brief process wrinkle (01:03:32–01:04:15). Legal / Risk Lorentson COI handled under Local Government Act 2009, s150ES and Chapter 5B; participation permitted as policy doesn’t allocate permits to named applicants (04:34–05:37; Item 7.1). Planning Act 2016 : Bounce approval noted under s63(5); assessment relied on no adverse amenity record and scheme consistency for visitor accommodation precinct (Item 7.2). Noosa Plan 2020 : Affordable rental premises treated as consistent use; acceptable-outcome shortfalls addressed via performance outcomes with external peer review (46:41–55:53; Item 7.3). Stormwater/flooding : Chair queried adequacy of site-specific rainfall data and detention capacity; officers noted active investigations on subdivision works and commercial-in-confidence constraints (58:30–59:32; Item 7.3). Superseded planning scheme : Delegated approvals considered compensation risk when refusing SPA requests (01:12:25; Item 7.4). Critical infrastructure security : Some findings withheld under Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018; council to integrate risks in strategic risk register and ERM updates (01:43:32–01:45:32; Item 8.1). Conflicts of Interest Amelia Lorentson: Declarable COI (surf lessons; children’s past employment/coaching with tender applicants) for Item 7.1; resolved she could participate and vote on policy item, after abstaining on the participation motion (02:50–05:37; Item 7.1). Environmental Concerns Grants : 12‑month reschedule ensures ~$1m multi-year funding aligns with updated Environment Strategy, DMP, waste and climate plans; bridging grants with KPI extensions and standard acquittals (01:18:03–01:25:18; Item 7.5). Critical infrastructure resilience : Priority actions for LDCC/Depot; explore EV bi-directional charging, water generators at community gardens, and community-led “phone tree” models (01:36:36–01:43:20; Item 8.1). Short Term Accommodation / Visitor Accommodation Patrick Murphy : Food-and-drink outlet associated with visitor accommodation at Bounce approved, building on prior temporary approvals and absence of complaints; aligns with site’s visitor accommodation designation, with STA facilitated on the site under Noosa Plan 2020 (32:37–37:12; Item 7.2 D.2). Delegations : Nature-based tourism approvals distinguished from generic STA where tied to ecological/recreational offerings; classification affects assessment pathway and rating capture (01:14:56–01:17:00; Item 7.4). Planning Scheme and Housing Affordable rental premises : Managed by a registered provider for life of development; officers confirmed alignment with scheme definitions notwithstanding funding program terminology (01:01:39–01:03:13; Item 7.3). Assessment method : Clear explanation of acceptable outcomes vs performance outcomes; minor height/setback/open space variances justified by design, landscaping, and broader communal areas including 11m frontage setback (49:55–55:53; Item 7.3). Community Use of Beaches and Tender Settings Councillors : Emphasised DMP’s community-first principle; incremental reduction of high-use commercial activities on Main Beach to prioritise passive recreation and accessibility (29:02–31:46; Item 7.1). Tender fairness : Two-permit cap retained to prevent dominance; regenerative tourism, local economy, accessibility/inclusivity to feature in tender criteria; audits and ongoing feedback inform evaluations (17:24–21:29; 19:26–20:50; Item 7.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 10 February 2026 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Amelia Lorentson (Chair), Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 2026 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.31 am. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Nil. EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 9 December 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 2026 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 7.1 COMMERCIAL USE OF COMMUNITY LAND POLICY AMENDMENTS AND UPCOMING TENDER PROCESS Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Cr Frank Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting for this item for the purpose of considering the conflict of interest declaration by Cr Amelia Lorentson. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None Cr Frank Wilkie assumed the Chair. Cr Amelia Lorentson "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest for Item 7.1 - COMMERCIAL USE OF COMMUNITY LAND POLICY AMENDMENTS AND UPCOMING TENDER PROCESS on this agenda as I take weekly surfing lessons with Josh Constable who is an applicant in the Upcoming Commercial High Use Tender Process and as my children have previously worked (over 1618 months ago) for Dean Brady who is an applicant in the Upcoming Commercial High Use Tender Process and my children are also members of Noosa Board Riders Assoc/Club where they are coached by Dean Brady (also an applicant in the tender). Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Amelia Lorentson and determine that in accordance with s150ES of the Local Government Act 2009, and having considered the Councillor's conflict of interest as described, it is decided that Cr Ameila Lorentson may participate and vote on this matter. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None Cr Amelia Lorentson having declared a conflict of interest was not eligible to vote. Cr Amelia Lorentson resumed the chair. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 2026 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Property Advisor to the General Committee dated 19 January 2026 regarding the Commercial Use of Community Land Policy Amendment and Upcoming Tender Process; B. Adopt the amended Commercial Use of Community Land Policy included as Attachment 2; and C. Note a further report detailing the outcomes of the Commercial High Use Permits tender process will be presented to Council prior to the expiry of existing permits on 30 June 2026. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.2 MCU18/0102.03 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR BOUNCE HOSTEL, FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 14-16 MARY ST, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Manger Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 February 2026 regarding application MCU18/0102.03 for an Other Change to include a Food and Drink Outlet to Development Approval for Visitor Accommodation Type 4 – Conventional situated at 16 Mary Street Noosaville and: A. Approve the Other Change to include the Food and Drink Outlet; B. Amend Conditions 2, 4 and 65 outlined in Attachment 1. C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. D. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application: 1. The use has previously operated from the site and demonstrated that it does not result in unreasonable impacts on the surrounding area. 2. The existing backpackers was approved based on the site being specifically identified for the Visitor Accommodation (Type 4 Conventional) use under the Noosa Plan 2006 which is also reflected in the Noosa Plan 2020 which facilities Short Term Accommodation on the site. The inclusion of a Food and Drink Outlet associated with this land use is a reasonable and practical extension of the preferred existing land use. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 2026 7.3 MCU25/0118 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR MULITIPLE DWELLING - AFFORDABLE RENTAL PREMISES (25 x SMALL DWELLINGS) AT 64 LAKE MACDONALD DRIVE, COOROY The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: refer to Attachment 1 to Minutes P&E Meeting dated 10.02.2026 - Plans 64 Lake Macdonald Dr Cooroy MCU250118 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.3 be referred to the General Committee Meeting 16 February 2026 due to the significance of the issue. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None The Meeting adjourned at 10.36 am. The Meeting resumed at 10.41 am. 7.4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – DECEMBER 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 February 2026 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for December 2025 as provided at Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.5 MULTI-YEAR ENVIRONMENT COLLABORATION GRANTS AND ORGANISATIONAL ALLIANCE GRANTS PROPOSED RESCHEDULE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee dated 10 February 2026 regarding Multi-year Environment Grants Proposed Reschedule; PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 FEBRUARY 2026 B. Delay the advertising and distribution of Multi-year Environmental Collaboration Grants and Environment Organisation Alliance Grants for 12 months; and C. Provide a one-year bridging grant to the current MEC and Alliance recipients based on current milestones and program objectives if appropriate and if required by the receiving organisation. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 8.1 CASCADING CLIMATE RISKS FROM CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURE PROJECT REPORT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Program Lead - Climate Adaptation to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 February 2026; and B. Note the priority actions to implement the key findings from the project, as listed below: i. Implementation of adaptation and resilience measures for the Local Disaster Coordination Centre (LDCC) and Noosaville Depot. ii. Establishment of management solutions that improve corporate policies, systems and procedures to build resilience to critical infrastructure failure and cascading climate risks. iii. Establishment of required organisational governance to drive a holistic climate adaptation response to compounding critical infrastructure failure. iv. Establishment of internal data collection to inform future investigations and improve Council’s ability to address the consequences of critical infrastructure failure. v. Continued engagement with critical infrastructure and critical service providers through the continuation of the Stakeholder Reference Group. vi. Continued partnership with the Sunshine Coast Council to build on findings and identify joint solutions to manage the cascading impacts of critical infrastructure failure. C. Note the recommendations of the study will be used to inform budget submission for Council consideration for the 26/27 FY. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION 10 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 11.24 am.
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.000
Environment committee this beautiful Tuesday 10th of February and it is now 9:30 and I declare the meeting officially open. I'd like to begin firstly by acknowledging by an Acknowledgement of Country Noosa Council proudly acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep and abiding connection to this country we recognise the Kabi Kabi People as the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area and we offer gratitude for their careful custodianship of this unique environment over thousands of years we pay respect to elders past present and emerging and to their enduring commitment in pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people like to acknowledge councils around the table council of Tom, Mayor Wilkie, Deputy Mayor and Councillor Stockwell. I note there is no councillors online and Director Kim Rawlings online so everyone's in attendance can I please request before commencing the meeting that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off and we'll start with confirmation of minutes can I please have a move on thank you they will key thank you Tom seconding no discussion all in favour thank you present presentations deputations there are none so we need to reports for consideration of the committee 7.1 commercial use of community land policy amendments and upcoming tender process welcome to the desk. We've got Richard MacGillivray and Dennis so I'll ask Dennis oh excuse me I conflict so I'm going to firstly ask through the CEO if we can appoint another Chair while I just put my conflict out for the committee to decide. Patrick Murphy 02:12.469
Yes sure I can take that on SPEAKER_07 02:13.963
While you put this to the mic. So what is the conflict? Well she's got to appoint a Chair first before you can deal with it. Amelia Lorentson 02:24.823
I'll appoint a new Chair. SPEAKER_07 02:26.023
Okay so the acting Chair would be automatic automatically go to the Mayor, so. Brian Stockwell 02:34.128
I'll will be active in the meeting. Thank you. I'll second it. All in favour? Amelia Lorentson 02:40.008
Favour. Okay. And Councillor Lorentson, you have a conflict that you'd like to declare. Yes, I'm just going to get some reading, yeah. All thank you. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest for item 7.1, commercial use of community land policy amendments and upcoming tender process on this agenda as I take weekly surfing lessons with Josh constable, who is an applicant in the upcoming high-use tender process, and as my children have previously worked over 16 to 18 months ago for Dean Brady, commercial high-use tender process, my children are also members of New South Wales Boardriders association club, where they are coached by Dean Brady, also an applicant in the tender. I don't have a conflict. I think what's in front of us, the report, is simply minor changes to the policy and it doesn't actually reference or mention the tender applicants. So I will choose to remain in the meeting room. I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. SPEAKER_07 04:34.751
Look, I'll move that Councillor Lorentson can remain in the meeting room because the policy we're discussing is not a final decision on the allocation of permits. I use commercial permits. But certainly if it was, then leaving the room would be more appropriate. So I move that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting do you need a seconder? Patrick Murphy 05:01.211
I'll seconder SPEAKER_07 05:05.531
Anyone else wish to speak? Brian Stockwell 05:07.031
I do. There is actually a and principle is just by being a customer of a business does not create any conflict. Otherwise we could never rule on the DA for wars. So it's important, and it probably will be another consideration when the. Permit has come up, but under the act, there is no conflict in just being a customer of a business. Amelia Lorentson 05:37.991
I respect that, and I just in light of the OIA judgment some time ago, spirit of exercising abundance, of caution, I would like to declare it. There's harm in declaring it. Absolutely, but I respect what Councillor Stockwell said. Frank Wilkie 05:59.473
Any further discussion on the motion of Councillor Lorentson being able to remain in the room I'll according vitality fiver that's carried unanimously that's and Councillor castellan Lawson cannot vote. And Councillor Lorentson is now back as Chair. Amelia Lorentson 06:16.337
Thank you. So, back to Dennis. If you can give us an overview. The report in front of us and the amended commercial use of community land policy, what changes actually were. Good morning councillors. Dennis 06:33.019
Yes, this report is seeking minor amendments to the commercial use of community land policy. Ahead of our upcoming tender process for commercial high-use permits which are based around the Noosa Main Beach precinct so those permits set to expire at the end of June and we run a tender process in the lead up to that so we've had some discussions with councillors via a briefing and workshop this report just looking at the policy and the list of activities that it supports on the Noosa Main Beach and surrounds and as a result of those discussions we're looking at two amendments that we're seeking to are listed under the policy. The changes are discontinuation of kite surfing lessons at Noosa Spit which is a permit that's currently sitting vacant without an operator for the last couple of years and also discontinuation beach massage on noosomite Noosa Main Beach that we that is a permit which has a current commercial permit holder and operator and that's also recommended for discontinuation so would drop off the list of supported activities under the policy. Another minor amendment to the policy is just acknowledging the recent DMP adoption. DMP and sort of tipping hat as it were to the new DMP and its relationship to commercial activities on Noosa Main Beach. As I said all the commercial high-use permits are set to expire on 30th of June this year. So if the amendments are supported and the amended policy staff will then proceed adopted to the tender process straight away based on that list of commercial activities and a further report to council is expected probably in the May round with the outcomes of that tender process. Looking toward tenders before the expiry. In June. Amelia Lorentson 08:50.505
Questions around the table. SPEAKER_07 08:51.204
Yes, could you, mentioned kitesurfing and the massage. Frank Wilkie 08:54.764
The report also speaks about the snacks and drink refreshment Dennis 09:00.045
Yes, yeah, so the refreshment van at Noosa Spit has sat vacant for about 18 months. The operator there walked away from its permit. It was struggling to make a go of that business at the spit car park. And they cited a lot of the travellers, van lifers, sort of dominating that car park and a drop in trade. So we did have discussions about whether perhaps we might discontinue that permit as well, but the recommendation is that it remains and there's quite a lot of latent interest in refreshment vans and coffee vans in the community. So there's a number on the list that we compile to contact directly and we'll give someone else an opportunity to hold that permit and try and make a go of it. Obviously at this bit, over time, we may have changes to parking regimes and things. The other thing that's changed since the operator left is that the Dog Beach has reopened, so the sort of patterns of use in that area are changing and have changed, so the recommendation is that it remain an activity that we support through this tender and we'll see if someone would like to give it another go. And is the thinking that with the Dog Beach being restored there'd be potential for more patronage? Yes, yeah, the Dog Beach is getting a lot of use, so people park down in that pocket car park near the Dog Beach but access the levy. Further around the area and it's not far to walk to that spit location. So potentially, you know, with the right marketing and offering, there could be a good little business. Yes. And the thinking with the beach massage is that it's a service that's readily available anywhere else in the Shire and the beach location is not essential for it to. It's not offering a service that you can't get anywhere else. Yeah, be actually on the beach so it actually creates quite a lot of challenges for the business being on the beach with weather and setup and breakdown and yeah since writing the report I've had a look know around Australia and as best I can tell it's the last beach massage operation in Australia and you know that could be a reason to decide to keep at it but I think it points to the level of need to be actually on a beach as opposed to in a premises yeah it's been years since we've seen many kite surfers at the river mouth they all seem to be on a lake wider yes are there any other reasons why they're migrating there for lessons yeah it's just a more stable environment I think when the permit was first sought at the river mouth you know we sort of had a lagoon and large spits of sand there at times so for fleeting periods there was good conditions for kite surfing but generally speaking it's a specialist not a it's not a young a learner's area because the conditions there with the channel and wind and currents and other uses is very challenging and the depth of the lake like the shallow depth of the lake make it more user friendly for learners I guess yeah it was we actually don't have a learn to surf kite surfing school that's interested in spit locations yeah this is not something that's some coming across anyone's business operations Amelia Lorentson 12:52.152
So in terms so of the kite surfing so you sort of answer my question sorry keep thinking do we need to remove it entirely or should we read tinder or review on understanding Dennis from what we just said that done that and reached out to operators kite surfers just trying to understand who have you consulted. Dennis 13:19.660
We donors. Have other tenants that we all know we support in other locations so open beaches lake wyverton to the extent that it's within Noosa Council and I believe also at Boreen Point from time to time so those are low-use locations as opposed to being around the Main Beach precinct. Amelia Lorentson 13:40.856
My question is and I'm looking at so we're pulling out two permits. Has council considered replacing one of these permits with another beginner or landscape surf style activity given the popularity in surfing? Dennis 13:58.399
No we haven't. I guess with the introduction of the DMP there's a bit of a reluctance to be making a jump to adding commercial pressures on the beach. Historically I think when Noosa Council reformed there was on the beach and there was some conflict going on with sort of turf wars as it were and so one of those permits was discontinued going back some time so there is a bit of history around that and sort of at the moment we feel that there's a relatively good balance between commercial activity and passive recreation at the moment. Amelia Lorentson 14:41.873
In terms of the Destination Management Plan just for clarity I'm going to the report itself and it states council's management plan and any associated plans and strategies will guide the management of commercial activities under this policy just for clarity does the DMP actually have decision-making authority or it's just advising this policy I'm just trying to understand in hierarchy this is a policy and we've got a Destination Management Plan with no real clear frameworks or parameters we haven't developed events strategy so how does one inform the other which one overrides which Dennis 15:26.907
I think you're right in that there's no pointed action plan a bit around commercial high use permits and we did note that through the consultation DMP with the DMP that there wasn't any negative feedback around these commercial high use permits which is a good thing but it was more just that interrelationship that interrelationship between commercial use of Noosa and Main Beach and the DMP's role is really is really just saying within policy that we've adopted that plan and that as time goes on it will be a lens that we're looking at commercial activity through. I think that answers Richard MacGillivray 16:08.890
Your question. And I think Councillor Wegener had also entered the policy in terms of review of the permits and conditions looking at the regenerative tourism so in terms of those providers and those users giving back as well and other initiatives that the businesses can partake in that contribute to regenerative tourism and build up on that ethos that is being sought through the development and Destination Management Plan so that's the focus of the linkage between the two Amelia Lorentson 16:39.498
So the criteria and weightings looking at the tender process that will be made clear to the applicants so they understand what regenerative actually means. Dennis 16:52.359
Absolutely yeah, so yeah, there's so yeah, I'm adding a section to the tender package which is focused on the DMP so just support their alignment and initiatives, alignment to the DMP and initiatives that they're proposing so really getting them to dive into the DMP and asking them how they'll respond to that, to what it's trying to promote. Amelia Lorentson 17:24.320
A question about the two-permit cap. How does a two-permit cap operate in practice to prevent market concentration and-permit cap is given the popularity of these permits? Why a two permits? Is it more equitable just to allow one per applicant? Just trying to get my head around why the permit limit. Was set at two per hold up. Dennis 17:57.011
That's something that's has come through in the policy as it dates back to when it was originally in 2014, so it's a legacy of the policy. I guess the idea in having the cap is that there are some relatively large businesses in the sort of surf schools and beach hire space that might look to dominate all our permits if they're given the opportunity. We have had a number of operators hold two permits through the time that I've been in the property team. Being surf schools and on the beach hire or kayak tours a decision about only allowing one would really cut across that yeah I guess it would be a decision of council if they thought there was strong grounds to do that Amelia Lorentson 18:59.399
So that probably leads to my next question in terms of a roundtable has council ever convened a roundtable with operators and people interested in this space to sort of understand you know brief-use tenders whether the two per cap is relevant or appropriate or not. Dennis 19:26.673
We haven't convened a roundtable but you know we're interacting with potential payment permit applicants and the permittees on a weekly basis so there's a lot of that goes on in the five years between the tender process but you're not round table as such. Richard MacGillivray 19:45.719
And obviously with the potential commercial aspect to that yeah it's probably not appropriate bringing them in a round table setting given they've got different offerings and different requirements there is a competitive tender process Amelia Lorentson 19:59.484
So as Dennis alluded to Richard MacGillivray 20:01.804
Yeah there is a lot of active dialogue with all the permit holders and there's audits and there's a lot of engagement and enquiries. Inquiries so the team hold a register of all of those parties over the five-year period so any interest in the public and also if there are complaints or issues about operators the team get all that information and then they're able to assist when they do this review process to make sure there's been a lot of feedback garnered and then that helps with the renewal process in terms of other issues that have been coming up regularly from the community about operators or feedback from some of the operators themselves around the permits or conditions and when the restrictions were like it's well considered, I guess, but it's been more of an individual basis. Of most permit holders. Amelia Lorentson 20:50.947
A Destination Management Plan I like to call that like a resident first document. In terms of the current policy does it give any preference to local operators and should it also explicitly articulate that we need to support local employment and community benefit or is that something as part of the tender process in terms of the criteria waiting? I would think that's a question for the Director responsible for DMP rather than. I think it's out of the scope to some degree. I think it's what we're talking about here, Councillor, is Larry Sengstock 21:37.873
More the principle. Of using the DMP. The DMP, as you know, is still, you know, it's an iterative process in terms of the DMP and how it works. I take your. I understand your question and maybe it is a question we can take offline with the Director to understand how it fits with DMP the DMP. With this and whether it does guide. When we go to tender, there are certainly criteria within the tender in terms of, what's the term, local. Economy is a standard provision. That all comes into that. And then again, as the DMP being an advisory, so I think we're just looking all that into the mix and we're fairly new in this space with the new DMP, so. Madam Chair, the director's online. Amelia Lorentson 22:23.474
Sorry, I didn't realise she was online. Thank you, Kim. I'll throw it to you. Kim Rawlings 22:31.884
Yeah, thank you for the question. I'm happy to provide further information, but I think it's a very good. Analysis of the DMP. It is absolutely a community-first document. And when this policy refers to key strategic documents that need to be aligned to and to influence these processes, they're absolutely the sorts of considerations. That should be part of that alignment process. So, you know, how that actually plays out. In terms of criteria and assessment, that needs to be worked through. But in terms of the. In terms of your question and statement, I think that's correct, and that's exactly the role the DMP should play in influencing these processes. Amelia Lorentson 23:25.861
Thank you, Kim. And my last suggestion is, and I think I raised this last time, but I would love to see it as part of a guiding principle and actually inserted under roles and responsibilities. The World Surfing Reserve, which I've been sitting on for the last six years, has developed a code of conduct which promotes environmental stewardship, safe practices, respect for community and etiquette. I would love that actually embedded in the policy. Last time I raised it, I think we put it as a noting. So can I take that offline and maybe an amendment to the policy to include that permit holders must comply with the World Surfing Reserve code of conduct also and commercial activities must consider accessibility and inclusivity, again their core principles of a Destination Management Plan, ensuring participation and enjoyment for people of all abilities. Can I take that offline and maybe work with you Dennis? Richard in terms of whether Dennis 24:38.186
We can. I can talk to that point. Oh yes, please. Yeah, so we're proposing amendments to the policy now ahead of the tender, so this is the forum, this is the forum that we're talking about the policy. I wouldn't recommend embedding World Surfing Reserve within the policy but the DMP does reference it and the tender process is specifically getting tenderers to provide how they align with the DMP and what their initiatives are. So I'm not leading the witness in the tender process to spoon-feed them that but I'm looking for their submissions and then once we do the permits happy to have conditions that for surf service schools and surf hire within those permits to specifically reference the code of conduct and to have conditions in those permits which I think. Amelia Lorentson 25:37.822
That's the current writer who's been doing the paper, which is so much more than just, you know, being important for me, accessibility, inclusivity and a coder. I like that approach, thank you. And you're not duplicating the policy and the MP? No. You're doing your separate roles. Further questions around the table? Tom. SPEAKER_07 25:58.931
Is there a due process question? Dennis 26:01.130
Has the massage people, have they been notified? Yes, we've met with the operator. So we're now in talks as to how they evolved. So might be opportunity for them to have a low use permit in another location or they'll start to look at premises. But yeah, we've had that discussion. Amelia Lorentson 26:24.607
I do have a couple more questions if anyone else, in terms of new or emerging local businesses, and this is a question that I keep asking I think every five years, how do they get a foot in the door and has council considered interim or pilot permits that we can use to trial new concepts in between tender rounds? I keep going, how do we do it? And to me the solution is an interim or pilot permit. Is that something that has been discussed? Dennis 27:01.252
Well, we have quite a lot of permits in that space. They're just not on the highest activity area. So we have, off the top of my head, five or six other surf schools that we support on the open beaches. So obviously that's a different offering. On May beach west, which is a like small wave most of the time and a learn-to-surf area, we only support the two schools and the surf dancing. And that is about service delivery. So the policy comes to a position of supporting that activity in that location and we go out to tender for businesses that deliver that service in that space. So there hasn't been talk about pilot programs or other types of permits in high use locations. The way we support other surf schools is in our locations. Richard MacGillivray 28:06.410
And there is the situation there Dennis where for example I know with the refreshment on the set there we are you exploring if there's other groups potentially that may sit to take up the void there for a time. There is an exploring in terms of there might be another party that might be interested in utilising that space rather than waiting with a dormant operator. But I guess it comes down to the specific nature of those, the gap and the reason for that discontinuing as well. So it needs its own, I guess, look at that as well. Amelia Lorentson 28:46.251
Further questions around the table. I'm happy to move the application. Can I, the report, can I have a second, Councillor? Second. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, no further discussion. Yeah, I do want to discuss. Oh, okay. Brian Stockwell 29:01.851
Yeah, I think the broadness of the questions has raised a lot of issues. I think the guiding principles really are the key to ensuring that the guiding values of the DMP are enshrined within this policy. And the first one is really clear: the community's use and need for land takes precedence over the commercial operator's need. And see this gradual amendment to this policy to really take into consideration the high demand that's placed on Noosa Main Beach and Noosa Main Beach west just bring it back a little bit. And I think that's really important that we continue to do that. The greater the demand for the beach, the more we should be ensuring that the maximum use for our locals is there. And the other aspect is, we did have a range of questions around the Destination Management Plan, the new guiding principle is really clear, the council's Destination Management Plan any associated plans and strategies will guide the management of commercial activities under this policy. So all those issues that are champions within the DMP will be guiding principles we come around to implementing these policies. Think it's a good, just a small step then, but it's how we should be looking at a range of policies every time. There's a need to review it as it currently aligns with the policy direction prior to D &. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 30:38.816
The policy reflects the intent since 2014 to minimise the number of commercial high use permits allocated to Main Beach recreation area and you've noted in the report that the proposed reduction of in commercial high use activities supported under the policy aligns with the DMP's intent to improve accessibility and passive recreation space and it acknowledges the decline and the need for the kite surfing at the river mouth and also, not people necessary that there be the commercial activity of the beach massage on the beach because there's premises elsewhere and low use permits can be issued elsewhere. SPEAKER_07 31:24.389
I think it's a very good policy. And it's right that it's been brought to us before the issuing of the commercial high use permits tender process because they expire on the 30th of June. Amelia Lorentson 31:38.770
So it's good to have this policy in place before we execute this tender thank you for the discussion. I'd like to put it to a vote. All those in favour? Thank you Richard and Becky. That brings us to the next item. A report for consideration which is 7.2 MCU18.0102.03 application for other changes in development approval for bounce high hostel Food & Drink Outlet at 14 to 16 Mary Street Noosaville and welcome to the desk Patrick and I'd like you to give us an overview of the report in front of us Patrick Murphy 32:33.226
Thank you good morning councillors this is an application to add a food to and drink outlet the existing bounce hostel in Mary Street it was in 2018 like 2018 that the hostel was approved by the time it had been completed it was when COVID was occurring and around that time the acting manager of development assessment measure the use of the existing there was a within the hostel itself there was a cafe area that was approved for guests of the hostel to use was a condition that was included to advise that the cafe wasn't to be used by the public and so in December of 2021 not long after the hostel was completed the acting manager consented to a approval the temporary use permit to allow that cafe non by one guest a Food & Drink Outlet is an inconsistent use on this site it's within the Mary Street health and well-being precinct there's an intention of the scheme to have a transition of land uses between Mary between Mary Street and the residential dwellings behind the hostel to ensure that there's no amenity impacts the design of this building is such that it encases the site with the Food & Drink Outlet being located sort of within the perimeter of the building towards the front of and the design of the building was designed to ensure that there was limited humidity impacts on the surrounding residents. Through the operation of the temporary use permit until June 2023 there were no complaints associated with the use of the Food & Drink Outlet and there was also a letter from an adjoining landowner supporting the use at that time. In January 2024 there was an application to use by the public put to council as another change that was notified no submissions and that was supported by council. There was a condition allowing that used to occur for 12 months again to ensure that there was no amenity impacts. There was no complaints. Received during those 12 months unfortunately the applicant forgot to seek an extension of that use and therefore that use lapsed and they've had to come back now to seek its approval again, publicly notified. No submissions we've had no complaints about the operation of the Food & Drink Outlet throughout its time and again seek to allow the use to occur on the site with no lapse period so to allow that Food & Drink Outlet to continue on an ongoing basis so it's recommended for approval. Amelia Lorentson 35:52.405
Thank you. Questions around the table? Tom? SPEAKER_07 35:56.005
Is there a place for the bread people that are staying there to make their own food? Is there a kitchen for that? There is. And that's not going to be impacted by this at all? Patrick Murphy 36:05.564
That's correct. They'll still have their exclusive area which they prepare also a cafe on site which they can use around a pool deck SPEAKER_02 36:15.768
But that area will also be able to accommodate members of the public. Moving into the other area? No, they're maintaining the existing cafe area. Frank Wilkie 36:31.009
Thank you Madam Chair. Do the patrons tend to be the hostel occupants for the food and drink? Patrick Murphy 36:38.711
Well, it was exclusively set up for the occupants of the hostel to utilise. In the consideration of the previous other changes, it was acknowledged that they would continue to use the cafe and approximately 80 square metres of the 190 square metres allocated for the food and drink out that would be used by the non-paying, sorry, non-guests. Frank Wilkie 37:03.426
Yes. And is there any indication of how popular it has been with the general public? Like number of patrons who aren't guests? Patrick Murphy 37:11.125
No, I could not tell you. But have okay, I'm happy to move to a recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 37:20.258
Excuse me, Madam Chair, there's still further questions. Brian Stockwell 37:23.778
No, I've moved it. Is there a second? I'll second it. Questions can come at any time. This is a really good news story. This is a business that was constructed to a design that not only reflected the Noosa Design Principles, it created a standard for the users. I'm going to take this opportunity to talk about this use and why it came to be here in the light of. Quite often Noosa Council is criticised about standing up for its scheme and for having high standards. But in fact this is a great case of how Noosa Council. Supporting a local business has gone on to create the leading hostel chain in Oceania. This site has a great design. Councils actually went over and above the staff to allow roof that goes above the height of limit. It had a opening right in the middle of the COVID lockdown. Lockdowns and numerous conversations with the Director. It was tea drink with the investors as you can imagine at the time the construction was finished. This council put a short-term COVID allowance to allow this cafeteria and restaurant to be used by the locals who were the only really sourced during the lockdown. Which was enough just to get that early stage going. The business owner also took advantage of the COVID relaxations to provide emergency accommodation for hospitality staff because it's very hard to find accommodation to keep our hospitality businesses going. It's one where, you know, we subsequently, we've put high conditions on this, designed to ensure that the neighbouring properties weren't affected when we found now after years of operation that we that noise problem that was a concern to the submitters did not exist, but the way it was designed has achieved the outcome. So it is a great example of how a little bit of flexibility, but with the overall intent. To really focus on creating high quality products. When we look at the DMP, you know, some of the criticism of the DMP, we're just trying to make news for the rich people. What we want is high quality products at each price point. This, it's for we want it at the camping ground stage and we wanted that the you know the high end of hotels change but it's news story. I think the fact that, you know, we have now got lots of years of experience to show that just by providing a little bit more opportunity for people to use the premises of going to affect the neighbours and it is part of what has become a. This site in itself has won numerous awards throughout Oceania and I reflect one of my own experiences in the middle of a national park in the middle of New Zealand, a great big family group out going on a two day trail ride and the young people had just come back from 18 months of travelling around the world and I told them where I was from and they said the bounce hostel is the best in the world we've been to. So it's really good feedback and it is good about what makes Noosa different difference by nature Amelia Lorentson 41:07.450
I just would like to recognise Mark Baldwin who's the Director of the bounce. He sent us all an email and bounce was named the best hostel chain in Oceania at the 2026 hostel world awards and for most of us we don't know what that means but it is the most prestigious accolades in the global backpacker and budget travel industry so just take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Mark Baldwin. These are the sort of businesses that we really encourage in Noosa. Best practices and with good people and supporting our local economy so no further question I'd like to put it to the vote. All in favour? Thank you. Thanks. And next we'll move to reports for consideration 7.3 MCU25/0118 application for Material Change of Use of multiple affordable rental dwelling, premises 25 small dwellings at 64 Lake MacDonald Drive. I will note early that this report will be moved to the General Committee meeting. Of a significance of the matter but we'll take the opportunity today to get an overview of the report and we'll just ask some questions but we'll hold the debate till General Committee. Thank you. Georgina 42:50.870
Hand- Good morning, councillors. So the application in front of us is for a Material Change of Use for the purpose of a multiple dwelling development consisting of an affordable rental premises. Name is Amelia Lorentson and I am the Chair of the council on this project. It is part of a larger council project which has taken the form of 25 small dwelling units. Sorry, small dwellings. So I understand we're relatively familiar with the site, noting that have prepared a couple um plans for today um that I believe Sally might be trying to bring up if possible um just so we can talk to I suppose a couple of the key areas of variation and just a bit more context to the site um so we can see um up on the screen um the development that is forming part of this application is proposed to occupy lot one which was approved about mid last year on a subdivision consisting of one into six lots which included the of drainage approval and a parked lot. So um for clarity um a condition a part of this approval recommended approval package includes that no works are to commence until the title of future lot one has been created so that essentially means that um should this be approved um the titles to be created so the road constructed landscaping will be established as well as the bio-retention basins will be constructed and finalised um of note as um of note the development does consist of an affordable rental premises so this is a new definition that has been introduced with the latest scheme amendment which it essentially just means that the land is secured as affordable housing and for the life of the development is, sorry, has been will be managed by a registered housing provider The proposed development type is consistent with the community facilities zone of the property and was required to follow an impact consistent application pathway which did involve public notification for a period of 15 business days and over that period 53 submissions were received. You'll note as contained within the report there's a table at the end of the document that has summarised all of the submissions and it's got officer commentary against each outcome. In terms of the compatibility of the development with the scheme as contained within the report you'll see that there are a couple of minor variations to the acceptable outcomes of the scheme and this includes height, hot car parking, setbacks, private open space and roof form. Sorry sal, could we go to the next slide, please? Thank you. So, in terms of the variation to height, we're compliant with the eight metres from natural ground level and that is a condition to, is a recommended condition as well. However, the development does consist of three stories. This is as a result of that low level car parking area. So it's essentially because it's not backfield, it's not below ground. And the site is, it's quite a difficult site to build on. It's quite steep, so it wasn't going to be achievable in this instance. But in terms of what means, like external impacts there will be, it'll be that elevation that is being highlighted and that is the three-storey element that will be visible external to the site. SPEAKER_07 46:37.540
Just another occasion, not anymore. Patrick Murphy 46:41.877
That's correct. The remainder of the perimeter of the site will appear as two storeys. Georgina 46:46.837
So this render is taken from the future internal road that will be constructed prior to works taken. So I suppose to the east of us is Dianella residence. There will be a landscaping buffer there, as well as this road, as well as the landscaping that will be carried out as part of this development. I have considered it in my assessment as contained in the report as being appropriate. This is noting the area of, I suppose, the separation between the Dianella residences, as well as the use of different materials on and how they've used landscaping to complement the design. So that takes us to our next area of variation which is car parking. Sal. So this is one of the floor plans on the site and I just thought it'd be a bit easier to pop this one up so we can see how constrained this site is noting the grade. So this is the car parking area that's shaded in grey. You'll notice to the bottom of the page that's all hatched so that's essentially backfill. So with the planning scheme the way we determine the number of car parking spaces required for the development is based off the development type which in this instance is units so there's a requirement of one car parking space per unit so that comes to 25 and then in addition to that they have to make an allowance for visitor car parking spaces is determined at one space. Per four units which requires a total of 32 car parking spaces and due to the way that the schemes been written you obviously you round up car parking spaces so which takes us to a shortfall of one car parking space in let's see what happens in this instance. Consideration of I suppose the type of use that we're looking to accommodate on the site and the typical clientele the location to public transport and I suppose our briefing from the operators in terms of how they typically function shortfall of the one space has been considered acceptable through the assessment of the scheme if we move on to the next area of variation that is building setbacks so I think this summarises it quite well for us so on the right hand side this is our eastern elevation and this is going to be the new internal road so where we've got red this is these are the areas of relaxation that the developer the applicant is seeking so in the grand scheme of the development is considered quite marginal for on the on the eastern side you'll see that it essentially relates to roof overhang so there's no on-ground impacts it is roof overhang that's encroaching within that area and then to the south they are required to have a six metre setback to a to an internal road which will be servicing the cemetery so it's not adjoining another development it's considered to have marginal impacts Patrick Murphy 49:55.703
Can I just add to that? The is over the whole of the lot and this assessment has assessed the setbacks based on the future lot boundary so technically the assessment could have been based upon existing title arrangement and said well this is you know clearly compliant with the setback requirements but what we've actually done is considered where that future lot boundary would be and what that setback would be in relation to that lot boundary. Georgina 50:31.970
So again, a part of the finalised. Subdivision that will be finalised over the site there's a series of landscaping also within that road reserve so it's going to be well and truly I suppose screened and it's going to complement the built form quite well. And if we jump to our next one it's private open space. So as you can see unit 15 down there shaded in green. The provision in the scheme about the minimum private open space per each dwelling which is 20 square metres at ground level in this instance we don't achieve that we are three square metres short but considering that communal spaces on the site which you can see is I'm above the car parking so it's like that landscape platform that's titled breezeways planters there's a couple breakout spaces there as well as a significant setback along the frontage of the Lake MacDonald frontage of the property Patrick Murphy 51:27.072
Just to make sure that's clear we're talking about this area again it initially was where there's a breakout areas yeah there's also a significant area from this retaining wall here to the front boundary of the site which is also available for residents to utilise Georgina 51:43.218
Yeah so um instance um it's I suppose that from its outcome has been satisfied in this regard that SPEAKER_07 51:53.097
Lake MacDonald Drive boundary required a six-metre setback but there's an 11-metre setback yes so you're saying that there's extra open space so in that's Patrick Murphy 52:03.096
Right with a part that pathway is in the site so there's ability for people to manoeuvre around that area and also to recreate in terms of taking a seat Amelia Lorentson 52:13.176
Sorry we might allow Georgina to finish the report before we go to questions Georgina do you want to continue the report please? Thank you. Georgina 52:25.243
So on the next slide that we have highlights the roof form treatment to Lake MacDonald Drive so whilst it's acknowledged in assessment that the assessment that this elevation does not replicate traditional residential character that's I suppose desired by the local plan which talks to like gabled roof form so we're essentially getting a pitched roof along the frontage the design has taken into consideration the history of Cooroy and supporting material part application I suppose has lent on that it is it is designed to reflect a saw blade which is in reference to Cooroy's historic timber milling industry along that elevation and then I suppose sense in this assessment something that I suppose we identified is that the code does talk to getting that queenslander sort of roof pitch reform however is typically more so relevant to single dwellings or duplex developments where the built form is more narrow whereas if it'd be quite difficult I would imagine to achieve a compliant design on this site whilst maintaining the eight metre height the provision for eight metres in building height it'd be likely that the pitch would again exceed that blanket. Patrick Murphy 53:49.635
The planning scheme includes a number of figures around preferred reform character and they're all they're all residential single dwellings. Georgina 54:03.249
So I suppose in summary despite these areas of non the developments considered to uphold the performance outcomes and objectives of the Noosa Plan and it does deliver a significant community benefit through providing much-needed housing within the Shire and has been recommended for approval. Something of note that for transparency as the site is under council ownership prior to this application being put in front of us today it has been peer-reviewed by an external consultant who generally agrees with what does agree with our recommendation. Patrick Murphy 54:42.934
Thank you. I think in summary it's important to note that this is a consistent use. So that the amendments to the planning scheme have identified that this use within the community facilities zone is consistent so therefore the assessment has really focused upon these issues that Georgina has spoken through reflective through the imagery as well and noting that they are quite minor those variations that are sought hence why we're comfortable approving this book form Amelia Lorentson 55:17.750
Thank you. Would you like to answer some questions? SPEAKER_07 55:20.350
Thank you're welcome. Mentioned that it's consistent use for the site. Frank Wilkie 55:25.530
You talked about acceptable outcomes and the development is assessed against. When acceptable examples given in acceptable outcomes are not strictly met, can you explain for those who may be listening how compliance with the performance outcomes determines its consistency with the scheme or not. Patrick Murphy 55:53.472
You. So the acceptable outcomes are one way to demonstrate compliance with the performance outcomes. They can often be quite prescriptive. I think in the main this development meets most prescriptive outcomes in terms of building height, site cover, gross floor area. When there's elements of non-compliance, your to look at the left-hand column which is the performance outcome and that will provide a range of measures to assess the impacts of the non-compliance against and which is what Georgina has done and in our assessment determined that whilst there might be minor non-compliances the objectives of those performance outcomes are still met. Which is why it's been recommended for. And consistent with the planning scheme. That's correct. Richard MacGillivray 56:51.827
Just add just to patrick's comments, Mayor Wilkie, that the acceptable outcomes are essentially a deemed to comply provision, so once you meet that you automatically comply with the performance outcome. Obviously in this case where it doesn't strictly meet the acceptable outcome, we get into what we call a merit assessment or performance assessment. We're assessing the merits of those particular proposals against the performance outcome, which is very normal and part of the standard assessment process to ensure that we get aligned with the outcomes sought in the planning scheme along with those performance outcomes as well. Amelia Lorentson 57:29.581
Thank you. I've got quite a few questions, so I'm just wondering whether my questions and forward some to you. I've had already. But probably the only question I will ask today, and again for anyone around the table, is in terms of the stormwater and flooding risk. Just really want to know whether the erosion and sediment control plan, has it been designed using up-to-date site-specific rainfall data? I referenced this in light of just recent rainfalls. The calculations, I think, show that the detention capacity only captures 34 mils of rainfall. And the question is, you know, in light what just happened, what happens when there's frequent, short, intense storms that we've been witnessing just recently? Richard MacGillivray 58:30.316
Yes, I'm happy to answer that one, Councillor. So, in terms of the current proposal, it's before you. It relates to the future land use of lot 1. The situation you're referring to, I guess relates to the subdivision site which is currently under construction and underway in terms of any releases, and this local government council is working with DETSI, the State department, in relation to those matters. And in terms of other. Aspects relating to the subdivision works, obviously there's contractual arrangements in place and they're subject to commercial and confidence situations, so I guess at this stage there's not much more to say publicly about those apart from their investigation and contractual matters afoot a foot in relation to that. I guess they don't specifically relate to the proposal, I guess, that's being considered before the council. Amelia Lorentson 59:32.889
Again, I've got quite a few, so I'm happy to wait till general. Is there anyone around the table that would like to ask any questions? Brian Stockwell 59:40.131
Just the application of the private open space. I presume, as this is going to be kept as affordable accommodation, the units won't be separately titled. Does that make any difference in terms of what can be considered exclusive use because basically there is no exclusive use? On the site if there isn't a title. Patrick Murphy 01:00:02.434
We space allocated to each dwelling and generally in a fenced area that level of separation is what we'll assess. I think it is relevant and important to the amenity of the residents that they are provided their own area, but again noting that there are extensive areas throughout the site which they can also use it was just technical interest because in this situation and what happens if we're up on a full story unit we still have to have a deck that big. As you go up in floors it actually decreases the amount of area and it does relate to the width of the Terrace or the deck and also the total area. So you don't need 20 square metres if you're the fourth floor up. I think it comes down to 9 square metres. Brian Stockwell 01:00:47.674
I understand the need. It was just that technical thing in my head going, how can you assign these goods to use if you haven't got any title. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:57.477
Just a question out of curiosity. The title of the report is application for Material Change of Use for multiple dwellings, affordable rental premises. My understanding, or it's in the report, that keister bay negotiated a CFA capital funding agreement with the State and that was contingent on the project being suspended. I'm some not sure if you can hear me. Explicitly for social housing. Why have we called it affordable housing? And I know, you know, the umbrella is broad, but the funding is quite clear that it had to be for social. Can I just say sure. Georgina 01:01:40.137
So with the introduction of the affordable rental premises, it captures quite a few different definitions so that including affordable housing and entirely consisting of small dwellings and then goes into the I suppose particulars of their around who it's particulars about who it's managed by being a registered community housing provider. So sorry your question is more so does it still align with the CHA? Richard MacGillivray 01:02:16.529
There's no there's no strict definition in the in the planning scheme for social housing as such so it obviously best fits in the definition of affordable rental premises which enables social and affordable housing in different models obviously where there is a community housing provider involved so it doesn't conflict I guess with the intention of what the funding is that's being sought and obviously is being based on the assessment of the land use itself. Brian Stockwell 01:02:48.574
So it would be true to say social housing is the requirements of the funders about who goes into it and land use planning doesn't sit at the who and only consent is aware and the development itself. Is that one way to look at it? Patrick Murphy 01:03:02.034
That is one way to look at it, but we can look at it further. My understanding is that the land use, the affordable rental premises are okay from a social housing point of view and the funding. But we can clarify that as well. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:16.737
That would be great. We might just leave it and I'm happy to note that this report goes to the General Committee meeting. Can I have a second? Thank you. No further discussion? All in favour? Thank you. I'll be back in two minutes. No worries. And I might take this opportunity just to clarify the role of the Chair under Noosa Council's Standing Orders. But is actually to control the debate of the table. And it is also to call a mover and a seconder. And that's under, I think, section 26, 27, 28 of the Standing Orders. Just for clarity and just also so that the Chair is allowed to control the meeting. Thank you. And there's also a part in there that talks about wanting the motion to move. Should be allowed to take a minute. Councillor Tom. Can we have a quick break? Absolutely. So I'm going to move that we just close the meeting for five minutes for a comfort break. Can I have a seconder please? Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:51.860
Welcome back. We're up to report for consideration of the committee 7.4 planning applications decided by delegated authority and Patrick, if I can ask you to run through the report. Patrick Murphy 01:10:07.431
Thank you. Our monthly report on those applications that were decided under delegation by the officers for the month of December. 30 December decisions that were made under delegation, all approved. One application approved by council in that month of December. Again, a wide range of applications. A bit of a shorter month due to the Christmas break. Team were quite busy leading into Christmas. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:37.805
My first question, the three superseded planning scheme applications that were approved, can you talk us through those? Patrick Murphy 01:10:45.705
They all relate to the one property. So, they why you've got SPS 25, 0001 and then the.01 and the.02, so the primary application being for the dual occupancy and then the subsequent applications being for operational works and the reconfiguration of the lot. The site is in the medium density residential own 642 square metres, so in December 24 council made it known to the public that it was moving forward with the scheme for the duplex to be inconsistent on lots less than a thousand square metres so and then when the State came back in September 9th of September 2025 they had flipped it and to a 600 square metre requirement so these proponent had in that period commenced preparing plans and were well advanced in their preparation for to lodge an application that would have been a consistent use under the superseded scheme obviously moving to an inconsistent use under the new schemes. So we consider it reasonable on that basis to have supported them in that endeavour and yeah so hence why you've got those three applications showing being approved. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:08.342
Would there be any basis not to approve if you're preserving existing rights and you've got that opportunity under an SPS application but within 12 months you put in application. Are there any instances where we haven't? Patrick Murphy 01:12:24.832
We've refused a superseded planning scheme request. Well, when the previous scheme came in there was a number of properties that were sought to be used for short-term accommodation that weren't approved. There was obviously a number that were approved and a big part of that assessment was what would the potential compensation risk or compensation that might be payable for a refusal if that was the case. Okay. What questions? Amelia Lorentson 01:12:53.132
Address were you talking about? The last three on Hilton Terrace. 51 Hilton Terrace. Yeah, okay. Other questions? Tom Wegener 01:13:04.750
I have a question. 15 and 17 mile Street, Cooroy, with a few dwellings small dwellings. Brian Stockwell 01:13:15.693
Pull that one up. It's a pretty big development there on a really busy, bottleneck-type Street. SPEAKER_07 01:13:22.616
And you just walk to get some Patrick Murphy 01:13:26.720
So that application being adjacent to a state-controlled road would have been referred to the State who supported the application. The officers would have done their own assessment as well in terms of capacity for, safe and egress from the site. It is two lots. A positive outcome in terms of the provision of the number of dwellings and also, you know, significant number of those being small dwellings. So, yeah, a reason to support the application. With the, is there a back driveway by any chance where they can go out? No, there won't be a back driveway. Noting this report is presented to council for noting and generally the level of detail to drill down into the applications is not something I can undertake on 30 applications before the meeting, so I'm going to take on board any comments and provide you with information post the meeting would be preferable. Tom Wegener 01:14:27.000
Last question, yeah, sorry, and the last question is. But Patrick, I'd like to check with you later on that one, because I completely understand SPEAKER_06 01:14:35.884
In the detail, right off the head. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:41.184
Can we get just a little bit of clarity. Nature-based tourism, Dr. Pages road, caparabra. Again, approved code-accessible application. What's meant by nature-based tourism? Are they eco-cottages? Patrick Murphy 01:14:56.803
Yes, some cabins and seeking to avail visa. Nature-based tourism either seek to avail of some ecological values on the site, ecological recreation type activity on the site, or they're located within close proximity, generally, of the Noosa Trail. That they can go hiking or cycling tours. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:17.941
So have we changed the name, Patrick? Like nature-based, I always thought we'd reference like eco-cabins, or is this new, or have I dismissed just it Patrick Murphy 01:15:29.101
Well, there's a number of, so the eco-cabins will often be done through just short-term accommodation. So they're seeking no more than, there's no interaction really, I suppose, with the guests. They just come and they stay in the cabins. Term accommodation. But here there's a connection between the people with the accommodation and the land itself or the surrounding area and some activity that's generally provided. So nature-based tourism is a definition within the scheme in its own right. Short-term accommodation is a its own right, so sometimes navigating navigational. That pathway to ensure it's one and not the other. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:04.800
So it is a short-term accommodation we're approving but it's consistent it's a consistent scheme as being a nature-based. Richard MacGillivray 01:16:15.568
Well nature-based tourism is yes it's its own land definition it has its own land use definition maybe yes it's in a planning scheme as a definition for a use that can be considered and applied for and as specific as Patrick mentioned linkages to the ecological or the natural or the environmental values that it needs to I guess progress as part of its proposal so it needs to have a linkage to a nature based aspect whether that's a recreation or an educational piece or the like so you can probably provide maybe some more information too about that particular application. If you'd like some more information about that Amelia Lorentson 01:16:50.806
Is it captured in terms of numbers when we look at how many STAs we have is it included in that database or not in terms of the short-term accommodation we have operating and is it captured under our transitory rating I'd have to come back to you on that any questions around the table who would like to move it thank you Tom can we have a seconder no further discussion yes all in favour Thank you. So we now move to item 7.5 and thank you Richard item 7.5 welcome to the desk Ben multi-year environment collaboration grants and Organisation Alliance Grants proposed reschedule and then if you can give us an overview or summary of the report in front of us Ben Derrick 01:18:02.961
Good morning councillors the it's quite a simple proposal what we're what we're planning but there's a bit of information sitting in the background under the Environment Levy environmental grants policy we issue council issues two streams of multi-year grants and they're both three grants ones an alliance grant which is there to basically support organisations not-for-profit organisations to be able to function and the other one is multi-year environment grants where we're looking for larger more complex environment minded grant projects that have better outcomes both of those grant streams are currently due on the 30th of June this year so we're in the final year of those three grants and so normally at this time we would have our multi-year grants open for applications and we'd be receiving and negotiating with grant applications. Or people or organisations that are going to put in applications for the next three years. However when we assess those grant applications we put 50% of the weighting of the grant applications connected directly to the objectives and key outcomes of the Environment Strategy. Now the Environment Strategy is currently towards the end of a review mid-year review and it's been seven years since we've reviewed the Environment Strategy and we know that sitting within that there's likely to be some subtle changes within of the objectives and proposals that they're put forward for council to consider and those are those changes have come about through the last seven years we've changed a lot with some of the new plans that have been implemented particularly around climate change we've got the CHAP we've got climate change response we've got the net road towards net zero we've also got a waste plan and so out of the current Environment Strategy waste and climate change are 50% of what's addressed in there but now we've got more and more mature plans plants sitting in there also got more contemporary information and survey data and the industry the environment industry has changed and evolved a little bit so it's good to be able to contemporize the Environment Strategy so we're at a particular point where we're coming into a period where we're proposing to or normally we would accept applications for new multi-year grants but we know that we're just about to put forward a paper to council to review the Environment Strategy. So if we assess the grants on the current strategy knowing that potentially there might be a more contemporary strategy within the next few months we might be entering into three-year agreements which are attached to an outdated strategy. Now in terms of size under the current funding agreements that represents over a three-year period just over a million dollars so that's a reasonable sum of money that's going out into the community that we'd like to see invested strategy rather than an existing one. Now since writing the paper this has all come through in a little bit of a rush we realised our timelines weren't going to match up. I've discussed this with all of our current grant recipients and the multi-year environment with extensions of KPIs. And so they're all mature programs with really good outcomes and that we'd say that those outcomes delivered for another 12 months under a bridging agreement. And all of the or alliance grants all of those organisations were intending to apply for another three-year grant and so the proposal is to delay the grant round the multi-year grant round this year have it open for applications next year and their current recipients to have a 12 sorry a 12 month breaching bridging agreement from a legal and procurement perspective we can do that under our policies we've engaged with I can't remember the name of the law firm but it was one that our procurement branch uses and they've given okay there's no issue from a Local Government Act perspective in fact they said it was a fairly prudent path forward for contemporary investment or making sure that we're investing money in the right way so the one year bridging for all of the recipients if we were to proceed with this we're yet to work out what that means but it's likely to be a very brief contract which references the existing contracts with just an extension of those KPIs that sit in there Amelia Lorentson 01:22:43.409
So the will be the same as the multi-year? SPEAKER_07 01:22:47.469
That's correct yes so currently the acquittal process we do a 12 month acquittal process where we check in at each 12 months to be able to make sure that they're doing it and then we have a final acquittal all of the years are exactly the same in terms of the acquittal process it's just anchored to whatever deliverables they're seeing that particular year. Amelia Lorentson 01:23:09.616
Questions around the table? I'll move it. We might just okay it's okay Tom let's just see this. Sorry it's a new phone not. Questions around the table first. I've a couple of questions been in terms of applicants. Have they been informed? They been informed about the delay? You mentioned you have touched base with all of them. Ben Derrick 01:23:45.761
I've spoken to all of them. I've had a meeting with all of them and so the alliance grants, they're more than happy to move through for another 12 months with the multi year environment grants because the discussion bit more complex because we're talking about the maturity of their particular projects and so we talked about you know what those KPIs might look like for the next 12 months and so as an example keeping in Kin Kin where we've got some specific specifics around landholders and what's going on the ground we're looking at how we might be able to work in some new parameters for that it's an extension of the existing program just with some new KPIs. Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:24.559
And-year, sorry, in terms of the environment strategies, you mentioned we're approaching seven years, so how often do we review? Is it five years? Seven that seems quite long. Yeah. Ben Derrick 01:24:41.181
Look, it's a good question and the Environment Strategy was set out as a ten-year strategy document. The mid-year review was not built in there, but we thought it was, felt right to put through a review which we went through that budgeting process this time last year to be able to get some funds to be able to review it. So yeah, that went through council as a, it's time to review it. And it's intended to be a light touch review. We're not rewriting the entire strategy. It's just making it contemporary based on what's changed within council and what's changed within the industry as well. Who would like to move Tom? I'll move it. Happy Amelia Lorentson 01:25:21.111
Thank new year. Oh, sit in the middle, Jay. Thank you, new rookie. And who would like to speak? Tom Wegener 01:25:26.551
I was so excited about reading this report because it actually is a pivot from getting stuck into going through the old process and then perhaps getting stuck the three-year grant which doesn't actually align with where we're going. It's a resetting of the vision for Noosa and the DMP and the new Environment Strategy. I find it happy for us because the vision that council has enacted and has voted upon is being pushed through and seen through the strategies and the Environment Strategy and I'm very very happy about that. I think that it's good start for Noosa for this term here for us especially gives us opportunities to change and to get current and to begin with the times and to be the greatest council. I in Queensland, if not the world. So thank you I really appreciate you doing that because you could have just stuck to saying okay well we're gonna give these grants out with the old strategy but with the new strategies coming on there may be new that share the vision for Noosa and say oh I want to jump on this is great we're going this direction now and I think it gives an opportunity for people to do that which otherwise they may have may not have been so eager to jump on and to apply for the grant so I think it's really exciting. A impressive move for council to say this is a this is a problem let's change the problem let's fix it let's make it better and move forward. Thank you apologies if I missed it in the report. When is the recommendations from the mid-term environmental strategy review coming to council? We are just going through executive briefings at the moment which is starting at the start of March and pending those I expect the council will see that in April or May. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:27:40.731
I want to put this question, I think it would be an interesting opportunity when you say you're talking about KPIs, to ensure that all these groups are very good at what they do. Have they met not just their proposed outputs but are they're they heading towards their outcomes? And to actually use this as a monetary evaluation step as well. Is to make sure that they just don't put something in because it's easy that it's just continuing on. Are we doing the right thing to achieve the outcomes we set out to or can we do things a little bit different? And then on a lighter note, there's a long history of alliteration and keeping it in Kin Kin and the current application we're looking at is keeping on keeping a dimkinkin, I suggest next year we keep on sorry K, Amelia Lorentson 01:28:29.828
One question before you leave Ben, so just following up on that, are there any risks in following up on what Tom said, are there any risks that the projects that we're already funding may not be included when we update our priorities? Scott, what's that risk? You mentioned it's only minor tweaks, or are they major tweaks? Ben Derrick 01:28:59.272
Probably where probably where the where the funding might come from to be able to support some of those programs. And I look at plastic-free Noosa, which is a crossover between keeping plastic out of the environment, so the environment as a end impact of improper use of plastics. Should the Environment Levy be funding it, or should our waste education be funding that program? And look, it's not my decision, but when the Environment Strategy. Written, we didn't have a waste plan. We now have a waste plan with some quite detailed expectations as to what's sitting over the next 10 to 20 years, and integration of those sort of things, whether they're more aligned to one area or another. The broad, general of conservation, areas weed management, mitigating impact, being responsible for regenerative practices and stewardship, they'll remain the same in the Environment Strategy. There might be some changes in locations. We know we've got more core data, we've got more species data, we've got more integrated plans that we're developing with the river and the catchment, so just being able to get everything talking to each other and aligned may change how certain we assess applications in different areas where those priority areas might have changed. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:26.514
Would that then affect funding then? Are we going to have the same pool of money or will we waste if it's going to be a stand alone? That's not a question we can answer. Oh okay, excuse me. That's kat's question. Madam Chair, Director Rawlings, how so? Oh hey, sorry Kim. You've got your hand raised. Go ahead. Kim Rawlings 01:30:49.213
Yes, well just building on what manager Ben Derrick said, I think the risk is pretty low. The projects that we're doing at the moment are very much fundamentally aligned to the environmental objectives and the Environment Strategy, you know, that are long standing and are likely to and will remain through a revised Environment Strategy. Ben said, there are some new areas that we will see come into the Environment Strategy building on, you know, contemporary work that council has done, things like the DMP and things like that. So that will influence going forward. So, you and, you know, of course, there will be discussions with council about the ways in which these programs are funded, the mechanisms, and the total amount. That's all standard conversation that needs to happen as part of budget considerations and reviewing strategy. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:49.696
Thank you, Kim. Anyone to speak to the report? No further discussion. All in favour? That's unanimous. And that brings us, I think, to the end. Thank you very much. And that brings us to the last item, so reports for noting by the committee. 8.1, cascading climate risk from critical infrastructure failure project report. And welcome to the desk if you want to pass over to Jo. Jo 01:32:32.128
Thank you. So our critical infrastructure, energy, telecommunications, water, wastewater and transport are crucial for everything we do. We all know the challenges we face when we lose services. Power outages, no internet, disrupted water supply and road closures. While we've all managed these kind of outages in our personal lives, how would we cope with disruptions that last days or weeks at a time? How do we cope when these outages affect multiple services? Council services are no different to our homes in being dependent on power, telecoms, water and transport, except that we have more than our families depending on these services. If council is without power and water for a week or longer, how would we function? How would we keep staff safe if buildings can't be heated or cooled, water isn't available and call email each other? How can we make good decisions if we don't have access to information when the internet goes down and computers can't be powered? The cascading climate risk from critical infrastructure failure project, or the CIF project for short, was a two-year cooled, project with.1 million in grant funding from the QRA through the Queensland risk and resilience fund, the project addresses a key action in our regional climate action Roadmap with the Sunshine Coast Council. Working with partners across the region including Energex, Unitywater, Telstra, NBN Co, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services, of health, Queensland Police Service and many more, the project carefully examined the potential impacts on council services arising from outages in critical infrastructure. This work highlighted that climate change. Increases the likelihood of cascading and compounding types of hazards which in turn increases the likelihood of disruption to critical infrastructure services. Crucially the project that disruptions to critical infrastructure can cascade across sectors and these disruptions may last longer than we have experienced before. This could mean a week or more without critical infrastructure services. The project identified numerous risks to cancel. Council. Broadly, these include reduced productivity, communication failures, disruption to disaster response activities, physical impacts to staff from unsafe and unclean workplaces. For example, if we don't have running water or can't keep the offices impacts to revenue streams if payments can't be processed. Reduced quality of organisational decision making, accountability, transparency and ultimately reputational damage. We bring this report to council to share the important findings of the CIV project, but also to demonstrate that the project has identified practical options to reduce the risks. A range of technological and non-technological measures, all of which are available now, were highlighted. In addition, the project developed a high-level business case that demonstrated the value of technological measures our key sites, the Noosaville depot, which includes the Local Disaster Coordination Centre, and the second case was the Leisure Centre, which is also our evacuation centre. These are great foundations, but we'll need to be proactive in responding to the findings across the organisation. This report seeks council support for continuing to leverage the ongoing partnership with Sunshine Coast Council and Stakeholder Housing Reference Group members and the representatives from many critical infrastructure service providers to implement adaptation measures across the organisation, including priority actions to implement measures to enhance the resilience of the depot and the LDCC. Establish non-technical management solutions and related to this establish the required organisational governance to drive holistic climate adaptation response. There's work to be done but the SIFT CIF project puts us in a position of having a much better understanding of the risks and importantly the adaptation measures that can address these risks. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank and acknowledge our partners in the project the Sunshine Coast Council of the Stakeholder Housing Reference Group who have been instrumental in completing this project. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:30.993
Questions around the table? Thank you Joe. Questions around the table? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:36:35.631
Just about scope. So in figure 1 you look at critical infrastructure failure and you mention causes of loss of transport. Did we look at the loss of transport in the food supply chain? SPEAKER_06 01:36:51.901
Yes, thanks for the question Councillor Stockwell. No, we didn't look at the food supply chain. We considered that significantly at the start of the scoping of the grant application whether we could include food supply but became too big for us to be able, it would have been unwielding to add that critical infrastructure as well. It's something that we, us and Sunshine Coast Council have identified as important for future assessments. Brian Stockwell 01:37:19.374
And now another, it's more around the scope of the recommendations. In figure three, you highlight using EV fleet for power has trade-offs with using EVs for mobility, but you've identified there's an option, and I became aware in the last big blackout that was put, torian pointed out, for four and a half days, that there are now groups of EV owners who have organised themselves so that if is a need they can, and those that have to, 240 volt output can come. Have we looked at setting up local arrangements around disaster where we can have voluntary opt-in so people know if they, you know, people might be relying on life support that needs, that needs power, that local EV operates they opt-on carry and plug it in? Jo 01:38:08.470
We haven't investigated it as part of the project but it's definitely something we're aware of and I think we will be looking at options like that. SPEAKER_06 01:38:16.410
We have internally, Councillor Stockwell has spoken to Michael our fleet manager about council vehicles and the opportunity for bi-directional chargers that can help power for example the LDCC. We haven't thought yet of drawing on potential community resources though, which could be part of emergency hubs that are set up, you know, in an event. But it's a great idea. SPEAKER_07_b 01:38:43.350
Through the Chair, if I can assist that and as a disaster coordinator, it's a very good suggestion. Now I'd say the best place to kitchen. Is in the community cell lanes. So the community actually arranged that with their own residents and I'll take that on notice to work with Sue Lowry, a disaster management officer, to put that on the agenda for part of the community subplanes. Be something I've been thinking about this week. If we can fight that as a new initiative, then we'll see. Tom. Just to carry on from brian's concern with food, during COVID the most impressive thing that I've seen in um in my four years here is when the Pomona markets, the various markets were closed down, and there's people that would come to the markets, especially elderly, they would buy their food, they set up a food tree, or a phone tree, and that's where they. Regulars would call each other, and then very quickly they devised, everybody had to call 10 of their friends, who called 10 of their friends, and through COVID, they actually distributed food in that way, through the phone tree, and help have organically, quickly, it appeared, and how successful it was, tremendous, and one person was identified Brian Stockwell 01:39:56.974
Who had passed away, who nobody would have known if they didn't have the phone tree, then called them, and this person didn't respond to the phone, and eventually the police went out there, so I find that is a really great method, so just, you know, it's hard for you guys to do that, but I just wanted to point that out as a really good thing, and I love that you're talking about this and bringing it to the to the report you guys are doing it makes me feel a lot better. SPEAKER_07_b 01:40:29.110
That you know the cascading problems are being really looked at by. But by staff and the team so thank you for that. Thanks Councillor Tom, great idea and I'll pass the show on to you. That's a great conversation Councillor, because that's exactly what the community sub plans are set up for. Because you know in times of disaster especially extended natural disasters it's. Assisting our communities to be as resilient as possible so they've actually already got lists of people who need help and they reach out locally even if they're isolated to actually support each other. So community sub plans are all about providing their internal resilience. Networks to provide goods and services that we can't supply externally. So that and Ian and sue, Ian Williams and Sue Barry's work is all in that resilience space and community sub plans. SPEAKER_06 01:41:06.927
One of the actions that we identified in this project, which is quite interesting was, and you might have come across it as a technology called an atmospheric water generator, which are small solar modular, they draw water from humidity and they can produce that without any need for power. And we were thinking well if we were to roll that out at our community gardens and pair that with a phone tree model that's pretty good because there's water and food in hubs around Noosa that can provide that backup resilience for communities so these ideas are excellent and ones that we look to explore further. Down the track. SPEAKER_07_b 01:41:42.493
Wilkie? Thank you. You've started to touch on it. When these ever-increasing climate disasters occur and critical infrastructure like electricity, telecommunications and water services fail, what simple solutions are you actually proposing? You started to talk I think you're about happy to answer. Jo 01:42:05.185
Yeah, so the there's report covers a whole range of options that we can use and we need to be looking at bundling them, so we're not just looking at making ourselves resilient to one type of infrastructure failure, but looking across all of them. There are a range of solutions that we've covered, including things like for electricity, solar backup, generators, for water, there's things like water tanks with filtration. There's a whole lot of things, but we need to go through a process now of identifying what the best combinations are for our sites, and then what scale we'll need, and then have to roll those out. So it'll be different for different sites, and also we've got some places like the Leisure Centre, which already has solar, so maybe it's looking at what are our water tanks like, are they capable, are they resilient? So it'll be different for every site. There's a whole range of options identified. SPEAKER_06 01:43:01.231
And if you want, Mayor, I can provide a short list of non-technical measures as well, because it was both technical and non-technical. You've referred to some briefly, Starlink. Yeah, radios, UPS systems, rainwater tanks, emergency water kits. You presented this report to the LDMG and it was very well received, and you also said you'd present it to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet? Yes. Tell us about that presentation and what were their observations about this piece of work? We were invited by the QR, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, to present this project to their critical infrastructure resilience working group that they have with multiple state agencies the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. And it was, again, very well received. Very highly commended as probably the first instance of local government looking at cascading and compounding climate risks in Queensland, potentially in Australia. So the findings will be advanced through further conversations, and we've been asked to do multiple presentations to a few of the agencies in particular as follow up as well, as taking their findings to the conferences. Some of the findings, as you guys will note, are confidential because the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, particularly the details on critical regional infrastructure just because of national security. So we can't release all the findings, but certainly the risks, the council services and the responses are things that we can work on. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:39.660
Thank you. The risks that have been identified in this project, have they already been captured in our strategic risk register and if not, should they? And are there some immediate gaps that we need to sort of identify and act on? SPEAKER_06 01:44:57.642
That's a great question. Thank you, Chair. They have been incorporated into our strategic risk register, but not comprehensively yet. I understand, speaking with our governance manager, that there's a process to this year for improving our enterprise risk and opportunity management framework in and the guidelines, which includes the strategic risk register, so we will look to, now that the project is completed, we took an opportunity last year when we had a good idea of the risk to start outlining some of them in our strategic risk register, but we can do that a bit more comprehensively with other projects. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:33.670
$1 Million dollars grant funding, it sounds like it was really well spent, and in terms of, you know, if we didn't have the funding, would this work or these sort of insights, would they have happened anyway, or not likely? It just sounds like this wouldn't have happened. Not likely. No, it wouldn't have happened without external funding. No. So money, very well spent. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:46:00.590
Questions? Yeah, one more scoping question. Finding state, finding of this project, have pilot risk to delivery of council services due to disruptions of infrastructure. So, most of the conversation appears to be around the pulse impacts of disasters related climate. Did the project also look at the press the slow-moving risks in terms of and what I can think of is sea level rise and storm water infrastructure. SPEAKER_06 01:46:36.220
Did you look at that and is there anything that has come out of it from that perspective? It did, but to a lesser extent, unfortunately. We found that in the workshops, we had over 50 engagements, workshops, briefings, presentations throughout the project, and we found that through the workshops it was, it became quite difficult to have multiple scenarios of critical infrastructure failure and impacts to council services that both address the acute hazards in near-term climate, like 2030, 2028, as well as the long-term 2050 scenarios that address gradual chronic hazards that you've touched on. So we did look at it and there are some interesting insights and findings but not to the extent and not to the urgency of what of the acute hazards that we have quite a lot to do already on yeah plenty to keep you busy there's plenty Frank Wilkie 01:47:29.036
Yes happy moving Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:31.500
Can I please have a second would you like to speak I would thank you Madam Chair look at Frank Wilkie 01:47:37.316
As Chair of the LDMG it's a great pleasure to see work of this quality come forward it's not only will the recommendations in it which is subject to budget approval not only will they allow our Local Disaster Coordination Centre and our LDMG disaster response to function as it should critical infrastructure fail it will it's a blueprint to allow councils across Queensland to follow suit and also be able to better serve their communities during a disaster should their critical infrastructure fail. It's a very important piece of work and I commend you on what you've achieved thank Amelia Lorentson 01:48:20.951
So Brian Brian Stockwell 01:48:22.071
My understanding is this project actually has had ripple effects in that the arrangement of the structure started to think about the issue so it was leading in that respect and I think that's really important to understand that it's not just local government it's other levels of government that need to start thinking about this and putting the practical on the ground steps in place I think the other thing this shows it's and while we're very focused on Noosa Shire there's some issues that make sense to deal with at a regional scale and once again this project shows that when it comes to issues adapting to climate change, we can't have an isolationist perspective. We have to look at our role in the broader environment and the partnership here with Sunshine Coast Council through the Roadmap and then leading to this project has really shown. Where we share interests, where we share risks and how we can share the task of addressing them and so in a range of ways it's a very useful project to look at, not just internally. Externally but how we engage externally with other councils but also other infrastructure providers. So well done. SPEAKER_07_b 01:49:38.164
Question Madam Chair. Will you please pass on our thanks and acknowledgement of your partners. SPEAKER_06 01:49:45.837
In this world definitely I will just comment said there, Councillor Stockwell. I can't probably understate how interesting it was to see when we were working with infrastructure critical providers that have a lens that's either regional, state like Energex, or even national like Telstra. Impacts are felt locally, right? But they don't have that level because they're operating at such a broader scale. So it was so interesting to see when we looked at these local risk workshops and worked that out with them, how their mindset and perspective change. I think that was quite eye-opening and impactful. Amelia Lorentson 01:50:30.171
I'm going to quickly just speak. I think it's really important to outline that we have in council an enterprise risk and opportunity management policy in association that actually articulates that council will only tolerate unforeseen interruptions to critical services up to one day and I'm sort of putting all the pieces together and really understanding the importance this project because I keep going back to what does this mean in terms of risk to council staff, operations and delivery of services and you know, more than one day is huge in terms of council, up to 500 staff operating, $300 million worth of funds and delivering core services to our community, it's really quite important that we start putting this future lens on and really identify the immediate risk. Said. Jan, I couldn't agree more. Thank you. And again, commend please Sunshine Coast Council, again, money really well spent. Thank you. No further, Tom, did you want to speak? No, just, yeah, just ditto. Thanks. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Thank you. And that brings us, oh sorry, no further discussion. And no closing, thank you. Mayor Wilkie, olin Faber, that's unanimous. And that brings us to the close. There are no confidential sessions. I now declare the meeting closed. It is 11:25. And thank you everyone in. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
