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 to 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 owners of the lands and borders of the Noosa area and we offer gratitude for their careful custodianship of this unique environment over thousands of years. We pay respect respect to Elders past, present and emerging and to their enduring commitment in pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people. I'd like to acknowledge councillors around the table, Councillor Tom, Mayor Wilkie, Deputy Mayor, 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 mover and a seconder? mover and a seconder? I'll move it, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mayor Wilkie. Thank you, Mayor Wilkie. Thank you, Tom. Seconding. No discussion, all in favour? Thank you. Presentations, deputations? There are none, so we move to reports for consideration of the committee. 7.1, commercial use of community land policy, amendments and upcoming tender process. And... We've got Richard MacGillivray and Dennis. So I'll ask Dennis... Oh, excuse me. I have a conflict, so I'm going to firstly ask through the CEO if we can appoint another chair while I just get my conflict... the committee to decide. Frank Wilkie 02:12.670
Yeah, sure, I can take that on while you... Correct. While you put this to the... So what is the conflict? Amelia Lorentson 02:20.470
Well, she's got to appoint a chair first before you can deal with it. Oh, OK. I'll appoint a new chair. Frank Wilkie 02:26.085
OK, so the acting chair would be... You automatically go to the mayor, so... Yeah. Brian Stockwell 02:32.265
I'll move that council will be acted with... Thank you. I'll second it. Frank Wilkie 02:45.700
Okay, and Councillor Lorentson, you have a conflict that you'd like to declare. Yes, I'm just going to get some wording. Amelia Lorentson 03:14.640
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 who is an applicant in the upcoming commercial high-use tender process and my children are also members of the Noosa board of Association Club where they are coached by Dean Brady, also an applicant in the tender. I don't believe I have a conflict. I think what's in front of us report in front of us is simply minor changes to the policy and it doesn't actually reference or mention that the tender applicants so I will choose to remain in the meeting room however I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Frank Wilkie 04:34.569
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, high use commercial permits, but certainly if it was then leaving the room would be more appropriate. So I move that Councillor second. I second. Anyone else wish to speak? Brian Stockwell 05:07.360
I do. There is actually a principle and the principle is just by being a customer of the business does not create any conflict. Otherwise we could never rule on the DA for wars. So it's important that It probably will be another consideration when the permits come up but under the air there is no conflict in just being a customer of a business. the end of the world. Amelia Lorentson 05:37.518
I respect that and I just in light of the OIA judgment some time ago in the spirit of exercising abundance of caution I would like to declare it. There's certainly no harm in declaring it. Absolutely. Any further discussion on the rest on the motion of Councillor Lorentson being able to remain in the room? I'll put it to the vote, those in favour? That's carried unanimously and Councillor Lorentson cannot vote. Vote. Councillor Lorentson is now back as chair. Thank you. So back to Dennis. If you can give us an overview of the report in front of us and the amended The amended commercial use of community land policy. What changes actually were. Dennis 06:31.490
Good morning councillors. 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 we've had some discussions with councillors via a briefing and workshop in the lead up In the lead up to this report just looking at the policy and the list of activities that it supports on Noosa main beach and surrounds and as a result of those discussions we're looking at two at two amendments that we're seeking to the list of activities that are that are listed under the policy the changes are discontinuation of kite surfing lessons that Noosa Spit which is Spit which is a permit that's currently sitting vacant without an operator for the last couple of years and also discontinuation of beach massage on Noosa main beach. That is a is a permit which has a current commercial permit holder and operator and that's also recommended for discontinuation so it would drop off the list of supported activities under the policy. Another minor amendment to the policy is just acknowledging the recent DMP adoption and sort of tipping the hat as it were to the new DMP and its relationship to commercial activities on Noosa As I said all the commercial high-use permits are set to expire at 30th of June this year so if the amendments are supported and the amended policy adopted staff will then proceed to attend the process straight away based on that list of commercial activities and a further report to council is expected probably in the May round. the outcomes of that tender process looking toward tenders before the expiry in June Questions around the table Yes, could you mention? Frank Wilkie 08:51.568
You mentioned kitesurfing and the massage. The report also speaks about the snacks and drink refreshment van. Could you tell us about the changes there please Yes, 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 of the components. 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. The other thing that's changed since... 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? Dennis 10:29.122
Yes yeah the dog beach is getting a lot of views so people park down in that that pocket car park near the dog beach but also access further further around the area so and it's not far to walk to that spit location Location. So potentially, you know, with the right marketing and offering, that could be a good little business. Yes. Frank Wilkie 10:57.630
And the thing 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. Dennis 11:11.456
Yeah, it's that level of need to be actually on the beach. So it actually creates quite actually creates quite a lot of challenges for the business being on the beach with weather and set up and breakdown. And yeah, since writing the report I've had a look 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 to decide to to keep keep at it but I think it points to the level of need to be actually on a beach as opposed to in the premises. Frank Wilkie 11:47.140
It's been years since we've seen many kite surfers at the river now they all seem to be on the road wider. be on a rope wider. Yes. Yes. Are there any other reasons why they're migrating there for lessons? Are there any other reasons why they're migrating there for lessons? Dennis 11:57.660
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 area, it's not a learners area because the conditions there with the channel and the wind and currents and other uses is very challenging. Frank Wilkie 12:30.132
And the depth of the lake, the shallow depth of the lake makes it more user friendly for learners I guess. Yeah, we actually don't have a learner surf, kite surfing school that's... So in terms of kitesurfing, so you sort of answered my question, so it... Amelia Lorentson 13:00.692
I keep thinking do we need to remove it entirely or should we read tender or review on understanding understanding Dennis from what you just said that you've done that and reached out to operators, kite surfers, just trying to understand who have you consulted. Dennis 13:17.938
We have other permits that we support in other locations so open beaches, lake water to the extent that 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 13:39.634
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 legislative style activity, given the popularity in surfing? Dennis 13:58.564
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 four surf schools 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. Amelia Lorentson 14:36.024
In terms of the destination management plan, just for clarity, I'm going to the report itself and it states Council's destination 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. developed our events strategy so how does one inform the other which one overrides which? Dennis 15:27.170
I think you're right in that there's no pointed action plan around commercial high use permits and we did note that through the permits and we did note that through the consultation 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 between commercial use of Noosa and Main Beach and the DMP's role that is really just saying within the It's really just saying within the 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 your question. Richard MacGillivray 16:10.218
Councillor Amelia 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 sort of giving back as well and other initiatives that the businesses can... other initiatives that the businesses can partake in that contribute to regenerative tourism and you know build up on that because that is being sought through the development destination management plan so that's the the focus of the linkage between the two. Amelia Lorentson 16:41.004
So the criteria and weightings looking at the tender process that will be made clear to the applicants. Dennis 16:55.082
I'm adding a section to the tender package which is focused on the DMP so just it's called 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. Amelia Lorentson 17:25.040
Question about the two permit cap. How does a two permit cap operate in practice to prevent market concentration and why a two permit cap is given the popularity of these permits? Is it more equitable just to allow one per applicant? Is it more equitable? Just trying to get my head around why the permit limit was set at two per holder. Dennis 17:56.758
Yeah, that's something that has come through in the policy as it dates back to when it was originally drafted in 2014. was originally drafted 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 Relatively large businesses in the sort of surf schools and beach hire space that might look to dominate all our payments if they're given the opportunity. We have had another 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, beach hire or kayak tours. A decision about only allowing one would really cut across that. Yeah, I guess it would be a decision I guess it would be a decision of council if they thought there was strong grounds to do that. Amelia Lorentson 18:59.845
So that probably leads to my next question in terms of a round table. Has council ever convened a round table with operators and people interested in this space to sort of understand? know, just to capture their feedback on high use tenders, whether the two per cap is relevant or appropriate or not. Dennis 19:26.667
We haven't convened a round table, but we're interacting with potential permit applicants. And the permittees on a weekly basis. So there's, there's a lot of that that goes on in the five years between the tender process. But you're not around tables. And obviously with the potential commercial aspect to that. Yeah, it's probably not appropriate bringing them in a round table sitting given they've got different offerings and different requirements. There is a competitive tender process. So Amelia Lorentson 20:02.531
There is a lot of active dialogue with all of the permit holders and there's audits and there's a lot of engagement and there's also interested parties that have made 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 The operators the team team get get all all that that information information and then they're able to assist when they do this review process to make sure that 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 renewal restrictions and all that. it's well-considered, I guess, but it's been more of an individual basis on most permit holders. 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, and should it also... Explicitly articulate that we need to support local employment and community benefit, or is that something that's part of the tender process in terms of the criteria waiting? Dennis 21:24.940
I would think that's a question for the director responsible for the DMP rather than... Frank Wilkie 21:30.080
I think it's out of the scope of what, to some degree, I think it's what we're talking about here. It's 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. Larry Sengstock 21:48.063
I take your, I understand your question and maybe it and maybe it is a question we can take offline with the director to understand how it fits, the DMP fits with this and whether it does guide our, when we go to tender, there are certainly criteria within the tender in terms of the local economy as a standard provision that all comes into that and then again there's 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. Frank Wilkie 22:20.933
Kim does have it. Madam Chair, the director's online. Sorry, I didn't realise she was online. Amelia Lorentson 22:25.253
Thank you, Kim. Kim Rawlings 22:31.780
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. Amelia Lorentson 23:35.774
Time but I would love to see it as part of a guiding principles 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 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 That permit holders must comply with the World Surfing Reserve Code of Conduct and also commercial activities must consider accessibility and inclusivity. Again, they're 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 or Richard in terms of whether we can... I can talk to that point. Oh Dennis 24:42.004
Yes yes. So we're proposing amendments to the policy now ahead of the tenders 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 or submit as to 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 permit for their submissions and then once we do the permits I'm happy to have conditions that for the surf schools and surf hire within those permits to specifically reference the Code of Conduct and to have conditions in those permits which I think is appropriate. Amelia Lorentson 25:38.014
And that's the current way that he's been doing it. He touches so much more than just, you know, being important to Accessibility, inclusivity, and the code. I like that approach. Thank you. Richard MacGillivray 25:49.947
You're not duplicating the policy. No. Further questions around the table? Amelia Lorentson 25:57.987
Tom. Tom Wegener 25:59.087
It's a due process question. Has the massage people, have they been notified? Yes, we met with the operator. So we're now in talks as to how they evolved. So whether there 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 26:24.659
I do have a couple more questions if anyone 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 27:01.549
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. But yeah, they're on Main Beach West, which is like a 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 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 28:05.867
And there is the situations there Dennis where, for example I know with the refreshment from this that there were, you know, exploring if there's other groups potentially potentially that may sit to take up the void there for, I don't know, there's a 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 sort of the specific nature of those, the gap and the reason for that discontinuing as well. So it needs its own, I guess. Amelia Lorentson 28:45.740
No further questions around the table. I'm happy to move the application, can I, the report, can I have a seconder, Councillor? Second. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, no further discussion, are we? Yeah, I think Brian Stockwell 29:00.140
Yeah, I do want to discuss. the broadness of the questions has raised a lot of issues. Oh, okay. 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's really clear. first one's really clear. The community's use and need for land takes precedence over the commercial operator's need and so we 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 and just... The community's use... Bring you 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 and any associated plans and strategies will guide the management of commercial activities under this policy so all those issues that... issues that champions within the DMP will be guiding principles and objectives when we come around to implementing these policies, so I think it's a good, just a small step then, but it's how we should be looking at arranging policies every time there's a need to review it as it currently aligns with the policy direction. Frank Wilkie 30:38.100
Thank you, 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 Recreation area and you've noted in the report that the proposed reduction in commercial high-use activities supported under the policy alliance 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 it's not necessary that the commercial activity... beach massage on the beach because there's premises elsewhere and low use permits can be issued elsewhere. I think it's a very good policy and it's It's, it's, um, right that it's been brought to us before the issuing of the commercial high use permits. Tender process, um, which they expire on the 30th of June. So it's good to have this policy in place before we execute this. Amelia Lorentson 31:46.620
Any further discussion? I'd like to put it to a vote. All those in favour? Thank you Richard and thank you Dennis for the report. That brings us to the next item, a report for consideration which is 7.2 MCU18-01-02.03. Application for other changes in development approval for Bounce Hostel food and drink outlet at 14-16 Mary Street, Noosaville and welcome to the desk Patrick. trick and I'll try to give us an overview of the report in front of us. Patrick Murphy 32:33.292
Thank you, good morning councillors. This is an application to add a food and drink outlet to 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 permitted the use of the existing Within the hostel itself there was a cafe area that was approved for guests of the hostel to use. There was a condition that was included to advise that. A food and drink outlet is an inconsistent use on this site. It's within the Mary Street Health and Wellbeing Precinct. There's an intention of the scheme to have a transit of land uses 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 and drink outlet being located within the perimeter of the building towards the front towards the front of the site and the design of the building was designed to ensure that there was limited amenity impacts on the surrounding residents through the operation of the temporary use permit until June 2023 there were no complaints. 2023 there were no complaints associated with the use of the food and 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 the food and drink outlet 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 use 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, again publicly notified. Approval again again publicly notified with no submissions we've had no complaints about the operation of the food and 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 and drink outlet to continue on an ongoing basis so it's recommended for approval. Amelia Lorentson 35:52.730
Thank you. Questions around the table? Questions for approval. Tom? Tom Wegener 35:56.026
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? That's correct. correct. They'll still have their exclusive area which they can prepare their own meals. There is also a cafe on site which they can use around a pool deck. But that area will also be able to accommodate members of the public. Just making sure. The restaurants aren't moving into the other area? No, they're maintaining the existing cafe area. Frank Wilkie 36:30.778
Thank you Madam Chair. The patrons tend to tend to be the hostel occupants for the food and drink? Patrick Murphy 36:39.121
Well, it was exclusively set up for the occupants of the hostel to utilise. In the consideration Frank Wilkie 37:06.083
With the general public? Like number of patrons who aren't guests? Patrick Murphy 37:11.163
No, I could not tell you. That's alright, but there have been no complaints? There's been no complaints. I'm happy to move to a recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 37:20.463
Excuse me, Madam Chair, there's still further questions. Brian Stockwell 37:24.083
No, I've moved it. Is there a second? I'll second it. Questions can come at any time. 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 use. I'm going to take this opportunity to talk about this 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 planning scheme and for having high standards and 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. Council's actually went over and above the staff to allow a pitched roof that goes above the height limit. It had a opening right in the middle of the COVID lockdown. And numerous conversations with the director. It was tea drink with the investors that 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 real exhausts during the lockdown, which was enough just to get that early stage going. This council put was finished. 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 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 had 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 hostile sellers. We want it at the camping ground stage and we want it at the, you know, the high end of wanted that the high end of hotels change. But it's a good news story. I think the fact that 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 the restaurant, it's not going to affect the neighbours and it is part of what has become this site in itself has won numerous awards throughout. event 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 going on a two day trail ride. And the young people had just come back from 18 months of travelling around the world and when I told them where I was from 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 New Amelia Lorentson 41:07.800
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 most prestigious accolades in the global backpacker and budget travel industry so I'll just take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Mark Baldwin. These are the sort businesses that we really encourage in Noosa. Best practices and with good people in supporting our local economy. So no further question, I'd like to put it to the vote. And next we'll move to reports for consideration 7.3 MCU25/0118 application for material change of use of multiple dwelling, affordable rental premises, 25 small dwellings at 60 small dwellings at 64 Lake Macdonald Drive. I will note early that this report will be moved to the general meeting to the 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 meeting. Thank you. Georgina 42:51.616
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 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 it is part of a larger council project. I have prepared a couple plans for today that I believe Sally might be trying to bring up, if possible, 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. I have prepared a... So, as we can see up on the screen, the development that is forming part of this application is proposed to occupy lot one, which was approved mid last year. A subdivision consisting of one into six lots, which included the approval of a drainage and a parked lot. So, for clarity, I condition a part of this 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 So that essentially means that should this be approved, the titles to be created, so the road will be constructed, landscaping will be established, as well as the bioretention basin will be constructed and finalised. Of note, the development does consist of an affordable rental premises. Patrick Murphy 44:29.499
So this is a new definition that has been introduced with the latest scheme amendment, which it essentially just means the land is secured as affordable housing and for the life of the development is, sorry, has been secured as affordable housing and will be managed by a registered housing provider for the life of the development. Georgina 44:50.968
The proposed development type is consistent with the community facility zone of the of the property property and and was was required required to 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 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 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, car parking, setbacks, private open space and roof form. So sorry Sal could we go to the next photo? 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 as to prove well is it recommended however the development does consist of three stories and 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 just site it's 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 this means like what external impacts there will be it'll be that elevation that has been highlighted and that is the three-story element that will be visible external just in that location that's correct the remainder of the perimeter of the site will appear as two stories so this render is taken from the from the future internal road that will be constructed prior to any works taken, so I suppose to the east of us is Dianella Residence, there'll be a landscaping buffer there, as well as this road as As well as the landscaping that will be carried out as part of this development. I've considered it in my assessment as contained in the report as being appropriate. Patrick Murphy 47:12.555
This is noting the area of, I suppose the separation between the Dianella Residences as well as the use of different materials on this elevation and how they've used landscaping to complement the design. So that takes us to our next area of variation which is car parking, I think so. this is one of the floor plans on the site and I just thought it'd be a bit easier to pop 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 planning scheme it is 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 which is determined at parking spaces which is determined at one space per four units which requires a total of 32 car parking spaces and due to the way that the scheme's been written you obviously you round up car parking spaces so which takes us to a shortfall of one car parking space in this instance. In 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 of how they typically function, the 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. Thanks, Al. 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, these are the areas of relaxation that the developer, the applicant is seeking. So in the grand 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 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. Can I just add to that the application 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 the 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 Georgina 50:31.680
So again a part of this 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 the shaded in green so 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 above the carpet can see is above the car parking, so it's like that landscaped 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 51:27.371
Just to make sure that's clear, we're talking about this area here initially, where there's the breakout areas, but there's also a significant area from this retaining to the front boundary of the site, which is also available for residents to utilise. Georgina 51:43.992
Yeah, so in this instance, I suppose the performance outcome has been satisfied in this regard. Frank Wilkie 51:52.672
That Lake Macdonald drive boundary required a 6 metre setback, but there's an 11 metre setback. Yes. So you're saying that there's extra open space? That pathway is in the site. Yes. Patrick Murphy 52:03.012
That's right. So there's an ability for people to manoeuvre around that area and also to recreate in terms of taking a seat. Amelia Lorentson 52:15.058
Just a question we might allow Georgina to finish the report before we go to questions Georgina. Do you want to continue the report first? Sure. Thank you. Georgina 52:25.245
So on the next slide that we have highlights the roof form treatment to Lake Macdonald Drive. in the assessment that this elevation does not replicate the 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. So whilst it's acknowledged sorry The design has taken into consideration the history of Cooroy and supporting material. of Cooroy and supporting material part of the application, I suppose, has lent on that it is designed to reflect a saw blade, which is in reference to Cooroy's historic timber milling industry. Patrick Murphy 53:08.188
Along that elevation and then I suppose 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 it's 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 provision eight for eight metres in building height it'd be likely that the pitch would again exceed that blanket. The planning scheme includes a number of figures around preferred reform character and they're all residential single. Georgina 54:03.320
So I suppose in summary despite these areas of non-compliance 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. note is Something 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, well does agree with our recommendation. Patrick Murphy 54:42.892
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 facility 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. amendments Frank Wilkie 55:20.248
You mentioned that the it's consistent use for this site. You talked about acceptable outcomes and listening how compliance with the performance outcomes determines its consistency with the met, he explained for those who scheme or not. Patrick Murphy 55:53.324
Thank you. So the acceptable outcomes are one way to demonstrate compliance with the performance outcomes and that they can often be quite prescriptive. I think in the main this development meets most prescriptive outcomes in terms of building high site cover, gross floor area. When there's elements of non-compliance your next level of assessment is 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 consistent planning scheme and consistent with the planning scheme, that's correct, performance based planning scheme, that's correct. Richard MacGillivray 56:51.456
Can I just add 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 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 a standard assessment process to ensure that we get alignment with the outcomes sought in the planning scheme along with those performance outcomes. Amelia Lorentson 57:32.420
I've got quite a few questions so I'm just wondering whether I might park 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 and I reference 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 And the question is, you know, in light of what just happened, what happens when there's frequent, short, intense storms that we've been witnessing just recently? Richard MacGillivray 58:30.272
Yes, I'm happy to answer that one, Councillor. So, in terms of the current proposal, it's before you, that relates to the future land use of Lot 1. The situation you're referring to, I guess, relates to the subdivision side. is currently under construction. And I guess what I would say is that there's current investigations underway in terms of any releases and this local government council is working with DETSI. There's a 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 So I guess at this stage there's not much more to say publicly about those apart from their investigation and contractual matters are afoot in relation to that and I guess they don't specifically relate to the proposal I guess that's being considered. Amelia Lorentson 59:32.140
Again I've got quite a few so I'm happy to wait till the general. Is there anyone around the table that would like to ask any questions? Brian Stockwell 59:40.100
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 01:00:02.468
We look at private open space allocated to each dwelling and generally in a fenced area and 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 four storey unit, we still have 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 metres if you're the fourth floor up? I think it comes down to nine square metres. That's okay. Brian Stockwell 01:00:48.677
I understand the need. It was just that technical thing in my head going, how can you assign these goods and use them if you haven't got any title? Amelia Lorentson 01:00:56.537
Just a question out of curiosity. The title of the report is Application for Material Change of Use for Multiple Dwellings, Affordable Rental Premises. 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 explicitly for social housing. I've recorded affordable housing and I know the umbrella is broad but the funding is quite clear that it had Explicitly. be for social. Georgina 01:01:36.711
Yeah sure so with the introduction of the affordable rental premises it captures quite a few different definitions so that including affordable housing and that including affordable housing and entirely consisting of small dwellings and then goes into the I suppose the 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 funding? Richard MacGillivray 01:02:16.583
There's no there's no strict definition in the planning scheme for social housing as such though it obviously best fits in the definition. 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 it's being based on the assessment of the Brian Stockwell 01:02:48.560
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 That is one way to look at it. Patrick Murphy 01:03:03.407
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 Amelia Lorentson 01:03:16.634
Well. That would be great. We might just leave it and I'm happy to move that this report goes to the general meeting. Can I have a second? Thank you. No further discussion? All in favour? Thank you. SPEAKER_13 01:03:32.434
I'll be back in two minutes. No worries. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:34.614
And I might take this opportunity... just to clarify the role of the chair under Noosa Council's standing orders, that the role of the chair is actually to control the debate of the table and it And it is also the role of the chair 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... So that the chair is allowed to control the meeting. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:04:05.970
And there's also a part in there that talks about once a motion is moved, then there should be a right for a seconder. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:14.330
Councillor Tom? Brian Stockwell 01:04:15.330
Can we have a quick break? If you'd Absolutely, why not we do that. 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. All in favour? Amelia Lorentson 01:09:51.880
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 01:10:07.425
Thank you our monthly report on those applications that were decided under delegation by the officers for the month of December 30 decisions that were made under delegation all all approved one application approved by council in that month of December again a wide range of applications bit of a shorter month due to the Christmas break so yeah the team were quite busy leading into Christmas my first question the three superseded planning scheme applications that were approved can you talk us through this okay so they all they all relate to the one property so why you've got SPS 25 triple 0 1 and then the 0.01 and the 0.02 so the primary application being for the dual occupancy and then the subsequent applications being for operational works and the reconfiguration Operational works and the reconfiguration of the lot. The site is in the medium density residential zone and its 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 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 preparation to lodge an application that would have been a consistent use under the superseded scheme obviously moving to an inconsistent use under the new scheme 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 01:12:07.423
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 we where would we refuse 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 it obviously was 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. Questions? address were you talking about? The last three on Hilton Terrace. 51? Yeah, okay. Other questions? I have a question. Tom Wegener 01:13:06.167
15 And 17 Mile Street, Cooroy, with a few dwellings and 11... All that went up. It's a pretty big development there on a really busy bottleneck tap street. Can you just give me some details on that? 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 entrance and egress. It is two lots, a positive outcome in terms of the provision of a number of dwellings and also a significant number of those being small dwellings, so a reason to support the application. With that, 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. 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 happy to take on board any comments and provide you with information post the meeting would be preferable. Place the meeting, would be preferable. Last question. Yeah, sorry about that. And the last question, it inherits yourself. But Patrick, I'd like to check with you later on that one. Could I completely understand? In the detail, right off the hat. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:41.445
Can we get just a little bit of clarity? Nature-based tourism, Dr. Pages Road, Cabalaba. Again, approved code. Accessible application. What's meant by nature-based tourism? Are they eco-cottages, or... Patrick Murphy 01:14:56.831
Yes, some cabins. And seeking to avail... These, nature-based tourism, either seek to avail of some 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, so that they can go hiking or cycling tours. 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 it? Well, there's a number of, so the eco-cabins-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, short-term accommodation. But here there's a connection between the people with the accommodation. 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 definition within the scheme in its own right. So it's sometimes navigating that pathway to ensure it's one and not the other. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:03.368
So it is a short-term accommodation we're approving, but it's consistent under the scheme as being a nature-based... Richard MacGillivray 01:16:15.548
Nature-based tourism is, yes. It's its own land definition. It has its own... its own land use definition, Amelia. 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, the natural, the environmental values that it needs to, I guess, progress as part of Amelia Lorentson 01:16:51.863
Captured in terms of numbers when we look at how many STAs we have? Is it included in that database or not? Patrick Murphy 01:17:00.943
In terms of the short term accommodation... How many we have operating and is it captured under our transitory rating? Any further 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? Amelia Lorentson 01:17:32.400
Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. So we now move to item 7.5 and thank you Richard. So we now move Item 7.5, welcome to the desk Ben. Multi-year environment collaboration grants and organisational alliance grants proposed reschedule and then if you can give us an overview or summary of the report in front of us. Thank you Chair. SPEAKER_13 01:18:04.672
Good morning councillors. It's quite a simple proposal what we're planning but there's a bit of information sitting in the background. Under the environment levy, environment of grants policy we issue council issues two streams of multi-year grants, and they're both 3D grants, one's 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 projects that have better outcomes. Both of those grant streams are currently due on the 30th of 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. 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 that are connected directly to the objectives and key outcomes of the Environment Strategy. Now the Environment Strategy is currently towards the end 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 some of the objectives and proposals that... that are put forward for council to consider. 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 But now we've got more mature plans sitting in there. We've 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 contemporise 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. the next few months we might be entering into three-year agreements which are attached to an outdated strategy now in time in terms of size under the current funding agreements that represents over a three-year period just over a million dollars so it's a reasonable sum of money that's going out into the community that that we'd like to see invested you know Invested in a contemporary 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 all of our current grant recipients and the multi-year environment grants, of which we've got seven, all of those programs can extend for another year with extensions of KPIs and so they're all mature programs with really good outcomes and that we'd see those outcomes delivered for that we'd see those outcomes delivered for another 12 months under a bridging agreement and all of the 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 the current recipients to have a 12-month bridging agreement. From a legal and procurement perspective we can do that under our policies. We've been 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 us the 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 bridge So the one year bridging agreements 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 01:22:43.211
So the acquittal process will be the same as the multi-year process? That's correct. SPEAKER_13 01:22:48.631
So currently the acquittal process, we do a 12 month acquittal process. do a 12 month acquittal process where we check in at each 12 months to be able to make sure that they're 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 are seen that particular year. Amelia Lorentson 01:23:09.574
Questions around the table? I'm a little bit... I'm a little bit... I'm... We might just... OK, it's OK, Tom. Let's just see this. Brian Stockwell 01:23:19.284
Sorry, it's a new phone. I've turned it off. Honestly, not. Amelia Lorentson 01:23:25.864
Questions around the table first? I've got a couple of questions, Ben. In terms of applicants, have they been informed about the delay? You mentioned you mentioned you have touch base with all of them? SPEAKER_13 01:23:45.874
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 grant, the discussion is a little 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 as an example, keeping in Kin Kin, where we've got some specifics around landholders and what's going on the ground, we're looking at the next 12 months and 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:24.391
And in terms of the multi-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 or seven years? That seems quite long for a review. SPEAKER_13 01:24:41.018
Yeah, 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, it felt right to put through a review, which we 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. So it's just making it contemporary based on what's changed within council and what's changed within the industry. Amelia Lorentson 01:25:18.260
Who would like to move Tom? I was so excited about reading this report because it actually is a pivot from getting stuck stuck into into going going through through the the old old process and then perhaps getting stuck in with a three-year grant which doesn't actually align with where we're going. It's a resetting of the vision for Noosa and starting with the DMP and the new environment strategy. I find it happy 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 a really good start for Noosa for this term here. 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 in Queensland if not the world. So thank you. I really appreciate you doing that because we could have just stuck to saying okay well we're going to give these grants out with the old strategy but with old strategy but with the new strategies coming on there may be new people coming in with that share the vision for Noosa and say oh I want to jump on this 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. have been so eager to jump on and to apply for the grant. So I think it's really exciting. It's a really impressive move for Council to say this is a problem, let's change the problem, let's fix it, let's make it better and move forward. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:27:18.529
Apologies if I missed it in the report. When is the recommendations from the mid-term environmental strategy review coming to Council? SPEAKER_13 01:27:26.389
We are just going through executive briefings at the moment, which are starting at the start of March and pending those. I expect the Council will see that in Brian Stockwell 01:27:40.760
I think it would be an interesting opportunity, when you say you're talking about KPIs, it would be an interesting opportunity to ensure that all these groups are very good at what they do, have they met? not just their proposed outputs, but are they heading towards their outcomes, and to actually use this as a monitoring 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 that we set 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 Kicking On, keeping it in Kin Kin. I suggest next year we KICK Kicking On. Sorry. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:29.154
One question before you leave. So just following up on that, are there any risks, and following up on what Tom said, are there any risks that the projects that we're already funding may not be included when we... we update our priorities? Scott, what's that risk? Yeah, um... You mentioned it's only minor tweaks, or are they major tweaks? SPEAKER_13 01:28:57.441
Um, it's probably... 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 an end impact of improper use of plastics. Should the environment lever be funding it, or should our waste education be funding that program? And look, it's not my decision, but when the environment strategy was written, we didn't have a waste 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 areas of conservation, weed management, mitigating impact, being responsible for regenerative practices and stewardship, they'll remain the same 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. So just being able to get everything talking to each other and aligned may change how we assess certain applications in different areas where those priority areas might have changed. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:30.005
Are we going to have the same pool of money or will it all waste if it's going to be a standalone? That's not a question we can answer. Oh okay, excuse me. That's Kat's question. Frank Wilkie 01:30:40.125
Madam Chair, I'm Derek Rawlings, how's that? Amelia Lorentson 01:30:42.205
Oh hey, sorry Kim, you've got your hand raised. Go ahead. Kim Rawlings 01:30:48.950
Yes, well just building on what Madam Chair and Derek said, I think the risk is pretty low. Contemporary work that council has done things like the DMP and things like that so that will influence going forward so and you know of course there will be discussions with council about the ways in which there's 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 Amelia Lorentson 01:31:53.100
It. Anyone else would like 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 And that brings us to the last item, so reports for noting by the committee. 8.1, cascading climate risk from critical infrastructure failure projects. And welcome to the desk, if you want to pass over to Jo, Thank you, sorry Jo, you go ahead. Jo 01:32:34.793
So our critical infrastructure 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 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 we can't call or 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 risks The Cascading Climate Risk from Critical Infrastructure Failure Project, or the CIF project for short, was a two-year project. With $1.1 million in grant funding from the QRA through the Queensland Risk and Resilience Fund, the project addresses a key action in action in a regional climate action roadmap with the Sunshine Coast Council. Working with partners across the region including Energex, Unity Water, Telstra, NBN Co, Queensland Fire Department, Department of Health, Queensland Police Service and many more, the project carefully examined 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 found 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. Broadly, these include reduced product activity, 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 cooled, 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 for two of our key sites, the new civil 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, 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 much work to be done SIF 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 and the members of the Stakeholder Housing Reference Group who have been instrumental in Amelia Lorentson 01:36:29.100
Project. Questions around the table? Thank you, Joe. Questions around the table? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:36:36.320
Yeah, just a clarification about scope. So in Figure 1, you look at critical infrastructure failure and you mention causes of... Causes of loss of transport. Did we look at the loss of transport in the food supply chain? Jo 01:36:52.032
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 it became too big for us to be able, it would have been unwielding to have that critical infrastructure as well. It's something that we, us and Sunshine Coast Council have identified as important for future assessments. Brian Stockwell 01:37:20.320
Another, it's more of a question around the scope of the recommendations. In figure three, you highlight using EV flat for power as trade-offs with-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 Boreen Point out for four and a half days, that there are now groups of EV owners who have organised themselves that if there was 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 power, that local EV operates they opt-on carry and plug it in? Jo 01:38:08.096
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, definitely. 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 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:38:43.376
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 actually implement that is in the community sub lanes. So the community actually arrange that for their own residents, and I'll take that on notice to work with Sue Bowery, our disaster management officer, to put that on the agenda for part of the community sub lanes. I've got a scenario to give you something I've been thinking about this week. Brian Stockwell 01:39:12.180
Tom. Tom Wegener 01:39:12.720
Just to carry on from Brian's concern with food, during COVID, the most impressive thing that I've seen 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, out to buy their food. They set up a food tree or a phone tree, a phone tree. And that's where they, the regulars would call each other and then very quickly they devised, everybody had to call 10 of their friends and call 10 of their friends and call 10 of their friends. And through COVID they actually distributed food in that way through the phone tree. And how organically, quickly it appeared and how successful it was, was tremendous. And one person was identified who had passed away who nobody would have known if they didn't have the phone tree that 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 about this and bringing it to the report and you guys are doing it makes me feel a lot better that, you know, the cascading problems are being really looked at by staff and the team, so thank you for that. Thanks, Councillor Jo 01:40:30.271
Tong. Great idea and I'll pass the show. Yeah, and 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 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. And 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. One of the actions that identified in this project which was quite interesting was, and you might have come across it, is 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 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. Frank Wilkie 01:41:41.599
Thank you. You've started to touch on it. When is everyone increasing climate disasters occur and critically infrastructure like electricity, telecommunications and water services fail. What simple solutions are you actually proposing? You started to talk about them there. Jo 01:42:04.816
Yeah, so the 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. 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 every site but there's a whole range of options identified 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. Frank Wilkie 01:43:08.970
You referred to some briefly in your batteries, solar, Starlink. Jo 01:43:14.390
Yeah, radios, UPS systems, rainwater tanks, emergency water. Frank Wilkie 01:43:20.170
You presented this report to the LDMJ and it was very well received and you also said you'd present it to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Jo 01:43:28.410
Yes. Tell us about that presentation and what were 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 including the Department of Premier and Cabinet and it was again very well received. Very highly commended as probably the first instance local government looking at cascading and compounding climate risks in Queensland potentially in Australia and so the findings will be advanced through further conversations and we've been asked to do multiple to do multiple presentations to a few of the agencies in particular as follow-up as well, as taking the 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 regional critical 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 01:44:39.261
So 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? That's a great question. Jo 01:44:59.301
Thank you, Chair. They have been incorporated into... 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. work in 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 So strategic risk register, in but we can do that a bit more terms of the 1.1 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:53.288
Not likely. Jo 01:45:53.288
No, it wouldn't have happened without external funding. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:56.348
No. So money, very well spent. Very well spent. Thank you. I'll put the questions in. Yeah, one more scoping question. 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. Disasters related to climate. Did the project also look at the press of the slow-moving risks in terms of anyone I can think of is sea level rise and storm water infrastructure. 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 We had over 50 engagements, workshops, briefings, presentations throughout the project and we found that through the workshops it became quite difficult to have multiple scenarios of critical infrastructure failure and impacts to council services that both address the acute hazard. 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 the 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 the acute hazards that we have quite a lot to do already. Frank Wilkie 01:47:26.851
There's plenty to keep you busy. There's plenty to keep us busy, yes. Happy to move it Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:31.431
Can I please have a seconder? Thank you. And would you like to speak? I would thank you Madam Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:47:37.051
Look, 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 are subject to budget approval, will they allow our local disaster coordination centre and our LDMG disaster response to function as it should, should critical infrastructure fail, it will, it's a blueprint to allow councillors 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 Brian Stockwell 01:48:21.940
So my understanding is this project actually has had ripple effects in that the arrangement of the structure providers have started to think about the issue and it was leading in that respect. I think that's really important to understand that it's 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, the steps in place. I think the other thing this shows, 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 like adapting to climate change, we can't have an isolationist perspective. We have to look at our role in the broader environment. 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. So in a range of ways it's In a range of ways, it's a very useful project to look at, not just internally, but how we engage externally with other councils, but also other infrastructure providers, so well done. Frank Wilkie 01:49:41.734
Will you please pass on our thanks and acknowledgement of your partners in this work? Definitely. Jo 01:49:49.692
I will just comment on what you said there, Councillor Stockwell. I can't probably understate how interesting it was to see when we were working with critical infrastructure providers that have a lens that's either regional, state like Energex, or even national like like Energex or even national like Telstra but impacts are felt locally right so but they don't have that level of insight 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 out with them how their mindset and perspective change and I think that was quite eye-opening and impactful so 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 and associated framework 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 of 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 for a hundred million dollars 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. Well said Jan, couldn't agree more. Amelia Lorentson 01:51:41.911
Thank you and again commend please Sunshine Coast Council again money really was. Again, money really well spent. Thank you. No further. Tom, did you want to speak? Tom Wegener 01:51:52.494
No, just, yeah, just ditto. Thanks. Amelia Lorentson 01:51:58.254
Fantastic. Thank you very much. Thank you. And that brings us... And that brings us to the close. There are no confidential sessions. I now declare the meeting closed. It is 11:25. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
