Ordinary Meeting, 20 August 2026
Date: Thursday, 20 August 2026 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 05:15:57
Synopsis: Lions Park interim approval for 2026 overflow parking and LMP scoping, BR1 adopted incl. capital reprofile, Waste-to-energy trial okayed, Community Tenure and Infrastructure Charges adopted.
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 Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Community Services Paul Brinkman Deputations
Cecile Saraiva David Jones Anthony Slattery Adrian Reed Public Question Time
Eduoard Riottot Mathew Hoffman Pat Spicer Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell : Petition (100 signatures) to reduce speeds on Black Mountain Range Rd/Black Mountain Rd received and referred to CEO (Item 5.1; 00:20, 02:13–06:15). Shaun Walsh : Active Streets grant scope variations lodged to retain funding; Sunrise Beach hub upgrades would need future budget/grants (Item 8.1; 15:38–16:30). Shaun Walsh : Sunrise Beach speeding hot spots (Ben Lexcen, Southern Cross, Dame Patti) queued for speed review; process requires Speed Management Committee incl. QPS/TMR (Item 8.1; 17:05–18:26). Richard MacGillivray : Dog access at Beach Access 37 to be considered in future local law review; likely 2027–28 budget timing; formal consultation required (Item 8.2; 19:03–20:04). Larry Sengstock (for Kim Rawlings ): Lake Macdonald Dr project—$3.3m was placeholder; only ~$49k spent in 24/25 on staff/consult/design; construction shifted to 25/26 (Item 8.3; 22:17–23:02). Amelia Lorentson motion: Strengthen small-business consultation on major works via Business Roundtable—carried; Brian Stockwell against (Item 10.1; 39:20–47:11; vote 01:07:22). Main Beach Drop-Off Zone review motion lost (Item 10.2; 01:07:49–01:23:05; final vote 01:12 page context; Minutes page 11–12). Noosa Waters Advisory Group TOR approved; CEO may make minor edits; note CSO and a specific Asset Management Plan for Noosa Waters (Item 11.1.6; 06:52–14:25; Minutes p.9). Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No.10) adopted, effective 21 Aug 2026 (Item 11.1.7; Minutes p.9–10). Community Tenure Policy adopted; replaces 2015/2017 policy; CEO authorised for minor edits; guideline to follow (Item 11.1.8; Minutes p.10). Financial Performance to 31 July 2026 noted; BR1 adopted incl. revised Debt Policy and Fees/Charges; capital program reprofiled to $99.7m (Items 12.1–12.2; 03:55:03–04:18:55; 04:19:22–04:43:20). Waste Supply Agreement: exempt procurement approved under s235(b) LGR for trial delivery to Wildfire Energy Bulwer Island ERF; CEO authorised to finalise; report-back required (Item 13.1; 05:13:48–end; Minutes p.13–14). Contentious / Transparency Matters Adrian Reed : Raised long-standing cost allocations to Noosa Waters levies that are Council trustee responsibilities (e.g., salinity pumps) and sought transparency via TOR reporting (07:–14:25; Item 11.1.6). Jessica Phillips : Noted limited/short Easter traffic trial data on Lions Park impacts; prior media indicated insufficiency for decision-making (01:37:22–01:41:38). Amelia Lorentson : Critiqued staff report balance re Lions Park for omitting s52AA pathway detail; later confirmed available without LMP (01:29:44–01:32:05; 01:34:52–01:35:53). Polling conflict: DMP survey (statistically valid) indicated opposition to green-space parking; Noosa Today poll (media poll) showed 83% support for seasonal paid parking (01:43:34–01:48:32). Debate on Notices of Motion efficiency vs necessity; Brian Stockwell cited process cost/duplication, while Amelia Lorentson asserted democratic right and necessity to formalise commitments (43:55–47:11; 03:51:13–03:54:01). Legal / Risk Lions Park: Council to seek Minister’s interim approval under Land Act 1994 s52AA for 2026 Christmas overflow parking and prepare detail for possible LMP under s52AB; Part D wording amended to “submit” (Items 11.1.3; 01:29:44–03:05:57; Minutes p.6–9). Richard MacGillivray : Confirmed s52AA available without LMP; Minister must be satisfied that use does not diminish reserve purpose or adversely affect public interest; Council to address statutory tests (01:30:33–01:35:53; 02:52:28–02:55:53). Appeals: Council to defend three Planning & Environment Court matters—two STA Local Law review decisions (8 Witta Cct; 5/7 Peza Ct) and a minor change appeal for duplex MCU17/0559.05 (2/16 Grant St) (Items 11.1.9–11.1.11; Minutes p.10). Procurement: Waste ERF trial approved via LGR 2012 s235(b) exemption for specialised/confidential services; mitigates market disadvantage risk; requires performance and financial outcome reporting (Item 13.1; Minutes p.13–14). Disaster funding risk flagged: potential future Fed changes to DRFA cost-sharing could strain capital program; Council advocacy ongoing; scenario testing to be embedded in long-term financial strategy (04:26:20–04:30:01; 04:36:13–04:41:36). Delegations: Annual CEO delegations adopted under LGA 2009 s257; maintains governance continuity (Item 11.1.12; Minutes p.11). Lions Park, Main Beach & Transport Management Frank Wilkie : Sought to discontinue temporary car parking at Lions Park citing congestion data and recreation purpose; motion lost (Item 11.1.3; 01:23:57–02:08:22; Minutes p.6–8). Substantive resolution: Prepare report on LMP scope/cost/consultation; write to Minister under s52AA for 2026 interim approval; letter to address five statutory/public-interest grounds; “demonstrate” amended to “submit” (Item 11.1.3; 02:10:18–03:05:57; Minutes p.7–9). Evidentiary limits: Easter trial was only 5 days; congestion attributable to multiple factors; lack of comparable non-holiday baseline noted (01:37:22–01:40:23). Main Beach Drop-Off Zone: immediate review sought but ultimately lost; prior July 2026 resolution stands to reduce queuing/conflicts (Item 10.2; 01:07:49–01:23:05; 03:43:49–03:54:01; Minutes p.11–12). Governance, Finance & Capacity Q4 Operational Plan progress noted; KPIs tabled (Item 11.1.5; Minutes p.9). Financials July: favourable $1.4m variance driven by rates/investments and lower opex; caution on early-year timing effects (Item 12.1; 03:55:03–04:18:55). BR1: Operating neutral shifts; capital reprofile to $99.7m (carry-forwards), loans to $13.2m; asset sustainability ratio averages >100% over 10 years though lumpy (Item 12.2; 04:19:22–04:43:20). Workforce: Project manager shortages; targeted P&C response for Infrastructure Services; delivery models leveraging external consultants proving effective (04:02:17–04:07:02). Councillor emphasis on internal culture/PD as driver of service quality and delivery (04:07:21–04:11:47). Short-Stay Letting & Planning Council to defend two STA Local Law review appeals in P&E Court (Appeals 1576/2026; 1763/2026) (Items 11.1.9–11.1.10; Minutes p.10). Minor change appeal for duplex at 2/16 Grant St to be defended, maintaining DA integrity (Item 11.1.11; Minutes p.10). Road Safety & Community Requests (Sunrise/Black Mountain) Cecile Saraiva / David Jones / Anthony Slattery : Case for 60 km/h at Black Mountain based on design speeds, bus stop safety, sight distances (02:13–06:15; Item 5.1/7.1). Eduoard Riottot : Asked for Sunrise hub upgrades and speeding audits; Council outlined grant variation strategy and MUTCD-led review pathway (Item 8.1; 15:38–18:26). Environmental & Trustee Obligations (Noosa Waters) Adrian Reed : Asserted Council trustee duties under Land Act for lake area; called for clearer CSO and water-quality standards/monitoring aligned to Noosa River values (06:52–14:25; Item 11.1.6). TOR embeds regular reporting and AMP for canal assets; transparency on levies vs Council obligations to be clarified (Item 11.1.6; Minutes p.9).
Official Meeting Minutes
ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 Ordinary Meeting Minutes Thursday, 20 August 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 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 MINUTES 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 10.01am. 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. Due to attending the meeting via electronic means, Mayor Frank Wilkie relinquished the Chair to Deputy Mayor Brian Stockwell. Cr Brian Stockwell assumed the Chair. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Community Services Paul Brinkman APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ORDINARY MEETING 16 JULY 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 16 July 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 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 5 PETITIONS 5.1 PETITION - BLACK MOUNTAIN SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION REQUEST Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the petition with 100 signatories submitted by Cecile Saraiva, requesting that Council reduce the speed limit to 60km/h on Black Mountain Range Road and Black Mountain Road, be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. 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 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 DEPUTATION APPLICANT: CECILE SARAIVA (ON BEHALF OF LOCAL RESIDENTS OF BLACK MOUNTAIN WHO SIGNED AND SUPPORTED A COMMUNITY PETITION) TOPIC: REQUEST FOR SPEED REDUCTION ON BLACK MOUNTAIN RANGE ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN ROAD SPEAKERS: CECILE SARAIVA & DAVID JONES AND ANTHONY SLATTERY 7.2 DEPUTATION APPLICANT: ADRIAN REED, NOOSA WATERS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION TOPIC: NOOSA WATERS ADVISORY GROUP SPEAKERS: ADRIAN REED 8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8.1 EDUOARD RIOTTOT Question 1: Unspent grant funding and Sunrise Beach community hub upgrades: Following my correspondence with Mayor Wilkie (June/July 2026) about the unspent liveability and state grant funding from the Peregian Beach Street Active Travel project (RM2026/14358), would Council consider reallocating funds toward a Sunrise Beach community hub upgrade dash; Tingira boardwalk or shopping centre dash; to match neighbouring precincts? Page 3 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 Response from Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services At its Ordinary Meeting on 18 June 2026, Council resolved not to proceed with the Active Street project in its current form and to explore whether grant funding could be redirected to practical infrastructure improvements in Peregian Beach South or other eligible alternatives. Council's immediate priority is to retain the existing funding and has submitted scope variation requests to the Active Transport Fund and South-East Queensland Liveability Fund to deliver practical infrastructure such as pedestrian footpath connections that reflect community feedback. Initial discussions with grant providers has been encouraging, and Council considers the current scope variation request to be the most practical and achievable pathway for retaining the available funding. Achievement of funding for Sunrise Beach community hub upgrade and Tingira Boardwalk would require future separate Council budget allocation and / or grant funding submissions. Question 2: In Sunrise Beach, speeding and increased traffic on Orealla Drive, Orient Drive, Southern Cross Drive, Dame Pattie Drive and Ben Lexcen Drive present a genuine safety concern. Given the volume of school children and older residents it will not be long before a serious accident occurs. Can Council provide the next steps for a safety audit of these roads? Response from Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure ServicesSpeed limits are determined in accordance with Queensland Transport's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Part 4) Speed Controls, which considers factors such as road function, vehicle speeds, roadside activity and crash history to ensure consistent and appropriate speed limits across Queensland. Council acknowledges concerns regarding vehicle speeds and has recorded the nominated locations for future investigation. An initial review of available Compass IoT speed data indicates that speeding may be an issue on Ben Lexcen Drive, Southern Cross Parade and Dame Patti Drive, and these roads have been added to Council's proposed schedule for speed limit reviews. As part of the assessment process, Council may undertake traffic counts and speed surveys to determine whether the current speed environment is appropriate. Any proposed speed limit change must satisfy technical assessment criteria and be considered by the Speed Management Committee, comprising representatives from Council, Queensland Police Service and the Department of Transport and Main Roads. As requests are prioritised across the Shire and resources are limited, assessments may take several months to complete. Council will advise you of the outcome should the review progress further or result in a proposed change. Alternative measures, such as additional speed signage, advisory signage or, subject to funding and community consultation, traffic calming treatments, may also be considered. 8.2 MATHEW HOFFMAN Question 1: As part of the Strategic Dog Exercise Area Review, we request community consultation regarding dog access at Beach Access 37, a primary local hub. Could Council please confirm the timing and process for community consultation on this proposal? Response from Richard MacGillivray, Director Development & Regulation Page 4 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 Council appreciates you raising this information regarding dog exercise arrangements at Beach Access 37 and recognises that there are likely to be a range of community views on this matter. These views include support for maintaining existing arrangements, as well as proposals to expand or modify off-leash access. Any changes to designated dog exercise areas would require careful consideration of community feedback, environmental impacts, public safety, accessibility and legislative requirements. Council intends to consider community feedback on dog exercise areas as part of a future review of its Local Laws. The Local Law review process is proposed to be considered through future budget deliberations, with the next opportunity likely to be through the 2027-28 budget process. Should Council resolve to proceed with a review, it will be undertaken in accordance with the State Government's prescribed framework and will include formal community consultation before any changes are determined. 8.3 PAT SPICER Question 1: As the 24/25 financial year is now history, for what was the $3.3 million allocated in the 24/25 Noosa Council Budget for 62/64 Lake Macdonald Drive project? Response from Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy & Environment The allocated $3.3 million was a high level initial construction cost estimate to allow the project to proceed to the next stages. The project was delayed to enable further community consultation resulting in design changes which deferred construction until the 2025/26 financial year. Question 2: How much of that $3.3 million 24/25 financial year budget allocation for 62/64 Lake Macdonald Drive project was used? Response from Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy & Environment Of the total $3.3 million project budget, approximately $49,000 was expended in the 2024/25 financial year, comprising staff time, consultation and design costs. No remediation or civil work costs were incurred during this period, as construction did not commence until the 2025/26 financial year. The meeting adjourned at 10.25am The meeting resumed at 10.40am 9 MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. Page 5 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS 10.1 STRENGTHENING SMALL BUSINESS CONSULTATION ON MAJOR COUNCIL WORKS Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council: A. Note that the recent Doonella Bridge upgrade highlighted an opportunity for Council to consult more effectively with small businesses when planning and delivering major works; B. Request that the Chief Executive Officer use the Business Roundtable to explore what improved consultation with small businesses should look like for major Council works, and how it should be delivered; and C. Request that the Chief Executive Officer report back to Council on the outcome of that engagement, including a recommended approach. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell 10.2 MAIN BEACH RESERVE CAR PARK – REVIEW OF MAIN BEACH DROP- OFF ZONE RESOLUTION Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Nicola Wilson That Council A. Review its July 2026 resolution regarding the operation of the Main Beach DropOff Zone during the peak Christmas and New Year period in light of the information contained in the Property Advisor's report to the General Committee Meeting of 11 August 2026 relating to Lions Park overflow parking; B. Consult with key stakeholders including the Hastings Street Association; and C. Request the CEO report back to Council in the next round of meetings with recommendations. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the matter (Item 10.2) lie on the table until later in this meeting. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None Page 6 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 11. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 11 AUGUST 2026 11.1.1 CAPITAL PROGRAM 2025-2026 DELIVERY STATUS REPORT That Council note the report by the Principal Infrastructure Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026, providing an update on the 2025/26 Capital Works Program as at 30 June 2026. 11.1.2 HOUSING MONITORING REPORT That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding Housing Monitoring. 11.1.3 NOOSA HEADS LIONS PARK LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding a Noosa Heads Lions Park Land Management Plan; and A. Discontinue temporary car parking in Noosa Heads Lions Park. Lost. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Against: Cr Nicola Wilson Motion Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding a Noosa Heads Lions Park Land Management Plan (LMP); and A. Request a further report to a future council meeting detailing the scope, costs, funding implications, consultation requirements and proposed timeline for the preparation of a LMP for Noosa Heads Lions Park, including consideration of a temporary overflow car park, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act 1994 and the Queensland Government's Guideline for Managing Actions Consistent and Inconsistent with the Purpose of Trust Land; B. Following consideration of the further report, to determine whether to proceed with the preparation of the Land Management Plan and allocation of appropriate budget. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That item C be added to read: Page 7 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 C. That Council write to the Minister under section 52AA of the Land Act 1994 advising that Council is considering the preparation of a Land Management Plan for the reserve and requesting interim approval for the use of part of the reserve for temporary overflow car parking during the 2026 Christmas holiday period. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That item D be added to read: D. That Council's letter to the Minister address the statutory requirements of section 52AA and demonstrate that the proposed temporary overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest having regard to: i. the temporary and limited nature of the use, being approximately 21 days per annum and affecting only the portion of the reserve required for seasonal overflow parking; ii. the site's historical use for seasonal overflow parking over more than 20 years; iii. community demand for additional parking during peak holiday periods; iv. the community, economic and charitable benefits associated with facilitating access to the locality during the Christmas period; and v. existing mitigation measures, including seasonal operating limits, wetweather closures, vegetation protection measures, site management controls, and post-season rehabilitation works. Carried. For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Brian Stockwell Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Part D be amended to read: D. That Council's letter to the Minister address the statutory requirements of section 52AA and demonstrate submit that the proposed temporary overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest having regard to: i. the temporary and limited nature of the use, being approximately 21 days per annum and affecting only the portion of the reserve required for seasonal overflow parking; ii. the site's historical use for seasonal overflow parking over more than 20 years; iii. community demand for additional parking during peak holiday periods; iv. the community, economic and charitable benefits associated with facilitating access to the locality during the Christmas period; and Page 8 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 v. existing mitigation measures, including seasonal operating limits, wetweather closures, vegetation protection measures, site management controls, and post-season rehabilitation works. Carried. 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 Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Property Advisor to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding a Noosa Heads Lions Park Land Management Plan; and A. Request a further report to a future council meeting detailing the scope, costs, funding implications, consultation requirements and proposed timeline for the preparation of a LMP for Noosa Heads Lions Park, including consideration of a temporary overflow car park, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act 1994 and the Queensland Government's Guideline for Managing Actions Consistent and Inconsistent with the Purpose of Trust Land; B. Following consideration of the further report, to determine whether to proceed with the preparation of the Land Management Plan and allocation of appropriate budget. C. That Council write to the Minister under section 52AA of the Land Act 1994 advising that Council is considering the preparation of a Land Management Plan for the reserve and requesting interim approval for the use of part of the reserve for temporary overflow car parking during the 2026 Christmas holiday period. D. That Council's letter to the Minister address the statutory requirements of section 52AA and submit that the proposed temporary overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest having regard to: i. the temporary and limited nature of the use, being approximately 21 days per annum and affecting only the portion of the reserve required for seasonal overflow parking; ii. the site's historical use for seasonal overflow parking over more than 20 years; iii. community demand for additional parking during peak holiday periods; iv. the community, economic and charitable benefits associated with facilitating access to the locality during the Christmas period; and v. existing mitigation measures, including seasonal operating limits, wetweather closures, vegetation protection measures, site management controls, and post-season rehabilitation works. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Page 9 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 The meeting adjourned at 1.11pm. The meeting resumed at 1.42pm. At 1:13pm Cr Nicola Wilson left the meeting. 11.1.4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JUNE 2026 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for June 2026 as provided at Attachment 1 to the Report. 11.1.5 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2025-2026 Q4 QUARTERLY REPORTING That Council A. Note the report by the Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding the Operational Plan 2025-2026 Q4 Quarterly Reporting; B. Note the progress report for Quarter 4 of the Operational Plan 2025-2026 provided as Attachment 1; and C. Note the status of Council's Operational Key Performance Measures for Quarter 4 of the reporting year provided as Attachment 2. 11.1.6 TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) - NOOSA WATERS RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUP That Council A. Note the report by the Director of Infrastructure Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Noosa Waters Residents Advisory Group representatives meeting with Noosa Council; B. Approve the Terms of Reference for the Noosa Waters Advisory Group to maintain a quality working relationship between Noosa Water Residents Association and Noosa Council; C. Delegate to the CEO to execute minor amendments to the TOR following final review by the Noosa Waters Residents Association; and D. Note the information concerning the Customer Service Obligation and preparation of a specific Asset Management Plan for Noosa Waters due to the nature of the Noosa Waters asset portfolio. 11.1.7 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION That Council A. Note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026; and B. Adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.10) 2026” provided as Attachment 1 to the report and take effect on 21 August 2026, replacing the previous “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.9) 2025”. Page 10 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 11.1.8 REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY PURPOSE LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE TENURE POLICY That Council: A. Note the report to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding the Review of the Community Purpose Land & Infrastructure Tenure Policy; B. Repeal the Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy adopted by Council on 12 March 2015 (as amended in 2017); C. Adopt the Community Tenure Policy provided at Attachment 1 to the report; D. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make minor administrative, editorial or formatting amendments to the Community Tenure Policy that do not materially alter the intent of the Policy prior to publication; E. Note that a supporting Community Tenure Guideline will be finalised and implemented to support the consistent administration of Community Tenure Arrangements in accordance with the adopted Policy. 11.1.9 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1576 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 8 WITTA CIRCUIT, NOOSA HEADS That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1576 of 2026; and B. Agree to defend the appeal. 11.1.10 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1763 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 5/7 PEZA COURT, NOOSA HEADS That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1763 of 2026; and B. Agree to defend the appeal. 11.1.11 MCU17/0559.05 - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1842 OF 2026 - FOR MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DUPLEX DWELLING AT 2/16 GRANT STREET, NOOSA HEADS That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 11 August 2026 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1842 of 2026; and B. Agree to defend the appeal. 11.1.12 DELEGATIONS ANNUAL REVIEW - COUNCIL TO CEO That Council: Page 11 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 A. Note the report by the Governance Officer to the General Committee dated 11 August 2026 regarding Council's Annual Delegation Review for 2026; and B. Adopt the Register of Delegations – Council to Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, to delegate the powers of the Local Government outlined in the Register of Delegations provided in Attachment 1, to the Chief Executive Officer of Noosa Shire Council. 11.1.13 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the Recommendations of the General Committee meeting dated 11 August 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 Against: None 10.2 MAIN BEACH RESERVE CAR PARK – REVIEW OF MAIN BEACH DROP- OFF ZONE RESOLUTION Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the matter (Item 10.2) be taken from the table. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Review its July 2026 resolution regarding the operation of the Main Beach DropOff Zone during the peak Christmas and New Year period in light of the information contained in the Property Advisor's report to the General Committee Meeting of 11 August 2026 relating to Lions Park overflow parking; B. Consult with key stakeholders including the Hastings Street Association; and C. Request the CEO report back to Council in the next round of meetings with recommendations. Lost. For: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson Against: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Page 12 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 12 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 12.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT JULY 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 August 2026 regarding Council's financial performance to 31 July 2026. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None 12.2 BUDGET REVIEW 1 FOR THE 2026/27 FINANCIAL YEAR Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 August 2026 regarding Budget Review 1; and B. In accordance with Section 104 of the Local Government Act 2009 and Sections 169 and 170 of the Local Government Regulation 2012, approve the proposed changes to the 2026/27 Budget as outlined in Attachment 1 - 2026/27 Budget Review 1 and 2026/27 to 2035/36 Revised Long-Term Financial Forecast, that contains: 1. Schedule 1 - Statement of Income and Expenditure 2. Schedule 2 - Statement of Financial Position 3. Schedule 3 - Statement of Cashflows 4. Schedule 4 - Statement of Changes in Equity 5. Schedule 5 - Relevant Measures of Financial Sustainability 6. Schedule 6 - Operating Budget Adjustments 7. Schedule 7 - Capital Program Comparison OB to BR1 8. Schedule 8 - Revised Capital Works Program 2026/27 9. Schedule 9 - Revised 10-Year Capital Works Program C. Adopt the revised 2026/27 Debt Policy as outlined in Attachment 2; and D. Adopt the amendments to Council's 2026/27 Fees and Charges as outlined in Attachment 3. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None 13 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Page 13 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 13.1 CONFIDENTIAL - WASTE SUPPLY AGREEMENT Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the meeting be closed to the public in accordance with Section 254D(3) of the LG Regulation 2012 (this is not publicly available as it contains information that is confidential to the local government) and pursuant to section 254J(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing Item 13.1 - Waste Supply Agreement. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council A. Note the report by the Waste Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 August 2026 regarding the Waste Supply Agreement; and B. In accordance with Section 235(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, approve entering into a Waste Supply Agreement (the Agreement) with Wildfire Energy Bulwer Island Pty Ltd (the Service Supplier) for the trial delivery and processing of residual municipal solid waste and post-resource recovery construction and demolition residuals at the Bulwer Island Energy Recovery Facility, without first inviting written quotes or tenders, on the basis that: 1. The services proposed to be provided by the Service Supplier under the Agreement are specialised in the waste industry; 2. The services proposed to be provided by the Service Supplier under the Agreement are confidential to the Service Supplier; and 3. Council is satisfied that, because of the specialised and/or confidential nature of the services, it would be impractical and/or disadvantageous for Council to invite quotes or tenders; C. Authorise the CEO to negotiate and finalise the Waste Supply Agreement and any associated documents to give effect to that Agreement, for the contract value discussed in the closed session of this meeting. For clarity, any general financial delegations do not limit the exercise of the CEO’s power under this paragraph; and D. Request a future report to Council regarding: 1. Operational outcomes of the trial arrangement; 2. Waste diversion performance; Page 14 of 15 ORDINARY MEETING | 20 AUGUST 2026 3. Financial outcomes; and 4. Opportunities associated with any future Energy Recovery Facility initiatives. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None 14 NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 17 September 2026 at 10.00am. 15 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 3.18pm. Page 15 of 15
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.000
A.m. And I acknowledge the Traditional Custodians on the land of which we are gathered, that of the Kabi Kabi People. We pay our respects to elders past, present and emerging and because I cannot be present at this meeting I am delegating the chairing responsibilities to Deputy Mayor Brian Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 00:19.931
Thank you, Mayor Wilkie. So I acknowledge that we have in the chamber Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Wegener and myself and online we have Councillor Finzel and the Mayor. The first next item of business is the confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and seconder for the Minutes of the meeting on the 16th July. Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wegener, presuming no there's no discussion put the motion although all those in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. We have one petition. I'll move the petition with the 100 signatures submitted by Cecilia saraiva sarajeva requesting the Council reduce the speed limit to 60 kilometres now on Black Mountain range road and Black Mountain Road be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Proceed. Action. Just need a second I think bit a second petition is self-explanatory and we do have some further engagement on that topic so I'll move that motion be for receiving all those in favour. Aye yes that's unanimous okay there are no presentations uh we do have two deputations uh the first deputation is uh the is same as the lead petitioner Cecilia and um on behalf of local residents of Black Mountain husson who supported the community petition the topic is the request for speed reduction in Black Mountain range road and Black Mountain Road and you are supported by David Jones and Anthony slattery so welcome to the lectern Cecile Saraiva 02:13.720
Thank you. For having us today demin and myself we just wanted to say a quick words about the petition that we have submitted explain where it from to explain where it comes from so we're both residents and we've been through many of the residents in the estate it's a cutlery state around Black Mountain range road and Black Mountain Road so those two Main Roads um the serving that big area. And we have found that many residents do support the speed limit being reduced and there are a few reasons for that but obviously the population has increased a lot about those past 20 years and we believe that there is a risk for children's safety when it comes to school bus drops off and pickups we do have a statement just after that will explain a bit further we do have many residents mentioning tailgating and they do not feel safe about driving especially at night around those roads we do also believe that more so it is big area big lots more people coming in more residents coming in more subdivisions so that will mean more driving more cars more children and we just want the community to feel safe around those roads. As a past insight I guess unfortunately we had two deaths over the past 20 years and many car accidents and not even mentioning the wildlife that has killed has been killed over the years. So we think that it would be really great if the speed limit could be recessed and we thank you for your support, obviously. Thank you. David Jones 04:02.947
Whilst cecile and I were walking around, we met Tony slattery and Tony has lived in the area for quite some time and wrote a statement that he wanted us to present this morning. So I'll just read that out for you and leave the copy. So a statement by Anthony Leslie slattery of 67 country drive, Black Mountain. I've resided at this address since 2014 and owned the property since 2012 and observed an increase in traffic in the suburb in the last five years. I'm a retired road designer, planner, estimator with more than 30 years experience in this profession with the CMR Queensland engineering consultants. I support the petitioners to reduce the posted speed limit on Black Mountain range road and Black Mountain Road from just south of the Bruce highway overpass near ollmans road to the Bruce highway overpass near the Council of waste Transfer Station. In my professional experience, very few sections of this road meet the current standards for horizontal and vertical site distance through a postive speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour. I request the Council to examine the original design drawings for this section of road and note the design speed on those drawings. If no design speed is noted on the drawings, the Council should re-survey the road and establish a legal design speed that meets current standards. I also drive a 50-seater school bus on this route. As there are no shoulders or bus stops along this road, it is necessary to stop the bus on the road to pick up and drop off children. As a rural bus route, we are obliged to pick up students driving. At pick up students driveway at students driveways is often a dangerous location for sight distance. Whilst warning lights do flash, I feel it is only a matter of time before a tragedy occurs involving one of the many school buses from many schools that travel, school children that travel on this road. As a minimum, I support the reduction of the posted speed limit to 60 kilometres an hour. Travel time lost is 107 seconds, less than two minutes. Well worthwhile to make this road safer for all. Even google maps calculated the speed on this road as 60 kilometres an hour, not the posted 80 kilometres an hour. He's left a diagram and a copy of you and also the signatures from the walk around that we did. Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 06:27.141
And we'll check in after the invitation periods and public questions there is a break so you can talk to each of those people who have had some form of engagement today. So the next deputation is from uh from pagan reed representing the Noosa Waters Residents Association and the topic that Adrian wants to talk to us about is the Noosa Waters advisory group. Adrian Reed 06:52.630
Thank you. Good morning Mayor, there you are where and Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Adrian reed. I'm the president of the Noosa Waters Residents Association. Just before I get too far into the terms of preference process. We've been going down, I just thought I'd touch on who we represent. Noosa Waters is home to more than 1,100 households. And whilst we're thought of often as a waterfront estate, over half of those, of 550 households, are not on the waterfront at all. We have 25 public parks, 17 of them on the waterway, open to everybody in the Noosa community, with playgrounds and off-leash dog parks amongst the I other, I guess, facilities that we provide within this area, the waterway itself covers 42 hectares and more than 11 kilometres of reventment walls. Over the past year, our association Council have been working constructively to replace a 25 year old partnership arrangement with the proper terms of reference process for the standing new silver. Noosa Waters advisory group. It sets up regular meetings, information, sharing. Transparent information sharing and a commitment from Council to table its maintenance plans and financials and we support it and we're very grateful for the work that's been done behind it by councils and equally our association. I'd like to cover off quickly what our waterway actually is. It's not simply a private canal for waterfront owners, it's a reserve for local government. It's a common lake area. Council as trustee. It's a stormwater drainage system for 240, sorry, 284 hectares of catchment. Roughly 44% of that lies outside of our state. It serves the wider community council's responsibility for it flows from the original agreement or the original approvals from 1983 and from the Land Act trustee duty confirmed by the minister to this Council, not merely from the levies that are raised from waterfront residents. Leads me to our second point, which is the financial accountability and transparency. It's the reason for the reporting provisions in the new terms of reference, and that's why they matter so much. Throughout this year, the review that we've done, we look very closely at the levies that have been and what they've been funding. We've identified a number of costs charged to residents through those levies that are in fact Council responsibilities as asset owner and trustee of the lake area. Things like salinity pumps, replacement of those pumps, pipe work, relevant examples. The original approval in 1983 itself allocated the pumping and maintenance of the water quality to Council to be met by general rates and yet over the past two decades waterfront owners have effectively paid twice, full in general rates and then obviously with the levy on top of that. Exactly the kind of clarity that we're looking for and we as we look ahead we welcome a clear shared understanding. A shared understanding of what and of what the levies fund and what Council carries as a responsibility as owner and trustee and the advisory group and Council um applaud the constructive process that has been embraced under the TOR the third is water quality we're pleased to hear some of the discussion in the previous meeting but the reassurance offered in that General Committee that council's meeting guidelines does not fully tell the story and in our view doesn't show the Councillor meeting its obligations as trustee to maintain the lake area the current or the lake area has been held to a more relaxed moderately disturbed standard well below the ecological value that the Noosa River demands that it drains into and below the high standard that the lake was originally approved and Council is obligated to maintain as trustee for this lake area on the view on a few things that are measured in the inflow test position adjacent to this to see now key meets only that relaxed bar 65%% of the time and it's declining according to the 2025 NICA annual water quality monitoring report. I don't think that's something that clearly articulates that we're meeting articulates approach. Appropriate an standard. The measure that actually tracks algae nutrients and chlorophyll is not tested at all in our canal. The original 1983 approval required a far broader monitoring program and active management of the catchment and we drifted a long way away from that. The catchment also, it's has enormously. Since those approvals with far greater stormwater volume, pollutant loads than the original design ever assumed. Those 1983 assumptions still underpin how the water quality framework is set and managed but inevitably they're out of date. So beyond restoring the proper monitoring process and addressing the upstream sources we ask that the underlying assumptions themselves be reassessed the framework reflects the catchment as it is today, not what it was 40 years ago. We'll be working when we were with Council. Through the terms of reference where water quality is now a standing item and to see that these obligations as trustee for the lake area are met simple low-cost improvements to water quality close the gap should be fast-tracked like pumping on martard. That's exactly what the lake was designed to do. We welcome support to get things like that done. Finally, because the waterway serves as waterway, a wider public role as a stormwater attenuation basin sharing the fair costs which is a framework called the community service obligation the CSO referred to in the financials. Based on the catchment performance is a matter that we consider still as unresolved as part of the TOR. We ask that be progressed openly through this TOR process. We actively want to work with Council through this advisory group and under the TOR framework and we look forward to collectively managing the asset that belongs to Noosa as a whole and we are thankful for the collaborative approach that Council and its staff have taken to work with our committee. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 14:25.337
Okay thank you. Okay, so next we have three submissions for public question time. There have been two questions submitted by Mr Edward riottot he's asked that Councillor Lorentson read them out on his behalf. Amelia Lorentson 14:49.007
The um question one: unspent grant funding and Sunrise Beach community hub upgrades. Following my correspondence with Mayor Wilkie June July 2026 about the unspent liveability and state grant funding from street active project RM 2026 14358, would Council consider reallocating funds towards a Sunrise Beach community hub upgrade, tindura boardwalk or shopping centre to match neighbouring precincts? Brian Stockwell 15:28.278
Director Walsh, would you like to respond from the lectern? Shaun Walsh 15:38.341
Thank you for the question. At its Ordinary Meeting on 18th of June 2026, Council resolved not to proceed with the active street project in its current form and to explore where the grant funding could be redirected to practical infrastructure improvement Peregian Beach south or other eligible alternatives. Council's immediate priority is to retain the existing funding and has submitted scope variation requests to the active transport fund and South East Queensland liveability fund to deliver practical infrastructure. Liveability such as pedestrian footpath connections that reflect community feedback. Initial discussions with grant providers has been encouraging and Council considers the current scope variation request to be the most practical and achievable pathway for retaining available funding. Achievement of funding for Sunrise Beach dendy hut raid guindy upgrade and chindirra boardwalk would require separate future Council budget allocation and/or grant funding submissions. Brian Stockwell 16:35.002
The second question please, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 16:37.007
In Sunrise Beach, speeding and increased traffic on oriella drive, orient drive, southern cross drive, Dane Paddy drive and Ben Lexcen Drive present a genuine safety concern. Given the volume of school children and old residents, it will no longer, it will not be long before a serious accident occurs. Can Council provide the next steps for a safety audit of these roads? Shaun Walsh 17:05.042
Thank you for the question. Speed limits are determined in accordance with Queensland transport's manual of uniform traffic control devices, speed controls, which considers factors such as road function, vehicle speeds, roadside activity and crash history to ensure consistent and appropriate speed limits across Queensland. Council acknowledges concerns regarding vehicle speeds and has recorded the nominated locations for future investigations. An initial review of available compass LOT speed data indicates that speeding may be an issue on benlexin drive, southern cross parade and Dane Paddy drive and these roads have been added to council's proposed schedule for speed limit reviews. As part of the assessment process Council may undertake traffic counts and speed surveys to determine whether the current speed environment is appropriate. Any proposed speed limit change must satisfy a technical assessment criteria and be considered by the speed management committee comprising representatives from Queensland Police Service and Department of Transport and Main Roads. As requests are prioritised across the Shire and resources are limited, assessments may take several months to complete. Council will advise you of the outcome should the review process further or result in a proposed change. Alternative measures such as additional speech advisable signage, advisory signage or subject to funding and community consultation, traffic calming treatments may also be considered. Brian Stockwell 18:26.652
Thank you very much. We now have a question that was submitted by Mathew hoffman. Mr. Hoffman advised that he couldn't be here today and there's also. Amelia Lorentson 18:35.708
As part of the strategic dog exercise area review, we request community consultation. Regarding dog access at beach access 37, a primary local hub. Could Council please confirm the timing and process. For community consultation on this proposal? Brian Stockwell 18:59.928
Direct that, which is a good thing, all right, let's get it going. Richard MacGillivray 19:03.218
Thanks for the question, Mr hoffman. Council appreciates you raising this information. Regarding dog exercise arrangements at beach access 37. And recognises that there are likely to be a range of community views on this matter. These views include support for maintaining existing arrangements as well as proposals to expand or modify operation arrangements. Any changes to designated dog exercise areas would require careful consideration of community feedback, environmental impacts, public safety, accessibility and legislative requirements. Council intends to consider community feedback on dog exercise areas as part of a future review of its local laws. The local law review process is proposed to be considered through future budget deliberations, with the next opportunity likely to be through the '27 / '28 budget process. Should Council Resolve to proceed with the review, it would be undertaken in accordance with the State government's prescribed framework and will include formal community. Consultation before any changes are determined. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 20:04.850
We come to our last number of questions. That was submitted by Ms Pat Spicer. Ms Pat Spicer is with us and she is currently approaching the lectern. Welcome back. Pat Spicer 20:13.644
Thank you. Through the Chair, my name is Pat Spicer. I associate in background material. Response. To my public question on the 16th of April, 2026. Question requested, total cost of all investigations. For 62 Lake MacDonald Drive prior to the remediation and civil works commencing on the 4th of September 2025. Investigations started as early as 2019. Answers addressed-24 budget allowance of $500,000 in which $375,000 was used and a Federal grant of $178,000 was received. The answer noted the project is still live and yet to be completed. My understanding is the current works are funded by the contract with palm grove holdings trading as Carruthers. Resolution 17 July 2025 remediation of major earthworks were 3,091,498,486.08 excluding GST and the subdivision works in that contract were $2,684,000 $2,684,000,542.27, excluding GST. There was an allocation of $3 million in the Noosa Council $24.25 budget and $1.9 million in the 25-26 Noosa Council budget. As the 24-25 financial year is now history, for what was the $3 million allocated in the 24-25 Noosa Council budget for the 62-64 labrador drive project? Brian Stockwell 22:12.346
Thank you and the chief executive is going to respond okay Larry Sengstock 22:17.124
Okay, sorry kim's not in the meeting this morning. She's online but she's asked me to read the response for you. Thank you. The allocated $3 million was a high-level initial construction cost estimate to allow the project to proceed to the next stages. The project was delayed to enable further community consultation resulting in design changes which deferred construction until the 25-26 financial year. Unidentified Speaker 22:49.211
Question 2. How much of that $3 million in the 24-25 financial year budget, which is roll now, for the 62 Lake MacDonald Drive project was used? Larry Sengstock 23:02.131
Yep. Okay, in response. Of the total $3 million project budget, approximately $49,000 was expended '24 / '25. In the 24-25 financial year, comprising staff time, consultation and design costs. No remediation or civil work costs were incurred during this period, as construction did not commence until the 25-26 financial year. Brian Stockwell 23:33.104
So we will now have a 15-minute break until our public participation will be answered by staff and councillors. So we will return at all. Brian Stockwell 38:53.661
Okay, back on. Okay, welcome back. We're now on item 9, which is Mayoral minutes, and we do not have any of those, so we move on to section 10, and we have two notified motions. First is by Councillor Lorentson, and that is the second, and it's dealing with strengthening small business consultation on major Council works. Councillor Lorentson. And strengthening small businesses. Amelia Lorentson 39:20.015
Note Doonella Bridge upgrade highlights upgrade highlighted an opportunity for Council to consult more effectively. With small businesses when planning and delivering major works. Requests that the Chief Executive Officer. Use the Business Round Table to explore what improved consultation. With small businesses should look like for major Council works and how it should be delivered. Request that the Chief Executive Officer. Report back to Council on the outcome of that engagement. Including a recommended approach. Brian Stockwell 39:53.989
I'll take Amelia Lorentson 39:59.289
The report as read, so I'll just speak to I put the motion forward because I just think that we have a real opportunity to strengthen how Council engages with small businesses when delivering major works. The motion in front of us seeks to improve communication, identify the impacts earlier and ensure that our small businesses are genuine partners in the impact planning process. Proposal has been discussed at the Business Round Table and has received support from both the CEO, the business chambers and associations, and also our EC development team. There is a shared recognition that while Council needs to deliver important infrastructure projects, we can continue to improve the way we work with businesses affected by those projects. I had also circulated as. A discussion point a draft small business impact plan to our local business associations and the feedback again has been very positive. Businesses have welcomed the opportunity to work with Council to help shape and co-design a practical framework that reflects their needs and experiences. The Doonella street project provided valuable lessons. It highlighted the importance of early engagement, clear communication and understanding the impacts that construction works can have on local businesses. Rather than seeing this as a problem, we should see it as an opportunity to learn and improve. This motion is not about motion's creating more red tape, it's about formalising those learnings so they're not lost and can be applied consistently to future projects across the Shire. Importantly, the approach aligns with recognised industry best practice. Oz Rhodes guides you Austroads guide to temporary traffic management, part A checklist. Part stakeholders. Identifies stakeholder engagement, communication and traffic management as critical components of successful project delivery. Traffic management plans tell us how vehicles and pedestrians will move around a worksite, but they do not always identify the broader impacts on nearby businesses. Motion seeks to bridge that gap. It's also important to acknowledge the good work that Council has already undertaken with the Tewantin traders and other business groups in the past month. Strong relationships are being built and this motion provides an opportunity to build that foundation and strengthen those partnerships even further. Ultimately, this is about continuous improvement. Rather than allowing the experiences and lessons from Doonella street to disappear once the project is complete, we have an opportunity to capture those learnings, incorporate them into a practical framework and work collaboratively with our business community to achieve better outcomes in the future. I believe this is a positive step forward for Council and for our businesses and for our community. I hope that the Council will support I hope support the motion. Brian Stockwell 43:10.414
Thank you. Would anyone else like to talk to the motion? Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 43:13.952
Just to support the motion, I think that any time, anywhere, any opportunity that we can create stronger relationships. Create stronger relationships with our local businesses, then to me, it's not really anything I could, you know, speak against it. So it's, yeah, very important that continue to. We continue to build those strong connections. And Doonella Bridge was an example of things and lessons learnt. So for continuous improvement, I am happy to support the motion. Thanks. You. Brian Stockwell 43:46.726
Anyone else wish support motion. To talk to the motion? Yep. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 43:55.237
I'm a little bit, you know, up in the air on this because one, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor are doing their job right now. And what you've done is what a Councillor does. Like that's what's actually what it does. We, you consult the strategies. We have our engagement strategy. We have our internal community engagement framework. We have our Council discussion. Forums with the Councillors. We have the monthly executive team meetings. We have the monthly CEO brief briefing and the agenda briefings. So we spend a lot of time together and we have actually, you know, gone through this and done our job, but I um and it think it's think that what I'm trying to say is that the notified motion is sort of a last resort situation where I don't know if I want to bring the precedence of always bringing a notice of motion. This when you what would the notice of motion is please just do our job and help the CEO and ask the CEO questions in our regular forums and do what we actually paid to do, which is manage Council. So I don't know so thank you I'm just I would love to hear that. Jessica Phillips 45:10.695
Can I ask a question then to the CEO? Sure. Just wondering when is opportunities for us then as Tom raised for reviews of I just haven't been able to have opportunity to sort of review we've got a lot of work ahead of us so we I feel I haven't pause and look and review on things that have been done in the past so how would we if it wasn't for the notified motion what's another process Larry Sengstock 45:50.516
Trying to, I guess you could probably ask the Councillor, he's. Councillor his intent with his statement as well but for mine I think what we're talking about here is that we have lots of opportunities when we bring these projects through and everybody's aware of those projects I think it's incumbent on all of us to be cognisant of the fact that these projects are coming in to ask the questions at that point as well have we done the right concentration where are we at with this where with that I think that's part of the process as well so we're doing it in the other rooms where we do those updates and workshops so when we know about the bridge for example months ago the questions could have been asked then I guess we did ask we did and we haven't it's not that we haven't done anything is a learning exercise so we did a lot of work we did talk to a lot of businesses but you know still there's more to be done and it's a learning thing so I think what that I think putting words in your mouth Councillor but is more about saying well as these projects as we can't become aware of them we can ask those questions aware the way as well as where are we up to where are we up with our consultation where are we at with our engagement where are we at are we comfortable that we've done enough or we've thought about this or we've thought about that I think that's probably where that we do that but maybe more cognisant of Jessica Phillips 47:11.280
It okay thank you just one more question then it'll be to Councillor Wegener um thanks when have we got opportunity to learn to review what has been done because I agree with what you and the CEO has said but if we're looking forwards at projects which sometimes you don't get the full view of when in your extra time that I've had that you've had in your term beyond mine when have you had an opportunity to review things that Tom Wegener 47:44.982
That's a very good question. And I think I'll just simply say not enough you have not and I think that we do need to reflect it's been more reflect spend amongst ourselves time reflecting amongst ourselves on things for example the whole situation whole COVID situation we didn't really I might we didn't in my opinion didn't really actually say what happened what did we do you know pros and cons I think that is something that our professional development has we do and we probably haven't followed through it um a question to the CEO and I Amelia Lorentson 48:18.040
Thank Councillor Wegener for raising the concerns um my question is that we have um a lot of the stuff that you're requesting is um sometimes operational and actually doesn't come to us so there's my understanding and I'll ask for clarity to the CEO we've got things like a construction management plan um which gets the residents resonant feedback then that's the plan that says you know you don't operate on weekends don't operate before seven o'clock etc then you have a traffic management plan and I think under the OSROADS guide to traffic management 2025 there's a checklist under part a and the obligations that we're discussing are all stated there so the question is there is a gap in those guidelines the broader impact in terms of what it means for businesses you know when are the peak trading hours where the drivers access to give us consideration of whether when we go out to tender whether we should be asking for not necessarily the cheapest option but maybe sometimes the most expensive option understanding what impacts are what are the impacts going to be on small businesses maybe it's better for us to work so my question is under a traffic management plan a question to CEO terms of compliance question to CEO um in terms of compliance etc um is that done operationally or does that come back to Councillors Larry Sengstock 49:50.641
No it's done operationally from a traffic management plan point of view the traffic management is looking at the least impact for the traffic and how do we do that and that in turn then has an effect on businesses and surrounding residents and that sort of stuff so it's all considered it's a matter of how much it's considered and some of the things you say well they're short-term projects so therefore it's in and out do it as quick as you can even least impact and the traffic management plan covers that for a longer term project and I think that's the learning from this is a six-month project so therefore you know we did consider businesses and we did talk to businesses but maybe not to the right level so that's the learning you say well let's bring that back to the table and say next time the next project we make sure that we do consider those again it's how broad you go to you know like this we're talking to want and we're talking the marina and those that are really impacted and done and businesses on Milton Terrace you know how much broader as we know in that first few days it impacted a whole range of businesses because you know people were now adjusting to it created impacts in your Monday road and all sorts of things so there's you know it's how broad you do it you how big we can go but I think that's a learning for us to say this project's coming and for all of us to be more cognisant again more aware and saying have we considered are we comfortable with this and let's move forward but I think that's what you say in those workshops that's where our minds should be at is what's the impact on them on the broader community. I I'm happy with that. Thank you. Nicola Wilson 51:25.800
Will support this. I think it's a real opportunity to be very proactive it's one thing to take a project to the local business community when it's about to happen and then everyone kind of goes straight into crisis mode so it's a really good opportunity when everything's calm and there's no projects happening to get everyone's views on if we were to have a major project what how would you like us to approach it so think it's a really good opportunity to have that. I those conversations with businesses when there isn't actually something major happening and then have that in mind when it does come to having a major project. Brian Stockwell 52:03.622
Councillor Finzel or Councillor Wilkie, did you wish to say something? Councillor Wilkie, you've got your hand up. Frank Wilkie 52:09.949
Yeah, thank you. I don't see anything here that isn't already underway in terms of approaching major projects and the way they're communicated with business groups. In April we started a conversation and maybe even before that with the Hastings Street Association and other groups about the impact of the seawall. Which is going to cause major disruption down in Hastings Street. So the question to the CEO, how would this motion change what is already underway with the Hastings Street Association in regards to the seawall? Project know have you have a working group already formulated on this, I understand. Larry Sengstock 52:53.673
I'll give you Through the Chair, yes. Mr Mayor, we do, we have working groups and that's the intent of those. I think what the motion from Councillor Lorentson is really saying can we use the business round table or as another method for informing and that gets the broader community as well. I think there's merit in that because otherwise we're. Focused on experience. We are focused on the Hastings Street association but again that work down there is going to have much broader impacts across the whole of the community so that's just it's just another way of making sure people are aware and as we know and that's what Councillor Wilson was saying often you know people are aware of it but they don't take notice until it hits them in the face if you like or it's right on the doorstep and that's what we've got to get better at just making sure that we do get that communication and make them aware and make sure we've done as much as we can we're never going to satisfy everybody these projects have an impact they have on all sorts of businesses and people's daily lives and that's what the management plan and the construction management plan is all about is trying to minimise that get it done as quick as we can get it done for the money that we've got and then look at it but I'm comfortable we can use the business round table as a broader method just to inform and get feedback. Much. Frank Wilkie 54:19.132
Follow-up question um Mr CEO hasn't the round table already been used as a way of broaching the topic of the sea wall and that was on the agenda for the April meet round table meeting hasn't it already can we already use the round table for such as this Larry Sengstock 54:37.861
Yes the answer to that is yes we do um I think it's just bringing it more to our attention but yeah you're right we do use that as a method already um but I think this is just bringing it to front of mind also I think is what Council irons is trying to achieve with this Council- Councillor Finzel, you've got your hand up. Karen Finzel 54:58.186
Thank you, Mr Chair um I'll only be brief um I think this is a great opportunity um for collaborative leadership uh for us to pause and review and of course always ask the question how can we do better conflict resolution when done efficiently and handled with appropriateness will always provide a solution I think our role is to um listen to our community that includes whole Shire I think um motion brings before us the opportunity to have this discussion about how we can do that how we can strengthen and improve those conversations around our community our role is constantly identify risks and gaps and how we can serve our community better. I support this. I think it provides a greater focus on how we can bring more people around the table and at the same time I thank Councillor um Tom for raising the opportunities already in place to engage with our community I think this provides a greater focus to go ahead and strengthen those partnerships um it's we can. It's really great that we can pause review pivot and adjust and bring the whole of Shire along with us including our CEO and our staff it's always good in my opinion to pause and just see how can we do better we're all here because of our community look to us here because of our community and they look to us an opportunity to engender trust and show that we will do whatever it takes to try our best to give voice to our business people and our broader community so thank you for this item before us and I think it's a great opportunity I have the privilege to go to the Tewantin traders event at which the CEO spoke the Council staff is working in a collaborative nature with the business traders and that was a great opportunity to see how can relationships can be strengthened and come together and how people can be supported beyond what is the issue before us so I think if anything that gives us a good indicator of how well we can come together and find solutions for our broader community Thank you. Brian Stockwell 57:48.298
Okay, I'll talk to the motion I probably had the same thoughts that Council wouldn't express I went last night and looked at the community engagement policy then I looked at the community engagement framework and I said does this motion change anything needless to say. The answer was no does that do they outline the role of Councillors and I said yes and does is there a better way of handling it and I thought very much so Councillor Phillips point what's in this motion could be dealt with in five minutes by an email rather than the lengthy and cumbersome process announced to motion probably cost the ratepayers one two three thousand dollars just for all that goes into this and all that passes every one of those thousands of dollars could be spent on fixing potholes fixing a route that's on a pathway uh providing money to a sporting club every time we use any an inefficient process to achieve an operational outcome we are costing the ratepayers' money and to me that's one thing we can improve on so there's nothing that has been said that anyone disagrees opportunities always look at continuous improvement to always look at continuous improvement innovation in where can go. Innovation in terms of way we engage but as we've heard from Councillor, the Mayor and also the CEO everything that's put into this motion already occurs. The fact that one of the options that was chosen based on modelling had an impact on a certain group of businesses is not necessarily going to have been effective in the Hilton Terrace because it wasn't until we saw results on the ground that it was recognised that there was disproportionate impacts on one group of trailers. It's not necessarily going to be the case that we will be always able to come up with win- solutions and the framework acknowledges that there's going to be times when you consult when stakeholders are impacted. Having said that. I acknowledge that we should learn when things, yeah, obviously there's a bit of, it's caused by the option we chose the first few days by start. My that says it wasn't just by businesses. There's a lot of impacts on the community more broadly, too. That's another aspect of this motion that is missing. Why, if the impact were like that, are we just focusing on so I can't support it because I believe the notice of motion is inefficient and also redundant. To the second questioner. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:20.964
Question to the CEO. Councillor Stockwell referenced a cost of up to $5,000 in terms,000 of bringing a notice of motion to Ordinary Meeting. Can I ask what is the cost? Larry Sengstock 01:00:39.792
No, I'm sorry, I can't figure I can fit to that. But you know, I think that the point he's making is that it does require resource time, people's time. So, but that's, big. So that's for you to decide if you bring those. It's your, as Councillors, all Councillors, it's your right to bring those to the motion, generally they come through me first and then we work that through. So that's a process that we have. A process allowed to us Brian Stockwell 01:01:12.669
Councillor Wilkie, you're the only one I believe who hasn't spoken, did you wish to speak to the motion? Frank Wilkie 01:01:16.145
Yes. Thank you Mr Chair. Look I see no harm in supporting this motion. It reflects processes and a commitment to continuous improvement that we already have in place. The roundtable is the forum for raising impactful capital works with the community and with the business groups. That's what we're doing. There is also a great opportunity through the way that capital works teams, infrastructure teams work with affected business groups when a project is pending. Teams. I also noted that Councillors have great opportunity through their networks on social media and community groups to inform the community and explain to the community when projects are pending and not all Councillors did this in terms of informing the community about the denial impending donalla street bridge works but I thank those so it's largely redundant although it's largely redundant I am happy to support this motion because I'm this motion because it through a notice of motion through you do signal to the community it highlights raises an issue gives it a public profile that might not otherwise have had but I see no harm in supporting it thank you Amelia Lorentson 01:02:43.192
I'll start just with a response to a couple of things that was raised by Councillor Stockwell firstly in terms of inefficient cost of resourcing up to five thousand dollars I'd just like to put on the table that I engaged with I think associate. Every business I met with businesses around the community, I wrote the report, I spent some time looking at OSRO traffic management guidelines 2026 understanding that talking to traffic engineers consultants in town business owners in town owners in town and then after I put then after I put my notice of motion I spent maybe 20-30 minutes with the CEO he shared that information with economic development he came back and said supportive but requested some changes to my notice of motion I then went and changed the notice of motion so in terms of cost I spent a lot of time that's my job understanding our community and the resourcing and time was on me not on this Council so I wanted to put that on the table in terms of Council Stockwell mentioned the community engagement all these processes exist my question to Councillor Stockwell is if these and Mayor Wilkie mentioned the same that we're already doing this if that's the case that's my question that I would like to leave the table is why do we have 60 business owners coming to Council at five six o'clock at night attending a community meeting demanding questions of as to why as to why they were not consulted not once not twice not all the Councillors were here and maybe that's why they don't understand the importance of having this notice of motion Council Mayor Wilkie mentioned that the importance of a notice of motion is that the commitment that we make to our business community is formally documented rather than left as an informal conversation. There were informal A Council motion carries weight that good intentions do not. It commits Council and staff to genuinely exploring what improved consultation should look like rather than allowing the idea to quietly drop off once the moment has passed. I'm going to talk a little bit I'm about our small businesses and what I've learnt in my six years. They are the ones that are most exposed to disruption arising from Council works. They're the ones operating on tight margins that leave little capacity to absorb an extended period of reduced trade. The motion in front of us is simply saying that we need to do consultation as best as we can. From the outset, proactively, as Councillor Wilson mentioned. To me, that's one of the clearest way that we can way that we tell our business community and our. Business community and our community that we support them. We listen to them and what they do matter, which is support our kids. Are the small businesses. These are businesses. There's 3000 of them. They're the pulse that keeps this community alive. And they're also the ones that have built this community. You know, when we talk about housing, we talk about the risk that we're going to reshape the community. And that community was built on our hospitality trade, our small businesses, our retailers. So Councillors, this is an opportunity to proactively do better. And I respect, I really respect the conversation and we need the diversity and we need to be challenged with the way we are thinking. But I do believe that if you attended any of the community forums with a small businesses, you would understand how important it is that we formalise our commitment through a notice of motion. Again, I'm just going to leave everyone with the thought that trust is built through working together and this collaborative. Opportunity to co-develop a proper consultation impact plan with our small businesses is to me an opportunity that we need to rise to. Brian Stockwell 01:07:22.783
Thank you. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour is Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. I'm lying. Yes. Councillor Wilkie. Yes. And Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener and those against is Councillor Stockwell. Motion is okay, the motion is carried. We then move on to the second notified motion which is once again from Councillor Lorentson and it's regarding the Main Beach reserve car park review of Main Beach drop-off zone resolution. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:49.866
Again, I'll take it as Fred. I don't think this is controversial. I think this is really just a common sense notice of motion. When we made our decision in July with the go for Noosa. Oh, excuse me. I'll move that Council A review. A it's its July 2026 resolution regarding the operation of the Main Beach drop-off zone during the peak Christmas and new year period in light of the information contained in the property advisor's report to the General Committee of 11 August 2026. To overflow park. Relating to Lions Park overflow parking. Consult with key stakeholders including the Hastings Street Association and request the CEO report back to Council in the next round of meetings with recommendations. Do we have a seconder? Thank I'll second. You. Ansel Wilson? Ansel larson, do you speak to your motion? So when Council made its decision in July in terms of a Go Noosa Program it did so with the expectation or the potential that overflow car parking would be available at Lions Park. We know now that there's still uncertainty around arrangement. If those overflow parking spaces at Lions Park are not available then the circumstances that informed the original decision have changed. Parking is vital during the Christmas and new year period. It supports local businesses, employees, residents and visitors. At the busiest time of year every parking space counts. Motion in front of us is not asking Council to abandon the drop-off zone. The motion's just asking to review the decision in light of the new information and consider whether adjustments such as a mixed-use or hybrid approach or even a revised commencement date may provide a better balance. And I think just given the. I uncertainty before us and given that the original decision was made based on different information, I believe we have a responsibility to review it. And that's all this motion's seeking to do and I respectfully ask that we support it okay. Brian Stockwell 01:10:04.982
I'd love to talk to the motion. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:10:10.924
I will support this because I'm going to argue with the Lions Park that we shouldn't be singling out one car park at a time. In the absence of a parking management plan, we should be looking at the whole of Shire approach and then that should inform what we do with each individual copper of the individual car parks. So as not to contradict myself when I speak about Lions Park, I will apply the same logic here that we shouldn't just be singling out and making decisions on one car park until we've got our whole strategy for partner. Parking. Brian Stockwell 01:10:41.089
Thank you. Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Except for Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:10:47.156
Thanks to the CEO this as part of what we're doing anyway, is this business as usual, does it require a notice of motion to make a change? To what you're going to do anyway um Larry Sengstock 01:11:03.768
Yeah this is interesting because this is this one came forward before the discussion of the last General Committee as well in terms of whether we go with it or don't go with it at the point at that point in time we challenge was not to go with parking at Lions Park so this was a if we don't have Lions Park then what about this yes the um the easy answer to that is yes we do review and we will time because at the moment it takes us a long time to set it up and that's something where Councillor Lorentson's talking about as well maybe even just look at that we put those sandstone blocks in it takes us time and effort to put that is there a better way to do it is it easier um you know that the whole intention with using the uh creating the drop-off zone was to reduce the congestion of cars waiting to park in that car park and sitting on the ramp and sitting in there and just creating you know backs up back into the roundabout what we've seen is that actually is it has been effective is our understanding um now whether we continue with that because of this I think we need to have the problem with this one now is we've got another discussion coming in this on lion's meeting as to the decision park so you know yes we will review it yes and that's why I'm quite comfortable with this we would review it anyway so it's a matter of saying we always we're always going to review we everything we try and learn and see what how we can do it better um so you know I'm comfortable with that it is a it's a notice of motion but in real terms as a as an organisation as officers we review everything we do on an annual basis if you look at it, it's over it's changed the last two or three years anyway remember the first time it was a park we set it up as a park then the second time was less infrastructure but just really focusing on the drop-off you know we may look at it a different way and say how can we set it up easier so it's more flexible and cheaper to set up as opposed to bringing in all of you they're the things we do on a regular basis Amelia Lorentson 01:13:01.718
Um question to the CEO uh my understanding is once the decision has been ratified by Council um then we have to take that course and it was for that reason that um I changed it so the course of action that we had signed off on at the time was for a full drop-off um area um in the in Noosa, what this is requesting is a review to understand whether a hybrid mix used to return it all back to car parking um so so just clarification um the my understanding is that correct yeah Larry Sengstock 01:13:40.720
Absolutely we review that as well and look at whether we can do it a little bit differently and whether we need more disabled car or parks for the surf lifesavers or that sort of stuff has been reviewed over the time we'll continue to do that um you know my understanding is it's very difficult to be too hot with it if you start to change it mix it as we've seen it you know for a few hours you do this and a few hours you do that it just confuses people so you know we need to be conscious of that so we are going to change it we need to be very very aware that it is cause confusion and it's not an easy car park to say we use half of this and half of that because of the entry and exit points very difficult so but we will review that no problem at all we do it on a regular basis whether we can change it or not whether we decide to change it thank you very much others wish to talk to the motion Brian Stockwell 01:14:38.244
Think I saw Councillor Wilkie's hand go up first then Councillor Finzel then Councillor Wegener Karen Finzel 01:14:50.106
Yeah thank you um look I think this um this item before us is in some way uh these processes are already undertaken I'm happy to support it in terms of you know it highlights I guess where we're heading it gives assurance to our community that we haven't dropped the ball that we're going to continue with and so on. Along with reviews consulting and all the other things noting also item number c b I think that was covered in the last meeting when I put forward um an amendment to widen out consultation around you know the Lions Park and that area um with key stakeholders so I think also that's been covered but I think in terms of just um supporting this to raise to and put a spotlight onto these issues um in which the community is fully um you know focused on at the moment because it is going to be impact you know so many people I will support it um I think Council is already moving along these um pathways and I think it is about like yes strengthening that and bringing assurance to our community trying to engender trust with them that we have our eyes on it and we will be Frank Wilkie 01:16:23.302
Council Wilkie. Thank you Mr Chair my concern with this particular notice of motion is that it does create cast some doubt has potential to create confusion. And has potential to confusion about our commitment moving access through the Main Beach car park and reducing congestion at the Hastings Street roundabout by reviewing this arrangement. To improving I see very little connection to the parts. Availability parking of car in the Lions Park I see it as a linked but a separate issue. We are committed to improving access and reducing congestion and the arrangements at the Noosa Heads surf club car park allow potential hundreds of people to be dropped off each hour and has drastically reduced congestion at the Hastings Street roundabout by preventing cars banking up. We were previously looking for car parks at the Noosa Heads park car park so because of its potential to create confusion and cast doubt on our commitment to this arrangement I won't be supporting this particular notice of motion. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:17:48.293
It seems redundant in that if what we're already doing and as the CEO stated we have been behind the scenes or us the Councillors and staff many meetings where talk about we going to do and it seems to me that is the time where we hash things out. Um, these notice emotions are troubling for me because it's an attempt to basically in my opinion micromanage um what something that we should have been. So if the process perhaps needs to be questioned overall why we have to have so many notice emotions especially when this is so I'll support it but I think in the proper behind the scenes that we'll be talking about notice emotions in our discussion forums coming up. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:18:46.186
Uh Councillor Finzel you have a question? Karen Finzel 01:18:49.250
Uh yeah I just think I'd like to just put forward that um I don't yeah consider this confusing. So it has to be a question? The is I'm seeking clarification from the Mayor he's finding this confusing. I consider matter. A complex matter can he please clarify as to why I think this motion um is creating confusion. Frank Wilkie 01:19:15.893
Yeah thank you Councillor Finzel um by the notice of motion we've just last month approved and agreed to proceed with the change parking arrangements at the Noosa Heads surf club car park and next month we're reviewing it already so it creates confusion because at the very next opportunity it signals that when we don't endorse fully what we've committed to only a month ago it looks like we're flip-flopping I don't like it I think it sends the wrong message to the long you. I thank community thank you Amelia Lorentson 01:19:55.252
Um a question to the CEO please um just wanting to know whether you've had any correspondence from the Hastings Street Association in terms of reviewing um the surf club car parking in light of the uncertainty around the overflow car parking at lines park Larry Sengstock 01:20:19.506
Um it's a good question because I do have a lot of correspondence with the hsa and I'm trying to think of whether we've actually specifically talked about this I don't believe we have Amelia Lorentson 01:20:27.939
Can I maybe direct the question to someone in infrastructure um short Mr Shaun Walsh Shaun Walsh 01:20:34.714
I have to take the question on notice Councillor um to confirm whether I can do a search in the forthcoming period to determine if there's anything I'm not personally aware but Jessica Phillips 01:20:44.507
I just need to confirm sure Phillips can I please move a procedural motion to um just suspend Standing Orders because I have a question about the agenda item if I can do it then I'll explain it um Brian Stockwell 01:21:02.912
You'll need to explain why we need to have suspended Standing Orders for a question Jessica Phillips 01:21:06.515
There's a word from the training we did that says I need to ask if can be put to the end of the agenda and I cannot think of the word on the table put on thank you and if this is put on the table and we bring the um and potentially there's we move through the agenda items and the other item comes up with discussion and on discussion on and is decided then this may give um Brian Stockwell 01:21:30.416
Yes I understand so yes you can move the metal a on the table can we cancel it okay um okay Jessica Phillips 01:21:38.169
I think because this was done before um a decision on the Lions Park or I agree with the notice of motion I just think it would be great to have a decision by Council on the other before um because it may change the weight of what because change the of Councillor Lorentson is asking Lawrence is asking for Brian Stockwell 01:22:06.300
One yeah so Councillor Councillor Phillips has moved it that is one I think that needs a seconder I'll second I'll probably allow you to talk to them the procedural motion but can if you like to explain that you need to explain any further I don't think I need Jessica Phillips 01:22:23.246
To explain it any I don't think I need to explain it any anyone's questions further unless anyone's got questions that would make more sense Brian Stockwell 01:22:29.105
Okay does anyone have questions Amelia Lorentson 01:22:30.611
Um just a um just a question Council to Councillor Phillips the wording actually requests a review doesn't necessarily imply that there will be any changes um it's just a fallback in case uh there's Brian Stockwell 01:22:47.520
No certainty the question has to relate oh okay um just consideration Amelia Lorentson 01:22:53.382
Councillor Phillips I also have a question to um the CEO in terms of process um actually that's separate to this sorry Brian Stockwell 01:23:05.207
Okay anyone else I'll therefore put the procedural motion that the matter lay on the table all those in favour I'm happy yes okay that you have us okay that's unanimous okay we then move on to the next agenda item and that is a consideration of recommendations from the General Committee on the 11th of August you very much. 11.1.2 Is the housing monitoring report. 11.1.3 is Noosa Heads alliance park. Yes, Mr Chair. Yes, Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 01:23:57.182
I'd like to move a motion on this one. Brian Stockwell 01:24:08.062
You have the floor. Thank you. Is that the motion you'd like to read out, Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 01:24:12.904
I'm just trying to get my screen trying to screen back up. Brian Stockwell 01:24:20.361
Yes, that's the one. I'll read that. It out because the Council note the report by the property advisers to the General Committee, dated 11 August 2036, regarding a Noosa headline park centre plan and a discontinued temporary car parking in Noosa headline park. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener has seconded. Councillor you've had the floor. Thank you Councillors. I bring this before you today to give you a choice. We've got a choice between doing what I believe is doing the right thing and also or triggering unintended consequences. So it's a choice between protecting the integrity of one of the shire's most iconic public spaces, loved by many, or the disruption of biomanic spending unbudgeted ratepayer funds to conduct an unscheduled consultation process, in the hope that it may entrench paid parking in Lions Park, which is something the data has shown only increases traffic congestion. And given the complexity of a land management plan process, and the contentious nature of this issue, it may not in the end deliver what some had hoped for anyway. I see it as a choice between looking backwards and looking forwards to a better future. This been at its best and Noosa has always been at its best when we protect what makes it different and Lions Park, to many of us, is more than just a car park. It's one of the community's most important public green spaces. It's been held in trust and to us. Entrusted for recreation. And enjoyed by residents and visitors alike and the evidence provides a clear direction. In my view continued future use of the Lions Park for overflow parking will only worsen traffic congestion and pressures within an already constrained road network, reduce valuable and rare produce urban open space. During peak periods and times have changed since the temporary parking on the park was introduced 25 years ago we have to move to the times Councillors free holiday bus services continue to attract record numbers there were 75 passengers during Christmas on one bus route alone this is vibe is the viable mass transit alternative. Park and ride facilities offer opportunities for expansion and more people than ever are accessing Main Beach by means other than the car. These are the solutions that align with NUSA's aligned with noosa's long-term vision of reduced congestion, improved accessibility and a more sustainable transport network. Commencing a land management plan process will require significant time, resources and cost estimated at between $30,000 and $75,000. Taking up to 12 months with no guarantee that the required legislative tests can be satisfied. We will still need to demonstrate that overflow parking does not diminish the park's rec. Recreational purpose and does not adversely affect the public interest. So rather than investing scarce resources in trying to justify an inconsistent use, we have the opportunity today to focus council's ratepayer-funded resources on forward-thinking initiatives that do the lasting benefits for the whole community. We can protect the green space, strengthen public transport, expand. Parking lot options, invest in smarter solutions that reduce congestion instead of attracting and creating more. And as we've discussed recently, the key challenges with an LNP include no guarantee the process ultimately support continued overflow parking, there is native title compliance requirements, the process will trigger and further drag out significant community controversy on this issue. We could end it today by doing the right thing in dream. My view. It will involve un scheduled consultation and legal review and there's also the six to twelve month time frame. There's the unbudgeted drain on late payers of thirty to seventy five thousand dollars plus substantial staff resourcing and we must remember last month we agreed to when we agreed to discontinue car parking at the General Committee Meeting. On that assumption we committed scarce transport staff resources to investigating expanding park and ride sites and engaging stakeholders in alternatives to ryan's park car parking an L &P process will would a will involve a greater investment in ratepayer funds and funded resources and again all this for no guarantee the process will support overflow car parking. So the choice is not between parking and progress, the choice is between looking backwards or choosing evidence-based planning for the future and using a park for its intended purpose. So let's make a decision today. Settle this controversial legacy issue once and for all, without burdening wait payers, with less extra costs, community division, for no guaranteed outcome. So so for the benefits of residents, visitors, and future generations, let's avoid a costly, chaotic and uncertain land management plan process. So we can choose today to keep ryan's park for the people and that's why I respectfully urge you to support. This motion. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:44.660
Thank you. A question through the sea to our Director of infrastructure, Mayor Wilkie referenced section 52 as the only pathway and made a lot of reference in terms of the land management plan, the process costs. Can I ask is there another pathway under section 52 AA that does not require land management plan and requires simply that we write to the minister and put together a that proposal that the two legal tests are satisfied? Is that option available to us? Brian Stockwell 01:30:22.699
Thank you Councillor Richard MacGillivray 01:30:33.802
Thank you Councillor for the question Through the Chair. So since the last discussion we had at General Committee we've sought some further advice from the department regarding the provisions under both 52 AA and 52 AB. The advice is as outlined at the General Committee, there is the ability to write to the minister under 52 AA. There are requirements that must be met under that test as well, but there is the ability to write to the minister for them to consider. A request. For temporary use of car parking, and that will be at the discretion of the minister, notwithstanding the previous department advice around their for a land management plan to be undertaken. So hopefully that answers their question. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:23.205
And in terms of cost, my understanding is no land management plan is required. It simply requires a email to be sent to the minister with an explanation of how it doesn't diminish the purpose of the reserve and to these public benefit. Richard MacGillivray 01:31:48.621
Through the Chair so a letter to write to the minister wouldn't obviously involve significant cost or time it would be the preparation of the letter and then it would be awaiting the minister's decision on that letter and whether they're satisfied it meets those. Statutory tests. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:05.819
Thank you and a question to the Mayor in terms of data he referenced that the data has shown can I ask specifically which data he's referencing? Frank Wilkie 01:32:23.275
Data collected during council's trial during the Easter period would show that there was where Lyons parking was in place there was a 40% increase in congestion at the roundabouts on Noosa Parade Amelia Lorentson 01:32:36.176
Um a question oh excuse me Frank Wilkie 01:32:40.235
Yeah yeah, I have a question to. The Director Richard MacGillivray Brian Stockwell 01:32:49.074
I'm sorry welcome to the Richard MacGillivray 01:32:57.787
I'm back Mr Mayor. Frank Wilkie 01:33:00.049
Thank you for the updated advice on section 52 AA um for how what was the feedback about how many times Council can continue to write to the minister uh get to allow an inconsistent use on this recreation reserve Through the Chair uh Richard MacGillivray 01:33:22.459
Thank you Mr Mayor um you're right Council has been writing to the minister over an extended period of time in relation to this particularly before the changes to the Land Act in 2024 where there has been now changes where the Land Act has made provision for Council to be able to be the decision maker regarding inconsistent uses um the department has been pretty clear in recent advice around their preference for Council which now has the tools to undertake that process through a land management plan exercise however obviously further recent discussions around the provisions under 52aa of the act the department is aware that provision still is available and ultimately is and a decision for whether the minister wants to consider a request or not will be ultimately with them and whether they're satisfied those tests around the diminishment of the reserve purpose and the public interest have been satisfied Frank Wilkie 01:34:27.540
So, is this represent a change that Brian Stockwell 01:34:30.175
Council will be? Wilkie, Council arlington had stood up before you had supplementary questions so I'll allow her question first. Amelia Lorentson 01:34:39.473
I'm happy for the Mayor to continue with this line of questioning Frank Wilkie 01:34:43.318
Thank you yeah Thank you. Um does this represent a change to the advice given to this Council last week about 52 a Richard MacGillivray 01:34:52.078
Through the Chair not necessarily as you'd probably be aware under the after the adjourned short adjournment we had I advice from our legal Council on that provision is available the advice from the department at that time was that and Councillors would have a copy of that from the department that should use the provision under 52 is their preference because Council has the authority to undertake that work but further discussion since the General Committee Meeting specifically in relation to 52 is that they understand that is an Avenue under the act as such. The question really was I guess posed on me around the requirements is a land management plan required to satisfy the requirements 52 a um and it is and the answer it isn't however there's still similar statutory tests that must be satisfied test Frank Wilkie 01:35:53.113
So is it the case that the Council is free to write to this minister as it is to any minister but it's at the minister's discretion whether they regard give regard to the letter or not Through the Chair yes okay thank you um Amelia Lorentson 01:36:10.249
Again just referencing a statement made by the Mayor in terms of um the data proved that uh there was 40 increase in congestion um when the lines part car parking um was an was in operation during the Easter period my recollection of the report was that um it contributed my question is um am I correct in remembering that the report actually stated it was one of the factors that contributed to the congestion and that the congestion wasn't solely because of the overflow car parking I just um a statement was made which I don't believe was correct Brian Stockwell 01:36:54.365
Uh probably best answered by Director um previous question was clear on that question was it was the did the report suggest it was 40 percent Shaun Walsh 01:37:03.097
Because of the carpet it was contributing factor but the Council alliance is correct it's not the only factor you know the 14 000 vehicles a day arriving driving in the precinct is a significant contributing factor but the ability to ingress and egress is impacted by the congestion of this particular entry location thank you just a quick Jessica Phillips 01:37:22.021
Question on that line of um just to Director Walsh sorry um you may wish to come to the table as well for that Easter trial I'm interested to know what um the actual process that we use to collect that data and how many years we've done that exact process over years just to satisfy my curiosity over Shaun Walsh 01:37:46.004
The Easter period was I was over it was taken over only the five days I think the car park was operating so it wasn't an extensive trial we need to be clear about that to actually examine the impacts so um and that was for the use of uh through a traffic control company that assist us in the gathering of that data basically manually so the most important data in terms of traffic movement that we base our modelling is actually from the car park tech trial that was carried out in the summer of 23-24 and there's a report in the August 2024 gandusa report that compiles all that data and that's how we know that there's 14 000 movements in that report so the assessment is a comparison against that longer term data of the whole of the summer season and then the qualified opinion made over that Easter period from specific so the two. Our Sustainable Transport Coordinator has resigned from Council and she's the only qualified person that can make further technical observations in regards to that okay Jessica Phillips 01:38:53.646
So then I appreciate that so maybe I'll just summarise it so I understand we've used has to be quick yeah yes good point the data we used so to clarify the data we used at Easter the process we used at Easter that's the only year we've used that process to give us the data that we have seen recently Shaun Walsh 01:39:26.123
To the data or the request responded from the previous Council resolution in March of that year to do an analysis of car parking and traffic movements over that Easter period and the staff made the best use of that at use of data that was available after that period. It was a very short period. Brian Stockwell 01:39:44.020
Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:39:46.831
On the same topic, that comparable data when the Lions Park was not used for parking, that was collected in March, is that correct? Report does say that, which is preschool holidays, which started on the 3rd of April. So I'll be really comparing like we'd like if it's not holiday period for both weekends. Shaun Walsh 01:40:10.549
I can't technically answer that question, Councillor. So in the short period of time between the Council resolution in March and the Easter school holidays, we did what we could with what we had. Nicola Wilson 01:40:23.714
Have we ever done a study on the Lions Park to see how many people use it for recreational use? Shaun Walsh 01:40:30.343
No we have never undertaken a study but we do note that park is already identified as a Shire-wide recreation. Under our LGIP and it's set aside for purposes of local government infrastructure planning and developer contributions to further develop its use for recreational parks so that is an indication of its value though it would benefit from further parks planning and assessment Jessica Phillips 01:40:51.403
Just to the CEO just um we I had a media release that we did in relation to the Easter trial and we quoted that it didn't give us enough data to decisions. Support decision making I'm just going to pull up the media release but just wondering how that process happened that we released that um but now to sort of support the Mayor saying that data was indicative of decision today of but released we have released to the media that it hasn't supported our decision making or wasn't enough to support our decision making Larry Sengstock 01:41:38.040
I'll have to take that on notice, I'm honestly not sure what it says I'll find what and I think that um yeah it's just to um the director's point it was a short period I believe it was over the school holidays I think it was or over that period because that's when we were looking at the lines do the whole thing anyway so that's the busiest period I think from memory, I couldn't pick it up. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:05.894
I have the report in front of me but that Larry Sengstock 01:42:07.699
Was the intent is to try to get a comparative you know in that period of time and that's the only one we can really utilise because of the discussion that had gone on before that we said let's at least trial this see what we get, what information we get and that's the information we've got so I think we've just got to take it as it is that's the information we've got use it for your discussions and uh I don't think we can really draw anything more otherwise it's speculation their those from that point of view as officers. Frank Wilkie 01:42:37.859
Mr Chair. Yes, capital well-being. A question to Director Walsh. Prior to the Easter trial I seem to recall a report maybe the year before traffic congestion at the about congestion at the roundabout on Noosa Parade due to Noosa Heads Lions Park. Could you expand on that please? Shaun Walsh 01:43:04.470
Mayor I can't answer that without taking it on notice. I'm not intimately across those previous reports so I need to actually take that on notice but traffic congestion is featured in all our reports on the Go Noosa Program. Nusselt program. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:43:16.556
I seem to recall. Brian Stockwell 01:43:19.441
Councillor, when you talk you can make that point. The director's already indicated he hasn't got recollection so no need speak. To. Disclaim. Talk to your closing motion perhaps. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:43:34.618
I'm going to just go straight ahead and speak to the alternate motion in front of us brought forward by Mayor Wilkie. I will not support the motion and I'm going to just speak very briefly about the land management plan and the data that. The Mayor referenced. Firstly, I think we've had enough discussion in terms of section 52 AA, which I will be raising very soon. And I'll have a better discussion about that later. But the land management plan process is not the only available option available to Council. So I think the argument that the mayor's relied upon is not complete. And I think in terms of good governance, a decision to discontinue temporary car parking should be made after all information's gathered and understood. In terms of data, I'm doing the right thing. And there's been a lot of discussion on this and, you know, there's a claim that the community no longer supports it. And I'm going to just reference data. We've got different readings of community sentiment and I respect both and I want that on the table and I also want on the table there is a shared understanding around this table that we do not, this is temporary car parking, that it's not the intention of any Council around this table to see this as a permanent use. The consultation, on 30th of July, Noosa ran public consultation Noosa Today ran a poll asking a direct specific question. Should paid parking continue during the Christmas holidays at Noosa headslines park? The result was 83% in favour, 17% against. That's about as clear an answer as a community survey can give. By figure been used to suggest the opposite during our discussions. And I'm referencing here the council's draft, council's management plans. Destination Management Plan survey. I want to talk about, you know, the of the importance of the question asked. The question that was asked at the time came from a bundled statement about maintaining and prioritising open space generally, with lyme park mentioned only as an example sitting under. A values heading separate from the survey's actual transport and parking questions. Again, this 20-year seasonal activity to me was a reasonable exception, yet it was not included. Despite them, I've actually found all my emails where I made the request to Council circulated to all the Councillors where I knew this was going to be an issue at the time and I specifically requested specific questions about a 20-year seasonal overflow car parking. Arrangement. Unfortunately that wasn't accepted and the understanding at the time was that we were going to do further consultation. Do further consultation. So again, compare apples to Noosa Today one asked a specific question, the DMP one was not. So I don't think we should be looking at that as reliable data. Beyond that I do want to add that if we approve this amendment what we're going to do is end an activity that's operated for over 20 years without aid, diminishing the park standing as one of the shire's premier recreational assets that returns that roughly about 85 grand a year. To our local community causes and that funds its own upkeep with I think up to half of the council's profit shares since 2020 that's been quarantined 2020 that's quarantined for improvements to the park itself it's run by volunteers at no cost to Council in the exact week this precinct is under the greatest pressure if we are going to end a long-standing community-supported self-funding activity we should be doing it on the strength of clear evidence that the community wants that outcome on the evidence actually before us I don't that has don't believe that case has been made by Mayor Wilkie for those reasons I don't support the amendment and I do want to reiterate there is another lawful pathway which I'll further discuss very soon Nicola Wilson 01:48:32.429
I can't believe that we're doing this again we're spending so much time on something that should be quite simple I don't know why we're singling out one car park in the absence of a parking management plan for the whole Shire. Times may have changed in 20 years but they haven't changed much since 2020 when the Go Noosa initiatives began. In 2021-22 we had the free buses we were paying payments to TransLink of $248,000 for those buses and the total Go Noosa Program cost us $588,000 so a net without the free buses of $340 the free buses of $340,000 in recent years because we've got 50 cents spares fares we're no longer funding the local buses only the loop bus service yet cost to operate the Go Noosa Program have increased to over $940,000 for this financial year with peak period management free bus and-off zone costing $477,000 in 2025-26 and rising to $567,000 in this financial year yet we're complaining about $30,000 for a land management plan is the Go Noosa initiatives working we still have congestion we still have demand for parking we still have underutilization of park and ride facilities but only two percent of survey respondents saying they used it don't have much data on cars coming in or who's using the buses we can only really monitor the loop bus which has increased 25 percent since 2021 we can measure that there are in but we don't know if they would ordinarily have come by car another bus route or whether there's just an overall increase in people it could just be attracting young people who don't have a car there have been issues with using the afl grounds for the park and ride since it started in 2020. That hasn't changed the occupancy of the 400 spaces under 10 utilised on the 3rd of January and feedback has been that it's impractical for those carrying bulky beach equipment and it still takes a long time to get to the beach we don't have a parking management plan although this has been reported under the operational plan for a number of years with varying results of being on track, disrupted, and now it's in this year's operational plan to finalise Noosa parking management plan to guide our approach to parking throughout the show so why don't we wait for that but why are we still waiting for it and I know there's been staffing shortages that have contributed to that. In May 2023 Council made a commitment to community consultation on Lions Park. A motion was amended to keep this separate from the DMP but this consultation never happened. The DMP was then also supposed to be used to determine whether parking would occur at Lions Park for Easter 2026 but that specific question was never asked. The one question mentioning Lions Park was asked obliquely in the long form DMP survey but only the 900 people who were interested in the DMP and had the time and inclination to respond to a long survey got a voice. There would be many people interested in the future of Lions Park who didn't get to participate in that one of many questions. The local paper did a more specific poll potentially reaching a different audience and got a different result. We have an obligation to act in the public interest and give everyone a voice. The survey results tell us nothing except that there are mixed opinions in the community. The business community has said has losing this park this over this parking over Christmas will impact their income at this peak period. In the absence of any economic analysis by Council, to the contrary, I believe them. We can't keep using. Is the comms team is busy as an excuse not to engage with the community or proceed with basic tasks. I note also that Councillors have not seen or approved a forward engagement calendar for comms for over two years. There's no clear data on the number of cars visiting Noosa Main Beach area. We can and should install counters at intersections and in car parks. We don't know if we're getting more or fewer cars in as a result of the Go Noosa initiatives. We don't regularly measure congestion. The Easter period was presented as an opportunity to compare traffic and congestion with and without lines parked being used for parking. We did that but the two periods were not comparable, one being the end of March while school holidays started 3rd of April. We can't compare congestion in peak and off-peak periods when making decisions around parking we have a saying here that we need to finish what we've started so please let's stop making this political and ask the CEO to finish the completion of the outstanding operational tasks that have been in previous Council resolutions. Parking management plan, traffic modelling, impact studies, community consultation, measuring congestion, and preparing a land management plan that should have been in place two years ago this will give us the information to make strategic decisions that are based on fact and not on personal experience Tom Wegener 01:53:39.537
This has been a wonderful discussions and thank you for Councillor Lorentson and Nicola for that good speeches. I'm going to come at it from a slightly different place. We have strategies and plans like the Transport Strategy, the Destination Management Plan, Walking and Cycling Strategy, climate change response plan, Go Noosa, and these come through a long process of planning, drafting, Councillor feedback and public consultation. And I'm of the belief that if we do not follow these plans, we erode them. And I believe that we are eroding the plans. The overflow parking at the Lions Park is inconsistent with the Transport Strategy and the DMP. But we've discussed that. However, we looked at the Noosa today information poll, and that carries the same weight around the table here, I feel, as the Destination Management Plan and other consultations, which they don't have the consultation. When Noosa Council does something to create a plan, there's so much to it. There's so much planning, there is consultation, and there's a certain enormity to that, and I feel that when we erode the value of these plans, we erode actually the consultation process, because these plans were put into place with lots of consultation over a lot of years. And when we go against these plans, we erode the planning, we erode the vision for a long-term Noosa and we erode trust in the residents. So I will support this because it is consistent with the overall plan from what I've seen in the last six years as a Councillor. It's very clear that we want to maintain our green spaces. End of story. Jessica Phillips 01:55:43.200
Yes, Lawson said for enough evidence to give me a really good determination of and what I'm asking for is that body of work to be done so then I can clearly vote on the evidence before us but unfortunately today we're still not in a position where we can use the word evidence as our decision-making framework. Brian Stockwell 01:56:15.061
I don't know how to add to a debate that we've had 16 times this month. I think there's perhaps a synthesis that can be made into the arguments thought against and to me first one is how you vote on this is going to relate to what sort of time frame you're adopting your thinking. What's the second one is how your vote is going to relate to what your assumptions are in terms of local economic impact. And the third one is about how you view what the community has told us. This is that. So let's start. For me, it's clear. Our strategic direction as set in policies and plans says that the best way forward is supported through new restraints. Best way forward as supported through numerous strategies and quite significant support from the community is that we make Hastings Street a more people-centred place. If you look at the long term, there is no question that the benefit to Noosa and its brain Noosa and its brand is in phasing out supplying extra car parks. If you look at the short-term, you might say, well, we're in a particular economic cycle and there is a risk to the next six months for those businesses. Now that relates to the assumptions about the economy, as I just mentioned, short-term, you might think that adding extra car parks increases the profits of the businesses of the but we have to make an assessment. How much does that add? This is how much is lost to the Noosa brand by the national media coverage of the congestion. And if we keep on putting back, taking the necessary outlined in our policies and plans to reduce congestion by reducing our focus on the private motor vehicle and trying to get people there by other means. So for me, the basic economic assumption is really clear. If you push your timeframe for your decision out this motion makes eminent sense. There is no doubt that if we continue on the current trajectory that what will happen to the Main Beach in Hastings precinct is what happens in every other congested coastal town. And the last one is consultation. One's about community consultation, whether a poll by a local media company recently versus the, you know, the suggestion is you have to balance out the DMP, and I think Councillor Wilkie's point is quite clear, is that we've had over a decade of community consultation now since this Council was reformed, and on most of the key. Principles strategic objectives, all the things that are leading to support of this, there is very large support. Our community isn't divided. On this particular issue, if you break it down into the individual thing. Yes, community is divided. So will more community consultation tell us anything different? Highly unlikely. We know the community is divided. So then we as individuals make our decision based on those other criteria. Thank you very much. Finally, we look at, you know, this concept we need more evidence. Now in the ecological sustainable development framework that was put in many years ago, the concept of intergenerational equity, and I said don't put off making a really important decision just because you haven't got all the evidence. What we have is over many years, staff saying congestion is a problem, and over recent years, and I can also recall what Councillor Wilkie mentioned, that the expert advice is that parking in lion's park can contribute to congestion. Yes, we could get more evidence to be more quantified. But the question is, do we want to take that step to start moving away from five vehicle motor place transition during access during the peak periods to one it becomes an space becomes an event space where people feel free, where there's activities. And to me, that's going to be an incremental process. And to me, this makes sense. And the final one is, whether it's $30,000, $60,000 is, I wasn't here for this. But last month I remember clearly, most people agreed that it was a phasing out process, so we have to look at the cost and benefits of going. Down an alternative path to this if the costs of doing an invention plan versus the benefits that might come from short-term continuation of the historic south parking. So for me this is the strategic step that is in accordance with policy and follows the overall strategic direction that has been quite substantial. Supported by the community over many years. Cancel I'll things, you haven't talked yet. Would you like to say anything on the matter? Karen Finzel 02:01:35.910
I think a lot has been said. I would just like to make the point that matter before us in committee meeting us in the General Committee Meeting was around the Noosa Heads Lions Park LNP. The author of that was the property advisor from the property development and regulation department. I think we need to come back to actually what we are looking at. The higher order planning around land use and to me the debate has being reduced to conversation. To around, well, you know, they have all been around. In terms of meeting the land management plan determination, and for all, me, once and for all for me would support a framework that can address all the matters being raised in now and into the future and the key mechanisms of a land management plan. Are about zoning and density shifts, parking requirement adjustments, local road and active travel design, traffic impact assessments. By making this really bringing it down to what the mayor's brought before is discontinued temporary car parking and Noosa Heads Lions Park, to me diminishes the higher order of strategic thinking that I would like to be at today when we're talking about future sustainability through a land management plan that will, in my opinion, inform these strategies into the future, instead of consistently coming back and talking about do we write to the minister? Is there legislative change? Is there enough data? All these things are relevant, but in my opinion, I think putting to the they're put into test around the management the land management plan and engaging our community about the higher use of that land, through that process, that we need to do. To propose that the diminishment of the purpose test and the public interest test around the proposed inconsistent use is put to bed once and for all. Cannot support this today in its current form with how it's been worded to discontinue the temporary car parking because in my opinion it is addressing the is not addressing the higher order of that land use and to meet the requirements set forward by the legislation for the land management plan. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:04:53.387
Thank you. Council. Council Wilkie, would you like to pose? Frank Wilkie 02:04:58.351
Thank you Mr Chair. Council. Look Councillors you can save yourself further divisive decisions. A land management plan is only going to take you to the same spot we are today. We're dealing with a divided community on this so you're just kicking the can down the road by either just writing to the minister to allow us to keep doing the same thing over and again or doing a land management plan in the hope that it'll have a decisive end have a decisive end at it we that a it. We know that a land management plan is likely to put you in the same position because the community is divided about this. Is a of difficult one the typifying it typifies one of the difficult decisions Councillors have to make. We have the evidence before us. When I talked about evidence and data, I was referring to traffic congestion data. When the test, the trial was done the first week of Easter holidays. Compared to the second week of the Easter holidays and I found that there was an increase in traffic congestion at the roundabout when the lines parking was in place and there was a report last year that also stipulated 40% increase in congestion at the roundabout on Noosa Parade of car parking. When it comes to data relating raised by other Councillors relating to public opinion there is the DMP statistically valid survey responses that said the community does not support 70% of respondents did not support use of our green spaces for car parking and then there's the then Facebook clickbait survey open to everyone and that had a different result so you can make a decision today to discontinue car parking in Lions Park which has data traffic data on its side a statistically valid community a survey on its side and avoids there's no cost involved it respects what has already been determined to be the highest order the highest and best use of this recreational reserve and that is parkland for the people as recreational reserve. Councillors I put this here today this motion because it is a clear choice it between doing the right between doing the right thing making a bold decision which I am more than happy to defend and or committing the community to more confusion controversy division cost unscheduled unbudgeted consultation process and no guarantee of a clear outcome you're just kicking the can down the road I heard the term leadership spelled out in various forms around this table this decision requires leadership and that is knowing when the community is split but going with the evidence and the data and the highest and best use of the recreational reserve to make a decision today to discontinue continue car parking in Lions Park and end this controversial legacy issue that we have inherited once and for all so the community can move on that's what we're here for thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:08:22.062
All right that's Councillor Wilkie, Wegener and Stockwell. Those against? It's Councillor Wilson, Lorentson, Phillips and against. Finzel, the motion is lost. Are you happy to proceed? We know we broke at 12. Tom Wegener 02:08:49.012
Do you want to put it on the table? Brian Stockwell 02:08:53.442
So, no one seems to be keen on break, so I shall proceed with Jessica Phillips 02:08:57.602
The meeting. Okay. Can I please put a motion up? Thank you, Cathy. My alternate motion is that Council note the report by the property advisor to the General Committee dated 11th of August 2026. I don't remember. No, because it came from the. No, this was a motion. Oh, you moving emotions oh sorry no you're right yes regarding a Noosa Heads Lions Park land management plan, LNP, and a request to further report to a future Council meeting detailing scope, costs, funding implications, consultation requirements and the proposed timeline for the preparation of the of an LNP for Noosa Heads Lions Park including consideration of a temporary overflowed car park in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act 1994 and the Queensland government's guideline for managing actions consistent and inconsistent with the trust land be followed and consideration of the further report determined whether to proceed with the preparation of the land management plan and allocation of appropriate budget. Brian Stockwell 02:10:18.030
Do we have a second for that? Karen Finzel 02:10:20.799
There is a second for debate. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:10:22.432
Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Phillips, you're on the floor. Jessica Phillips 02:10:28.186
It's quite interesting listening to everyone's different opinions. There's been really good points raised by Councillor Lorentson just previously on the higher use. So thank you for that, Councillor Lorentson. And to Councillor Nicola's point was their data about the people using the park so that was good. Thank you. So with my motion before us, I'm actually not going to ask Council today when to approve the land management plan. I'm not asking us to allocate the 30,000, 50 I'm asking the 50,000 75,000 and I'm certainly not asking Council to decide today Lions Park should permanently remain available for parking. But I am going to ask for the information that Council needs before we make that decision. The report this month this told us over. That seasonal overflow parking is an inconsistent use of that reserve and that following changes to the Land Act there is now a lawful pathway under section 52ab for a land management plan that pathway requires Council to be satisfied that the inconsistent action would not diminish the reserve purpose and would not adversely affect the public interest. I accept that. But there's an important sentence in the report, and it was that Council should first consider whether overflow parking is reasonably capable of satisfying those tests before embarking on a full LMP process. The problem is that I have not been able to be provided with enough information or evidence based to make that decision. And the State guideline tells us what we should consider if we're in this position, it actually asks, an LMP is going to ask about the scale and nature of the use, whether impacts can be mitigated, whether the land remains recognisable. Our recognisable and usable for its reserved purpose, whether its future use is compromised, community views and values and environmental, economic, recreational, social and strategic public interest. We haven't been given that assessment. I also I just tell might go over time so you that I'm going to try and stay under. We don't know from the report what percentage of the usable reserve would actually be occupied and we haven't been given assessment of what physical impacts more than 20 years of historical seasonal parking has actually caused. We haven't been given rehabilitation data, cumulative impact data or a detailed assessment on whether seasonal controls, wet weather closures, vegetation protection and rehabilitation could actually mitigate those impacts. The community was told in multiple media releases that we, need results, we need data to pull. Form a long-term position. So that history is before us. The consultation was actually promised. I spent a couple of hours watching the March 24 meeting where we had an amendment that took out the DMP from the consultation. And we still haven't done that. If the legal framework has changed then Council should understand what complying with the framework is actually going to require. Compliance is not by itself a policy answer. Fact that the land management plan may now be required does not tell us whether preparing one is worthwhile. The history of this car park used for car parking matters because the logical sequence will be consult, gather the evidence and then make the long-term decision and I don't think we've completed that sequence today. There's also been a significant change in the legal framework since Council first started discussing this issue. The 2024 amendments to the Land Act created this management plan pathway for statutory body trustees. The State guideline made clear that inconsistent use does not automatically fail simply because it is inconsistent. It specifically recognises that with adequate management and inconsistent action may be capable of occurring without diminishing underlying purpose and that doesn't mean Lions Park passes that test nor does it mean it doesn't. It means we need to test it before we're deciding we can't. And the also the report also said no external community or stakeholder consultation has been done and yet community views are one of the matters that the State guideline expresses identifies as a rel as relevant to the a rel as relevant to public assessment. There is another reason I think we need to be cautious about choosing not proceeding with this is council's own history has shown that we have consistently treated the future of Lions Park as an issue requiring further evidence and community input. In that March meeting that 2020, I watched from 2023 we also had staff comment during questioning that Lions Park provides a significant community benefit the wording the original wording to the motion removed the Destination Management Plan as part of the consultation. The final resolution became seek community feedback on the use of Noosa Heads Lions Park for parking. That matters to me because Council has publicly acknowledged that the specific consultation has not yet occurred. In 2024, we told the community we have an obligation to honour what we said in 2023 as part of the Council resolution. And Council further acknowledged that it wanted to specifically ask the community about public open space for parking, particularly the Lions Park. Councillor, your motion is has nothing to do with consultation. You're going off topic, so if you've got a long speech, that's fine. Yeah, that's fine. I accept that. So my motion is going to ask or is asking for the scope, the works, the actual cost, what's required, what consultation is required, what technical work is required. Tell us more about the native title implications. It's going to tell us about the timeframe and the funding implications because it's going to tell us what is required for an LNP. So I'll keep it really simple then to finalise. At the point when Council can decide whether preparing an LNP presents good land management and good value for the community, that's when I can make a really good decision. Compliance is important but compliance itself is not the policy answer. The fact is the LNP may be required, doesn't tell us preparing one is worthwhile or not. That decision is for us today and that's why I have the motion in front of us. Thank you. I would like to move an amendment. Amelia Lorentson 02:17:53.481
I might separate the amendments. I have two amendments relating to the same subject matter but I'll separate just C and then D. Thank you. First amendment is C that Council write to the minister under section 52 AA of the Land Act 1994 advising that Council is considering the preparation of a land management plan for the reserve and requesting moving to some. This amendment and I first want to state that it does not replace or undermine the land management plan pathway which I think is a really important process that we need to undertake or make at least the decision to undertake when we receive further information. The amendment basically ensures that Council also explores the alternative lawful pathway available under the Land Act 1994 before it commits significant time, cost and staff resources to a land management plan process. At the meeting, the General Committee, Councillors were presented with a report that focused almost exclusively on the preparation of a land management plan under section 52 AB. The report concluded that a land management plan was the appropriate process available to Council and outlined a process estimated to take between six and 12 months and cost between $30,000 and $75,000. In my view, the report was not balanced because it did not provide Councillors with a meaningful assessment of the alternative pathway available under section 52 AA. As a result, Councillors were presented with one option in detail rather than a comparison of the available statutory pathways and their respective cost timeframes and implications. During the General Committee debate, I raised concerns regarding section 52 AA and I sought greater clarity about whether that provision remained available to Council. I also sought legal clarification and proposed that Council write directly to the minister regarding the availability of that pathway. Unfortunately, those requests were not supported. Following the meeting, I. Pursued the matter further through governance because I remained very concerned that councils had not been provided with all the information necessary to make an informed decision. Specifically, I sought clarification as to whether section 52AA was available. To and a Council and whether a land management plan was required for the minister to consider the matter. I was subsequently advised as we all were today that section 52AA remains available and that a land management plan is not required for the minister to consider an application. Instead, Council may write directly to the minister and address the statutory tests of whether the proposed use would, A, diminish the purpose of the reserve and, B, whether it would adversely affect the. Public interest. That advice is significant. If section 52 AA is available then we have an opportunity to open the overflow car parking for this Christmas. Importantly. And I do want to say this and I do also want to reference Councillor finnsell's comments in terms of the importance of the land management plan process. The amendment doesn't prevent Council from preparing a land management plan should that ultimately be required. Importantly also the amendment doesn't commit Council to overflow parking on an ongoing basis. It's temporary. It's only for this Christmas and it doesn't determine the future use of Lions Park. What the amendment does is that it keeps all lawful options open. The minister advises that a section 52 AA approval is not available or not appropriate, then Council can proceed with the land management plan pathway fully informed and with no loss of opportunity. Or if section 52 AA approval is supported, A, we can open Lions Park this Christmas for the overflow parking, and we can still proceed with the land management plan. I forget land management plan for that reason. I believe that this amendment is a sensible, low cost and practical step that improves our information base and preserves our options and ensures that all available pathways are considered before committing to planning. Committing to a significant planning exercise. Ultimately, you know, when I look at the discussion we're having, it's to me, it centres around good governance, informed decision making, and ensuring that Council explores every lawful option. Before deciding which path to pursue, or again, whether both paths are what we need to do. Brian Stockwell 02:23:29.811
Thank you, another motion to talk to the amendment. I'll stick to it. Jessica Phillips 02:23:37.783
I was 21 years old when I joined the police and I had to try and learn how to interpret legislation. And it was very confusing at the time. And luckily, 16 years later, I know what the little A and the big A, but it is very difficult. Luckily, I'm surrounded by a group of people that really understand how it works. So I feel grateful for the knowledge at the table. For I for me, now I've interpreted legislation for 16 years, it was very good that Councillor Lorentson bought 52AA, the Land Act, to me, and I am going to support this process as a pathway. It allows the minister to approve an action that is inconsistent with the purpose of trust land if the minister is satisfied that the action will not diminish the purpose of the reserve or adversely affects the public interest. The minister can also impose conditions. So this motion isn't asking Council to ignore the Land Act, it's asking to use a pathway that the Land Act provides. And if we want to keep, if we need to keep the scale of what the proposed is in perspective we're also talking about 21 days over the Christmas period. We're not talking about 365 days and we're not talking about paving Lions Park or converting it into a car park. So we're talking about limited portion of the reserve being temporarily used during an extraordinary, extraordinarily peak period with wet weather closures, vegetation protection, management patrols and rehabilitation afterwards. After 25 years, I don't believe that we are actually using this car park for this intention. We can use section 52 that it isn't a determination we need to make on behalf of the minister, we can actually ask the minister to do that for us. And provided the history, we can also explain the limited duration and we can identify the community and public interest considerations. We can potentially even detail the environmental safeguards. And then um the minister can determine whether the statutory test is satisfied. And that is very important to me. Councils relied on the light and blinds park for many, years. And if the minister considers that temporary parking diminishes the reserve purpose, or adversely affects the public interest, then the approval is not going to be given. But I don't believe the Council needs to close a statutory pathway without even putting the question to the person in parliament that has been empowered to decide it for approximately 21 days of temporary use while we determine the long-term management of this land. I think asking the minister is entirely reasonable. Brian Stockwell 02:26:20.642
Wish to talk to the motion, the amendment? No? Councillor Lorentson? No. I'll put the amendment those in favour. That's Councillor Wilson, Lawrence and Phillips. Wegener? Yes. Will be. Yes. Wilkie and Finzel, those against. Councillor Stockwell? No. The amendment is carried and becomes part of the motion. Amelia Lorentson 02:26:47.030
I have another amendment that I'd like to test. D, that council's letter to the minister addressed the statutory requirements section 52 AA and demonstrate that the proposed temporary overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest having regard to the interest having regard to one the and nature the temporary and limited nature of the use being approximately 21 days per annum and affecting only the portion of the reserve required for seasonal overflow parking. Two, the site's historical use for seasonal overflow parking over more than 20 years. Three, community demand for additional parking during peak holiday periods. Four, the community for economic and charitable benefits associated with facilitating access to the locality during the Christmas period. And five, proposed mid, sorry, existing, can we change that word to existing? Having regard to existing mitigation measures, including seasonal operating limits, wet weather closures, vegetation protection measures, site management controls, and post-season rehabilitation works. Thank you. This amendment is intended to ensure that if Council proceeds with a section 52AA application, the minister receives a complete and balanced submission addressing the two statutory tests. Can informed decision. Minister can only make an informed decision if all relevant considerations are presented including both the potential impacts on the reserve and the broader public interest outcomes associated with the proposal. In relation to the first test, whether the proposal would diminish the purpose of the reserve it's important that the minister is informed that the proposed use is temporary, seasonal and limited in duration. The overflow parking operation has occurred for more than two decades alongside the reserve continuing to function as a highly valued recreational space. It's also relevant that impacts have been have mitigated through conditions such as seasonal operating limits, wet weather closures, vegetation protection measures and rehabilitation works. These are precisely the types of measures contemplated in the section 52 AA framework. To interest relation to the public interest test, I believe Council has an obligation to present evidence of the demonstrated community demand for the service, the charitable and community benefits that arise from it and the contribution the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club make to our community. Council records show long-standing community use of the facility and significant funds being generated and returned to local charitable and community purposes. The operation has also historically provided a source of funding to Council for park rehabilitation improvements. I also believe it's important that a minister is informed of community sentiment. While there are differing views within the community, there is evidence of significant support for retaining seasonal overflowing parking. And I do reference the Noosa Today poll that asked a direct question about whether paid parking should continue at Lions Park during the Christmas holiday which recorded support of 83% and opposition of 17%. By contrast survey results cited in Council reports were derived from the broader Destination Management Plan consultation questions that addressed broader policy principles rather than directly asking it does, section 52a 52 AA and I reference community sentiment community demand for additional parking suits captured under the public interest okay given of you so given the significance of the issue I believe the minister should be provided with a full understanding of the available evidence including the DMP Noosa Today the petition which I think there was over 2 000 people in support 40 that opposed all that evidence needs to be provided to the minister importantly this amendment's not about arguing that. Overflow parking should become the permanent purpose of Lions Club. I do not believe that's not what anyone around this table is proposing or wanting. The long-term objective remains Lions Park as recreational open space. However, we do not currently, in my opinion, have alternative transport solutions in place. We do not have one-way traffic, dedicated bus priority measures or other infrastructure that may ultimately remove the need for temporary overflow parking. Until those alternatives exist, I believe it's appropriate the minister of health and welfare proposal in its proper context. A modest seasonal and temporary use, 21 days or 5% of our calendar year, affecting A modest seasonal and temporary our calendar year, affecting only a portion. It doesn't affect the entire reserve. It only affects a portion of the reserve required for the seasonal overflow. And we have already existing mitigation measures, strong community support. Demonstrated public benefit and significant charitable outcomes. The amendment simply ensures that those matters are placed before the minister so that any decision is made on the basis of a complete and balanced report. Brian Stockwell 02:33:21.526
Thank you. Anyone wish to talk to the amendment? No? Yes? Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 02:33:32.762
Yeah, look, I can't support this it's deeply flawed because you can't require a letter to demonstrate that the proposed temporary overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest because that's the purpose of the LNP. If we can just demonstrate. All those things in a letter, why would we need an LNP? It's jumping to a conclusion that hasn't been decided yet. I think it's improper and I can't support it Amelia Lorentson 02:34:01.471
Through the Chair, can I provide a little bit of clarity to the Mayor? I think he may have misunderstood. Frank Wilkie 02:34:11.117
I don't want to debate it, I've just put it, I've not misunderstood it. I will, thank you. Ask a question, use the debate. Brian Stockwell 02:34:17.284
Sure. Anyone else? Okay, so Councillor Lorentson, do you have anything Amelia Lorentson 02:34:24.522
To add? I wasn't going to, but I will just respond to what the Mayor said. I just think he might be a little bit confused. The D actually doesn't predetermine. Point of order, I'm not confused. Okay, so just so I can provide you. Point of order, Councillor Wilkie. No point of order. Thank you, chief. That the amendment doesn't predetermine any outcome. It simply states that the letter to the minister, which the statute. Which statutory requirements of section 52AA states that we need to determine two statutory tests. So what I'm asking is that complete information is forwarded so he the minister so he can make a an assessment whether to support or not to support. It may be, the conclusion may be that it doesn't satisfy the test. I don't want to predetermine that. The amendments simply ask that we provide all information. All available information to the minister. So again, a balanced and complete assessment of section 52 AA can be properly determined. Brian Stockwell 02:35:44.755
Okay, I'll put the amendment those in favour. That's Councillor Wilson, Lawrence and Phillips. Online? No? I don't support it. Okay, so Councillor Wegener. And those against would be Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell. The amendment is carried. That becomes part of the substantive motion and only Councillor Phillips has talked to that substantive motion. Anyone else wish to talk to the substantive motion? Yes. Nicola Wilson 02:36:31.261
If we embark on the land management plan exercise, we need to pass the public interest test. If we start community consultation early on, we will find out if there is public support for using the space as temporary overflow parking in peak periods and plan whether that brings community benefit. If there's no public support, then we don't need to complete the land management plan. If there is public support and parking continues at peak periods, the LNP is required for compliance with the Land Act. This worn plan gives us an option to use the park for other uses in the future. It does not lock us in to any particular use for any period. The park is still completely a park for the rest of the year so there's no diminishment new infrastructure is being planned. The park is not used for parking in wet weather so as to protect the park from damage. There is an established precedent for temporary holiday period parking at Lyons the parking at park and the park and temporary use does not result in any permanent alteration to the reserve. The cost of the plan is largely consultants, so it's not actually taking a step away from other projects. Although I'm noting in this actual motion, we're not progressing to the LNP just yet, much as I would like to. Council should have had planning have had a land management plan in place since 2024 to manage the inconsistent use the Council has continued to approve in 2024, '25 and Easter '26. It should have been an operational compliance exercise, and the cost of 30,000 or so would already by now have been recouped from paid parking income at Lions Park. It's our only paid parking we've got, and certain Councillors want to push us towards paid parking, but we do have paid parking at the beach, and we do have a way that we can parking. I don't particularly have an opinion on the long term future of the park. I think we can only do that with community benefit. So I don't have a personal opinion. I just don't want to make any decisions on parking before we have a management plan. And in the meantime, we should continue to investigate what we need to do with the land management plan. Brian Stockwell 02:38:41.569
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:38:45.970
I'll speak and I just want to acknowledge and respect the Chair in allowing some leniency in terms of going over the five minutes. So mine will go over just slightly. Councillors. Councillors, um Councillors I support the motion and I support the to me, at the heart of this debate, it's not actually about car parking. To me, it's a debate about governance. It's a debate about whether councillors or not. Councillors were all given the information available before committing public funds, staff resources and community effort to a potentially lengthy planning process. I don't believe we did. The report before us outlined one pathway under the Land Act, a land management plan. It estimates a process that could have taken between six and 12 months and cost between $30,000 and $75,000. What concerns me is that Councillors weren't provided with a balanced assessment of alternative pathways available under section 52 AA. In my view, Councillors should been presented with both pathways. We should have been able to compare the cost, implication, risk and opportunities of each before deciding which Avenue should be pursued or whether, as we've got in front of us, whether both avenues should be pursued. Instead, one pathway was explored in detail and the other was largely absent. I am very disappointed by that and I'm very concerned by that. The General Committee, I raised concerns, I sought clarifications and I moved amendments seeking further information and proposing that Council write directly to the minister regarding section 52AA regarding section 52AA those amendments will those amendments were not supported. Importantly, I don't believe that was because the Councillors disagreed with their intent. In my opinion, Councillors were simply relying on the information and advice given to them at the time. I remained unconvinced so after the General Committee I pursued the matter further and I asked two simple questions to governance that I needed a response. Is section 52 AA available to Council and does section 52 AA require land management plan? The answer came back that section 52 AA is available and a land management plan is not required. Council can write directly to the minister and seek consideration of an interim approval by addressing the statutory tests. Councillors, that information is significant because. Had I not pursued this matter further, today we'd be sitting here and considering a potentially expensive and resource-intensive land management plan process without first exploring a lawful alternative pathway. That should concern all of us. Good governance requires that all available options are identified and considered before decisions are made, not afterwards, and that. Exactly what I think these amendments today and the motion in front of us seeks to address. They don't seek permanent approval. They don't seek to change the purpose of Lions Park. They don't seek to stop a land management plan. They simply ask Council to get all the information right to the minister, seeking to approve for the 2026 Christmas holiday period while Council continues to investigate a land management plan process and longer-term transport solutions. Councillor 21 days Councillors approximately five percent of the calendar year only on a portion of the reserve a temporary seasonal activity that has operated for over 20 years. The minister says no Council loses nothing we proceed with the land management plan pathway. The minister says yes Council may avoid unnecessary expenditure of rate-based funds and significant staff resources or we can we may choose to still continue with the land management plan. Surely that question is worth asking. Is worth asking before committing substantial public resources but to a process that could take up to a year. What I struggle with most is how this issue has become one of the defining political debates of this Council term. For six years I have watched this particular issue divide our community and in my head I keep coming back to the same question. Have we lost perspective? Why are we spending so much time, effort, emotion and resources on 21 days of seasonal overflow car parking? Council deals with temporary uses of public land operationally all the time. The Noosa triathlon uses lines parked for 10 days for event operations, including bicycle storage. The Peregian Christmas Carol utilises overflowing parking arrangements. The farmers' markets operates from sporting grounds. Noosa Council's own park and ride uses AFL grounds for overflow car parking. These matters councils are managed operationally, pragmatically, sensibly. So how did this become political? Meanwhile, we've got workers in town that can't afford to live here. The people who helped build this community are leaving. Families have been priced out. Roads are requiring upgrading, stormwater infrastructure is ageing, okay. These are the issues our community expects us to focus on. These are our core responsibilities. Yet an extraordinary amount of council's time, staff, effort and community goodwill has been consumed debating 21 days of seasonal car parking. I genuinely believe we have lost perspective, Councillors. The role of Council is to unite our community, not divide it, to solve problems and not create political battle lines. To bring people together, not force them in opposing camps. And then, and I can't finish without talking about the Noosa Tewantin Lions Club. I think somewhere along the line, we also have forgotten who we are actually talking about. This is not a commercial operator. This is a volunteer organisation with 44 members, many of whom are in their seventies and eighties. These volunteers spend a long day, often up to upwards of 10 hours at a time, standing in the summer sun over the Christmas holidays for no pay. Not because they enjoy parking cars. The joy is not in parking cars. The joy is in helping people. The joy is in the supporting local charities. The joy is in giving back to the community. In many ways, they are the first ambassadors visitors meet when they arrive in Noosa during our busiest holiday people. They represent the community spirit that Noosa prides itself on. For more, then, I've got two more minutes. For more, please. Brian Stockwell 02:45:47.765
You're currently here two minutes over, and you spent a lot of the beginning of your talk repeating statements you've already made. I'll ask you to close. Amelia Lorentson 02:45:55.165
I will close. I have one paragraph left, if that's okay. Thank you. Paragraph. Thank you. It's the closing paragraph. For more than 20 years, this activity has generated. Activity has significant community benefit and Council has historically received. A share of the proceeds. The relationship between the Lions Club and Lions Park. Stretches more than 50 years. It's a partnership older than every report before us tonight. And I will close by saying that deserves respect. So I am supporting the amendment motion in front of us and I'm just going to close by saying Councillors let's get back to what the people of Noosa elected us to do. Brian Stockwell 02:46:47.780
So anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Frank Wilkie 02:47:07.620
Councillors you can't have a bet both ways. You can't say this car park is for temporary uses only and then talk in a way that talks about the history and talks about it continuing on into the future. Today's the day when you could have made the decision to end the temporary car park but not and I accept the majority vote on this. It's incorrect to say it only affects 21 days a year that is totally incorrect. There's also the 10 days at Easter. It wasn't so long ago when it was all school holidays and every long weekend during COVID and it could have been more but it was a we made the decision and it was a battle to claw back that public recreation reserve for the public use during school holidays and long weekends because once you lose this public open space to something other than recreation to cash generating car parking it's very hard to break that addition now the um I think we're moving in the right direction with the land management plan that is the correct process the staff gave us incorrect advice there is nothing incorrect about the advice staff gave us it is the correct statutory path under the land management act, the Land Act under 52ab that if a statutory body is involved that is a Council that a land management plan is the correct process 52aa refers to trustees but of course there's nothing to stop us writing to the minister or any minister on any issue it's up to the minister whether they allow temporary use of the park or not I do have a problem with this motion as it stands because we've made a mistake with section d council's letter to the minister addresses the statutory requirements and demonstrate that it meets these public interest tests or doesn't demand it diminish the purpose of the reserve we cannot would cannot demonstrate that would to demonstrate that would be to preempt the land management plan process why have a land why commit to a land management plan process if we're going to be able to demonstrate that it meets these tests already I think we've made an error there Councillors um debate good to bite it's um it's always going to be a contentious issue um the call for uniting the community around this and not creating division is one that's very easy to say but the community is deeply divided on this there's because there's a fundamental flaw in its uses of this recreational reserve the highest and best use of this park as defined under our role as trustees is out of a recreational reserve and the fact that it has been misused for such a long time has created the division it's a controversial issue that we have inherited and had an opportunity to end today we are committing with this motion to go down at what an expense perhaps I'll have to rephrase that get information on potentially costly process and I think Councillor Phillips has done well to come up with the motion that she put forward I do have problems with it because of the amendment about our letter demonstrating that we've met the tests of 52AA or what the land management plan is setting out to prove. So reason so for that reason I won't be supporting the motion in its current form but I do think if you're going down a land management plan process that is the correct way but I also that as Councillor Phillips said once we've got this information we can decide determine whether or not to adopt a land management planning process for future uses of this reserve or not. Nicola Wilson 02:51:33.520
Thank you I just want to ask a question, Through the Chair probably to Director mook-Killough Director MacGillivray, just on that part d I believe you were involved in drafting the amendment um just for clarification on if that is the proper process so so that the minister may approve the trustee of land blah blah blah if satisfied the action will not diminish the purpose or adversely affect the public interest so is the process for the minister to determine that or to be become satisfied that we demonstrate um it diminish the will not diminish the purpose so the process is to write a letter and say this is how we're meeting the two tests is that correct Richard MacGillivray 02:52:28.850
Through the Chair Councillor yes the act is quite clear and particularly that section does make reference to the minister must be satisfied of that so in order to explain or justify to the minister, why he should consider it favourably there would need to be some attempt to justify that obviously that's council's decision around what basis it utilise as of that wants to utilise as part of that noting there's obviously lots of advice provided from officers and the Go Noosa report and other documentation but that will potentially assist in giving information and evidence or for the minister to consider as part of that request Jessica Phillips 02:53:15.127
Okay so I think follow it don't go anyway follow up okay so I get clear on that then but just like so the 52 AA is without an LMP so asking um, asking I do have a question I've got to I just gotta work out how not to confuse you and myself um demonstrate is there any way Cathy you could move the um the team's chat so I can just read that one more time can we um okay so when we're writing to the minister on this uh we're going to be using the information that we've used or collected over the past 25 years that kind of suggests either way like it's not making a determination but it's something that we've it's not like a new purpose even though it's inconsistent so um do we actually have the evidence either way to prove the impact on the land like to support that? To d like don't we have that based on the history so we can go to the minister with it yeah are you comfortable you can answer Richard MacGillivray 02:54:54.726
Through the Chair uh look the reality is under 52aa it's the minister's decision um as outlined uh so the minister needs to be satisfied of those two key tests um I think what has been discussed from and an officer perspective in terms of the information provided to Council is that um yeah there's different information available out there through various mediums already including surveys and technical information provided that potentially will be bundled up with what Council considers are sufficient reasons for the minister to consider but ultimately it will be his or her decision around whether they're satisfied that um it should grant temporary approval or not um so hopefully that helps and it's not definitive but hopefully that helps it's a wing Tom Wegener 02:55:53.836
That I'll speak um Councillor Lorentson you're right that the division is problematic but I believe that the public division is because the overflow parking is inconsistent with council's adopted plans and strategies it is inconsistent with the official long-term vision of Noosa residents it takes race it takes our resources from pursuing our vision and places them in an LMP and that's the reason for the division Mr. Frank Wilkie 02:56:28.909
Mr Chair, do you Councillor Wilkie? Do you have a question Councillor Wilkie? Yes I do, I'd like to move an amendment. Part D. Sure. Part D. Change the word demonstrate to submit. Amelia Lorentson 02:56:51.685
A quick question, though. Just a quick question. So we've got the floor. Okay. Is, excuse me Through the Chair, this is a process question. I'm just inquiring whether under our Standing Orders we can move an amendment once we're actually debating the full motion. Brian Stockwell 02:57:12.120
Yes, everyone is done, except that all members are made. So are you working on something that's being said? Okay, so we'll just wait for that to come. Frank Wilkie 02:57:41.280
We have changed the word 'demonstrate' to 'submit'. *Sniff * Brian Stockwell 02:58:22.880
Anything more? No, that's it. Submit that president able to. The process will be over, so I can't really help you. Can we have a second? I'll second that. I think it does. Basically, it then now outlines the grounds why we think it meets that. Frank Wilkie 02:58:49.414
So you now have the floor to talk to that amendment. Amelia Lorentson 02:58:52.144
Just a question. Thank you, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 02:58:54.400
I take that. Sorry. Apologies. Amelia Lorentson 02:58:59.241
Yeah. Frank Wilkie 02:59:02.403
Look, I just think it's more appropriate wording. Demonstrate means you can prove all those things. We're going to submit on the basis of this information provided that it may meet these things and satisfy the test. If we it, need an LNP. I just think it's more appropriate wording and I'm more able to support it. Amelia Lorentson 02:59:28.627
Just my questions to the Director. We've done, we've gone through this process many, times. Can I just understand what was actually submitted in the past to seek temporary approval? Was it just simply a request or did we have to provide in and this. Essence? In the same sort of information to the minister in order to get approval Richard MacGillivray 02:59:56.151
Through the Chair. I don't have the specifics in terms of what the contents of those previous letters are. So I'd have to take that on notice and come back around what level of detail of information was provided be able to clearly and accurately answer that question for you. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:21.903
I'm going to speak to the amendment. I'm not going to support it. I think, where do I start? The intent of the motion to me is that. I don't know the intent of the original amendment was that we legal explore a legal pathway, path. Explore a legal pathway, lawful pathway to see whether we can demonstrate that overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest. So the intent is, there part path? A pathway that we could have interim approval of car parking whilst still exploring and potentially undergoing a land management plan process? I think as the wording is at the moment, I don't know, it's sort of. I don't know, it doesn't give certainty to the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club, doesn't give certainty to the businesses in Hastings Street. I think the decision is simply, you know, are we committed to trying to find an option to allow the car park to remain open only for 2021 days this Christmas while still exploring and potentially undertaking the process of a land management plan. As worded in the amendment, I'm not sitting comfortably that that's going to it's actually happen with that, change of word. I think it's too materially different. Jessica Phillips 03:02:03.920
Going to agree, based on my experience, one of the things I struggle with here, yeah, sometimes opening asking the directors a direct question is because it goes against 16 years of investigative interviewing, questioning, which is around giving context to it. Otherwise, it's a yes /no answer. So it's just in my training to not know how to ask something that gets a yes or no. I know it can be tricky, but when you look at the word demonstrate, it actually says the definition is to show clearly. So it gives content, it gives context, and the word submit, it actually changes what the intention of the motion, in my opinion. I also think that it could be adding to why since 2019, we're still debating this because we're trying to change one word when I think we can understand the intention of the motion. So I won't be supporting it and I'd like to move on. Brian Stockwell 03:03:12.081
I'll speak you in a minute. To the amendment. I actually concur with what the Mayor said. I think the advice given to us in reports over three terms of Council clearly says that we can't demonstrate that without a land management plan. Black and white advice has been given over many years that we can't demonstrate that it doesn't adversely affect without going through a more detailed process. I like time at one stage. My time at one stage being the principal planning and policy officer in state land suggests it doesn't, contrary to all those points that I think the wording does to say this is our position. Of the majority of Councillors and that's what we wanted to consider i'm okay, not sure what to do with them. Else wish to talk? I'll put the member those in favour I will close oh yes you do get the option oh yes, to close, sorry. Frank Wilkie 03:04:11.129
Yeah, thank you Councillors. Look, the intention here is to work together to get a better worded complete motion. I think it's more appropriate wording. It doesn't change the intent of this motion at all. I think it strengthens it and will look more favourably upon by the minister. So the intention is to correct the wording to make it better so that collectively this whole motion is something we can all support. Brian Stockwell 03:04:44.765
I'll put the amendment, those who support the amendment, that's yes, Councillor Wilkie, yes, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener. Those opposed, Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and Phillips. The amendment is carried and becomes part of the substantive. We'll back. We go back to the substantive motion and Councillor Finzel, no Councillor, Wilson, Lorentson and Wilkie have talked to the motion as well as the mover. Anyone else wish to talk to the substantive motion? Thought, um, I could have supported the original motion A and B. I think that is the majority position and a logical step forward because I've sat here through three terms of Council where the department has given us very specific advice that we shouldn't be doing it without a land management plan. I can't once again agree to go cat and hand to a minister saying, look, no, I won't support it. One else? There being no one else, Councillor Phillips, would you like to close? Jessica Phillips 03:05:57.673
Yes. I think all the community is also divided because we're divided in here. So I would like to get to a point where we can agree absolutely. I think that would demonstrate that around the table, we've been able to get to a position that democracy has served its purpose. We've tested it. And hopefully, eventually we can agree on it. But when I look at the chronological order in March, and I won't go back because we don't need to rehash it, but I'll just go to the most recent one that I could find. In March 26, we said that we needed an Easter trial to gather traffic, transport, visitor and community sentiment data to inform the future considerations. And now that's only months later. And we're contemplating if this doesn't go through, not proceed proceeding with what the act has provided us. And I'm going to struggle with the logic of that. If there is new evidence demonstrating that temporary parking cannot the structure statutory test, then I would like to see that evidence. If the environmental impacts are so unacceptable, then I'd like them to be demonstrated. If the rehabilitation doesn't work, then I'd like to see that demonstrated. If the public interest is adversely affected, I'd like to see that assessment. If the community doesn't support it, then we should undertake the consultation through this LNP. And if any of those findings can legitimately, could be provided to me legitimately in the end, then I would like to think that we haven't got to this position in the first place. But that's not where we are today. And I ultimately think about legacy as well. As Councillor Stockwell said, legacy isn't, is also certainly not defending a position simply because. So legacy is whether the decision we leave behind can withstand scrutiny. So can we say, did we complete the consultation we committed to? Can we say, did we gather the evidence that we needed to make the decision and did we properly understand the legislation that's in front of us? I believe that the land management plan will provide all of this for us. I think that we're actually at this point after years of listening to this around the table I would like to think that we're at the point today that our community deserves a definite answer on where we're park. Where we're going with the Lions Park once we have an informed decision in front of us so let's finish what we started get that the details of the LMP so we can have it presented to Council and really see and demonstrate how we've made that decision today I think we've landed up at something that is hopefully going to satisfy the next steps even though it's a long lengthy process I hope today that we can start moving closer to the end goal whatever that is but at least we've got the information thank in front of us to make that determination Brian Stockwell 03:09:15.092
Put the motion those in favour it's Councillor Wilson Councillor Lorentson and Councillor yes Councillor Wilkie those against? Yes. Oh and Councillor Finzel. And those against? Would be Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell. The motion is carried. And Councillors I think it might be time for a half an hour break for lunch and other matters. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:40:17.600
Okay welcome back and we will continue with dealing with the recommendations of the General Committee and we're up to item 11.1.4 which is the planning application decided is the planning application decided by delegated authority, June 2026.11.1.5 is the operational plan 25/26 for quarter four quarterly reporting and we move then to the 11.1.6 is the terms of reference for the Noosa Waters residents advisory group. 11.1.7 update construction charges resolution. 11.1.8 review of the Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy. 11.1.9 plan the environment court of peel 1576 short stage heading local law review. Of 2026-stay letting local law decision. 8 with a circuit nursery heads. 11.1.10 Planning & Environment Court of peel 1763 of 2026 short-stay letting local law review good to say, letting local decision side. 5 with a circuit nursery heads. 11.1.11 MCU 17 0559.05 Planning & Environment Court of peel 1842 of 2026 for minor change to the development permit for two or change of use for a duplex at 216 Grant Street Noosa Heads 11.1.12 delegations any review Council to CEO 11.1.30 as general Committee recommendation en bloc. Do we have a mover for the resolutions Council Wegener moves and the second uh that was Councillor Finzel I presume we don't need any discussion all those in favour yes yes okay that's carried unanimously we're now going to circle back to the motion that was laying on the table which is the notice of motion so if I check my records need to you need to do a resolution to take it from the table well Councillor Phillips knows how to do that I'll move to the item um the matter item 10.2 be taken from the table the one seconder Council Wegener uh no discussion all those in favour yes okay yes and that's carried unanimously item in regard to the Main Beach reserve car parking Karen Finzel 03:43:30.532
Mr Chair, yeah, I don't think I've spoken to this. Brian Stockwell 03:43:37.151
I think she asked a question. I'm going to ask a okay. So does anyone else wish to speak to this motion? I have a question. Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 03:43:49.454
Just a question. The resolution, the motion to review the July 2026 resolution. If passed today, is that to review this in practice of the Main Beach drop-off zone immediately or after it's taken place at Christmas? Uh, that would be to Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:44:17.954
The intent is to review it immediately, again with no predetermined outcome. Brian Stockwell 03:44:23.138
Thank you. Canceller Finzel Councillor Karen Finzel 03:44:33.143
Finzel? Just, I'm just wondering if this would be better served through bringing it to Councillors through CDF or another workshop? Would that give us a set of outcomes? Brian Stockwell 03:44:48.258
Who would you like to address that question to? Can do. Karen Finzel 03:44:55.612
I'll take maybe to Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:44:59.390
Sure. There's been a lot of discussions about notices of motions, about whether this should have gone through a different process, etc. I'm first going to say that I actually started this we process, but by seeking advice. The answer, point of order, Mayor Wilkie. I'm in the middle of debate and I really don't appreciate the way you just spoke to me. I'm happy that she was providing context for her answer, Councillor Wilkie. Okay, I withdraw. Be so a lot of discussion about process, about notices of motion. I really, and I wanted to stop, but we had an adjournment. I want to start by saying that I actually sought advice on this and I was advised that a notice of the correct process. Brian Stockwell 03:45:48.547
In July, I think that's the answer to the question. Amelia Lorentson 03:45:51.151
Yeah. And okay. I'll talk to you to it later. Jessica Phillips 03:45:55.377
I just have a question maybe to help me understand to the CEO. Are what are we doing, or it might be to Dr Walsh? Director Walsh, are we capturing, I'm just foreseeing 10 years from now, like how are we foreseeing capturing this data for future decisions? Is there a process that we're doing? To the chief, cheek can I be clear on what data you're referring? Yeah, I think that's a good point. Um, maybe to support like future decisions around whether this is working, how we like what's the measure to suggest that this operation of each year is actually serving the intended purpose. That would be a better question. Shaun Walsh 03:46:45.061
Answer to that is every year we supply the Go Noosa report to Council. Sometimes there's two reports which captures all available data and feedback that we receive from community groups, stakeholders and feedback as well as any available traffic data and usage data. So the best mechanism to summarise that is to actually look at all the reports since 2021 on the Go Noosa Program. Brian Stockwell 03:47:10.881
Does anyone else want to talk to the motion. My view is, suing for those reports we have seen on the Go Noosa Program, that the drop-off zone over the last few years has been effective to achieve the two main objectives. That was that to reduce the congestion from queuing and to increase the safety of users in that location where we had previously a significant conflict between vehicles seeking parks, queuing for parks, and people wanting to go to the beach and people wanting to go to the toilet. I think the use of it during peak times makes a lot of sense. And I. Think, as I've argued in previous motions, I think reducing congestion is a priority objective which we should be focused on to ensure that the experience of going to Main Beach or Hastings Street is one that is safe and is. Experience that is not creating stress so I support the motion of July 2026 and don't see any need to review it. Jessica Phillips 03:48:13.857
I just have one more question please around the seawall so is this going to come to us every year with the Go Noosa report and will we ever get to a point where based on the seawall and the surf club redesign that this will be on the table in a different way? I'm just going to look ahead. Shaun Walsh 03:48:39.586
The chain. With the forecast of the seawall, which is subject to funding, both from Council and external sources, even in the best case scenario, you know, funding in 2028, it's more than likely that project alone will require access to this area to reconstruct the seawall. And I understand that in preliminary conversations with the surf club, they also have indicated that they need room for a construction compound. And then we also need to. Figure out how we actually plan for things like public amenities and emergency service access to the beach. In terms of whether this comes back to Council each time to make decisions about that space, it's at the direction or discretion of the CEO. You know, he calls it an operational matter or whether it's the best interest of Council to make the matter. Okay, Brian Stockwell 03:49:32.341
Anyone else wish to talk them? To the motion? Councillor Lorentson, Lorentson, do you wish to play us? Amelia Lorentson 03:49:37.549
I do, and I just want to just correct a few things that have been discussed around the table. Firstly, I did seek, ask the question, what is the correct process? In July, 7th of July, 2026, of July, 2026, Council in its, Council, in its report, endorsed the Go Noosa report. And C was that the temporary repurpose of the car park within the Main Beach reserve adjacent to the Noosa Heads Surf Club is a Main Beach drop-off zone during the peak Christmas and new year period to improve safety, traffic circulation. And functionality within that precinct. That was actually endorsed by Council in July, 2026. My question was given uncertainties about what's happening with the overflow process, can we review the decision, which was decision, for full drop off air full drop off area, or is there opportunity to talk to the traders in case they wanted to revisit it as a mixed use precinct, or whether they wanted to delay the commencement? I understood time that the only way I could do that, given it was a ratified decision of Council, was through a notice of motion. This was not my decision. It was what I believe is the correct process. So I want to throw that on the table. Secondly, there has been, and I've got notes all over the place, so excuse me. Brian Stockwell 03:51:07.930
Councillor Finzel, Cindy, your-- Findlay, do you want to put yourself on mute, please? Karen Finzel 03:51:12.635
Yes, apologies. Amelia Lorentson 03:51:13.189
My apology sorry so the other thing that I really wanted to speak to was that there was mentions in terms of notices of motions, whether it was an appropriate vehicle----concerns about it was an vehicle, about notices of about notices of motions etc. I really need to say this and set this straight and put it on record. Notices of motion is a legitimate part of the democratic process available to us as Councillors. If you disagree with the motion, I accept that. Don't vote for it. But challenging my right to bring community issues and raise issues that residents expect elected representatives to put before the Council. It's not only my right, but it's also my responsibility. Happy that we debate the merits of the motions, but I do want to put on record, I don't think it's appropriate to debate my rights. So again, I go back to the notice of motion. To me, it was just there was uncertainty about the overflow parking arrangement. The advice I was given was through a notice of motion was the only way we could change what was a ratified decision by this Council in July 2026, the notified motion does nothing. There might be an agreement to retain the status quo. But given the uncertainty and all the extra information that we've received since the July 2026 motion, I thought it was good governance. To go back to the traders and understand whether they were happy to progress with the decision that we made in July 2026. At the time and I do want to enforce this at the was a majority support to allow overflow car parking as we've just discussed and we've just gone through some extensive time debating land management plan under section 52 AB and also section 52 AA there is still uncertainty again whether there is going to be overflow car parking available at Lions Park this Christmas again this is just an opportunity for the traders to revisit the decision and see if they want to move the commencement date, propose a different option that decision remains solely between staff and the traders and stakeholders Brian Stockwell 03:54:01.087
Now and I noticed Council tinsel you had your hand up as well that was the close of the debate so we can so the only thing we can do now is vote on it so those in support of the motion Councillor Phillips. Online is there any support No. Okay and those opposed to the motion would be Councillor Finzel, will opposition? Wilkie, I oppose. I think we can cancel Wegener cancel the stockpile. And Councillor Stockwell. The motion is lost. Okay we now move to section item 13 of the agenda which are the ordering meeting reports. We can invite the financial services manager Zach Morton as well as Director Gatt to discuss the Financial Performance Report for July 2026. Good afternoon morning Councillors. Zach Morton-Adair 03:55:03.528
Good afternoon Councillors apologies for my voice and if I cough I'm just a bit husky just getting my coughing when we get into it. So thank you and through Chair, I'll take the report as read. The July report presents council's financial performance to the 31st of June 2026 against council's original budget for the corresponding year. As this report year. Our one of the first month of the financial year, cautions should be exercised in interpreting and variances and emerging trends. Many revenue and expenditure categories are influenced by time and profiling and carry forward from the previous financial year and a single month does not provide sufficient basis to identify meaningful trends. As at the 31st of July 2026 Council reported a favourable net variance to budget of 1.4 million. It is important to note that the July results remain preliminary as we complete the 25-26 financial statements and external audit process. A number of year-end accounting adjustments may be required which could result in some movements to the current reported position. The favourable position is primarily attributed to higher than anticipated rates and utility charges from revenue. Stronger investment earnings and lower than anticipated operating and capital expenditure. To it is important to note that many of the variances reported at this stage reflect carry forward balances from the 25-26 program. Grant timing and expenditure profiling rather than underlying changes to council's financial performance. The next item on today's agenda is budget review 1 which will provide greater detail on these movements. I would like to take the opportunity to draw attention to a number of the matters detailed in the report. As at the 31st of July 2026, Council had received 64.1 million or 39% of its operating revenue of 163 or 164 million. The favourable operating revenue the favourable variance of 0.9 million is mainly attributed to rates and charges and or higher-than-anticipated investment earnings. Our operating expenditure for the same period was 11.4 million or 7% of council's underlying budget. The favourable variance of approximately 0.6 million was mainly attributed to lower than anticipated employee benefits and lower than anticipated materials and services for the period. At this stage of the financial year expenditure variances are largely driven by timing and profiling factors. Detailed commentary and analysis will be provided in subsequent for monthly finance reports. In regards to council's business activities, the overall operating variance comprises of $1 million from council's core operating activities and 0.3 from its business activities. Waste management continues to government report favourably against its position. Against its operating position, with holiday parks remaining the channelling consistent with the underlying budget. Council's capital, revenue and expenditure for the 31st of July 2026. Its capital revenue is $5.4 million, comprised primarily of capital grants, subsidies, together with development contributions, as consistent with previous comments made in monthly finance reports. Grants, receipts and development contributions remain dependent on external factors and project delivery timelines. Capital expenditure to the 31st of July 2026 was $1.8 $4.8 or% of million or 2.1% of council's $84 capital works program. It is important to know that July is typically not representative of the annual capital program of delivery due to the commencement of procurement lead times, carry forward balances and mobilisation activities. Additional detail regarding the capital for forward program, project profile and budget adjustments is included within the budget review one report following the monthly finance report. Council's total cash on hand is at the 31st of July was 153 million including 67 million held in trust. 6.7 sorry, my correction, 6.7 million held in trust Councillors, sorry, my apologies investments continue to perform well against agreed benchmarks. On a 12-month basis total cash holdings have increased.4 million or 6.5% to this time last year. The stronger cash position will fix the combined impact of carry forward expenditure, timing of capital delivery and investment performance. Writer is as at the 31st of July totalled 7. Million or 6% of council's rate and utility charge base. This was a reduction of 354 million from June 2026 it is worth noting that the basis for the calculation of rate arrears changed and changes in July each year as the calculation is reset to use the adopted annual rates in the underlying budget and I just think it's made or 354,000, arrears. Sorry, I'm correcting. 354,000. My apologies, I'm reading through them the movement remains consistent with council's established six-monthly arrears cycle whereby arrears typically increase following levy periods or reduce in the following months. For completeness, the July 2026 levy was payable on the 14th of August. As a result, arrears for the July levy will be accounted for in council's August 2026 monthly financial statement. As the due date for the July 2026 rate levy has passed on the 14th of October, Council officers are currently working through the timing of reminder notices relating to rate arrears that will go out over the next few weeks. Following reminder notices, Council will begin to work through its debt and charges debt management and recovery policy for the recovery of outstanding arrears. Further internal and external communications will occur prior to initiation of this process. In closing, Council remains in a strong and stable financial position as at the 31st of July. 31st however, as is reported this only affects one month of financial activity, the results shown should be viewed as preliminary and largely influenced by timing and carry forward and expenditure profiling. Future monthly reports will be completed by the complemented by council's budget review processes will provide greater clarity on the underlying operational trends, capital delivery and financial year-end positioning. You and happy to take questions. Thank you. Do we have questions, councils? Frank Wilkie 04:01:51.404
Councillor Lawrence. Amelia Lorentson 04:01:52.238
I have a question. Probably to the CEO. Do we have the workforce capacity to deliver the capital program this year? And what does staff turnover and vacancy data look like right now, and particularly in the teams responsible for delivering the capital works, infrastructure, planning, design, delivery. Larry Sengstock 04:02:17.041
Okay, I'll ask the Director to come and maybe support if needed. That answer, there's no question that this is a very large program of works. We do have additional resource allocations for this. However, we do also do have some gaps in that area, but we're out in the market at the moment for those positions for project managers. And they're very difficult, as we've talked about in numerous meetings and numerous workshops, that project managers are very difficult to come by. Keep in this current market and the competitive nature of that. But we are working on that. A number of the projects on that, the big number of projects for us are underway. For example, the dunella bridge, the gymnastics and the. Changing places. Alright. Are underway, so the expenditure on those and the work on those is happening and they're outsourced in terms of contractors. So it's a big program, it's a concern, but we've certainly got our eyes all over it and we're working towards delivering it. In terms of turnover rate, I don't have those numbers absolutely at my fingertips as of today, but we have been trending down, but it's always a bit of a mixed time in terms of people moving and taking up opportunities elsewhere because one of the things that I say, if we get good people in our work, the risk of that is that people get targeted. And in this tight environment, you get good people and they get wooed away to other businesses in other areas. So that's always a risk. And we're doing everything we can to make sure we retain those people. But sometimes it's not possible. Amelia Lorentson 04:04:16.074
My other question, and I think I ask this all the time. Workforce capability plan. How is that progressing? That's not related to the plan. Um, it is, um, okay, let me change the. Okay. Question. Let me think. Let does our workforce plan, um, match the capability of being able to deliver our capital program? Margaret Gatt 04:04:43.844
Uh, thank you for the question, Councillor Lorentson. Through the Chair, I can answer that in two parts. Um, part of every Director and manager's, um, accountability is that they review their workforce plan on a yearly basis and or as needs throughout. A year on depending on, um, workload and priorities. So that happens just as a given, um, that every manager and Director is held accountable to actually do that. So that's separate to capability to the workforce capability larger project, which I did, um, recently. I can't remember in the last couple of months via a briefing, um, had, Liz, our manager P&C there to, um, basically give you the framework about what we were going to do in the development of that. Um, we actually have only been able to just now secure an additional resource to help us actually roll out that framework and develop that further. We are a little bit behind. I gave you a commitment that we would have a draft one done by December this year. Um, probably more like in March, um, next year, but we've got those resources committed to, doing that, to building it. Shaun Walsh 04:05:56.997
Yes. Thank you, if I could assist, um, I just want to note working through, uh, the people and culture area, we're actually working on a dedicated piece, uh, early ahead of the workplace capability plan with a specific focus on infrastructure services and the need for, uh, management resources, uh, against the competition that we're facing across the region. So, and I just thank the Director and manager of people and culture for pulling that out, uh, because the forces we're faced against across the region are significant. They are. And if we need to have confidence in the delivery of our capital rewards program, uh, we need to, um, could significantly improve our health. Thrust. Now we, whilst we have had some resources challenges, we have had an increasing delivery of the program in recent years, evidenced by the increase in commitments. Um, and we also note that some of the models that we're using, such as use of external consultants for the disaster reconstruction program, have proven to be incredibly successful. So there's models some good models that we can follow on to actually increase our capacity, and this process is set up by people and culture, and I'll have to straw that out. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 04:07:02.283
Any other questions, or someone wishes to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson, do we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:07:21.517
Oh, Becca, am I firstly want to thank the financial services, your team. Again, we've got a report that's really clear and gives us real visibility in terms of where council's financial standing is. I'm sure I'm going to get a point of order from the Chair, but I am going to throw this small observation offered in the spirit rather than any type of criticism, but I just think it's really quite interesting how little time we're spending on Financial Performance Report compared to say for instance 21 days of parking and when I look at the financial report you know these are the things that are going to able to shape what this Council is able to deliver for the community over the year so maybe just a question that I'd like to just leave the Councillors councillors, are we getting our attention in this? Report you are we giving our in Council to the right things do you have Brian Stockwell 04:08:28.108
Wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Phillips I Jessica Phillips 04:08:32.874
Just made a few notes I think recognise it's important to recognise that the quality of service we deliver to our community is intrinsically linked to the way we support our workforce internally local government is people business is a people business and while our community our sees roads, parks, libraries, roads, parks, libraries development assets community programs the customer service behind in every one of those outcomes is people that are trying to deliver on Council commitments I've always thought that if we want to deliver excellent service then we must create the conditions for excellence within our organisation and that means that I'm always going to support the means of investing in staff development provide clear leadership supporting well-being fostering a positive workplace culture and ensuring our people have the resources that to at the at systems and the confidence that they need to perform their best an engaged and supported workforce is more innovative more responsive and more capable of addressing the increasing complexities challenge that and the challenges that are facing local government when employees are government when employees are feeling connected to the organisation's purpose they are more likely to contribute ideas collaborate effectively and go ahead sorry go above and beyond serving the community and I'm not suggesting that we have but I would hope we I would like to invest in our workforce well-being I'd like to invest in our culture the capability the impacts are often felt externally political pressures and but in doing that I think sometimes we impacting the productivity the staff turnover um, and to close, um, I'd like to see yeah I just want to on record that I'm going to support our workforce we it shouldn't be viewed as an internal shouldn't be viewed as an internal cost shouldn't be viewed as an internal it should be as it should be seen as a strategic investment in the community outcomes that we're seeking to achieve. Every dollar we invest in building organisational capability, leadership and staff engagement contributes to our ability to deliver on projects, respond to community needs and maintain the high standard of services that our residents expect. Our community rightly expects a Council that is efficient, responsive and accountable. And to meet those expectations, I believe we need to ensure that the people delivering those services feel supported, respected and equipped succeed, strong internal culture. And strong external performance are not separate objectives, they are two that sit side by Ultimately, if we want our organisation to thrive externally, then we must ensure that it is healthy internally. I appreciate financial reports every month. The better we support our people, the better positioned we are to support our community. Brian Stockwell 04:11:47.742
I think there were some comments that we're not focusing on the right things, and financial reports each month are very good. And our role at many boards is to manage by exception. And what we're very fortunate to have is that, really, do we have any exceptions of any significance to actually discuss because finances are so well managed, that the budgets are being achieved, that the way in which we spend the money is in accordance with our operational plan, and we're. Yeah, we're, a Council, one of the few councils, that work with a positive, not a deficit budget, so the length of time you spend discussing something should be relevant to the impact of that decision. In this case, every month we look at it, and there are a few queries, news, and there's generally no exceptions to manage by this us acting as a whole. Tom Wegener 04:12:48.505
Well done. I've got a question. So we discussed earlier, Director Gatt, about the report that's coming up, the report that's coming up, you know, the 10 range forecast. Can you tell us what's coming along and when we can hope to see that report? Margaret Gatt 04:13:10.428
Thank you, Councillor Wegener, Through the Chair. Councillor, so I've given you a commitment previously that we would develop. So, sorry, I'll go back a bit. As part of every monthly finance report and also each BR and budget, we have a very large, complicated model that sits at the back of those documents that's called the long-Term financial plan, based on Queensland treasury's model. Whilst that plan or spreadsheet really is what it is, it's a model, level of robustness probably out to three to five years. My focus since commencing in the organisation is that we actually develop a strategy that sits alongside that, so that we would have sensitivity analysis, we would be doing scenario planning around what potentially the future implications. For our financial, the organisation's financial sustainability is. So we've got that document probably 60 to 70% complete, but that is yet to be workshopped with the broader executive team. So asking me for a drop-dead date of when we'll be having that, a workshop with the Councillors on what that long-term financial plan strategy looks like, I'm hoping to have that done before the end of this calendar year. Brian Stockwell 04:14:37.673
Anyone Frank Wilkie 04:14:40.597
Question yes Councillor Wilkie. You very much. Thank for the report. While it's positive in the short-term, the underspending employees benefits and material and services. Can you give us some idea of why we do have those shortfalls there? Those underspends. Margaret Gatt 04:15:05.406
Thank you, Mayor Wilkie, for the question. Through the Chair, as the manager of financial services has said, this is only what this only represents one month or two. Yeah. So it's, very, well, it just, it's not representative of any concerning trends of Um, we can get some more specifics for you and take that question on notice and give you the, give the Councillors the details as to specifically why we are underspent in our labour budget for the period of July. But for. But Mike. Both Zach and myself, it doesn't represent a risk. Frank Wilkie 04:15:41.554
Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? I'll just say thank you again for the report. It's always very extensive and clear and detailed, gives us a very clear indication of how we're travelling and it helps guide councillors' questions. There were some very good points made before about the role Councillors can play in terms of fostering organisational culture and that's certainly improving budgets for professional development for our staff, but it also is about the way Councillors, we talk about our staff, advice and the way we talk about our Council, our community's Council. Very good point to raise and of course financial reports is not a divisive issue like a very public issue like the Noosa Heads Lions Park and we've discussed that in previous matters but the reason is it's it um it's a part that's been misused and uh we're still trying to rectify and I don't know the financial point of order report thank you is not a source of divisive debate for uh because it's very focused and very detailed thank you Amelia Lorentson 04:17:02.738
I will and um we've heard around the table no need to debate um that the report is great um and I don't disagree um but I do want to remind Councillors that asking questions and challenging assumptions part of our job I have total great confidence in our staff and value the incredible work that um in particular the financial team do but Councillors that does not absolve our responsibility to exercise due care and diligence our decision making I've just completed um just recently the Australian institute of company directors course and one of the key lessons in that course was exactly what we're discussing right now that we cannot accept on face value any reports that come to our Council and without you know referencing a previous report we need to continue where we don't agree with what's been presented to us we don't just accept it we have to continue to investigate and ensure that the information that we have is complete and I think from memory from the Australian institute of company directors course I think it was the centro case where the board directors were held liable accepting on face value in fact I think the information given by their financial advisers. So again Councillors just a reminder we cannot just absolve our responsibilities to exercise due care and diligence that we need to ask the question. And just accept. Report on base value. The Having said thank you. Having said that, thank you again mark, Zach and team for again a really great report. Brian Stockwell 04:18:55.968
I'll put them open, in the motion. Those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. We then move on to item 12.2. To the only thing I mentioned the wrong last time and item number item the 12.2 is badge reduced. Budget review 1 for the 2026/27 financial year. And we have the same dynamic duo to give us a review. Zach Morton-Adair 04:19:22.673
Thank you and Through the Chair I will take the report as read. This report presents budget review 1 for the 2026/27 financial year. The has prepared in a the review has been prepared in accordance with the underlying legislative requirements which requires Council to undertake regular reviews of its adopted budget to ensure it remains reflective of council's projected financial position as at the 30th June of each year. First budget review of each one year is a routine budget management process. BR1 primarily reflects updated delivery schedules, grant timing, and carry forward adjustments identified after the adoption of the 2026-27 budget on 23rd of June. Importantly, this review should not be interpreted as an indication that the original budget was inaccurate or unrealistic, rather that it reflects the normal progression of operating and capital projects and programs across financial years. The proposed BR1 BI1 position does not represent a material change to council's adopted financial settings, strategic priorities, service levels, or long-term financial direction. I would like to draw your attention to a number of matters detailed in the report. In regards to operating budget adjustments budget review 1 proposes no change to council's operating result. This report identifies proposed increases to employee benefits of $81,000 and materials and services of $583,000, mainly associated with previously recognised grants. These increases are offset additional interest revenue of $300,000, waste collection charges of $250,000 and a housing support program grant of $113,000. The key point is that these movements are offsetting in nature and do not change council's overall operating position. Full details of these operating adjustments are provided as attachment 1 and schedule 6. Capital budget adjustments and carryovers. The revised capital works program increases from $84.3 million to $99.7 million. This includes an increase of $11.9 million in other capital works and $3.4 million in waste management, while recovery works remain unchanged to $29.2 million. The increase on the revised increase capital budget largely reflects projects that were approved in the previous budget but remained underway as at the 30th of June. As such, the movement primarily relayed to the timing of expenditure rather than new expenditure commitments. This is an important distinction. BR1 is not introducing a significant new capital program. It is largely aligning with approved budgets with revised delivery timelines so that projects already underway can continue to their completions. The majority of capital adjustments relate to previously adopted projects carried forward from the 25-26 financial year with only limited emergent items proposed through BR1. Funding for the revised capital program comprises of grant funding of $47.8 million, loans of $13.2 million, and internal reserves of $9 million, with the balance coming from cash reserves. Full details of the capital works program are provided as schedule 7 and 8 of attachment 1. Consequently, as part of BR1, BL1, our forecasted loan funds increased from $10.8 million to $13.2 million. This relates to waste management loans of $11.2 million and Lake MacDonald residential subdivision of $2 million. As a result of this, Council is required to adopt a revised debt policy which reflects the revised loan totals and the forecast across the 10-year forecast period. The revised debt policies policy is included as attachment to the report. In regards to council's financial sustainability, the proposed BI1 position does not indicate any significant financial concerns arising from either the operating or capital budget adjustments. The operating amendments are offsetting and maintain council's operating position. Similarly, the increased capital program primarily relates to the carry forward of approved projects. Because the majority of amendments relate to the timing adjustments rather than new commitments, the proposed amendments present limited additional financial risk to Council. Key financial assistance financial sustainability indicators remain within their adopted benchmark ranges, with no main changes to council's long-term financial position. The report notes the assets sustainability ratio falls below the target level in some forecasted years due to the current composition of the capital works program. However, it should be noted across the 10-year forecast period, the average ratio is 10.6, which is in excess of the targeted benchmark when viewed in that regard. Council's however, operating cash balance has also been revised to $132.6 million following the close of the 25-26 financial year. This has improved council's liquidity ratios and net liability ratios. Has also improved in BR1 following the decision to not draw down $3.1 million as at the 30th of June related to capital projects in the previous financial year. Lastly, in regards to Fees and Charges, BR1 includes a small number BL-1 of council's adopted 26/27 fee schedule. These amendments are predominantly administrative in nature and intended to ensure the schedule remains accurate, reflects operational requirements, and addresses matters identified following the adoption of the budget. The report identifies key changes including temporary revision to selected digital hub management fees pending a broader review of charges, a revised per kilometre charge for Noosa Seniors, an introduction a waste, the introduction of a waste solar panel disposal fee, corrections to impound animal release fees and noting the GST treatment related to certain cemetery related fees. These amendments have no impact council's overall operating position or revenue base. In closing, BR1 represents a routine and prudent budget management process. There are no significant adjustments as a result of the amendments proposed today. The majority of the adjustments reflect timing, carry forward and re-profiling of council's current service delivery and capital works effective budget monitoring and periodic reviews and remains an important part of council's financial governance framework and supports continued alignment between the adopted budget, current project delivery schedules, funding availability and approved operational commitments. Thank you and we'll be happy to take questions. Brian Stockwell 04:26:11.723
Thank you. Do we have questions? Catherine? Canada? Of course. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:26:20.318
In terms of disaster recovery funding, so I've looked at the forecast and there's recovery work spending, $29.2 million in 2027.2028, $10 million in 2029, then nothing. And I think this is what I raised, I think at our budget is one of the biggest risks and just recently Councillor Phillips has also raised this issue. And I think it's a big concern of this Council. Normally recovery funding is shared between state and Federal government, and at the moment there's discussion or debate about whether or not the 50 / splitting. So my question is what happens if our share of the costs ends up higher than assumed? Where are we going to get the extra money? And probably my other question is do we intend to model or do some scenario stress testing around what that may actually look like in terms of. You know, if the funding isn't 50 /, if there's a disaster that hasn't been envisaged, what sort of preparation are we doing as a Council, understanding that's a potential and real risk to this Council? Margaret Gatt 04:27:48.907
Thank Lorentson. You Councillor Lorentson Through the Chair um two parts to that question. I'll answer the last part first around are we doing scenario modelling. That is part of that long-term financial plan strategy is where we will do sensitivity analysis and. Testing of that to factor those aspects in as well. I'll just get the Director Infrastructure Services to come across and have a discussion with you around the potential changes to the split of the disaster recovery. Shaun Walsh 04:28:19.431
Firstly, there's no indication that the funding arrangements from the 2025 disaster event will be altered, expectably, so we can confidently proceed with the repairs that we forecast from that budget under existing funding arrangements. In the event that the funding arrangements are changed, which is forecast from government, we to keep. From the Federal government, we need to carefully scrutinise the works ourselves to ensure that there's good cost benefit analysis and good return, and whether we can actually afford the repairs. So it actually would require a pivot point about the whole approach. And as you're aware from the last meeting, there was a notice of motion about representations undertaken to. Undertaking to the develop local government association poison and on government on to the Federal government opposing their proposed changes to the funding arrangements because they would have significant financial impact upon Noosa Council in the event we did, unfortunately, have a further natural disaster. Zach Morton-Adair 04:29:08.699
And just to expand on that in terms of the budget review and how it's, sorry, Through the Chair and how it's modelled within the reports. If you 2020. Remember back to the 2022 disaster recovery, effectively, there's a three year submission process that is put in place. So we've reached the impending conclusion of that. So what's included in budget review one for the next three years is effectively the ongoing three year program. We can't model outside that. The balance of our capital works program, because they're definitive time locked programmes. So that's why you'll see a three year program with nothing following that, because it's obviously dependent on future submissions and/or impending disaster. Amelia Lorentson 04:29:42.108
I saw that. I went, what happens after this period? Shaun Walsh 04:29:44.871
OK. It only reflects money that we're actually seeking for repair. We're hoping we don't have a disaster. Tom Wegener 04:30:01.519
The wider Noosa Shire and probably for our Noosa Council as well. And with what I've understood when the experts came here that of the peak bodies of insurance bodies come to us to talk about natural disasters and about insurance rates. And there is a correlation between having a Council that is very aware of climate change and to declare the climate change emergency is very forward-looking towards climate change and things like that. And the insurance levels, they said, are reduced because of that, because of the Shire-wide is this for like the budget review Council I don't it's a question on notice for the next meetings coming up, because I would actually like to confirm that and share that with the community, because that's very powerful knowledge to me about it might be a little bit on our insurance and that insurance, but collectively through the Shire, it is a substantial amount. And I think that, you know, we should be aware of Margaret Gatt 04:31:02.393
Thank you. Councillor Wegener. We'll do that. Amelia Lorentson 04:31:08.645
I have another question. In terms of our budget surpluses, as I was reading the report, they seem to be quite thin, tens of thousands of dollars when we've got a budget of $200 million. Does that concern you? Have we actually got enough of a safety buffer in case something goes wrong? To me, it just doesn't seem like we do. Margaret Gatt 04:31:37.705
You, Councillor Lorentson, Through the Chair. It's really a principle and a question back to Councillors around. Have a of we have a number of policies that support the development of our budget and the adoption of our budget. And within those policies, there's principles around investment debt and a whole range of other things. And my understanding is that traditionally this Council likes to adopt balanced budgets, operating positions, therefore very minor surpluses. And there's obvious implications as a result of that. And there's a is a, there would be perception. There would be a perception by some areas of the community, in any community, that if a Council adopts a surplus, then we're overrating. And that's not necessarily the situation. We, it is a, it's a, my personal opinion is that it's conservative and risky, that through hopefully in future years budget, we'll be able to have more robust discussions around the benefits of adopting, and I'm not talking large surpluses, I'm just talking, you know, something a little bit more than what we traditionally adopt. And then that's sort of can squirrel that away for a rainy day. Not that we need that at the minute, but for those extraordinary circumstances where we might lose funding, or whether we have another disaster any other thing that could happen to our organisation. And then obviously that has to be balanced with the community's capacity to pay, because obviously that is funded by rates, not only grant funding and things like that. So it's a very delicate balance to get that right and to meet the community's expectations. For what the rates look like. As we have spoken about in the development of the 26-27 budget, we've given you a commitment, both manager financial services and myself, that we will develop a rating strategy in the lead up to the 27-28 budget and that will obviously be spoken about in depth with you at subsequent workshops. Brian Stockwell 04:34:08.219
Thank you. Does anyone like to move to motion? Karen Finzel 04:34:13.809
Excuse me, Mr Chair, I've had my hand up for some time. Thank you. Yes, thank you to the staff for the report. I just, in relation to the asset sustainability ratio in excess of 106.9%, which is well in excess of the target benchmark over the 10-year forecast period from 2013 to 2035, my question is where best should Councillors direct their focus to remain informed and up-to-date in relation to that projection? Will that come through in monthly reports, or what are we going if you can get checked to do to paper check more? Margaret Gatt 04:34:57.958
Thank you, Councillor Finzel, Through the Chair. There are a number of ways that we monitor that sustainability ratio. It's through the monthly excuse me monthly finance report. It's also through our asset management steering committee and through our capital works program where the financial delivery of the capital works program gets presented to that executive group. In terms of then often you can have sustainability ratios that are lumpy or up and down over a 10-year period, and that is largely driven by the creation of new assets, the associated depreciation, and also the delivery of the capital works program, timing of um so that. Affects that sustainability ratio as well, so it is just something, there's quite a few indicators that feed into that ratio. Brian Stockwell 04:35:58.624
Thank you. Okay, then we'll tell them. Would someone like to move to motion? Happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie, move, seconded. Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wilkie, you have the floor. Frank Wilkie 04:36:13.980
Yes, thank you very much Zach and Margaret for the report on the BR1. Report the monthly financial reports will keep us on track, keep a good oversight on finances, one of the main reasons why we've been financially sustainable for so long and the BR budget reviews are the flexibility in the system that allow us to adjust to emergent expenses that crop up from time to and it's only been a few months since we all committed to the budget process and we did commit to a small surplus, but, and that's been the practice for several years, but we do have a, we do have the of budgeting practice of budgeting conservatively, as Director Margaret said, which tends to deliver a bigger surplus than originally intended. The proposed changes to disaster funding arrangements at the Federal level, which may come into effect in 2027, 2028 financial year, if the Federal government does not respond. To the campaign by 77 Queensland councils, state government, the local government association of Queensland, the Australian Local Government Association, and our advocacy to Queensland and parliamentarians. We may have to, we will be having to find alternative funding arrangements and we'll be relying more on the State. So there's a long way to go with that campaign and at the closing date closing for submissions was only yesterday and already we've got ministers wanting to come up and meet with Queensland representatives to the anomaly that is Queensland because although moving to a 50 / disaster funding arrangement for all the states may sound fair, it's not equitable because Queensland cops more disasters than any other state and has a greater impulse to bear in terms of recovering from natural disasters. But thank you very much for the buzzer review. It's very good, clear. Okay anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 04:38:34.541
I will. I just realised my late mum was right because you can't have your cake and eat it too. So basically one of the pieces that I want to go out and probably talk to community more about is the fact that the surplus always looks negative but then they want us to be prepared for things that come up so I think there's a bit of work that we could or I could communicate more effectively there because we do want a Council to be prepared for things to come be financially sustained. Sustainable which requires some level of surplus but the net downside to that is does it look like we've got money in the bank when people living week to so it is a tricky one and I don't have the answers but I'm gonna think on it I do also hope that I maybe through service review and things that I've requested budget that we may be able to get to it and somewhere more that I feel more comfortable I rather than asking questions I might these sort of things on notice around what I'd like to know or what I'd like to keep on top of Councillor Finzel sort of mentioned asset renewal I'd love to see maybe more some workshops more around just updates the waste team does that really well I find being short sharp workshops that keep us sort of on the same path so I'd like to see that done with the asset renewal so we can stay on top of it especially when I predict like the 2031 doesn't seem that far away and that seems to look like it doesn't look great at the moment but if we can stay on top of that would be really good I'm looking forward to long-term financial modelling I think that's a really key piece as well and the I'd like a workshop on the waste solar disposal because it's interesting that increasing and I think that could be a trend that I'd like to have more information on just last thing on the disaster space because that is something I'm quite passionate about I would have hoped that we are going to position ourselves I don't know if being oppositional to position was the only method that we could take so I'd like to see if we are considering other options to propose to state because we do have a lot of natural disasters here and I think that will be something that sneaks up on the more broader community that maybe don't you know if you're not in the hinterland and saw the slips or the landslides it probably isn't front of mind so it'd be important to know that we have different positions on what the we can control and what we can't control in that space that's all. Thanks for the report. Amelia Lorentson 04:41:36.820
Thank you very much. I'm going to be very brief something that we haven't sort of discussed and something that I think is really important is about I don't know if this is the correct terminology but intergenerational fairness understanding that you know if we do let maintenance slide or we take on a debt without a clear plan or disaster strikes and we haven't seen we haven't saved the money we need to understand you know are we in essence in delaying payments etc are we going to be passing a problem on to the next term of Council or the Council before so I think we have a responsibility beyond this term of Council and that doesn't just apply in our finances it applies in all our decision making that we should be future thinking and that carries with it a responsibility so I commend and thank again the finance team for really stepping into the space I'm really looking forward to the stress testing and the scenario modelling but I'm feeling very confident that we are in safe hands so thank you. Brian Stockwell 04:43:02.320
Okay, Councillor Wilkie Frank Wilkie 04:43:03.681
Would you like to close? Just to say that thank you again Director Margaret and Zach this is a very good example of the Noosa Council staff advice that we can trust and rely upon so thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Brian Stockwell 04:43:20.940
Yes. That you have us. Thank you. Director and manager. We now have our next item is an in-committee item. So we will move the motion. If someone can move the motion to go into closed session or the for confidential item. Wasting my agreement. Happy to move procedural to see you again. Amelia Lorentson 04:43:46.020
Happy to second. Jessica Phillips 04:43:47.464
Oh excuse me. That's right. No. That meeting be closed to public in accordance with section 254D3 of the LG Reg 2012. Not publicly LG available. This is this as it contains information that is confidential to the local government and pursuant to section 254J3G of the Local Government Regulation for 2012 for the purpose of discussing item 13.1 waste supply agreement. Brian Stockwell 04:44:14.868
Okay and it was seconded by Councillor Lorentson. There being no discussion. All those in favour? Yes. Brian Stockwell 05:13:48.498
Yeah, just waiting. Council's online for the recording. Very good. Okay, coming back out of committee. I will be moving that Council A note the report by the Waste Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20th of August 2026 regarding the waste supply agreement and B, in accordance with section 235B of the Local Government Regulation 2012, approve entering into a waste supply agreement with wildflower energy bulwark wildflower energy bulwer island metrology limited, the service supplier, for the trial, delivery and processing of residual Noosaville solid waste and post-resource recovery construction and demolition residuals at the bulwer island energy recoveries facility without. Was our without first-hand inviting written quotes or tenders on the basis that: 1. The services proposed to be provided by the service supplier under the agreement are specialised in the waste industry. 2. The services proposed to be provided by the service supplier under the agreement are confidential to. The service supplier. 3. Council is satisfied that because of the specialised and/or confidential nature of the services, it would be impractical and/or disadvantageous for councils to invite close attendants. C. Authorise the CEO to negotiate and finalise the weight supply agreement and the associated documents to give effect to the agreement for the contract to be discussed in the closed session of this meeting. For clarity, any general financial delegations do not limit the exercise of the CEO's power under this paragraph. And D. Request a future report to Council. Regarding 1. Operation outcomes of the trial arrangement, 2. Waste diversion performance, 3. Financial outcomes, and 4. Opportunities associated with any future energy recovery facility initiative. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. No need to talk to that. If the others don't wish to say anything I put the motion. All those in favour? Yes. And that's carried unanimously. So thank you Councillors. That brings us to the end of today's proceedings. The next Ordinary Meeting will be at the Council chambers at 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin at 10am on Thursday the 17th of September. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
