Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Jurisevic: We're recording, please. Yeah, I was going to say, over here with the clear years on, have a look at the throughout number. I noticed the waffle and the babble before the meeting was on the last night. Mayor Wellington: All right, we'll call the meeting to order. Thank you very much and welcome to the ordinary meeting of Nurset Council. Apologies, we don't have any apologies except I do note that a couple of councillors are running late at the moment. They're both in traffic. So we'll proceed anyway, we begin with the confirmation of minutes of the ordinary meeting from the 17th of January, moved councillor Wilkie, seconded councillor Pardon, I'll put the motion, all those in favour, thank you, that's carried, and now we need to confirm the minutes of the special meeting held on the 14th of February, moved councillor Jurisevic, seconded councillor Jackson, I'll put the motion, all those in favour, thank you, I assume you're voting in favour, councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: I'm trying to move this so I can see you. Mayor Wellington: There are no mayoral minutes. Do we have any petitions tonight, councillors?
00:01:00 Anyone with any petitions? Councillor Jackson: I have a petition. Unfortunately, I believe it's in my office on the... Sprint like the wind. Councillor Jurisevic: The wind does not have leaves. Councillor Jackson: There we go, thank you, this is a petition about speeding vehicles in the newly connected Eli Street and Starboard Avenue Road. Can I second it, Mr Mayor? Oh, I need to, I was just going to say who it was, yeah. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, okay. Happy to second it, yeah. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Yes, thank you.
00:02:00 Now, councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Right, I'll just read it to you. I think that's probably the most simple thing. I, Matthew Inoske, have put together this petition on behalf of the residents of Eli Street and Starboard Avenue. The issue is speeding traffic, not every car speeds there, but there's a percentage every day and night of vehicles that speed through here. Since the opening of these new roads, it has a large amount of traffic using it as it provides an easy way into Noosa Waters. Every street connecting these streets has traffic calming, slowing traffic. There are no slow points to slow down traffic for safety, but the newly formed connection is wider and straighter section of road downhill, which encourages speeding when there's no traffic calming at all. Some sort of traffic calming for safety should be looked at, as this is the only street with no traffic calming and now carries more traffic than some of those traffic calming streets. Eli Street runs parallel with Headland Drive.
00:03:00 Both are downhill. Headland Drive has two sets of traffic calming slow points. Eli Street has none. How can this be that every street around has it and this new one doesn't? And I, as a councillor, can confirm this situation. In the past, before the new Eli Street precinct was opened up, and the connection between Councillor Jurisevic: Starboard... Point of order, Ms Mayor. I believe the councillor can talk towards the petition. I believe... Mayor Wellington: I believe I can speak to the petition. They can speak to the petition for one minute. And they can present the petition in whatever way they wish within that one minute. I note that Councillor Jackson has already chewed up her one minute, so I'd ask you to be very quick. Councillor Jackson: But I looked fine then. I didn't realise. Okay. Okay, well I'll just support the fact that, in fact, Headland Drive has traffic calming, and in fact it's no longer used as much because of the new, what has become a kind of rat run for Noosa Waters. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: So the motion, councillors, is that the petition be tabled, and that it be received and referred
00:04:00 to the CEO for appropriate action. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. Any other petitions, folks? No? We'll move on then. There are no notified motions either tonight, so we go on to consideration of committee recommendations. And we begin with the recommendations from the Planning and Environment Committee. Item number one, which is the DA to reconfigure a lot at 20 Middy Street, was referred to General Committee. So we'll deal with that a bit later. Councillor Jackson: Oh, was it? Oh, okay. Sorry. Mayor Wellington: You alright, councillor? Councillor Jackson: Yeah, I didn't realise it was not going to be dealt with. Mayor Wellington: Item number two is a material change of use for 17 dwelling units at Kauri Street, Cooroy, which was also referred to the General Committee. Item number three is the Environment Grants Policy, which was also referred to General Committee. We then get to two items which weren't referred on. The first is the Environment Sustainable Development Department update for the second quarter of the financial year.
00:05:00 And the final item from the Planning and Environment Committee is the Zero Emissions Noosa, otherwise known as ZEN, organisational strategy update for July. The recommendation is that the Planning and Environment Grants Policy be referred to General Committee and the Environment Committee recommendations be adopted, except we're dealt with otherwise. Move, councillor Jackson. Seconded, councillor Glasgow. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. So we now go on to the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations. And item number one is a further report on a proposed telecommunications lease at Cooyar Street, Noosa Heads. Item number two is Industrial Premises Inspection Program. Item number three is the Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management Plan. Item number four is the Go Noosa Easter Peak Period Traffic Management Trials. Item number five is the Annual Review of Delegations of Authority for 2019.
00:06:00 Item number six, the Peregian Beach Digital Hub update was referred to General Committee and will be dealt with later. Item number seven, similarly was referred to General Committee. That's the Short Term Accommodation Issues Paper. Item number eight is the Noosa Holiday Parks Update Report to the end of the calendar year last year. Item number nine is the Corporate Services Department Update Second Quarter Report. Item number 10 is the Capital Program Delivery Status Report for January. Item number 11 is the Infrastructure Services Department Update for the second quarter. Item number 12 is the Community Services Department Update for the second quarter. Item number 13 is the Executive Services Department Update for the second quarter. Item number 14 is the Operational Plan Progress Report for the second quarter. Item number 15 is the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group Update. Councillor Jurisevic: So moved, Mr Chair. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Moved, Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded, Councillor Pardon.
00:07:00 The motion is that the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations be adopted where they're not dealt with elsewhere. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? We have another hand with us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Two more. Mayor Wellington: You've brought both your hands. Terrific. We now move on to the Audit and Risk Committee recommendations. Item number one is the Queensland Audit Office Briefing Note. Item two is the Queensland Audit Office External Audit Plan. Item three is the Audit and Risk Committee Succession Planning. Item four is the Risk Management Update. Five is the Internal Audit and Action Items Update. Six is Technology One User Access Review February Update. Item four is the Risk Management Update. The recommendation is that those recommendations from the Audit and Risk Committee be adopted. Councillor Jurisevic: Likewise so. Moved. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jurisevic. Moved. Do I have a seconder, please? Councillor Glasgow. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. Now we go on to the meaty items, the General Committee recommendations. And the first one is the development application to reconfigure a lot, one into two lots of
00:08:00 20 Middy Street, Looser Heads. It's Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: I would like to declare a contact of interest in this issue. I am friends with the applicants, Peter and Sarah Luxton, and I choose to leave the room. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. We'll just let Councillor Glasgow leave. Thanks. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yes. I'd like to move an alternate motion, which is now on the screen. I'd like to move an alternate motion, which is now on the screen. Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment, etc., etc., and defer consideration to the next round of meetings to allow Council to consider further information to be provided by the applicant in response to the information request by Neil Collins of BMT. Mayor Wellington: Okay, thank you. Take a seat. Do I have a seconder for that?
00:09:00 I'll second it. Councillor Pardon, seconded. Councillor Jackson, do you wish to speak to it? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I do. The reason I'm moving this is because I believe Council should not be making a decision without being fully informed. The application for subdivision before us is complicated because there are approved buildings on both of the lots that are proposed to be subdivided. There's been to-ing and fro-ing between the applicant's hydrologists and the Council's hydrologists. There have been reports provided by each. In his latest report, Council's hydrologist, Neil Collins, made a written information request asking a number of questions to be responded to by the applicant's hydrologist. But Council staff did not provide these questions to the applicant to answer. In fact, Council staff has stated to Councillors that regardless of the answer, they will recommend refusal of the application.
00:10:00 So this means that Council is being asked to make a decision without full information. I believe in evidence-based decision making. I do not believe Council can make a fair and informed decision without having the Council hydrologist's questions answered. So I am moving that the decision be deferred so that Council staff can relay the questions to the applicant's hydrologist, Obtain the answers and provide these to council. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Stand if you want to speak. Thank you. Question. To the Director of Planning, through you, Chair. If we received any of this additional information, would that reduce the fact that the whole of the proposed second lot would be pro-prone? Speaker 1: Through you, through the Chair. It's officer's opinion.
00:11:00 Well, no. It wouldn't. It wouldn't. It wouldn't. If we received any of this additional information, would it reduce the fact that the whole of the lot would be subject to inundation? Can I make... Mayor Wellington: We'll just let Kim finish, please. Speaker 1: I do need to make another comment at this point. This application is code assessable. We currently have an extension of time for the decision until the 21st of February, which is tonight. Mayor Wellington: After which it becomes deemed... Speaker 1: Approval. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: May I ask, in that case, what can be done if it's deemed approval and if it's deemed possible, and I believe that perhaps some of this delay was as a result of council delay, is there no process for extending this further? Speaker 1: We would need to... It's an applicant-driven process, so we would need to seek approval from the applicant for extension of time. And that could be done? That would need to be done, yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, you said the statutory time period is today?
00:12:00 Yes. Close of business? About an hour ago? Speaker 1: It would be post... No, it would be... Sorry, excuse me. It would... The extension of time is to acknowledge that this is the decision-making for a council meeting, so it would... It's to acknowledge the end of this... The council meeting, so whatever time frame this meeting goes to, that's when the decision's usually made. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So to clarify, if this motion was passed, the most likely outcome would be that this would be exposing the ratepayers to a court case where council would have to argue for the recommendation of staff to refuse against the deemed approval. Speaker 1: Potentially, yes. Councillor Jackson: I guess I better ask than Ms. Rawlings. Did the applicant in fact request a response?
00:13:00 Yes. To be... Or for the questions to be provided to them so they could answer them? Speaker 1: Yes. The applicant has requested that further consideration and further information be provided for this application. Yes, they have. Councillor Jackson: And did the applicant request a deferral earlier in this negotiation in order to do that? Speaker 1: I would have to check that. I don't know exactly what the applicant requested. I was just trying to find whether I could quickly find some correspondence. The applicant agreed to an extension of time, but we've already passed the statutory time frame and the applicant did agree to an extension of time for the application to get to this round of meetings. The applicant has indicated that they would like further consideration, so potentially
00:14:00 they would be. Comfortable with further consideration of the application. I just haven't got that confirmation at hand and would need to get that. And that if this motion was to be put, then there may need to be some further wording around subject to agreement by the applicant for an extension of time. Councillor Jurisevic: I said that was the question I was going to raise to the CEO. I said in light of what's been proposed here, would it be pertinent to... I'm sorry, Mr. CEO, to somehow rather include acceptance of the deferment by the applicant. Speaker 2: Based on what the advice of the director was, if the council decision was due by today and there's no decision made, then it's a deemed approval. So you're really then relying on the applicant's goodwill to say that they're not going to exercise that, because as at tomorrow, that approval will be deemed to be in place. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to the motion. It's far too late. There was an opportunity to ask for a deferral in Monday's meeting.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 There is a, I think it's called the Pareto Principle, that you get a certain amount of information at any time after you get that, the more information doesn't increase the relevance or the information provided for the decision you're about to make. You can go and get 100% of the information, but if you've got 85% of the information and you've got all the information you need to make the right decision, then it's no better evidence-based decision-making to defer and wait for hydrologists and engineers to try and argue whether it's going to be a half a metre flood or 550 centimetres of flood. What we know is that Council's planning scheme clearly says that reconfiguring of a lot, you can't create a lot that is flood-prone. This one is going to be 100% flood-prone. We got advice from staff in previous meetings that we've never broken that precedent of subdividing a floodplain block of land since that provision went into the current planning scheme.
00:16:00 It's really important principle to understand what staff are saying is that, yes, we didn't get all the information, but we got enough information to make a professional recommendation on a planning application, I think it's unfortunate that we've got to this point now because in my mind the site or the use of the land for medium density or to have a duplex on it, it's not out of the question. But we're not considering the relevance of the land use. We're not considering in this application the fact that there may or may not be two dwellings on the property as it currently built and used.
00:17:00 What we're considering is, is there the topographic, the engineering and the residential amenity suitable for creating two standard lots of land? And staff's recommendation and clear advice is no. And that no further information about the extent of flooding or whether certain aspects of drainage and problems can be addressed to downstream and upstream is going to be available. So we'd like to change that simple fact. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Pardon. Sorry. Speaker 1: Sorry, through the chair. Oh, certainly. Can I just, I've been able to get a piece of correspondence up. Just to clarify my apologies, Council. The extension of time has been agreed to the 22nd of February tomorrow. Mayor Wellington: So that would be close of business tomorrow? That's right. Thank you. Councillor Pardon: Councillor Party?
00:18:00 Yeah, normally I would. I can't see how I can support this, so yeah, I can't support it. Councillor Jackson: May I just ask something? I understand because of what we've just learned about the deferral, the actual requirement being by the end of 22nd, there was a suggestion that we could slightly amend the motion to say subject to, so perhaps that would make more sense to add that in there. Mayor Wellington: You'd have to get approval from your seconder. Councillor Jackson: Is there a question? Speaker 2: You might be able to ask me a question on that and I can answer it. Yes, you can. Yeah, the situation would still remain because if there was subject to the applicant,
00:19:00 what the scenario would be if the applicant didn't agree, then they'd still have a deemed approval. Councillor Jackson: Oh, I see. Okay. Speaker 2: Sure. Doesn't make any... Okay. Councillor Jackson: No worries. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie. Look, I think we all support evidence based decision making where we're fully apprised of the facts and the evidence here suggests and the facts suggest that if we defer, if we pass this motion, which is to defer a decision, then legally the council has effectively issued an approval to this application. And for all the reasons listed in the report, that is highly undesirable. And that's the prime reason why I will not be supporting this motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. Look, I had considered a deferral motion on Monday's meeting and I declared that. And I've since spoken to the applicant because that was something I proposed with the applicant
00:20:00 as one possible solution going forward to allow them time to propose to produce this first further report. Having spoken to the applicant, they were happy to accept the decision of council at Monday's meeting from that conversation. And based on the information that we had before us with regard to planning scheme and the viability of a lot reconfiguration according to the planning scheme not being something that is supported through the planning scheme, I cannot support the motion of a deferral. It's unfortunate the applicant has gone down, has been taken down this motion. It's unfortunate the applicant has gone down this path to look at a reconfiguration because they don't believe it's actually the solution that they were seeking in this regard to the situation they find themselves in. But I won't be supporting a deferral motion. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to speak against the motion. I just remind councillors of the history of this and that is that the applicant has a
00:21:00 single lot on Mitti Street, built a house at the front, built another dwelling at the back. Under a private certifier, it was approved as an extension to the original building, not as a separate building. It was supposed to be connected by a walkway. For some time, I understand, that walkway didn't exist. The applicant then chose to use the two houses as separate dwellings, sometimes renting one out. As a result of which, there were complaints, I understand, made to council. There were also complaints about vegetation, which we don't need to go into. However, on inspection, as a result of the application to create two lots, council staff discovered that the real lot is 100% flood-prone in a 1% AEP event. Now, our planning scheme makes very clear that we should not be creating subdivisions and individual lots where the entire lot is flood-prone. Therefore, if we were to approve this, regardless of what additional information came to light,
00:22:00 if that additional information, and it seems it won't, didn't change the fact that the entire lot is flood-prone and simply went, as has been suggested by Councillor Stockwell, to nuances relating to that, we would still be making an approval if we were to approve the subdivision that is contrary to the planning scheme. And I remind councillors that this council has a long and proud track record in the Planning and Environment Court of supporting its decision simply because, or largely because, many of us, we tend to support our planning scheme. We do not make decisions that are contrary to the planning scheme. The danger is if you make a decision that is contrary to the planning scheme, you create a precedent not just for further development applications, which also seek to exploit that decision, but you also then diminish your ability to be able to argue that you generally support your planning scheme in matters across planning decisions that come before council.
00:23:00 And I believe it's very important to support the planning scheme. Because that is why we haven't lost any significant legal action in the Planning and Environment Court over the last five years. And it goes very much to council's reputation in that regard. So from my point of view, if the additional information, and it seems it's not, is not going to change the fact that this subdivision is contrary to the planning scheme, then I see no reason to support the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Chair, in light of your statement there, can I just ask two questions of the head of planning? One, if this property is one dwelling with one kitchen and one laundry, is there anything in the planning scheme that prohibits the owner from occupying a number of bedrooms and renting out other bedrooms within the dwelling? Speaker 1: No. If the dwellings uses one dwelling, the owner can obviously occupy the dwelling and also
00:24:00 run what we would call a home-based business, renting out one or two of the rooms. But as long as the primary purpose of the dwelling is a single dwelling. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. And secondly, with regard to the report we've recently had with regard to Airbnb and short-term accommodation rental type situations, dwellings of that, renting out of that in that nature, where it's not a whole house rental, but an owner-occupied rental, is something that's typically a problem with regard to party houses and the like? So this dwelling in that configuration wouldn't constitute a party house? Speaker 1: No. As you described, using the dwelling in that form would not constitute a party house. A party house is a separate house, not occupied by the home owner, and used regularly, ongoing, for events and tenders.
00:25:00 So a temporary use for short-term, as you described, would not be a party house. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: I'll ask a question then, following on from that. Thank you, Kim. And that is that, is it your understanding that in the past, the structure at the rear of the dwelling, which has been constructed subsequent to the front dwelling, which when it wasn't connected by a walkway, was in fact being let, or one of them was being let, which would not present itself then as a single dwelling, letting out spare beds? No. So it's not separate bedrooms, but rather a separate dwelling being let. Is that your understanding, the way that it's being let today? Speaker 1: Through you, through the Chair, that is our understanding. I recall the original report to the Planning Committee did actually outline that that was the case, based on information provided to the Manager of Development Assessment by the landowner. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I think I'll need to follow up with a follow-up question to this as well, because my understanding
00:26:00 is that it's not a separate dwelling. In fact, I've just been talking to strategic planners today about the newness of plan. My understanding is that the oldness of plan, the one we are using currently, does not stop people from letting out a whole house. It doesn't have to be a principal home of residence. People can let out, in our current plan, a whole house. Mayor Wellington: Point of order. Yes, certainly, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What's your point of order? Well, we're dealing with a reconfiguration of a lot, and we've somehow managed to get into a debate about the matter of visitor accommodation and what it's defined as. It's totally irrelevant to the motion at the moment. Mayor Wellington: Look, I'm going to override your objection, and the reason is that the report on this matter actually goes to this. It refers to the property being let on Airbnb, et cetera. As it's part of the report, I'm going to allow the question to come up. Mr Chair. Oh, hang on. Hang on. One more time. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie. Well, Mr Chair, can I colour this from a different angle? The motion before us is about whether we defer this consideration of this matter or not.
00:27:00 Correct. And we seem to be talking about issues relating to the original motion, which perhaps if this motion is defeated and we come to discussing the original motion, perhaps then that might be a better place to discuss those issues with more relevance. But we're talking about whether we defer this issue or not currently. So for that reason, I suggest that, I respectfully suggest that all this discussion is not relevant to this motion. Mayor Wellington: Look, and again, my suggestion is that the report, which we are considering as a result of this motion, we're considering deferring the issue based on the report, the council and the report does go to this matter. Perhaps someone might change their mind. I don't care to ask Kim Rawlings whether or not the Airbnb issue is actually pertinent to a lot subdivision, but because the report goes there, I'm actually going to allow the
00:28:00 question. Councillor Wilkie: That's your call, Mr Mayor. So, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Thank you very much. So, the question is, the current Noosa Plan does allow people who do not live in a house normally to let out parts or hold their property, and can you please confirm that? Speaker 1: The current Noosa Plan does not have a definition for short stay accommodation and the use of a whole house. For Airbnb short stay accommodation. So yes, there has been a proliferation of that use. The draft Noosa Plan seeks to address the fact that the current Noosa Plan doesn't have a definition, and that use is something that is now understood and anticipated, so it does have a specific definition for short term accommodation and seeks to provide more clarity and direction and regulation of that use. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Just to take that point further, and it's probably a yes or no question, is it true
00:29:00 to say there is planning differences in terms of the appropriate definition for a whole house let out? It would be true to say some planners would consider that as visitor accommodation that's undefined by the current Noosa Plan, and the primary use is visitor accommodation, not as a residential dwelling house. Mayor Wellington: You're getting some exercise today. Speaker 1: Through the Chair. That is correct. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. That's all I wanted. Right of reply, Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: I have another question. Councillor Jackson. Two other questions. One is that next door to me is a house that is owned by someone living in Victoria who occasionally comes, but most of the time is let out as a whole house for visitor purposes, so I don't understand how this differs, and this seems to be quite common, I don't understand how this differs from this particular property.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Speaker 1: I'm not sure I understand that question. Councillor Jackson: Well, why is it that in one location, be it Noosaville, a house that is owned by someone living in Victoria, a house appears to be allowed to be let out on Airbnb on a regular basis, where it's not a principal home of residence, yet this one in Noosa Heads is being in some way referred to differently, and I'd like to understand the difference. Mayor Wellington: Can I just interpolate here? Yeah. We're not allowing things to happen in terms of Airbnb that's occurring now because they don't actually have planning permit. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Mayor Wellington: So we're not allowing it. They're just happening. Okay. Because the current planning scheme doesn't actually go to it, doesn't mean that that's an implicit approval, and secondly, I think that the question that I asked earlier about the configuration of the buildings is what is at issue here. You wish to respond further. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, that is correct. Those uses are happening, but they're not happening with council approval or permits,
00:31:00 so there is a question of lawful use, but that's a general question. It's not something that anyone would need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Speaker 2: And the purpose of the new scheme. Speaker 1: Absolutely. And the purpose of the new scheme is to provide that clarity and define that use and identify where that use is considered appropriate and where it's not considered preferred, and further planning regulation applies. Mayor Wellington: I think we've gone a long way down this path now, but really, it's not particularly germane to the point where it's not considered appropriate. I'd rather we return to the motion. I'm happy to. Councillor Jackson: I do have another question. Okay. One more question, and that is, the reference to flood prone, having, of course, inspected the whole area near Mitti Street, first of all, I'm aware and I've seen the certified
00:32:00 approval of the building that is actually located in this lot, there are two buildings, they're both approved, they are connected with the walkway now, but it's there, it's approved. So that's that. There's also a big tennis court right next to it. Is this a question? Yes, it is. Okay. It's a tennis court right next to it, which is in the same flood-prone, assumedly, inundation-prone area. There are other buildings in this same Mitti Street that are in the same locality right next to the Noosa National Park and in the same vicinity, and again, we do know that the planning interactive map doesn't show this as flood zoning. The word inundation is being used, I believe, in the reports, less so than a flood map. Mayor Wellington: Can you get to the question? Councillor Jackson: The question is, why is this particular property being isolated as flood prone, when
00:33:00 in fact there are questions about that definition and also lots of examples in the same location where there's construction and buildings already in place? Mayor Wellington: I think the question goes to when the buildings were constructed and what information Council had regarding flooding as well. Thanks, Kim. Speaker 1: Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to provide all that detail again tonight. Our manager of planning has provided that detail at both the planning committee and the general committee, and I don't have all that technical information. I don't have any technical detail at hand, but to go to the question of why are we isolating this property, we, as the planning authority, need to deal with the application at hand, and so it's not that we're isolating this property, we're actually just dealing with the application for the site, and this is a constraint that needs to be considered
00:34:00 in the context of what a subdivision requests for this site, so that's why we're particularly looking at this site. The planning scheme applies to development, development applications and new development. It's not something, unless we are doing compliance issues, that we apply to other sites where there's no development action or an application happening. Right of reply. Councillor Jackson: Right of reply. Okay. Well, I guess the situation is that I have put this motion because I am committed to giving applicants full opportunity to answer questions and to be evidence-based in their application, and I believe that our council should be making evidence-based decisions. I am concerned when there's been a lack of the council, even though a hydrologist that
00:35:00 council hired made a series, quite a large series of questions that they wanted answered, and the applicant had responded saying we would be willing to answer these, I'm concerned that council is not giving an opportunity to have these answers. I believe that I'm hearing the view of council staff, but as a councillor I believe I should want to give every opportunity to applicants, and also I should like to be making a decision based on full information and not partial information. I would like to have some information not allowed to be provided, and for that reason I'm very much in favour of this deferral. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Thank you. I'll put the motion. Councillor Jackson: Oh, I'd like to call a division. Mayor Wellington: Certainly. Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. Councillor Jackson in favour? All those against? All other councillors against?
00:36:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move the original staff recommendation. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Seconder? Yeah. Seconder, Councillor Pardon. You're good at seconding tonight, Brent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. I make decisions based on sufficient information. I don't like putting development applications to unnecessary costs for not providing information that won't inform the decision. To have a full understanding of this subdivision, it's a hatchet block of 1,400 square metres, and by the planning scheme the rear lot should have 800 square metres. It doesn't have 800 square metres of land at all beside the access handle, and in fact the staff are fairly confident that the whole of that 800 square metres is flood prone. Even if half of the land proved not to be flood prone, it still would not meet the requirement
00:37:00 of the planning scheme which says the minimum lot size has to be flood free. So that's 800 square metres on top of the area in the access handle, which you cannot meet. The clear issue here is that creating lots with no flood free land creates a hazard. We've heard that while it is a drainage path, and I've posited that based on what we knew of the vegetation before clearing, it is a wetland, and that what water ponds up there have to do with it. It is clear that any approval of such a development would create a very risky precedent for this council, and it would be the first time that such an approval for a subdivision with a lot that doesn't have a flood free household has occurred in the life of this planning scheme. And that's not a precedent that I'm willing to set. Thank you.
00:38:00 Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: I'd like to ask a question. I think it's a good question. I just heard something about 1.5 metres, but my memory was more like 0.6 or 0.8 metres during any kind of flood. Mayor Wellington: There's a pooling area or something, isn't there? Speaker 1: That's correct. There is a portion of the lot that potentially could go to 1.5 metres. Not where the house is. Not where the house is, no. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. Sorry, Mr Chair. In relation to, I've commented to Mary again this evening, and the fact that I didn't ask the question the other day, I now have reason to ask the question with regard to whether we know when the original second building on the lot was completed and available for occupancy and when the covered walkway between the two buildings was completed. Do we have that information at all? Speaker 1: We council have that information. I don't have that information.
00:39:00 I don't have that information at hand. Councillor Jurisevic, apologies for that. I was just checking the report. Councillor Jurisevic: Could I put that question on notice and have that information available tomorrow morning? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's my recollection that the report actually suggests that the connection wasn't there, but by the time of the General Committee we were advised that it was. It might be that it was recently done. Councillor Jurisevic: That's my understanding. I have information that's contrary to that. That's why I'm asking the question. Speaker 1: I'll provide that compilation of information. Mayor Wellington: It's not necessarily germane to the decision about the second building. Councillor Jurisevic: No, no. It's just a piece of information I'd like clarified. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion then? Councillor Jackson: Well, I will speak in that I believe there are many elements that are pros and cons in this decision. I think it's quite complex. I will remain in that I moved the deferral motion. I will therefore not move the deferral motion. I will vote in favour of this motion on the basis of consistency with believing that
00:40:00 full information should have been obtained. I'm not disputing that there are many factors, some of which are positive and some of which are negative, which need to be taken into consideration, but I will call the division. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak? I'm just going to say that there might be some pros and cons, but ultimately there is one overarching con, and that is that if we were to approve this subdivision, we would be making a decision that is contrary to our planning scheme. And fundamentally, that would be a very flawed decision and would create problematic precedent. So having further information would not detract necessarily from the fact that, as Councillor Stockwell pointed out, a very complex decision. That the lot is still contrary to the planning scheme in terms of a subdivision because it is significantly flood prone.
00:41:00 And I would not be prepared to make a decision that is so patently contrary to the planning scheme, given the precedent it sets, but also under the circumstances that the applicant has already, to some extent, exploited the due process by creating two buildings, using them separately. Not connecting them to a walkway, which was most unfortunate, and is now seeking to capitalise upon that by creating two separate lots, which would obviously have significant financial gain, but is also building upon a problematic process that began when a second virtual dwelling was built and not connected to the first house under the pretence that it was an extension of the original dwelling. So there are, to my way of thinking, far more cons than pros, and the cons certainly outweigh the pros. And in every situation where we have to consider a planning development application, we do
00:42:00 it on the basis of the best information we have at the time. And often there is one singular piece of information amongst that information, which is so persuasive it can't be ignored. In this case, the fact is it's against the planning scheme and we can't ignore it. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I will Mr Chairman, I was just thinking, I think we've had three, because one of the differing opinions. We have had three hydrologists or engineers look at this and, as I said at committee, you need the wisdom of Job when you have, I guess some diversity of opinions amongst brilliant engineers, hydrologists, and that's not an exact science from what I've seen from hydrologists. But as I said, I err on the side of caution with regards to this particular application. Thus, I support this motion. And just as an aside, Cyclone Omar just might sort of work it all out and see how much water
00:43:00 does run in there. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Be careful what you wish for, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. Yeah, look, I'm happy to support the motion based purely on the fact that it is not supported by the planning scheme. But this application going through us has raised the question of how we got to this point of requesting a subdivision when a subdivision clearly doesn't meet the planning scheme. And I don't believe that was the original intention of the applicant. And I'll intend to look into it a bit further as to how we got down this path. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, I can't support, sorry, I'll support this motion. I think the practice of approving a subdivision where the lot is 100% flood prone is a very poor one to begin. And I can't support any decision that would start that practice.
00:44:00 We haven't done it before and we shouldn't start doing it now. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Chair, can I just clarify the use of the term flood and inundation that we have in this? We do, my understanding is that we do not have any flood mapping in this area, yet the area is planned to. So I'd just like to get some clarification from the head of planning as to the difference in the terminology being used here, because I think there's some misinterpretation or some misunderstanding of what flooding and inundation means. Mayor Wellington: If I had to look on Kim Rowley's face, that might be unnoticed too, can't it? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I mean, the site is a little unique in that, as I've been led to understand through this process. That it doesn't, it isn't clearly defined by flood mapping equation. Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm going to take that question on notice and provide you a full technical answer. Thank you.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Around that. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: It may help clarify the situation. Speaker 1: Yeah, because there is, you're right, it isn't mapped in as, with our flood overlay. So there is particular information that has been better understood about this situation. So I'm going to go back to the site as we've gone down the process, which may also go to your previous statement about why we are where we are. So, yeah, I will need to provide you with some more detail on it, which I can't provide now because. Mr Chair. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, Councillor Platt. Flooding rises up, inundation comes down. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, I enjoy the simplicity of your answers always. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will close. And I'll close with the start. And that is that a development application always has to prove it's not flood prone. Not all development applications are subject to the areas of the Shire that have been modelled. We modelled the Noosa River flood plain. We haven't modelled the small creek that comes off Liverpool Cove.
00:46:00 We've modelled Six Mile Creek and we've got mapping. Just because it's not mapped in an overlay doesn't mean it's not flood prone. Just because it goes up and down and had some through flow doesn't mean it's not flood prone. If, as I suggested, that what in fact the real lot is, from all evidence, based on the vegetation that's there, is that it's a wetland. And wetlands are dry and wet and dry and wet and when they're wet, they're flooded. Not as simple, but. I'm glad you agree. I also concur and understand Councillor Jurisevic's point. It is unfortunate that a potential of a subdivision was put forward. As one potential mechanism. And the letter did say you'd have to provide the grounds. I did ask that question and was informed that at the time staff didn't have the knowledge that there was flooding issues. Simple. But that is something that unfortunately has led to where we are now. The part of the debate which I have the most problem with is that we have an expert planning advice in a report telling us councillors that we have enough information to base our decision on.
00:47:00 And that decision won't change with additional information. Yet we have a councillor here saying we're not making evidence-based decisions. Mayor Wellington: Be careful. Be careful. Be careful. Please do not start to judge councillors. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. It's been. The part of the debate was that a councillor won't support the motion because she feels that there is a need for evidence-based. I am making the point that we have evidence on which to make a sound decision. And that calling for more evidence is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. That you only require enough information to make an informed decision based on the parameters within the planning scheme. And that's what staff have done. Staff have provided us a recommendation based on the evidence. And I hope the majority of councillors will make an informed and evidence-based decision.
00:48:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you, councillor. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? That's Wilkie Stockwell, pardoned. We'll pardon Jurisevic Wellington. All those against? Councillor Jackson. Thank you. The motion is carried. We'll get Councillor Glasgow back. Okay. We carry on with the general committee recommendations, folks. Item number two, which is the DA in Kauri. It's subject to a later item. So we'll deal with that in a moment. Similarly, the environment grants policy we'll deal with in a moment. So we go to item four, which is the Peregian Digital Hub Half Yearly Update. Item number five is the short-term accommodation online platform issues paper. Councillor Jackson: I requested that online platform issues paper be brought into separately discussed.
00:49:00 Mayor Wellington: Dealt with separately? Yeah. Sure. We can do that. Okay. So we're now dealing with the short-term accommodation online platform issues paper. Councillor Glasgow: I'll move that. Mayor Wellington: Moved. Councillor Glasgow. Do we have a seconder? Second. Councillor Pardon. Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Glasgow? Anyone wish to speak to it? Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yes. I'm going to move an amendment, please. Mayor Wellington: Right. Councillor Jackson: Here it is. So the amendment is to add to the sentence, comma. Okay. Councillor Jackson: On the understanding that this is not an endorsement or adoption of the paper. Mayor Wellington: We went through this on Monday. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Sit down. We have a point of order. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: Isn't this the same debate that we had on Monday? And isn't this re-debating an issue that's already been before council? Sorry? It doesn't matter whether it's been re-debated.
00:50:00 Mayor Wellington: Yeah, you can. We can. Of course, we often have a repeat of debates at the ordinary meeting that have occurred previously at committee level. Councillor Jurisevic: But substantially the same amendment, the same motion? Yeah, it doesn't matter. Mayor Wellington: Yes. And to my recollection, on Monday, the amendment wasn't put. It was withdrawn. We did have a discussion about it. Okay. And it was deemed that, if I recall correctly, I asked the CEO whether or not we were endorsing a paper by noting it. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't mean we're endorsing its recommendations. And that was the decision that was made. So we're now having that same conversation again, it seems. Councillor Jurisevic: I stand corrected. And I'll stand by your ruling. Councillor Wilkie: Actually, I think, Mr. Chair, the decision to withdraw the amendment was regarding the Peregian Digital Hub, where there was an amendment suggested that a further six-month report be put. But that was already, that's already part of the form.
00:51:00 That's correct. Okay. Prior motion. But to answer Jo's question, this is the, I understand this is the same amendment that was put on Monday. Mayor Wellington: On Monday. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And it's everyone's right to re-prosecute. Of course. Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: So is there a seconder, though? Oh, look, I'll second it for the purpose of debate. Seconder, Councillor Wilkie. You wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I do. The motion says that the issue's paper is for noting. I think this is a bit tricky, because we have to be careful here. The paper refers directly to things that are in the draft new Noosa plan, which has just been released for public consultation. In particular, the paper says, and I quote, council's new planning scheme proposes to adopt two distinct land use definitions of dwelling housing and land use. In short-term accommodation, these uses are not interchangeable, and it would require
00:52:00 a material change of use to change from one to the other. Property owners seeking to short-term rent properties in areas where the use is not accepted will be required to obtain planning approval through a material change of use development application. So that's in the issue's paper. I have already begun to receive feedback from the community expressing their concerns about this element of the new Noosa plan, the draft. It is my view that we need to keep good faith with the community about council's commitment to public consultation about the new Noosa plan. So I suggest it's best that we be very explicit here, and that it is clear to everyone what noting means, and that it means that council does not endorse or adopt this issue's paper, but it simply notes it at this time. Yeah, thank you. Mayor Wellington: I've got a question for the CEO. We get many reports that we simply note in the resolution of council.
00:53:00 In doing so, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are beholden to carry out everything that occurs in the report or in the information document if they're simply noted. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So in this case, by noting the report in the motion and then saying it is not an adoption of the paper, would in fact be a contradiction, because by noting it, we are adopting it for noting. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That's an interesting question. It's almost a tautology. Look, maybe just briefly. Go back a step. When we note something, what we're doing is there's a report there. We recognise the report's been provided to council. It's on the agenda. It's in the public domain.
00:54:00 What we're not doing is adopting, for want of a better word, things that are in that report. So in this particular case, items that are, for example, set out in Section 8, which deal with a range of potential options, none of those are implemented by noting this report. They may be dealt with in other resolutions of council. For example, a planning scheme or other policies that might have to be brought forward. But in adopting this or noting this particular report, it doesn't give weight or action to those matters in the report. Councillor Jurisevic: If I may clarify, Mr Chair, if there were any actions to come out of this report that council were to undertake, they would have to come before council as a separate action and a separate resolution of council? Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. If there was a new initiative or something like that, we'd need to come before council with a different report or a new policy. But of course, some of the items that are identified in the report, for example, the planning scheme, is already subject to another process, which is the adoption of the draft
00:55:00 planning scheme for public consultation. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mr CEO. If I may, a further question to the Director of Planning. Would this document therefore become a supplementary document with regard to the new planning scheme going forward that people could refer to? Speaker 1: I think this document covers a lot more issues than just the land use planning issues related to short-term accommodation. It's one component that's covered in this report, and there's a myriad of other issues that this issues paper seeks to address. Yes, we are finding that people are looking, referring to both this report and the planning scheme at the moment, because they've both been released this month. Councillor Jurisevic: So as such, all it does is become a document for referral and information for people that
00:56:00 may be looking at the draft planning scheme going forward? Speaker 1: That's correct. It's not a technical background report to the planning scheme. No, it is not that. It is an issues paper about a particular issue that this Shire Council is looking at. It has been for some time. One aspect of dealing with that issue relates to the land use, and the planning scheme does that. So yes, it can be referred to, and is being referred to by people interested in this issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I will speak to the amendment. Basically, the terminology of the council note is very long-standing, very well understood. I appreciate that Councillor Jackson may be trying to restate the obvious in her amendment, but it's unneeded. So I move the motion be put.
00:57:00 Mayor Wellington: There's a procedural motion before us, and that is that the motion be put. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Jurisevic: No seconder. Mayor Wellington: Seconder for Councillor Jurisevic. We might just go straight to the motion. Councillor Jackson: No, you can't. There has to be a right of reply on the standing orders. No. Yes, I've read the standing orders. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Speaker 2: Double check. We have to vote on this. Councillor Jackson: It's number two under that. Councillor Pardon: And we'd have to vote on this? Councillor Jackson: You have to vote on it. Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: It's not clear. Councillor Jackson: No, it's clear. It's number two at the end of the procedural motions. Okay. Speaker 2: Under procedural motions, the motion be put. I don't have to stand up. I can't read that far.
00:58:00 The motion be put. Any time finalised debate of the motion, if carried, I will put the motion upon the application. Okay. So if the motion is put, then if that is successful, the motion will be put on the stand, which in this case is the amendment. Yes. It can only be put after the right of reply has been given to that amendment. Yes. So it's the right of reply is not to the motion to be put. The right of reply would be to your motion to amend. Councillor Jackson: Correct. Yes, that's what I understood. Oh, I thought you were talking about. Okay. Mayor Wellington: We haven't dealt with the procedural motion yet. Okay. Okay. Fine. So the motion before us, folks, is the procedural motion. Let us let the motion be put. All those in favour? Okay. The motion is carried. So we are now back to you, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Back to the right of reply. Okay. Well, I guess there's been a surprising amount of discussion about what the meaning of noting actually means.
00:59:00 And I'm not surprised, because that's why I put the motion. I think our community possibly doesn't, not everyone will understand what it really means, even if they do. If it's a long-standing meeting minutes sort of thing. So I think the very fact that we needed to discuss and ask questions and get, you know, the CEO to try to help us define shows that the word noting doesn't always mean everything that everyone, to everybody. I recognise, of course, that what I'm adding is, for those who know what noting means, is sort of meaning the same thing. But I think because in this context, I think it's important for us to understand that in this case, we're dealing with things that are in the Noosa Plan, and that's under consideration by the community, that we should be very clear, for those who do not understand what the word note really means, to say that, yes, we are just noting, but we fully understand that we are not here endorsing or adopting the paper at this point.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'll put the amendment. All those in... Councillor Jackson: Oh, I'll ask for a division, please. Mayor Wellington: A division, certainly. Got it just in time. I'll put the amendment. All those in favour? Those in favour of Councillors Wilkie, Jackson, Glasgow and Pardon. Those against? Councillors Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wellington. The amendment is carried. The amendment becomes the motion. Speaker 2: So I can just call those again if they don't mind. I just can get them all. Mayor Wellington: Yes, sure. So in favour were Wilkie, Jackson, Glasgow and Pardon. And against were Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wellington. Yes. Not Wilmington. Wellington. Councillor Jurisevic: Unwilling to. Mayor Wellington: The amendment becomes the motion. Now, I have a question, though. Yes, the amendment becomes the motion. But I have a concern here, and that is the one that I raised earlier. I didn't know... I didn't really expect the amendment to get up. So I should have pressed it out. And that is that the amendment actually is a direct contradiction, perhaps, of the original
01:01:00 motion, because the amendment is that the government is not going to support the amendment. So I have a concern here that we've actually adopted an amendment that's in contradiction with the original motion. Speaker 2: Good luck with that one. It's tight. I could be quite trite here and suggest that, as a chairperson, you need to make a ruling on your own. But I suspect you're asking for advice. If you have concerns, one of the ways to address that may or may not be the best way to address that is to make a ruling on the content of the paper, which is really about the subject matter. But that may be what you're concerned about. But we've already... We can't go back. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, I realise that. In the purpose of clarity, I'll move an amendment. Okay. And that is, as was written... If you can just scroll back up for me, too.
01:02:00 And it's not an endorsement or adoption of any recommendation within the paper. I'll second that. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. It's probably... Speaker 2: Can I make a suggestion before you finalise that? Yeah, you can. The paper itself doesn't have recommendations. It deals with options or issues. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Options. Instead of recommendation, the word options. Speaker 2: Michael, the wording is actions. Not even options. What's the... That's section eight. What's the headline? I'll go. I just don't have it in front of me. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I should refer to the same terminology. Actions and responses. Section eight. Councillor Jackson: Actions and responses. Speaker 2: Any actions or responses. That would make it a lot clearer. That would be my advice. Mayor Wellington: There we go. We're all happy. If you wish to speak to that, Councillor Speaker. Anyone wish to speak to it?
01:03:00 I'll put the amendment, all those in favour. That's carried. Thank you. That amendment, now, becomes the motion. The original motion was moved by Councillor Glasgow, seconded by Councillor Pardon, and no one's spoken to it. Does anyone wish to speak to it? Councillor Jackson: Well, I will, given that I've done an amendment. I'm very happy to note the paper. I think it's given us a lot of information. I did point out in the previous meeting that I would have liked to have seen, in addition to a whole big section about the negative effects, also some positive effects, so some section that looked at opportunities and how we can leverage that. But, you know, I think the paper gives us information, and I'm very happy that we are now very clear, that we're just noting, and that we are, and I'm looking forward to getting feedback from our community about what's in the paper and about the draft plan. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic? I find it astounding that we continually argue semantics about wordings,
01:04:00 and I think our community are far more intelligent when we give them credit for understanding what the meaning of the word note of a report means. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak to it? Councillor Stockwell, I see you leaping to your feet. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I do. Because I think, as a councillor, I really appreciate the fact that staff have put that paper to us. This is one of the most significant planning issues for this council, no doubt about it. It is the most significant change in residential development in urban communities over the last five years. Only yesterday, I had a very distraught landowner who is putting up with a house on an online booking agency being rent out to 10 different people on a regular basis in their community, and so afraid of it that didn't want to be named because of fear of retribution, because when they do make polite requests, and this is not unusual, that they are met with some animosity. So getting a handle on the mechanisms to control,
01:05:00 our suburbs, such that places that are identified as visitor accommodation are open for visitor accommodation, and places that are identified for people to live in quiet, peaceful, and enjoy the amenity of our suburbs can do so, and as such, I thank staff for bringing what an important paper it is, and identifying the critical issues, and the fact that we are still waiting on the state government's response, and I look forward to that being more hasty than it has been in the last six months. Councillor Glasgow: Mm-hmm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: It's probably true that the issues paper sees more negatives than positives, but it's not true that it ignores the positives. In fact, it notes that Airbnb guests in 2017, this is a Deloitte Access Economics report, Airbnb guests spent more than $244 million in regional Queensland. It notes that online accommodation share economy platforms have had an enormous and enormously positive impact on tourism innovation and growth in the Noosa region, et cetera, so it's not like it completely ignores the positives, but from Council's point of view, our role is to deal largely, in fact, with the negative consequences, because we are receiving reports and complaints in relation to the negative impacts, and as I noted on Monday, one of those negative impacts most certainly is the loss of long-term rental accommodation in the Shire, and as I noted on Monday, one of those negative impacts most certainly is the loss of long-term rental accommodation in the Shire, and as I noted on Monday, one of those negative impacts most
01:06:00 the impact that that then has on rental prices, and the problems that the people, particularly on low income who work in the hospitality sector have finding appropriate accommodation in Noosa, and housing affordability, I know, is an issue that this Council takes very seriously. And that is a very significant impact of this new market sector, and so it's appropriate that an issues paper actually look at all of the consequences, both positive and negative,
01:07:00 I'm very pleased that the paper covers all the problems associated with this sector as well as some of the benefits. Councillor Pardon: Councillor Pardon? Yeah, I spoke about the social issues on Monday at committee. The paper, I think, it's very good, covers a range of subjects, as you said, Mr Mayor, the good and the bad, I suppose, and yeah, we tend to cop the bad side of things. And I just want to put on the record with regards to Airbnb, et cetera, that the council is in no way is chasing mum and dad, or mum or dad, is in no way chasing mum and dad. It's a meeting with an individual who are renting out a room on Airbnb or maybe two rooms to get a dollar, because that's social capital building as well.
01:08:00 So I just want to put on the record that. But the issue of the house, complete party houses, et cetera, renting whole houses out, and once again, the flow and effect to that is the lack of affordable housing throughout the Shire is having a huge impact. So but I just want that on the record. Councillor Jackson: I do have a question in relationship to something that Justin brought up, like the Council of Party, and that is, to Kim Rawlings, having been studying the new Noosa plan, I believe that the term Party House has a very particular definition and a way of putting it. I wonder if you can explain the difference between Party House and simply letting out a whole house on short-term letting, which I believe is not the definition of Party House.
01:09:00 So those are two separate things being dealt with, I believe, separately in the Noosa plan. So if you could explain. Speaker 1: Yes, that is correct. The new Noosa plan specifically seeks to regulate Party Houses in a way, in determining the whole Shire as a Party House restricted area, which can be done under the planning legislation, which essentially says that houses that are used regularly for events, as opposed to just short-term accommodation, so regularly for events such as weddings, bucks nights, parties, those sorts of things, up to, on a regular basis, and with a number of people, that is a Party House, and they will be restricted. So, they will be restricted across the whole Shire, not allowed. There will be a new definition around short-term accommodation, which is a house being used for visitor accommodation on an ongoing basis, as a particular land use,
01:10:00 as opposed to a home, a dwelling house, that is owner-occupied, the mum and dad, the mum or dad, renting out a room through Airbnb or one of those other platforms. That is primarily a dwelling house with a home-based business element to that, that is actually allowable and self-assessable under the planning scheme, under the new Noosa plan. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Just for further clarification. The definition of Party House is limited. It is legislated, and we are therefore, we have to conform to that legislative definition from the State Government. Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. They are State definitions. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Councillor Glasgow, do you wish to reply or respond? Councillor Glasgow: No, it's all been said.
01:11:00 Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. We go back to the General Committee recommendations, and the next one is item number six, which is the development application for material change of use for 17 dwelling units at 25 Kauri Street, Cooroy. And item number seven is a further report on the environment grants policy. Item number eight is the draft environment strategy and environment sustainable living policy. Item number nine is the financial performance report for January. We have a recommendation. The motion is that the General Committee recommendations be adopted, except we're dealt with otherwise. Councillor Stockwell, I think, was first and is second, and Councillor Jurisevic next. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. There are no ordinary meeting reports. As usual, there is no confidential session. The next meeting will be held on the 21st of March in this very chambers, and I thank you
01:12:00 all for your attendance tonight. Meeting closed.