General Committee Meeting, 11 August 2026
Date: Tuesday, 11 August 2026 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 07:13:53
Synopsis: Lions Park LMP legality clarified and consultation staged, Capital Works scrutiny and delivery progress, Housing supply and STA enforcement, Infrastructure Charges adopted, Community Tenure Policy updated.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Community Services Paul Brinkman Apologies (Did Not Attend)
Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Jessica Phillips led scrutiny of the $50m 2025/26 Capital Works Program; $34m actuals (67%) with $27.7m committed to multi‑year contracts; controls added (traffic‑light resourcing, explicit contingencies) to improve delivery confidence (02:00–06:57) (Item 7.1.1). Frank Wilkie noted 122 projects average 82% complete; major works include Cooroy sports upgrades, Lake Doonella bridge and Doonan landfill (08:16–09:35) (Item 7.1.1). Housing Monitoring report noted: >1,000 dwellings approved since 2021; 363 STA licences cancelled; incentives for secondary/small dwellings; social housing pipeline +~25–30% with State support; car‑park air‑rights feasibility due Oct (10:21–21:19; 28:29–32:26) (Item 7.1.2). Noosa Heads Lions Park LMP : Council resolved to commence an LMP including temporary overflow carpark; seek Minister advice that work is underway; and bring back scope/cost/timeline for consultation before substantive work (carried 4–2) (03:56:09–04:52:34) (Item 7.1.3). Infrastructure Charges : adopted Charges Resolution (No.10) 2026; 3.7% indexation and continuity of rebates for targeted housing types; effective 21 Aug 2026 (05:36:09–05:39:34) (Item 7.2.2). Community Tenure Policy adopted; 2015 policy repealed; clearer eligibility, rental framework (most remain at one unit ~$639); Council assumes statutory fire/electrical/pest maintenance; no use to expand poker machines; CEO authorised minor edits (05:40:59–06:08:10) (Item 7.2.3). Noosa Waters Residents Advisory Group Terms of Reference approved to guide levy transparency and asset planning; parallel Hastings St framework in train (05:18:28–05:35:49) (Item 7.2.1). Operational Plan Q4 : 82% initiatives on track/complete; highlights include Botanic Gardens Master Plan, Child Safeguarding Policy; two deferrals (Boreen Point master plan; Regional Gallery business case) (04:55:25–05:07:12) (Item 7.1.5). Litigation : Council to defend three P&E Court matters—two STA local law appeals (8 Witta Cct; 5/7 Peza Ct) and one minor change appeal (2/16 Grant St planter boxes) (06:18:35–07:07:47) (Items 7.2.4–7.2.6). Delegations : Annual review adopted; updated Council-to-CEO register to maintain operational efficiency and statutory compliance (07:08:27–07:13:35) (Item 7.2.7). Contentious / Transparency Matters Lions Park legality/process dominated debate: competing readings of Land Act s52AA vs s52AB; external legal clarified s52AB governs statutory bodies; LMP required; native title engagement flagged (03:45:44–03:47:05; 03:50:31–03:52:16) (Item 7.1.3). Pre‑empting outcomes : warnings against signalling Christmas parking approval before LMP; risk to perceived impartiality of consultation (04:03:45–04:06:11; 02:06:51–02:08:58) (Item 7.1.3). Public sentiment data contested: DMP survey reportedly ~70% against using parks for parking vs petition support and media poll; Council sought fresh, specific engagement in LMP (01:52:11–01:53:47; 04:11:31–04:13:13) (Item 7.1.3). Budget/time risk : LMP costs estimated $30–75k and 6–12 months; unbudgeted; potential disruption to consultation schedule; governance sought staged scoping report first (02:05:11–02:06:51; 04:17:20–04:18:32) (Item 7.1.3). Record clarification : governance confirmed only final resolutions bind; earlier indicative votes on overflow parking held no force (02:10:41–02:11:41) (Item 7.1.3). Transport strategy tension : Tom Wegener urged “move people, not cars,” citing capacity of bus loop; others argued for transitional flexibility pending alternatives (03:24:47–03:26:37; 04:06:32–04:07:12) (Item 7.1.3). Legal / Risk Trust land compliance : For statutory trustees (Council), Land Act s52AB requires an LMP demonstrating no diminishment of purpose and no adverse public interest; s52AA ministerial approval is not an alternative for councils; native title (non‑exclusive) consultation required (03:45:44–03:47:05; 01:48:18–01:50:25) (Item 7.1.3). Predetermination risk : Approving parking “this year” while LMP/consultation pending could be attacked as fettering discretion and undermining procedural fairness (02:59:43–03:00:49; 04:03:45–04:06:11) (Item 7.1.3). STA enforcement : For 8 Witta Cct, repeated late‑night noise complaints supported added conditions (no outdoor areas/lighting after 9pm; pool curfew); appellant bears onus in P&E Court (06:22:39–06:23:23) (Item 7.2.4). Unauthorised STA use : 5/7 Peza Ct advertised/operated without approval; compliance notice issued; Council to defend appeal of review decision (07:01:54–07:04:25) (Item 7.2.5). Development compliance : 2/16 Grant St built form diverged (effective third storey); negotiated planter boxes to restore compliance; owner now appeals refusal to remove; Council defending (07:05:17–07:07:47) (Item 7.2.6). Short Stay Letting / STA Compliance posture : Council affirmed readiness to defend STA local law decisions, relying on hotline logs, recordings, and proportional conditions aligned to the Good Neighbour Guide (06:22:39–06:24:45) (Items 7.2.4–7.2.5). Housing interplay : 363 STA licences cancelled since 2023; officers tracking PPR reversion via rating data; further reforms on rooming/community residence charges flagged (19:39–20:36; 28:29–32:26) (Item 7.1.2). Environmental / Asset Management (Noosa Waters) Canal water quality : Algae nuisance managed; plan to trial 24/7 salinity pump; long‑term option to vary high‑tide intake would be costly and outside levy; water quality meets guidelines (05:20:43–05:23:51) (Item 7.2.1). Forthcoming liabilities : Pipe relining and adding inspection pits (hundreds of $k); acoustic barrier patching and likely major works in 5–10 years; modelling to inform levy/asset plans (05:25:14–05:28:25) (Item 7.2.1). Community Facilities & Tenure Policy refinements : Five‑year default lease terms with flexibility for major investments/grants; clearer assessment of organisational capacity and commerciality; hardship and rental review pathways built in (05:49:42–06:07:41) (Item 7.2.3). Risk controls : Centralised statutory maintenance by Council raises safety compliance and reduces burden on volunteers, with cost recovery via unified rent unit (06:10:15–06:11:16) (Item 7.2.3). Transport & Parking in Hastings St Precinct Mass transit capacity : 065 loop moved ~75,000 passengers at Christmas (+67% YoY); differing views on car substitution vs overall demand growth (03:08:53–03:11:23; 04:24:28–04:24:42) (Item 7.1.3). Data needs : Calls for rigorous, like‑for‑like trials (with/without overflow parking), transparent assumptions on vehicle occupancy, and targeted engagement on peak‑day needs (02:52:11–02:53:47; 04:10:43–04:11:30) (Item 7.1.3).
Official Meeting Minutes
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 General Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, 11 August 2026 10:00am Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” Page 1 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 MINUTES 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 10.00am. 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 Frank Wilkie (Acting Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Community Services Paul Brinkman APOLOGIES Cr Brian Stockwell Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Cr Frank Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting due to Cr Brian Stockwell being on leave. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Cr Frank Wilkie assumed the Chair. Page 2 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 7 JULY 2026 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 7 July 2026 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORTS 7.1 REPORTS FOR NOTING 7.1.1 CAPITAL PROGRAM 2025-2026 DELIVERY STATUS REPORT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Principal Infrastructure Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026, providing an update on the 2025/26 Capital Works Program as at 30 June 2026. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Page 3 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 7.1.2 HOUSING MONITORING REPORT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding Housing Monitoring. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.1.3 NOOSA HEADS LIONS PARK LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Motion Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding a Noosa Heads Lions Park Land Management Plan. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips Add Item A to read: That, prior to any further resourcing being committed to a Land Management Plan process for Noosa Heads Lions Park, Council obtain written legal advice on whether the Christmas period overflow parking is inconsistent with the reserve’s parks and recreational purpose, or properly characterised as incidental or auxiliary to it, having regard to Attachment 1 and the history of the use in the report dash; with the outcome reported back to Council before any further step is taken. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips Add item A to read: That, should the use be confirmed as inconsistent, Council obtain written legal advice on what would be required to satisfy the diminishment of purpose and public interest tests under section 52AB, having regard to the factors Attachment 1 identifies as relevant dash; with the outcome reported back to Council before any further resourcing is committed to an LMP process. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Page 4 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 The meeting adjourned at 12.17pm. The meeting resumed at 12.47pm. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item A be added to read: A. That Council prepare a scoped, proportionate Land Management Plan for the Christmas overflow parking for 21 days. Lost on the casting vote of the Chair. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Amelia Lorentson – refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 - Section 52AA of the Land Act 1994 The meeting adjourned at 1.33pm. The meeting returned at 1.46pm. Amendment No. 4 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips Add Item A to read: That Council obtain written legal advice on whether section 52AA of the Land Act 1994 applies to this trustee action, and if it does not, the specific statutory basis for that conclusion, with the outcome reported back to Council. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No. 5 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Items A, B, and C be added to read: A. Receive a further report detailing the scope, costs, funding implications and proposed timeline for consultation and the preparation of the Land Management Plan prior to the commencement of substantive plan preparation works; B. Approve commencement of the preparation of a Land Management Plan (LMP) for Noosa Heads Lions Park with the inclusion of temporary overflow carpark, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act and the Queensland Government's Guideline for Managing Actions Consistent and Inconsistent with the Purpose of Trust Land; and C. Write to the Minister, advising that Council are working on the LMP and requesting approval for this year. Page 5 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Amendment No. 6 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item D be added to read: D. Request that the CEO write to the Minister seeking confirmation of whether the Minister would consider an application by Council as Trustee, under Section 52AA of the Land Act 1994, in relation to the use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park and whether an LMP is or isn't required. Lost. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No. 7 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Nil That Item B be amended to read: B. Consider the findings of the report on resourcing before considering commencement of the preparation of a Land Management Plan (LMP) for Noosa Heads Lions Park with the inclusion of temporary overflow carpark, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act and the Queensland Government's Guideline for Managing Actions Consistent and Inconsistent with the Purpose of Trust Land; and Lapsed for want of a seconder. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding a Noosa Heads Lions Park Land Management Plan; and A. Receive a further report detailing the scope, costs, funding implications and proposed timeline for consultation and the preparation of the Land Management Plan prior to the commencement of substantive plan preparation works; B. Approve commencement of the preparation of a Land Management Plan (LMP) for Noosa Heads Lions Park with the inclusion of temporary overflow carpark, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act and the Queensland Government's Guideline for Managing Actions Consistent and Inconsistent with the Purpose of Trust Land; and C. Write to the Minister, advising that Council are working on the LMP and requesting approval for this year. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Page 6 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 7.1.4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JUNE 2026 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for June 2026 as provided at Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.1.5 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2025-2026 Q4 QUARTERLY REPORTING Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding the Operational Plan 2025-2026 Q4 Quarterly Reporting; B. Note the progress report for Quarter 4 of the Operational Plan 2025-2026 provided as Attachment 1; and C. Note the status of Council's Operational Key Performance Measures for Quarter 4 of the reporting year provided as Attachment 2. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.2 REPORTS FOR ACTION 7.2.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) - NOOSA WATERS RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUP Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council A. Note the report by the Director of Infrastructure Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding the Terms of Reference Page 7 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 (TOR) for the Noosa Waters Residents Advisory Group representatives meeting with Noosa Council; B. Approve the Terms of Reference for the Noosa Waters Advisory Group to maintain a quality working relationship between Noosa Water Residents Association and Noosa Council; C. Delegate to the CEO to execute minor amendments to the TOR following final review by the Noosa Waters Residents Association; and D. Note the information concerning the Customer Service Obligation and preparation of a specific Asset Management Plan for Noosa Waters due to the nature of the Noosa Waters asset portfolio. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.2.2 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026; and B. Adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.10) 2026” provided as Attachment 1 to the report and take effect on 21 August 2026, replacing the previous “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.9) 2025”. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.2.3 REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY PURPOSE LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE TENURE POLICY Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council: A. Note the report to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding the Review of the Community Purpose Land & Infrastructure Tenure Policy; B. Repeal the Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy adopted by Council on 12 March 2015 (as amended in 2017); C. Adopt the Community Tenure Policy provided at Attachment 1 to the report; Page 8 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 D. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make minor administrative, editorial or formatting amendments to the Community Tenure Policy that do not materially alter the intent of the Policy prior to publication; E. Note that a supporting Community Tenure Guideline will be finalised and implemented to support the consistent administration of Community Tenure Arrangements in accordance with the adopted Policy. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.2.4 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1576 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 8 WITTA CIRCUIT, NOOSA HEADS Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the meeting be closed to the public in accordance with Section 254D(3) of the LG Regulation 2012 (as this is not publicly available information that is confidential to the local government) and pursuant to section 254J(3)(e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing Item 7.2.4 P7E Court Appeal 1576 of 2026 - 8 Witta Circuit Noosa Heads. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1576 of 2026; and B. Agree to defend the appeal. Page 9 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.2.5 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1763 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 5/7 PEZA COURT, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1763 of 2026; and B. Agree to defend the appeal. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 7.2.6 MCU17/0559.05 - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1842 OF 2026 - FOR MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DUPLEX DWELLING AT 2/16 GRANT STREET, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1842 of 2026; and B. Agree to defend the appeal. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Page 10 of 11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING | 11 AUGUST 2026 7.2.7 DELEGATIONS ANNUAL REVIEW - COUNCIL TO CEO Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council: A. Note the report by the Governance Officer to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding Council's Annual Delegation Review for 2026; and B. Adopt the Register of Delegations – Council to Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, to delegate the powers of the Local Government outlined in the Register of Delegations provided in Attachment 1, to the Chief Executive Officer of Noosa Shire Council. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 8 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 9 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 5.14pm. Page 11 of 11
Meeting Transcript
Larry Sengstock 00:00.340
The regular Chair of this meeting is away on leave and so I'll begin the meeting and then we'll elect a new Chair just for this particular meeting so I declare the meeting open at 10:00am. I acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi People and I pay my respects to the elders past, present emerging. As I said, of Ryan as well. Councillor Brian Stockwell is away on leave so all other councils are in attendance but due to Councillor stockwell's absence we'll need to vote in a new Chair so can we have a mover? Karen Finzel 00:38.025
I'm happy to move that the Mayor Frank Wilkie sits in Wilkie sits in the Chair position today. Larry Sengstock 01:00.134
We'll okay. Can I put that to the vote? All in favour? That's unanimous. Frank Wilkie 01:05.426
Thank you Mr. CEO. Thank you Councillors. So we begin by acknowledging that we're meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi People. Pay our respects to elders past, present and emerging. First item is confirmation of the Minutes. I have a mover and a seconder for the Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on the 7th of July 2026. I'm happy to move. Thank you Councillor Lorentson, seconded Councillor Phillips, all in favour? That's carried, there are no presentations, we have no deputations. We have reports for noting, the first being the capital program 2025-2026 delivery status report, and we have Aidan Flannery here today to give us a summary of that, and we also have Director Shaun Walsh online hello, welcome. This is Laura. Aidan Flannery 02:00.004
Hello Laura, welcome. Thank you. Good morning everyone, thanks for your time. So this report provides a status update on Noosa Council's capital works program for the 2025-2026 financial year, excluding. Disaster recovery projects. The approved capital budget as per budget review was $50 million, including $11.5 million in carry forwards. Actual expenditure at end of quarter four was $33.6 million, so that's now been updated to $34 million, representing. 67% of the approved budget with further commitments of $27.7 million. This is a grant funding revenue for the year was $15 million, with Council contributing $10.7 million to these projects, excluding disaster projects. The capital program comprises of 122 projects at various stages of planning, design and delivery, with an average progress of 82%. Throughout quarter four of 25 26 the capital program for 26/27 was developed by the infrastructure planning team and was workshopped with Councillors, followed by formal adoption taking place in June. Frank Wilkie 03:10.082
Questions, Councillors? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:17.315
So just for clarification, note that the report talks about commitments at 123% of the approved budget. What does that mean for an organisation when commitments hundreds? Sit at 123%? And how is the exposure being managed across the future years? Aidan Flannery 03:39.624
I understand that those commitments reflect to future years. So the 26-27 capital works program. So for instance, a project that was a contract awarded with construction occurring over two five financial years would put that commitment above the current capital works program allocated budget, noting that the budget would become available in a future year. Frank Wilkie 04:07.825
Yeah any other Councillors? We're going to follow up. Tom Wegener 04:12.114
I know that looks kind of funny sometimes, you know, such a carryover, but what I understand is at the end of the project, the final payment comes out. So there's sometimes a bit of a lag between, you know, you're paying for it as time goes on. But at the end, there's sort of the final balloon-esque payment. Is that right? Aidan Flannery 04:30.871
Yeah, I think sort of a forecast, a typical forecast is a bit of a bell curve with a slow sort of cost beginning and then that ramps costs up through the middle of a project and then you'd have the larger payments sort of come out and then right at the end, you might have some smaller follow-up payments. So, but I think from last year with the $27 million in commitments set us up for a good position to really hit the ground running this financial year with those commitments ready to go. Amelia Lorentson 05:03.253
Okay, you know, castle larson. Councillor Lorentson. One last question in terms of just governance. The report identified identifies quite a few risks. Underspend over commitment, resourcing constraints, there's key personnel positions that have, that are not filled, land access issues, tight grant timeframes. Can you outline what sort of controls are in place to ensure that the 26-27 program is realistic, achievable and financially responsible? Aidan Flannery 05:45.992
Yeah, I suppose so there will be a BR1 report coming through to the Ordinary Meeting next week, I believe, which will touch on that further. There was the adoption current capital year. The current capital year's budget. We would have talked through a lot of that. We use our monthly capital works scheduling reporting, which we do through the Capital Works Executive, and we're looking at different ways we can improve on that, including a traffic light assessment of resourcing, which we'll be reporting through CWE at the September meeting. To that, we're further to we are looking at reporting contingency as well. So I believe previously we haven't noted contingency within budgets. So where we're looking at a $50 million budget per se, with contingency, you might have a $2 million contingency where we never intended to spend that 50 million. We're aiming for a $48 million. So we'll be coming. That's just a number I've made up on the spot now, but in the future we'll be reporting on that contingency value. Frank Wilkie 06:57.533
Fantastic. Care these? To move? Yeah, thank you Councillor Phillips, seconded Councillor Finzel, Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 07:06.569
Aidan, thank you. I will say, being Chair of capital works now, when these reports come through, I feel like I have some more detail through a process. More detail through and this not. This is more a comment about, it's for any Councillors wanting to come to CWE just to observe. It's really, for me, like given me such a more better understanding of how the process in infrastructure works. And I think the only thing I would love to see is how we communicate that more effectively with community because now I'm part of that, I sort of get so much more from it and that is such a privilege to be in those meetings that community don't. So I'm probably just going to make a comment about how we could communicate it better that it celebrates some of the things that are working and more understanding around those carryovers that Tom just said, not everyone's watching online. See how we. Could improve our communications with it. But capital works, anyone wanting to come, it's a really good meeting to see how it kind of comes through the Council and how it comes up to us. And yeah, it helps me feel like when I read this, I've got more understanding. So thanks. Frank Wilkie 08:16.123
Thank you, Councillor Phillips. The Councillors wish to speak to the motion. I'll congratulate you and your team for another big year. Capital works is where the rubber really hits the road. They had a big program this year. I know that of the 122 projects, is which is a lot for a small Council, average project progress 82%, 63% of projects over are 90%% completed. 88% of projects are over 50% complete. As Councillor Phillips says, we keep a finger on the pulse of how all these projects are progressing through the Capital Works Executive, make adjustments as needs be throughout the year. And some of these Cooroy projects are big, like the Cooroy-Lake-MacDonald Drive residential subdivision, the Cooroy Sports Complex Gymnastics Upgrade and Multipurpose Area, the Kin Kin Wahpunga trial woodenham renewals, which are under construction, the Noosaville Gympie Terrace changing facility on Gympie Terrace, the Tewantin Lake Doonella bridge renewal and the Doonan landfill. There's a lot of work going on at the Doonan landfill and a lot of our funds are being expended out there. So, and you're doing that with. You're facing some staffing constraints, like it's being experienced by local governments across Queensland. So well done to your team for another big year. Unidentified Speaker 09:35.001
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 09:35.682
Councillor Phillips, do you wish to close? No, thank you. We'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Aidan Flannery 09:45.050
Thank you. Laura. Sorry, if I can introduce Laura properly. Laura is the new project controls officer in the infrastructure planning team. So welcome, Laura. Frank Wilkie 09:52.601
Welcome, Laura. Thank you, Laura. 7.1.2, the housing monitoring report. And we have Rowena Skinner and Anita Lakeland here to give us a summary. And Mr. Glenn conforti, welcome. Unidentified Speaker 10:21.441
Councillor, this report brings forward an update on the local housing measurables, highlighting how things have changed since the adoption of the Housing Strategy at the end of 2022 and the 2021 housing needs assessment that had informed that strategy. Over the past four years, actions within the Housing Strategy have been implemented, including planning scheme reforms to encourage housing diversity and affordable rental accommodation, financial incentives, affordable rental accommodation and secondary dwellings, the voluntary cancellation of some 363 affordable rental accommodation 363 short-term accommodation licenses, the release of development-ready land for community housing at Cooroy, and successful advocacy for increased state investment in social housing, which could result in over a 30% increase in the number of social housing dwellings in Noosa Shire. This report shows that despite efforts the housing challenges remain profound and is being shaped by economic and market forces beyond the control of local government. Council sustained commitment advocacy and collaboration all levels of government its partnership with the not-for-profit sector and its willingness to listen to experts in the designing construction and management of housing remains important as does building the community's acceptance of and capacity for greater housing choice so that Noosa remains a place where workers, families, older residents and vulnerable community members can access safe, secure and appropriate housing. Frank Wilkie 12:14.256
Thank you. Questions for staff? Jessica Phillips 12:17.795
I've got a question. Just specifically, I would love to know what housing types are experiencing the greatest shortage in our Shire. Like is it affordable, social or key working, key worker housing? Unidentified Speaker 12:35.513
There's some of all. I've the area, obviously social housing is limited to tenants that qualify for the social housing register and we have, I think the report indicates around 90 households on that waitlist at the moment. So that's a very clear indication of the demand for that. The level of affordable housing needed is a lot more difficult to quantify because obviously there's a lot of people that have unmet housing needs right now in that they can't find a rental accommodation or can't find housing to suit their needs right now. But we have also have a great number of people living in housing stress where they're only, um, really struggling to make their rent payments or their mortgage payments in some cases, so they are potentially only one or two or three payments away from being in very serious problems. I can't tell you the number of people, certainly our social service support organisations. I've got a question. Just specifically, I would love to know what housing types are experiencing the greatest shortage in our Shire. Like is it affordable, s where they're only, they're really struggling to make their rent payments or their mortgage payments in some cases, so they are potentially only one or two or three payments away from being in very serious problems. I can't assisting many people with rent assistance or with other sort of family support, maybe helping with school payments or food or other things because they can't actually provide housing. Are providing other type of family assistance. So the quantum of households that aren't yet homeless or aren't sleeping rough but are certainly in housing stress is a large number. Jessica Phillips 14:33.785
Follow-up question is that how could we, as Council get more information in that space so we can really make sort of, is there things that we need to advocate for or like what's a way that we can get really accurate data around who's accurate data around who's on that um hospital flight it's Unidentified Speaker 14:52.300
Very it's very difficult to get very accurate data on that. Obviously tonight is a census so people fill out the census they put their household income um they will put what they're paying in rent they will put what they're paying in mortgage payments but by the time um so not all data becomes available at the same time so we have current contemporary data on um on rents what median rents are and we get that data each um well certainly each quarter but we can see monthly vacancies and monthly average rents each month but we don't have a handle on income levels until the census so that's five years old so while we um you know we subscribe to um I think they're still dot id um dot com well we subscribe to them and they have um some of the data in here about incomes versus housing costs some of income the data is not contemporary so you're not necessarily um comparing today's rents with today's income it's just a very difficult area to get accurate contemporary data is that because the information comes. From different layers of yeah so some information comes from census which is five years old some information comes from department of social security um but you can't necessarily match that data with what their housing situation is. So so it's yeah it's a very complex area to try and get an accurate handle on. Anita Lakeland 16:47.530
And there's an 18 month lag between the census is taken tonight yeah first when we'll get the data right Unidentified Speaker 16:59.147
It start yeah it starts we will see the initial release at the end of next year okay I won't ask why Jessica Phillips 17:10.971
That Amelia Lorentson 17:11.354
In reference to the report you mentioned about housing above car parks and there's a feasibility study on Council on car parks we've done some workshops here in Council that's going to be reported separately can we get an idea when um we're Anita Lakeland 17:37.777
The next two months three months we're just finalising well we're getting the final um output from that feasibility analysis that peer review by a second party and we're hoping we can get that reported to Council in October. Amelia Lorentson 17:56.144
Noosa Civic, Noosa Junction you make reference in the report in terms of major district or business zones um there are two big developments that are moving through the centre and I'm talking about Stockwell um at Noosa Civic um and also the Boggs club um is that will that information be captured at a later report or um should it have been captured in this there's some significant um you know Anita Lakeland 18:25.863
It's not a proposal at this point I don't believe it's actually a development application at this point Amelia Lorentson 18:32.509
So until it comes through Council and approved okay then it'll be captured as approved dwellings. Lake MacDonald Drive lot one is already locked in for 25 social housing and lots two and three the report says they'll be planned to meet community needs including housing. Is actually the plan or could it end up being parkland or something else? Anita Lakeland 18:58.937
Certainly housing will be a component of that but you'll note that in resolving lot one Council also resolved to engage with the community more and look at a range of other community uses. The purpose, the original purpose of the subdivision and also the funding associated with that we got grants for was about the delivery of affordable housing. So it will certainly be a component of that but there might be some other community uses around some open space or community facilities or something that may also be considered for the sites through community consultation and back-through-Council. Amelia Lorentson 19:39.287
Leading is there's 475 short-term rental approvals, 363 were cancelled and many returning these properties back to permanent rentals. Do we know how many and how many of those 363 just remain unoccupied? Anita Lakeland 20:00.566
I don't yeah, it's difficult to measure that one. Richard. Richard MacGillivray 20:05.869
Through the Chair, what we can advise is, and this is also based off our rate information as well, so our rates that are converted from transitory back to PPR give us an indication of if they reverted back to their primary base or if it's non-PPR. I don't have the numbers off my head in terms of what are PPR versus what have gone back to non-PPR, but we can get that data Unidentified Speaker 20:31.222
On rates so Ms Sheehan would have some of that information for us to share with you. Amelia Lorentson 20:36.960
Thank you. Adopt-a-worker. The chamber of commerce first raised the concept of an adopt-a-worker I think back in 2022 in partnership with Council. Is that something that we're still working with the chamber on? It may be a question to the CEO or economic development? Larry Sengstock 20:57.660
I to take down on that. I think that's all I have notice. Actually, the director's online, Kim. She's not well today, so I'm not too sure if she's going to be able to answer that for you. Frank Wilkie 21:08.244
Director Rawlings, are you able to add any comment about the progress of the adopt-a-Worker program or its status? Kim Rawlings 21:16.789
Yeah, sure, thanks, Council. Excuse my voice. As a program itself, it hasn't advanced, but what has advanced is a number of different organisations in the community have taken up opportunity. The to promote share housing, as well as community housing providers doing similar things, and, you know, we that social media plays an important role in house, in matching. You know, spare rooms to workers and community members, so we have been tracking and looking at what's been happening kind of more organically. Unfortunately, we went for a grant to get that program off the ground and we weren't successful in the grant, so we haven't really been able to achieve the funding that was required to establish that program, unfortunately, because I do think it still has merit. Amelia Lorentson 22:23.211
You mentioned something just then, Kim, about share your space and I read just recently national research saying that Australia has around 13 million spare bedrooms and that's the main reasons people don't rent them out. They're worried about losing part of their pension and just concerned they're going to incur capital gains tax. Are we actively looking at like this share your space campaign which again you just touched on but it's been really pushed across other local councils and states Kim Rawlings 23:03.168
Yes, we are. And I'm going to say it again. We are. In fact we have put further detail and information and resources on our website and maybe Rowena could talk to that a little bit more about what we are trying to encourage. Frank Wilkie 23:19.935
I say she could because she has a voice. Amelia Lorentson 23:25.012
Thanks, Kim. Sorry for asking so many questions. Unidentified Speaker 23:27.992
We have had material on our website for at least a couple of years now about renting out rooms, sharing your housing to keep Noosa home. We quite a lot of work actively on researching what was being done. Anglicare and the University of the Sunshine Coast were working in the space of, I guess, matching elderly people with spare rooms with young people. That experience, for a number of reasons, has had some problems. We have, when our previous housing officer was here, he did a lot of work in together ideas on a model and we did report it to the executive team. It didn't proceed because there was some concerns around risks of the model, but we continue to see what other organisations are doing in that space. It's a, as you alluded, it's a space that has a lot of fear and risks and uncertainty in it, but it is happening organically. People that want to do it are already doing it, is the bottom line. They're doing it through church groups, networks, social media, through associations with. Employers. So it is happening already Amelia Lorentson 25:08.622
And I'm not 100% correct about this but pensioners are worried about losing part of their pension. My understanding there's been some recent changes in laws in terms of encouraging pensioners to actually open up their homes. Can you give us any information Unidentified Speaker 25:30.165
Again? I'm just anything that when you say recent I can't tell you anything within the last six months for instance. I know that when we put the material on the website we did download basically did what the ATO at said at that time but we also suggested that individuals talk to their accountants before they embark because I don't think it's our place to give financial advice. Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 26:02.313
A couple more questions. I'm really interested to know how we capture the median rent. Do you actually research like that yourself too? How do we get that data? You've got the median rent in Noosa Shire for a two-bedroom unit was $500 for a three-bedroom house it was $600 Unidentified Speaker 26:24.331
So that's published that's on published on the State it's a website produced by the Queensland treasury okay and a link to that site is on our website as well so the Queensland treasury publishes regional profiles for each local government area for and each SA2 within the local government. Areas and you can just produce a report that will have them the latest median rate how are they getting that Jessica Phillips 26:51.576
Information through like RTA yeah through RTA okay and then they Unidentified Speaker 26:55.936
They um the it so the RTA will publish it based on um suburbs postcodes and gridsland the Queensland treasury um then create a local government figure for that okay Jessica Phillips 27:12.493
Do we ever meet with like local so I understand that feeds up and down to us but do we ever meet with local um real estate agents I know they've got their own Unidentified Speaker 27:21.742
We talked to not meet with them necessarily but we talked to them we had one um when we were preparing the Housing Strategy. Um there was a local real property manager that was coming to our meetings and inputting a lot of valuable insight into it then through the process of researching through the process of the um I doctor worker I know Ross had conversations with quite a number of local property managers as well so yeah we do have conversations with Jessica Phillips 27:53.994
Them and then I probably just want to know specifically what the report tells us as does it tell us anything that we need to do differently to what we're currently doing now. Unidentified Speaker 28:12.339
I think it tells you to continue to be committed in this space to make brave decisions where you need to make brave decisions and to keep it front of mind I guess is what it's saying. Frank Wilkie 28:29.900
Councillors, Councillors, I'm happy to move the motion. I'm happy to second it. By Councillor Lorentson. This latest housing monitoring report does highlight a range of actions already achieved since the Housing Strategy was adopted in November 2022, but also the work that still lies ahead of us in playing our part in addressing the national housing affordability crisis. It's widely acknowledged that can contributing to the situation are beyond the control of local government. These include rising land values, escalating construction costs, labour shortages, high interest rates and cost of living pressures. They're all affecting the delivery of housing, not just in Noosa, but across Australia. However, we will continue to use every of means available to increase housing choice and support for more affordable housing for local people and key workers. Encouragingly, the report shows more than 1,000 additional dwellings have been approved since 2021, placing Noosa on track to meet the housing targets set by the State of 2,200 additional dwellings by 2031. Last year's amendments to Noosa Plan 2020, plus a removal of infrastructure costs for secondary dwellings, have both encouraged the building of smaller homes and affordable rental accommodation. There's been an extra 200 secondary dwellings built in recent years, and there's been good uptake of our small dwelling incentives, with 251 additional smaller additional units approved. 200 second. Smaller units approved, two and it's too early to assess the success of these amendments, ratified only late last year, but the amendments also allow tiny homes to be built on church land, affordable housing to be built on community facilities land, and they further restrict the loss of new dwellings in medium, high, rural residential and rural zones to short-term accommodation. In the meantime, in the focus is on making better use of existing stock by encouraging options such as secondary dwellings, room rentals, share housing, rooming accommodation, and tiny homes. As noted, the State has government also made substantial to increase social housing in Noosa. Commitments to Council successfully advocated for about a 25% increase in state government investment in social housing, with an extra 103 social and public housing dwellings either approved or progressing across Shire. And these are in addition to the newly approved 25 social housing dwellings at Lake MacDonald Drive in Cooroy, which is being developed through a partnership involving Council, community housing provider Coast2Bay, and support from both state and Federal governments. Council has also encouraged the transfer of short-term accommodation back to principal place of residence or non-principal place of residence. Since the introduction of a local law in 2023,363 approved licensed STA properties have approvals and a further 112 approvals were not renewed but there is more work to be done. Future actions include reviewing infrastructure charges for rooming accommodation and community residences and investigating new housing models such as co-housing, communal living and multi-generational housing. The uses of large future uses of two large Council owned lots at Lake MacDonald Drive will be the subject of public consultation and feasibility studies for affordable housing on Council car parks is underway through a federally funded housing supply program. Council will continue advocating for additional social housing encouraging better use of existing housing stock and working with service providers to address homelessness and housing stress housing affordability is a complex nationwide challenge requiring collaboration between all levels of government and as this reported attests to, Noosa Council is stepping up to play its part. Now the any other Councillors wish to speak? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 32:26.293
Is the this strategy has been a real success for Noosa Shire, I believe. It represents fact that we saw a an issue when the former when the former Mayor Stewart started this motion with a Mayoral minute saying that we have a housing emergency. And then that started this whole process of consultation and writing and thinking about it and coming back and forth and a long dialogue and eventually coming into the strategy that came before us to vote on in 2022, but the housing um the uh emergency hasn't gone away since then and it is something that Noosa Council can pride itself on, which is seeing a problem and working towards a solution and this is exactly what we're doing here and so I just am so happy to see I would like to acknowledge the importance of all that work that has gone into this especially the team here because it was a long journey to get to this point now we have this strategy and we actually have a way to address this problem without a strategy you're you know you're not really addressing a problem you're just making you know little decisions here there and everywhere that and without a conscientious focus but the strategy us and I think we have been leaders in that short-term accommodation field and limiting that and um and we should be really really proud of the strategy and what it does and the fact that we did it in the first place way back when um four years ago and have addressed the problem so proud of the team. Thank you so much for pursuing this, following through with this with creating the strategy in the first place because without a strategy you're just walking in the dark and so it's been really a good process and for me as a Councillor I feel very strongly about this because it's something that I was you know remotely a part of in a way but at least a part of it I put my hand up a couple of times so thank you. Frank Wilkie 34:26.018
Councillor Wegener, if any of the Councillors want to speak. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 34:36.122
I'll speak. I do want to begin by thanking and acknowledging the work behind the report it's comprehensive and provides a valuable snapshot of the State of housing in Noosa going I'm going to talk about housing and so we've got a monitoring report and it's all about numbers on a page but housing's about people and also about the kind of community we want Noosa to be in 10 years, 20 years and 30 years time. What stood out to me the most in this report is that it paints a very clear picture of a community becoming less accessible to the people who keep it functioning teachers, our Noosa's, our hospitality workers, our tradies, retail staff, aged care workers, our lifeguards, police, paramedics, our fireys, our SES workers. They're finding it increasing difficult to secure housing here in Noosa. The affordability figures in the report are also confronting. Entry level home ownership is now beyond the reach of many moderate income households. Many of the people who support our economy longer afford to live in poverty. And our community can no longer afford to rent suitable accommodation close to where they work. This trend continues, if this trend continues, we're not simply facing a housing challenge. We're reshaping the character of our community. We risk becoming a place where people can only visit, only invest and only retire in. We risk not being able not being able to provide a place where people can build a life, raise a family or establish a career. I don't believe that the future that that's most of the residents in Noosa want for Noosa. Demographic trends reinforced my concern that our older population continues to grow while the proportion of residents in workforce and family forming age groups continues to decline. Every local business, school, health service and aged care facility depends on having access to workers. When workers can no longer afford to live locally, the effects are felt by everyone. For me, the value of this report is not as a monitoring report, it's as Tom sort of alluded to, a strategic or diagnostic tool. It helps us understand whether our policies and planning decisions are actually making a meaningful difference. While the delivery of more than 1000 net additional dwellings is positive. The more important question and I think Councillor Phillips, you alluded to this in some of your question is what type of housing is actually being created? How much is genuinely affordable? Who is it serving? And is it in fact helping the people identified in this report as being most affected by housing stress? Report also highlights the continuing role of short-term accommodation in our housing market. I acknowledge that Council has made some progress in this area, but we probably need to do more. At present, once a property holds approval for short-term accommodation, there's no mechanism requiring it to return to the long term housing pool if it is no longer being actively used for visitor accommodation. Nor do we have the ability to limit the number of nights a year that an approved property can operate a short-term accommodation. This means that a dwelling can remain approved for short-term accommodation indefinitely. Even where it largely. It is largely vacant or underutilised, while housing availability for local residents remains under significant stress. At the same time, vacancy rates across parts of the Shire remain critically low. And that raises to me an important question. Have we exhausted all the available tools, or should we continue investigating additional options to improve housing availability where pressures are greatest? Most importantly, I see this report as a platform for action. It highlights opportunities that I think are really worth pursuing, including greater regional collaboration on workforce housing, better utilisation of underutilized, underused land. Underutilised, increased housing around activity centres like Noosa Civic and the junction, housing above commercial premises, shops where appropriate, encouragement of secondary dwellings, and continued investigation of Council and community-owned land that may contribute to housing outcomes. I also want to touch on the suggestion that we should wait for census data before considering further action. While census night, I think it is tonight, and meaningful results and analysis will take time, um in the what I meantime what I'm suggesting is that the report, as staff have already spoken about, it already draws on current data sources, including rental vacancy rates, bond data and housing affordability analysis. So those indicators are telling us a consistent story and that story is not improving. So waiting for perfect information can sometimes be a reason for delaying difficult decisions. I think we've already got enough information to understand the direction that we need to take. Every year that passes without progress makes it harder for young people, workers and families to remain part of this community. I'm going to close by just referencing a column that I've just read a few days ago. It was from a financial commentator, Scott pape. He's the barefoot investor. He described the current housing market correction that we're experiencing at the moment as one Australia has needed for 20 years. He also noted in his column that prices, housing prices have increased by more than 400% since 2000, growing much faster than wages partly because our tax and investment settings have encouraged us to see housing as a better investment asset than a place to live. And I'm going to quote something he wrote in his article. He put it really said that a house is for living. And somewhere along the way, as a country, we forgot that. For me, that goes to the heart of this report. Housing should simply not be measured by values and returns. It should be measured by whether people can afford to live in the communities they serve, whether young people like my kids can see a future for themselves here, and whether workers and families can continue to call NISA Noosa home. Council can't solve housing affordability on its own, but neither are we powerless. We have planning tools, we've got partnerships, advocacy opportunities, and policy levers that can help influence outcomes. The challenge before us is not whether there is a housing problem, the data confirms there is. The challenge is whether we as a Council are prepared to respond with the urgency, creativity, and the persistence required so that future generations can still see Noosa as a place where they can live, work, contribute, and most importantly, belong. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 42:27.220
I'm going to speak to it, thanks. In the police, we call it mission creep, where the organisation started off in a role and over years, it crept mission, they call it mission creep. And so firstly, want to start by saying thank you for the report. So I'm going to go into a broader I want to be really clear that social health I housing is, there should be no one living on the streets. So I'm never going to start entering into that conversation when we're talking about housing monitoring report. I see that as a state role and responsibility and the mission creep has started coming down to our level. Maybe it was when the Mayor, I'm glad she did that, but I also would like to say state have to do their role. In social housing what my real passion and I'm reading this and it's sort of alluded to Councillor Lorentson and it is affordable housing is the prevention to social housing and prevention to homelessness. So if we keep families in homes, we prevent them from being obstructive. Sorry. Role in local government can actually be in our planning schemes and things that we can change within our organisation to focus on affordable housing, because what we need is families to live here, we need them to work here, we need them to get into aged care and nursing and all of the industries that keep our community safe and running. I think we absolutely need a I agree with you Tom there um it's just for me if we don't look at the fact that there's less and families being able to afford here I just wanted to tell you my grocery bill is around three hundred and eighty dollars a week for two kids that's probably still need to go back to the shops today and it's Tuesday so another friend of mine her groceries is over six hundred dollars a week for two kids that's where the cost pressures are coming so when here and we look at housing and we have to look at the big picture especially when we're looking into budget and how all of these strategies actually talk to one another because on isolation we can look at it but they actually feed a much broader picture of where we can start making measurable changes to make affordable housing or the families that live here it actually easier to live here because of the pressures of all the other costs of living so I think I don't want to start talking about creep into groceries and Coles and Woolworths and things like that but I think it's really important that we always look at every decision we make isn't in isolation it's plays a much broader picture I'd love to see our consensus data less than five years that would be incredible if we had that data to feed some more accurate information even when we go into the schools I'd love to know if that's capturing homeschooling as well because I know that's a trend so maybe our figures on school enrolments to be giving us a little bit more accurate data on that but yeah I think it's just always important for me to look at this and go how can we use this in a prevention role rather than using it to react and start trying to create more yeah, roles for us. That's all I've got to say. Amelia Lorentson 46:15.101
Can I ask a question Through the Chair? Of course. Housing stretch, there is a planning definite, there is a definition that if a family exceeds, I think, 30% of their income, that's considered housing stretch. And then you factor in 40% or so. And when you look at, sorry, for rental stretch, so 30% of your income or mortgage. It's more than that. Unidentified Speaker 46:46.393
But it also qualifies the household to start with. So it's, I think, the lower 40% of income earning households spending 30% or more on their housing so website, 'cause Council has a dedicated housing website, one of the tabs there takes people to the ID.com housing monitor, which, as I said is that subscription service that we use. ID.com do have specific data graphs about housing stress and how many households what type of households are in housing stress. So it's and a very useful to tool. Not all the data, as I said, some is contemporary, some is reliant on previous census. Know, it is as good as data as you can get. And it looks at that. It will then cross analyse that with the occupations that are most prevalent in Noosa Shire, for instance. And it shows you which occupations can afford the rent in Noosa Shire, for instance. And then you can slide it to household size and whether it's two incomes or one income or a single parent or, whatever. So it's a really useful to have applied. Question on that. Jessica Phillips 48:28.243
Can you – I take this on notice, I'd love to know how many people are actually clicking on that and viewing it. I know that wouldn't be something you can probably grab now. But I'd love to know the insights behind the website and how many people are actually coming out. Unidentified Speaker 48:45.400
It was an outcome of the strategy at the end of 2022 that we get that subscription so it's been available um id.com ID has just recently changed that you do need to I'm guessing it's part of their they went through a restructure and something recently so now you do need to log on to get it which we're not as happy with Jessica Phillips 49:14.237
Okay because that would be really important to know whether that outcome from that is actually measurable as far as if there's two people viewing it then we'd have to say what we do to celebrate if that yes it was an outcome but it'd be really nice to know how many people are actually viewing it. Unidentified Speaker 49:32.798
I'll see if we can find out. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 49:34.881
Right, do you have the Councillors wish to speak? Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 49:40.289
Thank you, thank you everyone around the table for their contribution to this very complex matter. Thank you to the staff for your contribution and the work that you've done in that space over the last, you know, five years or so. It's all good that we can sit around the table and we can talk about like economic rationale and all those things, but I'd like to talk and bring it to the heart of homelessness. Timelessness, which is. Linked, specialist homelessness services in 24 to 25 sit around nearly 40% of all clients have experienced family and domestic violence. I think as move we forward, we met this week with the, um, uh, the, um. The group. I don't I know what that group's is called. But it was a collaborative approach around service providers and how we meet the existing homelessness within our Shire. Given the stats that how these specialist homelessness services respond to family and domestic violence, I think that this is a gap that, you know, I don't think we've drilled down and up to and out of the meeting yesterday, it looked like that we needed that collaborative approach to assess homelessness through the lens of family domestic violence, mental health issues, access to crisis accommodation. It's all good that we talk about affordability, but I think we've got to get to the heart of the people that are experiencing difficulty through homelessness the right rate of specialist homelessness services clients who've experienced family and domestic violence has increased from 36 to 43 per 10,000 population between 2012 and 2025. So so to this. To look at data to inform our decisions and how we address this social issue within our Shire and nationwide. Among specialist homeless services clients who have experienced family and domestic violence 9 in 10 were women, females aged 18 or older and children aged 0 to 17. It's the main reason why women and children leave their homes in Australia and many women and children leaving their home may experience housing insecurity and in some cases homelessness. For this reason women and children affected by family domestic violence are a national homelessness priority group in the national housing and in housing and homelessness agreement, which came into effect in 2018. There's since been an update with the national plan to end violence against women and children 22 to 32 who have experienced sexual violence outside of the family for example if the perpetrator lives nearby or knows where they live. Housing assistance is a assistance is a whole of community social issue the stats I haven't got it in front of me today but that is a large percentage of women and children that are experiencing housing stress or homelessness due to these social issues. Moving forward I hope that we can continue to work the service providers within our community that are currently meeting together to try and address those issues. Our service providers also provide contribution to that in terms of the services that they provide but everyone is under stress. So I think that moving forward it's great that we're here where we are. I do recognise it is a problem for all levels of government, but as we heard in the meeting this week that the problem is around differing effects on all the people in the space. We heard about legislation, we heard about the need to provide housing for people with mental health issues, medical issues, people discharging from hospitals, the list goes on. So I'm hoping that in the future we can continue to increase our influence and our response and action to every level of social impact that affects people who are unable for whatever reason to access safe and affordable places. Frank Wilkie 54:12.200
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Further comments? I'll close. Thank you everyone for the comments around the table. Yes we are in a national housing crisis and addressing it has required local government to step into a space that it hasn't done previously because the community expects all levels of government to play their part and step up and do what it can to assist it required Noosa Council to do things differently through adopting facilitating social housing and planning scheme amendments. We have taken some bold steps in that regard and some courageous decisions have to be made but it's gotten us to where we are, better placed to address and take action on some of these trends. We have to intervene in market forces to get an in affordable. Outcome in terms of affordable and social housing. So there's a lot more work to do. I don't want to paint a rosy picture because it's not, but Noosa Council is doing what it can in this space to address this nationwide crisis. I put it to the vote that was in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you. Nita, raleigh and Glenn. Next item is the Noosa Heads Lions Park land management plan, and we have Director Richard MacGillivray and Dennis Wallace. Yes, Sir. Good morning. Would you care to give us a summary of your report, the reason why it's here, and a summary of your findings? Unidentified Speaker 56:08.812
Sure. So this report is on the Noosa Heads Lions Park land management plan process. Councillors will recall that it considered the Go Noosa report last round of meetings and part resolution of its resolution around that Go Noosa report requested a further report from staff on the process and likely costs associated with the land management plan, addressing the inconsistent use of car parking on the park's green open space. So this report responds to that request. The report confirms that the use is inconsistent with the reserve's parks and recreation purpose. Under the Land Act, to allow and regularise the use, Council must undertake a land management planning process consistent with the framework under the act. A land management plan must demonstrate that an inconsistent use does not diminish the purpose of the reserve and does not adversely impact the public interest. So those factors. Are sort of primary tests for Council to consider prior to embarking on a land management plan process as to whether the use is likely to do those things. As far as the land management plan process goes, the report outlines the expected costs and timeframes, just based on experience with previous land management planning exercises, which come up occasionally. With this Council. So it estimates a timeframe of six to 12 months and costs that might be associated with those. At this stage, you know, that process isn't part of council's budget or planning. So we would need to find those allocations. The report also notes that non-exclusive native title applies to the land. So that's just a further consideration definitely the native title holders would be a key stakeholder and potentially there is a separate process under the native title framework that may need to apply. So happy to field any questions. Frank Wilkie 58:34.585
You mentioned that this is has undertaken some of the land management plan processes before. Could you give us some examples? Unidentified Speaker 58:41.494
The most recent one that I'm aware of was the Noosa district sports reserve. So that was undertaken by consultants and obviously fairly contained with the stakeholders with the stakeholders being the community groups there and yeah looking at the future planning for that site and a multitude of permit and ten leaseholders on that site. Frank Wilkie 59:08.281
Why was the need for that plan triggered? On that side? Unidentified Speaker 59:12.514
I believe one of the primary triggers for that was the region proposal at that time which was for a commercial element to sleeve within the sport and rec uses. Um on the site um back a few more years we did the Noosaville Foreshore Land Use Master Plan which predated the current infrastructure plan. So that was in 2018 and took us a couple of years and involved consultants and quite a lot of community on that one. That involved changes of tenure as a result? Not tenure as such but we were dealing with commercial pressures on the recreational reserve at that time. So it considered whether Council were supportive of entrenching commercial uses on the park reserve but ultimately it came up with a framework similar to a small you know planning scheme that reserve land for that reserve land running along a kilometre and a half of foreshore there. Jessica Phillips 01:00:19.288
Follow need just to follow that up then, so we needed an LNP for regen at Noosa district. Regen didn't go ahead so what did the LNP, we did an LNP for the project and it's it sit still, does it still sit there for future? Planning decisions? Unidentified Speaker 01:00:37.545
Yeah I mean land management plans don't just address one use they need to be holistic so so that looks at the tenure for all those user groups albeit they're not inconsistent uses that drove the need for the plan in the first place and then you look at other future uses so whether you're going to consider other commercial uses sport festivals music events those sort of things ideally are encompassed in a land plan so for the Lions Park it would need to be holistic as well so thinking about events that we hold now but also the future potential for events, tenure issues commercial interests whether they would be contemplated in the future or not and they're so similar to a small to planning scheme for that site and trying to look forward you know the plans lifetime might be 10 or 20 years so addressing future needs over that time frame Jessica Phillips 01:01:46.771
That's interesting um so you might have to take this on notice but I'd like to know it's on stage so we're doing an event strategy currently so is the um event strategy asking for an LNP of land that would is used for events currently Richard MacGillivray 01:02:05.806
I guess the reality is um the undertaking event doesn't necessarily trigger a land management plan itself um it comes down to whether the activities on that land constitutes an inconsistent action um we have sought advice from the department around the temporary utilisation of some of those such as Lions Park for events and the State don't believe that is consistent activity as such because they're very temporary in nature and they do contribute to part of the park's function as well which is for park and recreational activities so um they wouldn't necessarily be considered. As an inconsistent action but I think to dennis's point moving forward does Council want to have a different view around how those park lands may be used in the future for events and longer term potential activation activities as well Jessica Phillips 01:02:54.509
Okay I just need to clarify that so then we will have an LMP for the event strategy because that would mean that we're making decisions on the event strategy without not Richard MacGillivray 01:03:05.665
Necessarily Council can I guess it comes down to particular where we are trustees of particular land that are if we're undertaking activities that are not consistent with the reserve purposes will require an LMP but at the event straight strategy is not seeking to necessarily do that from the work that's been prepared at this point in time Unidentified Speaker 01:03:29.212
Generally those recreational events are inconsistent with recreation reserves purpose. Jessica Phillips 01:03:35.884
I get that I just heard that it was 20-year planning so if the event strategy was to evolve I would have thought that it would feed into an event strategy then because of the necessity to do like if Unidentified Speaker 01:03:47.210
If the event strategy identified things that were inconsistent with reserves around the Shire then that might drive the need for land management plans on those reserves if that was part of a strategy but I wouldn't anticipate that it probably would. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:06.838
How often, sorry question to the Chair, Dennis, how often would we need a LNP once so it's six to twelve month process thirty to seventy five thousand estimated cost once that process is delivered and an LNP is delivered is that valid then for the next 10 years 20 years? Unidentified Speaker 01:04:31.360
Council can decide on those things so the foreshore plan that we did was for 10 years but it's serving that area well and we may look to extend that so I would probably suggest you know 10 to 20 years is an appropriate time frame but Council in control of that plan and it can decide if it wants to take a different tack you know it's not locked into that it's the owner of that plan Richard MacGillivray 01:04:57.477
Usually it does get attached to and some in cases speaking with the State can get attached to the title becomes part of the I guess the management plan relating to that reserve but Council can choose as you said you have the length of time it may also want to review that have review clauses in there so it's entirely up to the local government particularly post 2024 when there were changes when to the land management act which gave councils the power to make decisions regarding the consistent uses on its reserves Jessica Phillips 01:05:26.403
Thank you oh is there any more on LNP like on that because my questions are not to it. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:05:36.824
Yeah, can we just clarify that we were given information in the last Ordinary Meeting that was that the land management would need approval from the minister and that would take time so can we just now correct the record that it doesn't need approval? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:52.179
I'm happy to clarify that so obviously I think originally we were looking at based off the previous land management plan process which did involve consultation and that was obviously referring to the Noosa district sports park that was in 2024, since the new changes have come in, there's no requirement to seek approval from the department or the minister for approval. We can do that on the basis of we undertaking the land management plan. So happy to clarify that there's no formal requirement. To consult with the department in order to prepare a land management plan and undertake an inconsistent use. Unidentified Speaker 01:06:27.930
Thank you. Yes, Councillor Wilson. Given that we've had this obligation for a number of years, as to use Lions Park for parking, why are we only just looking at this process now? Unidentified Speaker 01:06:40.407
Was a change that came in. There was a change that came in under the Land Act in 2024. So previously, for the inconsistent uses act, it sat as requiring ministerial approval, often by delegation, I believe, through the department. And that changed in 2024 to shift those powers over to trustees and most normally councils to manage its own affairs and do the land plans and satisfy itself about the tests under the act. So there was a shift in those legislative changes in 2024. Unidentified Speaker 01:07:15.610
So yeah, so the question was why didn't we put a land management plan in place in 2024 when we an obligation had an obligation to do so because we've continued to use compartment the park for parking in those years. Unidentified Speaker 01:07:27.401
Yeah I think as the previous reports and previous resolutions that are noted in the report that was handled as part of considerations of previous Go Noosa reports to my knowledge. Frank Wilkie 01:07:41.899
So in breach. Dennis Wallace 01:07:42.714
We were technically Jessica Phillips 01:07:45.590
And have we heard anything from the minister or any or do we find ourselves? Richard MacGillivray 01:07:52.591
No, I think it's just the fact is, the point is that it has been raised that a land management plan process is required. I think, you know, looking at this, and the history there that Council hasn't. Followed the process as accurately as it should have. Been undertaking this in the land management plan process. I think the department has been quite patient, cooperative with Council because in previous years and under previous administrations, it had been understanding that councils. Was looking to. Phase out the use of overflow parking at Lions Park, and therefore it understood it was going through a DMP process and was evaluating feedback from the community on those sorts of issues, so it was patiently working with the local government, and then there were changes to the Land Act in 2024 where the department basically are advising this is council's decision, but it must go through a proper process to conclude whether it wants to allow that moving this gives us the opportunity to rectify moving forward. Jessica Phillips 01:08:58.039
That's so confused me. Richard, around how would we tell the department we're phasing out car parking through DMP when that wasn't a decision by Council Richard MacGillivray 01:09:11.603
It's based on all of the revisions and resolutions and there's very many of them that have been undertaken over the years that, based on each year, those reports that we're prepared to talk about things like potentially phasing like potentially phasing out the paid parking or the overflow parking there, but that's obviously changed each year as well when council's made decisions to want to continue it and explore that. So it has been an iterative process and I'm not saying it's a decision I'm I've made, it's just the history. Made, it's of what we're doing right now. Frank Wilkie 01:09:47.542
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:47.542
I've got a few amendments that I'd like to test on the floor if that's sure Flora, if all right. Amendment 1. Frank Wilkie 01:09:54.557
Someone care to move the recommendation? Councillor Wegener. Have a seconder. We're going to second the motion? Keep the ball rolling. Karen Finzel 01:10:17.689
For debate I'm happy to second the motion. Frank Wilkie 01:10:21.311
Councillor Finzel. Castle, what do hear? Councillor Wegener you wish to speak? No. Okay, thank you. Councillor Lorentson, amendment? Amelia Lorentson 01:10:28.081
First amendment and I'm going to start by saying I have three amendments and they're all pertaining to the one action which is seeking legal advice so just to bear that in mind and I've circulated the amendments. One that prior to any further resourcing being committed to a land management plan process for the Noosa Heads Lions Park Council obtain written legal advice on whether the Christmas period overflow parking is inconsistent with the reserve's parks and recreational purpose or properly characterised lines as incidental or auxiliary to it. Having regard to attachment one and the history of the use in the report with the outcome reported back to Council before any further step is taken. Happy second. To by Councillor Phillips. Phillips, Councillor Lorentson so going to start by I've been in Council now six years and for the last six years this issue always comes up. I can't recall that question's is actually ever been tested. Whether the Christmas overflow use is actually in fact inconsistent or whether we just that conclusion was simply assumed over the many years. And I say that because I referenced the actual test that's attached to attachment one of the report. But before I move on, I think it's probably worth explaining what I mean by incidental or auxiliary, because that's the heart of what I'm trying to move across today. And I'm going to start by using an example. So some things on a park aren't the recreation itself, but it's what makes the recreation possible. So like a walking path. Isn't recreation, but no one would call it out of place on say reservation, a recreation reserve, because it's how people get to and use the park. So parking is the same. If people can't reasonably get to the beach or our national parks without somewhere to leave the car, then parking isn't a or. Competing use of the land. It's supporting the very purpose that the reserve exists for. And that's the difference between a use that's inconsistent with the reserve's purpose and one that's incidental or auxiliary to it. One competes with the purpose and the other one actually delivers. Helps deliver the purpose. Important to note, this is only 21 days a year. There are no permanent structures. The TURF's reinstated every year. And that's a really different question to a permanent use. The is run every Christmas for over 20 years without diminishing the park, which again is itself strong evidence. A written legal opinion on this would be far less than the $30,000 to $75,000 and six to 12 months this reports us, ask us to commit. And I just think we need to know the answer before we proceed. Answer before we progress. Question, just obtaining legal advice, specifically testing whether the Christmas overflow use is in fact inconsistent or simply incidental or auxiliary to the park's main purpose. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:14:30.444
Is that it, Councillor Lorentson? It is. Okay, Councillor Phillips, question. Jessica Phillips 01:14:34.482
To Councillor Lorentson, and I know it's a wording change. I just wondered whether you would consider out prior to any further resourcing being committed to LNP process. I fully agree about the written legal advice and that part. But what happens if throughout the debate there's conversation about LNP being what we need to do. Are you, would you consider not tying it to the. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:03.849
Absolutely. I'm happy to. Let Council obtain written legal advice. Written just omit prior to anything. Omit the words prior to any further resource being committed. I'm happy if everyone on the floor is happy with that. Frank Wilkie 01:15:16.696
I'm not. We've got it. It's been moved and seconded and spoken to. If it was just not seconded, we could play off the wording. We can still amend. If this gets up, we can still amend that wording. Amend the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:33.063
Then I'll speak to it. So the wording says, prior to any further resourcing being committed to a land management plan process for Noosa Heads, Lions Park, Council obtain written legal advice. What I'm ideally seeking from this is we've got 10 days before the Ordinary Meeting and that we get that advice before the Ordinary Meeting. So it's basically putting a pause on the report that's in front of us. I don't think omitting or keeping the wording actually changes what I'm seeking. Yeah, that clarifies it. Thank you. Question of staff. Frank Wilkie 01:16:05.991
Um don't we already have legal advice on whether don't this is an inconsistent use or not? Unidentified Speaker 01:16:11.008
Yes, it's been yeah, it's been unambiguous from our perspective. We have sought legal advice in preparing this report and the report confirms that it's considered an inconsistent use. The legal advice confirmed the view that it's an inconsistent use and the advice from land officers at the department has been consistent on that front for many years so it's been unambiguous from our perspective. You know as far as the parking supporting the reserve purpose that's not the view of others because the parking is not associated with the use of that reserve it's associated with the use of other areas and whilst you might turn up to recreate on the beach or in the national park it's about that reserve itself. So there is parking on the reserve at the moment at with the Lions Park which is free formalised parking which you can say you know is associated with the use of that reserve but parking on the park itself and charging money for that is not associated with the reserve. Purpose it's really facilitating the precinct and so it is focused on the reserve purpose and the use of the reserve itself. Frank Wilkie 01:17:31.482
Follow-up question and if parking on the grassed area excludes use of that area as a recreational reserve does that mean it's not considered an ancillary use? Unidentified Speaker 01:17:46.170
Yes well it's considered an inconsistent use so it's not ancillary so yeah um so yeah if for I think you know it's by degrees but for the most part but the reserve still has to be available for its use and its purpose for something to be ancillary to it so the parking at that time for the 21 days has the plants recreational use of the reserve Jessica Phillips 01:18:13.222
Council question to the legal advice was there a conversation with them around if there was an LMP in price would it change the outcome of what I'd like to know more about what we asked legals to consider rather than just what is currently in front of us that we don't have an LMP because of course they're going to say it's inconsistent because it says it in the legislation so do we test the legals with if there was an LMP with the would advice be different? Unidentified Speaker 01:18:44.905
Well the question is whether it's a consistent or inconsistent use with the reserve purpose. In the event that it is inconsistent it drives the need for an LMP for that use to continue so the LMP even LMP then allows the inconsistent use to occur subject to the framework that it establishes for how long, what are the reparations, what are the. Jessica Phillips 01:19:10.208
I get that so but my question is did legals give us advice if there was an LMP would it clearly say that then the inconsistent use is because there is no LMP Richard MacGillivray 01:19:21.755
No that's no no there's two sort of steps Jess so the first one is it an inconsistent or a consistent use in terms of does need it a land management plan so the first step is to understand is it an inconsistent use or a consistent use yeah and then if it is an inconsistent use as Dennis has outlined then that triggers the need for a land management plan process the advice we've got and I think I've seen a copy of the advice from the department what that process is in terms of needing an LNP and what's involved and that is outlined in the report so that would then determine the process to get to the end of an LMP process I guess. Dennis Wallace 01:20:03.155
It doesn't change it from being consistent or inconsistent it allows that inconsistent use to occur subject to the terms that the LNP establishes. Frank Wilkie 01:20:12.310
Councillor Lorentson Amelia Lorentson 01:20:12.310
Then Councillor Wilson a so a couple of questions in terms of the legal opinion. Could we have a copy of the advice and was it internal legal advice or independent legal advice? Unidentified Speaker 01:20:29.970
It was so a independent so from an external solicitor that we use and yeah I think it Amelia Lorentson 01:20:38.058
Could be circulated could I put that on notice could I have a copy and in terms of the email received recently from the minister he was an advisor not a legal consultant is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 01:20:57.174
So you're talking about the feedback from the department? Yeah they wouldn't provide their legal officers opinions to us they're providing their expert opinions from a department perspective so they'll write on behalf of the department and such and they've sent us advice around those provisions that advice that you've received doesn't go into the inconsistent it talks about the process I guess from a legislative point of view and the mechanisms to undertake that process as such so you've obviously got that sort of legal advice from the department solicitors because the department's quite comfortable with its advice to us on those aspects. Great if I could have the advice that would be great. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:21:45.338
I just wanted a question because the advice that we were sent says Council is currently considering a proposal involving a potential inconsistent action on trust land so it's already taken the position that it is inconsistent so um so it wasn't consistent thank you did we actually question whether thank you, that was what I was trying to ask but you did it much better. Richard MacGillivray 01:22:06.751
Yeah so I think um and look hayley's not here who was the officer that engaged um with the department she she's based it off what the actual motion was from the previous month which did didn't talk about intending to use it for the inconsistent action so she's just raised the same questions that were raised by Councillors if it was seeking to undertake an inconsistent action moving forward what would be the process and the pathways to get there so Jessica Phillips 01:22:33.772
Which is why on the day was concerned about the procedural motion because um I'll get to a question um because they've taken that as what they've gone to legals with but there was a motion that got carried before that suggesting that we would go ahead with it this year so lead did we go to legals with the amendment that got passed before the procedural motion to move it to today? Richard MacGillivray 01:23:01.505
The advice was sought after the meeting in relation to basically what was endorsed by Council. So the wording you know as so to understand what's the process to undertake a land management plan to support the need for an inconsistent use by flow parking. Frank Wilkie 01:23:19.348
Yes I will I speak will speak to motor. The amendment to keep things rolling Councillors. Look it's always good to have things clarified in our own minds. But the advice has been unequivocal for some time that use of paid car parking on the lines, Noosa Heads Lions Park recreational reserve is an inconsistent use and it is not an ancillary use. So we do have that advice from our expert staff, external legals and the department. So in this sense, the amendment is largely redundant, but as has been said, if you want it to stand prior to the Ordinary Meeting to get the advice, which I suspect would be a repeat of what we've received already back to us, that directly answers this amendment, that's one way you could go but I think it's largely redundant and I ask that we perhaps let this one go and then move on to Councillor Lorentson's second amendment. So I won't be supporting the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:28.767
I may move the procedural notice motion, please, because I would like to see the legal advice. And my question is, was the specific question asked, is this an inconsistent use or is it incidental? Or auxiliary? So this is a question of staff now? To the staff. So my question is, what was actually asked? Unidentified Speaker 01:24:51.753
Didn't we ask whether it was incidental or ancillary because that didn't come to mind. Like the position on it. Being inconsistent from departmental staff and legal advice has been just consistent for many years. Amelia Lorentson 01:25:08.457
So can I ask clarification? What I've understood from attachment one is that when it sets out the two tests that, you know, you the park's purpose and it can't harm the public interest, they say these are judgment calls and that a trustee, if you're not sure, you simply default to treating the use as inconsistent. So my question is, again, have we asked specifically is the use inconsistent or is it incidental or auxiliary to the park's main purpose or have we simply defaulted, as we are required to, the position that it's inconsistent? Thank you as set out in attachment 1. Unidentified Speaker 01:26:01.044
We've had it reaffirmed by independent legal advice and the land officers of the department that commercial use of the green open space of the park is inconsistent with the reserve purpose. Commercial use. Car parking use of the green open space is inconsistent. So that's been affirmed. And then the tests are the about land management process for allowing that use to proceed. So that's really what the report is about, is getting on as. The resolution stated about the land management plan to ratify the inconsistent use. I understand that you're trying to explore that it's ancillary or that's. Um, you know, we're fairly confident that would not be an option to, deem it as an answer. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:00.880
But the question has never been asked, um, by our leaders. Richard MacGillivray 01:27:03.845
Can I add to dennis's. In terms of the advice and got a copy of it here. I think, you know, what it clearly highlights and I'll read exactly the wording from an external solicitor on this point is the use of the recreational reserve overflow parking that is not connected to an ancillary recreation. Clearly a purpose for inconsistent use with the reserve so that's the unequivocal external legal advice that's consistent with all other opinions obtained including the department itself making it clear in writing that it is an inconsistent action under the Land Act and therefore needs a land management plan process. So we've had numerous sources provide advice on that including the department including external legal and obviously our own staff have evaluated the same framework and have all formed the same conclusion. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:58.481
Could I ask what year you asked that advice? The year? Richard MacGillivray 01:28:03.000
Yep. Just recently. This is the last meeting from the external solicitor but the department has also been very consistent in its feedback to Council. I've got a copy of a letter from as far back as 2020 highlighting that they believe the overflow parking is inconsistent. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:19.675
Can I ask whether the specific question was also asked that we're only asking for 21 days. So in the past we had asked for Easter car parking, school holidays. This is quite scoped and very narrow. It's only for 21 days. Unidentified Speaker 01:28:36.341
It's a bit like a planning scheme Through the Chair. It's a bit like a planning scheme like the use is the use and then the frequency is downstream of that. So the use of the green open space for paid parking. An inconsistent use. So it's not a matter of degrees about the extent of the year that's being used. Then in regularising that use through the land management plan process. There are other tests that the report sets out about diminishing the purpose. And the public interest. So I think the frequency of the use goes to those tests in allowing it under a land management plan, if that makes sense. Frank Wilkie 01:29:22.529
Councillor Phillips, oh sorry, Councillor Finzel, you've been waiting patiently. Karen Finzel 01:29:25.408
Yeah, you. Thank you. Just coming to the point of looking at it through another lens, in terms of like, if you flip the argument flip the argument the other way, that the consistent use has been the overflow parking. Has it been looked through the lens of like culture and heritage, in terms of like a historical thing in the identity of our shop? Has that question been asked around that? So that could be the flip side, that people could argue that through that lens it's consistently been used, historically it's been used, through our identity and connection to place in each other. Frank Wilkie 01:30:07.253
I think the question's been asked, Councillor. We'll get you an answer. Unidentified Speaker 01:30:09.791
Okay, thank you. I think to point. That the proper outcome would be to change the reserve purpose to car park. Frank Wilkie 01:30:20.031
Further questions, Councillors? Questions, no, Councillor Finzel, you have the floor. Karen Finzel 01:30:28.395
Given the open green space is the inconsistent use for commercial, if, say for example, a Lyons to collect money from the sealed bit of a car park there and cross over behind where the existing bus shelter is, would that be deemed to be like a consistent use? Unidentified Speaker 01:30:48.395
I think, you know, if we're talking about the use of the formalised car park as it exists at the moment, I don't think that, you know, seasonal charging for use of those areas would necessarily trigger a land management planning process. Karen Finzel 01:31:07.450
There'd be potential that the lions could collect money through the sealed car parks? Unidentified Speaker 01:31:11.983
Yes, I think so. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:14.551
Councillor Noosa. In terms of the reserve's recreational purpose, is that the parking can exist also to allow the public to access not just Lions Park, but the national park, Noosa Main Beach and the river. Unidentified Speaker 01:31:37.445
Again, if that was the case, the intent, probably needs then it probably needs to be a reserve for car parking because the reserve purpose being for recreation, it's not a broader recreation sense. It's recreation on that reserve. So currently we have parking as a component of the use of that land, but it serves the recreational use of that land. And when we supplant the recreational use with cars so people can't access the land to recreate on it, then we're contrabanding that reserve purpose. It's not about allowing people into the precinct to recreate elsewhere. Reserve purpose is on that parcel of land. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:19.068
So in terms of the surf club car park, so we're repurposing the surf club car park for a drop-off zone. What is the main. Purpose of that reserve? We're getting a bit off-topic here. Richard MacGillivray 01:32:38.542
No, I think it's, related. How is it relevant? Open space recreation. It's a car park and used for ancillary car parking drop-off activities, I would assume. We haven't looked at that as part of this request for this report. Frank Wilkie 01:32:52.967
Any other Councillors? Oh, Councillor Finzel, you had a question. Karen Finzel 01:32:55.570
Just on the back of that then, given that is a sealed car park over the national area, has that how has that gone ahead? Richard MacGillivray 01:33:07.323
How have we arrived at that to put a seal card on it? It's been there for a very long period of time. So it's a story. It probably predates the Land Act I would imagine possibly, I don't know. We'll have to look at that. But it's well established that there's been car parking related to the park for a very long period of time. Frank Wilkie 01:33:27.267
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? We have an amendment before us. Jessica Phillips 01:33:32.026
Council thoughts. But I'll ask Councillor Finzel a question first. Yes. First. Yeah. So is that what you're meaning? Because I think I went back as far as in 2019 Council said that the lions park's been used for 20 years for car parking, so that was in 2019. So are you questioning whether or not the one near the surf club is also. Karen Finzel 01:33:55.985
Yeah, like how does that exist if we can't look at this through the lens of connection to place and identity through an extended use, which could be seen? Through the other perspective as a benefit. I think that's good question. As to the community, given it could be, you know, it's been there for longevity, that's part of our history. Frank Wilkie 01:34:16.762
Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 01:34:18.785
I'll speak to it quickly to support the amendment, because for me, so I did a lot of research on how long this has been debated in back Council. 2019, we talked about 20 years since the Lions Club car park was used for peak period overflow parking. It was considered, I only went back 10 years, but it was considered in 2019. Again, in 2020, again, through the Go Noosa programs, again in 2023, again in 2024 and 2025, and again this year. In March 23, Council specifically resolved to undertake community engagement about future, the of the life park. By late 2024 that consultation still hadn't occurred, and then only five months ago in March this year, we publicly acknowledged in a media statement something particularly important, and it was despite relying on Lions Park for many years, Council lacked the comparative data required to make an long decision. Long term decision. So then we conducted a trial. And then now more than two decades of use and years of Council discussions, we've finally reached a point, which I believe we had last month, it was voted on and went through. My issue is with process because then there was a procedural motion bringing up the Land Act and the inconsistent use as a means to bring this back to the a we today. We are still making predetermined with our decisions without LNP and we've, my issue again is with process because it's not the first time we've had that here, we've had it in relation to in to lake as MacDonald drive as well, so I would like to follow really Frank Wilkie 01:36:14.877
Good process. My point of order, what is the, could you withdraw your statement about the incorrect process for Lake MacDonald Drive please? Jessica Phillips 01:36:22.767
When we talked about the act we needed to forward. The. You were inferring there was improper process with Lake MacDonald I'll withdraw that. Thank you um and so this um so this, I think today for me it's really about bringing it back what to the LNP. Bringing it back to what legal advice what we can actually test. So the legal status and the advice we've been given absolutely matters but we need to actually test it. So I will support the amendment so we can keep getting on with the next part of today's report. Frank Wilkie 01:37:03.366
Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Brian Stockwell 01:37:05.185
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:06.165
Just a couple more questions. The 130 sealed car parks and just if I understood correctly Dennis they are consistent with the reserve's purpose? Unidentified Speaker 01:37:20.838
They're part of the reserve as it sits and they the way that the reserve's being way reserves are constructed. They serve the reserve. So the report notes that there's formalised parking as part of the reserve currently so at the moment the Lions Park is open space and car parking. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:42.741
So yes car parking is consistent with the reserves purpose the 134 demolished car parks. Packs would be ancillary wouldn't it yeah Richard MacGillivray 01:37:55.011
They serve the current recreation park purpose of the reserve so they're established they've been there for a significant period of time so we're not raising that as an issue. Not raising that as of dispute. No we're just saying that there is car parking and like many parks they do have car parking as part of a park function right to support the recreation and park use Amelia Lorentson 01:38:15.885
Yes so my question is have we asked for legal advice given that the 130 sealed car parks are consistent within this reserves purpose whether the overflow which is temporary seasonal only 21 days and it's an extension of parking that already lawfully exists on the reserve but it's not a new character for the park and therefore it is also a consistent use and a permitted use have we actually thrown that question at a lawyer Unidentified Speaker 01:38:52.171
The legal advice came back I think Richard might have read it but it's a opening advice was firstly I think the use of the recreation reserve for overflow parking that is not connected to the ancillary recreation use is clearly a purpose inconsistent with the reserve so that's the legal advice and that's consistent with the departmental offices of which there's been quite a number over the years and their position on it as be a well. We haven't tested it the other way because there's not been it's been unequivocal. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:26.271
Okay so my question is was there any statutory basis for that conclusion? Unidentified Speaker 01:39:33.989
It's a review of them it's under the title of legislative framework so it's a review of the legislation. So it's a legal opinion. Richard MacGillivray 01:39:41.959
And we respect the decision of Council whether it does want to support a motion. Thank you very much. Frank Wilkie 01:39:52.743
Other discussion regarding to the amendment before us? Brian Stockwell 01:39:57.595
Councillor Lorentson Amelia Lorentson 01:39:58.076
Do you wish to close? I will and I'll start with legal opinion and I'm going to state it is opinion. I've spoken over the week with other people with legal opinion and I just keep coming back to due diligence and the fact that what we're talking about is rape pays money. And if we commit to a process that's six to 12 months, costing $30,000 to $75,000, I want to reiterate, it's rape pays money. And if there's an opportunity that we don't need to spend it, I think we need to explore that. So we owe it to the community to explore and confirm whether in fact we do need a larger amount or we need to spend that money at all. And I'm going to reference, you know, some recent decisions that this community's lived through. Transport decisions, this is about transport, public parking, so I'm going to reference recent transport decisions that this community has lived through. This is bringing up new Frank Wilkie 01:41:10.844
Information, Councillor, which you can't do any without. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:13.341
I think we just have a responsibility as Councillors to show our community that councillors we do things, carefully. And if there is some ambiguity around the table, that, you know, we take the proper step and rather than assuming our way out to an outcome, that we just take one extra step. To assure the community that we're exploring every available option to them. This is, an important decision. And, if we go down the track for an LMP, 30 to $75,000 is a lot of money. So, and it's also about rebuilding trust, given some light of what's happened over the last few months so I think we just need to get the basics, right. And clarity. There's confusion around the table. We just need some clarity, um, before we commit real money and we need to be very specific in the question that we ask, um, advice on. And the specific question that has never been asked is whether or not, um. Overflow parking, which supports 130 concealed car parks, um, is, in fact, consistent with the reserve's purpose, given that it's temporary, seasonal, only. 21 days, um. And, in fact, incidental or auxiliary to the reserve's purpose. I think that specific question needs to be asked and answered. Okay. Put the amendment to the vote. Frank Wilkie 01:42:48.878
Those in favour? Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson. Phillips, and those against. Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Wilkie. The amendment is lost. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to try another one? Amelia Lorentson 01:43:01.311
Yep. Amendment 2. That Council obtain written legal advice. What would be required to satisfy the diminishment of purpose and public interest test under section 52 AB having regard to the factors attachment 1 identifies as relevant with the outcome reported back to Council. Before any further resourcing is committed to an LNP process. Frank Wilkie 01:43:31.433
Councillor Lorentson, what's written on seems to be a bit different to what you just read out. Amelia Lorentson 01:43:37.815
Oh okay that's my third amendment. I've got another one, that's right, I've got another one. Frank Wilkie 01:44:04.603
If you're are you happy with that wording Councillor? Yep. Can we have a seconder for that? Seconder, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:16.875
Simply the report quotes six to twelve months to thirty to seventy five thousand dollars in costs and I go back to due diligence and ratepayers' money. I think it costs really little to ask what the tests actually require and we need to actually find out. The require and we to actually find out what the plan needs to prove if we go down an LMP. I think we should know what the diminishment test and the public interest test actually require of us. That so that when and if we start the LMP process staff aren't drafting in the dark and Council hasn't been asked to approve a plan against a criteria that hasn't been explained. I'm just more concerned that we're going to be providing a lot of detail and going through the process. Potentially unnecessarily. So the request is simple. You know, what do we actually need? To provide in the plan? Councillor Wilson, you have a question? Nicola Wilson 01:45:33.591
Yeah, just want to clarify because as this report stands, it's just a report for noting and it doesn't actually recommend that developing a land management plan, so there isn't actually any. Progressing on this at the moment. Frank Wilkie 01:45:47.004
That's correct. Good question. Richard MacGillivray 01:45:51.773
There's no budget allocated for this body of work. Sustainable. Frank Wilkie 01:45:57.405
Okay, thank Councillor Lorentson, I'm going to take a beginner's mind to this. Could you help me understand what you're seeking to achieve with this amendment? Amelia Lorentson 01:46:10.140
I'm just really concerned that we're going to, you know. Think we've got all the information that we need. I'm concerned that the report is quoting a very detailed process and it compares it with the regen process, which is very different to a 21-day process. So I think before we start committing resourcing and spending $30,000 to $75,000, it would be really useful to understand what in fact is required to establish or to prove the two tests. You know, proportion. So frequency, permanence. Permanency. We already know that 5%. Interruption to recreational. We've got 25 years of evidence. Public interest. We've got 5,000 cars. We know how much money has been collected by charity. I just possibly just want to know the level of detail and whether we need to actually spend $30,000 to $75,000 and rather the timeframe quoted is actually correct, whether scaled down or a LNP proportionate to the days required, 21 days. Is going to be less onerous and help us deliver an LNP before the Christmas period. Frank Wilkie 01:47:37.024
Is it oversimplifying to ask that this amendment is seeking to clarify whether an LNP is even necessary? Amelia Lorentson 01:47:45.597
No, I'm assuming here that if the use is inconsistent and given that you know the decision around the table by majority is that it is inconsistent before we progress to a detailed LNP as one that's been explained in the report that we just understand what's actually required. Frank Wilkie 01:48:10.665
Questions of staff, is it clear to you what this amendment is asking? Unidentified Speaker 01:48:18.696
It's calling for a legal advice about other matters. I think it's looking for surety that the inconsistent use could pass those. Tests under the legislation and I understand why you would look to do that but it's difficult to outsource the answer about those tests because as trustee and the manager of the land the onus falls on Council to make its decision about whether it passes those tests so that's part of the purpose of this report to flag that perhaps around the table. Councillors turn their mind to whether they think that the use of car parking on the green open space at Lions Park diminishes the purpose of the reserve and to what extent and whether it's in the public interest essentially. Their so I understand why you might look to seek an external opinion on those things but it's probably unlikely that a lawyer is going to put a nice ribbon around it and say here's your answer because the onus falls back on Council as the land manager to make its decision about those things and I have some personal views on those things like particularly the second test about the public interest we know that there are benefits to it but at the last meeting it was also outlined that it became part of the DMP consultation and I believe that was of process. Part of the agreed process was to introduce it into the DMP consultation to specifically bring up this issue and I think it was Kim at the last meeting, sorry Lyn at the last meeting, outlined that it was 70% weren't in favour of% continuing to use the part. Frank Wilkie 01:50:21.224
Those two tests need to be satisfied as part of an LNP process correct? Unidentified Speaker 01:50:25.607
Yes and I guess flagging those primary tests in this report the purpose of that is for Council to consider whether it's likely to meet those tests as to whether you would then proceed to the land management process and the resources involved in that. I think that's a really good point. Yeah, I think it does diminish the purpose of reserves somewhat, but it's not permanently, you know, it's not like building a or that alien. Building or a structure that alienates the land, it's only temporary as Councillor points out, but that question of whether it's in, whether it adversely affects the public interest, I perspective, think it's unclear from my like there are pros and cons and there probably are different sides of the argument on that, so that would be a difficult one for an external party to say, yes, it's in the public interest, it's a judgement call and it's a little bit divided, I think normally when you're proceeding with a land management plan, you would be fairly confident. Plans, that, you know, your community is behind you for the vast majority, I would say. So I would have some concerns about that as to, you know, it being a divided issue. Brian Stockwell 01:51:47.378
Councillor Phillips Jessica Phillips 01:51:47.979
Then Councillor Wilson. Just to career that. So in 2023, we resolved to seek community feedback specifically on the use of the Lions Park that's as car parking. So DM. That one question on that Director Rawlings answered last month, that's the one question we're referring to as consultation? Or was there more consultation done? Richard MacGillivray 01:52:11.782
No, believe I that's all that I'm aware of that's been done. And go involved with public consultation, Councillor. Unidentified Speaker 01:52:19.429
Councillor Wilson? If we were to develop a land management plan, would you foresee that we would take specific community consultation on this? Because the question from the DMP was kind of vague, didn't specify that it was only for 24 days. Unidentified Speaker 01:52:32.350
Council isn't obliged to run the consultation but I think we would to some extent for this you know key parcel of land it's such an important parcel of land that and the way we do business we wouldn't be avoiding the consultation we would consult. Nicola Wilson 01:52:50.582
Yeah, I know. Would we do that at the beginning of the process to determine whether we've got this public interest test met before spending any other money on the plan? The report. Actually has the report actually has the community consultation quite elated. Quite late in the process. Because if you can't meet that public interest test, then you wouldn't prepare the report. Unidentified Speaker 01:53:21.747
Yeah, well, I guess. Yeah. The nature of the discussion is how can we close off on that? In view what, in of the Council, is it in the community's interests or not to allow the inconsistent use on the park? Yeah, from my perspective, I feel that there, would be two camps to whether it's a net benefit or net disbenefit to the community. Richard MacGillivray 01:53:47.375
And in addition, are there management actions that can be put in place to maybe address any of those concerns against it? And I think that's a key part of the process is other actions that we could do that would, you know, address any particular concerns from members of that public interest piece. Like it restricts my ability to kick a ball with my family member. Well, is there a solution to sort of respond to that issue by providing an area that can be, you know, available for kick and throw or something like that at the same time? So there are could um you could get that feedback and then build up a management plan around some of that feedback as well as part of it. But yeah, it will be a key piece, as well as outlined in the report is also seeking legal advice. So the process will community consultation, legal advice and pulling together all and data that we have already obtained would help then inform that process. Frank Wilkie 01:54:46.140
Yeah. To keep things moving, Councillors, I'll speak to it. I appreciate what's, and I thanks Councillor Lorentson for explaining it patiently um but I will I'm it concerned that would be preempting an outcome, which I, if we're going to go down the path of a land management plan, I'd rather it would not be preempting any outcomes and see what the process throws up after the public consultation. And as, we've heard, it'd be very hard to get, be very getting late. Independent legal advice about the issues raised in this amendment. And I think they that might be preemptive. So I'd rather a pure process going forward, if that's the way the Council wants to go, or it could choose not to allow parking in the Lions Park and avoid the necessity of an unbudgeted, unscheduled consultation process for a land management plan and keep it simple and keep it very simple. You had a question, Councillor. Amelia Lorentson 01:55:50.633
Officer I just want to understand in terms of public interest test and the community consultation process. Terms of you know we had on the record I think over 2,300 signatures supporting the use of the park some time ago. We've done some consultation. We've also had decisions 20 years of Council supporting the use of the park. Does that then reduce or does that feed into the consultation process? That's part of the material that counts. Council uses in developing the plan. So yeah I mean if Council felt that it had I mean, done enough consultation they might just proceed on that basis. So we can make that decision. So my question is and I think I've through you know another potential amendment to you Richard is why can't we look at a scaled version of the LNP given that we have quite a bit of information over the last 20 years that we can put together whether or not it's it satisfies the two legal tests. Richard MacGillivray 01:57:02.047
I mean and that's decision for councils around this table. I guess from an officer point of view, our advice would be there's a range of different inputs that we are aware of and Council would be aware of in terms of petitions on either side. For and against, there's also the DMP feedback that you've received as well. There's petitions for the use of it. So I guess our advice is there's potentially conflicting views on that and that end. Our advice would be if Council is looking at undertaking a land management plan, it would be wise to reaffirm the specific questions with the community on that, given there are contrast. Contrasting views around that. So that would be our suggestion, but ultimately it's a decision for Council whether it's comfortable that consultation has been undertaken, the decision you make in the public interest is sound and defendable. Frank Wilkie 01:58:12.127
Okay we have an amendment before Councillor Lorentson closes. Do you wish anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson do you have the floor? Amelia Lorentson 01:58:20.739
No, clearly this one's not going to stand up but I think you know I just keep coming back to we commit to 6-12 months before we commit not our money ratepayers money 30 to 75 000. I think it's really critical that we understand what the diminishment and public interest test actually require. I'm, you know, I'm satisfied. Around the table that legal advice is probably not the right way to do this so um yeah I'll close um respect respecting what's been said around the table. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:58:57.551
Those in favour of the amendment? Councillor Phillips, Phillips? Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilson, Amelia Lorentson 01:59:07.097
Councillor Wilkie. Another amendment, three. That Council prepare a scoped proportionate management plan for the Christmas overflow parking, 21 days. Sorry, I'll have to write this out. This is a new one. Oh, I sent it to Richard over a week ago. Unidentified Speaker 01:59:35.482
Well, I'll just have to type this. Sorry, yeah. Richard MacGillivray 01:59:49.044
Is that the one, Councillor, I sent you some feedback on? You did, yeah. Thank you. Okay, do you want to say? Amelia Lorentson 01:59:59.963
So that Council prepare a scoped proportionate plan management plan for the Christmas overflow parking for 21 days instead of the full six to 12 month process costed in the report. Unidentified Speaker 02:00:50.827
Tell in english. Me when to finish. Jessica Phillips 02:00:52.929
Yep, that's it. Before I second, can I make a couple of wording? Please proportionately. Go ahead, yep. Just put proportionate land management plan, just so I know we all know that's what it means, if that's okay. Unidentified Speaker 02:01:40.800
I would maybe take out instead of the full six month process cost in the report because the report's not. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:46.225
Yeah, can we take that out, I'm just doing that one on the fly. Unidentified Speaker 02:01:49.789
So what are we taking out? The stock for 21 days. Yep. Dennis Wallace 02:01:55.954
Taking out Larry Sengstock 02:01:57.816
That. After 21 days, just reduce, yeah, take the rest out after 21 days. Dennis Wallace 02:02:01.159
Yep. 21 days, yep. Unidentified Speaker 02:02:26.039
I'm happy to second. Frank Wilkie 02:02:28.568
Second to Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Um, Amelia Lorentson 02:02:36.520
Just think we've just heard the conversation around the table that, um, that this is possible, um, and that, I don't know, I it Richard about a threw it at Richard about a week ago just thinking that we don't need to prepare a full land management plan, whether it's necessary in fact to undergo the 6-12 month process, um where there are whether a scaled one that's proportionate to the amount that's, you know, what's been requested, 21 days, it's not 365 days, it's seasonal, um- whether, um- this is the more appropriate, um, path to go. At the last meeting, general, there was a majority decision, um, that an agree it's around the table that overflow parking, car parking. Um, was supported by the majority of Councillors here around the table. So understanding that and understanding also that over the last 20 years, um, that we've allowed temporary seasonal car parking, um, the question not, um, whether there's support, um, whether the question to me is whether there's a way that we can actually deliver, um, the car parking for the Christmas period. Um, there is, and again, there I don't want to, you know, resurface all our arguments, but there is a business community and a residential community that depend on the car parking. It is not the solution. And ideally we would love that, um, the park returned back to open space, but as again, discussed and debated over the last 20, 21 years, at the moment, there is no alternative. So the amendment in front of us gives us an opportunity to deliver what the majority voted for at the last meeting, um, for overflow car parking at Lions Park for the Christmas period. Um, and we've heard around the table also that, um, from the staff that it can be delivered if we agree on a scoped scale. Down proportionate version that may or not include consultation, given we've had 20, 21 years of consultation. Frank Wilkie 02:04:59.803
What is an appropriate length of time for us to fulfil our legal obligations under the act and conduct an appropriate land management plan. Unidentified Speaker 02:05:11.866
The report is just trying to go to preparing a robust plan. So I'm not aware of Council trying to cut corners when it comes to doing land planning. The so the report, the purpose of the report is to try and outline what a robust process would probably look like. Frank Wilkie 02:05:31.961
And what would be required for a proper impartial and defensible land management plan process in terms of time and resources? What well we think six months would be tight. And if we undertake a land management plan would it be pre-empting the process to suggest that the outcome was going to be that paid car park would be allowed to continue? I don't think that's an appropriate question. Point of order. Well I mean is the outcome of the land management plan even known, whether parking will be allowed or disallowed? Unidentified Speaker 02:06:09.299
Probably the points I'd make is that the report isn't proposing to proceed to a land management plan. It's for noting. So that's a matter for Council to come to. And it is highlighting those primary tests. And, you know, it would be unwise to proceed to a plan if you felt that on balance. It didn't meet those tests. So that's sort of the first stage of decision before embarking on a plan. I'm sorry, I've lost the train of thought with your question. If you want to repeat it. Frank Wilkie 02:06:45.230
That's all right. Just about the outcome of a land management plan is not necessarily known. Unidentified Speaker 02:06:51.556
Yeah. Yes, I mean, I think through the discussion we talked about the fact that there's been some consultation already that had mixed response. There's been petitions on either side and it appears from staff perspective that it is a bit of a divided issue. So in scope. In scoping and preparing the land plan, you're coming to a decision about on balance as a judgment call on a subjective test as to whether it is something that should proceed forward. So, you know, the net, the community benefit of the use. And I know that, you know, it was brought up in the context of a transport plan for the area. And, we're not taking the advice of the transport planning about dealing with the issues in that precinct. Jessica Phillips 02:07:58.734
I'm just now a little go back, confused back, again. Confused again, because you mentioned earlier, the LMP wasn't considered because we were phasing out car parking. So so to the man's appointment, the LMP, in my understanding, and I need to now really be clear on it, is not to give us either considerations to what is intended purpose of the car park. It's actually to give us the options and to actually make it is car parking, then it's consistent or that we've got, we're actually not breaching any Land Act. If there's a choice between Council not to proceed with it, which I think is inevitably where we month, it actually means that we're just doing procedurally the right thing. It doesn't predetermine an outcome, or it shouldn't Unidentified Speaker 02:08:58.137
Through the Chair. If, the decision is not to proceed with the parking on the reserve then the land management plan isn't triggered. I guess what we've been talking about is, you know, a robust process that involves consultation. You've got to respect that consultation process and where the outcome might fall. I think we've already highlighted that there are contrasting views on it and so you kind of expect that to play out to some extent through preparing the land plan and, you know, on balance the Council can come to its decision but you know both the previous uh resolution and the nature of this debate is kind of predetermining that you know we want to land plan for that use it's not really respecting the process of doing any more consultation on that so and that's council's prerogative but. Brian Stockwell 02:09:59.632
Councillor Lorentson Amelia Lorentson 02:10:00.856
Um so at the last so at last meeting last round of meetings there was the majority support for the overflow car parking and then a procedural motion put a roadblock to that decision so um question to the CEO, what weight does that decision carry we're talking about ambiguity that these split decision but there was a clear majority on the issue in the last round of meetings so my is question is what weight does that decision um play in terms of whether or not we progress Frank Wilkie 02:10:41.731
I'll just clarify the procedural motion didn't proceed it was dropped and it became part of the motion that was adopted by the emotion majority we get further advice on whether a land management plan is appropriate or not which is what it's and that was supported by the majority and the um the item to proceed with car parking in general the motion was struck out we're waiting for this report um to advise us about the land management plan there's been no vote to proceed with parking Larry Sengstock 02:11:17.466
So all we be so to the Chair all we cannot operate on is what the resolutions have been not what happened during the meeting and what the outcome of the resolution Amelia Lorentson 02:11:26.496
So the amendment that was struck out but the amendment was carried by a majority what weight does that place I can answer that it's on public record that there was a majority who supported the overflow car parking Larry Sengstock 02:11:41.118
But again all we can operate on is what the absolute resolution of the Council as a group is not the amendment there's part of the resolution because there's many as you know many amendments within a resolution it's the final decision that we as officers have to we have to work with. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 02:11:57.029
I'm happy for this to go through but I see diana's in the room and I'm asking for an adjournment because I need to clarify that process because I have some questions for governance before we move forward. Richard MacGillivray 02:12:13.874
Can I just add I think I've mentioned before haven't just to make we haven't got any budget set aside for this work at all so Council would need to how it would fund any work even a reduced scope process. We feel we've provided the minimum and that's why there's a range the minimum and the potential maximum in terms of costs and time to undertake that work. So that was what we requested to do we've presented that to Council for its consideration. So just to make that clear. Frank Wilkie 02:12:45.471
I have a question. If this proceeds on next week's ordinary, your interpretation that Council prepare a scope proportionate land management plan, it could involve the advice being that it be six it'd to twelve six to 12 months. It doesn't specify a timeframe or a cost. So scoped and proportionate. Does that, would you give us appropriate advice on what that would look like from your perspective? Well, we would, be doing, preparing a plan that was scoped and proportionate. Yeah, nothing excessive or undercutting or cutting corners. Correct. Amelia Lorentson 02:13:29.470
Yeah. Can I ask a question? I'm happy to adjourn and perhaps request wording advice from yourself, Richard. Maybe we could add subject to budget and resourcing, but I'm happy to work with you in the word, with the wording rather than throwing you in the deep end with a decision right, away. So if that's okay with you, I'd like to move for an adjournment and then a discussion about how the wording. Frank Wilkie 02:14:01.011
Annie, we're coming up to 12:30 time where we normally break for lunch. Councillor Finzel, do you have a question? Karen Finzel 02:14:06.199
Yeah, I'd just like to add prior to the adjournment or lunch, whatever that turns out to be, note also that in our resolution last month, I put forward the amendment that we would get the lions and all those, I just want that raised today, that we would call them and the relevant stakeholders to come together for further consultation around that. So just to put that fresh back at in everyone's mind. Frank Wilkie 02:14:32.730
That's correct. And so that prompts another question. Your staff, are they already preparing to act on the motion which involves a Stakeholder Reference Group? In the involving the lines about how they might be involved. And also staff are investigating, I think it was Councillor Phillips' amendment about investigating satellite car parking and park and ride. So that work's already underway as well. We're already committed to that point being that they were, they raised those amendments. Resources were committed on the understanding that there wasn't going to be car parking in the Lions Park? Larry Sengstock 02:15:15.292
No, there was no decision on the car parking. But in terms of the satellite parking and those sorts of things, and Councillor Finzel's amendment, they are part of the resolution that now has been adopted, so operate on we now operate on now if anything changes from there, but we haven't necessarily activated it. Jessica Phillips 02:15:38.064
I have a question about, I know that we can't do hypothetical, but let's say the words weren't struck out last month on the car park. Position what position was Council going to do it in? About the LNP that day if it went through that we were having car parking this Christmas? Okay I'm happy for it to be taken on notice. Unidentified Speaker 02:16:01.819
I was planning to move an amendment to say subject to there being a land management plan. Yeah that's right. Frank Wilkie 02:16:06.315
Yeah. Well we are close to lunch and there's been a couple of requests for adjournments. Councillors you're happy to adjourn? Yes. We'll adjourn and be back at 12:47. Half an hour's time. Frank Wilkie 02:48:49.963
Okay, Okay, we're welcome back on? Yes. Okay, welcome back everyone. We're up to amendment 3 and we've got, we had two speakers to that and that's Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. And we've got staff back as well, Richard and Dennis and CEO. Any questions of staff? Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Further questions about the amendment? No? Brian Stockwell 02:49:25.951
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:49:28.736
With the proportionate land management plan, that need community support? Does that need community engagement as well? Or do you just downsize it like a small plant Dennis Wallace 02:49:41.582
Through the Chair, it's not my proposal. Amelia Lorentson 02:49:45.109
Through the Chair, I was going to just add a few words to the amendment and that's why I requested it in adjournment so I could speak with the Director okay and could I just add to the end of that subject to budget Frank Wilkie 02:50:03.828
Approval well to be consistent with rulings before we've had it's moved and seconded two people have already spoken to it so let's debate this one and then if it gets up you can amend it Amelia Lorentson 02:50:19.176
Have I have a question yes so if the cost of proposal the cost of a scoped proportionate land management plan is above $10,000 can you explain the process? And the question sea the CEO just understanding orders that we actually address the cost of amendments and motions Larry Sengstock 02:50:47.496
So my understanding of this is that we would have to bring it back because it's outside our budget it's over ten even ten thousand dollars it's still a budgeted item that needs to be either brought back to Council and agree at Council floor a that's an unbudgeted item that will then deal with vr2 as opposed to waiting to budget review to actually Amelia Lorentson 02:51:08.473
So my question is are the words subject to budget consideration redundant if that's the process anyway Unidentified Speaker 02:51:15.522
No I think that's it's would be fair I'm Amelia Lorentson 02:51:19.156
Just prepared to put it okay no worries I'm Unidentified Speaker 02:51:22.811
Happy something like that in there so it gives you some clarity some direction yeah Councillor Phillips Jessica Phillips 02:51:27.368
Question um linking lmp to Christmas um flow to the ceos business um flow to CEO so um if we um end with a budget the next step would be um how much it costs to be for an lmp um gives us a really good scope of around what the use is and what um we want to proceed with every year would it come back to us that overflow parking um is considered with the lmp so um it gets let's say we um jump ahead for a second we have an lmp how will the Christmas overflow park parking be considered in that process Larry Sengstock 02:52:15.596
Um my simple view of this is that the lmp would consider overflow parking as one of its considerations as to why we would is need the and then it would come back to so the lmp would be um one of the considerations for the car park car parking being that it's a use it has an impact on the grass it has an impact on the space that would then come back to Council to say it's an inconsistent use but are we prepared to actually approve that the way is. An inconsistent use that's my understanding so that then once it's become an inconsistent use with it then becomes a every year we have to review them that's something I'd have to take advice Jessica Phillips 02:53:00.270
So that's okay follow-up question then is um does that's where then an LNP sort of protect future councils future 20 years from now. To give us actually um some solid legislation to protect the place and make Council at the time determine what's consistent and inconsistent Richard MacGillivray 02:53:18.686
Yeah Through the Chair it does so the land management plan you know essentially attached to the land itself the parcel and it provides the framework of the management plan a management around supporting those inconsistent actions on the land it also will highlight the consistent actions but it's looked as a framework and then it also will potentially include management action so what are the things that Council has identified it must do to ensure that those inconsistent actions is managed in the public interest and that it is doesn't diminish the reserve purpose so that will be ongoing until Council wants to a undertake a review of that and make modifications it may want to go out and do further consultation at a point in time it doesn't have to but that will continue to run with the land and lease unless Council either amend it or revoke it in a way but it will stick with the land so you won't need to reapply for a land management plan every year it'll continue to run Jessica Phillips 02:54:19.071
But then so it continues but let's say because it's um August there was a decision for car parking um this Christmas um next year we just say um bring the car parking back because we've gone or can we go to consultation or like it gives us time under the act to kind of do the work is that Richard MacGillivray 02:54:45.537
Yeah so so from a Land Act point of view once you have a land management plan in place that gives Council a surety from a Land Act point of view that activity can occur and is has got a management plan in relation to it in terms of the decision say Noosa report each year Council can make decisions around does it want to do it at Easter and Christmas or is it just you know Easter just Christmas or is it both so you have that flexibility I guess in terms of the frequency but the land management plan needs to create the framework for that to occur and once you've established that then really it's a decision of because there may be reasons where the you know Lions Club may not want to do it one year you're not obliged to do it consistently. Jessica Phillips 02:55:28.630
Okay so if there was a trigger in the LNP around in two years, four we have a one-way loop and the traffic's blowing and everyone's using more than 75,000 residents or people not residents are using public transport we could potentially then say it's now inconsistent to have that car park. Unidentified Speaker 02:55:52.073
You'd probably just cease giving permission for that inconsistent use so it can either still sit there in the framework existing in the land management plan or you could abandon the land plan if there was a need to do that but you know Council can cease the inconsistent use in the future there's no with no issues at that time. Brian Stockwell 02:56:12.814
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:56:14.775
My question is can we prepare a land management plan specifically for the 21 days forget everything else and alongside that can we then still go ahead with the border land management plan process. So again, I think where I'm coming from is this urgency. Time is of the essence. Want this some surety for the whether it's the lines or Hastings Street Association some sort of certainty by say November because it takes at least a month of lead time so can we prepare is of a plan that's just scoped specifically for the 21 days scale proportionately to the limited duration frequency and long operating history of that use and distinct and separate from the borderland management plan process which still remains just a matter for Noosa Council to consider and do as a long-term thing Richard MacGillivray 02:57:24.019
Through the Chair I mean, there's only really one process and I take your point about you just wanting to keep it very contained to just the aspect of the overflow parking the reality is that the purpose of a land management plan is to look at the reserve itself in its entirety and obviously the activities that council's seeking um to place. Put a management framework in and obviously a big part of that will be potentially engaging with the community about that and also consulting with First Nations people as well obviously with our obligations under the native title act um so there's we have to do that I guess regardless so there isn't really a shorter version we either do it in its entirety um and um we and we can do further reviews in the future but there's no real sort of short version of it we just need to make sure that it's robust and defendable um withstands judicial reviews because again we're aware there might be some different views so we want to make sure that it's defendable and withstands the public scrutiny it needs to. Amelia Lorentson 02:58:29.582
Our previous LMPs have they been prepared internally or by external consultants? That's true. Unidentified Speaker 02:58:40.763
The major ones have both been involved consultants and obviously we work with them so there was a sport and rec specialist on the Noosa district sports LMP and we had planners involved on the foreshore LMP place design group. Frank Wilkie 02:59:03.657
The significance of the park is a Shire-wide park how does that play into the size and scope of an appropriate land management plan? Unidentified Speaker 02:59:16.710
Yeah I think it's a relevant consideration that you know we talked about community consultation it's probably not the sort of site where you would you know make a determination about what the community wants and go straight to that so it is important is a very park in the scheme of things in our recreation reserves so I think it goes to the process of consultations Frank Wilkie 02:59:43.236
And thinking in terms of avoiding of unintended consequences saved as a the land management plan car parking is seen as a consistent use on the reserve how do we avoid future councils then wanting to have multi-story car parking on site which has been raised by community members in the past. Is it opening the door it to that and if so how do we Unidentified Speaker 03:00:05.945
No I don't think it is because you know buildings would need to be part of the plan as well so the plan wouldn't be calling the overflow parking a consistent use would be recognising it as an inconsistent use and extent to which it can occur and how it would be managed so you know some of the things we've talked about is restoring the park after wet weather and damage to the park and so forth so but yeah wouldn't it smooth the way as it were for the a multi-storey car park and I also mentioned that you know in a scenario where that was the council's preference then the reserve would have a different purpose it would be a reserve for parking which we have around Amelia Lorentson 03:00:49.337
The Shire yeah Councillor Wilson I'm going to the State guidelines that have been attached and they support a scaled approach they say that the trustees have flexibility in the form content and level in content and level of management plan of management plan and nothing that I could find in the guideline of the act requires the full, you know, the full process including independent legal review and broad community consultation. If it's a non-permanent use, which what we're talking about is seasonal, temporary, is that correct? Have I read that correctly? Unidentified Speaker 03:01:32.392
I think it's contextual as well. Everything we've discussed is about the context of this park and yeah in the context of the park that has a lot of stakeholders, a lot of uses, a lot of things that it supports. And in a key location like that our discussion has been about what a robust plan looks like and we're not aware of a process where you can carve out a particular use and just deal with that. And in the same way Noosa wouldn't approach a planning scheme aspect by just looking at one land use, you know, the right thing to do on this land is to do a proper plan. So I think when it talks about think talks scale and report and proportion, it's in the context of the use and the location of the reserve. Amelia Lorentson 03:02:26.381
So I'd go back to my normal, my previous question is, and again, the outcome that achieve is how we, can go through community consultation and an approval before our Christmas trading period. So is a scaled LMP, specifically scoped for the 21 day parking, that sits LMP, the border. Is that possible? Richard MacGillivray 03:03:05.702
No, believe it is. I think it's, Councillor, I think it's just going to be extremely tight. We've given a time frame, particularly when we know we need to engage with the community. We need to engage with Kabi. We need to do a bit of a piece of work of pulling all the information together and undertaking an analysis, including a legal review. We need to do potentially some workshops with Councillors. So it will take some time to work through that process make sure we have a robust plan in place because it does plan the long-term activity on that reserve. So we need to think forward as well and things like the designation of the park, we need make sure it is robust enough to acknowledge council's future intentions as well, not just the now. So our concern is that would be an extremely rushed and potentially may compromise the integrity of the process by forcing it to occur. And fast forwarding community consultation, which, you know, may have contrasting views on that to be really, really rushed. Jessica Phillips 03:04:15.306
Councillor Finzel, why do we have to do the consultation before the LNP? If you have it, that's what I was trying to get to before. We could have it for this year because we're under timeframe. But because we test the car park every year, you could consult when we've got time and resources and money on it. But you've got the framework that gives us the to say yes or no. But at the moment, if we don't, it's still a no and there's no consultation at all because we refer to the DMP consultation. Richard MacGillivray 03:04:46.184
And then this never up. So so the process obviously does refer to stakeholder consultation as being a key step, but as Councillor Amelia said, it's not a mandatory requirement. We would say this would be an important we step, when we're talking about the public interest test. You really would want some good sound advice and I've heard around the table some thoughts around you know how you would frame those particular questions because some of the questions to date haven't been very specific to the solar flow parking aspect. So you would look to make that quite clear to your community about, you know, we want to continue this, you know, this you ongoing let's get some feedback around that and understand what the community's views are on that and whether there's management actions that can be put in place to address some concerns or risks that could occur or you know is there an overwhelming position from the community that may form you know the contrary view to we just don't know until we've done an updated sort of more scoped engagement on that. Jessica Phillips 03:05:53.799
Question? How did we get to the point where we can arrive at that it's that we take it away if we can argue that it's already there? Debating stuff. Me have a think on it. Frank Wilkie 03:06:14.705
Yeah. To keep things moving, Councillors, I'll talk to the amendment. I'm not going to support it. I want to just raise a point that the overflow parking, if I understand, Councillors, those in favour, as they said at the last meeting round, may only be for this year then we may discontinue it. It's accepted that it's only a temporary thing and that you may just want to get through this Christmas and then it may never happen again because there are other alternative means of getting down there. And the concourse was a great example of how tens of thousands of people can get down to Hastings Street at a peak event without there being parking in the Lions Park, without even parking be available in Hastings Street, without even parking being available in Noosa Woods and that without even the 07 065 loop bus being available. There are more people than ever down to this precinct. You do not need overflow parking in the Lions Park. This inconsistent, unlawful use to continue. Now, there are two ways we can go. If you want to pursue this unlawful, inconsistent use, it is the pathway of is of excess cost, unbudgeted, unscheduled public consultation and a land management plan process. It is chaotic and unnecessary. Or you can agree to not approve car parking in the Lions Park this Christmas as that's the way since we were anyway. Heading anyway, and you avoid the cost and the confusion and disruption of a land management plan, you can avoid all the cost of this, unscheduled, unbudgeted process by just doing the right thing and not approve car parking in the Lions Park this Christmas, given that record numbers are getting down there by the viable mass transit alternative, which is the 065 bus. That's one bus alone. Many more thousands are arriving by the other buses and people are continuing to drive down to as well. Personal choices. Personal choice is respected. People can still drive and catch the bus and ride bikes and walk. Record numbers are still accessing that precinct. And that's what it's all about. Allowing access to that precinct at peak period. The lines parking is not needed, Councillors. Please consider not going down the path of L &P process, biting the bullet, accepting that the time is up for this temporary car parking and not approving it and avoid excess unbudgeted costs and a disruption to the public consultation schedule. Jessica Phillips 03:08:53.047
Question to the Mayor. Just to something just to clarify something that you just said around us proceeding with something that isn't lawful and that's not the exact words you used, but inconsistent. How we actually said point one. Unlawful, inconsistent, lawful. Sorry, I'm just interested to know that because. I'm asking a question. You've made a point that we're already making a decision that's unlawful, and yet the land management plan, which is on the table, is actually what makes it lawful because we can say it's inconsistent. So I'm just. What's is the question? Well, you've inferred that we as councils are making an illegal decision and it's incorrect. Frank Wilkie 03:09:34.138
What you're saying there. No, I didn't. I said if you wanted to pursue an unlawful, inconsistent. Which is currently unlawful and inconsistent, you can. If you want to pursue a. On the part that is currently unlawful and inconsistent, you are incurring unbudgeted cost, unbudgeted. An consultation process. So it is currently an unlawful, inconsistent use. If you wish to pursue that, you also incur unbudgeted costs and an unscheduled consultation process. It's very disruptive. Why have all that chaos when we can just do, in my opinion, the right thing and not approve overflow parking in the Lions Park? It's very simple. Councillor Wilson. Can I ask a question to you as well? Why does it cause chaos? In the sense that we've not budgeted for this Council. We know how rigorous the budget process was. That means we have to find money from somewhere. We have to find, it may involve a budgeted project being dropped. We have to find time in the community consultation schedule to slot that in. Scheduled we have limited staff. There may be other community consultation projects scheduled for this period which will have to take a back seat if Council wants to make this a priority. It's chaotic in many aspects and we can avoid all the chaos. And disruption. And unbudgeted cost if we just not allow car parking in alliance park. That's the point I'm making for your consideration. I know I'm probably outnumbered here but I have to have my say. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment which the Councillor Lorentson has scheduled she would like to also amend further if it gets up. Yes Councillor Wilson. Leicestershire in the next few weeks. Nicola Wilson 03:11:23.536
This land management plan should have been in place for years already. Yes we have been acting unlawfully by not having one. It's about time that we actually became compliant. It would not cause at all. It's a compliance exercise, it's an operational piece of compliance work that should have been done already. We shouldn't even be debating whether it needs to be done, we may continue to use Lions Park for overflowing indefinitely, there's no decision on the table that it will stop next year. I've certainly not been part of that decision and we may we want to use the part for other reasons that are inconsistent. With its nominated use as a recreation reserve. It's inconsistent, it's not unlawful once you have a land management in place, the land management plan actually acknowledges that the use is inconsistent but that there is a management plan in place to protect the reserve from that use. We already have plans in place every time we use the park for parking. The transport team already has a plan in place of how to deal with that use, how to protect the grass, how to maintain the park. I believe most of the information that we would need to prepare the plan is probably already available. There's templates on the State planning websites that help you prepare it to make sure you know exactly what to include. There's an element of flexibility in how much detail you need to go to, but we already have the information and if we want to have any sort of flexibility in how we use the park in the future then we need that land management plan in place and we need to be compliant with the Land Act Brian Stockwell 03:13:03.009
Councillor Wilson. Karen Finzel 03:13:05.932
Can I just ask a question? We might be out of left field. In May we got a workshop on local government infrastructure plan review which includes the classification and hierarchy of the parks across the Shire. Noosa Lions Park was one of those parks. Moved I've just looked up. Is this correct that in terms of review of a local government infrastructure plan requires public consultation? Could you repeat the question? A local government infrastructure plan review. Does that review does that require a process that involves community consultation to ensure that the plans are in line with the needs and aspirations of the local community? Kim Rawlings 03:13:56.969
Yes, that's correct, Councillor Finzel. A local government infrastructure plan does require community consultation. You as you know, are we in are in the process of our five-year review of our LGIP. So community uh so subject to a number of to workshops, and a number of briefing notes about the LGIP. One of those being in May about the recreation parks. And yes, we are now airing that documentation. It needs to go through a state review and an independent review, and then it will go Karen Finzel 03:14:39.510
Okay. Thank to refresh my memory, have we got budget? For the engagement process or not? Have we approved budget? Yes. We have. It's budgeted within the planning scheme budget. Yep. Is there opportunity to combine the community consultation a for the land management plan in conjunction with the local government infrastructure review? Can they be run simultaneously? Richard MacGillivray 03:15:13.650
Through the Chair, there could be some challenges in relation to that, given the different nature of the roles and functions. It may need a bit more thought to that. The one concern I have is, do you confuse the public around what the purpose of the consultation is? You would need to make that really, really clear in any engagement. There's two sort of aspects. One is regarding the infrastructure planning piece, and then one is around land management plan piece. The other aspect, I guess, is the algebra refers to sort of Shire-wide elements, whereas this is very much focused on one particular site. But we could give it some thought of how that could work, but my concern would be, is, would you. Confuse the public by having a broader Shire-wide local government infrastructure planning consultation exercise and then, you know, include one minor element relating to the Lions Park as an addition lions is in to that and with that potentially muddy the waters for the community in that regard? Jessica Phillips 03:16:27.543
Question? Yeah. That in the DMP consultation though. So that was a Shire-wide consultation, but we included this in it. Richard MacGillivray 03:16:39.477
So as an example, yeah, one side. So I'm not saying no. my initial thoughts is that if you're going out on the infrastructure and then you include that one part, could that be really well understood by the community? Frank Wilkie 03:16:57.244
Director Rawlings? Kim Rawlings 03:17:01.260
Uh oh what my um my comments would be these are two very separate processes under two different legislations, two different acts. I think it would be challenging and potentially problematic to confuse them. In fact it may work against what some of the councils are trying to achieve. The local government infrastructure plan is one of its components is about shy, Shire-wide open space and recreation needs. So we're going out to say that the Lions Park is a Shire-wide park to meet the recreation and open space needs of the community. To then run a process in parallel that may say something different, I think could be problematic. Karen Finzel 03:17:51.596
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:17:55.597
Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to larson, close? Amelia Lorentson 03:17:58.019
Do and I want to firstly start by just referencing some of statements that have been made around the table that the overflow car parking is in fact unlawful. We've had one legal opinion saying that it's inconsistent. We've had an advisor telling us it's inconsistent. The legal opinion that I have received has said that it is a permitted use and incidental to the reserve's purpose and when we look purpose, at the reserve purpose, it's not just to facilitate access to Lions Park, but my understanding is that it's supposed to facilitate the enjoyment and access to the broader assets location. Of that locality. So I would love a question on notice whether my interpretation is correct or not. And I would like, you know, an put that question on notice and receive a response before thursday's Ordinary Meeting because there's been a lot of conversation. The amendment that I put forward in terms of whether in fact it is inconsistent or incidental or ancillary failed, but I'm still struggling with the conversation around this table that it's an unlawful use and inconsistent with the purposes of the reserve. So question on notice and I would love that answered before thursday's Ordinary Meeting. The amendment to the vote. Excuse me, I'd like to speak to the amendment. Once you've finished, keep going, please. So back to debate that we've got around the table. We have consensus around the table that the majority of us that represent the community support the overflow car parking for 21 days. We have the duty as Councillors to explore every available option. Saw that recently we saw that recently with when we have community at our front doors you know we've got an easy way out and we've got a hard way to explore yes if we may come back saying that the 21 day scope proportionately land management plan isn't going to achieve the outcome we want but we owe it to our community to explore every available option that's why we'll put around this table we weren't put around to rubber stamp staff recommendations we weren't put around to take the easy way out we're put here to do the hard yards and in front of um and in us and I probably may amend it but I'm still approving the amendment that we do what we can understanding the privilege we have to be seated at the chairs around this table help support our community and I reach for the concourse and I totally applaud Hastings Street Association for what they did but there were no buses where I live I walked from I Sunshine Beach. I didn't catch a bus and if I had my surfboard or my niches or my nephews and their prams and their kids or if there was someone that I knew with a wheelchair there is no way on earth I'd be catching a 50-cent bus to go into Hastings Street so I just think it's compare apples with and when we use analogies make sure they're relevant to the context of what we're discussing at the we're discussing how we can enable our business community and our residents how we can enable them to participate and enjoy the beautiful assets of our natural park our river and our national parks and beaches and a 21-day scoped plan we're Christmas overflow parking for overflow parking for 21 days until the time that we find a working alternative is the only option we've got and we owe it to our community to give it a shot Frank Wilkie 03:22:14.846
Thank you put the amendment those in favour Councillor Phillips Wilson Lorentson those against Councillor Wegener wilk Finzel Wilkie the amendment is lost on my casting vote amendment another amendment um the same amendment the so can't move you the can't same amendment move the same amendment which is it'd be substantially the same Amelia Lorentson 03:22:40.174
Okay move another amendment um Cathy I think I've sent that through to you and the amendment reads whether section 52aa of the Land Act 1994 oh sorry that Council obtain written legal advice on whether section 52aa of the Land Act 1994 applies to the trustee action and if it does not the specific statutory basis for that conclusion with the outcome reported back to Council before any further resourcing is committed I'll just get rid of the last um sentence with the outcome reported back to Council full stop thank you Cathy I'm not so good at that and I'd like to also table section 52 AA and read it out. Could I get that on the screen, Cathy, or not? Okay. Section, and can I just read it? Frank Wilkie 03:24:02.442
We'll get you, if you're happy with the wording, Councillor Lorentson, we'll get you a seconder. Someone prepared to second the amendment I'll be the second Councillor Phillips, thank you. Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 03:24:17.778
And I'll start by reading the Land Act 1994 section 52 AA. Approval of inconsistent actions. 52 AA approval of inconsistent actions. The minister may approve the trustee of land taking an action under section 52 that is inconsistent with the purpose for which the trust land is dedicated as a reserve or granted in trust in inconsistent action. If satisfied, the action will not one diminish the purpose or b adversely affect the public interest. 2 the approval may be given on application by the trustee of the trust land on the minister's own initiative and b subject to conditions. 3 despite section 52 2a trusting. The trustee may take an inconsistent action if the minister has under subsection 1 approved the trustee taking the action and b the taking of the action complies with the conditions of the minister's approval. Councillors the report only at one report path looks at one pathway the management plan process under section 52 a b it doesn't mention section 52 a at all the department's letter and I acknowledge the department's letter of 4th of August doesn't fill that gap either it answers a general question about whether any other approval mechanism exists but it doesn't ask a specific question about section 52 a that from a senior land advice also came officer not a lawyer Council has written to the minister about this part before in 2023 but never asked about this specific section if 52 a is available it could offer a simpler reversible approval conditions set dates and annual review instead of the full LMP process again Councillors before to the bigger process six to twelve months thirty to seventy five thousand dollars of not our money or we pay of ratepayers money we should know for certain whether the shorter pathway actually exists finished you Council Frank Wilkie 03:26:31.367
Thank you yeah question of staff could you this clarify this with whether this applies to Council as a trustee or is this apply to private ownership private owners or private trustees Unidentified Speaker 03:26:49.366
Through the Chair um the answer is quite simple in that provision of the act is where the trustee is some body other than the State or a statutory body so the clause that follows is the provisions where the trustee is the State or as a statutory body. So the provisions that we've quoted and you know the whole legislative framework was reviewed by Council solicitor the provisions that are quoted are that apply to us as a statutory body the provisions that were read out in the preceding clause is where the trustee is some other type of entity so in that scenario the ability to make a land plan is not divulged to that type of trustee and the minister retains those powers if there were a provision for the minister to be making a decision about an LNP for us he or as trustee she would still be looking for a land management plan to that process to be undertaken for he or she to make that decision. Frank Wilkie 03:28:08.986
So this refers to trustees other than statutory bodies of which the Council is one. Correct. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:20.377
So a question to staff. 52AA2 the approval may be given on application by the trustee of the trust land. So Council is the trustee of the trust land? Richard MacGillivray 03:28:38.489
Councillor, I think what Dennis has highlighted is that the trustee may be a different entity. It might be a private person who's a person who's got A person who's a lease over state land. So it's a broader provision, whereas 52 AB is specifically relating to where the trustee is either the State or statutory body. So you'll recall the changes in the legislation in 2024 which is focused in on alleviating the State from being involved in lots of local government decision making regarding inconsistent uses, so this is very intentional that they have devolved those powers to local governments to make decisions regarding inconsistent actions on the basis that they go through a land management plan exercise. The viewpoint on this is also informed by our own legal council's interpretation of the provisions and the statutory application of that well as further verbal conversations with the department who have confirmed that's the same application. So 52 AB is the appropriate section relevant to Council as the statutory body for assessing and evaluating the consistent uses. So even in the event Council wish to write to the minister, the advice from the department is the minister would want to see evidence of a land management plan that supports the decision making. Amelia Lorentson 03:30:10.171
Can I ask, have we tested that by actually writing to the minister and requesting a section 52 AA ministerial approval? We haven't we've done that. Yeah. Can I on notice? Richard MacGillivray 03:30:22.983
We can do that if Council wishes to do that. We've got that advice from the department though but we can ask the minister now in lieu of the department Amelia Lorentson 03:30:31.312
Staff. I would like to make that request and move at a further amendment addressing that. Richard MacGillivray 03:30:45.821
Yeah correct but the provisions need to be read in conjunction. Frank Wilkie 03:30:50.870
So just to clarify I'm looking at section 52ab inconsistent actions by the particular trustees. Yeah says this section applies if the trustee of land is the State or a statutory body. Councillor says this is what applies to us. Correct. Despite section 52a the trustee of the trust land action under section 52 that is inconsistent with the purpose for which the land is dedicated as a reserve granted in trust if the trustee has prepared a management plan for the land. So it's different conditions apply for a statutory body. Unidentified Speaker 03:31:29.312
Yes but you know, the tests and the same in both and if there were an Avenue to be circumventing 52 a B 52 AB and going to the minister he or she would still wouldn't be making a decision in the of a land management plan properly prepared. So it doesn't, result, you know, avoid the issue of preparing a land management plan for the site, Larry Sengstock 03:31:59.568
Which takes to. The legals of this. Yeah, we're just, we're doing things on the fly here. Yeah. Legal to speak. Frank Wilkie 03:32:06.323
All right, we'll have an adjournment for five minutes. We'll get some legal clarification. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 03:32:13.234
Adjournment? Frank Wilkie 03:45:44.181
Okay, welcome back. We had time to get some legal advice. Is there anything the staff would Richard MacGillivray 03:45:50.892
Like to share? Yes, Through the Chair, I just wanted to clarify a couple of points around section 52AAA. As mentioned, we've been sort and as mentioned, we sought some advice from our legal Council. I just wanted to read that out for clarity for Councillors. Although section 52AAA of the Land Act remains in force and continues to provide for ministerial approval of inconsistent actions, the department's advice is that local government trustees cannot rely on 52AAA of the act as an alternative to the 52AB management plan process. Accordingly, as a matter of risk management and statutory administration, Council should proceed on the basis that a land management plan is required before authorising the proposed inconsistent use. Frank Wilkie 03:46:29.996
Are you able to hear that Councillors? Yes. Amelia Lorentson 03:46:32.327
Yeah. So question Richard, just to Richard, just a yes or no. Is section 52 AA a possible option? Richard MacGillivray 03:46:44.563
Through the it is Chair, it is a possible option. It remains in force as mentioned in the advice, but the correct statutory interpretation is that AA and AB should be written in conjunction. So for statutory authorities, a land management plan piece should inform. A request to the minister as well as part of that process. Amelia Lorentson 03:47:05.159
So both options. So if both options pathways are available, which is contrary to all the discussion we've had so far, why was that not put in the report? Richard MacGillivray 03:47:19.007
Because the minister will still want us to satisfy those two key tests around the diminishment of the reserve purpose and the no adverse impact on the public interest which is basically what's outlined in the report Amelia Lorentson 03:47:33.996
So section 52aa as read makes no mention first of all it says application by the trustee of the trust land and we are trustee of the trust land and therefore section 52aa despite what's already been said an available pathway the section also mentions nothing about a land management plan so um question my question is can we specifically write to the minister and ask um the specific question whether under section 52 a land management plan is required and if so whether a full um a full land management plan is required or a scoped LNP specifically targeted to the 21 days overflow car parking because as I've read the act and there's no requirement Richard MacGillivray 03:48:42.210
Through the Chair um we can write to the minister absolutely um again I just wanted to highlight that I've been in touch with the department as a reason is yesterday based on your revised motion that they would be wanting that exercise to be undertaken to inform their decision. The but we can write to the minister Larry Sengstock 03:49:02.895
Thank you you've got our advice Councillors I think it's your decision now thank you to decide whether you want us to write to them to the minister or not but you've got the advice thank you very much Frank Wilkie 03:49:13.038
And just to clarify absolutely 52ab says this section applies if the trustee of land is the State or a statutory body and that's includes Council yes correct so despite section 252 2a the trustee of the trust land may take an action that is inconsistent with the purchase with the purpose for which the land is dedicated if the trustee is prepared and has a management plan. For the land that states how the action would not diminish the purpose or adversely affect the public interest so your unequivocal advice that 52 AB is the relevant section of legislation that pertains to a statutory body which is a Council not just any old trustee yes I'd also just make the point that you know these sort of operational matters if we write to the minister are dealt with by his or her delegates and you know the discussion yesterday was with the delegates okay thank you we have a an amendment before us to which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken any questions questions further debate? Nicola Wilson 03:50:31.691
Can I ask a question? Councillor Wilson? Can I just ask the wording in section 52 AB where when it says despite section 52 to a the trustee of the land blah blah blah does that mean that overrides 52 AA Amelia Lorentson 03:51:03.359
Point of order, we're asking. Legal question to a Council officer. Frank Wilkie 03:51:08.475
No, I'll allow this is a very pertinent question. The is in section 52 AB does section 2 of 52 AB it says despite section 52 2A does that overrides that overall mean it overrides 52 AA? No, no, it puts additional 50 yeah it puts additional obligations onto a statutory body Richard MacGillivray 03:51:35.467
Um so yeah just being clear so 52 section 2 it's got no A in it are you referring to 52 2 are you or are you saying 52 so we're looking at section 52 IV 52 AB okay yep part two of section 52 despite section 52 2a so that's actually above there which is however the action must be consistent with the purpose which the land is dedicated as a reserve or granted in trust oh okay yeah so it's a different section yeah so it's basically just saying that we must the action must be consistent with the preserve pills. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:16.206
Purpose- Who's your question? 52 AA. It's number two it's a Richard MacGillivray 03:52:22.865
Different section yeah sorry Councillor too many a's and b's Frank Wilkie 03:52:32.914
Um, Councillors, I'll, in order to get moved. This on I'm not going to support the amendment we've had legal advice about the relevant section that applies it's 52 AB 52 AA applies to trustees other than the Council we've heard that unequivocally from staff and we've got advice from the department as well I understand there may be more amendments to come which may be more specific so we can yeah I think it's we've had the advice we don't need to be asking for advice for which we've already received Council Amelia Lorentson 03:53:15.566
Lawrence would you wish to close I will. Trying to think of how to put this there were two pathways available under the Land Act in which we could go to the minister with what's an inconsistent use only one pathway was reported in the report it's where for that very reason when we talk about trust within community given recent events when we talk about due diligence and when we talk about this there's been so much confusion around this table what's lawful what's unlawful what's consistent what's inconsistent what's incidental what's auxiliary we were told by the Mayor just a little while ago there was park only one available pathway we adjourned and then found out no this section 52 AA is still available we're told by the Mayor that Council is not a trustee as specified under section 52 AA then we found out after adjournment that we are in fact trustee of the trust land so it's for those very reasons that we should in this the spirit of building community trust in our decision-making and not compromising the integrity of this table that we seek obtain written legal advice or right to the minister to check that what we're actually making a decision on is the only available option that everything that's been said around the table is in fact the only option and this is to me just diligence. It's what we must do as Councillors to discharge our duties of governance oversight so I will be supporting this I will also move if this doesn't get through that we write to the minister but it's for the very reasons of all this discussion and confusion around the table that we need to take more step before we progress with any decision today Frank Wilkie 03:55:27.363
Thank you. I'll put the amendment those in favour. Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson and those against. Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Wilkie the amendment is lost. Unidentified Speaker 03:55:40.937
Councillor Phillips could you, yeah, thank you. Jessica Phillips 03:56:09.098
Okay that item A, B, C and D be added to read approve commencement of the preparation of a land management plan for Noosa Heads Lions Park in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act and the guidelines for managing actions consistent and inconsistent with the purpose of trust land. Receive a referral b receive a further report detailing the scope, costs, funding implications and proposed timeline for the consultation and the preparation of the land management plan prior to the commencement of the substantive planned preparation works. And c approve the proposed temporary car park arrangements for the 2026-27 financial year. And d write to the minister advising them Council are working on the LNP and requesting approval for this year. Amelia Lorentson 03:56:55.967
Happy to second. Frank Wilkie 03:57:09.520
Question before the first speaker speaks. Section C of that amendment, contrary to the advice we've received, we need to have an LNP before we can approve car park. Is this about what Dave is that's why D there. About place? Jessica Phillips 03:57:31.945
That's why D is there because C and D go together. Frank Wilkie 03:57:37.353
Yes, I understand. My question is approving proposed temporary car parking. Preempts the outcome of the LNP and if we want to pursue, we can't approve, the legislation is very clear, we can't approve temporary car parking without having done the LNP first. That's the legislative requirement. Unless you wish to strike out, see, but. Or test it. Larry Sengstock 03:58:16.579
To say thinking my thinking is it's not to approve, but it is to investigate, because you need to have a reason to do the LNP. You can't just say the reason to do the LNP is the proposed temporary car parking. So it's a bit of whether approve is the right word or another word in there, out proved have there, but you've got to have, you're proposing to a temporary car park. Have the temporary car parking for the LNP to be triggered. Otherwise, you've got reasons to do an LNP if you want to, but you don't have to. Frank Wilkie 03:58:46.109
So investigate the proposed temporary car parking instead of approve. Jessica Phillips 03:58:53.566
Yeah, because what I was trying to do is put that, what the CEO just explained. Richard MacGillivray 03:59:00.997
Can I make a suggestion? Yeah. My thoughts are with your A, clause A, with the improved commensal preparation land management plan for Noosa Heads Lions Park, with the inclusion of temporary overflow parking, because I assume that's the specific piece you're wanting to be incorporated into a land management plan, because that way you're not activity you're actually approving the commencement of undertaking the land management plan for the basis of temporary overflow car parking. You're actually and take out C. A approves it in the absence of C. Jessica Phillips 03:59:42.230
Sense of funding. Richard MacGillivray 03:59:43.410
Yeah, that's right. Dennis's is point is the only thing by approving the preparation or I guess the B is the scope so I'm just trying to work out. Jessica Phillips 03:59:54.076
Do you see do you do B as A because it needs to work in that order potentially in the wrong order potentially yeah so um yeah so if you could switch A and B and then see how that reads which is so I just want to go step by from today so what we want or to be really clear on next steps we're asking for the costs because we've heard between thirty and seventy thousand that's point zero two percent of our budget so maybe we need to come back with it a report on this the costs because you would need to ask request for the approval so that can all be in that and then we understand the timeline around how long the land management plan will take Larry Sengstock 04:00:51.216
Essentially what this report is but it's a you're saying more detailed in terms of cost and scope Jessica Phillips 04:01:00.105
Yeah because I think we didn't but um this report didn't start the lmp did it so I'm asking for us to do the link I think where I land is lmp has to happen so so let's approve the commencement of the preparation of that include the temporary overflow car park because you have to have the reason why you're putting applying for the lmp so thank you Richard that's right accordance with the requirements that's all right and then because we're now August if we write to the minister advising Councillor working on the lmp and because there was a decision last month that we were going to approve it this year and I know that was changed but that gets us this year receive a further report detailing this ghost house oh that's been Frank Wilkie 04:01:47.675
You wanted that to be first didn't you Jessica Phillips 04:01:49.756
Put that first please number c Cathy needs to be a be I Richard MacGillivray 04:02:02.038
Would I a Councillor be um in relation to like a budget um Jessica Phillips 04:02:08.208
Would be our one coming so would it no Richard MacGillivray 04:02:12.754
Yeah two sorry yeah two so we could prepare a as package part as of br2 um with the scoping costs undertaking that for council's deliberation Larry Sengstock 04:02:28.958
We can bring it Council could agree before Council could and then it gets brought in oh yeah it's an option yes sooner than br2 pardon sorry yeah that's right so we can bring it in Council agree it and then we just bring into the budget as such Jessica Phillips 04:02:46.324
Okay I'm happy with that approach if that's Frank Wilkie 04:02:55.380
Can we request approval from the Noosa Richard MacGillivray 04:03:03.000
Through this year I think I mean we can write to them to date but yeah okay Jessica Phillips 04:03:16.695
What I was trying to do is sorry because I don't want Council to put ourselves in a position where we're not doing anything illegal very much don't want to do that but we've actually got to this point where there's time constraints now and I believe that if he like how would the process cap do we I hate to say it but we find ourselves do we internally do the investigation or does the minister step in and well Frank Wilkie 04:03:45.204
Okay exemption, we're supposed to approve? Oh okay exemption. Is isn't that pre-empting the outcome of the LNP? If the LNP process throws up a result that community don't want car parking, we've said no we're going for the car parking. It's corrupting the process. It's like we've got an outcome in mind. And we're going for it regardless of what the community says. Jessica Phillips 04:04:09.965
So the LNP wouldn't be, it wouldn't be finished though in time. That's what we got told. So that's why. I know, but if you Frank Wilkie 04:04:15.628
Could write to the minister advising Council working on the LNP. Full stop. Jessica Phillips 04:04:20.249
And we're requesting approval for just this year because it'll come back like we talked about that LNP gets. And then we. Frank Wilkie 04:04:29.897
Yeah, but it might be. If it's finalised prior to Christmas and the outcome is no car parking. Yeah. We've disrespected. Just respectively I just be very cautious about signalling anything in a motion that we're going to have parking in the Lions Park at Christmas regardless of what the. Difference to approving that last month though? Regardless of what the LNP says Jessica Phillips 04:04:57.294
I'm really confused because that's the decision we made last month though. Frank Wilkie 04:05:00.648
Last month we decided to have the LNP process first to determine whether we could do it according to legislation. That was the decision made last month. Ultimate truth. Yeah. The decision that got up and then was redacted. Well I could say, and to show how 50 / it is, at the previous General Committee Meeting the recommendation was that it proceed. Car parking, don't proceed. Change by the ordinary. See even this council's on a knife edge about this. Jessica Phillips 04:05:34.114
Yeah but the LNP, we still can't make those decisions without the LNP so that's why the LNP needs to happen but you can't apply for an LNP unless you're telling them why. Frank Wilkie 04:05:44.008
So I have to say in the report. With the inclusion of temporary over flow car parking. But not approving car parking. At Christmas before the LNP is finished. It's pre-empting the outcome of the LNP. Like everything else is fine. That's the correct process. But to request approval for car parking while we work on the LNP. Jessica Phillips 04:06:11.754
I just don't understand how the last 20 years this has been done though and it's one year and then the LNP gives us the framework to make those decisions and then the community can see we've actually done the body of work that tells us yes or no we know how much it's going to like we're making to see if we don't include that we're pre-empting the other decision Frank Wilkie 04:06:32.171
Okay we're getting into the debate now so you have the floor Councillor. Jessica Phillips 04:06:43.240
Well I'll start with saying I think the minister can say no so I'm gonna keep it I do think it's courtesy that it used to be a process up until 2024 that the minister was involved in this so I can't see that being an issue I think it's really good due diligence to show the minister that we're working on an LMP so that part I'm happy with I will make I made some notes as we've been going for a while and some of the things that I wanted to point out that I landed with this was um entire lines park reserve is approximately one hectare not the grassed overflow area the entire reserve so from for some broader context Noosa has about 35 000 hectares of land managed for environmental values hectares managed for environmental values and one approximately one hectare represents approximately 0.003 percent of that area again seasonal overflow parking doesn't occupy the entire hectare and so um we're asking whether a proportion of approximately one hectare of recreational land can appropriately accommodate vehicles for a limited period for exceptional peak demand public transport has it been extremely successful and I would like to celebrate that but it also hasn't properly we've heard that almost 75 000 passengers movements occurred on the one-way bus loop during Christmas and that's an excellent result and I really support that um we should continue investing in it but we need to disciplined about what evidence actually proves so it demonstrates that people will use convenient public transport it doesn't automatically demonstrate that every person currently travelling by car has a practical alternative and saying that those passenger to 51,000 vehicles removed from the road requires assumptions about vehicle occupancy and the substitution that should be transparent and tested before we base a long-term infrastructure decision upon them. More importantly transport needs aren't uniform so a family with child a young child an elderly resident someone with mobility challenges hospitality workers people carrying equipment and residents travelling from our hinterland without frequent public transport don't have all the same options so good transport planning isn't about forcing everyone to use the same solution my aspiration should be that our public transport becomes so convenient and effective that the demand for the Lions Park naturally disappears should if we reach that point wonderful but I don't believe good planning means removing an existing peak period tool before we demonstrated the alternatives can adequately replace it we shouldn't refuse to undertake the LNP because we've already decided that there must be parking the LNP has been costed or an estimate of thirty thousand to seventy five thousand for undertaking that technical assessment and on a monthly basis we would approve flying minutes that are far greater in our budget um let's test the seasonal park. Against legislation let's put the framework in place to give us a really clear decision-making parameter ask our community let's ask our stakeholders especially around economic value to the carpark then let's bring all the evidence back to the chamber if the evidence demonstrates that seasonal overflow parking cannot satisfy the statutory test then I'm going to accept all that evidence if our transport alternatives develop to the point where Lions Park is genuinely unnecessary then I'm going to support that outcome but I'm equally prepared to accept that if the evidence tells us that carefully controlled use of a handful peak period that can coexist with recreational purpose on this reserve and the broader public benefit then that's what I'm going to keep an open mind about. I've to listened all of you I think that it is extremely divided here and in our community but we cannot preempt decisions we can't use the DMP consultation that to adequately say that this was exactly what they meant by it we've heard that it was an example um we've um I think we owe it to the community to use every opportunity to regain trust we shouldn't be thinking about what the end result will be without doing the work that demonstrates a really good decision-making for Councillors so I hope you can approve this today Frank Wilkie 04:11:30.440
Castle can have some of this one? Unidentified Speaker 04:11:31.806
I will support this it doesn't give a predetermined outcome it's giving us the option to be able to use Lions Park as overflow parking we need the land management in place for that to be an option after our after meeting in July Noosa Today did a poll on Facebook saying asking readers where the paid parking should continue during the Christmas holidays it doesn't say how many respondents there were but 83% voted yes and 17% voted no so while we might take one stat from the DMP we have another one from another source that says completely the opposite um so I agree with Councillor Phillips we need data here we can't um and we need the management plan to progress have that option so that we can continue to and in the meantime we need to do our community consultation to find out whether we meet the public interest test and whether we'd be likely to progress that land management plan to fruition. So at the moment the data that was in the Go Noosa report was about compared congestion in Easter holidays with the weekend before Easter holidays so we didn't even get good data on what happens when we close the lion's cart park because we didn't actually measure it both with and without during the Easter holidays um we don't yet have a plan we're probably not going to have one for a while due to stuff and vacancies so we shouldn't be making big decisions on parking without that parking management plan. If we want to keep Lions Park as an option then we need to progress the land management plan. Amelia Lorentson 04:13:13.151
Castle Orson. I'm happy to support the amendment in front of us. C is a request only, it doesn't pre-empt any outcomes so I think it's a to our business. Commitment to our business and residents that we're looking at solutions rather than just shutting this down. So I totally support the amendment and I do want to reiterate that after 20 years when we talk about public interest. Test and diminished, the two legal tests, the diminished purpose of the reserve, the park is still great after 20 years. So in terms of satisfying the two tests, I think 20 years of history, consultation surveys, petitions, and discussion, I don't think we're going to have any issues in terms of satisfying those two legal tests. So happy to support what's in front of us and I think it's just a really good step forward. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 04:14:18.881
I just have a question mainly through the governance lens and our statutory requirements. Does this in any way remove or reduce council's trustee obligations under any other act or other sections of the Land Act including but not limited to native title, human rights and other local and state permits and authorisations? I mean I just don't want to I support the intent of this. Of but I just want to be assured that under governance that we are not on a fine line of violating the matters that I've just raised. Richard MacGillivray 04:15:01.639
The matters my only Through the Chair my only comment would be I'm just looking again at um a paragraph a and b one refers about a further report around the costing and scope and I assume budget aspect of it and the other one is approving commencement of the plan I would have thought maybe um bees sort is of embedded in the eye a because obviously the costing and scope relates to the commencement of the plan whereas they're sort of they would be read in conjunction that we commence the process but at the same time we're providing a further report that comment would be my only comment and just back to you all sorry Karen that's two responses there the other one my only comment would be in relation to C and obviously to undertake the land management we potentially are undertaking public consultation so if we do write to medicine maybe the minister and let's say in event he does support and we are going out to consultation on the land management plan whether that does give rise to preconceived outcome and the other aspect we would need to engage with Kabi as well given we've got responsibilities and native title and we don't know what that outcome would look like. So we need to work our way through that but that's probably my only question right but I understand the intent of what Council is seeking to achieve Jessica Phillips 04:16:27.451
With to clarify my intent is exactly that when I meant approved commencement I feel like that meant because when I was working on I was like today what's tomorrow wasn't like so approve is not about approving the LNP it's about approving from today so officers feel like so you know exactly what we're asking from today commence that preparation that ties in with what you would come back with the costs all of that would come back to us which we don't have today so we've got more evident or like um there's more information then um but if you want me to move that word but that's not the intent of that wording Frank Wilkie 04:17:10.521
So just clarifying what's supposed to change um Richard MacGillivray 04:17:20.143
Yeah I was just wondering so yeah obviously the report is it sort of endorsed the need to prepare a land management plan obviously that which gives the which gives the city the intention to move there but obviously it will be subject to a further report on the detailed scope and costing Jessica Phillips 04:17:38.341
Help me and help me know what to say then because what I'm trying to we today if we don't have any amendments there's no lmp coming back to us so how do I make sure that there's an lmp which it can't it's not in the report there's Frank Wilkie 04:17:55.683
No recommendation it's a report for noting it can't yeah why wait though I have a question does the um part a that report will it also, in terms of time? Of proposed timeline will it also propose timeline for consultation we'll also talk about how what other consultation projects that we have ratified will be affected and moved which ones were likely to drop Richard MacGillivray 04:18:27.341
Um yeah we'll to need to give a bit of thought absolutely to the planning and timing and sequencing of those Frank Wilkie 04:18:32.949
Things yeah my other question is I question whether we ought to be approving no I'll save it for debate yeah Councillors some I understand the intent of this part a is great that's very wise but I would caution against approving commencement of the land management plan before you know the full budget implications what projects may be dropped what consultation projects may be delayed further before we with eyes wide open and fully informed then approve commencement of or not of the land management plan that needs to be an informed debate and decision so I would caution against supporting this its current this motion in current form, because we need to I want to know what it's going to cost what we're not going to do instead what consultation processes may be affected what communities may be affected while we fast-track if we decide to fast-track this one and I still do have very big concerns about a letter or even being on the public record saying we're doing parking in the Lions Park regardless of LNP throws up like I just think it I'll just caution against it in my opinion it pre-empts the outcome that we're seeking whereas consultation will help shape the outcome and the DMP had 70% percent of people not in favour of using parks as a recreation reserve the jury is out on this Council is split on it so that's why I would caution against supporting this in its current form or if it gets up, amending it later to remove requesting approval for this year and B to foreshadow, I like to foreshadow, consider once the report is received, consider of the preparation of the land management plan. Knowing what budget implications it will be, what consultation processes may be affected by us going down this path. As I say, the alternative is to move to where I've heard the community, we're going to go eventually, because it's only temporary car parking, which is eventually the park will likely to be returned to the community as a recreational reserve. Yes, it is only one hectare, but it is in a highly urbanised area where visitation is very high and where demand for green space is at its peak in holiday periods. And also, I'd like to put my view that we do have the mass transit alternative available. It's beyond doubt that more people are getting down there than ever before by means other than the private car. They can still take the private car down and that the Lions Park contributes a minuscule amount to car parking or access. More people are accessing that precinct than ever before with or without the Lions Park. It's not needed and the concourse was a demonstration of how many people can actually get just using the existing bus services with Hastings Street close to parking, Lions Park close to parking, Noosa Woods close to parking, existing bus services and there were tens of thousands of people down there. So we do not need the Lions Park. The 065 one-way loop bus, as we've heard, has 75,000 people over the Christmas period alone, a 67% increase on the previous Christmas. People understand that if they catch a bus down there, they'll get there as fast as the car, but they won't be circulating for an hour waiting for a park once they're there. They can have their coffee, have their swim and be on their way out before a lot of people have even found a lot a park so to say there's no viable mass transit alternative is not, in my view, correct. We've got the data. We know that Lions Park car parking creates congestion. But again, back to this amendment. After rebutting some of the arguments, I would be very cautious about approving certain elements of this particular motion. Thank you very much. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 04:23:46.421
Question Through the Chair please. Do we have any evidence that fewer vehicles are accessing the area? Do we have any traffic counters? Didn't say fewer. You did, I meant more vehicles. No, no, you said because people are taking buses, that's fewer vehicles, but we don't have any evidence of that, only that more people, it could mean that more people in general are accessing. Frank Wilkie 04:24:07.380
More people are accessing the precinct, but as. Question is actually to the CEO. Oh, sorry. Well, I can put it in context with my arguments. Larry Sengstock 04:24:18.089
Do you have any evidence about that? I don't think we've got specific data on that, no, Councillor. Okay, thanks. That's my understanding. I would like to add. Nicola Wilson 04:24:24.914
No, you're debating there. Asked a question to the CEO. Frank Wilkie 04:24:28.306
Okay. The Go Noosa report did say 51,000 fuel vehicles as a result of the 75,000 bus passengers. Nicola Wilson 04:24:34.893
That was as an estimate that a bus takes 2.1 people off the road, but we have no evidence of that. We just know that more people arrived by bus, not that they left a car. Frank Wilkie 04:24:42.922
Anyway, Councillor, we're going to come gonna I'll speak to it. Tom Wegener 04:24:47.948
First of all, we know we have a very, very tight budget. We have like four people staff maximum that we know that. We are, we do not have the resources to do both. We are at a cross are crossroads here with a fork in the road. And we can pay for and follow through with our Transport Strategy. Or we can pay for a land management plan. And we can focus on one, we can focus on the other, but we can't do both. And our own staff and overall, we have committed ourselves to a Transport Strategy where we move people, not cars. So for me, it's pretty simple that the overflow parking served a purpose. It did serve a purpose for a time, but that purpose is outgrown itself. The population is growing. The congestion will continue to grow and we have respond to it. And responding is our Transport Strategy. It is our bus loops. It is all those things that need all of our resources and more. I just can't believe it. That we're thinking of taking resources away from our Transport Strategy and putting them into an LMP and going down that because there's thousands of car parks available in the Shire and a hundred and so odd in Lions Park. I would think that we should, for the businesses, for myself, for people that want to go there, we want to move. People, not cars. And that's what our long-term strategy has been for a very long time. We can't do both. Let's follow through with our plans and what staff recommends and let's do it. Frank Wilkie 04:26:37.198
Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak before Councillor Phillips closes? Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 04:26:43.279
In regards to the question I raised before it wasn't I'm just wondering if governance is able to provide some insight into that because I feel I got a rehash of the before us without really answering my question around the impacts and our does it remove or reduce our obligations through this amendment. I've got concerns around governance, our cooperative partnerships and minimising risk. I'm really I'm just not comfortable I support the intent of this and I'm all for one forgiving voice of community but in terms of governance and all that the acts and regulations I'm not satisfied that I feel I've fully got the answers that I need to move forward with this amendment. I've got concerns. What specific question would you like answered Councillor? Well I just want some feedback or an answer if in support of this in its current how it's written and I do acknowledge you've given some feedback onto that and I thank the staff for that. Does this in what way remove or reduce council's trustee obligations any other act or other system? Under any other act or other sections of the Land Act including but not limited to native title, human rights, other local and state permits and authorities. Like are we because satisfied? Because you know when in the report and conversation I've heard words spoken, it's unlawful, we need to follow this process, it's clear, I've got to hear the let for me see the policy for managing actions consistent and inconsistent with the purpose of trust land. Frank Wilkie 04:28:40.308
Yeah, we have the Governance Officer here for you Councillor. Unidentified Speaker 04:28:45.491
Through the Chair, I can cover human rights and that question of does it reduce our obligations in the human rights space. No, the human rights piece of legislation in a nutshell is a complementary act that works alongside other pieces of legislation. So if you were to consider creating a land management plan, you would consider and take consideration of human rights and you look at whether there are any limitations. Very quickly, very without, you know, having been through it or considered that element just off the um on the surface I can't think of a you know right that would be impacted detrimentally by doing a land management plan so it's part of good governance were to create a land management plan you would consider those other elements such as human rights and other aspects native title and other aspects of the legislation to make sure it's all consistent that is also part of good risk management too to look at it that way so if you were to do that would be a logical step as part of that preparation process that Frank Wilkie 04:29:59.172
Question will this if this is approval this for the report telling the scope cost funding implication and timeline will that include costs of the staff resources for we've already committed to in terms of from the previous motion working with the lions and other stakeholders about future uses of the Lions Park Richard MacGillivray 04:30:19.907
Yeah we'll need yeah we've sort of absorbed that today with within the team's operational resources which are reduced at the moment with a few away um so yeah we would factor that in that further report to scope um back to just Councillors and just in addition to um diana's comments um the only aspects I mentioned in relation to is if in the event the minister is supportive of that would be my concerns around um undertaking activity while going out we're going out to engagement on the very issue which we consulted on um so from a reputational risk if we predetermined the outcome in lieu of that and obviously the native title engagement piece I think we need to um to engage properly with carby Kabi as part of that in good faith because they have um non-exclusive um native title over the site so we just need to be mindful of the um the risks and challenges in that regard before ending an outcome but apart from that I think everything else is follows a very um thorough and clear process Frank Wilkie 04:31:36.762
Question to the CEO and if this motion doesn't get up today there's possi there's potential for it to be reworded you in a more concise format for the Ordinary Meeting absolutely yeah so this isn't a do or die today Councillors Councillor Phillips you had your hand up no that's fine okay Larry Sengstock 04:31:56.438
Can I just get some clarification the way it reads now is receive a further report so just in practical terms I would do we would provide a prepared report that scopes the costs of funding implications other implications across our resourcing across the organisation which is just a little too um in but approved. The preparation but then approve the commencement of the preparation so we're not I'm not going to start the preparation until we bring the report back yeah we're all comfortable that's what it means? Mean? Does it need to have something else in there that says approval subject to approval by Unidentified Speaker 04:32:41.919
Subject to approval commence the preparation yeah yeah Jessica Phillips 04:32:48.158
I'm happy with that it was some again I'm not the wordsmith but it's like I was trying to put it in stages and see right to the minister was because I still understood that there's absolutely no point doing the alien LNP if we're not having our why which was to look at all considerations which that would have if the minister says like I felt like it's because it's August it was to work simultaneously so we didn't get to November and have that it wasn't about pre-empting it was about doing the work because it's rather than waiting another month. Frank Wilkie 04:33:28.651
Yep, it's understood. Okay, Councillor, before Councillor Phillips closes, any other Councillors wish to speak? Councillor Phillips, you wish to close? Jessica Phillips 04:33:47.568
Between 2018 and 19 and early 2023, we had 42,291 vehicles using the Lions Park across 242 operating days and that generated $845,820 in gross revenue. Frank Wilkie 04:34:05.824
I think this is new information, Councillor. This is for summing up and rebutting anything you may have heard. Jessica Phillips 04:34:19.023
I think that we are getting really caught up on the cost when in our large-scale budget. This is just due diligence like I don't. I understand that hasn't been factored in but we do this all the time so it shouldn't matter how it comes to us it's that this issue has arisen today and we've come up with ways to. Mitigate it so I don't know if I agree with using the financial aspects of it to debate not doing it if the LNP evidence we go through that process and the LNP is decided and we put that for the next 20 years for future counsellors Councillors to use with their decision-making then I think wow that's great legacy we put really good frameworks in place that made us really good at governance really so yeah I hope that we whatever the outcome of it is we've actually shown and demonstrated that this Council don't just jump to conclusion to around what decisions we should be making. If the LNP evidence ultimately demonstrates that temporary parking at Lions Park provides insufficient community benefit or causes unacceptable environmental damage or materially undermines our broader Transport Strategy then Council then can make that decision with confidence. But equally if the evidence demonstrates that retaining several hundred temporary spaces for a handful of extreme peak days materially improves traffic movement accessibility or safety while we continue to we continue to build our public transport alternatives then we should be prepared to consider that too because for me it's not about choosing cars over green space it's just about really good governance Frank Wilkie 04:36:21.772
Thank you we Councillor Wilkie Phillips put the amendment those in favour Councillor Phillips Councillor Finzel Councillor Wilson Councillor Lorentson against Councillor Wegener Councillor Wilkie the amendments carried have another amendment Councillor Lorentson amendment six Amelia Lorentson 04:36:41.342
That Council request that the CEO write to the minister seeking confirmation. Are you amending item C? Where are we up to in terms of ABC that Council might report? Karen Finzel 04:37:06.104
So are you amending item C which is write to the minister advising that Council are working on the LNP? Or are you the LNP? You doing another one? Amelia Lorentson 04:37:13.242
I'm doing another one. Unidentified Speaker 04:37:14.865
So write to the minister and then write to the minister, two write to the minister. So it's two separate loops. Amelia Lorentson 04:37:19.657
Yeah. CD-- that the CEO write to the minister. Seeking confirmation of whether the minister would consider an application by Council as trustee. You might have to slow down a bit, sorry. So let's see, I write to the minister seeking confirmation of whether the minister would consider an application by Council, comma, as trustee, comma. Under section 52 AA of the Land Act 1994 in relation to the use of Noosa Heads lines park and whether land weather, a land management plan. Is or isn't required. Frank Wilkie 04:39:10.621
Okay anyone prepared to second this? Seconded by Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:39:19.460
This is just a follow-up of the amendment seeking legal advice and we heard around the table that staff were happy to write directly to the minister. The Land Act sets out two legal pathways for an inconsistent action and I just think that we owe it the community to look at both before committing to either. Section 52 applies the same test as section 52 and that is that one the action won't diminish the purpose of a trust land and two it won't adversely affect the public interest. But if reading of section 52 AA is correct we could go through section 52 AA just through a single ministerial decision rather than a full management plan process. The so the pretty much just asks for clarification. A can we go under the pathway section 52 AA and two whether lmps actually required Frank Wilkie 04:40:26.999
Okay um as Chair I just need to check something. Can we have an amendment that was very similar to this previously? It's been a long day. It was for legal advice I'm going to pass right on to the minister about section 52 AA. Could you just read out one that may be similar? I'll put all the amendments up there for you. 2. No, I didn't move that one, Kabi. You know yeah, well, this is, so that amendment 4 was that Council had obtained written legal advice on whether section 52 AA, the Land Act applies to this trustee action, and if it does not, specific statutory basis for that conclusion is the outcome report. Back to Council. Very similar, but you've asked that we write to the minister again about getting approval under section 52 AA. It's very, close. But I'll allow it for debate. I'll speak to it. We've had, Councillors, we've had very clear. Exhaustive advice about this already. We're already going to be writing to the minister about it's very, the LNP process and whether approval can be given because the LNP process is underway. This is redundant. We've already had this advice. I'm also conscious of the fact that we're item 3 in a 12 item agenda and I just ask that we dispense with amendments that are pretty close to being duplicates to what we've just debated previously. Amelia Lorentson 04:42:26.200
Can I- ask a question Through the Chair? Yes. I'm confused in terms of duplicates there was no request to write to the CEO and seeking legal advice of two very different things. Is this a question? Yes, so I'm just trying to understand you can have how it it's a duplicate when it's a making a different request. Frank Wilkie 04:42:57.992
We've had advice from staff and from via the from the department about what's what section is relevant here. We've been told that section 52 AA does not apply to us to Council as a statutory body, and we've already got a motion, an amendment to a motion about writing to the minister. Amelia Lorentson 04:43:18.223
Okay, question just to staff, and again I am going to repeat this question because I might have misunderstood. Have we specifically asked the question about section 52 AA to the minister? Richard MacGillivray 04:43:34.405
No, there hasn't been any reference to the specific section of the act, it's just been in relation to us as trustee and undertaking activity on the reserve. So it's been more specific around the land and the site, which the department are well aware of, and they've provided advice back to us, which you've all got a copy of. Frank Wilkie 04:43:54.204
Thank you very much. Any Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Brian Stockwell 04:43:59.617
Councillor Lorentson, Amelia Lorentson 04:44:00.158
Do you wish to close? Just keep it really simple. A full land management plan process runs six to 12 months, carries real costs to you know, real costs to rate. Know, real costs to ratepayers. If we explore section 52 AA and find out that NELC MPs not actually replied, that to me is, you know, worth exploring. By simply sending, writing a letter and pressing the send button, I think, again, in terms of due diligence and exploring every possible option, I think this is a really good step. Put the amendment. Those in favour? Frank Wilkie 04:44:41.989
Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Wilkie. Are there any amendments lost? We have a substantive motion before us. Are there any further amendments anyone wishes to try to this substantive motion? All right, to the original motion. We back go back and only Councillor Wegener has spoken. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion as it stands, which was amendment number five? It's amendment number five with the item about noting the report. Before Councillor Wegener closes, I'll just say Councillors, this has been an exhaustive process today. Good debate. Councillor Wegener, would you wish to close? Tom Wegener 04:45:44.307
Well, a lot's been going over. Again, I'd like to reiterate that I would like to see this Council maintain the going down the track, the plan that we have set over the last many, years, which is our Transport Strategy. I think this is a fork in the road. One road goes to Cairns, one goes to Sydney, we're at Noosa, and if we go down the LMP track with our funding and our focus, we'll go into Cairns, we're not going to all of a sudden find ourselves in Sydney we're going to find ourselves in Cairns. And so I would prefer that we follow our staff recommendations and our well-established Transport Strategy of moving people, not cars. Frank Wilkie 04:46:30.226
I'm going to attempt it. An amendment. Then it would be part B. Amelia Lorentson 04:46:43.210
Part B be amended. Frank Wilkie 04:46:44.773
Consider budget budget implications before approving commencement. Approving of the preparation of the land management plan. I thought that wasn't it. I don't know what the implications are. Well in answer to your question what by agreeing to this we're approving commencement of the preparation of the land plan before you've considered the budget implications or the implications for the consultation program of this Council the resource implications so that's why I'm saying changing it to say let's get that report with all the budget implications how it's going to affect the consultation schedule and operations of this before Council before we put before we commence a land plan or not. And the preparation of a land management plan for the nussey heads Lions Park. We're going to have a seconder for the purpose of a debate. I'll second it. Councillor Wegener, you? Didn't you? Councillor Wegener, are you ready to motion? Marge? I can't, second that. You can't, you've moved original. The motion. Yeah. Thank you. Wow. Thank can I have a seconder? Karen. No, Karen can't. Okay, the amendment elapses for want of a seconder. Jessica Phillips 04:48:54.613
Can I ask a question? Yeah. Just to staff, do you feel comfortable with what to do moving? Out of today? Because it is quite long. So I just because that, to me captured what we already went through. So I just want to be really clear. Richard MacGillivray 04:49:10.137
Yeah, Through the Chair. My only comment would be is, maybe would be there as is an because it's central. Amendment because essentially subject to Council endorsement of age, that we didn't commence the process, if that makes any sense. So I think, as the mayor's pointed out, it says, take a report that's also be which has to be written isolation is commenced the process, which is essentially the sequencing should be subject to Council endorsement of A, or the outcomes of A, Council commits to, and then we'll undertake that process for that. Jessica Phillips 04:49:44.579
Won't they just come through the workshop that we have when we have it, like it'll give you, surely we're not. Cathy, would you mind just bringing back up the. Unidentified Speaker 04:49:59.450
Through the Chair, you've called for a further report, so there's a further report to be considered, so there's a resolution around that. But, you know, the resolution against that. Larry Sengstock 04:50:11.373
Approve the commencement so we've got to say subject Amelia Lorentson 04:50:14.986
To subject so Through the Chair we've got ordinary meetings so we can play it's been a long day in terms of wording so Jessica Phillips 04:50:22.725
It's the word approved that's thrown everyone because it was meant to be that it's like three steps what Frank Wilkie 04:50:27.492
This is trying to achieve Amelia Lorentson 04:50:35.626
So this one's really good. Can you bring up the whole yeah so we're finished with this amendment just you want me to move subject to you Kate what would you like me to do yeah can I an amendment can I remember an amendment um subject receiver this is what we have approved this is a substantive yeah so just using your wording amendment subject to approval of a I Council am I writing a new amendment Council no at the start of b it's subject to no but there's someone moving an amendment Frank Wilkie 04:51:10.408
Okay so so Jess you didn't jess you didn't want to support that Amelia Lorentson 04:51:15.414
Amendment Jessica Phillips 04:51:16.375
No because it's just a simple wording it's wording okay all Frank Wilkie 04:51:19.537
I mean all right so that amendment was lost and we've got another amendment being proposed yeah which is subject Amelia Lorentson 04:51:25.492
To where a so b so that item b be amended to read subject to approval of okay of A. Jessica Phillips 04:51:42.370
That's all that means that's it can I have a look at just a report Richard MacGillivray 04:51:49.711
My suggestion if we can we have some time before ordinary we're happy to provide some advice to the Councillor who put the motion around just move um just to refine it I think it's been a lot of discussion I think there's been a lot of time on the floor so that would be my suggestion Unidentified Speaker 04:52:08.612
Yes, I'm happy with that. Put it on hold Frank Wilkie 04:52:10.694
Okay okay all right um just it I just, Tom, you wish to close absolutely oh yeah he closed afterwards right okay can we put the substantive motion before us please right next item Karen Finzel 04:52:32.815
I'm just going to ask for the substantive motion to be put before us. Frank Wilkie 04:52:34.676
I'll just put the substantive motion up. So is there any further discussion? Any further on this amendments any further amendments? It's closed, you can't. Okay. Alright, put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Phillips, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson and against. Councillor Wegener and Councillor Wilkie. The item's carried. That is item three done item four on items. With. We're up to item 4 on the 12 item agenda. Thank you Dennis. Thank you all. Richard. Gold star for endurance. Planning applications decided by delegated authority. Welcome. Good afternoon, Council. Is this gentleman? Ben McAuliffe. Richard MacGillivray 04:53:25.742
Hello, Ben. A coordinator of planning. Ben McAuliffe. Patrick's on leave. Frank Wilkie 04:53:31.128
Okay. Welcome Ben. Could you summarise the report for Ben McAuliffe 04:53:36.534
Us? Yes, thank you. So obviously the report for the decisions issued under delegated authority for noting. In the month of June, officers issued 44 decisions with zero applications determined by Council. Any questions for Ben Councillors? Frank Wilkie 04:53:58.584
Is there who would Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Finzel, any discussion? No, it was me, Councillor. Lawrence. Oh, sorry, Nicola. Councillor Wilson has seconded it. Amelia Lorentson 04:54:18.751
No, I think it's been just a very long day. Went through the report, lots of approval, which I really think it's good. Appreciate the simplicity and clarity of the report also. So thank you thank for you for presenting the report, Ben. Thank you. Ben. Frank Wilkie 04:54:38.434
The purpose of it may seem a perfunctory thing the way we've handled this, Ben, but one of the reasons why we asked that this be brought to us was to let the community know that there are high-level approvals. Noosa Council is a very effective machine in terms of development approvals, about 96% of averages, and a lot of this work is done under delegated authority by your team. So we appreciate it. Thank you. Put it to the vote, those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Ben. Next is the operational plan quarterly reporting delivered by executive officer Jonci Wolff. Jonci Wolff 04:55:25.577
Good afternoon, Councillors. Hello, Jonci. I'll make this very quick for you. She's on leave isn't she? As of tonight. Yes. This report provides the quarter four operational plan progress update. Quarter 4 provides a strong finish to operational plan delivery with 82% of initiatives either on track or completed. It has been indeed a very busy quarter. Some of the highlights were the adoption of the child safeguarding policy, adoption of the cemetery's legacy. Plot management policy. Also the award of $330,000 in community environment grants. Adoption of the Botanic Gardens Master Plan, which is fantastic. The also the development of the botanical garden. Draft biosecurity plan, which then went to community engagement. I think this may have concluded already. Then we have the adoption of the Tourism Noosa funding and performance deed as well. And the award of commercial high-use permits. This is not an exhaustive list. So the report provides a further list of achievement of the quarter. So it was a very, very busy quarter. There are two major disruptions. You are you familiar are with these items from previous reports, namely they are the boreal point campground master plan and the Regional Art Gallery Feasibility Project stage 4. Regarding attachment to the key performance measures, most notably there have been significant improvements to on-time processing of plumbing application as some of the Q3 resource constraints have been resolved, which is good. So overall, this report provides a very positive outlook on operational performance. Thank good you. Questions for yossi? Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 04:57:16.364
Just quickly around the policy for the child safety one. So that's been adopted and I know it's, we're not quite in the quarterly reporting, but just getting a timeframe around, I understand that that'll need like SOPs within each of the Council buildings that will sort of change or put strict measures around how the operating of the buildings go. So just wondering, that won't get reported back up to us. That's the only time I get to ask about a timeframe that policy will actually see change. Jonci Wolff 04:57:50.663
Yeah, for the Chair, I have to take that on notice, unless Paul brickman, acting community services manager, Director. Oh, it's, oh, sorry, I'm that's okay. Sorry, you can see, of course, yeah, my fault. Margaret Gatt 04:58:02.922
My apologies. Council, in terms of the timing, we've only just presented to the leadership team. So our manager P&C or within corporate services has taken on this project. And so we've just done the education and awareness with the leadership team around the implications and what we need to develop internally and what those controls are and the mandatory reporting requirements. Um, around all of that framework. So it literally was only presented to them last week. Um, so in terms of then Councillors getting a regular update as to the implementation, to them of that policy and associated guidelines, I'll have a discussion with the CEO around what's the most appropriate method in which we report back to you would be great. On the thank you. Implementation of that. Brian Stockwell 04:58:48.924
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:58:50.746
So you're going through all the 98 initiatives and I think I raise this question every time we get these reports in terms of what it says is done complete. I don't like the word complete so that tick, a task has been done. My question goes to how do we find out if it actually works? Do we follow up with like customer satisfaction? Do it, you know and I'll mention library of things, I know how great that is. So how do we sort of follow up whether or not we've achieved the outcome intended with the task? Jonci Wolff 04:59:34.690
Usually when the items, initiatives are marked complete, then obviously as S. Stated as for the initiatives or the initiative has been achieved. In terms of if there was any further requests for information in the follow-up, that would probably require then a request for information to the team. Imagine. Frank Wilkie 04:59:56.920
Like a toilet facility is the Changing Places facility at B & Terrace will be complete when it's complete. Larry Sengstock 05:00:04.403
That's right. It comes as complete in terms of the outcomes of that. A separate exercise and that's something we are looking at doing with our reporting, but that's there yet in terms not in of the outcomes, but that's also. That comes some of the status reporting that we can provide sort of like the library of things that could be a status report to say, well, it's complete in terms of it's implemented, because that's what the report is asking or the report is saying in terms of what it's delivered and how it's going is a separate exercise. Amelia Lorentson 05:00:36.490
Yeah. It'd be great to have that tracked somehow. Just again, just some thought again, just community surveys. Or simple. As has it achieved, you know, the outcome sought. Two major disruptions I think were noted, the regional art gallery and the Boreen Point campground projects. Can you give us some more information about that? Jonci Wolff 05:01:04.569
Boreen Point campground master plan is on plant is on hold due to identify challenges and development constraints under the current scope and scale. So there are some land constraints when the teams are obviously it's commercial and who and the planning team obviously to see what they how they can pretty much proceed but if there are land constraints most likely I think they relate to bushfire risk of surrounding areas. In terms of the Regional Art Gallery Feasibility Project stage four the business case has been put on hold due to competing organisational priorities, resourcing pressures and also ongoing uncertainties arising from global economic conditions affected both the national and local economy so there's consistent with that there's currently no budget item in the annual budget and to progress that stage four at this stage that's the where status the of that item is at the moment Amelia Lorentson 05:02:10.807
So given there's been some considerable significant amount of some money spent on that project in terms of consultation is there a report coming to Council there is we will be bringing a Larry Sengstock 05:02:22.997
Report back to Council in the near future on that in terms of so we can so we can get some direction on going forward okay Frank Wilkie 05:02:30.138
I'm happy to move it okay I'm Council Wilkie second Council we're gonna you're looking at we're gonna this operational plan has been our Roadmap for continuing to ensure Noosa remains a great place to live, work and visit while preparing for the future. The plan is built around five priorities: protecting our environment, improving stability, strengthening prosperity, preparing for the future and aspiring to excellence in customer service. These priorities have guided decisions, investments and services over the year, ensuring we continue to meet the needs of our community while safeguarding the things we all love about living here. It's been mentioned that there's 81% of the initiatives.% of the initiatives were either completed or on track at the end of the financial year showing the organisations working hard, but despite staffing challenges faced by local governments, the local government sector, Council is delivering. We've talked about the areas for improvement being the regional art gallery, the Boreen Point camp ground master plan, resource and workforce capacity constraints, and referral agency response team responses. But over the past year, there's been strong progress in advancing environmental initiatives that protect our waterways, biodiversity and natural landscapes. We've invested 56 million in community infrastructure, continued to work on affordable housing, which we heard before in the housing report, and supported programs that stream that strengthen health, wellbeing and community connection. We've continued to back local business, innovation and sustainable economic opportunities, while advancing waste reduction and circular economy initiatives. At the same time, we have strengthened disaster preparedness, climate resilience and our partnership with Kabi. This year, Council has continued a strong focus on delivering infrastructure that helps keep our community connected key projects include the Lake Doonella bridge upgrade, expansion of the Cooroy Gymnastics facility, an accessible Changing Places facility at Quota Park, Gympie Terrace, and important upgrades to the Noosa Aquatic Centre. There have been pathway improvements across the Shire, renewed playgrounds, parks and public amenities, continued planning for the future of the Noosa Leisure Centre and community facilities. Our through 56 our million 56 million capital works program, we've also delivered bridge renewals, road upgrades, foreshore improvements, recreational infrastructure that enhance safety, accessibility, and quality of life for residents and visitors alike. But the work is far from finished. Never ends. Progress we know today is only a foundation for what comes next, continuing to plan for the future, protect our environment, support our people, and build an ever more resilient, thriving community. I know that he's findings of the operational report, as well as the capital works program, and the audited financials make up a substantial amount of the annual report, which is coming later this year. It's a huge body of work, and I commend our Councillors, the CEO, the executive team, managers, and board of staff of the organisation. For delivering the operational plan for 2025-2026. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 05:05:36.491
A question Through the Chair. The Peregian beach active streetscape, it's not mentioned here, and the Mayor mentioned pathways. There were significant funds and at the time, was of the time was essence in terms of our grant funding. Are we to when are we to expect an update to progress report we were up to with the funding allocation and whether the State has actually allowed us to repurpose the funding. Larry Sengstock 05:06:08.945
Yep, I've got, I'll refer to the Director. Shaun Walsh, bush, Director good of infrastructure. Welcome to the meeting. Shaun Walsh 05:06:16.334
Good afternoon, Councillors. I'm ill as well, so my apologies for not being in attendance. So, initial discussions with the SEQ liveability fund and the Australian transport fund have been positive to pivot the program to more practical works, such as footpaths versus the more active street. They've encouraged us to make the formal applications, which we've done. We're expecting hear back from them for any more. Any moment and then we'll report further to Council. They've also been receptive of extensions to the project contracts. Frank Wilkie 05:06:46.550
We're very positive. Great news. Thank you. Councillors, would you speak to the operational report? Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 05:06:55.841
No, one second. Again to say thank you to Shaun Walsh and the teams because, you know, if there's any ever naysayers about what Council does, you know, just look at the report. And it's so impressive. It's so incredible, all the things that you guys are doing through the operational plan at the end. Frank Wilkie 05:07:12.344
Yeah, so thank you. I'll waive my right to close. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Jonci. Thank you. Enjoy your holiday. Thank you. Reports for action. Terms of reference for the news. Oh, Councillors, are you fine to continue or would you like a five-minute break? Okay. We'll come back. Amelia Lorentson 05:18:09.873
But I've never met him before, first time. Frank Wilkie 05:18:13.253
Okay. Okay. We're back. Well, we're back, everyone, and we're up to item 7.2.1, terms of reference from the Noosa Waters resident advisory group. And Shaun Walsh, online, could you talk us through it, please, Sean? Shaun Walsh 05:18:28.953
Good afternoon, Councillors. Soon after establishment of the Noosa Waters estate, Noosa Council at that time formed a partnership agreement with representatives of Noosa Waters to dictate to overview council's expenditure of the special rates for both the canal maintenance as well as the lock and weir system, as well as matters of mutual agreement concerning streetscapes. Water quality like. And the like. It was timely after 26 years to review the terms of the partnership agreement and jointly with finance we've been reviewing the terms of reference so it's actually a more formal arrangement between the association and council officers with a very clear agenda which addresses matters pertaining to the special levies as well as other matters of mutual interest as well as very transparent information exchange including expenditure on the special levy items. There's a number of matters which are peculiar or specific to Noosa Waters as well such as the lake system of the canal system water quality as well as the salinity pump system which is in addition to the special levies as well as the acoustic barriers along Eenie Creek Road which are matters of mutual interest concern. We've been working very collaboratively with the Noosa Waters reds association that have been presented with these terms of reference prior to presentation of the Council meeting and I understand they'll be back in deputation at the Ordinary Meeting as well about these matters so I'm happy to take any questions. Frank Wilkie 05:19:57.960
Sean are they happy with the outcome? Shaun Walsh 05:20:00.941
Yes they're very happy with the outcome. It's fair to say that unpacking 20 years of information and to get a clear direction moving forward has required SAC and work really hard with the association and to get clarity that things aren't assumed, they're actually established and set. We've still got a bit of work to do in terms of the financial modelling associated with long-term maintenance of both the canals as well as the lock wear. And weir. We're on a really good path to actually present that updated financial modelling information to determine new levy rates moving forward. Frank Wilkie 05:20:38.944
Okay. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 05:20:43.691
Recently, and I think it was about a year ago, Sean, there was like an outbreak and I think it was an algae bloom in the canal system. Just wanted to know whether through this group, there's just been any progress in addressing that issue or mitigating that from happening. I know at the time I was when I was talking to some of the residents. There was mention about pumping at high tide. Is that part of the considerations of this group and partnership? Shaun Walsh 05:21:20.940
Yes, that's a good question, Councillor Lorentson and then you're correct there was a minor algae bloom which was a nuisance algae rather than a toxic algae within the canal system and it was about this time or maybe one month later last year. We undertook manual removal. Since that date we've been working on a more detailed algae management plan for the canal estate and monitoring it a lot more closely. One of the things we're keen to do this season is actually to put the pump on 24/7 rather than just pathway through the day. We understand that attempt that approach has been used historically. After we've gone through our records and looking forward to deploying that this season to see what effect it has on the noosans algae. Other thing, the other thing Mike, that we'll make is that the association is keen for us in the future to explore a variable timing on the pump inlet, which is on Chaplin Park in the Noosa River, to actually explore variable and pumping on the high tide to improve, in their perception, water quality through the canal system, that would need to come at significant expense, and that is not from their levy, that would need to be funded by general rates revenue. And we can explore that when the current salinity pump is towards the end of its useful life and see whether that's an add-on that we can afford. So we'll continue to monitor that. I think I will notice that we undertake water quality monitoring at two locations within the Noosa Waters estate, and we do meet accepted guidelines. Nick Bamford 05:22:44.779
Councillor thoughts? Phillips. Margaret Gatt 05:22:46.255
Thanks, Sean. Jessica Phillips 05:22:46.896
So we meet acceptable guidelines, but just wondering if out of this, would it come back to us any low cost, high impact steps that we could do to improve the water quality in that area? Shaun Walsh 05:23:06.636
We've set up a relationship with the Noosa Waters resort association, so they're stakeholders on the Noosa River catchment action plan, and we think that's the appropriate vehicle to actually capture their actions to moving forward, and that will also then hopefully provide a funding mechanism. So we are conscious of the fact that there are very specific which are funded by the special levy, and then there are other things which are funded by general rates revenue, and the same water quality parameters that apply at Noosa water's canal system applies in Eenie Creek, or cranks creek, or any other creek, or cranks creek, or around and the Shire, and we need to make sure that we're not favouriting or, you know, expending funds for one group that perhaps could be, from a priority perspective, funded elsewhere. Jessica Phillips 05:23:51.236
Um one more question, Sean, just around the stormwater and hydrology assumptions. So, given that, I think the catchment's about 30 years old um do we still use the original um assumptions or have we undertaken any assessment um that's more update uh Shaun Walsh 05:24:17.578
That's a very good question Councillor so the original Councillor the environmental impact assessment for the site was undertaken in 1983 and this is well before we had the Edie crick arterial, the business centre or most of the Noosaville industrial estate and about 40 percent of the catchment of the Noosa Waters canal system comes from outside the actual Noosa Waters estate uh the catchment parameters and the environmental impact assessment have never been updated um so since 1980 so that's a fair statement and that's why there is the importance of um uh water quality monitoring uh to actually determine that we're appropriate with um accepted guidelines uh it will continue to be monitored and we'll need to adjust as appropriate but we have to relate that other creeks within the Noosa catchment have much worse water quality than the Noosa Waters canal system relatively Frank Wilkie 05:25:11.081
Any further questions Councillor Amelia Lorentson 05:25:14.033
Um in terms of cost in terms of costs uh are there any significant costs that Council should be preparing for over the next few years when I go through the report there's um some serious issues um just wanted to know whether we've sort of we've considered um or understood what those costs are going to look like and I'm referencing the future noise barrier replacement revetment walls as Councillor Phillips mentioned stormwater entering the system Shaun Walsh 05:25:53.803
So firstly the revetment walls are in good condition and they're as a result of a significant work undertaken in the mid 2010s to actually restore the rock harbouring supporting the concrete upstand walls the large part of the concrete upstand walls are actually contained within private property and not council's expense their private property's expense apart from whether on park places and that is in faces that really good condition have a renewal budget that we apply we will be doing some rock armoring in the near future to ensure that rock is in a good condition in regard to the lock and we undertook a full replacement about three years ago we've had significant improvement in faults and reduction in residents complaints associated with use of the lock and wheel so that's very encouraging there are some minor things associated with the electrical control panel that we should be able to accommodate within the levy expenditure the other items which are outside the levy expenditure are of note I wouldn't say serious but they need to be accommodated within our planning the first one is the um the pipework facility pump system which comes from Chaplin Park uh runs alongside the canal and discharges into the top end of the canal near mermaid key the pipe work does need realigning it was never constructed with inspection pits at the pipe joins and that will be an exercise of perhaps several hundred thousand dollars that we need to budget for in coming years to actually realign the pipe aligning is actually quite a commonplace technology we use in our stormwater pipes all the time but it'll be the uh the insertion of the inspection pits which will be fairly complex um so we're actually um a design year this we designed the to actually scope that pipeline pipe relining project so we can actually model in our future asset management plans as a result of this process we also have undertaken a review of the acoustic barriers. Were installed for noise attenuation associated with environmental impact assessment for the iniquity arterial and they do have particular acoustic objectives that they're designed to meet the walls do need mitre patching at the moment and we also need to manage the vegetation adjacent to the acoustic walls better at the moment to ensure longevity we can anticipate that within five to ten years we probably will need to do major works on the acoustic the barriers and again we're starting to scope that in terms of future capital works renewal. At that time we'll have to also undertake fresh acoustic assessment to determine that we're actually meeting contemporary requirements Amelia Lorentson 05:28:25.244
Terms of reference what we've got in front of us today only covers Noosa Waters. Are there other canal estates or residents group in within the Shire with similar special levies who might now ask for terms of reference? Shaun Walsh 05:28:43.783
The other area. Areas that we have special levies applied for are Noosa Junction and also Hastings Street Association SAC from Finance Manager acutely aware that we also need to review the Noosa Junction in terms of reference. Junction to ensure that those parameters are appropriate and most significantly the Hastings Street levies so we sort of saw this as a first run to get our training wheels on because it is complex to actually start approaching the Hastings Street Association this financial year. I'll be happy to let Zac talk more to that as I understand he's in the room. Thanks Zac, thank you. Councils. Councillors. Frank Wilkie 05:29:24.261
Just to build on Unidentified Speaker 05:29:25.484
What Sean had provided, so we've been undertaking this in the Hastings Street Association kind of at the same time, but using Noosa Waters as the basis for that. So we have been working closely with the Hastings Street Association over the course of the last year. A very similar structure has been proposed in terms of the financial reporting, transparency, information, etc. And it's it is just on a slightly I wouldn't say delayed but it is following this in close succession where we will have a similar terms of reference structure that is set up just because of the nature of the groups in terms of the ownership or the structure of them they will look slightly different but the to have a structure that is mimicked across all special levies to provide transparency to also then support our Revenue Statement which ultimately details the extent of these levies and the 10-year asset management plans that support them. Awesome. Amelia Lorentson 05:30:13.530
Fantastic. Really great. Fantastic, really great and necessary addition. Jessica Phillips 05:30:18.590
Yeah. Question, it might be somewhere. In the report, sorry Sean or Zach, just wondering how outcomes are noticing what I've been noticing like the Minutes and everything it looks very structured now so how will it come to us with assets or is that where I'll be looking for recommendations from that the meetings three times a year it'll get fed up through um budget I'm just trying to work out like if they ask for I can't think of something because of my brain right now but let's say something comes out of that group how will I know because that's an internal thing now isn't it yes so there's the Unidentified Speaker 05:31:02.512
I'm happy to take that question Through the Chair so there's the terms of reference and the formal reporting structure we did with the association of south which is done on a quarterly basis but we Councillors will ultimately see the outcome of that from a financial perspective as every year in the lead up to the budget we talk about not only the ratings structure but also the special levies and as part of that we have referenced the idea around a rating strategy this year so one of the things we are looking through in the current financial year is looking at that 10-year asset management plan that ultimately underpins there and that's where the visibility of that program will be provided to councillors, noting that for both of these levies they are insular, they're the only people that fund works or are part of the association themselves so there's no real, historically there's been no real broader impact to general rates but the intent is through the budget you will get visibility of the work we undertake this year. Frank Wilkie 05:31:51.217
Someone care to move the recommendation? Amelia Lorentson 05:31:54.742
Further questions, Just in terms of history and I can only imagine what you went through Sean, two questions: when Noosa was developed, Noosa Waters was developed in the 90s, and I lived in Noosa Waters for 10 years on the table, was there ever an agreement setting out who would pay for the canal and lock maintenance long term or what I've sort of read in the report? This is sort of all being worked out informally, but was there actually, you know, a document setting out what our obligations were when they were, Shaun Walsh 05:32:39.569
Councillor rizz. So as part of your annual budget documents, there is a levy category and the actual requirements to actually pay the levy and the way it's expended is actually included in the levy statements. So perhaps our biggest area of perhaps our exploration was just clarifying transparency and financial reporting around our expenditure on the levy items, which the Noosa Waters ridge association were really keen to receive. And then also a clarity around the non-levy the items funded by general revenue and how we got them better accommodated into an asset management plan for the longer term, because they were also concerned for things like the facility pump pipework, as well as the acoustic barriers. And that agenda allows them to so in raise those items I was just reflecting upon Councillor Phillips' previous question as well. It seems to be good practice that we'd certainly we could post a copy of the Minutes to, you know, the relevant Council intranet page, so you've got a copy of them. O, you know, the relevant Council intranet page, And we certainly have not prevented any of the representatives to making representations to their elected Councillors as well. That's part of normal process for any resident to do that. Okay, Frank Wilkie 05:33:54.038
We have a motion. Does someone care to move it? Councillor Lorentson's second, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 05:33:59.746
No, I think no, I think it's just really quite thorough, really enjoyable. Enjoyed reading the terms of reference. I think it's just really important in terms of future planning, clarity and just being very clear obligations. Of reference. I is just good governance. So thank you for the report in front of us and happy to support. Collaboration part I think is probably the most important. I have spoken to people on the Noosa water residents association and it seems like it's been a really productive, positive collaboration. So thank you and I'd like to acknowledge that. I'll any other- Jessica Phillips 05:34:44.126
I'll- just follow that up with similar feedback that I got and I know it started, Sean, like there's been a lot of work that's gone into it and also like I think we talk about volunteers all the time and then we forget these are sort of volunteers as well, aren't they? Like they're not the advisory group aren't being paid to tell us what's happening on the ground. So I think I want to acknowledge that just that they are trying to work collaboratively, but Zach and Sean, the feedback that I got from both you specifically was, really like really good, strong working relationship. And I just want to thank you both for, yeah, just trying to maintain that or it's probably meant to some degree, some of the relationships that we have with community and using that opportunity, which is a perfect platform to re-engage and actually take people on our journey with us. So, well done. Frank Wilkie 05:35:44.219
Okay, put it to the 5,000 fiver. That is unanimous. Thank you, Zach. Amelia Lorentson 05:35:49.414
Thank you, shauna. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 05:35:51.134
Next item is next item is the update to the infrastructure charges resolution written by odd-Born ludvigsen. And in his place, we have odds. Lut is online. Welcome, lut. Yeah. Good afternoon, Councillors. Good to know you're still around. Yes, still around. Yeah, Could you tell us what this report is all about, please? Okay, basically, it's just updating and our current charges resolution to actually align with the latest update to the planning regulation for the scheduled charges that Council can apply. It just brings it up to the 2025-26, from-26, the the 2025-26. Financial year to the current year. 2027.2026-27. We do this every year and it's just a simple increase, an adjustment. This year it's an increase of 3.7% from last year's charge rates. Questions for lord? Councillor Phillips? Jessica Phillips 05:37:09.241
Sometimes I'm just wanting to know who sets and apologies, but again, there's a lot of information in here, but is this a legislative requirement to set it or do we set the fees to just so I can be clear on Frank Wilkie 05:37:23.248
That the um the planning regulation sets the maximum charges in its schedule 16, which prescribes the maximum amounts that Council can charge. Council can then, if it wants to charge development, for uh you know to help uh pay for infrastructure, trunk infrastructure, then it needs a charges resolution. Now that charges resolution is split between us and also um uh Unitywater. So Unitywater has a proportion of the maximum charge that they can charge. That's been in an agreement since 2014. We actually try to as well. And Council can only charge up to the maximum. So there are a number of developments, like one-bedroom units, secondary dwellings, et cetera, that Council has actually reduced the charges for various reasons. But yeah, Council cannot go above the maximum charge rate for a development use in GFA and a number of bedrooms for residential. Amelia Lorentson 05:38:37.990
Castle larson. Sort of a follow-up on that, and given that we had the housing monitoring report earlier today, so the 3.7%%. Increase and acknowledging that we had waived some of our fees for secondary dwellings. Just want to understand whether- We've considered, you know, the need for affordable housing and particularly for smaller residential blocks and whether that 3.7% increase is going to have any impact. Frank Wilkie 05:39:13.133
Yeah, the 3%.7% increase relates directly to last year's charge rate compared to this year's charge rate. Nick Bamford 05:39:23.249
Council also applies rebates for various types of developments, which includes. You know, housing. Know, affordable housing and all that sort Frank Wilkie 05:39:34.331
Through its policy for infrastructure charges rebates for community organisations. Yes, we've. So it's covered in that other. Document as well. Okay. Okay. Someone care to move the motion? Councillor Wilson? Seconded by Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Wilson? I'll make my round, please. Yep. Thank you, lord, for the report. It's always very thorough. It's very dry work that you do, but it's very important work. It helps us recoup the Council and the ratepayers recoup some costs for the infrastructure. Provision for new developments, we do have the discretion to waive infrastructure charges for affordable dwellings and secondary dwellings, as you've mentioned, in areas that we want to encourage the proliferation of certain types of dwellings. Glommings. Thank you very much for the report. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you, ludd. Okay, yeah, you're welcome. Thank you. Bye. Luke. Thanks, ludd. We have now the review of the Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy. We have Clint Irwin. Welcome, Clint. Richard MacGillivray 05:40:59.327
Hello. Good afternoon, Councillors. Yeah, Richard. I'm here. Hayley, the author of the report, is unfortunately away, so unable to present. She's done a lot of the work, but Clint and going to tag team and give you an update on this. So the report, as you're aware, seeks approval to repeal the existing Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy and adopt a new community tenure policy. The review was identified as an action in the council's 25/26 operational plan and has been undertaken to ensure our approach to community tenure remains contemporary, transparent and aligned with council's governance, asset management and financial sustainability objectives. The current policy has served Council and the community well since its adoption in 2015. However, over time, community expectations, asset management practices and governance requirements have evolved. This review has identified opportunities to strengthen decision-making processes, improve consistency and transparency, better align tenure arrangement asset management framework and provide clearer guidance for community organisations. Feedback received from community groups and stakeholders over time has been collated and has helped inform review and improvement to council's community tenure policy. The established a principles-based framework for the allocation, management and review of community tenure arrangements. It introduces clearer eligibility requirements, assessment criteria and allocation principles to support fair, transparent and consistent decision-making. Importantly, it ensures community tenure, it ensures tenure arrangements continue to deliver genuine community benefit, align with community priorities, council's priorities sorry, demonstrate organisational capability and represent long-term value for the community. A significant enhancement in this policy is the introduction of a contemporary rental framework. This recognises that community organisations deliver varying levels of community benefit and operate with different levels of organisational capacity and commercial activity. The framework provides a more equitable and transparent basis for determining rental charges and financial assistance, whilst also supporting the long-term financial sustainability of council's community infrastructure portfolio and reducing dependency on funding from the general rates. It is important to highlight that as part of the proposed new policy around 85% of the current community groups will remain on the standard one unit rental charge for tenure which is around six hundred and thirty nine dollars. The policy does not amend or replace any existing does not or any existing lease permit or arrangements. Or license arrangements nor does it immediately change the rights or obligations of existing community organisations. Rather it establishes the framework the strategic framework Council will apply when making community tenure decisions. The policy also strengthens the integration of community tenure and asset management by placing greater emphasis on life cycle planning, whole of life costs and early collaboration on capital improvements and externally funded projects. This will help ensure Council and community organisations work together to plan for the ongoing management and sustainability of community assets. Council has already recently taken on statutory maintenance, fire, electrical and pest responsibility for the majority of community groups, to reduce costs to those groups, but also ensure consistent oversight of these important maintenance activities. The proposed policy also confirmed Council controlled land should not be used to facilitate the establishment of or expansion of electronic gaming machine activities through community tenure arrangements. This is consistent with council's commitment to healthy, safe and inclusive communities. While broad community consultation has not been undertaken as part of the review, it is proposed that engagement will occur directly with the individual community organisations as their tenure agreements approach expire. Expiry, this will provide an opportunity to explain the new framework, discuss its practical application, and support collaborative transition to future tenure arrangements. Overall, the proposed policy provides Council with a modern, transparent, and strategically aligned framework that supports responsible stewardship of public assets, sustainable financial management, and the delivery continued delivery of long-term community benefit. Thanks. Over to you, Councillors. Brian Stockwell 05:45:40.615
Yeah, Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 05:45:40.615
Question. Thank you. I think it's every three months we have a business round table. And I was wondering how hard it would be to have one. To have once a year a round table with community groups. So you're talking about having conversations when their tenure is coming up. And I just felt like it would be a really good opportunity, even if it's not up for renewal at the same time, because I imagine they're all really different times. But with the asset stuff been. That's being done by Council, I would love to know how hard it would be to have that and have Councillors invited. It would be a really good opportunity to see what's happening out on the ground. Which is how turns a we've just had that terms of reference from Noosa Waters so just wondering if it would be difficult. Unidentified Speaker 05:46:32.628
Through the Chair, Councillor, I think that's a good idea. It has happened historically where we've had our community development officers who are out there working with the, you know, various committees. So I think that should be just best practice. But I do think it's probably a team effort between ourselves and also our community development officers who are out there working with community groups to build capacity and capability. So I think that is a good model. Richard MacGillivray 05:47:04.111
I think would be a good opportunity to leave it into is that we currently meet with a lot of those community groups and we'll give them advice on the grants, community grants. I think that's a great opportunity when we're all together in the room discussing around grants, but also to talk around community tenure more broadly. So what we can do is, you know, we're happy to have a conversation with our community development team around the timing for that and there could be a good opportunity to expand that to discuss tenure and potentially also have Councillors available if they would like to come along for that discussion as well and we can meet with the Unidentified Speaker 05:47:39.238
Those groups from those grants discussions if there's specific tenure questions that the development officers can't answer then they can come back to us and we'll deal with that with the development officers Jessica Phillips 05:47:53.908
Follow-up question it might just be my perspective but it feels like potentially having like multiple conversations of almost the same and I'd love to see like a more streamlined get together and work out who's going through similar things or if it's grants and then it's assets um not information but actually just sharing um both what we're doing that affects them. And then vice versa what they're finding is challenging because it might be that someone else feels the same way and like helping not necessarily um like our role could be just bringing them together like I think about um LGAQ sorry LDMG meeting where we get all like the stakeholders in and it's a really good opportunity just to even know each other coming into disasters all that sort of stuff Unidentified Speaker 05:48:41.120
I think as I said I know the community connection already do that they bring the halls together um and in fact I've just had my colleague in community development that's backing us on what we're saying so we're not making this up so um so it's already happening with the hall groups and so on so it's not a difficult model to actually extend so we're already doing it so I think that's fine Richard MacGillivray 05:49:09.077
Yeah so happy we're to support that concept. And you're suggesting Councillors also I think they're invited anyway to around the grants piece anyway if they wouldn't want to sit in on that Jessica Phillips 05:49:19.868
But that could be an opportunity really good for me to rather than having multiple conversations bringing them together working out work out what's the common theme maybe yeah Unidentified Speaker 05:49:28.748
We have sports complex committees as well and that's been a model that noosa's done for many years and like Noosa sports complex for example is one that comes to mind so that model's been happening for four years yeah so Amelia Lorentson 05:49:42.775
Kessel Lars just a couple of questions first of all the proposed policy so there's our gaming position which I'm very happy about there's shortened lease terms what I've understood some we've got five years and some historically have had ten years and there's a new rental framework so question is have we met with the community groups and actually just got feedback from them in terms of the proposed framework and if so what been the reaction? Unidentified Speaker 05:50:23.016
So that occurred has but it hasn't happened with every group as we say in the report the policy framework the overarching framework and as community tenure expires we'll get into those detailed discussions with groups and the guidelines specifically there but the tenure arrangements have reduced back because 10 years under the current policy, 10 years is a in long time in community group world and we do make provision in the policy for um uh if there's exceptional circumstances if you like that they can have longer terms but most of the research that we've done particularly down. In other councils um Brisbane and other South East Queensland councils they don't offer long lease terms because a lot is changing in the volunteer world and as I say 10 years is a long time and it's a community group participation of volunteers is being challenged so we've left some flexibility in there we believe that five years from for a lease term will suit most groups we understand that not going to suit the big that like for example the surf clubs because they have money and whatever else so they need longer lease terms but the current policy and particularly the new policy I think really makes that clear that we have flexibility about the types of tenure arrangements we can enter into, they're permits or licenses or whatever else and also the terms the rental framework is that's just following the model where you know probably around 85% of your groups are still going to be on the one unit so we're really we're talking around the month margins in the small percentage of groups who might be out of that and that comes back to the criteria that we listing there around you know capacity commerciality and things of that nature so I think the important point I the important point there is that most will be contained in a single simple one-unit framework as most of them are currently so and there's no talk at the moment well there's not in this policy anyway around arrangements changing from now so they come up as the tenure agreements expire, then we get into it now so we don't we've got existing arrangements we honour those and of course we would we into the um and we don't get into the detail of what agreement what the next agreements look like until we're in front of the committee and what we'll work through that as I say with a community development at community development partners to work through that with each individual group does- Okay. Karen Finzel 05:53:19.880
Thank you. What would be your lead in time, you know, you when it's coming up for up a renewal, do you like to start talking? With that committee months six months out, one month. Four months out, one month out to give? Unidentified Speaker 05:53:32.660
Well, Through the Chair, all of that. Generally, the earlier the better. Yeah. To a degree, like gonna we're not going to start three years out on a five year lease, but generally about three to six month mark, depending on how much negotiation we think we might have. Most of them are very simple, because they're just basically renewals, if you like, of the current arrangements. So there's not really a lot that will change. Of in terms of our approach to how we deal with community groups in that way, our approach from a property perspective, and also community services is to work with the groups, we're not working against them, we're working with them to make sure that they have capacity and capability to do what they need to do out on their venues, out in their facilities, so they can provide that community group service that they've always done. So we're kind of facilitating them to do what they've always done. You. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 05:54:35.081
Um, so, I get, that was a great explanation. So I kind of get now what, how it will work from a Council perspective. But do you think you could give me an indication of what will change for, like what will they a community group when they come up to their renewal, what's changed for them? Unidentified Speaker 05:54:57.667
Well, Through the Chair, Councillor, the, as I say, the most of them won't change in terms of the rental. Well, it will go up a little bit because we're covering costs. So it's still one unit of rent. But as Richard outlined in his at the start, that goes up. Now that will cover issues like peston electrical and fire inspections as statutory maintenance. Those things have traditionally been a bit of an issue for smaller volunteer groups because a lot of they just want their volunteers. They're trying to run programs and, you know, attract members and whatever else. They're not facility managers. So an important change that they will see is that if their fire extinguished fire extinguisher is out of date. It won't be out of date in the new regime because we'll be the contracts in place to make sure that they're all checks of it. So the idea is none slip through the cracks. However, we are recouping our costs that for that as well. So the one unit of rent does increase. And that's so we're not putting that impost back on to the ratepayer. So it's a two pronged approach. We address safety risk there because we don't obviously fire and electrical are quite important factors for us and as is pest, termites and whatever else. So will strong, there'll be there is a rental increase to cover those costs. As we talked about before, the for the tenure terms, as Councillor Lorentson pointed out, some pointed out, some groups are on tenure terms. Those ones at leases may come back to five in many. And then there will be others who have had longer lease terms, say 20 years, like the surf clubs and so on. I would expect that those will remain because they are big organisations, and most of the time mortgaged. They have a loan with the bank and whatever else. In terms of the relationship from of relationship from to nothing changed. To the groups, nothing changes there. I would expect that to still be quite strong, and particularly given some of the changes that we just talked about before. New tenure arrangements, there will be some additional assessment criteria, which I think is a change to what we're currently doing now. And those are just making sure that there is appropriate being delivered, and this outlined is in the policy um that their governance and financial capacity of the community organisations are appropriate to deliver the services and we also have a look at the level of commerciality now most of the organisations don't have a high level of commerciality because they're volunteer groups so it's basically as I say working with community service to have a proper assessment of these things most of the time the groups don't change but some will want to introduce new commercial elements and we look at that to see well okay does anything kind of change in their tiering or is it still one unit of rent and as I say most of the time that will still remain unaffected Jessica Phillips 05:58:23.744
Um last question then how will we measure success on it that it hasn't um and I'm not suggesting it will but what if there is onerous something that ends up being the feedback that it's somehow more difficult volunteers or and I don't I'm not suggesting it is yeah but what's the trick what's our measure of um policy success not just from internal but like these people provide an exceptional for our community so I've always thought rate pay is quite coming a out come out of general rights I don't often think that we have to that's my perspective but what they're providing a benefit what happens if it's onerous on them or there's we already hear volunteers are burning out what's the trigger that it would cause changes to the policy Unidentified Speaker 05:59:14.350
Well in the policy itself a Councillor there's two sections that come to mind one is the financial hardship if a group goes through financial hardship and also review of rental arrangements so I guess those two additions to the policy introduce some flexibility so Council can look at the community organisation's financial position do we have to step in here traditionally we have been more involved with community halls because we say that the management committee manages the hall on behalf of Council if that group were not there it would be up to Council to manage the hall so we're pretty pragmatic with that too and I think those examples financial hardship and review of rental arrangements are two examples in the policy of how these arrangements are under review so we're not that dogmatic about it that we wouldn't look at that and step in and help depending on what the was to help those groups survive and thrive that said there will be some groups there potentially who may have dwindling membership or whatever else or it might be just a dying activity if you like where there's of saving we'll save it do you know what I mean but so sometimes the trends that those things happen in activities where it's things not as popular as it used to be so we wouldn't enter into a situation where we're trying to save something that's not savable but I just want to highlight that those two additions to the existing policy I think are very um indicative of the approach that Council would take it will be pragmatic about these things and work with the group to try and support them to be successful and have that capability and capacity that's a lot of us oh that's okay I was just going to move the motion Amelia Lorentson 06:01:18.989
Okay um sort of a follow-up from what Councillor Phillips said is it possible if we could get a full list of all the current community tenor arrangements what understanding what the facility is what land type so as I'm reading the report there is so much in it so there's a lease a permit, different tenures, different um uh arrangements um different lease um so so to me just for visibility for myself as well as for the clubs it'd be great to understand what all the groups who are all the groups what the tenure looks like um the current tenure type expiry date and whether a renewal will fall under the existing or new proposal and understand what that actually means so who has a 10-year lease the current are we talking one organisation I know the pony club for example got a 10-year lease it'd just be great to have that visibility um so that question um my question is that a big ask Unidentified Speaker 06:02:34.562
Well well Through the Chair it is an ask um I guess it goes to purpose um uh for uh what for the list is for um I mean just going to your point before about the different types of tenure arrangements and so on the distinction to be made there is that the trust land you know you've just had a big discussion on that just before the trust land being state land with Council as trustee and then there are the ones where Council is the freehold owner now if it were all the one land designation we would have all that it would just be permit or license at least um that's the only reason why there are double the amount of categories because we have basically two types of land category so about 65% of the land designation is as uh Council trustee and the other 30 35 is where Council freehold um I mean I have no I have no personal objection to supplying a list I mean yeah that's fine Richard MacGillivray 06:03:47.789
Yeah I think we might have given that when we had their second workshop I know it's a little while ago Council said we did have a list of them based on their categorization the majority of them sort of sit in that tier one which is the one rental it was really the ones that have high commercial sort of financial generating activity which was focus around their rental charges and whether that is you know to commensurate with I guess their financial capacity and what the rent should be in relation to those which was essentially some surf clubs and yacht club and that bracket but the majority of them were the other smaller community groups that had limited financial capacity to fund but we're happy to look at we'll get you a bit of a list we can we've got about 90 tenure arrangements Unidentified Speaker 06:04:35.447
So 90. Look I don't want to make this Amelia Lorentson 06:04:37.549
Onerous I think what I really want to understand maybe simplify the request by asking who is going to be most impacted understand you know those that are holding 10-year leases so I don't want to ratify this and then in a month's time find out from sporting groups that we just you know signed off on a five-year lease when they've understood or we've reduced that certainty or the period from 10 years so so maybe on notice um who is going to be most impacted yeah Richard MacGillivray 06:05:12.162
And happy to clarify that to provide some assurance I think the key thing is um if there are say sporting groups that are looking at undertaking um you know broader redevelopment activities maybe as part of their clubs then that will look at a longer tenure because as Clint mentioned around things like if they need to get mortgage or subject to grant funding they're going to need sufficient tenure even to apply for the grants in the first place so we will work with the club on ensuring that they have that certainty of tenure um as well and that's part of the negotiations as well the other thing Unidentified Speaker 06:05:47.073
Sorry Through the Chair Councillor a lot of the groups are not they don't want the long term tenure some of them see it as a particularly in smaller groups as a commit a long-term commitment they see it that way um so I mean we can provide a snapshot I guess of that um I wouldn't anticipate um that being an issue because I'm not potentially going to go to war with a community group over a couple years of tenure um we're just being more quick we I guess weak where is reflecting what is happening in community world and particularly the changeover that we find on committees now we're not you probably see that we're not getting community members who are sticking out for 10 and 20 years you might get it like a two-year kind of turnover so those issues around and when you get that you often get instability in those groups as well and they can lose direction and focus and whatever else so that five yearly term quite often is not a lot of time but we think it's more of a happy medium around being able to have that review point because ten years can be a long time for a group to kind of stick it out particularly if they're not then they don't have a lot of membership the sites not being activated and whatever else so if we're you two years in and we've got eight years another eight years to try and activate a site the light is at the end of the tunnel for not only Council but other community groups who may wish to use that site if it's three only three years away if you know I what mean Amelia Lorentson 06:07:41.835
And I mean and I don't disagree with anything you're saying Clint my concern is whether those community groups are aware that we're making this change I think that's probably the question I'm really asking um I agree with you um but it's more um I don't want to find out after the fact um that they've been told about it Frank Wilkie 06:08:00.836
Okay um Councillor Wilson is moving the motion I'll second oh Councillor Finzel seconded thank you can ask questions uh Councillor Wilson you wish to speak Nicola Wilson 06:08:10.117
Um just briefly just thanks for the report and for the workshops leading up to this as well lots of work got into it really important work um particularly like the attachment three high level um comparison really clear of what's actually changing and the impact of that um and also really pleased to see the restrictions in gaming activity that's it thank you great. Brian Stockwell 06:08:30.693
Phillips Jessica Phillips 06:08:31.033
You had another question my brain's just a little bit dry that's okay remind me how um a lease do we do they come to us or how do I see that was getting renewed if it's in three years does that do we approve every single one of them no it's under delegation. So so do they get reported to us? Uh Unidentified Speaker 06:08:55.736
Leases lisa's there is an op there is a requirement to report uh leases to Council um now that's under the Local Government Regulation um so and but this doesn't apply to permits it's for the disposal of an interest in land for a for-current asset which is a lease so uh I'll just answer that by saying generally speaking they should come to Council for oversight and ticking off um for us generally those have been you know we see them as renewals if you like because we have the same um we've had the same lease term the same kind of circumstances surrounding the lease renewal and but um yes those uh are required to come to Council for um adoption if you like. And we have that done it in the past, I should say, yeah. Tom Wegener 06:10:09.586
Rental charges what is one unit base? Because I don't I think I looked at that during the budget. Richard MacGillivray 06:10:15.863
Yes it's $639. That's up from? Yeah so it was about $400 so and you recall I think when we had the first workshop we were looking at taking off the burden of the um mandatory five. Was the fire the electrical and the pest because the community groups with some of the smaller ones were finding they were struggling to be able to do that so we've said well for a couple of hundred bucks we can get one contractor to pretty much service most of them at a reduced rate then take that burden off those groups and we'll add a small amount to the fee to cover that for the whole year so we've now sort of taken on that responsibility so that's already in place with those groups and we've heard no negative feedback at all I think in fact there's a sigh of relief because it's watch. One less thing that they have to worry about and for us too it ensures that we know that those buildings they've got the basic sort of servicing you know maintenance under that's being undertaken you know to the standard that we think is okay 426. Karen Finzel 06:11:16.074
Just in terms of record-keeping from that I was recently at a meeting with a community group around that I mean it's great that gets done but then there was difficulty in tracking like had that maintenance actually happened is the onus on the organisation to say have a sign-in book if that person comes in they do the check the fire who who's responsible keep the record that has been undertaken Unidentified Speaker 06:11:42.285
Well Through the Chair there's probably two areas for that probably us if we engage the contractor but there to be some I would also expect type of log of that on site so the service records should come back to us because we engage the contractor to under a contract for the whole lot of services to undertake so it's a two areas responses. Richard MacGillivray 06:12:10.916
Have responsibility yeah practically speaking usually they'll have a sticker or something with it when they've done the pest or the electrical but we'll get a copy of that as well for our own records there should be one on site and one in council's record. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 06:12:23.618
Councillor moody. Record. Thank you. Councillor Mooney. Just the last question from me we had a recent deputation from the Cooroy gymnastic club and their tenants and is was there a possibility that some Council operated works would disrupt and there is was disrupt their operations my question is under current just be aware Unidentified Speaker 06:12:46.176
Of the conflict of interest. Maybe it's a question you can ask us. Is that possible? Amelia Lorentson 06:12:53.307
Oh okay I'll take the example out. My question is whether our current processes do we have any way that a tenant could seek a rent relief and have we considered you know compensation, renovatement as part of this new policy in situations where you know Council works disrupts or extends or significantly disrupts say the operations. Of a club. Richard MacGillivray 06:13:25.548
We've, as Clint said, we've got the hardship provisions that we've actually built. Not a rent relief, I'm just wondering. We have made reference, and this is a change from the previous one, we talk about a subsidy for those groups that are providing community, overwhelmed community benefits and don't have the financial capacity. So, I guess it's acknowledging to count suggest this point that some of the rental arrangements are subsidised because, you know, for $600 for the building facility for a year doesn't cover all the costs, but we acknowledge the important work that they provide for our broader community on behalf of Council and therefore there's a subsidised, you know, piece to that. Is be you but were referring more to unforeseen circumstances? Or impacts. Unidentified Speaker 06:14:14.717
No, no, sorry, just Through the Chair. Councillor, that those that week charge is a cost is a cost so recovery. So it's for, you know, like it's for those costs. That we've talked about there and also the portion of that is also the administrative cost as well. I don't know. Might there may be some examples I'd have to go back and look at it where there was some extenuating circumstance where there was a rental abatement if you like but it is not it common practice. Because it's not like they're not like commercial rental arrangements where you know it's quite a different scenario. This is a cost recovery scenario for services that are happening in order for the group to safely occupy the facility so it's slightly different to a commercial arrangement that said though as I said at the outset I wouldn't I'm not going to discount it and I can't say that it's never happened I'd have to have a think about it but as I say we've got sufficient flexibility there for a group if they think they are severely affected that they can make the case whether they'd be successful or not of course they'd have to hit the criteria in there and uh but um yeah it's that one is a yes and no type scenario because it's all specific it's specific to the actual circumstance it's hard to give a broad brush kind of yes or no to that thank you if you know what I'm not trying to no work in the grey here but it is a little bit difficult to Frank Wilkie 06:16:12.432
You yeah before Councillor Wilson wishes to close any other speakers Jessica Phillips 06:16:16.163
I'm just going to um rather than asking more questions just make a couple of comments more just to conversational um I'd love to see a definition of community benefit I think we see it across many documents and that's a very broad term so I think that would be a great thing to see eventually um and maybe just on the future ratepayers like again um the way I see it is they're providing such a community benefit which we don't have a definition of there is difference yeah I've Richard MacGillivray 06:16:52.531
One we knew you were going to ask that the demonstrable benefit to the Noosa community arising from the delivery of sporting recreation cultural environmental education social health or community services programs activities or facilities that contribute to community well-being and that align with council's strategic objectives so fairly broad but it's under Unidentified Speaker 06:17:11.688
Definite five definitions I searched for okay um Jessica Phillips 06:17:18.643
Well I'm glad there's a um community benefits because that really helps and um I think that sometimes when there's these community um facilities that are providing a service that sometimes the rate payer will subsidize it because otherwise usually they'll incur they'll pass the cost on to the rate payer anyway then it does a circle so that's didn't make any sense but hopefully you can Frank Wilkie 06:17:51.572
Work that out okay uh further speakers uh Council wishes to close put it to the vote those in favour that is unanimous Thank you. Clint and it brings us to item 7.2.4 Planning & Environment Court appeal 1576 of 2026. Short stay letting local law review decision 8 Witta Circuit. Mr heads welcome Nick Bamford. Afternoon Councillors, hello, evening. Mr CEO under what circumstances will we need to take this into confidential if we're just discussing legal arguments? Richard MacGillivray 06:18:35.713
It will depend on legal arguments yeah it will depend on um what I would say is council's been mindful of if they want to discuss any specifics of the matter given it's subject to current proceedings um but happy to um sort of talk more generally I guess and maybe um ask Nick if there's any sort of um background that may be of help but it will be relatively high level as opposed to specific sort of evidence-based Nick Bamford 06:19:02.853
Feedback okay thank you um so this is the appeal to a compliance notice um for eight with a circle um on the 24th of March 2022 hey which is circle circuit was granted um a short stay letting approval um on the 3rd of December 2025 after a number of complaints have been made to the 24 7 hotline a show called a show cause notice was issued to the approval holder no time that approval holder that there would be amendment to their conditions or the approval, specifically um they must set conditions 7.2 use the outdoor entertainment area premises or outdoor lighting after 9pm or before 6am and 7.26 b6 use the swimming pool after 8pm or before 7am uh show of course notice is as a time frame for a submission um for appeal on 19th December um the approval holders legal representative sought further information from Council and extension to that time on the 30th of January on 2026 um Council received that submission complaints were largely substantiate the complaints are largely substantiated came from a single neighbour the complaints expectations presidential media was unreasonable existing approval conditions are adequate the proposed additional conditions unnecessary reasonable or unsupported by evidence. The correspondence also sought the Council to side on section 18.3 that local law not proceed to change the amendment to short-stay local law approval on the 26th of March 2006. Having reviewed that correspondence, Council officers decided to give amended approval to the approval holder. So there were changes conditions. So they decided to must not use the outdoor entertainment area, premises or outdoor lighting in those areas other than security lighting and the beam which is angled directly to the property after 9:00pm. And 6:00am. And use the swim pool after 9:00pm. And before 7:00am. On the 31st of March, the approval holder sought an internal review for that decision. In consideration of that approval request the Council delegate has regarded eight complaints received between the 3rd of September and the 28th of November 2025, complaints generally related to noise emanating from the guests located between the hours of 9:07pm. And 12:20am. Having considered that material and satisfied that the grants had taken its proposed action on the basis that prescribed activity actions are necessary to prevent a loss of immunity and demonstrate the non-compliance of the conditions of approval. Accordingly a letter was sent to the approval holder to confirm that decision to issue amended approval. The applicant has repealed that review decision and seeks additional conditions to be removed from the approval. I'm seeking council's agreement to defend that appeal. Frank Wilkie 06:22:39.339
Questions Councillors? Jessica Phillips 06:22:40.600
One question, what's the itis of purse on this? Sorry? What's the itis of purse? Nick Bamford 06:22:46.925
We have calls, we have photographs and recordings. Richard MacGillivray 06:22:49.580
Oh yeah, in terms of with itis. The onus, yeah, so the onus is on the appellant. Yeah, so they are appealing essentially our internal review decision. So the onus is on them to prove that decision that Council made was, you know, outside of, it's a reasonable church. Response outside of its jurisdiction. Jessica Phillips 06:23:17.373
Sorry, what's our onus of proof? Is it balance of probabilities or have we got a proof being reasonable? Balance of, probabilities. Nick Bamford 06:23:23.466
Yeah. OK. I believe we've hit the threshold of enough evidence to support this. OK. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 06:23:31.193
Our local law already requires guests to not cause a nuisance or detrimentally affect a residential amenity. I'm, my question is um, I'm, um, did. We try to enforce our local laws instead of progressing through a show course notice, an amended approval, an internal review and then a court appeal. Nick Bamford 06:23:53.657
Yeah. Prior to this, we have gone through other compliance actions and we have had correspondence and meetings with the owner and the property manager to try and mitigate some of these noises. Um, nothing has come out of that as far as, um, able to stop this resident amenity being impacted by the neighbour. Um, and I believe that the complaints between 9:07 and 12:00am is sufficient, um, put it. A condition in, um, to, stop that. Our own, uh, guide that we published, um, the guide to good management, does also mention that in there, it is suggested that, um, outdoor areas after 9:00pm and swimming pools after 8:00pm are not used. Amelia Lorentson 06:24:45.965
So my, question is. We've already got the local law. We've also got the code of conduct. Um, and now we're going to appeal to enforce or put a condition on what should already be enforceable. My question is, I'm going to change the question. How much so far has this cost ratepayers in terms of legal fees? Richard MacGillivray 06:25:18.260
Through the Chair we lodged we will have to no's but would be a relatively small amount in relation to this particular matter what I would add though just on the comments around the provision the changes we see are reasonable and the fact is that they are consistent with their own good neighbourhood guideline document which is what to the community around what reasonable expectations look like around protecting amenity and conduct although those provisions are not mandatory and enforceable they're a good neighbourhood guide but we believe they are reasonable to manage and protect amenity and we apply those where we believe that there's risk of amenity being impacted and we in this case believed through a very thorough process that it's appropriate that those restrictions are put in place to protect their amenity of the adjoining Amelia Lorentson 06:26:28.396
So will this happen every time there's someone not abiding without with our code of conduct do we have to proceed to an appeal to get it conditioned I'm just sort of Richard MacGillivray 06:26:40.718
Understanding no no this went through a process um where we issued a notice and under the local law and they have a right of reply essentially and council's undertaken obviously its undertaken its process. They've sought an internal review which they can do that and we haven't um we've considered their correspondence and have maintained our that's position that it's still reasonable to put that they're now challenging that the money environment court um and that's their right I guess to challenge that but in terms of the process that will unfold that's obviously will be subject to um the council's decision whether it defends or not so this is the next step taking court action to enforce them well we'll know they're appealing against Aaron. Internal review so it's not us commencing legal action as such it's us being involved in an appeal against our internal review to maintain the position. Frank Wilkie 06:27:37.171
Councillor Wegener and Councillor Phillips. Tom Wegener 06:27:39.413
I'd like to move the report and appeal. Frank Wilkie 06:27:43.355
Moved by Councillor Wegener. A second. A by Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 06:27:49.542
Oh, I think this is a very interesting case. It actually has put a large lot of ramifications for the future of our local laws, I feel. I think it's really important that we follow through with appeal this and give a it up for our full support. And we have to remember, this isn't a residence, this is a business we're talking about. Brian Stockwell 06:28:10.597
Sorry, Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 06:28:11.428
I'm sorry, Councillor can I, I'm really sorry, but can I ask us to go into confidential? Because I think I have a question that I want to ask on. Of course. So happy a resolution to go on the confidential, please, Cathy. It might not be, but I'd rather. Sure. So can I just move procedural motion that the meeting be closed to the public in accordance with section 254D3 of the LG regulation of 2012. This is not publicly available as it contains information that is confidential to the local government and to section 254J3E of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing item 7.2.4 P7E quarter bill 1576 of 2026-8 with a circuit Noosa Heads. Frank Wilkie 06:29:00.818
We have a seconder for that please. Seconded Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That is unanimous. Frank Wilkie 07:00:43.881
We're welcome back everyone. We have a motion before us. Anyone care to move it? Sorry, yes it's been moved by Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wegener has spoken. Do any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Tom Wegener 07:01:04.558
I'll put it to the I'll vote. Hasn't been closed. It's been closed. Oh, you've met. May close. I just want to say, in Noosa we have the leaders. We have a vision to balance resident amenity with STA business disruptions. We lead Australia with our local laws. The effectiveness of our local laws are being tested and we must defend our position wholeheartedly. Frank Wilkie 07:01:28.677
Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Nick. Next item is. For Nick as well. Planning & Environment Court appeal 1763 of 2026. Short stay letting local law review decision at five, unit five, seven, Peza Court, Noosa Heads. Nick Bamford 07:01:54.083
Um okay. This is, yeah, unit five, seven, Peza Court appeal on 15th of June, 2023. They apply for an application for short letting. Part of the criteria they had to meet is either a have a development approval which they haven't got, b accept development on the Noosa Plan 2020 which it was not, or c novel existing use rights which they believe they had. During application the process application process they um were they were given information as supply to um existing use rights to show that they had before 2026 to show that they had commenced short sale letting and up until the time of application this went backwards went backward forwards for quite some time until 15th January 2025 um trying to help them seek their existing use rights they failed to produce those documents so the application couldn't be assessed so the application elapsed on the um Friday 5th of March 2026 officers undertook a um audit of Peza Court and the surrounding area and noticed that there was a sign outside of unit 5-7 Peza Court on further investigation found advertising um on the uh internet for short stay accommodation a compliance notice was raised on the 1st of April com 260110 was issued to immediately stop their activity and or apply for an application um for short stay letting um that decision to stop was um then sent to then sent a review decision again where I reviewed the evidence of unit operating without short set-stay operating without letting approval and um and no application um I upheld that decision um on the 15th of may I filed a response to affirm the decision um with a compliance notice 12th of June the appeal was lodged planning pang environmental court so I see council's agreement to defend that appeal same law firm involved okay I'm happy to move it Frank Wilkie 07:04:25.443
Thank I'll happy say move get it uh yeah it's almost similar circumstances here um it's very important we defend these appeals um yeah see how it plays out it's very important we defend different. Thank you. Discussion put it to the vote those in favour that's unanimous uh now item 7.2.6 planning and environment report bill 1842 2026 for minor change thank you Nick thank you thanks Nick for minor change to a development permit for Material Change of Use for a duplex dwelling at 2 unit 2 16 Grant Street Noosa Heads we have Ben mccullough welcome back Ben Ben McAuliffe 07:05:17.047
Absolutely could you talk us through this please uh yes um and I can assume that the report has been read so I'll just touch on some of the high level considerations uh there was an application for a dual occupancy at 16 Grant Street that was approved in 2018 the application uh the sorry, on. The inspection of the development there was noted to be changes to the or what was built essentially there were differences with what was meant to be the natural ground so the lower level of the development was intended to uh essentially perform as a basement however it now essentially performed as a third story or as additional ground floor area so so to assist with essentially allowing for plan seal and for the development to be finalised officers negotiated a with the applicant to install some planter boxes that would essentially screen the lower level so essentially the lower level would still perform as a basement as was intended that had occurred, then new purchaser had since purchased the site and Council received an application so those planter boxes were installed the planter boxes at 1.5 metres in height that would essentially the proposal back into compliance. In February 2026 Council received an application by one of the tenants at unit 2 to remove these planter boxes. Officers assessed that proposal and in consideration of the original decision, to amend the original permit and implement these measures to then bring the proposal back into compliance, resolved to refuse the minor change application. The applicant since appealed that decision to the Planning & Environment Court on the 23rd of June and they've contended that the planter boxes would not adversely affect surrounding properties and would improve the amenity and maintenance of the premises. So that's the position that we're in at the moment and our recommendation is to note the appeal and Resolve to defend the proceedings. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 07:07:32.092
Questions? Amelia Lorentson 07:07:34.861
Happy to move. Unidentified Speaker 07:07:36.201
Move Councillor Lorentson. I second. Amelia Lorentson 07:07:38.096
Signed no, waive my right to speak. Frank Wilkie 07:07:41.492
You've made Amelia Lorentson 07:07:43.046
Thank you very much, Ben, for the report yep and Frank Wilkie 07:07:47.751
Councillors? Okay, put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Ben. Thank you. And thank you, Richard, for your sustained, concise advice over many hours today. Thank you. 7.2.7 delegations annual review. Of PowerSport. All powers from the CEO and the Councillor to the CEO. Tom Wegener 07:08:18.364
I'm going to be leaving now. Frank Wilkie 07:08:24.265
Welcome back, Diana. Ahead. Unidentified Speaker 07:08:27.321
I'm going to pass it on to Rebecca. Rebecca 07:08:32.007
And so this report is about the annual review of delegations of powers from Council to the CEO. The reviewed register of delegations is attached to the report as item one. As you are aware, 1. Of THE DELEGATION OF POWERS IS REQUIRED SO THAT Council OFFICERS CAN APPROPRIATELY AUTHORISE TO CONDUCT THEIR DAILY DUTIES, SO THAT Council CAN PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY EFFICIENTLY. YOU SO THAT YOU AS Councillors CAN FOCUS ON HIGH LEVEL STRATEGIC MATTERS. THE STATUTORY POWERS REQUIRED FOR Council TO OPERATE ARE CONFERRED TO Councillors BY ACTS AND REGULATIONS. THE Local Government Act ALLOWS Council BY RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE THESE POWERS TO THE CEO. THE ACT THEN ALLOWS THE CEO TO FURTHER DELEGATE THE POWERS TO PROPERLY QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS OF Council. AT THIS STAGE OF THE REVIEW AND THIS REPORT IS ONLY IN RELATION TO THE Council TO CEO DELEGATIONS. IT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE Local Government Act THAT DELEGATIONS FROM to you, the delegation, the concepts. OF THE Council WORKSHOP CONDUCTED LAST MONTH IS THE 2026 Council TO CEO DELEGATION REGISTER PRESENTED WITH TODAY'S REPORT AS ATTACHMENT 1. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE REPORT, IN THIS 2026 REVIEW, GOVERNANCE IN CONSULTATION WITH COUNCILORS Councillors updated 26. OF THE EXISTING REGISTERS. ONE NEW DELEGATION REGISTER WAS IMPLEMENTED AND 60 CURRENT DELEGATION REGISTERS REMAINED UNCHANGED. SO THE RECOMMENDATION TODAY IS: THE Council NOTE THE REPORT BY THE Governance Officer TO THE COMMITTEE DATED THE 11TH OF August 2026 REGARDING COUNCIL'S ANNUAL DELEGATION REVIEW OF 2026. AND TO ADOPT THE REGISTER OF DELEGATIONS Council TO CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 257 OF THE Local Government Act 2009 TO DELEGATE THE powers of the local GOVERNMENT OUTLINED IN THE REGISTER OF DELEGATIONS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE CEO OF Noosa Shire Council. THANK YOU. Frank Wilkie 07:11:30.523
THANK YOU, REBECCA. IT IS. QUESTIONS, Councillors? Unidentified Speaker 07:11:37.773
I THINK IT'S TOO LATE. Frank Wilkie 07:11:45.465
WHO'S MOVING IT? Councillor WILSON. SECONDED, Councillor FINZELL. Councillor WILSON. Nicola Wilson 07:11:50.431
THANK Councillor thank report A LOT OF WORK GOES INTO THIS AND IT'S A VERY FERRARO PROCESS AND THANK YOU FOR DOING IT EVERY YEAR AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT. THANK YOU. Karen Finzel 07:12:04.359
OKAY. Councillor FINZELL. WORKSHOP THAT YOU BROUGHT TO US WAS VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND I THINK HENCE WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK TOO MANY QUESTIONS THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE I THINK WE ASKED THEM AROUND THE TABLE AND YOU RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY. SO THANK YOU FOR THE AMOUNT OF WORK TO YOURSELF AND THE STAFF THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. Brian Stockwell 07:12:24.739
Councillor Lorentson Amelia Lorentson 07:12:24.739
And then Councillor Phillips. Oh, just to NOTE THAT I 'VE NOTED JUST SOME SMALL CHANGES BUT REALLY IMPORTANT CHANGES TO THE REPORTING AND THE DIAGRAMS AND I KNOW Councillor WEGNER LOVES COLOUR BUT IT REALLY DOES HELP IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS. SO JUST THANK the you and just continue. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT EACH TIME WE GET THE REPORT IS ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. Jessica Phillips 07:13:04.477
Don't often feel, yeah, I don't know, excuse me, absolute confidence that comes from you, so thank you. Frank Wilkie 07:13:09.346
Thank CASSANDRA PHILLIPS: WE ARE BLESSED WITH VERY SKILLED PROFESSIONALS IN OUR EXECUTIVE TEAM AND MANAGERS WHO GIVE US EXCELLENT ADVICE AND HELP US, GUIDE US TOWARDS GREAT DECISIONS. AND YES, THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT AND THE WORKSHOP, WHICH WAS VERY INSTRUCTIVE. CASSANDRA PHILLIPS: THAT'S ALL THIS NEWS TO CLOSE. Unidentified Speaker 07:13:32.126
87 LULZ, THAT'S A LOT. Frank Wilkie 07:13:35.943
OKAY. THAT IS AN ANONYMOUS-- THANK YOU, REBECCA, Amelia Lorentson 07:13:43.635
THANK YOU, DIANA. THANK YOU. Frank Wilkie 07:13:45.857
THERE ARE NO CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS. ITEM NINE IS CLOSURE. I DECLARE THE MEETING CLOSED AT 5:14. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
