Ordinary Meeting, 16 July 2026
Date: Thursday, 16 July 2026 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 06:34:19
Synopsis: Divisive Lions Park overflow parking process, Opposition to DRFA reforms, Go Noosa changes, Burgess Creek ICMP consultation, LGAQ motions incl. STA reform, Hilton Esplanade consultation, finances.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Jessica Phillips Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Deputations
Frances Atkins Tayce Scott Kirsten Norden Jacqueline Gray Melinda Gannon Public Question Time
Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie : Council will formally oppose proposed DRFA reforms; Mayor to sign Qld petition, CEO to lodge NEMA submission and brief MPs; positions align with ALGA/LGAQ (51:35; Minutes 9.1). Amelia Lorentson : Go Noosa program endorsed with changes; drop-off zones trialled, alternative transport by Dec 2026, and a Lions Park advisory group to be formed (01:06:35–01:12:00; Minutes 11.1.2). Brian Stockwell : Secured amendment requiring a report on process/costs to allow “inconsistent use” of Noosa Heads Lions Park for overflow parking (Land Act) to Aug General Committee (02:27:56; Minutes 11.1.2 G). Karen Finzel : Advisory group for Lions Park to include key stakeholders to inform future peak-period use and alternatives, carried unanimously (02:10:58–02:20:45; Minutes 11.1.2 F). Council : Draft Burgess Creek ICMP approved for 4-week consultation; compliance-focused actions refined; Environment Levy options to fund staged implementation (Minutes 11.1.3). Council : Approved MCU25/0119 for Indoor Sport & Recreation at 26 Eenie Creek Rd, reinforcing health/wellness clustering in Major Centre Zone (Minutes 11.1.4). Council : LGAQ Conference motions endorsed incl. STA existing-use rights reform in Low Density zones, UNESCO Biosphere recognition, soil as critical infrastructure, drone beach surveillance, reusable cups, safe parking for homeless, and state planning policy review (Minutes 12.1). Council : Hilton Esplanade boating facility—Council removed pre-emptive design parameters; asked MSQ to consult widely and report back before Council sets any design position; sought funding clarity (04:28:53–05:34:14; Minutes 13.1). Council : Monthly Financial Performance noted; operating surplus favourable; capital delivery timing to be addressed in BR1; no drawdown of approved borrowings (Minutes 13.2). Council : Noosa Plan 2020 Draft Amendment 4 (Employment Land) to State Interest Review and public consultation; remove High Impact Industry, add e-vehicle and future energy provisions, PT/bus connections (Confidential 12.2). Council : ERP contract renewal awarded to TechnologyOne under s235(a) LGR; CEO delegated to execute within cap (Confidential 14.1). Council : P&E Court Appeal D927/2025 (58 Seaview Tce, Sunshine Beach) to be settled on proposed conditions (Confidential 14.2). Contentious / Transparency Matters Lions Park overflow parking : Deep division on economic impact vs congestion/amenity; initial amendment to end overflow parking failed 3–4 (01:15:32–01:25:00; Minutes 11.1.2 Amend. No.1). Process concern : Procedural deferral sought for Land Act advice failed; instead, targeted amendment required a process/cost report in Aug (02:20:56–03:30:09; Minutes 11.1.2). Workshop/report alignment : Queries that report inclusions did not reflect workshop tenor on MSQ boating facility; officers clarified intent and consultation staging (05:03:07–05:06:32; Minutes 13.1). Wedding permit fees : Deputation alleged non-compliance with cost-recovery law; requested transparency, benchmarking, and review (17:38–26:48; Minutes 7.2, 8.1). Cooroy Gymnastics : Deputation claimed contractor-extended shutdown risks club viability; sought working capital, direct access to decision-makers, and temporary use approvals (01:46–16:42; Minutes 7.1). Legal / Risk Land Act (Trust Land) : Using Lions Park for overflow parking is an “inconsistent use” requiring a Land Management Plan; proceeding without risks breach; 6+ month process likely and resourcing/cost impacts flagged (02:59:30–03:08:00; Minutes 11.1.2). Local Government Act s97 : Wedding permit fee structure challenged as exceeding cost recovery; Ombudsman 2013 guidance cited; potential exposure if not evidence-based (17:38–26:48; Minutes 7.2). Planning Act : MCU25/0119 approval reasons recorded per s63(5); STA reform motion seeks State amendments to modify existing-use rights in Low Density zones (Minutes 11.1.4; 12.1). Procurement : ERP renewal awarded under s235(a) LGR (sole supplier) and CEO delegated under s257(1) LGA within cap (Minutes 14.1). Confidentiality : Proper closures under s254J(3)(g),(e) LGR for planning scheme amendment, ERP renewal, and court appeal (Minutes 14). State Planning Policy review : Motion raised risks if State removes natural hazard/biodiversity interests; could increase appeal risk and weaken consistent state benchmarks (04:10:34–04:14:52; Minutes 12.1). Conflicts of Interest Jessica Phillips : Material personal interest—Cooroy Gymnastics Club deputation; left and returned (01:12; Minutes 7.1). Amelia Lorentson : Declared proximity-based conflict—Burgess Creek ICMP; remained and voted (03:48:42–03:50:02; Minutes 11.1.3). Brian Stockwell : Declared conflict as President, Noosa Lions FC—Burgess Creek ICMP; remained and voted (03:50:04–03:50:44; Minutes 11.1.3). Environmental & Infrastructure Highlights Burgess Creek ICMP : Emphasis on illegal stormwater connections, diffuse nutrients/contaminants, compliance resourcing, and behaviour change; funded via Environment Levy options (Minutes 11.1.3). Hilton Esplanade facility : Environmental/climate impacts to be resolved by MSQ; Council removed pre-conditions but sought broad consultation and later design stance (13.1; 04:28:53–05:34:14). Public lighting : No budget for pathway lighting expansion; AS/NZS 1158.3.1 standard applies; Council to monitor grants (32:38–33:39; Minutes 8.1). Movement & Connection : 2025–27 Delivery Action Plan approved to progress active/public transport and safety measures, subject to budget (Minutes 11.1.1). Short-Term Accommodation & Planning Scheme LGAQ motion : Seek State reforms to limit/gradually extinguish existing-use rights for whole-home STA in Low Density zones upon title transfer; opt-in for councils (Minutes 12.1). Noosa Plan Amendment 4 : Employment land changes remove High Impact Industry in catchment; require EV charging, future energy adaptability, PT links; State review and community consultation authorised (Confidential 12.2). Sunshine Beach – Litigation Outcome P&E Court Appeal D927/2025 : Settlement endorsed for dwelling house/building works (height, GFA, setbacks, cut) at 58 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach (Minutes 14.2). Community & Economic Signals Hastings St economy vs congestion : Split views; evidence cited that Lions Park parking adds to congestion while loop bus usage hit new highs; businesses fear revenue loss (01:17:06–01:24:47; Minutes 11.1.2). Finance : Operating revenue 103% of budget; strong cash ($139.7m), no loan drawdown; capital delivery carry-forwards to BR1; improved public reporting flagged (Minutes 13.2). Boating demand : Deputies noted Noosa’s high vessel registrations vs low trailer parking; Council refrained from dictating design and pushed broad MSQ consultation (04:38:21–05:11:51; Minutes 13.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 Ordinary Meeting Minutes Thursday, 16 July 2026 10:00am Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” Page 1 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 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 COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ORDINARY MEETING 18 JUNE 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 18 June 2026 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Page 2 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 4.2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING 23 JUNE 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 23 June 2026 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 5 PETITIONS Nil. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 APPLICANT: FRANCES ATKINS, COOROY GYMNASTICS CLUB TOPIC: REDEVELOPMENT OF THEIR FACILITY SPEAKERS: FRANCES ATKINS (COMMITTEE MEMBER), TAYCE SCOTT (PRESIDENT), KIRSTEN NORDEN (GYMNASTICS TEAM LEAD) Cr Jessica Phillips I, Cr Jessica Phillips, inform the meeting that I have a material personal interest in relation to Item 7.1 - APPLICANT: FRANCES ATKINS, COOROY GYMNASTICS CLUB / TOPIC: REDEVELOPMENT OF THEIR FACILITY on this agenda as I am the General Manager of Cooroy Gymnastics Club. I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered. Cr Phillips left the meeting room for the duration of the Deputation. Cr Phillips returned to the meeting room. 7.2 APPLICANT: JACQUELINE GRAY, NOOSA WEDDING ORGANISATION TOPIC: WEDDING PERMIT FEE STRUCTURE SPEAKERS: JACQUELINE GRAY, MELINDA GANNON Page 3 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8.1 SUSAN DEWAR QUESTION 1 Three years ago I first raised concerns about the lack of lighting on the pathway connecting Yellowood Close and the Tewantin Sports Complex. Given this pathway is regularly used by families, children and sporting groups, will Council investigate and apply for available Queensland Government Grant funding to install lighting at this location? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY SHAUN WALSH DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES Thank you for the question. Council does directly own and manage public lighting in commonly used public areas such as Noosaville Foreshore. Other street and pathway lighting is owned by Energex, though Council does pay the electricity bills. Unfortunately, there is no budget allocation in the 26/27 budget to expand Council's public lighting program. In addition, there is currently no grant program offered by Energex to expand public lighting. Council will continue to monitor grant programs for available funding. QUESTION 2 Council has advised that an alternative route exists via McKinnon Drive. However many residents continue to use the access pathway from Yellowood Close, because it provides direct access to the sporting precinct. What assessment has Council undertaken of the pathway's usage and safety risks, and what criteria would need to be met before lighting is considered? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY SHAUN WALSH DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES Council has not undertaken any further assessment of the pathway usage to inform future lighting. The appropriate standard for assessment would be "AS/NZS 1158.3.1:2020 Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces". Other criteria would include pedestrian usage data and requests from the local residents seeking improvement to inform budget allocation. The meeting adjourned at 10.34am. The meeting resumed at 10.52am. 9 MAYORAL MINUTES 9.1 MAYORAL MINUTE - DISASTER RECOVERY FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Mayor Frank Wilkie – Item 9.1 Mayoral Minute Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: NA Page 4 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 That Council: A. Note the receipt of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) Disaster Management Reform Discussion Paper regarding proposed changes to disaster funding arrangements (provided at Attachment 1); B. Delegate to the Mayor to sign the Queensland Government Disaster Funding Petition initiated by the Minister for Local Government and Water, Minister for Fire, Disaster Recovery and Volunteers, opposing the proposed changes to the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA); C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and submit a formal submission to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) outlining Council’s concerns regarding the proposed DRFA changes and the potential impacts on local governments, communities, and disaster recovery outcomes across Queensland by the 19 August 2026 closing date, appropriately recognising Queensland's disaster risk profile and support ongoing investment in recovery, resilience and betterment initiatives for local communities; D. Write to the Federal Member for Wide Bay and Queensland Senators seeking their support to oppose the proposed DRFA changes and advocate for the retention of equitable and sustainable recovery funding arrangements, highlighting the significant financial burden the changes would place on councils and the potential reduction in recovery and resilience outcomes for disaster-affected communities; and E. Prepare a response to LGAQ outlining Council’s views for incorporation into a statewide response by 10 August 2026. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS Nil. 11. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1. GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 7 JULY 2026 11.1.1 MOVEMENT AND CONNECTION ACTION PLAN 2025–2027 That Council A. Note the report by the Sustainable Transport Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 regarding the Movement and Connection Action Plan 2025 -2027; B. Note the progress made under the Noosa Transport Strategy 2017–2027, including completed, ongoing and embedded transport initiatives across public transport, active transport, parking management, accessibility, data collection, safety and visitor demand management. Page 5 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 C. Approve the Movement and Connection Delivery Action Plan 2025–2027 (as detailed in the report) as a focused two-year program to progress priority initiatives to investigation, options assessment, concept design, engagement or continued delivery, subject to annual budget approval and available resources. D. Note that approval of the Movement and Connection Delivery Action Plan 2025– 2027 does not constitute approval of capital construction works, which would require separate Council consideration through future budget processes. 11.1.2 GO NOOSA REPORT Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council: A. Note the report by the Transport Project Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 regarding the Go Noosa Report; B. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to continue delivery of the Go Noosa Program and associated peak-period transport initiatives, subject to annual budget processes; C. Note the temporary repurpose of the car park within the Main Beach Reserve (adjacent to the Noosa Heads Surf Club) as a Main Beach Drop-Off Zone during the peak Christmas and New Year period to improve safety, traffic circulation, and functionality within the precinct; D. Endorse a trial of a temporary 15-minute drop-off area on Noosa Parade adjacent to Lions Park during Go Noosa Summer 2026; E. Approve the continued use of Lions Park as overflow paid parking during the 2026–27 Christmas and New Year period, operated by the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club, with the Club to invite and coordinate volunteer involvement from other interested community groups in operating the parking; F. Note that any future use of Lions Park for overflow carparking beyond the 2026– 27 Christmas and New Year period will be subject to separate consideration and determination by Council; and G. Request that staff deliver alternative transport management by December 2026, including satellite parking, park-and-ride service and community concierge service. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That: 1. Item E be amended to read: E. Approve the continued use of Lions Park as overflow paid parking during the 2026– 27 Christmas and New Year period, operated by the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club, with the Club to invite and coordinate volunteer involvement from other interested community groups in operating the parking Do not proceed with ongoing use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park for overflow parking for reasons outlined in the report; and 2. Item F be deleted: F. Note that any future use of Lions Park for overflow carparking beyond the 2026– 27 Christmas and New Year period will be subject to separate consideration and determination by Council; and Lost. Page 6 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Item H. be added to read: H. Delegate to the CEO to establish a strategic Noosa Lions Park advisory group to collaborate with key stakeholders and relevant Council staff to develop recommendations to inform decisions for the future use of the Lions Park for the benefit of the community during peak periods to consider viable alternative options. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None The meeting adjourned at 12.25pm. The meeting resumed at 12.59pm. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the matter be deferred to the August Ordinary Meeting in order for the CEO to receive advice as to whether the motion in front of us is in order considering its potential conflict with the Land Act in that it proposes to proceed with an inconsistent use in the absence of a Land Management Plan. Lost. For: Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Against: Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Items E & F be deleted (and subsequent items renumbered) E. Approve the continued use of Lions Park as overflow paid parking during the 2026– 27 Christmas and New Year period, operated by the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club, with the Club to invite and coordinate volunteer involvement from other interested community groups in operating the parking; F. Note that any future use of Lions Park for overflow carparking beyond the 2026– 27 Christmas and New Year period will be subject to separate consideration and determination by Council; and and that item G be added to read: G. Request staff to bring back a further report to the August General Committee Meeting as to the appropriate process and likely costs associated with agreeing to an inconsistent use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park for overflow parking. Carried. Page 7 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council: A. Note the report by the Transport Project Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 regarding the Go Noosa Report; B. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to continue delivery of the Go Noosa Program and associated peak-period transport initiatives, subject to annual budget processes; C. Note the temporary repurpose of the car park within the Main Beach Reserve (adjacent to the Noosa Heads Surf Club) as a Main Beach Drop-Off Zone during the peak Christmas and New Year period to improve safety, traffic circulation, and functionality within the precinct; D. Endorse a trial of a temporary 15-minute drop-off area on Noosa Parade adjacent to Lions Park during Go Noosa Summer 2026; E. Request that staff deliver alternative transport management by December 2026, including satellite parking, park-and-ride service and community concierge service. F. Delegate to the CEO to establish a strategic Noosa Lions Park advisory group to collaborate with key stakeholders and relevant Council staff to develop recommendations to inform decisions for the future use of the Lions Park for the benefit of the community during peak periods to consider viable alternative options. G. Request staff to bring back a further report to the August General Committee Meeting as to the appropriate process and likely costs associated with agreeing to an inconsistent use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park for overflow parking. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson 11.1.3 DRAFT BURGESS CREEK INTEGRATED CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (ICMP) Cr Amelia Lorentson "I, Cr Amelia Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a conflict of interest for Item 11.1.3 – Draft Burgess Creek Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP), on this agenda. My brother, lives approximately 550m from the mouth of Burgess Creek, and I have recently purchased a property in Sunrise Beach approximately 550m from the mouth of Burgess Creek. This distance has been checked and confirmed by the Page 8 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 Governance team; any previous statements I made on this were estimates. In an abundance of caution, and consistent with advice from the Office of the Independent Assessor, I believe it is prudent to declare this interest. Consistent with legal advice previously considered by this Council on the question of proximity, proximity alone gives rise to a conflict of interest only, not a Material Personal Interest. My position falls within that same characterisation. The Integrated Catchment Management Plan for Burgess Creek is a Shire-wide body of work. It forms part of a broader Noosa catchment strategy for waterways, and the decisions before this meeting affect the entire community. It is in that community interest that I wish to contribute. I have consistently declared this interest and believe I am able to consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. I choose to remain in the meeting room and vote on the issue". Cr Brian Stockwell "I, Cr Brian Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a conflict of interest for Item 11.1.3 - DRAFT BURGESS CREEK INTEGRATED CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (ICMP) on this agenda due to my role as President of the Noosa Lions Football Club which has fields in the catchment. I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the club does not profit from or suffer a loss as a result of the plan and, while larger in area than most allotments, has not significantly greater interest than the many people who live in the catchment. As I have specialist expertise and significant experience in the subject matter, I choose to remain in the room and vote on the matter". Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council: A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee dated 7 July 2026 regarding the Draft Burgess Creek Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP); and B. Approve the Draft Burgess Creek Integrated Catchment Management Plan provided as Attachment 1, with the following amendment to Appendix G S2-Action 4: S2 -Action 4. Continue to encourage the adoption of best practice catchment management by residents through delivering targeted compliance and behaviourchange initiatives and compliance to reduce illegal connections to the stormwater network at priority locations. Sub- Implementation step Coordination Key enabler Deliverable action S2- Define target Environmental Clarification of Target A4.1 behaviours practices and Services, and dumping behaviours, pathways (e.g. diffuse Infrastructure categories identified, source nutrients, Service Identification urban dumping, pool overflows, of diffuse catchment grass clippings). sources management urban education nutrients and and message contaminants framing Page 9 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 S2- Confirm compliance Regulatory Compliance Compliance A4.2 resourcing and operating Services/ resourcing. approach model.(e.g. to reduce Compliance documented illegal connections to stormwater) C. Delegate authority to the CEO to make minor editorial and administrative amendments to the Draft ICMP as required; and D. Proceed to community consultation for a period of 4 weeks in accordance with the Communications and Engagement Plan as provided in Attachment 2; E. Request the Chief Executive Officer to collate and consider feedback received as part of the consultation undertaken and present a revised version on the ICMP for consideration of council. F. Investigate opportunities to utilise the Environment Levy, including future Environment Levy program allocations, to support the staged implementation of priority actions identified in the Burgess Creek Integrated Catchment Management Plan and include funding options, project prioritisation and delivery timeframes in the final report to Council. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 11.1.4 MCU25/0119 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES TO ESTABLISH INDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION AT 26 EENIE CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 regarding Application No. MCU25/0119 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Indoor Sport and Recreation situated at 26 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville; and A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1; and B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016; and C. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application: 1. The co-location of Indoor Sport and Recreation uses with established medical services such as radiology, cancer treatment and general practitioners creates a complementary health and wellness cluster. This integrated approach is consistent with the strategic intent to encourage industry clustering and efficient use of existing approved floor space within the Noosa Business Centre; 2. In terms of community wellbeing, the development enhances accessibility to a broad range of health, fitness and recovery services within a single, centrally located facility. The co-location of services improves convenience and supports the delivery of multi-purpose, shared spaces, consistent with the planning scheme’s objectives for vibrant and inclusive activity centres. It also reinforces the role of the Noosa Business Centre as a key hub for health and community services; 3. While the proposed Indoor Sport and Recreation tenancies do not align with the intended large-format function of the precinct, they form part of an existing Page 10 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 approved development and are designed to operate in a complementary to the medical uses within the building; and 4. The proposal is an appropriate use of the approved built form, supporting the functional integration of health-related services within the Major Centre Zone of the Noosa Business Centre. 11.1.5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – MAY 2026 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for May 2026 as provided at Attachment 1 to the Report. 11.1.6 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS ASSESSMENT WORKING TEAM - CONTRACT AWARDS UNDER CEO DELEGATION That Council note the report by the Acting Director Corporate Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 for contracts awarded under CEO Delegation, via the Procurement Contracts Assessment Working Team, for the period 1 January 2026 – 30 June 2026. 11.1.7 2026 LGAQ CONFERENCE MOTIONS & COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE That General Committee Agenda Item 7.7 be referred to the Ordinary Meeting 16 July 2026 for further consideration. 11.1.8 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2026-2027 That Council A. Note the report by the Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 regarding the Operational Plan 2026-2027; and B. Adopt the Operational Plan 2026-2027 as provided in Attachment 1 to the report Attachment 2 to the Minutes of General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 - Draft Noosa Council Operational Plan. 11.1.9 APPOINTMENT OF 2027 SHOW HOLIDAY That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 and request the Chief Executive Officer write to the Office of Industrial Relations requesting the appointment of Friday, 10 September 2027 as a Show Holiday for the Noosa Shire. Page 11 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 11.1.10 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - NOOSA PLAN 2020 DRAFT AMENDMENT 4 - EMPLOYMENT LAND That General Committee Agenda Item 8.1 be referred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026 for further consideration. 11.1.11 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the Recommendations of the General Committee meeting dated 7 July 2026 be received and adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 12. ITEMS REFERRED FROM THE GENERAL COMMITTEE 12.1 2026 LGAQ CONFERENCE MOTIONS & COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE (Referred from the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 - Item 7.7) 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 Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July - Motion UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Updated Cr Amelia Lorentson - refer to Attachment 2 to the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July - Motion: State-led Safe Parking Program - Updated Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 regarding 2026 LGAQ Conference Motions & Councillor Attendance; B. Approve the submission of the following motions to the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) Annual Conference 2026 for consideration and debate: a. Motion: "Coordinated transition and ongoing funding for local governments to continue to provide flood monitoring services" (provided at Attachment 1); b. Motion: "UNESCO Biosphere Reserves – State and National Recognition and Funding (provided at Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July - Motion UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Updated)"; c. Motion: "State Planning Reforms to Existing Use Rights for Short-Term Accommodation in Low Density Residential Zones" (provided at Attachment 3); Page 12 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 d. Motion: "Recognising and Protecting Soil as Natural Critical Infrastructure" (provided at Attachment 4); e. Motion: "Drone Beach Surveillance - Supporting Lifeguards and Beachgoer Safety" (provided at Attachment 5); f. Motion: "Electronic Gaming Machines on Council-Owned and Trustee Land" (provided at Attachment 6); g. Motion: "Funding Queensland Councils to Pilot Opt-In Reusable Cup Programs" (provided at Attachment 7); h. Motion: "Future-proofing Queensland’s Water Supply – A Whole-of WaterCycle Approach to Climate Resilience" (provided at Attachment 8); i. Motion: "World Surfing Reserves" (provided at Attachment 9); j. Motion: "Submission to State Planning Policy Review" (provided at Attachment 10); and k. Motion: State-led Safe Parking Program" (provided at Attachment 2 to the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July - Motion: State-led Safe Parking Program - Updated). C. Approve Cr Lorentson & Cr Finzel to attend at the 2026 LGAQ Conference in Cairns in October 2026 under the Councillor's Expenses Reimbursement and Provision of Facilities Policy, Item 2.1 Mandatory - Professional Development and Representation. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None The meeting adjourned at 2.20pm The meeting resumed at 2.25pm. Refer to Confidential Section 14 for Item 12.2. 13 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 13.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILTIES AT HILTON ESPLANADE (DOONELLA BRIDGE, TEWANTIN) BY MARITIME SAFETY QUEENSLAND Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Director Infrastructure Services to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026 regarding the proposed recreational boating facility at Hilton Esplanade, Tewantin; and B. Note the continued collaboration with Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) to explore and fund recreational boating needs in the Noosa River; C. Advise MSQ of the following design parameters that Council seeks for MSQ to include in its ongoing design work: a. Provision for periodic large commercial vessel and item launch and retrieval under shared use design arrangement; Page 13 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 b. Inclusion of facilities and parking for both powered boats and unpowered craft at the site including provision of an accessible, all abilities launching facility; c. Sufficient setback from the Doonella Bridge to preserve integrity of future traffic lanes for future upgrade work and any replacement, as well as for improved riparian foreshore and amenity outcomes for Lake Doonella mouth; d. Exclusion of boat trailer traffic from Hilton Esplanade with a dedicated entry and exit from Hilton Terrace for the facility; e. Provision for the shared pathway through and adjacent to the site which is part of the TMR-endorsed high-priority regional route for pedestrians and cyclists; f. Consideration of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) to ensure safety for users and reduction of site crimes such as vandalism; g. Resolution of environmental and climate change impacts including hydrological impact of any filling in the Noosa River and Lake Doonella mouth, habitat loss from marine plant removals, sediment flows and impacts of frequent tidal inundation; h. Suitable living foreshore riparian buffer to facilitate erosion resilience, improved water quality, biodiversity and natural amenity along the extent of the interface with the River; and i. Consideration of amenity, recreation and landscaping presentation befitting a key entry area into Noosa and in line with the Noosa Design Principles; D. Seek clarity on funding arrangements for the entire works, noting that MSQ fund both on-water and on-shore components of the project; and E. Request the matter be reported back to Council for further consideration of the proposal, following MSQ’s community and stakeholder engagement and review of consultation findings. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Item C be deleted (and renumber the subsequent items): C. Advise MSQ of the following design parameters that Council seeks for MSQ to include in its ongoing design work: a. Provision for periodic large commercial vessel and item launch and retrieval under shared use design arrangement; b. Inclusion of facilities and parking for both powered boats and unpowered craft at the site including provision of an accessible, all abilities launching facility; c. Sufficient setback from the Doonella Bridge to preserve integrity of future traffic lanes for future upgrade work and any replacement, as well as for improved riparian foreshore and amenity outcomes for Lake Doonella mouth; d. Exclusion of boat trailer traffic from Hilton Esplanade with a dedicated entry and exit from Hilton Terrace for the facility; e. Provision for the shared pathway through and adjacent to the site which is part of the TMR-endorsed high-priority regional route for pedestrians and cyclists; f. Consideration of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) to ensure safety for users and reduction of site crimes such as vandalism; g. Resolution of environmental and climate change impacts including hydrological impact of any filling in the Noosa River and Lake Doonella mouth, habitat loss from marine plant removals, sediment flows and impacts of frequent tidal inundation; Page 14 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 h. Suitable living foreshore riparian buffer to facilitate erosion resilience, improved water quality, biodiversity and natural amenity along the extent of the interface with the River; and i. Consideration of amenity, recreation and landscaping presentation befitting a key entry area into Noosa and in line with the Noosa Design Principles; and Item E. be amended to read: E.D. Request the matter be reported back to Council for further consideration of the proposal following MSQ's community and stakeholder engagement and consultation findings, at which point Council will consider its position on design matters if required. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener To add an item E: E. Request MSQ to broaden the community consultation to include others outside of the boating community. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Director Infrastructure Services to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026 regarding the proposed recreational boating facility at Hilton Esplanade, Tewantin; and B. Note the continued collaboration with Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) to explore and fund recreational boating needs in the Noosa River; C. Seek clarity on funding arrangements for the entire works, noting that MSQ fund both on-water and on-shore components of the project; and D. Request the matter be reported back to Council for further consideration of the proposal, following MSQ’s community and stakeholder engagement and review of consultation findings at which point Council will consider its position on design matters if required. E. Request MSQ to broaden the community consultation to include others outside of the boating community. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell Page 15 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 13.2 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT JUNE 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026 regarding Council's financial performance to 30 June 2026. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 14 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That the meeting be closed to the public: A. Pursuant to Section 254j(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing items: Item 12.2 - Confidential - Not for Public Release - Noosa Plan 2020 Draft Amendment 4 - Employment Land; and Item 14.1 - Confidential - Not for Public Release - ERP Contract Renewal; and B. Pursuant to Section 254j(3)(e) of The Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing item: Item 14.2 - Confidential - Not for Public Release - Planning & Environment Court Appeal D927 Of 2025 - Application for Development Permit for Building Works (Dwelling House) and Referral Agency Planning (Building Height, Gross Floor Area, Setbacks, and Cut) at 58 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None The meeting adjourned at 3.54pm. The meeting resumed at 4.00pm. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried. Page 16 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 12.2 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - NOOSA PLAN 2020 DRAFT AMENDMENT 4 - EMPLOYMENT LAND (Referred from the General Committee Meeting dated 7 July 2026 - Item 8.1) Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the confidential report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee meeting 7 July 2026 regarding land progressing amendment to the planning scheme relating to employment land; B. Propose to amend Noosa Plan 2020 in accordance with the Planning Act 2016 and the process prescribed in the Section 18 Notice in Attachment 1; C. Submit proposed Amendment 4 to Noosa Plan 2020 in Attachments 3, 4 and 5 to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning for State Interest Review with the following changes to the amendment and associated plans: a. remove High Impact Industry as a consistent land use in Table 5.5.11 Industry Zone, due to sites being located in the water catchment area; b. provision for future public transport and road infrastructure and connections including bus stops; c. provision of infrastructure for e-vehicles charging on site; d. provision of adaptable infrastructure that is future proofed for energy transition, emerging technologies, renewable energy integration and storage and electrification capacity; and D. Concurrently with B, undertake public notification and community consultation in accordance with the Communications Plan in Attachment 2; and E. Authorise the CEO to make any further changes to proposed Amendment 4 of a minor nature prior to commencing community consultation; and F. Following State Interest Review and community consultation, report back to Council on the outcomes. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 14.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - ERP CONTRACT RENEWAL Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council: A. Note the report by the ICT Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026; Page 17 of 18 ORDINARY MEETING | 16 JULY 2026 B. Pursuant to Section 235 (a) of the Local Government Regulation, award contract CN25188 to Technology One Limited; C. Pursuant to Section 257(1) of the Local Government Act 2009, delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise and execute on behalf of Council a new Enterprise Resource Planning contract with Technology One Limited; and D. Resolve that the delegation in Item C of this resolution is limited to the cap identified in this report for a 5-year renewal and is otherwise not limited by any general financial delegations that apply to exercising the Chief Executive Officer’s powers and may be exercised to bind Council to a contract sum that exceeds the Chief Executive Officer’s general financial delegation. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 14.2 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D927 OF 2025 - APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR BUILDING WORKS (DWELLING HOUSE) AND REFERRAL AGENCY PLANNING (BUILDING HEIGHT, GROSS FLOOR AREA, SETBACKS, AND CUT) AT 58 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH Council Resolution Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D92 of 2025; and B. Agree to settle Appeal D92 of 2025 generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 15 NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday, 20 August 2026 at 10.00am. 16 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 4.34pm. Page 18 of 18
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.180
26 Declare the meeting open at 10:00am. And we begin by acknowledging that we're meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi people pay my respects to elders past present and emerging and reiterate their acknowledgement of each and every one of us as joint custodians respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love and respecting and caring for each other we have all Councillors item in attendance four is confirmation of the Minutes may we have a move or a seconder for the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 18th of June 2026 Councillor Lorentson seconded Councillor Phillips all in favour that's unanimous uh can we have a move and second for the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 23rd of June 2026 happy to move Councillor Wegener seconded by Councillor Finzel and all in favour that's unanimous item five there are no petitions item six there are no presentations today we have two deputations the first is from Frances Atkins of the Cooroy gymnastics club and the topic is redevelopment of their facility so the speakers uh Francis Atkins tayce Scott Kirsten and norden um Councillor Phillips I believe you have a declaration Jessica Phillips 01:12.257
Thank you I would like to inform the meeting that I Councillor Jessica Phillips inform the meeting that I have a material personal interest in relation to item 7.1 applicant Francis Atkins core-Grohe gymnastics club topic the redevelopment of their facility on this agenda as I'm the general manager of core gymnastics club I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered Frank Wilkie 01:34.084
Thank you Councillor Phillips and uh just for the benefit of those in the gallery this is not a decision making presentation we're receiving a deputation okay um thank you Frances Atkins 01:46.635
Thank you good morning Chair and Councillors thank you for the opportunity to address you today my name is Frances Atkins I'm a committee member with Cooroy Gymnastics Club and I'm joined today by tayce Scott president of the club Kirsten Norden our gymnastics team lead we're here today to discuss the redevelopment of the Cooroy Gymnastics facility state-of-the-art sporting infrastructure located it's in the hinterland of Noosa right in the centre of Cooroy Cooran it's said to be the home for up to 1,000 future gymnasts and their families as well as supporting infrastructure for local cricket and football clubs operating out of the same location the investment in the redevelopment is vote of confidence in our club and the broader sporting community while this is a great new story for our region it comes with a serious short-term challenge we're here today because we need assistance from Council to help us solve it what original was set out in tender documents as a one-term shutdown of the club for construction works has now grown to two potentially three starting this year. This critical change one we were not consulted on is a big unbudgeted cost for a volunteer-led not-for-profit sports club to carry. One that now threatens the existence of the club itself. We have 15 minutes and this is how we plan to use it. Tayce will discuss the circumstances of the shutdown. Kirsten will explain the task of running a temporary gymnastics facility and I'll close with what we're asking Council for and why. The redevelopment of the Cooroy Gymnastics facility should be the best thing to ever happen to our club, not the thing that ends it. Our goal today is to discuss reasonable ways in which we can overcome this together so the club doesn't fail but rather thrives. Thank you, Francis. Frances. So Cooroy Gymnastics Club has been part of this community for 35 years. Everything we've built here volunteer-led and not for profit. This year alone our membership has grown by around 40% and we have had our most successful competition season with national and cross-border representation a run of personal bests for our gymnasts. When the redevelopment was first planned keeping the club operational for as long as possible was a key priority for all stakeholders and this was reflected in the original document. Tender document. Construction was to be staged to keep the club open and to minimise the shutdown for no more than one term. On that basis the club made a considered business decision. We could maintain our competitive program borrowing other clubs facilities on weekends and outside of hours and our recreational family. Families could manage being without their usual programs for one term. That is no longer the plan that we are working to. The contractors decision to extend the shutdown to two, potentially three terms was made without any consultation with the club. Losing our recreational program for six months or more puts the existence of our entire club at risk. It means our competitive program won't be able to compete for at least one full season. This is because, for health and safety reasons, every week of lost training for our gymnasts takes roughly two weeks of basic strength work before our gymnasts can return to competition skills. That's worth understanding about a gymnastics club. It takes years, not months, to build a technical coaching team. I'm an HR professional and I can see firsthand the shortage of qualified gymnastics coaching talent in denmark across the sport, particularly at high performance levels and in regional areas like ours. If we if lose the coaching and management team that we've built, we can't simply replace it. We start again. We lose our grip on the opportunities that we've already begun building towards the lead up to the Brisbane Olympics, just five years away, and the role our new facility could play in that. Right now. Approximately 420 gymnasts, staff and volunteers, and local families call kawoi gymnastics club home. Every one of them will be affected by what happens over the next 12 months. That's the backdrop we bring to you today. A club that has taken 35 years to build that now faces an existential challenge due to a decision that was made without our involvement. What Kirsten is about to describe is the practical cost of getting from here to there. Kirsten Norden 07:29.358
Thank you tayce. I've worked in gymnastics, strength and conditioning and athletic development for 20 years at the Australian national centre of excellence. And I have an advanced degree in gymnastics along with a bachelor of exercise in sport science. I have worked across multiple sports developing pathways for athlete development. It's not just in gymnastics. Is a rare case and to create a safe, operating and thriving but continually growing program is different. And that's what I would like to talk about how do to I run a gymnastics program out of temporary sites because it isn't like most sports. You can't run gymnastics from a park, I tried, a school hall or a converted shed. We needed a basketball court, a soccer field or a tennis court we could find one here but there is no competitive gymnastics facility within our Shire. There is simply nowhere for us to go. Every piece of apparatus that we use, so beam, bars, vault, floor, has to be checked and it has to be ticked off by gymnastics Australia. It has to be certified to the standard set. Single site that we use. So there is a compliance process that takes real time and money and it has to happen before a single child can safely step onto our floor. On top of that most standard community halls don't quite meet our minimum ceiling height requirements or floor loading or even the clear space that's required to run gymnastics. We have been searching for six months and know there are no few there are few suitable temporary venues in our region to use. From where we stand today, with the options available to us we'll need to operate across two to three temporary sites. That means we need to duplicate almost every cost and effort, set up, pack down labour across two to three locations. This is what it looks like in practice. Today Cooroy Gymnastics Club runs 78 classes per week and before each one our coaches and volunteers will be bumping in mining, beans and safety then bumping it all out afterwards. If we are sharing a venue that also means that we're going outside of their other bookings. Multiply that task by two to three venues and you see the real ongoing cost that a single membership fee was really never designed to cover. But the part I think matters most, though a significant financial burden, isn't the direct cost of relocating. It's what this does to our underlying business model, which is at risk not just during the shutdown, but ongoing. To stay financially viable, the gymnastics club needs its membership to be at least 75% recreational. Rather than competitive. Recreational classes run in larger groups at a lower cost per head. And that's the revenue that funds our high cost, low margin competitive squads. They're the ones that produce the results. That he spoke about. It's a carefully balanced model and only works if that ratio does hold. Recreational families are also the most convenient sensitive part of our membership. They're the ones that would quietly drop off we were in a site further away, harder to get to after school or just a little less appealing than where they now call home. So the challenge during the shutdown and immediately after it is whether we can keep enough of the right kind of membership in the right conditions. To remain a viable business while we wait for our new home. If we upset this balance, no amount of fundraising can fix it. That's the operational and financial reality we're navigating. I'll hand it back to Frances to explain exactly what we're asking for. Frances Atkins 11:36.004
Thank you Kirsten. Despite delivering our best season in years, 40% membership growth this year, our strongest competition results and the real prospect of an Olympic standard facility, this club faces crisis. An this, the cost of relocating and running split temporary sites is real, and so is the risk of losing recreational members as we move away from our core location in Cooroy. We've estimated the additional out-of-pocket costs of operating temporary split sites, $62,000 per term, including lease costs, moving and storing equipment, additional insurances, class programming, and administrative support, compared with existing total revenue of $64,000 on our current membership, which already operates on thin as a non-profit community sporting club. If we lose between 25% to 50% of our recreational membership during this period, which is entirely feasible, particularly if we move outside of the Cooroy vicinity, that shortfall could reach as much as $97,000 per term. We not were consulted on the extension of the shutdown period. If the contractor decides that we need to be closed for longer, that shortfall could double or triple. As things currently stand, the committee does not believe that the club will survive impact of this shutdown. Over a period of two to three terms or nine months our recreational members will find another sport and our competition gymnasts and coaches will put down roots at clubs outside of our LGA. This project embolden the club not to end it but if we don't get this right that's exactly the risk we run. The good news story of an Olympic ready training facility becomes the story of the club that didn't survive long enough to see it open. Council will be left holding a brand new world-class facility with no gymnasts to fill it. Gymnastics and its equipment is technical and carries safety requirements. It would be devastating for that to sit idle given the history and recent success of the club. The last thing we want to do is lose the homegrown talent and expertise it has taken us 35 years to build right when opportunities open up in the lead up to Brisbane 2032. Today over 420 gymnasts and their families will lose access to the club that's been part of their lives and in some cases for generations. With a new facility our plan is to grow that to over 1,000 gymnasts and be the leading recreational and competitive gymnastics club in Queensland that everybody wants to join. May be a community club but we know with this team we can achieve this. Already we are pulling every financial leaver available to us to raise funds. We've raised a volunteer levy from our members and sought sponsorship and donations from the community. To date we've raised just under $10,000 through these initiatives. That is well short of what we need and a club-led effort was never going to be enough to absorb a cost of this size on this timeframe. We are a volunteer-led community sporting club. We do not maintain balance sheet. And certainly, we cannot plan for decisions made for us, without us. If the shutdown timeframe in the original tender can't be honoured by a Council-selected contractor, our club needs financial support to keep operating during this period, or it will shut down good. That's the position we're in today. We want to be clear that we do want to be in business, and we do want to minimise the financial impact of the shutdown. Hence, what we're asking for from Council has three parts. First, temporary working capital assistance to manage the significant upfront costs of running concurrent temporary sites. Not a grant, not ongoing funding, but short-term working capital support. Second, greater facilitated access to the contractor and to senior decision makers at Council so we can reasonably manage and have a genuine voice in decisions that affect how the club operates during the shutdown. And third, if it's required, temporary planning approval to operate out of an commercial site given the specific technical and logistical requirements of safely operating a gymnastics facility. We've considered in depth what our club needs to ensure it is still standing and ready to grow the day the doors of our new facility opens. Please help gymnastics club is a legacy story we can celebrate about what our region built, not what it lost. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:42.268
Thank you Frances, tayce and Kirsten. Please remain after the question time, there'll be an adjournment and we'll hook you up with the key staff who can start the conversation about your three objectives. Thank you. Now we have one submission for public question time and the application with two questions. Applicant Jacqueline Gray for the wedding organisation. Councillor Phillips can come back. The topic is the wedding permit fee structure. The speakers are Jacqueline Gray and Melinda Gannon. Jacqueline and Melinda would you like to come to the lectern? Okay. Jacqueline Gray 17:38.581
Good morning Councillors, executive staff and Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Noosa wedding organisation and the Noosa Chamber of commerce and industry, a collective of Noosa wedding based businesses and other businesses. My name is Jacqueline Gray and with me today is Melinda Gannon. I'm a wedding celebrant and also the owner of the Noosa elopement service business. Melinda is the owner of first class functions, providing wedding styling, event and catering services. Our deputation concerns the current wedding permit fee of $799 for an individual wedding for the groves along Noosa Main Beach and $399 for all other beach and park sites. And we question whether this fee complies with the requirements of section 97 of the Local Government Act 2009 and fits also with the Noosa brand. Melinda and I, along with many of the business owners we represent today, meet with couples on a regular basis, face-to assist them in arranging a wedding in our beautiful location. The Noosa Council permit fee, permit terms and conditions, and the no refund policy attached are a constant conversation with comments such as: what? That fee seems hefty. Not exclusive use? We've heard about the Noosa tax but it's worse than we would have imagined. We can assure you that the Noosa brand is heavily impacted by the fee with Noosa seen by our visitors as an unwelcoming place to visit. In 2013 a fee for a fee for a permit to marry at one of our groves along Main Beach was $159. As of 2026 the fee is $799, an increase of 402.5 in% 2024-25 Council issued 150 permits at $629 for Noosa Main Beach area and $105 at $265 for all other areas. Costs recovered for the issue of these permits was therefore $122,175 in 2006-2007 assuming we would have the same number of permits issued by Council would recover $161,745 an anticipated increase of $40,000 in two years. This should be concerning for all ratepayers, residents, businesses and Councillors. For the purpose of our deputation we are seeking transparency about how the $799 and $399 fees were calculated, confirmation that the fee complies with the cost recovery requirements under Queensland law. A review of the wedding permit fee structure to ensure it is lawful, reasonable and economically sustainable for local businesses. A reduction of the fees to be compliant with section 97 of the Local Government Act and also to align with other Queensland councils. Within the legislative framework, wedding permit fees are set according to section 97 of the Local Government Act 2009 and councils to charge cost recovery fees for permits. However, the act is very clear a cost recovery fee must not be more than the cost to the local government of taking the action for which the fee is charged. This means councils cannot generate profit from permit fees. Must reflect the actual cost not desirability of the location not market demand and not revenue objectives. Reference can be made to the decision of ombudsman in 2013. The ombudsman decision outlined: councils have a statutory obligation to comply with the requirements of section 97 of the Local Government Act when fixing cost recovery fees. It may be necessary to seek professional advice. Before fixing a fee. Section 97 states: A cost recovery fee must not be more than the cost to the local government of taking the action for which the fee is charged the Noosa Council register of fees states that the fee is charged according to section 97 whereby it is stated the cost recovery fee is a fee for an application for the issue or renewal of a license, permit, registration or other approval under a Local Government Act. An application fee. Melinda Gannon 22:22.580
So what Council actually does for a beach wedding permit? Reading directly from Noosa Council's permit terms and conditions the person bearing the permit accepts the application fee is a non-refundable fee even in the circumstance where inclement weather affects your ceremony. Accepts Council-controlled land is on a routine maintenance program and will not be specifically groomed prior to the ceremony. Council does not accept any responsibility for the condition of the area including mowing, maintenance or inclement weather conditions resulting in leaf branch debris or irresponsible people using the area prior to your booking. Must ensure all litter is removed at ceremony completion. Accepts that this permit confirms no bookings for the time and location however does not guarantee exclusive use of the area and or its facilities. The permit holder must engage with any groups or individuals that may be using the area in a polite and courteous manner. Therefore for a wedding permit Council typically undertakes reviewing the online application, checking location availability, confirming compliance with local laws, issuing of the permit and recording the booking. Council does not undertake site inspections. Ranger attendance, pre-event cleaning or maintenance, post-event cleaning or maintenance, infrastructure set up, traffic or crowd management, environmental restoration, or on-site monitoring. Also, a refund. If the wedding cannot proceed due to rain, to a rain event or illness, the couple have paid $799 for no service other than the cost to Council for issuing the permit. This would not be tolerated business. We accept an additional reasonable fee for the groves along Noosa Main Beach which were designed especially for weddings. However, it should be a fee that reflects the actual cost to Council to maintain the areas A beach wedding leaves no imprint therefore there will be no cost recovery to Council whatsoever other than the issue of the permit. Our cost calculations for the issue of a permit using standard Queensland Council staffing rates. Administrative officer time 35 minutes, hourly rate with on costs approximately $55, total cost $32.08, plus system overhead $2 to $5, corporate overhead loading $6 to $10. A realistic lawful cost recovery is therefore $40 to $50 and even doubling this for contingencies results in between $80 and $100. There is no dollars there is plausible cost recovery pathway that we can see to either $399 or $799. For a regional comparison, to understand whether Noosa Shire is reasonable we looked at neighbouring councils. Sunshine Coast Council charge $82 for all locations. Gold Coast Council charge $0 for beach weddings, $134 in a park, $345 for the Botanic Gardens. Brisbane City Council. Feast to marry in a park in Brisbane will cost $400. $435.10 for two-hour exclusive use of the area with also use of undercover gazebo. We note Noosa permits provides there is no exclusive use of the area. Douglas Shire charge $76 for parks, beaches and reserves with $150 for the ceremonies at their little cove location where for $664 you can also hold your reception. The State government. A permit for a wedding will be issued by the State government Department of Environment, tourism, science and innovation in our national parks at no cost for up to 40 people. This includes Laguna lookout, entry to Noosa National Park, tea tree bay etc. Noosa's fee is almost 10 times higher than the Sunshine Coast, infinitely higher than the Gold Coast, not aligned with the regional norms, not supported by service delivery and not supported by cost recovery evidence. Noosa Council's cost recovery for one wedding permit is therefore 86.6% Jacqueline Gray 26:48.385
One wedding economic impact on Noosa businesses. The wedding sector contributes millions annually to noosa's visitor economy, however the $799 no refund fee is discouraging couples from choosing Noosa, redirecting bookings to Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast and other areas. Reducing income for local wedding related and tourism businesses. Creating reputational harm for Noosa and impacting the Noosa brand as an accessible and welcoming wedding destination. Registry the of births, deaths and marriages data shows Noosa weddings have fallen from 781 in 2014 to 563 in 2025, a decline of 218 weddings a year, while Sunshine Coast Council its funding of Visit Sunshine Coast to actively attract the wedding market through dedicated destination promotion and events, such as the mullaney wedding festival trail, while Tourism Noosa, despite being council's equivalent publicly funded tourism body, has provided our local wedding sector with no comparable investment or targeted promotional support. The concern is simple. Noosa is discouraging one of the most economically valuable and DMP aligned visitor segments we have. An average stay for a single wedding is three to four nights, including accommodation, wedding expenses, dining, guest activities including golf, fishing, surf lessons, etc, shopping and beauty treatments. Low spend is $2,600 per person. So with a wedding with 50 guests, that is $130,000 per wedding with only 50 guests to our local economy. 200 more would bring an additional $26 million per annum to our Noosa economy. We believe a lawful fee is likely to fall between $40 and $100 based on standard administrative processes for parks and beaches and a scale of fees for the groves and mechanic garden based on the number of guests in attendance and impact would be appreciated. In closing, the Destination Management Plan is very clear that Noosa does not need more tourism for the sake of volume. It needs the right kind of tourism. Weddings are exactly that. They are low volume, high value, planned well in advance, and deeply connected to place. This is not mass tourism. It is values over volume tourism that directly supports a resilient local economy. Yet, at the same time, Noosa is making it harder for couples to choose us by charging a $799 non-refundable ceremony permit with no exclusive use, no ceremony-specific servicing, and no transparent cost recovery model. Weddings also sit very well with council's events portfolio as a high-value visitor segment that meet all criteria for sustainable events, being low-impact and economically significant. Council is serious about the DMP and serious about a commitment to the Noosa brand, then the wedding permit fee needs to be reduced to a fair, transparent, lawful cost recovery amount so Noosa can compete for this valuable market rather than lose it. We are not asking Council to subsidise weddings. We are asking Council to not price Noosa out of a high-value, low-impact visitor market that the DMP itself says we should be attracting. I listen to the councillors' budget speeches and support your comments. Councillor Nicola Wilson who stated in her budget speech she would like to see a full review of operations. Councillor Jess Phillips with her support of the latest budget conditional on a commitment from the organisation to undertake full service review. And Councillor Tom Wegener who looks forward to a full review of the budget Fees and Charges. And Mayor Frank Wilkie who stated we are always open to reviewing our processes. We value council's stewardship of our public spaces and we are committed to working constructively with you. Our goal is simple, a fee structure that is lawful, transparent and supports local businesses while ensuring Council recovers genuine costs. Thank you all for your time. And your consideration. Frank Wilkie 31:20.315
Thank you, Ms grey. Thank you Ms gannon. Director MacGillivray will be available to discuss your deputation in the break after question time and we may have some questions for you as thank you. We have one submission for public question time. The application of two questions is from Mrs Susan Dewar. Ms Dewar advised she can't be here today but she's asked for Councillor Lorentson to read the questions on her behalf. These will be answered by Shaun Walsh, the Director Infrastructure Services. Councillor Lorentson, could you read the questions please? Amelia Lorentson 31:55.324
On behalf of Susan Dewar, question one. Three years ago, I, Susan Dewar, first raised concerns about the lack of lighting on the pathway connecting yellowwood close and the Tewantin sports complex. Given this pathway is regularly used by families. And sporting groups, will Council investigate and apply for available Queensland government grant funding to install lighting at this location? Frank Wilkie 32:22.493
Director Walsh. I think probably the microphones are over here, Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 32:38.481
Thank you for the question. Council does directly own and manage public lighting in commonly used public areas such as Noosaville Foreshore. Other street and pathway lighting is owned by Energex, though Council does pay the electricity bills. Unfortunately, there is no budget allocation in the 26-27 budget to expand council's public lighting program. In addition, there is currently no grant program offered by Energex to expand public lighting. Council will continue to monitor grant programs for allowable funding. Frank Wilkie 33:08.588
Thank you, Sean. And second question, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 33:13.960
Question two. Council has advised that an alternative route exists by however, many residents continue to use the access pathway from yellowwood close, because it provides direct access to the sporting precinct. What assessment has Council undertaken of the pathway's usage and safety risk? And what criteria would need to be met before lighting is considered? Shaun Walsh 33:39.356
Council has not undertaken any further assessment of the pathway usage to inform future lighting. The appropriate standard for assessment would be Australian standard, New Zealand standard 115.8.3.1:2020 lighting for roads and public spaces. Other criteria would include pedestrian usage data and requests from the local residents seeking improvements to inform budget allocation. Frank Wilkie 34:05.497
Thank you, Director Walsh. We will now have a 15-minute adjournment for the public participation. Applicants to speak with available staff in the chambers. Frank Wilkie 51:35.638
I'm hearing this. Okay. Welcome back, everybody. We're up to item nine. And I'd just like to remind everyone that there is no photography or filming from the gallery, as per our Standing Orders. I'd now like to move a Mayoral minute. It's about disaster. Recovery funding arrangements. And the resolution is that Council note the receipt of the national emergency management disaster management reform Discussion Paper regarding proposed changes to disaster funding arrangements. Delegate to the Mayor to sign the Queensland government disaster funding petition initiated by the minister for local government and water, minister for fire, disaster recovery and volunteers opposing the proposed changes to the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and submit formal submission to the National Emergency Management Agency outlining council's concerns regarding the proposed DRFA changes, the potential impacts on local governments, communities and disaster recovery outcomes across Queensland by the 19th of August, 2026 closing date. Appropriately recognising Queensland's disaster risk profile and support ongoing investment in recovery, resilience and betterment initiatives for local communities. Write to the Federal member for white bay and Queensland senators seeking their support to oppose the proposed DRFA changes and advocate for the retention of equitable and sustainable recovery funding arrangements, highlighting the significant financial burden the changes would place on councils and the potential reduction in recovery and resilience outcomes for disaster affected communities and E: prepare a response to LGAQ outlining council's views for incorporation into a statewide response by 10th of August 2026 and as background the management Australia have released this paper following the Federal government's announcement last week last month of proposed changes to Australia's Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements the proposed reforms would replace the current funding arrangements with a flat 50/50 cost-sharing between the commonwealth and the states. Well the commonwealth has stated that Council will not be directly impacted. Modelling undertaken by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority indicates Queensland would be approximately 713 million dollars worse off during the 25/26 disaster. Season alone. Queensland currently benefits from a safety net mechanism that increases commonwealth support to a 75/25% funding split when disaster impacts exceed state's capacity to respond. Under the proposed reforms, that safeguard would be removed, meaning Queensland would never receive more than 50% commonwealth funding, regardless of the scale or severity of the event. These changes come at a time when disaster impacts and recovery costs are escalating rapidly. Queensland disaster recovery expenditure increased from approximately $3 billion between 2016 and 2021 to $6 billion after 2021, with projected costs for the '25-26 period estimated at $17 billion. Noosa for Council, the impacts are tangible. Since the introduction of the current DRFA framework in 2018, Council, Noosa Council has received approximately $198.2 million in disaster recovery funding under categories. Under the proposed arrangements, this would have resulted in additional cost burden of around $27.7 million for the State and Council, a cost shift of approximately 22%. The reforms would also significantly reduce support for resilience and betterment initiatives that enable damaged infrastructure to be rebuilt stronger and more resilient to future disasters. Since 2018, Noosa has delivered three betterment projects at a combined value of $4.9 million, the most recent and most substantial being the realignment of the water main and bridge to Schreibers Rd, ensuring water security for the entire region. These programs have delivered substantial long-term benefits to the Noosa community by reducing future disaster risk, improving resilience and ensuring better value for public investment. Video. Yeah there so so I uh urge your Councillors to support the advocacy that we're going to be doing along with other Queensland councils to ensure that councils aren't unfairly settled and the State aren't unfairly settled with an extra cost burden when it comes disaster funding. Thank you. Discussion? Councillor Wilson. Amelia Lorentson 56:29.402
Councillor Wilson that's on you first, you're on your feet. Councillor Wilson thank you, Mayor, and I totally. Support this motion. A month ago at the adoption of this year's budget, I placed on record a concern about exposure to external funding. Of our 84.4 million capital works program, 42.6 million more than half depends on grants and subsidies, including 29.2 million in recovery works funded entirely by external grants. At the time I noted that the commonwealth had signalled its intention to ensure a 50/50 disaster recovery funding split and down from the more generous arrangement and that in a Shire like ours, a disaster prone and in a disaster prone state with a fully grant dependent recovery works line, we were going to be directly exposed. That assessment is now in front of us and my concerns are no longer hypothetical, they're real. The figures in the background paper provided in the Mayoral minute confirmed the scale of this risk. Some sort of shade. Shared well beyond Noosa. Just recently the National General Assembly, the Australian Local Government Association passed a motion calling on the Federal government to maintain current funding arrangements on the basis that councils. Should not be left to absorb additional recovery cuts. Elgar's precedent had framed the test plainly. He said, "Will these reforms leave councils better able to recover, or simply leave them carrying more of a burden? " Here in Queensland, LGAQ already taken a clear position. Its analysis shows that the 50/50 split applied since 2030, it would mean that Queensland would have missed out on more than a billion dollars in betterment funding used to rebuild roads bridges and other infrastructure to a high standard. Councils across the states have joined the campaign and I'm really proud that the Mayor has brought this forward to us because we should too. So happy to support this Mayoral minute and again thank the Mayor for bringing this to us. It aligns with the broader push from ALGA and the LGAQ and gives Canberra a very clear quantified picture of what a 50/50 split would mean Shire for a disaster like ours and a state like ours. Again, support the motion in full and thank the Mayor. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 59:02.148
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 59:03.350
Thank you. I will support this but I actually don't really think it's necessary and I think it's actually a little bit reactionary. It's a disaster management reform Discussion Paper that is already specifically asking for feedback from state and local governments. There's some really actually positive parts of this paper and it says the new disaster recovery funding commonwealth disaster will framework ensure will ensure commonwealth disaster recovery funding will flow to impacted communities faster and with less red tape while building on the government's record investment in risk reduction. It does talk about betterment as well as resilience and one of the key changes is actually changing the threshold. A disaster from two hundred and forty thousand dollars to I think two point six million dollars to make sure that those smaller projects are not taking up so much time in getting them approved so I actually agree with a lot of what's in here but it is already seeking feedback so for example after every single section it says key questions for engagement with states and territories how would the new event-based activation trigger points work with relevant state territory legislation and requirements for declaring disaster events in your jurisdiction so we were already invited to give our feedback on this paper and that's therefore I don't think we really needed a minute to do that but I will support it because we should make a submission. Frank Wilkie 01:00:28.385
Thank you Councillor Wilson. Now the Councillors wish to speak to the minute. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:00:33.568
Yes I'd like to thank the Mayor for bringing it forward. This is a great opportunity. I think that was a reduction in the red tape which LGA and combined all levels of government have been working hard on so I addresses that to enable people to access that funding when the disasters strike. They're going to also, it says, introduce standard packages of assistance so that the impacted communities get access to timely and suitable support. So, I think that's really good. I think, as with anything, that balance between what is delivered and what we can continue to advocate for is recognisable in the motion today. So, I think it's a great opportunity. They also want to introduce resilient infrastructure scheme to support communities to build back better after disaster with funding up to 15%.% cost shared costs shared with jurisdictions. So, I think, again, it's about finding the balance and of course, always advocating for our community. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Frank Wilkie 01:01:34.500
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Anybody else? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:01:41.550
It's clear that the Federal government has a significant role, and compared to the miserly amount that currently gets summed in taxation dollars to local government, the Federal government has the biggest ability to pay. But it's also something that we've been aware is going to increasingly be the case as we go further. We've been talking about this every time we have a disaster that the more frequent, the more severe and more costs of disaster, the less likely it is that will we have the level of support from state and Federal governments that we currently enjoy and we've heard the figure that we've received recently. So to put that in context, not necessarily about the sort of disaster funds we require, but about the impact of extreme weather events. In 1995 the Australian insurance Council was 0.2% of GDP. In 2000 it was 0.7%. From '95 to 2000 it was 0.2% of GDP. In the last five years, from 2019 to 2024, more than triple 2.7% of GDP. We found that the extreme weather events in the 23-24 cost insurers 2.1%. So, Councillor Finzel finsworth mentioned building back better. So, sure, we need to do this. We need to try and maintain the level of support we're currently getting and make sure it's clear, because Queensland, when it comes to disasters from extreme weather events, are significantly higher than all the other states. Okay? But we also have to make sure that we're doing our best to make sure we're planning sure planning to reduce that risk. And I think we can do that in a number of ways. And one way is by planning our adaptation measures. When we look at the things like the seawall, when we look at a range of opportunities. Need to be open about the fact that, yes, we realise the costs are growing, yes, we want the Federal government to continue to play a significant role, but we need, and this is what the insurance Council says we need to do, is de-risk is the only sustainable way planning, so no is more harms are built in harm's way, stronger buildings are able to withstand extreme weather, greater investment in public infrastructure to protect communities, and an ongoing program of fund buybacks where no other mitigation measure exists. That's where we should be focusing. On how we get and reduce the risk in the future and make all our planning decisions are looking at what those extreme disaster events are likely to be in the future and how not to increase that risk. Frank Wilkie 01:04:30.907
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 01:04:32.963
Question to the Mayor. Thank you for the Mayoral minute. Just in relation to authorising the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and submit the formal submission, we had our Local Disaster Management Group meeting on the 24th of July and I was wondering if it would come to that group prior to going to. Steps and also with I think it was E there's also another bit about preparing a response to LGAQ and I wondered if that would be coming to LDMG for there. Know conversation I think it's important those stakeholders are around the table that they would have consideration to the input and I'm just wondering if that will happen. Shaun Walsh 01:05:13.921
Director of infrastructure that item is listed on the agenda. For the Local Disaster Management Group for awareness but this request is for Noosa Council to make a submission by the NLGA kingdom local government association of Queensland. Each of those agencies also want to make their own submissions separately to the local government. Frank Wilkie 01:05:34.618
Indications are that we're all pretty aligned in terms of concerns about the funding levels. Jessica Phillips 01:05:41.068
So just to clarify it's only coming to the LDMG for noting not for a asking them for feedback. Shaun Walsh 01:05:50.342
You need to be very careful with direct, you know, our state agencies to actually undertake the works. So on these sort of matters of policy and principle. So that's the only constraint. So that's why we're sort of, you know, tabling it for their information and for their own agencies to undertake the work with them. Frank Wilkie 01:06:07.713
Thank you. Any if we have further discussion we'll put it to the vote those in favour? That's unanimous. We have no notified motions. That brings us to consideration of committee recommendations. General Committee recommendations dated 7th of July. 2026 11.1.1 movement and connection action plan 11.1.2 Go Noosa report. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:35.941
I would like to move an alternate motion for the Go Noosa report please. And if I could just have that on the screen. So that Council 8 note the report by the transport project officer to the General Committee dated 7th July 2026 regarding the Go Noosa report be delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to continue delivery of the Go Noosa Program and associated peak period transport initiatives subject to annual budget processes. C. Note the temporary repurpose of the car park within the Main Beach reserve adjacent to the Noosa headsurf club as the Main Beach drop-off zone during the peak Christmas and new year period to improve safety, traffic, circulation and functionality within the precinct. D. Endorse a trial of a temporary 15-minute drop-off area on Noosa Parade adjacent to Lions Park during Go Noosa summer 2026. E. Approve the continued use of Lions Park as overflow paid parking during the 2026-27 Christmas and new year period operated by the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club. We, the club, to invite and coordinate volunteer involvement from other interested community groups in operating. Parking. Note that any future use of Lions Park for overflow car parking beyond the 2026-27 Christmas and new year period will be subject to separate consideration and determination by Council. And G, request staff deliver alternative transport management by December 2026, including satellite parking, park and ride service and community concierge service. Frank Wilkie 01:08:21.582
Thank you. Just before we go, do we have an understanding of people in the gallery that there is no photography or filming taken during. Council. And during. Deliberations, I'd just like to reiterate that. We have a seconder for the motion, please. Seconder, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:45.995
There was a motion put to Council before, and should I say an amendment that was put to Council before to allow overflow car parking at the Lions Park at the General Committee. It wasn't supported, unfortunately, by a majority. I brought it back today in the hope that some Councillors who did not support it last time may have had a chance to reconsider, given what's been happening just across Council in the last, in the past week. At the General Committee, Council was advised or was told by some Councillors that removing the lines of car park would have no real effect on our businesses or our community. Again, something very similar happened just recently the Doonella Bridge traffic arrangement. Last week showed us what assumption costs and when it turns out to be wrong and where also where Council doesn't support our small businesses. Running a small business in Shire carries real weight for the people behind it. Whether they can pay their staff this fortnight, whether they should order more stock or less and in some cases an understanding that a house may be tied up in a business. Council's decisions land directly on those pressures. This is also landing at difficult times. I'm not going to go over the conversation, the argument that I said at the General Committee, so I'm just going to quickly just summarise. The seawall reconstructions coming, the surf club redevelopments coming, the broader economy is slowing. And we've heard that from the many, emails and representations we've had from our business community in Hastings Street. And I heard it on the radio this morning on the ABC. Also important to 1st, 2026, small businesses are also managing payday superannuation. Small business owner explained this to me. It's a change that's going to require super to be paid on every payday rather than quarterly. Again, adding to existing cash flow and compliance pressures already placed on our small businesses. Council should be mindful of adding to that load unnecessarily. What this motion asks for is really, really modest Councillors. 21 days. Out of 365 days a year. 21 days of overflow car parking to support our business community and our residents over the Christmas period. For the remaining 300 344 days a year, the vast majority of the calendar, Lions Park remains exactly what it is already. Open space. Any decision about the park's longer term future comes back to Council and this motion doesn't settle that question today. 21 days is what our business community and residents are asking from us. Days is 44 days is what we're giving back to the green space unchanged. Today we've got an opportunity to show our business community that we're listening. The people who put us in the seat did not do so on the condition that we get everything right the first time. They did so trusting that we would represent them and that includes being honest. When the evidence and the emails and the pressure tells us that we need to think again about some of our decisions, respecting that trust means acting on it, not defending a position for the sake of defending it. Leadership how is measured by how hard we it's not measured by how hard we hold a line once we've drawn it it's measured by whether we're willing to pivot when circumstances change and the evidence is in front of us there is nothing weak about making a decision watching what happens reflecting honestly and changing course when it's warranted that's not backing down that's what bold leadership actually looks like digging in because it was the position taken last time Councillors is not strength agility the willingness course when our community tells us clearly that we've got it wrong is the leadership that this moment's actually calling us there is no proven alternative ready to absorb this demand we've talked about this at the general park and ride has of Transport Strategy now for nine years and it remains under ten percent capacity if Council wishes to remove an option that's working the responsible course in my opinion is to provide and test a genuine alternative thirst a trial for example of a one-way traffic loop with a priority bus lane an option that's been raised year after year would provide that evidence if the trial demonstrates that the network can perform without Lions Park then Council have an informed conversation with business and community about the park's future including basing car parking out altogether. That conversation should follow the evidence not preceded. This motion Councillor proposes a balanced evidence-based way forward support the businesses and the community for the 21 days that matter most and hand back 344 days of open space to the rest of the year unchanged and then test a genuine alternative before any permanent decision is made. That's not indecision. That's Council doing its job properly. Frank Wilkie 01:14:45.124
Thank you Councillor Lorentson. I'm going to move an amendment where we substitute E for the E that was part of the recommendation that came from the General Committee and also removes F so remove F and substitute E for that which was voted on as a recommendation from the General Committee which is do not proceed with ongoing use of Noosa Heads, lines, Park Road, play park and freeway reasons outlined in the report. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:32.807
Can I ask a question Through the Chair please Sir. Question. My question is that the amendment is, goes against the intent of the alternate motion and shouldn't stand. Frank Wilkie 01:15:50.725
It doesn't, it only changes one portion of it. This is a motion about the whole Go Noosa Program. This changes one aspect of it and it's entirely consistent with the amendment that you moved as part of the recommendation last week. Where the motion, the recommendation was that we do not continue and you moved an amendment which was tested and failed that we do continue. So it's entirely consistent. Karen Finzel 01:16:23.354
Yes, thank you. Where do we have the opportunity to debate number E, approve the continued use before we move on to another amendment? Well, Frank Wilkie 01:16:38.073
Moving an amendment to that now so you can debate whether you support parking in Lions Park now or not. Part of this proposed amendment. So we'll just wait for the wording to be put on the screen. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:57.720
Very much. Brian Stockwell 01:17:06.661
Yeah, yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:17:07.164
It's the same thing. It's the exact same thing. Yeah. I have a seconder for the amendment please. Councillor Stockwell, thank you. We just heard that the network does, we don't know if the network performs without Lions Park. We have ample evidence and experience to show that the network does perform without the Lions Park being used as car parking because happens every school holidays and long weekend. We were told there's no viable alternative yet the report clearly shows that we do have the one-way loop bus which is the viable alternative which recorded almost and approximately 74 a half thousand passenger trips during the Christmas period alone. That was a service that didn't exist when temporary parking at the Lions Park was allowed at Christmas all those years ago. That's the equivalent to about 52,500 potential private vehicle trips. This is the viable alternative. The claim that there is no viable alternative is absolutely false. So today is about making evidence-based decision that will reduce traffic congestion, return a recreation park to families, which will create a better quality experience for residents and visitors to Noosa, and therefore better ensure the long-term prosperity for the business community and the liveability of Noosa. It will create opportunities for a more equitable revenue generating arrangements for community groups. Or we can make a fear-based decision backed by a false claim that there are no viable alternatives for travelling into Noosa when record numbers are accessing the precinct via the one-way loop bus and other means. There's been, as we said earlier some inspiring statements made around this table about not just warming chairs, not doing business as usual, not just supporting the status quo and always making the evidence-based decisions in the best long-term interests of our community and today we can demonstrate that. Peak-period traffic congestion in the Main Beach precinct is the number one problem our residents and business community has asked us to tackle time and again over many years. We can do this now because we have viable alternatives that are seeing record accessing the area by means other than the car. You're still free to drive down there by car. The claim there are no alternatives to overflow parking in one of our most iconic riverside parks is false and totally not supported by the evidence. The free holiday one-way loop bus which did not exist when overflow parking was introduced carried approximately seventy four thousand five hundred passengers during the Christmas period alone. A sixty five point seven percent increase on the previous year and a new high. It's equivalent to thousand five hundred potential private vehicle trips. There are more people than ever getting around electric bikes and motor scooters. People are still free to drive to the Main Beach precinct. They get there just as quickly or as slowly as people on the buses. But unlike bus passengers, they spend up to an hour circulating. Remember, cars don't go to the beach and support our businesses. Visit shops. Go to or restaurants to support businesses. People do. This is about valuing people over cars. This is about retaining the freedom of choice to drive and park using the hundreds of appropriately marked on road parks or catch a bus, cycle or walk. Today's decision is not really about a temporary car park. It's about fairness, equity, leadership and our responsibility to make evidence-based decisions in the best long-term interests of the Noosa Shire and we faced exactly the same question and fears before when we made the decision to honour our commitment to discontinue parking in Lions Park on long weekends and school holidays once COVID ended in the face of exactly the same objections about supporting small businesses. Temporary parking has been there to and was there to encourage visitors, which it did successfully during COVID, but that's over now. Despite warnings, it would kill prosperity and kill off small businesses and no one would visit. Removing car park in the Lions Park did not reduce the number of people visiting that precinct, but it actually reduced congestion at the Noosa Parade roundabouts, returned a green space to families. The number of people visiting did not drop because more and are getting there by cars. Cast it's still an incredibly popular area, and buses, and they're still choosing to drive there, and they still can, but now, when people drive down Noosaville during school holidays and long weekends, and possibly Christmas now, instead of seeing a sea of cars parked side by in Lions Park, being backed up in congestion that's caused by the Lyons parking at the two Noosa Parade roundabouts, they see families playing in open parklands, and traffic moves more quickly. It's a much more relaxing sight, adds enormously towards making for a more enjoyable experience for everyone, making sure people come back because the experience is more enjoyable. Evidence, experience and observations suggest there are just as many people ever in Noosa during the holiday period. So the evidence before us is compelling. The transport modelling demonstrates that Lions Park overflow parking does not solve, it adds to congestion, something we're all dedicated to reducing. It shows that Lions Park is not needed as car parking to enable what seems like record numbers of people accessing the Main Beach area. And for many years the temporary use of the Lions Park as overflow parking has delivered positive fundraising outcomes worthy organisation. The Tewantin Noosa Lions Club should be recognised and thanked for its extraordinary contribution to our community. However, we must also acknowledge a simple question of equity. Noosa is home to hundreds of sporting, cultural, environmental, service and community organisations that could do a lot such with funds. The report proposes a fairer and more transparent approach where charitable and community organisations can participate through open procurement, Expression of Interest processes, creating opportunities for many groups rather than just one, providing recreational activities better suited to family parkland. So let us be fair to all community organisations, let's protect public space for public use, let's reduce congestion, value people over cars, support the long-term prosperity of Noosa businesses, protect parks for recreation have the courage to make a decision that future generations will thank us for. There's never a good time to make a decision like this Council. It's either it's now or it's never, certainly not next Christmas with an election. Please Councillors. Look at the facts and support please support this amendment. Amelia Lorentson 01:24:47.638
Just some questions Through the Chair. Just a couple of things that you graced and maybe you can give me some clarity. You said that a decision was made to return the green, to return Lions Park to green space. I have in front of me the 2023 16th of March Ordinary Meeting when Council resolved that any future decision about Lions Park would involve community consultation. I also recall through the. Question please. My question is. When was that decision to return it back to open space made? The fax in front of me says otherwise. Frank Wilkie 01:25:25.958
Councillor as you know you were part of the debate and the decision that was after we COVID ended made a resolution that we would return the line that we would end the temporary parking in Lions Park that was happening during school holidays and long weekends as part of a COVID measure and we resolved to end life. Our parking at Lions Park during school holidays and the long weekend because COVID was over and the need to attract day drive visitors was no longer needed because visitation to interstate and overseas visitors was resumed. Amelia Lorentson 01:26:04.671
Can I ask Through the Chair, or maybe even with Director Kim Rawlings, is my understanding that this we had made a commitment in the 2023 that we would go raised it myself that back and consult with the community in terms of future use of ryan's park and can I ask to the did Director did we during the destination management Frank Wilkie 01:26:28.832
Plan um Councillor I won't allow that question because that's about consultation we're talking about an amendment to allow Lions Park Amelia Lorentson 01:26:36.119
To be used for overflow parking or not oh sorry my question is directed at a statement that you made that a decision was made that we would return Lions Park um voucher of open space um that Frank Wilkie 01:26:48.910
That's Councillor I've answered your question that was a resolution of Council that car parking and Lions Park during school holidays and long weekend long weekends would return would end and we resolved that it would end this was Amelia Lorentson 01:27:03.780
In the um the last term yeah um my last question again referencing something that you just raised there um in terms there was only one community group that was um being advantaged uh with the car parking the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club uh just in terms of just correctness or accurateness Frank Wilkie 01:27:25.868
Um Council if you're going to be rebutting something I said in debate please reserve that for when you have an opportunity to speak and you may speak to the amendment now and rebut. As you wish Councillor Finzel just Karen Finzel 01:27:43.522
A question back to that was there was has there been formal notification back to the minister's department around a resolution of stopping the parking and opening it for just the green space has that process been followed Frank Wilkie 01:28:04.990
Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 01:28:05.991
As discussed at the General Committee Meeting, the process for doing that is to undertake a land management plan under the Land Act to allow for the green space. It is no longer the discretion of the minister to advise the direction. It's it is actually for manage. Us to make a determination once we follow the appropriate process. There has been no resolution from the Council to prepare a land management plan to actually allow alternative car parking on land. Jessica Phillips 01:28:35.172
Thank you. Other questions? Just in relation to what you said, Mr. Mayor, you mentioned survey, Destination Management Plan survey, and I'm just wondering. Frank Wilkie 01:28:46.482
Sorry, I did not mention the Destination Management Plan. Jessica Phillips 01:28:49.866
The survey results, the consultation. Frank Wilkie 01:28:53.089
I didn't mention that, but you may ask a question of staff if you have a question of staff, but I didn't mention, the Destination Management Plan. Jessica Phillips 01:29:01.292
Apologies, I mentioned, you consultation in your speech. Frank Wilkie 01:29:06.599
Only in rebuttal of Councillor Lorentson's question. Jessica Phillips 01:29:12.516
I'll propose then. I just want to know whether the Destination Management Plan consultation included specific questions around the use of the Lions Club. Frank Wilkie 01:29:26.297
Yes, Councillor, Director Rawlings. Kim Rawlings 01:29:30.784
Morning, Councillors, Through the Chair. Yes, the Destination Management Plan included a specific question in the survey about the use of open space, green space, open space, I'm happy to get the question up. I don't have it right on me, but I can get it fairly quickly. My recollection is that it asked whether the community supported the use of open space or whether open space should be prioritised for green space and recreation. And it had specifically, for example, the Lions Park at Noosa so heads. Yes, there was a specific question about that Jessica Phillips 01:30:20.003
But I'll push you on that because I remember this survey and when we asked about the examples used, this was raised that could give community a perception that we were looking at specific examples and that was why we sort of had a question discussion about it. So does the survey results give us an actual indication of the new sands Lions Park? Could you say that it gives us enough to use that survey question to help? Assist councillors in debate here. Kim Rawlings 01:30:58.585
Again I wouldn't mind just taking that on notice if you just give me a few minutes so I can actually just get the facts rather than trying to do a recollection if that's okay. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:31:13.091
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:31:13.855
Yeah coming back to the land management plan I'm just wondering what would be the cost and for that and if it was to be considered like a viable alternative to help give voice back to community around the parking. What would be the cost to Council to develop the land management plan and the length of time it would take? Richard MacGillivray 01:31:36.585
Is that a question staff can estimate? Through the Chair. Difficult to quantify the exact cost. What I could do is we did a similar land management plan for the Noosa sports, just do sports, come district on. Sports district sports complex. I could try and work out what the cost for that involved. There was consultation included as part of that, so that would incorporate the cost as well to do that, but I can get you some take this on notice and get the Councillors some figures around what that cost of preparing that plan and it would be akin to something along the same lines. Jessica Phillips 01:32:15.473
Thank you. I'll speak to the amendment. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:32:25.174
Business owners and associations say that losing this parking will negatively impact their businesses and I believe them. This is not fear-based, it's a real business impact and we've just had to respond fear felt by our Tewantin businesses when access to their precinct was impacted by changes in traffic conditions and revenues fell sharply even within a week. Customers said they would avoid the area for the whole period of disruption. We keep being told that the DMP feedback was that the community supports user-paid parking, yet some want to take it away when it's for only 21 days. This is not a now whatever decision, we make it every year. We can also make it after we have a parking management plan, when we have data, evidence and alternatives on the table for discussion. This is not a now whatever decision, it's not fear based, the businesses say it will impact them, I believe. Frank Wilkie 01:33:35.123
I know I won't ask a question of staff, that would be unfair. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:33:49.082
I'm going to speak to the motion because I do think that we're diverting, I don't think kim's response is really relevant to the amendment we've got in front of us. I think Councillor Lorentson sort of really really dumbed it down to essentially what this is about. Our obligations, as Councillors to listen to the people that put us in their seat. We have heard and we've been given a warning the last week if we haven't listened, Councillors. Our small businesses are hurting. Today again have an opportunity to say to our small business communities we are listening and we respect the positions that they've trusted us with to be their voices. This isn't about consultation, this isn't about car parking, this is something more fundamental. That our small businesses need our support. They're asking us for our support. And if we don't listen, you know what's just transpired? It's going to happen again. We will end up being on national papers. We'll be on the front page of the news. We'll be on the ABC radio. We'll have our small businesses coming to Council. Why? Because we won't allow 18, 20 21 days. And in fact, I think when I spoke to the businesses, they actually counted 18 days. We're fighting here over 18 days, Councillors. We've got an opportunity again to do what's right for our residents and our business community. And if we don't listen, you know, we deserve what we get. Frank Wilkie 01:35:37.161
Yeah. Director Rawlings, you have the figures. Kim Rawlings 01:35:45.090
So as part of phase two consultation, the survey question that was asked was specifically maintain and prioritise public open spaces for recreation use, not car parking. Example: Noosa Heads Lions Park, unless there is an overriding community benefit to do so. 72% support, 20% not support. Frank Wilkie 01:36:12.377
Thank you. Councillor Phillips. I'll speak to it, Jessica Phillips 01:36:14.840
Thank you. Last week had 60 plus business owners in here in tears and incredibly emotional about the impacts of the breach on their businesses. Um when we just heard the results to the Destination Management Plan around green space the key part I got from that was the overriding community benefit and I feel like overriding community benefit directly relates to actually having an economy that is thriving. That is those businesses employ people and those people need their income. Many, years ago, one of my first jobs was in Hastings Street and the low period of time was really stressful on those businesses. They would cut out hours. They knew that they depended on the peak times to keep their yearly income. And so I really can't help but feel that not only the overriding community benefit is that the Hastings Street Association do not support this, we do not have a car park management plan to give us enough indication and direction as to what other resolutions we have and unless cars. Sorry to quote the Mayor, cars don't shop or go to the beach unless we now have driverless cars, those cars have people in them which do get out of the car and go and shop and use the beach. So I did see the LA, in LA when I was there they had driverless cars but I don't believe they have that, so people get out of those cars and they go and they put money into our economy which means businesses can. Employ staff, young people, out of school that have their first job down in Hastings Street. They absolutely love it, it's thriving. The last thing I want to do is impact those businesses based on a decision we are making today without other things coming through that will help us support other alternate methods that we spoke about in the General Committee which I'll be looking forward to seeing occur and then maybe one day as I had mentioned I will fully support this in the future when we have methods that are working we don't have that yet so it's we're not there. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 01:38:45.790
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:38:47.688
I just have a question to staff when we had a lot of conversation today around viable alternatives when we talk about and connectivity my question is there was a feasibility study done some time back I believe there is a plan underway for a boardwalk from the Lions Park up over the hill I'm just wondering where that is currently sitting and that is my question um to the staff or the CDA. Shaun Walsh 01:39:17.529
Thank you. Director of infrastructure. Thank you for the question Councillor. There is a TMR approved grant for a design for a pathway to vastly improve the footpath from Noosa Junction over to Noosa Heads. We're in the final throes of finalising that design. We're due to give a Council update. That would give us a shovel ready project to achieve future funding. We're also dealing with some assets in that location. Which are in poor condition as the boardwalk as you go down the hill, which is due for renewal, so there's actually base funding that we can actually start to look at that. The objectives of that pathway is actually to as much as possible achieve a wider pathway to make it much more convenient for people to walk, as well as a great accessible pathway with accessibility standards. Part of the overall design also deals with bike traffic to a much better degree as well. So I look forward to providing to councillors Councillors in the future. Jessica Phillips 01:40:13.535
Thank you. Let's have one more question to the CEO. Has there been an economic assessment done on the impact of Hastings Shire businesses I'm if we to a look at the business? At the third one, it's called pop-up. Frank Wilkie 01:40:24.636
No, not at all. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:40:27.651
I think going to fundamentally disagree with the economic rationale proposed by those who don't support the amendment. Fundamentally. Unlegally, every resident knows the number one reason you don't go to Hastings Street during peak periods is congestion. We've been told very clearly the Lions Park parking contributes to congestion. Fundamentally. Every been told that, I think it was 250 car parks, the majority for, you know, the biggest, a lot of them three to four hours. So one car park might turn over twice, three times a day. We've also heard there's 14 and a half thousand, I think, vehicles entering that precinct. And then we hear arguments it's the same as Tewantin losing 10,000 out of the 20,000 vehicle daily traffic on the bridge. I'm sorry, Council, that's opportunistic. There's no nexus. Certainly the current economic conditions are an argument. It's not an upward trend. But to suggest that maintaining business as usual is in the economic benefit of our retail sector. Can be challenged. Simply on the basis that it is not going to address the primary cause by many locals and business don't go down and spend their money in the precinct and the longer we put off that step to reduce congestion the more the likely embedded nature of that problem will become our aim if we were to look at local economic development would be to increase the number of down people there enjoying themselves and spending money I would argue that a well-organised attractive event for locals and visitors in the Lions Park would attract more people would start to change the thinking of locals who avoid it during the peak period to say let's take the kids down because there's something different so let's not be linear in our thinking that it's worked up till now it's a hard time we have to keep it like it is or it might affect the business let's be more innovative let's be more thinking about how do we use that space to improve the economic performance how do we use that space to improve the experience of going down there and to exemplify what is within our Destination Management Plan so to me so there is risks associated with changing anything but there's more risks for not doing anything. Frank Wilkie 01:43:29.546
Thank Wegener, Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:43:33.829
I like the beach and those 21 days I like to go to the beach. I don't like congestion and I wouldn't go to the beach in the middle of the day if it wasn't for the loop bus. I just simply wouldn't go because I'm not going to go. I know what it's like. You look on the cameras. It's and so seeing that that's the problem. Go Noosa. Our Noosa Council's response has been the loop bus in the entire Walking and Cycling Strategy in the Go Noosa Program. And so actually the loop bus opens the door for me because when I would go to the beach in the middle of the day, you know that the Lions Park is going to be full anyway. And there's a 2000 car parks out there for me to go down my park in my car, hop on that bus, air-conditioned bus, have a chat with people which I do. And a problem with going taking the bus is the congestion and there's still that congestion and as the report clearly says that the. Congestion is largely or partially caused by the Lions Park parking. And so we have a wonderful Walking and Cycling Strategy and we can follow this and I'm willing to follow it because I'm down there. I know I could drive my down car and sit in that traffic or I can hop on the lube bus. We have to support one or the other. Do we follow congestion and doing the same old thing or do we follow the Go Noosa Program? And I think this is a pivotal moment that my. Experience clearly shows that I am going to go down there with my friends as I did multiple times last Christmas, hop on the bus, spend money at the surf club, love and a beer overlooking the beach, or I just wouldn't go. And I think there's a lot of people that are in my shoes, that live in the hinterland. It's the residents. I mean, the businesses, yes, are important, but I think that having residents enjoying the beach, going to the surf club, going to Noosa longboards, going to the shops down there is actually beneficial, makes it better for the Noosa residents. So I support the amendment. Jessica Phillips 01:45:40.904
I have a question, thanks to the CEO. Just in relation to not having the economic assessment, if something similar to the first week at Christmas, pacing street association and businesses comments in chamber to us, they are seeing a decrease in their revenue. Thank you. What's the solution? Like we obviously were able to quickly do Doonella Bridge. What would, how would we react to that because we don't have the economic assessment, I'm just going with listening to the argument around the table, I'm just wondering what will we do as a Council if that's what happens? Larry Sengstock 01:46:27.834
Through the Chair, thank you for the question. I think it's a difficult question. The issue with the bridge was it's an operational exercise, so that was something that we had options and we took one option and it was my decision as officers to take the decision to change that, so we're able to do that. This is a resolution of the Council, so I think that we monitor if we felt that there was a need to do anything, then we have to bring it back to Council for some level of change. I'm not sure exactly what that would look like and when, because it's over Christmas time as well, so it's a difficult thing to say definitively, but that would be my assessment right now. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:05.292
A question to the CEO. Council has all received an email from tewas and nusum. Just recently we've endorsed Tourism Noosa as evolving into our destination management organisation. They had explicitly expressed support for the overflow car parking. Given that the Council funded and are in charge of managing the destination, I'm sort question. Of my question to you is how important is the position in this space? Larry Sengstock 01:47:47.453
So whilst they're funded by us as Tourism Noosa, they're also under our guidance in terms of what we expect from them for the funding. But in terms of the decision, it's still your decision isn't it? I'm sure you've had a number of different groups and organisations and people contact you and give you their opinion or their. Position on this and tewas of Noosa is no different. They are a body, they're funded by us, but to a large degree, but they, you know, ultimately they can put that position forward, but it still comes down to you as a group. That's what this is all about is to make the decision. You've got the recommendation from the officers based on our. Feedback and our understanding. That's for you to then debate and decide whether you want to take that up or not, or change it. That's the position you're at, and that goes exactly with terms of other people's opinions, and you need to take all that into consideration to make a decision. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Frank Wilkie 01:48:47.604
I'm speaking thank you, now. I have a few questions. The Chair is standing, please. To help answer some questions that have been raised, I'll ask the Director of infrastructure. Can you give us your assessment of how the bridge works have impacted Tewantin and how the proposed changes to the parking arrangements at Lions Park are likely to impact the precinct down at Hastings Street? Shaun Walsh 01:49:23.000
That was the firstly, the you touched question of economic impact on Tewantin, I need to also refer to the Director of economic development, which is Steve Rawlings. So first of all, economic impact is measured over a period of time, not just days. So I think that question of economic impact on Tewantin was too early to actually, you know, make a conclusion on. Anecdotal feedback we've received in recent days is that trade communications. So, but we've set up a communication line with the toronto business community to actually, you know, directly get that feedback, directly monitor it. In terms of the Director of infrastructure, economic development, we should add to that. So terms of in economic impact upon Hastings Street, I think we have to look at relatively, you know, it's 14,000 vehicles a day during peak periods, visit that precinct. The overflow parking at peak provides capacity for two and a half additional vehicles. So I don't think that, you know, when you look at the percentage of loss of that car parking, you know, whether it has any economic impact. And I think we also could also start exploring economic benefit, because as we discussed at General Committee, and as included in the report, by putting all our resources into the overflow car parking in sandlands park, we're actually not putting enough resources into other satellite and parking locations, where we have hundreds of car parking we have hundreds of car parking spaces. Like to actually focus our resources in actually providing those alternative car parking locations, and actually see how many people we actually get using those spaces, and actually come into a great situation for them. Frank Wilkie 01:51:00.312
Thank you, Sean. Could you also compare the impact the bridge works has had on restricting vehicle access to Tewantin, as compared to any restrictions proposed in terms of vehicle access for Hastings Street? Shaun Walsh 01:51:22.323
We're not proposing any lane closures on the rise into Noosa Heads during those peak times. So I think that answers your question. So the key point out in the report presented to the General Committee is that a key issue is actually congestion at lucifer island, the age of the loose lawns farm, which is quite a delight. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:51:46.793
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:51:47.654
I have a question. When we're talking about viable alternatives, where are we at in terms of a dedicated lane for bus emergency vehicles, goods and services? Have we ever liked to look at that in terms of actual concept design? Or cost to put a dedicated lane into that area? It is in terms, I think it's relevant when we're exploring like these viable options. Has it been costed to address the congestion by moving people into the precinct via the bus being considered as a viable option Mr. Mayor, which you actually quoted earlier today when you spoke. So how can we value out even further as a person coming into the precinct on a I'm lined up behind the congestion it's not going to make my trip any more efficient or in my opinion motivate me to get on the bus. So my question is in terms of viable alternatives have we expended the time and the energy to explore a dedicated lane for the bus. Shaun Walsh 01:53:05.045
Thank you for the question. The funded initiative last financial year was the exploration of one-way loops. We've actually recently received the outcomes of that investigation and as pointed out at the General Committee, looking forward to presenting that to Councillors in the near future. I think it's important though to note that we have had a significant increase of in the bus. I think it's important though to note that we in usage of the bus. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:53:40.251
I have a point of order. Councillor Lorentson made an assertion about the letter and its contents the assertion was that certain terms that think I don't think is, I've just had a chance to reread the letter, I think it was misrepresenting what was in the letter. Clearly talks about the parking during peak periods but it doesn't make the assertion that Councillor Lorentson did. It said and they, we encourage Council to ensure any transition away from Lions Park is informed by demonstrated success robust performance data and evidence replacement transport solutions are functioning effectively during peak periods. Talks about another thing. It's also signed by the Chief Executive Officer and I have asked. It's not a board position. It was just a letter. But I do think it's important that the assertions that they. The terms that Councillor Lorentson put it, which was much more that they oppose what is proposed to many of them is not accurate and therefore should be withdrawn. Frank Wilkie 01:54:49.127
Thank you for clarifying, Councillor Stockwell will leave both statements to stand and Councillors can make their own minds up. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:54:59.183
I've got the letter in front of me and I'm happy to withdraw. But I will say I've got it in front of me that my understanding of the letter and the intent behind the letter is until a proven alternative is found, that there was concerns about removing the lines part. So I would like to table that. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:55:21.716
Can I just ask whether it's appropriate to read out a letter from an individual in terms of confidentiality? Frank Wilkie 01:55:26.211
Well, I guess I'm allowing it because it's from an industry group. We have received letters in support from private individuals, which we won't be reading out. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment before I close? Councillors, we're where we were at last week. Nothing has changed. I would also like to say, to draw parallels between council's operational decision to repair a bridge which restricted access to a Tewantin and had an impact is nothing similar. There is no comparison to the proposal to return green space to the community in Hastings Street. There is no suggestion that Council is looking at restricting vehicle access to Hastings Street and any inference that Council is doing that by likening it to the Doonella street bridge works is misleading and ought to be disregarded. Of course, we're all mindful of business. Small businesses and we want to do what's required to support them in every regard and in fact we hear from the business community and residents that they want Council to tackle one of the biggest disincentives for people accessing Hastings Street and that traffic is congestion. I feel duty-bound to do something about that at every opportunity and when we have evidence presented to us that shows that by taking a certain step today we can remove traffic congestion at two key roundabouts in that precinct and at the same time return a green space from a car park to the community so it can be used for recreational purposes as is its intent will take that at every opportunity. By improving the experience of driving down to Hastings Street unimpeded by traffic congestion and once you get there you're not looking at wall-to cars on the road or in the green space we are improving the experience for residents and visitors. We are increasing the likelihood that visitors and residents and customers will want to come back to that precinct. We are removing the disincentive of congestion and feeling overwhelmed by the hustle and bustle of what's meant to be a experience. We're removing that. So increasing the likelihood that the long-term prosperity of that precinct is preserved and given every opportunity to prosper and thrive. Done this before. Faced the same objections before. We were told small business would be damaged if we removed car parking from the Lions Park during school holidays and long weekends after COVID. We weighed up those objections and made an evidence based decision. And what happened? More people than ever are accessing that precinct by other means now because of the one-way loop pass, a viable alternative. And the attractiveness of that precinct is part of the attraction. Less congestion during school holidays and long weekends, more green space, a more relaxing experience, better alternatives to get down there. You can still drive. That's why people keep coming back. That's what we can do today. Imagine the same thing except for Christmas periods and also finding more equitable ways in which we can involve the Lions Park, the Lions Club in meeting and greeting people as they access the surf club drop-off area. An evidence-based decision which reduced traffic congestion at the Hastings Street roundabout by converting parking in the surf club car park from 42 car parks down to spaces for people with disabilities and the lifeguards turn the rest of it into a drop-off zone so more people are actually accessing the precinct there's less congestion on the Hastings Street roundabout because of these smart initiatives which the Hastings Street Association have said they love and is working well removing congestion the during the school holidays and the long weekends by converting the Lions Park has also created a similar experience positive experience let's extend that to the Christmas period. Councillors, Councillors, this is a decision about looking at the evidence looking at our experience of where we've done this before seeing how well it has worked there wasn't a big kickback or protest or a gallery full of Hastings Street traders once we reversed the decision Councillors, that we brought in on COVID to allow parking in Lions Park during school holidays and long weekends just as many people as ever are wanting to get down there perhaps even more because of the viable alternatives that exist to say there aren't viable alternatives is not true we know it's not true we're not taking away the right to people to access it by the vehicle this is about freedom of choice retaining the freedom for everyone to choose how they get down there and I appreciate the and that councils are under a lot of pressure here we're all doing this for whatever whichever way we go we're doing it for the right reasons we want to ensure the long-term prosperity of our community and the liveability of our community and that means the long-term support for the businesses down there by a less direct means by ensuring the attractiveness of it and the quality of the experience we can ensure the long-term prosperity of that precinct and also remove the disincentives that prevent people from going down there which is traffic congestion and a hectic experience we've done it school holidays and long weekends let's extend it to the Christmas period Councillors. I implore you please support this amendment for the long-term prosperity and benefit for the Noosa Shire and its businesses and its residents. I'll put the amendment to the vote those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie. Those against: Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel and Wilson. The amendment is lost. We now go back to the original motion which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken. Now the council's wish to speak. Karen Finzel 02:03:21.706
Can I test an amendment? Yes you may. Is this the point to do that now? Yes can you bring that one up here? Right, is that the right one? Yeah. I'm just wondering if I should make something additional if we want to take it back to the point to support the councillor's amendment. Where do we add that in? Frank Wilkie 02:04:07.894
Well this would add on to the original motion. So it wouldn't detract from the intent of the original motion. So would you care to read that out Councillor? Karen Finzel 02:04:21.575
Okay I think I'd like to move the amendment. H. Delegate the CEO to establish a strategic Noosa Lions Park advisory group to collaborate with key stakeholders and relevant Council staff to develop recommendations to inform decisions. The future use of the Lions Park for the benefit of the community during peak periods to consider viable alternative options. Councillor Wilson. I'll second. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Look, the reason I'd like to bring this for debate today is to consider how we can broaden this conversation out and continue the conversation, which in my opinion, after speaking to people since our last meeting, noting that I voted against, the I voted recommendations of the staff, I've since gone back now to re-look at that. And I feel that, you know, as a leader, it is our job to contribute in promoting solutions that, you know, promote our people. So we've heard a lot today about the viable alternatives and I think we're getting there. I think we can all agree that we are moving slowly towards that. I feel that we've been a little premature. In saying let's just close the park. I think we need to spend a little more time speaking with the key stakeholders. So after I spoke to them, the last couple of days, you know, the lions have requested they'd like to perhaps have their like a more detailed survey that, you know, answers some of the questions that they have that they feel would be able to bring further conversation. Into those decisions around that. We've heard today that there are alternative, good, viable solutions that have not been completely worked through. I feel we could still do some more work. We've heard about the land management. We've heard about the boardwalk replacement. I'm raising now an alternative for an advisory group specifically bringing key stakeholders together and work to continue the conversations so that we bring a balance where every voice is the moment I feel that some voices in our community feel that has been prematurely halted. We can look at a procurement process. I haven't heard us do further discussion around that when we talk about like equity for groups who can contribute to the charitable giving that the lions currently do. How can we look at that to make other viable processes to give other groups opportunity to participate just even outside of the volunteering, but also. Equity across the Shire. You know, it could be maybe once a year you go through the procurement process or whatever. I think there's still opportunities for conversations. Looked at a viable alternative to look at the dedicated priority lane for the bus. I think there's still further conversations to just cut off the use, like cut it off now is a little premature. I think our roles as leaders and to be effective relies on our capacity to go back and listen. For my own personal interest, I had and rigorously look at my decision on the last meeting and I thank Councillor Lorentson for bringing it back to the debate because I think the conversation still needs to be continued. We've heard from our community. We've heard that we need to have further discussions. In this role, our ultimate goal, I believe, is to create positive social impact for others and our community. I often talk about how do beneficiaries from the distinction. Decisions we make at this table. I believe further conversations will help inform that decision and bring about a balance. I think we need greater collaboration, which is why I've put forward this motion for consideration so that we can show that we work effectively with others, fostering trust, dialogue and intercultural competence, where every voice matters. I feel that there's still time to be able to get an advisory group together. About the intricacies of the lines parking. Back in the day, I believe back in 2021, I could have that wrong, but I believe it was back then, there was a Transport Strategy group. Some of these things that we've discussed today were on the table. Some of them haven't been progressed where the voice of the people feel it like we still need to explore more viable options before cutting off the use of the park. So. So I really. Call out to Councillors around the table today to support this amendment, which brings those voices together back to the table to be able to work with the Council staff and the key stakeholders to keep having the conversations. In terms of broader transport issues that is Shire-wide, you know, maybe the opportunity to bring business leaders together to continue those conversations because we know that we've got to have impacts with congestion from the hinterland. You know we've got infrastructure works going on up there, right through to the Coast when we look at the rock wall and things going on down there. What congestion across the Shire is going to be huge around this decision. For the whole of Australia. The whole of our rest of this term and beyond. So I implore you today to consider this that we can continue the conversation while we work gradually towards growing these viable alternative options which have been implemented but more work in my opinion continues to thank be undertaken. You for your time. Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 02:10:58.734
I speak to support Councillor Finzel bringing this amendment. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that you are also trying to find some commonality around the table so I feel like sometimes I have a little bit of naivety when I became a Councillor around things like this because I sort of assumed they would be done like and seeing that as an amendment. Might be staff do it without Councillors but I do think that there's a really big piece of what I sort of thought the role would entail which is sitting with community groups all of across the Shire actually. Bringing them on a journey and I felt that when I saw this I was like oh yeah this is exactly what I sort of assumed would be business as usual so thank you for that. I also thought that it would be a good opportunity to speak about the fact that at the General Committee I made a really I clear point that one day I would really hope I'm standing here and seeing that return to green space because I think that we can agree that probably where the direction has to happen but I'm with you we just haven't got the investment in the one-way loop yet we haven't invested in the other alternatives to sort of see them give some traction so I hope getting people at a table that have great ideas and we saw that recently where the business community have really good solutions for us I do hope that they can be part of the conversation and then what will happen is when we do make decision they will actually celebrate with us and it'll build that trust because that's what we're lacking right now we're sort of coming in and we're making decisions and it's and I think that any top opportunity where we can sit together with our community and actually hear what's happening. On the ground like how many times now have we heard that we're just sort of not hearing that real-life impact that some of the decisions we're making so anytime we can sit with any of our stakeholders and then I welcome it and yeah that's thank you again Frank Wilkie 02:13:04.819
Question of staff could you confirm that Council meets with key stakeholders the Lions Club and the Hastings Street association regarding the uses of the Lions Park? Are you doing that already? Shaun Walsh 02:13:25.673
We certainly do meet with the Lions Park and the Hastings Street association on a regular basis. It's not structured to the extent that we set up an advisory group. I think if Council did establish an advisory group, you'd have to put the call out to other stakeholders who might be interested in open space usage in New South Wales. Frank Wilkie 02:13:44.692
So question to Councillor Finzel. Who beyond the Hastings Street association and the Lions Park would you envisage be qualified as a key stakeholder for this? Karen Finzel 02:13:57.704
Well I haven't actually specifically targeted particular groups but I feel if we put that opportunity out that I'm sure people once the invitation is out will put their hand up and be willing to participate. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Okay ask a question to confirm as well please Through the Chair. Nicola Wilson 02:14:15.938
While Council may already meet with Hastings Street business association and the Lions Club are they ever in the room at the same time? Shaun Walsh 02:14:28.720
Thank you for the question. I can't recollect that but we have an excellent working relationship with both groups and have no problems with them meeting together. I've referenced to the General Committee how well we work with the Lions Club and they're very amenable to meetings on any topic. Frank Wilkie 02:14:46.121
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 02:14:47.305
Yeah I'll support the amendment. I think if we are going down this path it is important to get a broader perspective. The residents from the Noosa Heads area are the primary stakeholders. There's no question about it. The other two groups are not. They are in terms of car parking but that's not the primary use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park. So it's really important that residents have a voice on this. However, I've got no problem with having further consultation and trying to come up with an agreed plan. There's lots of proposals that are going to come into this area and it we already have one steering group that's working on the pathway up the hill and you can perhaps have a look at that membership body as a group that could transform. Amelia Lorentson 02:15:43.213
I'm happy to support Councillor Finzel. I think it's a really good addition to the alternate motion. Probably what I want to speak about is that the plan, there was a question about Lions Park, and as we heard before with Director Kim Rawlings, is that the outcome of that extensive consultation process was that we needed to prove or demonstrate community benefit and need. So I think that involving key stakeholders, including the little cove association and those that live in the precinct around Lions Park. Noosa Heads is a really important addition. I would also like to see as part of key stakeholders our surfing community, who also should be part of the, in my opinion, part of the Stakeholder Reference Group. I think this will also help us, you know, when we come to the same argument as we have for the last six years that I've been in Council when we come to decide future use, at least we can have an informed decision. This is going to add a broader perspective to the conversation. So I thank you for bringing this to the table. Tom Wegener 02:17:14.415
Well, we're speaking of stakeholders, you know, we both live in the hinterland and, you know, I think that we're actually really key stakeholders as well, because we are definitely influenced. And affected by congestion. And if the Lions Park adds to that congestion, then we, you know, should be in the, stakeholders as well, because our decisions to drive in are largely dependent upon how the congestion, if it's a day or, and there's lots and of people down there, our mental, our freedom to go to the best beach in the southern hemisphere is definitely influenced by the amount of congestion. So we are, we should be stakeholders as well. And, that's where, yeah, I'll leave you with that. Frank Wilkie 02:18:11.081
I'll speak in support of it. Understanding that key stakeholders will extend beyond the Hastings Street Association and the Noosa Lions Club, because understanding that, of course, they were the key stakeholders and the primary stakeholders, there's, very little incentive for them to actually change their position over time but I'm heartened to hear comments around the table that the eventual use of the Lions Park will not be for car parking but councils are wanting a more collaborative process to get to that destination and I think the key stakeholders roundtable or whatever form it may take is the right way and if I understand correctly the community consultation that was done as part of the DMP showed over 70% support or strongly% support in favour of keeping green spaces for recreational uses or strongly recreational uses and not car parking unless there was an overriding community benefit so the DMP consultation did support the previous amendment but I accept the decision of the group and that's not going to be happening this Christmas anyway but this is a possible way forward towards that eventual outcome. Finzel, do you wish to close? Karen Finzel 02:19:33.408
Thank you. Look, thank you everyone for your support around the table. I do hope that by widening this out it brings, you know, further conversation into the space and helps us move forward and bringing, you know, everybody with us. You know, as leaders you know it takes sustained effort to achieve positive change you know I think it can't happen overnight it takes real effort it's like you know we're like an athlete and we've got to like just keep exercising that muscle to actually keep going and exploring you know alternatives and different ways of bringing our community along different ways of measuring how people's voices are heard always creating those opportunities broaden it out to bring as many people as we can along the journey and around the table so hopefully the support around the table for this amendment continues to bring us all along the journey and it is about those connections with each other to our space and our identity. We talk about having you know one of the best beaches in the eastern board like you know we want to make sure that everybody can get there and enjoy that and really flourish in our space. Frank Wilkie 02:20:45.000
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. I'll put the amendment to the vote in favour? That's unanimous. That now becomes part of the motion and to which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken. So Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 02:20:56.729
I have a procedural motion. Cathy I have emailed it. Have you seen that? that the matter be deferred to the August Ordinary Meeting in order for the CEO to receive advice as to whether the motion in front of us is in order considering its potential conflict with the Land Act in that it proposes to proceed with an inconsistent use in the absence of a land management plan. Amelia Lorentson 02:21:29.402
A question to the Chair. Brian Stockwell 02:21:36.760
Have it has we have to follow okay I'll we'll have a seconder for that happy to second for debate seconded Councillor Finzel Councillor Stockwell um the we have been advised that since the last time we considered this the responsibility for the decision has been changed from the minister to Council that's correct uh we've been also advised that for Council to approve inconsistent use it requires a land management plan um I am unaware on the way with whether those amendments gave Council any broader discretion to make a decision contrary to that requirement I don't think it's reasonable to have that matter determined uh if it proceeds as is and it's con and it's considered uh under the act that it cancelled hasn't got the ability just to improve and insistent use uh then the motion could be considered ultra borrows and staff couldn't work on it anyway so I do think it's prudent to get that advice and I do think it is specialist legal advice therefore I don't think it's something we should be looking at today thank you Frank Wilkie 02:22:40.125
Councillor Stockwell Council you have any questions or comments Councillor Wilson Jessica Phillips 02:22:45.370
Um could we deal with that by having subject a to amendment Brian Stockwell 02:22:56.611
I'm looking at a procedural motion as specific a input, I'm not going to answer that it's a hypothetical because it's a hypothetical answer that question because hypothetical I think that's usually have to deal with Frank Wilkie 02:23:06.441
I think that's usually have to deal with okay we take an adjournment to discuss okay we take an adjournment to discuss the process you've asked well uh you've the process you've asked well uh you've asked for an adjournment asked for an adjournment to discuss it we're very close to 12 to discuss it we're very close to 12 30 anyway Amelia Lorentson 02:23:17.622
Break anyway can I have Councillor Council wilson's question answered if this if their procedural motion falls can we raise an amendment that the decision today is subject to support. Or subject to advice from the minister in terms of whether there is any conflict potential conflict with the Land Act Unidentified Speaker 02:23:47.505
Um there's an ability to do it if this falls Frank Wilkie 02:23:51.977
You can do it remember thank you very much can I just make a correction that whether the motion in front of us is in order there's two ins there considering this potentially conflict the Land Act that was my fault we've had situations like this about getting legal advice on issues over the last few months where items have been deferred or proper legal advice is obtained. If councils are happy, we'll take an adjournment now and see, get some advice from our staff. If, you that, we support can come back better informed and make a decision on this procedural motion after an adjournment. How do you feel about that? Amelia Lorentson 02:25:09.148
Just Through the Chair, I'm not sure what sort of advice we're seeking. Is this through our legal Council? Frank Wilkie 02:25:16.458
Well, we have a Governance Officer in the room. I will. I move that we have an adjournment and we can discuss this thoroughly and come back all better informed about which way we'd like to go. It's about time for the break anyway. So with your permission, Councillors, I'll call an adjournment for half an hour. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:58:51.037
Welcome back, everybody. We readjourn at 12.59. We have an item that up before us, a procedural motion that the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting in August in order for the CEO to receive advice as to whether the motion in front of us is in order, considering its potential conflict with the Land Act in that it proposes to proceed with an inconsistent use in the absence of a land management plan. We have Director MacGillivray to give us some preliminary advice, which might help inform us on which way we go. Thank you. Richard MacGillivray 02:59:30.417
Councillors, Through the Chair. I've just got some information and come directly from some information received to the State, but also importantly there were some guidelines the State has prepared recently and post changes to the Land Act in 2020. So these guidelines are basically to assist local governments and other statutory bodies where they're managing actions that are consistent or inconsistent with the purpose of the Land Act. So just to give you a bit of a run-through in relation a little bit of background information. So the trustee may find a proposed action trustee lease or permit is inconsistent with the purpose of the land and the land that we're talking in and references for recreational purposes. We need to prepare a land management plan to undertake that where there is an inconsistent use. And we have previous advice from the State and prior to the change of the Land Act, we were applying to the State for approval, noting the inconsistency of the designation. To address that and looking forward, it would be our advice that a land management plan is the most appropriate tool to outline in the public interest and I will just touch on the key elements of that so everyone is aware. So in doing so, in preparing a land management plan, the trustee is to consider how or whether an action or lease would diminish the purpose of the trust land or adversely affect the public interest. Diminishing the purpose is also relevant to address when preparing a management plan for inconsistent permits or actions. Trustees have flexibility in the form and with the trustee, content and levels of detail provided in the management plan or amend existing management plans. To give you some input, the management plan needs to include the following to meet the minimum requirements of the act. Clearly identify any inconsistent action the trustee leashed or subject to the management plan. Identify potential impacts of the inconsistent use for the purpose of the trust land. State how the inconsistent action would not diminish the purpose of the trust land and then state how the action would not adversely affect the public interest so the action also needs to comply with the management plan that gets developed. It is up to the trustee to adequately consider both the public interest and whether the proposed action would adversely impact on the public interest including whether consultation with land users, stakeholders and the broader community is needed for the nature and the form the consultation would take. If the action cannot manage or avoid adverse impacts on the public interest it is unlikely that it would satisfy the act requirements. Hopefully that gives Councillors a bit of an understanding of the process and what's involved. Frank Wilkie 03:02:25.068
So your advice is that if we decide to proceed with this particular motion that a land management plan is the appropriate way to go. To an inconsistent use of that parcel. Richard MacGillivray 03:02:42.968
Through the Chair yes I agree that's the most appropriate process to follow to give certainty and clear understandings and compliance with the act. Frank Wilkie 03:02:50.895
Could you outline what process to get a land management plan done involves and potential costs? Richard MacGillivray 03:03:03.969
Sorry, frames and costs. Through the Chair I'm actually just as per a previous question on notice I took I'm just trying to find out some recent costs where Council did undertake a similar land management plan for the Noosa district sports park that was in 2020.2023 so I just trying to get an idea that did involve public consultation as well and that involved an activity where there was a potential commercial use occurring on that site there so I will get some costing and report back to Council on that I don't have that right now. In terms of time frames I would estimate potentially would need around six months I guess to include a public consultation process and obviously prepare the plan and go out to consultation with the community around that particular issue. Frank Wilkie 03:03:51.048
And you'd need taking on notice how much the costs would be impacting budget? Richard MacGillivray 03:03:57.198
Yes, Through the Chair year there will potentially need to be some budget or alternatively we could seek to undertake that activity in house that would just take some time and potentially move staff off from other current projects at the moment. Frank Wilkie 03:04:15.038
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:04:16.320
Question to Richard. Given that we're only asking for 21 days and potentially less and given that it's now been 20 years that we've continued an inconsistent on this land, can we just write to the minister and ask, you know, let them know that we will be preparing a land management plan, but whether we can get it seek approval just for this for these 21 days for the 2026-2027 period. Richard MacGillivray 03:04:50.818
Through the Chair, there's more recent correspondence with the department over recent times, particularly since the change in legislation. They they've now sort of essentially transferred those powers to us to make those decisions. So I guess it's not really there. Their anymore to provide that approval. We can write to them and ask them those specific questions, noting the changes. However, my understanding is that advice from them is that Council has the ability to do that through a land management plan process. If it wants to make a decision around how it wants to apply inconsistent uses on its reserves. Amelia Lorentson 03:05:31.461
So again, for clarity, so we can then approve the 18 or 21 days or the 2026, 2027 period. And then also go through the process of submitting a land management plan. We can do both. Richard MacGillivray 03:05:48.571
Through the Chair, my advice is that we should go through and land management plan prior to undertaking the use because that will ensure in the public interest that we have a clear understanding of how we will ensure that the inconsistent use does not diminish the purpose of the reserve. So our advice would be if we want to seek to undertake that activity moving forward, we really should have the land management plan in place to endorse and authorise that activity. Nicola Wilson 03:06:18.262
Thank you, Director MacGillivray. Councillor Wilson. Sorry, just another question. But you envisage that can be done before December? Richard MacGillivray 03:06:27.166
Through yeah, I believe it could be done. Obviously, again, a resourcing piece and obviously potential cost implication that we would need to factor in. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 03:06:39.305
CEO? Just to help with that one as well. My understanding is that we're dealing with state government as well, so it has to go to them and come back. So there is no guarantee on the six months. That would be our hope. But just the preliminary advice I got regarding our one with Tewantin was that it could have taken a lot longer than that. It was a bit, in some respects, simpler. In other respects, not so simple, but we were able to sort of find our way through it in a reasonable time. Six months is what we'd hope to do, but there's sorry. No guarantee. Richard MacGillivray 03:07:16.908
Can I just add to that point? And I think it's important, too, from a public interest perspective, if Council decides to go through a land management plan process, I think it's important not to predetermine what the outcome of that process is, so I think we would need to go into it with our eyes open and engage with the community on that issue and go through the process as a framework to work through and understand how do we ensure that those aspects are not diminished in terms of recreational value and then obviously enable those activities if the land management plan identifies those uses. And actions that are required to ensure. Compliance with the land management act requirements as well. Frank Wilkie 03:08:00.876
Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 03:08:02.497
I think to the CEO maybe, I'm a little bit confused why this information is coming to like the Ordinary Meeting. It would have to me been a really part of the workshops leading into this, probably more, I know we touched on it but now we're finding out like more information, I'm just really uncomfortable with the process. Could you maybe give me some idea as to how we've ended up in this position today? Frank Wilkie 03:08:28.181
Walsh, I think we might have made reference to it in the report. Shaun Walsh 03:08:31.579
Yeah, the report from last year and this year, there's a clear section that articulates this conflict with the land management process and that's informed Council staff's recommendation to Council. Jessica Phillips 03:08:45.635
Probably more was this would be really good conversation for a workshop rather than the floor is what I'm asking. Yes, I understand it's in the report but we haven't had this robust conversation when it is a decision like this so that's the bit I'm uncomfortable with. Frank Wilkie 03:09:06.243
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:09:07.344
Question through the floor. Again, I go back to that there's almost an implied consent of the State. Has no problem with us using as overflow car parking given that's the practice a of over 20 years. My question is what would happen if we just progressed allowed the 21 days for car parking and submit a land management plan? Richard MacGillivray 03:09:34.731
Through so if we were to undertake an activity or use that's inconsistent with the designation, potentially we'd be in breach of the Land Act. Obviously, as a trustee, there may be adverse implications as a result of that. I don't know what the ramifications from a penalty perspective are, but our role, I guess, as trustees of that land is to ensure the Land Act principles and legislation is correctly followed. And I guess from an officer point of view, that's what we're advising Council to make that advice on that decision. Frank Wilkie 03:10:07.516
Going to speak to the procedural motion. I've heard enough today to understand that a workshop on the potential impacts of proceeding with a land, with an act, with a use that is inconsistent with the Land Act and our obligations as trustee of the land will we'll have repercussions and if we want to undertake a land management plan which is the appropriate way to go if we want to proceed with parking in the Lions Park, we need to understand the costs of that and also I wouldn't mind some potential advice from King & Co as well. Well. It's disappointing but I think this is the wise way to go so make sure we're not in breach of our obligations under the Land Act. Amelia Lorentson 03:10:54.257
Can I also just throw on the table and a question to Richard that if this procedural motion falls and an amendment is moved to the alternate motion stating something like subject to approval by the minister of the land management plan providing for the inconsistent use, would you be satisfied with that? Frank Wilkie 03:11:21.841
I think it's a bit of an unfair question. You're asking a staff member to proceed and take on a course that is contrary to the advice he's just given. Amelia Lorentson 03:11:31.647
Okay, so rephrase my question. Richard, would that be or expose Council to any sort of governance risk or legal risk in terms of breaching the land management act? Richard MacGillivray 03:11:47.795
Through the Chair, what I would say, there's two options. My initial advice applies in terms of that we should follow a land management plan process. The other option is without making a decision, I could seek some advice, both legal and obviously from the State around. The ability for a temporary use until that, but again, the advice previously from the State has been that we need to prepare a land management plan if we want to continue to allow a use that is inconsistent with the designation of the. Reserve. Amelia Lorentson 03:12:21.030
So just for clarity, if this procedural motion fails, we can then move another procedural motion requesting that Council write to the minister seeking temporary permission to allow overflow car parking. Richard MacGillivray 03:12:37.769
Through the Chair, we could certainly write to them on that. My, again, advice, though, based on previous discussions is that their advice has been quite clear back to us as the trustees to ensure that a land management plan is undertaken. So we can certainly ask the question of them as a temporary whilst we undertake their land management plans, but I need to get that advice first. Frank Wilkie 03:13:05.693
So even a temporary use, if the minister was likely to, would still involve a land plan management and the costs and implications on the organisation will need to be fully understood before we decide to undertake that course of action. Richard MacGillivray 03:13:24.240
Essentially looking at both aspects, both the first one to engage with the department directly around this question, obviously, whilst we prepare a land management plan. Previous experience and discussions is that is the process to follow. If Council does want to explore an inconsistent use, it needs to go through a land management plan process. Frank Wilkie 03:13:44.388
Any other questions of staff, Councillors? PEOPLE WISH TO SPEAK TO THE PROCEDURAL MOTION, Councillor WEGNER. Tom Wegener 03:13:52.800
So, the procedure procedural motion to defer this, is there any way we could just slice off the parking from the rest of the report so that we could get the rest of the report through with is that is it because I hate to just have to just stop the whole process from moving forward with the report. Frank Wilkie 03:14:23.178
Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 03:14:24.336
So the area that I think is potentially ultramarine is it does relate to approving an inconsistent use so if the motion was to be amended to remove that requirement then moving then that would be I've that concern again so in outstanding orders we can't move things that are contrary to our jurisdictional power etc so Frank Wilkie 03:14:52.023
You're taking on board Councillor Wegener point about the rest of the motion the other elements of the motion which are not places it in conflict with the Land Act are you happy to amend your procedural motion to make it clear that we're talking about use of the Lions Park Brian Stockwell 03:15:09.714
Don't think you can amend procedural motions. I understand procedural motions moved and seconded and voted on, not discussed. Jessica Phillips 03:15:21.362
Then last year. So that means we breached this last year. Indeed. So has there been any feedback from the State that we didn't do the right thing last year, which would give us some sort of pressure now to be in this position again? Richard MacGillivray 03:15:37.569
Through the Chair, as outlined by Director Walsh, the Council has been pretty clear that a land management plan is required if Council wants to consider utilising Lions Park for a use that's inconsistent and needs to develop a land plan. I guess our advice is we need to follow through on this process at some point because potentially as it stands, we're not. Meeting our legal obligations under the Land Act. So our advice is we need to start this process at some point because we currently haven't been following that process and need to start to ensure that we meet those obligations going forward. Frank Wilkie 03:16:15.738
Question to Director Walsh. If this motion is deferred for a month, so we get Land Act. Costings and legal advice sorted out, and that we're very clear what we're committing to, is there any reason why the rest of the program will be impeded in any way. Shaun Walsh 03:16:36.946
Thank you for raising the question. It does raise issues with the balance of the Go Noosa report, particularly in negotiations with TransLink, divestment providers, RSX-5 service, as we have contractual obligations to put things in. Some of the delays last year in contract negotiations as a result of similar Council debate did cause contractual issues with one of the suppliers releasing their fleet of zero emissions buses to other suppliers. So it would be preferable for the other items in the Go Noosa recommendation to. Frank Wilkie 03:17:12.952
Councillors, I'm going to foreshadow that if this procedural motion falls, I'll move one that says that the matter be deferred to the August Ordinary Meeting in order for the CEO to receive advice as to whether use of the Lions Park for parking is in order considering its potential conflict with the Land Act in that it proposes to proceed with an inconsistent use in the absence of the land management plan and the rest of the motion proceed sorry Amelia Lorentson 03:17:36.586
Can I um can I sorry Frank Wilkie 03:17:38.636
I'll just ask is that does that solve the problem no no Brian Stockwell 03:17:45.693
Just amend the motion if I was to make a suggestion uh if it was to fall the best thing would be to amend the motion yes yeah yeah alternatively Amelia Lorentson 03:17:55.346
Alternatively if this is to fall I don't know why we can't on recommendation or just what we've just heard from Richard our Director that we just move a procedural motion that consideration of the proposed use of lines car park for car parking overflow parking be deferred pending correspondence being sent to the minister seeking approval for the temporary overflow use of the land while Council prepares and progresses a land management plan to address the ongoing management and future use of the site me that addresses both issues we write directly asking whether we minister is okay for 21 days 2026 2027 so we give some certainty to the Lions Club and the core copy cutting group and other organisations give them enough notice to prepare and at the same time rather than seeking advice let's just go ahead and start progressing the land management plan Brian Stockwell 03:18:55.430
So I'm going to ask the procedural motion a notion, addressing a motion not a question. It was also inconsistent with the advice being asked three times and received three times in the contrary so I think we need to put the procedural motion. Frank Wilkie 03:19:12.368
Just to clarify again writing to the minister you said was not recommended because the minister it's the council's responsibility to manage the land under its control Richard MacGillivray 03:19:25.193
The Through the Chair I mean that absolutely and that's what the guidelines have outlined that responsibility now rests with us to make that decision um we could, as mentioned I to the Council, we could make inquiries about that, but the previous advice has been, and the guidelines do refer to, that it is now our responsibility. But in the interests of trying to explore solutions, I'm open to writing a letter if that assists. Frank Wilkie 03:19:48.682
Right. Any other alright, questions? Any other, Councillor Wegener, you explain? Tom Wegener 03:19:55.851
So if this falls, then you're going to that the rest of the go vote upon the rest of the Go Noosa and defer this segment, the Lions Park area, part of the event. Frank Wilkie 03:20:10.592
That even the suggestion was that if this falls, we can amend the substantive motion to have an extra line that suggests that the use. Of the lines, we defer. Consenting to the use of the lines park for overflow car parking while we get further advice and costings about the land management plan, which would be required if we wanted to go down that path. The rest of the elements of the Go Noosa Program could proceed. Yeah, great. Okay. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:20:47.343
Just have a question in terms of if we were to go back to the original recommendation. Use the car park, would that negate the need for the land management act moving forward? Frank Wilkie 03:21:02.812
That's my understanding, but the question for staff. So could you please repeat the question, Karen Finzel 03:21:08.031
Councillor? I think I've got the answer. It'll negate it. So is there, if the opportunity, if this falls and we go back to the original motion, which was the recommendation of the staff to not use the Lions Park as parking, please confirm that negates the land management. Richard MacGillivray 03:21:32.252
The need for a land management plan. Through the Chair, yes, it does. There's no need for a land management plan for uses that are consistent with the designation. Frank Wilkie 03:21:46.721
Okay. Okay. Any other Councillors speak to the procedural motion? You wish to close, Councillor Stockwell? Okay. All right. All in favour? Councillor Wilkie, all against, everyone else? Councillor Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilson. Procedural motion is lost. Would someone like to propose an amendment. Tom Wegener 03:22:18.266
I'd like to just propose the original. Frank Wilkie 03:22:22.427
It's already not can't the stage Council like to just propose an amendment. Amelia Lorentson 03:22:29.630
I might try a procedural motion if that's okay that Council defer consideration of the proposed use of the lines just said a procedural motion maybe a procedural motion I'm just going to test this one of the proposed use of a Lions Park car park for overflow parking and request the CEO to write to the minister. Seeking approval for the temporary overflow use of the land while Council prepares and submits a land management plan for the minister's consideration. Further. Have you guys got that written down? Do you want to email it to me? Oh, I could, yeah. I'll read it for you while I send it to you. Brian Stockwell 03:23:30.963
I'll do a point of order to save the time. There's no provision within the Standing Orders for a procedural motion to allow a deferred part of the motion. You must defer the whole of the motion, the item or the amendment. You can't defer part of the motion so the procedural motion would fail because it's up to Boris. Frank Wilkie 03:23:48.761
Perhaps an amendment might be more appropriate, Councillor Phillips. I have an amendment Amelia Lorentson 03:23:52.999
That's just been set to Kabi. And I can't move an amendment if anyone wants to move my amendment. I think you said you did the original too, did you? Brian Stockwell 03:24:01.927
Yes, I did. I'll try an amendment. If you can bring the current motion as it stands in front of us so I can. So, the delete items E and F, include a new item. D and F, was it? D and F. D and F. And include a new item which. X yeah, which requests staff to bring back a further report as to program. The. Appropriate process likely costs associated with agreeing to an inconsistent use of the headline. Noosa to park the overflow car park. Amelia Lorentson 03:25:42.501
Through the Chair, can I request before this is seconded to Councillor Stockwell whether he would include consideration of wording that we also write to the minister to just ask the question whether or not temporary overflow car parking can be allowed for this Christmas 2026/27 period. Brian Stockwell 03:26:07.131
I wouldn't be agreeable because the minister has no say. The reason this becomes an issue as far as the motion is concerned is that it's our decision and by law councils cannot approve a motion that is inconsistent with the law. Frank Wilkie 03:26:24.600
Councillor Stockwell, are you wanting to make any reference to the Land Act or land management plan in that? Could. Brian Stockwell 03:26:33.684
It's actually an appropriate process, obviously. I was just trying to keep the words in. Yeah. Okay. That doesn't say when would you like to meet. I'm happy if Councillors would like to say to the next meeting of Councillors. Yeah, I think we need it. You have, if you, if everyone would like a land management plan, but that is the appropriate process. Jessica Phillips 03:26:59.879
Questions? Sorry. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 03:27:03.679
Chris. Take it make it like an easy one to mix. Jessica Phillips 03:27:08.371
The report, would you ask for a workshop or can we have a workshop before the report? Unidentified Speaker 03:27:13.758
Normally you would. We can do that. We can make sure Frank Wilkie 03:27:19.110
I want to fully understand it as well. Yeah. All right. Are you happy with that wording, Council? Request staff to bring back a further report to the August Ordinary Meeting as to the appropriate process and likely costs associated with agreeing to an inconsistent use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park for overflow parking. May we have a seconder for that? Nicola Wilson 03:27:41.489
Sorry, should it be the General Committee? Amelia Lorentson 03:27:48.032
Only ordinary can go to ordinary. It have been to ordinary deferral. Brian Stockwell 03:27:53.611
No, this is not a deferral motion, this is an amendment, so it can go to general. Frank Wilkie 03:27:59.995
Good point, Councillor Wilson. Thank you. The August General Committee. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:07.854
Can I ask a question to Councillor Stockwell? So in terms of requesting staff to bring back a further report as to the appropriate process, maybe a question to Director Richard milvillivray. With consideration of writing to the minister to request to reuse, be part of the- point of order. Brian Stockwell 03:28:30.348
Yes. This is getting repetitive to the point that it's almost inappropriate meeting behaviour. It's about the sixth time that same person's been asked. It's wasting our time. Okay. Point of order is upheld. Frank Wilkie 03:28:42.540
We have a seconder for the amendment, please. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stockwell. I think we all know what we're doing. Okay. Any other Councillors would speak to the amendment? Jessica Phillips 03:28:56.393
I have a question. One more question because it doesn't say it on the screen. So you're taking out items E and F. Is anything to do with the Lions Club car park. Because that's being deleted in this amendment. So then what is likely to happen, question, is that there will be re-debate on the Lions Club car park after? Yeah, August. And question to the CEO, is it likely to impact then, like becoming, the way I see it is that's in August, how there's a decision in August to have the car park, like in the decision made today, is that actually going to put them under significant pressure as volunteers to actually what deliver what they've been delivering for 20 years? I'm just. Frank Wilkie 03:29:58.506
Director Walsh Shaun Walsh 03:29:59.094
Has his hand up. Thank you for your question. Based on previous years, that's been allowed. Okay. Frank Wilkie 03:30:09.543
Councillor Stockwell, do wish to close? I'll put it to the vote. Of those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie. Those against? Councillors Lorentson, Phillips and Wilson. The amendment is carried. It becomes part of the substantive motion to which only Councillor that was moved by Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips to which Councillor Lorentson has spoken. Can we have the substantive motion up? It will just take me a couple of seconds. As it stands now please. By the amara Cathy 03:31:50.684
The time was perfect when you called that out, the screen went blank. Yeah. It was like perfect timing, sorry. She's like, she's can kind I top it off? Okay. Frank Wilkie 03:32:03.645
That's it. Thank you, Cathy. Councillors, if you wish to speak, any final comments or questions or amendments? Karen Finzel 03:32:12.051
Yes, Councillor. I just need a few minutes to go back and look at that the amendment I made previously to the alternative motion which is part. Oh, that's all right. Yeah, I see it there now. Yes, it still is part F. We might have to change. That's it. Part F. Do we need to change that though or leave it as it is? Frank Wilkie 03:32:38.639
Start with the we can part do it Councillors wish to speak to the substantive motion before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 03:32:52.614
So this is the substantive motion. This is the motion now. We're E and F, D. Deleted from this. Frank Wilkie 03:33:01.685
The other E and F were deleted, which was, and the other items have moved up to fill E and F. Tom Wegener 03:33:08.958
Okay. Please give me a moment to. Cathy 03:33:10.140
Yeah. Is it still there? Let me look at it. Came out. Yeah, but she lived up to it. Oh, it can't be. Brian Stockwell 03:33:30.971
Yeah. You know, it's totally consistent. E and F are consistent. Thank now that, I mean. F and sorry about that. Because it doesn't mention parking. No. It doesn't mention parking. This means there's a stakeholder advisory group which would be part of the process or could be part of the process. Jessica Phillips 03:34:06.146
Okay. Can I ask a question? Yeah, Councillor Phillips. Yes, just in the last amendment did you, and please take this away, the intention behind it, when ENF got deleted, was it your understanding that then is not in the substantive motion before us when it came out? Karen Finzel 03:34:27.721
Yeah. Frank Wilkie 03:34:28.848
Yes, that's correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. To move this along, Councillors, I'm going to vote in support of the motion. This the other elements of the Go Noosa Program to proceed. And it also gives us the information we're going to need to make an informed decision about approving parking in the Lions Park for overflow parking by the August General Committee Meeting. Will we'll have feedback and advice on the legal steps we have to go through and the likely costs if we wanted to undertake a land management plan, which is the appropriate way to go. Remain consistent with our obligations under the Land Act as trustees of the land. I think it's a good mix of initiatives and it's the wise and responsible way to go and they'll be debate about the parking in the Lions Park in the August meeting but it will be informed by legal advice and proper costings, implications for the budget if that's the way we choose to go Jessica Phillips 03:35:39.067
I'm just going to speak um quickly and I won't say whether I'm for or against it at this stage but I'm just going to make a point of process um that puts us in a position like we are today which disappoints me um as someone that likes to know all the information and have really good conversations um offline I believe type of process puts us um and because I know that this will come for me after as well that I can make decisions on the fly um what I don't like is putting us in a position where it doesn't give us good um outcomes as far as how we look as a Council so um yeah I'm really disappointed in the way that this went today Frank Wilkie 03:36:23.311
Council Tom Wegener 03:36:26.872
Well I'd like to congratulate the Go Noosa team they're absolutely fantastic um this we are continuing with the Go Noosa project with this um amendment and in a way, this seems to. Be a kind of a line in the sand where we either completely dump the whole um Walking and Cycling Strategy the Go Noosa strategy and just let that go even though it's been supported by the liveability survey Destination Management Plan on and on all of the public consultation that says we want to um lessen congestion and traffic problems in the haystack street area the stat the reports come back it's the Lions Club Richard MacGillivray 03:37:11.983
Parking that contributes to that if we're going to go down the route Tom Wegener 03:37:15.847
Of the Walking and Cycling Strategy well we need that that's that's just a little piece so it's the arguments today and the debate about the Lions Park is a much smaller piece to the overall project of are we going to usually going to go one way which is go back and pretty much put up the walls and keep things just exactly the way they are we going to go forward and try to move people and move people not necessarily cars try to have a Walking and Cycling Strategy where more people can come here and flow and enjoy the place versus congestion old ways so I'm happy to see that we've staggered forward and are improving the vast majority of that the only supplant so thank you staff for and everybody for consistently pushing on Amelia Lorentson 03:38:06.259
I do have a question uh to the CEO can I CEO ask our CEO is there still an opportunity say for the Hastings Street Association to submit an event permit to allow overflow car parking for three weeks um at lines park is that another option that we have haven't really discussed and may be available to the business community that's Larry Sengstock 03:38:34.339
A good question um I don't have a direct answer other than to say that my feeling would be fact that we're the trustee of the park is our obligation so we're basically putting a permit back on ourselves and I'm not sure that process is an acceptable process but I'm happy to take some advice on that Nicola Wilson 03:38:56.517
Okay any Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Wilson. Councillor Phillips, I'm pretty disappointed with how much time we've wasted on this particular agenda item both in the General Committee Meeting and today we're going around in circles on this we did at some point today have the majority saying we will continue to use the car park could have had an amendment that said subject to completion of a land management plan we're now shifting things down the road again for another month and I think this could have been dealt with more efficiently however my biggest concern is that we keep getting these recommendations that say well we recommend that you don't use the park therefore we won't look into the alternative which is to not use the park and therefore we should have had the information on exactly what a land management plan involves and had that costed we shouldn't be needing to ask for more information or debate it for hours that should have been given to us in the first place so that we all came to the meetings knowing exactly what we needed to do if we were going to continue to use the park for parking Brian Stockwell 03:40:01.948
Yeah. I can disagree on many levels with his last statements. Staff clearly gave us a report, they clearly gave us a level of advice. We don't want start. Staff to be just handing out here's all your options. We want staff to do the job they're paid for, which is to give us professional advice. They've given us professional advice in accordance with the law. If we and if they gave us the information required the council's wish to bear it from their recommendation, it's not up to staff to do the research to work out that they need a budget submission if they're going to do a land management plan. Staff to suggest, it's up to Council to ask the question if they want to go. Again, to the staff, in my experience, they've always been very helpful in providing information to inform the contrary. So it's not wise to suggest that it's disappointing. Start with it's a job of a Councillor to come to the meeting prepared and I think every Councillor that came to this meeting understanding that there was going to be a significant debate over the issue because it's always a very significant debate. I'm happy to support the motion. I did leave the Mayor to dry with the deferral motion because I listened to the Director who said it would potentially have an impact on the other aspects of the Go Noosa Program and that's important. When I'm a Councillor I make decisions to try and make it take us steps forward and the Go Noosa Program is one that year on takes steps forward and of course it's in a better position to address the issues that we have got from the fact that as I think Councillor Wegener mentioned you know it's the best beach in Australia basically north when the surf's going so and you have the natural environment so I support the motion I'd like Go Noosa to go ahead and I fully appreciate where the majority of councils did indicate and that's why. I think the most important thing is we go ahead in a way that is consistent with the Land Act now and we have the responsibility for making the decision. Frank Wilkie 03:42:07.751
Yeah. Councillor Wilson, there was an implied criticism in your statements about the report. Is there anything you'd like to say about that one? Would you care to withdraw element any of that. And I apologise caused to the staff. Nicola Wilson 03:42:27.340
I apologise for any offence, but I believe the information should have been in the report. Frank Wilkie 03:42:30.925
Thank you. And just to make clear the information about the land, the requirement for the land. Our reference to our obligations on the Land Act were part of the report. Okay. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion before Councillor Lorentson then closes? Moses? Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:42:58.205
Yeah. Firstly, I'd like to just say thank you to all the fellow Councillors for the work that everyone's done on this. The rigorous debate and questions around the table. I thank for diligence to take the time to pause and review given what's been spoken around the table today you know I think leadership is a better process so I'm happy to follow this process to make sure that we pause and make sure we get the right information back at the table. I'm hopeful and mindful that the other stakeholders, the Lions Park, the business owners and the community through the amendment I've put up will be eventually able to have a say. I think we've just got to wait for that further information to come back to us. Amelia Lorentson 03:43:50.223
You have okay where do I start? Lots of conversation around the table in terms of you know legal risk, governance risk, process costs etc. What I haven't heard around the table is reputational risk and a reputational risk in terms of our decision-making and public trust. You know reference was made that this had nothing to do with dinello and the analogy that was made by some of the Councillors that wasn't relevant. I totally disagree. The reference of a commonality is about listening to the people that put us in our seats. The commonality or the similarity was about listening to our small businesses. This is Council of Frank Wilkie 03:44:47.071
Lawrence and DeSantis, what was said about the amendment. About the amendment, not the motion that's before now Amelia Lorentson 03:44:53.199
I'm talking, I'm referencing the motion in front of us and I'm also referencing the comments that I made when I moved the motion. Thank you Mayor Wilkie. So again we're sitting here. We had a majority, four of us had agreed to allow overclocked car parking and then a procedural motion and further amendments were made after consensus to allow 18 or 21 days to open the Lions Park. To me what's in front of us is a problem to a solution. We had a solution and we found a way to make it a problem. Last year we opened park. There was no land management act, there was no breaches, no letters from the minister of state saying that we had breached any of our legal requirements. Again, post, I a couple of questions. Why can't we just simply write to the minister, point of order, unsuitable meeting conduct. Again, finding problems to potentially solutions. Is there an opportunity for Hastings Street Association to apply for an event permit to allow overflying? I find that sometimes that maybe it's the mindset of the people that are making decisions that impact I find or compromise public trust. Maybe we should be looking at these sorts of recommendations with a mindset, yes, if, rather than no, but. Keep coming back to, you know, discussions about economic impact, the events of the last week, our Business Round Table on Monday, and it's just a recurring, thing. That we need to understand that the decisions that are made around this table impact real people every day. The cost of delay impact people in dollars, and also mental wellbeing. The pressures, the uncertainty. Every time we kick a can down the track, every time we lay out, we include another layer of process, another layer of perplexity. That destroys trust in community, in our decision making. We should be sitting here today with enough information to have made a decision today. That hasn't happened. So I am really disappointed of where we're sitting. Really disappointed. Much for your time today. Last week we were given a warning to listen to our small businesses and our community and I just think we missed that opportunity to show real leadership and to listen to people. Again, who put us here, who pay for our wages. I'm, I can do better and I think our community speaks better of us. This is not okay to me. Frank Wilkie 03:48:14.435
Those in favour of the motion, Finzel, Councillor Wilkie, those against, Councillor Lorentson. Phillips and Wilson. The motion is carried. That brings us to item 11.1.3, the draft Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan. Councillor Lorentson, you have the preparation. Amelia Lorentson 03:48:42.959
All I, right, Councillor Amelia Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a Conflict of Interest for item 7.3 draft Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan on this agenda. My brother lives approximately 550 metres from mouth of the Burgess Creek and I've recently purchased a property in Sunrise Beach. Approximately 550 metres from the mouth of Burgess Creek. This distance has been checked and confirmed by the government's team. Any previous statement I on this request. Estimates in an abundance of caution and consistent with the advice from the office of independent assessor. I believe it is prudent to declare this interest consistent with advice previously considered by this Council in the question of proximity. Alone gives rise to a conflict of interest only, not a material personal interest. My position falls within that same capitalisation. The ICMP for Burgess Creek is a Shire-wide body of work, it forms part of a broader Noosa and catchment strategy for waterways and the decisions before this meeting affect the entire community. It is in that community interest that I wish to and consistently declare. Contribute this interest and I believe I am able to consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. I choose to remain in the meeting room and vote on the issue. Frank Wilkie 03:50:02.414
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 03:50:04.279
Yep. I wish to inform the meeting I have a conflict of interest and the operator 11.3 draft. This agenda due to my role as president of Noosa Lions Football Club which has fields in the catchment. I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the club does not profit for or suffer a loss as a result of the plan and while larger. In logic area? In than most allotments, and in missing there is Cathy, has not significantly greater interest than the many people who live in the catchment. As I have specialist expertise and significant experience in the subject matter, I choose to remain in the room and vote on Frank Wilkie 03:50:43.207
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Does someone care to move the item? Councillor carried. Oh, happy to move. Second it. Councillor Wilson. Okay, all in favour of the draft Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan? That's carried unanimously. 11.1.4 is application for Material Change of Use premises to establish indoor sport and recreation at 26 indy creek road, Noosaville. 11.1.5, planning applications decided by delegated authority, May 2026.11.1.6, procurement contracts, assessment of work and tenure contract awards under the CEO delegation. 11.1.7 was referred to the Ordinary Meeting. We'll deal with this later in the agenda.1.8 operational plan. 2026, 2027.11.1.9, appointment of the 2027 show holiday. 11.1.10 was referred to the Ordinary Meeting. We'll deal with this later in the agenda. It's a confidential Noosa Plan draft amendment. Employment land item. 11.1.11 is the General Committee recommendations en bloc. We have a move from the secretary for the General Committee recommendations to be adopted except we're dealt with separately. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's carried. Item 12.1 is the LGAQ conference motions and Councillor attendance. I'll move that, we need to pull that out for a couple of reasons do we need to? Brian Stockwell 03:52:22.816
We need the names in the banners? That's what I'll be but amelia's got some attachments to me. Do you want to do that as a bonus? Cathy 03:52:30.436
I'm just going to just move it. Frank Wilkie 03:52:33.830
Can I move it? I'm only moving it because the Council is not in there. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:38.992
Oh, okay. Thank you. I think sorry. I think it's probably easy if I just move it and then I can add the council's name, if that's okay with you? Yeah, of course. So happy to move the 12.1 2026 association. LGBTQ conference motions and Council attendance. B approve the submission of the following motions to the local government association of Queensland and your conference 2026 for consideration and debate. Motion coordinated transition and ongoing funding for local governments to continue to provide flood monitoring services. B motion UNESCO biosphere reserves state and national recognition and funding provided at attachment lunch of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July motion UNESCO biosphere reserves updated. C motion state planning reforms to existing biosphere reserves short-term accommodation in low density residential zones provided at attachment 3 D motion recognising and protecting soil as natural critical infrastructure provided at attachment 4 E motion drone beach surveillance supporting lifeguards and beachgoers safety provided at attachment 5 F motion electronic game gaming on Council owned and trustee land provided at attachment 6 G motion funding Queensland councils to pilot opt-in reusable cut programs provided at attachment 7 H motion future proofing Queensland's water supply a whole of water cycle approach to climate resilience provided at attachment 8 I motion real estate reserves J motion submission to state planning policy review provided attachment 10 and K motion state-led safe parking program provided at attachment 2 to the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 16th of July motion state-led safe parking program updated and C approved Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Finzel to attend at the 2026 LGAQ conference in Cairns in October 2026 under the council's expenses reimbursement and provision of facilities policy item 2.1 mandatory professional development and representation. Frank Wilkie 03:55:01.141
I'll have a seconder. Yeah. Part B. Cathy 03:55:07.568
Attachment. Brian Stockwell 03:55:08.489
Yeah, the attachments up there are the attachments on our version of Resolve don't line up. So attachment 1 here is coordinated transition ongoing funding and you talk about attachment 1 being related to the. Amelia Lorentson 03:55:26.058
Attachment 1 to the Minutes. The new copies will be. At attachment 1 to the Minutes of today. Have we seen the new attachment? Yes, they were distributed to all Councillors from Councillor warren's team. I can show them on screen now if you'd like to see the changes. Brian Stockwell 03:55:42.088
Yeah, just the way it's worded, it's not right. Amelia Lorentson 03:55:44.832
That's how we always, when we attach it the Minutes Brian Stockwell 03:55:51.085
Oh, okay, so you have minutes up there rather than the agenda here. Amelia Lorentson 03:55:54.762
Sure. Is there any way we could bridge that? As a result, I can show you the. Now I'll find, Brian Stockwell 03:56:01.242
Let I'm not misreading, anything. Misreading? Cathy 03:56:04.767
You the changes. I'll get them up. Amelia Lorentson 03:56:12.966
I'll speak to the motion and I'll speak specifically to the ones that I've put forth and leave the Council themselves motion for them to speak to. The Council will- We'll keep the five minutes. If that's okay. Okay, I'm going to speed read this. Okay, I'm just going to. Speak to the motions that I've brought forward and why I believe they matter. The first one's housing, and it's to address what's happening right now in our community, that there are people sleeping in cars, women over 55, workers who can't afford local rents, families doing it tough. Many of them are employed and have strong local connections, and simply can't secure affordable housing, despite maintaining work. That's the reality of the housing crisis on the ground. I went to a recent Salvation Army fundraiser a few weeks back, and I was totally inspired by the work salvation has been doing in this space. They've shown that safe, supported overnight parking is practical. And dignified, and it works. So my motion is basically a follow-up from the great work that they're doing. It asks that states should fund pilot programs using surplus government state land, education facilities, transport and rail land, or other. State assets to provide safe overnight parking for people experiencing homelessness, including those employed and living in new vehicles. It also asks the State should deliver on-site wraparound services, including housing assistance, health care, mental health support, employment support. And pathways out. The motion doesn't solve the housing crisis, and nobody's claiming it, but it helps people tonight, while longer-term solutions are worked through. Local governments are not housing authorities, and they're not resourced to respond to the growing demand for homelessness services. That's state responsibility, and the LGAQ is the right place to make that call loudly, and to make sure Queensland local governments stand together in making it. Again, I probably might talk to all my motions. The most important one is gaming machines, so I'm going to talk quickly about that. Problem gambling causes real and devastating harm to individuals and families in our community. Financial ruin, mental health crisis, relationship breakdowns, the social cost runs into the Queensland every year and yet councils currently have almost no segment of pokey licenses granted, transferred or expanded in their own community. My motion pretty much asks for two straightforward straight words. Things. Mandatory consultation with local councils before gaming licenses are granted or expanded, and greater legislative standing for councils to address venue clustering and the harm it causes. This is not about banning poker machines. It's about giving communities a genuine voice in decisions that directly affect them. We've heard from residents, families, and the communities who've lived this harm firsthand, and my motion simply responds to that. Water security, um, is another motion. Single-use cups, biosphere, World Surfing Reserve. Even though I'm on, the probably what I want to say is that, uh, I've worked with our community on most of these motions, um, and, I want and to thank them, it's been genuinely rewarding. Um, I want to note that the big issue-- bigger issues are already on the LGAQ agendas in terms of housing infrastructure, cost shifting, etc. What these motions do is basically adds Noosa and voices to conversations that are here amongst us in our community. Um, safe parking for people-- sleeping in their cars tonight, a real voice on gaming in our neighbourhoods. Water security before the next drought, state funding to support businesses transitioning away from single-use places, and proper recognition and funding from the State, not local ratepayers, for the places and assets we love and have worked so hard to protect. Um, again, I've again, used my position here in Council to bring forward some motions to advocate for the people who came to me and asked for a voice. So I'm hoping that they will get support across the State at the next LGAQ conference. Frank Wilkie 04:00:51.606
Well said, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 04:00:57.546
I'm going to be very, very quick to say thank you to the Councillors that put in the work. Councillor Lorentson and staff Yes, thank you. Sorry, I was thinking about. I said that. Me? No. Because I was really the Director. Cheers. Thank you. There's a start between works and I think it's great to see what staff identify as key things that come through as on ground issues. And went through this way to LGAQ and I really enjoyed going to the conference last year, but also there's not many people I now meet in the community that haven't already said they've met Councillor Lorentson. So she is out there. I wish I've got to. Two young kids. As everyone knows, I can't be there as much as you are, but you are everywhere and you're always bringing the things that are on the ground that people are always talking to me about. You're bringing it right where it should be. So thank you for everyone for doing that. You for Frank Wilkie 04:02:08.268
Yeah, one of the motions that seeks to address biggest issues in our community is the impact of short-term accommodation, the spread of residential neighbourhoods and the loss of homes to short-term accommodation which are essentially visitor accommodation businesses and residential neighbourhoods. One of the motions that reflects the community concern is that the local government association of Queensland calls on the Queensland state government to implement targeted legislative reform to better manage the impacts of short-term accommodation on housing supply and residential amenities. Amending the Planning Act and planning regulation to modify the operation of existing use rights for non-hosted short-term accommodation in the low-density residential zone. So this applies only to whole houses in the low-density residential zone. By limiting the continuation of existing use rights, providing for the extinguishment of such rights upon the transfer of property ownership, enabling a gradual transition of affected dwellings back to the permanent residential use, and provides an opt-in mechanism for local governments. It is not mandatory, recognising variations in housing pressures, tourism profiles and community expectations across Queensland, because some local governments are wanting to have more short accommodation and attract more visitors and have sufficient housing supply. Establishing a clear, balanced statutory framework that enables a staged and orderly transition of housing stock back to long-term residential use and retains appropriate support for low-impact recognises and supports non-hosted short-term accommodation where it is expressly permitted and approved under the planning schemes. Now all these motions will go to the LGAQ. Their they'll appropriateness assess or otherwise for proceeding to the conference. In October where they'll be debated and hopefully adopted by the LGAQ and advocated for to the appropriate levels of government we which hope, end up in legislative change and support. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 04:04:27.212
Thank you. Yes, thank you. I'd like to thank the directors and the staff that did a significant contribution to this motion. I've also reached out to councils out west and they are fully supportive of this motion the around the let me just read out what that is, and it is, has statewide significance. I'm calling on the State government to develop a comprehensive Queensland soil health plan to organisate, operationalise national soil strategy at the State level, and recognise soil as a key national asset and critical infrastructure, essential for water security, agricultural productivity, Healthy Land and Water, flood and tenu ation, climate resilience, and functioning ecosystems. Noting that soil science Australia estimates soils deliver $930 billion value to our economy, making soils Australia's most valuable natural asset. So, um, we want to advocate to complement the state's soils data with a comprehensive soil health map with harmonised soil data sets at a catchment level, as well as a more centralised and accessible program that landholders can access for information, advice, and support to improve soil health without cost is required. It's also worth noting that the global goals adopted in 2015 as part of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development are designed to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace and prosperity for all. Healthy soils underpin our collective ability to achieve the sustainable development goals as acknowledged by Australia's 20-year national soil strategy 2021, but while the strategy aims to recognise soil as a vital asset, Queensland currently lacks a cohesive state-level strategy to operationalise this, particularly for local governments. Frank Wilkie 04:06:40.688
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Any other speakers? Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 04:06:47.712
No, I will. Yeah, it's an interesting group of motions which sort of shows the diversity that local government tries to deal with. The soils, one, there's a very interesting case where, I remember years ago, we tried to get a green infrastructure component to the SEQ regional plan. And the. Healthy soil issue is one that not only underpins all the benefits from our food production, but also healthy soils also have a significantly greater capacity to sequester carbon. So putting more organic content in your soil not only grows better crops, reduces water runoff, but it also helps to address global greenhouse gases. Thank you. The Mayor mentioned the short-term accommodation issue and that was one that I mentioned back in probably three years ago as the only next step we could take to address the level of short-term accommodation we had. Within our normal dwelling stock. That will have implications for a range of councils. It won't have implications for others. It will all depend what their planning scheme defined as a dwelling at the time that the big surge occurred in short-term accommodation and in Noosa. It was around about 2017 to 2020, and unfortunately our scheme that was adopted in 2006 had a very generous definition of a dwelling house in lodensky at the time, and we had control no development implements that enabled us to refuse a short-term accommodation use according to the legal advice at the time, so that is, if it did get the requested change, would be one of the most significant next steps we could take in terms of maintaining our housing stock in our lodensky residential suburbs. For people to live in. The one that hasn't been mentioned yet is the one on submission to the State planning policy review and at the national planning congress I ran into the equivalent of our Director for sustainability and environment one of the first things he raised was how concerned he was about the meetings he'd just been to in regard to the proposal by the State to wipe out a whole lot of state planning interests. And to me it's a proposal, if it was adopted, is a step back from good planning. It's a step back to allowing councils to fight their own fights, which generally means if you haven't got the State setting the minimum benchmark, it means you're more likely to be paying ratepayers dollars to defend good planning decisions because they'll be challenging the value of the Council overlays. So to me that is a really important one for the upholding of the values we hold very dear to us and it is one that I'm confident there'll be many councils around Queensland who will support because it is a significant issue, it is a significant step back. The State in terms of their role in the planning hierarchy so we aren't sure that any will go to much to the conference but there are a range of interesting ones there that do talk to the issues of our time Frank Wilkie 04:10:03.565
Yeah um Councillor Stockwell has a very important point that I have a question for Director lawlings or Director MacGillivray about that can if you can articulate some of the changes that are proposed under state planning policy review that places some uh places poses threats to the Shire or where future residential developments may occur Kim Rawlings 04:10:34.982
Director MacGillivray for paper rock scissors to respond I think you wrote um Through the Chair uh the State are in the process of doing two very significant reviews at the moment one to the State planning policy review um the State planning policies the SPP framework work um in conjunction with our local planning policy so we have our local planning policy our Noosa Plan and the State planning policy the SPP um which outlines a whole raft of state interests and when we um go through the development assessment process depending on levels of assessment the State planning policy the SPP plays an important part in the assessment of managing a variety of state interests relating to things like natural hazards bushfire biodiversity areas flood you know the raft of natural hazards that occur at the moment the SPP is under review and the advice is that the those aspects of the SPP will be removed from the framework around natural hazards flood bushfire climate erosion those sorts of things from the State policy. That doesn't mean that those issues can't be looked at as part of the local planning framework and they do in our own planning scheme. But it is somewhat concerning that those important issues that aren't just local they are statewide issues and what the State planning policy also does is provide a consistent framework and a consistent methodology for how all local governments consider these things as well as statewide mapping so if those things were to not occur there's some real risk. Risks around you know potential future liabilities or issues that might occur through the development assessment process potential for inconsistent methodologies and mapping to occur across local governments which is not helpful for the development industry who many work across local government boundaries if that was to happen so yes it's me. In the middle of a review at the moment and I think it will be a topical discussion at the LJQ. Frank Wilkie 04:13:03.274
So just to break it down Director Lawrence that means there can be less regard to when you say hazard mapping as flood zones, fire prone zones, there could be developments that are rushed through or have proper approved in areas that are flood prone and fire prone without proper regard to those hazards. Kim Rawlings 04:13:23.928
From a state planning policy perspective yes but that doesn't mean that local governments cannot still consider those things at the local level which we would still do because it sits within our planning scheme. But as a state level interest yes there are implications. Frank Wilkie 04:13:40.334
So these changes do go through, if the Council refuses a subdivision for example in a flood prone zone because of that risk, is there a possibility the State may override that decision because of these changes? Kim Rawlings 04:13:56.665
I'm looking for to Richard here um because I don't want to jump at scenarios but there are some concerns because this process okay if it's if applications the if the refused it depends on whether it goes through a court process an appeal process it depends on whether or not we've relied on the issue as state interest as part of the decision making so there's a few variables in it um and our motion um that we are putting to like uh the LGAQ really raises the risks that there are some risks um and the outcomes the unintended consequences um are not fully understood or fully considered and that's the biggest concern you know that the potential thing that you just outlined. Is a potential and it's we're not concerned that hasn't been fully considered okay Frank Wilkie 04:14:47.984
Thank you castle Lorentson you wish to close um Amelia Lorentson 04:14:55.934
I'll keep it brief um but every year LGAQ con the annual conference um gives us a genuine opportunity to put out community voices in front of state and Federal governments um backed by the councils right here across Queensland I think what the motions that we've just heard in front of us um just form a suite of I think 122 motions that are put forward by 77 councils across Queensland I think people forget that the main purpose of the LGAQ conference is actually to for the LGAQ which is our peak advocacy body um they put forward what's called a um action plan a um it's called a oh my gosh the 2026 advocacy action plan so that basically identifies um the top key priority. Priorities that have been identified across all the 77 councils and this year the top seven um and comes as no surprise after listening to Richard and Kim and also reflecting the emotions we've got in front of us the issues are the key priorities are reducing the cost of living um energy that works for Queensland better local infrastructure planning development and housing for the future building safe resilient and livable communities empowering First Nations people stronger councils and protecting the environment I think my take home I've been going to national and state conferences for over six years and my take home is that councils level of government that councils sit that we get a really small share of all the national funding and the challenges we face we can't do alone so this is our opportunity to advocate to the State to the Federal and amplify our issues and priorities through an advocacy group where it's not one Council that's asking for help it's the voices of 77 councils across Queensland and that makes a hell of a lot more noise than just one Council so it's an honour and privilege I'm looking forward to it's you take you bring home so much from these conferences it's a real learning experience and networking experience. Frank Wilkie 04:17:33.920
Thank you Councillor Lorentson. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We now come to Ordinary Meeting reports sorry 12.2 is a confidential item that was referred to the Ordinary Meeting as this is Brian Stockwell 04:18:06.021
Conversation, so I'm just do we need to debate it against that? Frank Wilkie 04:18:11.253
I'd like to understand the changes, yeah. We now move to item 13, Ordinary Meeting reports. Recreational boating facilities at Hilton, esplanade, dunellin, bridgeton and Tewantin via Maritime Safety Queensland. We have Director Walsh here for this report. Jessica Phillips 04:18:29.424
Can I ask for a one minute adjournment? Absolutely. Frank Wilkie 04:18:35.798
One minute we'll take five minutes. Okay, thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:28:39.360
Right, we're back. Welcome back, everybody. Up to item 13.1, which is the recreational boating facilities of Hilton Esplanade, Doonella bridge, Tewantin, by Maritime Safety Queensland. We have Director Shaun Walsh here to give us the report. Thank you, Sean. Shaun Walsh 04:28:53.540
Good afternoon. This report provides an overview. And update on the proposed Maritime Safety Queensland, or MSQ, recreational boating facility adjacent to the danelle and Bridget Hilton Esplanade. It responds to their previous study in January '23, as well as subsequent versions. The initial study was considered by Council at its meeting in June 2023, where resolved to welcome the start of a process with MSQ to upgrade facilities, however raised concerns for the unrealistic increase in car and trailer car parking capacity due to traffic, landscaping and environmental impact. Following the release of the study and announcement of the government election commitment of $2.5 million to fund recreational boating facilities at Noosa River, MSQ is proactively engaged with Council opposites to further consider the design of the facility at this location. The report outlines a series of design parameters that Council ideally would like MSQ to further consider as part of their design requirements for the site, following assessment by Council officers. It is noted that MSQ have not undertaken a community engagement program over the detailed design of this facility as of yet. Council welcomes the finding of that community engagement program before finalising its deliberations. The report also notes some concerns for the funding arrangements, particularly the onshore components to ensure it's adequately accommodated in the design. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:30:11.986
Now, before we move to questions, I'm happy to move it. Before a seconder, we can have questions of Sean. So I'd like to move that, without a seconder to our questions. Very much for the report. As the report makes it clear, this is an MSQ project. MSQ is driving the consultation and they are collaborating with the Council on the design. It's very important that this project gets a move on. Members of the community are very, there's many members of the community are very keen to see this project progress. They've actually gone to some trouble to raise the money. The lack of funds was an objection. Prior to the last election, they managed to get a commitment out of the incoming LNP government, $2.5 million, towards this project, so they've gone some way, a long way towards getting this project happening. I do have some questions about some of the parameters, but I understand that the Council is proactively working with MSQ. Are the project managers, but they are quite collaborative approach, and they are quite open to taking on board or considering some of the parameters that you've listed here. I have a question about C, could you explain why the setback from dunedda bridge for future traffic lanes is a considerable. Consideration here because we're looking at broadening the approaches to dunedda bridge or broadening dunedda bridge in the future. Shaun Walsh 04:31:54.728
Just part of the detailed technical assessment, you know, with our roads pointed out that, you know, we have a bridge which is, you know, over 50 years old, which we're well aware that is under repair at the moment, and just being prudent to actually preserve, you know, space and the approaches to that bridge to consider. Alternative arrangements in the future. So in terms of approaches, ramps, and also dealing with any hydrological issues associated with the bridge as well. So just clarify, that was advice from TMR? No, that was a Council structure. And a Council bridge. So it's advice from our internal engineers. Frank Wilkie 04:32:28.253
So engineers. Thank you. Questions, Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 04:32:33.579
For part C, advise MSQ of the following design parameters that Council seeks for MSQ to include in its ongoing design work. How has that been arrived at given that we don't have a Council position on what we want the design to be? Shaun Walsh 04:32:47.746
It's a recommendation from Council staff following our officer review of the proposal as detailed in the report. Also follows on from council's previous resolution in June 2023, which raised issues for, you know, number of parking, you know, foreshore impacts, number of CTU units. So we're being consistent with the previous recommendation from Council. Jessica Phillips 04:33:13.950
Just in relation, again, back to the Doonella bridge, the current, I had to bring it up, but we're currently looking at what's underway now. In that consideration with the contractor, was there, just sort of back to see if there is this kind of foresee future. Shaun Walsh 04:33:37.125
Yeah it's not about the current bridge works at all so that the embankment is being reconstructed in that location. This is just future proofing the idea that maybe the bridge structure looks very different in the future. So it's just preserving options and setback, it's not contrary to actually some of the design layouts and the like so yep it's just prudent to raise that as an idea or recommendation. Jessica Phillips 04:34:00.480
And just to clarify then the current bridge that we're seeing under how many years is that meant to give us? Shaun Walsh 04:34:06.746
We're hoping that it'll give us 40 years but we'll need to plan for its replacement probably 10 to 15 years ahead of that time frame. Frank Wilkie 04:34:13.783
Question, how soon do you think MSQ is going to move to the public consultation on the process? Shaun Walsh 04:34:20.412
They haven't indicated to us. We would prefer sooner rather than later because obviously this proposal is generating a lot of interest. Frank Wilkie 04:34:28.255
This project intersects with another project that's planned for Hilton Esplanade. Could you give us an overview of how these two projects may intersect and at which points? Shaun Walsh 04:34:40.891
Yeah, so the other project that Council is pursuing in that location is the reconstruction of the street, the reconstruction of the drainage and the dealing with foreshore erosion along Hilton Esplanade and we've been out in the community about that project. We've been very careful to point out to the community that the scope of that project does not include outside this program area so it's the scope. So they have raised concerns and thoughts you know as a result of some of the public commentary about this proposal to us but we've had to let them know that they need to raise those concerns directly with MSQ as part of their you know future consultation program. Frank Wilkie 04:35:14.767
And just from the feedback received so far are from the residents what some are things they regard to the way Hilton Esplanade project intersects with this program? Shaun Walsh 04:35:26.082
As part of so as part of the consultation for that project and it wasn't solicited by staff but they did submit a letter raising concerns. For a boat facility in this location and specific concerns for vehicle traffic along Hilton Esplanade accessing the car park or accessing the program. Amelia Lorentson 04:35:46.867
And was feedback also sought from the boating community? Shaun Walsh 04:35:51.519
So when we were out to the community we weren't actually out of the community about the boat grant facility. We had a very clear plan about what our scope of engagement was and that stage of engagement was the first stage which with local residents prior to actually further developing a plan which needs further consideration. But the scope of works was really just the Hilton Esplanade adjacent to the residents and not concerning where this program boat grant proposal is. Jessica Phillips 04:36:17.421
Question in relation to item A. I'm just wondering if MSQ has identified a legislative requirement for commercial vessel launching at this location. If so, just wondering why Council specifically talked about what they would like to see launched off there. It just doesn't seem to be our lane, so I just need to clarify their proposition. Shaun Walsh 04:36:38.935
Is based Noosa, Tewantin, on operational experience from us and Council because we actually issue road permits for actually deployment and retrieval of vessels in that location maybe about 12 times a year. I'll just give you a frequency. So that area was used for the retrieval of all the houseboats on the river recently, but it's also Council for actually deployment of rock for armouring. And also other providers such as when we launch the dredges that come into the river to actually dredge the canals. So functionally, it is an area that is used for deployment of those size of vessels. And the benefits of that location is that when they're using it, doesn't impact upon the only other locations for deployment of those vessels, which would be the boat ramps at lake street, and also Thomas Street. So it's convenient in that regard. It's also a fairly open area. So I need to point out, we don't think this is, what's the word, contrary or exclusive to, you know, to event, you know, any future unit. It's just a design permit to have a large open area for a large truck to back in there and deploy or retrieve large items. Frank Wilkie 04:37:42.229
Just a question, is MSQ under any obligation to include all these, being the project manager? Shaun Walsh 04:37:49.331
And yes, so. Well, no, they'll consider that along with other parameters from state government stakeholders in the community. Jessica Phillips 04:37:57.758
I'll pass no, I have a question with the provision of a shared pathway. A shared pathway through the adjacent, through and adjacent to the site. Just having flashbacks of the foreshore plan where we had to widen the footpath to avoid people going through the boat area down on foreshore. So that one's confused me about why that provision is in there. Shaun Walsh 04:38:21.855
Yeah, there already is as part of the cycle, you know, walking route, people coming from filton esplanade onto the bikeway bridge adjacent to the Doonella bridge. So that's already a popular route. But, you know, as part of upgrade to that facility, we just need to formalise those arrangements and, make sure it's properly accommodated for them. So there are options that it could weave around the, you know, the fire station and back into tilden esplanade and not be anywhere within the actual boat ramp area. And ideally, would separate those. And that's been some of our discussions today. Amelia Lorentson 04:38:54.574
I'd like to move an amendment, please. That recommendation C is deleted in its entirety and recommendation E be amended as follows: E. Request the matter request the matter be reported back to Council. For further consideration of the proposal following MSQ. MSQ's community and stakeholder engagement and consultation findings, at which point Council will consider its position on design matters if required. I'll give be a second. Okay, second to Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. My reasons. Okay, I'll start with, first of all, this is a state-led, state-funded project. And it's important that we understand that MSQ are the experts, and we should actually just leave it to them. MSQ is funding and designing this facility. Council is not the design authority here. I'm concerned that sending MSQ a nine-point list of design conditions before they've even consulted the community places Council in the position of dictating outcomes in an area that, in my opinion, should fall within MSQ's expertise and mandates, not councils. I also want to note that the money was won by the boaties, for the boaties, and their objective was to fix a car trailer parking shortfall. The funding exists because the owners campaigned for it, and with the support of our former Mayor, Clare Stewart, and ex-state LNP candidate, she was able to secure a $2.5 million election commitment that was specifically to address the critical shortfall in trailer parking, and I think it's really important to throw some data. Noosa Shire has the highest per capita registration of small vessels, and the second highest per capita registration of travelable vessels of any local government area in South East Queensland. There's 5156 vessels registered to the Shire as at 2022, of which 95% are travelable against that demand and there's only currently 13 boats here in the Shire and only 39 for the trailer car parks. This is not complex planning problem requiring nine conditions. It's generally straightforward, there's a severe shortfall that we need to address and we need more car trailer parking on land that's already used informally for exactly that purpose. This I is want to note when I went through the report there was a version 02 with 16 space concept. I really want on record that I think that should actually just be deleted, not even entertained. A net gain of roughly six spaces. So informally at the moment we've got about 10 car Parker trailing. To spend $2.5 million to get an extra six is to me a total waste of $2.5 million of hard won state funding. So I really want that to be totally scrapped. Item CA is redundant. You know, as Councillor Phillips sort of mentioned that to me that provision for periodic large commercial vessel and item launch is already a matter of MSQ's own planning and permanent arrangement seems almost redundant. Item CB, I keep going back to the November 2023 non-powered water sports feasibility study. It seems that we're contradicting our own findings and also raises safety concerns. And all the remaining design parameters, the setbacks, CPT, DEEM, environmental impacts, amenity infrastructure, to me, again, are probably matters for MSQ's design process and forthcoming community consultation. It shouldn't be a preemptive Council position. We're not even seeing the MSQ's consultation outcomes and locking in detailed positions. To me, risk, preempting or conflict. What genuine community and voter consultation will surface. I think we should just wait to respond until after that consultation with our boaties and with community, rather than trying to anticipate a redesign issue in advance. Again, I'm just going to finish by saying that what I'm seeing in front of us is that we're overcomplicating something that is fundamentally a very simple ask, and this is remnant road reserve land that's already been used informally for trailer parking. What the funding was for is to formalise and expand the existing use to meet known quantified demand. I've requested we delete all the long list of conditions and allow MSQ the ability to just do their job as technical experts. Frank Wilkie 04:44:40.363
Question. Are these actually conditions that MSQ are obliged to abide by? Shaun Walsh 04:44:48.590
I can't answer that, Councillor Wilkie. It depends on your planning interpretation. So if they're actually required to actually lodge, develop an application with the Council to execute the works, which is consistent with our interpretation, these are things that we would have to consider under Noosa Plan. Like it's a forecast, they may have exemptions under their relevant legislation that they don't need to lodge a development application. So there's varying interpretations and they would need to be assessed under that relevant instrument. Frank Wilkie 04:45:17.437
Yeah. And just to clarify, could you clarify the tenure on the land, who's responsible for it and there was and what the council's responsibilities are for giving advice on future developments such as this. Shaun Walsh 04:45:30.215
So the tenure of the land, above hywel woodmark, is road reserved under Council trusteeship. So, you know, that is laying set aside for transport and road purposes. So, so that's clear. Some of the proposals do extend into the Noosa River, which is below Council or outside of Council jurisdiction. And probably that process will be led by department of natural resources, you know, and various other state agencies about the use of that land. In terms of the zoning, it's unzoned. So, and for the purpose of the planning scheme, we would assume the zone of the adjacent land, which is community services zone for the fire station. Noting there is a Tourism Accommodation Zone and environmental management conservation on the other side of lothian esplanade. That would set up a landing under council's Noosa Plan as being code-assessable. This is defined as a landing. So it would provoke possibly a development application. The use is a mixture of informal dirt, you know, car parking and those historical photos show that's probably a legacy as a result of it being the original approach road to the previous bridge across the Doonella bridge, this green space, which is used informally as a park, and along the foreshore, and adjacent fire station. Frank Wilkie 04:46:41.332
Given is the project manager and often after on this project, are these intended to give MSQ some guidance or considerations rather than hard and fast mandatory that they must do? Shaun Walsh 04:47:03.158
Yeah and I think that's you know suggested or ideal design parameters but we think them we think this is consistent with the way Council will approach any other development in that location whether it was private development or public development. Consistent with the Noosa Plan and other guiding documents, strategies, Noosa Design Principles thanks. Tom Wegener 04:47:22.761
Council castellawema. Waiter. Um considering it to 2.5 million it's pretty obvious that it's going to cost a whole lot more than that especially a Council that has to do the road will tap the Hilton Terrace. Would you really classify it as a funded MSQ project when clearly council's going to have to spend quite a bit of money on it? Shaun Walsh 04:47:46.479
The only way I can answer that is Council has not currently allocated any funds to the construction of this project so it's not in our 10-year capital works program. Council hasn't made a decision to fund it at this point. In the event that the costing came back more than what the State government have allocated, you know, they would need to decide whether they would increase their funding or whether they ask Council to actually fund the balance of it. Traditionally, the approach from Maritime Safety Queensland as stated on their website is that councils traditionally fund the onshore components and they fund the overwater components such as boat ramps but in this case to date they have made an exception. They've been quite clear in their verbal communication to us that they're willing to fund onshore components but it is unclear to what extent and that's why we're articulating that risk in the report. Tom Wegener 04:48:33.175
I'll just quickly speak to it. I won't support the motion and especially because when it comes to trailer traffic along Hilton Esplanade in front of the other houses, to me that's just a line in the sand. There's no way we're going to have boats going up and down that street in front of those poor houses. The amenity would be utterly shattered in that area. Frank Wilkie 04:48:55.686
Question. If this amendment gets up, given that MSG wants to collaborate with the Council, will this preclude. Council from actually giving MSQ any guidance on these points now that they've been deleted? Shaun Walsh 04:49:13.375
We've been very collaborative with MSQ and they're aware of most of these parameters from an officer to exchange, I'm just being honest in terms of I think that the next steps of that would I really want MSQ to come to Council to present their next design rather than any sort of interpretation by Council officers. Jessica Phillips 04:49:38.864
Um, so I will support it. DMP, one of the findings in DMP I'm reading was parking congestion. One of the notes is limited boat trailer parking availability in Noosaville and Tewantin impacts the local residents, residential streets. Um, so I think it will be a welcome, um, project to many. Um, I will go through the list quickly. Um, a, I believe is MSQ's legislation that would, um, dictate where we would sit with that. So I don't believe we would, should be preempting anything. Um, we should wait for the findings of the consultation. Um, b. We've included that in noticeable the Noosaville four. Foreshore plan already to have, um, both, um, power craft, um, provisions and, uh, the all abilities launching near the rowing club. So we did that in the last plan. Um, c, the bridge. I don't believe. This Council will ever approve more than two lanes, um, in and out of, uh, Tewantin. So I can't ever see it being a multi-lane bridge. And I think we would have seen that information coming through, um, more significantly through the recent, um, bridge works. And given that it's 40 years, um, I think that, yeah, it will cost a significant amount more if we delay or stop putting provisions around that. Um, when it comes to the, um. Shared pathway, I am very confused about that being considered when there was a hot debate about the people walking through the boat ramp at Noosaville foreshore plant. So that's, um, I'm happy for that to be taken out. Well, for 10 years, um, I've worked in the space of crime prevention, uh, so I've been, um, one that has actually delivered many, um, CPTED design principles, recommendations, and not once in that 10 years have I ever been asked to do a, um, boat ramp facility, so I'd like to know if there was actually any, um, statistics on vandalism, um, usually it's because you look for CPTED when there's trees or limited lighting and things it'll be an open space, so, um, it actually means CPTED prevention design just by being a boat ramp. Um, especially when people will be using it. So one of the other things you look at is, um, common, um, use. It reduces crime because people could report it. Um, and the environmental impacts, um, and the considerations with G and H, I believe, um, sit with the Sunshine Coast waterways authority. So I would like to see, um, them probably engaged, um, when we find, when we get a plan. Uh, back to us from MSQ. I, think that will come through with the consultation, I'm a bit confused as to how this came to us in the first place. The notes I went back to from the workshop was that it was pretty much considered we to start dictating what we wanted early in the piece and that I felt even though there was definitely always, as different opinions around the table, my notes say that there was certainly enough support from Councillors to go to consultation before we started finding a position. So I'm really uncomfortable with starting to put in any provisions and if we start with this, it should have many, more lists included in it, not just picking and choosing the ones that we want to see. Happy to support the amendment, thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:53:33.535
Tessa Wilson, Nicola Wilson 04:53:34.723
Also happy to support the amendment and in fact planned to move the same amendment. We don't have a Council position. We discussed that in the last workshop that position, shouldn't be putting forward a position and I'm really uncomfortable with a list of items going that Council seeks for MSQ to include in the design when it's not our position to include all of these things in the design. We don't have a position because we haven't had community consultation yet. We also talked about this is MSQ's project and they should be the ones to be spending the money to further this. We shouldn't be using ratepayers funds to be furthering this project so MSQ will do their own community and stakeholder engagement we will of course get access to that engagement and at that point we should decide on our position and if there are breakers in the deal designs that come to us that's not consistent with the community feedback then that's when we should be fighting that battle but not putting pre-emptive they're not conditions but it does say seeks for MSQ to include in its ongoing design work and those with Councillors Karen Finzel 04:54:48.269
I just have a question what is the risk if these are removed and secondly what is the benefit of them being in there like I guess are they an integral part of this report like what's going to be the consequence if they they're removed from the report is there any risk Shaun Walsh 04:55:14.542
Thank you for the question um we won't be advocating for these particular if this is removed from the report we won't be advocating for any of these particular design parameters I will just let MSQ come up with the design and go to community consultation and then report back Frank Wilkie 04:55:32.520
Just a question. You say this is an ongoing with MSQ. Are they already aware? Of these issues? They already are verbally aware Shaun Walsh 04:55:41.839
Verbally aware of these issues but just repeating my previous statement we certainly won't advocate for them any further. If this is the direction the Council wishes to head. Frank Wilkie 04:55:53.487
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 04:55:57.094
Some statements were reviewed that excuse responsibility. From their website, MSQ's is responsible for improving maritime safety for recreational crafts through regulation and education. They're responsible for minimising vessel source waste and responding to marine pollution. They're responsible for providing essential maritime services such as aids to navigation of vessel traffic services and encouraging and supporting innovation in the maritime industry. So, if you're MSQ, that's what you're planning for. It's our role to take account of the many integrated complex issues that affect this site. To remove this is saying, open slather because we don't really want to have a good design issue. Now, think I can of one state government development where it cost them a heap because they didn't ask Council early enough and they built a boat ship down at monad point that took years to Resolve, huge cost for retrofitting because they failed to consider the local design parameters first. I'm not going to do that. These are all reasonable things. So MSQ is one part of the transport department. Another part of the transport department is identified as a state level significance act of transport link. It is perfectly reasonable to bring to their attention that we want that link there. It's been in our planning, it's been in our cycle walking strategy, it's been in our corridor study for years. So to suggest we haven't got a position on that is incorrect. We have got a very clear position announced in all our all that pain we have the major corridor for walking and cycling coming through that park. It is no greater or lesser importance to get that planning right than it is for both parks. The fact that last week we heard because of failure to do good long-term planning we have prevented from doing a temporary bridge to alleviate traffic problems in Tewantin. Should have ringed alarm bells if we don't put in C staff are clearly telling us that the design life is still decades away but we need this area to allow for better long-term planning for accessing Tewantin. That's really essential. Probably one of the biggest ones that we need to point out to them because that, if you were planning for boats, you won't think about having to replace that bridge in 30 or 40 years time. You want to look at what can we do best to get the most number of car parts to get them with the money we've got. Okay? Look at D. Have we been lobbied on this by the Hilton Esplanade residents years ago. So as a Councillor, I want MSQ to know that. And as a Councillor, we've gone down this position that we have already adopted. In our cycling walking away strategy and our corridor study that Hilton Esplanade should be designed so it's safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Increasing. That street for use with boats and trailers is contrary to our adopted position in our plans. So I want MSQ to know that, there's a potential conflict there. That where our preference is, to reduce that conflict by having a new access. If we look at SEPTEC, there may not be any SEPTEC issues, but I remember the report also identified there's no street light infrastructure in this location at the moment. So are the boats going to be landing there all year's or not, do we construct and then find this council's responsibility later on in the RAPO's fund for lighting. These are things that should be considered early in the process and of course the area is highly degraded at the moment, there's no doubt about it, but GNH is at core the of what this Council stands for. When we do any development along the river, we always want to increase the environmental benefit from it, so I think it's really important that we just put that in their mind. Yes, we understand there's a commitment to bike trails, but it shouldn't come at the cost of getting them better. A river frontage, a more active frontage for all users, and one that addresses the long-term implications of the fact that it's our most flood-prone area in the urban part of the Shire. So we have to think about that. Frank Wilkie 05:01:07.525
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the but Council has fulfilled its responsibility by raising these issues and having them discussed on their merit with the ultimate decision maker, MSQ. Of course, the fact whether we want to vote around there or not is beyond question. Is already a boat ramp. There's money for work to be done. I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later, but to a standard that takes, that is responsible and takes into account many of these elements as long as they don't delay the process overly much. I think it's just responsible engagement with the ultimate decision-maker to have these still on the table for staff to discuss them. A collaborative spirit going forward. Jessica Phillips 05:02:45.416
Can I ask a question to the CEO, please? Probably just need to understand our workshops a little bit better. Given that it takes up some of our time and it definitely has got better over the last sort of six months, but I probably need to understand now what our workshops do and in relation Frank Wilkie 05:03:07.215
To I think it's a question about workshops is relevant it to the will be about this because I have what can you make specifically to this case? Jessica Phillips 05:03:15.629
The Minutes that I took from the workshop in relation to this do not align with what's in front of us so I just need to understand what the purpose of the workshops are not that it's a decision-making but probably more for the community to see that we raise things off-camera and we're presented with things that aren't the same, so the question is purpose of workshops. Larry Sengstock 05:03:40.508
Thank you for the question. The purpose of workshops is to go through the information so we get an understanding and a direction or a feeling for where things need to go in terms of reports. Afterwards after the workshops if we're preparing a report then as officers we talk about that and get an understanding of what we think needs to come to Council. My understanding coming out of that workshop is that the whole idea was it is to make this a status report basically to say this is a MSQ market, MSQ, make it well known that this is an MSQ project. However, also we talked in that workshop about a number of things that we talked about or looked at as offices that were potential things that we should be looking to include. Now we can leave this out, but the is it's going to come back later and it's going to delay the project, whereas if you go ahead with it, put some things in there, they're considerations only, they're really things that they've got to look at, otherwise they'll come back with a design, we'll then go back with our considerations. For mine, it potentially could delay the project even further. So that was the intent of this, is really just to try to get ahead of the game, but that was my understanding coming out of the workshop. Is really to give us a feeling of where we think and what we need to do. It's absolutely your prerogative if you want to take them out now, that's your call. Jessica Phillips 05:05:13.077
I definitely identified in the notes that I have some of them being left out, so I just want to understand how it gets to a point for report where some are included and some aren't, and what it is, what's required as a Councillor for me to actually have my voice from a workshop into it, because some are in here and it's been chosen some, but not all of them, so I really need to understand now how we get to a Larry Sengstock 05:05:49.385
Community this is a selection from us that we think are the ones that we thought were most pertinent coming out of that workshop. But that's, again, the idea of bringing it to report. If you want to add or subtract, that's your call. If there's something in there that you think we've missed, please put it in. And we'll get amendments on a regular basis. So if that's the case, surely. We don't capture everything, but this was the intent of this really. So here's the status. Here's some considerations. MSQ assured, John. We want you to go off and do the consultation and then report back to Council when you've got further information. So that was the whole intent of this report. So if it's gone a little bit skewed, then we can apologise for that. But that was the was intent. Frank Wilkie 05:06:30.645
Okay okay. Any other Councillors who want to speak to the amendment? Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 05:06:36.135
Yes. I acknowledge this is a status report to just provide an overview. My question is, as part of the MSQ engagement, does Council have opportunity. To make a submission to MSQ as part of the community engagement consultation process? So I guess, like, if this is removed, can Council officers put forward, like, a package that becomes part of MSQ's community. Consultation process and it can be considered through that process, you know, to avoid risk if it's removed from the report and it needed some significant, you know, contribution through our status report that we miss opportunity if we remove this. Shaun Walsh 05:07:22.800
Thank you for the report. Yes, certainly the same way that the previous recreational study was released, you know, to the public and Council made a submission based on resolution of Council about concerns for traffic and the like. So that's certainly an opportunity at that time. But I can't speak for the content and the breadth and the style of MSQ's consultation program. We have no awareness of how they're intending on approaching that at the moment. But if there's an opportunity to make a submission, of course we can make a submission. Frank Wilkie 05:07:47.106
Thank you. And anyone else who wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 05:08:00.396
I will. And I'm going to start by just repeating what amendment D says. And amendment D says that we request the matter to be reported back Council for further consideration of after MSQ's community and NSQ's stakeholder community in-state consultation findings at which point Council will then consider its position on design matters that are already listed between A and I so it's not saying none of those issues will resurface it's just saying let's understand what consultation means consultation is you consult first then decide not and decide then consult so I also want to bring to you know to everyone's attention I think it was yesterday or a few days ago there was a news article that made I news in MacKay program that the boaties in MacKay were in a similar predicament that we are very very limited car trailer parking spaces and lots of registered vessels they had enough and I can just see that. We are actually going to get you that so councillors at the end of the day I think this comes down to a simple test are we to help the boaties are we here to manage them they fought for this money they didn't ask Council to redesign the river frontage order the shared pathway solve climate adaptation policy they asked for somewhere to park a trailer 5156 registered vessels 39 nine car trailer spaces that's the entire problem in one sentence and it's the only problem this 2.5 million dollars was ever meant to solve every limitation that we put onto this project is another chance for it to stall another year boaties wait another excuse for further consideration should become no consideration at all we've watched this happen since four years of studies 2022 versions and reports and the parking numbers have gone backwards not forwards 70 spaces down to 45 down to 16. If we keep adding our own limitations on top of will talk this project into the ground before a single trailer park ever gets there MSQ are the experts let them run their consultation let them do their job our is not to write the design brief our job is to get out of the way of the people who actually deliver this and to hold the line on the number one thing that matters which is enough parking to meet the demand we already know exists so my message to the here please support the amendment let's trust the State process let's trust the experts and above all let's trust the boaties who fought for this funding to know what they actually need so my let's not bury this project in conditions and restrictions let's just build some extra car trailer parking spaces. Frank Wilkie 05:11:27.720
I put the amendment those in Councillor Lorentson Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel and Wilson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Wilkie and Stockwell. The amendments carried becomes part of that reshapes the original motion. To which only Councillor Wilkie has spoken. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the new motion? Karen Finzel 05:11:51.742
Yeah, can I speak to it? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think this has been an ongoing process engaging with the boaties and their voice matters. We've heard the figures. I'm satisfied that this can be packaged up and Council can put their own submission in. I think, yeah, I think it's a good idea to let's move the project forward. Noting also, that the local councils play a crucial role in the development and management of recreational boating facilities, particularly in the construction of boat ramps. And responsible for providing the land-based components of the facilities, ensuring that the infrastructure is safe and accessible for public use. This includes securing land, planning the layout, and managing the process. And local Council has we've clearly heard collaborates with MSQ and other authorities. I'm satisfied that the removal of this in the status report shouldn't put us at any risk. But the benefit would be that can proceed forward with the opportunity to put our own package as part of the MSQ consultation. So hopefully we can progress this forward and satisfy our river users that Council is working hard to progress the matters before us. Tom Wegener 05:13:20.281
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor wynon. Just a quick question. So once it's built, who pays depreciation on it and upkeep? I'm Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 05:13:33.615
Need to take that question on notice with the assistance of our finances. So it also depends on what assets are depreciatable as well. So it depends on the nature of the design. Frank Wilkie 05:13:44.206
Can we ask the Acting Director Corporate Services? Shaun Walsh 05:13:46.709
Would they hand the assets over to us like TMR have done that regularly with other assets? Where they'd construct an asset and then they'd hand it over to us and then we'd be obliged to maintain it? Margaret Gatt 05:13:56.031
Yes, Through the Chair councils that would be in the process. So it would be a contributed asset and then that would sit in our asset register and we would be responsible for funding the depreciation. Frank Wilkie 05:14:07.672
Good question. Tom Wegener 05:14:09.234
Castellanueva? So I'll just speak to when you know happy that MSQ is taking such an interest and that we're gonna end up with a new boat ramp hopefully but when it says it's their money and it's their project that's not entirely true because we're going to pay for it over and again and all the repairs and all that. So it's not cheap and it's not only their project but hopefully it'll be a very nice boat ramp Amelia Lorentson 05:14:32.097
I just have a couple of questions and it's something I've been going to and fro with both the CEO and Director of infrastructure and it's in terms of the just have a couple questions something I've been going CEO and Director infrastructure and it's lake street Tewantin boat ramp and just want to just ask a couple of questions whether there's opportunity for shared use arrangement. I've been discussing we could look at a hybrid version allowing car boat trailer parking before nine o'clock and then general parking. Frank Wilkie 05:15:08.680
This is a whole new project that you're talking about. Amelia Lorentson 05:15:12.841
The report identifies the boating feasibility study which actually identifies this hybrid version as an option. I just wanted to know whether I could have the question answered. Shaun Walsh 05:15:25.400
Yes, and it is identified. As part of council's previous resolution and there's a reference to it in the actual report. Lake street does have capacity to perhaps increase trailer boat numbers, but it would require a very complex and engagement program with lots of different stakeholders. So, for instance, the marina uses for overflow parking, visitors to the gallery use it as parking, and then the boat people use it as well. There's also remnant green space in the form of Martin park, which is surrounded by car parking, and then adjacent residents as well. So, but there is capacity, but it requires a lot of engagement to actually try and realise that capacity with different stakeholders. There are 13 shared sort of car parking trailer units down there at the moment, in addition to the permanent quite well at the moment because the vast majority of time the boats arrive early in the day and occupy those spaces, and I'm talking about general days, not peak days, so and then when they're not being used then they're available later in the day for visitors to the marina, to the Council chambers and the like. So it's a reasonable setup that works quite well for balancing needs and it need a very careful process to actually muck with that before you assume that they're available exclusively for ponies, because many days of the year there's no requirement for both travel parking in that area, but there's high demand for other users. So hopefully that answers the question, I don't want to understate the amount of engagement that process would require. Amelia Lorentson 05:16:49.189
Can I perhaps ask a question to the CEO? Can we bring this matter to a workshop, Council workshop? Unpack what are the implications in terms of consultation, resourcing, enforcement, compliance. To understand how feasible it is to introduce a hybrid car parking arrangement down at lake street. Tewantin. Larry Sengstock 05:17:16.509
Look, if the other councils want to do that, I'm happy to bring that to a workshop to discuss it further, but as the Director said, this is reasonably complex. Know, when you, raised it with us, you know, that was my first impression is there are a number of players in this and to be too prescriptive right now with the 9am and the whole, bit is just, you know, how do we police it? How do we actually get it first up and then how do we police it? So there's a whole lot of components in all of that. I'm thinking because it is part of the original that came to MSQ or via MSQ, then maybe, something might come out of their, engagement, community engagement, etc. says you need to do something going late and then it's less, I know that's a, fact that might help to compensate some of the car parking or trailer parking on the vanilla side as well. So it might come out of that. And we can address it at that point. Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 05:18:18.444
I'm comfortable to support this now that we've made the amendment. The main issue for me, I think, is that MSQ will be looking to maximise the number of trailer for powered boats and I wasn't comfortable with having a Council position that asked for consideration of unpowered craft at the site. It's a conflict anyway having powered and unpowered at the same site but this is supposed to be about parking for powered boats and trailers. And therefore I didn't want us to have a predetermined view on having unpowered boats there as well. That is up to the community to determine in community consultation whether that's a preference. Frank Wilkie 05:19:00.921
Does this preclude staff giving advice if MSQ asks questions about council's responsibilities for on-land management? Shaun Walsh 05:19:08.460
I don't think it precludes us giving advice but I think we need to reference the nature of this conversation that Council didn't want us to project a particular thing but they might ask us well there already is a shared pathway around this site which there already is you know if we did this would that be okay so I think you know we're going to have to answer questions like that we've got the opportunity to do a bridge set back this much and also achieve our goals is that satisfactory so I think we still need to have technical exchange but you know if Council resolves in this way I'll be very clear that we're not going to advocate for a particular outcome Jessica Phillips 05:19:47.842
I'll speak to it quickly. I'm going to tell you a funny story when I grow up. I'm allowed to bring in new material because I think it's the I mean talk to the motion but in growing but in Tewantin up as a kid we had a boat and we never used it so my dad said that well actually he sold it without telling us and said that if we want to go out on a boat he will pay for us to hire one down on the river and then if we did it if we hired it enough times in the year he would buy a boat back for us. We never bought another boat because my brother surfed and I did gymnastics so we actually never ended up with a boat. Um I never got on a boat. My husband paddles a surf ski most mornings when he isn't a sook because it's cold and so this isn't actually about me. What I do is try and decide when there's a balanced decision around the table. We often are presented with so many other options at this table that meet the needs of our diverse community but often when it comes to boating infrastructure there is a firm line that it just isn't considered and whether that's you know personal beliefs or whether it's history or you know the things that have occurred prior to my time I don't particularly care the seat I sit in is not for me so we shouldn't be advocating for something that suits us the have made it really clear that they would really like this the only thing I can tell you I have done as a police officer is attend multiple complaints around the Shire of trailers parked in residential streets I've even been to car accidents where people have you know driven into one there is a demand in my experience that we would need trailer parking I think that's what they've been advocating for I don't believe it's up to us to sit in this table and people do in their recreational time I don't come to you Tom and say don't go for a surf in the morning I don't ask the man not to go for a run in the morning I think it's very important that we listen to the wide range of our community from different views and find somewhere in the middle I'm really happy to support the amendment because it's very much how I walked out of the workshop feeling clear that we would just say to MSQ can you do the consulting and then we will make a decision after that so I feel very comfortable with where it's landed now and time consultation tells us and then we can make the decision after that Frank Wilkie 05:22:22.763
Want to move in a minute Brian Stockwell 05:22:24.142
And that is to insert a new item D and renumber the subsequent item to read request MSQ undertake community engagement prior to the determination of a preferred layout Amelia Lorentson 05:22:50.001
Through the Chair um I'm confused can I ask Councillor Stockwell to explain what what's he's requesting Brian Stockwell 05:22:59.651
At the moment we don't know what sort of community consultation that MSQ is doing a range of the discussions around here um were based on the beliefs that the consultation process may be able to get these broad different opinions coming in from the rest of our community um this amendment makes sure that it's not just here's our preferred layout give us comment consultation we wanted so that all those issues from other than the key stakeholder group of the voting community uh get to have their opinion before they determine what their preferred layout is. Frank Wilkie 05:23:37.206
Um I'm Cass. Councillor Stockwell you cannot actually move I just Brian Stockwell 05:23:44.049
Ask a question to Jessica Phillips 05:23:52.189
The Director is msq planning on doing the consultation before preferred the layout layer I thought that was what was going to happen anyway Shaun Walsh 05:24:02.664
I can't speak for MSQ's consultation program they haven't shared that with us Frank Wilkie 05:24:07.190
So it's up to other Councillors if they see this as a fair way to go proceed they may want to move it instead or not. Brian Stockwell 05:24:14.966
I'll just talk to the motion. Frank Wilkie 05:24:16.262
Pardon? Brian Stockwell 05:24:18.044
You haven't had a second time. No, I'm not talking to that. I'm talking to the motion. Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah. I've been. Yeah, we've been in school. Yeah. So I'm just talking to the motion as it stands. So if we look at the motion, there's nothing you can really take objection to. However, I'm very mindful of the fact that my experience with MSQ trailer parking proposals is it can raise a significant level of concern across the broader community. And the motion, as it currently sits, really reflects the opinion of the majority of Councillors, which is we'll come in after what we've seen of the community sentence. Don't know whether I can be party to that. I do have very strong views and they align very strong, you know, clearly with the sentiments within the staff report. You know, it is a major opportunity to create a great entry a great entry into Noosa this ville, one that has been neglected over the years and has had a lot of informal use, there's a range of issues that this could be a really good upgrade for that park that achieves multiple evictives while not impacting on local residents but this motion in no way leads Council to having a voice in achieving that outcome. At the moment my concerns is that the consultation is coming from a very one-sided perspective. My understanding is it's heavily reliant on voting groups, talking to MSQ. We know that the infrastructure is for them and it's quite reasonable, but if the consultation process isn't one that has real opportunity to affect the design, I've got great concerns about the ability Council of this Council to achieve the multiple objectives that shot should be coming. And so without those lists of design parameters being stated, I can't support motion. Unidentified Speaker 05:26:24.053
Can I try a moment? Yes. Nicola Wilson 05:26:28.889
It's quite short. The Council request MSQ consider the feedback Council has received Karen Finzel 05:26:41.499
In the consultation on the Hilton Esplanade project. Shaun Walsh 05:26:47.368
Do to already the have that? The Chair. I've sort of been liaising with community services and also corporate governance. There are privacy concerns because we haven't gathered that feedback for the purposes of sharing with MSQ. So we just don't want to speak on behalf of the community in the way we use that information. We can certainly alert those stakeholders. To MSQ's community engagement program when it becomes available, so I'm very happy to offer that. Frank Wilkie 05:27:16.827
Could I just ask, could broad themes be discussed in a way that doesn't impinge on anyone's privacy? Shaun Walsh 05:27:25.547
We have actually already discussed that theme with them, that we have received opposition from local residents. They did request a of all of those submissions and we've said unfortunately no because we would be breaching privacy because we haven't gathered that information for the purposes of their use. Frank Wilkie 05:27:43.944
If the information was scrubbed in a way that didn't reveal identities and only spoke in terms of broad themes of what the consultation has revealed. Would that be possible? Shaun Walsh 05:27:59.226
I need to take that on notice, Councillor. I can't answer that on behalf of community engagement and also corporate services, so I can't answer that immediately at the meeting. Nicola Wilson 05:28:13.626
Yeah, I think that's good advice, but if the information's been shared at a thematic level or will later be made public anyway, then that would give a job. Frank Wilkie 05:28:22.587
Okay, we have a seconder for the. I'm happy to go with that. Happy to go with that, yes. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 05:28:31.770
I guess maybe I could I'm going to test an amendment because I think the risk could be that we don't. The gap is in we don't know what MSQ engagement is going to be. So if they limit that to maybe just one group, then the broader community sounds like they won't have a say. That could be the risk. Maybe I can try an amendment. Can we request MSQ to broaden the community consultation to include others outside of the voting group? I don't know I'm just thinking like I'm to go how do we direct them to make sure that it's inclusive of the broader community? Frank Wilkie 05:29:47.692
So currently it says request MSQ to broaden the community consultation to include others outside the voting community. I mean I guess I'm the guess I'm satisfied with the is Karen Finzel 05:30:03.599
That like we've just heard around the table those broader aspects outside of just say the parking, the money for the parking or the infrastructure on the water, is their voice heard? Frank Wilkie 05:30:19.207
Question. Someone willing to second this, so contested. I'll take it. Second. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel, you have the floor. Karen Finzel 05:30:33.321
Well, I think I pretty much covered the intent of the idea. We understand that you know, want I to acknowledge that the voting committee worked really hard to get this funding to address their absolute need for, you know, further trailer parking. We've all heard that argument around the table. But having done that, I don't want to then, like. If there's a gap, that we then close down the voice of other people, that their voice matters around that as well. I'm just trying to protect equity at the table, that everyone can have a say, especially when we're not doing the engagement, we all agree that MSQ should get on with the job, we're happy for them to do that, but ensuring that collectively everyone in the Shire that wants to have a voice will be heard. Frank Wilkie 05:31:24.936
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. It's carried. It becomes part of the substantive motion. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the. Could we have a look at what appears right now, please, Cathy? Okay. Any other Councillors wish to speak to this one? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 05:32:08.002
I'll make it really brief. I've spoken enough, but I do want to just focus on something that was raised before by Councillor Stockwell that, you know, the risk of omitting C. I'm going to start by, I'm going to make this so brief, what consultation means for me. It's a process and it's a process about genuinely asking and considering views and feedback of all the relevant stakeholders and the amendment E, including others outside the voting community. Considering their views and feedback and then making a position. And I want to also, you know, add that to hear also around the table that whether we're having a workshop or not and our feedback is invited. We hope that decision isn't made that disregards or is made before we're consulted upon. So none of those items that are in C are necessarily going to be omitted. My guess is they're going to be raised as part of the consultation process. Again, that is the correct order. Consult, then decide. So I'm happy with the amendment that sits in front of us. I think that respects due process. And again, it respects the people that really fought hard for this funding, our voting community. Again, I want to acknowledge our former Mayor who helped with the funding. And it also, you know, respects that MSQ should lead this project. So my full support. Frank Wilkie 05:34:14.535
Think we've arrived at a good spot. As has been said, MSQ are the project leads on this. They are responsible for on-water activities. Council has responsibilities for land-based activities. And the report was entirely appropriate in that it transparently mentioned all the considerations raised to date by the staff in their good faith negotiations or collaboration with MSQ. And staff are obliged to have obligations as officers to raise these issues as part of their responsibilities. There was the original recommendation that implied that Council was mandating or dictating or doing anything except raising issues for MSQ's consideration. Before going to public out consultation. About this project and there's nothing to suggest that any of us are dictating what anyone else ought to do. Yes many of us are not voters but appreciate the enjoyment they get from their form of recreation they're not hurting anyone they're driving a lot of pleasure for themselves and their families and friends it's a great activity to be engaged in what we have for us now is a resolution that hopefully will expedite MSQ's actions and get to the community consultation as quickly as possible community consultation that will involve the broader community and hopefully get us quickly to a place where the final result takes on board the concerns of the Hilton Terrace Hilton Esplanade residents as well because they'll be they're our people as well and living very close to this project and the broader community and Council will also have an opportunity to have input into the process but yeah I think it's been a good debate some good principles have been raised. And I just like to acknowledge the collective wisdom that's allowed us to arrive at this outcome. I've got to respect the majority decision. Diversity of views around the table. You have to really believe they result in the best outcomes and I do. So I'll be supporting this motion as it stands. Put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips, Finzel, Wilson and Wilkie against. Councillor Stockwell? 6-1, well done. I haven't done that for a while now. That's good. Okay, next item. Thank you, Director Watt. Thank you. 13.2, Financial Performance Report. We have financial services manager Zach Morton-Adair for this report. And Director gadd. Welcome. That's good afternoon, Councillors. Zach Morton-Adair 05:37:31.274
Thank you. And Through the Chair. The report as read. The June report presents council's interim full year financial position to the 30th of June 2026 against the revised budget for the 2025-26 financial year. There are no identified financial risks expected to negatively impact council's forecasted position as at 30 June. It is important to note that the results remain subject to year-end financial adjustments with council's final 2025-26 financial performance to be reported following completion of the annual financial statements and the independent audit process. The 30th of June, Council reported an unfavourable net result to budget of $10.9 million this comprises a favourable operating result of $4.6 million offset by an unfavourable variance of $15.5 million relating to capital funding. Despite this, and it's important to note that is the comparison to our underlying budget, Council when looking at its actual performance recorded a favourable actual net result of approximately $38 million when including capital revenue expenditure. I would like to attention draw to matters detailed in the report itself. Operating revenue was $158 million, representing 103% of the full year's budget. The favourable revenue position is primarily driven by than anticipated interest received and operating grant subsidies and contributions. Our operating expenditure was $153.6 million, representing 100.2% of the full year's budget of $153.3 million. The overall operating variance remains within a narrow range of budget, with expenditure movements broadly offsetting across categories. The 4.6 million favourable operating result comprises 2.4 million of operating surplus council's core operating activities, and 2.2 million operating surplus from council's business activities. Waste management reported a net operating position of 3.9 million surplus, compared to a budget of 2.5 million. With our holiday parks reporting an operating surplus of 922,000 768,000. The business activities results include competitive neutrality adjustments and are presented to support transparency under the national competition policy reporting framework. Variances in both operating revenue and expenditure are consistent with the trends and verbal updates that have been provided by me in previous meetings. Details on these variances to budget are provided in tables on page three of the report. It is important to note that many of council's major revenue and expenditure categories have remained close with budget estimates, with several reporting outcomes within 1% of the actual budget. While all revenue and expenditure categories are currently reported, this level of detail can sometimes make it more difficult to identify the matters that warrant closer attention or further inspection. As part of council's commitment to Council officers will review opportunities to simplify and enhance the financial reporting to put a greater focus on where material variances are, emerging risks and key areas that require management. This approach will also help ensure financial information is transparent and compliant while making it easier for the community to focus on the issues that have the greatest impact to our financial performance and service delivery. Capital revenue of approximately $33 million to the 30th of June 2026 was mainly comprised of $30.3 million of capital grants and subsidies and $2.6 million of contributions. Developers. Capital grants and subsidies remain dependent on grant conditions and capital works delivery. Contributions continue to be inherently time to development. Both directly outside of council's own control. Capital expenditure was $40.8 million, representing 50.5% of council's $80.8 million revised capital works budget. Reprofiling of the $25.26 million budget occurred through standard budget processes, referred to as Budget Review 2. Any carry forward balances relating to the $25.26 capital works program will be identified and addressed through budget review 1, which is currently scheduled for August 2026. Identified and addressed through budget review 1, which is currently and works in progress adjustments reflect due diligence and periodic analysis to support the timely recognition and classification of reviewed capital assets. Total cash on hand as at 30 June 2026 was $139.7 million, with $7 million held in trust. Of the total cash balances, $30.7 million was externally restricted, with a further $25.3 internally restricted. As a result of council's final cash position, our approved borrowings of $3.1 million were not drawn down. Council's total cash holdings were $33.7 million, or 34% above the budgeted amount at 30 the stronger cash position reflects the net impact of capital delivery timing, brief program of capital works, our opening cash balance, and higher anticipated interest revenue. Council's investments continue to perform above agreed benchmarks, with our June 2026 result of our weighted average investment yield reported at 5.15% against a benchmark of 4.11. Greater is as at the 30th of June were totalled 8 million or 6.8% of council's rates in new Tilly charge base. Arrears decreased by 492,000 from May 2026. This movement is consistent with the month post levy pattern with balance and increase after the July and January rates levy periods. To the end of June, 2026, Council has recognised $1 million in interest payments on overdue rates and utility charges. As part of our quarterly rolling program, our measures of financial sustainability are included in the report. It is notable that all reportable ratios exceed the target thresholds and any changes in them are effectively driven by the updates I've provided verbally to you all today. Previous reports we have included a section of questions taken on notice for the General Committee. From the main ordinary committee meeting the questions taken on notice have either been brought back to Councillors or will be brought back as part of separate workshops. In closing the June remains an interim financial position and is subject to end of year financial and accounting adjustments. These matters will be captured to the preparation of council's financial statements and external audit processes with final audited financial statements and year-end performance to be presented to Council in November 2026. Thank you and happy to take questions. Brian Stockwell 05:44:38.244
Can't resist. Operating expenditure. There's a variance there of 666. That doesn't mean we've gone to hell. That means our interest rates are lower than what we anticipated. Therefore, we've saved that much money. Is that correct? Zach Morton-Adair 05:44:56.702
Just could I ask for clarification where the reference to 666 is? Brian Stockwell 05:44:59.365
It's in the operating expenditure variance of the city of dunedin table, just under the title. I could have a page with it. Sorry, Councillor. Oh, we don't have pages. Is it in the attachment? It's in the table. Unidentified Speaker 05:45:17.234
Thank you. Zach Morton-Adair 05:45:20.102
So with respect that's in regards to Through the Chair um our finance costs um the six successes are purely coincidental um and the lower and then anticipated interest cards is related we have planned external borrowings at the start of each financial year and then based on our cash performance tied to also our delivery or need to draw down loans that can vary so our loan borrowings during the 25-26 financial year were lower than anticipated so consequently our finance costs were lower than anticipated Brian Stockwell 05:45:51.886
And just because we're on that table the work in progress adjustment which is sort of wiped out most of that gain can you explain that please? Zach Morton-Adair 05:46:04.498
Happy to. So as part of, it was wrong, Through the Chair sorry. Continually throughout the year our capital delivery program looks, progresses. Part of that is what we do is we periodically review completion, the finalisation of projects. Most capital projects have a proportion proportionate balance of both operational and capital expenditure. So as we move throughout the year and identify that, there are effectively the capitalisation of those assets, which is what ends up in our fixed asset register. But consequently, there are sometimes a WIP adjustment or a RIP bite-off whereas operational expenditure is moved to the corresponding operational account so effectively the WIP adjustment as it's referred to is operational expenditure relating to capital projects. Frank Wilkie 05:46:48.808
Thank you, that's it, you're okay to move the motion, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 05:46:53.869
I just have a question and I'm happy to move also the motion but my question is in terms of disaster recovery work that it's running 5.3 million behind where it should be and probably my question is, oh excuse me, so it's been a long day. So disaster recovery 5 work is running at about.3 million behind where it should be and I think when I read the report it was one of the key financial health scores that we missed its targets by quite a bit. So my question is, and maybe a question to the CEO, if we're still catching up from past disasters and something happened tomorrow, do we actually have enough staff to handle a new disaster if we're still finishing all the recovery work? Should I have to clarify that? Zach Morton-Adair 05:47:50.379
Yeah, I could provide his comments. Amelia Lorentson 05:47:51.774
I'm holding onto this one. Thank you very much. Zach Morton-Adair 05:47:54.534
Yeah, I could allude to the fact of what the finances report and maybe leave the balance of the disaster recovery to the CEO. So in reference to the whether it is behind or ahead of budget, so all the finances in front of you determine is that the actual expenditure this year was lower than what was anticipated. That doesn't necessarily inherently mean that it's been slower, it's just mean the actual expenditure was lower, previous years I believe there was some front-loaded expenditures, so they actually delivered the project ahead of time at that point, so I wouldn't draw the distinction in the numbers there that it means it's slower than anticipated delivery, it's just the actual costs have been slower than what was budgeted. Frank Wilkie 05:48:35.819
And it may just not delay this just I wouldn't draw that time and through Margaret Gatt 05:48:40.375
Through the Chair I could just make some additional comments. Sometimes the timing between when we actually get invoices and process invoices throughout a year is delayed through our contractors and so therefore the costs are not within our system and sometimes those things are out of our control whilst we obviously work diligently with our contractors who are delivering our disaster recovery works. Sometimes there is some slowing of that. Yeah, that's another factor that goes into it as well. Amelia Lorentson 05:49:13.481
Yeah, maybe the question that I'll ask is in terms of resourcing, is that a risk and I'm going to probably pull out, you know, our infrastructure, disaster management and asset operations. Like to me, they're the critical departments. Are we adequately quickly resourced? And have we got the right people in the right positions to handle, for example, a disaster? Larry Sengstock 05:49:39.733
Yes. So from a methodology point of view with disaster management, and we're not another disaster, but what we've adopted as a methodology is that we outsource and it's fully funded by the QRA. The actual contracting of the repairs, so we manage the contracts, so we have essentially one or two staff in here that do that, and it's working exceptionally well in terms of, I think, a number of councils actually looking at us saying that's the role that we all want to adopt, so I'm comfortable that we've absolutely got the resources for that. Frank Wilkie 05:50:15.015
Councillor Lorentson, would you like to rephrase your eventual statement of FAP, which was in fact incorrect? About the Council being behind a disaster management program. Amelia Lorentson 05:50:28.622
Oh, I thought that was clarified by Zach and Marg, but I'm happy that makes sense. No problem, so ref. Rephrase it as a question. Are we running behind or not? And I respect and thank the response. So that gives me a lot of confirmation. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 05:50:54.289
Lawrence, that has moved the motion? We have a seconder. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 05:51:00.464
Probably just once again, just a big thank you. I. The report is clear and detailed and open and transparent. And every month, I think, you know, it gets better and I think it's been a really long day and I can't wait to go home, but, know, I think I'll our finances are critical. We sit here as Councillors and it's a really big responsibility to ensure that what we're spending reflects our strategies, core businesses, also reflect and also reflect. Community values and expects, and when I read through where we're putting our money, it often reads very well. Thank you. Very much. Jessica Phillips 05:51:57.401
I'll speak very, very quickly. Before the two of you came on board. Felt like my email, I would get a lot of questions about finance and the way you're reporting it is obviously working because it's not coming through my emails about me having to ask. So whatever you're doing now is obviously for more the community, and I think that be congratulated because, yeah, it seems like people can see what's going on in the reports and the way that you're reporting it to us. So thank you for that. Frank Wilkie 05:52:31.502
Anyone else? Cassie Walsh, are you as close? You. Put her to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Zach, and thank you, Marg. Wow, it's four o'clock. Now, I move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J 3G of the Local Government Regulation 212 for the purpose of discussion items 12.2, confidential, for not public release. I think it was a 12.1 that we moved also. Item 14.1, confidential, not for public release. ERP, contract renewal, and be pursuant to section 254J3E of the Local Government Regulation 2012. The purposes of discussing item 14.2, confidential, not for public release. Planning & Environment Court appeal D927 of 2020. Of 2025. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? That's carried. Now we have a confidential session, during which standing was still applied, but I would like to call for a five minute practice break. Five minutes Andy. Only, we'll be back in ten minutes. Unidentified Speaker 05:53:47.853
I couldn't tell you. Unidentified Speaker 05:53:53.959
I'm going to the Mayoral. You might want to come up to the Mayoral. Yes, I can't do that. It. I'm going to be back in ten minutes. No, no, it's good. It was going to be a ticket out of the school. About this for and a years, and I'm going to play I know her, that's why I'm doing it. Unidentified Speaker 05:54:19.091
Can't, I don't want to be home by the four-pronged people. I really wish you had one. I'm so sorry. It's been a while. We've had it up the old season. Oh, I'm just shaking. I'm going to roll a one-piece off. Imagine how much he's stuck in that. Amelia Lorentson 05:54:37.949
You know, the best, because I have. Oh, she's on insulin. Yes, she is. I have a dog on my hand, too. I do. Unidentified Speaker 05:54:48.353
Oh, yeah. Don't hold me. Frank Wilkie 06:29:45.402
Back, and we have some motions to be ratified in open session. And this is the first one. Plan 2020 draft amendment. We normally read these out. So I'll read it out. The motion is that Council note the confidential report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee Meeting 7th of July 2026 regarding land progressing amendment to the planning scheme relating to employment land B proposed to amend as planned 2020 in the course of the Planning Act 216. Process the prescribed in section 18 notice in attachment 1. Submit proposed amendment 4 to the notice of plan 2020 in attachments 3, 4 and 5 to the department of state development infrastructure and planning for state interest review with the following changes to the amendment and associated plans. Remove high impact industry as a consistent land use in table 5511 industry zone due to sites being located in the water catchment area. Provision for future public transport and loan infrastructure connections including bus stops. Provision of infrastructure for e-vehicles charging on-site. Provision of adaptable infrastructure that is future-proof for energy transit emerging technologies, renewable energy integration and storage and electrification capacity. And D: concurrently with B: undertake public notification and community consultation in accordance with the communications plan attachment 2. E: CEO to and E: authorise the make further changes to propose the amendment 4 of the minor nation priority commencing community consultation and F: following state interest review and community consultation, report back to Council on the outcomes, happen to move it. Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Any discussion? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Next item. Someone like to take this one off? Say it in my voice. Amelia Lorentson 06:31:57.015
I'm happy to move the recommender. Excuse me. I'm happy to move the recommendation that Council A note the report by the ICT manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 16 July 2026 be pursuant to section 235. I've just put the original recommendation. You very much. Thank you okay. The pursuant to section 235A of the Local Government Regulation award contract CM25188 to technology limited. Pursuant to section 2571 of the Local Government Act 2009. Delegate to the CEO the power to negotiate, finalise and execute on behalf of Council a new enterprise resource planning contract with technology one limited and de-Resolve that the delegation and item C of this resolution is limited to the cap identified in this report for a year five- renewal and is otherwise not limited by any general financial delegations that apply to exercising the CEO's powers and may be exercised to bind Council to a that exceeds the CEO's general financial delegation. Frank Wilkie 06:33:15.507
May we have a seconder please? Have a second. Councillor Phillips, any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. And item 14.2 is an easy one. So I'd like to move. I'll do this one. Phillips. Jessica Phillips 06:33:41.775
That Council A notes the report by the Manager Development Assessment that will remain meeting dated 16th July 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court appeal D92 of 2025 and B agree to settle appeal D92. Of 2025 generally. In accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in the attachment line to the report. Frank Wilkie 06:34:05.128
Seconded? I'll second. Councillor Wilson, thank you. All in favour? That's unanimous. The next Ordinary Meeting will be at Council chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin at 10am on Thursday 20 August 2026. Declare the meeting. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
